A Rumsfeld Reminder Of Terrorism

The Article: A Rumsfeld-era reminder about what causes Terrorism by Glenn Greenwald in Salon.

The Text: The debate over Afghanistan ā€” or, more accurately, the multi-pronged effort to pressure Obama into escalating ā€” is looking increasingly familiar, i.e., like the ā€œdebateā€ over Iraq. The New York Times is publishing articles filled with quotes from anonymous war advocates. Permanent war-justifier Michael Oā€™Hanlon is regularly featured in ā€œnews accountsā€ as he all but blames Obama for increasing combat deaths due to his failure to escalate the moment the military demanded it. The New Republic is churning out pro-war screeds. Every option is on the proverbial table except one: not fighting the war. And thereā€™s a widening gap between (a) public opinion (which sees Afghanistan as ā€œturning into another Vietnamā€ and which opposes more troops, with 49% favoring a full or partial withdrawal) and (b) the virtual unanimity of establishment punditry which, as always, is cheerleading for the war. The only difference is that, with a Democratic President, there seems to be more Democratic and progressive support for this war (though there was, of course, plenty of that for Iraq, too).

The primary rationale for remaining ā€” and escalating ā€” in Afghanistan is the same all-purpose justification offered for virtually everything the U.S. has done since 2001: Terrorism. Apparently, the way to solve the Terrorist threat is by sending 60,000 more American troops into a Muslim country and committing to at least five more years of war there. That, so the pro-escalation reasoning goes, will make us safer.

In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to review the impact which the administrationā€™s policies ā€” specifically the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan ā€” were having on Terrorism and Islamic radicalism. They issued a report in September, 2004 (.pdf) and it vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies purportedly sought to reduce. Itā€™s well worth reviewing their analysis, as it has as much resonance now as it did then (h/t sysprog).

The Task Force began by noting what are the ā€œunderlying sources of threats to Americaā€™s national securityā€œ: namely, the ā€œnegative attitudesā€ towards the U.S. in the Muslim world and ā€œthe conditions that create themā€.

And what most exacerbates anti-American sentiment, and therefore the threat of Terrorism? ā€œAmerican direct intervention in the Muslim worldā€ ā€” through our ā€œone sided support in favor of Israelā€; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, ā€œthe American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistanā€œ.

Letā€™s just repeat that: ā€Muslims do not ā€˜hate our freedom,ā€™ but rather, they hate our policies.ā€ And nothing fuels ā€” meaning: helps ā€” the Islamic radicalsā€™ case against the U.S. more than ongoing American occupation of Muslim countries.

For that reason, ā€œa year and a half after going to war in Iraq, Arab/Muslim anger [had] intensifiedā€ and the war had thus ā€œweakened support for the war on terrorism and undermined U.S. credibility worldwideā€ (see. 14-15). Similarly, as of six months into his presidency, Obama had vastly improved perceptions of the U.S. among Western Europeans but ā€” as Der Spiegel put it ā€“ he ā€œhas actually made little progress in the regions where the US faces its biggest foreign policy problems,ā€ particularly the Muslim world (other than Indonesia, where Obama spent part of his childhood, and Egypt, where Obama spoke).

We canā€™t combat Terrorism by sending our military into Muslim countries. Doing that only exacerbates the problem, since it inevitably intensifies the anti-American sentiment that enables and fuels the terrorist threat in the first place. All of that is so basic. Itā€™s been empirically proven over and over during the last decade. Itā€™s not Noam Chomsky or Al Jazeera pointing out these basic truths, but instead, a 2004 Task Force handpicked by Donald Rumsfeldā€™s Pentagon to review and assess the Bush administrationā€™s anti-terrorism efforts, principally the wars they were waging in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Undoubtedly, there is some small faction of ā€Islamic radicalsā€ principally motivated by religious fervor which will likely hate the West regardless of what it does, but ā€” as the 2004 Pentagon-commissioned Report found ā€” their most potent weapons are American policies that inflame anti-American hatred in the Muslim world, beginning with ongoing wars waged by the U.S. military in Muslim countries. Thatā€™s so self-evident it shouldnā€™t require a report to document it, but since it seems to, hereā€™s a very credible report that does exactly that.

Email

0
From The PBH NetworkHot On The Web
  1. sumons says:

    Hi

    It takes a lot of
    dedication and hard work to climb up the ladder in the business and corporate
    world, and Richard Power has done exactly that. Power has worked with a number
    of businesses throughout his career and has advanced considerably through each
    position he has held. Among some of the titles that Richard Power has held are
    President of Carlisle Plastics, Vice President of a large corporation, and
    Executive Vice President, Senior Financial Reporter, and a Chief Financial
    Officer. While Richard Powers was working in the corporate world, one company
    he worked for was Tyco International.

    Thanks

    Richard
    Power Tyco

Hot On The Web