Frequent Anonymous poster and all-around reliable Bush Basher JPH commented yesterday on a post that had been buried by subsequent stories. The post, Europe Sees Obama Vulnerable On Terrorism is here. Here's what JPH had to say--I repeat it because it is worth raising for group comment and because it reflects current Administration thinking on its approach to the War On Terr0r--whoops--War on Man Made Disasters:
"I will clearly be out of step with the contributors here, but let's go for it. I think GW Bush's policies were the best recruiting tool AQ EVER had.... playing down this rogue element is more likely to bleed them dry then all the guns and bullets in our kit. Moreover, we are more likely to successfully finance this approach than the previous method. JPH.
JPH has raised the recruiting tool issue before, and it is a reliable canard of the left. It sorta goes like this...Bush declared war on terror, this radicalized law-abiding citizens who under other circumstances would simply have gone about their business, and so it can be shown that Bush created terrorists. Quad erat demonstratum.
This view is of course, correct. There were X number of terrorists before 9-11, Bush's response created X + Y. I have no problem conceding this.
However, we must remember that 9-11 and USS COLE happened when there were "X" terrorists. Of course our response created more. That's what war does.
Rich Lowry of National Review has a nice take-down on this theory here. I've dealt with this (raised by JPH) before--the "declaring war on Japan created millions of enemies overnight" argument, one that JPH dismisses (ineffectually, I may add) but which seems to be widely supported here (natch).
But let's suspend disbelief for a second and assume that there was a set of policies that Bush could have followed that would NOT create more terrorists. But which would have made us safer than pre-9-11. What would those policies have looked like? What government approach would have been taken?
I imagine it would look much like....oh....maybe the Obama approach. Change the rhetoric. Go to Cairo and have a dialogue with the Islamic world. Close Gitmo. Try KSM et al in civilian court. Repudiate water-boarding and terror. Etc, etc, etc.
Problem is, the approach ISN'T WORKING if terror monthly recruiting stats are your Measure of Effectiveness. The Skivvy Bomber joined up in the Age of Obama. The five Northern Virginia men who went to Pakistan recently to pursue Jihad were radicalized in the age of Obama. The young man who blew himself up recently with an IED suppository was unleashed in the Age of Obama. Wasn't the world supposed to sit up and take notice when we elected The One? If Bush's approach was a fine recruiting tool for terror (and yes, again, I think it did indeed radicalize thrill seeking Jihadists), what exactly are we to make of the Obama approach?
What we are to make of it is that ANY approach that takes on terror will cause an increase in terrorists--until we start to win. The ONLY effective way in to discourage the recruitment of terrorists in the short and medium term would be to roll over and give up; at which point, the Caliphate wouldn't need terrorists, it would need civil servants. But I digress.
It's time to retire the old saw that looks at terror recruiting as some kind of a badge of dishonor. Bush and Obama both are doing what they can to keep the country safe, and in the process, some will be radicalized. The key now is to "de-radicalize" them. Either with a heartbeat, or without one.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
15 comments:
Yeah, fight our enemies with weakness. Look the Dems have been talking this bull for years. "Don't put those missiles in Europe, you'll only provoke the Soviets" is still my favorite.
Why dignify the remarks of a leftist troll by making his rants the subject of a post?
These pusillanimous lefties will never understand that Islamic terrorists by any name did not and do not volunteer to kill us in reaction to President Clinton's or President Bush’s policies or anybody else's policies. They want to destroy us because they and their religion abhor us and our way of life.
On the contrary, there are many documented cases of otherwise mainstream people becoming radicalized because, for example, a child died in their arms during an attack. It is easy to generalize but people (of all cultures) are more complicated than the simplified profiles painted here.
There is a world of difference between a child accidentally killed as a result of collateral damage (regretful though it is) and a child killed due to an attack that was planned with malice aforethought to kill as many innocents as possible with the main purpose of spreading terror.
The point is not the child. It is that devastating events can and do radacalize mainstream people. Must you resort to insults?
The jihadists use their children as shields and other's children as targets.
That's our enemy whether you recognize it or not AZ.
AZ--I take your point--yes indeed, people can become radicalized from an event like the death of a child in their arms.
But those people aren't the ones who have committed the big, well-known acts of terror against the US. Those perpetrators have largely been upper middle class well educated types whose radicalization is more often than not either born of a disaffected life or through the steady inculcation with Jihaidst ideology through their lives.
CW, this was one of your worst and weakest responses to any issue to date. I rescind the compliment I paid you last night, which was admiring your valiant effort to provide balance to your crazy Rush groupies.
One correction -- I am not a GW Bush basher. I strongly disapprove(d) of many of his policies, which i feel have made this country less safe and economically damaged. Are we winning? Your sole measure of success, which appears to be solely preventing another 9/11 is too limiting (and Rich Lowry's take down is great if your entry argument is biased). Osama said he wanted to ruin us financially… hmmmmm. Sadam is gone, but at what cost? What have we gained? Shall we examine the last 8 years? You and I had this conversation when President Bush chose to go into Iraq and you know where I believe he crossed the line. Any strategist worth his salt recognizes war on terror does not lend itself to a workable or winnable strategy – how are we doing on that war on drugs? Again not a Bush basher, his father was super, although no President Eisenhower. Grouping me as a leftist is ridiculous and you know it.
Consider renaming your site - from conservative wahoo to practitioners of the ridiculous right. Excluding AZ… well written and your civility and perspective should be admired and emulated.
One last point for your audience who views me as weak on our enemies, thanks to you Bryan – how many of you have held dying or injured soldiers in your arms because they were killed by road side bombs planted by Iraqis trying feed their families, NOT RADICAL TERRORISTS? I have and it’s a tough pill to swallow.
JPH
JPH--I appreciate your service, your sacrifice and your friendship. But the post stands, as written. I responded narrowly to a very narrow point you made--the "recruitment tool" argument. This is an argument of the left (the President used it as his news conference yesterday!) and I'm sorry if you find discomfort in being associated with it. I think you'll note though, that I referred to the argument as being of the left, not the arguer. Though it seems safe to say that compared to me and the vast majority of this blog's self-selecting readership, you are of the left.
I am also sorry that you dislike being called a Bush-basher. The fact that you have been a reliably vocal critic of both his foreign and domestic policies on a conservative blog is really beyond question. Reference to his father is nice and all, but irrelevant. You knew which Bush we were talking about. Furthermore, if you were to call me an Obama basher, I don't think you'd be wrong. Are there more vocal and vitriolic bashers? Yes. But my criticisms are a matter of record, as are yours.
At no point in my post did I refer, insinuate, postulate or say that you were weak on the enemy. In fact, I very quickly moved from reference to you to reference to the Obama Administration and its prosecution of the war on terror. Do I think the Obama Administration is weak on the enemy? Yes. But the point of my post was that even their flaccid response is creating (or recruiting) more terrorists. If you agree with the Obama approach, then politically speaking--I am prepared to suggest your approach is weaker on the enemy without any concomitant benefit. You may have coherent counter-arguments. You took a stab at one (the no attacks since 9-11 being a limiting MOE, though why it is dismissed so blithely is curious), and I think you began to try and make an cost argument. But NONE of this comes anywhere CLOSE to a suggestion that you are personally--in your duties as a US ARMY officer--weak on the enemy.
Furthermore, I have assiduously protected your identity in this blog, allowing you to reveal yourself as you will. I have had private conversations with other readers who have wanted to know "who this JPH" guy is, and I've simply said that you're an old friend. Your use of initials was I suppose, a way of letting me know who wrote what without revealing yourself to others. I've respected that. I suspected that were some of my more aggressive readers to put together your views AND your employment, they might be even less gracious with you. Your gratuitous and over the top final paragraph has relieved me of any such responsibility should you decide to continue to read and respond to this blog.
As for the tired, Huffington-Post, MSNBC inspired insults aimed DIRECTLY at me and my readership, I suppose I'll let the comment roll speak for itself, wherein PRIOR to your post I removed a comment I thought incendiary AND I also responded to AZ's posts in what I would imagine most would find a balanced manner. The coincidental yet beneficial juxtaposition of my response to AZ with your response to me is telling.
No JoPaH, you're not viewed as weak on our enemies because of what CW writes, you hang yourself with your own words. Every time you chime in, whether on health care, jihadists, or card check; it is with worn out leftist rhetoric.
I'll have to defer to the military professionals to see if you get a pass on giving aid and comfort to our enemies because you comforted a dying soldier who was "killed by road side bombs planted by Iraqis trying feed their families". WTF JPH?
Did I just read what looks to be the words of a member of our Armed Forces expressing sympathy for the families of those who plant roadside bombs? One hopes that if you had the responsibility for writing letters home to the dead soldier's families that you left out that little tidbit
And I thought it was disgusting when General Casey came out with his "diversity" comments after the Fort Hood massacre.
I'm sure JPH will go far in Obama's army.
Post a Comment