Loose ends in the 9/11 Commission Report

[Vladimir]

Ardian, sir, I don't believe there is a character limit for posts but I'm starting to believe in one!

Here we go, this is something I hate reading but...

Oh, the myriad benefits of hindsight. Speaking of which – correct me if Im wrong, but believe there is more than a hint of nostalgia for the ‘great game’ of the Cold War in some of your posts. Am I right?

The Great Game you say? Which Cold War? Which was the first World War? I can do without nightmares of mushroom clouds thank you. Remember the game never ends and it's one of the few that requires some people die.

As late as 1948 the entire American foreign policy establishment regarded Third World nationalism as a huge asset in the confrontation with Communism on the world stage. And it was. The U.S. could and would champion that nationalist upswing. Washington didn't have its hands tied by remnats of empire, dreams of grandeur, dirty little colonial wars, public rancour and infighting over colonial interests. It was the single greatest American trump in international relations at the time, more important than possession of the A-bomb.

Woah, . As late as 1945 we, as in everybody except Hoover, viewed the Soviets as a valuable and trusted ally. How do you think it was so easy for them to steal our bomb secrets? Look at that lovely lady, Venona,
to get a glimpse on how much we were confronting communism. Thank you for reminding me by the way as I forgot to put it back on the shelf!

Yes the communist victory in China came as a shock to us. However our "acumen" (entertaining because it is a trait in MTW) was actually quite high but was spent on hysterias like the "bomber gap" and other assorted madness. I'm only starting to get into (modern) policy and can't comment intelligently on most of your case study.

Of course there was no such conspiracy, the U.S. stood to gain enormously by recognising the legitimacy of the new nationalisms, assisting them in kicking out their old European overlords and welding them into a new coalition. Alas.

Of course there was. They would be remiss in their ideology if they didn't stick to their founding principles. Don't forget they were on a post war high. Instead of sending their soldiers home in droves they sought to expand their empire and consolidate their gains like a good empire should.

...Castro bla bla bla

I don't know much of the Great Fruit conspiracy. The State Department bungled at least one of the attempts but they were never very good at intelligence. Speaking of which...

Now today -- to finally inject some relevance into my ramblings -- I think a similar 'folly' reigns again in Washington when it comes to the fight against terrorism or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. 1There is no lack of intelligence or expertise, 2but there is an ideological hysteria that sees anti-American conspiracies in every islamic agitation and thinks in terms of military solutions. 3Once again there are personal considerations at work, in the shape of American oil interests in Saudi Arabia that run right to the top of the U.S. leadership. 4And once again policy makers are preparing for the previous war and refuse to see islamism for what it is: a phenomenon sui generis. Madame Rice is a fine example. She made a great career studying Communism and the balance of power under Detente. In her mind, there can be no such thing as an ideological struggle within Islam, in which the U.S. is merely a lightning rod for local grievances and political infighting. In her mind, militant Islam must be directed against the U.S. and it must have territorial bases which you can attack and control, if not destroy. 5This is the mantra repeated throughout the Bush years: take out their bases and they are powerless. We have seen the result: they have more power now than before.

Lots of words. In summary:

1. Curveball
2. What? When did this happen? If some think this it may have something to do with death to America parties and lots of dead people over the years.
3. Dutch, British, etc. At the top? I don't think so.
4. Uh, yea. We always prepare for the last war. of
5. Throughout the years? I thought he was flouting the magic Democracy pill. More power than ever? Hardly. People like saying that but have a hard time proving it. Emotions don't count.

Castro, in turn, blundered when he alienated American public opinion and business interests with the flurry of executions and nationalisations right after his take-over. After Castro received Soviet Deputy Prime Minister Anastas Mikoyan in February 1960 and struck the sugar-for-oil deal with him, all doors were slammed shut.

Huh? That's what communists do, next question.

The New York Review of Books carries a review of a handful of books on the lastest wars. One is written by a former U.S. military intelligence analyst, Alex Rossmiller, who describes how Donald Rumsfeldt's state of denial about realities on the ground spread throughout the military intelligence community and stifled the best and the brightest.

These are terrible dilemma's. Europeans usually explain them away by blaming American 'stupidity' or lack of 'imperial acumen' or something. But the brains are on the American side, the required intelligence, analysis and expertise are there. What Europeans don't understand (or have 'forgotten') is that the best and the brightest rarely get the chance to make or break policies.

Now listen to what Mr Rossmiller has to say. If the U.S. 'loses' Iraq a couple of years from now, maybe 'loses' Afghanistan or (far worse) 'loses' Pakistan, we may remember that Mr Rossmiller told it like it was:

Ok I'm tired and don't have time to address an anti-Rumsfeldt diatribe. Former intelligence analyst, you don't say. Why, he must be a credible, objective source then . America doesn't do HUMINT very well. It's dirty and beneath us. We'd rather spend 100 million on a satellite and listen into phone conversations. More of that acumen stuff. So before you say that we have the "intelligence" make sure the context is clear. Our most intelligent people are rarely in government, for long. Maybe that's the way it should be.

And when will it stop raining here?!

[Adrian II]

Ardian, sir, I don't believe there is a character limit for posts but I'm starting to believe in one!

Won't happen again. It seems I'll be busy today and we'll have to agree to disagree and all that.

[Vladimir]

Won't happen again. It seems I'll be busy today and we'll have to agree to disagree and all that.

No insults intended of course; busy week. From what I'm learning about national level policymaking it's not as well thought out as even your post. Remember that the most common action in government is inaction. This holds particularly true for American policy.

Now if there are any individual issues you'd like to discuss about the report and it's findings I'd love to hear them.

[Adrian II]

Now if there are any individual issues you'd like to discuss about the report and it's findings I'd love to hear them.

I believe the answer to that is in my long post: the U.S. is fighting the previous war.

To be specific:

1. The report acknowledges the linkage between American security and foreign policy, but it does not examine this linkage.
2. The report describes islamism as a 'catastrophic threat' to the U.S. and imits the regional, political and religious history that underlies it.
3. The report basically subscribes to the Bush paradigm that the fight against terrorism is a form of war, not law enforcement.

One sui generis aspect of islamic terrorism is that it thrives on repression. It grows wherever American bombs hit, just like Communism grew wherever American bombs hit during the Cold War.

Blowback should feature more prominently in the analysis. Most islamists are after local governments elsewhere. If the U.S. actively supports those governments, they go after U.S. interests with the motto 'If you bomb us, we'll bomb you'.

Iran: decades of support for the Shah -> attacks on American after 1979

Lebanon: U.S. intervention in 1983 -> suicide bombing leaves 300 dead

Gulf: 1990-91 war -> birth of Al Qaeda

Iraq: intervention in 2003 -> birth of new Al Qaeda


Yes, oversimplified, but you can work it out.

[Vladimir]

The connection between foreign policy and security doesn't need to be explained, does it? Security itself relies on multiple layers of defense: The more layers, the more security.

Think of the UK: Their domestic policy, which IMHO was far worse than our foreign policy, was to let Islamists (or whatever you want to call them) plot openly. That way, like you said, there is no repression and therefore no violence. How well did that work? This isn't freedom of speech, it is inciting violence against others. Yes repression is a cause of terrorism, but not repression caused by us but by their country of origin. I don't think you can believe we were repressing the world during the 90's. Or that the Gulf War was the reason for all the terrorism. Maybe you're suggesting we shouldn't support governments that are considered repressive; perhaps force them to change their government, like we're doing in Iraq?

I don't know what "imits" means but Islamism is a threat to the US. Perhaps the greatest threat we face. That's not to say it's as big as the Soviet threat but it is the biggest one currently.

You can't seriously think that American bombs are the main motivator for terrorism. Did we bomb Libya before or after Pan Am flight 103? You also know that American bombs didn't precipitate the spread of communism. Tell me how the Korean war started. I really don't appreciate the linkage you made which is unsupportable.

Blowback should feature more prominently in the analysis. Most islamists are after local governments elsewhere. If the U.S. actively supports those governments, they go after U.S. interests with the motto 'If you bomb us, we'll bomb you'.

Was this in the 9/11 report? I don't remember it. When is the last time we bombed Saudi Arabia, or Iran? Who were we defending in the Balkans, the Christians or the Muslims?

Iran: Decades of support from England, France, and wars with Russia. So why do they hate us?

I don't call the attack against the barracks in Beirut terrorism. To me it was a legitimate military target. It was our fault they succeeded due to our poor force protection.

Perhaps the attack on our African embassies can be linked to a particular bombing campaign? You're forgetting that part of al-Qaeda is the restoration of the ummah, the US is just the power they need to take out to make it happen. They also viewed the fall of the Soviet Union as a victory for their cause. There's a risk of 'blowback' with everything, even victory. The far greater risk however lies with inaction. This is the problem the UK faces and how the current threat has grown so much.

[Adrian II]

Think of the UK: Their domestic policy, which IMHO was far worse than our foreign policy, was to let Islamists (or whatever you want to call them) plot openly. That way, like you said, there is no repression and therefore no violence. How well did that work?

It worked until British bombs fell in Iraq. Isn't that obvious? The gentlemen whose presence and agitation London tolerated for so long were all tied to parts of the world where bombs fell - Kashmir, Afghanistan, the Middle East. As soon as Britain took part in the bombing, bombs began to go off in London subways.

Like I said, bombs breed islamism. Which is not the same as saying that only bombs do that, but I rather hoped you would work that out yourself. Bombs are a pars pro toto for coercion, i.e. violent intervention and support for repressive regimes and movements.

I don't think you can believe we were repressing the world during the 90's. Or that the Gulf War was the reason for all the terrorism.

I certainly don't. I certainly didn't say it either.

Iran: Decades of support from England, France, and wars with Russia. So why do they hate us?

Why indeed. If it is not because of American intervention in Iranian affairs from 1953 to 1979, I'd be interested to know what you think the reason is. Are you telling me that Iranians got up one sunny morning in 1979 and decided that hating the U.S. would be a good idea?

The Iranian Revolution unleashed a wave of anti-Americanism the depth of which the world had rarely seen. It was there all along, beneath the surface of the Shah's propaganda. Indeed, the new regime thrived on it, succeeded in part because of it, and made it a mainstay of its foreign policy. Now that the hatred has subsided and a new generation is on the rise, there is an opportunity to make a new start. If Washington blows it and instead decides to bomb Iran, the whole circus will start all over again.

Now for a counter-example. In 1956 Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt and attempted to depose Gamal-Abdul Nasser. Washington called them back, maintaining that despite Nasser's unpleasant policies it felt obliged to uphold international law, all the more so because of the saimultaneous Russian invasion of Hungary. Rarely has the U.S. been more popular in Arab states than in that year.

I appreciate your point that the risk of blowback shouldn't condemn the nation to inaction. I hope you also appreciate my point that islamic terrorism is not a war - however asymmetrical - waged against the U.S. by a territorial army. Just like communism, it can not be annihilated by military means or through support for repressive regimes.

You're forgetting that part of al-Qaeda is the restoration of the ummah, the US is just the power they need to take out to make it happen.

Voila, that is exactly Osama bin Laden's view. His strategy revolves not around the U.S. but around Saudi Arabia. The reason why he wants to provoke U.S. armed interventions in Muslim countries is that these will fill his ranks, strengthen support for his movement and isolate Riyadh. He doesn not want to destroy the U.S. or the American way of life, he wants to use the U.S. for his own purposes. And he is not doing badly.

[Vladimir]

It worked until British bombs fell in Iraq. Isn't that obvious? The gentlemen whose presence and agitation London tolerated for so long were all tied to parts of the world where bombs fell - Kashmir, Afghanistan, the Middle East. As soon as Britain took part in the bombing, bombs began to go off in London subways.

Like I said, condemning a nation to inaction. Groups actively plotting the overthrow of a government from within its own borders will seize on any opportunity they can to strike. I believe you'll also find that they acted as a result death and suffering inflicted on muslims, not based on region. The UK has always been mucking around in the middle east, yet only now do they have a real problem.

I certainly don't. I certainly didn't say it either.

You most certainly implied it. If repression breads islamism and terrorism and we weren't repressing islam in the 90's, why where there so many large scale attacks?

Why indeed. If it is not because of American intervention in Iranian affairs from 1953 to 1979, I'd be interested to know what you think the reason is. Are you telling me that Iranians got up one sunny morning in 1979 and decided that hating the U.S. would be a good idea?

Because to have done so against the Soviet Union would have deprived their leaders of their weapons and lives. Also because they're fascists: Strong state control and an ideal enemy to rally their people against.

The Iranian Revolution unleashed a wave of anti-Americanism the depth of which the world had rarely seen. It was there all along, beneath the surface of the Shah's propaganda.

It would be nice if that was true as it would mean things are simple. It simply allowed it to escape largely due to reasons given above.

Now for a counter-example. In 1956 Britain, France and Israel attacked Egypt and attempted to depose Gamal-Abdul Nasser. Washington called them back, maintaining that despite Nasser's unpleasant policies it felt obliged to uphold international law, all the more so because of the saimultaneous Russian invasion of Hungary. Rarely has the U.S. been more popular in Arab states than in that year.

That year huh? Sounds like "what have you done for me lately." How did the Arab states react to us defending so many Muslims in the 90's? Why do they hate us if we have done bad and good things for them? Should we continually try to appease the region? Non-involvement isn't an option.

I appreciate your point that the risk of blowback shouldn't condemn the nation to inaction. I hope you also appreciate my point that islamic terrorism is not a war - however asymmetrical - waged against the U.S. by a territorial army. Just like communism, it can not be annihilated by military means or through support for repressive regimes.Voila, that is exactly Osama bin Laden's view. His strategy revolves not around the U.S. but around Saudi Arabia. The reason why he wants to provoke U.S. armed interventions in Muslim countries is that these will fill his ranks, strengthen support for his movement and isolate Riyadh. He doesn not want to destroy the U.S. or the American way of life, he wants to use the U.S. for his own purposes. And he is not doing badly.

Yes, yes it is. It is both a declared and religious war by armies that control territory. Terrorism it the means by which islamists are waging the war. If you're referring to nation states as territory then you're right. However these groups don’t operate within these limits.

Yes it can be annihilated by military means alone. The question is: Should it? One way to eliminate an ideology is to kill the people that believe in it. The details as to how are far more difficult. That’s something the Soviets were good at. The way you phrased it indicates you believe no military action should be taken. I don't believe you think that. Military might is one of the tools of statecraft which *must* be used.

I don't think bin Laden has ever stated that he wants the US to attack Muslims. He wants us out of the ummah and I believe he said he wants us to convert to islam. You may be saying that it is his implied intent but he didn't mention Somalia as a motivator for no reason. He wants us to go home while they do their thing not in Saudi Arabia, but the ummah. There are no nation states in islamism, only islam. We've also pulled most or all of our forces out of Saudi Arabia long ago yet he still wages his jihad.