On Monday evening the BBC Radio Five Live’s program “Pods and Blogs” has invited me on the air to discuss the five-year anniversary of the attacks which took place on September 11th, 2001 in NYC, Washington D.C. and Pennsylvania. Anyone interested can listen here at 9p.m. EST/6p.m. PST ( I will probably be on ~20 minutes into the program).
The truth is that I don’t yet know what I am going to talk about or what profound statement I can possibly make in my minute of air time. There is just so much that has occurred in these past five years that to draw any kind of grand conclusion or offer a sagacious reflection seems impossible. From a federal government facility I watched (like many of you) my federal government and its citizens get attacked on that day. Later I learned that a friend had perished in New York. If I had to condense all of my thoughts five years later down to a single word it would be…”disappointment.”
On September 11th, 2001 I believe that our nation was handed, hidden beneath the shock, the sadness, and the loss, an opportunity to lead. Our generation was given a chance to become the greatest generation. In the 1940s, faced with the threat of a fascist and racist power bent on world domination, the United States and its men and women rose up to defend much of that world, not only through our arms but through our thoughts and ideas. Our allies admired us because of our spirit and our tenacity. They admired us for our can-doism and they admired us for our morality. That admiration lasted through the Cold War and past the end of communism. On September 11th we showed everyone why America was, decades later, still worthy of that admiration:
A California man identified as Tom Burnett reportedly called his wife and told her that somebody on the plane [United 93] had been stabbed.
“We’re all going to die, but three of us are going to do something,” he told her. “I love you honey…” [Link]
You can wade through all of these interview files for additional reminders of how Americans responded when called upon to lead. Even the President got it right at first:
I can hear you, the rest of the world can hear you and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon. [Link]
However, shortly after is where my disappointment begins. Five years later can it be said that anyone (even our closest allies) really “hears us?” Can it be said that America is admired for how it responded in the years following the attacks? Does anyone feel safer? I am disappointed because we have not honored the memories of those who perished by living up to the examples that they set for us. Sacrifice and inner strength and not blind fury or angry words were the weapons that Americans used on that day.
In her op-ed piece about the five-year anniversary, Peggy Noonan admires the concise last words uttered by many that died that day and notes that “crisis is a great editor.” If that is true then it is a shame that these days we seem to waste so much time with empty rhetoric and actions which divert our nation ever farther from our chance at greatness.
I thought a good place to start reflecting upon the past five years would be to first take a look at where we stand at the present:
A majority of Canadians believe U.S. foreign policy was one of the root causes that led to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and Quebecers are quicker to criticize the U.S. administration for its international actions than other Canadians, a recent poll suggests.
Those conclusions are found in a newly released poll conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies.
The poll suggests that 77 per cent of Quebecers polled primarily blame American foreign policy for the Sept. 11 attacks. The results suggest 57 per cent in Ontario hold a similar view. [Link]
<
p>Within a year our closest strategic ally will have a new leader:
According to a poll released yesterday by the German Marshall Fund of the United States, British support for American leadership in foreign affairs has never been lower — a policy whose poster boy is Tony Blair. This summer, even some of Blair’s Cabinet loyalists were upset when he once more forcefully backed a deeply unpopular Bush policy: refusing to criticize Israel’s strategy or tactics in Lebanon or call for an immediate cease-fire. Blair’s transformation today into official lame duck means all the European leaders who backed the Iraq war — Spain’s Jose Maria Aznar, Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi and Poland’s Leszek Miller — have paid the ultimate political price. [Link]
<
p>This weekend the U.S. military’s chief logistics planner at the time of the attacks revealed that the decision to go to war in Iraq was made very shortly after the correct decision to topple the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. He also revealed that Rumsfeld and the administration refused to consider the possibility that we would have to stay in Iraq for any length of time.
In 2001, Scheid was a colonel with the Central Command, the unit that oversees U.S. military operations in the Mideast.
On Sept. 10, 2001, he was selected to be the chief of logistics war plans.
On Sept. 11, he said, “life just went to hell.”
That day, Gen. Tommy Franks, the commander of Central Command, told his planners, including Scheid, to “get ready to go to war.”
A day or two later, Rumsfeld was “telling us we were going to war in Afghanistan and to start building the war plan. We were going to go fast.
“Then, just as we were barely into Afghanistan, Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq…”“The secretary of defense continued to push on us that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we’re going to take out the regime, and then we’re going to leave,” Scheid said. “We won’t stay.”
Scheid said the planners continued to try “to write what was called Phase 4,” or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like security, stability and reconstruction.
Even if the troops didn’t stay, “at least we have to plan for it,” Scheid said.
“I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that,” Scheid said. “We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today. [Link]
On Friday the Republican-chaired Senate Intelligence Committee revealed as clearly as possible that not only did Saddam have no connection to Al-Qaida, he in fact wanted to hunt down al-Zarqawi himself:
The Senate intelligence committee [this past] Friday said it had found no evidence that Saddam Hussein had ties to Al-Qaida or provided safe harbor to one of its most notorious operatives, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — conclusions contradicting claims by the Bush administration before it invaded Iraq.
In a long-awaited report, the committee determined that the former Iraqi dictator was wary of Al-Qaida, repeatedly rebuffed requests from its leader, Osama bin Laden, for assistance and sought to capture Zarqawi when the deadly terrorist turned up in Baghdad. [Link]
<
p>
And still much of the public, which now more than ever needs to build a greater awareness of events beyond these shores, remains ignorant of basic facts:
Some adults in the United States remain convinced that the former Iraqi president played a role in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, according to three recent public opinion polls. In a survey by Zogby International, 46 per cent of respondents think there is a link between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda plot.
In studies by Opinion Research Corporation released by CNN and CBS News, 43 per cent and 31 per cent of respondents respectively believe Hussein was personally involved in the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. [Link]
<
p>
<
p>
Other Americans remain equally oblivious to reality, actually believing that our government was directly involved in the attacks on that day.
The 9/11 commission was tasked with figuring out what went wrong and how to prevent it from ever happening again. Here is their report card which shows how far we had come by 2005. It is only five pages long and every American should be familiar with what it says. Achieving grades of A’s and B’s on all these items would make me feel a lot safer than simply taking the fight to some amorphous enemy that seems to get larger with every bomb we drop on “him.” I have no doubt that it would cost far less as well. The foreign policy section of the report card, which I am sure will be of interest to many SM readers, is particularly insightful.
Five years later I am still waiting for our leaders to lead. I think many of us were up to the challenge of 9/11 but that our resolve has turned to cynicism and frustration. We have been misled and manipulated by the political party in power and uninspired by the other one. I think that musician Neil Young captures it best on his new album:
Lookin’ for a Leader
To bring our country home
Re-unite the red white and blue
Before it turns to stone
Lookin’ for somebody
Young enough to take it on
Clean up the corruption
And make the country strong… [Link]
<
p>
Noonan is right. Crisis is a great editor. With only seconds to think, the heroes of 9/11 made difficult decisions with admirable clarity. Since 9/11 we have let the thought of vengeance and the need to appear tough at all costs supercede the need for more patient and nuanced action. We have also lost the morality that they exemplified. Sending U.S. soldiers to die under the guise of “preserving freedom and our way of life” is easier than fighting for hearts and minds and maintaining the moral high ground. We have hurt ourselves more than we have hurt the terrorists that seek to do us harm. If we lose the “War on Terror” it certainly won’t be at the hands of any terrorists, but slowly by our own (in)actions. At home our civil liberties continue to be eroded. We can’t travel abroad without someone explaining to us how we Americans are ruining the world. Does anyone believe that the “War Against Terrorism” or “The War Against Islamo-Fascism” or whatever we are calling it today can be won by any means other than by winning the hearts and minds of the societies that harbor terrorists? If you consider 9/11 to be the date of the first battle of this war then the body count shows that our side lost ~3000 lives compared to 19. And yet…in almost every way that matters we won that first battle. We won the hearts and mind of the world on that day. They saw Americans die fighting against an amoral and cowardly enemy. They understood then that the idea of America was greater than the idealogy that sought to destroy it. They also believed that we would win. That is no longer true in the eyes of too many around the world.
And what about us in the South Asian American community? We are caught in the middle in many respects. We are as patriotic as any American and yet we are not always seen as such simply because of our appearance. Our thoughts about the conflict are often more nuanced because many of us have seen first hand the conditions which result in a fundamentalist idealogy. We know that weapons alone will do no good. We especially dread the next large attack. We know it will happen eventually. We are as worried about what will happen after the attack.
Five years later all this is going through my head. I am writing this post because I’d like to hear from some of you as well. I doubt that all of our thoughts can be condensed into a minute or two of radio time but perhaps a little group reflection would do us good. Beneath the pessimism I harbor some hope that there may still be some time to set our wrong course right. That won’t happen however, until we all become more engaged and demand more from our leaders. We owe this to everyone who died on that day.
After such a horrific day we did have the opportunity to lead, an opportunity we squandered in a miserable way. Last night I watched a “60 Minutes” report on children whose parents died on September 11, 2001. The pain those children feel on a daily basis was palpable. The children talked about how each time they turn on the television and an image of the towers falling down flashes on the screen, they are watching their father or mother being murdered. The suffering of these children is absolutely heart-wrenching. However our government has responded to the pain of these children in a brutal and indecent way– by killing entire families in Afghanistan and Iraq. Are those lives any less precious? Do the children in those countries suffer any less when a parent dies in a vicious manner? The cycle of violence that we chose to continue will haunt us. After September 11th, we had the opportunity to build a legacy of peace. Instead, we used the tragic death of almost 3000 people to justify the on-going cruel and disgusting destruction of human life abroad.
This is the saddest story of 9/11. The suicide of a woman whose husband had died on 9/11. Both were desis.
Whoops. Wrong link. Try this one.
The global salafists have a vision and strategy that is long term, patient, and deadly. They are masters of psychological operations and propoganda. They are brilliant strategists who have the ability to disrupt the status quo. They are not reactive in nature, but far more proactive in this conflict.
Though I completely agree with you that the enemy is indeed the radical global salafist, I am not sure if their foot soldiers are following a long term strategy. From what I can tell, the bombers from Bali to Madrid to London were acting out their rage at the easiest target possible rather than acting in a concerted manner towards a long term common goal. The Bin Laden/Zawahiri core group of course has a vision and strategy but most of the more deadly attacks since 9-11 have been carried out by impressionable independent cells motivated mostly by revenge, opportunity and nihilism rather than long term strategic goals.
One way of verifying your [accurate] claim that America has not relinquished the moral high ground yet, is to compare the relative numbers of Visa applications, made by the Ummah, who wish to immgrate to the west.
Countless polls unanimously show that the prestige of the US is at an all time low in the Muslim majority nations. The fact that a lot of Muslims are still coming over to the US is hardly indicative of America holding on to its moral high ground with the Muslim world.
AMJ is right. from reading marc sagemen & robert pape it seems that a better model is a loose ad hoc coalition of organizations which rally nominally under a transnational ideology but are often motivated by localized concerns proximately.* as for the idea that the leaders are masters of psychology and propoganda, i really doubt this, the morons thought that americans buying books on islam after 9/11 was evidence that there were going to be mass conversions.
“Countless polls unanimously show that the prestige of the US is at an all time low in the Muslim majority nations. The fact that a lot of Muslims are still coming over to the US is hardly indicative of America holding on to its moral high ground with the Muslim world.“
Amfd – Everyone knows that, Walk the Walk beats Talk the Talk.
If wising to come to the promised land is not inidcative of a peoples opinion then, what is? Surely, not the polls, where the respondents, esp, Muslim ones, will say whatever their Maulvis/Leaders are reaching/ordering/encouraging them to say.
And, If what you say is accurate – What does it speak of their motives or trustworthiness ?
I meant – P reaching/ordering/encouraging………
And, If what you say is accurate – What does it speak of their motives or trustworthiness ?
it speaks to $$$. people may hold opinions which they still only in a shallow manner. e.g., america = immoral. e.g., virtue is more important than money. sure….
If wising to come to the promised land is not inidcative of a peoples opinion then, what is? Surely, not the polls, where the respondents, esp, Muslim ones, will say whatever their Maulvis/Leaders are reaching/ordering/encouraging them to say.
Countless Indians are working in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Sheikhdoms. India/Phillipines are semi-liberal democracies and the people in India/Phillipines live in relatively free socieites when compared to the totalitarian Saudi Arabia. Yet countless Indians/Phillipinos are lining up to go to Saudi Arabia while the only Saudis who want to come to India are the ones who go over to have sex with 15 year olds in Hyderabad/Kerala.
If you think that the sentiment in the Muslim world has not turned anti-US, you are just plain mistaken. Muslims from Muslim nations come to the US because the US is a nice place to live when compared to their home nations and its still possible to live in the US as a Muslim without facing too many problems.
And, If what you say is accurate – What does it speak of their motives or trustworthiness ?
Their motives are about seeking a better life. Why else would they come here?
i think people need to keep in mind how easy it is to rationalize most acts.
consider:
during the 18th century a muslim potentate in northern nigeria was short of funds. his normal mode was simply to round up people as slaves and sell them. but, all of his subjects were now muslim as he had sold all the pagans who lived in his lands. so what did he do.
1) he got the ulema to declare all who disobeyed his decrees a non-muslim, because by definition a muslim obeys their worldly ruler 2) he then demanded a tribute from a certain number of villages which was simply impossible to provide. 3) when the villagers did not provide the tribute he had demanded, the potentate had them declared non-muslims for disobeying him 4) at which point he send in his army to round them up and sell them as slaves 5) problem solved
my point is that starting with ideas of how muslism behave one could never reach a point where a muslim ruler enslaved and sold his own muslim subjects. but what the heart wants, it wants.
Amfd – Since, I and [most likely?] you have not seen the polls, where Indians claim to disagree with the Saudi or other Middle-Eastern foreign policies, your analogy is a tad stretchy.
“If you think that the sentiment in the Muslim world has not turned anti-US, you are just plain mistaken.”
Imagine, If the Hindu “world” reacts the same way. i.e, demand action and committ violent acts, anytime Hindus are harmed/affected, anywhere globbally? e.g, If memory serves me right, somewhile back, the freely elected [Hindu] Prime Minister or President of Fiji was deposed in a coup by a [non-Hindu] compatriot. And guess what – nary a peep.
Imagine, If the Hindu “world” reacts the same way. i.e, demand action and committ violent acts, anytime Hindus are harmed/affected, anywhere globbally? e.g, If memory serves me right, somewhile back, the freely elected [Hindu] Prime Minister or President of Fiji was deposed in a coup by a [non-Hindu] compatriot. And guess what – nary a peep.
Whats your point?
Amfd – Since, I and [most likely?] you have not seen the polls, where Indians claim to disagree with the Saudi or other Middle-Eastern foreign policies, your analogy is a tad stretchy.
Yes, but my point is that in Saudi Arabia both Christians and Hindus are not allowed to practice their religion and still some Indian Hindus and Philliipino Christians do go to Saudi Arabia even though I am sure they strongly dispprove of the restrictions put on their religious practice. Poverty is a bitch. Thats my point.
I don’t disagree that the foot soldiers aren’t following a long term strategy. The brain trust has been. It has evolved, been amended, and may not resemble what they thought when the current crop of leaders were younger, but it has remained consistent in its goal for the creation of a caliphate and for their revivalist vision to be dominant first at home, then beyond.
I’m trying to seperate the tactics from strategy. Insurgencies operate on a grass roots level where the public becomes coopted/seduced/coerced into a grander vision. It isn’t linear. Atleast they have somewhat of a strategy, we don’t whatsoever (Republicans nor Dems).
I also agree with what you’ve said that many of the post afghan invasion attacks have been local, more homegrown. This is exactly where the psychological operations of the AQ braintrust acts as a force multiplier.
Razib: Why don’t you think these guys aren’t good at propoganda and psychological warfare? They’re a small group with relatively simple means to their disposal, yet they’ve been able to reach a world wide audience and inspire quite a few. Local concerns, social networks, kinship,etc. all explained by Sageman is of obvious relevance. I’m not saying these guys are experts in the fields of psychology, warfare, or psyops like someone from U.S Special Forces who are schooled to fight in such arenas are, but they are intuitively damn good at it. Comparing the political leadership PR/Psyops capabilities, GWB and his cadre are horrible at it. War is political and everyone needs to play his or her role, specifically the President as Commander in Chief and main spokesperson for the republic.
Is AQ’s strategy going to result in mass conversions overnight? No. Is it going to result in an immediate dividend for AQ? No. Which is why I was saying they are patient, definitely opportunistic, and masters, for a better word, at manipulation. The morons did think all of a sudden that Islam will come to the forefront and people will convert damn quickly. They made wrong conclusions, but it doesn’t mean their psyops campaigns are bad, they just didn’t realize it isn’t enough. So what do you do? You continue to stay in the public’s image, conduct violent acts (or take credit for ones that may have little to do with you) and put a more familiar face in trying to deliver your message: Adam Gadahn.
Regardless, their primary target for coopting people is NOT the west, it is their own fellow muslims and until they have massive popular support, their vision won’t come to fruition. Until then, AQ makes effective use of global issues, American mistakes, religion, whatever to contiue on their path.
It’s like prison. Even if you’re going to get your nose bloodied, you pick a fight with the baddest one out there to gain respect. On a tactical level you may loose, but on a larger scale other inmates will give you your due respect, and just maybe you’ll be able to gravitate towards a group that will protect you (gang).
kritic,
you said: Amfd – Since, I and [most likely?] you have not seen the polls, where Indians claim to disagree with the Saudi or other Middle-Eastern foreign policies, your analogy is a tad stretchy.
but i think amfd wuz responding to this:
If wising to come to the promised land is not inidcative of a peoples opinion then, what is? Surely, not the polls, where the respondents, esp, Muslim ones, will say whatever their Maulvis/Leaders are reaching/ordering/encouraging them to say.
i know no brown people who conceive of saudi arabia as a promised land, and i speak as some whose family members are muslim (and so revere arabia as a religious matter) and have worked in various capacities, menial to professional, in saudi arabia. and they keep on a goin’….
Regardless, their primary target for coopting people is NOT the west, it is their own fellow muslims and until they have massive popular support, their vision won’t come to fruition.
do you think that they will have massive popular support substantively anywhere? (i say substantive because a large proportion of muslims do admire their violent attacks on the west, though these same people would also emigrate to the USA)
but it has remained consistent in its goal for the creation of a caliphate and for their revivalist vision to be dominant first at home, then beyond.
Do you believe that the violent global salafists pose any serious threat to the US?
Not yet.
The step from admiration to actual support is probably their biggest hurdle and it doesn’t happen overnight. Plus, they’re removed from the heart of the territories where they can interract with the middle eastern populations and hope to estabilsh larger social networks. They did have the ability to find nation states where safe harbor was availabe (Sudan and Afghanistan). But it isn’t beyond a far removed leader to inspire a population (Wasn’t the Aytollah K. in France before coming back to Iran?)
AQ has formed coaltions with others when the need presented itself. The ability go generate home grown terrorists like the London on Madrid types is worrysome because it means the west isn’t doing a good job of countering/taking the PR initiave away from others and that even if AQ doesn’t have a direct hand in the attack, others may be on similar tracks. All of this isn’t simple and it takes strong and effective leadership/management abilities to do so. Mao was brilliant at running a guerilla warfare campaign so was Fidel. So is OBL (if he’s even alive still) AZ, et al.
. The ability go generate home grown terrorists like the London on Madrid types is worrysome because it means the west isn’t doing a good job of countering/taking the PR initiave away from others and that even if AQ doesn’t have a direct hand in the attack
this is the key problem for me, since i don’t much care about the non-western world.
That is a tough question and you’ll get a spectrum of answers. What do you deem as a serious threat? 5 years ago a serious threat became reality and in the decade leading up to 9-11, the attacks were progressively more bold (First WTC attack in 93 wasn’t a suicide misison with the last one being one of the most spectacular ones)
If by serious threat you mean will the US government fall and in the ensuing choas a caliphate will replace it? No. But that doesn’t mean they’ll stop trying or won’t elevate their attacks, when the right window opens up, for more deadly and spectacular attacks.
Say middle eastern governments fall to salafists, we’d be looking at another cold war type scenario. If the communists were scary, these guys are a magnitude worse, IMHO. Like I said above, we’re not there yet, but I won’t underestimate people who have strategic vision and the will to carry it out.
If the communists were scary, these guys are a magnitude worse, IMHO.
y?
to be clear, i do not think muslim nations are worse that communism, because they are basically semi-failed states. they’re economic & military midgets.
The information age means one can establish social networks beyond boundaries or their current physical limitations, hence, hence non-western world is of importance.
Not yet.
The step from admiration to actual support is probably their biggest hurdle and it doesn’t happen overnight
One could say that the next step might be an impossible step for the Al Qaeda unless it reinvents itself to mirror something like the Hizbullah or even Hamas, if not the AKP in Turkey. In the last half century, the only popular Islamist uprisings have been with Algeria, Hamas, Hizbullah (ballot box uprisings) and Khoemeini (mass uprising) in Iran. I am not sure how a globalist organization like Al Qaeda could find a home base and then fill the vacuum created by either a breakdown of the state apparatus (Lebanon, Palestinian territories) or a more broad based Islamist revolution like the one in Iran (though the secular forces were pretty strong in the initial overthrow of the Shah)
I am not sure the current Al Qaeda has a similar opportunity anywhere significant in the Muslim world outside of some countries in the war torn sub-saharan Africa.
The current version of middleastern governments aren’t worse than communism. A collection of salafist states as a block (with nuclear weapons) would be.
What you say is true. Right now. My logic was following along the lines of a projection when/if/ever Salafists do coopt their primary population (assuming they’ll have a bomb by then). Communists were still somewhat rational in their approach to warfare against western targets, or still heavily relied on a conventioal military approach rather than using the tools of terrorism.
The information age means one can establish social networks beyond boundaries or their current physical limitations, hence, hence non-western world is of importance.
to be precise, i just mean if terrorists blow up iraqis or whatever, i don’t care. if al qaeda set up a caliphate but entered into an isolationist foreign policy, i wouldn’t care. terrorism only matters to be insofar as it affects the west. i don’t care how many sinhalese are killed by tamil tigers or algerians by the GIA.
Maybe. They’re a proven adaptive bunch who’ve been hit hard in Egypt before resurfacing in Afghanistan, then Sudan, and now bleeding into Pakistan (which is what worries me).
Even if they don’t coopt, say for example Egypt or Saudi, a country as shown through the 90s like Aghanistan can give ample space and opportunity to conduct operations. Fighting an insurgency means all other tools of warfare (economic, social, politicalm military) need to be used to ensure their support is diminished. Military is necessary, but it cannot be the primary force driving the fight.
A collection of salafist states as a block (with nuclear weapons) would be.
1) no muslim state has intercontinental ICBMs, right?
2) they still don’t have the numbers of nukes that the communists had
3) a salafist state wouldn’t by its nature be able to support nuclear program. communism had the support of intellectual elites remember. salafism does not to such an extent (it is forwarded by elites, but the majority of the elites do not support their program as might have been argued about communism in the early 20th century).
we already have one salafist state, saudi arabia, and its own incipient nuclear program is probably due entirely to outside support.
Communists were still somewhat rational in their approach to warfare against western targets, or still heavily relied on a conventioal military approach rather than using the tools of terrorism
the communists abandoned many of their messianic dreams when they coopted a state. e.g., democratic-centralism and all that jazz. actually ruling a state tends to warp and transform idealists. additionally, how rational were communists like stalin?
in the sum, i think the issue here is
(independent probability) X (independent probability) X (independent probability) etc.
the risk starts dropping a lot. sure, if you do
(chance = 1) X (chance = 1) etc. sure it looks really scary, my point though is two fold
a) each leg of a salafist takeover is really low in probability
b) even assuming takeover, the muslim world doesn’t have the capital, human or monetary, to really start a full fledged nuclear weapons program that would come anything close to what the soviets did
finally, if a salafist state somehow managed to emerge (one that isn’t pussyish like saudi arabia) without outside powers nipping it in the bud, any use of nukes would invite massive retaliation. they’d be blotted off the earth soon enough.
also, in regards to rationality, people are cool with rhetorically supporting al qaeda. i doubt they’d be into inviting inevitable national suicide that would come along with state cooption, especially considering that two-faced types they are in bad-mouthing america but wanting its $$$.
razib, how did you score nine-eleven probability wise before it happened? Do you have such a reference on your magnificent GNXP? Seriously, it is magnificent. No snark intended.
Fighting an insurgency means all other tools of warfare (economic, social, politicalm military) need to be used to ensure their support is diminished. Military is necessary, but it cannot be the primary force driving the fight.
i do anticipate an insurgency for the next generation or so. this will require our attention. but, i do feel that asserting that the threat is like “world war iii” (as some have done), or, that it might be an order of magnitude greater than that of communism, is basically inviting those who don’t take the threat seriously to dismiss you because of the implausibility of the contentions.
This is precisely why no one really cared when the Taliban set up shop. Only a handful were supporting the Northern Alliance (India was one of them).
IF this was the case, yea, it wouldn’t really affect us. But they aren’t looking to be isolationists, if they were they’d still follow previous strategy of trying to topple foreign governments from within. They understand the power and influence the west has when its primary souce of energy (or the decisions that affect it based on OPEC) come from the middle east.
Who benefits the most in the long run from keeping America in peril? The Chinese? The Russians? Is a Salafist “alliance” with either of the two viable? China’s ties with Pakistan are regionally focused and strategic, which is why it facilitated the so-called “Islamic bomb,” but one could envision a time where its interests expanded beyond South Asia.
razib, how did you score nine-eleven probability wise before it happened?
the blog post-dates 9/11. when it did happen was surprised at the magnitude, but i’d actually read up a litte about al qaeda in the spring so unfortunately i wasn’t surprised.
to be clear, i wasn’t surprised that an attack occurred. i was surprised by the magnitude.
You know, Pakistan refutes a lot of what you say…..the nuclear umbrella allows a lot of stuff to go on. The reason I think the salafists are dangerous is their stated, explicit goal of murdering as many Americans as possible, and their persistance. You might not think a few hundred or thousand person blood-letting now and then is much, but no responsible politician/leader can allow that to happen if they can find ways around it…..
You might not think a few hundred or thousand person blood-letting now and then is much, but no responsible politician/leader can allow that to happen if they can find ways around it…..
there probably isn’t a way around it sans turning america into sparta.
You know, Pakistan refutes a lot of what you say…..the nuclear umbrella allows a lot of stuff to go on.
how does it refute anything?
also, just to be clear, i think the current american policy will lead to more american deaths, not fewer. this isn’t necessarily jsut a $$$ vs. deaths calculus in my head.
Somehow, I thought it predated it? Sorry.
You mention that Stalin was irrational which made the communists dangerous. And then, you turnaround and say that a muslim state which aquires nukes is deterable. How do you judge irrationality and how do you score it? What I mean is: Pakistan having nukes means it can bleed India dry. They can create a lot of havoc and kill a lot of people. Would they make the same decisions vis a vis funding terror groups if they didn’t have nukes? Would the calculus be different. Now, you might say, Saddam with nukes was a low probability and even with them, he was a threat to Israel and not the US. But it provides a reservoir and decreases military options. You don’t want your only option to be: we will nuke you if you nuke us, do you? The current policy may well lead to more deaths in the interim, certainly of the military, but the proof is as strong as my saying, no, it will decrease it. It’s an opinion.
I never said this is World War III. Also, I didn’t say the current situation is worse than communism, only that if the future vision does come to fruition with similar weapons at their disposal, it would be worse. I wasn’t using ‘magnitude’ literally, more figuratively. Also, I did not say this WILL happen. The probablity IS low for a salafist empire’s creation. You may know that, I may, but do the people who want their vision accomplished really get that? As long as they’re willing to fight for it and continue to attack western targets as a part of their strategy, we’ll be involved whether we like it or not.
For academic purposes, say a salafist group does get their hands on a nuke, what is the probablity that they’d use it when compared to communists? We’re already walking on eggshells with Iran and North Korea for that specific reason (we honestly don’t know how far they’re into their programs).
there probably isn’t a way around it sans turning america into sparta.
Well it hasnt happened in the last 5 years. I think good local police work coupled with active cooperation with the intelligence services in Muslim nations can take care of most of the problem at home. Grand schemes of transforming the Middle East are IMO not the best strategy of fighting the renegade salafist terrorist at home. We need to shelve our grand transformation plans, co-opt Syria like we have co-opted Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and seek active cooperation of their intelligence agencies to foil Al Qaeda plots. Lumping Al Qaeda with Hizbullah etc. is IMO a big mistake.
Oh, and I wasn’t trying to belittle your calculus. It must be done, the best of our ability. It’s just that the stakes are enormous….for a lot of people, not just US citizens.
Anyway, I wish we’d drill the heck out of Alaska (in an environmentally friendly way), develop our oilfields and refineries. Buy off France by buying nuclear (energy) technology from them. Starve the Saudi’s of petrodollars. Oh, and go after the women. I mean, pursue and aggressive strategy of supporting womens groups in Saudi and Iran.
Lets all remember that the invasion of Iraq has not stopped any terrorist threat at home while almost all the terrorist threats have been foiled by good police work and cooperation from Pakistani intelligence services (Al Zubaidah – Jose Padillah, the recently foiled British plot and a whole LOT of information) also work of other intelligence services in Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
You mention that Stalin was irrational which made the communists dangerous.
i should be clear here: when i said stalin was irrational, it actually made the communists and russia weaker (e.g., killing his best generals in the 1930s, being sanguine about axis double-crossing after their 1939 “alliances”).
Now, you might say, Saddam with nukes was a low probability and even with them, he was a threat to Israel and not the US.
the key here is how low the probability is. if it was 10%, i can see the reasoning for invading. i don’t generally second guess the iraqi invasion much because i clearly didn’t know the details. but, after more data one updates their conditional probabilities, and i have.
now, let us use an explicit example: iran. it seems accepted that iran will likely have a nuclear weapon within the next decade (people like krauthhammer have been wrong many times when they have prophesied the “in the next 2 months iran will have a nuclear weapon” so i don’t find imminence persuasive). this is problematic. i don’t believe it is problematic because the iranians will destroy the USA since it seems unlikely that even when do they do get nukes they will have ICBMs.
the costs, as you note, will be that a nuclear umbrella makes aggressive states bolder in their mischief.
so what’s the option? one is invasion. should we invade a nation of 60+ million to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons? no. integrated over time i think the cost in american deaths will be prohibitive, and the costs in $$$ will be high.
america may have to become sparta, but i am not excited about racing into that future if we can help it….
Anyway, I wish we’d drill the heck out of Alaska (in an environmentally friendly way), develop our oilfields and refineries. Buy off France by buying nuclear (energy) technology from them.
Dream on.
Chai Garam Chai, Hey Paploo, 3 rupaih ki chai, Me only 2 rupees, You know English.
Oh, and go after the women. I mean, pursue and aggressive strategy of supporting womens groups in Saudi
The fastest way to discredit these movements in Saudi Arabia would be for them to get overt support from America. This is not the Eastern Block during Communism. Those dudes were yearning from freedom. The dudes in Middle East are dodging US bombs in Iraq or US supplied bombs in Lebanon/Gaza. They dont particularly like us over there.
say a salafist group does get their hands on a nuke, what is the probablity that they’d use it when compared to communists
let me be clear here: i think that a chance that a muslim group will use a nuke in a major american city is non-trivial. we should attempt to prevent this, or decrease its probability. but, i do not believe that the current policies like liberating iraq from saddam decrease the probability. a mix of policies are needed obviously, i think current unilateral military action is too strongly weighted. if you want specifics, we should do a 2 year plan to get out of iraq IMO. we need to do this via proxies when possible, not get our own hands dirty.
yearning for freedom.
also, i take your point MD that the government has to sometimes do something because of the nature of electoral politics. i don’t think it’s the end of the world if we become sparta, i’m getting too old to be a front line troop 🙂 but just because i suspect this may be the modal probability doesn’t mean that i won’t argue against it, even if it is in vain.
also…uh, i will take into consideration that people might mean “order of magnitude figuratively.” i’m quite a literal person, so i simply assume x*10 when i here this….
AMFD: What you state does have value. The mission of winning hearts and minds hasn’t been acheived in Iraq simply because the admistration never put the dollars where their words were. There was a window, post invasion, with the appropriate planning to build up that trust.
It didn’t happen and timing is everything.
How does this move forward? I wouldn’t be surprised if it actually played out the way you state or Iraq splits up into three, with a Kurdistan being the most pro-American territory there (Turks won’t be happy, but oil infrastructre from Kurd territory, quelling of their local kurd insurgents, and economic benefits may convince them otherwise.)
Anwyway folks, quality discussion.
Saudi Arabia benefits from long term peril. It keeps the price of oil inflated, which means 1) they don’t have to work because 2) they can import brown people to do whatever needs to be done. The Saudis are laughing all the way to the bank. My Saudi buddy in the city to do business told me over a beer that the mood is “optimistic” there. Infrastructure projects are booming, there are new IT parks, the princes are once again travelling…