Re terror plot: War doesn’t stop terrorism, you Bush assholes – police work does

1. ADDICTED TO FAILURE – by Matthew Yglesias (from Americcan Prospect)

Bush says today's plots serve as a "stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists." If anything, it's a stark reminder of the reverse. A stark reminder that this isn't a "war" at all -- you don't foil a plot like this with armored personnel carriers and JDAMs. We're also not going to capture the capital city of "Islamic fascism" -- not Kabul, not Baghdad, not even Teheran and Damascus -- and force our adversaries to surrender.

It's not at all difficult to kill or capture terrorists. Instead, what makes them dangerous is that they're hard to identify. What makes them doubly dangerous is that because they're hard to identify, the temptation is to target them very broadly. And as we saw in the administration's desperately failed strategies in the "Sunni triangle" when you tar huge numbers of not-yet-opponents in your effort to find the bad guys, you wind up generating a much larger number of adversaries. The great challenge is to identify strategies for targeting terrorists narrowly enough so that the number of terrorists actually declines as a result of your counterterrorism operations.

Bush keeps on doing the reverse -- defining the enemy in very broad, very lazy ways; conflating issues that have little to do with each other; charging off half-cocked and pissing people off. Meanwhile, he hasn't managed to kill or capture Osama or Zawahiri and insists on reacting to everything that happens in the most-alarmist, most-partisan terms he can imagine. Worst of all, the continued failure of his policies to ameliorate the problem is then trotted out as a justification for continuing -- or even intensifying -- the same failed approach.


2. POLITICIZE TERRORISM -- by Publius (from http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com)

Bill Clinton, 2005: “You can't say, ‘Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.’ Give me a break here. If you don't want to fight for the future and you can’t figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do.”

Lots of people are already complaining about the politicization of the London plot. Glenn Greenwald (via Benen) provides numerous examples from the right-wing blogosphere, which seized upon the news in record time. John Aravosis points to an article indicating that the White House knew of the plot last weekend (thus suggesting it coordinated its recent media strategy with it).

You know what I say to that — boo-frickin’-hoo. Get over it. The GOP politicizes terrorism — that’s what they do. They’ve been doing it for five years. They did it to start a war. They did it to win an election. And they’re going to keep doing it until they lose. People can moan and whine all day about how mean and unfair they’re being, or they can fight fire with fire and try to beat them. And so I’m not doing the obligatory “can’t we put partisanship aside in times like this” to show my reasonable centrism. Instead, I’ll take a stab at politicizing terrorism and say this — the failed UK plot illustrates why the people in charge of anti-terrorism policy shouldn’t be in charge of anti-terrorism policy anymore. It also demonstrates the utter failure of the Iraq War as anti-terrorism policy . And finally, it shows why Republicans should lose this fall.

To give credit where credit is due, this post is pretty much a riff off of this essential point that Yglesias made :

"It's not at all difficult to kill or capture terrorists. Instead, what makes them dangerous is that they're hard to identify."

I really can’t stress enough how important that last point is. This sounds obvious, but the key to any anti-terrorism policy in the post-9/11 world is to understand the nature of the threat against us. And it’s a serious one — and one (as Kevin Drum rightly pointed out) that the liberal blogosphere should focus more heavily on. It’s easy to lose sight of it in the dust and dirt from domestic political battles, but there are a lot of people out there who would kill us if they could.

The key then is to focus on the nature of that threat. The 9/11 hijackers share a lot of similarities with the UK would-be bombers (who I’m assuming are the real deal). They were not agents of any state — but were instead a group of alienated and unaffiliated Muslims financed by non-state actors. These individuals lived in liberal democracies and were essentially a criminal syndicate — a jihadist mafia operating in the shadows of a “free” country. This lends support to Yglesias’s point that the biggest threat to our safety is not an unwillingness to kill these people, but the inability to identify them (or to find them).

Any remedy for this serious problem needs to be tailored to fit the nature of the threat. Thus, what’s needed to keep us safe is, as Joe Biden rightly said, “gumshoe” work. Our safety depends on our ability to gather intelligence, to act on tips, to work leads, to aggressively monitor the movement of finances, etc. For that reason, effective policy really does closely resemble law enforcement activities.

Ron Suskind’s book (which I haven’t finished yet) provides a perfect illustration of how important these “law enforcement”-type activities are in protecting us from terrorism. For instance, assuming it’s brought within some sort of legal and judicial framework, his book persuaded me that the “terrorist surveillance program” is a good thing. Putting aside its blatant illegality, the real problem with the current NSA program is how inefficient it is. Monitoring everyone’s calls and emails for “clues” is just a big waste of time. But, as Suskind explains, if you know what you’re looking for, it’s fantastic. For instance, if you know someone’s name, or have a specific site or phone line of a known terrorist, the program is a highly effective way to identify the threads of the broader web (again, just like in any criminal conspiracy). The better the inputs, the better the outputs. And so what’s really important is getting the inputs (the name, the tip, etc.).

Given that anti-terrorism (like crime) depends so heavily on tips and intelligence, Suskind’s book also shows just how vital foreign cooperation is to our domestic safety. Not only do we need information that these governments have access to (both financial and “human intelligence”), we need them to help execute searches or, if necessary, to help with captures or assassinations.

And that brings us to Iraq. The fact that Iraq was so incompetently executed is actually the least of its problems. The bigger problem is that the idea of it represented a staggering failure of vision and judgment in terms of anti-terrorism policy. It’s simply not possible to devise an anti-terrorism policy more at odds with the nature of the threat facing us.

First, invading countries and overthrowing regimes does nothing — not one thing — to address the primary problem, which is the inability to identify the people who want to kill us. Second, it actually exacerbates the “root” problem by increasing the number of alienated people and intensifying their anger. Blair and his New Labour Party aren’t exactly oppressive despots, but that didn’t seem to help things much with these guys. Third, pissing off the countries of the world (almost all of whom have an interest in keeping al Qaeda at bay) deprives us of vital intelligence and cooperation. Hint — to combat Muslim terrorism, you’ll need help from Muslim governments more than anyone else . And those are just the problems with the idea of the war — I'm not even considering for now Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and our fiddling while Israel burns Lebanon. Finally, and as Suskind explained, the war sucked up resources from the real anti-terrorist efforts.

And so there’s a pretty clear difference here that I’m sure some consultant could dress up in purty “clear choice” language. The argument would be that the Dems and the GOP have two fundamentally different ways of fighting terrorism. The GOP believes in fighting terrorism by invading countries and attempting to impose democracy at the point of a gun, which will then through some Rube Goldberg -esque logic lead to less terrorism. The Dems favor a focus on identifying the terrorists through things like intelligence and multi-lateral cooperation. Yes, that’s grossly simple, but it's generally accurate. The neocons fundamentally believe that invading Iraq and Iran are effective anti-terrorism policies . And it’s really hard to overstate just how completely absurd that is. Even if you were sympathetic in 2002, reality should have intruded by now.

In sum, these people simply can’t be trusted with our national security. Let's stop crying and start saying so.


3. Terrorism: you can get it in a can -- by lenin (from Lenin’s Tomb)

It's past midday and the BBC have found nothing else to talk about yet, except for the weather (ominous banks of apocalyptic clouds rolling across a nihilistic sky toward an Islamofascist sun). Literally, all other programming has been suspended. Pundits with no opinion are being begged to find one, quickly. Arrests here, searches there, endless queues of disgruntled tourists and business travellers looking pissed off. Endless speculation is compounded by the suggestion that the fact that there is speculation goes to show how chaotic the situation is. We are then told that there is some suggestion that there were liquid explosives to be hidden in fizzy drinks cans and smuggled aboard planes.

Terrorism is insidious. It gets into everything. Spectacles. Mobile phones. Baby milk. It gets under your skin. Feel your body for any suspicious lumps. I confidently expect The Sun to inform us tomorrow that the alleged plot involved red-green chewing gum that one mashes together to get an explosion "just like in Sky's movie spectacular Mission Impossible, to be shown tomorrow night at 9pm".

Terrorism is great crisis television. John Reid MP makes a statement that not only restates what has already been said countless times, but has a ridiculously staged, ham-actor feel: 'I would like to thank the Great British public, the repository of our best surveillance; I would like to thank visitors for their patience; I would like to thank the security services; we are not complacent and that's why we have exaggerated the threat level in this case'. He then throws it open to the press for questions, adding "just give us yer name, rank and serial number". The Sun asks if this is the biggest threat since World War II as Reid claimed yesterday, and if it was a problem with an extremist wing of Muslims and if therefore Muslims have done enough. Now we know what to look forward to: "and you march for these people?"

The narcissism is astounding. Lebanon is actually being terrorised by Israel, Iraq is actually being terrorised by America, and this merciless, cruel, sadistic, reckless destruction is easily subsumed into the fabric of daily life - the first allegation of a threat of a potential attack in Britain at some unspecified point in the future, and suddenly we are encouraged to luxuriate in the fantasy prospect of annihilation. Knowing full well that the building next door is not about to be flattened under several tonnes of explosives, we are encouraged to pretend it's World War II and evince the stoicism of Blitz survivors. The Blitzkrieg is upon Beirut, but we are supposed to imagine that little Nazis are flying over our heads. Don't be complacent. Look out your windows. Keep an eye out. Don't forget to cast a nervous glance over your shoulder. Take notes. Tell the government everything. Root out the evil within. Question your own motives. Telephone the terrorist hotline if you suspect yourself of possessing the slightest nihilistic impulse. Oh - and do try to go about your daily life as normal.


4. Fascists of All Varieties -- by Marc Ash

Reveling in yesterday's announcement that a plot to blow up American Airlines planes departing from British airports had been foiled by British authorities, George W. Bush leapt at the opportunity to sell his "war on terra" to whoever would listen. Using the best Madison Avenue technique money can buy, he was even ready to roll out a new slogan du jour on cue for the event. Today's phrase that pays: We are at war with "Islamic fascists."

First let me say that if British law enforcement did in fact do all of what the US mainstream press is implying they did, I thank them for finding an efficient, non-violent way to guard the public safety. "Efficient" and "non-violent" being the key words in the preceding sentence.

Efficiency and non-violence have been glaringly absent from US-British national security operations over the past five years. And that absence contributes greatly to the current atmosphere of conflict. War and a warlike mentality are espoused at every turn as the remedies of choice in dealing with all threats to Western security. As a result, Western security has suffered.

What worked in foiling the plot to destroy the airliners was good old fashioned police work and a solid investigation. Not military action. The tools used by British authorities are tools that were available on September 11th 2001. They were available the day the US invaded Iraq, and they are available today. We have always had good tools to safeguard our security. Launching massive invasions is not helping, it's adding to the rage that fuels the madness.

Fascism at Issue

Since, Mr. Bush, you have chosen to put the issue of fascism before the public, it begs a broader dialog on fascism's role in our lives today. I accept the challenge to enter that dialog. Frankly Mr. Bush, many Americans refer to you as a fascist. There really isn't any other way to state that than bluntly. Blowing up an airliner full of passengers is barbaric and completely unacceptable, regardless of the objectives of those involved, but it really doesn't fit the definition of fascism.

From Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language:
FASCISM: A system of government characterized by rigid one party dictatorship, forcible suppression of opposition, private economic enterprise under centralized governmental control, belligerent nationalism, racism and militarism, etc.

That's really the heart of the matter now isn't it, Mr. Bush. One might wonder if you are troubled by by the specter of fascism in your inner thoughts when you cast the accusation wildly into the public discourse.

What would the people of Iraq say about fascism if asked? But then they haven't been asked, have they - they've been liberated, of course. What would our founding fathers say about detention without due process, without end? Electronic surveillance of all Americans, without regard for the law? What is democracy if the citizens have no confidence in the integrity of their elections? Our military hurls five-hundred pound bombs all day and all night. They land on whom they land on. It is not an isolated act of madness, it is a coordinated act of state. All the while private corporations profit wildly.

Fascism, Mr. Bush, is not your strongest card. You should change the subject again.


5. The War Bush Isn't Fighting -- by Eugene Robinson (from the Washington Post)

When unsmiling agents at the airport take away your contact lens solution, your toothpaste, and your cologne or after-shave, remember Osama bin Laden. Remember the real war on terrorism that the Bush administration and its allies decided not to fight, preferring cowboy-style military adventures.

The revelation yesterday of the elaborate plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean with liquid explosives reminds us of the real threats we face - as opposed to the phantom threats that George W. Bush and Tony Blair have conjured to justify their disastrous war in Iraq.

The airliner conspiracy seems to have all the hallmarks of an al-Qaeda extravaganza: careful and sophisticated planning, the intent to shock the world with simultaneous detonations, cold-blooded determination to murder innocents by the hundreds, and a timeline that comes suspiciously close to the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Sending a cascade of Boeings and Airbuses into the frigid ocean would have had the kind of theatrical impact that al-Qaeda always seeks.

But it doesn't really matter whether the plotters were al-Qaeda soldiers taking orders from bin Laden or just a group of like-minded admirers working on their own. The plot demonstrates that al-Qaeda lives on, either as a functioning organization or, even more chillingly, as an inspiration to jihadists around the world.

Shoe bombs didn't work, and now we shuffle through the metal detectors in our socks. Liquid explosives didn't work, and now we will fly with unbrushed teeth. We can be sure that somewhere in some anonymous apartment, maybe in Paris or Frankfurt or Karachi, a group of unknown conspirators has absorbed the failure of the London plot and already begun to develop a new approach to mass murder.

President Bush said that the uncovered conspiracy is "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation." If only the president would fight that war. If only he hadn't turned away from the hunt for bin Laden to chase his neocon advisers' delusions of spreading pro-American democracy at the point of a gun.

Let's check what else was in the news yesterday. In Iraq, a suicide bomber killed at least 35 people and injured more than 100 by blowing himself up near a famous shrine in the city of Najaf, which is holy to Shiite Muslims. Meanwhile, U.S. troops moved into the Dora neighborhood of Baghdad in an attempt to end a reign of lawlessness. All this violence is part of a sectarian civil war that was made possible by the U.S. invasion - and that is growing in intensity under the open-ended U.S. occupation. Iraq, says Bush, is a vital theater in the war against terrorism.

In other news, Israeli forces continued their systematic destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure by targeting a historic lighthouse in the heart of Beirut, in an apparent attempt to knock Lebanese state television off the air. This comes after Israeli forces had already destroyed every bridge over the Litani River, all of Lebanon's major roads and much of the Beirut airport, all in the name of cutting off supplies to the Hezbollah militia - and all with no complaint from U.S. officials. Lebanon, says Bush, is another vital theater in the war against terrorism.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice speaks of building a "new Middle East," but the Bush administration construction plan seems to begin with setting the old Middle East on fire. The bungled occupation of Iraq has drawn new recruits to the jihadist cause around the world, and now the disproportionate Israeli assault on Lebanon is doing the same thing. We are at war with an ideology, and pounding it frontally just disperses it. It's like trying to smash mercury with a hammer.

Maybe the discovery of the airliner plot will bring us back to the real world. There are deadly enemies out there, and one way to fight them, as the British demonstrated yesterday, is through intelligence. One way not to fight them, as the Bush administration continues to demonstrate, is through reckless military action that may kill terrorists but also kills innocent civilians and thus creates a new generation of terrorists - doubtless including some bright young man or woman who will come up with a new idea for downing civilian airliners.

We will end up boarding our flights barefoot, barehanded and buck naked except for a hospital gown they'll make us put on at the airport. And, at this rate, Osama bin Laden will be watching CNN from his cave, smiling contentedly.