Home > Uncategorized > Experts Warn: U.S. Losing War on Terror

Experts Warn: U.S. Losing War on Terror

I know that Kirk in SLO doesn’t like it when I cut and paste articles on national and international topics, but I’m really trying to expose KVEC listeners to a variety of information they don’t normally hear on the other programs. Here’s a perfect example that underscores my argument that Bush is the worst president in modern U.S. history. We had all this international goodwill and support as a result of 9-11. Then, to quote Peter Fonda in Easy Rider, “We blew it.”

Check out this article and comment away!

“Despite high-profile arrests, security operations and upbeat assessments from the White House, the United States is losing its “global war on terror,” experts warn.

Five years after Washington launched its hunt for those responsible for the September 11 attacks, the world has not become a safer place, and a new large-scale strike against America at some point appears likely, they say.

Even the killing last month of Al-Qaeda’s leader in Iraq Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, hailed by the White House as a major blow against the terror network, has not dented its ability to recruit new militants or mount attacks.

In May the influential US magazine Foreign Policy and a Washington-based think-tank questioned 116 leading US experts — a balanced mix of Republicans and Democrats — on the progress of the US campaign against terrorism.

Among others, they consulted a former secretary of state, two former directors of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and dozens of the country’s top security analysts.

The result? Eighty-four percent believe the United States is losing the “war on terror,” 86 percent that the world has become a more dangerous place in the past five years, and 80 percent that a major new attack on their country was likely within the next decade.

“We are losing the ‘war on terror’ because we are treating the symptoms and not the cause,” argued Anne-Marie Slaughter, head of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.

“Our insistence that Islamic fundamentalist ideology has replaced communist ideology as the chief enemy of our time feeds Al-Qaeda’s vision of the world,” boosting support for the Islamic radical cause, she said.

For Leslie Gelb, president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, the unity of views expressed by those questioned reflects a deeply critical attitude towards the administration of President George W. Bush.

“It’s clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force,” he said.

Other experts questioned the very nature of the US campaign.

“It was a doomed enterprise from the very start: a ‘war on terror’ — it’s as ridiculous as a ‘war on anger’. You do not wage a war on terror, you wage a war against people,” said Alain Chouet, a former senior officer of France’s DGSE foreign intelligence service.

“The Americans have been stuck inside this idea of a ‘war on terror’ since September 11, they are not asking the right questions.”

“You can always slaughter terrorists — there are endless reserves of them. We should not be attacking the effects of terrorism but its causes: Wahhabite ideology, Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. But no one will touch any of those,” Chouet argued.

Instead he said US policy in the Middle East, which had “turned Iraq into a new Afghanistan,” was acting as a powerful recruiting agent for a generation of Islamic radicals.

The continued US presence in Iraq and “the atrocities committed by a campaigning army”, the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq and the “grotesque” US detention centre at Guantanamo in Cuba all “provide excuses” for violent radicals, he said.

The United States “have fallen into the classic terrorist trap — they’re lashing out at the wrong targets,” causing collateral damage that boosts the cause of their opponents, he said.

Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA’s Osama Bin Laden unit from 1996 to 1999, agreed that Washington was acting as its own worst enemy in the fight against Islamic terrorism.

“We’re clearly losing. Today, Bin Laden, Al-Qaeda and their allies have only one indispensable ally: the US’ foreign policy towards the Islamic world.”

“The cumulative impact of several events in the past two years has gone a good way towards increasing Muslim hatred for Americans, simply because they are Americans,” he said, citing Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and the East-West row over cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed.

“Each of these events is unfortunate but not terribly serious for Western minds. But from the Muslim perspective they are deliberate and vicious attacks against the things that guide their lives and their faith.”

  1. Rich from Paso
    July 4, 2006 at 10:57 pm

    Crap, crap , crap. Four out of five dentists served prever Trident to the leading gum. So, we are to wage war against Saudi Arabia? Yes, the Wahabbist ideaology is at the heart of the Islamofacsist ideology but are we really to go to war against Sausi Arabia itself? There is another way and invading Saudi Arabia ain’t it (despite Bob’s paranoid delusions about oil being the genesis for every thought a Republican has). The world was very dangerous in 1943, the center point of WWII. The problem with experts is that they are always trying to be the smartest guys in the room. The Wahabbists do not have an endless supply of fighters anymore than we have an endless supply of soldiers to fight them. We are not lossing the War on Terrorism, despite the Anti-American Civil Liberties Union (the Atheists, Criminals, and Lawyers Union as my brother told me), Democratic Party and the New York Times would have us to believe.

    On a side note: the New York Times, and the Main Steam Media (MSM), are now in the habit of exposing everything the Bush Administration is doing, even if there is no harm being done to the civil liberties of the American people. The paranoia of the left about the Bush Adminstration almost compels them to tattle on everthing the adminstration does even if it doesn’t involve any Americans. While the NYT story on the terrorist finance network in and of itself doesn’t betray methods and techniques, the fact that they would publish the story over the objectives of the most revered John Murtha demonstrates the obsession the MSM has with devulging anything and everything in order to deligitimze the Bush Adminstration. History will prove Bush to be the better man and the better president than either Clinton, Gore or Kerry in this war on terrorism. Those three would be more worried about what their terrorist appeasing allies in Europe think or what the American polls say than doing what is right for America.

    Dave’s streak stands at TWO on posts regarding the Central Coast. So much for an assumed change of focus on the Dave Congalton blog to local issues instead of being the Chicken Little for the losing of the War on Terror and the War in Iraq.

  2. Ben from Pismo
    July 5, 2006 at 12:36 am

    Wow. Gotta love this guy Rich from Paso, whoever the hell he is. This article quotes all sorts of qualified experts on the subject, but this one guy from Paso simply dismisses them out of hand and calls it all crap. Crap?

    What if these experts are right? Sounds to me like we should have listened to them in the first place!

  3. Rich from Paso
    July 5, 2006 at 2:03 am

    If is for children and poets, not for a people fighting a war. I am just as much an expert on Iraq as these guys are. I have all of the qualifications: If been to Iraq, I have studied them, and have spoken with them and got to know them. Hell, I may be more qualified as an expert since I have fought against them. I didn’t dismiss the experts out of hand, by the way, just Dave’s pathological desire to be depressed about Iraq. He must read the newspapers and when he sees an article about how bad things are going on the War on Terror or Iraq, he goes “Oh, Boy!!! Yeah!!! Bush lied, people died!! More death, destruction in Iraq!!! Take that, Bush, you illegitimate President you! What a happy day!”

    It appears to me that only ex-Clinton era generals, Democrats and SLO county liberals think we are losing the war on terror, but the soldiers in the field, especially the ones that do think like, oh I don’t know, bring 1000 pound bombs down on terrorist “mastermind”‘s heads, think we are winning. Again, it all comes down to who do you trust. Liberals trust unindicted co-conspirator Vietnam era rejects like John Murtha and John Kerry (must be a liberal facination with the name John). Conservatives trust the soldiers in the field. I trust the soldiers in the field. I trusted the soldiers in the field when they said that Bosnia was under control and I trusted the soldiers in the field when they said they needed armor support in Mogadishu. So, Bob, Ben, and everyone else, who do you trust?

  4. Ben from Pismo
    July 5, 2006 at 3:33 am


    First, thank you for your service. I admit that I never served in the military, so you have that advantage over me. But with all due respect, just because you served in Iraq does not make you an expert on this so-called War on Terror. I reread the article Dave posted and it quotes some heavy duty people — people who have made careers by being experts on the issues of counter terrorism and intelligence. You’re a grunt and apparently you’re unable to see the big picture.

    I went on Yahoo! just now to see the stories being emailed. You’d have to be a complete moron to miss the big picture unfolding: Bush is losing his main allies and the ones replacing them are cautious about getting too close. The British were surveyed and they think WE’RE the biggest problem in the world. We have a suidden rash of soldiers being arrested for alleged war crimes.

    All this is three years after this so-called war was supposed to end.

    I defy you to name me one example, just one, where an outside government was able to quell an insurgency. History is against us, Rich. I repeat my earlier question to you — What if you’re wrong and the experts are right?

  5. Shawn(o)
    July 5, 2006 at 5:46 am

    I went to Woodstock’s Pizza earlier today and fought a hard battle in the War on Hunger. But I pushed through. For America. For freedom. For justice. And you know what. I prevailed. And I like to think, so did America.

  6. Bob from San Luis
    July 5, 2006 at 7:26 am

    Rich: I do wonder what would be your “plan” if you were put in charge of “The War on Terror”, specifically the Iraq invasion and occupation. You have been there, you served in the military, you fought against the Iraqis and possibly foreign fighters and you said you met a lot of Iraqis who were grateful that the US is there and that Saddam is gone. So, my question for you; if you were suddenly put into Donald Rumsfeld’s place, and anything you said was what happened, how would you “fight” the “War on Terror” in Iraq? Is there anything that you would do differently than is currently happening? Do you think that everything that can be done is being done? Would you feel a sense of accomplishment by simply letting what is currently happening continue in the same manner?
    A classic example of the definition of insanity is doing the same thing, over and over and always expecting a different result. How would your plan differ, or would you continue the insanity of the current “course” which is why articles such as the one Dave posted are being written?
    Rich, you mentioned in your first comment that I had asserted that oil was our primary focus on going into Iraq; let me clarify a minor point for you: What I think was the Bush Administration’s primary goal was for going into Iraq was not to obtain oil, but to control the flow of oil from Iraq. If Saddam had not threatened to start selling his oil in Euros instead of US dollars, I seriously doubt that the evidence that was manufactured with the goal of the US invading Iraq would have never materialized. Call me crazy, a conspiracy theorist, a dumb liberal or whatever; IF, we ever get the whole story some day about how we ended up invading a country that had absolutely no capacity to harm us, I am confident that the citizens of the United States will learn exactly how truly warped the priorities of the Bush “Team” are/were.
    Anyway Rich, I would seriously like to read your plan for stabilizing Iraq to the point that we could start to draw down US forces without the whole of Iraq devolving into a literal bloodbath of civil war that would make Somalia look weak by comparison.

  7. Rob in los osos
    July 6, 2006 at 3:40 am

    I’ve been following your posts for some time now and have thought of posting several times with clever and witty responses, but I’m glad I didn’t for a couple reasons. First, humor and intelligence would just be lost on you. Second, you obviously don’t value what others think of or say to you, hence the allegiance to all caps. So in a language that you can understand:

    YOU ARE A RACIST (remember the time you were on Dave’s show and you said that the reason there is so much crime in Santa Maria is because of all the Mexicans?)

    YOU ARE A PLAGIARIST (Remember waaay back when Ann Calhoun did her “Calhouns Cannons” audio spots on Dave’s show, and you wanted your own spots as a sort of other-side/rebuttal? Remember how you ‘presented’, as your own, a piece of literature that was going around the email circuit? Gee Jerry, that seems pretty unethical,don’t you think? Good thing you weren’t being paid for those spots, or you would have broken the law.

    Jerry, I said it before and I’ll say it again – you moved to Arizona for some very specific reasons. Maybe you need to re-examine those reasons. You tout Phoenix as such a great place to live, yet you seem to not be able to let go of this area. I understand you like the ‘hometown radio’ feeling and community, but you are no longer a part of that community. Maybe you could get involved in some local groups down there. There must be local KKK, Aryan Nation, or John Birch Society chapters in the greater Phoenix Metro area.


  8. Rob in Los Osos
    July 6, 2006 at 5:11 am

    I love JDINAZ
    the original cut and runner. Comes in here, yells at everybody, then when someone calls him on some of his shortcomings (besides his wife of course), he deletes all his posts. See, thats a true chickenhawk conservative, talks big and brash, then at the first sign of reason and intellect, turns tail and runs. Bye JERRY, I’ll miss ya

  9. Rich from Paso
    July 11, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    Okay, okay, okay, Bob, stop asking what I’d do if I were in charge. I was gone last week and now I’m back and I will tell you.

    First, the question I know you want asked more than anything: would I have invaded Iraq? Now, get on my ass by the way I answer this because I don’t see what the President see, but…. If the intelligence was unaltered and honest (whether accurate or not) about Saddam’s WMDs and it said that he had them, was building them and was making overtures to al Qaeda, then yes I would have invaded Iraq. I have no predisposition one way or the other about the Gulf War and “finishing what we started” in 1991. Saddam is a monster and needed to be dealt with. As for our continued presence in Iraq: Face facts everyone, we are there and we have to be there for at least another five years. Why? Because they have no standing army capable of defending the country against other countries. They have no tanks or APCs or helicopters or jets to defend the country; we destroyed all of that. The Iraqi Army is primarily trained in counter-insurgency operations and do not have the training in tactics nor the equipemnt to field an Army to defeat a tank attack from their neighbors. I think that the plan put forth by Gen. Casey is the right one: start serious draw downs this year and the next. I would keep a rotation schedule of two divisions (about 20,000 troops) going into Iraq for the following five years to train a nacent Iraqi Army on Battalion and Brigade sized operations. Then after that five year period, we would rotate units in Iraq for training operations, like we do with Foal Eagle in Korea, Cobra Gold in Thailand or Bright Star in Egypt. By that time, the Iraqi Army and Iraqi Polic would have a firm handle on the insurgency. Our presence does fuel some of the insurgency, but as we transitioned to They have a right to a standing army like every other country in the world. Even neutral Switzerland has a standing army. To totally pull out

    The miliary abuses in Iraq are coming out and they are being dealt with. They are the exception and not the norm. I saw this guy on TV last night that said that the abuses were because of low recruiting standards. Well, the fact is that the military recruits are a reflection of our society and the military prides itself on how well they mirror the demographics of our society. I can tell you that recruiters worry every day about the quality of the recruits they bring in and they worry about it because that soldier may be in their unit someday. If they bring in duds then they will have to serve with duds. That having been said, sometimes they slip in. In the case of that SPC Green at Fort Campbell, I think if he is convicted he should get the death penalty. Rape and murder are abhorent to me and he should pay with his life. The Haditha case is less clear because issues of rules of engagement, the time between the incident and the fotage, etc make takes the death penalty off the table in my book. Bottom line on this is that when crimes are commited they should be investigated and the guilty punished and that appears to be what is going on.

    Second, I would spend our foreign aid, and some of our Special Operations Forces, to build stronger more stable governments in Africa. Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Liberia are all places where al Qaeda can find supporters and safe havens. Through developoing those countries to have legitamate governments that won’t sponsor murderers like tha Janjaweed in Sudan, then the radical elements of Islam and the islamofacsists won’t find peopel either sympathetic to there cause or easily swayed by their money.

    Third: Continue the pressure on Iran. The Mullahs of Iran are an even smaller governing minority than the Ba’athists in Iraq. Overwhelmingly, the young people in Iran are pro-western, pro-American and anti-theocratic. Read this article here. That is why an invasion of Iran is almost out of the question. If military action with Iran happens, it will be more like the bombing campaign against Serbia than the ground war invasion of Iraq. The Iranian youth are the future leaders of Iran and we don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the Carter Administration by alienating them.

    Fourth: I would continue the Bush Adminsitrations use of electronic means to track down terrorists. The left accuses the Bush Adminsitration of failing to connect the dots. Failing to use ever legal tool in the box to track down once and future terrorists would be a replay of the 9/11 scenario. The “well what about” crowd would hammer any president if the DIDN’T push the envelope in their methods of finding terrorists.

    Finally, we need to step up our efforts in South America. Al Qaeda is making in-roads there with the growing connection between the narco-terrorists and the Islamofacsist terrorists. Guys like Hugo Chavez are not in America’s long-term best interests.

    As for this whole notion that “America’s image has been tarnished world wide”, it’s crap. The US is at war. Either we can worry about our image overseas or we can fight this war and defend America. The two are becoming more and more mutually exclusive.

    That’s pretty much what I would do in a nutshell.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: