Sunday
Dec072008
War on Terror Strategy: Let's Make Stuff Up
Sunday, December 7, 2008 at 8:51
In today's Washington Post, Richard Clarke, formerly Counter-terrorism Coordinator under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush, takes on the War on Terror in a different way: instead of considering the present, he projects the future.
Clarke, who left the Bush Administration in 2002, later said --- in publication and before the 9-11 Commission --- that Bush and advisors paid little attention to the terrorist threat before September 2001 because they were focused on a showdown with Iraq. After 11 September, they got that showdown in part by creating a fantasy alliance between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda.
So it is hyper-ironic that Clarke, to advise the US where to strike next, creates a fantasy alliance between Al-Qa'eda, the Taliban, other Pakistani insurgent groups, and elements of the Pakistani Government:
Perhaps the leaders of al-Qaeda, the Taliban movement that is again on the march in Afghanistan and some Pakistani terrorist groups obsessed with Kashmir [will] also come together...in a safe house owned by a sympathetic retired Pakistani leader of the country's powerful and shadowy military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI).
Clarke the Clairvoyant then creates a conversation led by Osama bin Laden and joined by Taliban leader Mullah Omar, "Hakimullah Mehsud, a leader of a Pakistani group also known as the Taliban" (which, to say the least, is a bit confusing for the reader), "the red-bearded Sayeed" of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Al Qa'eda Number Two Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The climax of the discussion?
Bin Laden raises his head, and a wry smile passes briefly over his face. "[Obama's] economy is badly ill. If it gets much worse, he will have to bring all of his troops home. So . . . we may have to increase their pain level. We have done that before."
While I love a good story, I wouldn't have recommended, say, Tom Clancy as a guide for dealing with the Soviets in the Cold War or J.K. Rowling as a blueprint for my children to make it through school. And so Clarke's made-up intelligence of "reports that al-Qaeda has created joint fighting units with the Taliban, which are attacking U.S. bases in Afghanistan from their sanctuary inside Pakistan" --- and the judgement of the editorial staff of The Washington Post --- should be shelved under Fantasy.
Why? Because such imaginary wanderings disregard the complexities of the local and regional situation. One could make the argument that Al Qa'eda --- as strategist, as planner, and even as ideological leader --- is now peripheral. Other groups, drawing their inspiration from conflicts closer to home --- the de facto civil wars in Afghanistan and possibly in Pakistan, the unresolved and still destabilising "grey areas" such as Kashmir --- are waging their battles.
Why? Because Clarke's response to those battles is the snap recommendation that drops a bomb on any consideration of those issues:
We must now eliminate the new terrorist safe haven in Pakistan. But that will require effective action from a weak and riven Pakistani government.
Since unilateral US actions against the "safe haven" are likely to weaken and possibly fragment the "weak and riven" Pakistani government, it's a self-fulfilling fantasy. No one will be safer, but Mr Clarke can return with a sequel to his fantastic tale next year, offering us more "terrorists" in lieu of any thought of how to deal with the causes behind that terrorism.
Clarke, who left the Bush Administration in 2002, later said --- in publication and before the 9-11 Commission --- that Bush and advisors paid little attention to the terrorist threat before September 2001 because they were focused on a showdown with Iraq. After 11 September, they got that showdown in part by creating a fantasy alliance between Iraq and Al-Qa'eda.
So it is hyper-ironic that Clarke, to advise the US where to strike next, creates a fantasy alliance between Al-Qa'eda, the Taliban, other Pakistani insurgent groups, and elements of the Pakistani Government:
Perhaps the leaders of al-Qaeda, the Taliban movement that is again on the march in Afghanistan and some Pakistani terrorist groups obsessed with Kashmir [will] also come together...in a safe house owned by a sympathetic retired Pakistani leader of the country's powerful and shadowy military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI).
Clarke the Clairvoyant then creates a conversation led by Osama bin Laden and joined by Taliban leader Mullah Omar, "Hakimullah Mehsud, a leader of a Pakistani group also known as the Taliban" (which, to say the least, is a bit confusing for the reader), "the red-bearded Sayeed" of the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Al Qa'eda Number Two Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The climax of the discussion?
Bin Laden raises his head, and a wry smile passes briefly over his face. "[Obama's] economy is badly ill. If it gets much worse, he will have to bring all of his troops home. So . . . we may have to increase their pain level. We have done that before."
While I love a good story, I wouldn't have recommended, say, Tom Clancy as a guide for dealing with the Soviets in the Cold War or J.K. Rowling as a blueprint for my children to make it through school. And so Clarke's made-up intelligence of "reports that al-Qaeda has created joint fighting units with the Taliban, which are attacking U.S. bases in Afghanistan from their sanctuary inside Pakistan" --- and the judgement of the editorial staff of The Washington Post --- should be shelved under Fantasy.
Why? Because such imaginary wanderings disregard the complexities of the local and regional situation. One could make the argument that Al Qa'eda --- as strategist, as planner, and even as ideological leader --- is now peripheral. Other groups, drawing their inspiration from conflicts closer to home --- the de facto civil wars in Afghanistan and possibly in Pakistan, the unresolved and still destabilising "grey areas" such as Kashmir --- are waging their battles.
Why? Because Clarke's response to those battles is the snap recommendation that drops a bomb on any consideration of those issues:
We must now eliminate the new terrorist safe haven in Pakistan. But that will require effective action from a weak and riven Pakistani government.
Since unilateral US actions against the "safe haven" are likely to weaken and possibly fragment the "weak and riven" Pakistani government, it's a self-fulfilling fantasy. No one will be safer, but Mr Clarke can return with a sequel to his fantastic tale next year, offering us more "terrorists" in lieu of any thought of how to deal with the causes behind that terrorism.