Rand Debunks the Bush Cabal on Terrorism

[Rohirrim]

It's about time. This is one of those "clear the air" moments akin to when that first person stood up to Joe McCarthy and said, at last, "Do you have no shame, SIR?" That is what the Rand analysis has done. Bush and the neocons have used terrorism as a political cudgel to beat their opponents, violating the Constitution in the name of their fear mongering. At last, somebody with some gravitas has called them on it.

This also brings into crystal clear focus that a wasteful, miserable, idiotic failure the Iraq war is.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9351/index1.html

ABSTRACT
How do terrorist groups end? The evidence since 1968 indicates that terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign. Rather, most groups end because of operations carried out by local police or intelligence agencies or because they join the political process. This suggests that the United States should pursue a counterterrorism strategy against al Qa'ida that emphasizes policing and intelligence gathering rather than a “war on terrorism” approach that relies heavily on military force.

Maybe at last we can end the Bush/Cheney neocon attack on America and the Constitution, using terrorism to scare Americans into funneling wealth into the pockets of the Bush/Cheney cronies, and start to focus on the real terrorists.

Maybe it is finally time to actually go after the people that attacked us on 911?

[Rohirrim]

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today.

I'm just amazed that the media is barely mentioning this report. It totally and completely nullifies the entire raison d'etre of the Bush cabal. What this report says to the American people is, "You've been duped, you poor suckers."

What is the media arguing about? The Surge. :rofl: What this report says is that the entire War on Iraq was an idiotic waste of effort, a waste of life and a waste of wealth. And now we are arguing about whether or not the surge should be considered a success?
It's laughable, in sort of an insane way.

[Traveler]

Too bad it took them almost 8 years to figure it out!

[The Lone Bolt]

Well I can see one flaw in their reasoning right away:

Of the 648 groups that were active at some point between 1968 and 2006, a total of 268 ended during that period. Another 136 groups splintered, and 244 remained active. As depicted in the figure, the authors found that most ended for one of two reasons: They were penetrated and eliminated by local police and intelligence agencies (40 percent), or they reached a peaceful political accommodation with their government (43 percent).

Before we invaded the "local police and intelligence agencies" of Afghanistan were run by the Taliban who were essentially owned and operated by AQ. Therefore we were attacked by not just a terrorist organization on 9-11 but a foreign government as AQ and the Taliban were essentially the same. And of course that being the case the chances of the Talibs acting against AQ were slim to none, therefore resolving the conflict with AQ through "local police and intelligence agencies" was unrealistic.

And AQ had already reached a "peaceful political accommodation" with the Taliban gov't: they both agreed that AQ should be allowed to run the country, launch their violent jihad from Afghanistan, and "establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes."

[Rohirrim]

Too bad it took them almost 8 years to figure it out!

There were people saying this 8 years ago, but they were shouted down by the Bush/Cheney/Rice/Rummy fear monger machine in collusion with the media. Which is probably why the media is ignoring this report. They don't want to be reminded that Bush turned them into tools.

Looking back on it now, you'd have to say that Bin Laden's strategy was a complete success. Instead of stepping back and using our heads after 911, Bush got caught up in the fear and spread it like a disease, designing policy that was nothing more than the U.S. thrashing about in terror. I guess it would have taken a true leader, like a Lincoln or FDR, to keep cool and use their heads under fire. Bush is not that kind of individual. Instead, he did exactly what Bin Laden wanted; Engage the U.S. military forces in the ME and bog them down while our economic power was sapped and our international standing was shredded.

Now we have to clean up the Bush debacle and start over.

[Rohirrim]

Well I can see one flaw in their reasoning right away:



Before we invaded the "local police and intelligence agencies" of Afghanistan were run by the Taliban who were essentially owned and operated by AQ. Therefore we were attacked by not just a terrorist organization on 9-11 but a foreign government as AQ and the Taliban were essentially the same. And of course that being the case the chances of the Talibs acting against AQ were slim to none, therefore resolving the conflict with AQ through "local police and intelligence agencies" was unrealistic.

And AQ had already reached a "peaceful political accommodation" with the Taliban gov't: they both agreed that AQ should be allowed to run the country , launch their violent jihad from Afghanistan, and "establish a pan-Islamic caliphate in the Middle East by uniting Muslims to fight infidels and overthrow West-friendly regimes."

And Iraq?

[BroncoBuff]

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today.
Man, that is like a big breath of fresh air ... like I said, the Army is not equipped to interdict some idiot sneaking a box-cutter aboard an airplane.

And isn't Rand supposed to be conservative-leaning? Rand is on a nice campus in downtown Santa Monica, two blocks from the Pier and the beach, but supposedly they are conservative-leaning. So this repudiation is especially cutting to Bushco.
.

[The Lone Bolt]

And Iraq?

Personally I think Iraq had little to do with the WOT. It was always a seperate issue.

[BroncoBuff]

Personally I think Iraq had little to do with the WOT. It was always a seperate issue.
NOW you're talking! :thumbs:
.

[Rohirrim]

Man, that is like a big breath of fresh air ... like I said, the Army is not equipped to interdict some idiot sneaking a box-cutter aboard an airplane.

And isn't Rand supposed to be conservative-leaning? Rand is on a nice campus in downtown Santa Monica, two blocks from the Pier and the beach, but supposedly they are conservative-leaning. So this repudiation is especially cutting to Bushco.
.

Francis F-u-k-uyama (the founder of neoconservatism) is on the board.

[Rohirrim]

Personally I think Iraq had little to do with the WOT. It was always a seperate issue.

Unfortunately, Bush thought it was the central issue.

[BroncoBuff]

Before we invaded the "local police and intelligence agencies" of Afghanistan were run by the Taliban who were essentially owned and operated by AQ. Therefore we were attacked by not just a terrorist organization on 9-11 but a foreign government as AQ and the Taliban were essentially the same.
You're conflating "preventing" terror with "avenging" terror ... the same mistake Buchco has consistently made, and the same mistake Rand is singling out here. And this is also the Western-centric mistake of trated these nations as federalized, bright-line border "countries" in the western mold. Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, even China for decades, they're not brite-line bordered, centrally controlled federal nations like we are. Just because the "Afghanistan" area is all the same color on globes doesn't mean it's a "country" the way we think of countries.


And of course that being the case the chances of the Talibs acting against AQ were slim to none, therefore resolving the conflict with AQ through "local police and intelligence agencies" was unrealistic.
Apples and oranges. "Resolving the conflict" overseas is NOT counterterrorism, it's military action against a quasi-nation that harbors (and apparently encourages) terrorism. What Rand is talking about is preventing terror attacks ... they readily state, "terrorist groups rarely cease to exist as a result of winning or losing a military campaign." So you're talking apples and oranges.

I have no problem with invading Afghanistan to break up terrorist camps and bring the 9/11 criminals to justice (I wish we would have done that while we still had the international community's mandate to do so), but that invasion is not "interdicting terror." Interdicting terror is the FBI, CIA, TSA job.
.

[Rohirrim]

The key issue of this thread (and this Rand report) is that Bush's entire rationale for the military interdiction in Iraq was false. The various excuses, starting with WMD and ending with the "War on Terror" have been debunked.

[The Lone Bolt]

The key issue of this thread (and this Rand report) is that Bush's entire rationale for the military interdiction in Iraq was false. The various excuses, starting with WMD and ending with the "War on Terror" have been debunked.

Actually the article seems to be addressing the approach to dealing with terrorism in general. I saw no mention of Iraq. I don't think this article has anything to do with the Iraq prewar intel.

I will agree that Iraq had little to do with the WOT, but IMO that was not the reason we needed to remove Saddam from power. It was more to do with dealing with a reckless, ambitious, ticking time-bomb tyrant in the ME when the UN refused to take decisive and effective action.

[Tombstone RJ]

This is one of he few times I will defend Bush and the WOT, but let me first say that the Iraq war and the reasons for going into Iraq were wrong. So, I'll just throw that out there first.

As for the WOT, its easy to judge mistakes made in hindsight. It's always easy to look back and realize where you went wrong, and I think we can all see some major missteps by Bushco.

However, with that being said, he was reacting to a heinous attack that killed thousands of people and left the entire world in shock, not to mention thousands of victom's families wanting justice (and the American people wanting action).

Well, he did that, he took the fight to the terrorists.

Now, many here want to point fingers at Bush and say "you did it wrong!" Again, hindsight is 20/20. Let's be clear on that one simple point. Fact is, Bush was dealing with a bad situation and I think if you go back and look at the polls immediately after 9/11 and how Bush dealt with the situation from a foreign policy standpoint, I think you'll see that most people thought his attacking terrorist policy was a good one. I bet his popularity was highest when the troops went to Afghanistan, but I don't know that for sure.

As for Iraq, how Bush got us into this situation, that is, was it justified or not, can be debated ad nausium.

[Rohirrim]

Actually the article seems to be addressing the approach to dealing with terrorism in general. I saw no mention of Iraq. I don't think this article has anything to do with the Iraq prewar intel.

I will agree that Iraq had little to do with the WOT, but IMO that was not the reason we needed to remove Saddam from power. It was more to do with dealing with a reckless, ambitious, ticking time-bomb tyrant in the ME when the UN refused to take decisive and effective action.

I know it would be useless to once again point out all of the "reckless, ambitious, ticking time-bomb tyrants" in this world the U.S. has no intention of doing anything about whatsoever. It's been done so many times before.

[Rohirrim]

This is one of he few times I will defend Bush and the WOT, but let me first say that the Iraq war and the reasons for going into Iraq were wrong. So, I'll just throw that out there first.

Few times? Right. I don't like to parse out other posts, but I have to on this one.

As for the WOT, its easy to judge mistakes made in hindsight. It's always easy to look back and realize where you went wrong, and I think we can all see some major missteps by Bushco.

"Major missteps?" This was an orchestrated misuse of events for the benefit of goals spelled out in advance by Wolfowitz et al. The evidence is overwhelming. This Rand analysis is the final nail in the coffin of Bush's misuse of 911 for his own, predetermined ends.

However, with that being said, he was reacting to a heinous attack that killed thousands of people and left the entire world in shock, not to mention thousands of victom's families wanting justice (and the American people wanting action).

Well, he did that, he took the fight to the terrorists.

In Iraq? All he did in Iraq is create new terrorists. The two main terrorists who were behind 911 are still alive. Remember how Bush said Bin Laden was wanted "Dead or Alive?" Then, after Iraq, he said he didn't really care about him? How much evidence do you need?

There was never any "War on Terror." It was a ruse. How do you declare war on a tactic? Just like the War on Drugs is a ruse.

Now, many here want to point fingers at Bush and say "you did it wrong!" Again, hindsight is 20/20. Let's be clear on that one simple point. Fact is, Bush was dealing with a bad situation and I think if you go back and look at the polls immediately after 9/11 and how Bush dealt with the situation from a foreign policy standpoint, I think you'll see that most people thought his attacking terrorist policy was a good one. I bet his popularity was highest when the troops went to Afghanistan, but I don't know that for sure.

As for Iraq, how Bush got us into this situation, that is, was it justified or not, can be debated ad nausium.

Polls? All polls do is reflect public opinion. Bush used 911 to manipulate public opinion to follow a policy that had nothing to do with 911. It was a big snow job with the full participation of the press. The decision to invade Iraq was made in 1991 in the bowels of the Carlyle Group. It actually makes me shake my head to see how successfully Bush and his cabal have manipulated opinion in this country. I guess the most successful con job is the one where the dupe feels satisfied.

Many have been out in the wilderness for 8 years fighting against the Bush propaganda machine, trying to tell us that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, that Al Queda had nothing to do with Saddam, that Bush's use of the military was counter-productive in the fight against terrorists, etc. In fact, those within the intelligence and law enforcement branches of the American government who tried to make this argument have been systematically purged, along with any military leaders (or as were recently discovered, those too in Justice) who disagreed. This Rand report, coming as it does from (basically) the Right side of the aisle, is the most convincing layer of circumstantial evidence in a mounting pile of evidence, that Bush misused his office and misused his power. What this Rand report does, more than anything else, is pierce the veil of Bush propaganda.