Thank you Brits...and Pakistanis?
Apparently...Although all of the suspects are Pakistani, Pakistan's intelligence service seems to have played a key role in helping the British foil the 'liquid terror' plot.
Well, where to begin? This is only my second post as a guest blogger because, frankly, too much has happened over the past 3 days and I've been too busy just trying to keep up with the news while trying to land a new job.
So here's what we have over the past 72 hours: Israel decides it will invade Lebanon; Israel holds back pending a UN deal; Lamont defeats Lieberman; Lieberman runs as an independent; British foil 'liquid terror' plot; conservatives begin claiming Fall victory as a result of the foiled plot...Did I miss anything?
I'll try to keep this short because if I tried to tackle all of this I'd end up writing all night. The one lesson I take from the foiled terror plot in England last night is that countries like Pakistan are essential in our efforts to undermine al Qaeda. I know Republicans are saying that Bush's "aggressive posture" (Cheney's phrase) in the war on terror is what is primarily responsible for this major success. Many people are going to believe that. But I don't think it's true. The main reason this terror plot was discovered was because Musharraf is still cooperating with us. If we lose that guy, we're in a lot of trouble.
When people say that we shouldn't give a damn what the "Arab street" thinks of us or Israel, I wonder how they think this war on terror is going to be won. They never explain that. There isn't a single country we can invade or regime we can overthrow to win this war. Nor will it do to invade and overthrow several regimes. We tried that, it didn't work. This isn't the Second World War, as much as Bush and his supporters would like to view it that way. I'm no military expert by any means, but even my untrained eye can tell that this conflict is much closer to a campaign against global insurgents or guerillas. My amateurish familiarity with military history is enough for me to know that you can't defeat an insurgency unless the people living amongst the insurgents turn against them. You need those folks to provide intelligence, which is the key to defeating an insurgency. Right? What's the alternative?
No, I'm not saying that al Qaeda is an insurgency, but there do seem to be analogies. The analogies get stronger as al Qaeda develops into a movement from a group. I also recognize that the very idea of gaining the respect of the Arab and Islamic world seems absurd right now, considering how much animosity there is already. It may be too late. But I think it's too pessimistic to believe that we're already at the point where the choice is either appeasment or more wars. - Jared
Apparently...Although all of the suspects are Pakistani, Pakistan's intelligence service seems to have played a key role in helping the British foil the 'liquid terror' plot.
Well, where to begin? This is only my second post as a guest blogger because, frankly, too much has happened over the past 3 days and I've been too busy just trying to keep up with the news while trying to land a new job.
So here's what we have over the past 72 hours: Israel decides it will invade Lebanon; Israel holds back pending a UN deal; Lamont defeats Lieberman; Lieberman runs as an independent; British foil 'liquid terror' plot; conservatives begin claiming Fall victory as a result of the foiled plot...Did I miss anything?
I'll try to keep this short because if I tried to tackle all of this I'd end up writing all night. The one lesson I take from the foiled terror plot in England last night is that countries like Pakistan are essential in our efforts to undermine al Qaeda. I know Republicans are saying that Bush's "aggressive posture" (Cheney's phrase) in the war on terror is what is primarily responsible for this major success. Many people are going to believe that. But I don't think it's true. The main reason this terror plot was discovered was because Musharraf is still cooperating with us. If we lose that guy, we're in a lot of trouble.
When people say that we shouldn't give a damn what the "Arab street" thinks of us or Israel, I wonder how they think this war on terror is going to be won. They never explain that. There isn't a single country we can invade or regime we can overthrow to win this war. Nor will it do to invade and overthrow several regimes. We tried that, it didn't work. This isn't the Second World War, as much as Bush and his supporters would like to view it that way. I'm no military expert by any means, but even my untrained eye can tell that this conflict is much closer to a campaign against global insurgents or guerillas. My amateurish familiarity with military history is enough for me to know that you can't defeat an insurgency unless the people living amongst the insurgents turn against them. You need those folks to provide intelligence, which is the key to defeating an insurgency. Right? What's the alternative?
No, I'm not saying that al Qaeda is an insurgency, but there do seem to be analogies. The analogies get stronger as al Qaeda develops into a movement from a group. I also recognize that the very idea of gaining the respect of the Arab and Islamic world seems absurd right now, considering how much animosity there is already. It may be too late. But I think it's too pessimistic to believe that we're already at the point where the choice is either appeasment or more wars. - Jared
posted by Winston Smith at
10:44 PM
9 Comments:
When people say that we shouldn't give a damn what the "Arab street" thinks of us or Israel, I wonder how they think this war on terror is going to be won. They never explain that.
"It is a general rule of human nature that people despise those who treat them well, and look up to those who make no concessions."---Thucydides, 400 BCE
And that's the problem, my friend, as it always has been: not history, not politics, but human nature. We of the touchy-feely west wish Thucydides were wrong. If only reason and good will could solve this.
I also recognize that the very idea of gaining the respect of the Arab and Islamic world seems absurd right now, considering how much animosity there is already.
There are 1400 years of this animosity, far beyond George W. Bush's, or our own poor power to add or detract.
The problem is no longer western imperialism, but that when Arab countries, the street if you will, express themselves democratically, the results are enough to scare the bejesus out of any westerner, because they vote for Islamic authoritarianism and, frankly, war with the non-Muslim world.
This was the miscalculation of not just Bush and the neocons, but the West as a whole. We are largely materialists: we want peace, freedom, and prosperity.
But that apparently isn't what the "Arab street" wants, whether that street is in Karachi or London, and so, absent following Thucydides, we are left with trying to placate the implacable.
Swearta God I wrote the above before I ran across this.
I always try to provide original arguments for people to do their drive-bys on. It's hardly worth the effort to type up other people's arguments to be ignored.
This.
My understanding is that the key to the plot was a British Muslim who reported an acquaintance to the authorities. Fighting bigotry and racial profiling and the rest at home is essential.
Damn straight, rilkefan. We must fight bigotry.
No, I think Rilkefan meant real bigotry, from an important source, not some fevered caricature to use as a source of subrational or visceral association:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/comment/0,,1844203,00.html
The bigotry in the photos seems quite real to me. (Neither was it just in San Francisco.)
Also stunningly real is the total silence toward it in some quarters that pride themselves on their opposition to bigotry. I would not expect such a waving away of a KKK rally of that size.
George Will, who no one can accuse of anti-Semitism or left-wing lunacy, has this to say in his op-ed Post from August 15, "The Triumph of Unrealism":
"The London plot against civil aviation confirmed a theme of an illuminating new book, Lawrence Wright's 'The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11'. The theme is that better law enforcement, which probably could have prevented Sept. 11, is central to combating terrorism...Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief...that 'many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror.'"
Ok, if Will isn't anti-Semitic, isn't clouded in his reasoning by hatred of Bush, isn't a left-wing ideologue...than what else is he guilty of that leads him to say such things? How about: an empricist.
I'm not buying Thucydides pronouncements about human nature. Neither I and nor anyone one I know (except for a few shady characters) despise those who treat them well and look up to those who "make concessions." Usually, people respond well to you if you show them respect, and don't respond well if you disrespect them. The desire for respect seems to be a strong motivating force in life. I'm no psychologist, but since we're making conjectures about human nature here, observations about experience seems just as good a basis as famous quotes.
So I'm sticking to my conjecture that if the US got serious about showing the Arab and Muslim world some respect--the moderates, I understand that you can't placate the radicals--then we'd have achieved about 75% of our mission in this war. If we don't make that effort, then the Newt Gingrich's among us may get their World War III.
Bush and company think that they're showing respect to the Arabs by helping them "in the long run." Democracy comes later, after the "birth pangs": i.e., after total destruction, death, and civil war.
We hope Thucydides is wrong, but I write here why I think he is not, quoting some other fellows as well.
My observation of Israel is that when it withdrew from Lebanon originally, it got...rockets, several years later. When it withdrew from Gaza, it got...rockets, immediately. As a non-conservative Jewish friend of mine observed, it's difficult to deal with people for whom an agreement is merely the starting point for the next negotiation. Compromise equals weakness: give 'em an inch, they'll take a mile.
As for the Pakistan plot, Newsweek indicated that after the ringleader was captured, some judicious torture brought the whole thing down like the Hizbollah HQ in Beirut. FYI.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home