Is The U.S. Winning The War On Terrorism?

Hear a great discussion on how well the U.S. is doing in the war on terrorism.

I have stated many times that troops, tanks, warplanes, missiles, and ships cannot defeat terrorism. Conventional war and occupation cannot defeat an ideology. Conventional military power cannot stop a group of individuals from obtaining Visa's with false ID, getting onto a jetliner and entering the U.S. or crossing the open Mexican or Canadian border to do God knows what. Military power can't stop that kind of threat. It's like using a shotgun or sledgehammer to kill a fly. In fact, war only creates the conditions that make it easier for groups like Al Qaeda to recruit.

Listen To Discussion Here

I wish Bruce Hoffman and Stephen Van Evera, and analysts like Stephen Cohen could work in an Obama Cabinet. (Are The Obama folks even listening to these brilliant men?). They would make great advisors, because they "get it".

*********************************

Related Posts

Discussion with Neoconservative Pro-war McCain Advisor Neal Podhoretz

The Miserable Failure of Cowboy Diplomacy

Wars Increased Terrorism

Intelligence Community Reports that Wars are Complicating War On Terrorism

The War On Terrorism Explained

U.S. Failures in Afghanistan

Resurgence of the Taliban

How the War In Iraq Has Impacted Ordinary Iraqis

An Interview With Ahmed Rashid - On U.S. Failures In Afghanistan

Pakistani writer Ahmed Rashid talks about his book Descent into Chaos: The US and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Central Asia. Hear how U.S. taxpayer dollars are being diverted to the Taliban, and how Pakistan has become an obstacle to progress.

The U.S. failed to follow through with promised economic development and reconstruction in Afghanistan. Therefore, efforts to get farmers to stop using their land to grow opium failed. The money that the farmers were being offered did not come close to the amount of money that they could get from growing the poppy plant. And since there were no jobs being created, farmers resumed growing their old crop. Much of the revenue from the opium trade goes toward funding the Taliban.

Hear/Watch Interview

************************

Previous Related Blog Entries

Return of the Taliban

Chaos in Afghanistan

Progress slipping in Afghanistan

Pakistan assisting anti-U.S. militias in Afghanistan

Discussion about the GOP and the General Election

On Point Radio offers great analysis of the Republican Party and its chances for winning the November election.

They really hit the nail on the head with their view of Democratic vulnerabilities (Hillary Clinton), and how the Dems could lose, even when all indications suggest that they should win.

Listen Here

Former CIA Officer Reveals Waterboarding Was OK'd From Top

Ex-CIA Officer John Kiriakou has not only revealed that waterboarding was used against Terror suspects & that he believed it to be "torture" (See Video Report), but he also says that the technique was OK'd at the highest levels of the government- The White House.

From The Times Online (UK):

The CIA's use of waterboarding to torture terror suspects was approved by the White House, a former agency official claimed yesterday. The accusation comes amid growing uproar over the destruction of videotapes showing the interrogation of al-Qaeda members.

John Kiriakou, the former agent, said that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida — the first senior al-Qaeda operative captured after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 — broke him in less than 35 seconds, and “probably saved lives”.

The harsh interrogation technique, which critics — and Mr Kiriakou — say is torture, was approved at the highest levels of the US Government, said Mr Kiriakou, who led the team that captured Zubaida.

Referring to the waterboarding of Zubaida — a technique that simulates drowning — Mr Kiriakou told the NBC TV station: “This isn't something done willy-nilly. This isn't something where an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he's going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner.

“This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and the Justice Department.”

But why has he come forward now? Is Kiriakou being used to "soften the blow" so to speak, for information that was going to eventually come to light anyway? And just how valuable was the information which was extracted using this technique?

Slate examines Kiriakou's "coming out":

At the Carpetbagger Report, Steve Benen breaks down Kiriakou's disclosure: "As a matter of crass politics, Kiriakou's assessment seems to offer a little something for everyone. For the right, Kiriakou is saying that torture produced intelligence that saved lives and thwarted possible attacks. For the left, Kiriakou is conceding that the Bush administration authorized and utilized torture (i.e., committed a felony), and he now believes the U.S. should stop using these 'enhanced interrogation techniques.'

"Kiriakou is now the first official to acknowledge the use of waterboarding on any detainee in CIA custody," says Spencer Ackerman of TPM Muckraker. "But his account of Abu Zubaydah's intelligence value contradicts Ron Suskind's 2006 book The One Percent Doctrine, which reported that Abu Zubaydah was borderline retarded and didn't have more than minor, tactical information about al-Qaeda." Washington Monthly's Political Animal Kevin Drum also points out the Suskind/Kiriakou discrepancy.

Meanwhile CIA Chief Michael Hayden was called into a closed door hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee today to answer questions about the debacle. And more hearings are planned.


But are the members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees being honest or are they just doing this for window dressing? Hayden says that the Committees were notified about the tapes and about the enhanced interrogation techniques in secret briefings. Now they are claiming that they were never told. This may be a case where they are making a choice between their political careers and sacrificing officers at the CIA. And to a politician in Washington D.C.... that's an easy choice. If they have to, they are going to throw Hayden (who wasn't even there at the time of the secret briefings) and other Intelligence officials to the Wolves.

I'm not yet convinced that this case will even come to that for either side. Unless an Independent Counsel is requested, it is unlikely that we will see any serious charges brought as a result of this case. Neither Democrats nor Republicans are calling for and Independent Counsel just yet.

Democrats Want Probe of CIA After Tapes Are Destroyed

The Democrats are calling for hearings & investigations after the CIA revealed that interrogation tapes had been destroyed, apparently after a judge ruled that the items should have been kept as evidence. The tapes may have revealed whether waterboarding or other forms of torture were being used on "terror suspects".

But the CIA has a mandate to protect State secrets, including their sources and methods for gathering intelligence. They destroy items all the time in an effort to maintain secrets, classified information, etc. I predict that the Democrats in Congress will have a hard time making the case that anyone should be punished. Not much has come from their previous investigations and hearings, and I can't see much coming out of this case either.

But on the other hand, the CIA is not completely free to get rid of material that may be important to an investigation. But based on how the other egregious acts by this administration have been handled, I just don't see this case as having much traction. It may have legs...but not very long ones. The only way that this case might gain any real traction is if investigations or hearings lead to more revelations of illegal and unethical activity.

President uses a blow torch to light fire under Congress

President Bush took the opportunity to wear out Congress yesterday morning. There was no sign that there should be any compromise. It should be his way. If you aren't doing it his way, he will veto it. He named a number of things that Congress isn't doing - Alternative minimum tax (which the Republican's had 6 years to do something on but didn't), His War Funding request and other spending bills.

I find it odd that this man was labeled as the compassionate conservative. I hadn't seen one bit of compassion for the American people. I haven't seen the president compromise on any major piece of legislation. He has pushed, prodded, punched and run over anyone in his way.

From WaPo:

With his approval ratings stubbornly low, President Bush is trying to gain political traction by spoiling for fights with an institution the public appears to hold in even lower esteem: Congress.

Bush held his 18th event of the year yesterday focused on his disputes with Capitol Hill, blasting Democratic lawmakers for not completing annual spending bills, or sending him war funding legislation, or finalizing a measure that would permanently legalize his administration's warrantless wiretapping program. The 19th event is to come this morning in a presidential news conference at the White House.

Thankfully, Harry Reid, Democratic Senate Majority Leader, countered. "The surge hasn't accomplished its goals," Reid said. "... We're involved, still, in an intractable civil war." In a wishy-washy piece in Politico.com, the author paints the Democrats has waffling on the Surge. Stating that some Democrats are saying that the Surge is in fact working. Any Democrats who have said that the Surge is working are either being quoted out of context (John Murtha) or have their heads in the sand. Right wing bloggers like Hot Air have missed the point. The point of the Surge was to decrease violence so that there could be political reconciliation. This is what President Bush said back in January. As I mentioned before, our military if given the right resources can control any space in the world. This is clear. No Democrat or Republican would argue this point. Our military has been proving that they can clear and hold territory ever since the war began. The problem was that our military would then have to leave that area and move to somewhere else that was out of control. When they left a power vacuum was filled with para-military Sunni's and Shiite's. Again, I would point out that the goal that President Bush set, not Congressional Democrats or Belt Way pundits. The President set the goal. The goal was to decrease the violence so that there can be a political power sharing agreement.

Countdown video

Has America Gone Too Far Down Slippery Slope?

Amy Goodman speaks with Naomi Wolf about the threat to civil liberties. In her new book "The End of America: Letter of Warning To A Young Patriot", Wolf talks about the "Fascist Blueprint" (10 steps leading to Fascism) and how America is well on its way to that end. Watch/Listen To Interview.
I happen to believe that some of her conclusions are a little exaggerated... However, she does bring up some interesting points.

I think the job of the next figure-head President will be to restore some sort of balance to the Country, in terms of civil liberties and the responsibility of the government to protect the citizenry. That is going to be one of the toughest jobs in the world. Where is this balance? I am not completely sure. However, I do believe that Americans will have to be willing to allow for some security measures, if they want to have a more secure Country.

The current situation seems out of balance...and will have to be righted. The Federal Courts have been trying to keep the government from going completely out of control, by limiting the other two branches in their phony War on Terror. But I think Congress will have to be much more responsive to the concerns of the people and will have to pass reasonable legislation. However, I won't hold my breath waiting for sensible and reasonable legislation from Congress...considering how they rushed to pass the Patriot Act without much scrutiny... doing all they could to satisfy the Executive branch instead of providing proper oversight.

British Research Group - "War On Terror A Disaster"

"Attack On Iran Should Be Avoided"

The Oxford Research Group, a major UK Think Tank, has called the War On Terror a "disaster". In a recent report that looked at the progress of the global anti-terror fight, the group concluded that the War on Terror- as it is currently being carried out- only serves to benefit the enemy. Recent National Intelligence Estimates have largely come to the same conclusion.

The report seemed to coincide with an announcement by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown of a major drawdown of British troops in Iraq.

The British Think Tank also discourages any move to attack Iran. However, the hard headed Bush Administration seems to be laying the groundwork for an attack. Bush & Co. is clearly engaged in a PR campaign to convince the public that a war against Iran is needed. See a video montage of part of their PR effort. Warning... the spinning may cause dizziness.

See more courtesy of Dr. Errington Thompson at Where's The Outrage.

Giuliani Advisor Norman Podhoretz Too Scared To Debate

Hear a whacky discussion with pro-war neoconservative Norman Podhoretz. During the program, Podhoretz argues that we are in World War IV. He is under the false assumption that we can fight a war against an ideology using Conventional military power. But this will not work, cannot work and has already proven to be a failure.... yet he repeats the mantra over and over.

He is calling for war with Iran, thinking that Air Strikes will do just fine. He seems oblivious to the fact that the U.S. would need 500,000 troops on stand by just in case the aerial bombing doesn't quite work out as planned, or in case Iran launches a major Counter attack. Where would the U.S. get these 500,000 extra troops? We definitely would not have any significant help from an international coalition. No nation, besides Israel, is foaming at the mouth, eager to go into Iran.

I have said it a million times, you cannot defeat an ideology with tanks, bomber planes, and Aircraft Carriers. In fact, you may only make the problem worse. The U.S. has strengthened its enemies, via this John Wayne, Cowboy foreign policy. The war in Iraq and the U.S. over-reliance on military power to solve its problems, has been a gift to Al Qaeda and other Jihadi movements around the World. Yet, Podhoretz and his fellow pro-war neocons, either fail to see this fact, or choose to ignore it.
He seems to be oblivious to the fact that terrorism has skyrocketed since 9/11 and since the start of the war in Iraq in 2003.

During the program Podhoretz also runs from any serious debate with the other panelists. In fact, one of the pre-conditions for his appearance on the program was that he would not debate other panelists...and that he would not even appear with the other guests. He had to be brought on separately.

He makes a ton of whacky claims during the discussion.... I could not count all of them. But a few that stand out are- He tries to compare the current "War on Terror" with the Cold War. Of course there is no real comparison. He also goes on to predict that George W. Bush will one day be considered one of the nations greatest Presidents. He also claims that the War on Terror is going pretty good. WHAT?????? lol

Why should you be concerned about this man? Because this is a top foreign policy advisor to the Republican Presidential front-runner Rudy Giuliani.... who has a good chance of becoming the next President. A Giuliani Presidency would be worse than what we currently have. I never thought we would be on the brink of something worse than the Bush Administration. But here we are.

The other guests come on later and begin clearing up some of Podhoretz's nonsense.

The other guests were:

--Christopher Dickey, Middle East Regional Editor and Paris Bureau Chief for Newsweek Magazine

--Gen. William Odom, a retired Army Lt-General, Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988 and Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence for the US Army from 1981 to 1985. He is currently a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a professor (political science) at Yale University.

This is a must hear interview.

LISTEN