The War on Terror: after 5 years, what has it achieved?

[nino_savatte]

Interesting how they (whoever 'they' are ) didn't reply to either of our posts Nino.

And the money counter keeps ticking over......

Aye, anyone would think that they had something to be ashamed of...either that, or they have no answer to what we've said (the usual suspects are more likely to weave a narrative by way of reply, as mears has done).

 

[Barking_Mad]

Interesting article on Afghanistan
Alarm in Washington over deepening disaster in Afghanistan

Afghan officials told VOA that there could now be as many as 40,000 guerillas fighting against the occupation forces and the Afghan army. Extensive US and Pakistani military operations have failed to prevent insurgent groups using the mountainous regions along the Afghan-Pakistan border as a safe haven to rest, resupply, train and recruit. Large areas of the predominantly ethnic Pashtun provinces of southern and eastern Afghanistan are outside the Kabul government’s authority and regularly fall under the sway of Taliban forces.

The New York Times vented the concern in US ruling circles over the deteriorating state of affairs in Afghanistan with a lengthy article on August 23 and an editorial the following day, entitled “Losing Afghanistan”. Close to five years since the country was invaded and occupied in the name of the “war on terror,” the newspaper made the bleak assessment that “there is no victory in the war for Afghanistan, due in significant measure to the Bush administration’s reckless haste to move on to Iraq and shortsighted stinting on economic reconstruction”.

The primary target of the editorial’s wrath, however, was not Bush and his administration, but rather the US puppet government in Kabul headed by President Hamid Karzai. It criticised Karzai, who won a contrived election in October 2004, for failing to bring “security, economic revival or effective governance” and thereby leaving his government “vulnerable to complaints about blatant corruption, the pervasive power of warlords and drug lords, and escalating military pressure from a revived and resupplied Taliban”.

The open condemnation of Karzai may indicate US moves to oust him. In her August 23 article, Times correspondent Carlotta Gall reported that, “Afghans and diplomats are speculating about who might replace him”. Opposition politician Abdul Latif Pedram stated: “There has never been so much corruption in the country. We have a mafia economy and a drug economy.”

Yet, Karzai’s failures are those of the US-led occupation of the country. Karzai, an exile who lacked any significant social base in Afghanistan, was installed as president in 2002 immediately after the US invasion. His regime has always been completely dependent on Washington—economically, politically and militarily. Outside the capital, its influence rests on an unreliable patchwork of regional warlords, tribal leaders and militia commanders. Any replacement would confront the same intractable political and social problems.

The US-led forces are fighting against an entrenched and expanding guerilla war. The Voice of America (VOA) reported last week: “Throughout the country, every type of attack is on the rise—from roadside bombs and suicide attacks, to massive raids on government outposts involving up to several hundred well-armed insurgents”. While some of the guerillas are members of the Taliban Islamic movement, there are indications that local tribal leaders or drug lords are conducting the armed resistance in many areas.

 

[ZAMB]

And if not for George Bush he would still be in power.

If not for George Bush, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive, too.

 

[Mallard]

http://www.pmulcahy.com/tanks/iraqi_tanks.html

http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/tanks/t55.php

Interesting Johnny ta. Still doesn't explain how the US public were hoodwinked in to supporting an invasion.

 

[MonkeyMagic]

Whatever makes you think that?

because that's what 'they' told us. there was no mention of any other motive.

 

[fela fan]

Yes, they wrote it out in a public document, then they set about causing or failing to stop 911.

That would be MIHOP or LIHOP. Don't tell me you subscribe to one or the other?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Independent reviews the War on Terror, after 5 years.

Afghanistan:

The district where the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, was born, south-west of Kandahar, is again under Taliban control, a situation mirrored across large swaths of the south of the country. The government of Hamid Karzai clings on to the cities of the south while Nato forces in Kandahar and Helmand are locked in an all-out war.

Iraq:

Away from such rhetoric, the situation on the ground in Iraq only appears to be getting worse. According to a new, grim assessment by the Pentagon, Iraqi civilians are increasingly suffering as a result of the violence and chaos.

In recent months the numbers of Iraqi casualties * both civilians and security forces - has soared by 51 per cent. The deaths are the result of a spiral in sectarian clashes as well as an ongoing insurgency against the US and UK occupation that remains "potent and viable". The average number of attacks of all types now stands at around 800 a week.

"Although the overall number of attacks increased in all categories, the proportion of those attacks directed against civilians increased substantially," the Pentagon report said. "Death squads and terrorists are locked in mutually reinforcing cycles of sectarian strife, with Sunni and Shia extremists each portraying themselves as the defenders of their respective sectarian groups."

The report said in the period since the establishment of an Iraqi government in mid-May and 11 August, Iraqi civilian and security personnel have been killed at a rate of around 120 a day. This is an increase from around 80 a day between mid-February to mid-May. Two years ago the number stood at 30 a day. Calculated over a year, the most recent rate of killings would equal more than 43,000 Iraqi casualties.<snip>

While the Pentagon may seek to portray such sectarian violence as the biggest challenge, it admits that the anti-occupation insurgency remains strong. Indeed other figures, released this summer by the US military, suggest attacks against US and Iraqi forces had doubled since January. The figures showed that in July US forces encountered 2,625 roadside bombs, of which 1,666 exploded and 959 were disarmed. In January, 1,454 bombs exploded or were found.

source

Someone please remind me, why is any of this supposed to be a good idea?

 

[slaar]

I guess 2,600 roadside bombs in one month does count as an ongoing anti-occupation insurgency.

 

[sleaterkinney]

Someone please remind me, why is any of this supposed to be a good idea?

But, But, Saddam Hussein would still be in power!, etc etc. Don't you remember there were the only two choices Bernie?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I'm sure that the Iraqis are dancing in the streets with great joy at having been given the opportunity to trade Saddam for a civil war, US occupation troops pushing them around, shooting them at checkpoints and giving them an opportunity to star in redneck jail-porn, while their country's collapsed infrastructure fails to provide water and electricity and their national wealth is subjected to wholesale privatisation.

 

[slaar]

British Army convoy rammed in Kabul today too by a 4WD suicide bomber, killing 5 including 2 soldiers.

Khatemi is in the US and has been saying some pretty strong things:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article1359829.ece

"The policies of the neo-conservatives have created a war that creates more extremists and radicals," he told The Independent in Chicago. "The events of 9/11 gave them this ability to create fear and anxiety ... and to create new policies of their own and now events are creating an expansion of extremists on both sides. A struggle is under way to dominate this world multilaterally ... We are a witness to war - with suppression from one side and extremist reaction in the form of terror from the other."

"We are unfortunately witnessing the emergence of policies that seek to confiscate public opinion in order to exploit all the grandeur of the nation and country of the United States ... policies that are the outcome of a point of view, that despite having no status in the US public arena as far as numbers are concerned, uses decisive lobby groups and influential centres to utilise the entirety of America's power and wealth to promote its own interest and to implant policies outside US borders that have no resemblance to the spirit of Anglo-American civilisation and the aspirations of its Founding Fathers or its constitution, causing crisis after crisis in our world."

"Any popular or democratic change or transformation that is outside the realm of their influence is not acceptable," he said, "for they find it far more convenient to deal with non-nationalistic and non-popular trends and regimes rather than popular ones, who naturally tend to care about the welfare and the physical interests of their people."

But he's just a raghead. right?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I must admit, I haven't found much coverage of that speech, particularly in the US.

He certainly presents a different image to Iran's current premier.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I guess 2,600 roadside bombs in one month does count as an ongoing anti-occupation insurgency.

I propose the following criterion, see if you think it's a good one for judging the 'war on terror' by.

Do you think there are more or less people running around now who know how to make a really effective IED than there were before the 'axis of evil' speech inaugurated the 'war on terror'?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

A British man was killed and two British women injured when a gunman opened fire on tourists in Jordan today.

source

 

[London_Calling]

I guess this might come to be called 'seepage' or some such.

I do wonder if it's the shape of things to come, 'Road side bomb destroys tourist bus' perhaps ?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The neo-cons are talking up Iran and Syria as being next.

In Washington, the military hawks believe that an airstrike against Iranian nuclear bunkers remains a more straightforward, if risky, operation than chasing Hezbollah fighters and their mobile rocket launchers in Lebanon.

“Fixed targets are hopelessly vulnerable to precision bombing, and with stealth bombers even a robust air defence system doesn’t make much difference,” said Richard Perle, a leading neoconservative.

source

I guess this is the neo-con version of learning from experience.

 

[laptop]

I must admit, I haven't found much coverage of that speech, particularly in the US.

BBC ran it yesterday - you had to read down the article to see that he was saying interesting things...

Iran's Khatami condemns US policy
By Ian Brimacombe
BBC News, Chicago

Ex-Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has delivered a scathing criticism of US foreign policy to an annual gathering of Muslims in Illinois.

He said US anti-terrorism policies were actually inciting terrorism and accused the US of trying to dominate the world.
...

"Media Islam is the result of a one-sided understanding of Islam that is represented to us in a solitary, cliched and vicious way," he said.

"The political version of Islam that is displayed is merely an imaginary version of Islam. What has been stated is a dark and false perception of Islam and the East."

The perceived behaviour of Western power was a key theme of the speech.

Mr Khatami referred to vast, all-encompassing powers that expressed concern for the world, but implemented policies aimed at devouring it.

And he directly criticised US policies, which he said exploited "the grandeur of the nation and country of the United States for the subjugation and domination of the world".

He added: "As America claims to be fighting terrorism it implements policies which lead to the intensification of terrorism and institutionalised violence."
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5309766.stm

And interestingly:

The US State Department had issued Mr Khatami a visitor's visa with no restrictions, a move that upset Jewish groups and some lawmakers here.

He certainly presents a different image to Iran's current premier.

I think he's someone I'd like to have dinner with. I'd expect Ahmadinejad to talk about football And maybe the State Department has a dinner date?

 

[slaar]

I propose the following criterion, see if you think it's a good one for judging the 'war on terror' by.

Do you think there are more or less people running around now who know how to make a really effective IED than there were before the 'axis of evil' speech inaugurated the 'war on terror'?

Creating a Disneyland for jihadis will do that.

 

[Diamond]

As someone once said:

How can you win a war against an abstract noun?

 

[laptop]

How can you win a war against an abstract noun?

And as someone else said -

We need more wars on abstractions!

War on plenty!

War on argument!

War on error!

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Creating a Disneyland for jihadis will do that.

That's why it seems really important to me to ask the question:

"How was this supposed to be helping to prevent terrorism again?"

 

[slaar]

Promoting 'democracy'. Another nice abstract noun.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Part of the problem is that you almost inevitably lose the 'moral war' when you're using the killing power of the US military against guerillas.

Here's William Lind, talking about the emerging stories of US atrocities in Iraq.

We may find it easier to grasp what the power of weakness is and how it works on us by first imagining its opposite. Imagine that instead of facing rag-tag bands of poorly equipped and trained insurgents, our Marines and soldiers in Iraq were in a very difficult fight with an opponent similar to themselves, but somewhat stronger.

What would fighting the strong do for them? Being David rather than Goliath, they would see themselves as noble. Every victory would be a cause for genuine pride. Defeats would not mean disgrace, but instead would demand greater effort and higher performance. Even after a failure, they could still look at themselves in the mirror with pride. Knowing they faced a stronger enemy, their own cohesion would grow and their demand for self-discipline would increase.

If the enemy’s overmatch were too great, it could lead our units to hopelessness and disintegration. But a fight with an enemy who were stronger but still beatable would buck us up more than tear us down on the all-important moral level.

Now, to see the situation as it is, turn that telescope around. Every firefight we win in Iraq or Afghanistan does little for our pride, because we are so much stronger than the people we are defeating. Every time we get hit successfully by a weaker enemy, we feel like chumps, and cannot look ourselves in the mirror (again, with IED attacks this happens quite often).

Whenever we use our superior strength against Iraqi civilians, which is to say every time we drive down an Iraqi street, we diminish ourselves in our own eyes. Eventually, we come to look at ourselves with contempt and see ourselves as monsters. One way to justify being a monster is to behave like one, which makes the problem worse still. The resulting downward spiral, which every army in this kind of war has gotten caught in, leads to indiscipline, demoralization, and disintegration of larger units as fire teams and squads simply go feral.

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Here's Professor Martin Van Creveld on the same theme

That, of course, was precisely the problem. In private life, an adult who keeps beating down on a five year old—even such a one as originally attacked him with a knife—will be perceived as committing a crime; therefore he will lose the support of bystanders and end up by being arrested, tried and convicted. In international life, an armed force that keeps beating down on a weaker opponent will be seen as committing a series of crimes; therefore it will end up by losing the support of its allies, its own people, and its own troops. Depending on the quality of the forces—whether they are draftees or professionals, the effectiveness of the propaganda machine, the nature of the political process, and so on—things may happen quickly or take a long time to mature. However, the outcome is always the same. He (or she) who does not understand this does not understand anything about war; or, indeed, human nature.

In other words, he who fights against the weak — and the rag-tag Iraqi militias are very weak indeed — and loses, loses. He who fights against the weak and wins also loses. To kill an opponent who is much weaker than yourself is unnecessary and therefore cruel; to let that opponent kill you is unnecessary and therefore foolish. As Vietnam and countless other cases prove, no armed force however rich, however powerful, however, advanced, and however well motivated is immune to this dilemma. The end result is always disintegration and defeat; if U.S. troops in Iraq have not yet started fragging their officers, the suicide rate among them is already exceptionally high.

That is why the present adventure will almost certainly end as the previous one did. Namely, with the last US troops fleeing the country while hanging on to their helicopters’ skids.

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Juan Cole reviews the 'enemies' of Bush's war on terror:

So what enemies does Bush see that he really will confront? Here they are:

1. North Korea.

2. Syria, population 19 million. Poor, militarily weak. Gross Domestic Product of $26 bn. [I.e. nothing.] Minority ruling clique of Alawi Shiites (think New Age California Shiism). State ideology, secular Baath Socialist Arab Nationalism, an ideology founded by Arab Christians and which has nothing much to do with Islam. Would make peace with Israel and the US in exchange for the return of the Golan Heights and an equitable resolution of the plight of the Palestinians.

2. The 1.3 million Shiites of southern Lebanon and the slums of south Beirut (or what used to be the slums of south Beirut), who largely support the Hizbullah Party-Militia. No one had ever heard of them as a threat back in Eisenhower's era. That is because they only organized a militia after the Israelis kept invading and brutally occupying them.

3. The 6 million Sunni Arabs of north, central and western Iraq. Many are secular Iraqi nationalists. A handful are radical Sunni fundamentalists. They had all been encompassed by the secular Iraqi Baath Party before Bush destroyed it.

4. Iran. Population 69 million. GDP per capital $2,825 (exchange rate method). Only some 15-20 percent support their religious, populist government. Weak air force and navy. Iran has not launched a war on a neighbor since the late 1700s.

5. Pushtun guerrillas in southern Afghanistan who don't like foreign troops in their country

6. Al-Qaeda and similar tiny terrorist organizations around the world, in Saudi Arabia, the UK, France, Algeria, Pakistan, India, etc. Often consist of cells of 4-8 persons not in direct contact with traditional al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is proven dangerous, and should be combatted by good police and counter-terrorism work. But it is small and mostly disrupted or under surveillance. If its ideology were so challenging to Bush, then he should shut up those videotapes by capturing Bin Laden and Zawahiri. He has not done it.

This isn't a coherent enemy, it is a laundry list of places Bush would like to control because they have oil or gas, or are key to its development, or have other strategic benefits for the US and/or its regional allies, especially Israel.

Bush Turns to Fear-Mongering

 

[laptop]

Started a thread for this, but it's relevant here:

Pakistan supports Taliban, US ignores them it says here

A complex three way game between the US, Pakistan and Afghanistan is undermining the war on terror and hindering nation and democracy building, writes journalist Ahmed Rashid in his latest guest column for the BBC website.

...
It has been dominated by their ruling elites' self-interest veiled as national interest, rather than any alliance against terrorism.

The tug of war between their conflicting interests continues to hamper joint efforts to combat terrorism and provide a serious commitment to furthering nation and democracy building.

For President Bush the priority has been capturing Bin Laden and other senior al-Qaeda leaders, overriding concerns about nation building in Afghanistan or carrying out a strategic plan to prevent a Taleban resurgence.

And the startling thing is that he gets to publish his view of what Pakistan's Army is up to:

Although the military has lost over 500 troops in the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) hunting down the Arab and Central Asian components of al- Qaeda, it has not moved at all in Balochistan province where the Taleban have re-established themselves.

Nor has the military suppressed those Pakistani extremist groups fighting for the Taleban or in Kashmir.

It is also in the military's self-interest to keep Bin Laden alive and on the run, even if it does not do so deliberately.

The army's political alliance at home is with the Islamic parties who rule the NWFP and Balochistan and have been avid supporters of the Taleban since the 1990s.

By interfering as little as possible with their support to the Taleban, Musharraf ensures his own political survival and he assuages Islamist officers in the army that he is no stooge to the Americans.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Professor Paul Rogers thinks that Bush is losing his "War on Terror"

The al-Qaida movement is both amorphous and mutating but one of its key features is the time scale in which it operates - decades not years (see "The war on terror: past, present, future", 25 August 2006). In doing so, it is looking to future generations of support, and some analysts have pointed to the way in which parts of Iraq have taken on the role of a combat training zone for the jihadis of the future. The actual situation may be more complex, and there may often be conflicts between foreign paramilitaries and Iraqi nationals (see Michael Knights & Brooke Neumann, "A New Afghanistan? Exploring the Iraqi jihadist training ground", Jane's Intelligence Review, July 2006). Even so, there is abundant evidence that Iraq is serving this long-term function.

What is really significant, though, is that it is not now alone in this. Parts of western Pakistan, especially North Waziristan, make up a region that (as Ahmed Rashid says) "is now a fully operational al-Qaeda base area offering a wide range of services, facilities, and military and explosives training for extremists around the world planning attacks. Waziristan is now a regional magnet." Furthermore, as Taliban units take control of much of southern Afghanistan, so that country begins to revert to the training function it served in the 1980s against the Soviets and the 1990s against the Northern Alliance.

Uncomfortable though it may be to western analysts, al-Zawahiri may be closer to telling the truth about this situation than President Bush. The first phase of George W Bush's war on terror is essentially about taking control in Afghanistan and Iraq while destroying the al-Qaida movement. The second phase will then be about regime change in Pyongyang and Tehran and the creation of a pro-American "greater middle east" that will secure Gulf oil supplies for decades. As of now, he is losing, not winning, that first phase.

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

The Project on Defense Alternatives has recently done some interesting stuff reviewing Bush and Blair's 'War on Terror' five years on.

The architects of the "war on terrorism" -- now the "long war against Islamic extremism" -- can point to a number of achievements since 11 September 2001 (outlined below). However, a comprehensive net assessment of their efforts shows them to be mostly "pyrrhic" in character.

Measured in the coin of long-term security and stability, post-9/11 policy has cost more than it has gained.

* As recounted below, the various costs and risks undertaken as part of America's three post-9/11 wars are considerable. And many of these costs and risks are deferred ones. Yet, few of the goals that define current missions have been achieved or even seem close to realization. With regard to stemming terrorism: the problem has grown worse, not better.

* The potentials for new and broader confrontations are growing as a direct consequence of current missions. This, because significant portions of the Muslim world have come to view US efforts as constituting a "war on Islam" -- and also because potential US adversaries outside the Muslim world (notably China and Russia) have begun to organize themselves to resist perceived US "hegemonism".

* While the potential for broader confrontation increases, America's capacities to win or manage these is diminishing. This is due to a gradual erosion of US military capabilities, the deleterious economic and fiscal effects of today's wars, and the alienation of allied states and publics.

source

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Plus nine articles on the theme of 'Are we safer as a result?'

Members of the Security Policy Working Group have published a series of nine essays that attempt to get at some of the issues and questions that can help answer this fundamental question:

* Do Our Forces Match the Strategy?
* Terrorism: Our Primary Threat?
* $600 Billion Security Toolbox: What Are We Buying?
* Permanent War: A Given?
* Homeland Security: Are We Prepared?
* Use of Force: When Is It Necessary?
* Diplomacy and Prevention: Instruments of Power?
* US Role in the World?

source

 

[ZAMB]

Another way of looking at things. It's a long article, so I'm just posting the beginning.

Beneath all the hype about 9-1-1, and beneath the posturing as the US moves toward new "elections," the Bush regime is laying the groundwork for a blitzkrieg style, go-for-broke move toward reshaping the world.

There is No War on Terror. It has nothing to do with a "war on terror."

There is no war on terror, just like there was never a "war on drugs" only a war on Black and Brown people. Consider this.

There is an Islamic nation, an Islamic nation with nuclear weapons; one that is said to be harboring the arch terrorist, "former" CIA asset Osama Bin Laden.

No, it’s not Afghanistan. It’s not Iran. It’s Pakistan.

The U.S. invaded Afghanistan, alleging the Taliban was supporting and sheltering Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and alleging that these were the forces that had attacked the US on the day of the great emergency, 9-1-1.

But there is no call to attack Pakistan, even with its nuclear weapons, even as it allegedly shelters Bin Laden, with the Pakistani government openly declaring Bin Laden "would not be taken into custody." Intelligence analysts are all but certain that bin Laden is somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border.

The Pakistani military recently withdrew from its northern province of Waziristan in a truce with Taliban and Al Qaeda militants. Under the deal, Pakistani forces will withdraw from the region, release prisoners, return arms seized from the guerillas, pay reparations to them, and offer no obstruction as the militants come and go across the border to wage war in Afghanistan. The agreement refers to the region as "The Islamic Emirate of Waziristan"

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Sept06/Santos17.htm