PhotoDude.com

Thu. Sep 07, 2006

Accountability Is For Appeasers

Recently, President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld have made a series of speeches about the war on terror, in which they’ve built an army of straw men. We’re told that the media and other appeasers are making the war harder by not being blindly 100% supportive of Stay The Course. We’re simply not believing hard enough. And we’re told, repeatedly, Iraq is the central front of the war on terror, and Osama bin Laden is still a very bad and dangerous man.

That’s why I’m infuriated that this “central front in the war on terror” was given a post-invasion priority somewhere below Social Security reform and the Marriage Amendment (both whopping successes, too, eh?), and now that “central front” teeters on the edge of civil war. I’m incensed that Rumsfeld used the war to provide admittedly stunning proof of his concept of military transformation (smaller forces can indeed be more lethal … in the short term), while the post-war plan was apparently a blank roll of toilet paper. Rumsfeld’s post war plan envisioned troop levels dropping to 30,000 by December … of 2003. That’s how completely clueless he was, and is.

Even more, that’s why I’m absolutely furious to read that “our ally” Pakistan has made a peace deal with the Taliban allowing them to fully control the tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan, and have also apparently said Osama bin Laden can live peacefully in this area. In other words, they’ve got a safe sanctuary to start over again. The “peace treaty” even names it, the Islamic Emirate of Northern Waziristan.

So while Bush and Co. are speechifying about how we’ve got to support them, and ignore the media, appeasers, and dissenters who want to sap our will, I’ve got to ask … why would I support those who’ve failed in their self-declared central front, who’ve failed to even realize the need for course corrections, and who are incapable of admitting error? Why would I support a man who said “Osama, dead or alive,” and “We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them” ... when Osama and the Taliban now have a nice cushy deal with Bush’s buddy Musharraf?

To me, that level of failure is non-pareil. Yes, Bush may indeed be the worst President ever. Certainly in my adult lifetime. Because this speechifying they’ve been doing lately? Even they admit, it’s not meant to fight the war on terror, it’s meant to fight the war on Democrats.

I have finally reached the point where I think impeachment has become not only proper, but necessary. These people have no shame, no conscience, and our safety is not their primary concern. Their continued power is. In fact, they willingly sacrifice our safety and divide this country in the name of their own rapidly waning domestic political power.

First, let’s establish the context, as declared by the Bush team itself. And it is not “winning the war on terror.”

President Bush and the Republicans expect a stinging defeat in November, but they’re betting the terror card saves them from an electoral debacle.

Americans have “decided the personal characteristics that kept him afloat for a long time aren’t that appealing anymore,” an influential Bushie told the Daily News. “They also think Iraq is a failure.”

But Bush political guru Karl Rove believes a massive GOP counteroffensive begun last week reemphasizing the ongoing terror threat and linking the war in Iraq to keeping America safe will carry the day.

New York Daily News: W’s guys divided on race for House: ‘We’ll lose,’ some fear

It will safely carry the day. Karl isn’t talking about you and I, our “day,” or our safety. And therefore, neither is the President. But he sure has gone on about it lately. And it is both illuminating and infuriating. The other day he spoke to the Military Officers Association of America:

These terrorists hope to drive America and our coalition out of Afghanistan, so they can restore the safe haven they lost when coalition forces drove them out five years ago. But they’ve made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq.

It’s a shame we didn’t as well, right from the beginning, instead of shrugging off looting because “freedom is messy.” Anyone remember Jay Garner and Co.? I didn’t think so. He was the original designated executor of “The Plan.” But in less than two months, it was decided they needed to simply start all over again, with Paul Bremer as MacArthur, handing down a Constitution and appointed government From On High. Until about six months later, when they had to abandon that plan as well because Sistani and other Iraqi figures refused to play along.

So whenever I hear Bush and Co. repeat that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, I wonder, “then why have you failed so miserably there, from the day after Saddam was toppled until the present?” Each mention they make of this “central front” has become a self-indictment.

They reject the possibility of peaceful coexistence with the free world. Again, hear the words of Osama bin Laden earlier this year: “Death is better than living on this Earth with the unbelievers among us.”

These radicals have declared their uncompromising hostility to freedom. It is foolish to think that you can negotiate with them.

And just exactly who has suggested we “can negotiate with them”? The President has apparently been taking lessons on building straw men from his Secretary of Defense. Rumsfeld’s got a whole army of them. He calls them, “the central questions of our time.”

Here they are: “With the growing lethality and availability of weapons, can we truly afford to believe that vicious extremists can somehow be appeased?” Which straw man has suggested we can appease our way out of this? Is he/she an elected official, or even a semi-significant public figure? Names please. “Can we really continue to think that free countries can negotiate a separate peace with terrorists?” Which free country is considering this course, and/or who “continue[s] to think” they can? Cite your enemies, Rummy.

And more: “Can we truly afford to pretend that the threats today are simply ‘law enforcement’ problems rather than fundamentally different threats requiring fundamentally different approaches?” Well, other than those who just transferred 14 dangerous men from CIA custody to Gitmo for eventual trial, who exactly is suggesting Al Qaeda can be defeated in the courts, or anything like that? C’mon, Don, at least give us their initials. “Can we truly afford to return to the destructive view that America — not the enemy — is the real source of the world’s troubles?” Which American politician has “returned to this view”? Oh, sure, you can find a whole lot of non-Americans who increasingly feel that way, but as to why, you don’t really want to go there, do you?

This is what they are reduced to in their efforts to build public support. They pound on the fact that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, while expecting us to ignore the blatant incompetence they’ve displayed in that central front, and engage in arguments against positions no one of any seriousness has taken.

I think that’s as disturbing as anything concrete about this war. Here in the country that made advertising an art form, and whose dominant media has imprinted the whole damn world, the administration’s spin machine has spun itself into complete countereffectiveness. When it comes to creating an image and selling it, we ought to be kicking booty there, if in no other area of the war. But even the President admits, we’re losing there as well:

Secondly, along with this campaign of terror, the enemy has a propaganda strategy. Osama bin Laden laid out this strategy in a letter to the Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, that coalition forces uncovered in Afghanistan in 2002. In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to ”[launch],” in his words, “a media campaign… to create a wedge between the American people and their government.” This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including “that their government [will] bring them more losses, in finances and casualties.” And he goes on to say that “they are being sacrificed… to serve… the big investors, especially the Jews.” Bin Laden says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda “aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan.”

Remember our opening context, “pumping terror to win in November”? Propaganda begets propaganda. Unfortunately, our “side’s” propaganda is focused on retaining domestic political power, while Al Qaeda’s is focused on winning a world wide campaign. But, we all have our priorities, eh? And when it comes to efforts to “create a wedge between the American people and their government,” at times the Bush administration has been Osama’s best ally.

“Uniter not a divider,” my ass. Not only was that his biggest lie, it empowers our real enemies. Once Upon A Time, we had a President who went before the American people one night, and said:

This I believe very deeply. Throughout my entire public career I have followed the personal philosophy that I am a free man, an American, a public servant, and a member of my party — in that order — always and only.

For 37 years in the service of our nation, first as a Congressman, as a Senator, and as Vice President, and now as your President, I have put the unity of the people first. I have put it ahead of any divisive partisanship. And in these times as in times before, it is true that a house divided against itself by the spirit of faction, of party, of region, of religion, of race, is a house that cannot stand.

There is division in the American house now. There is divisiveness among us all tonight. And holding the trust that is mine, as President of all the people, I cannot disregard the peril to the progress of the American people and the hope and the prospects of peace for all peoples. So, I would ask all Americans, whatever their personal interests or concern, to guard against divisiveness and all of its ugly consequences.

With American sons in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office — the Presidency of your country.

Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1968

...and then he told us he would not be running for re-election. No doubt, LBJ was a highly political animal, with tons of underlying political motivations for that speech. But … the truth of those words stands. Especially in contrast to today. Back to our current President:

Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?

This was a real switch in tone I noticed in this speech. Bush used to rarely if ever emit the name of bin Laden, but in this speech, over and over, he says “hear the words of bin Laden,” and above, compares him to Lenin and Hitler. Without any seeming realization that not everyone in this world sees those as negative comparisons. Again, at times it seems like George is doing Osama’s propaganda for him.

But here, here is where rage fills my vision and the world turns upside down for me:

Third, we’re determined to deny terrorists the support of outlaw regimes. After September the 11th, I laid out a clear doctrine: America makes no distinction between those who commit acts of terror, and those that harbor and support them, because they’re equally guilty of murder [...] And we have made clear that any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization.

Fourth, we’re determined to deny terrorist networks control of any nation, or territory within a nation [...] And we’re working with friends and allies to deny the terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world.

A “clear doctrine,” eh? Then why isn’t the below the biggest story of the week? Of the freakin’ past five years?

Osama bin Laden, America’s most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a “peaceful life,” Pakistani officials tell ABC News.

The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a “peace deal” with the Taliban.

If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden “would not be taken into custody,” Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, “as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen.”

In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the “peace agreement” between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.

The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies “to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world.”

ABC News: Bin Laden Gets a Pass from Pakistan

Gee, it sounds to me like they are back to having a base from which they can operate unharassed, just over the border from their previous sanctuary. In Pakistan, it’s once again September 10th, 2001.

Now Pakistan is saying their general was “grossly misquoted,” but ABC is standing by their report. You can read the roundups of opinions and views here and here. Some even claim this is some perverse trap, and we’re on the verge of capturing those wascally wabbits.

But here’s the clear bottom line to me: Pakistan has given over the tribal areas in Northern Waziristan to the Taliban, even given it a name, the Islamic Emirate of Northern Waziristan, and said they will give back prisoners and weapons that were captured. And within that area, the Taliban can pretty much do whatever they want, including shelter and support bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

An article from last week about the Taliban and bin Laden was damn specific about Northern Waziristan:

Yet Afghan officials allege that Pakistan is sanctuary for Taliban rebel leaders and lets them recruit from radical Islamic schools. They even suggest that Pakistan is hiding bin Laden, perhaps to ensure Pakistan remains of strategic importance to Washington.

“We believe he is being kept as a prize, as an ultimate bargaining chip,” said a senior Afghan government official, who declined to be identified due to the sensitivity of his comments.

Latfullah Mashal, a former Afghan Interior Ministry spokesman, goes so far as to pinpoint bin Laden’s hideout in a remote valley in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region. He says there’s a mountain fortress with a network of tunnels, guarded by African militants who never venture outside.

Western, Afghan and Pakistani officials agree that the nearest they got to bin Laden was in the Tora Bora mountains, south of Kunar, in November 2001 when he was fleeing the U.S.-backed war that toppled the Taliban regime.

CBS News: Bin Laden Manhunt Still Drawing a Blank, 5 Years After Manhunt Began

Latfullah Mashal is also a main figure in one of a series of four books I’ve recently read about Afghanistan, which I hope to write another article about soon. You need to read “Al Qaeda’s Great Escape” by Philip Smucker to find out the entire background on Mashal. I won’t go into it at length here, but I have reason to believe the man … because in that book, during the months of November and December 2001, he was rarely if ever wrong about bin Laden’s trail, when nearly everyone else was.

So, it sounds like Osama has been in North Waziristan for some time, and Pakistan just created an Islamic Emirate around him, with his old allies in control. Cushy.

It’s also become clear that the Bush administration never committed to real success and security in post-war Afghanistan any more than they did in Iraq. In fact, they undercut troops levels in Afghanistan early on … to prepare for Iraq, where they would do it again.

Statistically it is now nearly as dangerous to serve as an American soldier in Afghanistan as it is in Iraq.

Helmand’s descent symbolizes how Afghanistan has evolved since the initial victory over the Taliban into one of the most troubled fronts in the fight against terrorism.

The problems began in early 2002, former Bush administration, United Nations and Afghan officials said, when the United States and its allies failed to take advantage of a sweeping desire among Afghans for help from foreign countries.

The Defense Department initially opposed a request by Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and Afghanistan’s new leaders for a sizable peacekeeping force and deployed only 8,000 American troops, but purely in a combat role, officials said.

During the first 18 months after the invasion, the United States-led coalition deployed no peacekeepers outside Kabul, leaving the security of provinces like Helmand to local Afghans.

New York Times: An Afghan Symbol for Change, Then Failure

Leave it to the locals. The initial success of teaming small numbers of US forces with large numbers of local fighters was then replicated everywhere, though it only really worked in those initial six weeks of war that lead to the fall of Kabul.

From there, the action moved east. We were no longer dealing with the Northern Alliance, who had fought the Taliban and Al Qaeda for years. Instead, we relied on warlords that bin Laden had been courting from the moment his chartered jet arrived in Jalalabad when he was evicted from Sudan in 1996, up to the moment in mid November, 2001, when he gathered them for a large feast and cash handout to pave the road for his escape. Then he headed into Tora Bora. Those were the warlords we relied on as our proxies at Tora Bora.

And they screwed us royally. Again, read “Al Qaeda’s Great Escape” by Philip Smucker.

In addition, we relied on the Pakistani army to block the border into their tribal areas, rather than inserting the battalion of Rangers the CIA leader on the scene, Gary Berntsen, repeatedly requested, nor the battalion of 10th Mountain at the disposal of Col. Mulholland, who commanding SOF in Afghanistan at that time.

Needless to say, Pakistan’s army did not block the border (they did not arrive in sizable numbers until after mid-December, weeks after bin Laden was gone). Nor did it track down bin Laden (or Zawahiri, or Mullah Omar) in the past five years of claiming to patrol the tribal areas. And now it has apparently made peace with them.

Since then, we’ve gone into Iraq, and we’ve heard serious talk of taking on Iran. So serious that a few months back it was leaked that one of the options the administration wanted on the table was the use of a tactical nuke to “bunker bust” a couple of Iran’s more problematic nuclear locations.

And this is a harsh thought, but I’ve had it ever since. If we’re willing to consider that option, because it might be the only way to be sure, and would save the lives of American troops, and if we were unwilling to commit more than the two dozen US SOF and CIA operators who were at Tora Bora … where was the tactical nuke option then? Where was Dr. Strangelove Dick Cheney when we really needed him?

It was been well documented by multiple independent sources that we had bin Laden, and approximately 1,500 of his hardest core followers “trapped” in a six square mile area. Literally itching for a fight with the infidels. If the decision was made not to commit the battalion of troops repeatedly requested, well then, why didn’t we create a small mushroom cloud in one of the most remote mountain valleys on this planet?

It’s also been shown the administration went into Iraq in part because they were worried about “sending a message” that America had the will to respond overwhelmingly to such attacks. Well, how’s that for a message … pull a 9/11 on America, and we will track you down, corner you, and nuke you.

How’s that for an image counterpoint? On one side, the burning towers. On the other, a mushroom cloud over the remote valley where Osama took his last breath.

The “message” of Iraq would hardly have been required, would it?

Like I said, it’s a harsh thought, but put it up against our current reality. We had the cat in the bag, and we’ve been chasing kittens all over the place ever since. Zawahiri and bin Laden may have been “on the run” for the past five years, but it seems they speak to the world pretty much whenever they please. We’re told again and again that the threat remains.

And now they no longer have to run. It’s the late 90’s again, when bin Laden and Zawahiri fully established Afghanistan as their sanctuary. Now they’re doing it in a new one.

Five years after 9/11. Sorry, but I prefer my harsh vision of a small mushroom cloud over Tora Bora.

And I want some accountability for the fact they’re free to operate again. But I don’t expect I’ll get it. Accountability is for appeasers. We just need to believe harder.

I once looked at Bush with some hope, in the first weeks after 9/11. Today, when he came on CNN to give his speech just up the road from me in Cobb County, I turned off the TV. I can’t stand to listen to the man any more.

So I used to hope. But now, I pray. I pray that the next two years and four months will pass without Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Co. creating another disaster in the name of our safety.

I’m not sure I’ll get that either.