The administration is no longer spouting the nonsense that Flameypants was a lone wolf. The president made a speech today admitting that it was part of an Al Qaeda plot hatched in Yemen. But he continues to promulgate the nonsense that this kind of thing is caused by poverty. Andy McCarthy attempts (once again, and probably in futility) to straighten him out:
As Dan recounts, the president also asserted: “We know that [Abdulmutallab] travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies.” A few things about that. First, to the extent Obama is suggesting that the terrorism is caused by the crushing poverty, it is worth remembering that Abdul Mutallab — like many jihadist terrorists, bin Laden himself included — is a person of means. The principal challenge in Yemen, like everyplace else, is Islamist ideology, not poverty. Perhaps the president could stop worrying so much about poverty and rethink things like cozying up to the Muslim Brotherhood (and its tentacles in the U.S., like the Islamic Society of North America) and bowing to Brotherhood’s banker, Saudi King Abdullah. Just a thought.
And on the continuing nuttiness of treating this as a criminal matter, rather than an act of war:
The Mutallab case is an unnecessary, insignificant distraction from the real business of protecting the United States. And it is all so unnecessary. It will be forever until we can have a trial of Mutallab, anyway: From here on out, everytime something happens in Yemen, Mutallab’s lawyers will try to use it to their litigation advantage, repeating that the president has so tied Mutallab to terrorism in Yemen that there is no prospect of a fair trial. So why not transfer him to military custody as an enemy combatant, detain and interrogate him for as long as it is useful to do so, and then, in a year or three, either charge him with war crimes in a military tribunal or, if you insist, indict him the criminal justice system? There is no reason to have a criminal case pending right now — it will only tie the president’s hands and be grist for judicial criticism of Obama while he has a war to fight.
I think he continues to look for excuses not to fight the war, and to pretend that this isn’t part of it.
Rand, you must get exhausted jumping to so many conclusions.
One thought about the Eunuch Bomber, Miranda and being lawyered up. If the guy is talking about his Yemen contacts, we would very much like to prevent those contacts from knowing that until special forces kick in their door.
Reports in the WaPo about a lawyered up guy refusing to talk advances that objective.
And, anyone who really knows what is happening behind the scenes should be keeping their mouths shut.
= = =
Also, Obama did not say Yemen’s poverty motivated the Eunuch Bomber, he suggests Yemen’s poverty and failed state status creates a safe haven for al Qaeda to hide in. Which is simply true. As is true for Somolia and Afghanistan.
But rather than quote a blogger’s interpretation of Obama’s words why not go to the source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94RRh9qZGYc
I”ll second Bill White’s comments. I’ll add that I don’t see why the legal case against Mutallab hampers our actions in Yemen or vice versa. If Mutallab’s lawyers make the argument that Yemen matters, they are conceding the truth of the conspiracy. As far as pre-trial publicity, that ship’s sailed along time ago. Ask the other terrorists convicted in US court over the past few years.
Rand, you should add to your reading list the book “The Accidental Guerrilla” by Lieutenant Colonel David Kilcullen. The gist of the book is that there are a lot of tribal areas (Yemen is specifically mentioned) where the locals don’t like Al Queda, but they like outside interference even less. A heavy-handed outside attack makes the locals ally with Al Queda, while a lighter touch prevents this, and allows us to focus on our real enemies.
Left to their own devices they can’t push Al Qaeda out. Objectively speaking that’s not different, in terms of necessary outcomes, than their being pro-Al Qaeda (and I wish people would fucking learn to spell it, there is no U in Al Qaeda).
In other words, Chris, you’re arguing that harboring terrorists should once again revert to being okay, as long as those who harbor them don’t like them much.
And, anyone who really knows what is happening behind the scenes should be keeping their mouths shut.
The key word in that sentence is “should,” and when is the last time that happened?
@ McGehee
I agree with you. We need to intervene in Yemen, except we need to be surgical and keep a low profile.
Permanent clandestine operations? Absolutely. Gather intel, swoop in to hit a target, then leave or appear to leave.
Large footprint occupation? As in Iraq? Bad idea, IMHO.
What a pile of manure. I will refer you to one of the first video clips captured of Bin Laden post 9-11; the one about the strong horse versus the weak horse. Yeah Chris, by all means lets keep our focus on maintaining a light touch, preferably accompanied by the pleasant strains of kumbaya. They’ll respect us more don’t ya know. After all, thats part of their culture.
To echo Bill’s comment above, when Rand writes he continues to promulgate the nonsense that this kind of thing is caused by poverty he’s attacking a strawman. Obama did no such thing.
@ Jim & Chris
I guess some people simply hate/fear Obama bin Laden more than Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
Heh! Who’d a thunk that?
Oh, I don’t know. Jim. Why did Obama even mention it in his telescreen message of today? Was it completely gratuitous? True, he didn’t explicitly blame terrorism on poverty. But coming where it did in the flow of his description, that was the conclusion to which most people would normally come.
Of course, it was easy to get lost in his message. All the “I”, “my”, and “me” references, including his bizarre and truly gratuitous reference to his coronation a year ago, were a big distraction…as usual.
Obama said “We know that [Abdulmutallab] travelled to Yemen, a country grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies.” So when Rand states he’s making a connection between terrorism and poverty, he’s not “attacking a strawman”. It’s right there in the quote. If the quote is out of context then say so.
Yemen is a failed state “grappling with crushing poverty and deadly insurgencies” and that creates a terrific place for al Qaeda to hide.
Failed states do not create Islamic terrorists but failed states is where they can hide and train and plot.
Failed states do not create Islamic terrorists but failed states is where they can hide and train and plot.
An interesting movement of the goalposts. Not too long ago the front part of your sentence was Accepted Wisdom amongst our betters in goverment and academia. Now, well, it’s not so much that poverty and a lack of Western foreign aid creates the terrorists so much as it continues them, dontcha see…
Uh huh. The problem here is that the crypto-Marxist theory of terrorism — they’re terrorists because of their grinding poverty/awful upbringing/prior centuries of colonialism — has been so discredited by actual events that at this point it’s very hard for reasonable people to buy into the Version 2.0 of the theory, with the focus shifted a smidge from “creates” to “sustains” or “gives a place to hide.”
You know what they say: fooled me once, shame on you, fooled me twice, shame on me. At this stage I think reasonable men reasonably give all theories advanced on the basis of sociology and economics a rest, and ponder the possibility that men do bad things because they’re bad, as individuals. Blame lies with the criminal — not with his society, and certainly not with any distant society of his victims.
@Chris Gerrib: “A heavy-handed outside attack makes the locals ally with Al Queda, while a lighter touch prevents this, and allows us to focus on our real enemies.”
The locals in this case are Iran-supported Shia separatists, so we don’t have much ground to lose there.
Why did Obama even mention it in his telescreen message of today?
Because it’s relevant to understanding the challenge posed by terrorists hiding in poor and/or failed states.
So when Rand states he’s making a connection between terrorism and poverty, he’s not “attacking a strawman”.
Is poor reading comprehension contagious? Read what Rand wrote again.
Rand, you must get exhausted jumping to so many conclusions.
[Ludicrous conclusion jumped to for reporting a lawyered up terrorist omitted.]
Honestly Bill it’s not likely that the accomplices were folding up shop, then read the Post and said, “Ooo. Let’s just relax now.” When a lefty is reported as doing something that is obviously stupid, we’re supposed to think it’s part of a plan? A plausible reason for doing something idiotic doesn’t excuse idiocy.
So when the point woman on airport security say, “The system worked.” Shall we just assume, we would very much like the terrorists to think that we think nothing will change because then they’ll make a mistake?
No matter how much you pretend child-like stupidity is nuance, it’s still stupidity.
Per Kilcullen’s book The Accidental Guerrilla, of the 20,000 fighting us in Afghanistan, only about 20% or 4,000 are Taliban. The rest are locals who don’t appreciate our intervention. Which would you rather fight – 20K or 4K? For Darkstar’s benefit – those Shias don’t like us now, but dollars to donuts we go in heavy and they’ll do exactly what the Shias in Iraq did – fight back.
We as Americans keep re-inventing the wheel. How did Geronimo get defeated? We got other Apache indians, working with the then equivalent of Special Forces, to go get the SOB.
Now, sometimes, as in Afghanistan, that plan won’t work. But right now in Yemen, there’s no reason to believe it won’t work. Yemen isn’t harboring terrorists. They are trying to get rid of them but have a lack of resources.
The US is already occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. Countries with a not insignificant land area and terrain one might add. Try reading some more about Yemen. It is a tribal shithole with mountainous terrain where people have been at war (with variable intensity) for decades. Thankfully it is mostly coastal. Just bomb them.
Okay fine, you want a small footprint operation that is all well and good. Except that Obama seems determined to undermine those capabilities as well. In the recent attack on the CIA that killed some operatives in Afghanistan Obama made it a point to honor the deaths of these agents with some special commemoration. That sounds all well and good on the surface but for those in the clandestine theatre they are all about disinformation. They don’t need Obama going out there and making a big deal about their failures or weak spots. That only serves to bolster the enemy and let them know they bloodied our noses. It encourages the enemy to do more of the same going forward in the future. No other administration before now has made such fanfare of our losses within the covert action groups. In other words Obama is once again showing he lacks real world experience to be a competent commander in chief. He stays silent when we need direction and reassurance. Yet, when he does talk his words are so mealy mouthed and lawyer-ed up that it leaves no one certainly positive what are the intentions. It really only serves to portray flaccidity to our enemy that they interpret as weakness.
No other administration before now has made such fanfare of our losses within the covert action groups.
Josh: the killed CIA agents were not covert operatives.
Godzilla, I think that’s what the Brits had the RAF do in the 1950’s when they ran the place.
Josh: the killed CIA agents were not covert operatives.
I find a bit of irony in that we’re once again complaining about the outing of CIA agents who weren’t “covert agents”. The last such case was the Valerie Plame thing. My view as then, is that it’s still a bad idea even if they weren’t “covert” (which we incidentally don’t know, just because government says someone wasn’t covert doesn’t mean they weren’t covert).
To the Obamanationists on this post: It took Obama THREE DAYS to put down the golf clubs and admit that what happened was an act of terrorism.
It took him LESS THAN TWELVE HOURS to counterattack against Rush Limbaugh.
Who does the Obama Administration consider to be the REAL enemy?
no other administration before now has made such fanfare of our losses within the covert action groups.
How would you characterize the Bush administration response to the activity/loss of the 11 SEALS killed in Afghanistan in 05? Awarding the CMOH isn’t fanfare?
I think he continues to look for excuses not to fight the war, and to pretend that this isn’t part of it.
The fact that he specifically authorized the USN to take out the pirates holding the captain of the Maersk Alabama, and his obvious concurrence with the continued Predator strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen, AC130s and other assets being used in Somalia….where in all of this do you reach the conclusion that he is making excuses not to fight the war?
I am simply amazed at your ability to see only what you want to see, and to completely ignore anything that contradicts your particular brand of Weltschmerz.
The fact that he specifically authorized the USN to take out the pirates holding the captain of the Maersk Alabama
We don’t know whether or not that’s a “fact.” The only fact is that the administration claimed it happened after the fact. I’m skeptical in light of the general reporting of it. In any event, it has nothing to do with the war.
The homicide bomber that killed the operatives was likely able to gain access to them without pre-screening because he was likely a confidential informant. So, while the operatives at that point and time were not in some deep cover themselves they were obviously engaged with the local population in a undercover action of some kind. Seals, while they do often work within a covert manner, more closely indemnify with the larger military as a whole; hence, the Navy part of Navy Seals. The majority of CIA officers work and live within the greater United States. Only about 10% of the force as a whole probably operates out in the field. So, a strike like this represents a much larger degree of impact to the agency as a whole. Obviously the enemy understood the significance of their presence since they to target them specifically.
To follow up on Andy’s comment: Obama has sharply stepped up the Predator war in Pakistan. How does that square with “looking for excuses not to fight the war”?
Obama has sharply stepped up the Predator war in Pakistan. How does that square with “looking for excuses not to fight the war”?
Predator’s are primarily intelligence gathering platforms. Yes, they can carry AGM’s, but unless the target on the ground does something overt; or a friendly resource on the ground provides additional data, those weapons cannot be fired legally.
That’s not to say it isn’t a good step forward. It is a good sign. But it’s also not a great example of showing how someone is serious about prosecuting the war. It’s more an example of wait and see, because that’s exactly what a Predator does.
The American government has been putting heavy pressure on Pakistan’s military to wipe out Islamic insurgents in the border region of Waziristan since George W. Bush was president. But while the Obama Administration is delighted that Pakistan’s army has