« Who Says the President Doesn't Know Irony? | Main | "The Thought That Life Could Be Better Is Woven Indelibly Deep In Our Hearts And Our Brains." »
August 31, 2006
Former Navy Secretary John Lehman Said What?
even the most sanguine optimist cannot yet conclude that we are winning or that we can win without some significant changes of policy.
But in reaching this conclusion, the former Secretary made a few claims that, frankly, left me scratching my head.
First, in discussing the home front, he said:
The Bush administration deserves much credit for the fact that, despite determined efforts to carry them out, there have been no successful Islamist attacks within the United States since Sept. 11, 2001. This is a significant achievement, but there are growing dangers and continuing vulnerabilities.
Perhaps I missed them, but what were these "determined efforts" to attack the U.S. since 9/11? Padilla, the dirty bomber? The Miami 7? This administration's track record is to turn Attorney General Gonzalez into a mockingbird for the cameras when the slightest whiff of domestic terror is in the air.
There were no successful Islamist attacks in the U.S. from February 1993 until 9/11/01 -- which covered most of Clinton's presidency? Are we seeing a pattern here suggesting Al Qaeda is quite selective? Or mabye, as has been suggested, Al Qaeda is not nearly the domestic threat the administration has made it out to be?
Another comment by Lehman that left confused was this:
One of the most deep-seated of these problems is the U.S. government's tendency to treat this war as a law enforcement issue.
I was under the distinct impression from this administration that the way to fight terror is to send 150,000 American troops to Iraq so we can "fight 'em there" and "not over here." The projection of American military stength has been a constant since 9/11.
Finally, Lehman said this about nuclear weapons:
The greatest terrorist threat on the home front is, of course, the use of weapons of mass destruction by Islamists. Here the president has moved to establish a national counter-proliferation center to share and act on intelligence, and he has recently initiated a cooperation agreement with Russia and our allies to work together in preventing nuclear materials from getting into the hands of the Islamists and to undertake joint crisis management if such an attack takes place. These are real accomplishments.
Okay. That was nice. But the Bush administration's record on nuclear proliferation is a dismal failure. Look at Iran. Look at North Korea. Look at Pakistan and India -- friends today to be sure, but the key word is "today." The president's policy of not negotiating with "evil people" really hasn't worked out well in the area of nuclear weapons.
To be clear, I fully concur with Lehman's bottom line: We are winning nothing nor will we with this administration in charge. (On the other hand, you can be sure that, as a country, we will continue driving the wrong way on this one-way street; otherwise, someone might call the president a flip-flopper: "He made awful policy choices before he made good ones.") I just found some of his arguments along the way too be curiously generous to the Decider.
Update: Thank you, Mr. Turtle, for catching the typo "February 2003" -- which should have read, and now does, "February 1993".
Posted by shertaugh at August 31, 2006 3:02 PM
Comments
Simply attacking Bush and granting him no wins has not persuaded him yet so I suspect Lehman's merely trying diplomacy to persuade him or to persuade Americans that his major concerns aren't rooted in Bush hatred.
Perhaps we should sidestep those points and emphasize those bottom lines:
1) No enemy fears us because our military's spread too thin already;
2) The failed intelligence has not been fixed because Bush has rejected the findings of the 9-11 Commission (which I believe they've done so they can continue to use propaganda in place of intel); and
3)We'll continue to lose allies if we keep on creating more terrorists who attack everyone but us.
More enemies, more nukes, less friends and a military too mismanaged to keep the wildfires from spreading. Once you get past the diplomatic gloss, that's a very powerful indictment.
Posted by: Kevin Hayden at August 31, 2006 5:38 PM
February 2003? That must be a typo.
Posted by: Mr. Turtle at August 31, 2006 11:48 PM
Lehman also seemed to confuse Islam with terror, not recognizing that the latter is merely a small subset of the former. Throughout his piece, he referred to Islamists as the enemy.
"As late as June of this year, Mark Mershon of the FBI testified that the bureau will not monitor or surveil any Islamist unless there is a "criminal predicate." Thus the large Islamist support infrastructure that the commission identified here in the United States is free to operate until its members actually commit a crime."
I think that's pretty much the FBI's policy toward Catholicism also.
Posted by: jim chandler at September 1, 2006 8:19 AM
I think your snark is overriding your judgement.
Lehman gives the President credit for keeping Islamist terror at bay and I assume that he has some insight into the range of threats that have been counterd. Can you honestly say that you have any such insight when all you can come up with is Padilla and the Miami 7? In essence, you are telling us that, if you don't know about it, it couldn't be important. It may make you feel better but it doesn't exactly reassure me.
Mr. Hayden goes on with a grab-bag of wild assertions that my sixth grade son could puncture. "No enemy fears us because our military is spread too thin"?? Tell me that you are serious... Worse yet, the hypocrisy is maddening. Bush is a stupid cowboy for invading Iraq AND the military isn't ready? Ready for what? Are you advocating that a particular country be invaded or just trying to reinforce your memory of certain talking points via repetition?
Hayden's third proposition is nonsensical in the extreme: we are losing allies because we are "creating more terrorists who attack everyone but us." What, exactly, is that sentence supposed to mean? If we "created" the terrorists (an extremely dubious proposition) then why are they "attacking everyone but us"?
Has it ever occurred to you, sir, that the current round of Islamic expanionism has energy of its very own? You might want to actually get to know some non-white, non-liberal people - they aren't all just props in your comfortable little multi-culti world, you know. I hate to infringe on your comfortable sense of control, but even non-white people have, you know, their own ideas about how they want the world to work. They aren't all just peaceful villagers singing songs and communing with nature until some nasty American starts bombing them so they turn into terrorists.
So, no, Mr. Hayden, I don't take this drivel as a "powerful indictment" at all.
Mr Chandler might want to look up the work "Islamist." It is not a synonym for "Muslim" but instead refers to those who advocate the expansion of Islam by violence (c.f. al Qutb to bin Laden).
Posted by: WildMonk at September 2, 2006 12:01 AM
Islamist - /is-'la-mist/noun - a term used to describe a Muslim fundamentalist. Sometimes used interchangeably with Islamism, which refers to the faith, doctrine or cause of Islam.
Usage: There are many Islamists in the world, and quite fewer terrorists.
Posted by: jim chandler at September 5, 2006 8:02 AM