Printer Friendly
1-11-2010
Terror Rising
A mad underwear bomber who was stupid and poorly trained is not what we should be worried about. The environment that promotes and/or allows terror within the United States is what we should focus on. It does not matter that some call the Obama administration soft on terror and some say that the Bush administration was tough on terror. What matters is whether or not we have the ability to stop terror attacks from happening in these United States. This November, Nidal Malik Hasan committed the worst terror attack at Fort Hood in the United States since 9/11. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s incompetence prevented the Christmas bombing from being an even more horrific attack. Are these recent breeches due to the significant changes in our homeland security made by the Obama administration? Plenty have been made:
- We have redefined a war against terrorists as a police action against criminals.
- We have severely limited military response in the Afghani theatre so as to avoid unintended civilian casualties and unintended political consequences.
- We have all but eliminated coercive interrogation.
- We have allowed Yemeni detainees to be recycled into Al Qaeda combatants.
Each of these moves makes us appear weak to the extremists who intend to kill American civilians as part of a holy war strategy. The benefits we were supposed to have reaped by eliminating torture, engaging the Afghan population and closing Guantanamo Bay have not been realized. We have seen the boldness and success of terrorist activities targeted at the continental United States increase. The general population understands something is getting worse, and their tolerance for the current political approach is growing very thin.
Some among us still believe that it was just lucky that no terrorists killed people within the continental United States post September 11th. This is a naïve thought. Taking the battle to the terrorists’ home geography was brilliant, and it worked. Also, some of the mainstays of the Bush administration’s terror prevention strategy have been weakened or removed. Unfortunately, as we’ll discuss below, our ability to fight the terrorists effectively “where they live” is being hampered.
1. It sounds esoteric to focus on the war on terror being turned into a police action against criminals. However, it is the essence of a change in strategy that has led to a string of unintended consequences. The Obama administration wants to avoid an evident truth. We are a nation and a part of Western society that is currently at war with jihadists from radical Muslim movements. These people want all of us to die. They don’t care about innocence, or fairness, and they have no mercy. They believe all of us are bad because they don’t accept the notion that we have the right to practice a religion or no religion as we see fit. They believe that those that don’t practice their religion should die. Our government is going to extremes to avoid defining our struggle as based in religious differences and in avoiding this truth they are making exceedingly dangerous decisions. Treating terrorists as criminals avails them of all the protections our criminal justice system affords our citizens and deprives our intelligence system from garnering important information to forward our progress in avoiding attacks. Announcing the intention to close Guantanamo, and deciding to try the September 11th conspirators in a New York City criminal court emboldens Al Qaeda to take more provocative action. The long history of the Middle East suggests that warriors in this region respect force only.
2. U.S. military action in Afghanistan post 9/11 was supported by air strikes. Over the last year, under the direction of the new top General Stanley McChrystal, air strikes have been all but eliminated. Our new strategy is more concerned with winning the hearts and minds of the Afghan people and less concerned with protecting our soldiers on the ground. There is one giant problem with this strategy. The people in Afghanistan are not the same people as those in Iraq. They don’t know what democracy is, and they could care less if they ever achieve what we consider freedom. They are tribal and they respect power more than ideas. What is clear to natives on the ground in Afghanistan is that “the invaders” are no longer supporting their soldiers. The Taliban and tribal war lords definitely view this as us becoming weaker.
We also suffer from artificial rules that keep us out of part of the warzone known as Waziristan. It is the area in Northwest Pakistan that separates Afghanistan from the more developed parts of Pakistan. It is the home of nearly a million Pushtuns. It is tribal, but make no mistake- it is mostly run by the Taliban. Foreign jihadists are welcome in Waziristan. It has a long history of keeping foreigners of all types out over periods of centuries. It is a base of operations for many attacks to be planned and executed against our troops in Afghanistan. We cannot attack into Waziristan (I’m not sure we would want to), but Al Qaeda and Taliban forces can swoop into Afghanistan and retreat with no risk of reprisal because we will not go into Pakistan. We rely on Pakistan to police this area, which up until recently, simply hasn’t happened. We certainly can’t count on Pakistan to clear the area. Our fear of provoking a nuclear-armed Pakistani government (one concerned with civil unrest if it appears too Pro-West) has us between a rock and hard place. This, combined with our “minimize bombing” strategy to win the hearts and minds of Afghans, have committed our troops, including the 30,000 troop surge, into a shooting gallery. The strategy of taking the war to where the terrorists live has begun to build the confidence of the terrorists at home by making our forces look weak.
3. We no longer coerce information from suspected and detained terrorists. This has been justified as eliminating torture because torture is not an activity consistent with American values. There has been fair and honest debate about the value of coercing information and about whether or not water-boarding, sleep deprivation, and psychological manipulation is torture. The Obama administration believes these techniques are torture. Many other American patriots believe that using water boarding to obtain information from enemy combatants that saves U.S. lives is justified. The Obama administration, since elected, has had perhaps the lowest tolerance for debate of any U.S. administration in recent memory. They use one tactic applied to all strategies. The tactic is we won and we’ll do what we want; the Republicans lost and we don’t have to listen to them.
4. The problem is that the administration is quickly learning that what they want to do is not always the right thing to do. Closing Guantanamo was easy to suggest during the election, but impossible to execute, especially in light of the recirculation of Yemeni combatants from detention back into “active duty” status in the terror war aimed at our shores. This is ludicrous in light of the facts that we know: that Abdulmutallab, the underwear bomber, was trained in Yemen, but our Attorney General labeled him a criminal, had him given his Miranda rights, and assigned a lawyer before we could question him. Also, a Yemeni preacher has been implicated in inspiring the Major Hasan who massacred his fellow soldiers in November. Not only is our intelligence no longer able to prevent attempts, but unfortunately, some attacks are succeeding.
Announcing that the September 11th conspirators would get a fair trial in New York City and that the whole world would respect our giving them the benefits of our justice system is perhaps the most ludicrous of all the decisions coming from Attorney General Holder. The risks and costs associated with decision are massive. The security risks to New York City are obvious. The monetary costs are large. However, the costs associated with newspapers headlining defense lawyers’ assertions from the daily trial coverage that will be used to recruit Al Qaeda operatives globally is even larger. This decision doesn’t put the 9/11 conspirators on trial, it puts the Bush administrations’ use of coercive techniques on trial. This decision is just plain out of touch with what people in this country want. They want justice against what we all know are war criminals; they don’t want our justice system put on trial by defining these assassins as criminals that must be availed rights.
President Obama and his administration have been very consistent in assigning blame for anything bad that happens in the United States to the last administration. That will not work on any terror events in the future. Everyone knows he changed the rules of the game and his rules are not working. Even the President now admits that we are at war with Al Qaeda without acknowledging the role of radical Muslim jihadists in this war. Unfortunately, there is a race going on between how fast President Obama can come up the learning curve on how to fight a war against radical jihadists, and when these combatants can again do something really horrible to us. Hopefully, for all our sakes, the President will change course quickly.
Fred S. Fraenkel
Vice Chairman and
Chairman of Investment Policy
Beacon Trust Company
Copyright (c) BEACON TRUST 2010. All rights reserved. The information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not necessarily complete and its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made as to the fairness, accuracy, completeness, or correctness of the information and opinions contained herein. The views and the other information provided are subject to change without notice. This report is issued without regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any specific recipient and is not to be construed as a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any securities or related financial instruments. Past performance is not necessarily a guide to future results. Company fundamentals and earnings may be mentioned occasionally, but should not be construed as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold a company’s stock. Predictions, forecasts, estimates for any and all markets should not be construed as recommendations to buy, sell, or hold any security--including mutual funds, futures contracts, and exchange traded funds, or any similar instruments. The text, images, and other materials contained are proprietary to Beacon Trust. and constitute valuable intellectual property. No material from this report may be used or otherwise disseminated in any form to any person or entity, without the explicit written consent of Beacon Trust. All unauthorized reproduction or other use of material from Beacon Trust shall be deemed willful infringement(s) of this copyright and other proprietary and intellectual property rights, including but not limited to, rights of privacy. Beacon Trust expressly reserves all rights in connection with its intellectual property, including without limitation the right to block the transfer of its products and services and/or to track usage thereof, through electronic tracking technology, and all other lawful means, now known or hereafter devised. Beacon Trust reserves the right, without further notice, to pursue to the fullest extent allowed by the law any and all criminal and civil remedies for the violation of its rights.