A new Rand Corporation study concludes that the Bush administration's "war on terror" was essentially ill-conceived and wholly ineffective at preventing terrorist violence. In fact, it has been counterproductive and the study urges a "fundamental rethinking" of counterterrorism strategy.

Guess what. Many of us have been saying this since before the phony "war on terror" was declared.

The Rand corporation is no left-wing think-tank, nor does it have any affiliation with the Democratic Party. Rand was set up in 1946 by the United States Army Air Forces as Project RAND. In fact, RAND has been criticized as militarist.

I think it is worth quoting a few lines from the report, otherwise I might be accused of exaggerating or distorting the degree to which this report disparages the Bush/Cheney/McCain approach to fighting religious extremism with military force.

Here is a report on what the Rand study says:

The current strategy for defeating al Qaeda has not been successful in diminishing the group's capabilities and is unlikely to do better without a shift in emphasis, the Rand Corp. study concludes.

Since 2001, al Qaeda has conducted a greater number of attacks across a larger geographic area than at any time in its history. "We find it hard to agree that al Qaeda has been significantly weakened since Sept. 11, 2001," says Seth Jones, coauthor with Martin Libicki of the report titled "How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qaeda."

The authors evaluate al Qaeda since 2001 as being both "strong" and "competent."

What's needed, the report suggests, is a "fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy" to focus on minimizing overt military action and increasing intelligence collection and partnerships with law enforcement agencies around the world.

The report couldn't have been clearer in its refutation of one of the central tenants of the Bush administration's strategy against al Qaeda: the characterization of the conflict as a "global war".

For one thing, they point out, a major American military role sets the stage for a backlash. "The U.S. military can play a critical role in building indigenous capacity but should generally resist being drawn into combat operations in Muslim countries, where its presence is likely to increase terrorist recruitment," Jones and Libicki wrote." (emphasis mine)

Bush/Cheney/McCain were/are dead wrong. And many are dead because of them.

We need a new approach to neutralizing Muslim fundamentalism.

The "war on terror" is now over and we lost.

Let's now try to understand and to diffuse the antagonism towards the United States that it has bred.

Let's demonstrate by example the tolerance and freedom that were the hallmarks of this country until the past few years.

 

A recent comment deserves a comprehensive response.

From SG 134:

Do you believe terrorist want to destroy us and our great country? Especially Jews and Christians? Do you believe Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to make nukes and then use them to destroy Israel?

SG134,

Your questions demonstrate a critical lack of understanding of the world around you.

“Terrorism” is the tactical use of violence against civilians to achieve a strategic goal, whether political, economic, religious or ideological. A terrorist is someone who practices terrorism or advocates that practice.

No terrorist believes that they can literally destroy an entire country. The psychological effect – terror – is the real goal. If the act of terrorism provokes a violent response, then the mission has been successful. If there is not a violent response, the mission has failed.

Perpetuating a cycle of violence is a tactic that is designed to ultimately provoke a military response. This military response depletes the resources of the victim state, costs many lives, and is doomed to fail, because the original perpetrators are replaced by recruits motivated by the military action itself.

You are a victim, and at the same time a perpetrator of terrorism. Intellectually, you may understand that your chances of being killed in an act of terror are minuscule, yet you are obviously terrified. By being terrified and responding by supporting state sanctioned violence, and by virally spreading fear and hate, people like you are aiding in the mission of the terrorist.

Does that make you a terrorist? If you actively support a military solution, then you are playing into the hands of the terrorist. Without the reaction of terrified people like you, the tactic of terror is useless.

I frequently use the word “terrorism” in a somewhat broader sense. I believe that when a government uses propaganda to raise the same kind of fear, hate and nationalism that terrorist violence breeds, in order to manipulate the behavior and attitudes of its citizens, that is also terrorism. The psychological effect is the same – the acceptance of violence as a tool of policy.

There really should be a name for people who are the unwitting accomplices of terrorists, and one for state-sponsored, psychological terrorists.

I assume, SG134, that when you use the word “terrorists” you mean Islamic fundamentalists. The fact is that fundamentalists of all faiths, including Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have used terror to “defend” their faith.

There certainly are Muslim fundamentalists who believe that our way of life is decadent and immoral. (This is a legitimate argument, if you follow the Christian doctrine, or the Jewish one.) Fortunately, the percentage of religious fundamentalists of any faith is very small. The absolute numbers of those willing to use violence is tiny.

Let’s also acknowledge that not all terrorism is religiously motivated.

The Muslim fundamentalists willing to use violence may think that they are fighting a religious war, but we are not. Although it is sometimes portrayed in cultural terms for the propaganda value, the so-called “War on Terror” is about politics and economics.

As for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, I fully understand his obsession with obtaining nuclear weapons.  The United States has made no attempt to disguise our aggressive intentions toward that nation. The unprovoked invasion of their neighbor Iraq has terrorized a large percentage of their population and inflamed the Mullahs. They want a nuke to keep us out.

The only way out of the box we are in is to elect a President who does not see a military resolution to every international issue.

A perpetual state of war is what Bush has achieved, and John McCain is exactly the right man to keep that cycle of violence turning.

In the last two days, George Bush has, by his own definition, surrendered on two fronts in his “War on Terror”.

When Bush spoke before the Israeli Knesset a few weeks ago, he compared Barack Obama’s call for unconditional talks with Iran to Nazi appeasers:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

After Iran fired several medium and long-range missiles in a show of its willingness and ability to return force if attacked, Bush caved. Now, we will sit down and talk.

Until the missile launch, the administration had insisted it would not speak with the Iranians until they ended their nuclear enrichment program. Iran has made no such commitment, in fact has been vehement in its refusal to do so.

Today, Bush has agreed in principle with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to set a “time horizon” for the withdrawal of American troops, because the Iraqis want their country back.

When Obama or others have called for such a timeline, they were labeled as surrender monkeys. John McCain, up until today was ridiculing Obama for suggesting such an approach.

What it amounts to is that Bush and McCain have no clue what to do now that American military forces, by their heroic efforts, have exposed the fact that the “War on Terror” is unwinnable.

After the slaughter of as many as a million Iraqis and more than 4,000 Americans, the forces of fundamentalist Islam are stronger than they were on 9/11. After our invasion, they came to Iraq, tied down the greatest military in the history of the world, and then snuck out the back door.

They are now re-taking Afghanistan, and when we “surge” there, they will go somewhere else, perhaps even back to Iraq.

They will never be defeated by force. Barrack Obama knows this.

John McCain wants to keep on fighting, slaughtering innocent civilians, glorifying the extremists and wasting U.S. lives and dollars.

It is time to admit that the “War on Terror” was nothing more than a cover for *** Cheney to deface the Constitution, and to hold the members of this administration accountable for their crimes.

 

 

I have refrained from writing about John McCain’s pastor problem.

I really resented the way so many people used Rev. Wright as an excuse to unleash their racism and guiltlessly attack Barack Obama for being black – and worse – attack the institution of the black church, which has provided hope and inspiration for African Americans during centuries of slavery and oppression.

Also, I think that mixing religion and politics is just a really bad idea.

Politicians should keep their religion to themselves. As always, Bush provides us a perfect example of how not to lead.

If, in fact, the President of the United States is a born again Christian, this means that he believes that for God’s will to be fulfilled, and for Jesus Christ to return, there needs first to be an Armageddon.

I have wondered if one the factors motivating George Bush, who claims such beliefs, and has also stated that he believes that God selected him to be president, to attack Iraq is that he believes it is his Biblical providence to lead us into the cataclysmic battle between God and Satan.

Personally, I don’t want to see a nuclear war so that the born-agains can get their reward of sitting at Jesus’ hand. Any more than I want to get blown apart by a Muslim fundamentalist so that he can get to his own version of heaven.

I think I’d rather have a clear-eyed atheist with his finger on the button, thank you.

John McCain, who has famously criticized leaders of the religious right as "agents of intolerance", nonetheless has spent the last year currying favor with these same televangelist preachers in order to pander to the religious right, a core constituency of the Republican Party since the days of Ronald Reagan.

Among those is the Pastor John Hagee, who is about as whacked out (or as prophetic) as a preacher can get.

Among his other bizarre statements, Hagee has excused Adolph Hitler for annihilating millions of Jews, claiming that Hitler was acting on God’s behalf, driving the Jews back to Israel so that Armageddon could occur and Christ could come back.

He blames the Jews for the Holocaust. And gays for Katrina. And your sins for 9-11.

John McCain has said that he is “proud” to have this sociopath as a spiritual advisor.

Today, McCain tossed Hagee under the bus. Like the four lobbyists who were his key advisors, but became a liability to his ambitions by being, well, lobbyists.

Considering the endless looping of a 5 second clip of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s most inflammatory remarks over a period of at least a month, and the inference that Barack Obama shared those sentiments, it will be interesting to see how long the media’s attention remains focused on the anti-Semitic rantings of Pastor Hagee.

My guess: one news cycle.

 

A report on Israeli Army Radio claimed that George Bush and Vice President Cheney disclosed to the Israeli government last week that they are planning to attack Iran before they leave office next January.

 

Of course, the White House denies the report.

 

According to the unidentified source, described as a “top official in Jerusalem”, a “senior member” of the Bush Administration (a label frequently used to describe the Vice President) stated in a closed meeting that military action against Iran is forthcoming.

 

The report also said that Bush and Cheney were only holding fire due to "the hesitancy of Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice". One can imagine that Secretary Gates actually gives a damn about his troops. Who knows what the hell Condi is thinking?

 

The White House responded, saying, “…Our preference and our actions for dealing with this matter remain through peaceful diplomatic means. Nothing has changed in that regard."

 

That’s a little difficult to imagine. Because even talking about talking to the Iranians is a sign of naiveté, according John McCain, or worse, appeasement according to the Commander in Chief. I think we all know what Cheney is thinking.

 

It seems certain that the attack will be an air strike of suspected nuclear facilities, rather than a ground invasion. (The exhausted state of our military makes that impossible.) In effect, it won’t matter, as the Iranians can be depended upon to launch a spirited defense of their homeland, and will send human waves of troops across the border into Iraq. (During their almost nine year war with Sadaam Hussein they took millions of casualties.)

 

Any large-scale movement of Iranian troops would of course expose them to highly efficient aerial attacks, with horrific loss of life. One can only imagine the carnage of an all-out Iranian invasion of Iraq, with 140,000 U.S. troops caught between the Iranian army and the Sunni insurgency.

 

I am guessing that the bombs will not fly before November 2, so Happy Thanksgiving.

 

Get ready for a whole new war.

 

Black faces scare the hell out of Republicans. (Let’s be honest, a lot of Democrats, too. Hey, they scare Barack Obama’s grandma.)

Can we get over it?

The honchos who run the Republican Party don’t mind African Americans, just ask them. They say they love their black brothers and sisters, and there’s no reason to doubt that. They just really don’t want you to.

It’s a bit of a dilemma actually. Because if they were ever successful at bringing large numbers of black people into the Republican Party, it would be pretty awkward to use racial scare tactics, wouldn’t it?

(A little history, here. You see all your big-time white racists used to be Democrats, back in the day. No, really. Then LBJ came along and, well, they all switched over to the Republican side because, well, there were just so many black people in the Democrat club.)

But really, it works out fine for the Republicans, because a whole lot of black folks don’t actually vote. You know, they say they’re busy working, or looking for work, transportation is an issue, and such.

And, SO, the Republicans are free to play the race cards and they have them in spades. (Sorry.)

See, the Republicans are masters at getting up into that primitive part of your brain where all your worst fears live, and yanking those levers, and slamming those buttons. A lot of people react as reliably as Pavlov’s famous dogs, and salivate all over themselves. It is not a pretty site.

“Please! Tell me what I have to do to be SAFE!” Give up my rights?! No problem, I wasn’t using them anyway! TAKE THEM!”

And, there’s lots to be afraid of you know. Mushroom clouds, Muslims, the taxman, vegans, gays, and the list is endless.

But black people are the perennial favorite boogieman of the Republicans.

This time, it’s Rev. Jeremiah (well, that’s weird right there, isn’t it?) Wright. You know, he’s that REALLY black man that screams all the time! All the time! And he’s always screaming the same thing! “God DAMN America!” Every day, sometimes a couple of times a day, he’s screaming “God DAMN America”! “GOD DAMN AMERICA!”

Well, that’s pretty scary!

Reverend Wright said today that the attacks on him are attacks on the black church. I think he’s right, but I think it goes beyond that. I think they are attacks on America.

 

John McCain, running on a platform of more war, never misses the opportunity to demonize the enemy. Unfortunately, he lumps all believers in the world’s second largest religion into that camp.

The use of the term “Islamo-fascism”, that favorite epithet of right-wing radio and McCain, aside from being bigoted, is a great recruiting tool for terrorists according to our own Department of Homeland Security.

Documents published by the Associated Press show that the Bush administration has reached the enlightened conclusion that using this term, and a slew of other popular slurs against Islam, "may actually boost support for radicals among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or by causing offense to moderates." Imagine that.

All government agencies, including the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the National Counter Terrorism Center, have been ordered not to inflame religious hatred with ignorant use of terms such as “Islamo-fascist”, “jihad" or "mujahedeen," the first being moronic and the other two being misused in ways religiously offensive to all practicing Muslims.

Too bad. It’s such fun to de-humanize the enemy.

So, now that it’s officially recognized that this kind of inflammatory rhetoric actually supports terrorists in recruiting, it will be interesting to see if John McCain will continue to use abusive language to stir up the religious fears and prejudices of his supporters.

 

I should not find it ironic that the people who so freely flung around the epithet “Bush hater”, are now freely spreading hate aimed at Barack Obama.

You have read this slime right here on these pages.

Not just disagreement with his political positions. Not mere accusations that his promise of hope is hollow. This would be within the realm of healthy political discourse.

What I am talking about are the kind of slurs that foment fear and hatred. I am talking about people, our neighbors, who cry out that Obama is “dangerous.”

In willful ignorance of his service as a member of the United States Congress, such people drop very clumsy suggestions that he is acting in the service of some unspecified foreign power.

And the repeated lie – I’d like to think this comes from ignorance, but I am now convinced that it’s a deliberate campaign of lies – that Obama is a Muslim.

Personally, I can think of nothing that would work more to heal the current global religious schism than for the United States to elect a Muslim president, but it is so obviously false that Obama is Muslim that for him to deny it would only feed the bigotry that leads to the lie.

I have recently received an email, from a loved one at that, which suggested that Barrack Obama is in fact, the anti-Christ.

I can come to no other conclusion than that people feel free to attack Obama so viciously because he is black.