| Submit your comments on this article |
| Afghanistan |
| Dead men tell no secrets - New York Times |
| 2012-09-29 |
| In which the Times comes out against the policy of dronezapping, But they were (and are) also against holding Qaeda prisoners at places like Guantanamo and Bagram, preferring instead the "moral high ground" that would come with "bringing them to justice." This process isn't defined, and any actual definition in practice would, naturally, be subject to condemnation by the Times and similar institutions, whose moral ground is so rarified that they would never be quite satisfied with anything... So we gotta let 'em all go then. And apologize to them. And give them free phones. It's the only option left... THOSE who naïvely believed that the late Osama bin Laden ... who is no longer with us, and won't be again... 's death and America's forthcoming departure from Afghanistan would usher in a new era free of threats from Al Qaeda have been proved wrong. After Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens was killed on Sept. 11 in Benghazi, Libya, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb issued a statement praising the murder and calling for further attacks against American diplomats in the region. Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula made similar calls for violence. Then, last week, new evidence emerged suggesting that the attack had been planned by Al Qaeda -- and was linked to Sufian bin Qumu, a Libyan who had been placed in long-term storage Into the paddy wagon wit' yez! at the American prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In 2007, Mr. Qumu was transferred to Libyan custody and held in a Libyan prison; he was later freed by the Qadaffy government and rejoined terrorist groups. The ongoing fight against Al Qaeda is not limited to Afghanistan and Pakistain; Qaeda affiliates and supporters operate actively in North Africa Yemen, and beyond. And if Mr. Qumu was indeed involved with the mission attack, it raises serious questions about what other countries do with captured faceless myrmidons who remain a threat. It also reminds us that America's ability to effectively hold and interrogate those it captures in this fight is crucial. At the moment, the United States has nowhere to hold and interrogate newly captured terrorists. America just handed over control of its detention facility at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, a significant step toward transferring security operations to Afghans. And while Guantanamo Bay remains home to nearly 170 men that the United States believes are still a threat, no captured terrorist has been transferred there since August 2008. Yet in the past four years, drone strikes and Since 2010, there have been about 2,000 such strikes in Pakistain alone, with hundreds more in Yemen and North Africa. Meanwhile, ...back at the comedy club, Boogie was cracking himself up, but nobody else seemed to be getting the non-stop jokes... only one alleged terrorist outside of Afghanistan -- a Somali named Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame -- was captured, held and interrogated. He was later flown to New York to stand trial. It's true that drone strikes and other tactics that aim to kill, rather than capture, faceless myrmidons are an effective tool for combating serious threats. They increase America's ability to quickly attack targets in remote regions where American troops cannot easily operate. Such strikes allow the United States to respond quickly to time-sensitive intelligence about a known terrorist's location or plans. They avoid the political risks and the costs, in money and lives, of supporting a large-scale military operation on foreign soil. And they help the White House avoid controversial issues of long-term detention and interrogation, which remain a political liability at home and abroad. But this one-sided approach -- always opting to kill instead of capture -- is a major weakness of America's current approach to counterterrorism. It deprives us of significant amounts of intelligence about what Al Qaeda is thinking and planning, and information that could help find other senior terrorists. After all, it was intelligence from a detainee that helped American forces track down Bin Laden. America's heavy reliance on drones also creates more sympathy for Al Qaeda in some countries and, ultimately, may radicalize more people and encourage them to join forces with faceless myrmidons -- creating more enemies for America, not fewer. One young Yemeni told me this summer that he and his friends "are like mobiles with two SIM cards," his way of saying that American drone attacks make them shift allegiances, just as they easily switch their cellphone service providers and they become sympathetic with local Al Qaeda groups. The fact that the United States now has nowhere to hold a terrorist -- and no policy to deal with him once captured -- means that a dangerous suspect might very well be let go. At present, there is no standard course of action approved by the president and relevant government agencies for what to do in the days and months following capture. This situation creates disturbing incentives for troops on the battlefield. It encourages soldiers and policy makers in Washington to opt for the "five-cent solution" -- a bullet. Rather than shooting people, we should be exercising due process, and bringing transnational faceless myrmidons to justice. That's an approach that would help America maintain the moral high ground in the ongoing fight against Al Qaeda. The United States has had numerous counterterrorism successes in the past few years, but this month's events prove that we are still fighting a serious battle against faceless myrmidons in North Africa, Yemen, Pakistain and elsewhere. It is a battle that requires multiple weapons -- not just |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #10 Dead men fly no planes into buildings - New York Times (post successful treatment for mental illness know as leftism). |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-09-29 20:37 |
| #9 I'm sensing that 45 bullets are going to fill in the void for "bringing them to justice". |
| Posted by: Raider 2012-09-29 16:30 |
| #8 Self Criticism is often the first step toward enlightenment and illumination. Unfortunately, this self criticism is only intended to destroy newsprint with ink. The NYT does not get the irony of the criticism of policies they've advocated in the past and the irony of advocating processes they emoted mightily against in the past |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2012-09-29 12:25 |
| #7 Not the only dysfunction, but what we are likely seeing is the painfully all too common dynamic of wars thin wars. Competition between the bloated bureacracies of the Diplomatic Community, DoD (less SOF), Intelligence Agencies, DoJ and Law Enforcement, Special Operations community, all vying for the same dwindling piece of bread. Absent strong leadership from the top, expect more of the same. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-09-29 11:19 |
| #6 a major weakness of America's current approach to counterterrorism. It deprives us of significant amounts of intelligence about what Al Qaeda is thinking and planning, and information that could help find other senior terrorists. Which you can't get without asking nicely. No enhanced interrogation, let alone waterboarding. What is the matter with these idiots? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2012-09-29 11:05 |
| #5 Exactly correct CrazyFool, and the "buy in" from our Champ, was it difficult to arrange? No, of course not. Perhaps it was sold in sports jargon, an audible from the quarterback, the headman, the brewmaster, terms he understands and can not in agreement with. Take careful note of who executes the play action with regarding Predator strikes on selected high-profile, suspected Taliban and AQ personnel. It is not the US Air Force or the Army. Take note of the media play and who receives credit for the kill. Micro-zapping these foks off the field one or two at a time is a small man's folly, a fools game. Waving a fancy beaded whisk at flies; it simply moves them around for a time. They are soon replaced by more of the same. The problem is much, much larger. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-09-29 10:35 |
| #4 Killing them is also one way to prevent Obama, the NYT, the media, and the leftists from freeing them again to kill more of the soldier's buddies (or an ambassador or two). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2012-09-29 09:36 |
| #3 >THOSE who naïvely believed that the late Osama bin Laden's death and America's forthcoming departure from Afghanistan would usher in a new era free of threats from Al Qaeda have been proved wrong. Er who believed that? |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2012-09-29 09:31 |
| #2 kill em where they stand and tell the rest: "I had to, otherwise the Journalists might condemn me" |
| Posted by: Frank G 2012-09-29 09:28 |
| #1 This situation creates disturbing incentives for troops on the battlefield. It encourages soldiers and policy makers in Washington to opt for the "five-cent solution" -- a bullet "Opt for"......? A very, very charitable term of reference. Try the phrase; obsessive motivation traiing non-stop to the Oval office. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2012-09-29 08:39 |