Too Late Smart

If this observation by Daniel Davis at 1945 sounds familiar to you:

The terrorist’s death “marks the most significant achievement to date” in America’s quest to defeat al-Qaeda, Obama said. But a decade later, and almost 20 years since the 9/11 attacks, it is now clear that the killing had little more than symbolic meaning – and illustrates the importance of setting realistic objectives in the establishment of foreign policy.

President George W. Bush had tried for over seven years to hunt down and kill or capture the terror leader. When Obama finally succeeded, Bush congratulated him and said Bin Laden’s killing was a “momentous” accomplishment that marked “a victory for America.”

And yet, it marked nothing of the kind.

On the contrary, it had virtually no impact on either our strategic fight against al-Qaeda or on the tactical battles we were waging against violent extremists in numerous countries around the globe.

it might be because it’s what I was saying 10 years ago. I seem to recall that I was accused of racism for making the observation which is odd considering that I would have said the same thing had John McCain been president. I saw the observation as more like putting the black deuce on the red trey.

He expands on the statement:

In 2006 the Chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued the National Military Strategic Plan for the War on Terrorism. The document detailed several objectives in its mission to win the GWOT. Key among these were:

  • a requirement to attack to disrupt terrorist networks “so as to cause the enemies to be incapable or unwilling to attack the U.S.,”
  • deny terrorist networks the possession or use of weapons of mass destruction,
  • establish conditions “that allow partner nations to govern their territory effectively,” and to
  • c

  • ontribute to the establishment of a global environment “inhospitable to violent extre3mists and all who support them.”

The problem with them all: the tasks were so vague as to be effectively impossible to define, much less accomplish. The list represented a set of policy aspirations and not a list of militarily achievable objectives.

I would go even farther. I think you weaken your own deterrence when you don’t have the mandate or the will to prevail militarily. Better by far not to use force at all.

1 comment… add one
  • bob sykes Link

    Osama Bin Laden inspired two generations of jihadis, and there are now hundreds of groups that claim some sort of affiliation with al-Qaeda, and more are on the way.

    We keep killing the leaders, and often dozens or even hundreds of bystanders, but behind every leader is another waiting to take his place. The whole decapitation program has been a striking failure.

    The GWOT is, in fact if not intent, a war on Islam. And that simple fact is why we lose everywhere in the Muslim world. We’re even losing in the Somali ghettos of Minneapolis and Columbus.

Leave a Comment