The Phoney War

News Type: Event — Seeded on Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:43 PM EDT

Article Source: Rolling Stone

world-news, iraq, bush, terrorism, propaganda, osama, pnac

President Bush not only created a fake "War on Terror" to scare voters into supporting his policies - he is failing to address the real threat facing America.

In August, even before the official announcement that some two dozen would-be terrorists had been arrested in London, President Bush and his top advisers swung into action. Their goal was not to stop the terrorists, who were already safely behind bars, but to use the threat to justify the president's seemingly endless "War on Terror."

Vice President Dick Cheney, who had known in advance about the pending arrests, hinted darkly about the threat posed by "Al Qaeda types." The president, standing on an airport tarmac in Wisconsin the next morning, warned that the arrests were "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists." And that afternoon, Peter Wehner, the director of the White House's Office of Strategic Initiatives, declared that America is engaged in nothing less than a "civilizational struggle" with enemies who seek "to establish a radical Islamic empire that spans from Spain to Indonesia."

Fortunately, Wehner added, the country has a leader who knows exactly how to combat terrorism: "George W. Bush understands, with extraordinary clarity, the great struggle of our time."

The problem is, almost everything that President Bush understands about his own war on terrorism is wrong.

Published to:

Pamela Drew's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: none
Regions: none

Public Discussion (24)

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

6.9

5.3

{"commentId":288490,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Pamela Drew

"I hate the term 'global war on terrorism,'" says John O. Brennan, a CIA veteran who served as the first director of the National Counterterrorism Center, the primary organization set up by Bush to analyze all intelligence about terrorism and coordinate strategic operational planning. "I hate the tough talk, you know, the 'we're gonna kill these guys' stuff."

Brennan is not alone. In a survey conducted this summer, more than 100 top foreign-policy experts - including former secretaries of state, CIA directors and high-ranking Pentagon officials - were asked if the president is "winning the War on Terror." Eighty-four percent said no.

Eighty four percent said NO, he is not winning his war on terror. Why are we fighting?

{"commentId":288490,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

12 votes

#1 - Tue Sep 12, 2006 2:56 PM EDT

{"commentId":288835,"authorDomain":"MCLiepshutz"}

MCLiepshutz

A recent NPR interviewee stated that the war on terror should never have been declared. It should have been fought as we have fought all international crimes, with police agencies, the fbi, cia interpol et al.Bush's crusade has presented such a huge target that a 3rd grader with a smokebomb could hit it. I agree Pam..it seems that this orwellian action on behalf of Bushco is not much more than a cynical ploy to hold power. Keep up the good work.

{"commentId":288835,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"MCLiepshutz"}

6 votes

#1.1 - Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:17 PM EDT

{"commentId":289015,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

MartinEZ

Why are we fighting?

That is the wrong question to ask...

Would you agree that we need to "combat" terrorism? I know we do. So I think the real question is this.

Why are we letting this carpetbagger fight a dead end war in Iraq, when we need to go after terrorist cells?

{"commentId":289015,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"martinez"}

1 vote

#1.2 - Tue Sep 12, 2006 9:50 PM EDT

{"commentId":289242,"authorDomain":"djehuty"}

Djehuty

MCLiepshutz I totally agree.

{"commentId":289242,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"djehuty"}

2 votes

#1.3 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:10 AM EDT

{"commentId":289641,"authorDomain":"baxter"}

Tim Baxter

Why are we fighting?

Because we don't know how to stop?

{"commentId":289641,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"baxter"}

2 votes

#1.4 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":289795,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Pamela Drew

Tim it seems increasingly clear that this is for the oil and contractor profits which only grow with time.

{"commentId":289795,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

2 votes

#1.5 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:05 PM EDT

{"commentId":288746,"authorDomain":"keld"}

Keld Bach

Great seed, Pamela.

{"commentId":288746,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"keld"}

6 votes

#2 - Tue Sep 12, 2006 6:15 PM EDT

{"commentId":288857,"authorDomain":"Frozenstars"}

Frozenstars

International crimes indeed -- but tell that to the public at large who wanted blood, and as soon as possible?!

Nothing short of the will of the Almighty was going to stop the so called War on Terrorism.

Unfortunately, we have fools running it…

{"commentId":288857,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"Frozenstars"}

3 votes

#3 - Tue Sep 12, 2006 7:30 PM EDT

{"commentId":289547,"authorDomain":"rollie"}

Rollie

I agree with a lot of the comments in this article and that we need to be much smarter in the fight. However, calling it a "Phoney War" is misleading in that it seems to say that there is no threat - that somehow Bush pulled the threat of radical islam on 9/11 out of thin air, when in reality, radical islamists had been hating and killing Americans in mass numbers since Beirut in 1983. Even the article itself admits that the threat is very grave and morphing into even more dangerous manifestations like homegrown radical islamic groups. There is nothing phoney about this threat particularly as Iran speeds toward its ability to create a nuclear arsenal and share that with Hizbohallah, the very group that attacked the multinational barracks in Beirut in 1983. It only takes one act of terrorism with a nuclear bomb to make 9/11 look like a pittance and kill more Americans than ever were killed in any "real war" .

The article is actually not questioning the war itself but the tactics used to wage the war, calling for a law enforcement approach. This was the pre-911 Clinton approach which unfortunately did nothing to reduce the growth of islamic radicalism around the world and resulted in the 9/11 attack and 3,000 dead. IMHO the better tactic would be to allow greater leeway of precise, intelligence-based law-enforcement AND military strikes at terrorist cells and individual groups in concert with foreign law enforcement and intelligence/military agencies and covertly if necessary. There needs to be a mix of law enforcement, strengthened intelligence gathering, and precise military capabilities to address this war on radical islamists - a range of tactics that address cell-based threats as well as the larger state-based threats. And according to the article the systematic decimation of Al Queda is a sign of success along these lines. We definitely need to get smarter on how to wage this multi-faceted war.

{"commentId":289547,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"rollie"}

1 vote

#4 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:18 AM EDT

{"commentId":289612,"authorDomain":"Bralls"}

BrianR

I think your statement "his own war on terrorism" shows how childish you can be. This is this country's war until you guys get someone like you into the Whithouse to change that! You lost in '04 get over it!

{"commentId":289612,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"Bralls"}

2 votes

#5 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:05 PM EDT

{"commentId":289628,"authorDomain":"pody"}

Dom Pody

Brian, the fact is the War or Terror is not a war.

war (wôr) n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.

The fact is, terrorists are not soldiers. They do not wear a uniform. They are fighting for a cause that they cannot win. Unfortunately, Bush's GWOT also cannot be won.

{"commentId":289628,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"pody"}

4 votes

#5.1 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:15 PM EDT

{"commentId":289686,"authorDomain":"Bralls"}

BrianR

Unfortunately, Bush's GWOT also cannot be won.

Not with people like you trying your hardest to prevent us from doing so! and I do believe you are trying your hardest to prevent us from doing so, that much is clear.

{"commentId":289686,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"Bralls"}

1 vote

#5.2 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 12:50 PM EDT

{"commentId":289701,"authorDomain":"pody"}

Dom Pody

Oh, really. How, exactly, am I doing that? By criticizing our government? Funny, I thought that was one of the freedoms that our government was supposed to protect.

Also, the GWOT cannot be won because it's impossible to war a war against an enemy that doesn't have a nation to defeat. It's impossible to eradicate all terrorists, so why do we even try? We should rather secure our people from the inside, rather than fighting useless wars that do nothing but create more terrorists (see: Iraq).

{"commentId":289701,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"pody"}

3 votes

#5.3 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:03 PM EDT

{"commentId":289707,"authorDomain":"baxter"}

Tim Baxter

Because we're fighting a war on an abstract noun? We might as well fight the Global War on Sadness. Or, for that matter, the War on Poverty. We see how well that one did.

{"commentId":289707,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"baxter"}

3 votes

#5.4 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:09 PM EDT

{"commentId":289747,"authorDomain":"lunartick"}

LunarTick

Tim, exactly. The only time the GWOT will be "won" is when every creature capable of anger or hatred has been eliminated. What most people don't realize is that that also includes the people who initiated the war.

{"commentId":289747,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"lunartick"}

3 votes

#5.5 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":289848,"authorDomain":"aine"}

Aine MacDermot

Because we're fighting a war on an abstract noun? We might as well fight the Global War on Sadness. Or, for that matter, the War on Poverty. We see how well that one did.

We could fight them all at once with a War on Ignorance.

{"commentId":289848,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"aine"}

3 votes

#5.6 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:48 PM EDT

{"commentId":290073,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Pamela Drew

If we fought a War on Ignorance what would the White House position be?? That's a tough one.

{"commentId":290073,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

2 votes

#5.7 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 5:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":290265,"authorDomain":"lunartick"}

LunarTick

Pamela, they'd naturally try to capture and "interrogate" all the Ignorantists in their not-so-secret-anymore overseas prisons.

{"commentId":290265,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"lunartick"}

#5.8 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":290351,"authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

Pamela Drew

I'm still not sure how we know the captors from the captured, but then the war on terror gives us the same dilemma.

{"commentId":290351,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"PamelaDrew"}

1 vote

#5.9 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:49 PM EDT

{"commentId":289770,"authorDomain":"stevetherobot"}

stevetherobot

he is failing to address the real threat facing America

Gay marriage?
Illegal immigrants?
Flag burning?

{"commentId":289770,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"stevetherobot"}

2 votes

#6 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:55 PM EDT

{"commentId":290326,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

MartinEZ

Flag burning?

Where do you stand on that issue? I'll spin it like the right loves to, with a twist however.

Are you for "free speech" or do you think they should ban the peoples right to express themselves by burning the flag?

Illegal immigrants and the middle class are the real issues we should be worried. After all, the middle class is the majority.

{"commentId":290326,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"martinez"}

1 vote

#6.1 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:37 PM EDT

{"commentId":290410,"authorDomain":"pody"}

Dom Pody

The right tends to say something more along the lines of this: "Are you against flag burning, or do you hate America?"

{"commentId":290410,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"pody"}

2 votes

#6.2 - Wed Sep 13, 2006 10:30 PM EDT

{"commentId":290546,"authorDomain":"aine"}

Aine MacDermot

I figure if politicians can use the flag for political purposes, most evident by those little lapel pins they wear, then why shouldn't anyone else have the same freedom of speech?

{"commentId":290546,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"aine"}

3 votes

#6.3 - Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:03 AM EDT

{"commentId":290562,"authorDomain":"martinez"}

MartinEZ

Hence the twist... I was attempting to pose the argument from the "left's" point of view while maintaining the "stupidity of the right's" argument structure.

Maybe I failed...

{"commentId":290562,"threadId":"41983","contentId":"359543","authorDomain":"martinez"}

#6.4 - Thu Sep 14, 2006 1:30 AM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"41983","isPrivate":false}

PAMELA DREW

Backyard

The Phoney War

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: