CRS: Bush’s GWOT strategy fuels terrorism in Middle East.
CRS: Bush’s GWOT strategy fuels terrorism in Middle East.
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service yesterday released a report challenging President Bush’s Middle East counterterrorism strategy, noting that “[d]emocratization…may actually undermine U.S. security interests and exacerbate the terrorism problem”:
[T]here may be potential threats from groups or individuals aligned with other extremist causes or ideologies. Some wonder whether the emphasis on a single front in the war on terror might leave the country vulnerable to surprise attacks from groups that have been overlooked. [...]
The Strategy does not include a discussion and contingency plan for a scenario in which one does not “win.” [...]
There is heavy emphasis in the 2006 Strategy on democratization as a means of countering terrorism. Viewed in the context of the mixed success of fledgling democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan and the persistence of autocratic regimes among U.S. allies in the Middle East, the credibility and effectiveness of this strategic thrustmay merit scrutiny.
In a speech in Dallas today, Vice President Cheney confidently declared that “a free democratic Iraq will be a strategic partner in the heart of the Middle East, helping us fight and win the war on terror.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
55 Responses to “CRS: Bush’s GWOT strategy fuels terrorism in Middle East.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Nahhhhhh...and provide perpetual war? Nahhhhh.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:20 pmYeah, and the tooth fairy can make you very rich. You just need more teeth.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:23 pmCheney is a demigod, and very ill man.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:27 pmHello, Stratrat. We're home from NC.
"Iraq will be a strategic partner in the heart of the Middle East, helping us fight and win the war on terror."
As in, helping make more terrorists? For that "War" that can't be defined, and that can never be won, is it that "War", Darth Dick? How you going to get all those pesky "Terrorists" Darth? Oh, you can't ever do that, which means you have a "War" for profits that lasts forever. How convient for Corporations making the profits, and yourself Darth Dick.
Buck Fush
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm.
It's a Global War OF Terrorism.
.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:37 pmSaying we're going to "win" the War on Terror is like saying we're going to "win" the war on crime, or "win" the war on drugs.
Crime will always be there, drugs will always be there, and terrorism will always be around. It's a tactic, not a movement.
To say we're going to "win" the war on terror is absurd. Do they think we're going to completely eradicate terrorism world wide? We can't "win" the War on Terror because there is no strategic goal that equates to a win condition.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:39 pmTerror is a state of mind, not a State.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:44 pmCareful Dig Dug. You sound just like a liberal. Wouldn't want people thinking that now would you?
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:45 pmWe can’t “win†the War on Terror because there is no strategic goal that equates to a win condition.
Comment by DigDug
But it sure sounds like great thing to kill and torture civilians for.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:46 pmDream On, Deadeye, dream on! What you want is a perpetual war and oil grab in the middle east - filling your pockets with Haliburton greed. Everyone knows that "war on terror" is as nebulous as the galaxy itself and can never be won so you're not far off in your assertions. The war on terror, as it turns out, is the war you are waging with the american people - terrorizing them and trumpeting the fear agenda ad nauseum. We're onto the shenanigans of Tricky 5 Deferrment Dick and his gang of thugs - we're onto the neofascists who are trying to coup this democracy. We're onto every last one of them and they will be held accountable someday soon for their crimes.
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:51 pmAnd when you leave office and the door hits you in the a$$, take Lady Rudy with you, too. Since he wants you as his "dream veep", maybe you can engage in a simultaneous new "wet dream".
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:53 pmThe mere fact that a non-partisan organization has issued a statement or report that reflects poorly on the administration will now prompt howls of protest from conservatives/republicans that the organization is clearly partisan.
"You're obviously partisan!"
"How can you say that?"
"You disagree with me!"
November 2nd, 2007 at 7:55 pmThis administration is all about democracy, except for when it results in winners of elections they don't like. Like Hamas in Palestine. Iran was a democracy too, until we removed their democratically elected Prime Minister Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh. Of course, he nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. So, along with Britian, we covertly overthrew him and replaced him with the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), an authoritarian dictator with an infamous secret police (SAVAK). Our kind of people, apparently.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:00 pmThe GWOT is supposed to do just that.
It was designed to do just that.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:09 pmSo, along with Britian, we covertly overthrew him and replaced him with the Shah (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi), an authoritarian dictator with an infamous secret police (SAVAK). Our kind of people, apparently.
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush
And then we gave them a nulcear plant and some fissile material to get them started on the path to nukes! :D Wow! We've just made all the right moves with our foreign policy!
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:15 pmNotice how Cheney's emphasis on democracy doesn't come up much when refering to the KINGDOM of Saudi Arabia, or the Military dictatorships in Pakistan or Egypt.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:17 pmThe Bush administration has set back the efforts for democracy in the Middle East for a generation. And democracy in Iraq has become irreconsilable gridlock and inaction.
We can’t “win†the War on Terror because there is no strategic goal that equates to a win condition.
Comment by DigDug — November 2, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
Okay...I will offer myself as a sacrificial Flame Lamb because it has been a slow day on TP, it is Friday, you guys got screwed yet again by the Dems on Mukasey...and I actually happen to disagree with the idea that we have no strategic goal.
This is going to sound grandioise. And I know Bush is not the guy that is going to achieve this goal. It isn't going to happen within the next 20 years. But I think Democracy in the Middle East IS the strategic goal.
I know: Hamas. Al-Sadr. Often, democratic elections empower people who hate us. They have good reason to hate us. I'll say that again - they have reason to hate us. But are we really doing any good by supporting friendly dictatorts - like Saddam - that maintain "order"? Isn't that also a reason to hate us?
Look at it this way - in 50 years, one way or another, the Oil won't matter any more. Either it'll be gone or we'll have gotten past it as our primary energy source. The money will no longer be a motivator.
I guess what I am asking, and I think of this as radically, idealistically Progressive question, is there any chance for Peace on Earth? Is Gene Roddenbury's vision of a United Human Race even possible? And do we reach that goal by ignoring regimes like Saddam's because it is none of our business?
You were saying there is no strategic goal we can achieve. How far out does stategy go in time? Are we just doomed to replay the same variation of war endlessly, century after century? As a conservative, I think the answer to that question is yes. But as Progressives, don't you think the answer is no? But can you live with a peace that allows half the world to live in a place like Iran or Saudi Arabia, where women are chattel, where religion is a source of unending oppression? Isn't our messy, ham-handed attempt at bringing Democracy to Iraq better than doing nothing? Don't you all loathe Reagan and Rummy for playing nice with Saddam? Did you not support Clinton's airstrikes on Saddam's WMD?
I am rambling. Baaaa....Whoosh! Have fun.
Trick question: If Woodrow Wilson were alive today, where would he fit on the Political Spectrum?
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:24 pmThe money will no longer be a motivator
Comment by Keltoi at Night
hahahaha. That made me laugh hard, thanks.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:27 pmhahahaha. That made me laugh hard, thanks.
Comment by Juan C. — November 2, 2007 @ 8:27 pm
Your welcome. Baaa.
But I meant the money from Oil specifically. Everyone says the only reason we give a damn about the ME is because they have oil. One day it will either all be burnt up or we'll have quit using 19th century technology for power. Maybe then we'll turn our backs on them. I hope not.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 pmComment by DigDug — November 2, 2007 @ 8:15 pm
Correct, actually:
"The Iranian nuclear program was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 pmMaybe then we’ll turn our backs on them. I hope not.
Comment by Keltoi at Night
By the time, the Oil has run out, China and Russia will be the greatest superpowers, so...it wont matter anymore.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:36 pmComment by Keltoi at Night — November 2, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
You raise some interesting questions. Here's one way to look at the possible answer regarding that which leads to peace.
Matthew 7:3-5
3 “Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?
4 “Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and behold, the log is in your own eye?
5 “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:43 pmBy the time, the Oil has run out, China and Russia will be the greatest superpowers, so…it wont matter anymore.
Comment by Juan C. — November 2, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
Perhaps. This is all theoretical, of course, but lets say we are looking at 2050. Who is going to invent the next great energy source? Russia has us on Petro energy. Our technical know-how is still far superior to either of theirs. Will it be Fusion? Some wild kind of biotech energy where micro-organisms generate energy by eating garbage? It could be.
I dunno, it is off topic, I guess, but if you say we can never achieve a strategic goal then it is pretty damn sure we can't.
China is 20% of the world. If we really are in favor of Democracy, they have a pretty legit claim to being a Superpower. Their government, anyway, if their people get out of line they slaughter them...
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:45 pmIsn’t our messy, ham-handed attempt at bringing Democracy to Iraq better than doing nothing.
This is a false dichotomy. There's a lot of territory between "doing Nothing"., and conducting a poorly planned, lethally incompetent, internationally rejected attack on a country that did not attack us.
Saddam was ready to play ball with the international WMD inspectors (for the now obvious reason that he had noWMDs.). Bush rushed to attack, and won the Enmity of the Muslim world.This was not good or helpfull. Imagine if Britain had invaded America in the 1860's because they were opposed to slavery. While their goals would have been laudable, such efforts would have been counter productive, and Americans would have fiercely resisted it.
We should have supported "smart sanctions" against Saddam. Food and Medicine YES...Poison chemicals and Ball Bearings NO.
We would have been on the moral highground, and in a position to criticize others.
.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:47 pmComment by Keltoi at Night
Wow, thanks for the wall of text, at least I know you care :)
OK, well...
But I think Democracy in the Middle East IS the strategic goal.
I see that as a separate issue altogether. You have countries with democracy and terrorism, and you have countries with democracy and no terrorism. And as far as democracy as a goal: that's somthing that needs to come from within. It is NOT our right to go around invading countries to install our form of government. Anyway, quite often america does the opposite. We have in the past helped overthrough democratoc regimes and replace them with dictators. I think a good starting point would be to stop doing that!
But are we really doing any good by supporting friendly dictatorts - like Saddam - that maintain “order�
We certainly should not be supporting them. Unfortunately so often we have supported the bad guys. The first step is to stop contributing to the problem!
I guess what I am asking, and I think of this as radically, idealistically Progressive question, is there any chance for Peace on Earth?
No, sadly. But the violence could certainly be reduced. We seem to be only fanning the flames though.
And do we reach that goal by ignoring regimes like Saddam’s because it is none of our business?
No, but that doesn't mean war is the only other option. We rushed to war there before the inspectors were even done with their work.
There's a lot more I could say on that issue too, but I'm out of time. I'll have to finish this reply later :)
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:49 pmThis is going to sound grandioise. And I know Bush is not the guy that is going to achieve this goal. It isn’t going to happen within the next 20 years. But I think Democracy in the Middle East IS the strategic goal.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 2, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
Here's a quiz for you: Identify one time in the 20th century that democracy in the [insert locale] was a strategic goal for US Policy.
WWII doesn't count; we were attacked. WWI doesn't count, because we finally got involved, late in the game, for our own reasons that had nothing to do with imposing democracy on anyone.
While you're at it: Identify one time when any country successfully IMPOSED democracy on anyone else.
And I guarantee I can provide a much longer list (if you have any at all) in which the US deliberately impeded the establishment of democracy, including within the Middle East.
This administration, in particular, has no interest in democracy here or abroad. What they are interested in, as have been most administrations, is a stable, "friendly" government. The form of government is irrelevant; we've been more than comfortable playing footsie with the worst of tyrants, just as long as they allowed US interests to supercede their own.
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:54 pmYou raise some interesting questions. Here’s one way to look at the possible answer regarding that which leads to peace.
Matthew 7:3-5
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — November 2, 2007 @ 8:43 pm
I am not a Christian, but I respect the message.
I have always wondered though, if, at the climactic moment of the Sermon on the Mount, when Christ encouraged his followers to "turn the other cheek", what would have happened if a 1st century heckler was in the crowd who yelled "But, Lord, what if they strike that cheek as well?"
November 2nd, 2007 at 8:55 pmThere’s a lot more I could say on that issue too, but I’m out of time. I’ll have to finish this reply later :)
Comment by DigDug — November 2, 2007 @ 8:49 pm
Yeah, me too, wife is home kids to feed. Have a good weekend.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 pmEasier than coming up with that list, huh?
Pah.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:06 pmWWII doesn’t count; we were attacked. WWI doesn’t count, because we finally got involved, late in the game, for our own reasons that had nothing to do with imposing democracy on anyone.
While you’re at it: Identify one time when any country successfully IMPOSED democracy on anyone else.
Comment by gummitch — November 2, 2007 @ 8:54 pm
Oh, sure, take away the two biggest conflicts of the century....
Um...South Korea? Had we not gone to war there, they would be under Kim Jong Il as we speak. But that wasn't IMPOSING democracy. I agree, that is virtually impossible. Democracy grows generataionally, as it did it Britain c. 1215-1700.
You can't impose it. But you can impose conditions where it is possible. It would never have been possible in the Hussein dynasty-run Iraq. Now, at least, they have a shot. It may take decades. It may not be worth it to us. But it is a strategic goal, anyway.
GOTTA go.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:09 pmMakes one wonder if depopulation of oil regions is the goal here. Depleted uranium shells, a long term strategy?
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 pmWhen the Muslims get tired of killing each other, then they may want peace and democracy. Perhaps that is the strategy our illegal leaders are going for. Hell, that would give us at least another thousand years there. Oil, good to the last drop. And lets not forget the War Mongering Christian Right and there need to start Armageddon.
Um…South Korea? Had we not gone to war there, they would be under Kim Jong Il as we speak. But that wasn’t IMPOSING democracy. I agree, that is virtually impossible. Democracy grows generataionally, as it did it Britain c. 1215-1700.
You can’t impose it. But you can impose conditions where it is possible. It would never have been possible in the Hussein dynasty-run Iraq. Now, at least, they have a shot. It may take decades. It may not be worth it to us. But it is a strategic goal, anyway.
GOTTA go.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 2, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
The Korean War was part of the policy of containment; it had nothing to do with "democracy" and what passed for "democracy" in Korea for decades after didn't have anything to do with it, either.
What the Iraqis get now is chaos and civil war, not a shot at democracy. You can't plant democracy in a country where people have no personal safety, no running water, no electricity, no jobs . . .
And, again, I challenge you to provide examples of the US government ever having a policy of creating actual democracy.
Mussadeq in Iran and Arbenz in Guatemala, both good places to start. Hell, anywhere in Latin American in the 20th century. Think Pinochet. Think Contras.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pmAre Keltoi and Keltoi at Night the same person?
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pmYou can’t impose it. But you can impose conditions where it is possible. It would never have been possible in the Hussein dynasty-run Iraq. Now, at least, they have a shot. It may take decades. It may not be worth it to us. But it is a strategic goal, anyway.
GOTTA go.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 2, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
Actually they had a democracy in Iraq, until we overthrew it because it was too 'commie'. Same thing in Iran. Both of those countries fell victim to dictators as a direct result of US intervention - and that was our 'strategic' goal! Dictators over Liberal Democracies! The thought of anything Liberal makes you wingnuts go batsh!!!t crazy!
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:24 pmAre Keltoi and Keltoi at Night the same person?
Comment by Zooey — November 2, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Yes. He's apparently too stupid to realize he can use the same ID from two computers! That's Conservative 'intellectualism' for you! ;)
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:25 pmBy "groups that have been overlooked," I suppose they mean the guys who actually attacked us on 9/11:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:26 pmYes. He’s apparently too stupid to realize he can use the same ID from two computers! That’s Conservative ‘intellectualism’ for you! ;)
Comment by republicans hate facts — November 2, 2007 @ 9:25 pm
Lordy, what a maroon.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:33 pmAre Keltoi and Keltoi at Night the same person?
Comment by Zooey — November 2, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
Yes, and both are in trouble for still sneaking peeks at the computer...
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:35 pmYes, and both are in trouble for still sneaking peeks at the computer…
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 2, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
I guess you really are a maroon.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 pmRepublicans hate facts: are you at all capable of making any comment without attacking people personally?
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:50 pmRepublicans hate facts: are you at all capable of making any comment without attacking people personally?
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush — November 2, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
Nope.
BTW impeach, incoming. You have dared to not agree.
November 2nd, 2007 at 9:59 pmHmmm. We invade a couple foreign countries and terrorism explodes worldwide. Nope. No chance it's cause and effect.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 pmBTW impeach, incoming. You have dared to not agree.
Comment by Keltoi at Night — November 2, 2007 @ 9:59 pm
Yes...I know.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:02 pmRepublicans hate facts: are you at all capable of making any comment without attacking people personally?
Comment by impeachcheneythenbush
Actually I thought it was a little harsh as well.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:30 pmAfter the SECOND "gas crisis" in about 1978, Carter earmarked money for Fusion, Solar and Synfuel Research and development.
When TRAITOR Ronnie Reagan got into office, with the help of BIG OIL naturally, the FIRST thing that was cut from the budget was ALL of
these, and only money for OIL and NUCLEAR was left in. And GUESS who owns the majority of the fissionable materia???
Reagan and the rest of the Rapeublics are TRAITORS to the USA, as 29 years later, we would have the technology.
And have not been dependent upon oil. They FKVDED us but GOOD!
The Scandanavian countries will be oil-independent in the next 10 years, because their SCIENTISTS and their GOVERNMENT want it.
November 2nd, 2007 at 10:53 pmCheney confidently declared that “a free democratic Iraq will be a strategic partner in the heart of the Middle East, helping us fight and win the war on terror.â€
So our hostage will be our greatest ally. Is this some sort of treatise on the Stockholm Syndrome ?
November 2nd, 2007 at 11:14 pmSo our hostage will be our greatest ally. Is this some sort of treatise on the Stockholm Syndrome ?
Comment by MapleStreet — November 2, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
he forget to include "especially if we kill and displace several million of them". Dick knows Arabs.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:48 amAnytime, "Vice President Cheney confidently declared that “a free democratic Iraq will be a strategic partner in the heart of the Middle East," rational Americans must worry.
Mr. three deferrments, a few dui's, a couple of Heinies and a supporter shot in the face later . . .
A rational American can fairly conclude that this wack job supported Nixon, convinced us of mushroom clouds if Sadam wasn't squashed, and dreamed of an Iraq-9-11 link in support of democracy in Iraq.
He lied. He's continued to weild his paranoia to convince Americans tha secret meetings with oil companies haven't led to a surge in oil prices from $36 dollars a barrel when Bush was elected to almost $100 dollars today, a world that is less safe, 4,000 soldiers dead, thousands more maimed, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead or maimed (yeah, Cheney's plea was that we would liberate them). American ambassadors who denounce American policy in Iraq and consider their deployment there "a potential death sentence."
Oh Dick. You suck.
November 3rd, 2007 at 1:47 amIn order to have a rational discussion of the ability of the U.S. to bring democracy to the Middle East you have to first be able to consider that this was ever a goal of the GWB administration. I can't come to the conclusion. Nothing that Bush has done leads me to believe that he cares about anything but money, power & oil. So while it may be possible for a future U.S. administration to accomplish this goal I have absolutely no faith that it's a goal of this one.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 amIn other news, water is wet and the sun rises in the east.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:50 amdemocracy to the Middle East... hmmmm...
is "emergency rule" anything like marshall law?
Musharraf Declares State of Emergency, Pakistani Media Report
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:56 amNew York Times - 45 minutes ago
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - The Pakistani leader, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, declared a state of emergency about 6 pm local time today, Pakistani television reported.
Musharraf Imposes Emergency, Suspends Constitution (Update2)
By Khalid Qayum and Farhan Sharif
Nov. 3 (Bloomberg) -- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf imposed emergency rule and suspended the constitution, snubbing U.S. President George W. Bush's efforts to promote democracy in the world's second-largest Muslim nation.
...
WHAT efforts???
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:06 amhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aghTzqTL_H3s&refer=home
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:08 amBest way to describe the GWOT or any other aspect of the GWB administration...
"If at first you don't succeed, redefine success. "
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 amComment by katy — November 3, 2007 @ 11:08 am
katy - - we see here a blueprint for what happens when a dictator's power and continued rule is challenged. We also have a "leader" here in the U.S. who is at his most dangerous when he feels his power is threatened.
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:29 pm