ThinkProgress Logo

Security

Bush Allies In War On Terror: We Need A New Approach

At the U.N. General Assembly meeting in New York, America’s key international allies in the war on terror have delivered addresses to the general body criticizing the U.S.’s approach. These heads of state observe that the U.S.’s over-emphasis on military solutions to the current problems in the region — at the expense of employing political, diplomatic, and intelligence efforts — has created more insecurity and spawned more extremism. Here are a few examples:

Afghanistan’s President Hamid Karzai:

Military action in Afghanistan alone, therefore, will not deliver our shared goal of eliminating terrorism. We must destroy terrorist sanctuaries beyond Afghanistan, dismantle the elaborate networks in the region that recruit, indoctrinate, train, finance, arm and deploy terrorists. We must ensure that political currents and entities in the region are not allowed to use extremism as an instrument of policy.

Pakistan’s President Pervez Musharraf:

While we confront terrorism, our strategy must seek to eliminate this phenomenon comprehensively. We cannot do so unless we understand and address the root causes of terrorism today. How are terrorists able to find willing recruits even among educated youth and democratic societies? The reasons are clear. Across the Muslim world, old conflicts and new campaigns of military intervention have spawned a deep sense of desperation and injustice. Each new battleground involving an Islamic state has served as a new breeding ground for extremists and terrorists. Indiscriminate bombings, civilian casualties, torture, human rights abuses, racial slurs and discrimination only add to the challenge of defeating terrorism.

Jordan’s King Abdullah:

There can be no just global order when aggression and occupation are permitted to take the place of international law. When these occur in a region as strategic as the Middle East the shockwaves run worldwide. Our youth are asking, where is the justice, where is the will of the global community? We must answer them by establishing a lasting peace, based on the international legality we have pledged to uphold.

Yglesias

Half A Friedman

baghdadmosque.jpg

Spencer Ackerman has plenty of substantive commentary on the first-ever press conference by the Baker-Hamilton Commission, chaired by GOP wise man James Baker and Democratic wise man Lee Hamilton and tasked with figuring out what the hell to do about Iraq. I prefer, however, to make jokes: “For reasons that he declined to elaborate upon, Hamilton said the next three months in Iraq will be ‘critical,’ particularly in the areas of securing Baghdad, national sectarian reconciliation and the provision of basic governmental services to Iraqis.”

Thus, one Hamilton equals 0.5 Friedmans.

Jokes aside, though, I prefer not to get too thick in the weeds of exactly when we should leave Iraq. The main point, from where I sit, is that we not stay on this current track where we’re going to be there essentially forever. So the question, to me, is always “well, if in 1 Friedman or 0.5 Friedmans or however many Friedmans you like, Baghdad still isn’t secure, then can we leave or does this need to continue forever?”

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up