Comments

You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Home Front: WoT

Pentagon: Re-Cast WOT in Civil Law Enforcement Terms

2006-09-06

It is true that by focusing on military missions, terror advocacy and mosque incitement has largely escaped WOT scrutiny. However, I was hoping that Congress would once again place the Gitmo internees under American Law, by trumping the SCOTUS' rights enforcement that trampled the White House' designation of Afghanistan as a "failed state," and treated territorial captives as military detainees. As for civil solutions, what if Nazis won the post World War 2 elections in Germany? Either our security is paramount over enemy liberty, or we have to treat those animals as equals. Civil, or public support of Nasrallah should hardly base legitimation of his kind of terrorist. We need to criminalize national supporters of Hamas, Hizbollah, al-Qaeda, and slaughter their allies on all military fronts.
...The United States should rethink the label it uses for what is known as the "global war on terror," the chief of strategic planning on the Pentagon's Joint Staff said Tuesday.

What is needed, said Army Col. Gary Cheek, is to recast terrorists as the criminals they are. "If we can change the name ... and find the right sequence of events that allows us to do that, that changes the dynamic of the conflict," said Cheek at the Defense Forum Washington, sponsored by the Marine Corps Association and the U.S. Naval Institute.

"It makes sense for us to find another name for the GWOT," said Cheek. "It merits rethinking. I know our European allies are more comfortable articulating issues of terrorism as criminal threats, rather than war ... It ought to be our goal to partner better with the European allies so we can migrate this from a war to something other than a war."

Which will allow the Euros not just to re-frame the argument to their liking, but allow them to shift the modality as well: to defense, not offense. In that way the Dhimmicrats have a similar philosophy: we should never 'give' or play offense, but rather employ the perfect defense. We should spend lots of time and money inspecting each and every shipping container rather than find and handle the terrorists who would put a bomb into a shipping container, as but one example.

Not that there's anything wrong with defense, but a perfect defense isn't possible (it really isn't) and it's far better to take the fight to our enemies. That, however, raises uncomfortable questions for both the Euros and the Dhimmis: it means having to confront our enemies, their rhetoric and their actions. We have to answer the question, 'why do we fight?' We have to do things, from eavesdropping on terrorist conversations to questioning prisoners, that raise the hackles of the more squeamish. Taking the offensive means making difficult decisions; it means making mistakes and causing people, including some of your own, to die.

But most of all, it forces the Euros and Dhimmis to confront the failed essence of their own ideology: socialism. The socialist, multicultural, relative philosophy that abhors absolutes, firmness and conviction can't bring itself to take a fight to an enemy. It has trouble even labeling an 'enemy' unless that enemy is one of their own. It's easier to fight the KKK than it is to fight an Islamist terrorist: the former fits within their own world view of what an enemy is, and the latter does not. Taking the offensive requires one to see, understand and define the enemy correctly. It's said that Winston Churchill understood Adolf Hitler very well, whereas Hitler never understood Churchill. That became a key reason why Churchill made many more correct decisions than Hitler did over the course of WWII. The Euros and the Dhimmis, by and large, simply don't understand who Osama is: they don't understand what motivates the islamofascists, they don't see how salafism motivates men to become terrorists, and they don't get the connection between terrorist groups and state sponsers. It's easier just to play defense. It's easier not to go to "war".

The "war" moniker elevates al-Qaida and other transnational terrorists, giving them legitimacy as an opposition force to the United States. It also tends to alienate Muslim populations in other countries, who see the war as a war on Islam, and feel they need to support al-Qaida as a matter of defending their faith.

Which rather says something about the difference between, say, Christianity today and Islam today: as a Catholic I didn't have a reflexive need to defend the IRA in its terror campaign against the Brits. I could step back and correctly understand that the IRA was a bunch of terrorist thugs who liked killing people for a 'cause'. So my sympathies were with their victims, Catholic and Protestant alike.

It also tends to frame the fight as one in which the Defense Department has the primary role, when it is becoming increasingly clear that the "long war" against global terrorism is going to be won on other fronts -- economic, political, diplomatic, financial. Other government agencies and departments must become more engaged; only they have the expertise to help other countries take the actions necessary to defeat terrorists.

This is more nonsense. In the Cold War we recognized each of those fronts, from military to financial, as important. That didn't stop us from seeing the essence of the Cold War, which was that Soviet Communism was hell-bent on dominating the globe and would do so if we didn't stop them. That's what make it a war, and the fact that we managed not to launch nukes at each other kept it cold.

Cheek's idea is not a new one, and for all the practical sense it makes to the military, it is being floated at a politically inopportune time. Both the U.S. House and the Senate hang in the balance, with a shift from Republican to Democratic control possible after the midterm elections.

To hang onto power, Republicans are returning to their strongest card: national security. And one of their chief attacks on Democrats is their alleged preference to manage terrorism as a law enforcement problem rather than being serious about defeating them in a war...

National security is more than just military might, and the Republicans are strong on national security precisely because so far they've had the clearest vision of how to combine military, diplomatic, financial, law enforcement, economic and political strategies to protect our country. Criticize all you like about GWB's implementation of the GWoT, but it's a coherent vision that uses each of these tools. The precise reason why the Dhimmis have ceded the argument on national security is because first, they've taken the military option off the table, and second, no one really believes they'd use the other options in any tough, bloody-minded way.

Frame this as protecting sheep from the wolves: you need a sheepdog, and you'll put up with a number of faults and failings as long as the sheepdog gets the essentials of the job right. The Republicans are by no means perfect, and in some ways their faults and failings are substantial (and noted numerous times on the Burg). But in the end a number of us think that the Pubs will do their jobs as sheepdogs, and that's why the sentiment at the Burg, best I can tell, leans towards keeping them in power. Show me some Democrats who will serve as effective sheepdogs and I'll listen to what they have to say. I've seen one lately -- Liebermann -- and he's pretty much toast as a national politican regardless of the election.

Posted by:Snease Shaiting3550

#21 Badanov,

The man didn't do anything legally we are aware of, but he has declared himserlf an armed and hostile enemy of the US.

By his own declarations Gadan has broken US law via the Sedition Act as well as numerous other laws regarding sedition and declaring open (and armed) revolution against the legitimate government of the United States.

He is an American citizen advocating the destruction of the US government, country, its civilians, and its culture & way of life.

That is against the law.

Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-09-06 23:25

#20 Inspiring, HV, inspiring. Bravo.

Posted by: wxjames 2006-09-06 16:49

#19 We have gone from shock-and-awe to plead-and-defer-judgment.

Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-09-06 14:06

#18 Woohoo! Excellent, HV! Consider that baby stolen, LOL! *applause*

Posted by: flyover 2006-09-06 11:04

#17 Mars, the God of War, is a mighty God, and terrible to behold. He plays with human beings as if they were dust, and he bends them to his inexorable and merciless will. He alone chooses the time and the place when he will assume once more his ancient throne, and then all men must bow and tremble. The God of War is not human. His laws are not human laws. He does not play nice and he does not play by our rules or our laws. His laws are the laws of Hell, but they are no less ruthlessly logical for all that. He gives men a choice: either they fight by his laws, or they lose their civilization and the hope of peace, and become slaves. Men have tried to wrest his power away from him - they have tried to tie him down with cease fires, arms control treaties, international laws, international criminal courts, war crimes tribunals, and transnational organizations. They have tried to wage war by human rules: chivalric war, limited war, surgical war, precision war, sanitized war, robotic war, ethical war, or laughably, war by law enforcement. Most pitiable of all are those who try to pretend that he and his everlasting dominion don't exist. For the God of War is a jealous God. He does not take kindly to these pathetic maneuvers, and on these he returns his vengeful thunderbolts a thousandfold.

Posted by: HV 2006-09-06 10:58

#16 Pathetic. This is what happens when the military is not allowed to do what it was designed for - not a long war, but a short one - unrestricted warfare using overwhelming firepower.

Posted by: HV 2006-09-06 10:03

#15 I suspect that this is just Pentagon CYA.

Remember that they are totally reliant on political support, and if that political support is successfully undermined by democrats and weak republicans, it is the Pentagon and all of the people in the military that will be hung out to dry. As has happened before.

So what happens if that happens? Unless the Pentagon can turn it over to international law enforcement as "their game", our military will be left in place to continue fighting, but they will "take away our guns, and issue us butter knives with instructions 'not to hurt anybody'."

That is, imagine the WoT as run by John Kerry.

(puke break)

The Pentagon would rather half the world go up in flames rather than half the world go up in flames with the US military in the middle of it, and forbidden to do anything about it, except get killed while weaklings in Washington wring their hands and say:

"Oh dear. Oh dear. What shall be done? Can't we have a committee meeting or give the terrorists what they want so they will stop being so mean to us? If they keep slaughtering Americans, we might lose the next election, and that would be horrible!"

Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-09-06 10:01

#14 By letting a COL release a thought on changing our national policy one of three things is happening. One: he has stepped out of ranks with his own opinion to the press, certainly a career killer. Second: he was authorized to release it to get a feel for the reactions, sort of Pentagon testing the waters. Or third: He was speaking to a forum posing the idea as a "What if" situation to drive a discussion on alternant points of view, and nothing more. He is probably trying to drive this discussion with the group.

Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-09-06 09:57

#13 Phuech the five-sided nut and all the feather merchants and carpetbaggers who worm within it. Follows is our only hope:

Somewhere a True Believer is training to kill you. He is training with minimum food or water, in austere conditions, day and night.

the only thing clean on him is his weapon. he doesn't worry about what workout to do-his rucksack weights what it weights, and he runs until the enemy stops chasing him.

The True Believer doesn't care "how hard it is"; he knows he either wins or he dies. He doesn't go home at 1700' he is home.

He knows on the Cause.

Now.... who wants to quit?

Posted by: Besoeker 2006-09-06 09:25

#12 Thge last thing we need is a law enforcement approach.

Case in point: Under current law this American showcased by Al Qaeda could not face any criminal charges on American soil; he is unreachable legally. But a fire team could definately reach him and should. The man didn't do anything legally we are aware of, but he has declared himserlf an armed and hostile enemy of the US.

Tag him and bag him.

Posted by: badanov 2006-09-06 09:18

#11 Law Enforcement is suppose to be cold blooded. War is suppose to be hot blooded. Thats the big disconnect between the enemy and us. They practice primitive warfare, territorial behaviors of emotion and seething and rendering. We practice law and engineering. And therein lies the inability to communicate. If American streets were filled with the seething crowds instead of the fifth column, the enemy would understand and adjust their behavior. They would grasp power plus emotion means theyre dust without question. However, the nature of the American process is basically unknowable to them as would be quantum physics. A few many understand, but not the critical mass of decision makers. So each party makes missteps leading ever more to a point of no return.

So in the end youre left with -

Ripley: I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Posted by: Glomort Glons9693 2006-09-06 09:16

#10 This guy's the "chief of strategic planning" on the Pentagon's Joint Staff? I find that hard to believe; but if he is, then God help us...

"I know our European allies are more comfortable articulating issues of terrorism as criminal threats, rather than war ... It ought to be our goal to partner better with the European allies so we can migrate this from a war to something other than a war."

Col. Cheek ought to take ten seconds and examine why the Euros are "more comfortable" seeing terrorism as a criminal threat: it's because their history has rendered them utterly neurotic about war-- they are pathologically pacifistic.

And so, I suspect, is Col. Cheek.

We are not going to end the problem of Islamic terrorism by treating terrorist acts as discrete crimes. We can only end it by going after the malignant ideology that propels those acts.

Islam is, and always has been, in a state of war with the non-Islamic world. And it will remain so until it is either persuaded that it must relent to avoid annihilation, or until it is annihilated.

More and more, I'm convinced that we need to expand this war-- not shrink it, as this guy would have us do-- if we're ever going to win it.

Faster, please...

Posted by: Dave D. 2006-09-06 07:23

#9 The Swamp Lady is correct. Couching the war strictly in terms of law enforcement has been a failure.

I have to laugh when I read that "we" (The West) are "creating" more terrorists when we go on the offensive. That's just so much BS. The terrorists already exist. When we go on the offensive the SOBs rear their heads and can then be identified. Once identified (and located) eliminate the garbage by any means necessary.

Posted by: Mark Z 2006-09-06 07:19

#8 Isn't treating this whole thing (from the Embassy takeover in Tehran forward to 2001) as simply a law enforcement issue kind of what got us in this mess in the first place?

Posted by: Swamp Blondie 2006-09-06 05:01

#7 Imperialist Warmongering democratic-free America = Rebellious pseudo-Commie/pre-Commie Socialist, Treasonous Limited-Stalinist, anti-Soviet = Limited Sovietized Amerika??? Revolting against our perfect, future Commie Eurasian/Asian OWG Overlords , are we?

Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-09-06 03:31

#6 BTW, excellent in-line commentary, Steve.

Posted by: flyover 2006-09-06 03:09

#5 I always wonder, when someone like this floats a turd or two, just who authorized him / her to speak on behalf of the CinC - or criticize national security policy might be more accurate. Funny, but I don't recall seeing his name on the ballot, nor do I recall him being introduced by his Boss, Rummy, or Rummy's Boss, the President, as the new NatSec policy spokesman.

The obvious stupidity of this is simply Clintoonian, IMHO.

Posted by: flyover 2006-09-06 02:52

#4 Get with the program stooge. Islamofascists. War on Islam. Nuff said.

Posted by: SOP35/Rat 2006-09-06 02:46

#3 This guy needs to be drummed out of the military. The law enforcement angle is stupid. How exactly do you justify cops putting a Hellfire missile into a terrorist hideout?

Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-09-06 02:46

#2 Cheek(y) has waayy too much time on his hands.

Posted by: Captain America 2006-09-06 02:34

#1 Frankly, we should not be planning for long term war. War is always a hard sell in a democracy. Indecisive war is unsellable. Let me say it again: September could be one of America's greatest months ever, or worse.

Posted by: Snease Shaiting3550 2006-09-06 02:16

00:00