The Annals Of Neoconservative Denialism
The Annals Of Neoconservative Denialism
Commenting on a recent BBC poll showing that majorities around the world do not regard US-led efforts against al-Qaeda as successful, Commentary’s Abe Greenwald writes that he’s not surprised, “considering the candidate in the lead for President of the United States feels the same way.”
Debating John McCain last week, Barack Obama dropped this whopper on 53 million American viewers and another 60 million viewers and listeners worldwide: “Al-Qaeda is resurgent, stronger now than any time since 2001.” When the loudest, most revered American voice on the planet insists that U.S. victory is U.S. defeat what is the rest of the world supposed to think? And what are we supposed to think? Is this what Obama means by restoring America’s standing in the world?[…]
A U.S. that doesn’t deny its successes won’t necessarily inspire the rest of the world to join in the celebration. But it will halt the course of the self-fulfilling prophecy of America’s decline.
Interestingly, last year’s National Intelligence Estimate (pdf) contained a similar whopper:
Al-Qa’ida is and will remain the most serious terrorist threat to the Homeland, as its central leadership continues to plan high-impact plots, while pushing others in extremist Sunni communities to mimic its efforts and to supplement its capabilities. We assess the group has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safehaven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership. Although we have discovered only a handful of individuals in the United States with ties to al-Qa’ida senior leadership since 9/11, we judge that al-Qa’ida will intensify its efforts to put operatives here.
As a result, we judge that the United States currently is in a heightened threat environment.
In June, a New York Times article on Al Qaeda’s gathering strength in Pakistan quoted Pentagon consultant and RAND Corporation terrorism expert Seth Jones telling whoppers:
The United States faces a threat from Al Qaeda today that is comparable to what it faced on Sept. 11, 2001.
So Greenwald’s suggestion that the problem with America’s war on terror is that American politicians haven’t declared victory enough — as if people around the world needed Barack Obama to tell them that the Bush administration has been a disaster — is merely preposterous. Greenwald’s suggestion that criticisms of Bush’s anti-terror policies are themselves contributing to “America’s decline,” however, is genuinely craven.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
One Response to “The Annals Of Neoconservative Denialism”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Maybe I am reading this from a different perspective, but when I see the line;
… and I translate it out of the confusing mass it is, I think the author is more saying we need to recognize *some* of the successes we have had fighting Al Qaeda, not declare blanket victory (see: aircraft carrier annoucements).
We surely have not eliminated Al Qaeda’s ability to plan or conduct operations, but we have made progress.
This bolded quote from the NIE ackowledges that we have had some success, even if Al Qaeda has regained some of the ground back.
And as per the NYT article quote…
To me this means we’ve limited their ability to grow and expand. We took out important elements in their command structure which caused temporary setbacks. We did not completely win, but we did have some success against the terrorist organization. Think about it. After 7 years of US policies abroad aggravating more and more people into a life of terror, when the estimates come back and paint Al Qaeda as comparable to where they were 7 years ago, to me that means we have had to have some victories worth ackowledging.
We cannot and should not declare a blanket victory because we clearly have not enjoyed one. But I think it is folly to see what Greenwald wrote, and like Mr. Duss, take it to mean we need to ‘declare victory’ more often. In my mind, Greenwald is proposing giving more coverage to the successful attacks and plots we carry out that limit Al Qaeda’s power and influence.
Say what you will, but if you want to keep your troops motivated, your civilians supportive, your allies committed, and potential terrorists merely terrorists-in-waiting, you need to highlight the small victories along the way to demonstrate that counter-terrorist efforts are not a waste of time.
Which leads us to the final quote, “Greenwald’s suggestion that criticisms of Bush’s anti-terror policies are themselves contributing to “America’s decline,” however, is genuinely craven.” If that is the quote in context, duh Greenwald. Criticism is helpful to see where policies genuinely fail, and can lead to suggestions how to improve counter-terrorist efforts. However, if Greenwald was suggesting that continued efforts to paint our anti-terror policies as failures helps Al Qaeda, he has a point.
If world and even U.S. opinion see anti-terror policies failing, it makes Al Qaeda seem more invulnerable. It shows potential terrorists that if they joined, they would be on the winning side. If you do publish the successes we have enjoyed in hampering their ability to conduct terror operations, we discourage some future terrorists from joining up. In my mind, that would be a good thing.
October 5th, 2008 at 10:00 am