Also, Justice Breyer accepted a request to a temporary stay of the injuction in "Hoasca Tea" Case discussed a few days ago. Apropos Thursday's discussion, this is fairly straightforward, but Supreme Court Blog does use it to supply further discussion on the whole matter. Both of these issues, in fact, are given healthy discussion there.
As I complete this book, U.S., British, and other coalition forces are trying to govern apparently ungovernable postwar states in Afghanistan and Iraq, while simultaneously fighting growing Islamist insurgencies in each – a state of affairs our leaders call victory. In conducting these activities, and the conventional military campaigns preceding them, U.S. forces and policies are completing the radicalization of the Islamic world, something Osama bin Laden has been trying to do with substantial but incomplete success since the early 1990s. As a result, I think it fair to conclude that the United States of America remains bin Laden's only indispensable ally.
Imperial Hubris: Why The West Is Losing The War On Terror by Anonymous (Michael Scheuer) as noted by a review in Salon that I basically am accord with is a bit of a schizophrenic work: Scheuer (he now can show himself, though the bite he uses in the book perhaps makes it better that he is anonymous) is perhaps best labeled a reluctant bloodthirsty hawk. He doesn't want the military, and a rather bloodthirsty one at that, to be our primary weapon. Unfortunately, in his eyes, it shall unless we change our policies.
Policies that he often opposes in a way that makes him sound like a leftist dove.* Thus, we are left with using the force of those he clearly despises, in the promotion of equally unsavory policies, to save ourselves. "This sort of bloody-mindedness is neither admirable nor desirable, but it will remain America's only option so long as she stands by her failed policies toward the Muslim world." In the process, and Scheuer is ultimately a moralist (one that loves to quote Civil War generals and such), we somehow do not destroy what we stand for, but protect it.
I don't quite accept this. The book, from the denunciation of the hubris (and ignorance) that guides our rulers, has a lot of truth in it. For instance, its title ironically is a bit of a misnomer -- the author argues that this is not truly a war on terror but against Islamic insurgents, which is a much more dangerous battle. Likewise, it is unsurprising that someone tasked to study Bin Laden respects the enemy a lot more than our leaders tend to, respect not meaning he's a swell guy or anything.
It means that he accomplished a lot, means what he says, and we better get it through our thick skulls. Furthermore, he and the millions of Muslims that support him in some key way, do not hate us for our freedom or any such bullshit. They hate us for what we do, including supporting corrupt leaders, occupying their holy lands, and contributing to the harm of Muslims worldwide.
Anonymous might not agree with all the conclusions of the guy, but he clearly sees his point. But, since we do not seem to be getting any closer to a real energy policy not tied to Middle Eastern despots or stopping a kneejerk support of Israel, the possibility of change does not appear to be coming any time soon. So, we have to kill and kill again. In fact, our failure to do so right away in Afghanistan as well as not finishing the job just extended the threat.
Not only was trusting locals and so forth to do our bidding stupid (given their history) and cowardly, in general, we should not rely on getting much help in our battles overall. The help tends to be counterproductive, either because of its unsavory nature (e.g. Russia ... who Muslims hate for Afghanstan etc.) or ties our hands. Hands that need free range, including to kill more people. War, it is hell, etc.
There is some degree of truth in all of this, but it can be taken too far. The whole Iraq War, other than sneering at the stupidity of it all (a "Christmas Present" to OBL), is not really factored in. This is problematic to his general thesis for at least two reasons. First, since fighting two wars at once is rather hard, we need help (NATO has a big role in Afghanistan), even putting aside the reality that the United States is not an island that can act willy-nilly.
Second, yes, the fear of causalities since Vietnam has led us to a bloodless policy (for us, which is different now, but in Afghanistan and even in Iraq to some extent, still relatively low causality rates for our side) that cannot result in true victories. Still, there was a reason for such compromise in various cases, including Iraq. This even applies in Afghanistan to the extent that we cannot just reckless kill people on Pakistan soil, or any number of other places where the "insurgents" might be. And, if a good many of the billion or so Muslims are on the side of Bin Laden, just how much killing will we need to do? He makes it sound like there is a rather deep well of support from which to draw.
Also, his hard edge realism exaggerates. Those concern with the treatment of women in Afghanistan are not exactly women liberation extremists, given that country gives Saudi Arabia a bit of a good name in that respect. We might have to accept bloodshed, and lost of life for a good cause is something I can accept as well (think Patrick Henry), but did many in the National Guard sign up for this? So, please tone down all that "they knew what they were getting when they joined" stuff ... the Marines have a different mind-set because they weren't sold the weekend warrior line.
And, accepting involvement in world affairs mixed with old time Washingtonian isolationism is fine (even if we have to accept bad situations), but the Rwandas of the world leads one to question the limits of the principle. Some sort of united effort, including through the United Nations, is necessary in this world. This is so even if it is in need of serious reform and working outside of its aegis in part or full might very well be necessary in various cases. So, we should stop just defaming it and other international institutions, and try to be part of the solution, since we surely are also part of the problem.
Worthwhile book to be taken with a grain of salt.
---
* He also denounces the system of leaks and ass covering that currently corrupts the intel and military departments these days, including those involved in Bush at War, which not only showed incompetence but also criminal leakage of important secrets. He does give a nod to Ronald Reagan, though why exactly his administration (consider Lebanon) warrants special honor is somewhat unclear. Finally, the leftist will not quite like his lawless view of battle, but Anonymous does appear to make an exception of sorts for domestic affairs.