Those of us who've carefully watched the news over the last year have known for a while now that both terrorism and wars in general have been on a steep decline over the last year, most especially since the fall of Baghdad. Now comes further evidence that the Bush doctrine is working.
It has long been my position--and I've been saying this for well over a year and a half--that the most important reason for taking out Saddam Hussein was the one reason that the Bush administration could not state openly: to scare the bejeezus out of rogue regimes that give money, weapons, shelter, or just a wink-and-a-nod to terrorist groups. Those regimes include Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and even North Korea. These brutal dictatorships are not democracies, and what their people think is all but irrelevent. It's what the dictators, autocrats, theocrats, and thugs who run those nations think that matters most. And what all of them have learned--assuming that the American people do not go wobbly, that is--is that the United States and its allies are not paper tigers, and are very much to be feared.
The Bushies could never say this openly, but not because the American people wouldn't accept it. Indeed, I believe a large number of Americans understood it all along, and still do understand it. The reason was the diplomatic hassles, and the lack of cooperation we would have gotten from countries like Turkey and Saudi Arabia if we'd said it openly, would have been too costly.
As war critic Michael Duff recently put it:
It bothered me. It still bothers me. But dammit, if you look at the patterns, it seems to be working. The Middle East thinks Bush is batshit crazy, and their governments are afraid of us. Do you get that? The bad guys are afraid of us, because against all logic and common sense, we went into Iraq and we took Saddam down.The only exception I take with for Mr. Duff is that the advice from "Europe" was in fact advice from some of Europe. We should always remember that countless European nations, most especially the Eastern European nations so recently freed from totalitarian oppression, were quite reliable supporters of our efforts, and still are.We ignored all the reasonable advice from Asia and Europe and people like me, and we went in with guns blazing. We've paid a terrible price in men and money, and we're still there.
Well, I also take exception to the bit about "common sense." It depends on whose common sense you're talking about, you see.
The problem here is that Western liberals such as ourselves are used to thinking that people around the world pretty much think and react like we do. "Common sense" would tell us that you don't bull your way around a situation and not expect to inflame tempers. But in a part of the world where power has always come first and foremost through the extension of brutality, it is violence and fear that are the fastest way to get respect. They don't think, "Oh, you're a bully, that makes me mad, I'm going to hit you back." They think, "Oh. You're tough. I'd better treat you with respect."
Dr. Helen Smith, a forensic psychologist who's worked extensively with violent criminals, says it pretty well:
In my private practice, I don't work with terrorists but I do work with violent people. I used to believe (as many of my colleagues still do) that empathizing with my patients and increasing their self-esteem would help them on the path to self-actualization. Of course, for some anxiety-ridden patients who need faith in themselves, the technique of empathy and support works. However, for those patients with serious violent tendencies, just the opposite is true. With those patients, I've found that setting clear boundaries and making judgments about their immoral behavior works like a charm.Those patients who threatened me backed down only when I got up in their face and told them forcefully to stop -- the slightest hint of fear or intimidation (or sympathy!) on my part was met with increased threats. In the real world of private practice, confronting real murderers, I learned to act in ways that were different from what I had been taught in graduate school.
Perhaps it's having grown up around tough, violent people that I've come to appreciate this. I am by nature not a violent man; indeed, the truth of the matter is that I refuse to watch either professional football or professional boxing, most of the time, because I consider both sports to be barbaric, and I hope my son never takes up either one. (Wrestling and other martial arts are a different matter--but I digress.)
I've dealt with bullies many times. I also used to repossess cars. One lesson I've learned many times in life is that reasoning with people, showing fear, showing compassion, and trying to relate to them only works when you're dealing with civilized people who share most of your values. In other situations, such efforts are not only worthless, they are actually counterproductive, and can achieve the exact opposite of what you're trying to achieve.
Indeed, such civilized behaviors are often very dangerous. There were times in my life when they may well have landed me in the hospital, or even gotten me killed.
When you look at all the Middle Eastern regimes, almost all of them are cowed, almost all of them more pliant than they were 2-3 years ago. This is a major achievement, and it's too quickly swept under the rug.
We're winning the war on terror. It will take many more years, but terrorism is on the decline worldwide, violence in general is on the decline, and some of the world's most dangerous regimes are either making efforts to become less dangerous, or (as is the case with Saddam's Iraq) simply gone. This is worth remembering, and celebrating.
(All links stolen from Instapundit.)
You're absolutely right. The U.S. flexed its little finger and took out the biggest, baddest regime in the region. Now, all of the troublemakers and tin-pot dictators in that area are nervous.
My fear is that the Saudis will be able to ride this out with only lip service paid to their responsibility for all of this. Any war on terror will require the Saudis to make choices they're not making yet. That can't and won't be done diplomatically behind closed doors. It needs to be done out in the sunshine of the press. The whole Arab world needs to know America is almost as angry at them as they are at America. The Arab world needs to know they are being heard but not in the way they want.
America's response to September 11 and the subsequent war in Iraq and war on terror may seem like a massive American military footprint to people in that area of the world but they're wrong. The response to September 11 has been fairly restrained to this point. This is only a "war of ideas" if the goal is to preserve Arab culture. An event approaching the scale of September 11 will remove that goal entirely. Restraint will be difficult to find when America considers options after the next big attack. The American people will not accept a restrained response. If everyone over there continues to meander along doing the bare political and cultural minimum and another large attack comes, this "war of ideas" will transform into a "war of survival". America will survive.
A.Q. Khan.
Discuss.
Thank gawd that I'm not the only liberal with good sense. I think my sense of how to deal with the middle east INDEED has evolved from my work. I work for a living with violent gang members, and have done so for over a dozen years. One ABSOLUTELY can show no fear or weakness when working with this population, any weakness is like a sheep begging the wolf to come and eat him/her. Do I care about my clients? Absolutely. I want the best for them. But I also realize that in many cases, these clients CHOOSE to be violent because it WORKS for them. Being violent, focusing on power and control, has worked in the middle east for the past 50 years. The language of force is the primary language spoken there. We are not dealing with people who share our common values. WE have to understand THEIR values and thought process if we hope to understand them and be successful at reducing the violence.
SG
I guess this shoots holes in the slogan that violence only begets more violence.
Indian and Pakistan are suddenly sitting down to talk, too. I'm no political scientist, but could that be more Bush Doctrine Effect?
You know, this is starting to sound like Frank J's Nuke The Moon essay.
But Mr. Duff is right. Only the goverments of Eastern European countries supported the Iraq war. The people here in Estonia and elsewhere in Eastern Europe where as much against the Iraq war as people in Germany, France or Spain. Sadly, anti-americanism will always be a much stronger and more uniting force in Europe than any experience gained from the horrifying 20th century.
Fantastic, Dean and I finally agree on something (except that sissy stuff about not liking football). I wish I could remember where I saw the quote, "Iraq had the misfortune of laying between Syria and Iran," or something like that. Both of those countries have more than taken note of our actions, but have modified their behavior accordingly and I suspect we will see more in the future.
No exaggerated terrorist scare tactics, no false weeping for poor oppressed victims of tyranny, no mushroom clouds or WMD doomsday scenerios. Just smack the lead dog hard on the nose and the rest of the pack will back off with him.
Message: Don't grow terrorists and keep the oil flowing or you'll be next. Refreshingly honest and not inconsistent with a liberal philosophy. If I start hearing more straight talk like this from the White House and less hypocracy, I might stop ignoring the rest of their bable.
Ron, I was reminded of the 'Nuke the Moon' essay also. And I remember thinking, when I first read it, that, crazy as it was, it would work. (The only problem being, we can't guarantee a crazy but not that crazy president in every election)
It's working, but to a bunch of folks, it doesn't matter. Because "It's WRONG". Doesn't matter if it stops terrorists, doesn't matter if it keeps innocents alive, it involves violence, so it's WRONG!
I've got friends who are in the 'peace at any cost' brigade, and to them it doesn't matter if you are attacked, it's simply not allowable for you to actually fight back. First time this slapped me was a lady who actually believes that if a woman is attacked, and uses violence in self-defense, she's as morally wrong as her attacker. I probably didn't argue against it as well as I should, because I was flat enraged by this idea. But this is the attitude of a bunch of the people opposed to our nations' actions.
Orson Scott Card's new book, Shadow Puppets, suggests a world where we nuked Mecca, conquered the Muslim countries, and occupied them after we had killed most of their populations - precisely because they would not give up attacking us.
Of course, there were also Alien invaders - but the point before the Formics arrived was that the two extremes of behavior for the West are complete withdrawal and appeasement (eventually succumbing to Islam), or nuclear holocaust before Islamic countries become strong enough to hurt us badly (Imagine 50 9-11's in a week).
The Bush Doctrine is puny compared to nuclear launches on all Muslim and Arab capitals. Do we really want to reach a point where this is an option?
"A.Q. Khan - Discuss"
A.Q. Khan - Neutralized
Bullies don't pick on the football team.
A.Q. Khan - Neutralized
A.Q. Khan -- that horse is already out of the barn.
Amen, brother. Amen.
Well, let me ask a boneheaded question - what leads you to believe, in a week that has seen several massive bombings in Iraq that has killed and wounded hundreds, that "terrorism is on the decline worldwide?"
Ara,
We just brought the horse back into the barn. It was a direct result of careful application of the Bush Doctrine that we (1) found out about A. Q. Khan and (2) forced him out of power.
Clinton (and Bush before application of his doctrine) never even knew about A. Q. Khan. Discuss.
Yours,
Wince
The only thing these people respect is force. The more severe, the more they respect it. If anything, Bush has been too lenient (on Syria, on Iran, on Saudi Arabia, on North Korea). But, hey, sometimes you have to pick your battles, and then wait and see what shakes out.
Stu,
One simple answer is that "mini-trends" are not useful if projected too far into the future, because doing so tends to miss other factors.
For instance, it's getting warmer and the days are getting longer. Project out that trend, and within about 18 months the sun will never go down again and we will all die from 200+ degree temperatures. But obviously, that's not going to happen.
What you are doing, then, is focusing on a recent spate of rather spectacular events getting more press than many other terrorist activities because of the principals involved. If all you watch is CNN, you might get the impression that things are getting worse, sure.
But the truth, not reported by our wonderful "unbiased" mainline media, is that attacks in Iraq have declined by 40% since November. Attacks are on a slight upswing in Afghanistan...but even the recent slight upswing doesn't nullify that attacks are only a fraction of what they were like a year ago, and less than 1% of the attack rate from two years ago.
Do I even need to mention that "the world" is far bigger than just Iraq and Afghanistan? Terrorism is way down in Kashmir, the Phillipines, Nepal, Columbia (and S. America in general), and even the Levant.
Don't just swallow whole what any news media spoonfeeds. They are in business for one thing: to make money by attracting viewers. Actually reporting useful news is now an increasingly infrequent byproduct.
Nathan - okay, but do you have sources for this stuff? I've been googling for some kind of global review of terrorist casualties year-by-year, and I can't find one. Where are you guys getting your intel from?
umm...I'm in intel...some of it is from classified sources.
But some of it is just having made terrorism my hobby. A good source is to daily check BBC's (or even CNN's) regional news briefs, because some minor progress in the GWOT in the Phillipines might not be attract as many viewers as the latest development in the Janet Jackson Halftime Kerfuffle might in, say, Connecticut.
The broader the population the webpage is trying to reach, the less detail you get, and the more sensationalized the stories.
But to answer you question directly: is there a single source that sums up the rates of attack by nation or region? Nope.
Part of the problem is determining what terrorism actually is. For instance, Great Britain classifies 12-year-olds throwing rocks at patrolling troops to be terrorism, but that obviously isn't on the scale of 9/11.
The problem with focusing on Iraq (and even Afghanistan) as your standard of measuring terrorism levels is that it is a fairly uncommon situation for terrorism: foreign troops patrolling among a population that ranges from overtly hostile to ambivalent to welcoming/grateful. How can that compare to the Philippines, where terrorism is being conducted by citizens who are members of such terror organazations as a communist insurgency and a Muslim-separatist group.
Different targets, different opportunities, different problems.
What convinces me terrorism is going down is the absence of successful terrorist activities in many areas, and successful negotiations in other places (like Kashmir).
Sure, an absence of successful attacks may merely be a lull. I recognize that. But there are also good reasons to conclude we are making progress.
For instance, one of the reasons the fatality rate remains high in Iraq despite reduced attacks is that we are in the middle of a major swap-out of troops. One unclassified news source described the convoys moving from Kuwait to Baghdad as "choking the highway". That is a target-rich environment for the enemy. The swap-out concludes in about another month (or maybe a little less). I think you'll see the fatalities reducing dramatically after that.
Although there will still be casualties due to the inexperience of new troops in patrolling procedures...
There is no panacea for terrorism. But we are going in the right direction.
The successful talks between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, Libya coming clean on WMD, movements for Democracy arising in Syria and Saudi Arabia (weak and in the bare initial stages, to be sure, but present), North Korea being quite meek over the last year, a major reduction in suicide attacks in the Levant (maybe because Saddam no longer gives $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers...?), these are all indications of a better and safer world situation.
Indications of problems? Chechnya. Putin recently said his country is losing their War on Terror.
France (and much of the rest of Europe). They are having big problems with unassimilated Muslim immigrants.
Iraq. They still haven't fully resolved the issue of the form of elections. If that issue breaks down, much of Iraq could begin actively resisting us, instead of an extremely small (but well-armed) minority.
...hope that helps.
Nathan - thanks. The message that I get from your post is that your impression (at least from unclassified data) is that terrorism is on the decrease, but you have no hard data. BTW, I wasn't concentrating on Iraq, I just thought it ironic in a week where there have been some particularily hideous terrorist attacks in Iraq that this assertion was being made. And I'm not counting troop deaths as terrorism, tragic as they may be, as those can be interpreted to be military action, while terrorism is usually described as attacks against non-combatants as a terror tactic for political ends.
I'm still searching for a source of hard data. There's gotta be one, otherwise how can anybody say that the War on Terror is succeeding with any credibility? Isreal reports that in 2003, casuaulties from terrorist attacks were down, but attack attempts were up. Which goes to show that this is hard data to qualify, I guess.
Mr. Duff's usage of 'common sense' is perfectly valid. The old saw states that common sense is not common but, in reality, GOOD sense is not common.
Common sense is absolutely not the same as good sense.
Stu,
Hmmm....it's more than merely an impression, but it would be impossible for me to find all the different news articles I've read over the last 2 years to show the trends I've been following.
But my assessment is less than definitive, I admit.
Part of the problem in giving a definitive conclusion is that it is trying to prove a negative, which is generally understood as impossible. Part of the problem is that I'm not sure anyone has an interest in investing the computing/databasing power necessary to track that.
But Dean already provided the link to Lunaville, although you should certainly not stop with just quick glances at the stats they provide.
You can also start looking here, here, here.
In all this, it's like Global Warming: what is the answer? Depends on who you talk to, so educate yourself and hold your own opinion.
Nathan - thanks, I'll take a look, those look like some good links. I'm being as non-partisan as I can be in this, I'm just really curious about the figures and the trend, as I'd think that political change on this level creates uncertainty, fear, and political instability, and that would probably result in more terrorism, not less. But that's just a hypothesis, and I'd be glad to see it proved wrong.
Not sure why, because, as you said, short term figures don't mean a trend. If civil war begins in Iraq, or partition occurs, any figures we have will be out the window.
Wince,
We just brought the horse back into the barn.
How so?
It was a direct result of careful application of the Bush Doctrine that we (1) found out about A. Q. Khan and (2) forced him out of power.
And what happened to the secrets he gave away for money? Can we repo those?
You know what I'd do about Khan. You think POTUS will do it? I certainly hope so. But I remain to be convinced.
Stu,
Here's another example of the difficulty in answering your question.
To me, this article looks like a clear step toward a safer world and reduced terrorism (since Syria is a major sponsor of international terrorism). Maybe it's not. I am also sure that at least one motivation for this move was because Syria saw that the US will back up some issues with force. But maybe it would have happened anyway. It really can't be proven either way...
You're absolutely right on that point. We must never back down, never show weakness, never give in to the Enemy abroad OR HERE AT HOME. Oppose _and expose_ the Enemy both abroad _and here at home_ relentlessly and without mercy. Don't let them get away with their despicable agenda. Show them who's boss. Stand up to them. Destroy them. A War must be fought until it is won. There is no substitute for Victory.
Ara,
We know that you always remain to be convinced...so now that President Bush has not willy-nilly nullified the past and gotten the Khan cat back into the bag, you're doubtful about the whole thing....there's not much to discuss along these lines...
You don't defeat barbarians by shaking hands with them...of course, part of the problem is that a goodly portion of the intellectual elite of the West has been unwilling to call barbarians what they are. There has been a change in the way the elite views things over the past 100 years or so - to wit:
"Is America a weakling, to shrink from the work of the great world powers? No! The young giant of the West stands on a continent and clasps the crest of an ocean in either hand. Our nation, glorious in youth and strength, looks into the future with eager eyes and rejoices as a strong man to run a race."
Theodore Roosevelt, Letter to John Hay, American Ambassador to the Court of St. James, London, Written in Washington, DC, June 7, 1897
"Confidence has defined our course [as a nation] and has served as the link between generations. We’ve always believed in something called progress. We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own. Our people are losing the faith. Not only in government itself but in the ability as citizens to serve as the ultimate rules and shapers of our democracy."
Jimmy Carter, speech, 1979
To me, that has always nutshelled it - once upon a time, we believed in ourselves; most of us still do, but a powerful minority has lost all faith in our civilization and seems only interested in how to surrender gracefully.
Nathan -
Well, maybe, but wasn't Syria trying to improve relations with the US/Israel/Britian and shake off its ties with terrorism ever since Bashar Assad succeeded his father in 2000? I seem to remember that Syria has been making diplomatic overtures for quite a while now, and that they were supplying the US with intelligence before the invasion of Iraq. Bashar seems to be committed to some level of reform, and that may have happened regardless of the Iraq invasion. But you're right, who can say one way or another?
A. Q. Khan:
We just brought the horse back into the barn.
How do you get pee out of the pool?
Stu,
Try the State Department's 'Patterns of Global Terrorism', by their Counterterrorism office, at http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/
Unfortunately, it's never up to date so we'll be seeing hard data on today's trends by, oh 2006?
But the reports do have some interesting (certainly skewed in several ways) data.
Dennis - will do, thanks.
Mark Adams,
1. Continue working with Libya to disarm them.
2. Clandestine ops to overthrow the Iranian government.
3. Invade Syria and Saudi Arabia as needed.
4. Put Ara in charge. He's the Democrat most likely to invade every dictatorship in the world to promote freedom. Simultaneously, to avoid waiting. Just ask him. We don't call him Ara 'Damn the casualties, full speed ahead!' Rubyan for nothing! (grin) Man, it isn't every day I get to tease Ara and knock down strawmen at the same time. Hmm. Actually I could do that every day....
Yours,
Wince
Another random coincidence - major progress towards a negotiated settlement in Cyprus, ending one of the world's older low-intensity conflicts.
Bond, Ara Bond.....
You said:
"It has long been my position--and I've been saying this for well over a year and a half--that the most important reason for taking out Saddam Hussein was the one reason that the Bush administration could not state openly: to scare the bejeezus out of rogue regimes that give money, weapons, shelter, or just a wink-and-a-nod to terrorist groups."
Well, that's part of it. But the other half -- equally non-discussible in the present environment -- is the true core of the nonsense accusation that Bush was "getting revenge for his father." Every really good lie contains a core of truth to push it forward, and in this case that core was that Saddam Hussein was a flag.
He defied us openly. When inspectors came he lied to them, and nobody did anything. When he was supposed to be feeding his kids, he was buying palaces and weapons, and bribing people, and nothing happened to him. Emblematic of all of it was that, in Arab terms, he _won_ the first engagement -- after all, he was still in power, and GHWB was not. That fact gave heart to the Arabists and Islamicists. If Saddam could do that, could defy the West and the United States openly, could play the craven and liberal against one another, literally anyone could do it.
If anything at all was to be accomplished, that attitude had to change. There are some signs that it is changing somewhat; not fast, but then changes of that type and magnitude don't happen overnight, and we may not have the fortitude and patience to stay the course long enough to swing that ship around. But there would never have been any chance at all that the attitude would change without the Iraq campaign.
Note that I say "campaign." Iraq was a "war" in the same way that Belleau Woods or Surigawa Strait were "wars" -- we are engaged in a struggle that doesn't match the pre-2000 definition of war, but there isn't any other word in the language that fits even that well. Iraq is just one of the campaigns in that war. There will be more.
Regards,
Ric
"You don't defeat barbarians by shaking hands with them...of course, part of the problem is that a goodly portion of the intellectual elite of the West has been unwilling to call barbarians what they are."
Mark, the "intellectual elite" may be the most annoying mouthpieces for that thinking, but it's a much more widespread problem than that. The be-nice-at-all-costs mentality has influenced the way we think about everything from crime to religious practices to education of the young to job performance in [ahem] adults, not just diplomacy. Eggheads are just the loud and extreme end of the continuum, though the pendulum seems, gratifyingly, to be swinging back for most people, as you say.
I'm against the be-nice-at-all-costs mentality. I have had it with Political Correctness and the jerks and morons and crypto-Nazis who cite that inane and totally invalid "Godwin's Law" to silence opposition to their despicable agenda. Civility and politeness have their place, but not at the expense of integrity and justice. Respect must be earned. I owe none whatever to those who advocate laws that violate my rights. I call thugs what they are. I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it any more. I have had it.
Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete,
Be that as it may, I prefer discussions which are civil, which is why I invoke Godwin's law. I prefer them so much that if this site became a ranter's paradise I would slowly drift away. So far, that has not happened, since people here (including you) keep calming down and explaining rather than just popping off all the time. Thank you for your repeated forbearance, folks.
Yours,
Wince