Terrorism Versus Law Enforcement

The talking points of the day from the McCain camp involve the idea that Barack Obama wants to fight terrorism with law enforcement alone, that he has a "September 10 mentality." As Richard Clarke pointed out on a conference call earlier today, this is a pretty hoary chestnut "they said that about the Clinton administration, they said that about Senator Kerry, and now they’re saying it about Senator Obama" but it's never been true. Michael Goldfarb at McCain's blog alleges that "Obama wants to take us back to the bad old days of going after terrorists with prosecutors rather than predators." This is, of course, not what Obama is proposing -- as Jon Chait says "Obama did propose going after terrorists, which prompted McCain to accuse him of having 'once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan.'"

But of course the GOP philosophy has for years now been that we need to hit the terrorists hard where they aren't, while letting problems in Central Asia fester because they're difficult. Meanwhile, the "old days" Goldfarb is talking about never existed. In retrospect, I think we all wish the Clinton administration had been somewhat more aggressive in its approach to al-Qaeda, but as I note in the book more Americans (and many, many more people overall) have died as a result of the idiotic response to 9/11 that Bush and McCain embraced than actually died on that day.

The shortcomings of previous policy are no reason to go implement a worse policy. Military force will play a role in U.S. counterterrorism strategy, but it simply has a limited utility in dealing with the problem. If you don't recognize that, you wind up blundering down the Bush/Rumsfeld/McCain/Feith road of sending troops to Iraq because Iraq contains good military targets rather than coming up with an actual strategy for fighting terrorism.

Comments

I agree with the sentiment here. But I don't think there was ever going to be a response to 9/11, idiotic or otherwise, that didn't wind up killing more people than died on that day.

Posted by scarpy | June 17, 2008 5:30 PM

Given the quantity Goldfarb's drug use during and after college, I'm not surprised his reasoning is addled.

Posted by Someone Who Knows | June 17, 2008 5:38 PM

A few notes:

Actually the GOP focus on attacking state sponsors of terrorism is a very pre-9/11 mentality. As usual, the GOP is attacking the Dems. on a point of GOP weakness. This is all very predictable, yet the GOP is able to successfully pull it off every time. What does that say about the Dems? The Dems' ineffectiveness at fighting the GOP is perhaps part of why people think the Dems. can't keep us safe?

Clinton actually did take an aggressive approach to Al Qaeda. The problem was that Congress didn't have his back -- the same people who claim it's practically treasonous not to support every stupid idea Cmdr. Codpiece has, had a "pre-9/11 mentality" that whenever Clinton did anything about Al Qaeda, he was to be rhetorically shot down with the words "the tail wags the dog". When the GOP talks of Dems. undermining the war on terror, they are engaging in their usual projection, consider what they did pre-9/11 ... I guess for them (as opposed to the moonbats who were pre-mature anti-terrorists -- don't worry it won't be long before we get slammed as such -- 9/11 really did change everything ... well, Jan. 2000 changed a lot as well, if you catch my drift ...).

One thing we Dems. do need to worry about is the possibility of a terror attack (for which I hope Obama is prepared -- not just in terms of the response, but in terms of handling the political repercussions -- c.f. Dave Chappelle, I don't think the media will call upon us to "unite around the president" the same way we were called upon, and did, following 9/11, for example) happening soon after Obama is elected/sworn in (which will be blamed on Obama, of course ... which blame is what the terrorists want -- they love Bush); I wish I could find the link, but someone pointed out that terrorists would attack us if we elected Kerry in 2004 and the same reasoning applies to Obama in 2008: "Islamo-fascists" know what the BushCO response to terrorism is -- they only needed to attack us once, and BushCO, under the guise of fighting terror, implimented their agenda (getting rid of Saddam Hussein, uniting the Moslem world against us, providing them with a base of operations in Iraq, etc.). They don't know what Obama will do.

Posted by DAS | June 17, 2008 5:55 PM

The shortcomings of previous policy are no reason to go implement a worse policy.

The GOP has become of the party of fundamentalists and idealogues. Facts on the ground are incapable of changing stated positions. (Polls can, however.) So we were right to go into Iraq, they did have WMD's (or knowledge or intent or a jar of rat poison or something), Iraq really was central to fighting Islamic terrorists, and the surge is "working". And , of course, once we "win" in Iraq we'll win the war on terror.

Collectively, the GOP has become dumb as a bag of hammers. "Stupid is as stupid does, sir."

Posted by LFC | June 17, 2008 5:56 PM

I find it a bit perplexing that John McCain has said that he would follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell, however when Barack Obama talks about going after Bin Laden where he actually is McCain calls foul.

Posted by Samuel Chase | June 17, 2008 6:07 PM

What DAS said.

Matt, why must you surrender key talking points to the GOP like this? Clinton actually got criticized in the 90s for focusing on terrorism too much. I suppose you're too you to remember this but a little research might help.

Also, there is nothing wrong with a prosecutorial approach to combating terrorism. As opposed to a military strategy, an law-enforcement strategy is far more likely to achieve good long-term results without alienating half the world and spawning hordes of terrorist for every one we kill or capture.

Posted by Rob Mac | June 17, 2008 6:08 PM

Matt, why must you surrender key talking points to the GOP like this?

Actually, Matt, you should delve into the fact that Phil Gramm, now one of McCain's senior advisers on the economy, was the sole blocker of a bill designed to make it easier to track terrorist funding. Apparently keeping transactions secret for his TX banking buddies was more important than stopping money from being funneled to the people who wanted to blow us up.

You might also delve into the fact that Clinton asked for more money to fight terrorism, including money to get more Arabic translators in our intelligence services, but was shot down by the GOP, loudly and publicly.

The GOP record on fighting terrorism prior to 9/11 blows. It's pretty sucky after 9/11 too.

Posted by LFC | June 17, 2008 6:23 PM

Given that it appears the US is now ready to start attacking Pakistan's frontier territories with or without Pakistani agreement, I'd say the issue is either moot or going to heat up.

What's happening is that the US is slipping into a war with Pakistan. I'd say that outcome is nearly as bad as attacking Iran.

The US and NATO have lost the war in Afghanistan. If they try to "double down" in Pakistan, the situation will be infinitely worse.

Once again, though, Matt can't talk about any of this in any substantive sense.

US runs out of patience with Pakistan
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JF17Df02.html

Money Quotes:

The words came from Afghan President Hamid Karzai at the weekend, threatening to send troops into Pakistani territory in hot pursuit of the Taliban, but Islamabad has no doubts Karzai was reading from a script prepared by the United States.

The message is crystal clear: Pakistan's failure to cooperate at the sub-strategic level leaves the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) with no alternative but to mobilize the newly trained Afghan National Army into Pakistan whenever it sees fit.

Karzai was reacting to a bad week for the Afghan government and NATO, which lost at least 15 troops in various incidents. Kabul was embarrassed by a carefully planned operation in the southern city of Kandahar in which suicide bombers and about 100 Taliban attacked a jail, resulting in the death of nearly 20 security forces and the escape of over 1,000 prisoners, including 380 Taliban. And in another attack on Saturday, the governor of Helmand province was injured and the police chief killed.

A line not to be crossed
http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/06/15/5880581.php

Money Quotes:

This week's deadly U.S. attacks again illustrate the fact that the 60,000 U.S. and NATO ground troops in Afghanistan are incapable of holding off the Taliban and its allies, even though the Afghan resistance has nothing but small arms to battle the West's hi-tech arsenal. U.S. air power is almost always called in when there are clashes.

In fact, the main function for U.S. and NATO infantries is to draw the Taliban into battle so the Afghan "mujahidin" can be bombed from the air. Without 24/7 U.S. airpower, which can respond in minutes, western forces in Afghanistan would be quickly isolated, cut off from supplies, and defeated.

But these air strikes, as we saw this week, are blunt instruments in spite of all the remarkable skill of the U.S. Air Force and Navy pilots. They kill more civilians than Taliban fighters. Mighty U.S. B-1 bombers are not going to win the hearts and minds of Afghans. Each bombed village and massacred caravan wins new recruits to the Taliban and its allies.

OPEN WARFARE

The U.S. and its allies are edging into open warfare against Pakistan. The western occupation army in Afghanistan is unable to defeat Taliban fighters due to its lack of combat troops. The outgoing supreme commander, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, recently admitted he would need 400,000 soldiers to pacify Afghanistan.

Unable to win in Afghanistan, the frustrated western powers are turning on Pakistan, a nation of 165 million. Pakistanis are bitterly opposed to the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan and their nation's subjugation to U.S. policy under dictator Musharraf.

"We just need to occupy Pakistan's tribal territory," insists the Pentagon, "to stop its Pashtun tribes from supporting and sheltering Taliban." But a U.S.-led invasion of FATA simply will push pro-Taliban Pashtun militants deeper into Pakistan's Northwest Frontier province, drawing western troops ever deeper into Pakistan. Already overextended, western forces will be stretched even thinner and clashes with Pakistan's tough regular army may be inevitable.

Widening the Afghan War into Pakistan is military stupidity on a grand scale, and political madness. But Washington and its obedient allies seem hell-bent on charging into a wider regional war that no number of heavy bombers will win.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 17, 2008 6:35 PM

In January 1993 Mir Aimal Kasi shot five people outside CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, killing two of them. He fled to the same border area of Pakistan where Osama bin Laden is now likely hiding. The FBI captured him in June 1997, he was sentenced to death in February 1998, and he was executed in November 2002.

A Democratic administration using law enforcement techniques tracked down a terrorist in the border region of Pakistan in a little over four years. Bin Laden's been on the loose in the same part of the world almost seven years after planning the attacks that killed 3,000 people.

Posted by croatoan | June 17, 2008 6:52 PM

As opposed to a military strategy, an law-enforcement strategy is far more likely to achieve good long-term results without alienating half the world and spawning hordes of terrorist for every one we kill or capture.

Yeah, but what does it look like on camera?

The purpose of foreign policy is to win domestic elections.
The purpose of domestic policy is to win domestic elections.
Because then you can pass the laws, write the agency regulations, and appoint the judges.

Petty criminals rob.

Organized criminals suborn the accountant, cook the books, and steal the money that way.

Really organized criminals write larceny out of the statute books.

Purity of heart is to will one thing.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 17, 2008 7:30 PM

The talking points of the day from the McCain camp involve the idea that Barack Obama wants to fight terrorism with law enforcement alone, that he has a "September 10 mentality."

Which is it gonna be, John? Obama wants to fight terrorism with law enforcement alone? or Obama has a September 10 mentality?

The first option has been shown to get results. The second option was the Bush Administration policy until 9/11, as they sat on their collective asses.

Posted by cmholm | June 17, 2008 7:50 PM

As a question of rhetoric, since when did busting up organizations, kicking in doors, paying off informants, arresting people, seizing their bank accounts & property, and charging them with local & international crimes become the wussy, wimpy, cowardly traitorous approach???

Has it literally gotten to the point for the power mad conservative nutballs that if you're not blowing sh*t up with smart bombs and invading whole countries, you're obviously just pussy-footin' around and next you'll be massaging the terrorists' feet?

In general, though, these a**hole freaks can take their snide dismissals of "the law enforcement approach" and shove them up their a**es, because they're generally people who don't give the slightest sh*t what does or does not stop the terrorists, nor what does or does not keep 'us' safe.

Most of them would rather large numbers of us die so that they can have the glorious wars they want. They're evil, disgusting, simpleton cowards who are useless and couldn't save the world from an onslaught of cotton candy, presuming they had half a brain to even find any.

Posted by El Cid | June 17, 2008 8:16 PM

This nonsense stopped working no later than 2006.

Posted by DTM | June 17, 2008 10:25 PM

"...they said that about Senator Kerry..."

And it worked!

Here's a thought: even if Barack Obama loses this election everyone is telling him he is the proverbial man who should be king; I doubt this is the last we hear of him.

But where as he has to date a voting record both in Illinois and the U.S. Senate too vague and short to tell people much there will be many more crucial votes to test his mettle.

Remember: Mr. civil liberties Robert A Taft was never elected president.

What if lib Hitler turns around and becomes a champion of civil liberties (and other causes Democrats in Congress won't or will only half-touch) and Barack Obama becomes the kind of poll-conscious hack "kewl" Dems deplore?

Posted by Linus | June 17, 2008 11:13 PM

IIRC, Clinton bombed bin Laden and the Repubs sneered "wag the dog."

Posted by Bloix | June 18, 2008 12:22 AM

What Das said. Also a little bit along the lines of what Rob Mac said, but phrased much more politely.

I think that you didn't explain as thoroughly as you should have that "the 'old days' Goldfarb is talking about never existed." In particular, after the embassy bombings the Clinton administration tried to kill Bin Laden with cruise missiles.

That is not a law enforcement approach. Republicans have lied about what Clinton did and did not do for so long that Goldfarb may have honestly forgotten about the episode.

As Das notes, when Clinton tried to kill Osama, Republicans said he was trying to "Wag the Dog" and distract Americans from the really important issue of exactly who had sucked his dick.

Here is a David Corn article from Salon from 1998

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/08/21newsc.html
"... Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., questioned Clinton's motives in launching the attacks -- "Why did he wait until now?" [snip]

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., also rushed before television cameras to suggest that Clinton may have had more than national security on his mind in deciding to bomb."

That's two senators one of whom is a notoriously moderate statesman.

Now, however, Bill Clinton used a law enforcement approach and Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | June 18, 2008 12:58 AM

Is everyone forgetting that a "law enforcement approach" regularly includes policemen shooting & killing armed suspects who are not disarming & surrendering?

Since when have conservatives worked so hard to turn "law enforcement" into a synonym for weakness & surrender?

Posted by El Cid | June 18, 2008 5:55 AM

The "law enforcement approach" also includes powerful tools not available to your average cop, things like the military's and NSA's intellegence gathering, spy sattelites, front and back channel connections to intellegence gathering of the British, Israelis, even Syrians, etc.

As usual, the GOP cleverly uses innacurate and demeaning language to characterize the Democrats' position. And as usual, the Democrats are hapless to overcome this.

Dems need to come up with a good sound bite, like "locate/annihilate". They also need to ridicule the folly of Bush/McCain's approach. I think Matt's "hit them hard where they aren't" is pretty good, although I would add "only a fool or a neocon would think this would work, and of course, it isn't working. The neocons are wrong about everything and need to be marginalized back into their well-funded think tanks, where their Green Lantern fantasies won't do any harm."

It is Orwellian to me that "shock and awe" wasn't ridiculed at the time as the most sophmoric, dangerous, stupid, bloodthirsty idea anyone ever had. Why oh why is it so hard for Dems to speak the truth?

Posted by esaund | June 18, 2008 9:57 AM

“A September 10th mentality”? We need a “Common Sense mentality” not a propaganda heat wave. Encourage your representatives to impeach Bush.

“This (9/11) was all planned. This was a government-ordered operation. Bush personally signed the order. He personally authorized the attacks. He is guilty of treason and mass murder.”

–Bob Dole’s Former Chief of Staff, Stanley Hilton

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=9056

Posted by Brian Randall | June 19, 2008 12:47 AM