Terrorists Here, Terrorists There, Terrorists Everywhere
But for heaven’s sake, don’t call them terrorists, don’t send our armies against them (although special forces are ok), and don’t even think about declaring “war” against them. That’s the bottom line of a long, shockingly silly paper from the RAND Corporation, an organization that once excelled at thinking original thoughts and proposing innovative approaches to difficult strategic and technological problems. Now it’s part of the Establishment and it tells its paymasters what they want to hear.
To read RAND’s latest deep thoughts (on how terrorist organizations come to grief) is perhaps useful if you’re interested in seeing how those people think. Above all, they are bound and determined to “prove” that using military power against terrorist groups is wrongheaded; it’s better to use police and intelligence. According to the RANDfolk, we’re doing badly against al Qaeda, and such successes as have taken place (as, for example, in Anbar Province) are more the result of local actions by Iraqis (especially police) than by our fighting forces.
In order to make this flimsy case, the RAND report leaves out very important parts of the story. There is no doubt that the Iraqi police were enormously important in Anbar Province and elsewhere in Iraq, but in order for them to do their work they needed the protection provided by the Army and, above all, the Marines. Indeed, after the liberation of Iraq, the police were getting plenty of support in Anbar, and al Qaeda was doing very badly. But then came the big battle of Fallujah, and the Marines in the Euphrates Valley were called into the fight, thereby leaving the key centers of Ramadi, Haditha and others at the mercy of the terrorists, who came in and slaughtered everyone suspected of cooperating with the Americans.
The Marines were well aware of the enormous problem they faced after Fallujah: how could the Iraqis possibly trust us, when we had (in their eyes) abandoned them to their enemies? Lots of those local police, so admired by the RANDfolk, had run away to the north, and they weren’t likely to come back unless they were convinced they could survive it. They had to believe that the Marines were going to win, and were not going to leave.
To that end, Marine commanders dispatched envoys to track down experienced policemen, and bring them back. One Marine lieutenant of my acquaintance spent a couple of weeks with the policemen, and returned to Haditha with nearly two hundred of them. This was not at all, as the RAND monograph has it, a spontaneous decision made by independent Iraqis; it was a working relationship based on guarantees from the Marines that they would fight alongside the Iraqis.
I don’t think it’s remotely plausible to argue, as the RANDfolk do, that the “Awakening” was basically an Iraqi phenomenon with marginal American support. I think it was created when the Iraqis saw that the Marines were winning the war. And while I think the RANDfolk are right when they say that many of the Iraqi tribal leaders redoubled their efforts after the 2004 U.S. elections–fearing that the Democrats would yank the Marines out of Anbar– they did it with the Marines alongside. They thought they would win in alliance with the Marines, and they feared they would lose if the Marines left. Again.
The whole RAND study suffers from constant errors of context. One of their favorite themes is that it’s easier to make peace with terrorists who have “limited objectives,” and they cite the case of the Salvadoran FMLN, a Communist organization armed and trained by the Soviet Empire, via Cuba and Nicaragua. Almost as an afterthought, they note that peace was accomplished after the fall of the Kremlin, and the pauperization of Cuba. They hardly mention the defeat of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua by the American-supported Contras. I think it’s pretty easy to understand why the FMLN came to terms: they lost the war and lost their sponsors. So they laid down their arms and entered elections they knew they would lose. That’s the usual pattern for peace: one side beats the other and imposes terms. Those terms are what “peace” is all about, as you can easily confirm by looking at the famous “peace conferences” in history; it’s all about what the winners permit the losers to keep.
In like manner, we don’t hear anything about state support for al Qaeda or other Middle Eastern terrorist groups; they are always treated as if they are purely local phenomena, and to the extent RAND discusses the international dimensions of al Qaeda, for example, it is only to stress the versatility and skill of the terrorists at decentralizing. That is no doubt why Hizbollah doesn’t attract much attention from them, because Hizbollah is an arm of the Iranian state and operates all over the world. No intrinsic versatility there; the Hizbollahis are just following orders from Tehran. And al Qaeda did the same in Iraq, in close coordination with Hizbollah.
Then we have the linguistic games. RAND doesn’t want us to talk about a “war on terror.” Perhaps they might mention this to the jihadis who declared war on us and then attacked. They complain a couple of times that when we use such bellicose language (and worse yet, send armies against our enemies), it is likely to provoke a hostile “response” from the terrorists, as if we had not been singled out for attack by terrorist organizations from the PLO to Islamic Jihad for decades.
Meanwhile, the terror war against us rages unabated. The Israelis and the Germans have found a Hizbollah cell in Germany that recruited Palestinians with Israeli citizenship or work permits. And the Italians arrested five terrorists in Bologna over the weekend. They had been recruiting jihadis for training in Bosnia (where Iranians have long trained terrorists for use in Europe and the Middle East).
You can call it anything you want if it makes you feel better. But it is what it is. War.
UPDATE: Here’s a more detailed analysis of the Israeli Arab recruited by Hizbollah in Germany.
Michael Ledeen is the Freedom Scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, D.C.
You’ll know far more about this than I would, but ——————————————— when’s the foreign policy establishment been right of late?
You would think that their frequency of error, high profile error at that, would leave them somewhat chastened, somewhat more cautious in offering their advice.
But no.
It’s as if they’ve been right all along.
Remember the intelligence and foreign policy establishments’ analysis of the amount the Soviet Union was spending on military spending, as a percentage of their GDP.
I can recall seeing assessments ranging from 12 to 20%.
We now know, after the fact, that the Soviet Union, DURING THE HEIGHT of “Detente” spent no less than 70% of their GDP on military outlays.
It’s like 9/11, ————————— who lost their job over that one?
Who got fired?
Who was revealed to be a fraud?
We can’t go on like this.
Serious question: Does anyone know what has happened to/at RAND, and does this sloppiness of thinking contaminate the rest of their output?
Thanks.
This is one of those debates that is, to my mind, just silly…not that I disagree with anything Michael wrote. *Some* guerilla wars are best fought using straightforward military force. Others are best fought using police, and still others are best fought using a combination of the two. We’re currently in the last sort of conflict. Lefties hate the idea that we use the military (e.g. those who insist the Surge didn’t work, even now) and righties hate that their are any police involved, or any rules imposed on our troops (remember the Rules of Engagement controversies of about two years ago?). The fact of the matter is that while a war against terrorists is, yes, a war, it’s not the same sort of war as one fought exclusively with tanks and planes and artillery. It’s also not a law enforcement exercise with bank robbers trying to escape the police. Instead, it’s a bit of both in this case, and it has to be treated as if that’s the case. The important thing, here, is to kick aside all politics, and do *what works*. In other words, morality aside, the counterinsurgency through community policing method is the one which we should use because it *works*, never mind whether it’s more or less politically correct. My favorite example of the strongarm tactics advocated by the military types on the right is the German invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941. They spent 3 years there, were much more brutal than we’ll ever be, and left having not even come close to conquering the countryside. Our recent efforts to pacify Iraq without the army involving itself in the fighting until things got out of hand ought to show what happens when you try the police-without-the-military approach. As I said above, a balanced approach is best. Don’t let anyone tell you differently.
Really it seems that the opinion was written BEFORE the research even started. Kind of like the Obama position on the surge, he stated what he thought should have happen, and as he got information he flavored the “facts” to fit his position. RAND corp USED to be a organization with a reputation of independent thought and objective analysis. I guess we can see which way they have fallen in the ideology war taking place within our own country.
Agree with your early point. This study says far more about RAND than about the issue they purport to examine. Yeesh.
To be fair to RAND they did the study before the surge when the conventional wisdom had become “fighting terrorism just creates more terrorists.” I had an opportunity to see this brief at the RAND National Defense Research Institute board meeting in June and I was tempted to compliment the briefer on his foresight in seeing the failure of the surge (note to the literal: that was intended as sarcasm). My boss was still there so I only made a side comment to the “plus 1″ sitting next to me.
The problem with RAND’s analysis is that they made the common mistake of not understanding how attrition warfare works. Combatants can generally maintain their forces levels until they can’t after which they collapse. The RAND researchers assumed that because AQ and FREs continued to maintain their force levels that we were creating terrorists. However, if you looked closely at the operational competency of the insurgents it had been on a steady downward path. Attrition first effects quality not quantity but eventually you run out of quality and only then do you run out of manpower reserves.
Germany was able to put 500,000 men into the Ardennes after five years of fighting and sustaining heavy losses. After the battle there was no one left to fill the empty holes and German rapidly imploded. That is what happened in Iraq. The surge hit the enemy just when they had exhausted their manpower reserves and led to their defeat in detail.
ML:
At first I thought the same thing, but then I read it more carefully. There’s a long section on the surge, whose success is predicted in the study. So they know about it, but they will not see it. “There is none so blind as he who will not see.”
Man, déja vu all over again. If this isn’t identical to the “law-enforcement” meme that the Dems were flogging 5 years ago, please point out the nuances and differences.
Apparently even a 2×4 across the forehead isn’t enough for some Donks.
Yes, only we will continue to get more than a 2×4 from the Islamofascists as they wage war unhindered by the civil debate we hold amongst ourselves in this country.
Oh this is so wrong headed. The Rand corp has it right.
Remember their groundbreaking treatise on the errors of our “War” against the Germans in the 1940s? They showed quite conclusively that we achieved little through military means until we began rounding up and arresting the German forces in ’45. That’s 5 years if you count the British failures to initiate legal action. Before then it was just all running around shooting at each other. It wasn’t until the minds of the Germans decided to seek the path of peace and International Law that our wasteful military tactics were changed to the proper tactic of policing and prosecuting.
Later, the wonderful Nuremberg, erroneously named military, tribunals culminated our proper and successful Legal activities.
Do something?
Say something?
How, when so many people can’t even allow themselves to think something?
Here is a post to help out those who can’t focus on the difference between good and evil:
http://breathofthebeast.blogspot.com/2008/08/birthday-gift-for-dead-girl.html
and when they are done with that I recommend The Pledge to Recognize Evil:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/recognize_evil/
Many inside the beltway type organizations cling to the “law & order” approach. And as has been mentioned here, appropriate application of the law & order method at appropriate times, is part of the “war on terror.”
However, pre 9/11 there was a legal block that stopped intel & law enforcement from knowing what each other knew. Worse is that it appears neither were talking to the military folks.
Defeating this enemy, and the terrorists ARE our enemy, will take the application of many methods to finally stop the attackers & win over those who sit on the fence or are confused or frightened.
Any thinking person knows military alone will not solve the problem. I know of no one who backed military intervention, who wanted
“only” military action.
It is unfortunate that many on either side, refuse to acknowledge the potential effectiveness of either approach combined with each other.
Worse is that supposed “think tanks” give up objectivity in order to toe the political party line. Whether from the right or the left, refusing to adapt to conditions on the ground, has sunk many operations, either of a law & order nature or a military nature.
Refusing to accept the reality that one or the other methods contributed to the success of the “surge,” is simply partisanship, at its worst!
But then, partisanship has become the new religion of zealots seeking to undermine their political opponents, even if it means one destroys the entire nation to accomplish their personal political positions.
Everyone has made mistakes in dealing with this “new type of enemy.” There is blame to share among ALL.
We have however, also developed an understanding within the military establishment that will prove beneficial in the new few years as we work to resolve these issues.
We just need to take with a grain of salt, reports from groups or persons who have “gone in the tank” for their favored political position. We also need to educate as many around us as possible that bias & partisanship in reports, media reports, editorials, Op-Eds, and many other venues, only serves the enemy & does nothing for the nation.
ML:
Yes, everyone has made mistakes and we will all continue to make mistakes. God put man on earth to screw up and provide entertainment. But I don’t think we advance the cause of understanding the world by saying that “think tanks” aren’t useful, or that too many people have political bias. The important thing is not bias but the truth, and biased people can get to the truth; that they are on one side or the other regarding the war doesn’t automatically discredit their analyses. In graduate school we were taught to avoid trying to identify other historians’ motives, or for that matter to identify leaders’ motives, on the grounds that a) we couldn’t reliably know the motives (sometimes the people themselves didn’t know them), and b) that what matters is how well they understood their real options and how wisely they chose among them.
Hard indeed, nowadays, when a good deal of the commentary to this blog gets rejected because it’s just a personal attack against various politicians or writers. But it’s worth the effort.
I stopped believing Rand info in the late ’70s when they put out a paper ‘proving’ alcoholics could be ‘taught’ to drink socially. After some research I found that they got their “winning numbers” by asking the alcoholic who had passed their class if they had been bothered by alcohol problems since ‘graduation’. Someone else had the bright idea to ask the spouse and check arrest records and the whole thing fell apart. They did not find any successes.
Mr. Ledeen it looks like we got bigger fish to fry than your fresh Alaska Salmon. The world is staring to unravel. Looks like America is gonna have to go at it alone. If Russia’s invasion of Georgia isn’t a poke in Europe’s eye then it certainly is a wake up call. Smell the coffee Europe, the Bear is back from hibernation and hungry for former satellite states. Will Europe talk itself to death as usual? Europe should be damned for their total impotency. If familiarity breeds contempt than what does endless diplomacy breed? W-A-R. A strong Europe, via NATO or on its own, is mandatory. Belligerent nations respect power and resolve which happen to be two words missing from European dictionaries. A strong Europe will make certain nations think twice before taking belligerent actions. A strong Europe is mandatory if democracy is to prevail or certainly the world will get a whole lot darker than Georgia is today. Mr Ledeen do you agree or disagree?
Is there any way to put the Department of State on ice until we finish some of the wars they have started? They can start wars faster then the Military can end them. Maybe if we gave the entire State department 6 months off with pay? In the long run it would save some money, what with the cost of munitions now days.
rand corp=rice speak=gobbeldeeguck
I had equally harsh language for the stupid RAND publication:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2008/07/31/another-disappointing-rand-counterinsurgency-study/
As for the notion that the Awakening was exclusively an Iraq phenomenon, I have also argued against this. You and I have the same views on the mission of the Marines in Anbar, as you know. They were the stronger horse, and without them, Anbar would have been lost.
People in think tanks having quaint little discussions (paper or plastic ? ?police or military ?) while sipping their lattes…give me dyspepsia.
And what is the Anbar Awakening, except a preponderance of Iraqis finally grasping…”oh, the major target of the AQ slaughterers is ourselves !”
Praise be to Allah for General Petraeus (the military guy) and Ryan Crocker for, finally, getting the Iraq war going in the right direction.
Were Bill Clinton’s refusals (via Sandy Burglar) to let our guys in Pakistan nail bin laden when they had him in their sights a “military” or a “police” debacle ? I think a police debacle.
Anyway, the newly reconstituted Al Qaeda is entrenching itself more and more deeply in NW Pakistan and even infusing itself into the functioning of several cities, with the goal of taking over the entire country. They live, like all terrorist cowards, closely intermingled with the tribes they have infested.
Hardly anybody ever mentions that the Waziristan tribes themselves are suffocating under Taliban-like oppression.
Somebody, military or police, better get on top of those “terrorist” jokers soon.
Faster, indeed.
Did they mention this?
“The number of “urban violence incidents” committed in 2007 in France has been discreetly publicized by the Interior Ministry. It amounts to 93,016, of which 37,359 car torchings, or 102 per day!”
I thought not.
Considering that America is about 4x the size of France, what do you think the reaction here in the states would be if Muslims were burning over 400 cars per day?
Being a good American, I would start a business manufacturing plastic Allahs to put on the dashboard. Maybe the ‘rioters” would go burn the car with the Plastic Jesus instead. After I got my start-up out, I would expand to make bubble-head Allahs. Wouldn’t that be the cats whiskers?
Then there would be the Full Monte ALLAH, who instead of bobbing his head is humping a goat.
Lots of sales there. Might even replace the “Kill ‘em all, Allah will know his own.” bumper sticker.