Are Iraqis Worth It? Hanson Nails Issue

We daily scour the blogosphere and news columns for stories or opinions that strike a chord within us, that indicate the author is a kindred spirit, that demonstrate that someone else out there “gets it” when it comes to the important issues of our time. Today while reading National Review Online I read an article by an author I read with regularity and had such an experience. Even before this week, with the passage in the House and Senate of the Iraq White Flag Surrender Turn Tail and Flee Beginning October 1st Bill dominating the headlines, I wrote about the real reason why some Americans are not willing to sacrifice long and hard for the fledgling democracy in Iraq, and today prominent author and NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson took up this issue in a brilliantly written and bluntly articulated article titled, “Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak.”

Hanson shared my view that much of the war weariness among Americans is due to a feeling of superiority, that somehow democracy and freedom are exclusive American virtues and rights, and at the least sign of difficulty, we assume other peoples are not prepared of capable of governing themselves as we do. Hanson wrote:

But, again, most Americans now don’t think it is worth it — and not just because of the cost we pay, but because of what we get in return. Turn on the television and the reporting is all hate: a Middle Eastern Muslim is blowing up someone in Israel, shooting a rocket from Gaza, chanting death to America in Beirut, stoning an adulterer in Tehran, losing a hand for thievery in Saudi Arabia, threatening to take back Spain, gassing someone in Iraq, or promising to wipe out Israel. An unhinged, secular Khadafi rants; a decrepit Saudi royal lectures; a wild-eyed Lebanese cleric threatens — whatever the country, whatever the political ideology, the American television viewer draws the same conclusion: we are always blamed for their own self-inflicted misery….

But the real catalysts are the endemic violence and hypocrisy that appear nightly on millions of television screens. When the liberal Left says of the war, “It isn’t worth it,” that message resonates, as the American public rightly suspects that it really means “They aren’t worth it.” Voters may not like particularly a Harry Reid, but in frustration at the violence, they sense now that, just like them, he also doesn’t like a vague somebody over there.So here we are in our eleventh hour. A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.

In my previous posts about Indonesia’s successes as a Muslim democracy and the Democrats unwillingness to be patient with Iraq’s governmental development, I, like Hanson, questioned why so many Americans, the Democratic left in particular, were so eager for a rush to withdraw without victory in Iraq. Their behavior demonstrated what I described previously as a “carrot and stick” approach, with Pelosi and Reid holding the stick of abandonment over free Iraqis who are working and dying to cement democracy for future generations of Iraqis and other aspiring but oppressed populations in the Middle East. I concluded:

There are only two possible explanations for the behavior of Speaker Pelosi and the anti-war Democrats: first, they despise President Bush so much that they cannot afford to allow the Iraq War to be won, as a victory there would cement President Bush’s legacy as the man who brought democracy to the Middle East and ensure a Republican sweep in the 2008 elections; or second, Democrats are prejudiced in their belief that democracy should not be shared or supported in Muslim nations because Muslims are too backward in their thinking to truly want democracy.

In World War II, Americans had little trouble relating with and having empathy for the European populations our soldiers died to free from the Nazis. However, fighting to preserve democracy or at least halt the spread of Communism in Korea and Vietnam, Americans demonstrated far less cultural understanding or will to share the blessings of freedom with Asian peoples. Is this same phenomenon occurring now in Iraq? Is our minimal knowledge of Middle Eastern cultures, languages, and religious groups causing us to consider those peoples less worthy of our money, time, and blood than Europeans were in two world wars? Perhaps the most salient question is, if we give Iraqis a taste of freedom and democracy and abandon them before they can sustain their freedom, will any other peoples rise up to overthrow tyranny knowing that the bastion of freedom, the United States, cannot be trusted to defend democracy?

Victor Davis Hanson’s article was a gem that Capital Cloak heartily recommends to all readers.

Tenet: Interrogations MVP of Terror War

Washington insiders are known for making startling revelations in the media immediately prior to the date on which their memoirs hit bookstore shelves. Former CIA director George Tenet is no exception. His book, At the Center of the Storm: My Years at the CIA, available for sale Monday, has already been a hot topic of discussion in the media, as portions of it have been leaked along with previews of Tenet’s appearance on CBS’ “60 Minutes” program to be aired Sunday. Speculation has run rampant that Tenet would anger the White House with his assessments of the War on Terror, but the NY Sun reported today that Tenet adamantly defended the Bush administration’s use of “aggressive interrogations” in a bold and straightforward manner uncommon among DC’s elite.

Tenet, addressing the issue of interrogations and alleged torture so ferociously opposed by Democrats, reportedly stated:

"I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots," Mr. Tenet said in a "60 Minutes" interview set to air Sunday before the release of his new book. "I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us," he said.

Consider that last sentence again carefully. In the estimation of a man who served as DCI under Presidents Clinton and Bush, aggressive interrogations, presumably including the technique known as “water boarding” (previously described by Capital Cloak here) have been the most effective tool in protecting America from terrorism. Interrogation of enemy combatants, so loudly denounced by war critics is more valuable than the FBI’s counterterrorism section and Joint Terrorism Task Forces found in every major American city. Aggressive interrogations yield more actionable intelligence than the NSA’s electronic and communications monitoring capabilities so feared by privacy scaremongers. Interrogations are worth more than CIA covert operations and intelligence analysts’ reports.

It is a remarkable statement from a man whose reputation and marketability are so closely intertwined with public perception of the CIA. The capture of these enemy combatants, and often the initial interrogations, are military rather than CIA operations, and thus Tenet is crediting Defense Intelligence (with additional assistance from CIA) for extracting more actionable intelligence than all other agencies and programs combined. When one considers the enormous flood of documents, captured transmissions, and reports from citizen informants currently swamping American intelligence agencies, one begins to realize how critical it is to obtain information directly from captured terrorists with firsthand operational knowledge of terror plots, terror leaders, names, aliases, locations, dates, times, and travel methods.

Theoretically, all of these pieces of a terror plot puzzle might eventually be put together by American intelligence. The NSA may capture a phone call in which vague references to an attack in America or Britain are made. Defense Intelligence may find laptop computers, surveillance videos, and maps on which targets are circled. The FBI may receive a warning from an anonymous citizen that Islamic men were talking about a bomb in New York. The pieces of the puzzle may be many and seemingly unrelated. That is complicated by the continued failure of intelligence agencies to share newly obtained information real time with each other, thus the chances of someone at one of these agencies putting the pieces together and discovering the big picture are slim indeed.

That entire puzzle process is typically avoided when enemy combatants are interrogated, and yes, interrogated aggressively. There is no need for a lucky analyst to discover a plot when the terrorists themselves, under moderate duress, reveal their plans and how to find the plotters. FISA warrants, privacy rights of Americans, the Patriot Act, FBI’s Carnivore, all the anti-terror tools liberals fear and despise are much less productive than direct capture and interrogation. That logic is at the heart of President Bush’s strategy to fight terrorists in the Middle East to prevent fighting them in America. He recognized long ago that taking the gloves off when interrogating captured al Qaeda operatives was the only sure way to infiltrate their organization and hit them before they hit America again. Of course, surveillance and other tools are still necessary for detection of so-called homegrown terrorists and should not be abandoned. Still, the arguments for aggressive interrogation, whether from President Bush, George Tenet, or former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, have always been compelling and convincing.

Liberal (and some conservative) critics of the Bush administration’s handling of the War on Terror and national security must face three difficult questions: You are opposed to the Patriot Act; you are opposed to the NSA domestic surveillance program; you are opposed to FBI’s carnivore and other Internet mining tactics; you are opposed to the war against al Qaeda and other terrorists in Iraq; you are opposed to holding enemy combatants for interrogation; you are opposed to any form of aggressive interrogation, including water boarding; you are in favor of illegal immigration; you are opposed to citizen ownership of guns; are there any anti-terror policies you support? How do you propose we obtain intelligence before terrorists strike America again? Would you prefer to be incinerated by a bomb or see a terrorist frightened into revealing the location of that bomb because he “thought” he was drowning?

While it may seem improbable to most Americans, lulled as they are into believing they are safe, men like George Tenet and President Bush confront such doomsday scenarios daily. Note the strain and sense of urgency Tenet felt in his daily work:

"We don't torture people," the former director told CBS. "The context is it's post-September 11. I've got reports of nuclear weapons in New York City, apartment buildings that are going to be blown up, planes that are going to fly into airports all over again, plot lines that I don't know. … I'm struggling to find out where the next disaster is going to occur."

Tenet has been criticized by many within and outside the intelligence community for his perceived failure to put the puzzle together to prevent 9/11. However, such criticism sheds light on the critics and their motives. Prior to 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, America relied solely on our intelligence agencies for understanding and penetration of terrorist groups. The War on Terror, however, through “aggressive interrogation,” has given America access to and understanding of the terrorists themselves. If American intelligence agencies could have received information in that manner prior to 9/11, Tenet and others would have had a much better chance to prevent the attack. Senators and Congressmen know this, but to keep the media spotlight on themselves they condemn these methods and list interrogation tactics among the list of reasons why the president is a “war criminal” or deserves impeachment.

Thankfully, Tenet recognized the overwhelming value and success of the interrogations at Guantanamo and other locations, and rose to defend the Bush Administration’s use of these tools to protect Americans from further terror attacks. Whether or not Tenet criticizes the administration for other perceived shortcomings remains to be seen, but he should be recognized for courageously and publicly warning against abandoning the tools and techniques that have proven most effective in thwarting terrorists: using their own knowledge against them.

Killing of Terror Chief in Iraq Must Shock Hagel

Yesterday I wrote about Senator Chuck Hagel’s (R-NE) “expert” opinion published in the Washington Post that al-Qaeda and terrorists are not the core problem in Iraq. On Monday, the “not a core problem” al Qaeda groups killed nine 82nd Airborne soldiers in a massive attack, but that was not likely sufficient to change Hagel’s mind about his assessment of the situation in Iraq. Today, U.S. command announced that in its recently expanded operations in Baghdad’s suburbs, Muhammad Abdullah Abbas al-Issawi was killed during an extended encounter with coalition forces. This will come as a great shock to Senator Hagel, since al-Issawi was al Qaeda’s chief tactician in the Anbar Province and was reportedly the mastermind behind al Qaeda’s recruiting of twelve year-old Iraqi boys to serve as suicide car bombers in Baghdad.

If al Qaeda and terrorists are not the core problem in Iraq, perhaps Hagel can explain al-Issawi’s stature and “accomplishments” there. It seems that no sooner had Hagel returned from his latest trip to Iraq and ran to the Post to dismiss al Qaeda’s presence and role in Iraq, al Qaeda demonstrated that it is in fact responsible for much of the so-called insurgency. Hagel insisted that Iraq is mired in a civil war, but how can that be true when the vast majority of VBIEDs, IEDs, and suicide bombings are planned, funded, and executed at the behest of al Qaeda and other non-Iraqi terrorist groups? Would Iraqi boys line up to serve as suicide bombers without the influence of terrorist groups?

The purpose of the Petraeus surge strategy is to provide Baghdad with sufficient security for the parliament to carry out its functions and build a united Iraq. Hagel sees bombings and casualties and in a knee-jerk reaction assumes that Iraqis, without the insidious influence of outside elements, are at war with each other and thus the cause is hopeless. That view, while politically opportunistic, is not corroborated by reports from the Armed Forces. Hagel should read a few military blogs before sharing his “expertise” with the media.

Hagel wants to wash his hands of this war by inaccurately portraying it as a civil war, thus placing blame on Iraqis for the socio-political disaster that will occur if America withdraws from Iraq before the Iraqi government is capable of sustaining and defending itself from overt and covert interference from its neighbors. Like Macbeth, however, Hagel will find that the blood never quite washes clean from guilty hands. America made a commitment to the Iraqis, but Pelosi, Reid, Hagel, and others want to place restrictions on our patience and declare our commitment not to be open ended. Under political pressure, even President Bush has been forced to promise that troops will not be in Iraq indefinitely. As Americans, our commitment to freedom and democracy must be open ended and unquestioned by our allies and enemies alike. If Hagel wonders why Americans never seriously considered him as presidential timbre, he need look no further than his willingness to turn his back on a newly freed nation under siege by terrorists.