Published in today's
US News and World Report, that bastion of kool-aid drinkers. Supposedly, this is still secret, not yet declassified. So what's new about leaking classified information to journalists? I guess Judith Miller must have been "tied up" when they wanted to leak this.
The New York Times almost dismisses this as a change in slogans, with a rollout featuring Rumsfeld, Hadley, Feith, Gen. Myers, etc. It is probably something more than that.
This pile of dung was written by Douglas Feith, and is now policy. Here is part of the story from US News:
The terrorist threat against the United States is now defined as "Islamist extremism" --not just al Qaeda. The Pentagon document identifies the "primary enemy" as "extremist Sunni and Shia movements that exploit Islam for political ends" and that form part of a "global web of enemy networks." Recognizing that al Qaeda's influence has spread, the United States is now targeting some two dozen groups--a significant change from the early focus on just al Qaeda and its leadership.
MORE BELOW THE JUMP
Right away, we are looking more like
CRUSADERS, totally ignoring the issues of US hegemony, colonialism, nationalism and the like. This is a long and detailed plan. Here are a couple of noteworthy items:
The new approach emphasizes "encouraging" and "enabling" foreign partners, especially in countries where the United States is not at war. Concluding that the conflict cannot be fought by military means alone--or by the United States acting alone--
This is perhaps a more realistic approach, but the whole article is militaristic in nature, in keeping with the theme of the administration that only the Pentagon/militarism can be trusted to wage the WOT.
The NY Times article similarly includes from potentially encouraging statements from Gen. Myers:
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."
This all sounds encouraging, but Hadley says it all, comfirming the Times headline that this is just a slogan:
We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative."
The article suggests there are some real sea changes in this policy. Quoting Feith,
How do you fight an enemy that is present in numerous countries with whom you're not at war...we need to have countries willing to cooperate with us...
Well, yes, but if the model is Salvadorization, which it certainly sounds like, we're really not exactly spreading "freedom" any more, are we?
I would suggest that by casting this “struggle” in religious and military terms, Rumsfeld is ensuring that we will be in a permanent state of war, with all that implies for our national goals, priorities, and individual rights. Rumsfeld’s spokesman confirms “business as usual”:
Lawrence Di Rita, … said the shift in language "is not a shift in thinking, but a continuation of the immediate post-9/11 approach."
Further, the descriptions of the tactics confirm the militaristic/paramilitary approach that has characterized recent efforts in Iraq.
The report includes "metrics" short for body count, I suppose, but includes other indicators of activity:
The Pentagon will use a new set of metrics twice a year to measure its progress in the war against terrorism. Commanders are to report, for example, on successes in locating and dismantling terrorist safe havens, financial assets, communications networks, and planning cells for each of the target groups.
Nothing, of course, about how many people hate us, how many terrorist attacks, what rights are being abrogated, how many paramilitary attacks, how many prisoners flown off to Afghanistan....
Then there are sections on creating the great WOT Czar, more coordination, blah blah. How to perpetuate misinformation, in other words. No dissent.
News Hounds reports that Foxster Shepard Smith interviewed Harlan Ullman, a Fox News Contributor and Senior Advisor for the Center of Strategic and International Studies, on the subject of the report, and got these astonishingly harsh comments:
S: I guess he's trying to figure out how to gauge this thing. And, when even Donald Rumsfeld needs to ask this question, you wonder, how good our scorecard is?
HU: Well, I don't think it's particularly good. I think that the news from Iraq, despite the progress that we're making on one front (Comment: Which front? He doesn't say) it's really, really not very good. We're having all sorts of difficulty with the legitimacy and credibility of the Iraqi government. As we know from last week, the report that the Defense Department released to the Congress on the training of Iraqi forces, suggested that training is really not up to scratch and has fallen way behind.
We see what happened in Britain, we see what's happened in Sharm al-Sheikh. For a long time, as you know Shepard, on this program, I have been arguing for a more comprehensive strategy and I think at this stage, the White House really has to sit down, the President has to take charge and assess where we are and (needs) to make some fundemental changes....Well, I think civil war started six months ago as a matter of fact. Because, you have all the rival factions and obviously the insurgents and there are a large number of different insurgents groups.
This is not a homogeneous insurgency. Of course they want to cause a civil war, that's why the Sunni's are targeting the Shia's and vice a versa. How will you know? (Segment ending music comes on) When the violence does not get any better. The news reports are not good and that's why I think a comprehensive study is needed right now. We are really running out of time, Shepard.
SS: Harlan Ullman, the civil war began six months ago, interesting.
Whew; lets play that again.....<re-reading, not quite believing Fox would say this>....
CIVIL WAR BEGAN SIX MONTHS AGO....YEAH SHEPARD, "INTERESTING."
I can't argue with Fox News on that one.
all in all, this plan is just going in the wrong direction. There is some lip service, by Feith of all people, towards cooperation, but then it becomes clear that this is just cover for military and paramilitary operations obtained with the tacit approval of whatever puppet we can bribe or threaten or install.
Business as usual, updated, with metrics.
Matthew Yglesias has a related piece, here