Sunday, February 07, 2010
Peter Beinart and the Persistence of Blindness
Beinart says al Qaeda fails when it starts killing other Muslims because that causes its popular support to erode. He has the Gallup polls to back up that notion. It is standard liberal cant. If we're nice to them, they will fail.
by pledging to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and close Gitmo, and by eschewing torture—in other words, by not overreacting to the terrorist threat—[he] is cutting al Qaeda’s throat.
I agree with Peter that al Qaeda has been weakened severely since 2001, but it's not because we've been nice to terrorists, or ignored them (that was the primary Clinton anti-terror policy and al Qaeda prospered then). It seems to me that the primary cause of al Qaeda in Afghanistan's decline, and al Qaeda in Iraq's eradication, was the deadly force we and our allies brought to bear against them. We killed them and drove them into hiding. We showed them to be the weak horse. Of course their poll numbers are falling throughout the Muslim world, we kicked their asses and are kicking them still. Beinart doesn't mention that blatantly obvious fact at all. Successful military action apparently doesn't exist to him. Winning by killing the enemy just doesn't compute to the liberal mind. It is, as Andrew McCarthy first saw, a willful blindness. Do nothing and win--what a convenient belief for the pacifist left, who have not seen a war they liked since 1945.
When any state or organization declares war and then wages it against you, ignoring them is not the preferred response. Here's Beinart's big finish.
Thanks for the deserved praise of George Bush. I thought he was the cause of the problem, not the solution. But Beinart then quickly loses his way. Presents a less menacing face? Don't the Obama supporters counter Republican critics of his way of waging the war on terror by pointing to the huge number of Predator/Hellfire attacks he has authorized on al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan? I guess Beinart thinks the Hellfire missiles must have a happy face pasted on their warheads. Ignore terrorism, and win? It really takes a lot of education to get this ignorant of even very recent history.
The dirty little secret of the “war on terror” is that America is winning. We began winning during George W. Bush’s second term, when al Qaeda’s violence began corroding its support among Muslims, and we’re doing even better under Barack Obama, because the U.S. now presents a less menacing face. The best chance al Qaeda has is another American overreaction of the kind the GOP demands: reckless military attacks by the United States or Israel, mass profiling of Muslims, a return to torture. Perhaps Obama’s Republican critics do take the terrorist threat more seriously than he does. I’d rather take it less seriously, and win.
Panetta’s statement does not take into account the ability to identify any terrorist whose goal it is to give up their life for a cause. Only when you are observing measurable emerging aggression can you identify a terrorist before they effect their violence.
The Center for Aggression Management discovered 15 years ago that there were two kinds of aggression: adrenaline-driven Primal Aggression and intent-driven Cognitive Aggression. The Primal Aggressor, in the extreme, is “red-faced and ready to explode,” the Cognitive Aggressor (the terrorist) is not. When a person, regardless of the culture, gender, education or position, rises to the level where their goal is to give up their life for a cause, their body looses animation and we see the “thousand-yard stare.” But it is more than this, the whole body and behavior looses animation and this is how we can identify them. The problem is that security and law enforcement are still looking for the Primal Aggressor (red-faced and ready to explode). Of course they are finding it difficult to detect these terrorist; a terrorist is a Cognitive Aggression; they are looking for the wrong person!
As our Government analyzes what went wrong regarding Abdulmatallab’s entrance into the United States, you can be assured that Al Qaeda is also analyzing how their plans went wrong. Who do you think will figure it out first . . . ?
You can read more at http://blog.AggressionManagement.com