Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Soft on Terrorism? No Way!
reason contributor John Mueller, the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies and professor of political science at Ohio State University, writes in The National Interest:
Terrorism and the attendant "war" thereon have become fully embedded in the public consciousness, with the effect that politicians and bureaucrats have become as wary of appearing soft on terrorism as they are about appearing soft on drugs, or as they once were about appearing soft on Communism.
Key to this dynamic is that the public apparently continues to remain unimpressed by several inconvenient facts. One such fact is that there have been no al-Qaeda attacks whatsoever in the United States since 2001. A second is that no true al-Qaeda cell (or scarcely anybody who might even be deemed to have a "connection" to the diabolical group) has been unearthed in this country. A third is that the homegrown "plotters" who have been apprehended, while perhaps potentially somewhat dangerous at least in a few cases, have mostly been either flaky or almost absurdly incompetent.
Read the whole article here.
Hat tips: Alan Vanneman, Arts & Letters Daily.
Updates: Here's Jacob Sullum on "The Forever War," from the October 2002 issue. And me on "The New Cold War," from the December 2001 issue.
|4.18.08 @ 9:24AM|#
Don't forget also the embarrassing fact that the combined might of the US military special forces and civilian intelligence agencies have so far failed, miserably, to apprehend OBL- who is perhaps the most vigorously hunted terrorist in world history.
BakedPenguin|4.18.08 @ 9:30AM|#
...the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies...
Does the Woody Hayes Chair allow the holder to smack around those
who don't agree with their policy positions?
THE Ohio State University
How about "THE pile of shit in Columbus?"
|4.18.08 @ 9:30AM|#
Wait -- what the fuck? There's a "Woody Hayes Chair of National
Security Studies" at Ohio State?
Jeesus Christ, that "school" is a fucking joke!
|4.18.08 @ 9:36AM|#
"the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies"
Best endowed chair ever. At least until Indiana establishes the
Bobby Knight Chair of Quantum Physics.
Taktix®|4.18.08 @ 9:36AM|#
Don't forget also the embarrassing fact that the combined
might of the US military special forces and civilian intelligence
agencies have so far failed, miserably, to apprehend OBL- who is
perhaps the most vigorously hunted terrorist in world
history.
He's been dead for a while, as none of his "recent" messages cite
anything specific.
We won't admit it, though, as it's hard to have a Two Minutes Hate
without a Goldstein.
|4.18.08 @ 9:43AM|#
He's been dead for a while, as none of his "recent" messages
cite anything specific.
We won't admit it, though, as it's hard to have a Two Minutes Hate
without a Goldstein.
If they knew he was dead they would parade him everywhere they
could. The lack of a capture, or a confirmed death, of OBL is a
continuing black mark on the administration (among many
others).
Taktix®|4.18.08 @ 9:45AM|#
If they knew he was dead they would parade him everywhere
they could. The lack of a capture, or a confirmed death, of OBL is
a continuing black mark on the administration (among many
others).
One would think a major fear motivator like a live Bin Laden would
be more valuable than another black mark. I think Bush had made it
pretty clear that he's not concerned about black marks on his
administration...
|4.18.08 @ 9:51AM|#
I suspect that we won't "find" OBL until very shortly before
McCain's re-election for his second term as president.
CB
|4.18.08 @ 9:52AM|#
I see your point, Taktix, but I dunno- if he were dead, it seems Bushmaster and Co. would make sure The American People™ knew it. I mean, imagine how much warhawk spooge would be spilled if OBL were confirmed dead- Bush might go from being a terrible, incompetent, borderline idiot president to a terrible, incompetent, borderline idiot president who KILLED BIN LADEN!!!ONEON3!!1.
Abdul|4.18.08 @ 9:56AM|#
"the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security Studies"
Best endowed chair ever.
Bard College has an "Alger Hiss Chair of Social Studies."
|4.18.08 @ 9:57AM|#
jkp,
Well, Woody Hayes does convey violence and martial behavior.
Perhaps it is appropriate.
I used to work at Ohio State (I wasn't a student there, however).
It's too gigantic to insult globally, since parts of it are quite
good. On the other hand, it's not quite the center of the universe
that denizens of Columbus sometimes think.
Guy Montag|4.18.08 @ 9:58AM|#
I suspect that we won't "find" OBL until very shortly before
McCain's re-election for his second term as president.
The role of Secretary Albright will be played by Cracker's Boy
today.
Dave W.|4.18.08 @ 9:59AM|#
U missed the moneyquote:
If shopping malls have now become jammed with heroes,
that is a condition, too, I imagine most Americans will be able to
live with. I, on the other hand, am determined to keep my
distance.
Fluffy|4.18.08 @ 10:00AM|#
I think the other thing to note about the "homegrown plotters"
is that they generally have been inspired in their plots by our
excesses in our conduct of the WoT.
In my view, if people claim to be radicalized by the war in Iraq or
by Guantanamo, they are. I realize that the Mark Steyns of
the world argue that these radicals would have been inspired to act
anyway because of their evil religion, but that's a bit like
arguing that Basques would still be terrorists if they had their
own country.
Guy Montag|4.18.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Does one of those Norther schools have a Vladimere Lennin Chair of Marketing?
|4.18.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Key to this dynamic is that the public apparently continues
to remain unimpressed by several inconvenient facts. One such fact
is that there have been no al-Qaeda attacks whatsoever in the
United States since 2001. A second is that no true al-Qaeda cell
(or scarcely anybody who might even be deemed to have a
"connection" to the diabolical group) has been unearthed in this
country. A third is that the homegrown "plotters" who have been
apprehended, while perhaps potentially somewhat dangerous at least
in a few cases, have mostly been either flaky or almost absurdly
incompetent.
This is just proof that the war on terror is working!
MI Guy|4.18.08 @ 10:25AM|#
I don't understand libertarians on national security issues or criminal justice issues. If you believe that government should be reduced to mainly these functions, why do you seem to insist that they be ineffective or deny any successes and spend your time criticizing them?
Taktix®|4.18.08 @ 10:28AM|#
Best endowed chair ever?
The Ron Jeremy School of Cinematography has them beat.
|4.18.08 @ 10:30AM|#
And the beat goes on,
GAO report issued yesterday titled: The United States Lacks
Comprehensive Plan to Destroy the Terrorist Threat and Close the
Safe Haven in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas
Since 2002, destroying the terrorist threat and closing the
terrorist safe haven have been key national security goals. The
United States has provided Pakistan, a key ally in the war on
terror, more than $10.5 billion for military, economic, and
development activities. Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal
Areas (FATA), which border Afghanistan, are vast unpoliced regions
attractive to extremists and terrorists seeking a safe haven.
GAO found broad agreement, as documented in the National
Intelligence Estimate, State, and embassy documents, as well as
Defense officials in Pakistan, that al Qaeda had regenerated its
ability to attack the United States and had succeeded in
establishing a safe haven in Pakistan's FATA.
We've spent 50 times as much in Iraq to create a net negative in
terms of global terror. More proof that BushCo is doggedly tied to
failed strategies that are losing the "War on Terror".
Dave W.|4.18.08 @ 10:32AM|#
If you believe that government should be reduced to mainly
these functions
Incorrect premise. I am not sure that true libertarians would say
that are necessarily any "main functions" of the government --
all government functions should be pushed
back with the objective of maximizing individual choice -- but if
one had to choose the governments main functions, it would be
contract and property law. I would trust a spontaneous and private
army of volunteers to repel an invasion far more readily than I
would trust the same rabble to tell me what I could, cannot, do and
do not own vis-a-vis that same rabble. ame dealee with
crim justice -- it can be (and often is) privatized. My only arrest
was at the hands of a private security guard, f'rinstance.
Dave W.|4.18.08 @ 10:43AM|#
that government should be reduced to mainly these functions,
why do you seem to insist that they be ineffective or deny any
successes and spend your time criticizing them
I mean, assuming Flight 93 was not shot down, did the government
save any lives on 9/11?
Did they save anybody from the anthrax attacks?
Flight 587?
The shoe bomber, Richard Reid?
Columbine?
Virginia Tech?
The only time that government actually saved anybody from
terrorists was in the case of the DC Snipers (with a big assist
from private citizens) and (maybe) the Tiger Tiger bombers.
|4.18.08 @ 10:47AM|#
you believe that government should be reduced to mainly
these functions, why do you seem to insist that they be ineffective
or deny any successes and spend your time criticizing
them?
Do you really think that the war on terror is making us safer? Just
askin...
Rhywun|4.18.08 @ 10:48AM|#
I hope Bush passes OBL off to Obama so we can finally get out of this fucking mess.
LT Nixon|4.18.08 @ 11:00AM|#
Did the Bush Administration use terrorism to scare the people
and make some poor foreign policy decisions? Sure. But to advocate
this "soft on defense" rhetoric that seems to be oozing out of this
article would be foolish. The reason that Al-Qaeda has not attacked
the US is because we've been busily dismantling and detaining
terrorist cells around the globe, instead of just ignoring it like
during the Clinton era. I probably would've agreed with the
reduction of our military back in 2000, but times have
changed.
Also, comparing the War on Drugs to the War on Terrorism is pretty
embarrassing.
TallDave|4.18.08 @ 11:06AM|#
"One such fact is that there have been no successfull
al-Qaeda attacks whatsoever in the United States since 2001."
Fixed that for ya, John. Of course, it helps that they've been kept
very busy elsewhere.
Also, does he really think the revelation that terrorists are
"flaky" is news?
bureaucrats have become as wary of appearing soft on terrorism
as they are about appearing soft on drugs, or as they once were
about appearing soft on Communism.
Two of those things are real problems.
Some 43 percent professed to believe that domestic Communists
presented a great or very great danger to the United
States.
I don't know where anyone would get the idea Communists were
dangerous. It's not like they killed 100 million people or
something.
Anyways, it's nice to know the current admin isn't going to let bin
Laden go because they can't figure out how to indict him. If the
price of being serious is being called "scaremongers" so be it.
TallDave|4.18.08 @ 11:14AM|#
Yes, many domestic Communists adhere to a foreign ideology
that ultimately has as its goal the destruction of capitalism and
democracy by violence if necessary, but they're so pathetic they
couldn't subvert their way out of a wet paper bag.
See, now this is interestingly disingenuous. We know conclusively
from the Venona papers that the incompetent Communists infiltrated
the highest levels of our equally incompetent government. While
they never had much chance of overthrowing the government, they did
gain a lot of valuable intelligence.
|4.18.08 @ 11:14AM|#
When I croak, I'm going to fund an "Attila the Hun Chair for Negotiation and Conflict Resolution."
TallDave|4.18.08 @ 11:15AM|#
"scaremongers" No. Bedwetters is the preferred
term.
No, scaremongers are the politicians who say terrorism is scary.
Bedwetters are the poor gullible saps who are frightened into
voting for them.
Come on Dave, get your slurs straight.
Guy Montag|4.18.08 @ 11:16AM|#
I don't know where anyone would get the idea Communists were
dangerous. It's not like they killed 100 million people or
something.
And we all know that they were persecuted for their beliefs, the
same way we are persecuting Islamofascists for their
religion.
(not for you TD, just addin')
Guy Montag|4.18.08 @ 11:17AM|#
PB,
I am already seeking funds for Montag's Half-Way house, for chicks
who won't go all the way.
|4.18.08 @ 11:19AM|#
We know conclusively from the Venona papers that the
incompetent Communists infiltrated the highest levels of our
equally incompetent government. While they never had much chance of
overthrowing the government, they did gain a lot of valuable
intelligence.
And why did they not have much chance of overthrowing our
government? We had not yet gutted the Constitution.
|4.18.08 @ 11:27AM|#
the Woody Hayes Chair of National Security
Studies
Add my voice to the din of laughter directed at the state
university sports program in Columbus, Ohio.
TallDave|4.18.08 @ 11:28AM|#
The ultimate nightmare of American scaremongers, setting off
an atomic bomb, is well beyond al-Qaeda's capacities and very
likely always will be
I don't get this, either. A crude gun-type nuclear weapon is not
all that difficult to set off (we were so confident ours would work
60 years ago that we didn't even test it first). Put it on a ship,
get it to a major port, and you have a $10 trillion event.
Given that the Israelis just hit a nuclear assembly plant in Syria
and the Taliban's former sponsors in Pakistan are a real threat to
seize control of a nuclear state, it's a nontrivial concern. That's
before we even get into the fact the world's current foremost state
sponsor of terror is going to have nuclear weapons soon.
TallDave|4.18.08 @ 11:30AM|#
And why did they not have much chance of overthrowing our
government? We had not yet gutted the Constitution.
Actually this was just after FDR's mass internment, mass arreats of
war protestors, and attempt to stack the Supreme Court -- the same
guy, not incidentally, who sent billions in aid to Stalin and
called him Uncle Joe.
The reason they had no chance to overthrow the government is that
they had no popular support. Americans weren't buying what the
commies were selling.
Guy Montag|4.18.08 @ 11:49AM|#
the same guy, not incidentally, who sent billions in aid to
Stalin and called him Uncle Joe.
And opened the doors of every federal agency to Soviet operators,
like the parents of Red-Diaper-Baby Carl Bernstein.
Bingo|4.18.08 @ 12:08PM|#
TallDave:
The thing is, if it is so easy to set off a nuclear device does
that make it worth restricting our freedoms and liberties? If we
are that vulnerable to a nuclear attack and if it is
that easy to set one off in a harbor, then we need to work
on addressing the terrorism issue in other ways. Locking down
American airports and bombing the fuck out of Iraqis is not
increasing our securities in any meaningful way.
My opinion is that we need to look at our foreign policy and become
a neutral nation that trades freely with all countries. What is
your way of addressing the "nuke in a harbor" threat?
|4.18.08 @ 12:09PM|#
The reason they had no chance to overthrow the government is
that they had no popular support. Americans weren't buying what the
commies were selling.
Much as I hate to give any credit to the labor unions for anything,
they deserve a lot of credit for the lack of commie traction in the
US.
Labor unions were usually the most fertile recruiting and
propaganda arms of any communist movement. US labor leadership
decided pretty early on that they were having none of it, and were
pretty successful at blocking off the commie's favored route to
influence.
Guy Montag|4.18.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Bingo,
So you find destroying processed material manufacturing and
rounding up the people associated with moving the stuff around
ineffective?
Bingo|4.18.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Guy: Not really, in as much as both Iran an N. Korea have
demonstrated that you don't exactly need to be a techonological
powerhouse to process and refine nuclear material. Additionally,
"rounding up the people associated with moving the stuff around"
will have about as much effect on nuclear proliferation as it does
with the proliferation of drugs.
Basically I'm saying that nukes are here to stay and I don't know
if we can do much about proliferation.
|4.18.08 @ 12:38PM|#
I think the reason communism didn't get much traction in America
is the currently much-maligned individualism. Folks want to make
money and be left the hell alone to live their own lives.
Show me a person who's really "into" the issues and I'll show you
an irritating putz who wants to tell me what to do. What's that
quote about selfishness is when you want others to live as you
choose?
Guy Montag|4.18.08 @ 1:01PM|#
Er, yes, I'm saying yes it's ineffective.
Because of all of the uranium bombs going off in shopping malls, or
just because of the failed attempts?
Guy Montag|4.18.08 @ 1:02PM|#
I think the reason communism didn't get much traction in
America is the currently much-maligned individualism.
That is plausable, but I am with Sen. Obama in thinking it is
bitterness.
|4.18.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Perhaps a nation as utterly risk-averse and paranoid as we've become is not worthy of liberty?
LarryA|4.18.08 @ 4:57PM|#
If they knew he was dead they would parade him everywhere
they could.
I presume OBL is dead because otherwise he would be making tapes.
That doesn't mean I know where or when he died, or that I can lay
hands on his body. He's in an unmarked grave the other side of
nowhere.
Russell Seitz|4.18.08 @ 6:00PM|#
Mick- it's the in American Interests- not The National Interest
having written for both, I know the difference. However John's
piece acknowledgedly stems from this article , in The American
Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_12_06/article.html
jtuf|4.19.08 @ 5:55AM|#
Terroists groups are morphing into this century's mob. First, that means the feds should keep looking for them, because there will always be some threat of violence. Second, that means congress should ammend anti-terror laws to respect freedom and the constitution, because those laws will be arround for a long time.
|4.19.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Those three factors - no recent attacks, no discovered Al Qaeda cells, and all known home-growns have turned out to be goofballs - these conditions were all true on 9/10/2001, right?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245