The View from Right Field

What You Get When You Have No Strategy

In an interview in The Wall Street Journal yesterday, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that, in the words of the Journal, “the real problem with U.S. policy [in the Middle East and with respect to ISIS] has been the absence of any clear strategy like the one that guided the U.S. in the Cold War.”  Mr. Gates continued:

“‘We all implicitly accepted [George] Kennan’s view that if we contained the Soviets long enough, their internal contradictions would finally lead to their collapse, even if nobody had any idea when.

‘If you accept the premise that we face a generation-long period of turbulence and violence in the Middle East, the lack of an overarching strategy for how you react to a region in flames is a problem.  Are there fires we should just let burn out?  Who are our friends?  Who should we support?’”

Robert Gates on the Rise of the Islamic State

In December, I wrote a fairly lengthy post on Iraq and the Islamic State entitled “Did George W. Bush’s Invasion of Iraq Create the Islamic State?”  Following up on the question of “the why” of the Islamic State (or ISIS or ISIL), former Defense Secretary Robert Gates talked with Business Insider on the two main factors that enabled the rise of ISIS.  Here are some excerpts from the article:

“‘I think the primary reasons for the rise of ISIS are the Syrian civil war and the policies followed by the government in Baghdad,’ Gates told Business Insider on Monday. …

But the US still did perhaps play a role in the burgeoning conflict as well, Gates suggested.

‘You can argue all day long whether the absence of US forces had an impact on’ the rise of ISIS, Gates said, admitting that ‘the absence of senior leadership that was able to mitigate some of the sectarian conflicts in Iraq probably had some impact on the willingness of Maliki to follow these wrong policies.’ …

Beating ISIS: Should We Collect Metadata or Trash the First Amendment?

Given that President Obama has called ISIS (aka Islamic State and ISIL) “a bunch of killers with good social media,” it is not surprising that Donald Trump has said we should talk to “Bill Gates and a lot of different people” to figure out how we can go about “maybe in certain areas closing that Internet up in some ways.”  Mr. Trump was dismissive of possible First Amendment concerns:  “Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’  These are foolish people.”

But it’s not just Donald Trump who is saying these things.  Here’s Hillary Clinton:

“Resolve means depriving jihadists of virtual territory just as we work to deprive them of actual territory. … They are using websites, social media, chat rooms and other platforms to celebrate beheadings, recruit future terrorists, and call for attacks.  We should work with host companies to shut them down ….  You’re going to hear all of the usual complaints, you know, freedom of speech, et cetera.  But if we truly are in a war against terrorism and we are truly looking for ways to shut off their funding, shut off the flow of foreign fighters, then we’ve got to shut off their means of communicating.”

Why Does the Obama Administration Keep Making It Easy for People Like Donald Trump?

A week ago, The New York Times published a story saying Tashfeen Malik, who carried out the San Bernardino massacre with her husband, Syed Rizwan Farook, had “talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.”¹  The article went on to say:

“Had the authorities found the post years ago, they might have kept her out of the country.  But immigration officials do not routinely review social media as part of their background checks, and there is a debate inside the Department of Homeland Security over whether it is even appropriate to do so.”

Needless to say, the story was a big topic at the Republican debate last Tuesday evening.

On Wednesday, however, James Comey, director of the FBI, said that the things Tashfeen Malik had said were in “direct, private messages” to her husband and, according to a revision to the Times’ story, “were not made in widely accessible social media posts.”

That changes things.  Except it doesn’t, because Mr. Comey’s statement didn’t say anything about the fact that, regardless of whether Ms. Malik posted her comments publicly, immigration officials don’t routinely look at social media in checking people who are applying for a visa.  And, in fact, there is apparently a debate within DHS as to whether it is even appropriate to check social media.

Did George W. Bush’s Invasion of Iraq Create the Islamic State?

In recent discussions on the Islamic State (a/k/a ISIS and ISIL¹), many people have pointed to George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq as where and when it started, or at least where its predecessor(s) started.  (See, for example, here and here.)  Their point is, after we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam Hussein, the Shiites took over, excluding, and ultimately radicalizing, the Sunnis in Iraq.  The Sunnis, or at least some of them, turned to Al Qaeda.  More recently, they have turned to ISIS.  Without the invasion, the argument goes, the Sunnis wouldn’t have been radicalized (because they would still be running Iraq, apparently; what the Shia would be doing in that case isn’t explained) and ISIS would have not had a place to grow.

It may be that invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein was not a good idea.  (For an opposite view, see here.)  At the very least, the invasion of Iraq was poorly planned and poorly executed.  We invaded with just enough troops to beat Saddam Hussein’s depleted army – but with not nearly enough to secure the country after we won.  When Army Chief of Staff General Eric Shinseki told the House Armed Services Committee that it would take several hundred thousand troops to run Iraq after the invasion, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said Shinseki’s number was “wildly off the mark.”  It wasn’t.  It was based on prior military occupations that were successful.²  In fact, given the number of troops we had in Iraq after the invasion, it is good Saddam Hussein didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction (other than leftovers from the past).  We probably wouldn’t have had enough troops to guard all the storage sites. 

President Obama Speaks From the Oval Office on San Bernardino and ISIS: A Few Thoughts

1.  I found it interesting that President Obama called the killing of thirteen soldiers at Fort Hood, by U.S. Army Major Nidal Hasan in 2009, an act terrorism. For years, the Army refused to award Purple Hearts to those killed and wounded by Major Hasan, claiming it was “workplace violence,” instead of what it was, a terrorist attack by an Army officer turned al-Qaeda supporter.  It wasn’t until April of this year, after Congress passed legislation forcing the issue, that the Army finally awarded the Purple Hearts. 

2.  Even in a speech as serious as last night’s, and even though he said that “we have to work together to address the challenge,” President Obama couldn’t avoid ripping on those who disagree with him on the tactics we should use in the fight:

“To begin with, Congress should act to make sure no one on a no-fly list is able to buy a gun.  What could possibly be the argument for allowing a terrorist suspect to buy a semi-automatic weapon?  This is a matter of national security. 

We also need to make it harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino.  I know there are some who reject any gun safety measures.  But the fact is that our intelligence and law enforcement agencies – no matter how effective they are – cannot identify every would-be mass shooter, whether that individual is motivated by ISIL or some other hateful ideology.  What we can do – and must do – is make it harder for them to kill.”

Was it really necessary to say “[w]hat could possibly be the argument”?  Instead of just asserting the obvious correctness of his view, why not try to convince people.  And not impugn the motives of those who may disagree by saying there is no argument.

Closing Guantanamo

Closing the detention camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, has been a priority for President Obama since the day he took office, if not before.  But he has not been able to do it, largely because Congress hasn’t let him.  Bill after bill has been passed tying his hands.  President Obama will be sending a plan to Congress to get approval to close the detention center, but that would require the transfer of some detainees to prisons in the United States, and Congress isn’t cooperating.  This is from an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal:

“[L]awmakers have settled on legislation continuing a ban on transferring detainees to the U.S. through 2016.

The House is scheduled to vote on that bill, the National Defense Authorization Act, on Thursday [i.e., yesterday], to be followed by a vote in the Senate later this year.  It is expected to pass both chambers.

Lafayette, Leave a Message And We’ll Get Back To You

When the American Expeditionary Force arrived in France in June of 1917, General John J. Pershing is famously reported to have said, at the tomb of Gilbert du Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, in Paris: “Lafayette, we are here.”*

Yesterday, as world leaders marched arm-in-arm with French President François Hollande, the Obama administration said, in effect, it couldn’t be bothered.  According to press reports, an unnamed Administration official said that security requirements for President Obama or Vice President Biden to attend would have been distracting (apparently, security requirements weren’t a problem for Angela Merkel) and that “[t]his event is not about us.”

This last statement seems about true.  It wasn’t “about us”.  And if it’s not about the Obama administration, the President doesn’t care.

PS Attorney General Eric Holder was in Paris, but he had meetings and did not attend the march.
---------
* Actually, according to Wikipedia, it was said by General Pershing’s aide, Colonel Charles E. Stanton. 

Like a Rolling Stone: Why Didn’t the People Writing the Senate CIA Report Talk to the CIA?

As I said yesterday, if there are certain interrogation techniques that the United States, as the country it is, should not be using, and I am sure there are, then we shouldn’t use them, whether they allegedly work or not.

But another comment needs to be made.  It appears that the Senate Report was prepared without talking to or interviewing anybody at the CIA.  That is astounding.  That sounds like the Rolling Stone article.  Talking to people at the CIA might not have changed the report, but it would have been fair play.

Senate CIA Report: Better Hindsight Than Ted Williams’ Eyesight

Ted Williams was famously said to have 20/10 eyesight.  But that is nothing compared to the hindsight of the Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

First, though, a caveat on the following comment(s): I have not read the report.  I have only read articles about it.  With that qualification, let me say this:

Some of what was done appears to have been horrible.  It may be that some of those things should not have been done.  However, I would argue that if they were that bad, then we shouldn’t have done them regardless of how effective they were.  Right and wrong does not depend on effectiveness.  If they were wrong, they were wrong.  Even if they worked. 

Saying something is wrong if it doesn’t work and right if it does is not the rule.  Because you’re never going to know for sure what works and what doesn’t work.  That is pretty clear from the report and the comments on it.  The Senate Democrats say the techniques didn’t work; others say they did.  But how bad these things were doesn’t depend on whether they worked.