Monday, October 08, 2007

Swing and a Miss

This is just idiocy:

Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.

Ok, I'm just looking at an article about the study and not the study, but I'll assume the article hit the high points emphasized by ORG itself.

The whole idea that the war on terror is backfiring is shown to be wrong be opinion polls that show that al Qaeda, bin Laden, and terrorism are receibving far less support from Moslems around the world. How are they possibly defining "support" when this trend is clear?

And to backtrack, first of all, the author is a professor of "global peace studies." This should disqualify it from serious consideration of security issues when enemies don't give a hoot about peace. And this comment says a lot:

Rogers also warned of a drift toward conflict with Iran.

"Going to war with Iran," he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

The most radical of Leftist peace advocates always turn to protecting Iran. They do hate to lose thugs to talk to.

Our "problem" with Iran is state terrorism and nuclear weapons. We're not talking tariff rates or copyright violations.

But Rogers says that a war is to be avoided at "all cost." When an organization believes war is never an option, why should I be shocked that it concludes the Long War is bad?

Third, his solution in general?

"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."

Ah yes, back in the 1990s, jihadis flocked to Afghanistan where they trained and went back to their homelands where they remained a threat to us and their home countries. 9/11 was the result of this conventional policing and security measures policy.

And number four: Iraq, of course, is bad:

He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.

Really? Afghanistan in the 1990s was a training ground. Iraq right now is a killing ground. since foreigners flocking to Iraq (at a rate of 60-70 per month until recently) were mostly suicide bombers, how exactly were they to gain experience? Al Qaeda leaders are being killed off and darn few jihadis are escaping alive to ply their trade abroad.

But it isn't just the "bad" war in Iraq that the study condemns:

In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.

That's number five, I guess. At least he is predictable.

So what about the war in general?

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.

Yes, for some types of peace advocates, peace always results from retreating as fast as their little stubby legs can carry them. Strike six.

And talking with the worst regimes of the region is almost a necessity to be taken seriously in "peace research" circles.

After all, you can only surrender to your enemies; might as well get on with chatting them up. "Intensively." The bully boys of Tehran and Damascus will wet their pants at the thought of intensive diplomatic engagement.

Because "intensive" talks are how you know it doesn't resemble surrender in any way.

One man. Six strikes just from the article summary. He's foolish enough to bat for two peace researchers!

Of course, remember that for a British Leftist, blaming America for any problems they have with jihadis is far easier than looking at the generation of multi-cultural surrender policies in Britain that have created enclaves of agitated Moslems who are primed to kill over freeing Iraq or Afghanistan from murderous despots, the flag of England, or even just swirly lid designs on Burger King ice cream.

Professor Rogers doesn't even know what game he's playing.

Pure unadulterated idiocy.