Perhaps it's not a bad thing that I've been as yet unable to sit and write substantively on the attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day, and on the December 28 suicide attack that killed seven CIA operatives in Afghanistan. A few weeks reflection is often clarifying, and plus there's much that I'd need to retract and correct had I relied on immediate-aftermath media reports.
Above all, on the Christmas bombing we thank Providence that the attack failed. Two issues persist though: why did all elements of the plot succeed up until the point of detonation, and why did it fail from that point forward? On the Sunday after the attack, I watched as the most pressing issue for cable news shows appeared to be whether President Obama's language and demeanor showed the Necessary Seriousness. This line of attack was led by the execrable Peter King, R-NY - but I don't really blame him. It's the public's own fault, for tolerating a media approach to politics whose sole purpose is to show us partisan gladiator battles, even when dealing with matters of life and death. And of course the Democrats were no better, rising gallantly to Obama's defense by lugging out comparisons to Bush, until Obama himself, in about the most agitated speech of his career, telling the public just how Disappointed he was for the failures of his system, and how Unacceptable it all was - not that a single person has been fired, reprimanded, or even cited over the issue, of course.
As has been said by kings and queens, the guy can give a speech, and his speeches tend to act as a bit of narrative closure for both his supporters and opponents. But in the meantime, watch what's happened. The President is compelled to sound tough and ever more bellicose against the Enemy, and now a whole new front has opened up in the war on al Qaeda in Yemen - another country to bomb, another population to radicalize. Attempts that Obama was making to close Guantanamo are further derailed, since some of the people stationed there, even though they did nothing to deserve their initial detention, might someday in the future return to a life of terrorism - certainly an odd legal principle if there ever was one. And finally, the people all but demand to have their privacy invaded further in a vain attempt to Feel Safe (70% of the public wants to be full-body scanned at the airport now). Is any of this actually making us safer? What if detaining innocent people indefinitely, based on things they might do in the future (a risk no doubt exacerbated by the abusive treatment they've reportedly received), actually generates anti-American sentiment and creates more people willing to die fighting us? What if overloading the security apparatus with the results of meaningless, sweeping, worldwide surveillance actually makes it more difficult to snuff out the cases where there's a legitimate threat, like when a guy's father actually comes to the US Embassy and reports that his son has the ability and intent to kill American civilians? Obama can rail on about working harder and smarter all he wants, but it seems like we're foregoing a legitimate discussion of effective security in favor of political theater.
As for why the attack ultimately failed, it's worth pointing our current TSA scanning procedures have evidently necessitated ever-more sartorially creative approaches on the part of al Qaeda, which is a security success of its own sort. One is also grateful for the quick thinking and bravery of the plane's other passengers, which ironically remains our best defense, even as we demand more aggressive action from the government. Finally though, the sad question must be asked, if the intent of terrorism is to induce terror and affect policy, given what's been outlined in the paragraphs above, to what extent was the Christmas Day attack actually a failure? Abdulmutallab doesn't appear to be the sharpest tack in the drawer, but is anyone wondering why he attempted to detonate his bomb in plain view of the rest of the passengers? Is it possible that, knowing how hard it is to actually smuggle a bomb onto a plane big enough to actually bring it down, that al Qaeda's primary aim was to remind Americans that they shouldn't feel safe when flying?
As for a suicide attack on Americans that did succeed, one need look no further than the bombing of a CIA outpost in Afghanistan a few days after Christmas. I think it's important to note, since there's a linguistic morality in play here as well, that strictly speaking this was not an act of terrorism. However depraved an act of betrayal the bombing was (and it was), terrorism is explicitly targeted against civilians, which the CIA in Afghanistan is not. We've been prosecuting our war in Afghanistan and Pakistan against the Taliban in large part through drones, and the CIA's been running the drones. The Agency has been sniffing out targets for unmanned bombing runs by cultivating spies in the region, and in this case, they thought they had someone who could give them al Qaeda's top people. A Jordanian double agent, as card-carrying a member of the jihadist opposition as one is likely to find, took the time to gain the Americans' trust, got close enough to do massive damage, and killed seven agents. The attack had the dual effect of robbing the US of decades of intelligence experience in the region, and also of damaging the war effort itself. There are conflicting reports about this, but it seems as though once these high-value assets reach a certain level of trust, security in terms of getting them into CIA facilities is lessened, under the theory that their information on potential drone targets is incredibly time-sensitive. In the aftermath of the December bombing, this is sure to be revisited. Also, now that it's clear just how mistaken the Agency can be about one of its assets, it brings into question the reliability of the entire drone program - how many drone missions originated from similar tips, and how many of those were motivated not by loyalty to American interest, but rather personal vendettas and territorial squabbles? Reports are that civilians continue to be killed by the attacks in large numbers - what if those providing the targets are just lying to us? In any event, this is a sad story all around - God bless the memories of those lost.
General McChrystal is saying that victory is within reach in Afghanistan, and the population is by and large in support of our efforts. I'm skeptical on both counts, but this is one arena where I pray nightly to be wrong. No peace yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment