A Rumsfeld-Era Reminder About What Causes Terrorism

by Glenn Greenwald

Published on Tuesday, October 20, 2009 by Salon.com

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/10/20-5

<quote>
The debate over Afghanistan -- or, more accurately, the multi-pronged effort 
to pressure Obama into escalating -- is looking increasingly familiar, i.e., 
like the "debate" over Iraq.  The New York Times is publishing articles 
filled with quotes from anonymous war advocates.  Permanent war-justifier 
Michael O'Hanlon is regularly featured in "news accounts" as he all but 
blames Obama for increasing combat deaths due to his failure to escalate the 
moment the military demanded it.  The New Republic is churning out pro-war 
screeds.  Every option is on the proverbial table except one:  not fighting 
the war.  And there's a widening gap between (a) public opinion (which sees 
Afghanistan as "turning into another Vietnam" and which opposes more troops, 
with 49% favoring a full or partial withdrawal) and (b) the virtual 
unanimity of establishment punditry which, as always, is cheerleading for 
the war.  The only difference is that, with a Democratic President, there 
seems to be more Democratic and progressive support for this war (though 
there was, of course, plenty of that for Iraq, too). 

The primary rationale for remaining -- and escalating -- in Afghanistan is 
the same all-purpose justification offered for virtually everything the U.S. 
has done since 2001:   Terrorism.  Apparently, the way to solve the 
Terrorist threat is by sending 60,000 more American troops into a Muslim 
country and committing to at least five more years of war there.  That, so 
the pro-escalation reasoning goes, will make us safer.

In 2004, Donald Rumsfeld directed the Defense Science Board Task Force to 
review the impact which the administration's policies -- specifically the 
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- were having on Terrorism and Islamic 
radicalism.   They issued a report in September, 2004 (.pdf) and it 
vigorously condemned the Bush/Cheney approach as entirely counter-
productive, i.e., as worsening the Terrorist threat those policies 
purportedly sought to reduce.  It's well worth reviewing their analysis, as 
it has as much resonance now as it did then (h/t sysprog).
</quote>


-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free