Yardsticks

Greg Sargent's question of the day:

If there continues to be a lack of a successful terrorist attack, at what point does the refusal by conservatives to credit Obama for it enter the media narrative, given that this is precisely the yardstick they use to extoll Bush’s counter-terror record?

Will the media simply ignore this double standard, or will conservatives redefine what makes for successful counter-terrorism? My guess is the latter: we're going to have a glut of memoirs by Bush administration officials in the next year, all of which we might expect to include some score-settling and attempts to revise the history of the Bush-era (DougJ at Balloon Juice proposes that we'll see a "concerted effort to rehab Dubya fairly soon." The upcoming books by Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld, as well as both George W. and Laura Bush, will certainly feature efforts to rehab the Bush years, if not the former president himself).

Emboldened Insurgents

So was there a secret meeting between minority party members wherein they decided to borrow language from the “War on Terror” in their mission to redefine themselves?

Last week, Representative Pete Sessions (R-TX) announced that the GOP should model their tactics on the Taliban:

Insurgency we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban -- no, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their front line message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with. [L A Times]

Mr. Sessions didn’t elaborate on which of the Taliban’s methods—how “they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes”—he found particularly admirable. He added, however,

I think insurgency is a mindset and an attitude that we're going to have to search for and find ways to get our message out and to be prepared to see things for what they are, rather than trying to do something about them, I think what's happened is that the line was drawn in the sand.... We either work together, or we're going to find a way to get our message out.[L A Times]

So the point is to “disrupt,” “change a person’s entire process,” and “find ways to get [the] message out" instead of "trying to do something about them”? It’s true that the Republicans need to find diverse, and fresh, ways to get their message out, but if their goal is to “disrupt” rather than fix, doesn’t that make them—obstructionist?

It’s peculiar, as well that Representative Sessions chose the Taliban as a model of insurgency considering the Taliban’s reliance on violence and suppression to “get their message out,” and Mr. Sessions clearly didn’t equate with a GOP “insurgency” with violence, but, as MSNBC points out, there are certainly more valuable examples out there (e.g., Gandhi, the Boston Tea Party, etc.). You can't help but wonder if his public approbation of a Taliban-styled insurgency help to embolden them? Speaking of embolden: from Politico,

"When your opponent trips and falls on his face, it certainly emboldens the opponent," added Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) [of the Gregg withdrawal] "It certainly emboldens us," McHenry said.

Facepalm.

Also, Saul Anuzis, who recently lost his campaign to become the new RNC chair, appeared at a Republican "Tech Summit" last week and offered this strange analogy (via Slate):

"Why do revolutionaries use Kalashnikovs?" he asks. "Because they won't jam. It's not the best gun, but you can throw it in the mud, pick it up, and it still works. This is a revolution."

So harnessing new technologies and developing new applications is equivalent to an assault rifle most often identified with the Red Army and terrorists? Yup. Insurgentizing all over the place.

But wait! Now they're insurgentizing each other:

March 01: It seems that two conservative California talk show hosts, John and Ken, have "launched a fatwa" against Republican Assemblyman Jeff Miller. Miller's crime? He didn't call for the ouster of the Assembly's Republican leader, Mike Villines, who helped reach a compromise on California's "legislation to temporarily raise taxes to help solve the state's budget problem" (PE). Miller voted against the legislation, by the way, but apparently that wasn't good enough for the party purgers" the "fatwa"calls for a recal election to remove Miller from office.

March 16: John and Ken engaged in a bit of political theater to further their "fatwa." At a "tax revolt rally" this past weekend, and:

The raucous California tea party featured such dramatics as the spearing of a likeness of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's head, and the sledge-hammering of a pile of Schwarzenegger dolls, videos and movie memorabilia - even an action hero lunch box.

The radio hosts' "fatwas" target a handful of moderate GOP legislators who sided with Democrats to end the state budget impasse. Their calls to recall those lawmakers have reverberated throughout the Republican grassroots.

"It's becoming the fatwa party ... the Jon and Ken party," said Hoover Institution media fellow and GOP consultant Bill Whalen. (San Francsico Chronicle)

"Fun and games" aside, you've got to wonder if it is altogether wise to adopt the language of your enemy (e.g., terrorists) to target your own. Moreover, why are David Frum and David Brooks demonized for criticizing elements of the Republican Party, and these two men aren't?

Avoid Following Our Lead

The Register-Guard’s editorial comment today notes that “many in India advocate attacking Pakistan to exact retribution for what is being called India’s 9/11.” Although India and Pakistan have a contentious history, and groups with ties to Pakistan are responsible for several terrorist acts in India, until there is some surety that Pakistan—especially Pakistan’s government—was or is involved in the Mumbai attacks (which seems extremely doubtful), India might want to “heed the U. S. Example”:

Americans can sympathize with the overwhelming urge to strike back after a horrifying terrorist attack. But the U.S. response to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, offers much for India to consider as it contemplates its own answer to the Nov. 26 massacre in Mumbai.

With two ongoing wars having killed almost 5,000 U.S. military personnel and hundreds of thousands of Afghan and Iraqi civilians, al-Qaeda is stronger than ever — strong enough to be linked to the Mumbai attacks. As a strategy, full-scale military war on terrorism leaves much to be desired.

India should take a hard look at U.S. results before embarking on a similar path. (R-G)

Worth considering indeed. Yes the urge for vengeance is strong, and understandable, but unless an attack on Pakistan is justified—that is, unless genuine evidence links the government to terrorist groups—it would only wreak additional misery on the region as a whole.

Investigate First

Aryn Baker at Time looks at the risks of blaming Pakistan before a detailed investigation into the Mumbai attacks occurs.

Motor Mouth Zawahiri

Today, Ayman al-Zahawiri announced that Al Qaeda essentially gets credit for the current financial crisis. At least we can stop blaming all those unscrupulous financial institutions and consumers living beyond their means, eh?

This follows on some similarly silly commentary; last week, al-Zahawiri claimed that Obama is nothing more than a “house negro.” The international community pretty well laughed at the man’s rhetoric, which prompted petulant Al Qaeda members to complain about the media’s pro-Obama bias.

If nothing else, the boasting over the economic mess and encouragement of racial divisions suggests that we’re looking at an anxious (and peevish) group.

Aside: Dawud Walid, an executive director for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) wrote a thoughtful letter to The Detroit News on al-Zawahiri's nonsense.

Mumbai's Battle: It’s Over

According to The International Herald Tribune, the three day siege has concluded. And more fingers point towards the LeT's responsibility. Consequentially, Pakistan is doing its best to stave off more regional instability:

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi said India and Pakistan should join hands to defeat a common enemy, and urged New Delhi not to play politics over the attacks in Mumbai, Reuters reported.

"Do not bring politics into this issue," he told reporters in the Indian town of Ajmer during a four-day visit to India. "This is a collective issue. We are facing a common enemy and we should join hands to defeat the enemy."

President Asif Ali Zardari of Pakistan called Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India to say he was "appalled and shocked" by the attacks, Reuters reported. "Nonstate actors wanted to force upon the governments their own agenda, but they must not be allowed to succeed," he said.

Read the rest here.

Mumbai Terrorists Had Getaway Plan

I’ve been wondering about the Mumbai terrorists’ not committing suicide--taking hostages and engaging in shootouts with security forces rather than blow themselves up suggests that killing themselves wasn’t part of their agreement, which is rather strange if, as alleged, the terrorists included members of LeT’s “suicide squad.”

Well apparently the men were assured no suicide was necessary: they had a getaway plan. The Times of India reports that a captured terrorist claims that,

the group had planned to sail out [of Mumbai] on Thursday. Their recruiters had even charted out the return route for them and stored it on the GPS device which they had used to navigate their way to the Mumbai shoreline..

This suggests that the terrorists were willing to undertake a mission which they knew would be very risky, but not necessarily suicidal.

Sources said that the bait of safe return must have been used by the recruiters to convince the wavering among the group to join the audacious plot against Mumbai. (ToI)

So belief in The Cause is no longer sufficient to prompt young men to kill themselves afet sacrificing countless innocents? Does a heavenly reward for self-murder no longer seem guaranteed for the recruited?

This is telling.

Pakistani Group Behind Mumbai Attacks?

According to the Times of India, security forces have captured several Pakistani men:

Police and central security personnel have arrested at least three Pakistanis including Ajmal Amir Kamal, a resident of Faridkot near Multan in Pakistan's Punjab province. All the three belong to the suicide squad of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

Update: The Times of India now writes that '[i]n all, nine terrorists were killed while one was captured alive in "Operation Tornado" executed by the NSG alongwith the army and naval commandos and Maharashtra police." The AP reports that the captured man's name is Mohammad Ajmal Qasam. The police allege that he is a Pakistan national and affiliated with groups in that country.

Lashkar-e-Taibab is based in Pakistan and aims to end Indian rule in Kashmir. However, there is no confirmation as yet if the Pakistan group is responsible for the Mumbai carnage. There remains a significant amount of uncertainty--and rumormongering--about the attackers. Pakistan has questioned reports of its citizens' involvement, as "India [has] in the past blamed Pakistan for terrorist attacks but subsequent probes [have] shown they were carried out by 'internal groups.'" Further, according to a Times article published late Thursday, Pakistan has released an official denial:

"Pakistan played no role in the Mumbai attacks," [Pakistan's] Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said as investigators in Maharashtra suggested that Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Toiba could be involved in the unprecedented strike.

Aside: Again, I ask: why didn’t these men kill themselves—especially if they’re members of a suicide squad? Was there a niggle about the surety of heavenly reward?

D-Listers

In discussing the horrors unfolding in Mumbai (now in its third day), Dr. Paul Cornish at Chatham House, home to the Royal Institute of International Affairs, wonders if we’ve entered the era of “celebrity terrorism.” The anonymous Mumbai attackers have, essentially, taken over international media. Top quote:

Welcome to the age of celebrity terrorism. The invitation to the world's D-list malcontents reads as follows: no matter how corrupt your moral sense, how contorted your view of the world, how vapid and inarticulate your ideas, how talentless you are and how exaggerated your grievance; an obsessive audience will watch your every move and turn you into what you most want to be, just before your death.

One thing: why have they taken hostages rather than kill themselves? That's the usual terrorist method, isn't it?

Aside: When the news broadcasts aired CCTV photos of some of the attackers—young men in western dress, with their rucksacks and weapons—they brought school shooters (Columbine, VA Tech) to mind. I hadn't really considered school attacks as "terrorist" in the past, but Cornish’s article, I think, reinforces the link. You feel tormented, anguished, so you grab a gun to avenge your pain on innocents and to get your slice of notoriety.

Who Really Gets the Jihadist Endorsement ?

News has broken that messages celebrating the USA's economic worries have appeared on a Jihadist website. Said website also features posts that endorse Senator John McCain's candidacy:

"Al-Qaeda will have to support McCain in the coming election," said a commentary posted Monday on the extremist Web site al-Hesbah, which is closely linked to the terrorist group. It said the Arizona Republican would continue the "failing march of his predecessor," President Bush. [. . . .] In language that was by turns mocking and ominous, the newest posting credited al-Qaeda with having lured Washington into a trap that had "exhausted its resources and bankrupted its economy." It further suggested that a terrorist strike might swing the election to McCain and guarantee an expansion of U.S. military commitments in the Islamic world. "It will push the Americans deliberately to vote for McCain so that he takes revenge for them against al-Qaeda" (Washington Post)

So is there a terrorist plan in the works? First, we need to be clear that the people posting on the Jihadist website aren't plotting something--they're just speculating. ABC news reinforces this point in noting that "experts" have been all over the website. Moreover, there's been a "lack of chatter" elsewhere about the presidential elections (AP). It looks like someone is simply trying to stir up Americans' fear and anxiety.

As far as al-Qaeda wanting John McCainelected--recall al-Qaeda's previous attempt to influence US elections. Bin Laden issued a tape "endorsing" John Kerry, which effectively ended Kerry's presidential hopes. One theory explaining bin Laden's motivation, as expressed in Ron Suskind's book about the War on Terror, The One Percent Doctrine, has become something akin to conventional wisdom:

According to the book, Osama bin Laden apparently wanted Bush reelected in 2004, and therefore issued a video message which, in the US media, was described as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” Why he wanted Bush in office remains unknown. In the book, unnamed CIA analysts speculate that this can be attributed to the view that the controversial policies Bush advocated would help recruit Jihadists and would cause the image of USA decline globally due to aggressive foreign policy. [Also see here].

So if al-Qaeda produces a new videotape, an "official" message, which expresses support for Obama, we'll understand why. However, as Jonathan Alter argues, such an event would be an opportunity for Obama to "seem muscular on national security."