Three Wars on Terror
Ronald Reagan and the battle for Obama's strategic soul.
The article was published on the website of the newspaper " FP: The National Security" on September 10 2012, by John Arquilla. The author of the article writes about Barack Obama's earliest acts as president, connected with the discarding of the phrase "War on Terror"
. Author of the article clearly separates three different stages of presidential periods of the US ( Reagan, Bush W and Obama) .
It's necessary to point out, that author tells us, that Obama's counter-terrorism strategy has extended to other malefactors as well, from madmen like Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army to the Libyan state terrorist, Moammar Qaddafi.
Arquilla emphasizes the fact, that the difference in the approaches taken by our two most recent presidents really speaks to there being two different wars on terror and Bush chose to attack other nations in his attempt to create a less permissive international environment for terrorist networks, whereas Obama has decided to take the more direct approach: going straight after the networks.
Furthermore, one should not forget that author clearly gives us a thought, that Bush's strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there.
Moreover, Arquilla proves the fact, that Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military.
In addition to that, the author can't deny the fact, that In the weeks and months after the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 242 Americans, Reagan and his team became deeply concerned about the terrorism problem and the signal success of this first war on terror came in a campaign against the Abu Nidal Organization - which was conducting terrorist hits for hire on behalf of Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Some of the network's hidden finances were detected and, instead of freezing or seizing these funds, they were covertly moved about in ways that convinced Abu Nidal that many of his operatives were embezzling.
The author tell us, that the other side of the coin is the fact, that despite this success, and for all of Reagan's enthusiasm and Shultz's support, little else came to pass and this was because many senior military leaders worried about the ethics of Reagan's war on terror -- specifically that the use of paramilitaries and special operators would lead to what then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger called an "unfocused revenge approach" that would lead to the deaths of innocents.
Besides, the Pentagon preferred more conventional uses of force -- like the massive air raid on Libya in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by GIs.
It's necessary to admit the fact, that Obama did allow senior military advisers to talk him into surging large numbers of conventional forces into Afghanistan -- at great cost and, at best, with mixed results. He also acceded to a status-of-forces agreement made by his predecessor, allowing senior political advisers to talk him into living with the consequences of a complete withdrawal from Iraq.
The authors draws a conclusion that, saying that in the battle for Reagan's Strategic soul, the conventional thinkers won out because they convinced hive that there was for too much of the "dark side" in the Shultz-inspired plan. In the battle for Barack Obama's strategiс soul, the "overwhelming force" approach hasn't yet carried the day - and with luck it won't.
I should say, that my personal opinion is, that the US country isn't the most powerful tool in the combat fight against terrorism. The U.S. believes that only their An Eagle of Justice may destroy this disaster of the 21st century. But it is not truth - the world of terror has a great number of branches in the war history at all, but nowadays most of this terrorism is at the junction of politics and religion and has its own unique features, as well as the dangerous virus has the same cellular structure of itself. And this cure the whole world anti-terrorist community should find together.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/10/three_wars_on_terror
Ronald Reagan and the battle for Obama's strategic soul.
The article was published on the website of the newspaper " FP: The National Security" on September 10 2012, by John Arquilla. The author of the article writes about Barack Obama's earliest acts as president, connected with the discarding of the phrase "War on Terror"
. Author of the article clearly separates three different stages of presidential periods of the US ( Reagan, Bush W and Obama) .
It's necessary to point out, that author tells us, that Obama's counter-terrorism strategy has extended to other malefactors as well, from madmen like Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army to the Libyan state terrorist, Moammar Qaddafi.
Arquilla emphasizes the fact, that the difference in the approaches taken by our two most recent presidents really speaks to there being two different wars on terror and Bush chose to attack other nations in his attempt to create a less permissive international environment for terrorist networks, whereas Obama has decided to take the more direct approach: going straight after the networks.
Furthermore, one should not forget that author clearly gives us a thought, that Bush's strategy proved exceptionally costly and highly problematic in Iraq, and even his initial success in "going small" in Afghanistan was all too soon overtaken by a stalemate-inducing impulse to send large numbers of troops there.
Moreover, Arquilla proves the fact, that Obama's concept of operations, on the other hand, has been working well, and will never break the bank or exhaust our military.
In addition to that, the author can't deny the fact, that In the weeks and months after the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 242 Americans, Reagan and his team became deeply concerned about the terrorism problem and the signal success of this first war on terror came in a campaign against the Abu Nidal Organization - which was conducting terrorist hits for hire on behalf of Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Some of the network's hidden finances were detected and, instead of freezing or seizing these funds, they were covertly moved about in ways that convinced Abu Nidal that many of his operatives were embezzling.
The author tell us, that the other side of the coin is the fact, that despite this success, and for all of Reagan's enthusiasm and Shultz's support, little else came to pass and this was because many senior military leaders worried about the ethics of Reagan's war on terror -- specifically that the use of paramilitaries and special operators would lead to what then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger called an "unfocused revenge approach" that would lead to the deaths of innocents.
Besides, the Pentagon preferred more conventional uses of force -- like the massive air raid on Libya in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by GIs.
It's necessary to admit the fact, that Obama did allow senior military advisers to talk him into surging large numbers of conventional forces into Afghanistan -- at great cost and, at best, with mixed results. He also acceded to a status-of-forces agreement made by his predecessor, allowing senior political advisers to talk him into living with the consequences of a complete withdrawal from Iraq.
The authors draws a conclusion that, saying that in the battle for Reagan's Strategic soul, the conventional thinkers won out because they convinced hive that there was for too much of the "dark side" in the Shultz-inspired plan. In the battle for Barack Obama's strategiс soul, the "overwhelming force" approach hasn't yet carried the day - and with luck it won't.
I should say, that my personal opinion is, that the US country isn't the most powerful tool in the combat fight against terrorism. The U.S. believes that only their An Eagle of Justice may destroy this disaster of the 21st century. But it is not truth - the world of terror has a great number of branches in the war history at all, but nowadays most of this terrorism is at the junction of politics and religion and has its own unique features, as well as the dangerous virus has the same cellular structure of itself. And this cure the whole world anti-terrorist community should find together.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/10/three_wars_on_terror
WELL DONE!
ОтветитьУдалитьSlips:
THE author (of the article) - it is not his proper name)
taken by our (WHAT A SURPRISE - ARE YOU AMERICAN?)two most recent presidents ...
that the US country isn't the most powerful tool in the fight against terrorism.
The U.S. believes that only their (NO 'An') Eagle of Justice WILL STOP this PLAGUE of the 21st century.
But it is not TRUE -
THE cure OF THIS EVIL SHOULD BE FOUND BY the whole world anti-terrorist community.