This is in response to Campbell:

Yeah, the Israeli strategy has really worked, hasn't it? How long will they continue to live in fear of the next bomber?

Posted by: rationaljim at November 15, 2006 12:15 PM

Kerry was right in the first place; until you're talking about taking a man out of a hostile country, what difference is there between running down an international criminal and a terrorist? Zip. Do the police have firefights with suspects? Yes, when a bust isn't optimal. Do terrorists get taken without firefights, sure they do, when the 'capture' is optimal? Are they ready to shoot him in both cases? Of course they are. 'Capture', 'bust'? Real big difference there. What you may do in prosecution may be different (it seems the Supreme Court disagrees that they are) but how you get them uses the same strategies and tactics. Kerry was right from the get-go.

Posted by: brantl at November 15, 2006 09:43 AM

Good Morning Folks,

Lets face it General Pace's job is on the line along with all of the Rumsfled appointed three and four stars in the Pentagon. Along with General Casey, General Pace can expect to be among the first to be fired when Robert Gates takes over as Sec. Of Defense.

Long know as "Rumsfeld's Parott" General Peter Pace has not stood out as a desenting voice to what has very widely become know as a failed policy in Iraq or even Afghanistan. His absence was noted Wednesday, when his boss "resigned", General Pace has disgraced the Marine Corp. by his performance as the first Marine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a stain on the Corps honor that will take generations to go away. To equate his thinking with Senator Jhn Kerry is not out of line.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 11, 2006 02:19 PM

Perhaps it would be useful to look at the British experience here. IRA terrorism continued for decades, including many bombings in London, assassinations of major political figures and more than one near-miss with attacks on the Prime Minister.

The was NEVER classed as a war and IRA members were never treated as POWs. At all times it was treated as an extension of the fight against crime. There was never any question of shooting out of hand, and the idea of airstrikes in West Belfast - or over the border in Eire - was unthinkable.

As a direct consequence, there was no escalation of the sort we have seen in the struggle against Islamic terrorism and which the head of MI5 commented on yesterday.

Posted by: David Hambling at November 11, 2006 05:09 AM

Oh yeah, and what "Phila" said; last two portions.

Posted by: campbell at November 10, 2006 08:00 PM

wow. I held off a while on making any comments. Here goes:

guys? get over the "Kerry said" or "Bush meant"...it's history, an immaterial. move on....

so, how is it Israel can "live" with terrorist bombings for decades, and the U.S. cannot? because they either (1)suck it up, or (2) ACT.
(Mossad is not known for waiting for warrants, arresting criminals and putting them in jail and feeding them three squares a day with unlimited TV access).

wanna fight terrorism? fine. First, do not give it that label, which can conceivably extend some quasi-validity to enemy political claims. call them what they are: criminals. This gives them no protection. Find them (intelligence), chase them (ignore "sovereignity" protections) for them, and kill them. no arrests. Why are we coddling Saddam in prison, or going through the motions of a trial? to execute him, eventually? that's the big payback for his decades of monstrosity? hell with it, kill em and be done with it. But, as Israel has shown, it does NOT require OCCUPATION; and occupation does foster greater dangers and increased enmities.

Iraq? seems to have dozens of factions...back off and let them feed off of each other. They see their very soil as sacred? get your infidel feet off of it!...then invite them onto yours, to accept gifts that help and build lives rather than destroy them and build decades of resentment.

Meanwhile.....ignore borders, and chase down and kill the criminals, immediate, SMALL strikes, immediate withdrawal until the next target of opportunity presents itself.

anything less than these, is half assed and doomed to failure, period.

I'm sure you didn't hear it here, first.

Posted by: campbell at November 10, 2006 07:56 PM

K:

As is typical with Kerry, I've found statements that both contradict and bolster (at least a little) what you say. But, bottom line, I don't think Kerry's words back up your notion that he "intended to tolerate terror and make it less of a priority, only acting if and when it got out of hand."

Throughout the '04 campaign, Kerry said a bunch of things like this:

http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=8320

"We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. As President, if necessary, I will use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.

"But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military – but renewed alliances, vigorous law enforcement, reliable intelligence, and unremitting effort to shut down the flow of terrorist funds.

"To do all this, and to do our best, demands that we work with other countries instead of walking alone. For today the agents of terrorism work and lurk in the shadows of 60 nations on every continent. In this entangled world, we need to build real and enduring alliances."

However, in a January '04 primary debate, Kerry also said this:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html

"The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time. And we will need the best-trained and the most well-equipped and the most capable military, such as we have today.

"But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at. And most importantly, the war on terror is also an engagement in the Middle East economically, socially, culturally, in a way that we haven't embraced, because otherwise we're inviting a clash of civilizations. "

Later in the year, Bush pounced on the statement., accusing Kerry of wanting to "serve our enemies with legal papers." Slate, at the time, called this jab "obviously false."

http://www.slate.com/id/2098781/

Here's an extended quote from that Slate piece:

Kerry not only favored military intervention against the Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan, he favored it more aggressively than Bush. When Osama Bin Laden and his coterie were trapped in Tora Bora in December 2001, Bush inexplicably relied on poorly trained Afghan mercenaries to surround the hideout. Predictably, and maddeningly, this allowed them to escape. At the time Kerry called for American ground troops to do the job instead.

Putting aside Bush's exaggerations, though, it's true that Kerry does see the war on terror as mostly a matter of law enforcement and intelligence-gathering. But guess what? So does Bush. He just doesn't realize it.

Conservatives see the war on terror as a traditional war primarily involving the military because they see the main enemies as states. If you want to defeat a state, you need more than law enforcement and intelligence-gathering; you need armies. The conservative predisposition was summed up shortly after Sept. 11 by Charles Krauthammer. "Terrorists cannot operate without the succor and protection of governments," he wrote, "The planet is divided into countries. Unless terrorists want to camp in Antarctica, they must live in sovereign states."

This formulation, while appealingly simple, is obviously false. The Sep. 11 hijackers all resided either in the United States or in Western Europe, under governments that gave them no support whatsoever. We can't root them out by sending the 3rd Infantry Division into Germany or Dearborn, Mich. Even in Afghanistan and western Pakistan, we're relying not on massed ground forces but on intelligence-gathering and law enforcement. Indeed this is exactly what Bush points to when he cites his successes against al-Qaida. Here is how the president put it in a speech last month:

We're using every tool of finance, intelligence, law enforcement, and military power to break terror networks, to deny them refuge, and to find their leaders. Over the past 30 months, we have frozen or seized nearly $200 million in assets of terror networks. We've captured or killed some two-thirds of al-Qaida's known leaders as well as many of al-Qaida's associates in countries like the United States or Germany or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or Thailand.

Of course there is one area where Bush really has favored a more military approach than Kerry: Iraq. But even if you accept the highly debatable premise that Iraq was central to the war on terror, it's hard to see how it can be the archetype for Bush's approach to fighting terrorism. Not even the hardest of the hard-liners today proposes additional land invasions as part of the war on terror.

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at November 10, 2006 06:01 PM

Look, there is no way around it when Kerry calls terrorism merely a NUISANCE, and when he says he wants to go BACK TO A TIME when terrorism was not the focus (that would be September 10, folks). His statements were a clear indication that he intended to tolerate terror and make it less of a priority, only acting if and when it got out of hand. This is the same failed strategy that Clinton used in the 1990s.

Now, just so you know I am being fair with Kerry here, let me say that I believe Kerry's recent comment about uneducated people who don't study ending up stuck in Iraq was very likely a reference to BUSH and not intended as a reference to the TROOPS. I don't agree that Kerry intended to slam the troops merely because it would have been politically suicidal for him to do so. I do know that MANY liberals truly believe that the US military is comprised of people who couldn't get ahead by getting educated. I have had more then one liberal tell me to my face in the last few weeks that Kerry obviously didnt mean to slam the troops, but by the way, what he said was true of the troops! Hahah. Of all things! So I think the backlash against Kerry was technically wrong, and I didn't jump on that bandwagon, but I think the people who DID jump on the bandwagon were reasonable people who were holding Kerry accountable for his history of bashing the troops in his career dating back to Vietnam.

Posted by: Kaltes at November 10, 2006 05:38 PM

Apples and oranges. Kerry suggested fighting the terrorists taking a law-enforcement approach. He compared terrorism to gambling and prostitution.

By contrast, General Pace was making a point about stability, using the struggle between police and criminals as an analogy. He was not suggesting that the US take a law enforcement approach to fight terrorists, rather he was saying that in order to succeed in the war on terror, you need to suppress terrorists to the point where the government can function. This is a very obvious, very true statement.

General Pace is talking about achieving an objective that the US is trying very hard to achieve in Iraq, whereas Kerry was talking about changing course away from a "hunt them down and kill them" approach, to a less vigorous "you can't beat them, but just put in enough effort to keep the problem from getting worse". Many Americans were absolutely right to 'hammer' Kerry for revealing that he wasn't going to be making terrorism the kind of priority that Bush has, and for likening it to somewhat benign economic crimes when the reality is that terrorism is about mass murder.

Posted by: Kaltes at November 10, 2006 05:24 PM

Mike Burleson says, "Kerry actually said he thought the police should fight terrorists."

That's nonsense, and I defy you to post a link to a verbatim quote from Kerry to that effect. What Kerry actually said was, "As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life.''

Also, in January of 2004, Kerry said, "The war on terror is less -- it is occasionally military, and it will be, and it will continue to be for a long time....But it's primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world -- the very thing this administration is worst at."

Bearing in mind the controversy Kerry's remarks sparked, let's revisit what Bush said in March of 2004: "We're using every tool of finance, intelligence, law enforcement, and military power to break terror networks, to deny them refuge, and to find their leaders."

And what he said to Matt Lauer in August of 2004: "I don’t think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way."

I have no love for John Kerry, but the attacks on what he said about intelligence-gathering and law enforcement are absurd, and Bush's use of military power has been incompetent in the opinion of people with far more expertise than myself.

IMO, people who claim to take terrorism seriously should prove it by having some respect for the truth, which is something we're supposed to have on our side.

Posted by: Phila at November 10, 2006 05:07 PM

Kerry is a politician and a master of nuance but I think it was pretty clear that Kerry was slamming the idea of pre-emption and aggressive military efforts of US choosing the battle field that has defined the Bush policy in favor of a more Judicious, FBI, Warrants, Interpol, Police actions, military reactionary measures (cruise missile here or there after a attack) that were used in the Clinton days, when military options were at best a secondary thought.

The military option albeit not without cost (very limited in historical comparison but still heart felt cost) is WORKING and succeeding. All the money in world cannot protect the homeland of a free and open society all we can do is force the fight on a field of our choice.

Radical Islamist because of pride have been forced into spending most if not all of their limited resource in Iraq/Afghanistan instead of here in our homeland. For them getting US out of their house is above all else (it’s an honor culture thing). When they succeed in that ambition they will revert back to sending their resources HERE.

Don't give me the "we are making more terrorist by fighting and killing terrorist" crap either. You and I both know full well we were long hated and under attack well before Iraq, Bush, 9-11, Clinton, Cole, Embasies Narobi/Kenya, 93' WT, Kolbar Towers, Marine Barracks, Gas Embargo, Tanker Wars, how many hijacked/blown up planes, Hostage Crisis. All of my life and most of my fathers it has been clear the Radical Muslims hated and everyonce in awhile attacked US the only thing that changed on 9-11 was we finanly reached the level of pain that we could no longer just ignore thier bites.

3k dead CIVILIANS hundreds of billions of lost revenue from the shock all in a day like 9-11 was just impossible to ignore anymore our minor ant bite had turned into a scorpion venom filled biter.

Either way I look forward to the next two years. The Dems have both houses full control of the legeslative branch of government. They now must produce a plan. Complaining/crying about someone elses plan over every little thing that goes wrong or not fast enough is easy, actually making a plan of your own that holds water is a whole different world. Especially when you base with one breath wants to pull up and run home behind our walls and in the next breath have a free open walless society?

Posted by: C-Low at November 10, 2006 04:08 PM

Why is it that the "War on Terror" has to be either a police matter OR a military matter? It seems to me that it needs to be both, with a healthy helping of good old fashioned diplomacy to counter the negative attitudes that foster terrorism in the first place.

Semantically, I see absolutely no difference between what Gen. Pace said and what Sen. Kerry said.

Posted by: Edward Liu at November 10, 2006 03:37 PM

I think I agree with Noah on this one.

General Pace and Senator Kerry's statements do seem to be basically saying that they want to force terrorism to be a small enough problem that it can be effectively contained.

I think that is the only logical statement of victory there is. You are never going to make it impossible for some loon to blow up a cafe or something, but you have to simply mitigate the risk of it happening.

I like Noah am not a fan of Kerry* but I think he did get that comment taken out of context and hosed on, but then isn't that what elections are all about. =P

* who by the way served in Vietnam.

Posted by: Endyr at November 10, 2006 03:03 PM

You are misinterpreting this statement. Pace was comparing the strategy of how the military fight terrorism to police fighting crime. Kerry actually said he thought the police should fight terrorists. Like Clinton, he thought terrorism was a minor nuisance rather than a menace to national security. This attitude got us 9/11.

Posted by: Mike Burleson at November 10, 2006 03:02 PM

C:

If Kerry really did say that, I agree, he should be hosed. However, can you find a statement where he actually said that we should give up the military option?

nms

Posted by: Noah Shachtman at November 10, 2006 02:57 PM

Kerry got that raw deal becuase his comment was saying that we should treat International terrorist like common criminals with supena's, Judges, FBI, Interpol and such NOT by military means. Basicly we should just accept our civilians being killed every couple years by terrorist.

Pace's comments was saying that the military can't kill all the terrorist (how do you really stop some freak from going to the local market and blowing himself and his neighbors up?) but like police in DC the military working internationaly can beat it down into low level (that level would be not able to hit US Warships Cole, Embasies Narobi-Kenya, World Trade 93' & 01', Madrid, London trains).

Pakistan authorities may use our supeana's from the FBI to wipe thier a*s with but when Predators obliterate a terrorist training camp they can't do much.

Posted by: C-Low at November 10, 2006 02:47 PM