SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bilow who wrote (117547)10/24/2003 12:23:30 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Leaked Memo Exposes Rumsfeld's Doubts About War on Terror

_______________________________

By Julian Borger
The Guardian
Thursday 23 October 2003

The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has admitted that Washington has no way of knowing whether it is winning or losing its "war on terror" and predicts "a long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a leaked document published yesterday.

The memorandum was sent to his civilian deputies and top military officers, calling for fresh thinking in US counter-terrorist strategy. Its sober tone is a marked contrast to the upbeat assessments offered to the public by President Bush and his administration officials.

The memo was published yesterday by the USA Today newspaper, and a Pentagon official confirmed its authenticity to the Guardian, describing it as one of Mr Rumsfeld's "snowflakes" (Pentagon slang for the daily blizzard of notes he sends to his subordinates).

Yesterday's memo is addressed to Mr Rumsfeld's deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, his chief policy adviser, Doug Feith, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, General Dick Myers, and his deputy, General Pete Pace, and it runs through a scorecard of US military engagements to date.

"We are having mixed results with al-Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them - none the less a great many remain at large," Mr Rumsfeld writes.

"USG [the US government] has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis. USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban ... with respect to the Ansar Al-Islam [the al-Qaida-linked Sunni extremist group operating in Iraq], we are just getting started. It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," he said.

"This is typical of him," a defence department official said."He is always challenging his subordinates to think ahead. If you're familiar with the 'snowflakes', then you'll know this is just standard fare. And thank goodness there is someone who thinks like that."

In his memo the defence secretary takes a long-term view of the counter-terrorist effort and wonders whether terrorists are being recruited in religious schools [madrassas] faster than US troops can kill or capture them.

"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror," Mr Rumsfeld concludes, demanding more original thinking.

"My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves," he writes, and asks whether a private foundation could be set up to "entice" madrassas to a more moderate course.

But he has more radical suggestions too, including the establishment of a new counter-terrorist agency.

"It is not possible to change DoD [the department of defence] fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere - one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem," Mr Rumsfeld said.

The Rumsfeld memo was leaked a few days after Mr Wolfowitz told supporters "we are winning" in Iraq. On Monday Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, told a Republican fund-raising meeting: "We are rolling back the terrorist threat at the very heart of its power, in the Middle East."

But Mr Rumsfeld warns: "The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."

-------

truthout.org



To: Bilow who wrote (117547)10/25/2003 10:01:20 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 281500
 
THE USES AND ABUSES OF HISTORY
__________________________________

Op/Ed By Richard Reeves
Syndicated Columnist
Fri Oct 24, 7:59 PM ET

story.news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON -- "America is proud of its part in the great story of the Filipino people," said President Bush to a joint session of the Congress of the Philippines last week. "Together our soldiers liberated the Philippines from colonial rule."

Unfortunately, we then killed more than 200,000 Filipinos. Almost all of the dead were civilians, killed in the two years after we liberated them from the Spanish in 1898. One of our generals there, a cranky Civil War veteran named Jacob Smith, told his men: "I wish you to kill and burn ... I want all persons killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States."

"How young?" asked Maj. Waller Tazewell Waller (cq) of the U.S. Marines. "Ten years and up," said Gen. Smith.

None of this was secret at the time. American soldiers -- we sent 70,000 there after the Spanish colonial authority surrendered when Commodore George Dewey's fleet sailed into Manila Harbor -- wrote of the details in letters to hometown newspapers. Here are samples quoted in a new book, "Flyboys," by James Bradley:

"We bombarded a place called Malabon, and then went in and killed every native we met, men, women and children" ... "This shooting human beings is a 'hot game' and beats rabbit hunting all to pieces" ... "Picking off niggers in the water is more fun than a turkey shoot" ... "I am probably growing hard-hearted, for I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger. Tell all my inquiring friends that I am doing everything I can for Old Glory and for America I love so well."

Back in Washington, President Theodore Roosevelt was calling that "the most glorious war in our nation's history." The Filipino victims he dismissed as "a syndicate of Chinese half-breeds."

George W. Bush knows all this. At Yale, he got a B in History 35, a study of that era, taught by John Morton Blum, a biographer of Theodore Roosevelt. And if he has forgotten, he could look up some of it in Bradley's book. This president's father, Lt. George H.W. Bush, U.S. Navy, is a hero of "Flyboys" (and of a CNN documentary with the same title), which includes a frightening section on American anti-Asian attitudes and Japanese anti-American and anti-Christian attitudes that fed slaughter, massacre and even cannibalism in World War II.

We are, more often than not, relatively decent people in war and occupation. The Spanish rulers of the 7,000 islands of the Philippines were worse than the Americans, and there was a significant anti-war movement at home between 1899 and 1902. On July Fourth of that year, Roosevelt declared victory, after 4,234 Americans were killed in guerrilla attacks during the first three years of occupation. Mark Twain proposed that the stripes of Old Glory should be black and red. Gen. Smith was court-martialed and Maj. Waller tried (and acquitted) on murder charges. During Smith's court-martial, one of his aides said, "If people know what a thieving, treacherous, worthless bunch of scoundrels these Filipinos are, they would think differently."

That quote, in Stanley Karnow's 1989 book, "In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines," illustrates one of the more important historical lessons of occupation: Not only do the occupied inevitably come to hate the occupiers, the occupiers come to hate the occupied. Last Wednesday, a New York Times story by John Tierney -- the headline began "Baffled Occupiers ..." -- quoted a GI watching over a Baghdad market as saying: "If you really want to know, I'm sick of being in a country where lying is the national pastime."

A second important lesson is this: The occupied always prevail in the end, because they are there forever and the occupier one day will go home. It may take 50 years, which is how long we stayed in the Philippines, but that is not much time in history.

History can be revised or downplayed for a time -- in Manila last week, everyone talked about new public schools and the 550 teachers sent from San Francisco in 1901 rather than the 70,000 occupiers -- but reality emerges at embarrassing times because history is forever. As another American president, Harry S. Truman, once said: "The only thing new in this world is the history you don't know."