Tuesday, July 31, 2007

Another Idiot Opines at WaPo

David Ignatius in WaPo reckons that the US has to attack Pakistan to get Al Qaeda in its new stronghold in Waziristan.

The threat that worries Ignatius:

“For those who might have forgotten in the six years since Sept. 11, 2001, what a reconstituted al-Qaeda could do, the intelligence analysts explained that the terrorist group has ‘the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks and/or fear among the U.S. population.’ The analysts noted that al-Qaeda continues to seek biological, radiological and nuclear weapons ‘and would not hesitate to use them.’”

Why the US should act now through preventive war:

“The United States can begin to take action now against al-Qaeda's new haven. Or we can wait, and hope that we don't get hit again. The biggest danger in waiting is that if retaliation proves necessary later, it could be ill-planned and heavy-handed -- precisely what got us in trouble in Iraq.”

I’m pretty sure that the authorities have no idea whether Al Qaeda had anything to do with the events of September 11, 2001 other than taking credit for them after the fact, something Al Qaeda would do in furtherance of its aims whether it was involved or not. In retaliation, the US more or less destroyed Afghanistan and killed many innocent people with no apparent diminution of the threat from Al Qaeda. Ignatius holds up the intervention in Afghanistan as a model of how the US should intervene in Pakistan. Presumably, he reckons that it is desirable to kill innocents, further alienate and radicalize Muslims, destabilize Pakistan, and unleash a serious of unforeseen consequences in the name of preventing another terrorist attack on US soil.

In view of Ignatius’s assessment of why the Iraq war was a failure (it was ill planned and heavy-handed, that’s all), I don’t reckon that we need to give much weight to his opinions on these matters. The “threat” from Al Qaeda seems to be that they have certain destructive “goals” which they are probably in little position to realize while they are holed up in Waziristan. It seems to me that containing Al Qaeda in some backwater, using intelligence gathering and law enforcement techniques to monitor them, and taking a measured and proportional approach to the threat would make a lot more sense than dropping bombs willy nilly in Waziristan or Anywhereelseistan for that matter.

No comments: