This leads directly to the second element of the President’s approach—a clear, more precise definition of this challenge. This is critically important. How you define a problem shapes how you address it. As many have noted, the President does not describe this as a “war on terrorism.” – John Brennan
It’s anniversary day for ‘Bin Ladin Determined to Attack Inside US’, the PDB that was declassified in 2004. The day that found George W. Bush clearing brush in Texas when Dr. Rice handed him the warning, which didn’t faze him enough to actually act on it. Leading to 9/11.
So, it’s quite fitting that John Brennan speak at CSIS on the subject of keeping America safe, which will no longer be known as the “global war on terror,” coming on the 8th anniversary of that infamous PDB.
But even as Brennan outlines Obama’s strategy, there is one area of national security that is becoming a point of strain for Obama with some Democrats. Enter Afghanistan:
In an exclusive interview with The Nation, Feingold says he “did not believe it was in the best interest of our troops or our national security.”
Once again, Feingold looks like he will break away from the Administration if McChrystal comes back with an analysis, which is expected, that many more U.S. troops will be needed to carry out Obama’s plan.
Which leads me to ask, what exactly is the President’s plan for Afghanistan. Initially in favor of the limited increase in forces, I’m becoming more and more skeptical of what looks to me like extreme mission creep. But final judgment will wait until all the information is in. But as quick as people like Juan Cole were to charge “Obama’s Vietnam” in Afghanistan, it looks like if Juan had just waited a couple of months his post would have actually been correct. But again, we’ll have to wait to see the final plan.
Text of Brennan’s full speech, which I’ve posted, gives you a fuller idea of the scope of Obama’s larger strategy. Even top military brass long ago said “global war on terror” puts the emphasis all on military action, when combating our adversaries takes a lot more than bullets and bombs.
Likewise, the President does not describe this as a “global war.” Yes, al Qaeda and other terrorists groups operate in many corners of the world and continue to launch attacks in different nations, as we saw most recently in Jakarta. And yes, the United States will confront al Qaeda aggressively wherever it exists so that it enjoys no safe haven. But describing our efforts as a “global war” only plays into the warped narrative that al Qaeda propagates. It plays into the misleading and dangerous notion that the U.S. is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world. – John Brennan
This post has been bumped.
Comments are closed.