Who put John Kerry in charge of the Defense Department? Back in the 04 campaign, the insufferable Massachusetts senator got hammered by Republicans for his calls for more international coalitions, for his observation that there were non-military ways to win the war on terror, and for his view that there might not be a formal end to the anti-terror fight. But take a look at what the Pentagons every-four-years master plan, the Quadrennial Defense Review, has to say about fighting Islamic extremists. You get a decidedly Kerryesque view:
The long war against terrorist networks extends far beyond the borders of Iraq and Afghanistan and includes many operations characterized by irregular warfare operations in which the enemy is not a regular military force of a nation-state. In recent years, U.S. forces have been engaged in many countries, fighting terrorists and helping partners to police and govern their nations. To succeed in such operations, the United States must often take an indirect approach, building up and working with others. This indirect approach seeks to unbalance adversaries physically and psychologically, rather than attacking them where they are strongest or in the manner they expect to be attacked. Taking the line of least resistance unbalances the enemy physically, exploiting subtle vulnerabilities and perceived weaknesses. Exploiting the line of least expectation unbalances the enemy psychologically, setting the conditions for the enemys subsequent defeat.
Victory will come when the enemys extremist ideologies are discredited in the eyes of their host populations and tacit supporters, becoming unfashionable, and following other discredited creeds, such as Communism and Nazism, into oblivion. This requires the creation of a global environment inhospitable to terrorism. It requires legitimate governments with the capacity to police themselves and to deny terrorists the sanctuary and the resources they need to survive. It also will require support for the establishment of effective representative civil societies around the world, since the appeal of freedom is the best long-term counter to the ideology of the extremists. The ultimate aim is that terrorist networks will no longer have the ability or support to strike globally and catastrophically, and their ability to strike regionally will be outweighed by the capacity and resolve of local governments to defeat them.
Just as these enemies cannot defeat the United States militarily, they cannot be defeated solely through military force. The United States, its allies and partners, will not win this long war in a great battle of annihilation. Victory can only be achieved through the patient accumulation of quiet successes and the orchestration of all elements of national and international power. (emphasis mine)
Don’t get me wrong; I like what I’m reading here. In fact, I thought the ideas sounded pretty good in 2004, too.
UPDATE 3:45 PM: So the Pentagon is saying that beating Islamic extremism “requires the creation of a global environment inhospitable to terrorism.” How’re we doing on that front? Judging by the jihadists’ strong showings at the polls in the West Bank and in Egypt, I’d say that part of the Long War isn’t exactly going swimmingly.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Rummy?
He couldn’t hit water if he fell out of a boat.
Thats a policy change?
I thought this whole Iraq adventure was about, take out Saddam a self-pronounced enemy of the US (he had murals of 9-11 and even gave a national speech praising 9-11 enough said for me) then empowering the moderate Muslims in Iraq to run the country. We had done this in Kurdish Iraq already with success.
They would then be that shinning beacon to the rest of the Muslim world in time and would check their radicals like we do ours in the west again after time. The Muslims problems is that for generations they have been oppressed by their own who just blame the bogyman Big Satan(US) Little Satan(Israel) for everything.
Establishment of Democracy in the heart of the Muslim world is the Muslims chance to join the world, the moderates will either step up to the plate or not.
The Media and the retarded idea to force every 3rd world dictator and gov in the world to choose sides in a UN vote is what turned Iraq into an all about the WMDs war. Gave the world no wiggle room to help in the reconstruction.
Also note moderate Muslim definition is not bra burning 60 liberals it going to be more like early early American moderates like the idea of voting and free press is radical moderate Muslim ideals.
we lost this “war” when this administration decided that we should force democracy down the Iraqi’s throats. you don’t win friends and influence people by killing them. alas, they keep breeding more targets, and so, it doesn’t “end” and there is no “victory”.
give it up. Let em have it. come home, and put that $240 Billion into tar sands development here at home.
This is only Georgie trying to make good what his Daddy fouled up in the first place in ’91
Just think how much better off we’d be if Kerry’d had a chance to put those plans into action; would’ve saved over a years time and how many lives.
But just because this report has come out, don’t expect BushCo to give it any heed. Didn’t they ignore the military’s war plan for going into Iraq at the beginning, resulting in looting, chaos and zero security.