Not such a bad guy, he says. As for administration strategy in the GWOT, Feith counters the popular perception that there wasn’t one with the argument that there so was:
¬? The development of the strategy for the war on terrorism in the hours and days after 9/11 ‚Äì a strategy that broke with US counter-terrorism policies of the previous decades ‚Äì a strategy that aimed not simply to punish the perpetrators of 9/11, but (much more ambitiously) to prevent follow-on 9/11-scale attacks.
¬? For all the errors the administration has made and the terrible problems we have encountered in recent years, especially in Iraq, it is a notable achievement that we are six and half years past 9/11 and the United States has not been hit again as we were hit then. This owes something, I believe, to our strategy.
Farewell, to all that, prolly. The national mood seems to swing largely back towards dealing with the terrorist threat using Radio America broadcasts backed up with the tools of law enforcement.
Which, here’s an update on that:
A judge has scheduled a hearing Thursday to decide whether to punish prosecutors for violating a court order in the case of two former University of South Florida students charged with illegally transporting explosives.
Attorneys for Youssef Megahed filed a motion Monday asking for sanctions based on what they said were the government’s violation of a court order detailing when the prosecution was to provide the defense with evidence it plans to use at trial.
U.S. District Judge Steven D.Merryday issued an order this afternoon scheduling a hearing 11 a.m. Thursday where prosecutors must show why they should not be sanctioned. In legal parlance, Merryday issued an order to show cause.
The Megaheds represent not merely a squandered opportunity to name a cool rock band, but as you will recall, were IRL University of South Florida students hailing from Kuwait and Egypt. Last August they were arrested after a traffic stop while wandering far from home on back roads to nowhere in particular carrying what turned out to be either fireworks (Megahed lawyers) or pipe bombs (the sheriff’s deputies who stopped them). Unable to immediately explain where they were going or what they’d planned to do with the incendiary devices, the deputies found their presence in the vicinity of a US naval base that had held GWOT detainees suspicious. Eventually the state dropped charges in favor of a federal prosecution.
The brothers declined to let the FBI search their residence, but mom and dad said OK for a time, the warrant being limited to a search for explosive materials. The G-Men executing the warrant apparently exceeded their brief by riffling through computer hard drives, finding evidence of jihadi literature and explosive making instructions along the way:
Among that evidence is information showing the home computers had a “large amount of research into weapons, ammunition and armed combat. One of the Megahed residence computers also contained numerous video clips depicting the manufacture and use of improvised explosive devices and a video recording showing the explosion of a bridge by means of such a destructive device.”
“Those video recordings all appear to depict the uses of such weapons in the armed struggle in the Middle East against the United States and other forces.”
Although the judge’s “show cause” mandate appears to be a discovery-related issue, the fact that the prosecution must defend itself from charges that it acted inappropriately in the matter leads this non-lawyer to believe that the computer evidence will be quashed, and with it the government’s expanded terrorism case. Which means we’re back to making a federal case out of the transportation of fireworks across state lines. Justice is served.
Which, who knows? Maybe that’s the right thing. Probably it is. Almost certainly. Maybe the young men were in fact innocently swept up “driving while Muslim” 460 miles from home. And maybe they just had a typically juvenile fascination with Arabic language texts on the creation of explosive devices and the destruction of bridges.
You know: Like kids do.
We’ll probably never know, conspiracies being notoriously hard to prove and the enforcement of anti-terror laws being much more about sweeping through the wreckage of something that used to be wonderful searching for forensic evidence than it is about the prevention of terrorist acts.
If “drug paraphenalia” is essentially the same as the drugs themselves, from a prosecutorial standpoint (most places, it is), then shouldn’t instructions for making bombs be considered explosive material?
And these innocent youths just happened to be using a house that was searched in the Sami Al Arian case. For those of you who don’t remember Al Arian; he’s the USF Prof. that was brought up on terrorism charges for helping the group Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
We’ve got to stop this crazy nonsense of treating terrorists like criminals. This is a war not a court case.
Jim C
As a retired police officer with pretty good insight about how the legal system works, I guess it’s gonna take a few car bombs and homicide bombers within our borders before the majority of people take terrorist threats seriously. And when that starts to happen, it (of course) be President Bush’ fault for not protecting us.
This is a war, and we need to start taking a few POW’s that are operating on our shores like those two. But it ain’t gonna happen until they succeed a few times killing our citizens within our borders.
Ahhh Mr. Fife…I mean Mr. Feith.
I haven’t read his book, nor will I, probably.
I read this link last Sunday reviewing Mr. Feith’s book. The 2nd and 3rd paragraphs are telling:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080427/BOOKS/201699044/1010
The first link above is lawyers’ talking about another lawyers book from inside the beltway.
The perfect buerocrat, all process, little product. And yes, Mr. Feith is the guy who didn’t miss eating his bag lunch on 9-11 at noon, as described to me from someone who was there. Not a sin of course, but just “his way”.
b2
I waded through the over 600 pages of “War and Decision.” It’s a pretty good read for a book about policy. Certainly has lots of documentation. IMO even handed as well. It points out mistakes made and lets the reader judge why.
Most of the problems arose because of disagreements between DOD on one side and State/CIA on the other.
State and CIA were against using the Iraqi exiles such as Chalabi and others in an immediate governing council that would have put an Iraqi face on the government as soon as Saddam fell. The State/CIA people called the exiles the “externals” and believed they would be seen as stooges of the U.S. So, what we got instead was the all U.S. all the time provisional government headed by Bremer. That could have been the biggest error made in Iraq. Or not. Maybe a provisional government headed by Iraqi exiles could have kept the insurgency from gaining so much steam. We’ll never know.
It is interesting to note, as Feith does,
that many of the Iraqi exiles are now elected members of the present government. Kind of puts the lie to the perceptions of State and CIA that the externals would never be accepted by the “internals.”
I’m satisfied that the policy decisions taken were thoroughly considered and presented to the CiC in as much depth as time would allow. There was certainly a lot of debate from the affected agencies. They decided that taking the war to the enemy was much better than playing defense and “avenging” each act of terrorism. I happen to agree.
The biggest mistake, which still hasn’t been corrected, was in thinking our military superiority would allow us to fight this war without expanding the Army and Marines.
Although W said over and over again that the war would last a long time, it seems that very few people actually listened to him and perceived what that meant. Feith believes that W’s inability to inspire the people with his oratory was another problem. I agree with that as well.
They also discussed trying to get an information campaign to counter the
stream of pro Islamist information coming from al Jazeera and other Muslim news outlets. The one attempt at putting pro freedom and democracy stories in Iraqi newspapers was immediately denounced by our MSM. That ended quickly. There has still been no organized effort to counter all the worldwide pro Islamic propaganda.
They also had big debates about how they would treat any prisoners taken in Afghanistan. They agreed that terrorists (Al Qaeda) did not meet the definition of POWs under the Geneva Convention because they don’t wear uniforms, don’t represent a sovereign government, and they attack primarily civilian targets.
Putting them at Gitmo was hotly debated. Rumsfeld did not want the task. He wanted CIA or Justice to be the jailers, but was overruled. They did decide to treat them well, same standards as the Geneva Convention for POWs. But their legal status was hotly debated. John Yoo at Justice managed to convince that theIslamists should be held outside the U.S. and not to extend habeas corpus because they were not U.S. citizens. That is still being debated and contested to this day.
For someone who wants to understand how these issues were handled and has the time, it’s a pretty good read.
Douglas Feith makes me want to punch myself in the face. Normally, I’d pen some vitriolic and verbose missive about what he is asserting but it just isn’t in me at the moment.
Sometimes discretion really is the better part of valor. It disgusts me that hindsight and cognitive dissonance can be used as a foundation for governance and policy generation.
The notion that we’re going to be treated to ‘THE UNVARNISHED TRUTH FROM THE HORSES MOUTH! NO REALLY! WE WERE KIDDING THE LAST FEW TIMES, BUT THIS TIME IT’S REALLY REALLY REAL” tell-all book is beyond frustrating. Aside from servicing a need for information warfare between the people that say we’re doing it wrong and those that say we’re doing it right, I’d imagine that I’d get the same thing from this book as I would from listening to Sean Hannity or Ann Coulter for an hour.
So I am to accept that because Mr. Feith says he “took notes” and only put material in quotes when someone actually said it that everyone else is lying? He is the sole bastion of truth in a world of liars out to further their own careers by writing a book? Nice. I was told by a very smart Senior Chief some time ago to regard people who drink their own Kool-Aid with a certain degree of skepticism.
Alternately, anyone remember how the fence was painted in Huck Finn?
The comments made by Power Line on why the Post review is idiocy of the purest form I find pretty hilarious. I believe that uncorrected galley copies are circulated by the publishers for the express purpose of allowing reviewers to do their jobs and generate early interest in the actual material.
Trying to say that the “two hatchet jobs” were based on “a leaked copy of the not-fully-edited typescript” is silly. A pre-owned car is a used car, and in this case a “leaked copy” is the publisher providing selected organizations with galleys to get the word out about the book.
So why hand something like this to a media organization with a propensity for savaging all things neo-conservative? Why not. The left wing gets their junk in a twist about LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE and the right wing starts calling them a bunch of Commie-Pinko Scumbags who are Unpatriotic for Not Supporting the President in A Time of War.
All of this results in one thing, and one thing only: Mr. Feith gets $1,500 an hour (plus travel) on the lecture circuit, the book gets sold like hotcakes, and we get another piece of material to argue about instead of tackling the thorny issue of: what now?
By that I mean we’re in Iraq and Afghanistan, that decision has been made. All of this attention on process from the people that were the process makes no sense when the output of what they generated sucks only slightly less than my father’s Ford Pinto (that had Firestone tires and was totaled after he backed into an El Torino. Please note that the El Torino suffered superficial damage to the bumper and quarterpanel.)
Sticking with that automotive analogy, let me make that more clear. You go out tomorrow morning and find that your car will not start. Do you then spend two or three weeks arguing about why if you’d been in charge of the car this would not have happened? Do you spend two or three weeks arguing about how you, in an amazing display of fantastic mental powers and prognostication, predicted that you knew the car would not start but no one would listen?
No. You fix the dang car.
Honestly guys. What’s really more important here? Proving you’re right or fixing Iraq and Afghanistan? Because where I’m standing none of you (policy makers, past, present and future,) care about that, you just care about how cool you sound on television.
That inattention will surely result in another major terrorist strike against the United States.
Afterword: I therefore move that the cabinet of the current administration be replaced in it’s entirety by the readership of this blog. Can someone second this motion, please?
I’ll second that motion, so long as there’s room for the authorship of this blog in one of the back row seats.
So, I take it that I won’t be able to borrow Feith’s book from you once you’re done with it?
Lex,
Frankly, I’d have you behind the podium running the railroad. The way I figure it, anyone that’s survived both carrier aviation and staff assignments probably has their collective stuff in a single, inspection ready sock.
As far as borrowing the book goes: I think I’ll be reading that one in a chair at Borders. I do so love print media for the ability to get a “free preview” of the entire work.