WASHINGTON: Republican presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo says the best way he can think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. is to threaten to retaliate by bombing Islamic holy sites.
The Colorado congressman on Tuesday told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in the state of Iowa that he believes such a terrorist attack could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.
“If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina,” Tancredo said at the Family Table restaurant. “Because that’s the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do.”
Yes, this is not a major candidate, but that anyone running for office is saying these things is incredible. To be fair and spread some bipartisan scorn, in a way it’s more shocking that Barack Obama wants to invade Pakistan:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.
In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country’s military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
“When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won,” he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, “The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
So if I get this right, Obama thinks Iraq is a piece of cake and American troops should withdraw, but believes Pakistan would be a piece of cake? While I certainly think Pakistan is much more of a problem than Iraq ever was, by now one would expect someone as electable as Obama to be more cautious about making this kind of statement.
Issandr, I agree with you, but do you think Tancredo is anywhere near correct? I’m not talking about right and wrong, I’m asking: do you reckon that sort of threat could actually cause a would-be terrorist org to reconsider its plans?
Dan: I admit when I read Tancredo’s statement I thought “yeah, I mean, that supposedly hits them where it counts to them”. (Assuming terrorists actually are religious, which not all are or even claim to be.)
But, such a threat says if one group does this, we’ll destroy centuries-old markers of cultural, religion, and tradition that have meaning to millions (billions). Or, it could be implying that we think the whole religion is bad and really sharpen some swords.
Or, we don’t actually carry the threat through, and then there was no point. Gotta start lower on the Hierarchy of Needs, I’m thinking.
Be careful not to make too much light, though, of what is an honest-to-goodness problem in Waziristan. In this column, David Ignatius gives some space to one way of thinking about how to deal with it:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001271.html
Obviously, though, any action taken in Waziristan is problematic. To say the least. I asked some questions about this a few days ago:
http://abumuqawama.blogspot.com/2007/08/waziristan.html
Dan: I don’t think that targeting nuclear missiles at Mecca will be an effective deterrent against Jihadist terrorist attacks. First, it will further convince Jihadists that the US does present a clear and present danger to Islam. Secondly, it poses the problem of, if that is US policy, what happens if a party stages a false Jihadist attacks and the US mistakenly carry out its threat? Finally I don’t think Jihadists will take the threat seriously, and indeed may welcome it. Because the biggest objection is that it is a threat that all Muslims will find offensive, in fact so much so that it will prove the Jihadists’ argument about the US being the big Satan. It would also probably incite them to test out the threat by planning another major attack against an American symbol, like the attacks of 9/11 (although arguably they are probably already doing this.) In other words, I think the key to solving the problem caused by Jihadist terrorism is not grand initiatives or threats, but better police and intelligence work and a reconsidering of US foreign policy in the region, a real grievance for many Middle Easterners that movements like al-Qaeda have banked on.
Abu Muqawama: Like I said I think Pakistan is a serious issue, perhaps the most serious issue in solving the problems in Afghanistan and dismantling a key part of al-Qaeda’s and the Taliban support. The problem with the way Obama phrased it is that, apparently to look all tough and macho, he seemed to imply he would go in against Pakistan’s wishes. Surely the best policy would be to make the Paks go in themselves or with support from US special forces. (And yes, if they went in themselves they would be major bloodshed, but this region needs to be brought under control and these renegade tribes should be broken, IMHO. A modern state cannot allow such a zone of lawlessness within its borders, even if I understand there are some mightily troubling domestic consequences.)
“Surely the best policy would be to make the Paks go in themselves or with support from US special forces.”
Exactly. The key questions, then, are:
1. Will the PAK Army or ISS cooperate?
2. How big should the US SOF footprint be in Pakistan?
3. If something goes wrong, how does one execute a proper casualty evacuation of the US SOF forces? And what if the “quiet” deployment of US forces in the region becomes suddenly not-so-quiet? What effect will that have in Islamabad?
I know Obama has said some silly things, and I know you disagree with some of his policies, but can you please just cut us Americans some slack. Whatever stupid things our 2008 candidates say, just remember they are following 8 years of George fucking Bush and things are inevitably going to get better. And no, we aren’t going to give Ralph Nader a chance– I’ve met him in multiple times in person and he is a class A pap smear.
Well, I actually get to vote in this election, and I am not so optimistic to say that things will inevitable get better (as does Abu Muqawama above, and perhaps the others). And I would not vote for Nader.
Abu Muqawama, those are good questions and I don’t know the answers to them. However, Pakistan should have been a core concern on 12 September 2001 (or actually before – it might have prevented 9.11), not just now. Which doesn’t detract from your argument or the need to do something about this situation, if possible.
The thing is, when things get better, the improvements are brushed aside and attention is focused on ongoing problems. But there’s value in recognizing successes. It’s too damn easy to give in to fatalism. Israelis should be throwing parties because they aren’t under siege anymore from suicide bombers and rockets. But noooooooo, we Israelis have merely shifted our attention to Iran because god forbid we wake up one day faced with the altogether boring and tedious prospect of building peace.
Damn it, now I’m all riled up. Time for shower.
That was really well put, Issandr. I will now appropriate your statements should this topic come up in conversation. :oP (With due credit, of course.)
As for ’08 — I also think things will get better. Mainly because it is hard to conceive of another administration as inept as Bush’s. I’m sure statisticians would bear this out–it would be like winning the anti-lottery a third time in a row.
You’ve really hit upon the same problem the rest of us have. We all know that something needs to be done about the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan. They are, without a doubt, THE haven for Al-Qaeda. If there is any physical piece of earth where our efforts should be concentrated, it’s Waziristan.
Where the real difficulties begin is when we start trying to suggest concrete policy options. Again, the first priority is to attempt some REAL working relationship with higher-ups in the ISS. Failing that, we have to consider some sort of covert SOF deployment. But that opens a whole new can of worms, including the nuts and bolts of how an operation would look and how it would go about its business.
Two general rules:
1. Think about the second- and third-order effects of a military operation before you begin.
2. Have contingency plans in place before the first U.S. operator steps foot on the other side of the AFG-PAK border.
*sigh*
Why, Obama, why???????!
(Just please don’t backpedal on the “no nukes” thing, please, Obama. In fact, tell the world that you are presidential material BECAUSE you’re reiterating it. But please don’t say anything more like Pakistan and see if you can back outta that one.)
Abu M.:Well the Pakistan issue is precisely the type of FP decision that a) should be left to military planners, not think tank strategists, and b) be handled discreetly taking advantage of executive privilege. It’s not the Iraq war, or at least should not be. I read recently that Pakistan lost 800 soldiers in the aborted attempts to control the situation there, perhaps it was badly done, or only half-heartedly. First I read of it, although I don’t follow this issue closely at all.
See: http://www.economist.com/daily/news/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9607025&top_story=1
I havent checked the online article. But if i recall correctly the paki-afghan border and the tribal areas were discussed here:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070101faessay86105/barnett-r-rubin/saving-afghanistan.html
“(And yes, if they went in themselves they would be major bloodshed, but this region needs to be brought under control and these renegade tribes should be broken, IMHO. A modern state cannot allow such a zone of lawlessness within its borders, even if I understand there are some mightily troubling domestic consequences.)”
in other words
let us bomb them all the way to modernity and civilization, and let us hope that a phoenix, that looks like a modern state, will rise form the ashes of a civil war.
I would have thought that after the miserable failures in Afghanistan and Iraq the Americans (and the rest of the world) have had enough of war. Apparently they haven’t, and two people running for president are, not only considering more bloodshed, but are using that to appeal to voters… Honestly, I am perplexed.
Tearing Pakistan apart with war (like Iraq) does not solve the terrorism problem, nor does threatening to nuke Islamic holy sites – which would probably turn all the “peace-loving moderate” Muslims against the US. (Btw the way Tancredo puts it shows that he assumes there are absolutely NO terrorists in the world except Muslims) … The key, in my humble opinion, is US biased foreign policy, and its unrelenting support for Israel as it terrorizes Palestinians…
Amjad, I like the way you put it “let us bomb them all the way to modernity and civilization, and let us hope that a phoenix, that looks like a modern state, will rise form the ashes of a civil war.” – How true!