HELEN THOMAS: “WHAT IS THE CORE REASONS THEY WANT TO BLOW US UP?”

By


Joseph Chez

Ever since the attempted terrorist attack on Flight 253, the media and our government has been consumed with what is perceived as a systemic security failure. Consequently, reactionary measures are being put in place in hopes of keeping the country safe. But will we be safer with beefing up security without considering the cause and affect of what fuels terrorism?

On January 5, 2010 at a White House news briefing, the dean of the White House Press Corps and columnist for the Hearst Newspapers, Helen Thomas, asked Press Secy. Robert Gibbs the most profound, yet simple question to date concerning the attempted terrorist attack- and so she asked: “what is the core reasons they want to blow us up?” Not surprised, Press Secy. Gibbs responded consistent with our national denial and did not adequately answer Helen’s question. Here’s what he did say:

MR. GIBBS: I don't know that I'm the best person to speak for some of their actions.

MR. GIBBS: Well, look, again, I think that for whatever awful and murderous reason that people seek to get on planes and do innocent people throughout the world harm, I can't speak to the type of deranged mentality that leads somebody to do that.

Immediately after the White House news briefing that day, I contacted Helen and thanked her for having the determination to ask questions which are not being asked by the rest of the media, and questions which are not being addressed by this administration. Helen responded that it was important to get the administration on record that if they do know or acknowledge the cause of the new hatred against us, that it was important that we know what the authorities do know.

On January 7, 2010, during a White House Briefing by Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano, Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security Brennan, and Press Secretary Gibbs, Helen once again asked:



HELEN: … what is really lacking always for us is you don't give the motivation of why they want to do us harm.

MR. BRENNAN: Al Qaeda is an organization that is dedicated to murder and wanton slaughter of innocents. What they have done over the past decade and a half, two decades, is to attract individuals like Mr. Abdulmutallab and use them for these types of attacks. He was motivated by a sense of religious sort of drive. Unfortunately, al Qaeda has perverted Islam, and has corrupted the concept of Islam, so that he's able to attract these individuals. But al Qaeda has the agenda of destruction and death.

HELEN: And you're saying it's because of religion?

MR. BRENNAN: I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that uses the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way.

HELEN: Why?

MR. BRENNAN: I think this is a -- this is a long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland.

HELEN: But you haven’t explained why.



Of course, as in litigation, a lawyer should not ask a question for which he/she does not know the answer. In like circumstances, a news reporter should ask questions for which there is still no answer. Thus, Helen, the renowned journalist that she is, continues to ask “why” we are being targeted by terrorist.

As a young man, while in college, I worked for the USFS as a member of a hot-shot fire crew, and the most basic of fire science taught me that in fighting fire, one must get to the source of the fire - first and foremost. Simply throwing water at the flames is meaningless and does nothing to abate the fire. Therefore, in extinguishing a fire, one must first take out the source of the fire and second, whatever fuels the fire. Likewise, tackling the issue of terrorism, our national leaders must not only know the source of terrorism but must also tackle what fuels terrorism. Simply reacting with surprise, finger pointing and instituting tougher security measures does not address the issue of why such individuals are so willing to give up their lives in order to get to us. Can we really stop them? Not really. For example, while our government is focusing on tightening airport security, thousands of Iranians, Somalis, Iraqis, et al, are skipping the airports and are simply walking up to our border crossings and asking for asylum. After a short detention, they are simply let out – on their own recognizance- and are given a date for an immigration hearing (if they ever show up of course). Does anybody see a failure to connect dots………?

And so I agree with Helen Thomas, that it is imperative that the core reasons for “why” they want to harm us be considered and answered by our government leaders. For if we deliberately disavow our uneven-handedness in the Israeli/Palestinian issue or our hostile involvement in the various, overt and clandestine wars in the Middle East, then, we are fooling ourselves and adding fuel to the fire which may consume us. Conversely, if we truly wish to be safe from terror, we must therefore resolve the issues which fuel the hatred towards our country.

STATUS QUO ANTE PREVAILING IN US FOREIGN POLICY. DID SOMEONE FORGET TO PUSH THE RESET BUTTON?

By
Joseph Chez

The attempted terrorist attack on Xmas day is of course regrettable and troubling. However, we should be asking ourselves why such animus towards the United States of America continues? Did we not get another leader that promised change and the resetting of American foreign policy? Today, the hostilities in the Middle East continue and we are in constant panic at home because of attempted terror attacks on the country. I therefore argue, that having voted for change, there seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Perhaps, the reset button has yet to be pushed?

“We will not rest until we find all who were involved and are held accountable” is what President Obama said in a response to Al Qaeda’s claim for the Xmas day attempted terrorist attack on the U.S. bound passenger plane. Interestingly, the President’s warning to the terrorist was given with much bravado and unyielding determination. In fact, it was reminiscent of the same bravado given by former President George W. Bush as he addressed a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001- in which he unequivocally gave a stern warning to the 9-11 culprits and gave his “justice will be done” speech. So what’s wrong with this picture? Certainly, it is not what we say in repudiating the terrorist acts or warning the enemy for what it may do in the future, but simply, the bravado in our responses which is simply chest beating – which does nothing to resolve the core issues between our national security and the terrorist’s grievances. Thus, responding in a cowboy-swaggering behavior does little to inflict fear on the enemy and in the end, does not provide significant security for the country. Further, such assurance of finding “all involved” and holding them accountable is rather a tall order to fulfill, given that in the last nine years, the prime suspect and mastermind of the 9-11 attack, Osama bin Laden, has yet to be found. Further, the ones currently held in detention, the majority have been released (or about to be released) due to unfounded ties to terrorism. We therefore must ask, is the military option the answer to our national security, or, is it the cause of our problem?

Further, why carry on with the same unilateralism and preemptive militaristic mentality - which prevailed during the Bush Administration? Was it really necessary to start a clandestine war in Pakistan which now is in full bloom? Was it necessary to preemptively make strikes in Yemen this last week – which of course set a course of events in motion on Xmas Day – as claimed by Al Qaeda? Will Somalia be next? And how many generations will the war on terror continue into the future?

On November 4, 2008, the majority of the Americans people, who had concluded that the Bush policies on the war on terror were ill-fated and counter-productive, decisively and prudently chose a new national leader in hopes of changing the course of the country. President Obama was thus elected, as he had promised a new beginning in terms of foreign policy, inter alia. However, many now question why President Obama’s promises have fallen short and change has been mistranslated to mean, more of the same, as during the Bush Administration.

We should not forget that during the eight years of the Bush Administration, the model for the war on terror became of global reach and its doctrine was one which promulgated a practice of unilateralism and preemption - against any and all which we deemed a potential enemy. President Obama on the other hand, began with extending a hand to the world, especially the Muslim world, and promised better relations. And yet, the aggressive military campaign that prevailed during the Bush Administration continues - unabated. Moreover, President Obama appears to have taken the baton from Bush and expanded the global U.S. military reach and has created a whole new war theater, in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. This last week (Dec. 17) the U.S. launched cruise missile strikes against what was believed to be Al Qaeda training camps, in Yemen. But then again, just across the Gulf of Aden, is Somalia – another Al Qaeda stronghold. And last but not least, the young terrorist that attempted to blow up the Northwest Airline, Flight 252 on Dec. 25th, originated from Nigeria –another of many radicalized Muslim African regions. So where do we stop?

We therefore must conclude that our nation’s state of affairs under President Obama’s Administration is status quo ante, same as before. And as he stated today, that “We will continue to use every element of our national power to disrupt, to dismantle and defeat extremist who threaten us, whether they are from Afghanistan, or Pakistan, Yemen or Somalia, or anywhere where they are plotting attacks against the U.S. Homeland.” Thus, we must presume that the war on terror will continue, using Bush’s terminology - way into the event-horizon.

But hold on Mr. President, did you not mean to push the reset button, thus changing the course of events and pave the way for peace? Or, did you mean to reinvent yourself while in office and deceive those who placed so much hope in you to become president? With all due respect Mr. President, you are taking us further into a path of self destruction. Yes, we can stop. Yes, we should take a big breath and reflect. Let’s take this opportunity to stop all hostilities and you will find that the kinetics of war will stand down. Further military responses will only cause an untold number of attacks on the country and perhaps around the world. The alternative may be that we continue to live under further fear of terrorist attacks as well as live under the heavy hand of domestic security. What more are we to expect; more personal intrusion, cavity searches for everyone, at every public gathering, and are we to also embrace even more erosion in our civil liberties? No Mr. President, I did not vote for that.

Already, the political right in the country is publicly calling for no further political correctness, which is code for – just tell it like it is- and perhaps call for the internment of anyone who does not look Anglo-Saxon. There is historical precedence for this you know. Even more frightening, is the neo-cons who are calling for the expansion of the war on terror – to reach Yemen, Somalia, Iran, N. Korea and beyond. Thus, are we prepared for what may result from failure to reset? Mr. President, I distinctly remember not voting for the status quo. I voted for Change.

ON THE EVE OF RESSETTING THE AFGHANISTAN WAR POLICY, THE FUTURE IS FORESEEABLE

By
Joseph Chez
No one questions President Obama’s process in realigning the policy for the war in Afghanistan, just the consequences of his actions. We know that it has taken several months for his administration to carefully consider Gen. McCrhrystal’s analysis of the war and his recommendations. And despite criticism for dithering, as war enthusiast “Dick” Chaney has called it, President Obama has impressed many policy experts, such as Gen. Collin Powell, for taking all the time necessary in order to come up with a sensible and effective policy for turning the Afghanistan conflict to a successful withdrawal from that war. In the process, Pres. Obama sought the unique and specific advisement from Pentagon officials as well as from other foreign policy experts, including two cents worth from American allies abroad; Israel, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Russia and India, but leaving out the objectionable posture from Pakistan and other Middle Eastern countries.

Resetting the future:
Thus, on December 1, 2009 President Obama will address the nation and convey to the American public why it is necessary to remain in Afghanistan, his plans for a troop surge for the war, and a road map for extracting our nation from the liquefaction in the sands of Afghanistan. Accordingly, President Obama will point out that winning the war in Afghanistan is imperative for our national security. He will argue that increasing troop levels is a necessity in order to stabilize the country and to have adequate troop proportions to cover a wider area of the country. But more importantly, President Obama will give the nation specific details for his expectations for achieving the insurmountable goal of achieving victory and sensibly bringing the troops home.

Foreseeable future:
No one can predict the future but one can prognosticate what will result based on facts and acts of the past and present. In the case of the war in Afghanistan, President Bush promised the nation retribution for those who did harm to the nation on 9-11, but, he never worried about and end-game since it was a “given” that we would kick butt and have a mission accomplished. Yet, eight years into the war and a protracted insurgency continues with no signs of abatement. And, while the proper response to 9-11 should have been a deliberate but appropriate retribution of equal proportions, the U.S. government under the bush Administration veiled opportunism with patriotism and instead, invaded Iraq in a frenzied “shock and awe” while declaring in 3-15-02: “the Taliban is out of business.” Today the Taliban is stronger than ever and not only poses a danger to the current government; it also challenges the U.S. coalition.

Tomorrow, President Obama will reset the course of the war in Afghanistan in hopes of getting the upper hand and finding an honorable exit. Yet, there is an eerie parallel with the Viet Nam War; much like Lyndon Johnson, Barack Obama ran for the presidency on a platform of bringing an end to the war, but also, wining the presidency by contrasting the hawkish views of his political opponent. And just like his predecessor Lyndon B. Johnson, President Obama has rebuked the (Afghanistan’s) government policies of corruption and own efforts to protect their country. Although, Lyndon Johnson promised, and Barack Obama will echo, the U.S. would remain in their country to fend off the aggressors, until such time that a stable and self sustaining government is present.

Inexplicably, candidate Obama did however believe that the war in Afghanistan was a war of necessity. However, he realized that the handling of the Afghan war was not properly handled by the Bush Administration – a false assertion that has led him to believe the war is winnable if only confronted properly. Thus, after careful review of the present Afghan war circumstances, insistence from the Pentagon and input from corrupt interested parties in the US military industrial complex, as well as Afghan government officials, President Obama has decided to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. Up to 30 thousand more US troops will be deployed in Afghanistan: a country which is considered the second most corrupt nation in the world and a country which produces 87 per cent of the world’s opium; a country which is mainly Pashtun, the Taliban are mostly Pashtun and the neighboring country of Pakistan initiated and continues to influence the Taliban; a country which is larger than Iraq and with the greatest concentration of high mountains, making the war far more difficult; a country which is riddled with political, religious and ethnic strife; a region of the world which has seen foreign mighty armies but only to defeat them; and a war in which eight years of conflict has only widened the conflict and has not produced a more perfect society in the likes of its invader.

Inadvertently or deliberately, the U.S. will again embark in a wider mission under the cause for freedom and sense of security. President Obama will again reassert the mission against the enemy. In Afghanistan however, it was Al Qaeda who initiated plans for the 9-11 attack on U.S. soil, not the Taliban. The Taliban were and are only an Islamic fundamentalist movement with puritanical interpretation of Islam – and have no interest in religious expansion or incurring harm on the U.S. Al Qaeda on the other hand, has moved on to Pakistan and India – the next chapter. Thus, even though President Obama wishes to make corrections, it is befitting to note that believing that because the war started incredibly badly, as Charles De Gaulle would say, “therefore, it must be continued”, is a precarious move which may bring no end in sight. But, if the goal is to win a victory, we must remind our president that dead soldiers take no victory.

In sum, I can not wish for our president’s policy to fail, for I know too well that his intent if for the good of the country. However, President Obama must consider what is at stake; a widening of the war, an increase in soldier casualties, additional burden to the national debt (currently14 trillion), but more importantly, a war which is not in the hearts and mind of the American people (57 per cent oppose it) is not a war that can truly provide an honorable exit.

But just a reminder Mr. President; when Lyndon B. Johnson prior to his famous words of “I will not run for re-election”, he was being asked by Viet Nam officials and U.S. hawks to increase troop levels to insure a final victory, and so he replied: “they call upon us to supply American boys to do the job that Asian boys should do.” What is your response Mr. President?