An Amazing Déjà Vu Moment. Again.
Although the mission had originally been viewed as preposterous, it gradually had come to seem feasible. It included a nighttime rendezvous of helicopters and planes at a desert landing strip south of Tehran, where the choppers would refuel before carrying raiding parties to hiding places just outside the city. There they would stage an assault on the U.S. embassy, spirit the American hostages to a nearby soccer stadium and then ferry them to a seized airstrip where transport planes would carry them to freedom.
The year was 1980. The president was Jimmy Carter.
The intelligence on the ground and surveillance photographs cinched it: Osama bin Laden had been found. The White House gave the green light and orders were executed to launch an attack. Then, at the last minute, an intelligence officer noticed something disturbing in the photographs: A swing set, which indicated that children were present. Fearful of the negative publicity that the deaths of children and other civilians would cause, especially if it turned out that the Al Qaeda leader was not present, the attack was aborted at the last minute.
The year was 1999. The president was Bill Clinton.
The intelligence on the ground and surveillance photographed cinched it: A top Al Qaeda leader and his coterie had been found. The White House gave the green light and orders were executed to launch an elaborate raid to capture the terrorists. Then, at the last minute, senior White House officials got cold feet, deciding that the operation was too risky and could jeopardize relations with a key ally.
The year was 2005 and the president was George Bush.
The first event is described by Mark Bowden in his seminal Guests of the Ayatollah, the second by Steve Coll in his equally excellent Ghost Wars, and the most recent, as Joe has noted below, is the big story of the moment. As well it should be, but not for obvious reasons.
What we have here is an extraordinary déjà vu moment that however transitory puts a human face on American leaders in the decades’ long war against militant Islam, the inherent conflicts between politicians and intelligence officials, and the draconian task of weighing what seems like doing the right thing against the specter of failure and being scapegoated.
When viewed as a whole, these three events put the enormity of that war in a fresh perspective. This has the signal result of making the partisan yammering over who is tougher on terrorism even more trivial, as well as putting the Bush administration lapdogs at Fox News and the conservative media and blogosphere in their smarmy place.
Donald Rumsfeld is revealed as not being soft on terrorists, of course, but being necessarily and appropriately concerned about the fallout – collateral human damage and political and diplomatic repercussions — should an operation that is eerily reminiscent of Carter’s Desert One fiasco for its daring and complexity fail.
(In the run-up to Desert One, Carter had been repeatedly criticized by special forces commanders for lacking the will to launch an operation to free the hostages, while Rumsfeld was criticized by special forces commanders in the wake of the 2005 standdown for being too cautious.)
Clinton is revealed as not being soft of terrorists, which he was not, but also being necessarily concerned about the same issues that confronted Rumsfeld.
Carter also is so revealed, but he boldly – and in hindsight foolishly – went ahead, effectively destroying his presidency.
End of lesson, class.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
21 Responses to “An Amazing Déjà Vu Moment. Again.”
I feel that Clinton was way more tactful about his strategy. The issue wasn’t scapegoated for cheap, political gain.
Hypocrisy. Granted the US doesn’t ‘want’ to invade a sovereign country, especially when the ramifications of the event were to be publicized (regardless if the mission was either a success or failure); however, this the results of this mission smacks of hypocrisy that only the Bushies are tough on terrorism.
Secondly, there are two of four conservative blogs currently discussing this issue are providing some cover-fire for the administration and its decision. One actually throws the military under the bus for using too many resources to meet the objectives of the mission. He even over exaggerates to make his point – according to him, the military bureaucrats were about to send a division of foot soldiers and use an air wing to support a few special operatives to get AQ folks. The military planners have to plan for all events – the mission was heading directly into Injun territory and what would have happened had the small force been beset by a much larger force of AQ militia folks? When the planners were getting all of the parts of the mission together, they probably thinking of the lack of leadership provided during Operation Anaconda that forbade the regular army folks to take their artillery pieces with them – just because the mission was getting ‘too big’. Look how well that mission turned out to ‘grab and nab’ AQ senior leadership.
The War on Terror has always been about AQ.
[...] The Moderate Voice: An Amazing Déjà Vu Moment. Again. [...]
Would “partisan yammering†include words like “chicken hawk�
Chickenhawk is not a partisan term per se. There are plenty from all sides of the political spectrum.
chickenhawk is one of those idiotic terms, that have replaced real debate with insults.
Only those who do not know how to truly debate, use the word “chickenhawk.”
My observation of this site is that terms like “Uncle Tom†and “chicken hawk†are becoming a fashionable way of bashing Conservatives for some posters. I don‘t agree with a lot of what conservatives have done and I certainly don’t approve of their Liberal bashing. My stand has always been intellectually consistent, if you want to make a point worth serious consideration it should be done without the inflammatory language and this goes for both sides. Also note this is coming from someone that was a ranter and regrets it, someone who came to the realization that partisanship was preventing serious discussion of issues during a time of war.
Chicken Hawk merely defines a person as someone who advocates conflict, but when the opportunity arose, refused to participate.
I guess it’s a bit derogitve, but it’s fact.
Everyone can decide how much weight to give it.
Oddly, it is rarely if ever applied to those who advocate conflict in “politically correct” interventions in Darfur or Bosnia or Kosovo. The particular selectivity with which the slur is used tends to indicate the partisanship underlying it.
Comments? Or do we want to parse chickenhawk until the cows come home?
Sort of like the way thes word ‘traitor’ or ‘defeatist’ are thrown around? Both sides do it.
What debate is there? The time for debate is long over – it is time to get the full support of the US population and Allies behind this, otherwise it is time to either change the policy or pack-up all together. To ask the US military, especially the soldiers and marines, to continually sacrifice not only their bodies and minds, but also the time spent away from home and family on a near continuous basis is getting way out of hand.
If this is a great adventure that will determine the fate of the world and the nation will soon be asked to extend the Kagan-Keane (and Petraeus) plan, then it is time for all of the advocates to line up and put forth the effort and time to join the military. This isn’t a debate any longer after four years of rotations. 3ID is on its third rotation in four years. 1CAV is on its second in three years. 82nd and 101st are probably on their third and fourth rotations in five years. So on and so forth.
I may come across as gruff, but that is not my intent. People do have their right to express opinions to support GWOT in its many, many forms – and they should if they feel that strongly in it. I think the burden should be shouldered by all and not the same people over and over again – otherwise, what is your sacrifice to this conflict?
I’ll agree that ‘chickenhawk’ should be eliminated from the language of debeate on the day we also eliminate
-wealth distribution
-death taxes
-pro-life
-mommy state
-and many more
doma, I agree that all those terms are partisan and skewed, but at least they are not pejorative labels pasted on persons like “chickenhawk” usually is.
Jason,
The line drawn about labeling PERSONS works better when applied to people one is actually debating.
When skewed and parisan ‘labeling’ is applied to policies or mere ideas, the terminology is used to denigrate the groups who favor the ideas or policies. Since groups are nothing more than an agggregate of persons, the distincion between types of labeling doesn’t work.
Uncle Tom, chickenhawk, or mommy state all serve the same purpose and are eqully regrettable/acceptable.
I appreciate your thinking about this topic. I’m eager to find something we can actually agee about.
Doma: I disagree partially. Chickenhawk and Uncle Tom are both used for persons, mommy state, however, is not used for persons but to describe a certain type of government. It’s rhetoric yes, but not on the same level of dishonesty and irrelevancy (and insult) as, say, chickenhawk and UT.
Shaun – it is a complicated business, that is for sure, and it puts things in perspective. on the other hand, that does not mean, automatically, that Bush made the right decision. You coud also argue that they leaned too much on Musharraf, who has – in the end – proven to be quite willign to deal with the Taliban, as long as they don’t challenge his rule (directly).
Shaun, Jimmy Carter’s presidency was destroyed by his own policies. Anyone remember 15+% interest rates? The failed raid in Iran simply underscores the many failures of his administration.
Shaun – if you want debate, rather than argument, use words that lend themselves to debate.
You are, or were, a professional journalist. You know the use of certain words have predictable reactions. I find it hard to believe you didn’t pick that word quite on purpose, and didn’t expect the effect it generated.
What happened to the defenders of free speech and the denouncers of political correctness?
All of a sudden, the language police have arrived to draw up a list of taboo words.
A term is offensive when YOU don’t like it.
I cite the broohaha over the use of the word ‘hypocrite’ lately. That’s a very harsh word if YOU think it’s been unjustly applied. Those who think the usage was apt, however, just love i Those who find a term inflammarory in a certain case can always point that out, as I do myself, only to find myself preaching to the deaf ears of those who disagree.
More importantly, To suggest a term is inappropriate in a specific instance is quite different from suggesting it not be used at all, ever. The latter approach does amount to policing language and thought, IMO.
Manipulating language has risen to an art form, in all manner of ways. This sudden sensitivity about certain words (a very selective list, I might add) smacks of – dare I say it- hypocrisy.
To repeat myself, denigrating ideas by laveling is much the same as denigrating the people who like the ideas, and the distinction ibetween labeling persons and ideas is often deliberately blurred, or even elided altogeher.
It’s a wonderful idea for everyone to be careful in how we describe each other, third parties, each other’s ideas and the ideas of third parties.
To draw up lists of taboo words, however, is hightly problematic. There would need to be agreement , first of all, and a panel of impartial experts overseeing the selection of terms to be included on the taboo list to make it all workable.
————————
MVDG-
“not on the same level of dishonesty and irrelevancy (and insult) as, say, chickenhawk and UT ”
Dishonesty, irrevelancy, etc.etc. are very much in the eye of the beholder —much like pornography.
If you and I were drawing up a list of terms to fit your descriptions, I bet we would coms up with two very different lists..
Doma, it’s really very simple
Chickenhawk = personal attack – directed towards person
Uncle Tom = personal attack – directed towards person
Mommy state = rhetoric but not directed towards person
And I agree with Austin – when someone chooses to use the word chickenhawk, my guess is that he or she does so deliberately, especially if that person has a lot of experience. If you do not want to debate a term, you should not use it.
MVDG said:
“Doma, it’s really very simple”
About this I totally agree.
I was naive to think there could be here a serious reflection on how words are used. or should be used.
This is SIMPLY about outrage that is as partisan as the use of any word can be.
BTW. Just repeating one argument over and over is not debate, It’s sloganeering.
=========
I’m back to rereading Shau’s post, with its progression of ideas.