An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right

Cheney’s Terrorists

Guest post by Gen. Donald Edwards (Ret.)

General Edwards served in the U.S. Army for 37 years, including two tours with eight campaigns in Vietnam. He served as a congressional staffer from 1997-99. He is a resident of Maine and Ashburn, Virginia.

This piece first appeared at Progressive Fix, a project of the Progressive Policy Institute.

**********

Just last week, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair declared with certainty that there will be another terrorist attack aimed at the United States within the next six months. With the Obama administration pursuing record numbers of drone attacks and taking out top al Qaeda leaders, it’s hard to understand how this could be the case. But the paradox becomes clearer if we take a quick trip back through time to examine the track record of one particular individual: Vice President Dick Cheney.

As a former military officer, it is immensely difficult to speak out against our former vice president. While he was in office, I believed that it was inappropriate to criticize Dick Cheney. But now that he is no longer in government, I am compelled to speak my mind about his disastrous national security policies.

In the days and years following September 11, 2001, Vice President Cheney stood out as the chief architect of a calamitous approach to U.S. foreign policy that resulted in a weakened United States and the recruitment of a new generation of terrorists dedicated to anti-American jihad. The Bush-Cheney contribution to terrorist recruitment is clear from the numbers: In 2000, there were 423 international terrorist attacks. The Iraq War heralded a sharp spike in terrorist attacks, which continued with a 607 percent average yearly increase. Eight years later, there were 11,770 international terrorist attacks, as the terrorists birthed by the Bush-Cheney policies grew up.

Unlike Dick Cheney, who glorifies conflict but has never put his own body on the line, I am a retired military officer. I know firsthand the long list of security threats that our country faces. And I know that Cheney’s reckless strategy, out of touch with today’s threats, made that list longer. The first rule of grand strategy – from Sun Tzu to General Petraeus – is to choose your own battlefield. On September 12, 2001, the United States was in a position to frame the security threats of the new century as the world united against violent, radical extremists. Osama bin Laden, on the other hand, was eager to frame his battle as the West versus Islam. The Bush administration walked onto al Qaeda’s battlefield and began fighting Osama bin Laden’s war.

As even former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld realized, winning the fight against al Qaeda requires killing more terrorists than we create. Instead, Cheney served as a prime recruiter for our enemies. Al Qaeda featured Guantanamo Bay in its recruiting videos, citing its evasion of the Geneva Conventions as “evidence” of American’s lack of moral standing and antipathy toward Islam.

Defeating al Qaeda turns on human intelligence, which requires careful infiltration, relationship-building, cultural research, and triangulation of information. But conservatives based their intelligence-gathering tactics on Hollywood movies: bust a knee cap hard enough, and the truth will pour out like blood. In reality, interrogators rarely know whether they have the right knee cap – and even if they do, actual intelligence agents know that busting it is likely to yield a string of lies, misinformation, and false leads. Instead of generating information and creating leads, Cheney’s strategy led to an Arab generation growing up on images of Abu Ghraib.

Finally, quashing al Qaeda requires focusing on the countries where the movement had built relationships and infrastructure. For over a decade, al Qaeda’s senior leadership had lived in and erected training camps along the Afghan-Pakistan border. Meanwhile, bin Laden’s roots lie in Yemen, and he repeatedly recruited the radically loyal tribes originating in that country for his riskiest missions. Yet the past administration ignored Yemen and starved Afghanistan for troops in order to launch a war in Iraq, where there were no terrorists. Terrorist attacks spiked following the invasion of Iraq, and have continued to grow since.

For a generation of young Arabs now in the prime terrorist age range of 18-25, September 11 was their first political memory. The Bush-Cheney strategy handed al Qaeda the colors they needed to paint a false picture of “America versus Islam.” It produced hundreds of terrorists who learned that they could be heroes by fighting the West – the West that tortured and indefinitely detained Arab brethren and killed women and children.

And to think we had an opportunity, in the wake of 9/11, to bring about a smarter, more hopeful strategy. America was unified and ready to sacrifice on September 12. If our leaders had called on the best and brightest to learn Arabic or join the CIA, we would now have a flood of fresh intelligence experts. If they had asked us to declare our independence from oil – demanding that auto companies innovate and asking environmentalists to accept a resurgence of nuclear power – we would have stopped funding the bullets that are now going into terrorist guns.

We have not heard the last from Cheney’s terrorists. We cannot waste another day. We must act immediately to build the covert networks we need to fight terrorists. We must prioritize shutting down Guantanamo – a gift that keeps on giving for al Qaeda – and not make it a political football. And we must understand that, as we did during the fight against the Soviet Union, claiming the higher ground in the debate is strategically important. Cheney sold America’s greatest weapon – our moral authority and our freedoms – on the cheap. Let’s win it back, before more of Cheney’s terrorists strike again.



9 Responses to “Cheney’s Terrorists”

  1. dduck12 says:

    The author gives too much credit to Cheney (a definite recruitment tool) and not enough to the momentum the terrorists had moving from the Cole and embassy bombings and culminating in their extremely successful 9/11 version of Pearl Harbor. He may be underestimating AQ.

  2. Silhouette says:

    I'd go one step further and say how odd it is that Cheney comes out in favor of something and if he doesn't get it, we have a “terrorist” strike just after his announcment that “proves” he had a point and we should give him what he wanted. So my conclusion is that either the terrorists are really stupid and can't figure out when to time their attacks to make Cheney look bad or they are timing their attacks to give Cheney the backing he wants to “fight” “them”?

    Very curious indeed. Bin Laden is pretty much Cheney's best friend in that regards, near as I can tell.

    And of course this is all about oil. We don't need nukes BTW. Plenty of geothermal to turn water into steam [which is all nuke plants do with uranium + deadly radiation and providing perfect terrorist targets therefore..]

  3. Father_Time says:

    Let me take it even another step further.

    We, the United States, do not know what the hell we are doing and in doing it, we are destroying ourselves.

    Guantanamo would be irrelevant had our grand strategy succeeded, and, is just another shovel of dirt on our grave as our grand strategy fails.

    Hindsight is 20/20 General, but maybe that is all that our over paid over pampered military strategists are capable of.

    Are you prepared to offer for public scrutiny the options the Pentagon offered our elected leadership after 9/11/2001….? If not, how can you hold our leadership responsible for choosing a certain path to take?

    I submit that if the Vice President was the architect of anything at all, it was with the information the Pentagon and the intelligence community provided. Again indicative that we, the United States, simply do not know what we are doing….on many levels.

  4. DdW says:

    Unlike Dick Cheney, who glorifies conflict but has never put his own body on the line, I am a retired military officer. I know firsthand the long list of security threats that our country faces. And I know that Cheney’s reckless strategy, out of touch with today’s threats, made that list longer

    I can just hear it: “This guy is just a disgruntled four star general, what does he know? And probably a Democrat, too”

  5. GreenDreams says:

    great article, with which I mostly agree.

    I also share Sil's perspective about nuclear power. The suggestion that it's a sustainable solution is simply untrue. The cost of nuclear is going up nearly as fast (exponentially) as the cost of wind and solar are *falling*. The US has little uranium and global supplies will run out at about the same time as oil. Add the social and environmental costs of extraction and disposal, plus the insurance cost, which we pay, and the decommissioning (which is never included in the cost), and you have a real loser.

  6. Father_Time says:

    I'd like to make an observation here, just for future reference, that Admiral Mullins wears no combat ribbons. Nor do many current Generals and Admirals.

    So I think we must take an individual close look at those whom talk about “putting their life on the line” when making political comments. However, military service is irrelevant for political office and therefore irrelevant for ordering the military into combat.

    President Obama did not serve in the military either.

  7. DdW says:

    General Donald Edwards may “only” have been a 2-star general…

  8. dduck12 says:

    I also share Sil's perspective about nuclear power”

    Finally, O and I can agree that Nuclear is good for us.

  9. Tripoli_Kid says:

    Maybe it was his intention to stir up the terrorist pot to keep the military-industrial-complex going.We all know who profits from that…

© 2003-2011 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Mode Equity