Marc Thiessen: Obama Is Killing Too Many Terrorists
Feb 13th, 2010 | 37 responses
From the current issue of Foreign Policy:
President Barack Obama’s escalation of drone strikes is one area in the counterterrorism fight where he has earned plaudits from even his most vocal critics on the right. Hold the applause. Obama’s escalation of the “Predator War” comes at the very same time he has eliminated the CIA’s capability to capture senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogate them for information on new attacks. The Predator has become for President Obama what the cruise missile was to President Bill Clinton — an easy way to appear like he is taking tough action against terrorists, when he is really shying away from the hard decisions needed to protect the United States.
To be sure, unmanned drones are critical in the struggle against al Qaeda. They allow the United States to reach terrorists hiding in remote regions where it would be difficult for special operations forces to reach them, or to act on perishable intelligence when the only choice is to kill a terrorist or lose him. …
The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning — and that is putting the country at risk. As one high-ranking CIA official explained to me, in an interview for my book Courting Disaster, “In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people — especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders — is potentially counterproductive in that we can’t know or learn of future attacks. You can’t kill them all, and you don’t want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew.”
That is Marc Thiessen, making holes in the bottom of the barrel, since he scraped the bottom of the barrel ages ago. He apparently is so unwilling to give Barack Obama credit for anything at all — even for something, as he himself says, that conservatives normally would be thrilled about — that he attacks him for taking out too many suspected terrorists. I’m sorry. That “suspected” was a mistake. There’s no doubt at all that everyone the government says is a terrorist, is a terrorist. Although come to think of it, I’m a bit surprised that Thiessen gives the Obama administration credit for that by assuming the drone strikes have killed terrorists rather than civilians. That’s giving Obama a smidgen of credit he doesn’t deserve.
To be fair, though, knowing how Thiessen’s mind works, he probably isn’t motivated solely by a desire to deny that Pres. Obama could possibly do anything positive for national security. At least half of it, I’m sure, is his crushing disappointment at having fewer “bad guys” to torture if Obama keeps killing so many of them.
37 Responses to “Marc Thiessen: Obama Is Killing Too Many Terrorists”
The only flaw in Thiessen's logic is that Obama does not appear to be ready to extract full intelligence value from their leadership, even if he did capture them instead of kill them. A year after disbanding the CIA's interrogation team, Obama's new Sooper Dooper Kinder Gentler interrogation team had not even found office space yet, let alone become sufficiently operational to actually, you know, 'question' the terrorist that tried to blow up a plane on Christmas Day. If Obama wants to get credit for effectively fighting terror he needs to light a fire under those that are supposed to be fighting it.
At this point, fighting terrorism doesn't seem to be much of a priority to the President. In fact as near as I can tell he's still spending most of his time screwing around with a health care plan most Americans don't want to see passed. I think most people are willing to write the first year off to OJT. But at some point the “T” part has to start kicking in.
Sorry, nothing personal, but we disagree on Thiessen. I see him as a voice for the many Americans including many moderates, who are not satisfied with the way Obama has handled this critical Presidential responsibility. Instead of attacking him, Obama should listen to what he has to say and do something about it.
GIVE ME A FREAKING BREAK! You idiots would complain if President Obama turned the muddy waters of the Mississippi River into flowing 24 Karat gold…because it shines too much…or because the carp died, etc. etc. etc. It's getting old. I'm a life long Republican, voted for McCain, will probably vote for the Republican nominee in 2012, and even I'm tired of the nonstop complaining, griping, lying, and deceit from all you Obama haters. The man is doing a pretty good job even if he is a Democrat. You all would cut off your nose to spite your face when it comes to Obama. Can the man do nothing right in your eyes? In comparison to WHO?
I suspect there's some partisan attacking going on here. But there are valid points that can be raised, and which themselves constitute effective political attacks, even if the public largely will approve of this, I suspect. Rather than worry about the touchy-feely neglecting-interrogation stuff, I'll instead look to the drone strikes themselves. It may well be a resort to cheap and attractive measures that yield an appearance of Fighting Terrorism. But more interesting is the irony here in that it's a resort to high-tech, push-button, personnel-and-cost-reducing military policy — a la Rumsfeld.
I'm glad to know, Marc Thiessen has a fictional book(courting disaster) coming soon. Who would give him Classify Information of the future. Fust keeping wake of issues…
1. “Sorry, nothing personal”: Why would it even occur to me to think it's “personal”? Why would I care? Praising someone who lives to promote torture is repulsive to me whether it's meant “personally” or “impersonally.” I can't change your views, or anyone else's, but I can continue to present mine in this forum I'm lucky enough to have been given, and I will.
2. Obama isn't attacking him, actually.
3. Your conclusions about Obama's concern for terrorism and his administration's effectiveness in gaining information to fight it is completely out of wack with documented evidence, but carry on anyway. I know you will despite anything I or anyone else could say. And it's your right, as it is mine to expose and point out what I believe to be lies and misinformation.
4. You may feel that Thiessen speaks for moderates, and he may speak for you as a moderate (since I assume that's what you consider yourself to be), but Thiessen himself is not a moderate. Not under any definition of moderate could Thiessen possibly be considered a moderate. He's an extremist, a zealot, and to my mind not materially different in ideology from historical figures associated with the Terror after the French Revolution, such as Robespierre, et al. If not evil himself, he certainly is a spokesperson for evil and an enabler of evil, and I regard him with the same revulsion and horror with which I regard those who support and enable torture and disregard for human rights anywhere else in the world.
And I will continue to write things like this, because I can't do anything to stop it besides this; all I have is my words, and I will use them.
Fair enough, nor would I in a thousand years dream of trying to stop you from expressing your opinion which I believe you hold as deeply and sincerely as I hold mine.
She don't.
Well I would have never put you as a fan of predator strikes Kathy, guess I learned something new today.
Over the past few days there have been reports of a military mission in Afghanistan. Sorry I forget the name of the province and specific location. Among the reports have been accounts of the dual tactics in that battle. Tactic 1 is to attack, and kill, Taliban and radicals in the area. Tactic 2 is to ring the battle with other troops to capture for interrogation those Taliban and radicals who attempt to flee.
The idea that we have resorted to “kill only” and have abandoned intelligence gathering is inconsistent with our actions on the ground vis-a-vis those most closely tied to the terrorist leadership in the mountain countryside of Pakistan.
Many speak, my view, based on pre-conception or partisan conjecture when it comes to the information gathering of our intelligence agencies. Few if any on this thread, I speculate, have any actual knowledge of intelligence gathering today as opposed to two years ago except that it has been announced that we will no longer torture or engage in rendition. Obama has kept in place much of the Bush era mechanics of the “war on terror”…compliment or criticize him for that as you wish. Little has been dismantled or dramatically changed.
For 50 years we fought the Cold War through Republican and Democratic administration alike. And we did so without questioning the patriotism or committment to protect the nation of any president from either party. There is no doubt in my mind that both D's and R's are committed to security and that neither wishes to open the door to attack, though honestly we could hardly prevent one if the will was there to perpetrate one. I think it speaks poorly of us as a nation that we now turn these issues into domestic partisan gamesmanship.
“and you don’t want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint.”
True. If you kill all the terrorists you don't learn anything about what they were up to… and you don't need to. I can see both sides of the issue of course, although I'm leaning towards agreeing with Kathy (a bird in the hand is worth more than two birds in the bush), but the line above seems downright silly.
Well I would have never put you as a fan of predator strikes Kathy, guess I learned something new today.
Only the Bush administration predator strikes killed civilians, you know.
I support the Presidents use of Predator drone attacks. Those who have been killed are those who we couldn't capture or it was to risky to try and capture. To terrorist leaders who hide out in tribal areas hoping that Pakistan's sovereignty will protect them, it sends the message that they are not safe wherever they go.
There are terrorist (operatives) and terrorist supporters (friends and allies of the terrorists). IMO the terrorist supporter is also the enemy because they provide the terrorists much needed logistical help to carry out their missions. I wonder if many of these so called civilian deaths ( excluding children )caused by Predator attacks are actually terrorist supporters and not innocent civilians. Most terrorist hide out in “safe houses” in “safe areas” where they know the people are committed to helping the terrorist cause although they may not involve themselves in actual terrorist operations.
I see the Predator attacks as O'bama's big stick against terrorism. Just one tool in the bag to fight against those who with no qualm would kill any civilian regardless of nationality, gender, maturity or religion. If fact they justify their actions and even boast of their atrocities.
I'm not a big fan of drone strikes – for a number of reasons, but I do think they have their place. That said, the little diatribe from Thiessen is just another political hay-making attempt – from someone who is about as close to being a “moderate” as our friend DaMav is.
The drones are an eye for an eye type stuff, and I am also surprised that KK would kinda support it.
My hope, and we probably won't be given candid figures any time in the near future, that there are fewer collateral casualties than shelling or conventional bombing. Innocent people are being killed, no doubt, so this is not some nice clean tactic; it is dirty.
I'm not a fan of predator strikes, Leonidas. If that's what you glean from what I wrote, I think you need to go back and read it again.
You have never told me that my support for allowing gay and lesbian men and women to serve openly in the U.S. military means that I'm a fan of war. It's puzzling to me why you would take what I wrote about Marc Thiessen condemning Barack Obama for something the right normally supports without question as an endorsement of that thing.
Thank you for this, DaMav. I appreciate it deeply.
I don't support it, dduck, “kinda,” or otherwise.
Ah yes, a 'lifelong Republican' who ignores the 90:1 ratio of liberal original posts here attacking Republicans to scream bloody murder that someone criticizes the Obama administration.
Hey, if you think he's 'doing a pretty good job' on terrorism, more power to you. Most people here will agree with you. Renaming a terror attack a “man made disaster” — brilliant! Wanting to bring terrorists into the United States — Awesome! Dismantling the interrogation unit for a year without replacing it — Hey hey hey! Who but an 'Obama Hater' would think the system isn't working, right?
I think it depends on your view. If you are looking for results he seems to be doing well in America's fight against AQ. If you are concentrated on the how though you may not be as pleased. For instance the far left does not care what results you obtain if you do not do it their way and the same goes for the extreme right. Those in the middle tend to, but not always, care more about results than the path taken to get there. If you concentrate on the path then it is hard for any leader to be right since they tend to use many conflicting tools from the tool box. In fact my guess is that many on the far right think Bush did not go near far enough while the left feels he jumped a football field over the line and from their ideologies they would both be right but sadly not in reality. Personally I am more concerned with results. When my nation is no longer going down in flames I will get back to fighting for my preferences and nit picking every choice depending on how it conflicts with my personal morals and views but I had to lay that type of judgement aside in around 03. Don't get me wrong though, I do not think nor have I at any point that this ship is not sinking I just don't see much point in debating which band should play when the result of people being calmed by music is the point and all bands will do that and the left and rights way of killing terrorists is still killing terrorists. My brother fixed my car once with a golfball and a dixie cup, still can't remember what he was fixing since I know little about auto mechanics but it ran that way until I sold it. I could have gotten it fixed by a professional and so could the person that bought it(one of our mutual friends that was there when it was fixed) but all I and our friend really cared about was that it ran…for years.
I have vocally supported this President when I think he is right (finally sending more troops to Afghan, following Bush policy in Iraq), and criticized him when I think he is wrong. Same as with Bush. I don't think either has a great record on fighting terrorism, although it's hard to argue that the many years without a major terror attack post-911 doesn't indicate we are doing some things well.
I find it disturbing that we seem to be backtracking on some of the policies that have empirically reduced major attacks on the homeland without offering a credible substitute. If Americans don't stand up and voice such concerns you can bet our political class will opt for the easy way out and call out popular tunes for the band instead of watching for icebergs. I don't believe that the nation is going 'down in flames'; if I didn't believe errors could be corrected I wouldn't point them out. And I'd be less of a pita at tmv
I applaud the killing of terrorists, as does Thiessen. His concern, and it is a legitimate one, is that we also need to look at gaining actionable intelligence information from them as well. It's not clear that this Administration is sufficiently sensitive to that approach, and I see nothing wrong with him pointing it out.
I view it from the 007 outlook of the world. In all of the 007 movies the villains capture him and try to get information and in the end this sows the seeds of their destruction when he escapes or is released. Though reality is not a James Bond movie a dead terrorist will never attack you but a live one no matter the security involved may live to attack again. In short I prefer my terrorists dead and my torture in totalitarian regimes. I would also note that some of the intelligence we gathered in the last admin either fuelled or was used to fuel the Iraq invasion on…what turned out to be false information. When your enemies talk it is in no way in their interest to be honest and torturers and harsh interrogators(pick your phrasing) know this and apply their trade regardless and the enemy always knows this giving them even less incentive to speak truthfully.
don't support it, dduck, “kinda,” or otherwise.”
As Clinton would have said, sorry for the misunderstanding.
As my daughter would say (or at least, used to, in high school), “No problemo.”
I find it disturbing that we seem to be backtracking on some of the policies that have empirically reduced major attacks on the homeland without offering a credible substitute.
That is precisely the problem, though, DaMav. Empirically, there is absolutely not a shred of evidence that torturing suspected terrorists (although to the people who support the torture, they are terrorists, and that's significant, because you can mentally justify doing things to a terrorist that you couldn't if you thought there was a chance they were not terrorists) has prevented or reduced any attacks, major or minor, on the United States. (I regard the U.S. as my country, not “the homeland,” since the latter has unfortunate fascist-like implications that I would rather not be associated with).
What torturing prisoners HAS done is provide a great recruiting tool for real, actual terrorists and their organizations. There is tangible evidence, both direct and indirect, to support that.
By contrast, traditional interrogation methods are the only ones that have produced any actionable intelligence. The example of the interrogation of Abdulmutallab by the FBI is only the latest example. They've gotten tons of really important information from him. Why would anyone want to put him in military custody now and start torturing him when far more reliable methods of interrogation have already worked and are still working?
By contrast, traditional interrogation methods are the only ones that have produced any actionable intelligence”
Feel free to put that in your next book.. But, as Biden might say “she is entitled to her opinion but not her own set of facts. Many rational people think any interrogation will yield actionable intelligence. The crotch bomber was singing like a canary and would have continued until they asked him if he preferred McDonalds or Burger King. Oh, and his family probably helped this schnook realize that he is just a pawn for AQ.
More hardened people do not squeal and need other forms of interrogation, including plain old talking and enough pressure (no waterboarding, I agree) so that they can feel they have resisted enough to allow them to spill the beans.
I am sure Thiessen is infinitely more knowledgeable about warfare and intelligence gathering and analysis than I am, but he sure confuses me with this statement.
Killing senior AQ leaders “counterproductive”? I guess most military strategies and tactics of the past, that aimed to eliminate the military leaders, have been counterproductive (How many assassination attempts did the allies have against Hitler, his top generals, and other leaders)?
The second part: I just can't figure out why, if you kill all the AQ leaders, you'd need to know “what they knew,” except for historical purposes.
But then again, I am no an expert, and I am sure Mr. Thiessen was trying very hard to provide some constructive criticism to the Obama administration and to his generals conducting the war.
Well Kathy, you lament Marc Thiessen not being willing to give Obama credit for anything, and here it is referring to predator strikes, I think this certainly implies that you think Obama deserves credit for hem and what they have achieved. . I mean either he should get credit or not right? I also didn't see you condemn the administrations use of predator strikes, so this certainly left an impression of support.
Anyhow, as long as your willing to condemn the use of predator strikes by the Obama administration and by the Bush administration you wont be guilty of the type of thing you accuse Marc Thiessen of.
A bit of reference:
Obama: troops just airraiding villages and killing civilians
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrW4fOGIMVY&feat…
Seems like Obama is agreeing with Marc Thiessen, at least he was in 2007.
I think this certainly implies that you think Obama deserves credit for hem and what they have achieved. . I mean either he should get credit or not right?
If one is a black-and-white thinker, living in an inner world where there are only two answers — yes and no, good and bad, etc. — to everything that happens, then yes, criticizing Marc Thiessen for writing that Obama is killing too many “terrorists” in drone strikes would have to mean that I believe Obama is NOT killing too many “terrorists” in drone strikes. However, I do not live in that inner world. I live in what, I humbly submit, is the real world. And in the real world, criticizing Marc Thiessen for criticizing Obama's drone strikes can have a third meaning (actually more than that, but three does come after two); namely, that I don't support drone strikes, for reasons that have nothing to do with thinking that Obama is killing too many “terrorists,” but at the same time I reject and laugh at Marc Thiessen's statement that Obama's drone strikes are killing too many “terrorists,” because it's so obvious that he is deliberately going against a sacred article of Republican faith (that the only good “terrorist” is a bad “terrorist,” and that if you are killed by a drone strike, you must be a “terrorist”) simply because he does not want to give Obama credit for anything.
That last part of the final sentence does not mean I think Obama deserves credit for killing “terrorists” with drone strikes. It means that normally Republicans do think that credit automatically and instantly adheres to any president who kills “terrorists,” and here Marc Thiessen is going against his own ideological article of faith because he can't bear to agree with Obama about anything.
You should be able to understand my meaning, even if you cannot fathom thinking in such an unclear, imprecise, gray-ish way.
Obama is continuing the Bush policy of using drone strikes, and drone strikes kill civilians. That is a major reason why I oppose them. And I don't want to argue about that reason; I'm just stating that's the reason, or a big part of the reason.
I don't think anyone here, liberal or conservative, would deny that Obama is continuing many of Bush's worst policies, and this is one of them. That is to his discredit. I can't say it's to Marc Thiessen's discredit, because that would imply that overall he is a creditable person. Overall, Obama IS a creditable person; overall, Marc Thiessen is not. In fact, I have yet to see him take any position that IS creditable.
As long as you consistent I have no problem, you just might want to be more clear in the future as an inadvertant implication was that you thought Obama deserved credit for the drone strikes. I have no problem with your explanation, but I think you should have made that more clear in the original post as it came off as you possibly being an apologist for the Obama policy, which I now see that you clearly oppose, as does Marc Thiessen, but for different reasons.
So can we be graced by a Kattenburg post on the error of Obama's predator strikes or are you more concerned with a pundit not giving Obama credit for something according to your perception of right -wing ideals, than with the man who is President launching predator drone strikes against targets? Which is more important to you that it needs to be emphasized with postings?
I agree that Obama is continuing many of Bush's worst policies, however, the predator strikes aren't one I'd list. I'd go with warrantless wiretapping, Bagram, indefinate detentions, and concealing of imformation from public disclosure requests as far as the war on terror. There are other Bush policies and tactics Obama is continuing on other fronts, but I wont go into those here. Suffice it to say my nickname for Obama is Obamabush and for good reason.
As for Obama being a credible person, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. Like I said to me he is Obamabush, about as credible as Dubya, with just as much snakeoil.
Leonidas, I'm going to assume that the bluster in your first paragraph is about saving face, and doesn't merit further argument.
As to your second paragraph, I have no plans to write a post “about the error of Obama's drone strikes,” or about the identical error of Bush's drone strikes and non-drone strikes, for the reason that I already have given you in my previous comment: I am not interested in debating the policy in the context of this discussion, because it is irrelevant to the context of this discussion. My position on drone strikes, in this administration or the previous one, and Marc Thiessen's criticism of Barack Obama for something the right has always supported are unrelated. They have nothing to do with each other. If I told you every single reason why I oppose predator drone strikes, it would change nothing about Marc Thiessen's craven, transparent hypocrisy in saying we shouldn't be killing so many terrorists when he never objected to killing terrorists until Obama was president.
I hope that works for you.
Here's one—a BIG one—the Obama administration has caught alive and is being interrogated:
New York Times (about one hour ago)
Yes we know.
What you are interested in is trying to score a gocha point against a Conservative. You are not interested in applying your perspective of the issue in a critical way to the Obama administration. This is exactly the type of thing you attack Marc Thiessen on. Your pot his kettle, and very obvious.
What you are interested in is trying to score a gocha point against a Conservative.
If you wish to look at it that way — you could use this argument to attack any criticism of any politician, media pundit, or public figure. Thiessen said what he said, and wrote what he wrote, and my analysis of it in the context I supplied is legitimate and reasonable. If you don't want right-wing public figures to be called out for hypocrisy and self-serving partisanship, you should be criticizing them for being hypocrites and self-serving partisans.
You are not interested in applying your perspective of the issue in a critical way to the Obama administration.
First of all, you know very well that I write critically of the Obama administration when I feel it's warranted and relevant. Second, your statement above is a red herring in this discussion, given that I already have made crystal clear — several times — that I oppose predator drone strikes in Afghanistan. I opposed them when Bush did them, and I oppose them now that Obama is continuing them. So there is no validity or relevance to this claim you make. You make it solely for the purpose of diverting attention from my legitimate criticisms of Marc Thiessen's blind partisanship. And that, of course, is the very thing you accuse me of doing. Better revisit that pot and kettle metaphor.
The point stands.
ou have written an occasional article critical of Obama from the left side true, I freely admit it, but its about a 20 to 1 versus gotcha pieces on Conservatives. I don't mind this, its who you are and what you feel, but when you go after a Conservative on an issue where you also so obviously oppose the administration policy and focus on the pundit and not the policy maker it really exposes you.