You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
Perceived US Cowardice Fuels Terrorism, Former CIA Head Declares
2005-02-09
The increased frequency with which Middle Eastern terrorists target Americans and U.S. installations is due in part to the terrorists' continued perception that America acts cowardly when under attack, according to former Central Intelligence Agency director R. James Woolsey. Woolsey, who addressed students and reporters at George Washington University Tuesday, said America's reaction to the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran and the deaths of 241 U.S. marines in 1983 are examples of why that perception endures.
With President Jimmy Carter trying to negotiate the hostages' release in 1979 and 1980, the reaction of the average American was to "tie yellow ribbons around trees," Woolsey said. A few years later, when Hezbollah terrorists blew up the U.S. marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, Americans "ran," he added.
Not one of Ronnie's better moves.
Throughout the 1980s, as Americans like Leon Klinghoffer on the cruise ship Achille Lauro were killed and others were kidnapped in Lebanon, "what did the Americans do? They sent the lawyers," Woolsey said.
The George H. W. Bush administration in 1991, after ending combat in the first Persian Gulf War, encouraged [Iraqi] Kurds and Shia to rebel, then stopped and "watched the Kurds and Shia be massacred" by forces loyal to Saddam Hussein, who had been left in power, Woolsey said.
Yeah, we screwed them over then. Another reason to stay the course now, to make up for that mistake
American cowardice was also perceived when the United States pulled out of Somalia in 1993 after American soldiers on a humanitarian mission were ambushed by terrorists in Mogadishu, according to Woolsey. The incident in Somalia, he said, helped solidify the view among terrorists, that "if bloodied, [the United States] will run."
Thank you, Bill Clinton
Woolsey lumped America's current Middle Eastern enemies into three categories: "fascists," which he said include Saddam Hussein's Baath Party loyalists in Iraq; Shia "Islamists," which include the mullahs in Iran; and Sunni "Islamists," which include al Qaeda and the Wahabbi sect of Saudi Arabia. The term "Islamist," Woolsey said, "Connotes a totalitarian movement masquerading as a religion."
It's almost like he reads Rantburg.

Woolsey drew parallels to World War II, comparing the motives of Islamist terrorists to those of Nazi Germany and imperialist Japan. "In a certain sense, they have come after us for the same reason that Hitler decided to declare war on us after Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor. He knew ultimately he was going to lose unless he took us out," Woolsey explained. "And I think it's the underlying reason that these three totalitarian movements in the Middle East all feel that way about us -- pretty much the same reason that Hitler [did]."
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
The Japanese, like al Qaeda, attacked the United States in part because they considered the U.S. cowardly and unlikely to react forcefully. "Based on what we were doing in the 1920s and 1930s ... the Japanese in the 1940s thought pretty much the same thing about us, because our behavior had certain parallels," to the more recent period, Woolsey said.
Yammamoto warned them otherwise, but he was overruled.
"I think you have to admit that [al Qaeda] had some basis for the assessment that I've just described, just as the Japanese had some basis for the assessment that they made of us in the beginning of the 1940s."
Woolsey said he believes the conflict with Islamism and Baathism is neither a recent nor a short-term phenomenon. "What's new is not the war. What's new is not our being attacked. What's new is we noticed. We finally decided after 9-11 that we would be at war too." He added that the U.S. must "stay awake" in order to prevent future attacks.
Posted by:Steve

#14  Spot on Mr.Jackal wrt Jacksonian foreign policy. IMHO that is the best way to fight a war.
Posted by: Chase Unineger3873 aka Jarhead   2005-02-09 9:34:30 PM  

#13  Didn't Yamamoto say something to the effect that he was educated in the U.S. and has seen the vast industreal might and was afraid that they had awakened a sleeping giant to a terrible resolve?
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-02-09 7:10:52 PM  

#12  Mucky drinks too much kosher saki?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-09 7:05:12 PM  

#11  It was actually
Torah! Torah! Torah!
Climb Mt. Hebron!

Then Gawd caller down on me and said:
"Ima say promised Land dammit! Not promised continent"
Posted by: Moshe Yamamoto   2005-02-09 6:47:01 PM  

#10  JR: The Japanese ignored the advice that Yamamoto gave them, that hitting America in this way was waking a sleeping giant (he had trained here after all) and he could only guarantee six months of victory.

That line is actually from the Hollywood movie Tora! Tora! Tora! (Tiger! Tiger! Tiger!). There is no record of Yamamoto ever having said that. He did say the following: Yamamoto warned Premier Konoe Fumimaro not to consider war with the United States: "If I am told to fight... I shall run wild for the first six months... but I have utterly no confidence for the second or third year."
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-02-09 4:05:22 PM  

#9  I found Walter Russel Mead's thesis convincing. What we are talking about is what he calls the "Jacksonian" wing of our foreign policy. It's the one least understood by foreigners. It tends to follow the "mind your business" philosophy (the lack of support for intervention in Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, ...).

But, when we are attacked, that's a whole different matter. Similar to Mrs. Davis' "warrior bit," Jacksonians view war as an On/Off switch, not a rheostat. Either you fight to win, or you don't waste lives fighting. That's one reason Korea and VietNam were so unpopular.

The Unconditional Surrender follows in that someone who attacks us must understand that he is defeated, beaten, crushed. At that point, we're willing to forgive (and help rebuild). But only after the enemy admits his total defeat. Someone like Saddam in the 90s, saying "Oh, running away, eh? All right. We'll call it a draw." doesn't merit forgiveness.

Finally, there is the matter of honor. In spite of the horrible acts Germany committed on its own people and those of occupied countries, the Wehrmarcht fought a relatively "honorable" war against the Western Allies (with a few exceptions). Japan, on the other hand, attacked without a declaration of war, and grossly mistreated prisoners. That is the ultimate insult, and against "dishonorable" enemies, Jacksonians say that all rules are off. Bulldoze up fortress so the troops die of asphyxiation without a chance of surrender? Fine. Fire-bomb cities? No problem. Torpedo a troop transport, then machine-gun the lifeboats? You get a medal.

And note when an "honorable" enemy does become dishonorable, we reply in kind, except two or three time over. After Malmedy, German troops in black uniforms (primarly the SS, but also the Panzers, unfortunately for them) found it difficult to surrender, and those who did often didn't make it to the POW camp.

The Moslem world is perhaps fortunate in that they attacked on 9/11/2001, rather than 9/11/2000. If the election had been held in the aftermath of the attack, we may very well have had a "Nuke Mecca" person run and win the election.
Posted by: jackal   2005-02-09 3:44:25 PM  

#8  ZF, I agree. The only wars we have fought in warrior mode are the Cousins' Wars the Revolution, Civil War and World War II. That is probably why I should not be so surprised that the bit did not flip. Perhaps we're just getting in the mood to do it after China takes out a CBG in order to invade Taiwan.

80 years is a life time. Look at the dates. 1780, 1860, 1940. Somebody is cruising for a bruising and will misunderestimate our mode shortly.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-09 12:53:25 PM  

#7  The Japanese ignored the advice that Yamamoto gave them, that hitting America in this way was waking a sleeping giant (he had trained here after all) and he could only guarantee six months of victory.

Some of the thought in Japan had to be that we would cave if they hurt us badly enough in the opening of the war.

ZF- I think that we need to take note of UC as a tactic. It worked to demand unconditional surrender, ending that conflict. Germany and Japan are now peaceful nations whom exist with us on a rational and even basis.
Posted by: Jame Retief   2005-02-09 12:43:12 PM  

#6  MD: Unfortunately, for them, they did not understand that our default position is pacific. With Pearl Harbor, they flipped the bit to warrior mode. After that it was Unconditional Surrender only.

Actually, the Japanese had a strong basis for their beliefs. Most non-colonial American wars to that point had not been fought to the point of unconditional surrender. WWI, in particular, was fought to an armistice, after the deaths of 100,000 men. And it was a deeply unpopular war.

Holding out for unconditional surrender is relatively rare in American wars - the Korean War was fought to a ceasefire and if we had won in Vietnam, that, too would have been fought to a ceasefire. Roosevelt's insistence on unconditional surrender, over Churchill's objections, probably resulted in hundreds of thousands of additional American combat deaths. (It may also have strained the resources of the British empire to the point that it fell apart after the war). Note also that we haven't insisted on the unconditional surrender of the regimes that had any part in the 9/11 bombings.
Posted by: Zhang Fei   2005-02-09 11:48:54 AM  

#5  The MSM, CAIR, and Liberal Democrats (Kennedy, Kerry, etc...) are trying very, very, hard to mask the interrupt which 'flips the bit' to warrior mode.

Somehow I imagine the american PSW having a 'Warrior Mode' bit just as some computers have a 'supervisor mode' bit..... Nice one Mrs Davis.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-02-09 11:39:03 AM  

#4  What I don't understand is why we did not flip the bit after 9/11 and go to warrior mode.

Because to some of our countrymen, 3,000 dead isn't enough provocation. No, they'd prefer to see hundreds of thousands more lives extinguished, and yet even then, it would still be "our fault".
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-02-09 11:33:25 AM  

#3  Iran and Syria are working hard to "flip the bit".
Posted by: Tom   2005-02-09 11:18:12 AM  

#2  Have to disagree a bit about the Japanese. They attacked us because the OIL and steel embargoes were squeezing them hard and they could see they could never defeat the fleet we started building in the late 30's. So either they moved in '41 or faced a deteriorating correlation of force. That was why they accepted the limited victory Yamamoto could deliver. With it, they hoped to negotiate a victory that ensured them the Greater East Asis Co-Prosperity Sphere they had conquered in Yamomoto's year.

Unfortunately, for them, they did not understand that our default position is pacific. With Pearl Harbor, they flipped the bit to warrior mode. After that it was Unconditional Surrender only.

Likewise our culture and capitalism are a very real threat to the fantasy caliphate of the Islamists. They know if they don't establish the caliphate now, the ummah will turn infidel and it will likely never happen. Because World War II happened so long ago, they too do not recall that pacific is only our default mode, not our only mode.

What I don't understand is why we did not flip the bit after 9/11 and go to warrior mode. I shudder to think what it will take to make this happen. But something will, the bit will flip and then it will be Unconditional Surrender time, if there's any body left to surrender.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-02-09 11:13:18 AM  

#1  Does al Qaeda still perceive cowardice after Afghanistan, Iraq, and the re-election of George Bush? I don't go for this theory -- Palestinian suicide bombers don't blow themselves up at Israeli bus stops because they believe Israel is cowardly. I think the truth is more along the lines that they attack by cowardly means because conventional attack is utterly impossible.
Posted by: Tom   2005-02-09 11:09:37 AM  

00:00