| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| National Security Advisor Gen Jones: "Obama More Successful on Terrorism" |
| 2009-09-01 |
| WASHINGTON, Aug 31 (Reuters) - The United States is having more success fighting terrorism under President Barack Obama partly because of his "radically different" approach to foreign policy, National security adviser Jim Jones said on Monday. In an interview with ABC News, Jones said Obama's efforts to reach out to world leaders and improve relations with law enforcement agencies had made it easier to track and kill terrorists than during the Bush administration. "We have better human intelligence. We know where the terrorists are moving," Jones told ABC. "Because of the dialogue and the tone of the dialogue between us and our friends and allies ... the trend line against terrorism is positive," he added. Jones spoke a day after former Vice President Dick Cheney said he has serious doubts about the extent to which Obama understood and is prepared to do what is needed to defend the United States from attack. Cheney has been a persistent critic of Obama's approach to foreign policy and security issues, accusing the U.S. leader of putting in place policies that could encourage anti-U.S. militants to attack the United States. While noting that he was not keeping tallies of enemy combatants killed and captured under Obama and Bush, Jones said the numbers were going up as a result of good intelligence. "We are seeing results that indicate more captures, more deaths of radical leaders and a kind of a global coming-together by the fact that this is a threat to not only the United States but to the world at-large," he said. He also dismissed Cheney's assertion that the Bush administration's counterterrorism policies worked because there had not been any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after September 11, 2001. "It's very easy to leave office and say, 'Well, no other disaster happened on the size and scope of 9/11, so we did our job well.' Well, maybe they did, maybe they didn't." Jones did not, however, counter Cheney's argument that Attorney General Eric Holder's decision to investigate suspected CIA prisoner abuses could have a chilling effect on the work of the intelligence agency. "I think it is something we have to address," Jones said. "I think anybody who works in a law enforcement agency ... have to know clearly what the rules are." |
| Posted by:Sherry |
| #9 The Obama difference with the Bush-Rummy-Cheney are dramatic. You're not on familiar-enough terms to call him "Rummy". |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-09-01 21:16 |
| #8 it's quite possible they do not intend to castrate the CIA as such. Once again, F-O-L-L-O-W the money! Putting the CIA in the ditch is "Job One." Closely behind is Job Two, our military. Hundreds of billions can be harvested by downsizing these organizations and redirecting those funds to Barry's midnight basketball, giveaway programs. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-09-01 20:56 |
| #7 TW - I don't see the Obama team trying to castrate the CIA. They certainly arent ending harsh interrogation techniques - those techniques were ended several years ago. They are debating how far to go in investigating what happened. Panetta on one side, Holder on the other. Thats a debate thats inevitable. Certainly there are many voices who would go much further on that. liberal hawk, it's quite possible they do not intend to castrate the CIA as such. However, the fact is that Attorney General Holder is threatening to prosecute individual CIA interrogators for doing that which the Justice Department had previously approved as legal. The attorney general is also threatening to prosecute those lawyers who wrote the approvals, and possibly also the line of management. Intentional or no, the result for the next several presidential terms will be CIA interrogators, lawyers, and quite probably others will be very, very careful not to do anything that might annoy the other political party, later. If that's not castration, it's a very reasonable facsimile. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-09-01 20:50 |
| #6 "For instance, specifically which "world leaders" have tangibly reciprocated to Obama's reach out?" I would certainly agree that we are getting too little out of the change in likeability from our NATO allies. Esp on Afghanistan, and to some extent on Gitmo. Iran we will see in the coming months. But to be fair, Jones is talking abour LE. Would it be better to have him list in public every LE effort? I hope there are things going on behind the scenes - the same hope that was often expressed here (and that I agreed with) under the previous administration. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-01 17:45 |
| #5 "radically different" approach that achieved VICTORY in Iraq It was a radically different approach that achieved (a qualified, as yet uncertain) victory in Iraq. The Petraeus-Kagan-McCain-Gates approach, as opposed to the Rumsfeld-Cheney approach. Both of course, were "bush approaches" What neither the right nor left seems willing to admit is that there was a radical change in policy - in 2006. A real commitment to counter insurgency, a turn away from unilateralist rhetoric, etc. The Obama difference with the Bush-Rummy-Cheney are dramatic. The Obama differences with Bush-Gates-Petraeus not so much. Its frustrating for Obamas PR. TW - I don't see the Obama team trying to castrate the CIA. They certainly arent ending harsh interrogation techniques - those techniques were ended several years ago. They are debating how far to go in investigating what happened. Panetta on one side, Holder on the other. Thats a debate thats inevitable. Certainly there are many voices who would go much further on that. So far their retreat from Iraq is merely fulfilling the US-Iraqi pact which was signed by the Bush admin. We certainly can't stay there over the objections of the legitimate govt of Iraq, and it does not seem that that govt thinks the pace of withdrawl is too fast. The Obama admin is INCREASING the number of troops and the overall resouce commitment to Afghanistan, and is putting in place the kinds of approaches that worked in Iraq. Now the attacks on that policy from the left and the uncertainty of how the admin will respond to those attacks are troubling, as well as whether they will put in as many troops as McCrystal asks for. But to say they are making it difficult for our guys in Afghanistan, as opposed to what the previous admin, did, strikes as thoroughly misguided. |
| Posted by: liberal hawk 2009-09-01 17:41 |
| #4 There was an awful lot of information collected since we started paying attention post 9/11, and with each capture the amount increases. So it wouldn't be surprising that the graph of captures/kills shows a strong upward trend over time. The key question is, will this continue or taper off, now that the President Obama's team are working so hard to castrate the CIA, retreat from Iraq, and make things very difficult for our guys in Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-09-01 15:14 |
| #3 “Jones said Obama's efforts to reach out to world leaders and improve relations with law enforcement agencies had made it easier to track and kill terrorists than during the Bush administration.” It makes one wonder if anyone with even a casual understanding of international terrorism swallows this load of hogwash. For instance, specifically which “world leaders” have tangibly reciprocated to Obama’s reach out? Oh sure, he apologized to the “Muslim World”. (Whatever the fuck that is.) But, thus far, in return all he has received is the same ole duplicitous claptrap we’ve seen for decades. Ferchrisakes he couldn’t even persuade the NATO countries to step it up. BTW, was it the release of classified documents and photos or was it the threat of prosecution that has “improved relations with law enforcement agencies”? Then again maybe he’s duplicating one of those reverse psychology illusion thingies again. You know…the way he campaigned and got elected. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2009-09-01 14:37 |
| #2 The United States is having more success fighting terrorism under President Barack Obama partly because of his "radically different" approach to foreign policy, National security adviser Jim Jones said on Monday. Would that be the same "radically different" approach that achieved VICTORY in Iraq and kept the nation SAFE from ATTACK for eight years? Report to the 'Boot Lick' deck General. Just follow Mullen or any of those other Admirals, he'll take you right to it. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-09-01 13:20 |
| #1 Playing politics with our national security to make your boss look good is nothing short of sedition there General Jones. You have seem to forgotten your oath. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-09-01 12:45 |