Max Boot: Cracking down on terror's cronies
ONE OF THE KEYS to defeating any guerrilla movement is to cut off its outside support. That is what the United States managed to accomplish in the Philippines from 1899 to 1902 but spectacularly failed to do in South Vietnam, where communist fighters benefited right up until the end from the Ho Chi Minh Trail leading to havens in North Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
Today, even as the U.S. is making considerable progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are failing to isolate the battlefield. The extremists attacking U.S. forces and our allies continue to receive sanctuary and support from neighboring states, notably Pakistan and Syria. It is, of course, difficult to close any border, but we could do more by going to the source of the trouble.
Terrorist attacks in Afghanistan have reached a four-year high. Roadside bombings are becoming more common and more sophisticated. Insurgents are utilizing "shaped" explosives capable of destroying armored vehicles and setting them off with high-tech remote-control devices, and they are taking a growing toll. Already, 82 U.S. service members have died there this year — a 58% increase over last year.
The effectiveness of the Taliban is limited because they are so unpopular, as seen in their failure to disrupt parliamentary voting on Sept. 18. That they are nevertheless able to continue their offensive is due in large measure to their ability to train, supply and recruit in Pakistan.
President Pervez Musharraf brags of one crackdown after another against the Islamists, yet somehow they continue operating with near impunity. Clearly, the Pakistani dictator is turning a blind eye to their activities, while some of his military and intelligence officials are suspected of actually aiding the Taliban. This from a man who receives $700 million a year in U.S. aid.
The Bush administration needs to lean on Musharraf to do more — not only in fighting Islamist extremists but also in bringing back democracy — by cutting his allowance, if necessary. That it isn't pushing harder is perhaps understandable because of the widespread fear that toppling Musharraf would result in a more anti-American regime.
Less explicable is our failure to apply greater pressure on Syria, whose regime is already as anti-American as it gets and which continues to act as a conduit for terrorists infiltrating Iraq.
Foreign jihadis may be only a small part of the overall Iraqi insurgency, but they are its most vicious element — the monsters who drive cars filled with explosives into crowds of Shiites. As President Bush said on Sept. 13, "These people are coming from Syria into Iraq and killing a lot of innocent people." The president added that "the Syrian leader must understand we take his lack of action seriously."
Bashar Assad understands nothing of the sort. After all, he has been hearing similar warnings for more than two years. Way back on July 21, 2003, Bush said that "this behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable."
How has Syria been held accountable? Has Damascus been bombed? Have U.S. and Iraqi troops crossed the border to destroy terrorist safe houses? The only repercussions so far have been U.S. economic sanctions that are toothless because there is almost no trade between Syria and the U.S. in the first place. The European Union, ever helpful, has actually been moving to expand economic links with Syria by granting it "associate" membership.
Perhaps the administration hopes that the United Nations will take care of Syria for it. A U.N.-appointed detective has been doggedly investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and all trails lead to Damascus. Four senior Lebanese security officials with close ties to Syria have been jailed, and more suspects may be fingered.
But, although the backlash over Hariri's assassination forced Syrian troops out of Lebanon, it is doubtful that it will force Assad out of Syria. If we want to stop Assad's "unacceptable" behavior, we'll have to do it ourselves.
That does not mean a full-scale invasion, because U.S. troops are already stretched too thin. But bombing strikes, commando raids and increased support for anti-Assad dissidents may help to concentrate the mind of the world's sole surviving Baathist strongman.
Either Bush needs to order some of those steps, or he and his aides need to stop threatening Assad in public. They are turning Teddy Roosevelt's dictum on its head and thereby undermining American credibility by speaking loudly and not wielding a big stick.
Read entire article at LAT
Today, even as the U.S. is making considerable progress in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are failing to isolate the battlefield. The extremists attacking U.S. forces and our allies continue to receive sanctuary and support from neighboring states, notably Pakistan and Syria. It is, of course, difficult to close any border, but we could do more by going to the source of the trouble.
Terrorist attacks in Afghanistan have reached a four-year high. Roadside bombings are becoming more common and more sophisticated. Insurgents are utilizing "shaped" explosives capable of destroying armored vehicles and setting them off with high-tech remote-control devices, and they are taking a growing toll. Already, 82 U.S. service members have died there this year — a 58% increase over last year.
The effectiveness of the Taliban is limited because they are so unpopular, as seen in their failure to disrupt parliamentary voting on Sept. 18. That they are nevertheless able to continue their offensive is due in large measure to their ability to train, supply and recruit in Pakistan.
President Pervez Musharraf brags of one crackdown after another against the Islamists, yet somehow they continue operating with near impunity. Clearly, the Pakistani dictator is turning a blind eye to their activities, while some of his military and intelligence officials are suspected of actually aiding the Taliban. This from a man who receives $700 million a year in U.S. aid.
The Bush administration needs to lean on Musharraf to do more — not only in fighting Islamist extremists but also in bringing back democracy — by cutting his allowance, if necessary. That it isn't pushing harder is perhaps understandable because of the widespread fear that toppling Musharraf would result in a more anti-American regime.
Less explicable is our failure to apply greater pressure on Syria, whose regime is already as anti-American as it gets and which continues to act as a conduit for terrorists infiltrating Iraq.
Foreign jihadis may be only a small part of the overall Iraqi insurgency, but they are its most vicious element — the monsters who drive cars filled with explosives into crowds of Shiites. As President Bush said on Sept. 13, "These people are coming from Syria into Iraq and killing a lot of innocent people." The president added that "the Syrian leader must understand we take his lack of action seriously."
Bashar Assad understands nothing of the sort. After all, he has been hearing similar warnings for more than two years. Way back on July 21, 2003, Bush said that "this behavior is completely unacceptable, and states that support terror will be held accountable."
How has Syria been held accountable? Has Damascus been bombed? Have U.S. and Iraqi troops crossed the border to destroy terrorist safe houses? The only repercussions so far have been U.S. economic sanctions that are toothless because there is almost no trade between Syria and the U.S. in the first place. The European Union, ever helpful, has actually been moving to expand economic links with Syria by granting it "associate" membership.
Perhaps the administration hopes that the United Nations will take care of Syria for it. A U.N.-appointed detective has been doggedly investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and all trails lead to Damascus. Four senior Lebanese security officials with close ties to Syria have been jailed, and more suspects may be fingered.
But, although the backlash over Hariri's assassination forced Syrian troops out of Lebanon, it is doubtful that it will force Assad out of Syria. If we want to stop Assad's "unacceptable" behavior, we'll have to do it ourselves.
That does not mean a full-scale invasion, because U.S. troops are already stretched too thin. But bombing strikes, commando raids and increased support for anti-Assad dissidents may help to concentrate the mind of the world's sole surviving Baathist strongman.
Either Bush needs to order some of those steps, or he and his aides need to stop threatening Assad in public. They are turning Teddy Roosevelt's dictum on its head and thereby undermining American credibility by speaking loudly and not wielding a big stick.