I'm a very practical man, and my concern is simply this: that there are movements, like Hamas, like Hezbollah, that in recent decades have not done anything against the United States or Americans, even though the United States supports their enemy, Israel. By openly stating and taking action to make them—to declare that we are their enemy, we invite them to extend their operations in the United States or against Americans abroad. There's an old adage which says you should pick your friends carefully. I would add: you should be even more careful when designating your enemies, lest they act in that manner.
As Kramer points out--this has not been borne out by subsequent events.
In an update to his post, Kramer notes:
Terrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn points out that Hezbollah did attack Americans more recently than Freeman allowed in his 2002 quote—to wit, the Khobar bombings, done by the Saudi Hezbollah in 1996 (here is the 2001 indictment). He asks how Freeman—supposed authority on all things Saudi—managed not to know that.
Good question--and Powerline adds to the practical problem of Chas Freeman:
Kramer doesn't note this contribution by Freeman to the 2002 conference hosted by the Middle East Policy Council, but I think it is significant especially in light of the most recent Israeli election:
Q My name is -- (inaudible) --. And what I would like to ask is, because of the multiple turnovers in the government in Israel and the differences of their opinions of how things should be carried out, has this hindered their ability to bring about peace and agreement in a peaceful process?
MR. FREEMAN: You're asking whether Israeli politics are an obstacle to a decision on peace?
Q Right. ...
MR. FREEMAN: ... Many people suspect that if Mr. Sharon were to fall from power that he might be succeeded by Mr. Netanyahu, or some other yahoo on the right. (Laughter.)
Given that Mr. Netanyahu is about to become Israel's Prime Minister, Freeman's description of him as a "yahoo on the right" suggests that he may not be the best person to interpret Middle Eastern intelligence data for the President.
Unless, perhaps, Obama has already made up his mind--seeing as the two of them see eye-to-eye on fighting terrorism. Tom Maguire of JustOneMinute points out a summary of an interview Freeman gave in December 2003
Freeman proposes several changes:
First, the U.S. government should improve the visa system. More names to the forms should be added in order to distinguish among the many "Abdullah bin Mohammads."
Technical means should also be used to cut the wait.
Second, the United States should implement a national identity system, so we better know who is who .
Third, the war on terrorism should be seen primarily as a law enforcement and intelligence war, not as a military one. (U)
Point three - the war on terror is primarily a law enforcement and intelligence effort, not a military one - was also made by Mr. Freeman in this 2006 address to incoming members of Congress. This snippet has not stood up well:
Our recovery from our strategic debacle in the Middle East will not be as rapid or sure as our recovery from defeat in Vietnam.
According to Freeman, fighting terrorists
depends on sophisticated intelligence collection, analysis, and law enforcement, backed as needed by the military in ways that do not make more enemies than they eliminate. And it rests on the recognition that we cannot preserve or defend our values and freedoms effectively by setting them aside or curtailing them and becoming more like our enemies than our former selves. We must remain Athens, not Sparta.
I suppose Freeman was not a big fan of 300.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
Technorati Tag: Chas Freeman.
No comments:
Post a Comment