Not a bad document

Except that the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism is not as grounded in reality as I would like and, of course, being a blogger and ex-businessman, I'm well-qualified to evaluate the document. But, the last time I checked I still lived in an "effective democracy" (to quote the strategy), so I guess it's okay if I let you know what I think of our national strategy.

Let me preface my remarks with the statement that my wife feels I'm a pessimist and, in her opinion, this blog amply demonstrates that. I'm not going to debate that issue now. However, I do have to acknowledge some of my beliefs. To wit, the world has always been a dangerous place. Bad people are created every day; they may not be born bad, but circumstances result in their becoming bad. Sooner or later bad things happen to most people.

The fundamental problem with the strategy is, as I've said above, its refusal to accept reality. For example, the creators of the strategy write that "effective democracies (are) the long term antidote to the ideology of terrorism". Well, what about the terrorist attacks in Spain, England, the United States, attacks perpetrated by natives? Or, the arrest of suspected terrorists in many countries in Europe as well as here?

Their definition of effective democracy is filled with platitudes (human rights, freedom, justice, rule of law), some of which our effective democracy violates. Yet, they ignore the daily needs - food, a decent job, security, education, opportunity to realize one's potential, etc. - necessary for a reasonably satisfying life. Some of these needs are satisfied for some people in some less than effective democracies as well as other forms of government.

Like most documents put out by those who need to 'spin' reality, this document tries to spin at least three basic facts: neither the war in Iraq nor the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have had anything to do with the rise in terrorism; the war in Iraq was started as part of the war on terror.

Some further spin with regard to our 'successes':
Afghanistan is now a full partner in the war on terror. Yet, the Taliban seems to grow stronger daily as fewer and fewer parts of the country are controlled by Kabul.
The Department of Homeland Security actually enhances our counterterrorism capabilities.
and our 'challenges':
Pakistan, which has just signed an agreement with the Taliban and may be the residence of bin Laden, is not mentioned as a country that 'harbors terrorists at home'.
The ongoing fight for freedom in Iraq has been twisted by terrorist propaganda as a rallying cry.

The document speaks of the Islamist terrorists, who, naturally, are fringe Muslims. I wonder when I will hear a mainstream Muslim loudly and actively condemn the actions of these fringe Muslims.

A couple of pages are devoted to our attempts to keep WMD out of terrorist's hands. I would think it obvious by now that terrorists don't need WMD and can wreak destruction even with non-weapons such as airplanes.

There is a lot of talk about our partners and international cooperation. That's just what it is - talk. We have not been as isolated or as arrogant with regard to international opinion since I've been alive.

This 'strategy' sounds more like a campaign document than a serious attempt at combating terrorism.