Regular commenter Saru takes issue with my definition of success in the war on terror:
I must take issue with part of your evidence that Bush’s plan has been a success. I’m not disputing that it has not been, but I’ve never liked to hear the argument made that because there have been no attacks on American soil since 9/11 it must be a success. I’m sure I don’t have to point out the fallicious logic here. A much better argument might be made along the line that n-number of known terrorist attacks have been successfully prevented. Certainly, this is a much more difficult claim to prove, but the linkage would be much more clear as a result.
With all due respect, this sounds like a Democrat’s critique. Why would only the actual prevention of an imminent attack count as success? What about taking out the Taliban, killing a terrorist with an air strike in Yemen, destroying terrorist training camps, and any other accomplishment overseas? Certainly every terrorist that is killed or taken prisoner is another notch in the belt of the Bush administration’s war on terror. Indeed, isn’t it possible that the strategy has been so successful that there have been no imminent attacks to prevent?
During the 2004 campaign Mr. Bush touted his accomplishment of capturing 75% of Al Qaeda’s leaders during the campaign (which I always thought was silly), but is that any better evidence of success? I don’t think so, but had he defined success as no post-9/11 terror attacks, an attack before the election would have been seen as evidence of failure. Hence, the administration cannot define success as I have, but I’m not running for any office.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « GOAL!!!!!!!!!!
- » Soviet Nostalgia
COMMENTS / 4 COMMENTS
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Defining Success, Reloaded added these pithy words on Feb 10 06 at 3:26 pm[...] JFK ReloadedDefining SuccessJFK Reloaded FoldsRussia’s Search for IdentityYounghusband Status Report [...]
Adamu added these pithy words on 10 Feb 05 at 12:19 amWell isn’t also possible that the strategy has been a success for completely different reason from what you cite? I mean, maybe we reacted exactly how the terrorists wanted us to so now they’re satisfied!
Sorry, but apart from that bit of silliness I’m too tired to contribute.
Saru added these pithy words on 11 Feb 05 at 3:43 pmOuch, out comes the D-word. I guess I should be glad you tempered your response and didn’t call me the usual, “looney liberal.”
First of all, “only the actual prevention of an imminent attack count[s] as success” because that is one of the terms you defined for success in your earlier post:
[A]s for the results of Bush administration anti-terror policy, the proof is in the pudding. How many Al Qaeda attacks on US soil have their been since 9/11? Zero.
Next, with regard to your question, “isn’t it possible that the strategy has been so successful that there have been no imminent attacks to prevent?” Yes, it is entirely possible. But please note the difference between “possibile” and provable. Reversing the question, isn’t it equally possible that there have been no attacks to prevent because no attacks have been planned to take place between 9-11 and now. (Before you attack this argument, I admit I’ve no proof for this either, and it’s not a very strong or logical rebuttal, but we’re talking about your original argument here.) Sure, that may be becuse U.S. military action around the globe has made such planning difficult or impossible, but again, no proof has been offered (in this forum) for this either.
And finally, even if this does sound like a Democrat’s critique, that approach is ad hominem circumstantial
I’ll leave it at that for now, because we’re at a bit of a deadlock if we keep arguing from ignorance, and I lack the logic skills to take this any further.
Detroit Monkey added these pithy words on 15 Feb 05 at 5:18 pmI don’t wish to get involved in this argument in any regard but to pose a rhetorical question or two.
That disclaimer being made, let me put the questions to you.How many terror attacks have taken place on US soil prior to 9/11?
Given the rarity or even average occurence of terrorist attacks on US soil over the past 50 years, is it really a likely that there would have been another by now even with out military operations over seas?I don’t mean to imply any answers to these questions, so don’t make conclusions about my views on the issue.
Just questions to think about.
