THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S CHALLENGE IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM




WRITING CONTEST

ARMY MANAGEMENT STAFF COLLEGE

SUSTAINING BASE LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM






































THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S CHALLENGE IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM









THOMAS H. GREENE

Class 01-3

Seminar 7





















"I certify that this is my original work, and it has not been previously been accepted for publication."


ABSTRACT

America's Intelligence Community faces continued criticism and increased challenges in the fight against terror. The 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have forever altered the intelligence collection effort concerning the terrorist activities. These attacks have highlighted a continuing shortfall on the part of the United States (US) Intelligence Community to provide current, credible, and actionable intelligence to defeat terrorist attacks on US assets. This paper serves to examine some of the perceived shortfalls within the Intelligence Community. I will address the lack of covert Human Intelligence sources in penetrating terrorist organizations worldwide, the lack of experienced intelligence analysts focusing on terrorism, and finally, the lack of sharing of raw intelligence data within the US Intelligence Community. My solutions are simple. The recruiting of terrorist sources is paramount in order collect credible intelligence in the war on terrorism. The Intelligence Community must shift focus from the old Cold War threat to a forward looking organization capable of providing the necessary intelligence to defeat the asymmetric threat facing US interests worldwide. The Intelligence Community must make greater use of the electronic collaborative environment to ensure the sharing of critical intelligence. My purpose in writing this paper is to improve awareness of this issue among members of the Army's sustaining base and generate debate as a means to affect a positive change within the Intelligence Community.

THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY'S CHALLENGE IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM

The primary mission of the Intelligence Community in the current war on terrorism is providing actionable intelligence to prevent or neutralize future attacks. The Intelligence Community is our first line of defense in this war. Refocusing the intelligence collection effort toward the asymmetric threat enjoys growing consensus within the Defense and Intelligence Communities (Metz, 2001, p. 29). The National Security Strategy (NSS) cites the importance of intelligence in its efforts to defeat terrorism directed against United States (US) interests worldwide (NSS, 2000, p.22). Further, the NSS addresses the need for enhanced intelligence collection efforts as part of that strategy. Since the Intelligence Community's mission in the war on terrorism centers on providing current, credible and actionable intelligence to defeat the threat, it must reorganize from its current Cold War focus to a forward looking organization focused on defeating the asymmetric threat facing US interests worldwide. In preparing this paper, I collected previous reports, documents, and open source reporting relevant to intelligence shortfalls in the war on terrorism. I then analyzed and synthesized the information to formulate my conclusions outlined in this paper.

Intelligence Shortfalls in the War on Terrorism


Based on analysis of the information collected, the most significant shortfall in the war on terrorism is the lack of Human Intelligence sources collecting and reporting information on terrorist groups. There can be no intelligence analysis without collecting information. Without analysis, there is no sharing of intelligence information.

Decision makers and the public view the attack on Khobar Towers, the first World Trade Center attack, the bombing of the USS Cole, the simultaneous attacks on the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania; and the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as intelligence failures. The perception is that the Intelligence Community failed to provide sufficient warning to detect, prevent, and neutralize these attacks on US interests.

The Lack of Human Intelligence Information

" ? what enables the wise commander to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge. Now this foreknowledge cannot be elicited from spirits; it cannot be obtained inductively from experience, nor by any deductive calculation. Knowledge of the enemy's dispositions can only be obtained from other men. The end and aim of spying?. is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the double agent. ?Spies are the most important asset, because on them depends an army's ability to march." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War



Human Intelligence (HUMINT) uses overt or covert human sources to obtain information. The first line of defense in the war against terrorism is current, credible intelligence reporting derived from covert sources who have successfully penetrated terrorist organizations. Terrorist groups are aware of the full spectrum of the Intelligence Community's collection capabilities (Signals Intelligence, Imagery Intelligence, and other intelligence disciplines). These groups have adapted their security practices to reduce the effectiveness of US collection efforts against them. HUMINT operations are key to penetrating terrorist groups. HUMINT reporting is key to winning the fight against terrorism. Without such sources, the Intelligence Community lacks the ability to obtain specific, credible information concerning terrorist operational planning. Without this reporting, the Intelligence Community cannot provide the necessary predictive analysis to prevent the next terrorist strike.

Responsibility for carrying out covert actions rest with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Covert sources infiltrate a terrorist organization in order to obtain information on that group's activities and plans. In 1995, the CIA came under public scrutiny when evidence emerged that it employed a Guatemalan informant who was allegedly involved in the murders of an American innkeeper and the Guatemalan husband of an American lawyer. In response, then Director John Deutch issued a directive requiring central approval before recruiting any person accused of criminal or human rights abuses. A simple balancing test determined approval: "Is the potential gain in intelligence worth the cost that might be associated with doing business with a person who may be a murderer?" (Hersh, 2001). This directive set up complex procedures for obtaining approval to recruit informants involved in human rights violations. Review boards led to the termination of hundreds of HUMINT sources from the CIA payroll. These actions devastated Middle Eastern anti-terrorist operations, and led to the closing of the CIA's agent network with links to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. The lack of US controlled covert HUMINT assets targeting terrorist organizations cripple the Intelligence Community's information collection efforts and consequently minimize its ability to counter the threat.

Because of the review process, the US depends on reporting from Foreign Intelligence Services terrorism reporting (National Commission on Terrorism, 2000). Without having control of the asset, the Intelligence Community cannot assess reliability of the source and the accuracy of the information provided. Dependence on Foreign Intelligence Services prevents US vetting of the source. We cannot directly task the source or redirect the collection effort of that source in a timely manner to meet our needs.

To facilitate collection of valuable anti-terrorist information, The Director, Central Intelligence (DCI) must remove all perceived restrictions that impede the HUMINT source recruitment effort. The DCI must emphasize recruitment as one of the Community's highest priorities. The Intelligence Community cannot learn of terrorist plans and operations without sources inside the network. The sources must be terrorists. Successful penetration of a terrorist organization's inner circles demands that a potential HUMINT source be of the same ethnic or religious group as the target terrorist organization. The cellular nature of terrorist groups promotes tight operational security. A covert HUMINT source faces death if discovered. Recruiting informants is not condoning past behavior. The vetting process, by which a case officer determines the reliability of a source, in place before 1995 provided case officers with the appropriate guidance to judge the risks of going forward with a particular recruitment. Classification constraints on the vetting process prohibit discussion in this document.

Recruiting a terrorist to spy on terrorists will lead to victory in the war on terrorism. Reporting provided from such covert operations will give the Intelligence Community insight into the inner operations and planning of the target group. Intelligence analysis based on this type of reporting will provide decision-makers the predictive intelligence necessary to defeat the terrorist threat.



The Lack of Experienced Intelligence Analyst


On 25 June 1996, a vehicle borne improvised explosive device detonated at Khobar Towers, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, a facility housing US forces supporting Operation Southern Watch. The blast killed nineteen airmen and injured over 500 personnel. On 28 June 1996, the Secretary of Defense appointed retired General Wayne Downing to investigate the Khobar Tower bombing. The Downing Commission assessed the extent that inadequate security policies, infrastructure, or systems contributed to casualties and damage sustained at Khobar Towers. One of the areas under investigation concerned the "? sufficiency and effectiveness of intelligence about terrorism in the Area of Responsibility." (Downing, Sep 96). Finding 9 of the Downing Report states the "? ability of the theater and national intelligence community to conduct in-depth, long-term analysis of trends, intentions, and capabilities of terrorists is deficient." The Downing Report also cites the lack of assigned terrorist analysts at the national and service component level and recommends allocating "sufficient analytic resources to conduct in-depth, detailed analysis of trends, intentions, and capabilities of terrorist." It further states that such analysis is essential to providing predictive intelligence to defeat the terrorist threat.

On 12 October 2000, terrorists attacked the USS Cole in the Port of Aden, Yemen. The USS Cole Commission report states the "Department of Defense (DoD) does not allocate sufficient resources or all-source intelligence analysis and collection in support of combating terrorism (Cole Commission, 2001, p. 1)." The report recommends reprioritization of "all-source intelligence collection and analysis personnel and resources so that sufficient emphasis is applied to combating terrorism."

The intelligence architecture created more than fifty years ago in response to the Soviet threat remains in place, focusing on the gathering and processing of intelligence information on the standing armies of our adversaries. The Community faces increasing challenges in collecting intelligence information in the war on terrorism. The demand for accurate, relevant, and timely intelligence strains Community resources available to monitor, process, and report on the terrorist threat. The lack of experienced intelligence analysts focusing on terrorism is hampering the ability of the Community to provide the necessary predictive analysis its customers demand.

The Downing Commission and the Cole Commission reports address the lack of intelligence analysts dedicated to monitoring and reporting on the terrorist threat. The shortage of skilled intelligence analysts will continue to hinder US anti-terrorist operations. The job of the counter-terrorism analyst is to protect US interests by providing timely, accurate, high-quality analysis to decision-makers to neutralize the terrorist threat.

The Intelligence Community must rectify these personnel shortfalls. Within the US Army, the Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM) must revisit mission priorities and shift analytical assets from those of the old Cold War targets to the counter-terrorist arena. INSCOM must ensure sufficient manpower exists to cover the global terrorist threat; identify existing gaps in expertise; and revamp its recruitment, resource allocation, and professional development programs to ensure that they address priority needs. This process will ensure that sufficient counter-terrorist analysts are on hand to accomplish the mission.

Sharing of Intelligence Information

Although analysts share the same clearance levels and the same special accesses, agencies within the Intelligence Community resist sharing intelligence information across the board. Analysts hide behind code words and special intelligence caveats and seem to enjoy a perverse pleasure in not sharing intelligence information with other analysts. Since the terrorist threat targets US interests worldwide, inter-agency sharing of pertinent information is key to achieving a common operational picture of the terrorist threat. Increased information sharing is essential for the Community to capitalize on its aggregate strengths and effectively tackle the challenges in intelligence collection, analysis, and reporting. Intelligence information sharing will provide intelligence analysts a better understanding of the terrorist threat. The Intelligence Community is working at sharing intelligence through the use of Communities of Interest (COI). This is a restricted access program containing relevant reporting on terrorism. This collaborative initiative will lead to more thorough, comprehensive analysis that can provide long-term predictive analysis of the terrorist threat and reporting to neutralize the threat.

CONCLUSIONS

Refocusing the intelligence effort on terrorism to prevent future attacks will lead to victory in the war on terrorism. The challenge for the Intelligence Community is to adapt to the new threat facing America. As the first line of defense against terrorism, the Intelligence Community must provide the critical intelligence necessary to deter and defeat threats to our country and our interests.


REFERENCES:

DoD USS Cole Commission Report (2001, January 9) (on-line). Found at http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/cole.html.



Downing, W. (1996 September). Downing Report on Khobar Tower (on-line). Found at http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/khobar_af/part1.htm.



Hersh, Seymour M., (2001, August) "The CIA and the Failure of American Intelligence", in the New Yorker Magazine (on-line). Found at http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3bb9bfa613ce.htm.



Metz, Steven (2001, July - August) "Strategic Asymmetry" in Military Review (on-line). Found at http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/English/JulAug01/met.htm.



National Commission on Terrorism (00 Jun). "Countering the Changing Threat of International Terrorism" (on-line). Found at http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/commission.html.


A National Security Strategy for a Global Age, The White House, (2000 December).

C.I.A. Leak Inquiry Is Near End, Prosecutor Says
By ADAM LIPTAK

Published: April 8, 2005
New York Times


An investigation into the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. officer, Valerie Plame, has been "for all practical purposes complete" since October, a special prosecutor told the federal appeals court in Washington last week. All that remains, said the prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, is his effort to compel two reporters to testify "and any further investigation that might result from such testimony."

The reporters, Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, have refused to appear before the grand jury investigating the disclosure of Ms. Plame's name because they are unwilling to discuss conversations they had with sources. In February, a three-judge panel of the appeals court, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, ordered them jailed for as long as 18 months in an effort to force them to talk.

The reporters remain free while they pursue appeals.

Mr. Fitzgerald discussed the status of his investigation in a March 31 response to a request from the reporters that the full appeals court hear the case. His statement that the investigation is all but done, which was also included in an "emergency motion for expedited consideration" filed in the appeals court two weeks ago, may mean little more than that he is eager to wrap up his work.

But lawyers involved in the case and experts in media law said the statement suggests that Mr. Fitzgerald has not yet developed evidence that any government officials, in talking to reporters about Ms. Plame, violated an obscure 1982 law that makes it a crime to identify undercover officers in some circumstances.

Robert Novak, the syndicated columnist, published Ms. Plame's name in July 2003, eight days after her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat, published an Op-Ed article critical of the Bush administration in The Times. In his column, Mr. Novak wrote that he had learned from "two senior administration officials" that Ms. Plame was "an agency operative." Mr. Cooper contributed to a later article about the Plame matter that said Time had received similar information, and Ms. Miller conducted reporting for an article but did not publish one.

Legal experts said Mr. Fitzgerald's statement raised questions about the direction of the investigation, which may have changed its focus from the disclosure of Ms. Plame's identity to obstruction of justice or perjury by an administration official.

The statement also seemed to suggest that Mr. Novak had nothing to fear from Mr. Fitzgerald.

"It tells us Fitzgerald's done with Novak, one way or the other," said Floyd Abrams, the lawyer representing Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper. "It can mean that Novak has appeared and testified, or that he hasn't appeared and Fitzgerald is not going to force the issue."

Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper, on the other hand, face the prospect of jail in a case where it is possible that no crime has been committed, said George Freeman, an assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company.

If Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation "is for all practical purposes complete," Mr. Freeman said, "maybe he should issue his report and we might find out that the reporters' testimony is unnecessary."

James Hamilton, Mr. Novak's lawyer, and Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Mr. Fitzgerald, declined to comment.

Red pencil additions to Kerry's stump speech [SUGGESTED ADDITIONS IN BOLD]
Xenia, OH - It?s great to be here with all of you at Xenia High School.

For the past two years, I?ve traveled across America meeting people just like you ? people who love their families, love their country, and are determined to build a better life for their kids. But while they?re working hard and doing everything right, they can?t get ahead ? they can barely even stay in place ? because today?s economy is leaving them behind.

In the past four years, we?ve lost 1.6 million private sector jobs. In Ohio alone we?ve lost 237,000 jobs ? 173,000 of them in manufacturing. And the jobs we?re creating today pay $9,000 less than the ones we?ve lost. So we?re losing good jobs and replacing them with ones that don?t pay the bills. And, as we learned just yesterday, consumer confidence is plunging as Americans become more and more worried about the state of our economy.

And you know what the Bush Administration says to all this? Just this week, President Bush?s Treasury Secretary, John Snow, came right here to Ohio ? a state with some of the worst job losses in America ? and stated that job losses are nothing but a ?myth.? It?s right here, on the front page of the Findlay Courier. Right next to a column about how many of our jobs pay so little that almost 39 million Americans ? 20 million of them children ? can barely afford things like food and housing.

Well I?ve got a message for our president. Mr. President, the Americans who have lost jobs on your watch are not ?myths,? they are middle class families ? and for four years, you?ve turned your back on them. And on November 2nd, the workers I?ve met here in Ohio are going to show George Bush that they won't stand for being ?Snowed? any more.

George Bush just doesn?t get it. Jobs are being shipped overseas ? and his Administration says outsourcing is good for us. He?s the first president to lose jobs in 72 years ? and they say it?s time to celebrate. Wages are falling, costs are rising ? and they tell us, hey, don?t worry, this is the best economy of our lifetime!

When it comes to reality, George Bush has a simple strategy: Ignore it, deny it, then try to hide it.

We see it in Iraq, where things are getting worse each week with more violence, more chaos, more killings. We?ve lost more than 1,000 brave men and women ? and more than 7,000 have been wounded. But George Bush says we?re making progress in Iraq. [ADD: NOT ONLY ARE WE NOT MAKING PROGRESS, THE PRESIDENT'S BAD JUDGEMENT IN INVADING IRAQ IS CAUSING US TO LOSE THE WAR ON TERROR. I'M GOING TO WIN IT. I'M GOING TO WIN IT BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM, AND THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T. THE PROBLEM IS AN INTERNATIONAL NETWORK OF KILLERS THAT DOESN'T NEED STATE SPONSORSHIP TO OPERATE. THE PROBLEM IS THEY ARE CONVINCING MODERATE MUSLIMS WE ARE ATTACKING THEIR RELIGION, AND THEY ARE GETTING RECRUITS THAT WAY. YES, WE WERE ATTACKED ON 9/11, AND WE MUST HUNT AND ELIMINATE THE PEOPLE WHO DID IT, NOT GO OFF ON UNRELATED ADVENTURES. THE PRESIDENT LIKES TO SAY JOHN KERRY DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE WAR ON TERROR, BUT AS IN SO MANY OTHER THINGS THAT COME OUT OF HIS MOUTH, THE TRUTH IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE. IT'S HE WHO DOESN'T UNDERSTAND, AND THAT PLACES US IN GREATER DANGER.]

We saw it with health care, when we learned that there was a severe shortage of flu vaccines this season. The story of how this happened is a troubling one.

Way back in 2001, our government was warned that our system was vulnerable to vaccine shortages. That was a red flag.

In June 2003, US health regulators discovered quality control problems at one of the two factories that produces the flu vaccine. That was another red flag.

Then, in August of this year, the manufacturer notified the Bush Administration that there were serious contamination problems in 6 to 8 million of their flu vaccines. That was yet another red flag.

Then, in October of this year, British regulators suspended the company?s license. And only then, finally, did we go in to inspect the factory. But it was too late. And now, because of this Administration?s failure of leadership and judgment ? because of their failure to act ? we?ve got a shortfall of up to 48 million flu vaccines.

So what?s happening with the flu vaccine is a perfect example of everything that?s wrong with this President.

The production of the vaccine was sent to a factory overseas?sounds like George Bush?s jobs plan.

He failed to adequately monitor the vaccine company, even after a year of warning signs that something was wrong, and even after years of warnings that we were vulnerable to shortages?sounds like his policy on Enron and Halliburton.

Now he tells healthy Americans not to get their flu shots?sounds like his health care plan ? pray you don?t get sick.

Millions of Americans ? including seniors and children ? won?t be able to get a flu shot this year. We?ve got people standing in lines for hours on end ? some of them in their seventies and eighties ? hoping to be one of the lucky ones. And every day, our health care workers struggle to make what could be life or death decisions about who will get a shot.

Then in the debate this past week, George Bush said ?We?re working with Canada to?help us realize the vaccine necessary to make sure our citizens have got flu vaccinations during this upcoming season.? Well, I don?t know about you, but I think that sure sounds odd coming from a President who?s banned importing safe, effective, and affordable drugs from Canada. And the next day, Bush?s own Secretary of Health even admitted that getting FDA approval in time for this year?s flu season was ?doubtful.?

And believe it or not, just like with Iraq, just like with the economy, a top Bush Administration official is now saying that even with the benefit of hindsight, the Administration wouldn?t have done anything differently.

It?s just business as usual with George W. Bush: Ignore it, deny it, then try to hide it. And when confronted with a mistake, try and explain things away.

Well that?s not going to cut it. When I?m President, we?re going to have a real strategy to deal with crises like these. My running mate, John Edwards, called for national leadership on this issue nearly a year ago. Back in December of 2003, he spoke out about the importance of having enough flu vaccine and having a good strategy for responding to outbreaks. And that?s exactly what?s we?re going to provide. We?ll take responsibility for this. We?ll work with companies both here and abroad to make sure we?ve got a safety net ? and we?ll ensure that there are enough vaccines to keep our families healthy.

And when it comes to jobs and our economy, in just 17 days, on November 2nd, we?ll give America a fresh start. Because that?s the day when things are going to change in America. That?s the day when we?re going to choose to put the middle class first, and build an economy that lifts all Americans.

We?re going to create jobs. We?ll do it by closing the tax loopholes that reward companies for shipping jobs overseas ? and rewarding companies that create and keep them here in the United States of America.

We?re going to give middle class families tax relief to help them ease the squeeze between higher costs and lower wages. We?ll give parents a $1,000 tax credit to help pay for child care. And we?ll give young people a tax break on up to $4,000 in tuition for all four years of college. [ADD: ...TO RE-OPEN THE FIRST DOOR TO OPPORTUNITY, A COLLEGE EDUCATION. IT'S THE DOOR THAT LEADS TO ALL OTHER DOORS, AND IT HAS BEEN CLOSING LITTLE BY LITTLE FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.]

Finally, we?ll help families afford quality health care by making it easier for businesses to insure their workers, by lowering prescription drug costs, and by giving every American access to the same plan that members of Congress get.

Today, America is ready to leave the failed policies of the past behind, and look to the future with the hope and optimism that says that America can always do better. We just need to come together as one America and believe in ourselves. And with your help, we will.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America. And now I?d be happy to take some of your questions.

Speech Impediment, By Peter Beinart, The New Republic 10/11/04
Speech Impediment


By Peter Beinart, The New Republic

This column should not be necessary. A more decent president would not accuse his opponent of assisting terrorists and harming American troops merely because he criticizes U.S. policy. A more decent conservative movement would call such accusations anti-democratic, rather than mindlessly parroting them, as National Review Online's Jed Babbin did this week. But the president is who he is. And so are his supporters. And so, in response to John Kerry's increased criticism of U.S. policy in Iraq, Bush and his surrogates have essentially accused Democrats of helping insurgents kill American troops.

Dana Milbank, The Washington Post's invaluable White House correspondent, recently charted the rise of this grotesque talking point. Last Tuesday, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch told Fox News that Democrats were "consistently saying things that I think undermine our young men and women who are serving over there." The chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party recently said the state's Democratic senator, Tom Daschle, has brought "comfort to America's enemies." And Bush himself last week warned that Kerry's criticisms can "embolden an enemy by sending mixed message[s]."

Bush's argument is stupid and repugnant. It's stupid because it involves unsupported assumptions about how the Iraqi insurgents think. Bush suggests that, when Kerry says America is losing in Iraq and must therefore change strategy, he makes America look irresolute - and thus emboldens the killers. But one could just as easily make the opposite argument. Perhaps the insurgents know America is losing. (If our intelligence agencies can figure it out, why can't they?) Maybe hearing Kerry call for a new strategy makes them fear America will fight the war more effectively - which disheartens them. Republican Representative Tom Cole said in March, "If George Bush loses the election, Osama bin Laden wins the election." But perhaps bin Laden - like his fellow murderers in Iraq - thinks Bush has been good for business. After all, as London's International Institute for Strategic Studies recently asserted, Al Qaeda recruitment has increased since the Iraq war. In his book, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke - who knows a lot more about bin Laden than Cole - imagines the terrorist kingpin desperately hoping America will invade Iraq and thus divert resources from the hunt for him. So maybe bin Laden would cast his absentee ballot for Bush, in the hopes of getting more of the same.

If this kind of terrorist mind-reading sounds silly, it is. In fact, when Bush says Kerry is emboldening the enemy, he's contradicting himself. One of Bush's favorite mantras is that the terrorists don't hate us because of what we do; they hate us because of who we are. When critics said the Iraq war would embolden Islamists to attack the United States, Bush supporters scoffed that the terrorists needed no encouragement - they were already doing everything they could to kill Americans.

But, if the terrorists can't be emboldened - if they are always doing their utmost to kill Americans-how can John Kerry be emboldening them now? At a recent rally in Columbus, Ohio, Bush said, "These people don't need an excuse for their hatred. I think it's wrong to blame America for the anger and the evil of the killers." But evidently, it's OK to blame John Kerry.

The stupidity doesn't end there. Bush surrogates also say Kerry's criticisms demoralize American troops. But, once again, the argument could just as easily go the other way. Perhaps American troops, who are watching attacks multiply and comrades die, find Bush's happy talk demoralizing. When Quinnipiac University polled Pennsylvanians in mid-August about their views on Iraq, it found that families that included someone on active military duty, in the Reserves, or a veteran, were significantly less likely than other voters to support the Iraq war. Overall, they opposed it 54 to 41 percent. A poll by the publisher of Army Times found that only 56 percent of active-duty troops support Bush's handling of the war. How can American troops feel demoralized by Kerry's Iraq criticisms when large numbers of them appear to feel the same way?

But the biggest problem with the president's latest talking point isn't that it's dumb; it's that it's anti-democratic. When Bush says Kerry's Iraq criticism emboldens America's enemies, he's essentially saying that - for the good of his country - Kerry should shut up. Presumably, Kerry can still object to Bush's policies on issues, such as health care and gay marriage, which don't have anything to do with the war. But, if Kerry can't criticize President Bush on what everyone acknowledges to be the most important question facing the country, why hold an election at all?

Zell Miller, it appears, has thought of that. In his keynote address at the Republican National Convention, Miller denounced the fact that, "while young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander-in-chief." It's a revealing formulation. The words "bring down" connote a violent or otherwise illegitimate effort to overthrow an incumbent. A coup brings down a leader; so, perhaps, does impeachment. But Miller is applying the phrase to a democratic election. Miller goes on to describe President Bush as "our commander-in-chief." Commander-in-chief is Bush's military identity. It connotes deference and subordination. And thus, it is the presidential identity least applicable to an election campaign, where political opponents have an absolute right not to be subordinate or deferential.

By suggesting that Kerry - in the course of a presidential campaign - should view Bush primarily as our commander-in-chief rather than as an opposing candidate, and that he should not seek to bring him down, Miller is implying that there is something disloyal about an aggressive effort to defeat an incumbent president in a time of war. This anti- democratic vision of the 2004 election is the natural extension of the Bush campaign's anti-democratic suggestion that John Kerry should not criticize the war in Iraq. It is the most demagogic argument of the campaign so far. A more decent president would be ashamed.

Afghan election

Flip Side
CAMPAIGN JOURNAL
Flip Side
by Ryan Lizza
The New Republic 9/27/04

I don't use a lot of big words. /But I'm bent on love if you know what I mean. / I ain't int'rested in bein' politically correct. / I stand right up and say what I believe. / I'm a little rough around the edges, but I think I'm exactly what you need.
--From Travis Tritt's "Rough Around the Edges," a song frequently played at Bush campaign events



Muskegon Republicans are not subtle. Two thousand party activists from this southwestern Michigan county are gathered in a hangar at the local airport, waiting for George W. Bush to arrive. They aren't subtle about their love of God and country. First they bow their heads in prayer. A young man explains that the Bush supporters are gathered "to lift high the name of Jesus Christ." Addressing God and speaking of the president, he declares, without eliciting a murmur of concern, "We know you appointed him to the position." After the prayer is the Pledge of Allegiance. After the Pledge is the national anthem. Next, four stout women lead the crowd in a cappella versions of "God Bless America," "God Bless the USA," and a medley of other patriotic songs.

They aren't subtle about John Kerry. Holly Hughes, a local official, succinctly explains, "We don't need a Massachusetts liberal who will flip-flop on all the issues." Representative Pete Hoekstra, the new chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, "explains" that Michael Moore is one of Kerry's principal foreign policy advisers.

Bush isn't subtle either. His entrance is dramatic. The Muskegon crowd watches through massive hangar doors as Air Force One drops out of the sky and taxis to the edge of the rally, the plane nicely framed by bleachers of adoring supporters. Later in the day, at a rally in Holland, Michigan, Bush's campaign bus--a giant American flag on wheels--rolls onto the Ottawa County Fairgrounds to the theme song from the Harrison Ford thriller Air Force One, a dramatic orchestral score akin to the music from 2001: A Space Odyssey.

There are occasional intrusions into this self-contained world. Pockets of Kerry fans often line Bush's route, holding signs (bush lied, 1,000s died) and giving him the thumbsdown sign. One hard-looking man, with cutoff sleeves and a bandana on his head, shows his contempt by simply standing silently alongside his pickup truck with his arms crossed and his back turned to Bush's motorcade. In Greenwood Village, Colorado, on Tuesday, two men infiltrate Bush's rally and heckle the president before being drowned out by the crowd and escorted out of the arena. (Karl Rove recently joked to reporters that such protesters are all shipped off to Gitmo.)



But, for the most part, spending time on the trail with Bush is like being transported to a parallel universe. The only music is Christian rock and country tunes about plain-talking everymen. The only people who ask the president questions are his most feverish supporters, never the press. In this alternate universe, Iraq and Afghanistan are marching effortlessly toward democracy. The economy is, in the words of former Broncos quarterback John Elway, who introduces Bush in Greenwood Village, "the best in the world." John Kerry, whose platform is to the right of Clinton's in 1992, is calling for a massive expansion of government. Meanwhile, Bush's two most radical ideas, the ones that House Republicans privately insist will top the agenda in Washington next year if Bush wins--a shift toward privatizing Social Security that will cost at least a trillion dollars and a move toward a flat tax--are mentioned only in passing, buried in a laundry list of minor proposals.

And it is all working brilliantly. The key to Bush's success is that, on the stump, he is a master at turning his simple speaking style into a political virtue. Indeed, if you listen to him carefully, much of Bush's case for a second term rests on the idea that he speaks more clearly than John Kerry. "Now, when the American president says something, he better mean it," Bush says at almost every stop. "When the American president says something, he's got to speak in a way that's easy for people to understand and mean what he says." Bush is obsessed with his plainspoken image. If he accidentally uses what he regards as a complicated word, he catches himself and defines it for his audience. "You ask docs what it's like to practice in a litigious society," he tells the crowd in Muskegon. "That means there's a lot of lawsuits. I'm not even a lawyer, and I know the word 'litigious.'" Later, speaking about a health care proposal, he says, "It's commonsensical. In other words, it makes sense to do it this way."

He delights in reciting long, complicated quotes from John Kerry that allegedly reveal the senator's shifting stances. The crowd-pleasing climax of the Bush stump speech is his mocking of Kerry's now-famous line, "I actually did vote for the eighty-seven billion dollars before I voted against it." This is invariably followed by a head-shaking line about Kerry being out of touch with the locals. ("Now, I know Holland, Michigan, well enough to know not many people talk like that around here." "Now, I've spent some time in Colorado. The people out here don't talk like that.") Bush has been so successful at linking Kerry's convoluted speaking style to charges of flip-floppery that even the most innocuous Kerry statements are now ripped out of context and used to assault Kerry's character. Speaking about an important local issue at one stop, Bush says derisively, "Earlier this year, my opponent said a decision about Great Lakes water diversion would be 'a delicate balancing act.'" Bush pauses and gives the crowd a can-you-believe-it look. "That kind of sounds like him, doesn't it? My position is clear: My administration will never allow the diversion of Great Lakes water." Never mind that Bush and Kerry have the exact same position on the issue--neither favor redirecting water to needy states.



In fact, the genius of Bush's fetish with speaking clearly and plainly is that it makes it much easier for him to get away with saying things that aren't true. In the Bush campaign, simplicity is equated with veracity. One of Bush's favorite rhetorical devices is the straw man. When he speaks of terrorists, he pretends that there is some dangerous faction of Democrats that wants to sign a treaty with Al Qaeda. "You cannot negotiate with these people," he defiantly tells the Muskegon Republicans. "You cannot hope for the best from them. You cannot hope they'll change their ways." Sometimes Bush just assumes that some argument he finds ridiculous has been made. "I suspect someone probably said that these people can't be free," he says about Afghanistan at one stop. To the powerful voices allegedly advocating the transfer of U.S. sovereignty to foreign powers, he declares, "I will never turn over America's national security decisions to leaders of other countries."

Similarly, in plain language endlessly repeated, Bush paints a picture of the world and his opponent that is unhinged from reality. His only allusion to the spiraling chaos in Iraq is a passing reference to "ongoing acts of violence" that he delivers suspiciously faster than other lines. He talks about his mission to spread freedom abroad, but there is never a reference to his embrace of autocrats in Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and elsewhere. He says that unemployment is at a historical low without addressing the million jobs lost during his term. On health care, his characterization of Kerry's plan--"a massive, complicated blueprint to have our government take over the decision-making"--comes close to being made up out of thin air (see John Cohn, "Missed Target," page 13). He even constructs his own protester-less version of his campaign swings. "It's exciting to go on a bus tour," he says in Muskegon, "because a lot of people come out and they want to wave, and it warms my heart to see many people lining the roads like--that's what happens on these trips."

The frustration felt by Democrats about Bush's ability to get away with a campaign of straw men, half-truths, and baseless attacks can't be overstated. In a recent interview with The New Yorker, Al Gore described Bush communications operatives as "digital brownshirts." The Democratic National Committee has ended the taboo on the L-word and now flat-out calls the president a liar. The Kerry campaign has belatedly decided that Bush's successful effort to refocus the campaign away from issues and onto character and leadership can only be reversed by making a case that Bush is not just wrong on the issues but fundamentally dishonest about them. It's not subtle, but at least it's simple.



Ryan Lizza is a senior editor at TNR.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040927&s=lizza092704

"Vietnam GI" page, below the fold

"Vietnam GI" page, above the fold

"Vietnam GI" 1968, editorial

"Vietnam GI" 1968 - soldiers with heads, caption says it all