Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog

■"'What the Terrorists Have in Mind: Bush is right that we need an 'offense.' But not this one," op-ed by Daniel Benjamin and Gabriel Weinmann, New York Times, 27 October 2004, p. A31.

This is the judgment from a pair of terrorism/Internet experts: when you track the chatter of the terror groups on the Web today, it's clear that:

There has been a drastic shift in mood in the last two years. Radicals who were downcast and perplexed in 2002 about the rapid defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan now feel exuberant about the global situation and, above all, the events in Iraq.

Terrorists are convinced they have another Soviets-in-Afghanistan debacle in the making. What the real problem the Sovs had there? They could win the conventional war, but they had no staying power in terms of winning the unconventional peace, because they were essentially alone, with the entire world disapproving and more than a few key players allowing plenty of support to flow into the country on the side of the rebels (like the U.S., most of all).

Then the article dissolves into nothingness, talking vaguely about a better offense but not describing it whatsoever.

My point is this: the strategic despair is on our side (our troops decry: "My God, there's too many of them to kill, we'll never get the job done!"), when it should be on our opponents' side ("My Allah, there's too many of them to kill, we'll never get the job done!"). So guess who's talking about pullout and who's talking about jacking up the effort?

The only way we effectively jack up the effort is to internationalize the military occupation force dramatically, plussing up our total numbers hugely. That's how we'll create strategic despair on their side: filling our ranks with New Core troops who have a long and bloody history of killing Muslims. We can generate that strategic despair in the minds of the terrorists fielding a team of almost exclusively European-descent countries. We need to change the occidental skin tone of this force and fast. Otherwise the terrorists think all they need do is wait out the Americans just like they waited out the Sovs in Afghanistan.

Any other talk of getting more aggressive in Iraq is complete bullshit. Ask any knowledgeable military officer who's been there: there is no military solution to this situation—only a political one.

The question of this election is—therefore—who will get you that solution fastest and at the lowest cost? A nuanced and deal-cutting Kerry or the steadfast and full-of-certitude Bush?

That may well be the choice between winning and losing in Iraq.