But why take my word for it?
Foreign Policy magazine surveyed 116 foreign policy experts for its July-August issue on the question. Their conclusion:
The Bush’s administrations efforts in the War on Terror have been a failure pretty much across the board.
The survey results shown in the chart were weighted to give equal weight to the responses of self-described liberals and conservatives. The survey concluded that:
Despite today’s highly politicized national security environment, the index results show striking consensus across political party lines. A bipartisan majority (84 percent) of the index’s experts say the
is not winning the war on terror. Eighty-six percent of the index’s experts see a world today that is growing more dangerous for Americans. Overall, they agree that the United States government is falling short in its homeland security efforts. More than 8 in 10 expect an attack on the scale of 9/11 within a decade. U.S.
Why the despair?
The experts conclude that nearly five years after 9/11 and after years of the Bush administration paying lip service to overhauling the
Foreign-policy experts have never been in so much agreement about an administration’s performance abroad. . . . The reason is that it’s clear to nearly all that Bush and his team have had a totally unrealistic view of what they can accomplish with military force and threats of force.
To read the entire survey, go here.
Just about everything in the American approach to the war on Islamic terrorism had been ill-conceived.The Atlantic's James Fallows has more here.
Terrorism is an extreme form of political communication. You want to be sure that, in your response, you don’t end up amplifying the messages that terrorists are trying to convey.
(Hat tip to Kevin Drum at Politicial Animal.)
As it turns out, this has great pertinence in the case of Gilad Shalit, a corporal in the Israeli Defense Force who was kidnapped by Palestinian militants, triggering the ongoing battles in Gaza.
Shalit is not a prisoner of war and is therefore not entitled to the full protection that international law affords POWs, according to Hebrew University international-law expert Yuval Shani, who told the Jerusalem Post that:
The Third Geneva Convention applies to states, and therefore only grants the status of POW when both parties in the war are states, or at least entities that are close to states. In the case of Shalit, the group that is holding him is not a state nor does it act on behalf of a state, or apparently on behalf of an entity which is close to being a state.
Nevertheless, Shani said, this was not to say that international law would not provide any protection to Shalit. There was an article in each of the four Geneva Conventions dealing with prisoners taken captive in conflicts which were not of an international nature, he said.
Prosecutors also seek the arrest of three operatives of the CIA and an employee of the American military airbase at Aviano. Last year, Italian prosecutors charged 22 other Americans, who were employed by or linked to the CIA, with involvement in the abduction of the cleric, Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr.
The practice of "extraordinary rendition," which involves seizing a terrorism suspect and transferring him to another country for interrogation, has caused a furor in Europe and governments there have been under intense pressure to disclose any knowledge of these renditions.The Milan case is the first where a foreign government has filed criminal charges.
Laura Rozen has more at War and Piece.
Hashemi became the focus of a contentious debate this spring after an article about his experience at Yale appeared in The New York Times Magazine in February.
My own view, expressed here, is that his sorry ass should have been thrown out of the country, let alone off campus.
Post a Comment