Marc Thiessen Suggests That Killing Terrorists Poses A National Security Risk

Former Bush speechwriter and torture-thrillist Marc Thiessen has, of late, been mounting some sort of prolonged campaign of pure, mountain-grown idiocy. He reached a new plateau today with a piece that essentially bitches about how President Barack Obama's success at eliminating terrorists is putting the country in danger. I know: What?

Just so we're clear, let the record state that Thiessen agrees that Obama is doing a good job killing terrorists. I found this out by searching his article for the phrase, "to be sure," which I knew was in there somewhere!

To be sure, unmanned drones are critical in the struggle against al Qaeda. They allow the United States to reach terrorists hiding in remote regions where it would be difficult for special operations forces to reach them, or to act on perishable intelligence when the only choice is to kill a terrorist or lose him. Constantly hovering Predator (or Reaper) drones also have a psychological effect on the enemy, forcing al Qaeda leaders to live in fear and spend time focusing on self-preservation that would otherwise be used planning the next attack. All this is for the good.

Okay, that said, Thiessen's basic problem here is that with all this eliminating of the terrorist threat, Obama is harming our ability to detain and torture terrorists for their valuable intelligence.

President Barack Obama's escalation of drone strikes is one area in the counterterrorism fight where he has earned plaudits from even his most vocal critics on the right. Hold the applause. Obama's escalation of the "Predator War" comes at the very same time he has eliminated the CIA's capability to capture senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogate them for information on new attacks.

It's a weird thesis -- drone strikes are precluding any other possible counterterror effort, and we're getting too good at killing terrorists for our own good. It makes it sound like there can't be a parallel effort to garner intelligence or question suspects alongside targeted drone attacks. And it's not just a weird, unproven thesis, its one that just doesn't comport to available facts. Why, here's Walter Pincus, documenting the highly effective interrogation of this guy, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Maybe you've heard of him?

Right away, I start looking for evidence that some "CIA capability" has been "eliminated." A program cut, maybe? A budgetary line item reduced? Intelligence officials re-assigned? Thiessen's sense of incredibly unwarranted certainty seems to stem from some unnamed guy he got to back up the premise of his book, and in so doing, this article, who alleges that "In the wake of 9/11, [the CIA] put forward a program that had a lethal component to strike back at the people who did this. But the other component was to prevent this kind of catastrophe from happening again. And for that, killing people -- especially killing senior al Qaeda leaders -- is potentially counterproductive in that we can't know or learn of future attacks. You can't kill them all, and you don't want to kill them all from an intelligence standpoint. We needed to know what they knew." But nowhere in there is actual evidence of, well, anything.

As Matt Yglesias points out, the underlying premise of Thiessen's piece appears to be that "it's better to let four terrorists go free if that lets you torture a fifth." Dead terrorists may tell no tales, but tortured terrorists tend to tell tales that don't amount to a hill of beans, as far as national security is concerned.

I think Thiessen would have fashioned a more compelling article if he'd have just leveled with his readers, and simply said that the pain induced by torturing people fortifies his precious bodily fluids with feelings of awesomeness.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[mmsuki]

01:50 PM on 02/17/2010

Chris3131: you say things that are wrong. You claim the left is not complaining about getting the troops out. You are wrong. Much of left is apoplectic about leaving the troops overseas, and we want them home NOW!

[Dustee]

04:56 PM on 02/17/2010

Agreed!

[AudreyinGA]

12:45 PM on 02/11/2010

Maybe the republicans should try bi-partisanship with the terrorists because it is obviously not working
out for the Democrats and President Obama.

[ReedYoung]

05:57 PM on 02/10/2010

Dr. Strangelove?

"I think Thiessen would have fashioned a more compelling article if he'd have just leveled with his readers, and simply said that the pain induced by torturing people fortifies his precious bodily fluids with feelings of awesomeness."

[ibsteve2u]

02:07 PM on 02/10/2010

Wow. Are we going to find out somewhere down the road that Thiessen holds the laundry contract for Gitmo?

One thing I've noticed about the right: Dig deep enough, and you eventually find that money is somehow their motive.

[ReedYoung]

11:32 AM on 02/11/2010

More like the marketing department for the mercenary subdivision of the military-industrial complex. He reminds me of "computer security experts" who encourage putting some Norton on your Windows PC to give it "security" but knowing full well that the only way to really secure a computer system is to base it on a secure kernel, like Linux or the new MacOS's BSD kernel. Our national security weakness is the result of a core policy of neo-colonial expansionism which the neo-cons sought to knowingly worsen, so they could sell us some retail "security products" to pretend to remedy the problems they caused.

[batguano]

01:36 PM on 02/10/2010

Ever since the demise of the Great Bogeyman, the Soviet Union, that made the Military Industrial Complex really work, they, & other parts of the War Machine, desperately needed an "enemy" to justify all that spending (& profits) on the taxpayer dime, all in the name of "security", motherhood & apple pie; then, viola, 911. The drone killings will never end the "terrorist" threat, do much more harm than good, & create actual threats to our nation & the rest of the world. If YOU were occupied by a foreign power would you become a "militant" or “insurgent” & fight for your country? YOU would then be targeted for death from above, along with all those wedding parties, innocent convoys, sheep smugglers, & innocent men, women & children, who are all blown to bits by a coward with “clean” hands sitting at a screen thousands of miles away. We are empowering the "war without end" scenario the MIC and other depraved war profiteers worked so hard for and need to maintain their excuses for vast profits while our civilian sector is de-funded and critical civilian goals go begging. The new "Bogeyman" is, of course, "International Terrorism", and the obscene waste in resources, men, women, and civilian goals is a national tragedy and criminal conspiracy. The only way out of this insanity is an end of for-profit, pre-emptive war and the re-emergence of some form of dialogue and understanding. Actual terrorists can be dealt with at a much lower level of

[Decipherer]

04:12 PM on 02/10/2010

Well, your post certainly rings true no matter how many times you've repeated it.

[batguano]

05:18 PM on 02/10/2010

I truly apologize to all. The delay for "moderation" of several hours and more leads to frustration and impatience and doubt. You would think that if every post is read that "they" would see that a post is duplicated and eliminate repititions. The duplicats were not my intention, only to get my thoughts and words out.

[batguano]

12:48 PM on 02/10/2010

Ever since the demise of the Great Bogeyman, the Soviet Union, that made the Military Industrial Complex really work, they, and other parts of the War Machine, desperately needed an "enemy" to justify all that spending (and profits) on the taxpayer dime, all in the name of "security", motherhood and apple pie. The drone killings will never end the "terrorist" threat and do much more harm than good and create actual threats to our nation and the rest of the world. If YOU were occupied by a foreign power would you become a "militant" and fight for your country? YOU would then be targeted for death from above, along with all those wedding parties, innocent convoys, sheep smugglers, and innocent men, women and children, who are all blown to bits by people with "clean hands" sitting at a screen thousands of miles away. We are empowering the "war without end" scenario the MIC and other depraved war profiteers worked so hard for and need to maintain their excuses for vast profits while our civilian sector is de-funded and critical civilian goals go begging. The new "Bogeyman" is, of course, "International Terrorism", & the obscene waste in resources, men, women, and civilian goals is a national tragedy and criminal conspiracy. The only way out of this insanity is an end of for-profit, pre-emptive war and the emergence of some form of dialogue & understanding. The actual terrorists can be dealt with at a much lower level of conflict.

[Chris3131]

12:24 PM on 02/10/2010

Here's what I think is hysterical. When Obama kills these guys, he's a hero, but when Bush did it, it was a war crime? It can't be both. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling.

[research]

02:10 PM on 02/10/2010

I sort of agree. Obama didn't start the illegal ware, and supposedly has not tortured, but he is continuing to expand the war into Pakistan for which there was not congressional approval.

Folks Just try to imagine Canada using drones to kill runaway Canadian killers in the USA.

[Decipherer]

04:16 PM on 02/10/2010

Sorry, maybe I missed it, but who was calling the use of drone aircraft dropping bombs on terrorists in Afghanistan a "war crime?"

Maybe I missed something, but apart from the rationale for the pre-emptive invasion of Iraq based on a pack of lies, the torture of detainees, and assorted other nastiness, I do not believe that anyone called Sock Puppet or President Cheeney out on the drone-bombing business.

If you can provide us some names, sources, links or other "evidence" to back up your assertion, I for one would be very grateful. Please, be specific.

[Chris3131]

09:12 AM on 02/11/2010

Everything Bush did was considered a war crime by the left. Obama didn't start the war, which is where the differences end. I don't hear even one peep from the left about what Obama's doing. Why are they not whining about pulling the troops out anymore like they did when Bush was in office? I'll answer that question. It's because they are smart enough (yeah, I said it) to know that pulling all the troops out now would be devastating but if it had been done under Bush like they wanted, it would have been a loss on Bush's watch. They can't have that happening under Obama, now can they? It's a prime example of how the liberals couldn't care less about the country itself. They don't care that we would have lost the war(s), just that it would have made them look better politically.

[batguano]

12:13 PM on 02/10/2010

"Of all the enemies of true liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manner and of morals, engendered in both. No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. --- In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them. In war, the honors and emoluments of office are to be multiplied; and it is the executive patronage under which they are to be enjoyed; and it is the executive brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace".

--James Madison

[batguano]

12:06 PM on 02/10/2010

Ever since the demise of the great bogeyman, the Soviet Union, that made the Military Industrial Complex really work, they, and other parts of the War Machine, desperately needed an "enemy" to justify all that spending (and profits) on the taxpayer dime, all in the name of "security", motherhood and apple pie. The drone killings will never end the "terrorist" threat and do much more harm than good and create actual threats to our nation and the rest of the world. If YOU were occupied by a foreign power would you become a "militant" and fight for your country? YOU would then be targeted for death from above, along with all those wedding parties, innocent convoys and sheep smugglers, who are blown to bits by a coward with clean hands in another country. We are empowering the "war without end" scenario the MIC and other depraved war profiteers worked so hard for and need to maintain their excuses for vast profits while our civilian sector is de-funded and critical civilian goals go begging. The new "Bogeyman" is of course "International Terrorism", and the obscene waste in resources, men and women, and civilian goals is a national tragedy and criminal conspiracy. The only way out of this insanity is an end of for-profit pre-emptive war and the re-emergence of some form of dialogue and understanding. The actual terrorists can be dealt with at a much lower level of conflict.

[neverbeenfooled]

11:01 AM on 02/10/2010

Yes, if we kill all of them, how can we interrogate one to find out what the others knew??

[Decipherer]

04:22 PM on 02/10/2010

If we kill them all, as you suggest, what would be the point of interrogating them? They'd be gone, right?

Problem solved.

[terris]

10:12 AM on 02/10/2010

It should be clear to all why Iran, etc. can't stockpile nuclear weapons. Any country that flew drones in the US would trigger nuclear annihilation. Let's get it over with. Let everyone have nukes. Either we will learn to live together or we will die with our military-rules white-male-centric leadership. Either way, I don't care.

[Wisdo]

09:51 AM on 02/10/2010

So many knuckle draggers on these forums.

First of all, WHAT "TERRORISTS"?. The 911 guys? they died on 911. The Al Kaida "leadership"? al kaida is not an organisation or an army it is a club of like minded individuals and there are only tens or hundreds of them, not millions. The so-called "terrorists" the US is killing are simply people who dont like the US fireing a bunch of weapons at their country killing wedding parties and children. Heck every one of us would be a "terorist" tomorrow if the government blew up all the houses in our neighborhood.

Secondly: WHAT WAR?
No war is declared. There is no war. War is a LOT bigger and more destructive, with a lot more casualties. Stop calling it a war. It isn't. It doesn't deserve its own new set of laws, it doesn't deserve a "patriot act" it doesn't warrant warrantless wiretapping on US citizens. It doesn't trump the constitution and suddenly make torture fine and dandy.

Third: how is this going to end?
When the US has killed every last man woman and child in the middle east? Whats the plan here? What are the goals? There doesn't seem to be a goal. Or a plan. Or even a reason anymore.

Unending 'war' that requires unending erosion of the constitution based on the miniscule number of Americans killed by terrorism (in comparsion to hand gun fatalities or auto accidents) need to be stopped.

[Decipherer]

04:21 PM on 02/10/2010

Perhaps you should pose your very pointed questions to Sock Puppet and former President Cheeney, who should have been asked these questions by the country, especially the majority party in Congress at the time, that being the Gee-NO-Pee you may recall, at the time when anything other than blind loyalty to their lies was tantamount to treason.

Asking such questions now is like closing the barn door after the horses got out. But, maybe next time, eh?

[vesaversa1]

09:31 AM on 02/10/2010

This right winger rational is ludicrous ,just d@m, ridiculous .

[motoboy]

09:20 AM on 02/10/2010

It's how we behave in the worst of times that tells the world who we really are.

[kent4620]

09:08 AM on 02/10/2010

The dither -in-chief has dubbed this the good w a r . Let get behind his policy.

[Decipherer]

04:25 PM on 02/10/2010

How are those English classes workin' out fer ya, Sparky? Also.