You might have heard about the American Security Project’s efforts to measure progress in the US’s “War on Terror.” While as of this writing I’ve seen stories talk about how we’re failing in a number of metrics, I hadn’t seen coverage of the metrics themselves. So I went to the actual report:
Are We Winning?: Measuring Progress in the Struggle Against Violent Jihadism
http://www.americansecurityproject.org/files/ASP_RPTWeb_0.pdf
and pulled out the ten measures for you, along with the summary progress status:
I. NUMBER OF TERRORIST INCIDENTS – No or negative progress
II. HEALTH OF THE JIHADIST MOVEMENT – Uncertain progress
III. AL QAEDA AFFILIATED MOVEMENTS – No or negative progress
IV. STATE SPONSORSHIP OF TERRORISM – Positive Progress
V. PUBLIC ATTITUDES IN THE MUSLIM WORLD – No or negative progress
VI. PUBLIC ATTITUDES IN THE UNITED STATES – Uncertain progress
VII. ECONOMIC PROSPERITY AND POLITICAL FREEDOM – Positive Progress
VIII. UNGOVERNED SPACES – No or negative progress
IX. INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION AGAINST TERRORISTS – Uncertain progress
X. TERRORIST FINANCING – No or negative progress
Each of these 10 indicators are treated in detail in this report and appear to be well documented. And they seem like fair metrics to me. Are they to you? If not, what measurable items should we be using?
One of the most sobering and sad parts of this report are the graphs of terror incidents. Not only has the sheer number of incidents increased since 9/11 and especially since our ill-considered, first-strike invasion of Iraq, but the graphs clearly indicate that the rate of increase took a sharp upturn after our invasion. While correlation is not causation, one reasonable conclusion is that by our current course of action we accelerated terror beyond what would have happened if we had done nothing at all since 9/11. Of course we would have and should have done things differently after 9/11 and many courses were open to us. Finishing the job in Afghanistan instead of attacking a country that had no operational ties to al-Qaeda would have been a very good start.
Please keep this report in mind when the President and his supporters that being on defense is stupid. Their approach is no better and has cost tens of thousands of lives and nearly a trillion dollars. America deserves better.
Somewhere I read that 10 years after the end of WWII we had more troops in Japan than we now have in the mideast. Did we win that one? Or did we just hang around for another war?
Norma,
I know you know your history better than this comment implies. Japan did not put up any significant resistance to our occupation after 1945. You may refresh your memory on this subject by reading through one of the following:
U.S. Occupation Assistance:
Iraq, Germany and Japan Compared
Congressional Research Service
http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA458270&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf:
The existence of an insurgency in Iraq which deliberately sabotages the economy and reconstruction efforts is an important consideration in comparing Iraq’s economic reconstruction requirements with those of post-war Germany and Japan, which had no resistance movements.
OR
Occupation of Japan
Jan 01, 1948
BY Brigadier General Frayne Baker
http://www.army.mil/-news/1948/01/01/4614-occupation-of-japan/index.html
The Allied Occupation of Japan is more than a mere military mission. It is also an experiment, a paradox, and a symbol.
As a military mission, its major functions are virtually completed. The culminating act in the victory of Allied arms in the Pacific war, the occupation quickly succeeded in its assigned task of disarming the vanquished and rendering Japan’s war-making power totally ineffective.
===============
Basically, the forces in Japan quickly completed their security work and were there in 1955 strictly to defend Japan against outside forces. They were not there in 1955 or in 1948 to pacify an in-country insurgency nor to take sides in a Japanese civil war.