Obama and the "Warrior Ethos"

(AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Despite having "intellectual rigor," has President Obama gone too far from George Bush's "warrior ethos" in the fight against jihadist terrorists? Yes, said a top former U.S. intelligence officer in a compelling interview last night on PBS's Charlie Rose show.

It's a pressing issue, as the Obama Administration prepares to fly 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four top al-Qaeda plotters to New York for a criminal trial and, on Friday, to arraign in a Detroit courtroom the Nigerian man charged with the attempted Christmas Day bombing. And it's an enormously difficult one for this administration, which says it's emphasizing the rule of law and seeking to restore U.S. image abroad, while at the same time trying to reassure the American public it is doing everything possible to fight terrorism and keep America safe.

Last night, a new voice—one far removed from the partisan political din--entered the debate. Henry Crumpton is a revered figure in intelligence, someone who has been called in the Washington Post a "genuine American hero" who "changed the way the United States fights terrorism." He developed and implemented the astonishingly successful strategy that ousted the Taliban in Afghanistan in the weeks after 9/11 by partnering small groups of intelligence officers with local opposition groups.

As Robin Wright explained in her article on Crumpton, the biggest influences in his thinking are Sun Tzu, the Chinese military strategist born in 500 B.C. who wrote "The Art of War," and the Greek historian Thucydides, who chronicled the 5th-century B.C. war between Athens and Sparta. As Wright noted, he has written that his approach to using intelligence as a tool in counterterrorism is premised on Sun Tzu's advice: "The expert in using the military subdues the enemy's forces without going to battle."

60 Minutes' Lara Logan and producer Howard L. Rosenberg returned to Afghanistan with Crumpton for a terrific piece that aired last week, and last night, I caught him on Charlie Rose. He was critical of the Obama administration, which he says has intellectual rigor and a deep understanding of the issues, but is focusing too much on a legal approach to fight terror.

Crumpton's Exhibit A: The administration's decision to try top terrorist suspects as ordinary criminals in our criminal court system, where they receive the full range of constitutional and procedural protections, instead treating them in times of war as enemy combatants, subject to military proceedings. Crumpton said he saw some "positive signs" from the new administration, but that he has concerns about its overall view on the war.

Here's the conversation:

Rose: You said President Bush had a warrior ethos and President Obama comes at it from another extreme, he comes at it like a lawyer.

Crumpton: I believe I said President Bush aspired to a warrior's ethos, and President Obama views this conflict more from a legal point of view, and I'm not in any way diminishing the importance of law enforcement or the rule of law. That is a critical instrument of our statecraft. But I think that it is a war, and I think that it requires more than just a legalistic approach. It does require a warrior's ethos. But also--and this is where President Obama and some of his people are very strong--it requires intellectual rigor, it requires a deeper understanding of some of these issues and the consequences for our actions. But it also requires a determination, a deep commitment, to find and engage and to kill our enemies because they want to kill us, including some of us here in the homeland.
….I also question the Obama Administration and about how they've approached some of the terrorism suspects.

I believe that these are enemy combatants, and they should be treated as such. I think we also need to look at unilateral opportunities when we cannot depend on allies, both at a state level and a non-state level, and I am encouraged to some degree because President Obama has increased the use of CIA Predator drones. So I think there are some encouraging signs, but it also requires a warrior's ethos, because this is a war. A different kind of a war, but sadly, it's going to be with us for a long time.

Rose: You do not want to see people like (Khalid) Sheikh Mohammed tried in a criminal process in New York Federal Court, do you?

Crumpton: No, I do not. I think that's a mistake.

Rose: And would it be a mistake to do the man that they most recently captured, to treat him in the same way, even though that's the way they did the shoe bomber?

Crumpton: Ah, yes, I also agree that he should be treated as an enemy combatant. Right now, he has a lawyer, he is not cooperating, he obviously has valuable intelligence, and we're not able to acquire that, because he is being treated as a criminal within the U.S. and not as an enemy combatant, and I think that hurts us.

Rose: Why do you think...The Attorney General made that decision?

Crumpton: It goes back to my original comment about President Obama and his administration. I think they've done many good things, they've kept some great people, Secretary Gates, Jim Jones are the two examples…But I believe they still approach this in a very legalistic manner and they default to dealing with Al Qaeda and with threats in terms of our domestic legal system. But if you look at war, there are different laws, there are different requirements of war, and I think that's been one of the challenges for this administration.

I should note that I think our President is very smart, dedicated, hard-working, and I think he's learning on the job, and I am hopeful there will be some course corrections in the future.

Rose: Can you tell me what the course corrections are?

Crumpton: Well, I think if you look at Al Qaeda and their affiliates they should be treated as enemy combatants, and we need to deal with them in that way.

[CBSisCommunist2]

nobel PEACE prize...


enough said

[jea333]

R U kidding ???...that was given to him as a gift of this grand illusion the world has of things yet to come...he has even admitted as much himself that he has done nothing to deserve this. People project all of these various qualities onto this man who doesn't appear to have a clue on how to handle anything but his perceived image and how to straddle issues without offending anyone...especially our European friends.

[jschmidt27]

Well the Administration will not listen to this expert. They look upon the war as a police action. The Nigerian who tried to kill US citizens is a ciminal not a terrorist. According to Obama he deserves the rights of a US citzen. Holder says he will be found guilty. So if that is the end result, let the military tribunal take care of it and let the real interrogators get what they can out of him. Obama and his crew will lawyer up all the terrorists and the ACLU will have field day. KSM trial in NY will cost $75 million. Hey it is only our money. What till they say KSM can't get a fair trial in NY and then move it to San Fran. Then he can line up the book and movie rights out there and be treated as a celebrity. FDR tried spies in a military tribunal and when found guilty eecuted them. Obama just doesn't understand these people want us all dead, or to convert the entire country to Islam and they will not stop. The Geneva Convention doesn't cover these people.

[mnbrant]

I haven't read this but I have to question if this guy is important enough to have listed his favorite reads in a news article. That being said I will give my assessment that Obama is being way too tough in the war on terror. End of quote.

Brant

[DavefromColorado]

Oh....

soooo....

Will it take the bomb actually exploding before you realize that terrorism is real?

Or gunshots?

Oh wait that already happened at Fort Hood...

Well then... all I can say is I hope not one more marine, soldier, special forces, air force, or navy individual sacrifices anything for you, because clearly you don't want and don't deserve it.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

[mnbrant]

Yeah but were not winning. Read in the New York Times today from someone who was there that we never defeated the Taliban in the first place. They only moved into couple kilometers and set up shop again. As far as not doing enough I am a vet from the army. I have offered my services to both the Guard and C.I.A. and have been turned down. Lighten up geeze. I can bet the next year they will be saying exactly what I am saying and you will be all for it.

[TooComplex]

Obama needs to bring righteous anger to the table, in dealing with terrorists and Republicans that oppose him (same thing). Since Republicans thrive on anger and hostility, he might even talk some of the Republican public into supporting him.

[endurorob_5]

Thats funny. The majority of those on these blogs that show anger and hostility are liberals.

[DavefromColorado]

Actually he should probably be worrying about all the independent support leaving, as mine has.

To call Republicans terrorists is just sad...

And at the same time defend a foreigner jihadist who straps explosives to himself and walks onto a civilian flight...

you know in the old days, those that associated themselves with terrorists were tried as such...

I know those days are long gone and all since Obama and his terrorist associates from his past have been waved off, but you might heed that warning come future elections...

[Henri_Rochard]

I can't think of any one thing that Obama's done that's been a number-one, unabashed success. He's done a lot of stuff, but nothing has worked out to be a 100% success.

To be fair, there's nothing from George Bush that jumps out at me, either.

[DavefromColorado]

Yes both had their faults, but at least Bush kept US soil safe from terrorism from 9/11 on...

How many terrorist attacks/plots have there been ON US soil in the past year?

At least 3, though I'm sure i'm missing some...

Subway Bomber
Underwear Bomber
Fort Hood Shooter