♪♪[THEME MUSIC]♪♪
BOB HERBERT: Hi I'm Bob
Herbert, welcome to Op-Ed.TV.
We were all traumatized
by the terror attacks of
September 11th, 2001 but
they were thirteen years
ago now in 2014, almost
2015 our forces are still
in Afghanistan and we're
at war again in Iraq.
No one even talks about
peace anymore is this
seemingly perpetual
warfare our new normal.
We'll talk about this and
much more with my guest
Thomas McDonnell a
professor of international
law at the Pace University
School of Law here in New York.
Professor
McDonnell, welcome.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Thank you.
BOB HERBERT: Appreciate having
you today. There's a there's a
lot to cover, we'll get to as
much as we can.
You know we've gone back
into Iraq to fight this
terror group the Islamic State,
ISIL or ISIS as people call it.
Talk about the rise of this
group, it didn't even exist when
we invaded Iraq in 2003. Talk
about some of the circumstances
that led to its
creation.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Well
I think we have to talk
about the immediate causes
and then the historical
causes of the rise of
this group and terrorism,
Islamic
terrorism generally.
The immediate cause was
our invasion of 2003,
the Bush Cheney invasion
of that country overthrew
Saddam Hussein admittedly
one of the most brutal
dictators to walk the planet
in the last hundred years.
But it also threw out the
Sunni's from power in that
country and they had, they
had governed that country
since its inception by
Great Britain taking it on
essentially as a colony
after World War One.
So by throwing out Saddam
Hussein that had created a
backlash even though the
Sunni's were a minority
and are still a
minority in that country,
when you run a country
for over seventy years you
kind of get used to the
idea of being in control.
So all of a sudden the Sunni's
who were once in power are out
of power. The other aspect of
this is the disastrous (IND)
program that the
Bush-Cheney administration
implemented, what they
essentially did was take the son
of Saddam's Saddam
Hussein's army,
excuse me, and that was
largely a Sunni military
force and they essentially
fired the entire force.
BOB HERBERT: This was an
experienced war fighting army.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Exactly
but they were fired and
they went over to the opposition
if you will, became part of
a civil war against the now Shia
forming government.
BOB HERBERT: The
insurgency that we talk
about that, they were a big
part of that insurgency.
THOMAS MCDONNELL:
And they are today,
they're a big part of ISIS
today now it certainly is
unfortunate that we could
not have kept more troops
when we pulled them
out at the end of 2011.
But to me that's, that's
somewhat secondary to what
we did in
essentially invading Iraq.
The second important
immediate cause is Bashar
al-Assad, the
president of Syria,
he engaged in really a
Machiavellian course of action.
He essentially you
know gunned down peaceful
protesters from
the Arab Spring,
wanting a peaceful
revolution in that
country, he then pushed
the country into civil
war, after that he bombed
the Free Syrian Army and
other opposing groups
but left ISIS greatly untouched.
He was trying to create a
dilemma. It's either me or ISIS.
BOB HERBERT: Causing a split
in the insurgents in Syria,
so that the insurgents will be
fighting against one another,
in addition to fighting
against Assad.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Exactly,
so what we have are these
forces that have kind of
come together that have,
that have caused this. I think
it's important for your,
for your viewers to also
understand the overall
history of the situation because
these were the immediate causes.
But the history of the
rise of Islamic terrorism
which is something that I
think is rarely discussed
needs to be addressed and
it is complex but I'll try
to break it down into three
parts, one is western
colonization of Muslim countries
and I should say add Russian
colonization of
Muslim countries.
The second is something
that is directly relevant
to the rise of ISIS and
that is the secularization
regime, aggressive
secularization which was
carried out by Turkey's
Ataturk after World War One.
And lastly the rise of
secular authoritarian regimes in
the Middle East and the reason
why this is important for us
is that we supported those
secular authoritarian regimes.
We supported
initially Saddam Hussein.
We supported
the Shah of Iran. We supported,
and we still support the
repressive House of Saud.
We support the autocratic
tiny Gulf oil states.
So this coming together allowed
the Islamic terrorist to arise.
BOB HERBERT: They can make the
case to ordinary people in these
countries that we were on the
side of in giving essential
support to these tyrants who,
murderous tyrants.
THOMAS MCDONNELL:
Precisely and I just want
to talk a little bit
more about Ataturk,
if you may recall I
remember when I was in
tenth grade reading civics
books and how we really
praised Ataturk for all
that he did to modernize Turkey.
But what was left out of
that discussion was the
fact that this was an
extraordinarily aggressive
move on his part.
He abolished the caliphate,
now caliphate, the Caliph
was once the head of the
Ottoman Empire as well
as the religious head.
But abolishing the caliphate
for Muslims was kind of like
abolishing the papacy, the
office of the pope for
Catholics, it caused dismay in
the entire Muslim world and
this was the
connection to ISIS today.
The abolishment by Turkey,
by Turkey, was seen by more
conservative Muslims
as a real assault upon them.
And also it was seen in
a sense as taking on the
mantle of the
colonizing Western powers.
So what we had is than
just to go very quickly in
Egypt, okay we have
the rise of al-Banna who
started the Muslim
Brotherhood in 1928 in
response to this
aggressive secularization
that, that the Turks under
Ataturk accomplished.
Remember the Muslim
Brotherhood ultimately
lead to Al-Jihad and GIA
which ultimately formed
Al-Qaeda which is directly
related to the rise of ISIS.
BOB HERBERT: So the
West has been intimately
involved in the
circumstances,
in some cases causally involved
in the circumstances that
led to the development of these
groups, now this is not to,
to excuse the groups or
to excuse terrorism by any
means, but it's to try and
understand how we got into
the state of
affairs that we're in.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Precisely,
and the other thing, I think the
other part of the story is our
role in opposing democratic
movements you know
in the Middle East.
Americans tend to forget
that in 1953 we overthrew
the democratically elected
prime minister of Iran.
BOB HERBERT:
Mohammed (IND).
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Exactly
and we put the Shah of Iran,
a dictatorial regime again a
secularist as well in his place.
We also opposed, rather I
should say we supported
the Algerian military's
cancelling elections in 1991,
elections the Muslim Brotherhood
would almost certainly have won.
Last year we implicitly
ratified Egypt's military
overthrow of the first
fairly and freely elected
president of Egypt, a Muslim
Brotherhood member, unpopular,
a bad ruler but nonetheless we
have implicitly ratified that
action. The other thing we
implicitly ratified is
that the Egyptian
government killed about
fourteen hundred Muslim
Brotherhood protesters,
I mean this was a direct
action to kill these
people it was not an effort
to disperse an unruly crowd.
So we have to change
course in my view,
we have to start moving
towards promoting true
democracy in these
areas even if they are
governments that we don't
like in order to not make
it a choice between,
rather forcing them to
essentially forget the
ballot box and move to
violent
actions against us.
BOB HERBERT: We are now in
this fight against ISIS in
Iraq and also in Syria. But it
seems haphazard to an outside
observer. What's the goal,
what's the end game and can this
fight possibly be won from our
perspective
and primarily through air power?
THOMAS
MCDONNELL: Yeah I think,
I think there are some
major issues with this.
I mean I think everyone
is counting on it.
I think, look let's first
admit that ISIS is an
extraordinarily
brutal organization.
BOB HERBERT:
Terrible, horrible.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: It is
committing war crimes,
I mean they're
killing prisoners.
OK I mean you may not like
the Syrian army but you
don't kill prisoners who
are virtually helpless.
BOB HERBERT: And they're killing
civilians, women, children.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: They're
killing you know (IND),
you know
they're killing Shia.
They're also you know
not to mention beheadings,
the crucifixions,
kidnapping women.
The reports are that
these women are being
essentially sold to others
or given to the (IND).
BOB HERBERT: So there's no
defense that can be made (IND).
THOMAS MCDONNELL: There's
no question that this
organization has
to be stopped. Agreed.
The difficulty is based
on what I just said is the
United States the best,
are we really in position
to lead this fight and I
think what we really need
in this country is a full debate
on this issue before Congress.
I've great respect for
President Obama on many
issues although I criticize
him on counterterrorism policy.
But there should have been a
congressional debate, there
should have hearings and a
congressional debate on this.
This may be a war that will last
for, for decades and it's
something that, and it may
endanger the United States there
may be a greater possibility
of revenge attacks against the
United States.
BOB HERBERT: Of terror
attacks within the border.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Exactly
so my view is we needed a full
and complete debate in order to
make and to assess this. As you
pointed out I mean what, what is
the end game I mean it's,
it's really unclear as to
exactly what victory would look
like. And there's the risk that
that this again is going
to give ISIS the arguments
that essentially it's the
United States
against Islamists.
So justifying a holy
war against the West,
so I think we
need to step back,
again have a full debate on
this, look into every aspect
of this before we continue to go
forward.
BOB HERBERT: Now Senator
Tim Kaine a Democrat from
Virginia and an ally of
President Obama takes the
view that you've just
taken that the president
really did not have the
authorization to launch
these strikes
against ISIS,
that there should have
been a congressional
debate and a congressional
vote and authorization
from Congress to go
to war against ISIS.
Why didn't this happen?
THOMAS MCDONNELL: From
what I understand is that
because of the newness of
the elections that a lot
of people felt that
this was going to be a
disruptive type of an
action at that time.
Nonetheless I think this
is why we pay our members
of Congress to make an
important decision like
this and I agree with
Senator Kaine if you look
at the 2001 authorization
for use of force it's
focused on Al Qaeda.
I mean this group has
separate from Al Qaeda,
it mean it's amazing if
you think of it that even
Al Qaeda believes that
this group is too radical.
BOB HERBERT: This group is
way worse than Al Qaeda.
Give you an idea of
what you're dealing with.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Exactly,
but the point is we need
an authorization but more
importantly in my view and
that was thirteen
years ago ironically the
Bush-Cheney administration
relied on a thirteen year
old Security Council resolution
to justify its invasion of Iraq.
So you know,
so one wonders,
well anyway the point is
that there should be a
full debate on this, on
the legal basis for the
invasion itself from a US
constitutional point of
view is slender at best.
And it would be much
better for us as a country
and much better for us in
terms of making the right
decision for us to have
had a full debate after
every side, every view
had been considered.
BOB HERBERT: If you don't
get authorization from
Congress, well before that
I thought it was clear in
the Constitution
that Congress had the
authorization, the
authority and the
requirement to declare
war that the president,
that the executive branch would
conduct war but Congress had
to declare war. But it seems
like we hardly ever do that.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: In practice
we've moved away from it, yes.
BOB HERBERT: So what's
happened and what are the
implications, what should
the ordinary American take
from the fact that we are at war
almost all the time now and
yet you never get a declaration
of war from Congress.
What are the
implications of that?
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Well I
think it's indications are
troubling, I mean
there's no doubt about it.
Perhaps, perhaps if there
had been a declaration of
war, remember you may
recall there was some time
span between the time
that the Bush-Cheney
administration got the
authorization to go to war
in Iraq and the time that
Iraq was actually invaded.
One would hope that
if there is a routine
practice of declarations of war
there would be a floor debate.
The argument is raised
that in a case of imminent
danger the president must
have the authority to use force,
to protect the country.
And I think there's,
there's no question,
there's no
disagreement about that.
On the other hand here, I
mean had there not been
the beheadings of the
Americans would we have
taken this action?
BOB HERBERT: I mean I think
it's clear we would not have.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: So I mean how
imminent was it is my,
is my point. So I and I think
that this really calls out,
because of the risks here
this really calls out for
a full debate and a full,
at a minimum authorization
if not a
declaration of war.
BOB HERBERT: The preferred
way of war in the United
States right now is
the use of armed drones.
How should we, how should
we even begin to look at
that kind of war fighting? There
has not been any kind of full
national debate on
that issue either.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: The
drones appear to be a quick fix.
So in other words and
it's very cosmetic,
you know someone in a
control room in Langley
Virginia or wherever and
you target an individual
and that person is killed.
Also they tend to be more
discriminate weapons than
say gravity bombs,
although they're not as
discriminant as some of
their advocates you know
believe them to be.
BOB HERBERT: Yeah
advocates would say that
these are very precise
weapons and that essentially
or for the most part they
only get the bad guys.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Yeah
well I mean they are more
precise than gravity bombs
there's no question about
it but typically in a
drone strike they fire at
least two
Hellfire missiles.
Hellfire missiles
can destroy a house,
you fire two of them,
one can destroy a house,
two of them will almost
certainly destroy a house,
if anyone's in there who
is not an insurgent then
they will be killed.
But the point that I want
to make here is that Musab
al-Zarqawi was the subject
of a targeted killing by
the United States in 2006.
You may recall he was the
head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Al Qaeda in Iraq is ISIS
under a different name.
BOB HERBERT: Right,
it's a precursor of what
we know as ISIS.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: And we
made a big deal about the
fact that yes, we got the
head of Al Qaeda in Iraq.
And the question is has
that really advanced us. Right.
There is Jenna Jordan from
University of Chicago has
a study which suggests
fairly strongly that
so-called taking out
of the leadership of a
religious terrorist organization
is generally counterproductive.
Now again this is one
study there are a few
other studies, there
are some counter studies,
I don't mean to
suggest this is gospel but
certainly there is a
possibility and perhaps
even a probability that
targeting the leadership
of a terrorist
organization based on
religion that adopts a
suicide bombing ethos
could very well be
counterproductive and
certainly despite all of
the acclaim of a killing
al-Zarqawi in 2006, this
organization we're facing
now is far more potent,
far more powerful so we
have to kind of step
back and think that the
so-called you know easy
solutions of targeted
killing typically used by
drones although in that
case it was not used by drones
may not be the right answer.
BOB HERBERT: As we pursue
this war against ISIS but
it's not a full-scale
war against ISIS from the
perspective of
the United States.
I don't see the, I don't see
how you want to win this war.
So we've been trying to
get the so-called moderate
opposition groups in Syria
on our side to fight ISIS,
a couple of points there.
One the idea of moderate
groups in warfare,
I used to be in the
army, the idea of moderate
groups in warfare will
send a chill through you,
those are not the
ones who generally win.
But, but their fight, their
main fight is against Assad.
Why would they turn their
primary focus to ISIS?
Because the United States
wants them to do that and
in the option, in the
absence of something like
that and given the tepid
response of our so-called
allies in the Middle East how is
it possible to win this war?
THOMAS MCDONNELL: I think
it's an excellent question.
Now Lindsey Graham's
solution is to send
American troops and make
the American troops on the
ground, I think
it's a very different,
I think it's a tough
question and that's why
this thing really needed
to be much more fully
debated because I mean
first of all you can't
really expect them to target
ISIS when their enemies Assad.
Now remember reportedly
Assad has killed
two hundred thousand people.
Now according to the U.N.
which came out with a
report earlier this week
fifty five hundred people
have been killed by ISIS.
Now I don't
mean to suggest,
I mean the numbers game
is always troubling but,
but from many people in
the middle east point of
view, Al-Assad is the
far more evil force to,
to be reckoned with.
So to expect this
group assuming,
there's nothing by the
way I just want to mention
we're supposed to train this
group in Saudi Arabia.
Now Osama Bin Laden's
first fatwa 1996 was
entitled, okay,
essentially going against the
American occupation force in
the land of the two holy places.
BOB HERBERT: Most
Americans are unaware of
this or have forgotten.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: So,
now granted we had five,
about a half million
troops in Saudi Arabia at
the time because of
the Desert Storm but,
here again I mean it's
like you know reprise of,
of what happened earlier.
Now we're going to,
we're going to be training
troops in Saudi Arabia
which was what prompted
you know Osama bin Laden's
first fatwa I mean,
I mean have we, have we
not learned that that we
have to take a
different approach here.
BOB HERBERT: The approach
that we've been taking
whatever one's opinions
have been about them have
kept us in a state of
essentially perpetual
warfare since 2001, now
the talk coming out of the
administration, the military,
analysts and others is that this
fight against ISIS could
last years more.
Are we, is that
the new normal?
Are we in a state of
perpetual, perpetual war?
THOMAS MCDONNELL: Well I hope,
you know Bob I
really hope we're not,
I really hope we're not.
I fear that we are, that's
what I fear and I think
you have to look back and
say, you know what went wrong.
And in my view the
invasion of Iraq,
which was very hard to
make that legal under
international law,
it was a violation of
international law in the
view of most commentators.
BOB HERBERT: That's been
the cornerstone of the
overwhelming majority
of our problems since, since
then including the problems that
we've faced in Afghanistan.
THOMAS MCDONNELL: So the
other thing I think that
we have to do is to take a
page out of our close ally
Great Britain's playbook.
It took them decades if
not centuries to learn
that when you're dealing
with rebels it's better to
use law enforcement
and imprison them,
then to kill them
or execute them.
The 1916 uprising in Great
Britain resulted in the
death, after summary trials
Great Britain executed all the
leadership positions,
some fifteen members.
Sinn Fein which was the
essentially the precursor
to IRA, was
generally unpopular,
they were considered
radicals they were,
they were, they were
kind of outside of things.
But because of the
manner in which they were
executed, tried and
executed the Irish people
rose up and you had the Irish
Free State five years later.
Great Britain learned
from that experience,
that the way in which
to handle individuals or
rebels is not necessarily
to kill them or execute
them but to use law enforcement
to the extent possible.
And I'm not suggesting
that we can use law
enforcement against
ISIS given the current
situation but our approach
has got to be ultimately
to the armed force the
exception and using law
enforcement against
individuals who threaten
us in this way
the general rule.
BOB HERBERT: We
have to stop there.
I hope you'll come back
and we can pursue this
further, we
need more time.
Professor Tom McDonnell,
thank you so much.
We'll be back in a
moment with a final word.
The one and only time that
the New York Jets went to
the Super Bowl Lyndon
Johnson was president,
the United States was
fighting in Vietnam and
Barack Obama was
seven years old.
As a young man obsessed a
Jets fan I was deliriously
happy when the
Jets won that game,
beating that then Baltimore
Colts sixteen to seven.
What I didn't know at the
time was that that was it.
That was the high point,
presumably forever for
this team
known as gangrene.
Jets fans everywhere know
what I'm talking about.
The Jets once fired a
coach Pete Carroll who had
lost his last five games
and replaced him with a
coach Rich Kotite who
had lost his last seven.
Pete Carroll is now the
coach of the Super Bowl
champion Seattle Seahawks.
Another Jets coach Lou
Holtz once promised fans that
the team would definitely now
this is a quote, move the ball.
He then added I just
hope to God it's forward.
Holtz didn't even last a full
season. Nothing's changed.
The Jets recently traveled
to the west coast where
they were drubbed thirty
one to nothing by the
Chargers of San Diego.
Why am I recapping this
nearly half century of
pain and anguish
for Jets fans.
It's because I love kids
and so a word of wisdom to
all you parents out there.
Don't let your children
grow up to be Jets fans.
That's all for now,
see you next time.
♪♪[THEME MUSIC]♪♪
