Posted by 
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army officer, a controversial strategist and world traveler, and the author of 25 books, including the recent bestselling thriller, The War After Armageddon, and the forthcoming Endless War (March, 2010), which examines the history–and future–of conflict between Islam and the West. An opinion columnist for the New York Post and popular media commentator, he became Fox News Network’s first Strategic Analyst in 2009.
FP: Ralph Peters, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Peters: Great to reconnect with you, Jamie.
FP: What are your thoughts regarding the recent botched terrorist attack on Christmas Day on Flight 253?
Peters: Well, I have to separate my thoughts and my feelings. First, the feelings: Outrage. Not so much at the bomber, who was just fulfilling his duty to commit jihad against Christians on their most important holiday (with any dead Jews as a bonus), but at the stunning lack of interest or concern on the part of our partying president and his paladins. Hey, why interrupt your holiday just because an Islamist terrorist (well, they don’t exist, right?) tried to kill 300 innocents and almost pulled it off? And, of course, we were all instantly reassured when Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano (whose real interest seems to be harassing law-abiding citizens at airports, while preparing to push through citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants) told us that the system worked. I mean, God help us, you and I don’t live in the same universe as our “leaders.”
On the thoughts side: President Obama, sooner or later, has to take responsibility for something. His call for yet another review in the wake of the failed attack had the primary purpose of deflecting blame from the administration. Well, the military maxim applies: A leader is responsible for everything his subordinates do, or fail to do. All his adult life, Obama wanted to be president. Now it’s time for him to actually be a president. That means taking responsibility.
FP: How much confidence, exactly, do you have in this administration providing safety to Americans against our enemies?
Peters: Unfortunately, I have no faith–none–in the administration’s seriousness, when it comes to protecting Americans. A president who insists, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that every next terrorist is just an “isolated extremist” with no connection to Islam isn’t interested in solving the problem.
FP: How about our intelligence system in this case?
Peters: It failed. But, to be fair, many things that seem obvious in retrospect weren’t necessarily obvious in advance. Our intelligence system has two pertinent problems (among many others): It’s dealing with a literally unmanageable volume of data, and (according to my friends still inside the system), the post 9-11 “reforms,” such as creating a Director of National Intelligence and the National Counter Terrorism Center, simply created additional layers of bureaucracy. We’re fighting a lean, mean, fast, ruthless enemy. Our response? Bring more of yesterday’s senior officials out of retirement and hire more lawyers. Maybe we should just sue al Qaeda and see how splendidly our civilian-justice approach to terror works.
FP: Your view of Janet Napolitano? Why is she still heading Homeland Security?
Peters: I’d rather not view Janet Napolitano at all. This woman is so far out of her depth that it can’t be measured with Newtonian metrics. She was a politically correct appointment, period. On the positive side, word is that she’ll be gone in the next few months–Obama’s too vain to fire her right now, while the administration’s under fire over the Christmas terror attempt, but he realizes what a political liability she’s become.
There’s another, unfortunate, side to this. When representing our country, especially on security matters, appearance and physical presence matter. It would be great if that were not so, but facts are facts. Even if Napolitano were a security genius, she doesn’t project a forceful, capable image to our deadly enemies (or to our allies). Again, every one of Obama’s cabinet-level appointments has been about domestic politics, not about their effectiveness on the world stage.
Well, at least he can’t blame Bush for Napolitano.
FP: Your perspective on how the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are going? What strategies that are in effect are wrong? What strategies would be more effective?
Peters: Strategy? We still don’t have a strategy for Afghanistan-Pakistan. We just have a collection of disjointed techniques we’re desperately trying to apply, hoping something, anything, will work. A troop surge is a tool, not a strategy. And you can’t nation-build where there’s no nation to build. I’m disheartened. American soldiers and Marines are dying and being maimed for fairy-tale counterinsurgency strategies that insist that digging wells for illiterate Afghans will deter al Qaeda’s Arab fanatics from killing Americans. The only wise and effective thing we’re doing is applying UAVs (drones) and our special operations forces to the indispensable task of killing terrorists.
I’ve never been threatened by a dead terrorist. And when a terrorist believes he’s on a mission from his god to kill you, killing him is the only plausible response.
As I’ve written recently, what little analysis of the Afghan problem we do obsesses on our continuing failures. But the real question, which we refuse to ask, is “Why are the Taliban successful?” And, of course, we go on pretending that Islam has nothing to do with anything. Political correctness is killing our troops, defeating us, and facilitating terror around the world.
FP: Potential threats in 2010? Where have we taken our eye off the ball?
Peters: Good Lord, where do you start? The usual suspects will still be with us: Iran, al Qaeda, Chinese subversion of our economy (brought to you by WalMart, among others, thanks), piracy, Hugo Chavez’s apparent determination to precipitate a border war with Colombia, the Kirchner regime’s attempt to hobble democracy in Argentina, Islamist aggression in Nigeria (which is intensifying again), and, above all, Mexico–where the narco-insurgency constitutes the real number-one threat to the welfare of our citizen. It bewilders me that we’re obsessed with “saving” Afghanistan, a worthless piece of dirt in the middle of nowhere, when the crucial struggle is right on (and crossing) our southern border. Mexico is the most important country in the world to us–for better and worse–and we treat it as problem number 47.
Where have we taken our eye off the ball? Please, tell me where the Obama administration has an eye on any foreign-policy or security balls. This ultra-left administration isn’t concerned with security (except to the extent that it impacts on politics), but with a hard-left, destructive and divisive vision of “social justice.” Which means, of course, punish productive citizens to reward the Lumpenproletariat. We’re a greater threat to ourselves, in the long run, than al-Qaeda is to us.
FP: Ralph Peters thank you for joining us. It was an honor to speak with you.
I would like to announce to our readers that Mr. Peters will be speaking at the Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning Club:
Tuesday, January 12, 2009.
Four Seasons
300 S. Doheny Dr.
Los Angeles, CA 90048
11:30 a.m. Reception
12:00 p.m. Luncheon
1:30 p.m. Book Signing
Registration: $75.00
To make reservations, please contact Stephanie Knudson at (818) 849-3470 ext. 209 or email at stephanie@horowitzfreedomcenter.org.
BS77 – BECAUSE – Bama can't admit we are at war with muslim jihadists!!!
Reasons:
Primo, he would have to do “something” – and has no idea what, secundo, he said on many occasions he's a muslim…
Situation is worse than bad and gets very, very eery (even: steevee);)
Yes, Robert – socialists hate facts!
One more pearl from their sacred cow (pun intended):
“Hillary Clinton was initially pleased when her New Hampshire campaign chairman, Billy Shaheen, mentioned Obama's previous use of drugs (page 161):
“Hillary's reaction to Shaheen's remarks was, 'Good for him!' Followed by 'Let's push it out.' Her aides violently disagreed, seeing what Shaheen had said as a PR disaster. Grudgingly, Clinton acquiesced to disowning Shaheen's comments. But she wasn't going to cut him loose. Why should Billy have to fall on his sword for invoking something that had been fair game in every recent election?”
Great job, Robert.
With my own eyes and ears I've seen/heard Bama told Charlie Gibson: “My muslim faith”. And “the grrrreat one” did not retract it.
Then, that video has become available, confirming it.
Again, those educated beyond their intelligence cannot comprehend/accept it.
YES, HE SAID SO. IF YOU CAN'T ACCEPT the TRUTH,
GET BACK TO YOUR “BATING MASTER”.
[...] more here [...]
Speaking of Bat-Shit-Crazy. You must have a real in on that site. You the prez?
Obama is very much like a Manchurian candidate. A Saudi paid for his education. Nancy Pelosi made a statement regarding Obama's promises during the campaigning something like, “Yeah, well, he said a lot of things during the campaign…” What exactly does that mean? Does it mean that Obama “misspoke?” Maybe he didn't have permission to say that? Or like some people I've encountered, their mouth gets ahead of their brain? Maybe Obama gets to live the life, but not call the shots? From what I've been seeing there is a lot telling me that Obama is more of a figurehead president and that the party elites are running him. He seems to run into trouble when he actually starts believing that he's the president. Why all the lag time between an event and Obama's “official” reaction to it. I think they are just sitting around deciding what he should say, and then it usually comes out as political doublespeak which says and means nothing.
Bubba, you are the biggest fool on this web site, by far. You seem to think that the debate is really about whether or not individual Muslims are terrorists or not. And what if we kill some that are not. Well, I guess we need even “smarter” bombs that would know that. The problem is Islam. That some misinterpret the Koran and as a result are moderates is great but it only says that they don't read Arabic, or maybe their parents were “secular Muslims. It's a little bit like a German who didn't read “Mein Kampf” saying that Hitler didn't really want to do what he is accused of doing. It doesn't matter that most German's were not Nazi's. The German's that didn't agree and who were vocal about it didn't last long. The Nazis took them out right away. BUT, most Germans just went along with it because Hitler was elevated to the “Head of their Nazi Religion.” People looked up to him almost like a god. He was going to lead them into their glorious future. They were forced to put their reservations out of their conscious mind much the same way Muslims re forced to put their common sense aside for the sake of “Submission.”
While people like you are dinkering around with reality and tweeking it to fit your world view the jihadists are not slowed down by such stuff. They know they are at war and they love people like you and they are laughing their heads off. They studied our fiasco in Viet Nam and know that it was the left who helped us become losers and they are depending on the same types of people to help them win this war against us. I know this for a fact. I can't figure out how the lefties can run around with a big smile on their lips and a big “L” on their foreheads. But, nonetheless, they do.
I consider people like you to be traitors. You can argue all you want about Islam, the koran, the rightness or wrongness of any action we take but you have to pull your head out of your butt occasionally and look around at the big picture. The big picture is that they started this 1700 years ago. No one alive today is “at fault” for what they are doing probably not even themselves. I think we can blame Muhammed for all of this. They are brainwashed into thinking that they are not allowed to think. Only RELIGIOUS “experts” can tell them what to do. They don't even consider themselves as individuals. They see themselves as just a cog in the big Islamic machine. We did not do this to them. We did not brainwash them.
If you really think about it. The entire problem in the middle east is Islam. Maybe we should demand that they let other religions compete for adherents. At least they would have to think about the differences between the philosophy of death, hate and sex and the philosophy of love, life and forgiveness. Those concepts are not even available to them.
Really, I would love to hear you finally say something intelligent instead of just spouting off the “party line.” You're like a robot who can repeat everything you hear but there is no brain in there sorting out all that information.
One thing you are good for; you make it so clear what thinking intelligent people are fighting against. You are like the Muslims in a lot of ways. They don't think because they are only following orders from above and you don't think because you are only following orders from above.
AND BTW: When Pelosi says she wants all this “debate” about health care behind closed doors what she really means is that she wants to plot behind closed doors. Healthy debate happens out in the open. Plots take place “behind closed doors.” The entire democratic party is the party of doublespeak, period. They call limiting conservative radio “The Fairness Doctrine.” What is fair about forcing people to listen to something they don't want to hear? What's fair about forcing business owners to comply with this government edict? What they think is that they can remake America if only they can control what we hear they will control what we think. Is this how you really want to live? I'm already starting to think abut what you'll say to that.
Never mind. You won't listen anyway. You are such a jerk.
I vote for Mecca and Medina. : )
North Korea is not that stupid. They are not fighting a religious war like the muslims, who dont care if they die.
Logic escapes you, doesnt it bubba?
You may respond to me without quoting every friggin thing I said. I know what I said. I just have to look above, unless you just like wasting the space, jeez.
“Obama is very much like a Manchurian candidate….I think they are just sitting around deciding what he should say, and then it usually comes out as political doublespeak which says and means nothing.”
While you are free to your opinions and conclusions, that's just looney. You believe it already, so now you're interpreting simple events to fit. And, if you are going to have someone controlling Obama, just go for broke and make it the Masons or aliens or something.
“You seem to think that the debate is really about whether or not individual Muslims are terrorists or not.”
And you go on to compare Muslims to Nazis because they “submit” to their religion. Germany was a country. It made a huge army and tried to take over the world by force. We knew where to bomb. Did I mention it was a country…
“Islam” means “submission to God's will” which is a theme shared by most monotheistic religions…like Christianity and the other Abrahamic religions.
“While people like you are dinkering around with reality and tweeking it to fit your world view the jihadists are not slowed down by such stuff.”
I'm “dinkering” with reality? LOL.
“They studied our fiasco in Viet Nam and know that it was the left who helped us become losers and they are depending on the same types of people to help them win this war against us.”
of course “the left”…that dependable old punching bag. We dropped almost a ton of ordinance PER PERSON onto Vietnam and killed millions of Vietnamese all to “contain” Communism. After 15 years and almost 60,000 American soldiers dead, you honestly think that anti-war protesters prevented us from “winning”? You've been reading too much FPM.
“I consider people like you to be traitors. You can argue all you want about Islam, the koran, the rightness or wrongness of any action…”
Why, because I made fun of you? Grow up. Oh no a new name “anti-bubba”. Are you a preteen? Just post under the name you usually use to troll around posting your links. No one cares.
“The big picture is that they started this 1700 years ago…..”
Riiiiight.
“Really, I would love to hear you finally say something intelligent instead of just spouting off the “party line.”"
Yeah…everyone but you is a mindless zombie under the control of one power or another. Sure, you're head is full of wild conspiracy theories…and yeah, maybe your facts are a little shaky but you clearly think for yourself. Here I am getting my daily e-mail instructions from Pelosi's office and hoping I won't run up against a real patriot who can see into the heart of things…and alas you had the courage to call me out. Pelosi has had me watching you and keeping tabs on FPM because your ideas so threaten the Global Conspiracy of Your Worst Fears…that Pelosi, Obama and Lord Xenu are deciding whether or not you are too dangerous to be left alive.
Pelosi HAS to conduct the health care debate in secret. Sure the whole country has been discussing and debating it for six months, but that is all a ruse. They fought against accusations of “Death Panels”…not because it was a ridiculous smear designed to scare old people, but because the Death Panels are just the tip of the iceberg. Obama is preparing a “Logan's Run” type Utopia where those over 50 are ritually zonked into their component molecules using special reactors they are already working on (to take care of the resistance first).
“They call limiting conservative radio “The Fairness Doctrine.” What is fair about forcing people to listen to something they don't want to hear?”
There has been no legislative call to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine or any other like rule since 2005. When it was originally abolished under Reagan, talk radio and television weren't 24/7 opinion/editorial talking heads. The rule only applied to those with licenses for public airwaves and just required :
“The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented”
And it also said that if someone attacked you personally, then the station or channel that broadcast the attack (even just opinion) was obliged to notify you with a transcript and give you an opportunity to respond.
So even if something like this comes back into play, Rush Limbaugh doesn't have to change a thing. However, he has gotten use to attacking people so often and so wildly, he's probably just afraid of the paperwork. Same with the likes of Hannity and Beck. The other, more destructive action of the Reagan Administration was the repeal of laws regarding media ownership. It used to beillegal for a single entity to own all the media outlets (television, newspaper, radio) in a given market or own the same media over too large an area. These laws were designed to prevent corporate or otherwise narrow interests from controlling the public debate.
“Is this how you really want to live? I'm already starting to think abut what you'll say to that. Never mind. You won't listen anyway. You are such a jerk.”
You seem really frustrated and a little paranoid and you'll always be this way if you listen to what Rush and these other guys say like it's gospel. You even talk the way they argue…like a child. Those assholes are robbing you simpletons of your peace of mind.
I kind of threw in the North Korea thing for some levity….but by all means make it the thrust of my post.
I usually quote to address different ideas individually. Just look at the care and consideration I give your thoughts and the posts of even the most kooky adolescent troll…sorry it bugs you.
You really are the stupidest person writing on FPM. Yo answered in your predictably mundane and stupid way. Thank you for not letting me down. You are hopeless.
A few misplaced facts, half a brain and you have Bubba.
YOU are the most kooky adolescent troll.
You may have thrown in North Korea for levity, yet you still get my point. One is like the USSR, afraid of mutually assured destruction, the other isnt.
I do get your point, that we have to be careful we dont get suckered into a war that a small group starts by blowing up a mall. But my point is that we need to see some help from these middle eastern nations. They dont just get a walk, and sit on the side lines watching as their little buddys beat the crap out of us while they funnel money to them.