The former head of counterterrorism at the National Security Council Richard A. Clarke, believe that the September 11 report is somewhat lacking. He proposes how the war on terrorism should really be fought:
We need to expose the Islamic world to values that are more attractive than those of the jihadists. This means aiding economic development and political openness in Muslim countries, and efforts to stabilize places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Restarting the Israel-Palestinian peace process is also vital.
Also, we can’t do this alone. In addition to “hearts and minds’ television and radio programming by the U.S. government, we would be greatly helped by a pan-Islamic council of respected spiritual and secular leaders to coordinate (without U.S. involvement) the Islamic world’s own ideological effort against the new Qaeda.
Unfortunately, because of America’s low standing in the Islamic world, we are now at a great disadvantage in the battle of ideas. This is primarily because of the unnecessary and counterproductive invasion of Iraq. In pulling its bipartisan punches, the commission failed to admit the obvious: we are less capable of defeating the jihadists because of the Iraq war.
Unanimity has its value, but so do debate and dissent in a democracy facing a crisis. To fully realize the potential of the commission’s report, we must see it not as the end of the discussion but as a partial blueprint for victory. The jihadist enemy has learned how to spread hate and how to kill – and it is still doing both very effectively almost three years after 9/11.
No doubt Steyn would call such tactics the tactis of a girlie-man.