Who’s Better At Responding to Terror Threats?
September 7th, 2004 by Will
I don’t get very political here very often, but this coming election seems pretty important to me, so I felt I needed to rant a little about national security.
Most of the people I’ve spoken with recently who are supporting Bush for a second term feel he would be better at responding to terror. I’m not sure where that perception came from. I know that part of it is that lots of people have drawn a connection between Iraq and terrorism thinking that Iraq in some way facilitated the attacks of Sept. 11. Several bi-partisan commissions have determined that there were no ties between Iraq and Sept. 11. Lots of people I speak with seem to be unwilling or unable to accept that though.
Still, if (as every expert but Cheney) says, Iraq was not complicit in September 11, then Iraq was a distraction from the war on terror. It couldn’t be more simple than that.
We destabilized a dangerous region of the world, and we didn’t do it as a response to 9/11. Sure, the country was ruled by a thug, but it was a thug, who was contained and could not pose a serious threat to US interests. Even if you believe they were working towards weapons programs, you must recognize that they were years away from being close to having them. Either the Bush administration realized this and deliberately mislead us, or they were hopelessly naive. Either way, I don’t understand how anybody could be willing to give him a second chance.
Even if you feel we would have eventually had to deal with Iraq, we didn’t have to do it while we were still going after the people that actually attacked our soil. Sure, Iraq is better off without Saddam. The US at this particular moment in time simply isn’t. We created additional terrorists in the world while eating away at our ability to go after the people who were truly guilty of those Sept. 11 attacks. This war that Bush wanted and got has made Americans less safe, not more.
And then there’s Senator Bob Graham’s new book that brings to light facts that I didn’t know.
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.And in Graham’s book, Intelligence Matters, obtained by The Herald Saturday, he makes clear that some details of that financial support from Saudi Arabia were in the 27 pages of the congressional inquiry’s final report that were blocked from release by the administration, despite the pleas of leaders of both parties on the House and Senate intelligence committees.
Bush had concluded that ”a nation-state that had aided the terrorists should not be held publicly to account,” Graham wrote. “It was as if the president’s loyalty lay more with Saudi Arabia than with America’s safety.”
Any president is going to respond aggressively to terrorism in this day and age. A president who will address the problem as an intelligence and police matter as opposed to a war on nation states seems to have a better grasp on the correct solution. I don’t know what kind of job Kerry would do. I have every reason to suspect he’ll do a fine job. I do know what kind of job Bush will do. We’ve seen him doing his job for the past 3+ years, and US is more endangered now that we were when he took office.
He talks a tough game. In his black and white “I’m a straight shootin’ cowboy” view of the world, he probably even believes he’s being effective. He’s not though, and I think you’d be hard pressed to find a president who could possible be less effective at protecting us from terrorism than Bush. If that’s the issue that’s going to decide the election for you, I urge you to look past they hype to the reality of what this man has done to protect and/or endanger you and the people you care about.
8 Responses to “Who’s Better At Responding to Terror Threats?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Out of curiosity, what makes you think Kerry would do a good job? What do you think Kerry would do? Seriously. In all honesty, I’ve been trying to figure out where the guy stands, but he says something different depending on where he’s talking, and whose vote he’s trying to pander to on that particular day. One day he says he would still have voted for war, knowing what he knows now. On another day, when asked if he would have gone to war, he says “You bet we might have.” The next day it’s “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time.” — something Howard Dean said December 15, 2003.
You know what Kerry said on the 16th?
I mean, seriously. I know there’s probably an even-money chance that he will be the next President. I sure wish I knew what he was going to do. I haven’t a clue, and I’ve been trying to figure it out for months.
As far as the Iraq/al Qaida thing. This isn’t just a war on one specific terrorist group. This is a war on all such groups, and the pillars that support them — with money, supplies, training grounds, whatever.
With regards specifically to Iraq, I’d recommend reading Steven Denbeste’s Strategic overview.
With regards to SA — that’s a longer argument that I would argue requires more nuance :). Attacking SA directly would do mean, evil, nasty things to certain oil supplies, which would do ugly things to the American economy, blah blah blah. If we wanted to be all “pure of purpose” and whatnot, sure, let’s go after SA and win ourselves a phyrric victory. There are other ways of dealing with the SAs than pulling the trigger on them. I’d argue that they’re being done — you don’t know, and I don’t know, nor do the authors of all these books know — everything that happen in the halls of power.
As far as whether or not Bush is actually making the US safer — what was that about Lybia abandoning its pursuit of nuclear weapons? What about Pakistan actively cooperating to round up militants? The Saudis actively policing their own (giving lip service, at the least).
Yes, I’m sure Kerry (should he manage to win come November) will respond to being attacked (assuming the UN lets him). He’s said as much — that he’ll “respond if America is attacked.” For one thing, we’ve already been attacked, buddy. For another thing, I don’t want to have to wait until, say, someone sets off a suitcase nuke in the city of Los Angeles, before we “respond.”
How much good does intelligence and police actions matter, if the people hide out in, say, Saddam’s back yard, while Saddam thumbs his nose at us and says “neener neener neener”?
Let’s say our intelligence agents find this guy who we know is planning on blowing up Disneyworld. He’s in Fictakistan, who doesn’t exactly see eye to eye with the US. We tell Fictakistan that we’ve got a line on this guy.
The tell us to go to hell.
Then what?
How effective can police be? What good is our intelligence, without the force to back it up?
I agree — we do need better intelligence. We need international cooperation. We need boots on the ground.
But none of that matters if people think the United States is just a paper tiger, that can be attacked without repercussions.
The WTC was attacked in 1993. It was treated as a police action, and nothing ever came of it.
What message does that send?
“Hey, we can just keep trying until something works!”
What if the terrorist attack on the WTC in 93 was met with a forceful crackdown? Or the bombing of the Cole? Or …
I recommend listening to Rudy Guliani’s GOP convention speech — it’s on this page.
Furthermore — while you may think of this as a “police problem” — you can be sure that the “other side” does not They think they are at war. I think it would be prudent to treat them apropriately.
Above all, I would argue that we (the United States) need to make sure the terrorists know what will happen to them if they dare attack us again. Sensitivity is wonderful and necessary in friendship, courtship, marraige, business — any relationships where there is give and take. Sensitivity has no place between enemies.
And they say Republicans are the ones peddling fear?
My wife is due to give birth to our son tomorrow (inducing labor sometime after midnight). I am more than a little concerned about what the world is going to be like for the next ten, twenty, fifty years. We live about 20 miles from one of the largest nuclear power plants in the US.
I know Bush is not perfect. That much is glaringly, glaringly obvious. But at least I know what his agenda is, and how he intends to get there. I even happen to agree with parts of it. It is an incredibly optimistic and sweeping global change. The establishment of democracy in the Middle East and the breaking of the power of the Imams is, I think, a consumation devoutly to be wished. The end product does not just benefit the US, but every nation on Earth that does not plan on kowtowing to an Imam.
Islamic fundamentalists do not care if you are American, Spanish, Filipino, English, Russian, Australian, or Eskimo. They care that you are not Muslim, and in their holy writ, they have justification to convert you by the sword. Some idiot imam in England recently said that targeting children was perfectly acceptable if “the cause was just”. You know what cause is just? Anything they say.
I’m not saying all of Islam is Bad and Evil(tm) (that’s the Republican’s domain anyway, isn’t it?). I am specifically saying that there is a sizeable percentage that follow a Islamic sect that are more interested in dying for their cause and killing those who do not believe as they do, than they are in raising their families, being productive, and creating something of their own.
I’m sorry for the extended rant. I’ve enjoyed a number of the things that you’ve linked to, but your post makes me sad. I honestly can’t understand how anyone that has paid attention to the things that have come out of Kerry’s mouth can possibly support Kerry. I don’t mean in terms of voting for him just to vote for Anybody But Bush (which is, IMO, a childish rationale). I mean seriously support the man for his stated vision and goals. I can’t even figure out what his vision and goals are, except that he’s intended to become president since he was a teenager.
Obligatory disclaimer : I am not a registered Republican, I did not vote for Bush in 00. The majority of the blogs I read regularly are hosted by liberals and skew center-left.
But yes, I do plan on voting for Bush this year.
Of course, just reading the above blather (assuming you’ve made it this far) will most likely not change your mind. I wouldn’t expect it to. It’s all very complicated, and decisions like this shouldn’t be made on the basis of throwing bumper stickers emblazoned with slogans at one another. But before you pledge your support for Kerry, I would urge you to figure out why you should support him — ignore anything that has anything to do with Bush. Try researching the man on his own merits, and see if you would still trust him with the Presidency of the United States.
Personally, in peace time I think he might make a fine President. 20 years in the senate and not a whole hell of a lot to his name — sounds just like the type of politician I’d support: run along and stay out of our hair, and let Americans be Americans.
I just don’t think we have that luxury in a time of war.
cheers,
-ben
Ben - congrats on the impending birth of your child.
I’m not a Democrat by any stretch. I mostly tend towards libertarianism with a small “L”. That means that at times I’ve found myself firmly on the right hand side of an issue. Less so now. I know don’t if it’s the times or my age.
First, when I said treating it as an intelligence and police matter, I meant you take out a group like this the way you take out the mob. You take out their sources of funding, and you take out the bottom echelon, and you work your way up. You do it with black ops and sniper riffles rather than bombs and marines. I’m sure all of that stuff is happening, and we just can’t talk about it.
The problem is that our military actions while showy and a good catharsis for some makes the US look like an arrogant bully. That means our allies, particularly our shakier allies, are less likely to share information and less likely to let our teams violate their boarders to take out the people we need to take out.
You mention Pakistan. Pakistan seems much more likely than Iraq to provide safe havens for terrorists and much more likely to move those suitcase nukes into the black market.
They’ll help us because they want weapons that they can use to bolster their posture vis a vie India, but they were a much more valid target than Iraq. Short of offering $25 or 50 K to suicide bombers famillies, what did Saddam ever do for terrorism? Nothing. It was a secular state, and to a large extant the enemy of my enemy is my friend, but anything move towards terrorism from Iraq was all show. A small dog with an aggressive and annoying bark. But, we could have kicked that dog any time we wanted to. We didn’t need to destabalize the region. Branding Iraq a terrorist state is like branding a Jack Russell Terrier as a wolf. A case could sort of be made that they’re all part of the same species, but it’s a really weak case.
At least that was true before the war. The Sept. 11 terrorist attack came out of Saudi Arabia. The next may well come out of Iraq. We took a country that was barely on the fringes of terrorism and made it a terrorist breeding ground. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think we can make nice and convert all the radical islamists to our friends. I’m not naive, but the way you win this battle is through attrition, and we’ll never be able to make a dent in our enemies ranks if we’re pouring fuel on the fire so to speak.
I think you’re right that Kerry principally wants to be president. He’s trying to have the war both ways, and I can understand how somebody might look at that as a signal of weakness. But, you seem to be mischaracterizing his position with the same out of context quotes I’ve heard from others.
He has said that he voted to authorize war because he felt if he was president, he would want to have that authority for purposes of negotiation. He has said that he didn’t believe that Bush would use that authority without first securing the backing of the UN (which isn’t an unreasonable assumption since that’s what the authorization required). So, his vote wasn’t really for the headlong dash to war that we got, and when he blames Bush and accuses him of the wrong war at the wrong time, I think he is wholly consistent in providing Bush with a tool while condemning the way he chose to use that tool.
Then when he’s later asked if he would make the same vote now knowing what he knew, he’s stuck. The Bush team had already done a very effective job of branding him a waffler. Personally, I never understood why that was an issue. I would MUCH rather have a chief executive who understands nuance and is willing to change his mind as circumstances and information changes as opposed to one who’ll drive straight ahead and keep the pedal to the medal even if there’s a giant wall in front of him. But, the waffler charge clearly resonates with a significant segment of the voters, and rather than embracing that (which he’s starting to do a bit with some self-deprecating humor), he let the Bush team define the discussion. He didn’t want to say that he would have voted differently because he could already hear how that would play with that segment of the population that thinks he’s a waffler. So, he stuck to his guns in saying that he still would have given his president the tool he was requesting while opposing strongly the way that tool was to be used.
Ultimately, I think Kerry will do a good job because he’ll be highly constrained in what he can actually do. What Bush has managed to do is very unique in the presidency. I don’t know that we’ve seen so much radical change since FDRs New Deal. Personally, I think that all of that change has been catastrophically bad for the country. I don’t expect we’ll see the likes again for decades. I don’t think Kerry will be able to advance any serious legislation, but at least if he’s in office, I know Bush won’t be able to.
Also, I do very much like what Kerry has to say about becoming energy independent. Those bad things you mention with respect to Saudi Arabia and world oil supplies are coming anyway. I get the impression that those wells are starting to come up dry. They’ll still be producing for a few years, but your child will certainly see the time when the Saudi oil supplies run out. Better to bite the bullet now and plan ahead so we can position ourselves to continue US dominance into whatever the next major energy source will be. We’ve had an easy and free ride for a good long time now. It created the industrial revolution, and it created the US as a super power. We need to start planning ahead now or face dire consequences.
I also like the fact that Kerry’s proposed budget for all of his promises is lower than Bush’s proposed budget for all of his promises. The most brazen thing I ever saw was Bush labeling Kerry a tax and spend democrat. Better a tax and spend democrat than a borrow and spend republican (or more appropriately a pseudo-republican as any real republican would have to have a fit at the thought of the way Bush spends money and has strengthened federal power at the expense of state power.
I liked Stephen when he was posting about science issues on MetaFilter. I’m less interested in him post 9/11. I clicked through to the page you linked though, and I disagree with his reasons for why we were attacked. Some of that probably played into it, but it was mostly that we had troops, particularly female troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. That’s why they hate us, and why did we have troops there? Because oil is a strategic resource for the US, and we have to protect it. De-emphasize the resource, and you can de-emphasize the presence that we need to maintain in the region. In the mean time, we will continue to attract the animus of a radical group of criminals, and we will need to defend against that. Defending against that with bombs is self-defeating though.
The solution D that Stephen advocates — radically reforming the entire Muslim world is frankly impossible. Anybody who believes they could do that should not be trusted with the reigns of power. You can’t force a way of life onto an independent culture. You can kind of manage it with commerce. You’ll never do it with a gun.
Back to Kerry what voting for him will do is send a clear signal to the world that Bush and his administration does not represent the US. We did not elect him to carry on this war. We were as surprised as everybody else was, and he does not represent the will of the American people.
Bush will not be able to enlist the aid of other countries in the world in Iraq. He’s burned those bridges, and the costs we’ll have to pay will be exorbitant. They may well be exorbitant anyway. Kerry will certainly need to make concessions with respect to contracts for rebuilding the country. We need an exit strategy in that country though, and world assistance is the only one that looks workable to me. The alternative is to stay there for 10 or 15 years with a major troop presence. We can’t afford that, and the will of the country won’t carry us that long. It already looks like Viet Nam to me. What happens with 70% of the population starts to think the same thing? What happens if they need to institute a draft to support our presence there?
Alternately, we can try to build up the Iraqi army. That’s what Bush is stuck with. We’ll probably pull out of there in a few years, and then the country will collapse in on itself and Iran will come running right over the boarder.
Even if Iran doesn’t come in, and democracy in Iraq wouldn’t be secular or like us. It would have to hate the US (at least in its public posture), and it would probably be more likely to support radical Islam than Saddam ever was.
Kerry is our best chance to reform alliances. If Bush is reelected, we’ll be setting world diplomacy back by 20 years. And for that reason alone, the rallying cry of Anybody But Bush is perfectly valid in my mind. Besides, there likely will be another major terrorist attack on US soil in the next four years. If it’s on Kerry’s watch, the Republicans will make great hay about how you need a Republican for defense (I only hope it’s a good one as opposed to the worst one ever). They’ll control the country for the next 8 to 12 years easily. If Bush is in office it totally undermines that ridiculous there’s been no attack since the Bush Doctrine went into effect. I know you say you aren’t a republican, but for those that are, the best strategic choice long term is to vote for Kerry.
Also I should not have attacked your “Iraq=Viet Nam” thing so harshly … I’m just tired of the canard. What I should have said is : “Why do you think Iraq is Viet Nam? The only similarity I can see is that both are wars that are/were winnable, if the political will existed to win.”
Yes, I’d vote for Buchanon over Bush. At least Buchanon is a true conservative, so there are points where we share common ground. With a reactionary like Bush, I can find no points of common ground.
What has he done that’s been disastrous? Well, he’s ballooned the deficit to dangerous levels, he has signed every single spending bill that’s been put in front of him, he’s increased the size and the power of the federal government at the expense of states (and more importantly individual rights), he has advanced laws that allow him to suspended habeas corpus, he has advanced laws that have weakened the fourth amendment to the constitution he has gutted environmental programs, his administration has been characterized by secrecy and paranoids, and has informed government agencies that they should stall or just not respond to freedom of information requests, somebody in his administration (and I assume high-ranking members of his administration) committed treason by outing US intelligence operatives for nothing more than petty political payback. They also outed a terrorist who we had turned and who was providing information to us through Pakistan so that they would try to control the news cycle during the democratic national convention thereby reducing our effectiveness at rooting out other terrorists. There’s more, but I get sick thinking about it, and can’t keep typing.
I think there are several parallels between Iraq and Vietnam. And, we can start with national will. Recent polls show that over half the the US thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake, and 65% feel we’ve handled the period after the war badly. In both cases, they were wars of choice ostensibly to preserve some American ideal in the world (forge democracy in the Mideast (or fight terrorism, or even more absurdly to protect American’s from immanent threat of harm depending on which way the wind is blowing), or keep communism out of the far east). In both cases, it’s impossible to know enemy from friend, and in fact often we find that enemy and friend are the same person. In both cases we arrogantly predicted great success based on superior fire power, and in both cases we learned that in guerilla battles, superior fire power isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.
In recent polls, over 99% of Iraqis want the US out of their country. They were happy to have Saddam gone, but they don’t trust the US. If you think that battle is winnable, let me ask you how long you’d be willing to let Canada set up shop in the US. Assume for a minute we have some corrupt cabal who takes power in the US and starts killing American’s by the thousands. Let’s further assume that most people are of the don’t rock the boat variety, so they try to keep their heads down rather than taking up arms against the government. Let’s further assume that the world looks on in horror at what has become of the great American experiment and now let’s say that the Canadians sweep in from the north, bomb the shit out of our cities, lay waste to our infrastructure and find the head of that cabal hiding out in a spider hole somewhere. Of course Americans are happy to finally be rid of that horrible dictator, but there’s no clean water, we don’t have power for 12 to 14 hours a day, unemployment is around 60%, and the F’n Cannooks don’t seem to be leaving. They’ve put their own puppet version of a US government in place, but no body trusts them, and in fact if elections were held today we’d vote in some radical Christian leader who promises to drive the Canadians out on a rail.
You telling me that in that situation, they’re going to convince you to start eating back bacon and playing hockey? Ain’t going to happen man.
Interesting that you point to Germany and Japan as shining examples of where that worked. Germany was basically just like the rest of Europe, and since we didn’t humiliate them like we did after world war 1, they were basically good to start rebuilding their country. Japan just shifted from trying to take over land to trying to take over manufacturing. They’re a culture of workers, and we got lucky that we had a place for them to direct that to. They almost beat us in the 80s, and they own a pretty big chunk of the US now anyway, so it may just be that they’re better long-term strategic thinkers than we are. Heck, a few more years of runaway deficit spending, and they may just come over here to claim the resources they couldn’t get with planes or ships.
Do you suppose that’s happening in Iraq? Have we managed to avoid humiliating them? I’m sure that after seeing all of the pictures of sexual perversion and hearing tails of how US soldiers are raping their women (and their young boys for that matter), they’re going to be more than happy to leave us providing security.
So, I’m not sure what terrorist camps you’ve heard about, but a bipartisan commission doesn’t agree with the comic and cryptic reference to a memo from several months before the report came out.
I frankly don’t care that Saddam was constantly threatening the US. Are you telling me you condone spending over $200 Billion and thousands of lives because some street thug in some backwater country called us a name and managed to scratch one of our ships once? I like to the think the US is bigger than that. I mean seriously, Who the hell cares? He was powerless to hurt us in any significant way. Let him shout and bluster as much as he wants while we walk softly and carry our big sticks. I promise you there weren’t any countries in the world saying look at what a bunch of pussies the US are why they’re letting Saddam get away with murder, maybe we should go invade them.
You might want to have a read through this which is an interesting analysis of our war on terror.
Yes, I’d vote for Buchanon over Bush. At least Buchanon is a true conservative, so there are points where we share common ground. With a reactionary like Bush, I can find no points of common ground.
Yikes :)
Re: your first laundry list. Wow. That’s a lot of points. Some of these I would disagree with as they’re judgement calls, some I would disagree with on a factual basis.
Re : deficit spending : yes, it is lousy. However, economics is a complex, probably mythical beast. Note that when Bush took office, the dotcom bubble had just burst — billions of dollars had essentially vanished into thin air. Pile on top of that the Enron scandal. Pile on top of that the AT&T scandal. Pile on top of that 9/11. Add in not one, but two wars, one of which is ongoing (even if a certain part of the population tries to downplay that fact).
All this, and we’re not in the middle of a major depression?
Perhaps some of this economic engine is fed by defecit spending. Is it better to prop up the economy by borrowing against the future, or should you stick to your guns, not increase the deficit, and just let the economy crater?
I think he did the right thing. He’s betting on the future of America, and I’ll take that bet, personally.
Re: increased size and power of the fed : agreed. And yes, I think quite a bit of it is overboard and stupid. However, we are at war. Not all of the provisios are mindless. Or at least I would argue. There are some who are pissed off at their local markets that they ask for your home address in exchange for “Membership Prices.” Me? I couldn’t care less.
Re : suspended habeas corpus : I don’t think enemy combatants should be due the same rights by the Government as citizens. For citizens, if there’s a pretty darn clear trail that you’re up to something, I don’t mind so much if you’re left to cool your heels for a while until they can make sure. If the Government is wrong, you have legal recourse. That’s one of the nice things about the US — if the gov’t thinks you’re up to something, they’ll put you somewhere until they can make their case, or let you go. The default action is not to shoot you in the back of the head and bill your parents.
Re: 4th amendment. Again, time of war. New war, different rules apply. And again, you have legal recourse.
If the option is between letting some guy nuke Los Angeles, and unfairly hassling a couple dozen, or hundred, or even a thousand people — I’m sorry, but I’m going to have to go on the side of keeping millions of people alive.
Re: the outing of US intell ops : I’m assuming you’re referring to the Valerie Palme “scandal.” Did you know it turns out that Joe Wilson lied about the entire thing? This is not something you can lay at Bush’s feet, IMO. Palme was not a “secret agent woman”, nor was she “outed”.
Re: the Pakistani spy : he was outed by the Pakistanis first, then the NY Times, and then the Administration.
So, I’m sorry thinking about this stuff makes you sick. Perhaps it would make you feel better if you read up on some of it, and discovered the gov’t isn’t as nefarious as you might believe.
:D
Continuing …
Funny, in my mind, I’ve read a few citations of recent polls that had a 63% approval rating of the War in Iraq. There is a 50%-some odd pctage that disapproves of the handling post Iraq, to which I would tell people to get a clue. Vodkapundit has a nice write-up on the question of What would the Peace look like?.
Also re: the 50% who disapprove of the handling : that pct is split between people who think we’re too warlike, and people who think we haven’t been warlike enough. I think that factoid is useless — I would argue that if you think we shouldn’t be in Iraq at all in the first place, polling you about whether you think it’s being mishandled is double dipping. But that’s just me.
(also as an aside: the “imminent” thing is a canard. No one in the Bush administration has ever, ever, ever, ever, ever said that we were under threat of “imminent attack.” The argument has always been that Saddam needed to be removed before the threat became imminent. There is one quote where a journalist is interviewing some admin official (Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz or somesuch), and the journalist uses the word “imminent” in the course of a question. The official answers “yes”).)
I would agree with you that both Viet Nam and Iraq started with a certain sense of Idealism. I’m not certain how that idealism is a bad thing.
In both cases, it’s impossible to know enemy from friend, and in fact often we find that enemy and friend are the same person.
I’m sorry, but that doesn’t make much sense to me. Can you clarify?
In both cases we arrogantly predicted great success based on superior fire power, and in both cases we learned that in guerilla battles, superior fire power isn’t all that it’s cracked up to be.
IMO Viet Nam was horribly managed because the full force of the US Military was not brought to bear — probably rightly so, since that may have touched off the Soviets, and the little war-by-proxy may have ballooned into another global conflict. Which brings me to my next point : the NVA were able to keep fighting because of the backing of the Soviets and Chinese. We weren’t just fighting the VC — we were fighting VC funded, aided, and sometimes assisted by two other major global powers.
I don’t see that being the case in Iraq.
In recent polls, over 99% of Iraqis want the US out of their country.
Please provide a source. Forgive me if I’m skeptical. Bloggers that actually live in Iraq (such as Iraq the Model, or Iraqi Bloggers Central paint a very different picture than what is common stateside.
The majority of the fighting and violence in Iraq is taking place in the Sunni triangle and parts of Baghdad, where the last of Saddam’s loyalists and foreign (Iranian, Syrian, etc) fighters are congregating. The Belmont Club has probably the most level headed analysis of the current situation in Iraq that I’ve read yet.
let me ask you how long you’d be willing to let Canada set up shop in the US…
If, say, Bush actually was Hitler and was, say, having all the Democrats carted off to be murdered, and this was going on for thirty years, then Canada comes in and topples the Bush Regime, then works to rebuild public facilities like power, water, sewer, roads, and also works furiously to hand over the governance of the US back to the people of the US (instead of, say, setting up a colony viz a viz the British Raj), then me personally? I’d be willing to have them around until their job was done, because it’s better than them leaving early, leaving a power vacuum behind that thugs and terrorists would rise to fill.
From the Belmost Club site I referened earlier:
So, I don’t think the analogy you’re trying to build quite fits the facts of the matter.
Germany was basically just like the rest of Europe
Yes, except for the Nazis, the fascists, the ubermenschen … oh bother. No, Germany was not basically just like the rest of Europe.
They almost beat us in the 80s
Beat us? You mean the auto industry? I’m not certain I’d equate the Auto Industry with the whole of the United States.
And that “beating” had as much to do with a complacent “Big Three” that thought so long as they told us to buy their crap, we would continue to buy their crap.
Closed markes are bad. :)
Heck, a few more years of runaway deficit spending, and they may just come over here to claim the resources they couldn’t get with planes or ships.
Heh, the Japanese economy is a wreck. They are hardly going to buy the US out from under us. While there are some entities with quite a bit of money that invests it in the US (I’ve read statistics that the Japanese own half of Hawaii, but really, that’s the only thing of any significance).
If you want to discuss Japanese fiscal policy, I’ll have to defer to my father-in-law, who writes financial analysis reports for the Japanese government (and is sitting behind me in my office at this very moment, actually, either reading up on the FED or the Angels. It’s hard to tell sometimes). Incidentally he just had to recall and rewrite a portion of his last article to take the new, improving economic reports into account.
Do you suppose that’s happening in Iraq? Have we managed to avoid humiliating them? I’m sure that after seeing all of the pictures of sexual perversion and hearing tails of how US soldiers are raping their women (and their young boys for that matter), they’re going to be more than happy to leave us providing security.
I’m sorry, but I have a problem with people who say that the Iraqi people are so stupid that they will equate the abuse of Saddam’s henchmen, with the murder of their own families by Saddam’s henchmen.
Re: terrorist camps. Hmmmm wish I had some sourcing handy.
Eh, google knows all.
The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War
Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq’s Al-Qaeda Connection
Iraqi officer in al Qaeda, papers show
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
Iraqi Officer Linked to Al Qaeda
The Iraq — Al Qaeda Connections
Admittedly there are just as many references to the links being dismissed, but most of these are journalists who, I think it can be said, have somewhat of an agenda. The last link lays out some basic factoids.
I frankly don’t care that Saddam was constantly threatening the US. Are you telling me you condone spending over $200 Billion and thousands of lives because some street thug in some backwater country called us a name and managed to scratch one of our ships once?
No, I don’t care that he called us mean names. I do care that the entire climate of the region led to 9/11.
we walk softly and carry our big sticks.
That works fine, as long as people believe we’re willing to break out the wood and open a can of whupass. The big stick is only a deterrant to attack if — and only if — that stick is wielded by an arm willing to crack some heads.
That perception amongst the terrorists was gone.
How do we know that?
Uh, again : 9/11.
I promise you there weren’t any countries in the world saying look at what a bunch of pussies the US are why they’re letting Saddam get away with murder, maybe we should go invade them.
I’d have to disagree with that. And we don’t have to look at it at a “country” level anymore. In fact, we can’t. Not when a group of men can kill 3,000 of us and destroy an American icon.
Part of the big show of strength (and yes, I do think more than a little of it is show. Public Relations on a global scale) is to send the message : police your own, or we will come and do it for you.
And perhaps it’s working somewhat. The Saudi’s are paying lip service to cleaning house (especially once terrorist groups started bombing the Saudis), Pakistan is helping, and Libya is backing off their nuclear dreams.
Is it perfect?
Not by a long shot. Not even close. But it is a better plan, I would argue, than sitting around, being isolationist, and increasing funding to fire departments and emergency workers and other “first responders” so they’ll be better equipped to deal with the next time something big goes boom on American soil.
You might want to have a read through …
I will, after dinner. Or perhaps during one of the interminable 4am feedings.
Again, thanks for the thoughtful response.
Cheers,
-ben
It doesn’t look like we’re going to convince each other. Most of your positions seem to be predicated on the idea that we had to go into Iraq, and most of mine are predicated on the idea that we didn’t.
As long as we’re in there, I hope you still feel that way five or 10 years from now. It would be better for everybody if you were right. I really don’t think you are though
Iraqis Want US to Leave
Why we cannot win in Iraq
Republican Leaders Take Bush to Task on Handling of Iraq War
Oh, I’d agree with you — I don’t think we had to go into Iraq. I just think it’s a better idea than sitting around waiting for more attacks, but that’s just me. :)
The polls you’re linking to, incidentally, don’t support your statement “In recent polls, over 99% of Iraqis want the US out of their country.” I’m not certain why the article should go out of its way to discout the Kurds, unless it is specifically to skew the numbers downward. Even still, I find more to be optimistic about in the article. Sure they want us out — but are they going to pick up arms and kill the people who are trying to rebuild their roads, power, oil wells, economy, and so on and so forth? At least the majority of them recognize their lives are better now, and believe that the future is brighter than not. I recall a recent article where Iraqi were more optimistic about their futures than the Germans. It is to laugh.
RE: the “why we cannot win in Iraq” — it’s too bad that noncom feels the way he does. Here’s another letter from a Major in Baghdad who doesn’t see things the same way. The Command Post also occasionally has reports from the front by soldiers who see something very, very different from what the common media portrays.
Who is right? Who is wrong? I don’t know; I don’t think anyone does, right now — but I do think some people are willing to take a look with a more open mind than others. History will tell. But I think belief in doom, gloom and failure is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Michael J. Totten comments :
Yes, it is a mess in Iraq. That’s what war is : “…a series of catastrophes that results in victory.” — Georges Clemenceau
Does the fact that it’s messy mean we should abandon all hope, ye who enter here? Not if 1) the result of bailing out are worse than staying put, and 2) if the end result is worth the pain inbetween.
I think both points apply here. Handwringing about how difficult things are is not an acceptable substitute for plans and actions.
And the 3rd article you linked to is a bit skewed. McCain is a straight talker — but the armchair quarterbacking of the journalists who cherrypick comments gets tiresome. It can be taken as a given that the Ds are going to be bitching about Iraq — Bush can do no right in their eyes. Kyl is not criticizing Bush. The word “Senators” used in the subheading is not technically correct, as it’s just the one Repub who thinks Bush isn’t bringing enough strength to bear.
I don’t think it’s internally consistent to argue both that we shouldn’t be in Iraq, and that we don’t have enough troops in Iraq, but that’s just me.
But anyway.
I note you don’t respond to my comments re: your laundry list of what makes you sick about the current administration. Hopefully you’ve had a chance to read up on the Wilson/Plame thing (apparently still ongoing), or the outed Pakistani spy (towards the bottom).
I can’t offer much about the 4th ammendment because … well … frankly it seems like a lot of smoke without much heat.
And fwiw, I’m much less interested in being right than I am in not getting murdered, along with thousands of my countrymen. But yeah, I hope the President is right — because that means everyone will be safer, everywhere.
This is a drive for global change. It’s not just band-aids and minor elective surgery. It’s radical chemotherapy.
You can certainly argue that completely dismantling the Taliban down to the atomic level would have been enough of a “show of strength” to deter future attacks. Maybe it would have. For a while.
But if the root cause of terrorism is still out there and flourising — and no, it isn’t poverty or American Imperialism or globalization. It is radical fundamental Islamism — eventually, at some point, the US will be hit again. We have to stop them every time. They have to succeed only once.
Removing the cancer of the Islamists is just as vital and important as utterly obliterating the Nazis was in the last century. The Nazis may not have threatened the US directly at that point — but unchecked, they would have, eventually. The Islamists have already attacked the US multiple times. They’re attacking others around the world. There isn’t a central intelligence coordinating all of the terrorists. There is, however, a central motivation : they don’t recognize your right to live the way you want to live.
As flawed and fallen as America is, I’ll support the United States over people who hate it — who hate anything that doesn’t conform to their rigid belief systems — any day. I prefer a society that tolerates most others, to one that tolerates no others.
The great paradox of a “free society” is how a free society can encompass those who wish to destroy it. After all, how can we claim to be “tolerant of others” if we dare tell the terrorists that it is not acceptable to murder children?
Total freedom is indistinguishable from Chaos. The line must be drawn somewhere. It might as well be … here.
Anyway. I get the feeling you’re tired of this discussion. Thanks for the civil discourse — in all honesty I do enjoy having sincere conversations with Kerry supporters that don’t devolve into Bushitler/Bush is the antichrist blah blah blah/HaliburtonHaliburtonHaliburton/no-blood-for-oil.
I’d've liked to have heard more specifically about why you support Kerry instead of why you are against Bush, but I haven’t found a Kerry supporter yet who could talk at any length about Kerry without bashing the current administration. ;)
cheers,
-ben
You’re right, my number of 99% was hyperbole. I can see how you’d be optimistic about the fact that only 3 in every 4 Iraqis want us out, and shopkeepers are saying if they saw an American, they’d shoot them. I’m sure that an American favorable democracy is practically right around the corner.
I didn’t respond to your statements with respect to my laundry list because most of it boiled down to yeah, that sucks, but there’s a war on. That’s your opinion, you’re welcome to it. I thought it went without saying that I have a very different opinion, and it seemed that your statements stood on their own without need for refutation for anybody else who might happen by to read this.
I don’t know what you’re talking about with the Plame thing. I’m not sure how the guy lying about how he got his job is in any way relevant to the administration outing his wife, one of our own spies, as political payback. One is maybe perjury depending on who he said it to and when, the other looks to be treason. I guess we’ll have to wait to see.
So, the NYT obtained the Pakistani’s name “independently” from a “source”, and then the administration just “confirmed” it. OK, whatever makes you sleep at night. Leading up to that there was talk of the US putting pressure on Pakistan to find a high value capture that could be announced during the convention, and it just so happens that the NYT independently found one. That seems pretty convenient to me. You’re welcome to believe that if you like. I’m not sure what would convince me of that, so we’ll have to call it a draw.
I told you some of the things that I support in the Kerry campaign. I think he’ll be able to put a world face on the occupation of Iraq, and it’s my hope that if we can deemphasize US involvement, Iraqis won’t see peace keepers as imperial occupiers or the puppets of imperial occupiers. Then, hopefully, we can get the country put back together again in some form that allows us to get most of our folks out of there eventually. You think we can win just fine if we keep going as we are. I think you’re fooling yourself. I guess time will tell who’s right — particularly if Bush gets elected again since then things pretty much will go on as they have, and maybe we’ll be able to get out with partitioning the country into civil war. Then we can bow out and go kick Iran around for a while. Back to what I like about Kerry, I think he’s stronger on defense. Bush talks a good game, but I think Bush is fundamentally weak. Kerry looks like a better leader in that respect to me. So, I guess we’re back to well he’s not Bush, but I’ve already freely admitted that that is one of the guy’s primary appeals. It’s a huge checkmark in the plus column for him though.
So, I have lots of reasons to vote Kerry. I’m not sure why anybody’d vote Bush. He’s weak on domestic programs. He’s weak on the economy. He’s weak on international relations. He’s weak on security. He doesn’t seem to respect much less defend the constitution. In fact he wants to inject it with antifamily amendments of hate and prejudice. He’s secretive and arrogant. He seems to be incapable of saying no to special interest groups. He’s exhibited troubling naivete. He has shown no ability to recognize or learn from his mistakes. But, he’s a straight shooter who’ll stay resolute while he leads us over a cliff. OK, so I guess I can think of one reason some people might vote for him. I don’t understand it, but I guess that’s what some people want.