Is the war on terror more like the Peloponnesian War, the Crusades, the Crimean War, and World War II, or is it more like the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on obesity, and other political marketing schemes? In other words, is it an actual war or just a slogan? A disturbing article in the International Herald Tribune suggests it's more the latter than the former, with Bush Administration officials discarding the phrase "war on terror" now that it has fallen out of fashion. Orange is the new pink.
No, the War on Illiteracy Povert Drugs et cetera were all slogans for fighting something.
The War on Terror is an actual military war. Soldiers are dying fighting it ever day, it started with the murder of 3,000 Americans, it has resulted in thousands more deaths since. It is a W-A-R in the most basic sense of the word.
P.S: The War on Terror is indeed also an ideological struggle. So was the Cold War, World War II, The Crusades, The Reconquista, the two sieges of Sicily, and the two sieges of Vienna. All of them qualify as "real wars" As in the War on Terror, battle was joined and people died in combat.
I agree with Ben except for semantics. The "wars" on Poverty, drugs, illiteracy etc. were fancy slogans used to divert attention from the fact that they are all efforts of government to expand their sphere of power over us by encroaching into areas that should be solely our own personal responsibility. This is ostensibly for the "good" reason that we are not capable of caring for ourselves, therefore, government must assume responsibility for us. In truth, it is simply a matter of exercising more and more governmental power over our everyday lives and the decisions we make.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it."
-- H.L. Mencken
The "war on Terror" is a necessary (if ineptly named) war against forces that would see western style representative government, religious freedom and capitalism destroyed. These forces are the forces of fundamentalist, militant Islam. The warriors against whom we fight are as real as the battles being fought and the soldiers who are dying in this struggle. The fact that there is no "National identity" against which this struggle is being waged is irrelevant. The war is being conducted against an ideological identity that spans national boundaries and ethnicity.
Personally, I don't care whether the battles are being fought in Afghanistan, Iraq, or on Mars...as long as they're not being fought in New York, Chicago and Charlotte.
The war is real all right. Just ask the family members of the 3,000 who died on 9/11 or the family members of the thousands of dedicated military members who have died in the battles since.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse."
--John Stuart Mill
"No man can sit down and withhold his hands from the warfare against wrong and get peace from his acquiescence."
--Woodrow Wilson
Ok Ben, so if it's an ideological struggle, the Mohommedans have us beat, don't you think? Their ideology, of submission to God and the right of their relgion to rule the world, to our what? Our nihilism? Our right to export our pornographic culture and consumerism abroad? I don't think we're going to win that battle.
I'll overlook the fact that all of the wars you mention involve the enemies lining up against one another and fighting (or in the case of the Cold War, lining up prepared to fight). Our enemies, far from being cowards as our leaders would like us to believe, give their lives for their "ideology". They'll blow themselves up to hasten our deminse because they see the U.S. and Europe as a corrupting influence on their culture. This is hard to argue, I think?
Our ideology is "US" (the irony is profound). Me, myself and I. The preservation of our lives and keeping our "way of life" is supposedly what we fight for. If our way of life meant keeping our religion safe from these facists, that would be something to fight for, even die for. Hell, if we just said we wanted to rid the planet of muslims, at least that would be a goal! But what we really want to do, is keep the champagne flowing, and the party going, ignoring the fact that it's a party on the deck of a sinking ship.
Western culture has become perverse, deviant, and almost totally without scruples, save the remnants in our collective conciousness left behind by the Church. We can't continue to destroy people, both physically through abortion and other abuses, and spiritually through the sick, self-absorbed culture, and expect never to reap the rewards of such sins. They hate us and they'll continue killing us essentially because we don't love our brothers and sisters around the world enough to end and reform the culture that is destroying lives around the globe.
This is my opinion of the fundamental problem. Sorry this is so long.
A.) I would agree with Curtis, simply articulated myself poorly.
B.) To Homer: Your hatred for the west is both apparent and disheartening. You might prefer to focus on the exporting of ponography abroad. I think more worthy of our focus when we examine the west is the freedom of self-government and self-determination, the capitalist system econonomics that has brought about in the west unprecedented standards of living and personal happiness, the massive achievements we have made relying on our human spirit and ingenuity. Just recnetly, the Challenger launched itself into space, something that should have served as a reminder to all what America and the west are capable of achieving when they put their minds to it.
Some, especially here, would argue that our values cannot be exported. Historical examination has proven this stance to be patently false. In economicall affluent societies, inside the west or out, democracy traditionally flourishes, likewise, in societies of economic and social desperation, totalitarianism and radicalism will flourish, outside the west, or within.
Globalization has already proven itself to be the greatest tool in history for exporting western values of freedom, self-determination, self-government, and capitalist economics. Show me the areas of the world where globalization has not spread, and I will show you the battelfields of the twenty-first century. Disconnectedness defines danger.
The values intrinsic to the American society are vaues the world LIKES, and WANTS, and is envious of, regardless of how they feel about specific American governmental policies. And I feel that those values intrinsic to our societies ARE values that will, given the chance, win a battle with the world envisioned by Osama bin Laden. But if we don't give that battle a chance we will never know. U.S Naval War College Professor Thomas P.M Barnett defines the ideological battle between bin Ladenists and the West as a war between two different "Futures Worth Creating"
We all know the Future Worth Creating bin Laden touts. It was defined when he murder three thousand of our countrymen on 9/11, it is defined every time a Palestinian suicide bomber destroys a bus full of innocent Israelis, it is defined every time the Iraqi insurgency murder an Imam they have decided it to friendly to America, it was defined only a few weeks ago when, as American soldiers were handing out candy and toys to Iraqi children, a man drove a car into the crowd and blew it up, murdering one American soldier and tens of innocent children.
That was why I supported the War in Iraq, because I am confident that OUR Future Worth Creating IS better than Bin Laden's, and I am convinced that the people of Iraq and the broader Middle East will agree. If history teaches us one lesson, it is that our values ARE worth exporting, and doing so IS not only noble and just, but necessary to our security as a nation.
So yes Homer, I do think we can win a war of values with the Jihadi. Coca-cola and all.
Well, ok. Whatever. I still don't know what "values" you're referring to. Certainly nothing that would stir anyone to the types of daily sacrifices we see from the followers of Mohommed. Though, I would suggest that hatred of the West (my own is in debate, despite your assertion) is understandable and it should not surprise anyone that it is so easy for this hatred to lead to suicide bombings, etc.
If you can view it in terms of these young men seeing only 2 options: slavery to the "values" of the West (values that I've spelled out already), or freedom through a death that strikes a blow at such tyranny...I'm surprised there aren't MORE bombers.
If you honestly believe that porno is what has lead to suicide bombings on a massive scale across the Middle East than you must be delusional.
The vast majority of people in the Middle East have expressed, through their wallets and pocket books, an approval for the west's supposedly corrupt values.
Rather, what leads to a suicide bomber is a combination of economic desperation, societal disconnectedness, and government oppression that drives young Arab men to the Mosque as the only place where they can be free to express themselves. However when they get there they are greeted by radical Imams ready to deflect all criticisms onto the two great satans, The United States and Israel. After this starts it isn't long before they end up under a big Bin Laden poster that read "I WANT YOU FOR THE MUSLIM JIHAD!"
To me, it seems that what you are doing is simply disregarding the causes of Islamic terrorism and projecting your own criticisms of western society onto the Jihadi.
If your hatred of the west is non-existant, than why do you so rail against it's culture? In your first post in this thread you basically made what comes down to a declaration of the superiority of Islamist societies to our own.
The last two paragraphs of your statement are too over-the-top to be dignified by my comments. But your second paragraph all but proves my point.
I would like to just ask, then, what led the rich, young men living in London (of all places) to commit these acts? I'm not aware of the economic desparation, social disconnectedness, or government oppression that would drive other young Londoners to commit similar acts of terrorism.
The vast majority of Muslim communities in Europe are isolated and live in squalor. The leadership for revolt always comes from the middle and upper classes. The poor are the cannon fodder of the Revolution. Regardless, without these problems existing such radicalism could never succesfully take root. As for these young men, they were converted to radicalism while on a trip to Pakistan. They met a Sheikh Guevara figure who filled their heads with the usual lies and took them back to London to committ their acts.
Muslims blow themselves up because they hate democracy? It's amazing the nonsense some people will believe.
Whatever, Ben, you heard it here first: They hate us because of Brittney Spears, not because we're free, or they're not free, or they're poor, or any other nonsense.
"Muslims blow themselves up because they hate democracy? It's amazing the nonsense some people will believe." -Eric Wilds
Did you read a single one of the posts?
"Whatever, Ben, you heard it here first: They hate us because of Brittney Spears, not because we're free, or they're not free, or they're poor, or any other nonsense." - Homer J. Fong
Sure, political radicalism has universally throughout history found it's spawning ground in economically desperate, societally disconnected societies, but what would that matter here? Throw historical precedent out the window, what we NEED to be dealing with is the massive national security threat posed by "Hit Me Baby, One More Time!"
Ben-T,
Yes.
"The 'war on Terror' is a necessary (if ineptly named) war against forces that would see western style representative government, religious freedom and capitalism destroyed."
The forces against representative government, religious freedom and capitalism are at work right here in our own country, often concealing their efforts under the name of liberal or Neocon.
The War on Terror as a phrase is really just the product of very slick marketing. It exists to create the misperception that the people we are fighting in Iraq have some kind of connection to those who carried out the 9/11 attack. You'll often hear that we cannot leave Iraq because if we do the "terrorists will win."
Our invasion of Iraq triggered a Sunni insurgency and naturally provides a good recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden, but the conflict in Iraq isn't against terrorists, but with insurgents who resent their exclusion from the new Iraqi government.
Terrorism is just a tactic that uses violence to try and achieve political ends. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber were both terrorists but their acts of terror have nothing to do with the ideology behind al-Qaeda. Likewise, the terrorism against Israel, or Russia, or Sri Lanka has nothing to do with the terrorism against the United States.
Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet invasion, not because he hated freedom and democracy. He became an enemy of the United States after we continued our presence in Saudi Arabia long after the conclusion of the first gulf war. You don't see "terrorists" carrying out violence against Switzerland or Iceland and these are democracies as well. Intervention is the source of the Muslim ire against the United States and intervening even more isn't going to solve the problem. As Iraq illustrates, it will most likely make it worse.
First, "the War on Terror" is a lazy-minded term. Terror is either an emotion or an abstraction, and in either case has a very long history. It would be more accurate to speak of a war against terrorist organizations.
Secondly, I don't think that the terrorists are primarily concerned about the so called Western cultural imperialism (Coke, Hollywood, etc.) As I have maintained elsewhere, what they object to most is the Western military presence in Muslim countries, and by extension, Western military actions that kill Muslim people.
"The War on Terror as a phrase is really just the product of very slick marketing. It exists to create the misperception that the people we are fighting in Iraq have some kind of connection to those who carried out the 9/11 attack. You'll often hear that we cannot leave Iraq because if we do the "terrorists will win."
Our invasion of Iraq triggered a Sunni insurgency and naturally provides a good recruiting tool for Osama bin Laden, but the conflict in Iraq isn't against terrorists, but with insurgents who resent their exclusion from the new Iraqi government.
Terrorism is just a tactic that uses violence to try and achieve political ends. Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber were both terrorists but their acts of terror have nothing to do with the ideology behind al-Qaeda. Likewise, the terrorism against Israel, or Russia, or Sri Lanka has nothing to do with the terrorism against the United States.
Osama bin Laden went to Afghanistan to oppose the Soviet invasion, not because he hated freedom and democracy. He became an enemy of the United States after we continued our presence in Saudi Arabia long after the conclusion of the first gulf war. You don't see "terrorists" carrying out violence against Switzerland or Iceland and these are democracies as well. Intervention is the source of the Muslim ire against the United States and intervening even more isn't going to solve the problem. As Iraq illustrates, it will most likely make it worse."
The term War on Terror was originated by the Media and was first used immediately after 9/11, long before the invasion of Iraq, so your whole theory pretty much falls apart right there.
*Hit the post button by accident*
The grievance of the Jihadi is that we are infidels, and that we are on the lands they deem Holy. Driving infidels out of the "Holy Lands" is central to their ideology.
You however do not seem to differentiate between Jihadi and the Arab Street. Your logic that our invasion of Iraq created a Sunni insurgency, and as such was a defeat in the War on Terror is about as logical as me saying the D-Day invasions were a failure because they increased German military activity on the European continent.
Ben,
Claiming that Iraq is part of the War on Terror or that we cannot vacate Iraq because the "terrorists will win" creates the misperception that there is some connection between the people who attacked on 9/11 and the insurgency we are fighting in Iraq.
Your WWII really hits wide of the mark. Were the architects of D-Day not expecting the Germans to fight? Or did they assume that the Germans would welcome us as liberators?
Ben-T
It wasnt the Challenger that just recently launched into space, it was Discovery...I think.
Other than that I agree with you. Take it easy on these other bloggers here, they cant help it that they loathe our country so much. There will always be bad apples in the barrel...just remember that.
"Claiming that Iraq is part of the War on Terror or that we cannot vacate Iraq because the "terrorists will win" creates the misperception that there is some connection between the people who attacked on 9/11 and the insurgency we are fighting in Iraq.
Your WWII really hits wide of the mark. Were the architects of D-Day not expecting the Germans to fight? Or did they assume that the Germans would welcome us as liberators?" -Wilds
At this point, today, Iraq is part of the War on Terror, though no, it was not part of the War on Terror in 2003 when we invaded.
I always expected an insurgency, coming, as I have said before, from the Thomas Friedman school of war supporters. This administration's post-war planning was undoubtedly horrid. I knew if we wanted to create a democratic state in the heart of the Middle East we would be fighting more than just Saddam Hussein.
The Insurgency we are fighting in Iraq is indeed linked to Al Qaeda, it's nominal leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, is an Al Qaeda veteran, and Osama bin Laden has called him "The Emir of Iraq"
Almost all leadership for the Insurgency comes from Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda affiliated organizations, the funding comes from the Syrian government. Sunni Iraqis (who make up less than 20% of Iraq's population) along with foreign volunteer fighters provide the cannon fodder.
To James: I don't think any poster here on Flynn Files hates our country, save maybe Truth if he still posts. We just all have the tendency to get a little over the top.
>>Well, ok. Whatever. I still don't know what "values" you're referring to. Certainly nothing that would stir anyone to the types of daily sacrifices we see from the followers of Mohommed.
I thought Ben articulated it pretty well. Religious Liberty, Economic and Political freedom, Representative government...those are all values that our founding fathers found were adequate to "stir anyone to the types of daily sacrifices we see from the followers of mohommed".
You could argue that our military men and women aren't as brave as the jihadists because they only "risk" their lives rather than the guaranteed death of a homicide bomber...But that risk is still there and is still real and they voluntarily undertake it every day. I would contend that the jihadist's activities are not "brave". They demonstrate that they want to die by voluntarily killing themselves in perpetration of their acts. And they do so by attacking innocents who are incapable of fighting back. The coalition troops decidedly do NOT want to die, but willingly take the fight to the enemy...who is very capable of fighting back.
>>slavery to the "values" of the West (values that I've spelled out already), or freedom through a death that strikes a blow at such tyranny
Talk about an oxymoron. The jihadists fight against the "slavery" of freedom and for the "freedom" of religious and political oppression.
It is not a question of Islamic radicals wanting the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit, they have that freedom and would have it under Western forms of government...the question is whether they would have the "freedom" to force their religious beliefs on others. That's not freedom, that's oppression.
>>The forces against representative government, religious freedom and capitalism are at work right here in our own country, often concealing their efforts under the name of liberal or Neocon.
I would agree with that totally under the caveat that I would hesitate to place blame at the feet of anyone based upon a political label. The difference is that in the US, we have the opportunity to change things if they get too bad. We don't because most of the public is either A) too dependent upon the Nanny state to be weaned from it or B) too apathetic about the society around them to do anything about it (or even take an interest in it for that matter).
That is our choice. We have to deal with the consequences of it as a society because we are the ultimate cause of it.
>>It exists to create the misperception that the people we are fighting in Iraq have some kind of connection to those who carried out the 9/11 attack.
There are plenty of connections between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda that predate 9/11. I won't reiterate them here because it would take too much space and that information has been out there for quite some time. If you haven't seen it by now it's because you don't want to.
>>but the conflict in Iraq isn't against terrorists, but with insurgents who resent their exclusion from the new Iraqi government
That is unadulterated BS. The vast majority of the "insurgents" are not Iraqis. They are terrorists recruited to stop Iraq from becoming a democratic nation. That is why the "insurgents" insist upon bombing Police and Iraqi national guard recruitment centers, assassinating Iraqi members of the new government and, most recently, staging attacks upon conflicting ideological groups in order to foment civil unrest. The formation of a functioning, self-ruling, religiously free democracy in Iraq is the LAST thing that the Islamic Jihadists want and is why they are flooding into Iraq to combat it. And they are primarily killing their fellow muslims (Iraqis) to do so.
>>As Iraq illustrates, it will most likely make it worse.
What Iraq illustrates is that this is a determined enemy who will fight fervently for their cause...even to the point of killing their fellow muslims. Fighting back in almost any threatening situation makes it worse in the short term. It is the long view that should be the determining factor. I may not swat a wasp that is on my arm for fear that it will sting me. But if I swat it, I get stung once, if I don't and it decides on its own to attack me, I will probably be stung many more times before I can kill it.
What you are suggesting is that if we withdraw immediately from all muslim countries, they will stop targeting us? Sorry, I'm not buying it...and even if it seemed credible, it would not be worth the risk to take the actions necessary to find out.
>>As I have maintained elsewhere, what they object to most is the Western military presence in Muslim countries, and by extension, Western military actions that kill Muslim people.
What??? Exactly which western military actions in Saudi Arabia are killing muslim people? The US military is in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait, etc. at the behest of the governments of those countries. The western military is not killing muslims in those countries.
Who is killing muslims in Iraq? Yes, the coalition forces have killed some innocents by accident and intentionally killed muslim militants, but if killing muslims was the concern, why do the terrorists have no compunction about killing innocent muslims, including children, in striving for their goal if that goal is to save the lives of muslims? That makes no sense. I'm going to fight against military action that kills my neighbor by...killing my neighbor.
What they object to is not "westerm military presence", it is the audacity that fellow muslims have in inviting western military presence (and western commercial presence, and western societal presence) into their midst. They object to people who don't bow down to the wisdom that they (the terrorists) know what is best and should be placed in supreme rulership over the entire world. They have no compuction about killing fellow muslims if those fellow muslims embrace the concept that not everyone wants to be muslim, wear a burkha and divorce their husband because they are raped by the husband's father.
Again, I reiterate: These are NOT people fighting for the right of their people to worship as they please. These are people who are fighting for the ability to DICTATE to ALL PEOPLE under their sphere of influence how to worship.
>>Claiming that Iraq is part of the War on Terror or that we cannot vacate Iraq because the "terrorists will win" creates the misperception that there is some connection between the people who attacked on 9/11 and the insurgency we are fighting in Iraq.
Again, it's not a "misperception". The 9/11 commission report itself describes several connections between Saddam's regime and "the people who attacked on 9/11", not to mention all the other evidence in support of those connections.
>>Or did they assume that the Germans would welcome us as liberators?
The VAST majority of Iraqis HAVE welcomed coalition forces as liberators. It is a small minority, bolstered by the influx of foreign radicals, who are fighting against the forces of freedom, both coalition and Iraqi.
Sorry so long. I was away for a while and had a lot to respond to.
As to the "Who is braver?" debate, I would say this.
I think it takes more bravery to risk one's life to help build a Future Worth Creating, both for ourselves here in the States and for the people of Iraq, than it takes to murder innocents, knowing that oneself will die in the process.
To simply kill, in rage, to murder with no thought for the future, for how you may better yourself and the society around you, it taking the easy way out. It is the route of the coward.
>>To simply kill, in rage, to murder with no thought for the future, for how you may better yourself and the society around you, it taking the easy way out. It is the route of the coward.
Well said.
"Whatever, Ben, you heard it here first: They hate us because of Brittney Spears, not because we're free, or they're not free, or they're poor, or any other nonsense." - Homer J. Fong
Sure, political radicalism has universally throughout history found it's spawning ground in economically desperate, societally disconnected societies, but what would that matter here? Throw historical precedent out the window, what we NEED to be dealing with is the massive national security threat posed by "Hit Me Baby, One More Time!"
T, what are you thinking!? Of course when the terrorists first bombed the WTC in '93, they were foreshadowing Ms. Spears' atmospheric rise. (And it's plain as day that the '84 embassy bombing in Beirut was the fault of Debbie Harry. etc. etc. etc.)
Thanks for fighting the good fight, Messrs. T and Stone.
What we now lamely call the War on Terror is just an unexpected insurgeny among Iraq's Sunni population. While most Sunnis are not insurgents it seems the majority tacitly accept the insurgents and thus their resentment creates the oxygen in which the insurgency flourishes.
In a conventional war you have fronts and you try to kill your enemy. There is no front in the Iraqi war and we're trying to win their "hearts and minds," not blow them away. So it doesn't meet the regular criteria for war nor is there any meaningful definition of victory.
If the Iraqi government is able to maintain security and ward off any challenges to its power that can hardly be a victory for the United States because it's still possible the new Iraqi regime might forge alliances with Iran. Would that be a victory? They might continue to finance terrorism. Would that be a victory?
The new Bush/Neocon argument isn't that this is a war but an attempt to create a new civilization in Iraq. Maybe it can be done and maybe it can't. However, it is wholly incorrect to try and claim that this is a war in a conventional sense. It's not.
Also, just for the record the 9/11 Commission Report found "no operational, collaborative link," between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Those who hold a contrary opinion are just part of shrinking partisan clique of Bush cultists who are desperately trying to salvage this war's lost moral legitimacy. It's actually very pathetic.
Will democracy create the new civilization in Iraq we're all hoping? I see no evidence of this. The new Iraqi government is desiring us to leave as soon as possible and they are forging ties with Iran.
Victory in Iraq remains elusive.
You are sadly misinformed about the "insurgency". There is a small number of Sunni Iraqis involved, but the vast majority of "insurgents" are not from Iraq. The new Iraqi government is trying very hard to include the Sunnis in the political process and they are succeeding despite attempts of the "insurgents" to derail their prospects. Most recently, the "insurgents" murdered two prospective Sunni members of the Constitutional convention. The other Sunni members refrained from participating in that convention for a couple of days after the murders, but are now back and are fully participating in the political process. The overwhelming majority of Iraqis...including Sunnis...are supportive of their new government and want to see it succeed. Most of the successes against the "insurgents" have been realized by Iraqi and Coalition forces as a direct result of tips and support from the Iraqi people...who risk their lives and the lives of their families with that support.
You are right, there are no guarantees in life. Iraq may become a bastion of freedom and democracy in the Middle east, or it may become just another tin pot dictatorship that supports terrorism. That's not up to us. We help to get them on the right path and then it's up to them to stay on it...or not. The price of freedom is that sometimes people don't choose to do what you want them to (and you can't always pass legislation or litigate them into doing it either).
I don't believe anyone is contending that this is a "conventional" war. I don't have a "conventional" job in that I don't have to punch a time card and most of the time I work from my desk at home...but that doesn't make it any less a job as evidenced by the paycheck I get every two weeks. Conventional or not, the bullets flying and bombs exploding are plenty of evidence for me to conclude that this is a war.
There is plenty of other evidence of Iraq-Al Qaeda links out there. Strong evidence. I only mention the links pointed out in the 9/11 commission reports in response to those who like to wail "there are NO links". They supposedly use the 9/11 report as the be-all and end-all of evidence and even THAT verified that there were links...even though they admittedly didn't acknowledge "operational" links. The point is: when the major media, demo leaders and others say flatly that the 9/11 report stated there were no links, it is a bald-faced lie.
Even if there WERE no links (and there decidedly are, regardless of your "pathetic" attempts to deny it in the interest of undermining anything "Bush") what difference does it make? Even if Al Qaeda had no interest in Iraq before, they decidedly do now. Senior Al Qaeda leadership, in intercepted communications, have even characterized Iraq as the primary front in their "jihad". The end result is that we are fighting the war in Baghdad and Falluja rather than New York and Boise. Perhaps you would prefer to be fighting in your backyard, but I wouldn't.
Being that I read more than just the liberal doomsayer's perceptions of the situation in Iraq, I have a much better outlook on the prospects for a free and democratic society there. You're entitled to your pessimism but both your and my opinions are moot. Only time will tell. The only guarantee that I can give is that if we pull out too early, we are guaranteeing that Iraq will fall back under control of the fanatics and terrorists. It may happen anyway, but where I come from, you don't fail to try just because you might fail to succeed.
"he new Bush/Neocon argument isn't that this is a war but an attempt to create a new civilization in Iraq. Maybe it can be done and maybe it can't. However, it is wholly incorrect to try and claim that this is a war in a conventional sense. It's not." -Wilds
It is what the military classifies as "Fourth Generation Warfare" or 4GW. The military has held the 4GW classification since the late 1990s. It is not the same thing as Third Generation Warfare, which is the more traditional, Cold War style warfare.
"Will democracy create the new civilization in Iraq we're all hoping? I see no evidence of this. The new Iraqi government is desiring us to leave as soon as possible and they are forging ties with Iran." -Wilds
The new Iraqi government has not forged any ties with Iran save trading alliances, which is exactly what we want. If we want a succesfull, democratic society in Iraq to will spread it's influences across the Middle East, the best course of action is not to isolate it from totalitarian societies in that region but to encourage relations between them. A democratic society in Iraqq that sets an example for the rest of the Middle East cannot be achieved if that society does not interact with the rest of the Middle East.
Either way, Iraq or no Iraq, it is clear to observers of Iranian society that the days of the Mullahs are growing short.
The purpose of the war in Iraq was to disarm Iraq of its WMD. The consequence of the war in Iraq was to trigger a Sunni insurgeny and embroil the United States in a prolonged nation building project that has no end in sight. From the events thus far the war has been a catastrophic error. Bush cultists and the Neocons are now trying to gloss over their errors by framing the war in terms of a cosmic struggle: liberty versus tyranny. This rhetoric has no connection to reality, but is just a grand rationalization for not finding WMD in Iraq.
"The vast majority of attacks against U.S. and Iraqi security forces are perpetrated by former members of Saddam Hussein's regime and Sunnis fearful of being politically marginalized by the Kurds and majority Shiites."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8745655/site/newsweek/
The Sunnis are the problem in Iraq. However, trying to frame the issue as liberty versus tyranny (or terrorism) is just more mumbo jumbo. Neither the Sunni, Kurds, or Shia have any religious or moral deference to democracy. The Shi'a support democracy because it grants them power.The Sunni oppose democracy because it doesn't. This has nothing to do with democracy/tyranny, but with: Who shall rule? If the Shi'a said they had no interest in democracy, wanted to come under the authority of the Iranian mullahs, would the Sunni lay down their arms? Would the insurgency stop? Of course not, it's a sectarian conflict -- not an ideological one.
It's not the responsibility of the United States to try and plant little Constitutional republics in the Middle East. This new nation building fanaticism among the Bush cultists is just another excuse to cover up for the failures of the administration.
President Bush has said that once the new Iraqi government is able to manage its own security we will leave Iraq. So Bush is clearly implying that our troops are functioning as a provisional Iraqi security force. If we were fighting global jihadists Bush would not make this statement because once we vacate Iraq all the jihadists would follow us back to the United States. The "we're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here," is transparent nonsense.
The allegation that there were "links" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda is true, but "links" is weasel word the Bush cultists use to try and imply some kind of cooperation or alliance. The United States and Saddam Hussein have links --- just ask Donald Rumsfeld! So "links" doesn't have any significance. There was no "operational collaboration" between Iraq and al-Qaeda.
Also, it's not a matter of pessimism versus optimism, but with executing a war properly and fighting only for our national interests. If Iraq becomes "democratic" there's no indication that it would be in our national interests.
The war has been a colossal mistake. Continuing with a mistake doesn't correct it; it only makes it worse.
Wilds in all honesty why even post? You could just copy and paste one argument over and over. You continue to make the same assertions, when they are addressed, you just make them again.
Your views on foreign policy are as short-sighted as short-sighted could possible be, it's almost shocking. You seem incapable of thinking more than 1-2 years ahead.
Yeah the people of Iraq have no desire for democracy. Here are some blogs where they express their lack of a desire for democracy:
http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/
http://neurotic-iraqi-wife.blogspot.com/
http://www.friendsofdemocracy.info/
http://healingiraq.blogspot.com/
http://iraqiexpat.blogspot.com/
http://www.iraqrising.blogspot.com/
http://iraqataglance.blogspot.com/
http://diwaniya.blogspot.com/
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/
http://fayrouz.blogspot.com/
http://hammorabi.blogspot.com/
http://ashtaria.blogspot.com/
http://nabilsblog.blogspot.com/
http://kurdo.blogspot.com/
http://iraqi4ever.blogspot.com/
http://rosebaghdad.blogspot.com/
http://iraqidoctor.blogspot.com/
http://ibnalrafidain.blogspot.com/
http://roadstoiraq.com/
http://democracyiniraq.blogspot.com/
http://iraqithoughts.blogspot.com/
http://bethnahrain.blogspot.com/
MAN! Those Iraqis, if there's one thing they are ambivalent about, it's democracy! But at least we know of the natural ambivalence inherent to the people of the greater Middle East.
http://www.bigpharaoh.blogspot.com/
http://www.mahmood.tv/index.php/blog/
http://regimechangeiran.blogspot.com/
http://lebop.blogspot.com/
http://www.activistchat.com/blogiran/
http://amarji.blogspot.com/
http://arabist.net/
http://saudijeans.blogspot.com/
http://pulseoffreedom05.org/
http://egyptiansandmonkey.blogspot.com/
http://www.lebanonheartblogs.blogspot.com/
http://sillybahrainigirl.blogspot.com/
http://arabiandissent.blogspot.com/
http://syriaexposed.blogspot.com/
Hmm..well damn.
"It's not the responsibility of the United States to try and plant little Constitutional republics in the Middle East." -Wilds
Hey Eric, my birthday is coming up, do you think maybe that one time, just once out of the year, you could address the argument actually being given instead of doing your usual, that is, dodging the issue and hiding behind strawmen and the same assertion you've repeated now for the umpteenth time?
Ben,
Address what argument?
The Bush cultists and the Neocons remind me of the gothic girl in the tattoo parlor who has a new hair color everyday. One day we're fighting in Iraq to stop terrorism, the next we're functioning as a provisional security force, then we're disarming WMD, then we're fighting for freedom and democracy, and so on.
I understand the Neocon/Bush cultist mythology -- I however don't share its superstitions. Just as the ancient Greek seafarers would drown horses to appease Poseidon, the Bush cultists believe razing cites and repeating mantras e.g. freedom and democracy will somehow appease King Demos. Bush cultists/Neocons have this idea that if we drop enough bombs, kill enough people, spend billions of dollars "democracy" will rise like a phoenix from the ashes. It's an interesting mythology, but it's still just a superstition. There is no King Demos. Grow up.
BTW, I don't consider bloggers to be represenative of the Iraqi people nor do the Iraqi people -- or any people for that matter -- evince any support for democracy. In an earlier thread you quoted a blogger who claimed Zarqawi was dead. Yawn~
The history, culture, and patterns of tradition in Iraq are a better guide to Iraq's future than bloggers.
I have presented my argument for the War in Iraq countless times. Countless times, you have dodged, bobbed, and weaved to escape the debate.
I suppose this is just another notch on the list.
Right. Why should what average Iraqis have to say about Iraqi society be considered representative of the average Iraqi?
Ben,
Your arguments for the war in Iraq are superstitious -- the belief that razing cities and killing thousands of people somehow creates a "democracy." Furthermore, that this "democracy" will be friendly to the United States and also spark a "democratic" revolution across the Middle East.
In other words, your case for the war rests on what should happen ideally, and not with what is actually happening. It's the difference between superstitition and reality.
The average Iraqi is not a blogger.
No the average Iraqi is not a blogger, but the average Iraqi blogger is an average Iraqi. You're being deliberately blunt.
Yes there has been little progress whatsoever in Iraq: Oh wait, here come some inconvenient facts.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/BillofRights.pdf
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/13/africa/web.iraq.php
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0711/dailyUpdate.html
What you possibly expected in two years besides a democratically elected government officially recognized by the Arab League, a constitution about to be released, an Iraqi Security Force, that, only at about approx 50% capability is already prepared to take over security for several cities, an Insurgency with the vast majority of it's leadership dead and captured, now almost totally isolated the the Sunni Triangle and the Syrian border-region, and an Iraq where U.S troop presence outside the Sunni Triangle is now almost totally unnecessary, is beyond me.
Progress in Iraq has been steady. NEWSFLASH: Wars take time to win.
The Iraqi blogger is an average Iraqi in the same way a Volvo driver is an average American.
There really isn't a war in Iraq. Where is the front? What hill, city, or plot of ground do we need to capture? Right now we're trying to pacify the Sunni population and not doing a particularly good job at it since the death toll continues to mount.
Cataloging a list of political developments doesn't point to any sort of progress. The question isn't whether Iraq can function on its own, produce a piece of paper with words on it ("Constitution"), hold elections or anything else. The question is how are these developments in our national interest. After all, America is spending billions of dollars in Iraq, thousands of soldiers have been killed and wounded, so what's the national interest?
I see a heavy national toll, but no national interest.
Offer some evidence that Blogging in Iraq is an activity exclusive for the rich, as you seem to imply.
"Where is the front? What hill, city, or plot of ground to we need to capture?"
Fourth-Generation-Warfare:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Generation_War
I don't feel like wasting my time again typing a long post, so first a question: Do you or do you not agree that the Middle East needs radical reform if we are to end it's current status as what is basically a massive threat waiting to explode, as it did on 9/11/01?
I don't know the income levels of Iraqi bloggers I just don't think they're "average" in any sense.
I'm familiar with 4th generation warfare but most supporters of the war compare it to WWII and such an ana-logy is clearly false. Besides it's the Iraqis who are following 4th generational warfare, while we are 2nd generation.
I don't regard the Middle East as a massive threat waiting to explode nor do I think our intervention in the Middle East will produce an outcome that is favorable to our national interests. Largely it's our involvment in the Middle East that foments terrorism and we could end by this pursuing an America first foreign policy.
*shrug* was merely pointing out that the Iraq war is indeed a war. I think that supportes of the Iraq War, when they make comparisons to World War II, are more often referring to the political situation of the world at the time than they are to the tactical situation of the troops on the ground. At least I know I am the vast majority of the time.
I have in the past out lined my Globalizaton-based foreign policy.Could you please outline your "America first" foreign policy? How would you get around the fact that The Middle East is quite simply the most strategically important region on the globe? How would you avoid the classical pitfall of America first foreign policy thinking, namely that when we wall ourselves off from the world, it is always a simple matter of time before the world busts the door in on us?
To the extent the war in Iraq involves winning "hearts and minds," and producing a well oiled, western friendly democracy, then it's not a war we can necessarily win because such an outcome doesn't hinge on a superior military. While the purpose of the war in Iraq is continuously changing trying to fundamentally change the nature of the Arab/Islamic world is not something that is properly the duty of the armed forces. No matter how many bombs we drop, there's no guarantee anything will change -- except for the worse.
America has not been pursuing an American first foreign policy and the world has been beating down our doors -- just ask the residence in California and other parts of the American southwest. Or just ask the people in New York on September 11th. Both mass immigration and global jihad stem from America's pursuit of globalism.
Nations that mind their own business e.g. Switzerland are not the targets of global jihadists.
>>While the purpose of the war in Iraq is continuously changing...
I've been out of it for a few days but my input hasn't been needed anyway, Ben has been covering the bases quite well. In any case, this one point has been sticking in my craw and it begs attention.
Eric, is it your position that it is only acceptable to have one reason for any given activity? Is it beyond your comprehension that ALL of the reasons stated for the war in Iraq are valid and acceptable reasons of varying importance, that the focus can change on a daily basis from one compelling reason to another based upon the tactical and political realities at that moment?
The war was engaged in an effort to overthrow a dictatorial tyrant named Saddam, AND to combat WMD's (which was percieved by virtually the entire world...including the Clinton Administration during its reign...as a threat), AND to fight terrorism (to which the Saddam regime had provided financial, logistical, and material support). AND to free the Iraqi people. And any number of other good reasons. The rational for carrying the war on terror (or Islamic Extremism if you prefer) to Iraq is not weakened by being multi-faceted, it is strengthened.
One more thing and then I'm going to let this rest, as Ben said, discussing this with you is like riding a carousel, no matter how hard you try to steer the horse, you keep ending up back at the same place.
You can evaluate the evidence in any manner you wish and stubbernly insist that your evaluation is the correct one. The demonstrated fact that Iraqi Intelligence, under Saddam's regime, considered Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda to be "operational assets"; the strong evidence (although admittedly not 100% proven) that there was a member of Iraqi Intelligence present at at least one of the operational planning meetings for 9/11; the demonstrable financial and material support provided to various terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, by Sadddam's regime; all undermine your unassailable conviction that there was no "operational" link between the 9/11 attackers and Iraq or terrorism in general and Iraq. My unassailable conviction is that you are wrong regardless of your penchant for couching your dismissal of opposing viewpoints in disparaging terms.
"America has not been pursuing an American first foreign policy and the world has been beating down our doors -- just ask the residence in California and other parts of the American southwest. Or just ask the people in New York on September 11th. Both mass immigration and global jihad stem from America's pursuit of globalism.
Nations that mind their own business e.g. Switzerland are not the targets of global jihadists."
Why didn't you answer my question?
Please outline your America first foreign policy. "America first" thinking in foreign policy has been discredited since World War II because of it's obvious pitfalls. How would you overcome these pitfalls?
Global Jihad seems to be alive and well in both Switerland and Sweden the so called neutral countries. There have been arrests of terrorists and counter terrorism operations in these countries. Radical clerics have called for the violent subjigation of Switzerland. The notion that a country can sit on the side lines in this war would seem to be an incorrect one. I suspect there have been no attacks in these countries because they have been thwarted. In any event it seems the terrorists are thinking about targeting these countries at some point if they are not currently. This would seem logical, as their goal is world domination. We should continue to aggressively pursue these terrorists and we and other western countries need to get more serious about border control.
Curtis & Ben,
Perhaps you're being exceptionally slow today but the reason the justification for the war in Iraq keeps changing is because the original casus belli -- WMD -- was a gigantic fabrication. To be very clear: it was a lie. So the Bush Administration along with their fellow Bush cultists are now trying to bury the old lies with new ones.
The reason President Bush didn't say we're invading Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people or to start a large nation building project in Iraq is because the American people would never have supported it. Most Americans now believe they were mislead and that President Bush deliberately deceived them -- they're catching on.
Since Iraq had no WMD stockpiles the war was wholly illegitimate. It's just that simple.
We can keep going over this but the official government word on the Iraq al-Qaeda connection is that there was no operational collaboration. This is not to say there were no "links." But you can establish "links" between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein also, so "links" is just a weasel world the Bush cultists use to try and indict Saddam as a co-conspirator of al-Qaeda. It's just more dishonesty.
Ben,
It was the United States not following an America first foreign policy that led to WWII.
"original casus belli -- WMD -- was a gigantic fabrication. To be very clear: it was a lie."
Do you recognize where these quotes come from?
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
"He [Saddam] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country...Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
I could go on and on, but I'll leave it with those few.
The answers:
Bill Clinton.
Sandy Berger.
Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others in a letter to Bill Clinton.
Al Gore.
The contention that the Bush administration lied about the presence of WMD's in Iraq is...a lie. Virtually EVERYONE believed that Iraq had WMD's and the capabiliy to produce more. And, in fact, enough Sarin Gas tipped artillery shells were discovered in a bunker to kill 100,000 people. That sounds like WMDs to me. The inspectors that concluded that Saddam did not have an active WMD program also concluded that his regime could have rapidly re-established that program had the UN relaxed its sanctions.
And you should know it. Unless you're just an "anti-Bush" cultist.
Here's another one for you:
"...In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Any idea where that one came from? The US Justice Department during the CLINTON administration.
In other words: Prior to the Bush administration's attacks on Iraq, the "operational links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda were well established, even by the previous democrat adminstration...after the attack on Iraq, those "operational links" magically disappeared. You repeatedly and doggedly repeat one statement in one report to unilaterally deny any "operational" connection while ignoring the reams of evidence to the contrary. And you say you're not an "Anti-Bush cultist"?
BS
This is just a ridiculous argument. You insist upon mindlessly repeating leftist, Anti-Bush talking points while disregarding out of hand any evidence to the contrary.
"Ben,
It was the United States not following an America first foreign policy that led to WWII. " -Wilds
Patently false.
And you still didn't answer my question.
The 911 Commission believes there was no operational link between the Al qaeda and Iraq regarding the 911 attacks. Of course no one has said that Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together on the 911 attacks. The 911 Comissioners have said that there were all kinds of ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The 911 Commission goes on to say that Iraqi and Al Qaeda cooperation in the 1993 WTC attack or the 1995 plot to blow up American airliners remains an area of substantial uncertainty. Lee Hamilton the vice chairman of the 911 Commission has said that the main stream news media has distorted the findings of the commission.
If anyone wants to know why the US went to war against Iraq they need only read the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
As was pointed out earlier in the thread, Iraq could have restarted its WMD program had the sanctions been lifted. The ISG goes on to point out that not only could Saddam have restarted his WMD program but that he maintained the willingness to restart his WMD program. The only thing holding Saddam in check was the sanctions and the ISG concluded that the sanctions were not going to be sustainable in the long term. As David Kay points out, the notion that anyone lied about the threat posed by Iraq is false and it trivializes the threat we did face. Finally, in the run up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, large convoys of trucks moved something into Syria. The ISG was not able to determine what was in these convoys and they have said it warrants further investigation.
Curtis,
The Bush cultists must have copied and pasted all the quotes made by Bill Clinton, John Kerry etc about Iraq's WMD. I've seen it all before. I didn't support Clinton's war in Kosovo nor did I support Operation Desert Fox, which was really Operation Delay Impeachment.
However, what I find interesting is why Bush cultists who have no trouble referring to Clinton as a liar and a rapist still invoke him as a character witness for George Bush? If Clinton was dishonest why invoke him as a character witness for George Bush? Is this the "new" conservatism?
The United Nations left saying there was no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. There was no intelligence agreement that backed up President Bush's preposterous claim that Iraq was a "threat of a unique urgency." It was all a lie.
The quote from the 9/11 commision report indicates that at one time Iraq and al-Qaeda were hostile. The other half we know is false since Iraq did not have any WMD programs. Also, the report noted that Iraq and al-Qaeda had no operational collaboration period, not just on 9/11.
The idea that Iraq sent weapons to Syria is a conspiracy theory.
Eric
Sometimes the debates here can get over the top. It is not my wish to offend anyone. I think I'm starting to understand where you are coming from. You seem to view all or most military engagements as bad. You seem to think an isolationist foreign policy is a workable. I must respectfully disagree.
I really don't think Operation Desert Fox was to delay impeachment. My memory is a bit sketchy on the impeachment process. As I recall the House voted for impeachment. The Senate did not. As I recall, Clinton was quite popular. I don't think the Republicans had any intention of removing a popular president from office. I actually thought it was over blown to begin with. It seems to me it was a big show to fire up the so-called base. I could be wrong of course. In any event the British particiapted in Desert Fox. Our allies in the middle east allowed the use of their facilities in this operation. There is no way our allies would have supported military operations to delay Clinton's impeachment.
The point Curtis and others have tried to make is Clinton and the Democrats thought the threat was real. The main-stream press normally gives them a pass while attacking the Bush administration. This is so in spite of the fact that the Democrats reached the same conclusions while looking at the intellegence that the Bush administration reached. You seem to think they all lied. All I can say is, if you believe both parties lied to you, then the only option that seems available to you is to secede from the union. To think that Bush lied is a conspiracy theory. It is possible he, the Republicans, and most of the Democratic party over estimated the threat. An honest error is quite different from a lie. To accuse the government of lying here only trivializes the threats we do face.
I'm a bit curious that you could be so trusting of the UN giving its hostility to the US that goes back to even way before 911. As Hans Blix pointed out, Saddam was not cooperating with the inspections. Saddam had not come to terms with the fact that he needed to disarm.
George Tenet and much of the CIA certainly believed the threat to be real. After inspections, David Kay said the decision to remove Hussein was absolutely prudent and the situation was more dangerous than we originally thought. Charles Duelfer said that he believes the world is safer without Hussein in power. Once again to accuse Bush of lying only trivializes what we face.
At one time Iraq and Al Qaeda had been hostile but that is hardly relevant. As of 1998 and probably earlier they had agreed to work together. What the 911 Commission said is they could find no evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together on any specific attack on the US. They certainly did work together. The 911 commission concluded that there is significant debaate as to what role Iraq may have played in the 1993 WTC attacks or the 1995 attempt to blow up American airliners. As even the commissioners themselves have pointed out what the Bush administration has said is largely consistent with their findings. The 911 Commissioners have said quite candidly the media misrepresented their findings. 911 Commissioner John Lehman says their report is not the be all end all on this matter. There was no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq is a leftist talking point that has no basis in fact. Finally no one has said there was an operational link between the Taliban and the planning and executing of 911. We do know they supported each other. The same goes for Hussein. Hussein never met a terrorist organization of global reach he would not work with.
Iraq may not have sent WMD to Syria/ I hope and pray they did not. As both Mr. Kay and Mr. Duelfer point out, the ISG was never able to determine what went to Syria. The ISG knows something went and said it warrants further investigation. In fact, if Iraq's WMD stockpiles went to Syria, this is the best anti-Bush argument anyone can make. This means all Opeation Iraqi Freedom did was increase WMD proliferation!! Raising this point is hardly the mark of a Bush Cultist, as you would call it. But again, the conventional wisdom on this could be correct. I certainly hope and pray the conventional wisdom is correct!!
John McCain, David Kay, Joe Lieberman, Charles Duelfer, and a number of both Republicans and Democrats have supported and continue to support Iraqi Freedom. The four men mentioned above definitely are not Bush Cultists. I find no evidence of Bush Cultism among Bush supporters, however, I do find evidence of anti Bush cultisim among some but not all of those who oppose him. I do find much evidence of the "lesser of the two evils" argument among his supporters. Whether this a good argument or not I don't know.
In conclusion, much of the main stream media whose talking points you have repeated over and over again might have some credibilty if they were to argue 1.)Iraq had ties to Al Qaeda but they did not rise to the level to justify an invasion. 2.)President Bush had good reason to believe we would find WMD stockpiles in Iraq but he along with the CIA and the rest of the government overestimated the threat. The MSM probably recognizes they will loose this debate which is why they went with 1.)Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda. 2.)Bush lied about Iraqi WMD. Both talking points of the MSM are bold faced lies and are not helpful to our national security. I suspect the "Bush lied" argument works so well because the public education has had a dumbing down effect on many people.
Clearly we have had a massive intellegence failure. We need to determine what went wrong and how to fix it. To say Bush lied about the threat or even that Clinton lied about the threat is incorrect. Such diatribes are counter productive to the security of America and the Western world. We clearly need to do something about these open borders!!
While 911 Commission Report contains much useful information, I would be hesitant to rely on it as the be all end all of Iraq-Al Qaeda relations. After reading the following article, I think Flynnfilers will be able to identify the flaws in this report.
www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200406170840.asp
Of course none of what I have written means I think Bush is a good president. At this time, I think he is not a very good president.
So the new Bush cultist revisionism is that Billl Clinton was really an honest person, and was looking out for our national interests in Kosovo, Haiti, and Iraq. The Republicans in the House did impeach President Bill Clinton and Operation Desert Fox was successful in delaying the vote for a day. The attack on the pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum was another blatant effort at Clinton trying to "wag the dog." I distinctly remember Fox News "ana-lysts" even commenting on a "wag the dog" scenario.
Saying that Bill Clinton, George Bush et al lied probably isn't the best choice of words, but they did say whatever was most expedient for their purposes, and they really had no concern if what they were saying was accurate. Making statements that show indifference to the truth might not technically be lying, but it isn't truthful.
The emerging consensus now is that most -- if not all -- of Iraq's undeclared weapons were destroyed in the summer of 1991 outside the supervision of the United Nations. This is why the weapons were unaccounted for -- not because Iraq didn't disarm, but because it did.
We had evidence for this through the defection of Lt Gen Hussein Kamel. Kamel was very clear, "Everything was destroyed; nothing remained." While the Bush Administration was fond of quoting the most extreme and unreliable defectors -- Curveball -- why did the testimony of Kamel never make it into the speeches of George Bush, Colin Powell, or Dick Cheney? If you selectively quote defectors who make a case for war and ignore defectors who don't you're engaging in deception. Perhaps it's more accurate to say the Bush Administration deceived us into war and didn't lie us into war. Either way, their conduct was grossly immoral.
Hans Blix told the Security Council that the inspectors could start taking soil samples in areas where Iraq claimed to destroy its weapons and see if the quantity measured is consistent with the amount Iraq claimed to destroy. If so, then Iraq would receive a clean bill of health. Due to Bush's intervention this process could never be completed. What would be the harm in waiting a few more months if it could potentially avert war? Well, for the Bush Administration it was a problem because they were looking for excuses to go to war in Iraq. So they call off the inspections and send in the troops. And what do you know? Iraq was telling the truth all along. The weapons were destroyed in 1991 as now Hans Blix and even the CIA acknowledge.
The idea that weapons were sent to Syria is an irrational conspiracy theory because it's based on the false idea that Iraq could send weapons to Syria without producing any weapons. As I asked before: tell me the name of the chemical weapons factory that was producing WMD between 1998-2003? No one can name it because it doesn't exist.
There were "links," "contacts," between Iraq and al-Qaeda but these "contacts" never grew into a colloborative relationship. Other countries like Pakistan, Sudan, and Iran have much clearer and definite ties with al-Qaeda, so why attack Iraq knowing their operation with al-Qaeda was tenuous at best? Because the war had nothing to do with fighting terrorism or America's security. The war was motivated by Neocons who have utopian fantasies about re-drawing the political lines of the Middle East. So Bush was dishonest about the threat Iraq posed to this country and he was dishonest about the reasons for going to war.
Thankfully, the American people are beginning to recognize this fact.
eric
There is absolutely no way our allies, such as Britain and the nations in the region who allowed their facilities to be used in the conduct of Operation Desert Fox would have allowed Operation Desert Fox to go forward if this was to only delay Clinton's impeachment. Fox news ana-lysts should know better than that.
Clinton and Bush would have been very concerned with accuracy regarding any military statements they made. In our political system blantant lies will be found out. While we agree that they did not lie, I also doubt they approached the situation with a completely open mind either. We now know, at least according to former ISG heads David Kay and Charles Duelfer and also Senator John McCain and others that the decision to remove Hussein was the correct one and these men are certainly not Bush cultists.
The conventional wisdom on Iraqi WMD may turn out to be correct. I certainly hope they do not exist. The testimony of the doubters did make it into government testimony. We had conflicting information. We tried to do the best with what we had. The onus to prove he did not have WMD fell upon Saddam and he refused to cooperate. He could have easily avoided the war but he wanted it because he thought he could defeat the US. I'm actually amazed at how spectaculry unsuccessful Saddam and his al Qaeda allies have been, at least as of this writing. The reason we could not wait a few monthw was because of the Iraqi weather conditions would have made Operation Iraqi freedom more difficult and it would have given Saddam more time to prepare. Giving a grave national security threat more time to develop would not have been a good situation.
Eric
The Bush administration would be in no condition to call off inspections. Our allies such as Britain, Australia, and Poland would have to be on board and the middle eastern nations we based from would also need to be in agreement for any major military actions to be taken. I simply can't trust a madman like Saddam Hussein to tell the truth, especially when he was busy trying to decieve us. As the ISG concluded the sanctions holding Hussein in check were not going to be sustainable over the long run and he maintained the will and capability to renew his WMD programs. Fortunately for us he was a madman. He had Russia, China, France, and most of the UN on his side yet he managed to squander that. He had a huge adavantage over the US but he squandered it and now he sits in jail. With ANY decent planning he would still be in power.
The chemical weapons lab you may be looking for, as I pointed out previously, may be the chemical weapons lab that was found in Fallujah when American and allied troops took it last year or it may be one of the cleaned out facilities we found throughout Iraq and again the conventional wisdom on the subject may prove correct. By the admission of the ISG they were unable to complete the investigation into what was moved into Syria. At a minimum, this investigation should be completed.
Al Qaeda and Iraq had agreed to cooperate on weapons development and Hussein was known to provide financing and safe harbor to al Qaeda members. This should be well known, however, it is not discussed very often in the main stream news media. Why attack Iraq? This is discussed in the congressional resolution authorizing the use of force, furthermore, we had to start somewhere and the fact that Iraq was in violation of the cease fire that ended the first gulf war made it an easier sell to our allies. At a minimum, the governments of Syria and Iran will also need to be removed or they will need to change behaviour. The notion that this was motivated by the desire of neo conservatives to redraw the political lines of the middle east would seem to be untrue. Neo conservatives have been unfairly maligned, much like in some respects Clinton was unfairly maligned. Any major middle eastern policy will need to go through other political groups within the US and our coalition allies. So unless we conclude that Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, John Howard, the leaders of Poland, and most of the leaders of the democratic party in March 2003 are neo conservatives then it would seem unlikely that neo conservatives could have this much influence on American policy.
I don't think there are very many facts that people are going to recognize, if their only source of information is the main stream news media. All we get from the main stream news media is a steady drum beat of anti war propaganda that is very simillar and in many cases identical to what you have been repeating over and over again. For example, the main stream media should discuss the cooperation between Al Qaeda and Hussein's government. In order to deny this cooperation they had to misreprsent the findings of the 911 Comission, this is according to the tesitmony of the commissioners themselves. The cooperation between Iraq and Al Qaeda has been documented extensively by authors such as Stephen Hayes, Richard Minter, and many others. Of course on one has said that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on the 911 attacks. According to the 911 commissioners, Iraq/Al qaeda cooperation on the 1993 WTC attacks remain an area of uncertainty. It could be that the cooperation between them did not rise to the level to justify invasion but these facts should be presented to the American people more extensively so it can be publicly debated. As stated previously the anti-Iraqi Freedom media probably knows they will loose this argument so they don't even try it. The American people need to be told that our actions in Iraq have saved the lives of between 25,000 to 75,000 Iraqis, Iraqis that Hussein and his henchmen could not murder. The American people need to be told about the incredible progress we have made in restoring the damage done by Hussein, such as restoring the marsh lands. The American people need to be told that the "insurgency", as of this writing is primarily limited to the Sunni Triangle. The American people need to be presented the very strong evidence that these "insurgents" are comrades in arms to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups and were so even pre dating the war. Any opposition these groups may have had at one time, seem to very fleeting. You will not be given this from the main stream media. It still might be that the removal of Saddam Hussein was not the best decision strategically. The American people need to be given the information they need to make the decision. So far the media has done a dis service to the American people. Fortunately we now have the internet and other alternative media sources that are available for those who are diligent.
You ask about Kosovo and Haiti. First Kosovo, NATO and our European allies seemed to think it was the proper course of action. It doesn't happen without them on board. As for Haiti, I'm not sure. It seems the American people and maybe our leaders fail to fully comprehend the religous issues that drive the situations in Haiti and Kosovo. Poliitcally I identify mostly with the so called "religous right." In the interest of brevity, I would suggest you refer to some of their writings for a detailed ana-lysis of the religous issues involving both of these places. Until the American people fully understand the religous factors that drive these situations, I am concerned our actions will only be partially effective at best. Regarding the factory in Khartoum, the 911 Commissioners have reported that the Clinton administration had good reason to believe what they believed.
Finally, I am concerned that all of our focus on Iraq and even on Iran has caused us to take our eyes off of even bigger threats, such as Russia and China. These threats only grow larger by the day. What does seem clear, if America is to survive in the 21st century, it must be understood that America faces serious threats. At a minimum, we will need a better understanding of the religous factors that drive many of our enemies. We will also need better human intellegence and an assertive foreign policy will be necessary to counter these serious threats. I'm not sure if the policies outlined by Ben-T and others are the correct course. The relevant facts need to be presented to the American people so an informed decision can be made. The distorted views we get from the main stream media are simply not helpful.
Best Wishes
B.Poster
Obviously Bill Clinton didn't say he was initiating Operation Desert Fox to delay his impeachment, and since no one can penetrate into his mind we'll never know, but that's my guess. Bill Clinton had a knack for starting a "war" at the most politically convenient times. The pointless bombing in Kosovo was most likely his pathetic attempt to give himself a legacy other than staining blue party dress.
Stepehen Hayes is a propagandist for the Weekly Standard and hardly a reputable and objective ana-lyst. While "links" can be found everywhere, demonstrating an "operational colloborative" relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda is more ambiguous and remains unproven. However, casually tossing out the idea that Iraq and al-Qaeda were working together as if it's a widely accepted is dishonest. Some people might think so, but even the Bush Administration has distanced itself from this allegation.
What was the name of the chemical weapons factory you say was "scrubbed" down? Did it have the requisite equipment for producing vx nerve gas, sarin and tabun? Did they find any trace elements in the factory? Were the chemical precursors manufactured at this location or somewhere else? Just pointing out that a factory was "scrubbed" doesn't establish a thing. You're going to have to do better than that.
Besides chemical weapons don't last indefinitely. It's already more than two years and what would be the point of sending weapons to Syria just so they can waste away in the earth?
None of this makes any sense. However, what does make sense is that Iraq never had any weapons to start with, had no operational workings with al-Qaeda, and Bush's decision to start a war in Iraq was part of the Neocon strategy of "global hegemony," and the scare tactics e.g. mushroom clouds were calculated to stampede America into a war.
Eric
In order to carry out military actions in Kosovo our NATO allies would need to be on board and Clinton is going to need to explain himself to Congress. The same goes for Desert Fox. We would have needed our allies here as well. They are not going to go along with us for the purpose of giving Bill Clinton a legacy.
Perhaps the assessments of Mr. Hayes are off base. Simply refering to him as a propagandist does not refute his claims. The arguments will need to rise or fall on their merits. It is my considered opinion that the assessments of former CIA ana-lyists such as Michael Schurer and Larry Johnson who advance arguments opposite of those of Hayes are full of flaws. It is my considered opinion that the arguments of Mr. Hayes withstand scrutiny far better than those of Mr. Schurer or Mr. Johnson. This would be quite lengthy to go into great detail on this subject. Flynn filers can do their own homework on this issue and reach their own conclusions. I think the main stream media agrees with me because, if the anti-Iraqi freedom main stream media thought he was simply a propagandist, they would discuss his case more, at least to refute it and knock down the hated neo-conservatives a notch. As it is, they largely ignore him while making media darlings out of people like Schurer. The American people deserve a much more open discussion from the main stream media.
I've already pointed out that the conventional wisdom regarding Iraq's WMD could be correct and I certainly hope it is. As for the name of any lab, ask Saddam or any of the former Baathists who are now based in Syria. If these weapons were moved, I'm sure someone there can maintain them or perhaps we know where they are buried and have not gone to get them because 1.)if we know where they are buried they may be at least neutralized and 2.)Our coalition partners and other major players in the region will not support a ground invasion of Syria. In other words, Bush is not going to risk having things spiral totally out of control so that he can prove he is not a liar. All of this is eductaed speculation. I believe the decison to remove Hussein was morally justified whether or not WMD stockpiles are found or not. I just don't think the government lied here and I think it is disengenous of the main stream media to turn this into strictly a WMD issue when there is much more involved. To prove there was much more involved all one needs to do is consult the Congressional resolution authourizing the use of force. I do agree with the ISG that the investigation should be completed. Again, I am going to reiterate that the conventional wisdom on this may be correct and I hope and pray that it is.
You referred to Hussein Kamel earlier. The problem I have with him is he stated that all Iraqi WMD were destroyed back in 1991, yet the UN destroyed WMD in 1992-1994. He seems to have gotten that part wrong. Perhaps he did not know. He also believed that Saddam had every intention of restarting his WMD programs when the sanctions were removed. The ISG verified that this assertion was correct, furthermore, the ISG determined sanctions were not sustainable. In other words, we would have been dealing with a WMD armed Hussein at some point in the future. I think the decision to remove the ruthless tyrant is justified regardless of whether he actually had the stockpiles or not. Hopefully we will get to try him for war crimes against our troops.
Iraq and Al Qaeda seem to have had operational workings. The assertions of the Bush administration, as pointed by the 911 commissioners were not significantly different than their findings. As they said, the media misrepresented them. Perhaps they did not work together on 911. The anti Iraqi freedom press would have more credibility if they were to argue that their work together did not rise to the level to justify invasion. As I stated previously, they have chosen not to pursue this line of argument because they have likely recognized they will lose this argument.
The notion that Iraqi Freedom was done out of some desire of the US to achieve global hegemony does not seem to be supported by the facts. Since Saddam was removed, Iraqi sovergnty has been transferred to Iraq and American pressure has no doubt played a role in getting Israel to surrender land to the Palestinians that will make its national defense more difficult. If one wanted to achieve American hegemony, they would likely work to keep Iraq in American hands or at least in the hands of a government that we know will be friendly to us. As it is, we have left it up to the Iraqis. We have even said we will leave should the sovergin Iraqi government should request it. Also, you would work to strengthen and expand Israel the only western style democracy in the middle east. As it is the policies we have either supported or failed to vigourously oppose will only weaken it. This hardly seems like a plan to increase American hegemony. Also, our allies would not allow a policy that promotes American hegemony to go forward. America lacks the capability to implement such a policy any way.
As stated previously, Iraq may have been a strategic error but I still don't think you are going to defeat Islamic Extremists by allowing Saddam to remain in power. What does seem to be clear is, even in the unlikely event that Iraq had no ties to Al Qaeda prior to the war, Al Qaeda along with the former Baathists have chosen to make this a central front in the war on terror. If we fail to win, former regime elements along with their Al Qaeda allies will likely gain power and we would be in worse shape than we were before. What we should have done previously is now irrelevant. We must develop strategies going forward to make sure the former regime elements and their Al Qaeda allies do not gain power in Iraq. Also we cannot forget about larger and more powerful enemies who are lurking and waiting for an opportunity to strike.
I think we need to take a fresh look at our assumptions regarding Islam. If our assumptions are wrong about Islam then our strategies for defeating Islamic Terrorists will be wrong. Unfortunately political correctness has prevented us from voicing such concerns in public forums. The sooner this changes the better.
You still don't understand the points I'm trying to make. If weapons were sent to Syria then there would need to be a facility in Iraq that produced these chemical or biological weapons. Since Iraq lost its ability to manufacture chemical weapons when UNSCOM obliterated the Muthanna factory, Iraq would've needed to rebuild a chemical weapons factory after 1998 and re-start production. What's the name of this factory? If you can't name a factory that was involved in the production of chemical weapons there is no reason to think any weapons were sent to Syria. I don't understand why you have trouble understanding this.
You also totally misrepesent Hussein Kamel's testimony. Hussein Kamel was referring to weapons Iraq declared but destroyed outside the aegis of the United Nations. Hussein Kamel also disclosed Iraq's new biological production programs. However, the biological and chemical facilities that were destroyed by UNSCOM were verified as being destroyed. In other words, their destruction had been accounted for. Since the United Nations could not verify the weapons Kamel said were destroyed these weapons were technically "unaccounted" for.
The Neocons clearly have an agenda that is has no relation to America's national security and it's no secret that the Neocons were riding high after 9/11.
In 1996 Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan wrote an essay for Foreign Affairs discussing a new foreign policy for the United States: global hegemony.
A 1991 memorandum written by Paul Wolfowitz discussed the importance of securing Persian Gulf oil.
The 2000 PNAC document, Rebuilding AMerica's Defenses, argued for invading Iraq because of America's need for a permanent base in the region and said it "transcended" the issue of Saddam Hussein. So the Neocons have left an incriminating paper trail that argues for a revolution in American foreign policy and one that centers around oil, preventing the emergence of any new rival, and global hegemony. So simply calling attention to the Neocon idea factory is important since their influence over President Bush has been considerable.
If you want to pretend the Neocon decade long obsession with invading Iraq had nothing to do with invading Iraq, then you can stay in Never-Never land if you chose, but don't expect anyone to join you.
Strategically, the war in Iraq was misbegotten from the start. It's nice to finally see that the rest of the country and some of the Bush cultists are beginning to see the light.
Eric
We found a chemical weapons lab when our troops captured Fallujah from the insurgents last November. As for the name of the lab, ask the terrorists. All I'm saying is the investigation into what was transferred to Syria needs to be completed. The ISG has said they hope to complete this. The conventional wisdom is that no major stockpiles of WMD existed or were transferred and it could be correct. I hope it is.
The need to invade Iraq and get rid of Saddam Hussein is spelled out in the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force. It is a part of the public record. I think you are over estimating the power of Neo-Conservatives. Anyone can write an article or two. The American left does this all the time, in their obssession with their favoite boogey men Neo-Conservatives and the so called "Relgious Right." In the media's mind, Neo-Conservative is just another word for "Jew" or "Zionists." This is especially so with the American left. If this were primarily about oil or American hegemony, we could have simply kept Iraq's oil after the first Gulf War or we could have gone along with wishes of the Petroleum lobbies and simply supported the lifting of sanctions. Besides we are trying to give freedom to the Iraqi people, if we wanted hegemony over Iraq we simply force our own style of government on them. We've gone out of our way not to impose Americanism on them. Our allies and other affected nations keep close tabs on what we are doing, so if this were about a Neo-Con agenda the US never would have been able to get the support from the coalition nor would Iraq's neighbors have allowed us to use their territory to launch the attacks on Iraq and other American government officials would have immediately purged the Neo-Conservatives from the Government. Even if the Neo-Conservatives wanted to unilaterally initiate a policy, such as invading Iraq, they don't have the power to do so. Finally, Britain and other countries would have left the coalition by now, if this were only about American hegemony or a Neo-Conservative agenda.
What Hussein Kamel actually said was "after the Gulf War Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missles to deliver them." All that remained were "hidden blueprints computer disks, microfiches." According to Rolf Ekeus, former chief weapons inspector this can't be true because the inspectors destroyed large quantities of weapons in 1992-1994. As to declared or undeclared weapons, Saddam could have cleared up any confusion but he chose not to. If Kamel was referring only to declared weapons then he either did not know about the others or it appears he was attempting to deceive. Kamel admits Saddam wanted to restart the WMD programs, once sanctions were lifted. The ISG concluded that the sanctions keeping Hussein in check were not going to be sustainable. This is partly why both Charles Duelfer and David Kay concluded the decision to remove the former Iraqi regime was the correct one.
Actually it has been American foreign policy to support the removal of Saddam Hussein since the end of the first gulf war. For Neo-Conservatives to opperate in the Government would have required they adopt policies simillar to that of the rest of the Government. I don't think George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and others who supported these policies are Neo-Conservatives. Many people who have supported Iraqi Freedom such as Joe Lieberman, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, David Kay, Charles Duelfer, and others are not Neo-Conservatives.
Strategically the timing and execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom may have been an error. That being said, I don't know how you are going to defeat Islamic Extremist terrorism by allowing the former Iraqi regime to remain in power. I am concerned that the war in Iraq may have caused to lose sight of bigger threats, such as those posed by Russia and China. I think the Democrats would be in power right now, if they focused on the errors this administration has made in carrying out the Iraq war effort and explained how they would fix them instead of focusing on diatribes such as "Bush is Hitler" and "Bush lied." Such things are counter productive to American national security. The Democrats should also focus on how they are going to fix our intellegence failures.
I really don't think anyone is going to learn much, if their only source of news is the main stream media. It would be helpful if the media would present all sides. That way the American people would have enough information to make informed decisions. Until the media becomes less biased, we will have to balance their coverage with alternative sources.
Btw, I don't want anyone to think I am defending Neo-Conservatives. I am not. I am simply pointing out they do not have the power to direct American foreign or domestic policy. The single most powerful political group in America right now is the "far left." They have become very influential because the media gives them a virtual free pass to carry out their activities with minimal scrutiny. Neo-Conservatives and others face intense scrutiny, from the media and their opponents, as such, it would be impossible for them to unilaterally direct American foreign policy nor would our foreign allies allow it.
What I am aware of that was written by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan was that the US should strive for "benelovent hegemony." This was a foreign affiars article in 1997.
The official policy of the Chinese government is to strive for global hegomny of the state. To this end, they recently threatened to nuke America. The official Russian goal, as put forth by Vladimir Putiin, appears to be to restore the Soviet Union. Both Russia and China are active in the middle east region. I am empathetic to the need to have an assertive foreign policy, as espoused by the Neo-Conservative commentators. Without an assertive and smart foreign policy Islamic Extremists and their Marxists allies will swallow us up or even worse. An asssertive foreign policy must also be a smart one. To this end, we will need to improve our human intellegence capabilities.
Both Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan suggested back in April of 2004 that the US should commit more troops to Iraq. They even went far enough as to suggest that perhaps Don Rumsfeld should be fired. In the beginning, Colin Powell and a few other generals wanted more troops for Iraq. Perhaps if the Bush administration had listened to Powell in the beginning or to the Neo-Conservatives in April 2004 we would not be in the position we are now in. Beyond memberships in a few organizations that may lead to some fancy titles and the ability to write a few articles, neither Kristol nor Kagan have any real power over the American political system. Besides the Neo Conservatives with any power are checked by other Republicans and Democrats. It is extremely unlikely that anyone pushing for an American empire will get far in America's political system. The meida is obsessed with both Neo-Conservatives and the Religous Right. This is rather puzzling. The real power within the Republican party lies within men like John McCain, Rudy Guiliani, and Arnold Schwartzenager.
I had to leave my computer and hit the post button. I'm thinking a democratic government in Iraq may be fundamentally flawed. Perhaps a better solution would be a secular dictatorship that can hold the reigns on the Islamic Extremists might be a better bet for Iraq and would benefit American national security better. If this is the choice that is made, the Americans and their allies will need to make sure the dicatorship does not turn on us and support Islamic Extremists terrorists groups the way Saddam did. Also, the American and allied governments will need to make sure the "secular dictator" is not an Islamic Extremist in disguise. Good human intellegence and a significantly larger military will be the keys here.
