Mel Gibson. William F. Buckley. Pat Buchanan. Milton Friedman. Ron Paul. George Will. Will the last conservative who still believes in the big-government, nation-building campaign in Iraq to enforce a United Nations resolution on weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein did not possess please turn off the light?

Bush & Cheney?

The mission in Iraq will end very soon regardless of who wins the Congressional elections this November. The mission was doable but the Aemrican government was never willing to commit the resources to it to give it a reasonable chance of being achieved. The American people no longer support it. By the end of 2007 there will be less than 10,000 troops in the Iraq region. These will likely be a combination of special ops and air support. They will likely operate from Kurdish areas and will be prepared to intervene in the Iraqi civil war as needed to prevent the formation of terrorists bases. In the unlikely event that my predictions are wrong, I will be the first to admit it. Also it would have been nice to have answered the Syrian question regarding Iraq's WMD once and for all, but this will not be happening in the foreseeable future, as we will be leaving in masse. The only American prescense that will be there by the end of 2007 will be a token force. I actually look for most of our troops to be gone by June 2007. Again, if I'm wrong, I will be the first to admit it.

What is the mission?

The mission was to remove the government of Saddam Hussein, a thorn in the American side, and to secure US regional dominance against a possible encroachment into the region from Russia or China.

Mission accomplished.

If you mean the mission to create a liberal democracy in the Middle East, it was never do-able.

Ben

It seems Russia and China have already encroached on the middle east. Those countries are the greatest threats to the US, not Iraq or Islamic extremist terrorist.

As for the "mission," I understood the need to remove a thorn in America's side as you put it. Also, Iraq was an active supporter of Islamic terrorists. The US government and a number of allies believed Iraq would be a good place to focus resources, in the war on terrorism. At this time, I'm inclined to believe that our resources would have been better focused elsewhere. In any event, its to late for that now. We already invaded Iraq. We cannot undo it now.

After the attacks of 911, I also saw a need to work to reform the middle east to serve American and western security interests. Working to establish liberal democracy seemed to me to be a good strategy. The only way to do this would be to remove terrorist supporting governments. I must state that this is emphatically NOT a conservative philosphy but I believed the events of 911 changed things and a different method of looking at things was needed.

In order to have a chance for liberal Democracy to succeed, we would have needed to commit a minimum of 500,000 troops and we would have probably needed to maintain that commitment for decades. The bottom line is the US government, the American people, those Governments allied with us, and their citizens were unwilling to make the kind of commitment that would have been necessary to give us a realistic chance of establishing a western type of Democratic system in Iraq. Had we been willing to make the commitment the results may have been different.

We aren't going to make the commitment that would be necessary and I'm not even sure that such a large commitment of troops and resources is consistent with American national security interests, at this time. We need to be flexible enough to deal with threats from Russia, China, and Venezuela. Having a large nubmer of troops in Iraq may be counter productive to meeting national security interests.

The bottom line is we will never know if liberal democracy could have been achieved in Iraq. The necessary resources were never commited to it to give it a reasonable chance of succeeding. The Iraqis may some day achieve liberal democracy but we will have had nothing to do with it. Most American troops will be out of Iraq by mid 2007. Those who remain will be based in Kurdish areas.

Ben,

You spent months saying the purpose of the Iraqi war was to transform Iraq into a democracy. But I guess you were never serious; it was just puppy-neoconservatism. So now you've concocted a new reason for the war that was never part of the argument nor one that makes any sense at all.

Go Mel!

"You spent months saying the purpose of the Iraqi war was to transform Iraq into a democracy. But I guess you were never serious; it was just puppy-neoconservatism. So now you've concocted a new reason for the war that was never part of the argument nor one that makes any sense at all." -Eric Wilds

In a thread that was at least a year ago now, I listed the Costs and Benefits of the Iraq War. I listed the Benefits as follows;

"The dismantling of Saddam Hussein's Ba'athist government, a large supporter of Middle Eastern terrorism and regional unrest, and a longtime thorn in the America's proverbial side.
-Making an example out of Saddam Hussein to other leaders in the region.
-The encircling of Iran on all sides with US military forces
-The military and political isolation of Ba'athist Syria
-A large offensively orientated US military presence in the heart of the Middle East that grants the US much more leverage when dealing with other states in the region, as exemplified by Libya's turning over of it's WMD program, Syria pulling out of Lebanon, and tentative steps towards democracy in Egypt and (to a lesser extent) Saudi Arabia
-Long term combat experiance by the US Army and US Marines in dealing with fighting the terrorist enemy, the kind of experiance they could not recieve in the Afghan theatre, where most of the fighting was done by the Northern Alliance, supported by US Special Forces.
-Denying Iraq's oil wealth to Saddam Hussen, a man who did just about anything he could to hinder us at every turn.
-(if victorious) A very major defeat for the Jihadi cause in the Middle East."

The one mention of democracy is very tentative.

I spent months arguing that democracy in Iraq was possible and desirable. I was wrong. I did not argue it was the reason for war.

Also, I poorly worded the thing about Russia China. I meant it as two seperate points. Both restore our regional dominance, desirable in and of itself, and keep Russia or China from encroaching upon it, something that they clearly desire to do.

"In order to have a chance for liberal Democracy to succeed, we would have needed to commit a minimum of 500,000 troops and we would have probably needed to maintain that commitment for decades. The bottom line is the US government, the American people, those Governments allied with us, and their citizens were unwilling to make the kind of commitment that would have been necessary to give us a realistic chance of establishing a western type of Democratic system in Iraq. Had we been willing to make the commitment the results may have been different." -B.Poster

Iraq has no common culture, tradition, religion, or even ethnicity that ties it together as a people. The Iraqis hardly share a common language. Even keeping Iraq in existence as a state required the constant presence of the state on every level of society and a total apartheid-esque rule.

No level of commitment would have turned Iraq into a democracy. I'm skeptical whether any level of commitment would have turned Iraq into a single, functioning society, with any form of government, short of enacting rule more or less identical with Saddam Hussein's.

"The mission was to remove the government of Saddam Hussein, a thorn in the American side, and to secure US regional dominance against a possible encroachment into the region from Russia or China." -bent

You are delusional, dangerously delusional. I pray you never get any military power.

I have no problem with Mel speaking out against the war, but his claim that deaths in combat amount to human sacrifice is absurd.

Old people are supposed to tell meandering, pointless stories. Did I ever tell you about how the great, but fading, Muhammad Ali beat the young and ferocious George Foreman? Less agile than he used to be, but still able to withstand punishment to the body, Ali lay on the ropes early in the fight luring Foreman into exhausting his energy attacking Ali where Ali wanted to be attacked. Of course, if Ali had announced his intentions before or during the fight, the strategy likely would not have worked.

Did I ever tell you how I won the Vietnamese war? Back in the mid-seventies my close friend was into simulation games. He suckered me into a new game simulating Vietnam, with me playing the Americans. I started out passively defending certain areas but let a central area appear to be quite vulnerable. When it came time for the equivalent of the “Tet offensive” my friend marshaled his resources and attacked that area, I counter-attacked with all my resources from all the adjacent areas and won. Of course my strategy had to be a secret.

Did I ever tell you that a most important battle between the English settlers and the Indians took place seven miles from where I grew up in Pennsylvania? Henry Bouquet called the space where he chose to fight “a commodious Piece of ground, & just Spacious enough for our Purpose.” At the battle of Bushy Run, Bouquet had a part of his line pretend to break. As was their habit, the Indians attacked that point and were soon engulfed in fire from both a hidden reserve unit and the re-formed “routed” troops. Bouquet had lured the Indians into attacking disciplined, trained troops instead of vulnerable citizens and poorly trained militia. Of course Bouquet hadn’t released a press statement in the middle of the battle explaining his objectives to a skeptical public, so it certainly appeared that he was “failing.”

Gee, maybe sometimes you can’t trust what a fighter says about his objectives. Sometimes you have to look at the results.

Doc McG...

I am terribly confused. Are you saying that we are just pretending to be botching Iraq so that we look weak and draw our enemies into a trap?

Sincerely,

Sane people everywhere

P.S. "Look at the results." Yeah, precisely.

Skeptic,

I was just telling a few old guy stories. But maybe the "results" are dependent on the objectives--and maybe we can't discern objectives from what we hear or are told.

From one perspective here are some results: fewer Americans killed in three years of this war than in one day in some other wars, no terrorist attacks on American soil in more than five years, at least three more years of additional time for a terribly inefficient, bloated, bureaucracy that is suppose to protect us to get its act together, at least three more years for our practically unteachable European "allies" to learn that they are in a real fight with a dangerous enemy.

Perhaps the "Iraq War" is not a war but a battle. And if it is a battle, the "results" could look quite different depending on one's perspective on the extent of the danger. Do you think the Spartans lost the battle at Thermopylae? If not, would you consider them the losers if the Athenians had turned out to have been as dense as modern Europeans?

Ben,

None of the reasons you list for the invasion of Iraq and the overturning of Saddam's Ba'ath Party is true. Saddam's Ba'ath Party was not a natural enemy of the United States, took measures to ban Wahabism "Islamo-fascism", crushed the Communist party. Iran is not "encircled" but augmenting its power and hegemony into Iraq as our troops try manage the security situation in the Sunni triangle. Libya began making overtures to the international community before the Iraq war was even on the radar screen.

There is no reason why American needs to dominate Iraq militarily anymore than there is a reason it needs to dominate Kosovo, Rwanda, or Sierre Leone.

The war has not improved our national security nor has it accomplished anything for Iraq. Iraq is collapsing into sectarian violence, warlords are arranging their own courts and laws, and the Iraqi government continues to support Hizbollah and Iran.

If America were to withdraw from Iraq, would the current Iraqi government oppose Hizbollah and the mullahs in Iran?

Like they say in the corporate world: meet the old boss, same as new boss.

"Saddam's Ba'ath Party was not a natural enemy of the United States, took measures to ban Wahabism "Islamo-fascism", crushed the Communist party." -Eric Wilds

Not even sure what a "natural enemy" means. States don't have natural enemies. States have enemies in states who find their interests at odds with them. The United States was not a "natural enemy" of communism, we were allied with them prior to the end of World War II. It was when the dust settled, and the USA and the USSR were left as the only two remaining great powers, that we became enemies. But if a state can have a natural enemy (in the sense of being enemies with a country on the grounds that its governing ideology is different from our own) than Ba'athist Iraq would certainly be an example of such a country.

Of course, the whole idea of natural enemies is just silly.

"Iran is not "encircled" but augmenting its power and hegemony into Iraq as our troops try manage the security situation in the Sunni triangle." -Eric Wilds

I know. I made the post I quoted about a year ago or more. The situation changed.

"There is no reason why American needs to dominate Iraq militarily anymore than there is a reason it needs to dominate Kosovo, Rwanda, or Sierre Leone." -Eric Wilds

If I recall correctly you have more or less stated before that you would like to see the demise of the US as a great power.

Since that is your objective, the fall of the US, of course you would be opposed to the Iraq War.

Sans military bases in Saudi Arabia, the US would not be able to maintain regional dominance against an encroachment by Russia or China (which is currently going on. They aren't backing Iran at every opportunity just to be contrarian). Once a new power had supplanted the US as the main player in the region, we would lose both our special relationship with Saudi Arabia, that gives us the influence over the world oil market that we have, and our more or less unlimited access to the Suez Ca-nal.

We could not possibly surive as the last remaining superpower, or even as a great power nation, having lost those two things.

Ben

In order to halt the encroachment of Russia and China, we would need to commit more troops to Iraq. This is not going to happen. We will be completely out of Sunni and Shia areas by July of 2007. We will likely keep a few thousand troops in Kurdish areas. These will be backed up by air support. The mission will change to one of counter terrorism with only limited incursions into Sunni or Shia areas to halt the formation of terrorist bases.

If America will work to develop its own oil resources, there is no need to exert influence over Iraqi oil supplies and there is no need to excersize influence over the Suez Can-al. Also, developing more of our own resources will give us more leverage in any negotiations.

Like you, I want to preserve America's position as a major power. This has to be done in a manner that the American people will actually support. The best way to preserve America's status as a major power, in a manner that will be supported by the Anerican people, will be to develop more of our own resources. In addition to this, we should significantly enhance our border security.

Ben,

There is no reason why Iraq's Ba'ath Party and the United States could not peacefully coexist, so we were not natural enemies.

I have never said that I want to see the United States cease to be a great power. In fact I think the war in Iraq and the possibility of futres wars combined with the long-term occupation of recalictrant Araba populations will only make us weaker. We get more oil from Venezuela (Hugo Chavez) than we do from Saudi Arabia, so why not try and establish dominance in south America?

The only reason other leaders might have an incentive to cut off our supply of oil is because we seek to wage war against them or control their governments.

What is happening in Iraq that is leading us down the path to even greater power? Our troops are getting killed everyday and we continue to dump billions of dollars into this quagmire. The loss of blood and treasure does make a great power, in fact it doesn't make any sense at all.

"In order to halt the encroachment of Russia and China, we would need to commit more troops to Iraq. This is not going to happen. We will be completely out of Sunni and Shia areas by July of 2007." -B.Poster

No it wouldn't. All it requires is a US military presence in the region, and a strong hand, presently, against Iranian ascendence.

Russia and China would not actually try to take us on directly, they would look for a foothold in the region through other states. Their two best candidates were Saddam's Iraq, and Iran (a reason for their extremely close relationships with both states).

Saddam is out of the picture. If we fail to deal with Iran now, we do likely fail in general.

"If America will work to develop its own oil resources, there is no need to exert influence over Iraqi oil supplies and there is no need to excersize influence over the Suez Can-al. Also, developing more of our own resources will give us more leverage in any negotiations." -B.Poster

A desirable goal, but not a full alternative to Middle East dominance. If we wean ourselves off oil, we will do so as India and China are emerging as the two largest energy markets in human history, and neither being anywhere near being off of oil themselves.

That would lead to us having less leverage with major oil producing states (since we would no longer buy from them) and them having much less of an incentive to not simply swing open the floodgates to their Islamic terrorists in order to deal with domestic problems at home. Certainly they would not be worried about the reaction from the American market, since the Americans wouldn't be buying anymore, but the Chinese and the Indians sure would.

"We get more oil from Venezuela (Hugo Chavez) than we do from Saudi Arabia, so why not try and establish dominance in south America?" -Eric Wilds

Because there aren't Islamic terrorists in South America?

"I have never said that I want to see the United States cease to be a great power." -Eric Wilds

My mistake, I stand corrected. Somebody did, I thought it had been you.

Unless you subscribe to the "they would leave us alone if we left them alone" view of terrorism. But that runs counter to 1400 years of Islamic history.

"What is happening in Iraq that is leading us down the path to even greater power? Our troops are getting killed everyday and we continue to dump billions of dollars into this quagmire. The loss of blood and treasure does make a great power, in fact it doesn't make any sense at all." -Eric Wilds

I agree, and have said before that I disagree heavily with the policy towards Iraq the Bush administration has taken post-invasion. However, the policy of undergoing the invasion itself, I would argue, was at least the best in a bad hand of options.

DocMcG: "fewer Americans killed in three years of this war than in one day in some other wars"

Well, one will agree to this only if one thinks we are in a war.

It too important a term to use loosely, in my view, because patriotism seems to demand that we comport ourselves differently toward our government when we are in a war. Notice that this gives the government a tremendous incentive to claim we are in wars.

There is no pure "form" for war, I suppose. It is a family resemblance thing. So I won't insist we aren't at war. But I for one cringe when anybody refers to the "war or terror." First, that makes no sense. It's like a bad great society spin off-- I think of the federal government starting programs in a war on night terrors or something. Perhaps "war on terrorism" is better. But that isn't true. It's about Islamic terrorism, and it should be about only that Islamic terrorism that is against us. So "Global war on terror" is way off.

Not only is the "War in Iraq" not a part of the "global war on terror", but WE aren't at war in Iraq. It is an occupation where the natives are unhappy.

Skeptic,

You are certainly right to move from the difference in how we percieve "results" to the question of whether we acknowledge we are at war. Let me sum up my argument that we should acknowledge "war" and not treat attacks on us and our troops as police matters.

First, I have read experts who have estimated that from 5% to 10% of Moslems identify with the jihadists who attack us. This represents 50 to 100 million people, a population likely greater than any that thought themselves committed Nazis or Communists.

Second, These people collectively have relatively easy access to tools with greater killing power than Nazis or Communists had in the 1940s. I understand that most observers would emphasize killing power relative to others of the same time, and that our adversaries are weak on that scale. But the appropriate measure of danger is absolute killing power especially when dealing with a disaggregated non-materialist adversary for whom "deterence theory" has little explanatory power.

Third, the will and ability of potential allies and of much of our own society to confront these adversaries is significantly less than the will and ability of past allies to confront past adversaries. This is a result, primarily, of the virulent "multicultural" relativism that now infects the weakened parts of Western culture.

While we must be wary of governments crying war when none exists, we must also be wary of allowing dangerous situations to get out of control because we value stablity too much. In this situation waiting too long to recognize that we are at war is the much greater danger.

DocMcG: I'm sorry, I'm terribly confused. Are the only two options "war" and "police matter"? Both are rather loosey-goosey meaning-wise for me.

"Recognizing that we are at war..." I guess my problem is that I don't know what the heck 'war' means in this sentence. Becuase in the traditional definition of war, what we are doing ain't it. What is its sense? Hmmm.

I suspect it is not a mere noun, but is used as a statement, "I am serious about protecting this country and you -- those who don't _recognize_ that the word 'war' is appropriate -- aren't."

abuse of language abuse of power

The current predicament in Iraq is a direct result of the invasion of Iraq. We knew that Iraq was not a an organic nation and that it did not have the necessary elements to produce a modern, democratic society. This was known to the first Bush Administatration, which is why they refused to overthrow Iraq in 1991. A "democratic" Iraq meant a Shia majority and Iranian influence.

So now Iraq is crumbling into bands of feuding tribes, the Kurds are declaring independence and "terrorists" are finding a a comfortable home in Iraq's new government -- just ask Muktada al-Sadr.

If there are Islamic terrorists in Iraq then it's because we overthrew Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, which was enforcing secular, not Sharia, rule. So if we stay in Iraq it will continue to be haven for terrorists, and if we support Iraq's new "democratic" government we will be supporting another terrorist government.

Unless one thinks that a prolonged occupation of a hostile nation, world enmity, and endless wars somehow make us a stronger nation, then reversing our current foreign policy -- throwing Bush and Cheney overboard -- is the only real option.

"Not only is the "War in Iraq" not a part of the "global war on terror", but WE aren't at war in Iraq. It is an occupation where the natives are unhappy." -Skeptic

I'd basically agree with this. While the War in Iraq was, I think, worthwhile, it is also over.

"The current predicament in Iraq is a direct result of the invasion of Iraq. We knew that Iraq was not a an organic nation and that it did not have the necessary elements to produce a modern, democratic society. This was known to the first Bush Administatration, which is why they refused to overthrow Iraq in 1991. A "democratic" Iraq meant a Shia majority and Iranian influence." -Eric Wilds

Essentially true. At the time we were well on the way to becoming allies with Iran in the region. We had invaded Afghanistan with their full cooperation and were now doing the same to Iraq. We planned on essentially giving them the country as a show of goodwill.

Unfortunately, the summer of 2004 changed everything.

"If there are Islamic terrorists in Iraq then it's because we overthrew Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party, which was enforcing secular, not Sharia, rule. So if we stay in Iraq it will continue to be haven for terrorists, and if we support Iraq's new "democratic" government we will be supporting another terrorist government." -Eric Wilds

That statement is ridiculous. Saddam Hussein was a large scale supporter of international terrorism. That's not rhetoric, thats the official findings of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Iraqi Perspectives Project, released in 2006.

the official findings of Joint Forces Command*

Skeptic,

In my language community there are two defined options in responding to systematic and deliberate violence against members of my community: "war" or "police action."

Alexander Hmailton put it this way in Federalist 15: "This penalty, whatever it may be, can only be inflicted in two ways: by the agency of the courts and ministers of justice, or by military force; by the COERCION of the magistracy, or by the COERCION of arms. The first kind can evidently apply only to men; the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States."

The coercion of arms is "war." Fortunately, my language community has developed a language that can be used to clarify the choices we face, a language whose clarity has helped the country in many crises. Unfortunately, it appears not many "speakers" survive.

Doc: Oddly, Hamilton doesn't refer to what you call war as 'war.' He refers to coercion by arms. (So perhaps you are only imagining yourself as part of some language community with him and exclusing me?)

I don't think the distinction is quite clear anyway, because "coercion by magistrates" is also a form of "coercion by arms" unless the person submits to the authority, so 'police action' (your terminological substitute) would itself be 'war' (your terminological substitute) whenever physical force is actually used. In the vast majority of "police actions," it is.

Now, if you are asking me whether physical force is appropriate for dealing with anti-US Islamic terrorists, I say 'yes.' Whether that means we are "at war," I still don't know, since I would say the same thing about all those involved in violent crime against US citizens.

Once again, the word "war" is being used here less as a word and more as a ideological chest-pounding statement.

I am a latecomer to this thread but I want to make a minor point to DocMcG.

When you mention as a benefit of the Iraq War/war on terror the fact that we have suffered no terrorist attacks at home in more than five years I think, and I may be wrong, that we have only suffered domestic terrorist attacks by radical Muslims twice, right? Both on the WTC, although I don't know if the anthrax attacks or beltway sniper murders should count as well, but I doubt it. What I am getting at is an issue of perspective, terror attacks against us are somewhat rare and so presumably somewhat difficult (given that there clearly are a number of people very motivated to harming us). Plausible reasons for this are several: we don't have a particularly radical and angry native Muslim population (like most of Europe does); we are very far away from the origins of Islamic radicalism; we are somewhat capable of frustrating such attacks; and the terrorists who wish us harm are probably not so strong as to meet w/ much success. So a minor point here is that given how rare terrorist attacks in the U.S. are it doesn't necessarily say that much to point out that we haven't suffered one in five years.

But this leads to the more general problem of perspective I have w/ your take on the threat of Islamic radicalism. I think Skeptic's concern over whether a "war" against a non-state, amorphous and indeterminate group(s) of radicals is related to this perspective problem. Your comments suggest that we face a threat which is not only autochthonous to the Mid-East but is naturally expansive and will continue to seek to attack us here---which is really far away from there---irregardless of any conceivable changes we may make in our foreign policies. I think this is a very common perception by the right and amounts to a transference of their experiences w/ and struggles against Communism to this "new" threat of radical Islam. But I think it is precisely this perception which needs to be more extensively debated as I don't see the threat as similar. Rather, it is a intra-Islamic conflict that our presence in the ME involves us in, and our presence is thus dangerous and imprudent and conflicts w/ the proper interests of our society.

The neocon line is to frame radical Islam in the "fascist box" and tie it in w/ Nazism. This has been argued in other threads here and ably revealed as bunk. But the bulk of conservatives aren't moved by calling the threat "Islamo-fascism" but rather, by dint of habit, by treating it in the same manner that they treated the earlier Communist threat. The exact same mentality and perception of foreign affairs yet pervades, 1989 changed nothing in our global commitments and actions. And this, I think, has been a disaster for 3 presidencies now.

Hamilton gives a specification which both shows that my definition of war is not "ideological chest-pounding" and that coercion by arms is synonymous with the common understanding of "war": "the last kind must of necessity, be employed against bodies politic, or communities, or States."

Bruce Wayne identifies one important source of the dispute. Exploration of this source shows that my argument thus far has not been "ideological" though it does depend on different predictions and thus on different theories than Wayne articulates. He sees Islamic radicalism as "autochthonous to the Mid-East" and implies that such radicalism is not "naturally expansive" but would be contained by "conceivable changes we may make in our foreign policies."

I find the history of Islamic radicalism including past unprovoked conquests or attacks in Spain and Austria, and present violence over lectures in German universities, contraindicates this position. It is true that changes in our foreign policy (and to the extent it upsets them, our domestic policies on freedom of speech) would satisfy them for a while, just as abandoning China in 1941 would have placated the Japanese, or England's abandonment of Poland would have placated Hitler. But it would only postpone conflict until a time when our position is weaker.

I find the words of radical Islam also contraindicate Wayne's predictive theory. Our existence as free and prosperous people, who are more powerful than they are, threatens the radicals' world view that Islam is morally superior and that moral superiority must translate into physical superiority. We can hope that time would change that world view, but more than a millennium has not eradicated it. It is unlikely to die on its own because the radicals can make a highly plausible case that such a view is directly traceable to the words and actions of Muhammad.

That's my cross-cultural argument. For the sake of those who might share my republican ideology I will tell you what I would say if I were to engage in ideological chest-pounding. "As a free citizen of a republic, I would have us fight to the last man rather than give in to the extortion of these radicals who demand that we continually change our foreign or domestic policies to suit them."

DocMcG: Hamilton does not say that if the coercion is "coercion by arms" it is against bodies politic, communities or states. That is how you read it. He says rather that if the coercion is against bodies politic, communities or states it must be "coercion by arms." That means only, I think, that for Hamilton we cannot put communities on trial ("coercion by magistrate). It does not mean that we cannot use coercion of arms against individuals. We certainly do, quite often. And do we call it "war"? Not in normal usage.

Thus, it seems, "war" and Hamilton's "coercion by arms" are not synonymous. Neither is your "police action" and "coercion by magistrate."

In anycase, I think that police action is generally violently coercive anyway. So, once again, is all you are saying by "war" that you think we should use coercive violence against anti-US Islamic terrorists?

DocMcG,

I will focus on one difference in our views. You too easily equate foreign policy changes w/ concessions or attempts to appease when you refer to imperial Japan and Nazi Germany. Imo that ana-logy fails b/c there is a significant difference in magnitude between the highly cohesive and technologically modern societies of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany and the assorted collection of Islamic radicals that are committing terrorist acts against us.

I suspect that the motivation of your ana-logy is the view that Islam itself, or a really significant (and on your presumption cohesive) segment of Islam is a threat to us. On one level I actually agree with you. I have read Belloc, I understand that Islam is a diabolical heresy and that it expanded by means of the sword and many of the faith are more than willing to continue with such tactics. I am aware of the history of conflict between Muslims and Christendom/the West. I also recognize that a significant portion of the average ME population really really hates us and is happy when we are harmed and at least gives moral support to the terrorist groups who put that hatred into action. Where I think you err is in treating these small radical groups that actually take action against us as very strong.

The divisions w/in Islam in the ME are profound. The extent of secularization and modernization of Islam in society after society in the ME is also really significant. Iran, e.g., is a highly nationalistic society and Persian pride (and native sense) militates against their having any extra-ME expansionist intentions in the name of radical Islam. Everything they are doing indicates they want to be a player in the ME, particularly now that Iraq has been decimated by us; in most ways they are not a threat to our genuine interests. For another example, look at how hard of a time Al Qaeda has always had at finding places to base their operations, and look at whom they had been spending most of their time agitating against--the kleptocrats and secularist authoritarian leaders of ME nations.

The radical Islamicists just are not the vanguard of the proletarian revolution embodied by the Bolsheviks, nor are they the Sturmarbteilung of a Nazi Party.

They are capable of being isolated, ferreted out, frustrated, and continually defeated. The talk about "draining the swamp" I am pretty sure you would agree is largely futile. We simply can't defeat Islam by military means and, frankly, everyone who has paid any attention *knows* that Islam is itself very largely to blame for producing such zealots. Also, we cannot defeat the radicals by rebuilding every ME nation on the model of Switzerland. Neither scenario is ever going to happen. In fact, it is not that I think radical Islam will ever die out on its own, I don't think it will die out at all! It may in fact be a traditionalist form of the religion. But that fact is one of those evils endemic to our fallen world that the duty to work against doesn't justify committing greater evils. I say remember Niebuhr's "Serenity Prayer."

Finally, what I have written has nothing to do with free speech for popes or in the Netherlands. European countries like Germany and France should work to expel their muslim populations, and should support natalist policies encouraging a better means of recreating a national workforce than importing dangerous foreigners.

Saddam Hussein did not sponsor terrorism against the United States. As the latest Senate report shows he actually tried to have Zarqawi apprehended. The "terrorists" Saddam supported was the MEK, a secular clique devoted to overthrowing the Iranian government. In other words Saddam supported the people we suppport and opposed the people we opposed -- and yet we still went to war with him. Obviously terrorism had nothing to do with Iraq.

Bruce Wayne,

Thanks for the well-reasoned response. While you did not earlier mention the extortion perpetrated to change domestic policy, you did imply that changing foreign policy would satisfy radical Islamists. The reactions to the cartoons and to the Pope’s speech seem to indicate otherwise. Our other differences seem to come down to the fact that you either think we are "committing greater evils" or we are in a impotent situation where we should (quoting the serenity prayer) "accept the things (we) cannot change." These are (except for the definition of evil) empirical judgments with which I vehemently disagree.

To put these disagreements in context of another of your statements, while it is true that the radical Islamists are "not the vanguard of the proletarian revolution embodied by the Bolsheviks, nor are they the Sturmarbteilung of a Nazi Party,” as I pointed out in my earlier post, the radical Islamists are more numerous, have more absolute killing power, and our less likely to be deterred than those groups.

Skeptic,

I agree with your interpretation of Hamilton's words and was not trying to imply anything else. Hamilton is implying that only coercion of arms will work when faced with a dangerous, adversarial community. Given my stated assumptions about radical Islamists my argument is summed up by saying "we must recognize this fact and find some way to direct the coercion of arms (which following usual, though perhaps not precise language, I am calling "war") against the community that threatens us; not just against individuals in that community." One step in doing that is to recognize we are in a "war." (Another step, though not necessarily a smart one, could be the occupation of some territory, if that occupation would incite the adversary to attack our armed troops there.)

Eric Wilde

Your last sentence is a non sequitur for anyone who doesn't share your world view. However many facts you relate about Saddam Hussein, you cannot build a logical case that "terrorism had nothing to do with Iraq" because one thing "having to do" with another is a theoretical construct. For example, if one entertains the theory that Hussein's successful unilateral abrogation of his agreements with the United States would have created a situation where other counties would ignore future treaties with the United States and that upholding such treaties will need to become a critical tool in controlling terrorism, then granting all your facts (and many more) still could not show that "terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq."

If you want to invent a new word "war" such that all use of violent coercion is "war", then I don't think there are many, democrat or republican, in this country that would disagree that we are at "war." Now, why is it then that so many people don't "recognize" we are at war? My suggestion is because the word war actually means more than mere violent coercion, though it may be a rather vague word in itself, because it is being used loosely (since in fact we don't have another well-sefined community, let alone political group, to be at war with, and we certainly are not in a constitutional sense at war), and because the people who use it are using it as a partisan stick to beat their opponents with.

Using the word doesn't clarify anything substantial; it merely is a way for neocon chest thumping intellectuals to pretend like they are tougher than ex-hippie UN-loving intellectuals.

"Saddam Hussein did not sponsor terrorism against the United States. As the latest Senate report shows he actually tried to have Zarqawi apprehended. The "terrorists" Saddam supported was the MEK, a secular clique devoted to overthrowing the Iranian government. In other words Saddam supported the people we suppport and opposed the people we opposed -- and yet we still went to war with him. Obviously terrorism had nothing to do with Iraq." -Eric Wilds

Cite it. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi was on the payroll of the Iraqi Government from the Summer of 2002 until the fall of the government, as a member of Ansar al-Islam, a terrorist group that you somehow forgot to mention that Saddam's government actively supported. Maybe because of its intimate links to Al Qaeda?

You are dishonest in the extreme.

Ben,

The latest report actually shows that Saddam Hussein tried to apprehend Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam was a Kurdish terrorist group seeking to overthrow the Ba'ath regime and replace it with a Taliban-like government. Saddam and Ansar al-Islam were arch enemies.

Doc,

The United States didn't have any agreements with Iraq. It was the United Nations. Why should the United States enforce UNSC Resolutions?

"The latest report actually shows that Saddam Hussein tried to apprehend Zarqawi. Ansar al-Islam was a Kurdish terrorist group seeking to overthrow the Ba'ath regime and replace it with a Taliban-like government. Saddam and Ansar al-Islam were arch enemies." -Ansar al-Islam

You're assertions become more and more detached from reality with every post. Ansar Al-Islam never once engaged Baathist forces in battle. They spent their time fighting the Peshmerga. Local Kurdish sources universally agree that they were closesly tied with Saddam's government.

They said they weren't because it was political convenient for them to say that.

"The United States didn't have any agreements with Iraq. It was the United Nations. Why should the United States enforce UNSC Resolutions?" -Eric Wilds

What are you talking about? I didn't mention the UN at all in my last post.

Ben,

The political agenda of Ansar al-Islam was to replace Saddam's secular Ba'ath regime with an Islamic state modeled after the Taliban. Why would Saddam want to support a terrorist group that wanted to overthrow him?

They never engaged Ba'athists in fighting because Saddam would crush them. That's why they stayed in Kurdistan and at times sought refuge in Iran.

"The political agenda of Ansar al-Islam was to replace Saddam's secular Ba'ath regime with an Islamic state modeled after the Taliban. Why would Saddam want to support a terrorist group that wanted to overthrow him?" -Eric Wilds

Because they, get ready for this, said one thing, but did another.

(Was supposed to be the rest of the first post).

They parroted about hating Saddam in an attempt to gain political support in the north, where they were based, but spent all of their time battling Saddam's enemy, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. That they were closely linked to Saddam is heavily confirmed by more or less all the sources we have among the Kurds.

Ben,

Ansar al-Islam denied supporting Saddam Hussein and argued for replacing his regime with one more along the lines of the Taliban.

You just invent an unverifiable conspiracy theory that suggests their opposition to Hussein was only a form of subterfuge. Obviously there is no evidence for this, except the fact that you are searching for reasons to justify the war.

Thankfully, we now can see that all the justifications don't add up to anything.