Since Sunday, I’ve been meaning to call your attention to this piece that was in the NYT‘s Week in Review section. OK, all the folks on the right wing of the blog community can now spend 10 seconds doing the customary hyperventilating about what an unreliable, biased source the Times is … 3, 2, 1. Time’s up. Let’s get on with the topic now.
If you can’t get access, here’s the essence:
United States officials worry that they’re not prepared, either, for Hezbollah’s style of warfare — a kind that pits finders against hiders and favors the hiders.
Certain that other terrorists are learning from Hezbollah’s successes, the United States is studying the conflict closely for lessons to apply to its own wars. Military planners suggest that the Pentagon take a page out of Hezbollah’s book about small-unit, agile operations as it battles insurgents and cells in Iraq and Afghanistan and plans for countering more cells and their state sponsors across the Middle East and in Africa, Southeast Asia and Latin America.
The United States and Israel have each fought conventional armies of nation-states and shadowy terror organizations. But Hezbollah, with the sophistication of a national army (it almost sank an Israeli warship with a cruise missile) and the lethal invisibility of a guerrilla army, is a hybrid. Old labels, and old planning, do not apply. Certainly its style of 21st-century combat is known — on paper. The style even has its own labels, including network warfare, or net war, and fourth-generation warfare, although many in the military don’t care for such titles. But the battlefields of south Lebanon prove that it is here, and sooner than expected. And the American national security establishment is struggling to adapt.
Two things come to mind as I read this piece and others:
- We’re going to be at war with Iran sooner or later — sooner, if we act in the best interests of our own country and civilization as a whole. We can wait until the dark cloud out of Mordor assumes mushroom shape and consumes a few of our cities, courtesy of Hezbollah Delivery Service, or sooner. Our standard modus operandi has been to act later. You may say that Iraq represents a departure from that wait-until-they-hit-us-first mode, but rhetoric aside, it really doesn’t. Basically, we acted after 12 years of dithering. The cause may not have been proximate, but there was a cause.
- Most hand-wringing pieces (and this one is no exception) about how helpless the United States, or a regional superpower such as Israel, is against skilled practitioners of asymmetric warfare ignore a salient fact: That we tie our own hands, and the bad guys rely upon us to do that.
An elaboration on that last: There are many, many examples of the way people who would destroy us use the very decency that they assume us to have against us. One is particularly vivid. It’s from Mark Bowden’s Black Hawk Down — on page 46 of the Penguin paperback version, not in the original newspaper series:
… They both ran for better cover.
They found it behind a burned-out car. Peering out from underneath toward the north now, Nelson saw a Somali with a gun lying prone on the street beneath two kneeling women. The shooter had the barrel of his weapon between the women’s legs, and there were four children actually sitting on him. He was completely shielded in noncombatants, taking full cynical advantage of the Americans’ decency.
"Check this out, John," he told Waddell, who scooted over for a look.
"What do you want to do?" Waddell asked.
"I can’t get to that guy through those people."
So Nelson threw a flashbang, and the group fled so fast the man left his gun in the dirt.
What do you do about someone who is evil enough, craven enough, hateful enough to do something like that? I’ve come to the conclusion — and it’s a difficult one for me — that the only solution is to kill him — and every one of his fellows. I don’t even like the way that sounds. I gain no satisfaction from saying it. But think about it. Few people consider World War II to have been an unjust war from the Allied perspective. But the average Wehrmacht soldier was much less deserving of death than the individual who will so directly and literally use noncombatants as a shield. And yet WE killed thousands — actually, hundreds of thousands — of civilians to get at them.
We’re too enlightened, and too technologically advanced, to resort to carpet bombing today. We flatter ourselves that we can put a smart bomb into a certain window of a certain building, and this constrains us — if we can be so discriminating and particular in our targeting, then we must be. Well, no bomb is that smart.
I accept the morality of that logic, and the logic of such an ethic. But really, what do we do in such a situation as those we face today?
I’ll tell you what we do: We lose. People hold up Vietnam as an example of the futility of using American force to shape the world. Such people don’t understand military realities. The truth is that our ability to achieve military aims is limited mainly by the limits we place upon ourselves.
We "lost" the Vietnam conflict because we chose to. No, this is not a tirade against those politicians in Washington tying the hands of the military. We were simply not prepared as a nation to go on the offensive against the North Vietnamese — I mean, "on the offensive" in a strategic sense. Why didn’t we just take Hanoi the way we did Baghdad, or the way we did Berlin or Tokyo before? Because we never tried to. We went in to defend, not attack. You can’t win a defensive war.
By March 2003, there had been a change in the American attitude, caused by Sept. 11. We were ready to go on the offensive. So we did — in a concerted, yet restrained, way. Yes, there were many civilian deaths. But the firebombing of Dresden it was not. We still try to kill the enemy without killing noncombatants to the extent that is practical. And it often is not practical. For instance, how many more people would al-Zarqawi have killed if we had not killed him with a bomb that also killed innocents?
So what do we do, if we are to remain the kind of "good guys" we want to be? Seldom are we able to resolve such situations by tossing a flashbang. I firmly believe it is profoundly wrong to harm noncombatants, particularly women and children. So what do we do about enemies who hide among them, whether in southern Lebanon, Baghdad, Tikrit or Mogadishu? We’d better figure it out soon, because our problem isn’t the likes of Hezbollah. It’s the states that support and egg it on.
Iran will be a much tougher problem for us than Iraq — diplomatically, politically, morally and militarily. And we still haven’t figured out how to deal with Iraq.
I don’t know the answer. I’m just trying to clarify the question. Do we wait while Iran a) develops nukes and b) gets ever-more-effective at what it’s been doing for several decades — sponsoring terrorism across the greater Mideast?
Or do we go ahead and act? And if so, how, and where? And, given the way we have overextended the military that Rumsfeld has insisted doesn’t need to expand, with what?
Thoughts?
Related Posts
Perhaps the most offensive characteristic of the chickenhawk is his constant reference to what “we” should do. Warthen states that “we” will have to figure out what to do about Iran. He states that “we” “lost” Vietnam (I suppose, by “lost,” Warthen means that we failed to return Vietnam to its status as a colony) because “we” were unwilling to go on the offensive, to accept the lost of even more lives and treasure beyong the 57,000 American soldiers and tens of hundreds of billions of dollars we sacrificed.
“We,” “we,” “we,” “we,” “we.”
But what Warthen has made clear beyond any possibility of constradiction is that the sacrifices he envisions are not really sacrifices that “we” are going to make. The sacrifices that Warthen envisions are sacrifices to be made by others, not by him. Warthen is not calling on “us” to make sacrifices; he is dreaming up fantasy scenarios that call for sacrifices to be made by OTHERS.
Warthen’s purported asthma and unquestioned cowardice kept him from serving in Vietnam. He is unwilling to urge any of his relatives or acquaintances to serve in Iraq. He does not pay enough federal taxes to cover the costs of the subsidies and services he receives from the federal government. He has never made any contribution or undertaken any sacrifice or borne any burden in support of the numerous undertakings he urges on the contributing citizens of the United States. He does nothing but sit collecting handouts, dreaming up fantasies that call for unspeakable burdens and hardships on on others, predicting glorious results from accepting the sacrifices he calls on “us” to accept, and ignoring the fact that all we have to show for Warthen’s fantasies is the waste of hundreds of billions of dollars and over 2500 dead soldiers.
Warthen can talk all he wants about what he thinks should be done in Iran, but I would ask him to PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE quit trying to cling to the false claim that he is calling for “us” to do anything until he has demonstrated that he is willing to lift a finger to contribute to it.
I’m sorry Brad, I respectively don’t agree at all. The middle-east mess is largely of our own making. We need to pull out of the Middle-east NOW! Since Bush became president we’ve done nothing but wage war, and build more weapons. Has it brought us more security? NO! Do we feel safer? NO! And you propose more of the same. I don’t buy the scare tactics from the right now, nor will I ever buy them. The odds of dying on American soil at the hands of Muslim terrorists is tiny (3,000 in the last 5 years). The odds of dying in a car crash is large (220,000 in the last 5 years). Our priorities are completely out of wack.
What we need is better intelligence and diplomacy not more war. During the Clinton years we were making some small progress and the radicals were gradually being marginalized. Now it’s reversed and the radicals are in charge. And I say enough war mongering. You bring up Vietnam. The right completely misses the important lesson of that war: We lost and guess what, we soon became the world’s leading super power! So lossing in a misguided war does not seem so bad. The same would happen if we lost in Iraq, nothing.
Brad, I don’t think you’re a coward as Mary suggested. I’m sure you would serve your country honorably if called upon to do so. But I do think she makes a point. Many Americans, including our president and VP are not willing to sacrifice in this middle-east endevour. So how serious is this threat really?
Brad, what makes you think that we would hyperventilate about the NYT? I’ve been registered to their site for years – gotta keep tabs on what the enemy is doing, you know. Besides, sometimes they accidentally even get something right.
We will indeed be at war with Iran sooner or later and I’d rather have it be sooner, before they become even more powerful, i.e. nuclear, and able to inflict much heavier casualties on us. The only way out of that war is for the people of Iran to overthrow the deeply unpopular mullahcracy. Unfortunately, our incompetent foreign policy establishment is dead set against supporting anything that might help make that happen. Running a VOA-style operation and supporting the dissenters in Iran would be vastly less expensive than a fullblown war.
It’s fairly clear what will happen if we don’t act soon. If we drag this out, and unless we help the Iranians overthrow the mullahs, there will inevitably be a much worse war than it would be now. Even more so when in the near future we will be withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan and what could be a war where Iran is vulnerable on 3 fronts would be a one-front war.
One thing where I have to disagree with you is your claim that our military is overextended because of Iraq. Iraq is a relatively small war and we have only 130,000 or so troops there now. In the late 80s we had 300,000 just in Germany, plus another 300,000 in the rest of the world, and we managed just fine. I have no doubt that if it really came to a crunch (say Iran nuked a large US city) we could mobilize and train many more troops. In WW2 we had over 16 million in the military, at a time when the US population was less than half of what it is now. It might take a year or two to get ramped up for massive retaliation but once it happened, Iran would be in smoking ruins.
You may be all wet on school choice, smoking laws and most other issues but in this case we see things mostly the same way.
I can just see Brad screaming from a stage like Howard Dean,
“FIRST WE’RE GOING TO AFGHANISTAN! THEN IRAQ! THEN WE’RE GOING TO LEBANON! THEN IRAN! SYRIA! NORTH KOREA! CHINA!!!!
YEEEEEEHAAAA!!!!”
We’ve been on the offensive since 1917…
YOU ARE RONG .IRAN HAS 40% OF (THE WORLDS OIL) THEY ARE NOT BAD PEOPLE .THE WEST WANT THE OIL NAZIS
I hope everyone who blogs with Brad reads this little historical reference as we see history repeating itself today. Instead of Nazis we have terrorist Muslims. I would ask those who think we can sit down like nice folks and talk with Iran, Syria, and some others to think about this history. As an aside, note the hurricane that hit New England and killed 638 people. Compare that to Katrina and see how much we have changed into the nanny state where Uncle Georgie is responsible for everything we need or want. Visit Hitler’s Anschluss!
Everyone is referencing the wrong world war in their various analyses of the current situation in the middle-east. Rather than WW II let’s examine how WW I unfolded. First we had a relatively minor incident in Sarejevo that involved a Serbian nationalist assasinating the crown prince of Austria. From this event that claimed only two victims (the crown prince and his wife) we ended up with a world confligration that claimed upwards of 20 million.
Now compare that with current situation. We have Hezbollah thugs killing and kidnapping 5 Isreali soldiers. Arguably this was an effort to bait Israel into a broader conflict. And it worked. Next we could see Syria and Iran coming to the aid of Hezollah. The U.S. would then follow by supporting Isreal with additional weapons. Other nations in the region would side with Iran, perhaps cutting off oil supplies. This would in turn lead to $5, $10 or even $15/gallon gasoline prices. Americans would not tolerate that and would be forced to send in troops to secure supplies. Eventually we would be caught up in a world wide confligration with millions killed.
Of course this scenerio may not play out but history shows how a small event can quickly escalate. Just as in WW I if the minor players (Isreal and Hezbollah) were not so confident that their big brother supporters would step in when needed perhaps this whole thing would remain an isolated incident.
Brad, this is kind of an unbelievable post – you’ve outlined a preemptive strike approach to our global relationships that suggests we have the right to bomb whoever we want back to the Stone Age. That’s sadly uncreative thinking. And I tell frankly – inspiring terror in people by killing the opposition is NOT winning.
So let me throw open a different question to encourage that creativity: How HAVE we won wars in the past? Forget about the ones we have lost or may be losing, what have we won and how?
Since I ask I get to be the first to answer: I think we won by carpet bombing with $$. Why is Germany our friend today? Because we spent ungodly sums of money and BOUGHT them afer WWII. They knew exactly what side the bread is buttered on. So does Japan; and what an incredible transformation! Two nukes + x trillion $$ = our best friends in Asia??
How did we win the cold war? We broke the USSRs economy by driving up staggering debt as they tried to match our military spending. I’m sure our junior history faculty will have different arguments, OK, but please try to focus on how to win (without the dead or alive histrionics please)
So how do we use our MONEY as the weapon in the Middle East? Because for sure Iran, China, perhaps Pakistan, and others are using theirs cleverly against us.
Thank you Uncle Elmer! Well said!
Actually, the Reagan tax cuts spurred an economic boom that we are still riding, which paid for our new military.
The entire new debt has been on excessive spending on social programs. Social Security was 30 days from bankruptcy when Jimmy Carter left office. Reagan raised the FICA tax enough to bail it out and pay off all the national debt, but Tip O’Neill and the Democrats “borrowed” the excess and blew it all on welfare parties.
Great point Uncle Elmer. Perhaps if we had focused on reconstruction after WW I instead of vengence WW II may have been prevented.
Brad, put the purple kool-aid down and back away… for your safety. After the smashing success of your war in Iraq not many South Carolinians will be taking your war mongering seriously.
I agree with Uncle Elmer. Israel occupied Lebanon for 18 years (1982-2000). If they had designated Lebanon as a “special trading” partner; set up a social services infrastructure; and, generally fostered economic interdependence and prosperity; then Hezbollah wouldn’t have had a ready-made source of terrorists after Israeli withdrawal.
Had we waged a global economic and educational initiative aimed at the Muslim world, instead of invading a secular dictator’s country that presented no imminent threat then we’d be far ahead in the “neverending war on terra.”
In case no one has noticed, Dear Leader has confirmed Osama’s narrative. We’ve invaded an oil-rich Arab country for no readily understood reason other than seizing oil and setting up more Christian crusades against Muslims.
We’re spending $2 billion a week in Iraq and we’re losing both the military war and the propaganda war. That money would have been so much more effectively spent on a modern Marshall Plan.
Lee I’m sorry I wasn’t clear there, I meant drove up the USSRs debt load as they tried to match our military spending. I was not referring to ours.
This discussion topic reminds me of Asimov’s first Foundation book. It has been a long time, but if I recall correctly that book had discussions about how to win wars with money, threats, and religion without a shot being fired.
“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent!” Wasn’t that from that book?
There seems to be a pattern here:
Osama bin Laden enrolled 19 of his associates in flight training and they made themselves know to America on 9/11. How did he pay for their flight lessons and box cutters?: Saudi construction contracts from OIL revenues.
Saddam Hussein waged the “Mother of All Wars” with Bush 41. What built Saddam Hussein?: OIL revenues.
How does Iran finance its “90 days same as cash” deal to provide Hezbollah with 10,000 (give or take) Katyusha rockets?: OIL revenues.
How does Iran finance its nuclear powered Infidel Electic Coop?: OIL revenues.
Way South of the Border, how does Hugo Chavez finance his party boat cruises to break pinata with Fidel Castro?: OIL revenues.
You know, oil is really dirty stuff, in more way than you can imagine. It has been said that we are addicted to oil. In most situations, it is simply not considered a good business strategy to continue to do business with suppliers who want to kill you or bring you to your knees.
I ask each and every one of you to reach deep within your gut and answer the following question:
How long can any entity, be it an individual, a company, or a country maintain its leadership status when that entity is so admittedly dependent upon lesser entities?
The day that the United States of America declares independence from certain foreign sources of oil is the day that the United States of America shall no longer place an American soldier into a plastic body bag because of foreign oil that financed and created the likes of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
AN INDEPENDENCE DAY PLAN FOR KICKING THE FOREIGN OIL CAN
http://forums.thestate.com/kr-primary/messages/?msg=91
Let’s set a date. Let’s make a plan. Let’s do it.
Bravo. Let’s start drilling everywhere. Let’s build those nuclear plants. If even France and , of all countries, Japan, can get almost 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, surely we can do so, too.
Lex, we could get the other 20% from windmills.
Nuclear power plants
Windmills
Plug-in electric cars
Hydrogen powered buses and trains
More walking and biking
Passive solar home (for example extenstive use of trees that could shade in summer but drop their leaves in winter)
All of this could reduce our dependence on foriegn oil and reduce CO2 emissions. Now that’s what I call a two-fer. But, it would take GOVERNMENT intervention. Libertarian free-market solutions won’t work. The energy companies are just too powerful. Enron proved that once and for all.
Lex, Drilling more is not an option. The easily extracted oil is long gone. It’s time to move on from the oil based economy. We have 2 oil men in charge in Washington and all they’ve given us is higher gasoline prices and oil-based wars.
To shift the discussion back somewhat towards the original questions:
Most people miss the distinctions between terrorism as a strategy with its tactics of indiscriminant killing and destruction of defenseless targets (currently called “asymmetric warfare” as if it’s something new) and the organizations which employ it.
Hizbollah (“The Party of God”) is a transnational surrogate of the Iranian State Security services. It was organized in Iran as a way to clandestinely export militant Islamism and has remained such an organization through today. Nearly every country in the world with a Muslim population of any significant size has its own Hizbollah network. (That, by the way, also includes the U.S.)
(The historical analogy to the communist party is very valid, and Hizbollah’s function and organization in the world of Shiite Islamic Fundamentalism are identical, substituting religion for economics.)
The Hizbollah has its real difference from most other terror organizations in its direct state sponsorship. Most other terrorist groups are only indirectly sponsored (if at all) by “legitimate” governments.
However, all “terrorist groups” are such because they employ terrorism as a strategy, not because they are “terrorists.” Their goal is to force their enemies to lose the will to resist, not to defeat them militarily, but to cause their enemies to concede victory.
Imagine Wall Street and Hollywood advertising agencies with guns and bombs: “Buy our products or else…” Terrorism is all about the propaganda objectives, not the military ones.
The question was how can the U.S. military (the most powerful military machine on the planet) fight terrorists and by extension their state sponsors?
Conventional militaries have never effectively dealt with insurgencies (one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter) directly. And in fact provoking a military “over reaction” in order to bolster popular support has been a “classic” objective for terrorist commanders throughout history. And once the terror network reaches a certain size, there are never enough conventional troops to guard all the potential targets. Imposition of adequate “population control measures” just creates a police state and generates more popular support for the terrorists’ cause.
Did the Lebanese Hizbollah think that after they crossed the border, attacked an Israeli squad and took a couple of prisoners that the IDF units on that part of the border were going to throw down their guns, wave white flags, and march into POW compounds? I think not. The objective of the attack was not to achieve a military victory. The objective was to provoke an Israeli over reaction; to cause the Israelis to do exactly what they have done. (Well… maybe not EXACTLY what they’ve done.)
The Israelis have effectively turned the clock back 20 years, and by re-occupying southern Lebanon, they’ve handed the Hizbollah a great propaganda victory and re-legitimized its very existence. This propaganda coup is played out every day in the Middle East in every newspaper and TV station. And for those of us who think that the Israelis are perfectly justified in their defense of their country: it doesn’t matter what we think. It’s about what the people of the Middle East think. Hizbollah isn’t trying to “win our hearts and minds.” It’s after theirs. (To be more precise, it’s after their souls.)
So what can the U.S. do?
Understand what the fight is actually about. Only after you know what your enemy is after can you know what to defend. “It’s not about the oil stupid.”
It truly is a “clash of civilizations.” The Islamic theocracy of Iran wants to maintain its hold on its own population. Next it wants to exert control on the region by exporting its militant theocracy and using the threat of nuclear warfare. (That is, it wants fundamental Shia’ism in control of the Middle East, not fundamental Sunni’ism, i.e. Wahabbi’ism. And you better believe that the difference between the two is enough for both sides to kill over.) Finally, and ultimately, they want to do the same to the entire world. (“Can you say ‘Islamic inquisition’? Sure you can, infidel, just scream real loud as you’re being stoned to death.”)
Remember, it’s not about your or my rational, Western world view. These are religious fanatics. It’s about their belief and faith, neither of which is rational to us. You can no more talk them out of their beliefs than you can any one else set in their religious beliefs. (That is why it’s called “faith.” You either have it or you don’t.)
The tools that need to be applied to the problem are more than just military ones. To be sure, the U.S. military has a role, but it’s a supporting one. “Uncle elmer” and “bud” are on the right track with the importance of economics, but remember, in the end the USSR fell because the population was dissatisfied with their standard of living and lack of civil liberties. The lack of both was inherent in the system, and the people themselves tore down the Iron Curtain. Lex also addresses part of the solution with the need for “information warfare” (the new name for propaganda).
The point is, though, that the conditions inside the countries that spawn terrorist movements (to include Iran) have to be changed to remove the incentives that the populations have to support those same movements. In some places (like Iraq), the application of military force by the U.S. can remove some of the obstacles (like Saddam Hussein and the Baath Party) to change. But in most others (like Iran and most of the other Middle Eastern autocracies) the change must come from within, just like the USSR experienced. What has to be kept in mind, however, is that the populations of Eastern Europe had something of a history of struggling for personal and religious freedoms. The people of the Middle East do not have that to look back to as an example and incentive.
The U.S. military can re-learn the tactical lessons for fighting insurgencies, but military tactics can only ever hold the ground against such movements after they reach a certain size in popular and material support. Also, the U.S. military can directly interdict Iran’s nuclear weapons development program, but that will only ever slow them, not stop them. After that, only non-military means have any chance of making permanent changes in those countries. The populations and leaders of Iran, Iraq, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, etc. have to want to live in peace with their neighbors and the world.
The next questions are: Do we, as Americans, have the patience to work for the next half-century on the Islamic fundamentalist problem like we did with communism? Are we willing to spend the money and lives that the struggle will take, or, will we withdraw from the Middle East and the Third World where the theocrats are staking their claims? The theocrats believe that we’re materially corrupt and morally weak and that we will cede the battle to them if they are willing to outlast us.
Funny how liberals who profess outrage at birdhunting don’t care how many birds are killed by windmills.
SGM, for the most part I agree with your conclusion but I think that there are some errors in your analysis.
First, though, you may have hit upon a significant weakness that the West can exploit against Islamic fundies. If the divide is so great between Shia’ism and Wahabbi’ism then perhaps we should work to incite an internecine conflict. In essence, this is what al-Zarqawi did to sink our efforts in Iraq.
I understand that the Wahabbi’ist monarchy in Saudi Arabia is pressuring Bush to intervene to stop the slaughter in Lebanon. The Saudis probably aren’t overly concerned about the Lebanese “collateral damage.” They’re more concerned about the ultimate strengthening of Hizbollah in the aftermath of the destruction of Lebanon.
Of course, this level of sophisticated analysis is plainly beyond the capabilities of the buffoons currently in charge of American foreign policy.
You draw the parallel to the Cold War. Essentially the US and USSR waged hot proxy wars around the globe but never directly attacked each other. Therefore, the American populace eventually grew to adapt to the existential threat of nuclear annihilation.
Yet, with 9/11, we’ve been bloodied. Apparently, it’s only a matter of time until we’re bloodied again. I don’t think that Americans are willing to be as patient when mass death actually lurks in the homeland.
Also, with the exception of the Marine barracks bombing of Beirut and the attack on the US embassy in Teheran, I’m not aware of Hisbollah acting against the US.
Perhaps the presence of US troops is as much offending a territorial imperative as representing a threat to Islam from the Christian West. AQ’s beef has always been that infidel troops defile the holy land of SA. Hizbollah ushered us out of their turf, Lebanon, with the barracks bombing.
I have circled around to bud’s citation of The Foundation Trilogy. We’d be a lot better off fighting smarter rather than harder.
RTH:
I’d like to think that the errors are more in the line of an incomplete explanation, but… It did seem like I was blathering on a bit too much at the time and was in danger of not making any rational points at all.
The idea of fostering the divide between fundamental Shia and Sunni Muslims has some attractiveness at its face value, however, I believe that they are two sides of the same coin, if you will. Their practical distinction for U.S. foreign policy is that the Shia variety is overtly state sponsored (Iran) and the Sunni is tolerated and encouraged by the Arab autocracies (for their own reasons).
Both varieties would like to ultimately impose their thecratic beliefs on the entire world (after the Middle East). Their root causes have more in common than not, and it’s these causes that must be changed if a lasting solution is to be found. (That is a solution short of genocide.)
I do agree with your observation re the Saudis. Their initial opposition to the Hezbollah attack was undoubtable caused by a fear of Hezbollah’s (and more pointedly, Iran’s) gaining strength in the Gulf region. However, as the Israeli offensive in southern Lebanon continues, Arab man-on-the-street opinion and protest grows. The Arab autocracies will exploit (and actively foster through their state controlled media) that opinion and excoriate Israel for its actions. (This is actually happening now, just under-reported in the U.S.)
The continuation of the hostilities between Israel and the Hezbollah plays into the hands of the Arab autocrats, though, a materially weakened (though media enhanced) Hezbollah and a renewed, evil Zionist Israel. The Arab protest to the contrary are, IMO, just so many alligator tears.
It is pandering to (and encouraging) this Arab hatred of Israel that the Arab autocracies use to deflect public attention from dissatifaction with domestic life in the Gulf “kingdoms.” Essentially, the Arab autocrats indulge the theocrats (Sunni Wahabis) in order to consolidate their control. (Think of how the Catholic church supported the power of the Devine Right monarchies of the European Middle Ages.)
The internal situation is, of course, somewhat different in Iran where the theocrats have total political, economic, military, and social control.
The parallels to the Cold War are only valid up to a point, as you rightly point out. The main difference is, as you put it, “we’ve been bloodied” by our enemies. One can hope that the American populace of today doesn’t grow complacent towards the goals of the groups that advocate Sharia Law for the whole world.
My points, though, with the Cold War parallels were: 1. That the present conflict will be a generational one, and that we must be ready to wage it over a generational time span; and 2. That ultimate victory is only achievable by forces indigenous to the lands which have spawned the terrorists, i.e. those populations and their leaders have to want to live in peace with the rest of the world.
Another parallel might be drawn with your observation about proxy conflicts. You are correct when you point out that Hezbollah has carried out very few attacks directly against U.S. interests (although I believe that there have been more than just the two you cite).
However, one could look at it as if the U.S. and Iran have been fighting a proxy war using Israel and the Hezbollah for about two decades (since the overthrow of the Shaw). It is almost certain that most of the Iranian leaders (and large numbers in the Arab world) view the situation thusly. (Bearing in mind the distinction between the Persians and the Arabs, the “Great Satin” is a common enemy.)
Having said all that, though, the Gulf Arab autocrats toss and turn in bed at night having nightmares about the “Persian Bomb.” An atomic Iran is one of their worst fears since the Iranians would then be able to dictate the entire region’s behavior. This is perhaps an diplomaticly exploitable difference, and surely the reason why the Arabs would allow us (at least secretly) to carry out a military attack against the Iranians if it came to it.
Finally, the U.S. has no significant (only a handful of advisors) military presence in Saudi Arabia anymore which has taken the wind out of AQ’s the “infidels on holy land” argument. Of course, this has been changed (as all good propaganda themes do) to “colonialism” and “U.S. imperialism” in the region.
As Asimov said: smarter, not harder.
SGM, some thought provoking points. I’ll have to re-read it to fully digest it all. I’m not sure any explaination, no matter how informed or well thought out can capture all the many nuances of the middle-east. There are just too many factions with too many interests, both religious and secular. For someone with the limited understanding of the region as George W. Bush, overly simplistic foreign policy decisions are made regarding this complex region. The result is what we see in Iraq. An attempt to foster freedom and democracy along western style lines, when the people themselves don’t view the world in the same way. Hence we have what is viewed as American Imperialism.
Bill Clinton’s instincts were far better in dealing with these complexities. Many on the right have focused on his failures. But overall, his policies (and his 3 predecessors, Carter, Reagan and Bush Sr.) were moving the region in the right direction. All four men made mistakes but overall some progress was made. But what gains were made over the last 25 years of the 2th century have been squandered during the first 5 of the 21st.
This failure needs to be recognized and on election day rectified. We absolutely must vote for men and women who will pull our troops out of Iraq and begin anew the diplomatic overtures of the late 20th century. Diplomacy with moderate factions, regardless of their religious affiliation, is the only long-term solution for dealing with the radicals. Only then can real security be achieved.
SGM, I’ve killed a bird in preparation for an augury.
The entrails indicate that this Fall a terrorist attack will succeed against the US. Whether the attack occurs in the US mainland or abroad is a bit fuzzy.
However, the perpetrators will assuredly be linked to Hezbollah.
This will accomplish two goals: (1) Rove will play the GOP war card to forestall the impending Republican electoral meltdown; and (2) Dear Leader will use it as a pretext to directly attack Iran.
I sure hope that I’m wrong but it serves this administration’s goals so completely that it has to be an attractive option for this desperate crew.
Bill Clinton’s instincts were to avoid dealing with the Mideast, even while his advisors shouted at him to snap out of his poll-driven paralysis. Bush’s 38-nation coalition is left to clean up Clinton’s mess.
RTH,
I didn’t have much use for Clinton either but nowhere near like this insanity you just posted. You guys are so consumed by BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) that it’s just pathetic.
BTW, can you name the terrorist organization that before 9/11 killed more Americans than any other?
Why doesn’t Bush just redistrict the whole Mid East and then send over a sh!tload of drug-addicted, blathering, wingnut radio show hosts to blanket the airwaves?
Isn’t that the way Republicans usually win things?
There are a lot of folks who sense a mood like that of the 1930s with folks willfully ignoring a growing threat. Iran has been at war with the West since at least 1983:
Their terror strategy succeeded!
As I wrote on another of Brad’s links, current and past Iranian leaders would welcome the destruction of Israel by Islamic nuclear weapons, and that wild and wacky Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has added the the twist of his devout belief in the return of the “occulted” or 12th imam and cataclysmic events that will hasten it.
But something has changed. One dog is not barking, the Sunni Arab world. At an emergency Cairo meeting of the 18 Arab League nations’ foreign ministers right after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon began, the incredible happened:
Then there is the matter of the fatwa recently issued regarding the Lebanese invasion. What makes this one unusual is that it’s against Hizbullah
Some suspect (hope?) Bush has designs on Iran. In the July 13, 2006 edition of the Washington Post Robert Kagan begins his column like this:
You should read the whole column, but the punch line is that he’d do nothing different from what he’s doing right now.
RTH forgot to mention the October surprise theory where Bush presents OBL dead or alive. We have him in custody now on artificial life support saving him for the big election tilter.
Mike C. – You are spot on – Bush is actually taking it to the Muzzies just like the Israelis are doing it in Lebanon. And just like Gaddafi gave up his nuclear exploits, the others are watching to see if the good guys win and how they will react. If the left gets control and does it’s cut and run act, America will pay for it 1000 times over the cost of Iraq.
RTH,
Poor bird. It would have ended its life better plucked and fried than as political road-kill. If it’s not too late, maybe you can put it to better use. (You did say “in preparation for an augury.” Perhaps the carcass is still fresh?)
Ravens being in short supply on this side of the Atlantic, I can only hope, then, that it’s a suitable substitute for the traditional fowl of the black arts- a crow.
Bon appetit.
Mike C.,
Do you agree with the sentiment expressed by Robert Kagin? Unless George W. Bush has some incredible sixth sense that the rest of us can’t possibly understand there most certainly will be plenty of international crises to deal with in 2009. The problems with Iran, Iraq, Syria, Hezbollah and North Korea are all far, far worse now than they were in 2001. And getting worse all the time. Iran continues to develop Nuclear weapons. Korea is inching closer to succeeding in it’s missle program. Combined with Nukes we are on the verge of a real crises there. Syria is as beligerent as ever. And Iraq. Can anyone really see a solution there by 2009? Even Bush himself conceeded the next president would have to “finish” the job.
Let’s see how this all plays out. But right now it does not look promising. And with teenage children, without the connections of the president, I’m none too happy with the way things are going. I plan to vote for democrats to help Bush in his decision making process.
I just read the Kagan article. Briefly what Kagan is suggesting is that Bush is intentionally pursuing a diplomatic course of action with Iran that he knows will fail. This is a calculated effort to show the world that all peaceful solutions were exhausted prior to launching a military strike.
There are many flaws with his theory but the biggest is time. Bush simply does not have the time to dither away at a diplomatic solution he knows will fail. Not only does he have limited time in office but the Iranians are inching ever closer to success in their nuclear program. If Bush is really intent on not leaving his successor an international crises he has to move quickly. Nice article but it really is not very practical.
The most interesting point in the Kagan article is that it is predicated on the assumption that there is no reasonable chance for a diplomatic solution. If this is true, then the alternative must be the application of some kind of force.
Experience has shown the ultimate futility of trying to impose unilateral embargos, so there also doesn’t seem to be any meaningful, forceful economic options either.
If military force is the only recourse, then I have to fall back on my earlier assertion that it can only ever be a delaying tactic vis a vis Iranian nuclear weapons development. At best it can only temporarily disrupt their long-term efforts and at worst it can strengthen the regime’s hold on the Iranian people.
The question begs: what then is the diplomatic follow-up and long term foreign policy strategy to any such military action against Iran?
Mike, in the SAME article you linked to about the fatwa against Hezbollah, you find this:
********************************************
There have been daily demonstrations in support of Hizbullah around the region, including in predominantly Sunni and generally pro-western countries like Jordan.
Even the Saudi government, which initially condemned Hizbullah for sparking the fighting by kidnapping two Israeli soldiers in “uncalculated adventures,” backed down and said it warned the United States the region would be headed toward war unless Washington halted the Israeli attacks.”
********************************************
As well as an observation that the fatwa reflects a view of Shi’ites as heretics (suggesting that it may be no more than an manifestation of sectarian differences) and an observation that a similar fatwa a couple of weeks ago provoked a storm of opposition and support for Hizbollah.
The article makes it sound like the fatwa is the futile attempt of one guy (who may simply be motivated by sectarian rivalry) to stem a rising tide. Basically, the message of the article is the opposite of the message you take from it. But of course, that’s a frequent result of dishonesty and stupidity; you see what you want to see, rather than what’s there.
As to Mary’s point, there’s a whole lot of heterogeneity going on in the Middle East right now, that’s what is unusual: there is not a united front aligned against Israel. Many indigenous folks are concerned about the two extremist militant groups Hizbullah (Shia) and Al Qaeda(Sunni). This is allowing Israel a lot of time to clear out some weeds in Lebanon, a task they’ve found a lot harder than they’d estimated.
Are there demonstrations in favor of Hizbullah and against Israel? Sure, even in the US. The bad guys in general have a great PR machine and have sympathizers or useful idiots who will bend, twist, and tie-into-knots the truth. There is at least one confirmed case of a doctored photograph disseminated by an international news service. Or take Qana. We now know that Israeli air strikes killed 28 people in that massacre; how many know that the strike was in response to the 150 missiles launched from there to Israel? What is “proportionality” and who’s violating international law? It’s foolish to argue that the Israelis are as culpable as the rest. There are a lot of folks who study the matter for a living and see lots of possibilities.
The NorKs are a tough nut because they have substantial conventional forces that could readily destroy South Korea in days. What the NorKs had been doing was playing the intimidated South Koreans off against the Japanese, the US, Russia, and China. The last two have mixed motives, but providing a group grope lessens the possibility that one party will offer too much. But what makes it all really hard is that the NorKs probably really do have nukes. The US has recently tightened the screws on the NorKs by targeting counterfeiting operations and shutting down banking connections that are essential to the NorK’s finances. This is interesting and could blow up soon.
The purpose of that digression was to point out that we have far more options with Iran as long as Iran does not have nuclear weapons. Some folks still believe that there’s a chance that a popular uprising could unseat the government: the Supreme Leader and the President. What’s clear is that there’s not a lot of time and that the Iranians may have an interesting sense of humor importing uranium 238 from the same mine that fueled the Hiroshima bomb.
Speaking of Hiroshima, today is the 61st anniversary of that horific day.
Mike you write:
Are there demonstrations in favor of Hizbullah and against Israel? Sure, even in the US. The bad guys in general have a great PR machine and have sympathizers or useful idiots who will bend, twist, and tie-into-knots the truth. There is at least one confirmed case of a doctored photograph disseminated by an international news service.
This sounds a whole lot like the Rove propaganda machine here in the U.S. Have you seen the ad from Senator Dewine from Ohio that depicts the World Trade Center burning. He’s trying to use scare tactics against his moderate democratic opponent to suggest he’d be soft on the terrorists. The ad was doctored (for some inexplicable reason) to show the SOUTH tower of the WTC burning while the North tower was still intact. Of course the North tower was hit first. If you want to talk propaganda the championship here clearly belongs to the right-wing spin machine led by Rove, Limbaugh and Hannity.
About the DeWine ad:
“This particular image is impossible,” says W. Gene Corley, a stuctural engineer who led the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s building performance study of the World Trade Center after the attacks. Corley reviewed the ad at http://www.brownvotes.com for U.S. News. “The north tower was hit first, [so] the south tower could not be burning without the north tower burning.” Corley says. “The smoke is all wrong.” The day of the attacks, the plumes of ash were drifting to the southeast. “The smoke on 9/11 was never in a halo like that,” he added.
DeWine’s office acknowledged the error. “The senator was unaware that the image of the towers was a graphic representation and has instructed the campaign to replace the footage with a picture of the twin towers,” his office said in a statement on Wednesday evening.
DeWine spokesman Brian Seitchik says the image of the burning towers in the ad was a still photo with computer-generated smoke added.”
This shows just how far the republicans will stoop to maintain power. A doctored photo of the WTC in order to paint your opponent as weak on defense. Everyone on the right should immediately condemn this behavior. It is simply unconscionable the things these people do.
bud –
You’re right to call Dewine and his folks to account for misleading the public. But your charge that my analysis of the bad guys’ use of distortions and any assists they might get from useful idiots sounds like a Rove’s propaganda machine is quite interesting, reflecting, perhaps, the impact of war-making on domestic politics.
There are several examples of doctored photographs that exaggerate damage in Lebanon. My guess is that a “journalist” with sympathies for Hizbullah is creating the fakes, the news service is carrying them, and no other journalists are looking for fabrications. I don’t know how that involves Rove, but I do know how that involves the anti-Rovian forces who see him as some evil genius who makes Democrats, especially the far-lefties, look like idiots.
I have bad news: the Democrats make themselves look like idiots. When the NorKs were threatening to test a missile, and finally did launch a big one along with some shorter range models last month, with Iranians witnessing the tests, Maddy Albright and her minions were all over the airways complaining that it was all Bush’s fault for not following the process that they’d set in motion. Whoever set the process in motion, it was a failure, the NorKs started cheating as soon as the ink dried. That type of foreign policy — a mixture of realpolitik and the avoidance of confrontation at any cost — no longer works, if it ever did, but especially today with the low cost and high lethality of WMD. Bush is using muscle against the NorKs and others because he does not want to manage the problem, he wants to end it.
This proactive approach is distasteful to most with a diplomatic bent, but is worthy of serious discussion. There are many Republicans who find it wrong-headed. Yet the shallowness of the pundits’ tirades on cable, Sunday morning news shows, and op-ed pages is appalling. The few Democrats who have been somewhat coherent — Bill Richardson, Ed Koch, and Joe Lieberman — stand out because they are exceptions. On the matter of the NorKs, Richardson has been hard on the Bush Administration, but in a tone that’s coherent, nuanced, and sensitive to the issues at hand. Koch warns the Bush administration to move on to Iran and watch out for China. As for Joe, the last honest man is targeted by Democrats for being true to himself. He is by no means a Bush-supporter, making his decisions on principal, not politics.
With few advocates of a strong foreign policy, the Democrats look like a defeatist party. As such, they will be susceptible to charges of being soft on the threats that face the nation. Many Republicans could cite the Democrat Party line on missile defense, an issue that arose with the recent NorK tests. The Japanese are more willing to spend their own money on systems that the Democrats won’t fund. That’s bizarre, but the Dems seem bent on letting a strange defenseless foreign policy overrule common sense and the threats that face our nation. This is sad.
Bud,
the Dewine campaign was wrong in using that photo and they have corrected the mistake. However, quibbling about that specific photo in no way changes the fact that it’s substantively correct. Two airplanes did hit the two towers, both towers did burn and subsequently collapse. Bad photo – good facts.
The Hezbollywood propaganda on the other hand purports to show terrible things that in truth either never happened or certainly didn’t happen the way they are portrayed. Bad photos – bad facts.
Geez, people, the solution is simple. See, what they really need to do is to get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit, and it’s over.
kc –
Short, sweet, accurate.
To be precise, I’d add Iran, the financier and manager. Syria provides logistics and technical support, probably also paid for by Iran.
Except that the devil is in details. How exactly do you propose getting Syria and Iran to stop when they don’t want to stop?
Just think how much worse it would be if we hadn’t toppled Saddam in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Hezbollah and Hamas are trying to demonstrate to Syria and Iran that they will give them their money’s worth. Iran wants to play up to the Shiites in Iraq, and convince the grunt Arabs that it is the new power since Saddam was dragged out of his spider hole, and Bin Laden was driven into his spider hole.
Mike, I just love it when Republicans share their wisdom about what a “principled” Democrat Joe L. is.
Contrary to Kagan’s belief, insisting on maintaining a mistaken position after events have proven you mistaken isn’t proof of “principles.” It’s arguably proof of stiff-necked stupidity.
Attacking your party, whose base like most of the American people has recognized the error of invading Iraq, isn’t generally considered party loyalty. And, if you’re looking for a party loyalist, Joe has come up lacking on numerous issues during the Cheney-Bush regime: voting for Alito, voting for Gonzales, voting for the Cheney energy plan, voting for the Big Pharma welfare bill disguised as help for seniors, and supporting Republicans attempt to finally gut Social Security.
Additionally, he publically scolded his fellow Democrats for daring to act as a loyal opposition party rather than Dear Leader’s rubber stamp.
Since Joe’s “principles” attract endorsements from Sean Hannity, Tom Delay, George Bush and yourself maybe he’s just running in the wrong primary.
Since almost every other Democrat also voted several times for war with Iraq, is Joe Lieberman bad because he doesn’t change stripes according to who is in the White House?
Integrity and putting nation before party really are cause to be hated by hard-core Democrats.
Mike, perhaps mistakes were made by Clinton and Albright with regard to North Korea. But the Bush Administration has greatly exacerbated the situation. Ending a specific threat rather than containing it is far easier said than done. And Bush certainly is not the man to do it. He simply lacks the tact, discipline or intelligence to deal with the complexities of the world. He managed to throw away all the goodwill the U.S. had after 9-11. Even Iran condemed that attack.
All you have to do is look at numbers. During the Clinton years we had 6 American citizens die on American soil as the result of foreign terrorist attacks. If you count the Murrah building terrorists claimed about 200 lives. Several more died in Africa and on the Cole. And then there was the Black Hawk Down incident. And yes, Osama was still on the loose.
On the positive side Clinton advanced the cause of peace in the Balkins and the Middle-east. Both regions were remarkably quite at the end of his tenure. North Korea was by no means the only nation to violate the light-water reactor agreement. In fact the Republican congress broke the agreement first. So in effect we don’t know what might have happened. But there was movement toward peace. The 2 Koreas were exchanging family visits. North Korea did not break the seals on it’s plutonium reactors and inspectors were keeping a watchful eye on the place. As we now know Iraq was of absolutely no threat to the U.S. They had no WMD. They had no connections with AQ. Peace was slowly but surely flourishing throughout the world.
So what has happened since? Despite repeated warning from Clinton adminstration officials including Richard Clarke, the Bush adminstration completely ignored numerous warning about the danger of AQ. Clinton had learned, belatedly its true, but learned nonetheless, that Osama was a very serious threat. Bush ignored these warnings. Perhaps, just perhaps, 9-11 could have been averted if our defense secretary had taken these warning seriously and not focused so much on pie in the sky, and largely useless, weapons systems and 3000 people would be alive today. The missle defence system you cite is nothing but a hoax on the American people. It is not going to work to prevent any concerted attack. It is just a sham. And let’s not forget the nearly 3000 who have died in Afghanastan and Iraq. All these lives may have been saved with a vigilant leader at the helm.
As for Iran. Well there was even a glimmer of hope there during the Clinton years. Bush ended that and has certainly galvanized the leadership there with his Axis of Evil threats. The invasion of Iraq has further stirred up the region. In effect the last 5+ years have seen a stunning deterioration of events abroad. And I do mean stunning. And it’s all the fault of the man at the top. To blame Clinton for this mess is to ignore facts. George W. Bush is will evenutally be regarded as the worst president in American History. He is quite simply that bad, period.
Only a faulty bomb design – not Clinton – kept Bin Laden from killing 20,000 in 1993 with his attack on the World Trade Center
And right after Clinton left office, his inattention to Bin Laden cost us 3,000 deaths on American soil, to add to the hundreds murdered by Bin Laden all over the world while Clinton was hiding in his office for 8 years.
Clinton and Gore gave the rocket guidance technology to Red China. China is helping build rockets for North Korea.
Clinton and Gore gave Red China the Silicon Graphics supercomputers so they could simulate nuclear tests. Instead, they used them to build better bombs, and tested them successfully, laughing in Clinton’s face.
But they did pay a lot of illegal campaign money to Clinton and Gore for those secrets.
Democrats took out the moderates in Iraq who were being empowered by medicine deals with Reagan. Just as today, their political goals of attacking a Republican president came at any price, including sabotaging reform in Iraq, and empowering the radicals who toppled the Shah thanks to Jimmuh Cartah.
A real bunch of foreign policy losers.
bud sez:In effect the last 5+ years have seen a stunning deterioration of events abroad. And I do mean stunning. And it’s all the fault of the man at the top.
Oh, bud! Nothing is ever the fault of Dear Leader– or any of his cronies.
Don Rumsfeld and his neo-con pals ignore Gen. Shinseki (sp?) and a slew of foreign policy experts by sending in too few troops; disbanding the Iraqi army; and, allowing chaos to break out. Consequently our troops are sitting ducks in the middle of a civil war.
Rummy’s attitude? A nonchalant “s**t happens, I never promised you a rose garden.” (Oh, but he did in Senate testimony!)
Rummy remains in charge, calling the shots in Iraq. Unbelievable.
Cheney basically tells his chief of staff to out a CIA WMD operative for political revenge. Cheney pressures the CIA to support bogus intel to justify the Iraqi invasion. Cheney shoots a man but neglects to report it to authorities for over 24 hours.
He’s still a heartbeat away from becoming president and cease pretending to be second bannana.
Tenet assures Dear Leader that the WMD are a “slam dunk.” He gets a sweet retirement and a medal.
This is the party of personal responsibility, don’t you know.
bud sez:To blame Clinton for this mess is to ignore facts.
They even admit that they have their own reality.
bud sez:George W. Bush is will eventually be regarded as the worst president in American History. He is quite simply that bad, period.
Only the Republican control of the House stands in the way of most rational people coming to that conclusion NOW.
RTH,
do you have any idea how tiresome it is to have to refute the same old tired rantings and ravings that have been refuted a zillion times before? Every last “point” of yours is absolutely bogus, most multiple times over. Can’t you come up with something a little more original and truthful?
BTW, since we’re only 15 days away, do you know what will happen on the 22nd?
CBS and NBC perfected (or are trying to) the art of “making” news and doctoring the facts. REmember the fake explosion of the car on NBC? And the classic was the Burkett, Mapes, and Rather fabricated military documents. Hey, they may have been fake but they were accurate! The leftist media could have taught Goebels a few things.
RTH –
I was not criticizing the Clinton / Carter / Albright policy with 20/20 hindsight. At the time it seemed weak, but it may have been the best possible at the time given the screwy short guy in charge. I was criticizing their very political attack on current policy by pretending that their approach was somehow superior. I don’t think that SecState Rice will be dancing with junior any time soon.
As for Lieberman, the Democrats are of course free change their minds and toss the guy who was their VP candidate six years ago. But the party itself can’t succeed if it is seen as only being against things, like missile defense or whatever Bush does, it has to be for something.
You overview of the past 14 years of foreign policy is interesting. It’s a fact that Clinton was unable to bring peace to the Middle East. I’m not dumping on him for that, simply noting that you’ve glossed over the facts. Ditto for the Balkans. Again that’s a rough area where Clinton intervened to stop the bloodshed, leading the Europeans who had been paralyzed. Things are still rumbling their, but that’s the nature of the beast in that area. My point is that calling that area a success is not yet warranted. You neglected Rwanda, but I never brought that up and note that the whole world ignored that too.
As for the rest of your tirade, you overlook little things like the Proliferation Security Initiative the US-organized band of almost twenty nations (including France!) that’s interdicting WMD on the high seas. There’s also been a slight change in Libya and humanitarian support to Africa. But we live in interesting times.
Mike, You’re absolutelty right about one point. Rwanda was Bill Clinton’s biggest foreign policy failure. He could have done far more to help that destitute region. I don’t want to come across as a Bill Clinton groupie. I don’t think the opposite is true from the other side. For some reason the right, read Lex/Lee/Dave, simply won’t acknowledge any mistakes by W.
My only point is that Clinton was doing a pretty good job with a very difficult and complex set of circmumstances. And some slow progress was being achieved and I believe that overall the world was a better place when he left office that when he started.
Lexie, do you know how tiresome your denial of reality is?
Maybe you mistake the rantings on Little Green Footballs, Captains Quarters, Powerline and Free Republic for accurate accounts of history.
If the Dems win the House this fall, orange jumpsuits should be the mandatory fashion for many of your heroes.
I forgot to mention the best example of evading “personal responsibility:” Dear Leader petulantly dismisses the 8/06/01 PDB as “ass covering.” He doesn’t even send a copy to the FBI.
Apologists claim that Bush failed to put security agencies on alert because the “Bin Laden determined to strike in the US” headline didn’t include the time, place and method of attack.
Non-partisan Americans actually think that the CnC in direct command of a least a dozen intel agencies and numerous branches of the armed forces should be more proactive.
Speaking of “tiresome:”
“People tend to become “independent of reality” in these circumstances, opinion analyst Steven Kull says.
The reality in this case is that after a 16-month, $900 million-plus investigation, the U.S. weapons hunters known as the Iraq Survey Group declared that Iraq had dismantled its chemical, biological and nuclear arms programs in 1991 under U.N. oversight. That finding in 2004 reaffirmed the work of U.N. inspectors who in 2002-03 found no trace of banned arsenals in Iraq.
RTH, The so-called “liberal” media has failed to properly inform the public of the truth on the WMD situation in Iraq. The whole notion of a liberal bias in the media is simply too ridiculous at this point to even be considered rational thought.
Mike C says:
As for Lieberman, the Democrats are of course free change their minds and toss the guy who was their VP candidate six years ago.
It’s called democracy. When an elected representative ceases to champion what the voters (and party) espouse then they have the right to replace him– no matter what he did in the past.
Mike C says:
But the party itself can’t succeed if it is seen as only being against things, like missile defense or whatever Bush does, it has to be for something.
Nice rendition of the GOP talking point but you conveniently omit the fact that the GOP has systematically and purposely shut the Dems out of any role in governing.
The Dems are generally “for” many positive policies which the Repubs have been working overtime to destroy: clean air, clean water, national parks, Social Security, constitutional checks and balances, protecting constitutional rights, a living wage…
Given the Repub onslaught and their refusal to compromise on almost every single issue, the Dems are forced to play defense to limit the damage inflicted… for the time being.
bud, even Bill Kristol has admitted that the “liberal media” meme was a canard concocted to “work the refs.”
It’s just the foot solidiers who faithfully drink the purple kool-aid and continue to believe fervently.
We wouldn’t be in the Iraqi quagmire if the media had done it’s job properly.
The fact that 85% of editors, news producers, columnists and news anchors polled call themselves “liberal”, “progressive” or “socialist” is not a canard. It is a basic truth.
George Bush has spent several times as much on alternative energry production and new clean fuels than the combined spending of Clinton, Carter, Johnson and JFK.
He wanted to spend more, but the Democrats blocked passage of shifting funds to research from outdated pork programs.
Before I bow out for a good while, I would like to share this: for those who are interested in a good evangelical Christian perspective on what’s needed in Lebanon should read this article by Elie Hasbani, a Lebanese Christian who was also caught in the cycle of hate. His new church membership is in one of the finest evangelical congregations in this country, with members from 50+ ethnic groups in Milwaukee. It is an offshoot of Elmbrook church in the Milwaukee area, whose founding pastor’s radio and Internet ministry is top notch. Especially those who have been turned off by evangelicals in the past might want to give these folks a chance.
RTH – Nice rendition of the GOP talking point but you conveniently omit the fact that the GOP has systematically and purposely shut the Dems out of any role in governing.
I did not write what I did because they were talking points, but because I believe they are true. As I have written elsewhere although I am conservative, I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the Republican Party. I’m an unaligned conservative Groucho Marxist, refusing to join any organization that would have people like me as members.
But please, locked out? Sure, especially in the House, the Dems have been the bug to Hastert’s windshield, but on many matters the Dems have simply said “no” without offering an alternative. Social Security is but one example. And if the Japanese are purchasing ballistic missile defense components from the US, why do the Dems want to shut that program down?
I truly would like to see Lieberman get reelected to the Senate – he’s a valuable contributor to that chamber. Certainly the Democrat Party and voters in Connecticut will make the call; August is a lousy time to have a primary, so a minority of voters will do the selecting. Not only does Lamont have no legislative experience, some folks, like Martin Peretz, think that he’s a dream come true for Karl Rove. Cokie Roberts does too. I was trying to be helpful, but two pretty savvy political observers see a Lieberman loss dooming the Dems for several election cycle. Have it your way.
Herb –
Great link.
I’m trying to be supportive and therefore remind all that while most folks are sheep — kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident — there are wolves out there that feed on the sheep without mercy. That’s why we need sheepdogs, beings that live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.
Good luck to you. Stop by occasionally.
RTH –
Here’s a column on how Senator Harry Reid is doing his best to produce a do-nothing Congress. Over in the House, Nancy Peolosi is doing the same durn thing.
I’ve no idea whether or not it will prove beneficial to Democrats come November, but it does show that the Dems do have a say, and they like to say “No!”. No?
Marty Peretz is classmate, college chum, and lifelong pal of Al Gore. His attacks on Lieberman are in synch with Al Gore, and tell us how radical Gore has become.
Bud, you said above that Warthen isn’t a coward; it’s nice of you to try to think well of everyone, but you’re mistaken.
Look at what Warthen actually does and says, without being overpowered by your commendable desire to give him the benefit of the doubt. Warthen advocates costly sacrifices for other people, but he doesn’t even pay enough into the federal treasury to cover what he takes out of it. He has indulged his chickenhawk, racist fantasies for over three years now. According to him, the United States military was going to spread freedom and democracy through the lands occupied by dark-skinned people, and give everyone a pony.
None of that happened. EVERYTHING that Warthen said should be done was done, and EVERYTHING failed.
What is Warthen’s response?
Is he man enough to admit that anything he said was wrong?
Is he man enough to admit that the opponents of the war, who have been proven right in every detail, had better insight than he did?
Is he man enough to apologize for the deaths of over 2500 U.S. soldiers, and the waste of hundreds of billions of U.S. tax dollars, caused by trying to put his racist, chickenhawk fantasies into practice?
No.
He doesn’t admit any responsibility for the failure of the course of action he advocated, he doesn’t admit any error, and he certainly doesn’t admit that he has any responsibility for shouldering any portion of the burden he created, whether by encouraging his relatives and acquaintances to risk their lives, or even by making an extra donation to the federal treasury, so that what he puts into it at least matches what he takes out of it.
No, Warthen claims that the failure of his fantasies comes from a Dolchstoss von hinten, delivered not by himself and the others who urged this disastrous course, but by those who pointed out, accurately, that it would be disastrous.
Even more appallingly, he claims that the reason for the failure of the course of action he advocated is due to the unwillingness of the United States to kill enough dark-skinned people.
So he has abandoned his original argument, without being man enough to admit that he is abandoning it. He has quit advocating the spread of democracy in the Middle East, he has quit advocating doing anything to benefit the people in the Middle East, he has instead begun advocating the indiscriminate slaughter of as many dark-skinned people as possible.
Of course, once again, none of the risks or burden of undertaking the slaughter are to be borne by him.
Look at Warthen’s conduct with clear eyes, look at what he’s really done and said, and explain to me how he isn’t a coward.
I can’t help thinking how much the behavior of the advocates of the Iraq war, and the result of their behavior, reminds me of “Bartholomew and the Oobleck,” but with one very, very important difference.
Mary, while I agree 100% that everything proposed by BW regarding Iraq has both been implemented and failed I think it’s going too far to accuse him of cowardice. He’s just wrong on this issue. But Brad if you really do believe this is a war worth fighting you should advocate a big tax increase to pay for the tools we need to fight it.
There are two political positions that really annoy me. One is the undying support for a war without proposing personal sacrifice. In Brad’s case he should offer to increase his own taxes to pay for it. And, if he has children he should support a draft that would put them at risk. War requires sacrifice and risk. Without these two elements all we have is a sham war.
The second position is advocacy of an abortion ban that exempts cases of rape and incest. If you believe an unborn child is a human being then don’t make exceptions based on who the father is. That’s an intellectually dishonest position to take.
While Mary ostensibly makes the case (again!) for expanded health and mental health benefits, she and bud really are moving toward a libertarian position where we all get what we can give.
They do this by demanding that no one take or suggest taking more than what he or she has put it. This is a great idea, one that will surely lower federal spending.
I thank you both!
Just as white liberals expect someone else to defend the country, they expect someone else to pay for the spending sprees they invent.
Mike C. I’m really not smart enough to have great ideas. It’s an old idea to pay as you go. For sure we borrowed plenty to pay for WW II but taxes were never cut. My challenge to those of you on the right who want to continue the Iraq debacle, is how do we pay for it and how do we ensure an equitable distribution of risk. With only a couple of exceptions (Joe Wilson being one) there is no one in congress that both supports the war and has a personal stake in it. After 41 months of war it’s time we started addressing this pay/risk issue.
Why don’t the Democrats propose some social programs to abolish to pay for the war?
Instead, the Democrats fought to increase the deficits with $114 BILLION of extra social programs.
Lee, I propose ending the debacle and spending MORE on social programs.
No kidding.
Do you plan to benefit from one of those welfare programs?
Yes. With less crime, pollution and a more productive, prosperous and happier nation, we’ll all benefit.
I don’t think we’ll need to go to war with Iran. As this AP article points out we’re winning the hearts of the Iraqi people which should serve as inspiration for the Iranians to moderate their nuclear ambitions. Just like Mr. Bush said it would. Freedom is on the march!
“BAGHDAD (AP) — Iraq’s prime minister sharply criticized a U.S.-Iraqi attack on a Shiite militia stronghold in Baghdad, exposing a rift with his American partners on security tactics, as 24 people were killed Tuesday in a series of bombings and a shooting.”
Can’t resist one parting shot, Mike. I wasn’t suggesting that there is not a place for those who defend against “wolves.” The link you posted is right on. Police and military are needed, and yes, America sometimes must fight. But it must fight smart. It is not smart just to have a “John Wayne—go in with guns blazing” approach to foreign policy. I think Americans who know the Middle East well, and I mean really well, will not necessarily agree with the “bombs away” approach to the situation that you guys are advocating. The article on Hizbollah in the paper this morning illustrates the point (can’t see the link on the home page, so I am not including it). You may have to end up eradicating whole peoples in order to accomplish your purpose, for the more you and Israel attack, the more anger you cause. I fear that you are driving the problem deeper, while trying to eradicate the symptoms.
Not that I don’t wish America well. I hope its foreign policy works. But our penchant for being ignorant of history and not understanding culture (for example, our tendency to disdain appreciation for the “face-saving” approach of the Middle Easterner as conveying weakness) does not bode well for us. Seeing every situation through a 9/11+Munich/Chamberlain lens may be very one-sided.
It occurred to me that Martin Luther has a lot to say to us here. Not only his teaching on the Two Realms, which shows the legitimacy of the government and military (as well as its limitations), but also his treatise on War against the Turks. Interesting that when I went to this address, I found that church historian Martin Marty agreed with me (felt proud of myself). It is we, who in our ignorance, calling the enemy “scum” and “human feces”, too often reveal our own ignorance and arrogance:
In the end, we can easily become our own worst enemy. And if we insist on calling our enemy “scum,” then it may well be that we have become like them.
I genuinely hope that I am wrong.
Why has the $1.6 TRILLION spent on poverty programs left us with so many more children born out of wedlock, more blacks addicted to alcohol and drugs, more crime, and more illiteracy?
Mike, yes, federal spending would be reduced, and the result for us would be great. We could pave our streets with gold if we wanted, we could fund our own stem cell reasearch, single payer health care, universal education, and on and on and on.
You and other South Carolinians, on the other hand, would be reduced to the lifestyle made possible by your own initiative and industry. The thought is horrible to contemplate.
South Carolina’s infant mortality would be even higher than it is now, traffic deaths would be even higher than they are now, life expectancy would be even shorter than it is now, and the citizens would be even more ignorant than they are now.
“Mary, while I agree 100% that everything proposed by BW regarding Iraq has both been implemented and failed I think it’s going too far to accuse him of cowardice.”
Why?
“He’s just wrong on this issue.”
That isn’t the point. It isn’t that he’s wrong, it’s that he’s too cowardly to ADMIT that he’s wrong, and he blames everyone but himself for the failure of what he proposed, even though EVERYTHING HE PROPOSED has been done EXACTLY AS HE PROPOSED IT, with the sole exception being that he proposed that it be a success, but it failed.
“In Brad’s case he should offer to increase his own taxes to pay for it. And, if he has children he should support a draft that would put them at risk.”
He doesn’t need to increase his taxes, he just needs to send in a check.
And supporting a draft isn’t the right thing to do, because that still pushes the burden off on others. Warthen should do everything he can to get his relatives and acquaintances of military age to put themselves in harm’s way, rather than leaving it to people like Phillip Baucus.
Bud, read “Bartholomew and the Oobleck.” Pay attention to what the king did when his plan turned to disaster. Look at the way Warthen has blamed the disaster caused by his plans on everyone but himself, and tell me if you can imaging his doing what the king did. And then tell me again that Warthen isn’t a coward.
Let’s not just end the redistribution of wealth among states. Let’s end all federal income taxes, and let each INDIVIDUAL raised or reduced to the lifestyle made possible by your own initiative and industry.
Those who are made more wealthy will be more able to donate to the real charities of our choice, which will have an interest in actually solving problems, instead of milking them.
Herb, I am sure Daniel Pearl and that Berg? kid would beg to argue with you about waiting to fight a defensive type war only. Of course, they can’t argue because their heads were sliced off to make a gruesome recruiting video for the murderous subhuman scum and subhuman feces of Al Qaeda. As much as it would be nice to believe we could just sit down and reason with these Moslems, any sane person knows better. I prefer to keep my head and my family members heads intact.
Dave, we couldn’t reason with Timothy McVee, Dylan Clebold or the Unabomber either. But that doesn’t mean we should bomb the home towns where they came from. No, what we need to do is foster good relationships with the moderate factions in the region. Instead we’ve driven many thousands of otherwise peaceful people, just like us, into the arms of the radicals.
Dave, we couldn’t reason with Timothy McVee, Dylan Clebold or the Unabomber either. But that doesn’t mean we should bomb the home towns where they came from. No, what we need to do is foster good relationships with the moderate factions in the region. Instead we’ve driven many thousands of otherwise peaceful people, just like us, into the arms of the radicals.
Dave, we couldn’t reason with Timothy McVee, Dylan Clebold or the Unabomber either. But that doesn’t mean we should bomb the home towns where they came from. No, what we need to do is foster good relationships with the moderate factions in the region. Instead we’ve driven many thousands of otherwise peaceful people, just like us, into the arms of the radicals.
Whoops. Somehow I posted 3 times.
Yes, Bud, you got it.
I mean, you nailed it. Three times is not bad. This crowd needs it three times.
Mike C, I don’t usually agree with MSNBC pundit and former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough.
You probably do.
Check out his take on the Lieberman vs. Lamont election.
A cynic might think that he’s setting up the Dems but he tends to maintain an independence from the rightwing propaganda machine.
‘Why Lieberman’s Loss is the Democrats’ Gain
The conventional wisdom for tonight’s Connecticut primary seems to be that a Joe Leiberman loss will yank the Democratic Party so far left as to make other Democratic candidates unelectable this fall. The logic is laughable and similar to what I heard from Republican leaders in 1994.
That was the election year when the most conservative wing of the GOP took over the party and swept into power in the US Congress.
None would have predicted that outcome just two years earlier.
Seeing every situation through a 9/11+Munich/Chamberlain lens may be very one-sided.
Just as seeing every situation through a Vietnam lens may be very one-sided.
The thing that really gets me about all these oh-so-sophisticated anti-war freaks is this:
1. they would be the first ones to have their heads chopped off if the Islamist fascists ever won.
2. let’s not even talk about the women amongst them. We all know what would happen to them (and our women).
3. all the various “rights”? Pfffft. What do they like better, their “rights” or their heads?
I could go on and on but we wouldn’t even be on this subject right now if the lefties would just use their noggins every so often. What exactly makes them think that they have anything whatsoever in common with the jihadis and what makes them think that those jihadis would hesitate even a second to get rid of them?
RTH,
you’re saddening me because I thought you might have figured out the difference for yourself!
In 1994 the GOP had a very specific Contract With America which won them election. What do the Dems have right now? We-uh-no-be-lik’uh-them-Reps is basically it. I defy you to find an actually innovative Dem proposal that we haven’t heard 10 or 20 times before. In fact, I defy you to find a new Dem idea in the past 30, nay 40, years.
In the Moslem world, any moderate thinking Moslem who would dare negotiate with the Western world becomes an infidel. reference Sadat. As a result, there may be moderates by desire, but no explicit moderates, that live very long anyway. That is the reality. The fiction is that there are “moderate” Hezbollahs that someone can sit down with. That is laughable.
Here are 11 more that we need to sit down and foster good relations with: From ABC News – The FBI has issued an urgent nationwide alert for 11 Egyptian students who entered the United States last week but failed to show up for their courses at Montana State University.
An FBI advisory says there are, at present, no known connections to any terrorist group but that the students are to be “approached with caution” and taken into custody. They “are here illegally and wanted for questioning,” the advisory says.
The advisory comes just over a month before the five-year anniversary of the September 11 terror attacks on the United States.
“This is of very serious concern and is being closely tracked,” said Rep. Peter King (R-NY), Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.
The FBI says the Egyptians arrived at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York on July 29 and disappeared. The advisory says the alert is nationwide but that there is specific concern the Egyptians may be on the Eastern Seaboard.
According to the advisory the 11 missing Egyptians are:
1. Ibrahim, El Sayed Ahmed Elsayed; DOB OF 4/29/1986.
2. El Dessouki, Eslam Ibrahim Mohamed; DOB OF 02/21/1985.
3. El Bahnasawi, Alaa Abd El Fattah Ali; DOB OF 04/02/1986.
4. Abd Alla, Mohamed Ragab Mohamed; DOB OF 02/15/1984.
5. El Laket, Ahmed Refaat Saad El Moghazi; DOB OF 09/01/1986.
6. El Ela, Ahmed Mohamed Mohamed Abou; DOB OF 02/02/1985.
7. El Moghazy, Mohamed Ibrahim Elsayed; DOB OF 08/08/1986.
8. Abdou, Ebrahim Mabrouk Moustafa; DOB OF 02/25/1984.
9. El Gafary, Moustafa Wagdy Moustafa; DOB OF 07/01/1988.
10.Maray, Mohamed Saleh Ahmed; DOB OF 09/12/1985.
11.El Shenawy, Mohamed Ibrahim Fouaad; DOB OF 08/12/1988.
Currently, there are 3,600,000 foreigners who entered the USA on student and work visas, but have failed to leave or register with immigration. They are now illegal aliens, either working illegally under false ID, career criminals, or terrorists financed from abroad. – INS report, MSNBC News, August 7, 2006
Yet again the right wingers point to failures by the Bush Administration. Dave you listed 11 missing Egyption students. Thanks to the failed Bush Administration we’ve squandered billions on a war against a non-threatening nation at the expense of underfunding domestic security. Thanks for pointing that out.
And how is the Democrat yowling for more looser immigration enforcement, more legal protections for arrested terrorists, and abandonment of the civilized Arab world to Islamofascists going to make America safer?
The anti-real security wing of the Democratic party lost a member yesterday. With the defeat of Bush suck-up Leiberman the Democrats can focus on providing Americans with real security and not the phoney scare-tactic baloney pedaled by the neocons. Go Ned Lamont! Perhaps with a few good statesmen, like Lamont, we can begin an engagement policy with the moderates in Iran that will hopefully succeed in toppeling the radicals. Thanks to Bush and Leiberman (or Loserman as he was called in 2000) it may be too late. Heaven help us all.
Now that Gore’s team and other socialist Democrats like Charlie Wrangel worked against their 2000 VP candidate, they will turn around and demand that Lieberman “show party loyalty” by supporting Lamont, who received 7% of the voters ballots.
Lex, the defeat of Barry Goldwater was the nadir for the modern conservative (paleo) Republicans.
While history doesn’t exactly repeat itself, I suspect that Kerry’s loss may be loosely parallel.
Certainly Bush’s corrupt policies, the Republican congress’ imitation of a drunk sailor, and the neo-conservative insistence on starting a global “hot war” have made many American voters ready for “anybody BUT the Republicans.”
The Dems would be wise to carry on many of FDR’s policies (with some updating and spiffing up). Those policies have made possible almost 60 years of unprecedented prosperity, world-wide respect and global power. Contrary to the Republican talking points, the Dems have a variety of new ideas for facing 21st Century problems like the energy crisis and global warming.
What’s so ironic about this particular canard is that the reactionary right is recycling old, rejected ideas in new clothing. What is “Intelligent Design” except anti-scientific creationism re-branded? What is trickle-down economics and economic libertarianism but the latest incarnation of gilded era robber baronism?
As a reminder, the Republicans didn’t have a “Contract on America” from 1964 to 1994, either.
Having experienced a stiff dose of neo-con Republican rule for six years Americans are likely to choose the alternative– unless Rove can pull another terrrorist trifecta from his hat.
Good points all RTH. I should add that much of what the “Contract with America” called for was abandoned by the Republicans once they gained power. When was the last time term limits was discussed? How about the balanced budget ammendment? Much of the rest had strong bi-partisan support. The “Contract with America” was simply a campaign device used by the right to gain control. There is no doubt that the republicans have a far superior marketing machine. The fact that Americans fell for this baloney shows just how powerful the right wing propaganda machine is.
The dems actually have some good ideas but it’s difficult to get their message across when the media is controlled by the right.
Charles Darwin was a believer in “Intelligent Design Theory” for most of his life.
We’ve certainly strayed off message here so let me offer this. The problem we’re faced with today regarding Iran and other radicals in the muslum world is not so much the radical nature of the people in the region as much as it is that we, as a nation governed by the neocons, are pushing hundreds of thousands of moderates into the radical camp. In this case size does matter. The more radicals there are the less likely we are to attain security.
There will always be a faction of radicals that we’ll never be able to deal with.
But instead of focusing on that group of “lost cause” individuals who are hopelessly entrenched in their self-deluded, warped world we should instead be fostering good relations with those that would like to see peace and prosperity flourish in their region. The ham-handed, kill, kill, kill philosophy of the neocons is condemning our country to an endless war of attrition that nobody wins. As I’ve said before Bill Clinton was making some headway during his tenure and the radicals were shrinking in number.
In the days following 9-11 the whole world was on our side. The radicals were in effect marginilized and we had a window of opportunity to further engage the moderates. But Bush, along with enablers like Leiberman, slammed that window shut. Now the radicals are seen by many who would have previously shunned them as the answer to their own security fears. In effect the propaganda machine in the middle east is more effective when the radicals can use American soldiers occupying a nation such as Iraq as a propaganda tool. That is why we absolutely must pull out of there soon. Our continued occupation serves as a catylist for radical recruiters. And Iranian radicals have taken advantage of this new dynamic by pursuing latent nuclear ambitions.
Perhaps, just perhaps, it’s not too late. If we pull out of Iraq we can demonstrate a measure of good-will that might start the healing process. Iran would certainly have less of an excuse to develop nukes if the U.S. was not viewed as an occupying imperialist force. Of course the radicals would still want to stay the course (developing nukes) but the rational thinkers hands would be greatly strengthened if we were to withdraw. The current stay the course approach (in Iraq) will almost certainly smother any hope of enhancing American security over the next decades. It is time that we give peace a chance.
And who was to blame for “pushing hundreds of thousands into the radical Muslim camp” when Jimmy Carter was president?
In the days following 9-11 the whole world was on our side. The radicals were in effect marginilized and we had a window of opportunity to further engage the moderates. But Bush, along with enablers like Leiberman, slammed that window shut.
Oh puhleeze!. We had the world’s sympathy as long as we were a “victim” in victimology terms. As soon as our dead were buried all that faux sympathy disappeared overnight when the world saw that we wouldn’t play victim and would hit back hard instead.
Anyone who truly believes that we ever had the world’s support after 9/11 is truly deluded. Anyone who believes that there is any chance whatsoever of resolving this Islamist fascist problem by talk and negotiation is just not thinking. These Islamist fascists must be totally transformed, one way or the other. Moderates will not be able to do it because the radicals kill them as soon as they gain even a little power.
Lexie, I don’t understand why you don’t just come out and say that you’re in favor of genocide for Muslims.
You’ve pretty much put all the points on the canvas. Now, just connect them honestly.
Heh. Leave it to RTH to come up with such a simplistic suggestion.
Clearly you have missed the fact that I was referring to the minority of Muslims whom we commonly call Islamist fascists. The nutjobs, in other words, the wackos, the radicals, the headchoppers, the suicide bombers, the Hezbo and Hamas types. The ones who have zero respect for the rights of others.
Most Muslims are perfectly fine people and I wouldn’t want any harm to come to them. For the Islamist fascists, though, I’m afraid there can be only two solutions:
1. to lay down their arms and agree to pursue their goals in a peaceful fashion.
2. to hunt them down and kill them before they can kill us.
Yes, it’s a stark choice and one I would rather not have to face but what are your alternatives? Negotiations and talking are only a sign of weakness in their eyes, and they haven’t worked one bit in the past 30 years or so.
What would you do?
Bud, Bill Clinton did make some headway but that was in the oval office with Monica. Look at today’s news with the Brits foiling the terrorist’s plans to bring down 6 or more flights headed for the USA. These people from Londonistan need to be publicly punished but not before they are tortured in Jack Bauer style to make them expose all of their cohorts, their cohort’s brothers, and everyone else who sympathizes with them. Until that is done, more terror will come. This is exactly why Americans will not let the leftists surrender monkeys run national security.
The problem with the right is they think in static terms. If there are X number of terrorists and we kill all of them then the problem is solved. But the world doesn’t work that way. People migrate to the position that affords them the best opportunity to live life on their own terms. Clinton was expanding the group of people who wanted to live in peace and conversely the radicals were on the decline. Had Bush continued with this process the radicals would be fewer in number today. Killing one terrorist may be effective if people view it in self defense terms but if viewed as imperialist occupation its likely to breed 10 new terrorists.
It’s a tricky business but the simpletons on the right are so enamered with killing it’s no wonder that world wide terrorist attacks are up over the last 3 years. Who can honestly say they feel a greater sense of security today than they did in December, 2000? Clearly we’ve gone backwards with Bush at the helm.
Bin Laden stated that Clinton’s cowardice in Somalia and after the embassy bombings in Africa was his greatest recruiting tool, showing that America was soft and yellow.
Clinton was expanding the group of people who wanted to live in peace and conversely the radicals were on the decline.
Really? Would that be those same radicals who during their “decline” spent at least the last 2 years of Clinton’s presidency planning 9/11?
Would anyone be surprised if the NY Times published an apology to the terrorists arrested today for not being able to tip them off as to how they were caught? But they will keep on trying, the Times that is.
Interesting watching the cowardly cut and run crowd on TV now talking about how US intelligence authorities NEED all the weapons we can give them to catch the terrorists. A couple of months ago, these weenies were trying to kill the Patriot Act and whining about us listening to international phone calls. In many ways, these people are the enemy within.
The Patriot Act was originally put together by the Clinton administration, and just rushed through Congress after Sept 11. Democrats who now make outrageous claims about how bad it is are simply liars.
The media, which is 85% liberal Democrat, fly a lot on airplanes, so they have to struggle between their desire to spin away the truth about Islamic terrorism and their desire to stay alive.
Now, after the Brits, Italians, and Pakis have extracted all they can from the horrific murderous Nazi Muslim scum who planned on mass murder, I say let’s put them on one aircraft, handcuff them to their seats, put it on auto pilot. Send it out over the Atlantic and don’t blow it up. Let is run out of fuel, so they have plenty of time to think about hitting the icy depths of 30,000 feet of water filled with sharks. And film it all to show the world. Talk about reality TV. Think of the ratings on that.
Chain gang in Iraq, rebuilding the roads.
That heavens for the British. From Think Progress:
Conservatives have “seized on the arrests of terrorism suspects in Britain yesterday to bolster a White House campaign to turn national security issues to their advantage.”
But as White House officials have admitted — and news reports have verified — the Bush administration apparently had little to do with foiling the potential “second September 11.”
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff:
Well, we think the British succeeded in disrupting the plot. And there’s no question the focal point of the operational activity was in Britain. … Now we really took a lot of our cue from them because they had the boots on ground. They had the firsthand knowledge. [8/10/06]
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales:
Today’s announcement is a true testament to the hundreds of hours of patient work by British authorities. [Gonzales, 8/10/06]
Congressional Quarterly:
[Conservative lawmakers] largely praised the administration’s response, although it appeared British authorities had thwarted the plot with minimal involvement by the United States. [8/10/06]
CNN’s Suzanne Malveaux:
[W]e have learned that President Bush first learned about this developing terrorist plot on Sunday. That is when he had a video conference call with Prime Minister Blair. [8/10/06]
The anti-American media knows a lot of Americans are ignorant enough to believe such disinformation and spin.
The white liberals who deny the success of our taking the war to the terrorists are aiding in the propaganda which recruits new terrorists like the ones in England.
CNN saying – We have learned – is a joke. Malveaux is a real America hater. No question. Meanwhile, the same cheese eating surrender monkeys in this country have gone silent about listening to international calls and tracing bank transactions. But give them 2 weeks with no terrorist act and they will be right back at weakening this nation. CNN and the NY Times leading the way.
For the record:
-the americans lost the Vietnam war,and could not have won even if fully involved.
-Izrael (and or USA) lost the latest round with Hezbollah and was only truly successfull in killing the helpless and unarmed.
henry sounds like he is cheering against America.
Why is that? Why do some people hate the best nation in history?
It’s interesting. It can be agreed that there will in fact be a conflict with Iran. The Bible reveals this fact as being the war of the King of the North (the USA and the EU) coming against the King of the South, (Iran and it’s God forsaken cronies).
The winners of course, are the nations forming the King of the North. The eventual losers of course, are all the countries of the earth as this will eventually lead to WW3 in due course. (No one knows how long). The role of Germany in the conflict, though minor, could end up being a very serious one.
The final result of WW3, the return of Jesus Christ to the earth. Problem solved.