Okay, I'm depressed about the election.
She asks herself a question, then answers it -- Rumsfeldianly.
What is it, exactly?
It's the failure of Americans to support the war. It's the folding and crumpling because things didn't go well enough and the way we conspicuously displayed that to our enemies. They're going to use that information.
For how long?
Forever.
ADDED: This post -- and my feelings -- are not about whether Republicans or Democrats have power. I dislike both parties. I voted for half Democrats and half Republicans. And I am not saying Bush has done a good enough job of fighting the war or defending his policies. You can look back over the last few months of this blog and see how little I wrote that can be interpreted as favoring one candidate or another. The only race I said much about was the Virginia Senate race. Go find those old posts and you'll see that, from "Macaca" on, I was hostile to George Allen, and, in numerous posts, I was positive about Webb.
What I'm concerned about is national security and, consequently, the way the election was fought and is being interpreted. I'm upset because I think we have sent a terrible message to our enemies: Just hang on long enough and continue to inflict some damage, and the Americans will lose heart and give up. You barely need anything at all. You might not be able to hijack a plane with a box cutter anymore, but you can take back a country -- a country we conquered with overwhelming military power -- merely by mercilessly and endlessly setting off small bombs in your own town day after day.
How much harder it becomes ever to fight and win a war again. Only pacifists and isolationists should feel good about the way this election was won.
November 10, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
129 comments:
I agree with you Ann. I wrote about it here:
http://gahrie.blogspot.com/2006/11/legacy-of-2006.html
I think that our enemies are more emboldened by our being bogged down in Iraq than by the recent election results.
I ask in all sincerity: How long is too long? Two more years in Iraq? Four more? Six more?
When does it become acceptable, to you, for Americans to stop supporting our continued involvement in Iraq?
Well, we've been in Europe for 60 years, first protecting Europe from Germany, and than the USSR.
Now all we are doing is subsidizing the European economies, so I guess it is time to bring those troops home.
We've been in Japan for 60 years, fist protecting Asia from Japan, and now to try and protect Asia from China. I guess we can bring those troops home.
We've been in South Korea for 50 years, I guess we can bring those troops home.
To answer your question:
It becomes acceptable for US troops to leave Iraq when Iraq is safe and stable, and the terrorist threat has been neutralized.
Ann, it's not politically realistic to expect the country to support a project like the Iraq war when it has been so mismanaged (2003-4) and so miscommunicated (perpetually). One can be angry, but I don't think the voters can be blamed much. Besides, I don't think it was a cut 'n run message from the voters. More of a "can somebody here work this thing?" message. The forced retirement of Rumsfeld was the perfect-pitch response.
I totally agree with Ann. I favor traditionally liberal economic policies, so I am no friend of Republican causes generally, but I am a hard-ass on defense.
That position just won't fly in the modern world, not in Europe, and not now in North America.
God knows, Bush and the rest made mistakes, some fairly disasterous, but the apparant failure of Americans to pick up the pieces and persevere in the face of a difficult but not impossible task is something new in our history—something that portends, however distantly, however faintly, the end of "our" history and the beginning of a post-United States world.
I am furious with the Democrats for caving to the pacifist and extreme-left elements in their coalition and doing everything they could to throw a spanner in the works. I am furious with the news media in playing along with this game. And I am especially furious with President Bush for a badly-planned war and the unwisdom of getting us into the position where our weakness is on display. President Clinton had it about right with discreet bombing from 15,000 feet. That has become, for better or worse, nearly the only viable military option left. And preferably the bombs will fall somewhere without a camera nearby.
Franklin Roosevelt asked Wendell Wilkie to pay a visit to Churchill to help shore up transatlantic relations during the early days of World War II. Wilkie carried the famous hand-written letter from Roosevelt that had the well-known "Sail on, O ship of state...." quote from Longfellow. It also had Roosevelt's comment that Wilkie was "...doing his best to keep politics out over here." Wilkie was the leader of the Republican Party and Roosevelt's recent Presidential opponent. Roosevelt meant by "politics" just what the Democrats have been doing during the Iraq war. There were plenty of Republican isolationists and "America First-ers" who raised objections before World War II, and who would have liked to continue causing trouble, but patriots such as Wilkie saw that "politics" had no place in wartime. We needed unity and firmness of purpose. In the end, the Republicans played it about right. I can only hope the modern Democrats will come to their senses and do the same. I am not holding my breath.
In the meantime, the Iraq war is lost. Even at this late and dire moment something might be salvaged if there were still Americans here. Sadly, they're not around anymore. What the hideous denoument will be, no one can say. We do know that it will be bloody, dire, destabilizing, and costly in money and whatever shreds of influence we have left. Iraq was no Vietnam to start, but powerful forces have done their best to make sure it ends like Vietnam. President Bush fell right into that trap, and deserves the condemnation of history for it.
This election was about Iraq. The people have spoken. They want nothing to do with it.
We will be paying the price, as Ann says, "forever."
I think Bush didn't do a good job communicating to people why the war was important. He needed to be giving regular speeches on the subject, and he didn't -- he was much too hands-off towards the public.
Ann,
You really shouldn't let the fact that certain Muslims will "use" the election results to claim that this is a victory for them bother you.
Here's why: No matter what happens to them, they claim it as a victory for Allah.
If our military set as its primary strategy to kill every Muslim, and then set out to do it and killed all but one of them, the remaining guy would claim victory, because, after all, the Americans tried to wipe out Islam ... and since he's still alive, Islam was victorious, praise be to God.
It's just the nature of that particular religion.
I'm not necessarily critical of it. Religion isn't based on mere logic. It demands faith in the presence of contradictory facts. In fact, that may be the definition of religion ... the ability to believe in something despite all facts to the contrary.
You have to understand that we will never "defeat" the Islamic extremists in the way that we defeated the Japanese and the Germans.
The Japanese held "honor" above all else. Failed Japanese commanders took their own lives as pennance for the shame of defeat.
I'm reminded of that video of Zarqawi that got released right before we, uh, dispensed with him. You remember the one ... he's standing in the desert somewhere trying to figure out how to fire a machine gun that hasn't been properly loaded.
He's pulling the trigger, but the damn thing just won't go off. And so a guy rushes up and properly cocks the thing for him and he fires off about 20 or 30 rounds.
Then, as he's walking away, he grabs the gun by the barrel, burning his hands.
That's the kind of "commanders" we are fighting over there. Can you imagine any of them having the kind of shame necessary to take their own lives following a "defeat?"
Such people cannot be defeated. They're too stupid to know they've lost.
They consider the mere fact that they aren't dead yet to be a glorious victory brought about by their devotion to Allah.
Sheesh, now I'm depressed.
To quote Carson, this is some funny, funny stuff. I'm just scratching my head reading some of the comments here.
If you really want to talk about the cut-and-run in the face of terrorism, let's see where it originated--and emboldened terrorists. Iraq? No--Reagan's pull out from Beirut. That's right, folks, the symbol of American retreat in the face of terrorism is not the Democratic Party circa 2006, not John Kerry, but Ronald Reagan.
And every Middle Eastern commander who sends out his flock to blow themselves up will tell you that it was watching the aftermath of the bombing in Lebanon that emboldened them. Not Vietnam, not Iraq. Thank you, Ronald Reagan.
And, while we are on the hypocrisy watch, let's recall every Republican politician who held the mic during the Bosnia crisis in opposition to sending US troops to Bosnia and then to Kosovo. Why? "We'll be bringing them back in body bags!" Total casualty count from Yugoslavia? Three--none in combat, all drunk when killed.
Perhaps the success in Bosnia is what emboldened Bush? Dream on!
More to the point, let's not forget why we are in Iraq. Oh, wait! Do we even know why we are in Iraq? Of the 200 reasons offered so far, none lasted more than a couple of months. And none have been worth 3000 dead. Just recall Bush's repeated campaign promise in 2000--no nation building.
Yeah, there was a Reuters headline that said something like "Arabs Celebrating Defeat of Republicans" on Wednesday. How can that be good? And what does that say about the Democrats' position on national security? Or their perceived position.
Someone brought up Darfur... I bet less than 1% of the American population even is aware that it's Arab Muslims doing the raping and slaughtering there.
I say, chin up. It has only been a day or two, and so far the Democrats have not said anything stupid
Gerry, Nancy Pelosi said on Wednesday that Iraq is "not a war to be won but a situation to be solved."
There's not much worse she could say, to my mind. She's basically telling our enemies, "don't worry, we don't particularly feel the need to win in Iraq."
A couple of comments:
1. The "Blame Amerika First Crowd" keeps talking about Darfur as though unfeeling unilateralist Bush is the main problem. In fact the Bush administration has consistently been out front on Darfur, ahead of those kind Europeans and the obstructionist UN. The wonderful UN, the Arab League and China are the primary reason black Africans are dying in Darfur, not the Bushies.
2. The Iraq war isn't lost yet, but we clearly intend to lose it, sooner or later. Then we may see the following:
- Iraqis fleeing chaos
- massive internal civil war
- Nuclear Iran
- Iranian peacekeepers assisting their Shite brothers keep order
- The Kurds won't go quietly into the night. they'll fight and ultimately be slaughtered
- unrest will spread in Turkey
- the Arab gulf will seek a deal with the Iranians
- the House of Saud will fall and Iran will seek control of the Saudi holy sites.
- Europe will sit this out
- Israel will be nuked
- we'll need to change our immigration policy to skim the best talent of Europe as they try to come to the "evil" US
I'm really depressed now :)
I am also greatly saddened by this turn of events.
On a deeper level it shows how we have lost our moral fortitude in the face of difficulties and setbacks. We want such instant gratification on all fronts. And that's why the terrorists who want to bring down our civilization are emboldened: they know we have lost our stomach for enduring in the face of difficulties. And they want us to elect officials who will appease them while they continue to plan our destruction. Nancy Pelosi et all scare me to death.
Rumsfeldian/Seinfeldian exchange:
--It looks like you've taken to asking yourself a question and then answering it, doesn't it?
--Not that there's anything wrong with that.
It just shows that the only response to terrrorism has to be mass application of bottled sunshine. Our response to any further attacks or attempted attacks by the Salafists has to be the same vis a vis the Islamic world as our response too a threateed or actual Soviet nuclear launch: total response with Darwin's own special cleaner.
We need to hold the Islamic world responsible for their insidious terrorism, and give them one more shot to survive. If not, end the problem, permanently. The War on Terror has been all about trying to avoid that step, but if we have to to survive, then we have to. This response, btw, needs to include France and its nuclear program as part of the Islamic world responsible for Terror.
I say, chin up. It has only been a day or two, and so far the Democrats have not said anything stupid.
"Iraq is not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved." - Nancy Pelosi to Brit Hume a couple of days ago.
" . . . who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?" - Charlie Rangel talking about giving more money to the very blue NYC and less to red southern states.
Naww, they haven't said anything stupid yet.
The latter is just stupid. The first is almost criminal in what it communicates to our own troops and our enemies.
Everyone is talking about disaster preparedness these days. I say buy a Koran and start studying up for the future.
If we pull out now, who in the future will ever be stupid enough to try to establish democracy in their own country in the face of terrorism?
Well, first, I think it's a bit early to assume that the newly elected Democrats are actually going to go along with the leftists. They may just make a stink about it and essentially leave things proceeding as they are.
Second, I don't think the issue is people trying to foster democracy in their own countries. The problem is that, just like with Vietnam, we lose all our credibility with small allies when we toss them overboard to make nice with our big allies. When we present ourselves as a meaningful powerbroker in a regional context, and offer to throw our support behind democratic forces regionally, that regional power is going to have to take into account that we're highly likely to throw him to the wolves, once the propaganda war gets too hot. And that makes him a less reliable ally too -- gives him an incentive to betray before we betray him.
All things considered, though, I'm not all that depressed about the election. We've weathered one bout of "peace with honour" already, and I'm sure we'll weather this one too. One of the things that people don't really note enough, I think, is that Iraq was a war of choice. Leaving will indeed embolden our enemies, and that is bad -- they'll cry out "Paper tiger" again, perhaps forgetting that we toppled two hostile regimes in short order with minimal casualties (to us). But because Iraq was a war of choice (as was Afghanistan), the immediate and concrete downside is really minimal. Iraq in chaos will not, contrary to some commentators, be a threat to us, nor will it be a haven for terrorists -- terrorists, like anyone else, seem to prefer to build camps and infrastructure in peaceful /pacified territory, like Afghanistan under the Taliban or (more recently), southern Somalia under the Islamic Courts Union. It will only be a terrorist haven when the terrorists have already won in Iraq -- and that will not come, I think, until years after we have left.
Indeed, although the Democrats may not really want to put it this way, an "over-the-horizon" force, as some critics of the war have recommended, would probably be useless for assisting the development of democratic culture and the spread of human rights and all that, but would be perfectly suited to coming in from time to time and smashing whatever the Iraqis have managed to build, if what they have built is hostile to our interests (e.g. a terrorist camp). It's sort of a John Derbyshire solution. The whole "rubble doesn't make trouble" thing -- correct, as far as it goes, if not the deep and lasting solution Bush has been pursuing.
I think that our enemies are more emboldened by our being bogged down in Iraq than by the recent election results.
I just don't see why this would be so -- this reads as desperate spin to me.
I ask in all sincerity: How long is too long? Two more years in Iraq? Four more? Six more?
I would say about 25 years. A generation or so.
I was annoyed when while the bodies were still cold several terrific bloggers came out saying this disaster was not the fault of the American people. Showing a profound misunderstanding of the word responsibility.
If the American people do not understand that we are in a fight for our very lives and that Iraq is merely another front, then no one can be blamed but them. We cannot say that it was the MSM's fault because the information is out there to educate yourself with and for the same reason we cannot say it is either parties fault. This election showed in terribly stark terms that the American people are cowards of the worst sort.
This election was indeed a referendum on the Iraq war and the American people blinked. Now we will be left to hoping an embattled President can stave off defeat by himself. The firing of Rumsfeld does not give me hope...should we "redeploy" then fit your girl children for burkas because that result is inevitable. Our enemies understand patience, bravery and honor...our soldiers understand it as well. But the American people are fat, lazy and cowardly and that combination has never prospered.
America Blinks follows Spain into voting for appeasement
The democrats have already signalled by having JFKerry as their 2004 candidate, Nancy "not a war to be won" Pelosi as Speaker, and McGovern advising them on the war that they are using a 1972 template.
The effect is: Iraqis are screwed. The US will enter our second attempt at national suicide. Read Paul Johnson's history of the 20th century Modern Times for perspective. (see especially Chapter 18. America's Suicide Attempt) Eerily similar.
The enemy has seen America's resolve recede, and will take this as a signal to fight even harder. Democrats are too stupid to notice or too much in denial to see. But terror will visit our cities again. And again.
As I said in a prior post, thank God for concealed carry.
Yeah it's a real shame Americans aren’t supporting the unnecessary war launched on lies that was doomed from the start. If only everyone clapped their hands and believed the Iraqis would suddenly come around, the terrorists would vanish in a puff of rainbows and the parades would start!
If you can’t see what a horrible mistake Iraq was at this point then there is no hope for you.
I expect the terrorists to vanish in just that manner simply because the Democrats are now in power. I mean that's the bill of goods you guys sold the American people isn't it?
Get to work, dammit, I want some bi-lateral talks, some excellent UN action, and Nancy Pelosi traveling to Afghanistan to shake Osama's hand so that we can have peace.
If the public thinks the war is going good solely, and it's possible, based on media coverage, they will never feel that it's going good because the media coverage will never be positive.
That is depressing.
"It has only been a day or two, and so far the Democrats have not said anything stupid."
You missed Pelosi's comment on NPR that Iraq wasn't a war to be won but a problem to be fixed. Not stupid exactly, but a clear indication of where she means to go. And despite the purposeful ambiguity of the campaign, there has never been any real doubt of what a Democratic victory would mean. The media, while acting as Democratic cheerleaders, made everyone see the election as a referendum on the war. The decisive loss of both houses is a clear message that the voters want the war to end.
Bush's appointment of Gates shows that he understands this. Gates reflects that Realpolitik views of Bush pere's time and will attempt some relatively face-saving exit strategy. But in the end, face won't be saved because the Islamists will understand perfectly well what is happening. They will conclude that events have once again proven them right -- Western democracies in general, and the US in particular, are not capable of sustaining the will to resist. They will feel new confidence that they are one step closer to the Caliphate.
At this point I don't blame the Democrats. They are only doing what politicians are supposed to do -- understand what the voters want, and promise to give it to them. This defines the diference between "politician" and "statesman."
Ultimately, I blame Bush for failing to make the people comprehend what is at stake. But it would need the skills of a Churchill to fire the will of the people to persevere against enemies so amorphous in a struggle so endless.
Perhaps a Churchill will eventually arise. I'm afraid that won't happen until another domestic mass-caualty attack has prepared the way. By ducking the war now, we are accepting that far greater sacrifices will be asked of us later. But the voters have made their choice.
Boy, what a downer this thread of comments is! My opinion is that things are never as bad, or good, as you think they're going to be.
The evolution of the situation in Iraq just means that whichever country is most flexible is going to come out on top. I happen to think that the USA beats just about any other country in terms of being able to adapt.
Sheesh! The system worked and you're bummed out.
I am a Vietnam vet and therefore old enough to remember all the hankie wringing when that last helicopter lifted off of the roof of the U.S. Embassy in Saigon.
Dire predictions for the fate of America and its standing in the world community followed.
You know what? It didn't mean jacksh*t.
How can America's enemies be more emboldened than flying jetliners into skyscrapers?
Check out what has happened in Iraq in the two days since Election Day . . .
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com
. . . and ask yourself why the U.S. shouldn't get the hell out?
The bottom line: Our presence is making matters worse, not better.
NSC said...
"Get to work, dammit, I want ... [inter alia] Nancy Pelosi traveling to Afghanistan to shake Osama's hand so that we can have peace."
D'you think that, if she actually did that, when Osama takes her hostage and saws her head off live on Al Jazeera, that the Democrats will finally get the hint that we're at war and that the enemy doesn't care if you're a liberal or a conservative?
I hope you are right, MM, because as much as I detest the Democratic leadership, I would gladly say thank you if they could make us safer from, what I consider anyway, to be the greatest threat to our nation and all free nations - Muslim radicalism.
I just don't see that happening and thus my depression and that of others here.
And, Shaun, the system worked in 2000 and 2004 and you the Dems were a lot more than bummed out. Also, once again, I feel the need to point out that this war is nothing like the Vietnam War nor is the overall political situation remotely similar to Vietnam. Quit looking at this through that lens - it is warping your vision.
Re: "things are never as bad, or good, as you think they're going to be"
Optimism is fine, I suppose, but I favor realism. And nothing points to the real Democrat direction than McGovern offering military advice. (And frankly, the idea that things tend to get better over time is a pollyannaish delusion peculiar to Democrats that pains me. Compare Russia 1910 to 1950 to now: the collapse of a civilization into anarchy.)
Madison, I've been hearing and reading nothing but end-of-the-world rhetoric from your side of the aisle for 6 straight years, so just imagine my lack of trust in leadership from the Democrats. And just imagine my disbelief when you counsel patience and trust that everything will be jes' fine.
Face it, we're stuck with an anti-war anti-military pro-appeasement House and Senate. I wonder what the enemy will make of that, and how it will affect their plans.
Richard Fagin said...
"After the nutcases set of an a-bomb in Times Square, Americans will figure it out ... Sometimes too late and after way too much unnecessary damage and loss of life, but we always do.
I would have found that a persuasive point at any time prior to going to bed on September 10th, 2001.
None of the people I voted for won but I am not depressed.
One theme I see in this election is Americans prefer moderates (my evidence is Lieberman, Schwarzenegger, Santorum loss, perhaps candidates like Webb to a southern state) and that is a good thing.
I view Webb as a Dem senator with balls- and the country has not had that kind of Dem senator for 30-40 years (Kennedy, Johnson are examples).
The second theme is the candidates with military expericence who won is a positive trend. With the Iraq War providing plenty of veterans, I predict Congress will have more and more vets in its ranks after future elections. And that is a good thing- so don't fret too much.
As one commenter said, the Muslim world will interpret all things with their own spin sort of like the AP reports on the "bad" economy when a republican is in office (i.e "unemployment at historic low, experts fear return of inflation"- LOL).
I wouldn't get depressed yet either. Democrats and their media allies used a negative view of the Iraq war to gain power. They will get the President to make a meaningful change, which was already coming with the Baker Commission. However, I think it will be all a charade. IN the end, the same strategy will be employed... that is to stick it out until the Iraqi government can take over.
We should never lose site of the long view. Hopefully as a minoity party in congress the long view will be talked about often.
Here is the long view:
Mulsim fundamentalism is a growing ideology. Muslims use it to cope with the changes in the modern world and because it is popular among anti-government types. Immigrant communities in European countries are infected with it and the way demographics are, the European socities will ultimately start to fracture.
A victory in Iraq can seriously damage this fundamentalist movement because it will increase the power of democrats (little "d") in the middle east, which offers a new direction for how people should live, which is freedom.
Maybe it will fail. But, if we don't try, what else is there to do but button up the hatches and get ready for world war. The liberal idea of immigration and integration tried by Europe is already failing. Europeans do not have a zealous enough of a population to match the muslims on jihad.
Some claim that Bush is an ideologue because of his idea to "spread democracy." I don't think this is true. Bush is not trying spread democracy for the good of Iraq, he wants to spread freedom because he knows from his own experience that freedom is good and that freedom for others is freedom for America.
perhaps candidates like Webb to a southern state) and that is a good thing.
I liked Allen, however I share your optimism for Webb. Webb was an opportunist when it came to switching parties. We will see if he remains so or if he actually becomes influential within the Democratic party.
I have a feeling that he may just come out with his head shaking wondering "who are these people?"
What they have done is not to open the eyes of the world to the benefits of democracy. Rather, they have brutally and incompetently acted to actually increase extremism and terrorism.
This is just plain false.
There is lots of evidence to disprove your assertion and not much evidence to prove it. Islamic fundamentalism has been on the rise since the 1970s. Terrorists attacked us in America before we went into Iraq (starting in 1993) and oddly they have failed to attack us since we went into Iraq.
Your arguments are the same arguments used by the appeasers in Europe not to attack Hitler. They are wrong and tired.
I think that the writing has been on the wall about this for some time. As others, both on the left and right, have repeatedly said since 2004, Bush and his advisers basically had 2 years to get the job done (or show significant progress) before the American people went to the polls again and rendered judgment.
The fact of the matter is that a significant number of those who rate this President poorly and oppose the conduct of this war are long-time GOP supporters or sympathizers who feel that the administration has ended up following the Johnson/Vietnam model.
I'm still not at all convinced that this election was "about the war". Mostly because this was going to be the story the media promulgated anyway if the Dems took control of either house. It's the same basic game plan they followed in some foreign elections (notably Britain and Australia). They hyped it as a referendum on the Iraq war and [insert country]'s support of it and the Bush admin. Then after they won, the media backpeddled and claimed that, well, local issues "overshadowed Iraq". Whatever the outcome, Iraq was either the deciding issue or it was something to be overcome.
If this was All About Iraq™ why didn't Mr. Anti-War Ned Lamont beat Mr. Pro-War Lieberman? I believe 3 of the 5 Republicans who voted against the war were voted out as well.
have to register my agreement with ann and theo boehm (well said my friend!).
I think its inevitable that the public will not support a long-term military engagement in a far-away land where the people hate us. And I think this plain predictable fact should have been better considered when the decision was made to start the war. In my view, the answer is not that the American people should be ashamed at their lack of perseverence. The answer is that American leaders should be very cautious about getting involved in these kinds of military actions, relying on good intelligence, evaluating the merits independent of short-term political considerations, having a clear exit strategy, and, if a long-term bloody engagement is deemed likely, making sure the people are prepared to support that.
Many people are so caught up in the negatives of our current situation that they are not realistic about how harsh the alternatives will be.
Nothing will be worse than withdrawing from Iraq and watching what ensues on TV. You want to talk about a loss of U.S. stature? We will be held responsible for every bit of that carnage, fairly or not.
And all along, multilateralism has been unfairly (IMO) trashed by conservatives, but also given a halo by the left. Diplomacy would require enormous investment too, for uncertain gain, and we would get our hands very dirty, albeit in different ways. This denial from both sides has led to a collective cognitive breakdown about our options.
But I was wondering, shouldn't our preparedness for additional conflicts be ratcheted up to a higher priority than Iraq itself? This would militate in favor of withdrawal, but is it not true that within a year+ of withdrawal we would be ready militarily for just about anything?
A paradox...
Re: Shaun:
Dire predictions for the fate of America and its standing in the world community followed.
Uh . . . uh . . . and they were right. Remember what happened right after Vietnam? CARTER! Pissant students in Persia making monkeys of our embassy staff, humiliation abroad, failure at home. "Malaise" -- all that stuff.
Re: Nataraj:
It left us unable/unwilling to satisfactorily complete the task in Afghanistan, which included nailing bin Laden,
Why? This laser-like focus on Bin Laden, as though he alone of all Islamic terrorists, can threaten the US, is kind of idiotic. The issue is not "Al Qaeda," but Islamic terrorism taken as a whole. If we get rid of Al Qaeda, then we get rid of a loose, decentralised organisation and a new one will spring up in its place. That's no solution at all -- just a palliative for our wounded pride.
Sloanasuarus said re Webb:
"I have a feeling that he may just come out with his head shaking wondering "who are these people?"
I agree with you 100%. That is one likely scenario and perhas could make him jump back to the republican party. Wouldn't that be something?
http://holdthesenate.blogspot.com/
Jim Webb was a terrible candidate and will be a second-rate Senator similar to Bob Kerrey. The press gave him a free pass (and bloggers like Ann) and never asked any tough questions.
He ran as an economic protectionist who seemed to display no real knowledge of the issues facing Virginia other than to accept every economic populist argument at face value.
He had the nerve in his victory speech to say that he maintained his integrity and ran on the issues. His poll numbers only went up and made the race competitive after his subordinates posted the "Macacca Incident" on Youtube and told the press about it. He not once denounced any of the internet bloggers who raised quite a bit of money for his campaign and were instrumental in his victory for calling Allen a racist, a Klansmen, and a self-hating jew on the dailykos. Allen was also called "Senator Macawitz" a slur based on his newly discovered jewish heritage. Surely, if Webb had denounced these tactics and asked people like the kos to stop, the bloggers would have at least tempered their behavior, especially on the Raising Kaine site which was affiliated with his campaign. Nastiness by proxy is still nasty. History will show that he ran the nastiest and most misleading campaign in recent memory. He ran an ad that implied that Reagan would have supported him (which wasn't true), and wouldn't take it down despite asked to by Nancy Reagan.
What was particularly egregious was that as Naval secretary for less than a year, he quit in a really unclassy manner. Do you think President Bush would support a Paul O'Neill (former Treasury Secretary) run for anything? No, of course not, so why would Webb imply that Reagan would support him? Because Reagan is popular amongst Virginians.
Similar to Bob Kerrey and John Kerry, his Vietnam War record was not explored at all in his run for the Senate. It later came out that Bob Kerrey committed "war crimes" under the Geneva Convention and John Kerry's war record is still disputed.
Way to continue the cheerleading on this site.
A little ray of sunshine:
Newly re-elected Sen. Joe Lieberman has been promised by Sen. Harry Reid – who is in line to become the next Senate Majority Leader – that he will support Lieberman’s efforts to become chairman of the powerful Homeland Security Committee.
Nothing will be worse than withdrawing from Iraq and watching what ensues on TV.
You won't see anything on TV except happy Iraqi children flying kites.
BTW, per my previous comment on media coverage before and after foreign elections and Iraq:
War in Iraq Plays a Role In Elections In Australia
But later: Maybe not so much:
Australian political analysts cautioned that the voting was not a referendum on the war. The main issue was the economy, and that is booming.
And all along, multilateralism has been unfairly (IMO) trashed by conservatives, but also given a halo by the left.
Well, except in East Asia, where Republicans have been pushing for a multilateral solution, in which the interested regional stakeholders contribute to a functioning peace, while Democrats have been pushing us to go it alone, for whatever reason (I suppose because it is the opposite of what Bush wants).
It would be great if that were possible in the Middle East, only of the surrounding states, we're kind of propping up the biggest of them (Saudi Arabia), and two of them are hostile and have no interest in a peaceful Iraq (Syria and Iran) -- no regional partners to work with, other than maybe Turkey, which hates the Kurds, and is not too keen on their habit of launching terrorist attacks on Turkish targets from their staging grounds in northern Iraq. Or Jordan. Jordan has proven to be a highly useful ally, and they have had successful experience stamping out terrorist insurrection ("Black September," 1970 -- their solution: kill them all) but they're tiny, and there's not much they can do to help.
Unlike China (gigantic, huge military), South Korea (middling population, big military, big economy), or Japan (big population, huge economy, big "self defense force").
Jim Webb was a terrible candidate and will be a second-rate Senator similar to Bob Kerrey.
You could be right. Webb definately rode a wave. However, it is true that Webb jumped to the Democrats merely to win the election - just like Heath Schuler did in North Carolina.
He may feel some loyalty to the dems for a short time for helping him win, however, in the end he is still Jim Webb, former marine, writer of war novels, former Naval secretary under Reagan, and Senator from a Red State. We will see.
If Webb starts voting for the liberal agenda, he is finished in Virgina.
Derve: Curiosity may have killed the cat, but I was wondering if you would you care to elucidate on this comment:
and risk being a more backward-looking rather than forward-looking culture, as other countries are proving themselves.
Which cultures/countries did you have in mind as being forward-looking?
Daryle Berbert wrote: Muslims all around the world are insane. Totally crazy....We are in a long-term ideological struggle with these people. We're trying to get Muslims to be less crazy. To be sane enough that we can live with them.
With all due respect to Daryl, he is missing the obvious solution to this civilizational conflict. Like Mark Steyn, he sees only three possibilities: surrender to Islam, kill every muslim, or change Islam.
Folks, there's a very reasonable solution that actually worked for the last 400 years or so. It's called SEPARATION. It's called you-stay-in-your-countries-and-we'll-stay-in-ours.
There would be no terrorism here if we didn't allow muslims into the West. There would be no angry muslims if we weren't in the Middle East.
Bush's strategy in the Iraq War was premised on something that I don't recall any Democrats disputing before the war: that if Saddam was removed, then the Iraqis would be able (with a little help, and a few stumbles) form a peaceful, democratic government.
This was a noble idea. And I think that in all fairness, we've done about as much as any outside power could possibly do to try to make that happen.
But the different sects of Iraqis can't get along among themselves. That's not our fault, it's part of their civilization's make-up for the past 1300 years.
The real solution all along has been to simply send muslims back to their ancestral lands, ban Islam in the West as an ideology incompatible with our way of life, and leave the muslims alone in their part of the world to evolve at their own pace.
But because our liberal worldview (and neocons are fundamentally liberals, just hawkish) forbids making distinctions based on culture or religion, good folks like Daryl don't even see the obvious solution of separation in front of them.
We can't change them. We will never, ever change them. We don't want to surrender. We would not (I hope) try to kill them all. There is only one solution: separate ourselves from them. Up until a few decades ago there were almost no muslims in the West, and we had peace. We need to go back to that. And we will, sooner or later -- the only question being how much we will have to suffer before we acknowledge it.
This is the beginning of a road leading to our Neville Chamberlain moment.
If only we leave; if only we ignore them; if only we give them something they want--then they will be made content and leave us alone.
Eventually most all in the West will see the folly of that thinking, and we'll have to fight, and a great many of us will die.
If you're right, svolich, nothing we do matters, this election was a complete waste of time, and we should get busy having the time of our lives drinking and debauching today (or piously preparing to meet our maker), for tomorrow we shall all be dead and there isn't a damned thing we can do about it.
JOHN STODDER: I overlooked your comment before and just wanted to say that you hit the nail on the head (as, it seems to me, you invariably do).
The Bush Administration has proven particularly inept at explaining just about anything and everything it has done/wanted to do. The Iraq war, the war on terrorism, Social Security reform, and a host of other intiatives have been seriously hampered by their unwillingness or inability to seriously engage the public.
He may feel some loyalty to the dems for a short time for helping him win, however, in the end he is still Jim Webb, former marine, writer of war novels, former Naval secretary under Reagan, and Senator from a Red State. We will see.
If Webb starts voting for the liberal agenda, he is finished in Virgina.
Yes . . . but it matters which parts of the liberal agenda. For example, I think trade protectionism is a policy he and the liberals both support, and one which the population of Virginia probably supports as well, on balance, (and one of the areas where I disagree with him). On the other hand, he's all for tightening our control of the southern border -- something popular in Virginia, something Allen did not support (he ran to Allen's right on this issue, among others), and something more in line with conservatism than liberalism. So it's a mix, as always. There are some liberal policies that are probably quite popular in Virginia.
Re: Mark:
We can't change them. We will never, ever change them. We don't want to surrender. We would not (I hope) try to kill them all. There is only one solution: separate ourselves from them.
How? Look where they are -- the Muslim lands run up in the Balkans (Albania), and penetrate Russia. Eastwards, they are sprinkled throughout the vastness of India and Central Asia, as well as western China, particularly Xinjiang. In the southeast, Muslims dominate Indonesia and have a major presence in Malaysia and other parts of southeast Asia. Islam has penetrated into the heart of Africa. Some of the nastiest fanatics are evidently from London and Paris. Many of these borders are porous and ill-defended; many of them are even internal. There is no wall we can build to keep the Muslims separate from our interests and allies.
The most we can manage is, perhaps, to ban Muslims from entering the United States proper -- but how much would that be worth if they could continue to enter Canada and Mexico? And what are we to do -- mandate that airports in foreign countries bar any Mahometan from boarding a flight bound for the US? Ban conversions to Islam? What, then, do we make of the Moriscos?
I suppose that all sounds very well in theory, but I do not see how the practice of it could be effected, unless we were to disengage ourselves from the global economy entirely.
It might not happen
but focusing on getting Osama might be silver lining!
Re: Freder:
I'm curious. You think this war is so all fired important and the Republicans are fighting it so competently and effectively. You have a son of military age. Did you sit down with him and tell him that this was the fight of a generation and that he should seriously consider joining the military to do his part? If not, why not? Do you have any children in the military? If you don't, why aren't you hounding them to join up?
Don't be a fool -- the government does things so that we don't have to personally. Your suggestion is like saying that because someone supports redistributive taxation, he ought to give all his money to the poor, or that because someone thinks policework is absolutely crucial, he ought to become a policeman.
Certainly, there are cases where people actually do do that kind of thing -- the Minutemen guarding the border are the prime example these past few years -- but they are rather rare.
Ann: It's the folding and crumpling because things didn't go well enough and the way we conspicuously displayed that to our enemies. They're going to use that information.
This statement bothers me.
What made our country so revolutionary was the transparency of governing - - freedom of speech, the marketplace of ideas, voting records, etc.
Our enemies have *always* had the "advantage" of watching our open political process, while oftentimes having their own political process closed. (Consequently it's always been easy for certain politicians to stifle dissent by equating the dissent with "helping the enemy.")
However, that very marketplace of ideas is how we win against those enemies. In today's world, that means (for example)we're able to put people in power who have a sophisticated understanding of the nuances of fighting terrorist tactics.
That would NOT be the Bush administration. By contrast, they have fallen into a trap that any competent administration would have avoided. Talk about helping the enemy!
To me, the election was a great first step - - it showed that we, collectively, have the ability to correct our course.
lots of yapping, little reality
webb has always been a democrat
leaving iraq is "national suicide?"
ffs, where do you people come from?
There are a hundred things we could do to make us safer in the short term.
And they would all be disastrous in the long term.
I share your low mood, Ann. Pacifism is evil, especially when we face an enemy who would kill himself for his cause, and we are about to learn that lesson the hard way--I should say, the Iraqi people will learn it the hard way. But I'm sure CNN and the NYT will ignore the bloodbath so as not to offend our delicate sensibilities, and we can get on with dealing with the real issues of life: smoking, global warming, identity politics...
For those who say we forced democracy on Iraq, did you miss the millions of people who voted in elections in Iraq and Afghanistan? Did we force them to do that?
And anyone who thinks the Dems will stay the course has not been listening to Pelosi, Murtha, McGovern, et al.
Re: "ffs, where do you people come from?"
Exalted,
I'm from Minnesota. It's snowing.
Why do you ask?
The polls are quite clear on this--the Republicans lost because of Iraq and corruption. I would add incompetence to that list, but that is my own concern and apparently not that of many other people.
Anyone who thinks that it is only the loony left that is concerned about Iraq is kidding themselves. Here's one poll, showing 55% of voters approve of bringing some or all of the troops home. Is the loony left 55% of this country? Hardly.
As to Professor Althouse's bizarre idea that "only pacifists and isolationists should feel good about the way the election was won," let me suggest that this is only the 94,329th time that she has revealed her partisan thinking. Only the most rank Bush partisan imagines that the war in Iraq is the best approach to combatting terrorism. Althouse's comment is kissing cousin to Ann Coulter claiming that Afghanistan is going "swimmingly."
But thanks, Professor Althouse--and Ann Coulter--for diverting your misinformed readers. In the meantime, the right party won this election cycle and the country now has a slightly better chance of directing our resources to a more effective fight against terrorism.
...there was a Reuters headline that said something like "Arabs Celebrating Defeat of Republicans" on Wednesday. How can that be good? And what does that say about the Democrats' position on national security? Or their perceived position.
I think this "strong horse/weak horse" thing can be overdone.
When you're talking about the most extreme of the Islamist jihadi, nothing deters them. They want to die for their God. We could, hypothetically, pursue a scorched-earth policy throughout Iraq. Sparrow falls, we burn down your village. It wouldn't matter. Conversely, we could appoint Ramsey Clark as Secretary of Defense, and let him replace all our armored tanks with rolling barbecues to hand out free food. Still wouldn't matter. By the time our sleepy society even noticed there was a problem, the Muslim Brotherhood and other jihad organizations were already quite large and popular enough to pose a significant global security threat. They didn't grow because they thought Bill Clinton was weak. He was irrelevant. They grew because they believe the world is in crisis, and mass conversion to Islam is the only answer -- at the point of a gun, or a nuclear bomb, if necessary.
The Republican party grasps the reality of this about 50 percent. The Democrats, about 20 percent. The American public, about 10 percent. If we'd had a great president at the helm on 9/11, perhaps he could have done a better job of:
a) educating the American public
b) educating the America media
c) getting more public cooperation from influential European leaders (although keeping Blair on the team was a significant success.)
d) showing China and Russia that playing power politics would ultimately not serve their interests.
But we don't have a great president. They are rare. But that's what both parties should be looking to nominate in 2008.
Keep in mind, too: Churchill failed. He could not rouse Britain to confront the threat posed by the Nazis until it was almost too late -- in fact it was too late, except for Hitler's inexplicable blunder in declaring war on the U.S. after Pearl Harbor. Churchill was regarded as a joke and a relic of the past by most of the media and elites of England throughout the 30s.
FDR also failed. If the 1940 version of FDR had been running in 2004, he would have been running as even more of a dove than Kerry. He would have had his fingers crossed behind his back, but his rhetoric would have been along the lines of, "Cindy Sheehan, your tragedy has moved me to say I will not rest until every one of our boys and girls in uniform is safely home and tucked away in their beds."
FDR and Churchill were the greatest men of politics of the 20th century, but neither was able to prevent a war in which tens of millions died. Democracies simply don't do this kind of thing very well. They don't react well to threats. They're always looking to minimize them or bargain their way out of them.
My hope from this election is that regardless of what Nancy Pelosi is saying now, the flow of events and her access to information and the necessity of defending her decisions will force the Democrats to gain greater awareness of the situation we're really in, so that by 2008, both parties are on the same side, essentially, and like in 1960, they're competing about who can be tougher on our foes.
Maybe the Dems can help bring Europe into this war, too. Their "sensitive" approach might help.
I just don't think the American people voted Tuesday for peace at any price. I think they voted for a check on the mismanagement of the Bush Administration. If that's what the Democrats bring, this election will be a breakthrough, not a retreat.
The loathesome lefties are basically suicidal, and want to take everyone else for the ride. As the social model of Eurotopia proceeds to a demographic Eurabia, we can and should take a lesson that letting the crazies win in Iraq will just bring them over here.
Ann is right about folding and crumpling. The hollow lefties will have the US end not with a bang, but a whimper.
Or, as Yeats put it, "the best lack all conviction, and the worst are filled with passionate intensity."
China's one-child-per-family demographics mean that the 21st century might belong to the hyper-productive demographically hypertrophic Islamofascists.
And Pelosi who carps and complains about the Chinese utters not a peep about the Islamic murderers who would love to kill every Jew and Christian as a matter of religious duty.
Very strange woman.
Yet most of the cheerleaders for this war are unwilling to sacrifice anything for the fight. Not their precious tax cuts, not their high paid professions.
You base this statement on what? How do you know what sacrifices people are making or not making? And as for the tax cuts, they've actually led to revenue growth, so how would getting rid of them make sense?
Re: John Stodder:
The Republican party grasps the reality of this about 50 percent. The Democrats, about 20 percent. The American public, about 10 percent. If we'd had a great president at the helm on 9/11, perhaps he could have done a better job of:
. . .
But we don't have a great president. They are rare. But that's what both parties should be looking to nominate in 2008.
Indeed. But I don't see anyone on the scene at the moment who really fits the bill. I do rather like John Howard, though. Pity he's Australian.
Keep in mind, too: Churchill failed. He could not rouse Britain to confront the threat posed by the Nazis until it was almost too late -- in fact it was too late,
Well, and he failed electorally too -- the British electorate tossed him out in a landslide shortly after the war in Europe ended. They might have chucked him out even earlier, in fact, only, uh, democracy kind of got suspended during WWII -- no elections between 1935 and 1945.
I was depressed too, the whole week before. For a similar reason -- but Lamont lost, big, to pro-Victory Lieberman.
In Limited War, the winners don't get to set the timetable. Only the losers get to decide WHEN ... they lose, they stop fighting, they let the other side win.
See my recent tomgrey.motime.com posts on this.
Secondly, with Dems in control of the House, the Iraq war becomes a Dem war, too -- so it will soon become Reps and (most) Dems wanting victory.
Thirdly, Rumsfeld said we needed to change the law to have DoD do more training, but now we are. The new direction? US Troops do more training, less fighting.
Perhaps we should have been doing so longer, even if the new Iraqi troops trained aren't as "good" as the US troops. At first. That's how they'll get better.
Balfegor wrote:
How? Look where they are -- the Muslim lands run up in the Balkans (Albania), and penetrate Russia. Eastwards, they are sprinkled throughout the vastness of India and Central Asia, as well as western China, particularly Xinjiang. In the southeast, Muslims dominate Indonesia and have a major presence in Malaysia and other parts of southeast Asia. Islam has penetrated into the heart of Africa. Some of the nastiest fanatics are evidently from London and Paris. Many of these borders are porous and ill-defended; many of them are even internal. There is no wall we can build to keep the Muslims separate from our interests and allies.
We need to eject muslims from the West. We should have no internal muslim ghettos as have formed in London and Paris. Yes, muslims control a large part of the Middle East and Asia. Fine - we will not intervene there. Let them have their sphere, and insist that we have our own.
The most we can manage is, perhaps, to ban Muslims from entering the United States proper -- but how much would that be worth if they could continue to enter Canada and Mexico?
And your alternative is, I guess, to give up and say that since Americans can't require that muslims be banned from all Western nations, that we should not bother banning them from ours? Yes, if we were the only Western country implementing a ban it would still be the best thing we could do. At least there would be ONE western country left.
And what are we to do -- mandate that airports in foreign countries bar any Mahometan from boarding a flight bound for the US?
Yes. We already require people landing here to have passports and visas. We can ban people from muslim countries from visiting or emigrating here, and we can require background investigations of those from Western countries to find out if they are muslim, just like we presumable do to find criminals.
Ban conversions to Islam?
When we get serious about the level of threat, yes we will do that. And there is a historical precedent: we banned Nazism in Germany after the war. It was an invidious ideology that preached world domination and genocide. Sound familiar?
We need to recognize that Islam has a fundamentalist strain that is inseparable from the milder strains. If you let muslims in, a percentage of them become fanatics. Britain is tracking 1600 native muslims involved in over 200 terrorist organizations planning at least 30 major terrorist plots. (That was in the news yesterday.) That's a small fraction of muslims, but when you have millions of muslims you get thousands of terrorists.
We need to recognize that Islam is not a legitimate religion - a religion that preaches love like Christianity, Judiasm, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and so forth, but a cult founded by a warlord. Like Naziism, or the Bushido cult in Japan. We do not need to respect it or tolerate it in our nations.
We WILL be forced to recognize that sooner or later because we cannot change Islam. We can't change it, we can't destroy it, we don't want to surrender to it. That leaves only separating ourselves from it. Which we did up until a few decades ago when we began letting muslims into our countries in significant numbers. We had no problem with them before that.
Ann, I just read what you added to your original post. I know I'm picking nits, but I don't give any "pacifists" credit for opposing the war. They have exactly zero to say about the violence and death people like Saddam and Kim Jung Il wreak on their people. They only come in after the fact to pile on the U.S.
I ask in all sincerity: How long is too long? Two more years in Iraq? Four more? Six more?
I would say about 25 years. A generation or so.
How on Earth do you expect to sell this politically? The American people were told that this war would be measured in "weeks, rather than months"; what would you tell them now?
"I'm sorry, there's been a slight miscalculation. When we said 'weeks', we should have said '25 years'."
"Regardless of what Nancy Pelosi is saying now, the flow of events and her access to information and the necessity of defending her decisions will force the Democrats to gain greater awareness of the situation we're really in."
Pelosi doesn't seem too concerned about her access to information, based on her decision to make Alcee Hastings head of the Intelligence Committee. Maybe she'll be content to read up on the secret stuff when he sells it on eBay?
There's nothing in Pelosi's recent utterances to show that she gives security issues any kind of priority. To her, it's all just a distraction from the needs of The Children.
,
Re: Tom Grey
Perhaps we should have been doing so longer, even if the new Iraqi troops trained aren't as "good" as the US troops. At first. That's how they'll get better.
One thing I wonder about is why the Iraqi government has decided to staff its entire military with Iraqis. Previously, shortly after the British and the French cut them loose, the various Arab kingdoms seem to have gone out and hired officers from the British army to train up their forces and even lead them initially, while their next generation officer-corps was obtaining its experience. People like Glubb, or . . . well, Glubb's the only one I can find, but I recall there were others.
I can see where there might be a national or racial pride issue involved -- don't go out and hire the Whites to command your troops. But practically speaking, the limited understanding I have of the weaknesses in Arab armies are that their officer corps are too numerous, lack initiative, and have poor practical training. I wonder whether it mightn't work better if, say, the contractors we've got out providing security (many of them ex-military) were instead working for the Iraqi government, under Iraqi civilian political control, but commanding Iraqi soldiers, giving the next generation commanders exposure to effective American military culture.
I suppose, though, that this was more practical back when there was a moderately deep officer corps with a decent understanding of the local culture, and perhaps a fair bit of the local language, as you had back in the British Empire, on account of regiments being posted over there on a long term, settled basis. Still -- although the performance of the Iraqi forces appears to be improving (although I have not read much analysis on this point) it is not really improving fast enough.
Re: Mark
We need to recognize that Islam is not a legitimate religion - a religion that preaches love like Christianity, Judiasm, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, and so forth, but a cult founded by a warlord. Like Naziism, or the Bushido cult in Japan. We do not need to respect it or tolerate it in our nations.
I, uh . . . I'm not quite ready to sign onto this kind of view yet, I'm afraid. I kind of disagree. After all, we tolerate Naziism over here, and if I wanted to erect a shrine to the God-Emperor of Japan (oh, shame upon my ancestors, born under the Japanese yoke!) it's not like anyone would stop me. Well, other than maybe my ultra-nationalistic Korean cousin.
Also, strictly speaking, it's not so much the "Bushido" cult as "Imperial Shinto" -- a somewhat modified version of the ancient (and continuing) animist/Shinto practices in Japan, in which the Emperor, and the rites he performs to commune with the Sun Goddess etc. assumed greater centrality.
Mark - holy cow. And I thought that I was a hard-liner on Islam. By comparison, I'm just a little socially-insensitive in wanting to hold them to the Employment Division v. Smith doctrine!
There's nothing in Pelosi's recent utterances to show that she gives security issues any kind of priority. To her, it's all just a distraction from the needs of The Children.
You might be right. But if that's the case, in 2008, the Republicans will come roaring back and retake power. But I don't think Pelosi's really that stupid.
The Hastings thing is, obviously, ridiculous -- so ridiculous that I think, in the end, they'll find a face-saving way out. But that's a good initial test.
It's amusing to see some LIB commenters attack Ann becasue they believe she is a conservative in a moderate's clothing. They rage at Ann, a college prof, because sh may have betrayed the true cause?? It's like when libs castigate blacks who dare to be republicans.
I have to say I get a kick out of the maniacally-stated questions like "How could you even consider voting for that Evil Idiot Bush or Santorum or Rice or Steele?????"
Ann:
It really is going to be okay...
http://markdaniels.blogspot.com/2006/11/althouse-subjects-herself-to.html
Mark
Tom Grey said...
with Dems in control of the House, the Iraq war becomes a Dem war, too -- so it will soon become Reps and (most) Dems wanting victory.
I guess I don't see how? Wars are always more attributed to the Commander in Chief as opposed to whoever controls Congress. Do people attribute Bosnia or Kosovo with the Republicans? Panama and Gulf War part 1 with the Democrats?
Naw, this'll stick with Bush and the Republicans.
Re: Nataraj:
I think that quote you pulled from Powell pretty much says it all:
"It's not one individual, it's lots of individuals and it's lots of cells," Powell told reporters. "Osama bin Laden is the chairman of the holding company, and within that holding company are terrorist cells and organizations in dozens of countries around the world, any one them capable of committing a terrorist act. It's not enough to get one individual, although we'll start with that one individual." ~Powell
We start with pursuing one individual, and we'd like to get him dead or alive, sure. But in the broader struggle, if a given terrorist is operationally neutralised, that's enough. Not for vengeance, perhaps, but enough to achieve our basic goals.
I'm upset because I think we have sent a terrible message to our enemies: Just hang on long enough and continue to inflict some damage, and the Americans will lose heart and give up. You barely need anything at all.
Yes, what a terrible message. Democracy still works in America.
A much better message we could have sent a fledgling democracy, would to have evoked Martial Law here, and cancelling of elections.
Brilliant!
Balfegor wrote:
But practically speaking, the limited understanding I have of the weaknesses in Arab armies are that their officer corps are too numerous, lack initiative, and have poor practical training. I wonder whether it mightn't work better if, say, the contractors we've got out providing security (many of them ex-military) were instead working for the Iraqi government, under Iraqi civilian political control, but commanding Iraqi soldiers, giving the next generation commanders exposure to effective American military culture.
May I gently suggest that the entire enterprise of trying to bring a muslim army up to the effectiveness level of our own is ultimately suicidal? I liked it just fine when they were so incompetent that we could beat them in three weeks. Do you really have such faith that the Iraqis we're training will always be our friends, and won't teach our techniques to unfriendly people?
After all, we tolerate Naziism over here...
Yes, because we haven't been ruled by Nazis over here. Do we need to wait to be ruled by muslims before we recognize the sort of thing we're dealing with and learn something from our experience with Nazis?
Simon wrote: Mark - holy cow. And I thought that I was a hard-liner on Islam.
My friend, we will all be moving towards this position as it becomes clear that there is no way for us to change Islam and that muslims are setting up colonies in our midst. My position will be considered the moderate position. (The hard-liners will be the ones advocating genocide.)
The Republicans lost this election because they have lost touch with enough people through the course of their handling of the events of the past few years that they are fed up and want a change. And the blame must be heaped on them because they have controlled the executive position as well as both the House and Senate.
Anyone who thinks that some boogeyman is out there who really honestly gives half a a s*^t who our elected leaders are in order to determine whether or not to attack us is out of their minds. After all - they surely didn't care that we had a republican in office on 9/11, did they?
and that as they say, is that.
Your arguments are akin to throwing good money after bad. We shouldn't pull out because it will embolden the 'terrorists.'
Puh-leeze. They were emboldened when we invaded, it gave them something to rally around. All they had to bitch about before was Israel.
Now every idiot seeking 72 virgins is gunning for us because we defiled Muslim lands.
How would you feel if a foreign army landed in Montana? It would piss you off. I guarantee that every yahoo with a shotgun would take pot-shots at the foreign troops.
Invading Iraq was always a bad idea. It was based on lies and misinformation. We didn't go in there to make America safer, we did it so Shrub could rub it in his Daddy's face and so Cheney could get his buddies rich on oil rights.
What you all seem to forget is that Iraq didn't attack us. It was Saudi nationals via Afghanistan that attacked the U.S.
Invading and occupying Iraq has made us less safe because, despite all the lies to the contrary, Muslims are not insane. They very clearly see that we invaded Iraq as a ploy for some other type of operation, like oil rights, or to establish a true Syriana (which is not a 'leftie' concept but straight out of the neo-con think tanks)
Wake up America, you can't beat these guys with guns, you have to do it with jobs and education.
They have to be de-programmed from their brainwashing. They need a reason to live rather than a reason to die.
You'll have to jog my memory, Professor Althouse. Which party was for WAR, red, bloody WAR?
You know, the party that advocated an army of 10 million and that, once the defenses of Baghdad were breached, drove on to Damascus to seal off its exposed flank?
What we had was a contest between the party of futzing around and the party of not futzing around.
Re: perry
After all - they surely didn't care that we had a republican in office on 9/11, did they?
Well, a Republican who'd gone in saying he wouldn't toss the military hither and thither the way Clinton did, using it to threaten Haiti, to attack Iraq, and to invade Somalia and various small countries in the Balkans. They had every reason to expect his response would be even more passive than Clinton's had been. Frankly, I think they were as surprised as I was when we didn't just sort of roll over and die.
Sorry, but you're conflating the battle for control of Iraq (iow, Baghdad) with the overall war on terror.
It's true that the "weeks, not months" comment was about the war with the Saddam regime -- but it's not me doing the conflating. While the administration has said that the overall war on terror would be long, there was little hint that the war in Iraq would last many years and cost many lives after the fall of Saddam. Had Cheney or Rumsfeld raised the possibility that Iraq would still be in chaos, and American troops in full-scale combat, three years into the war, then they would at the very least have had to do a lot more selling. Had they suggested -- as the person I was responding to did -- that invading Iraq would raise an insurgency it would take a quarter of a century to subdue, then they would have been laughed out of Washington.
After the Southern States revolted, Generals and public officials right up to Lincoln claimed that they would be brought to heel in a matter of weeks. Instead it took 4 years and untold buckets of blood and treasure.
Iraq is a similar case, though infinitesmally less costly. It is not a project I believe we can leave half finished. For the discomfiture of our enemies, for the Iraqi people, and for ourselves, we need to finish the job.
As to the election, I'm less worried than Ann is by the election. I don't think the Democrats are going to be able to force us to bug out. One thing they have done, and it's a good thing, is get the Administration to start re-thinking and re-evaluating how they're proceeding.
Prof. Althouse,
I agree with your statements and your sentiment, and I'm glad to hear people like you say it publicly. Terrorism poses a grave risk to America and Americans. The first step is to realize how easy it is for terrorists to use our own words and actions to hurt us.
In this war, the catch phrase should be "Mixed messages sink ships."
Salamandyr said...
Iraq is a similar case [to the US Civil War], though infinitesmally less costly.
How do you figure? Money wise, I have no idea but find it hard to believe you've done the research to determine what the relative inflation adjusted costs of the 2 wars are.
As far as lives go. Most estimates for the number of lives lost in the US Civil War is 620k. Some go as high as 700k. The Iraq war has by some estimates exceeded 600K now and regardless of whether the U.S. leaves now or stays longer, the death toll is sure to rise. By this measure "infinitesmally(sic) less costly" qualifies as an outrageous exaggeration.
The problem most supporters of the war have reminds me of the Tom Cruise character from "Born on the 4th of July" who believes with all his heart that he will walk again (and promptly fractures both of his legs attempting to walk again). You assume that the mess we are in has a somewhat decent solution in the foreseeable future. What a crock. Whether we get out in '07 or '17 the same result is likely (total chaos) with a completely unpredictable final outcome or time frame for said outcome.
What is predictable is that if we stay until '17... or '27... is that many more American troops will die in Iraq, irrespective of the financial costs.
I have no idea what you mean Ann. If you would tell me, clearly, what "victory" in Iraq would look like then we can measure. If you give a morphing answer that demonstrates the wafflefactor we have heard for the 3+ years of mission accomplished, then I have no idea.
Stay the course was not a strategy. Victory in Iraq whatever that is, is a GOAL. Now tell me the strategy to get there and then tell me WHEN we get there will I be aware of it.
I agree with your statements and your sentiment, and I'm glad to hear people like you say it publicly. Terrorism poses a grave risk to America and Americans. The first step is to realize how easy it is for terrorists to use our own words and actions to hurt us.
Like Bush telling the world for the last 3 years that Democrats are soft on terror -- and last week on the campaign trail Bush telling the world that a vote for Democrats, is a vote for terrorists? Exactly who has given terrorists "hope"?
I would love to hear Ann Althouse plan for this war -- but we only get weak, mushy, garbly gook about elections sending a "terrible message"
I'll count her in as the Wishing for Ponies camp I guess.
Seven Machos said...
"Mod":
No one believes this. It isn't true. It is a blatant, propagagandist lie... Please stop telling and advancing lies.
You shouting "LIE" does not make it so. And certainly your claim that "No one" believes this is an demonstrable lie.
I believe and so do epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's. The method used to estimate this number is called cluster sampling and is a tried and true method of mortality estimates.
Re: Menken Moment
But more realistically I expect that commenters like Theo Boehm are right and that there are not enough stalwart Americans left to influence the course of the polity, and that therefore we shall be forced to confront the jihadi much closer to home. Whither do we redeploy then?
Oh, I don't know about the lot of you, but I'll try for Korea. I'd probably feel better with China, on account of the size, pragmatic brutality, and nuclear weapons, but I haven't got a racial/ethnic tie, and they are not keen on letting foreigners of other races immigrate. I don't know much Mandarin anyhow, and those funny new-style characters are hard to read. I face the same race-problem vis-a-vis Japan. Ah well.
Korea, at least, will be guarded by water on three sides and a giant minefield watched over by motion-sensing killer sentry robots and an army of eight-legged robot soldiers on the other. Hah!
Modnewt said...As far as lives go. Most estimates for the number of lives lost in the US Civil War is 620k. Some go as high as 700k. The Iraq war has by some estimates exceeded 600K now and regardless of whether the U.S. leaves now or stays longer, the death toll is sure to rise. By this measure "infinitesmally(sic) less costly" qualifies as an outrageous exaggeration.
I don't get this. Are you saying that we should not fight the terrorists because too many people may end up dying in Iraq. Are you saying its better to let 10,000 Americans die than 100,000 Iraqis?
What side are you on?
What a joke....
Two things really bum me out.
Democrats' refusal to act like adults and hold off on the lies and false accusations of the other side. Now everything is sweetness and light and we're supposed to just forget the viciousness and undermining of our troops for political gain.
The Media. Despite the liberals who think they don't control enough of the media, the people reached by Talk Radio, Fox News and the right of blogosphere and the few conservative magazines are miniscule compared to the numbers who watch nightly broadcast news and read liberal newspapers. They can't sway voters quickly, but the slow drip of negativity creates an atmosphere of defeat and failure. Why else do people seem to believe that the economy is down? We don't like the war, but there's no consensus on what we need to do differently.
What emboldens our enemies is the fact that they can beat us by outlasting us, and rely on our own media to vitiate our will. We couldn't have won World War II if we'd had a press like today's.
I also have been depressed by Republicans in Congress who wouldn't support the president, had to spend like crazy on pork when we're in an expensive war, and act like prima donnas blocking every issue until they're coaxed into going along.
Stay the course was not a strategy. Victory in Iraq whatever that is, is a GOAL. Now tell me the strategy to get there and then tell me WHEN we get there will I be aware of it.
The strategy is to build up the Iraqi government to a point where they can retake their own country, and hold the country in a reasonably stable form until this transition can be completed. The "stay the course" means sticking it out until that goal is realized.
I don't get why people think this is such a bad strategy or why the strategy needs to be changed. IN fact Bush keeps reiterating this strategy. Then the democrats say "We need to change course" and then they repeat the same strategy as if its a new idea. It's all posturing which is why I think the whole change the course thing in Iraq is a charade by the Dems. They just used it to get elected.
Mod, the Lancet's numbers are bogus and embarrassingly stupid. They were, like the 2004 Lancet "study" a leftist rag's attempt to sway a US election. Patethic, but more pathetic you bought their proaganda.
Now that Dems are in charge, watch for all the sunshine, ice cream, and kite-flying utopian media pieces.
I wish I was a frutiy leftist.
Ahhh... name calling. The last refuge of those with no argument.
"start killing people and breaking things like there is an actual war on."
This approach might actually have worked if it had been tried immediately after the 2004 election. Now it's far too late. Within days of the launch of such a campaign, Conyers would have the articles of impeachment ready to go.
We have to face the fact that Dem control of Congress will lead inevitably to withdrawal. The open questions are 1) how gracefully will the extraction be managed; and 2) how long before our enemies are emboldened enough to strike at us domestically?
Also, since absurdly overheated and stupidly partisan rhetoric is tiresome. Here is an ill tip: when you accuse someone of not having a strategy, it is sort of, kind of important that you lay out your own.
We created a Lebanon, and the truth is, nobody knows what will happen to Iraq. Our military "won" a long time ago, and as long as we are there, the Iraqi's fate will never be settled. My sense is that alot of the fighting is due to them thinking we're "taking sides", and our troops are in an impossible situation, where we don't even know who the enemy is anymore.
Unless we re-invade, and topple Maliki's government, the only plan moving forward has to be about getting our troops out. Withdraw, let it flame out, and come back to help pick up the pieces politically. Thats my plan. So, cut and run, or stay and die.
the only plan moving forward has to be about getting our troops out.
Wow, how history repeats itself. This was the plan forwarded by the Democrats in the election of 1864.
Check out this election poster. How telling....
Pogo said...
Mod, the Lancet's numbers are bogus and embarrassingly stupid.
Ok Pogo, what number is acceptable to you? And don't tell me that you require a death certificate because if that is so the death toll in Rwanda was probably somewhere around 20K.
One more thing Pogo and Machos...
Since you both object to the use of cluster sampling (a widely accepted method of mortality estimates) I'm sure you are busy posting criticisms on other blogs about the inaccuracy of the mortality estimates in Darfur and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The same methodology was used for these numbers which the Bush Administration quotes frequently.
I'll take the links such criticisms forthwith.
Here's a better idea, Modnewt:
Link to the detailed descriptions of methodology for each study to prove that the methologies were exactly alike.
Re: "I'll take the links such criticisms forthwith."
The Lancet methodology was hopelessly flawed. Interviews are worthless.
Screw "links". Give me the actual body count. Where are all those 600,000 bodies? Should be easy to find and document. It's not Maoist China, after all.
Good lord, you're an easy mark.
I’m also upset by the election. The Democrats didn’t exactly have a platform, and I’m still waiting for John Kerry’s super-secret plan to win the peace in Iraq.
I’m afraid that Democratic control of the upper and lower chambers will lead to a hasty pull-out in Iraq. The terrorists will see this as further proof of American weakness. The rapid victory and relative stability in Afghanistan will be the exception to the rule of limited engagement established by our responses to the Marine Barracks bombings, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, Khobar Towers, U.S.S. Cole, etc. This means more attacks on the home front since Iraq will no longer be the terrorist magnet that it should be.
We’ll probably see more oversight (i.e., interference) from the Senate and House Intelligence Committees, though I doubt anyone will propose multi-billion dollar funding cuts like Kerry in the 1990s. Remember, the Yakuza, Russian mob, and Chinese triads are a greater threat to America than Al Queda, at least according to Kerry’s 1998 book The New War: The Web of Crime That Threatens America's Security.
I’d willingly go to Iraq and die for my country if I were able, and I think anything under 25,000 Coalition deaths is an acceptable price to pay for the chance of Middle East stability and democracy.
The Dread Pirate No-Beard
Re: Pogo:
The Lancet methodology was hopelessly flawed. Interviews are worthless.
I don't think this is the case -- they're certainly less reliable than bodies, but they're certainly not worthless.
However, there are a number of criticisms other researchers have made (and the Iraq Body Count people have made). First, and proably most significantly, the interviewed households are apparently disproportionately clustered around major roadways -- systematically, these areas are likely to see higher casualty rates because that's where the convoys are, where the restaurants are, where the grocery stores are, where the bazaars are, where the police stations are -- indeed, where all the targets are.
There are also peripheral issues that raise doubts about the credibility of the study. For example, the last I heard (maybe a month ago?), the study's authors were still refusing to share their data with third parties. Refusing to share data is inconsistent with open academic practice and something that ought to make anyone suspicious about the quality of that data. Along a somewhat different axis, the actual people performing the study did not go out and do the interviews themselves. Instead, they hired local stringers to go around and interview people. This sounds a little iffy.
Lastly, people have gone through and looked at the timing for each interview -- I forget who it was -- and came up with some ridiculously brief period of time for each subject interview. Like five or ten minutes, or something. That sounds long enough to get a raw number of deaths, if every subject is willing to come out and speak, but not long enough to get all the background information you would need to verify that each recorded death is distinct, e.g. if multiple families in the same neighbourhood are closely related (as is likely, given the extremely high rate of cousin-marriage in Iraq).
Regarding death estimates in the Congo and in the Sudan, I suspect that both of those are off by a certain amount because of (as with the Lancet studies) a strong incentive to colour the data for political purposes. However, in the case of Darfur, the refugee camps operating in the region do make it seem quite clear that something significant and horrible has been underway (although reading Churchill's The River War makes me suspect that the Darfur situation is not a new development at all, but has been underway since the late 19th century at least).
In the case of the Congo, I don't think we have clear visibility into what's been going on at all -- the war that went on there during the 90's and early 2000's was really massive, involving practically all the countries in the region, and various informal militias as well. Because of massive dislocation -- I understand that entire villages have up and fled at times -- I also suspect that a cluster sampling technique like the one used in Iraq, where local interviewers go knock on doors and ask quesions, might not be particularly useful, although that basic methodology would be pretty much our only means of arriving at a ballpark figure.
Simple solution, you and your friends should enlist. The armed forces need lawyers, even in Iraq.
Otherwise you are being Rumsfeldy
Thank God today's leftists weren't around in the 40's, or we'd all be speaking German.
Dipshit. You're forgetting FDR was a Democrat. Now go back to tossing little green footballs with all your other armchair generals, safely on the lunatic fringe, where you belong.
Unlike Afganistan, the Iraq Adventure was always a war of choice with no significant, or even insignificant, national interests at stake. Winning gains us nothing, losing deprives us of nothing except the spent lives of loyal servicemembers.
From the beginning I've denigrated the Iraq War by describing it as a "recreational war." It was engaged in because the President wanted to, not because the country had to. I knew it would be popular only as long as it was fun. As "Shock and Awe" devolved into a slow, bloody slog people rightfully asked "what are we fighting for?"
What are we fighting for? Even for the Bush Administration that answer has been a moving target. I've heard all of the arguments, all of the reasons that have been given over the years. They all amount to nonsense. We entered the war because we thought it would be easy; we are stuck because it wasn't. (Yes, I know the real reason was an obtuse neocon theory that conquering the Baathist Party in Iraq would create a cascade of democracy throughout the Middle East. That was always nonsense, and they thought it would be easy.)
It is one of the collective wisdoms of democracies that they do a cold cost-benefit calculation when it comes to war. We will fight as long as the benefit of victory outweighs the cost of achieving it. When the costs exceeds any potential benefit, democracies conclude it is best to just cut our loses.
When wars are thrust upon democracies (as in WWII) they will fight with a fury dictatorships can't match. When democracies stumble into wars, either through ignorance or arrogance, they had better be successful because democracies do not suffer foolish wars for long.
Location, Location, Location
All along I thought Iraq was just a way to fight Al-Qaeda on a easier terrain. Sortof the "honey-pot" theory espoused by someone about 3 1/2 years on the Command Post.
You wanna fight Al-Qaeda in Afganistan because it's morally more correct? OK, just be prepared for manifold more casualties. There's a reason Hitler never invaded Switzerland, and it wasn't because they were "neutral".
Chaos between Sunni and Shiite extremists for the control of Iraq which did NOT involve the US would have the convenient advantage of massive Jihadi deaths, especially of the fighting kind (Sunni v. Shiite). That's something the world could use more of isn't it?
You want us to fight in Iraq, enlist, the Judge Advocate General needs lawyers.
When someone tells me that we had no business being in Iraq because they were no threat to us, I generally ask how Bosnia threatened the United States mainland.
The argument I get in return was that involvement was OK despite the fact they cannot answer the question - 'after all, US soldiers didn't die there'.
I confess that I don't understand that argument.
Oh, I understand the desire to safeguard our young men and women and don't disagree with that sentiment.
What I question is whether or not the military might of the US should be used if the fight is not important enough to us to risk the lives of our citizens.
If we are no more than someone's hired guns in the fight, where's the morality in it?
You're telling me to enlist? You do realize there are age requirements, don't you? These high-handed demands that other people enlist ridiculously fail to take account of the fact that a lot of people can't meet the requirements.
re: Litscher:
Except for the fact that Iraq harbored known and wanted terrorists, trained terrorists, and financed terrorists. Ignoring these facts is nothing short of willful blindness for the purpose of propogandizing away the legitimacy of Iraq as a target in the Global War On Terror.
Well, and Iraq had a nuclear weapons program, played suspicious games with the inspectors when they visited, and had generally led everyone to believe they had every intention of developing nuclear weapons as soon as sanctions were lifted.
Of course, that part of the war was over by mid-2004 or so. At that point, having taken all Iraq's uranium and smashed their nuclear development infrastructure, we could have declared victory and gone home. Whether they wanted nuclear weapons or not, they wouldn't be getting any more without some massive expenditures of cash.
We stuck around, though, partly out of the goodness of our hearts -- leaving the peaceable part of the population to the tender mercies of Zarqawi et al. seemed kind of callous, even though it might have been the sensible thing to do -- and partly out of the belief that there was a real chance democracy might take root. As, indeed, it seems to have done, more or less. But there's a well-armed minority that has not really taken to the prospect of a functioning Arab democracy particularly well, and is determined to prevent it.
Well, I suppose we shan't make that mistake a second time. Next time, it's the old reliables -- smash the threatening bits and head back home. If they want a democracy they can build it themselves. And if they want a tyrant, that's fine too, just so long as whoever manages to clamber to the top of the hill of corpses doesn't make himself too difficult for us.
Anselm: Thank you for the nice words. Sorry I haven't been able to respond sooner or participate in this rather good thread as it was developing today. My employer expects me to show up and put in a full day's work. Narrow-minded of him, but there you have it.
I also appreciate other comments. gj: I hope you are right, and this will be the occasion for a serious re-thinking of the situation with the idea of making progress. I must say that I doubt it. Maybe Madison Man and others are right, and those of us who feel as I do are being too gloomy. I can only hope so.
I wrote the comment during a sleepless night (Ann seems to have been in the same situation), and insomnia is never a tonic for optimism. Let's those of us who are gloomy see how we feel after we sleep on it....
I didn't take the attitude I did in this post because I couldn't sleep. I had trouble sleeping because I had this attitude. Look at the posts I'd been doing after the election, expressing numbness and so on. I realized that I felt bad about the election and wanted to admit it and look at why.
I actually appreciated the candor of the post. Thanks.
Let's follow the Democratic Party's current idea of "pulling out" of Iraq to its forgone conclusion. OBL got his idea to attack the US after we ran out of Haiti and Black Hawk Down in Somalia. Lets leave Iraq.
2007 - American troops leave the Fertile Crescent. Al-Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah advance in and massacre populace not aligned with Islamic Radicals.
2008 - Islamic Radicals use $ from Oil to ally with Chavez, Iran and Syria. Money rolls in for terrorist objectives.
2009 - Just like tel Aviv in 2000, suicide bombers attack "soft Targets" in America.
I would like to know how the Democrats are going to stop this from occuring.
Professor A: Did your time with the elite upper echelons of the liberal blogosphere on election night affect your feelings? If so, how?
Also, Elirabett: JAG Officers don't "enlist"; they get a commission. And there are pretty stringent age limitations.
Ann - Maybe nobody told you, but Iraq never attacked us. Iraq did not fly planes into the Twin Towers.
Al Qeada did.
And this president has abandoned the fight against Al Qeada so he can fight a diversionary war in Iraq.
Some of us voted against the Republicans due to their incompetence, i.e. their refusal to not only find Osama Bin Laden, but their refusal to even look.
I think Democrats do want to find OBL.
Just not sure why they always enjoy the NYTimes allowing him a head start.
Ann, I didn't mean to imply you took the attitude you did because of sleeplessness. I'm afraid I was having a hard time sleeping for pretty much the same reason, although there were other things on my mind as well. I understand very much your feeling about the election, and did indeed read the posts. (I'm a big fan and read everything you write :-) No, I just made the comment to lighten things up, and to acknowledge that perhaps that sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach might go away if I got a little rest, and that it might not really be that bad.
Well, here it is almost 2:30 AM, and I still haven't gotten any sleep. And things don't look any better, either.
Grumble...grumble....
Mark
Your plan for separation of Islam from the rest of the world is not really practical unless you can give the Muslims their own planet. Right now the technical and economic realities are such that it is pretty easy and relatively affordable for almost anybody to travel to almost any part of the Earth. Shipping the Muslims to Venus is beyond our capability.
That leaves the other options. With Tuesday's election results, it looks like the "change them" option is pretty much gone. It's not pretty, but unless the Democrats acknowledge that jihadis are more of a danger than Republicans, we are on course for some pretty extreme ugliness on a global scale.
Ann, any war we get into in which the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs cannot off the top of his head state what it means to win after we have been fighting for going on four years should be a war we liquidate as soon as possible.
See Gen. Pace's comment in the Washington Post. "Asked by one interviewer whether the United States is winning the war in Iraq, Pace replied: "You have to define 'winning.'"
When your top General can't define what 'winning' means then it isn't worth the cost in lives and treasure. Correcting your mistakes is more important than some propaganda loss that occurs as you correct them.
"Why are we comfortable with taking the Great Writ ... away from a person because they might be a terrorist? "
Here we have a really exciting new concept -- we'll extend Habeas Corpus to all enemy combatants. Miranda warnings on the battlefield. No more prisoner-of-war camps, we'll appoint them all attorneys. Personal-recognizance bonds while their cases wend their slow way through the courts of appeals.
How the European media will thank us. Pelosi and Conyers are probably working on it already.
Re: Me
There is always the possibility of innocence -- why are we comfortable torturing someone who might be perfectly innocent? Why are we comfortable with taking the Great Writ, the most basic right to just have the government tell a judge why someone is in prison, away from a person because they might be a terrorist?
Largely for the same reason we've historically been comfortable liquifying innocent people to defeat our enemies (Dresden) or condemning them to an awful radiation-induced death, to defeat our enemies (Hiroshima, Nagasaski), or simply blowing bits off of innocent civilians (various bombing campaigns up until we developed JDAMs). It's a rather mild extension of the generalised horror of war.
Anyhow, historically, the punishment for guerillas or other kinds of plainclothes fighters has been summary execution after a military trial (if that).
Shipping the Muslims to Venus is beyond our capability.
Mark in Texas: I confess that there are days I wish we'd give it a try.
(Only kidding folks)
Ann Althouse said...
You're telling me to enlist? You do realize there are age requirements, don't you? These high-handed demands that other people enlist ridiculously fail to take account of the fact that a lot of people can't meet the requirements.
8:33 PM, November 10, 2006
Well now, that's convenient for you, Professor, isn't it?
Oh, and look! Over there! Boobies!
"Is it ok just to let them rot in prison forever?"
A number of detainees released from Guantanamo have been recaptured or killed in Afghanistan after rejoining the Taliban. So letting them rot in prison is the better alternative for all concerned.
The criminal justice model assumes that it is better to free 10 guilty suspects than wrongly convict one innocent. In a context where the 10 freed suspects immediately plot to blow people up, the criminal justice model is not well-tailored to meet the public's interest in not being blown up. "Let them rot" works just fine.
"
Post a Comment