Now for something completely different.
What do you all think of the U.S. war policy in Iraq? What is the root cause of our seeming inability to “win” the war (or “win the peace,” if you will)? And what action should the U.S. take to remedy the situation?
Wimpy public opinion baby wars like this are just annoying. Lets have a good old fashioned war, you attack us and we come to where you live, kill everyone we can, take everything you have and give it to someone else or keep it for ourselves and then we leave. And no damn reporters allowed anywhere near anything.
KILL THE HIPPIES!!!
The war is being (mis)managed by the Vietnam generation. All of the issues that surrounded Vietnam are resurfacing in one form or another. Some of the Vietnam mindset have their root origins in the Cold War.
The Pro War folks have done several things wrong:
a) Misled the public on their case for war. While I do feel this is Impeachable, what is done is done and it cannot be undone.
b) Chose a conflict that arguably wasn’t the most urgent or necessary. There are lots of bad regimes in the world, why Saddam and not the others? Like a) Once done, it cannot be undone.
c) Attempted to conduct a war on the cheap. Granted we won the ground war with Saddam’s army in fashion to clearly displayed our supremacy on the open battlefield with a relatively small force but we have utterly failed to go in prepared for the victory. Occupations cannot be small. Simply put the President & Rumsfeld were not willing to commit the forces needed to do the job fully. Never during the course of this war have the hawks pushed for the force levels needed to successfully stabilize the country. A draft would surely have been needed. I think Bush could have gotten a draft. I think Kerry could have successfully campaigned for a draft. Now however, public opinion and events have moved on and I don’t think the President has political clout or the will to do the right thing anymore, short of a another catastrophic terrorist event.
So I guess I am saying the hawks have held back, nervous about public opinion and nervous about the risks of a great conflict. It has proved self fulfilling.
The Anti-War crowd.
a) No war is good mindset. Well yes no war is good but sometimes you have to fight them.
b) Wars are played to win. Irregardless of the reasons for the onset of war, once begun, you play to win. Anything less is defeat on some level.
c) The American public is far too squeamish over casualties. In the greater scope of conflicts, the Iraq war is pretty tame as far as casualties go. The President also failed to prepare the public for losses of any kind. By suggesting we could do this on the cheap with little sacrifice, he laid the ground work that losses would be minimal. Indeed they are but the Public does not see it that way.
As an interesting sidelight, I read a report years ago, that cited the squeamishness of the Public was related to the lower number of kids. When a family only has ONE child, that ONE child becomes that much more precious.
d) The media is as much to blame for all this as anyone. The media wants a sensation. One should dig back into history to see the role of the media in the Spanish-American war.
At this point, I don’t see how we could ‘win’ the war. While we play wack-a-mole in Iraq, our opponents are learning and training to defeat us. The longer we play this way, the better they get. We should either overwhelm them (draft, 100,000s more troops, not really feasible today), or pull out (remove their ability to train on us). As a Commander in Chief, Bush has utterly failed. Frankly that is another reason to impeach him, imo.
Go listen to this speech. It is George C Scott doing a speech Patton once gave.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDecLiA_Qbw
Five years ago, I think the Public was ready and perhaps even wanted a ‘good’ war. We could have mobilized and didn’t.
a text version:
http://www.pattonhq.com/speech.html
Perhaps at the beginning of the war it could have been won (although not with the elephant-in-a-china-shop strategy that was initially employed w/r/t cultural issues in Iraq), but once it devolved into a civil war — well, you can’t win other people’s civil wars. The only two options are long-term occupation (and then they typically explode back into civil wars when you leave, even after 100 years) or total annhiliation of one side or the other. It’s rare even for countries to be able to win/stop their own civil wars.
I think Americans have a little trouble with this because our Civil War was so unique, in that it was NOT about ethnic or religious strife but rather ideologies/lifestyles (and commerce), it was very short, it was actually won, and the losers were reintegrated into society rather than destroyed. That’s super-unusual. And I think having that cultural narrative underlying the idea of “civil war” in Iraq blinds some people to the seriousness and intractibility of the situation.
Setting aside the lies that led us into this war, the fact that Afghanistan was clearly a more important front w/r/t al-Qaeda, and the fact that, hell yeah, Saddam was a war criminal, genocidal maniac, and had to go, major reasons for failure included:
–Nowhere near enough manpower to seriously prosecute this war.
–Spectacularly bad cultural efforts. It didn’t take a PhD in Iraqi politics to see the impulses towards sectarian and ethnic violence that were sure to surface once Saddam was gone. Leadership downplayed or ignored this, and the results have been pretty catastrophic.
It’s a shame Petraeus wasn’t brought in earlier. He’s at least in touch with the realities of the situation and his strategies and tactics aim at those realities, even if I’m not always sure they’re the best choice.
This simple. Bush attack Iraq soley because Saddam pissed off his dad. He lied to the people to make the case for WMDs and none were found. We should have attacked Saudi Arabia but they are friends of the Bushs so that wasn’t going to happen. 9/11 just made it easy to pull off the attack as Americans were mad as hell and wanted revenge. Bush and all his cronies should be impeached and jailed.
By the way: Viet Nam and hippies have nothing to do with this war. We would have attacked Iraq 9/11 or no 9/11. It can not be won no matter what we do short of nuking the whole place.
Yes AntiPundit… I too agree that we would have attacked Iraq whether or not there was a 9/11. 9/11 was a ‘gift’ to the Bush administration, where Iraq was concerned. But….
The whole inability to fully commit vs the impulse to quickly leave dynamic is very much rooted in the Boomers experience with Vietnam. Korea also shares many of the same problems. Indeed, McArthur’s firing is the seminal event that brought about this mindset which was solidified by Vietnam. I am not arguing that McArthur should not have been fired but the whole unwillingness to more fully mobilize began with Truman firing him.
First, no war was declared. This ties the hands of the US somewhat on how we fight. The spinless members of Congress neglected their duty so no matter what happens they can come out smelling like roses.
Second, we should stop trying to fight a politically correct war. Yes, we should keep an eye out for war crimes, but there should be no safe havens for the bad guys. For example, if a known bad guy runs into a house of worship and is not turned over by those who run the place, level it.
Third, why is America so affraid to use the word occupy? Just like with Germany and Japan, we should go in and occupy and then place the country under American martial law. We should give them their laws and anyone that disagrees, find them a noose. This was the last time America was the undisputed winner of a was.
Now, before anyone thinks I’m crazy or too harsh, war is hell. That is exactly the reason only Congress has the Constitutional authourity to declare war. America would be involved in much fewer conflicts if this was followed.
Why did we (ostensibly) go to war?
1) 9/11! Nice strawman, Dubya. No dice.
2) Terrorism in general. A) There are many states who sponsor more terrorism than Iraq. B) There are much MUCH greater threats to our country than terrorism. We should address those.
3) Payback/Finish-the-Fight. It’s just speculation, but you have to imagine that this played somewhat into the decision to make war with Iraq.
4) Saddam is a military threat to the US. Is anybody really serious about this?
5) Saddam is a bad guy and hates democracy. Yeah, because the US gov’t ever considers that kind of thing when we choose which governments to support. We regularly support dictatorships that are anything but democratic, free, and respectful of human rights.
6) Oil. Practical, but think how much alternative energy (fission, wind, sea, solar, etc.) research and construction could have been done with the money used in Iraq.
So we have six bogus justifications for hundreds of billions spent and tens (hundreds?) of thousands dead. Sounds like a winner to me!
First of all let me say that I am a Vietnam War Army veteran (drafted Dec 13 1965, S-1 clerk, 1/84th Arty, 9th Inf Division, Ft Riley KS and Bearcat, RVN. I believe that President Bush did not learn the lesion of the Vietnam War. Both wars were the result of lies to the American people; therefore both wars could not be won to the satisfaction of the American people. I was opposed to the Iraq war from the beginning because it did not smell right. I was lied to in 1964 right here in Peoria, to my face, at the courthouse by President Lyndon Johnson ( I was in the front row and shook his hand before his speech) when he said that he would not send American boys to fight a war that should be fought by Asian boys. Bush’s blather before our invasion just did not sound right to me and the facts afterward have proved me correct. We cannot act as the world’s policeman – we do not have the resources or authority to overthrow every dictator or evil leader. We should pull out our troops now and not waste one more American life or dollar.
WOW! There are so many good points by so many people. Too bad this group isn’t the cabinet instead of the duds who are. Let me just say this – the ONLY thing we can do now that makes sense, however harsh it may seem, is for U.S. forces to stay in Iraq to protect its strategic assets from falling to Iran or a regoinal war starting up, while letting the Iraqis fight out the civil war. Essentially what the French do with their former African colonies.
Whatever regime wins, so be it, but whoever the winner is has to deal with the reality of the United States presence. And, quite frankly, any Iraqi leader who doesn’t understand that meets with an unfortunate accident. Not pretty or idealistic, but realistic. The time for nation building is over for now. There was a time it might have worked, but that chance was lost some time ago. We need to keep U.S. troops out of the line of fire, but we can’t just walk away and let the country be taken over by Iran, or allow a regional conflict that could involve several nations, and perhaps even go nuclear.
The neocon “strategists” that lobbied for and micromanaged this war truly thought they would be out in a few months, handing the reigns of power over to their buddy Ahmed Chalabi. At the highest levels, the idea of creating a democracy in the heart of the Middle East was total propaganda. I’m sure many of the rank-and-file believe in it – and believe in it passionately. But old cynics like Cheney and Rumsfeld? Please … they wanted a handy dictator to pass the buck to, and they thought they had it in Chalabi.
They didn’t figure out until too late that Chalabi was a con and had just about zero support within Iraq. There was no way that those Shiites who had suffered for decades under Saddam were going to let a fat-cat ex-pat waltz in and run things, and Bush’s strategists were idiots not to see that.
I also agree strongly with E.M. – our cultural ignorance was glaring. The people of Iraq arise from an ANCIENT culture, but the nation-state of Iraq is a construct less than a century old, cobbled together out of the ruins of the Ottoman Empire in the parlors of the elite in London and Paris after World War I. Each Iraqi first and foremost holds allegiance to his family and his tribe. “Iraq” is an afterthought, especially in the current chaos. Why do you think Saddam was surrounded by men with the name al-Tikriti??? They were his relatives and fellow tribesmen.
We cannot “win” this war short of genocide. For every Iraqi insurgent we kill, more are ready to take his place. This is the land where the idea of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” was born – a powerful cultural incentive to take justice into your own hands and seek vengeance against those who’ve wronged you. Every Iraqi we kill has an extended family that just became our sworn enemies.
We should have maintained our focus in Afghanistan where we had international support and a populace desperate to free themselves from the reigns of the Taliban and the Warlords. But what did we do? We cozied up to those Warlords and re-installed many of them in their seats of power and then ran off to Iraq, leaving a relatively token force in Afghanistan. Now Karzai remains only the mayor of Kabul, the Taliban are resurgent and bin Laden is free.
Bin Laden who?
“We should have maintained our focus in Afghanistan where we had international support and a populace desperate to free themselves from the reigns of the Taliban and the Warlords.”
We SHOULD have opened up the medical opiate concession to the Afghanis, given that there’s a shortage of medical opiates worldwide and that poppies are the major cash crop in Afghanistan — legally or illegally. Combining the monetary incentives of medical opiate exports with requirements that farms can only be licensed for export from any given providence if minimum human rights standards are met, girls are enrolled in public school, regular elections are held, etc., province-wide would have provided powerful incentive for Afghanis to organize and maintain their own local and legitimate governments, and that trickles up to national government in time.
Instead, warlords can go back to illegal poppy trade and the illegal arms that go with it.
First, you cannot challenge and win a “Holy War” Second, peace must come from within, its hard to do that with guns in your face. Third, you don’t start wars on generalities, you have to have a target, or an objective and follow this up with a strategy, and end with a postive outcome.
I wouldn’t overdo the “cultural” stuff. Iraqis are not “just like us” but they are not frozen in time and they are not stupid. Things change there just like they do here. And people matter. Saddam certainly mattered. Nothing is impossible, nothing forever “lost” or forever “won”. We can only deal with the here and now.
well put, mouse
First question begs how many of you have ever “visited” the region? Puts things in perspective.
Anyone think about terrorist containment? When was last successful terrorist attack against U.S. citizens [non-military] or U.S. territory?
From BBC News: Bush says U.S. can succeed in Iraq.
Vet:
I don’t doubt that a trip to the region would be enlightening but I am not buying the idea that Saddam was harboring terrorists. The Bath Party hated competition INCLUDING terrorists.
Secondly, we elect officials into the federal government and put great faith in the notion that they will fulfill a fundamental promise to the people: PROTECTION from threat, both domestic and foreign. Dem or Rep….do these people want a cookie because we have been kept safe since 9/11?…do they want praise for a job they are supposed to be doing?…(I will take serious crap for many will see this as an overgeneralization but here it goes anyway)…that is like my mailman wanting praise because he delivered my mail correctly and not down the street. Don’t get me wrong, 9/11 saddened me just like it did every American and I would hate to ever see it happen again but these politicians need to stop this B.S. of using the “look how good I am doing” card with regard to keeping us safe when it is their job and constitutional DUTY! None of my friends in uniform demand that and they are dying for this…maybe our politicians should take a page from their book and show a more humble attitude about it. Just a thought from a pretty cynical person by nature.
JB
I haven’t really posited an opinion because, frankly, I don’t have a fully-formed one. But I do have a few uninformed gut feelings about the war.
First, I don’t buy the conspiracy theory that we got into the war by deceit or would have gone to war anyway for any excuse. I think that’s revisionist history. Based on the intelligence we had at the time, I think Bush was damned if he did and damned if he didn’t. At that time, the administration was heavily criticized for not “connecting the dots” with regards to 9/11. Even though we had a haystack of intelligence reports on possible terrorist plots, critics felt Bush should have somehow found the needle of 9/11 before the fact because in hindsight it was so “obvious.” (Go figure.) So how did anyone expect him to react when confronted with intelligence that showed possible weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Could he take a chance on those weapons being used against the U.S. or its allies? I think he made what he felt was the right decision given what he knew then in the circumstances of that time.
However, I agree with other commenters that once the decision was made to go into Iraq, not enough troops were deployed to restore/maintain order after the initial overthrow was completed. When you look at, say, the Battle of Normandy and consider how many troops were deployed then, our force looks rather puny, to say the least.
As far as how to remedy the situation? I don’t know, but I’m thinking it would have to involve widespread martial law, which would take a lot of troops. Considering how most Americans have lost their will to fight, I’m guessing we’ll probably pull out and leave the country more unstable and violent than we found it, making our country even more loathsome to those who hate us, if that’s possible.
Jazz and CJ:
You have made your points well. However, one thing about the media, as if there is only one thing, that irks me is when they report that Americans – millions of Americans – are loosing their will to fight this war. They are not the ones fighting this war. The troops in uniform are. I would hazard a guess, but I would say I know more military personal, both in and out of uniform than most people. They all have opinions about the war, but none question their war on terrorism. I don’t understand Jazz’s comments. Until something breaks, you do not know it needs to be fixed. Terrorism has been a global problem since – forever. 9/11 really hit home -U.S. Yes containment and the lack of noted terror attacks against U.S. is what it is all about. Despite all of the media crap, the U.S. has never really dealt with domestic terrorism on the scale of other nations, including those of Europe. What is their take on terrorism and how to deal with it? They send the troops into the streets!! I have not and will not vote for Bush. Don’t care for his politics in general. Mamby-pamby America had better wake up! Count our blessings we do not have an IRA or Basque separatist movement to contend with. Whining about the war is going to protect us from terrorism, killing them is.
Sorry for type-o and being so graphic.
Whining about the war ISN’t going to protect us from terrorism, period. C.J. this may sound a-bit crude, but in the military we are taught that the only way to beat a terrorist, is to think like one. Have to even out the playing field.
Vet — Didn’t mean to imply that the military has lost the will to fight; I was only speaking of public opinion and its reflection in Congress. And I only meant that in regards to the war in Iraq, not in general. I think the war could be won if the U.S. had the collective will to win it. Most people either believe it can’t be won or that it shouldn’t be won. I think it can and should, but I’m in the minority.
Fair enough.
Well, the American people are paying for it. Bush and his pals (Cheney) made the evidence to look like there were WMDs when many in the CIA said that Iraq didn’t have crap. Bush took 9/11 as an excuse to go to war with Iraq plain and simple. Americans were pissed when 9/11 and all of us wanted to kick someone’s butt somewhere. Bush and his pals used that to attack Iraq but the didn’t figure on how it has now played out. In fact, the republicans and Bush’s cabniet have been wrong all along in every single prediction so far. (remember we would be greeted as liberators with flowers from the Iraqis??) This war was wrong and the only thing hindsight has done is that it has shown us that it was wrong. These people have been fighting since 1000 AD and to think we were going to come in and save them is nuts.
I don’t blame Bush for 9/11 but it did happen on his watch. Clinton had the USS Cole and the Trade Center bombing and Reagan had 250 Marines killed in Beruit. It will happen again for sure but to think any of these elected idiots are protecting us is laughable at best.
This guy, Bush, is from an oil family with direct ties to Saudi Arabia and this war was nothing more than all about oil and it backfired on them. (They still are getting rich off of it) We dumb Americans fell for it hook line and sinker because after 9/11 we wanted to kick some butt like the cowboys we are.
P.S. Our soldiers are all volunteers. They knew when signing up that they may go to a war but most thought it would be easy money in the Guard. I was drafted and Viet Nam was hot and heavy. We didn’t have a choice and because we didn’t have connections, we couldn’t get into the National Guard (which didn’t go to Viet Nam) because that is where the previlaged kids went…..like George Bush.
There are too many things that the general public does not know about the war or what went on behind closed doors before the war to have any informed opinions.
From a strategic point of view, what better place to be positioned than in the center of the Middle East.
No, it doesn’t appear that the right plans were made, but no one at that time could see into the future.
I am glad we have a military presence in Iraq. I hope we set up bases and stay as long as we’ve been in Europe.
Many say the people over there have been fighting for centuries and it’s not our place to get involved. That may have been true 20, 30, 100 years ago, but the world is a very small place today and will be even smaller tomorrow. Today, the global economy and easier communication is making problems in other counties problems for the U.S.
Some say we’re arrogant for trying to change other countries. We have no place. I say, until the rest of the world stops trying to sneak into this country to take advantage of all the opportunites, then I’ll agree we aren’t truly the best nation and shouldn’t spread the greatness.
I do wish our leaders on both sides would stop worrying about elections and just finish this damn thing.
If we were united, our enemies would fear us. Unfortunately, too many in this country want to see us lose for the sake of saying “I told you so” and it gives our enemies hope.
Mike made some great points. The “activities” of many Middle Eastern countries spill out over their borders and effect not only the U.S., but the entire world. When the U.S. is asked to stop footing the bill for every UN project that comes along, then I will freely admit the world has turned against us.
True, the peoples of Middle Eastern nations have been fighting for centuries. Is it not about time they “grow up” and develop beyond the Middle Ages?
Vet — I assume you do not understand the Saddam, Bath party comment, yes? I hope I am correct becuase that is where my rebutal lies.
I realize that terrorism has been going for generations…heck, you could say this battle between the West and Middle East (Christianity vs Islam) has been waged since the Crusades…however, even with the intelligence the CIA had(some which obviously turned out flawed in retrospect), the UN weapon inspectors spent years searching for weapons never found. Secondly, I find it hard to beleive that the Syrians, Iranians, etc didn’t have the same capacity for harboring terrorists, WMDs OR BOTH! Why Iraq? I was skeptical from the beginning, with regard to the Iraqi war, but it would be selfish, childish and downright LOW to gloat when our servicemen and servicewomen, some of them my friends, are risking their lives there.
The thing that has always baffled me is our POOR foreign policy in the Middle East that has cuased a majority of these problems. Example: Supporting the WAY unpopular Shah of Iran leading to the revolution and rise of the unpopular Ayatollah…OR selling arms to Saddam in the 80s (ironically some probably used by the Royal Guard and insurgency against US)…
Another point: When former Sec. of Defense McNamara visted Vietnam in 1995, General Vo Nguyen Giap commented on the fact the U.S. didn’t understand the full implications of the battle between the north and the south…maybe we didn’t know enough about our enemy. I hope you all don’t take this is a liberal bash of Bush but I am highly skeptical that our leadership fully understands culturally what we are dealing with.
Without rambling more, the argument should not be about why we got into it, but how are we going to get out of it without causing future headaches in the future. I fear that, even if our leadship become experts on the Iraqi people and their motivations, that our shortsighted policy for our own gain is going to screw us more in the long run.
I have been rattling my brain and I don’t think I have an answer…I must admit…not an answer that doesn’t leave the region worse off than it was before we entered the conflict!
Vet – I absolutly agree that you only fight terroism is with terrorism…however, that goes against our rules of engagement and everything we stand for as a people. If we fight in this matter, then we make the My Lai Massacre during Vietnam look like child’s play. So…I have only studied military startegy in the the textbooks, you have obviously fought it…what strategy to fight terrorism do we use with out looking savages?
JB
One more thing Vet with your regard about “growing up” comment…(and I am not picking on you since you make some great valid points)
With that logic we have to also ask the IRA to stop killing Protestants in N. Ireland. The plauge of usless fighting isn’t limited to the Middle East.
But, now that I supported the Middle East in an argument, I look like an unpatriotic a-hole. Another thing I deteste…if we self-examine ourselves and maybe admit we aren’t perfect with regard to our war policy OR anything, we look like unpatriotic people, some even saying we don’t support our troops…a GOP tactic I can not STAND!!!!!!
Maybe the problem is, with regard to finding an “Iraqi Solution” is that maybe no one wants to admit the US might have been short-sighted or WRONG about something….heck, any politcian says it and they are labeled “weak” with regard to terrorism and kill themselves in the political arena.
JB
Damn Jazz,
I understood your Bath Party comments. Also, if you read one of my other entries I mention the problem with IRA, Basques…. There are hundreds of terrorist organizations operating out of every nation on earth. I agree my comment about the Middle Eastern peoples “growing up” was simplistic. However, the Middle East has seen ongoing, nonstop terrorism/infighting since the conception of Islam! With the exception of certain areas in Africa, I would be hard pressed to think of another region in the world that is as volatile as the Middle East. Last, I said in order to fight terrorists, you have to think like a terrorist – not act like one!
Good discussion though.
One last thing Jazz,
You do not look like an unpatriotic anything. Your comments and questions are valid, with the exception of C.J. who is never right about anything!
It is difficult to be optimistic about U.S. domestic/foreign policy or politics for that matter. GOP or Dem, impossible choice when both leave me wondering “what the hell?!?”
Vet – I should have taken more care when reading through the comments with reagrd to the Bath and the IRA.
But, do you agree that there is a way to fully combat the terrorist threat with our current “strategies?” These people (insurgents in Iraq for sake of this argument)blend into the civilian population…I mean, we all know these people are far from a conventional threat. I fear that this “search and destroy” type approach lead us into a new type of war of attrition…where they wear us down, most of the time a handfull at a time. And these groups know that the American public will grow even more weary of this if they can survive and continue as time goes by. So, before I get thrown into the corner of admitting that we should stay in Iraq I will say I am NOT; At least not under these current conditions.
However where my argument becomes flawed is that the burden of proof lies on me. What do we do then? And the answer to that is: I don’t know. But, I do feel that a strategy change is in order if we remain in Iraq. If there was a way to seriously kick some ass and show significant progress, I would then be in full support of the administration’s agenda. I am done, however, with the “wait and see” with no (sorry…harsh there…LIMITED) results. Our boys/gals in Iraq are serving us with great distinction but I fear their hands may be tied somewhat under these conditions.
Thinking like a terrorist is what needs to happen I agree…but the fundamental problem still exists: How do you exterminate a threat that operates and surrounds themselves so closely to the innocent civilian population…there is bound to be collateral damage that makes US look bad, not them.
Comments anyone?
JB
Vet, “but in the military we are taught that the only way to beat a terrorist …”
This is true if you are going after terrorists militarily; but in the long run, what defeats a terrorist movement is undercutting the movement, not killing everyone involved. Killing terrorists makes martyrs which makes more terrorists. Sociologists actually began predicting middle eastern terrorism on this scale about 20 years ago … because a large bump of unemployed men aged 18 to 35 in the demographics virtually guarantees social unrest and/or terrorism, particularly if there are shortages of marriageable women. Individual terrorists are often well-educated radicalized children of the wealthy, but the movement requires support from the unemployed male poor, and fear of that demographic keeps governments from cracking down.
Which is to say that ending terrorism is about a) waiting for them to get old; b) getting kids in the demographic bumps educated early; c) society-wide prosperity and jobs.
It’s also about lowering oil prices (which functionally means reducing demand), because whenever oil prices drop, repressive oil states in the middle east and elsewhere that are ruled by large concentrations of cash at the top start to crack open and become more democratic. Modernization in Iran came when oil prices were at historic lows; when they started going up, most of that got turned right around. Putin and Chavez are functions of high oil prices as well. So energy independence would be a huge part of stopping oil-state terrorism.
Since you can see these demographic bumps coming 20 years in advance, it might make sense to start planning THEN for the future problem state/region. Had we been thinking in that fashion, we probably wouldn’t have allied ourself with Osama bin Laden during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, no matter how much we didn’t like having Soviets there.
And much better to prevent the necessity for a military solution, if we can, since the pre-military solutions typically don’t involve loss of life.
mike, “If we were united, our enemies would fear us. Unfortunately, too many in this country want to see us lose for the sake of saying “I told you so” and it gives our enemies hope.”
I think this is horsehockey. What the ideological leaders of these terrorists movements fear is openness and democracy. The fact that we can have screaming debates about the war without anyone being dragged off to secret gulags for their political opinions scares them shitless. The fact that we as a country don’t go into open revolt but continue to participate in our democratic process and exercise our constitutional free speech rights when a majority of the country objects to the war frightens them even MORE.
“We frightened them, 70% want to get out … WHY AREN’T THEY LEAVING? WHY AREN’T THEY REVOLTING? Why are they still using peaceful protest and not having coups in the Capitol Building? They were supposed to break and crumble, not continue as a functioning society once we introduced dissent and terror!”
And to be quite honest, if you talk to foreigners, particularly in countries not the friendliest to America, one of the things that always impresses them and changes their opinion for the better is when they see that we CAN so vehemently disagree. One thing the world is currently learning about us is that a) not all Americans agree with the president (and for those countries that loathe Bush, this is good for America) and b) that political dissent doesn’t have to mean violence, oppression, or uprising. America often gets viewed abroad as a monolith, not as a collection of citizens all with different opinions. When we do disagree this publicly, we almost always improve our standing on the world stage because suddenly we are seen as individuals and citizens, not as a giant ravening monolith devouring worlds with McDonald’s exports. 🙂
How often these days do you see stories in the media where a reporter is interviewing a member of a terrorist organization, or of an oppressed minority ethnic/national group, or a citizen of a downtrodden or reviled country, and the interviewee says, “Tell your viewers, tell Americans, that we are people like them.” or “… that we only want peace.” or “… that the rivers will run red with the blood of the infidels.” Whatever. People are realizing that you can bypass the American government and speak to the American people directly, who may not agree with the government and who have the power to influence the government. That’s a hugely powerful thing to have out there in the world, both as “Hey, if American citizens get to influence THEIR government, why can’t I influence MINE ….” and because it powerfully demonstrates that the strength and vitality of our country grows from its diversity and dissent, not from mindless automatons following orders from the top, as is the model in too many parts of the world.
OK, OK! Jazz, I agree with you. You hit the nail on the head: in order to complete the mission, you have to know what the mission is. Military personal are trained to complete the mission, but when the mission objective becomes unclear…the problems arise. I am not a Viet vet, but I would argue this: the problem that most Viet vets had with their war was the indecisiveness of the politicians back home. It seemed that ‘politics’ was the greatest enemy of the field soldier. I, like you at am a loss. YES! The current stratgey is not, and will not work.
Eyebrows: True, killing breeds more killing, but consider this. What is a terrorist? Most people in this country are under the misconception that all terrorists are fighting a jihad or some such. There are two types of terrorist: 1) The few poor misguided souls that ruly believe in their cause – religion, politics, etc], 2) the professional. I believe that many if not most of the ‘fighters’ we contend with in Iraq -and around the world- are ‘career’ terrorists. Consider that not only do these people recieve military/terror training, but they are clothed, fed, receive medical care, and are even paid by terror sponsoring organizations. They publish demands, manifestos, rant and rave against the West, Israel, other Muslims….on and on. They will continue to fight for the sake of fighting. There is NO way to make peace with a terrorist. Diplomacy with these people has gotten us – and the world – nowhere with these people, never will!
I must proof read more better!
Correct! Unfortunantly, diplomacy is not an option. The old ways of the Cold War where the U.S. and Soviet Union could hash out issues to avoid war are a thing of the past. Usually in this case, when a comprise apears to be in reach is usually when the “ground falls out from under you!” That is the one thing I agree with the president on…we must not negotiate and play softball…HOWEVER, if we can’t gain a decisive victory in Iraq, then pulling out isn’t a sign of weakness but “smartness!” We WILL live to fight another day and maybe next time on better terms. Changing a strategy when it isn’t working isn’t a weakness folks, it is smart militarily and politically!
Vet – I couldn’t agree more with your observations in Vietnam. I am not old enough to even have been considered to fight in Vietnam so my observations come from the text books but I agree.
JB
Eyebrows,
I never said the American people should be forced to stand together to show our strength. I said IF the American people would stand together.
You can’t argue that every time an anti-war politician stands in front of the camera and criticizes the president and says this was all a mistake and uses a soldier’s death as a way to garner support from the far left, it gives our enemies hope.
You can’t deny that a country united is unbeatable and intimidates the enemy. You just can’t.
I would bet these terrorists fear that another attack by them on the U.S., with Bush in office, would not go unanswered. That’s why they are using the liberal media to break our will to fight and will eventually defeat us. Just look at Europe. See what pacisfism has done. 10 years and England will be a Muslim country. Spain probably before that.
These terrorist are waiting for a whiney liberal to win the next election and give this country away.
I know, I know. Bush is trying to give it to Mexico.