Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

If having contracts with entities is sufficient for determining a person or country’s entire motivation for everything they do regarding that party they have a contract with, what does it say of Dick Cheney and Haliburton, of the Bush Family and the oil industries, of the Bush Family and the Saudi’s.

Contracts are not sufficient for determining what European and Russian motives were in opposing the invasion into Iraq. Further destabilization of the region and increasing terrorism may have been their motives, since so many news sources overseas state that to be the fact. Conjecture is all that is being provided here, and in the face of statements to the contrary in foreign media sources.

Posted by: David R Remer at August 15, 2004 11:00 AM

I wouldn’t count out corruption of certain folks at the UN, but one has to ask why Chalabi is supposedly (or was supposdedly) investigating this. Unfortunately, Eric, your people seem to consider folks guilty before the evidence is in and the jury is out, if it fits your political purpose. And your political purpose is isolationism, or at least an end to international law and standards.

Will you deny this, or will you instead clarify your position?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 15, 2004 12:01 PM

> Kerry, the internationalist, is claiming that
> if elected he will make Iraq Europe’s problem
> rather than ours.

No. He’d share some of the occupation burden with them, and in return he’d allow them some access to reconstruction contracts. Kerry’s plan is crystal clear, and it boggles my mind why Bush doesn’t adopt it.

Also, David’s point is good: If France were to allow her foreign policy re: Iraq to be dictated by their contractual connections, then shouldn’t it logically make sense that we would do the same, re: Iraq or even Saudi Arabia? For what it’s worth, I don’t put a whole lot of stock in the “profit-as-motivation-for-foreign-policy” thing either way, not for France and not for the Bush Administration. It’s certainly a factor, but probably 1/100th as important as military, political, and other strategic objectives.

By arguing about these connections, you put yourself in the same fringe camp as those who think, like Michael Moore, that Bush invaded Afghanistan solely to build an oil pipeline.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 15, 2004 12:06 PM

Besides, this is a tu quoque defense, a defense that attempts to distract from claims against yourself or one you support by alleging another’s corruption. People are occupied by the task of defending the other person while questions remain unasked about the original defendant.

Corruption in the UN, present or not, does not rule out the wrongness of the case against Iraq, nor does it clear any administration official of wrongdoing.

In fact, it’s only an issue in those terms, in describing the evidence or lack of such for war, if and only if Weapons of Mass Destruction were found. Otherwise, it concerns the sanctions more than any real threat to our borders.

If it’s true, of course, we’d need to call for reform, but we’re not in the best position to do so right now, having not deigned to accept the UN’s judgment on these matters. We cannot claim to be an injured party when we did not humble ourselves to the process we would now seek to reform. We cannot even claim that they aided in Saddam’s deception, since we have little enough proof that saddam’s Deception was worth going to war over, as we claimed.

In short, Bush’s tin-eared approach to the UN, his telegraphing of our intentions make it very difficult now for us to claim the UN thwarted us. We managed to get ourselves into this mess fine, all by ourselves.

This is the problem with unilateral action, when it’s unnecessary- smile, and the world smiles with you. Let a brainfart like this one, and everybody stands clear.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 15, 2004 12:21 PM

I just finished a really good book on the pre-war diplomacy, “Allies at War”. It’s an even-handed (non-conspiricy theory) look at what happened between the US, Britain, France, and Germany.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 15, 2004 12:51 PM

Stephen, to be fair the defense wasn’t intended to justify attacking Iraq as much as it was to defend against the specific allegation that Bush didn’t try hard enough to secure a UN mandate or even a non-UN based coalition that included any other major powers besides the UK. The idea is that, because of these financial connections and shenanigans, that the UN, Russia, France, Germany, and dozens of other nations of the world are never to be trusted and that we shouldn’t enter coalitions with them, much less speak to them at all. As Ciggy has argued, we should in fact be at war with most of them.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 15, 2004 12:53 PM

Stephen,

And your political purpose is isolationism, or at least an end to international law and standards.

Will you deny this, or will you instead clarify your position?

Isolationism? “A national policy of abstaining from political or economic relations with other countries.” If you will reflect on my opinions you will see that I am anything but an isolationist. In fact I have argued for intervention on primarily humanitarian reasons in Iraq, Liberia, and the Sudan.

The UN is not international law. It is a disfunctional institution which I will dare to say enhances world insecurity rather than the opposite. The reason for this should be clear, the ideology embodied by the UN is flawed, and hypocritical.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 15, 2004 02:44 PM

Cf-

No. He’d share some of the occupation burden with them, and in return he’d allow them some access to reconstruction contracts. Kerry’s plan is crystal clear, and it boggles my mind why Bush doesn’t adopt it.

He is saying “significant” reductions, not token ones. How many troops does Kerry think he will get from his ‘allies’? The Europeans never commit even an equal amount of troops to these things. Just look at Afghanistan.

Many allied countries may welcome a new team in Washington after years of friction with the Bush administration. But foreign leaders are making it clear they don’t want to add enough of their own troops to allow U.S. forces to scale back to a minority share in Iraq, as Kerry has proposed.

Allies say they are ready to consider further financial aid and other help for the fragile new Iraqi government. But some officials overseas already are fretting about Kerry’s talk of burden-shifting.

“Some Europeans are rather concerned that Mr. Kerry might have expectations for relief [from abroad] that are going to be hard to meet,” said one senior European diplomat in a statement echoed in several capitals.

In an interview with The Times last week, Kerry said that by building up international support, it would be a “reasonable goal” to replace most U.S. troops in Iraq with foreign forces within his first term. There are now about 140,000 U.S. troops stationed there, or 88% of a total international force of about 160,000.

In the last several days, Kerry has begun arguing that he could substantially reduce the number of U.S. troops within the first six months of a Kerry administration. In an interview with National Public Radio on Friday, Kerry said: “I believe that within a year from now, we could significantly reduce American forces in Iraq, and that’s my plan.”
latimes

Kerry’s campaign promises are high on wishful thinking and low on reality. The reality is that the Europeans do not have the military forces that we do and they are unwilling to use them in any substantial way. Certainly not at the disposal of a Kerry presidency.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 15, 2004 03:27 PM

Eric, how can you say that? Do you have personal phone conversations with heads of government in Europe, or have diplomatic attache’ access that permits such knowledge? I mean, one can wonder if what you say will be true or not, but, unless a dialogue is undertaken with European heads of state on this issue, such speculation is just that.

There is merit to the argument that European heads of state who have such low regard for American foreign policy under GW Bush, may be willing to insure that another Bush is not in the offing by working with a replacement President who is willing to negotiate shared responsibilities on the Eurasian continents as opposed to issuing forth ultimatums. A possibility that has some logical underpinning.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 15, 2004 03:57 PM

Look, Bush put us into the field with maybe 140,000 soldiers. All we would have to do is find 70,000 soldiers, and half of those men and women could go home. We could have those in chunks between five thousand or ten thousand. As of right now, three countries bear the burden for most soldiers and of those three, we bear the brunt. So far, Bush has managed to lose more participants than gain them, and the word is, he’s going to cut deployments in other parts of the world by just about that many people.

I don’t know about you, but what is that doing to our image as a dominant military power? I think the withdrawal of soldiers in this fashion signals our opponents that America is being weakened by it’s current deployment in Iraq.

Weakness will be sprung upon by our enemies. They may not attack us, but worse, they may challenge us and by our failure to respond, they may take it as their cue to start regional conflicts or conquests.

Your president has taken us out of many treaties, and essentially done his best to devalue the authority of the UN. To say that we are becoming isolationists is by no means to say we would not have dealings with those outside our borders. We engaged in a fair number of wars and conflicts overseas in our “isolationist” days, even right up to WWII. It is instead to say that we are returning to a state of affairs where America is no longer in a position where it can or will influence events byinternational cooperation and multilateral organizations.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 15, 2004 06:15 PM

What do you know? The liberal rag New York Times has finally brought to the forefront the fact that there is an investigation going on regards the “Oil for Food” Program in Iraq. Their duplicity in reporting the facts maybe geting ready to bite them on their snobby liberal nose.

Posted by: Bernie Biron at August 15, 2004 07:33 PM

> The Europeans never commit even an equal
> amount of troops to these things. Just look
> at Afghanistan.

First of all, 1/4 of the troops in the Afghanistan theater are French, constituting a more significant percentage of their total military than our committment. Over half of the troops in the coalition are non-American. (Eric, I’ve reported this fact to you before. You know this.) Afghanistan is, in fact, proof that coalitions exactly like the one Kerry describes are quite possible if the objective is valid and the leadership isn’t arrogant.

The idea of Europe committing an “equal” number as the US is silly considering the relative sizes of Europe’s armies and our military. Kerry is proposing to bring in forces from non-European countries as well.

Maybe Kerry’s plan is ambitious but Bush doesn’t have a plan to bring in any help at all.

And now, today, Bush has announced that he’s bringing home tens of thousands of troops from Europe and Asia. I guess we’re not going to protect them any more. That’s a big change in America’s role in the world, you know, protecting Europe from Russia, protecting Japan from China and North Korea and all. It would have been nice if we all kinda talked about this first. Oh well. I guess we need them for another pre-emptive invasion.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 15, 2004 08:05 PM

What amalgamation of countries on this earth will add up to even 50,000 troops? And what incentive would be deemed worthy of attracting 5,000 French or 5,000 German troops?

The process of ‘giving them reconstruction contracts’ almost cheapens the role of our own military in deposing Sadaam. Agree or disagree with his removal, it was at our expense. Unless France or Germany will defray our costs, why should they get the future spoils?

Regardless of who’s running things in February, there will be no foreign troops on the ground in Iraq unless a dramatic shift occurs in those other nations, not this one.

Posted by: Adam Ilkowitz at August 15, 2004 10:27 PM

Spoils? Is that what we fought for?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 15, 2004 11:14 PM

cf-

Maybe you missed this quote. Kerry is talking about replacing most troops with foreign forces.

In an interview with The Times last week, Kerry said that by building up international support, it would be a “reasonable goal” to replace most U.S. troops in Iraq with foreign forces within his first term. There are now about 140,000 U.S. troops stationed there, or 88% of a total international force of about 160,000.

I beg to differ with you about the number of troops in Afghanistan. All the sources I’ve read do not add up to what you are saying.

First of all, 1/4 of the troops in the Afghanistan theater are French, constituting a more significant percentage of their total military than our committment. Over half of the troops in the coalition are non-American. (Eric, I’ve reported this fact to you before. You know this.) Afghanistan is, in fact, proof that coalitions exactly like the one Kerry describes are quite possible if the objective is valid and the leadership isn’t arrogant.

A 1/4 of all the troops in Afghan are not French. The US has around 20,000 troops in Afghanistan, NATO has 6,500.

NATO currently has only some 6,500 troops in Afghanistan, compared with the 40,000 strong force that provided security in Kosovo, a region a tenth of the size of Afghanistan. Of NATO’s small contingent in Afghanistan, 6,200 are limited to the confines of the city of Kabul, with a significant portion dedicated to protecting European embassies. Some 200 German troops are stationed in the northern provincial city of Kunduz, generally considered one of the safest areas in the country, although eleven Chinese construction workers were recently murdered there by Taliban sympathizers. hrw.org

The United States has doubled the number of troops in Afghanistan in the last year, to about 20,000 troops at its peak recently, and expanded their presence throughout the country. Commanders say a new counterinsurgency strategy adopted late last year has paid dividends, by providing security for fledgling reconstruction projects and enabling soldiers to gather fresh intelligence to use in their attacks against militants. nytimes

France has 1,500 troops in Afghanistan. 9% of the NATO force.

- in Afghanistan 1,500 (9% of ISAF) including the contributions to the training of the new Afghan army, and those to Enduring Freedom on the ground (special forces), at sea (3 frigates, 1 tanker and 1 Maritime Patrol Aircraft) or in the air (2 transport aircraft) French embassy

Bush has been pressing for more troops and they are going to increase it to 10,000 nato troops.

Chirac, I’m sure, will change his mind on deploying the precious french troops to afghanistan and iraq once Kerry is Le President.

“I am completely hostile to the idea of a NATO establishment in Iraq,” Chirac told a news conference. “It would be dangerous, counterproductive and misunderstood by the Iraqis, who after all deserve a little bit of respect.”

American officials insisted the training program should be a centralized operation under a NATO command in Iraq, although they accepted that reluctant countries such as France and Germany could limit their contribution to training outside the country.

…Chirac says he is reluctant to send NATO troops to Iraq because it would be seen as legitimizing a war and occupation that France believes was contrary to international law. Chirac, and his German counterpart Gerhard Schroeder, could also be angling to get repayment of debts that Iraq owes their countries.

On Afghanistan, Chirac rejected an American proposal that NATO’s elite new response force be deployed to provide security for elections scheduled in September.

France agreed with other allies that NATO should send hundreds more troops for the elections in reply to Karzai’s request, but said the response force should be used only for emergency situations, not for peacekeeping.
cbsnews

Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 15, 2004 11:28 PM

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_04.php#003120

While things are spiraling down into the memory hole it sometimes makes sense to give them a few quick tugs before they vanish into oblivion altogether.

Along those lines, remember that some time back there was a big splash about the UN oil-for-food program and claims that various international dignitaries — including the UN official charged with overseeing the program, Benon Sevan — had taken bribes or kickbacks from Saddam Hussein out of funds generated by the program.

The evidence for these particular charges stemmed entirely from a collection of documents allegedly in the possession of Mr. Ahmed Chalabi, documents Chalabi apparently deemed too important to let anyone outside his circle see.

Posted by: Erik Kosberg at August 15, 2004 11:34 PM

You’re telling me that we could find 30 countries to back us as part of a coalition, but within those thirty countries we couldn’t find about 1700 troops per ally? What are all these allies there for if they can’t back us with troops? If your coalition of the willing is unable or unwilling to provide such a share of soldiers to the fight, then I wonder just how much of a coalition it really is.

I mean, wasn’t the point of creating such a coalition the last time around to internationalize the fight and take the burden off of US soldiers? Maybe the point this time around of having all the countries sign up but not really provide any fighting troops, was to pretend we were building a coalition that wasn’t strictly an Anglo/American alliance.

What else could it be, if we can’t get a scant 1700 soldiers from each one of them? Is the willingness simply to have their name attached to an first strike American war?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2004 12:05 AM

Maybe the word spoils was incorrect, but I don’t think French companies getting paid by USAID is correct. Scratch ‘spoils’, insert ‘profits from reconstruction contracts’.

As for the call of not getting 1700 troops per ally, it’s not as simple as that. That’s the problem I have with Kerry’s blanket statements. I can claim the same thing as Kerry and have about the same power to make it happen. It is the other countries that have to change their opinions, not America. We can ask them all we want, no matter who’s on our end of the phone, and they’ll still say no.

Some countries of the 30 are simply sending uniforms or weapons for the new Iraqi militia. Does that mean we shouldn’t count them in our ‘Coalition of the Willing’? Or should we start classifying members as Gold and Silver level?

Posted by: Adam Ilkowitz at August 16, 2004 12:40 AM

Eric: Great research! Centcom should update their site. I stand corrected, but I hope you understand that I was merely the victim of our obviously poorly funded military public relations operation.

The bottom of that French Embassy web page sorta supports my numbers, though, insofar as 1/4 of the original force sent to Afghanistan was French. Since that time, it appears as if the US role has increased and the French role has decreased.

Still, my point remains intact: it’s possible for other countries to play a large role in joint military operations with the US, and the idea shouldn’t be just laughed away.

Adam: perhaps deals could be constructed where even if non-American forces make up half of the Iraq occupation force that non-American businesses still only end up with a smaller portion of the “profits from reconstruction contracts”.

I wonder, though, if the “profits from reconstruction contracts” should play any role whatsoever in choosing a strategy for Iraq. Shouldn’t the safety of the Iraqi people come first? Then shouldn’t the goal of peace and stability in the region come next? Also the safety of our troops who are working to accomplish those first two goals? If allowing foreign nations to reap contract gains permits any of the above to occur, then so be it.

Your comments, however, make me wonder if the reason Bush didn’t work very hard to invite other countries to participate in the invasion - or why other countries didn’t accept the invitations he did offer - was because he refused to offer reconstrution contracts (spoils) to any non-American firm. I guess he thought the war would be a dream come true for his Administration: a moral victory for America, a final defeat of the tyranny of Saddam, an overnight birth of democracy in the heart of Islam, and a silver bullet for America’s ailing economy! Before the invasion even began, the Administration openly stated their plans to pay for the war largely with Iraqi oil. Never mind the fact that they were totally wrong about that plan - is it even moral to plan to use war profiteering to pay for a war?

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 16, 2004 02:27 AM

CF, first I was impressed with your willingness to accept Eric’s correction of a matter of fact. It takes a certain integrity of character to admit when one was wrong. A character trait totally absent from the current administration.

Second, your assessment of the President’s expectations rings so true. Bush and his advisors, save Powell, have failed in every regard save two in Iraq. They did succeed in taking Saddam out of power, and they, with the overwhelming courage, expertise, and might of our military men and women, quickly and effectively rout Saddam’s armies. Tax payers have justified cause for pride in the outcome of their tax dollar sacrifice directed toward creating a mighty military, and Bush and his administration have just reason for their pride in our American soldiers and their effectiveness in battle.

However, in every other aspect and expectation regarding this war, this administration has failed, horribly. They failed justify the costs in lives and dollars to the American people thus bitterly dividing our nation over the invasion in Iraq. They failed to achieve a quick resolution to the invasion and bring our troops home as Bush 1 did. They failed utterly to plan for an effective and efficient occupation and exit from Iraq. They failed to plan for the invasion in a manner that would comply with our laws regarding competitive bidding designed to save hard working American tax dollars. They failed to adequately plan and equip our troops optimally for the dangers they would face. They failed to protect our alliances and diplomatic good will in their rush to war in Iraq. They failed to recoup the costs of the war as planned which you mentioned. They failed to stem the growth of terrorist violence by invading Iraq, and according to the State Dep’t, they actually inadvertently increased terrorist violence and numbers of terrorist recruits by their invasion.

I am sure I missed I few, but, the point is, their failures are of little consequence if they are not forced to be accountable and responsible for their actions at the polls. In a real sense, if Bush is reelected, for all intents and purposes, their failures become successes. And the liability shifts from the administration to the electorate. We will, if Bush is reelected, get the government we deserve. History has a funny way of justifying the victors that way, and I am not talking about the war between the U.S. and Iraq, I am talking about the war between the American government and its people for accountability and responsibility.

In philosophy class, a great professor of mine named Nikhil Bhattacharya pointed out something I will never forget to my dying day. The word ‘responsibility’ comes from the ‘ability’ to ‘respond’ appropriately. Clearly, November 2, will determine if the American people have the ability to respond appropriately over an administration which clearly is irresponsible in so very many ways.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2004 03:29 AM

To all:

What ALL of you seem to be missing is that the potential “Oil for Food” scandal at the UN could explain the UN’s reluctance to work with Bush. It could also be a NON scandal that is just being made up.

In either case, it deserves to be thoroughly investigated. Those who immediately conclude it either was or wasnt a factor are simply concluding issues before the investigation. To do so would be akin to being a juror who decided upon guilt or innocence BEFORE the trial.

But dont miss the fact that the reporting on this scandal has been unbelievably light for such a potentially large issue. Note how the press speculated at will about how far the Abu Ghraib scandal might go, yet they are virtually unwilling to speculate even with facts in this case.

If the UN scandal happened, then it becomes possibly the biggest story of the last year, and goes a long long way to explaining the actions of the UN and other countries regarding Iraq. Why is it that some of you dont seem to want to investigate?

David:
Once again, you lapsed into the “you did it too” debate tactic.

“If having contracts with entities is sufficient for determining a person or country’s entire motivation for everything they do regarding that party they have a contract with, what does it say of Dick Cheney and Haliburton, of the Bush Family and the oil industries, of the Bush Family and the Saudi’s.”

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 16, 2004 08:06 AM

jbod, you are eloquently correct on the food for oil issue.

My point was not “you did it too”. My point was that the double standard is insufficent to make the case. It is insufficient to conclude that Bush’s relationship with the Saudi’s and oil industries has any bearing on his policies in the middle east. Hence, it is also true that, “Contracts are not sufficient for determining what European and Russian motives were in opposing the invasion into Iraq.” It was a point of logic.

Sorry you misread the intent.

Posted by: David R. Remer at August 16, 2004 08:21 AM

> What ALL of you seem to be missing is that
> the potential “Oil for Food” scandal at the
> UN could explain the UN’s reluctance to
> work with Bush.

As far as I know about the Oil for Food scandal, which I’ll admit isn’t a whole lot, the main allegation is that $10 billion in profits over a eight year period was stolen, mostly reaped by Saddam himself. The remaining sums skimmed off by corrupt corporations and individuals among various European countries and other UN member states was (AFAIK) probably less than a billion or two. Even if this corrupt UN gang split the whole $10 billion, this sum seems miniscule compared to the profits that could be gained by playing a part in the reconstruction of Iraq into a democratic, capitalist, and profitable oil-producing state. The Oil for Food argument, even at its worst, seems to me to be a red herring.

Also, it’s ridiculous to say that France, Germany, Russia, et. al. beleived that their non-participation in the invasion would prevent the war, and it’s silly to think that their non-participation would have hurt the US’s chances of victory. It’s stupid to think that they thought that by rebuffing the US they were helping Saddam stay in power. America was going to invade and we were going to win handily, everyone knew that, there was no doubt. These other powers probably wanted to play a part but were not presented terms on which they could reasonably get anything in return. Bush knew that we didn’t desperately need a coalition to win the short-term goals of the war, and he didn’t want to share a dime of the “spoils” over the long term, so he figured screw em.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 16, 2004 09:01 AM

What ALL of you seem to be missing is that the potential “Oil for Food” scandal at the UN could explain the UN’s reluctance to work with Bush.

joe, seeing as how all those documents came from Chalabi, I think I can understand why the media would be cautious about reporting on it. That bastion of liberal thinking, the New York Times, repeatedly took Chalabi’s word for things while cheerleading for Bush’s war, and now there having to apologize for it.

In any case, a simpler, non-conspiracy theory, reason for many UN member’s reluctance to blindly follow Bush might be that the inspectors weren’t backing up any of the cassus belli that Bush was giving them. In other words, the UN was right.

You can revert to conspiracy theories all you want, but the fact is, Bush told the UN there were WMD in Iraq, and the UN inspectors saw no sign of any. Period. There was/is no evidence that Iraq was a danger to any country but itself. The UN was right.

And I’d argue that there was no “reluctance” on the part of the UN, anyhow. The Security Council voted unanimously on 1441 in a strong show of support for Bush. But Bush failed to deliver the goods.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 16, 2004 09:13 AM

You can add whatever you want to, if that appeals to your sensibilities. If you think I’m accusing your people of being evil, look again. The temptations I speak of are unique to this time. In the days of Lincoln and those of Roosevelt, we didn’t talk about wars lasting generations, and we certainly didn’t enter into them undeclared. There were definite beginnings and ends, and when the fight was over, it was supposed to stay over.

But you guys are talking about a virtually permanent state of affairs. That’s what makes your requests for extraordinary powers so dangerous to our survival as a Democracy- you keep these powers as long as this war is said to continue. Where is the check on the perpetuation of all these special powers? Your solemn promise that the powers given to you will be laid down? Unh-uh. Arbitrary power combined with indefinite conflicts meant to justify them have historically been a recipe for the destruction of republics and democracies.

It will likely be indefinite, if the Neocons are allowed to keep running things.

As for your responses of my analysis of the weakness of “islamofascist” models of the Middle East,

1)I believe I’ve said more than enough about what Clinton did, and much of this is on record in separate sources. It may be what you want to believe, but it is hardly supported by the evidence. For reference, take a look at Richard Clarke’s book, at The Age of Sacred Terror, and at Frontline. Also, given the way the budget priorities were lined up, Clinton’s virtually nothing would find comparison with Bush’s absolutely nothing.

2)Are you simply going to contradict what I say, and consider that an argument? You can quote Ecclesiastes all you want to, but it’s been my experience that while the mechanisms of power, of terrorism and government rarely change, the patterns always do. The pattern of our times is that we have an intimidating lead on the rest of the world in military power.

Few governments would be willing to openly court war with us, or lead it to their doorstep by proxies. Clinton in particular demonstrated to others the price of messing with American military power. Milosevic learned this hard lesson when he challenged us on Bosnia, and then on Kosovo. In the end, the old Apparatchik found himself bombed out of popularity, as Serbs learned that support for Milosevic and his policies came at a terrible price.

But that works only with states. States have people who can rebel against their leaders, territory they can lose, infrastructure that can be crippled, Economies that can be brought to a stand still. With Al Quaeda, even if you take away their sanctuaries, they are more of capable of moving on. This is what many of them did with the Soviets during the war in Afghanistan. They are more than willing to play that game with us.

You conflate many different opposing political and religious viewpoints. Many Sunni think the Shia are heretics. Shia, by definition, think the Sunni are following the wrong religiou leaders. Fundamentalists square off with modernists, theocracies square off with dictatorships. Islamofascism is a cute little oversimplification that you can slap on any nondemocratic government you don’t like.

Rogue states are not by necessity fascist or Islamic. Iraq was secular and stalinist. Iran is theocratic and as of right now partly Democratic. North Korea is communist and definitely not Islamic. Methinks the reason you go for “Islamofascism” is that it allows you to make your hatred of Rogue State seem to square with an actual war on terrorism, when in reality, the war on terrorism is merely a diversion for you.

Why do I say that? Well why do you keep on saying Osama Bin Laden is just the tip of the Iceberg, instead of the main target? Why? Because either conciously or unconsiously, you don’t want to fight a war on terrorism. You don’t want a thankless war that nobody’s going to see on CNN. You don’t want to deal with a player you still think is small potatoes, despite the fact he’s killed more Americans than most of your rogue states have in decades.

I grasp the psychology of extremism, and we grasped the dangers of religious terrorism long before your people were even willing to admit it was a threat. You don’t back these kinds of people down by simply killing them in mass numbers. To them, that’s mana from heaven. They take their new crop of martyrs and they recruit relatives, friends, and young people simply overly impressed with these rebels against world powers. No, what you do with groups like Al Quaeda, to put it in a vulgar fashion, is you castrate them before you kill them. You take away their strength, their prestige. You show their people in prison, in chains, their plots foiled, their support networks disrupted. You prevent terrorist attacks and start putting spies among their recruits, agents to betray and undermine them. If the people of the Middle East begin to percieve that Al Quaeda’s become weak, then they will lose their respect. If we show strength and prosperity accompanying alliance with America, then people will respect that, and will not go running to Al Quaeda or other similar extremist groups.

What we’ve shown so far is that tyranny and cultural subversion come with us. So they turn to the extremist so their world can survive, and so they oppose those who make their life hell.

The only effect invading has had on terrorism is to show how vulnerable we and our allies our. People see the great American army pinned down, beaten back by people they regard as patriots of Iraq and martyrs of Allah. They see Iraq’s government as an ineffectual puppet regime that can’t even protect its own people. By not having sufficient control over post-invasion Iraq, we’ve made ourselves look weaker and more vulnerable. Even at home, your War on Iraq has cooled many people’s regard for our military strength. Going in, we were greatest generation reborn. Coming out, I’m afraid we’ll be Vietname revisited.

I know you’ll blame that on us. It’s easier than taking responsibility for the way your people waged this war. It’s easier to blame it on a lack of morale among the troops, unsupported by their country men than on the men and women back home who failed to plan for this part of the war, confident that it would take care of itself, and that Chalabi’s predictions of people celebrating in the streets and soldiers would aid in reconstruction rather than fighting a guerilla war against us. Heck, you were thinking that our very entrance into Iraq would prompt Saddam to fold. As I remember it though, he held on until that day we bombed that building near him. Only then did he run, and when he ran, we didn’t find him until nine months later. By then, hundreds of Americans had already died, despite Bush’s premature declaration of victory.

The result of Bush’s unwillingness to build a true coalition have been enormous. Our casualties are almost fifteen times greater than that of our nearest ally Britain, a ratio of 930 to 63. We have almost fifty times more casualties than the Italians, in third place with 19 dead, and 85 times more dead than the fourth place Spanish, with eleven dead.

Tell me that we have a coalition taking the risks with us, then tell me just how the hell we’re taking so many more times the casualties. whatever window dressing you put on it, we’ve taken almost 90 percent of the casualties, with our closest ally taking only about 6 percent. Tell me we have a big ole coaltion behind us. I’ll believe you. They’re a mile behind us, standing by while our soldiers get shot.

By contrast, 24 percent of the soldiers in the Gulf War were Coalition rather than American. Almost a quarter surely beats the hell out of just over ten percent.

I agree that Iran can be a threat. I also agree that you’ve likely made a lot of enemies you didn’t have to by invading Iraq the way you did. But Iran is a much greater threat than it was when Iraq was there to balance it off.

Why would the invasion of Iraq create such a reaction if there is absolutely no connection between rogue states/dictatorships and Islamofacism?

First of all, for there to be a connection as such, Islamofascism has to exist. Reality is, we simply struck the wrong cultural chord, one as deep seated in them as Kosovo was for the Serbs when Milosevic was in office. The crusades are remembered across the board as an atrocity inflicted on arabs and muslims by the west. So your invasion has symbolic value that transcends borders because of ancient history rather than due to some newfangled political threat.

Where is Osama? What if we never catch him? What if no one ever sees him again, but we can never say definitively that he is dead or captured? I still think he was BBQ’ed at Tora Bora. Other than the audio recordings that are said to be by him I have no proof that he is still alive. I can’t believe that no one in the Pakistan/Afghanistan Mountains has a digital video recorder.

Dear God, let me sit back and absorb that point.

I have a particular interest in digital imagery, in computer animation, and I can say to you it is very unlikely he was BBQed in Tora Bora. Maybe it’s convenient for you to believe that (it seems like convenience is a defining aspect of what you choose to believe), but the rest of the world has accepted the fact, that he’s still around. Fact is, the word I hear is that Osama is still very much in control, in fact more in control than we expected him to be.

We need somebody in office who doesn’t think of Osama Bin Laden as a mere inconvenience, or a troubling hoax. We need somebody who plans for events after the invasion, who persists in plans only when they work. Churchill persisted in Gallipoli, and having never taken that important, well-defended Dardanelles position, all he achieved was the death of hundreds of thousands of Commonwealth soldiers.

Persistence is one virtue among many and must be exercised judiciously, agreed? Well, your people exercise it to the point where it becomes simple arrogant pride.

If you never admit your mistakes, you won’t be at anybody’s mercy-

But you will be at the mercy of your own mistakes.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2004 10:10 AM

Eric—

Even if what you are asserting here is true, so what, that does not mitigate the fact that Bush lied and took this nation to war with a country that presented no clear and present danger to the security of the United States. The War against Iraq was wrong, period.

Posted by: V. Edward Martin at August 16, 2004 11:14 AM

David:

My apologies if I mis interpreted your post. I’d agree that Cheney’s relationship with Halliburton, and Bush’s with the Saudis, should be investigated and reported on, just as the Oil for Food issue should be. What bothers me is that the first two HAVE been investigated, and no proof has been found of anything wrong being done.

Yet the speculations still remain rampant. It can appear that Cheney has something to profit from regarding Halliburton, but I’ve seen ZERO proof of it. Seems to me he is divested of Halliburton, other than a prearranged severance package which would be paid out regardless of Halliburton’s profit statement.

Christopher:

You miss the entire point. You seem to be saying that $10 billion isnt much money compared to the potential of restitution money. Here is what you miss: the restitution money wouldnt go into the hands of the INDIVIDUALS who were in on the alleged bribery aspect of the case. These people wouldnt care about the overall amount of money—-they would care about the amount of money going into THEIR POCKETS.

AP:

YOu so blithely dismiss Chalabi as a horrible source, yet I hear not such dismissal of those who became “cheerleaders” for Joe Wilson, without checking into the details. I have not suggested accepting the information, whereever it comes from, as fact…but I do expect it to be investigated and reported on. To have it done so on one matter but not another seems to suggest a bias, wouldnt you say?

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 16, 2004 12:51 PM

Stephen, CF,

I mean, wasn’t the point of creating such a coalition the last time around to internationalize the fight and take the burden off of US soldiers? Maybe the point this time around of having all the countries sign up but not really provide any fighting troops, was to pretend we were building a coalition that wasn’t strictly an Anglo/American alliance.

What I find interesting is that there is no question of the multilateral-ness of the first gulf war, which John Kerry voted against, yet foreign troops included 34 nations and made up 24% of that coalition. In contrast this Iraq war included 30 nations listed, 15 unlisted but willing to contribute— about 15% foreign troops. This makes sense when you consider that France and Germany are the main ‘allies’ missing. You can’t force allies to participate, and if the job is worth doing, it’s worth doing. John Kerry himself said he would vote for it even without the WMD.

When you look at it objectively instead of through the partisan, anybody-but-Bush eyes, it is not a failure of a coalition. By the standards of the first gulf war it is less, but not disastrously so. The first gulf war used 500,000 US troops, and if you want to make the argument that we should have had more US troops I will concede that point. I don’t think the criticism of ‘the coalition’ is based on facts, it is more of a characterization. A characterization that insults in some ways those smaller nations that did contribute …and that isn’t ‘diplomatique’.

David,

The failures you list are political, not true failures. The proof is in this sentence: “In a real sense, if Bush is reelected, for all intents and purposes, their failures become successes.” If a political victory changes a failure to a success it is by definition a political failure or success. This is my point. The left is politicizing this war as if it were Vietnam. Rather than supporting the war the left is against it, and has done everything it can to undercut every aspect of it and the Bush administration.

And the liability shifts from the administration to the electorate.

The electorate already is responsible. Considering 75% support for the war at the time, which includes a lot of democrats. If Bush is not reelected it means enough of the electorate were persuaded by the left to also undercut support for the war.

American Pundit,

joe, seeing as how all those documents came from Chalabi,

All? Were they all planted in Iraqi ministry buildings by Chalabi? How convenient that all inconvenient facts can be refuted with a conspiracy charge. So is it your contention that there is no scandal? No corruption at the UN? No skimming?

In the letter, dated Aug. 10, 1998, an Iraqi oil executive mentions a request by a Panama-based company, African Middle East Petroleum Co., to buy Iraqi oil — along with a suggestion that Sevan had a role in the deal. abcnews

WASHINGTON - The U.S.-backed investigation into alleged abuses of the United Nations’ Oil for Food program in Iraq has already collected more than 20,000 files from Saddam Hussein’s old regime and hired an American accounting firm to conduct the review.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show the U.S.-backed, Iraqi-run Board of Supreme Audit selected the Ernst & Young firm this week to oversee the audit of the documents gathered from at least 16 former ministries of Saddam’s government.

The U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority also is trying to head off a separate investigation launched by former Iraqi dissident Ahmad Chalabi, now an influential member of the Iraqi Governing Council, in hopes that a single, independent investigation will have more credibility.

Chalabi took an early lead in exposing alleged abuses by the U.N.-backed program and has been trying to force the coalition government to give him the $5 million in Iraqi funds set aside for the probe to pay for his effort. The move was strongly resisted by L. Paul Bremer III, who runs the governing Coalition Provisional Authority, or CPA. ap story

American Pundit, I think your bias has blinded you to the truth. The UN believed there were WMD in Iraq as well, or why would they vote for 1441?

You can revert to conspiracy theories all you want, but the fact is, Bush told the UN there were WMD in Iraq, and the UN inspectors saw no sign of any. Period. There was/is no evidence that Iraq was a danger to any country but itself. The UN was right.

And I’d argue that there was no “reluctance” on the part of the UN, anyhow. The Security Council voted unanimously on 1441 in a strong show of support for Bush. But Bush failed to deliver the goods.

That Saddam abused the Oil for food program is fact. That the UN knew and didn’t do anything about it is a fact. What is still to be determined is whether or not… or rather how much bribes UN officials took during that corruption of the program they managed.

In addition the UN was profiting off of the sales themselves. This is not a secret, it was setup that way. And it is another reason why the UN as an organization would be reluctant to end the program.

During the program established by the United Nations Security Council in 1995, the U.N. reportedly oversaw a flow of funds totaling $15 billion a year. Revenues were held in an escrow account run by BNP Paribas for the U.N. The oil-for-food program became a lucrative source of contracts for Russian and French oil companies, including Lukoil and Total (nyse: TOT - news - people ), according to congressional testimony by Nile Gardiner of the Heritage Foundation. The U.N. itself collected a 2.2% commission on every barrel of Iraqi oil sold, generating more than $1 billion in revenue. The U.S. Congress’ General Accounting Office estimates that Saddam Hussein’s regime siphoned off $10 billion while the U.N. oversaw the program. forbes

Would the UN resist regime change because without Saddam and the sanctions there would be no need for the program? I don’t think it would be that blatant. But I do think that it would be in their interest to follow Chirac’s desire to ‘transition’ the Saddam regime to respectibility under UN auspices. Meaning that the UN would continue to have a hand (a cut) of Iraq oil business.

“If you ask me what will happen next I can tell you there will be no war,” a senior official said on condition of anonymity last October. President Chirac has taken personal charge of the Iraqi dossier with the clear aim of preventing an unnecessary war that could in his view destabilize the whole of the Middle East.

The second part of the plan focused on persuading Saddam to make changes in his domestic and foreign policies to get sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations lifted within a year or two.

…A documentary broadcast by FR3 television in Paris last month narrated the 30-year old Chirac-Saddam personal friendship. But it also missed the point: Mr. Chirac sought Saddam’s friendship not out of personal empathy but in the framework of a political vision.

That vision is part of the legacy left by the late General Charles De Gaulle who believed that France should counterbalance the German weight in Europe, and the Anglo-American axis across the Atlantic, with a Mediterranean “profondeur” which, in practice, means a special relationship with the Arab states of North Africa and the Middle East. benedorassociates

Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 16, 2004 01:15 PM

Eric,

Its amazing to me how quickly allegations can be accepted as fact. The ABC new article you linked to is one of the original articles on this allegation. The Volcker commission was set up to investigate this. As of the most recent information, nothing supporting this allegation has been given to the committee. It turns out the source of the allegations was our good “friend” Ahmed Chalabi, noted embezzler who is now on the run and indicted for counterfeiting. As of August 10th, no documents to support the allegation have been provided to anyone outside of Chalabi’s inner circle. Josh Marshall has been following this on his blog. The most recent post with back links is:

link text

So the first question I have is, are the allegations even true at all?? If they are it is a very serious problem. If not it is merely slander/libel.

Posted by: csb at August 16, 2004 01:27 PM

> You seem to be saying that $10 billion isnt
> much money compared to the potential of
> restitution money.

I don’t know what you’re talking about when you say “restitution money”. I meant that the governments of France, etc, even if they were complicit in the crime of embezzling funds from the UN Oil for Food programs would be more interested in signing multimillion dollar reconstruction contracts and new business oppportunities.

Oh, wait, I guess by “restitution” you mean “reconstruction”… okay..

Your statement that “the [reconstruction] money wouldnt go into the hands of the INDIVIDUALS who were in on the alleged bribery aspect of the case” is absolutely true. But it seemed like you were just suggesting that the ill-gotten gains from the Oil for Food scam was a major influence on the French/German/etc governments’ decision not to support Bush’s coalition, as if the national governements of these states thought that it would be more profitable to prevent the invasion and to continue the Oil for Food scam.

You are on the one hand arguing that the culprits are just a group of individuals acting on their own accord, and on the other hand arguing that the culprits are governments trying to keep the money flowing to their countries. Or both. If it’s both, then you are basically saying that hundreds and hundreds of European leaders are involved, members of parliaments, prime ministers. If this were true, then which would deflate your argument about the motivation of nation-level economic gain being irrelevant (or are you saying that everyone in the Chirac administration was taking home a $20,000 check every week)? I just don’t get it.

If only a small number of individuals within UN states were stealing the money, then those states’ decisions to decline to join Bush’s coalition would have had nothing to do with the scam.

If hundreds of well-connected individuals in UN states were involved, then they were stupid as hell because there’s clearly a lot more money to be had by simply doing business with Iraq and not robbing the UN.

And you never addressed the issue that no matter whether France, etc, opposed the invasion or not, the Oil for Food scam was clearly going to end anyway (because nobody doubted that Saddam’s days were numbered).

My point was simply to say that France, Germany, and the rest of our mortal enemies across the pond, opposed the invasion for a lot of reasons, but the Oil for Food scam can’t possibly have had anything whatsoever to do with their decisions. It just doesn’t make sense.

You are right that INDIVIDUALS profited from the scam. But there’s no way to use that fact to extrapolate anything else besides (a) the criminal behavior of those particular individuals and (b) the lousy and obviously extremely problematic self-policing within the UN.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 16, 2004 01:37 PM

> When you look at it objectively instead of
> through the partisan, anybody-but-Bush eyes,
> it is not a failure of a coalition.

Your numbers for the 1992 coalition are interesting statistics, because the implied math undermines your whole point: The size of the total force in 1992 was four to five times bigger than the force was this time. Even cursory mental arithmetic tells us that more non-American troops showed up in 1992 (160,000+ by my reckoning) than the total number of American troops showed up in 2003. In other words, the foreign troops are out there, they are willing to fight, and they can be assembled in great numbers if needed.

Also, you are neglecting that in the 1992 coalition, foreign nations paid for the bulk of the war’s costs. Japan contributed billions, as I recall, in lieu of providing troops. This time, however, the citizens of the USA are almost exclusively paying for it - through the nose I might add.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 16, 2004 01:52 PM

> Were they all planted in Iraqi ministry
> buildings by Chalabi?

I’m guessing that Eric’s right at least that this scandal exists. You folks who are trying to discredit the entire Oil for Food scandal because “it came from Chalabi” seem to be reading outdated news. If you believe this report by Judith Miller (which is difficult, I know!), it’s hard to deny that the scandal at least exists.

Those specific documents and sources that Chalabi did provide should be treated with great suspect, but given the GAO’s asessment and Miller’s quotes from UN insiders (presumably not Chalabi), I personally do not doubt that there was money ripped off from the UN — by Saddam Hussein, UN insiders, and possibly others.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 16, 2004 02:10 PM

Stephen,

In the days of Lincoln and those of Roosevelt, we didn’t talk about wars lasting generations, and we certainly didn’t enter into them undeclared. There were definite beginnings and ends, and when the fight was over, it was supposed to stay over.

War has not changed. The human condition has not changed. The unique aspect of western warfare is that we do seek a quick end to conflict. We also put a premium on killing in order to end the conflict decisively.

The cold war lasted 50 years. There was a hundred year war in the 1300’s. The crusades lasted 200 years from roughly 1095 to 1291. The crusades, as horrible as much of the conduct was on both sides, did put a stop to the expansion of Islam into Europe.

Islamofascism is not a blanket term useful for painting rogue states as terrorists and invasion. (As useful as that is.) It is a movement which has definite historical documentation. Call it Pan-arabism, or Arab brotherhood, or Islamic Unity. The Baath party’s central theme is built on it. The melding of terror and Pan-arabism creates Al Qeada. Yes, there is a difference between Osama and Saddam, but it’s difference like that of the KKK and the Aryan Brotherhood.

Why do you choose to ignore the fact that religion and politics is not separate in the middle east?

Also, I don’t understand your hatred of Bush or your characterization of his every action as a failure. Tell me of any other war where one country completely overthrew and occupied another at the cost of only 1,000 soldiers. Perhaps we are a victim of our own success in this regard when we expect zero casualties in war.

By the way to answer my own question in the first Gulf war we could have occupied the country with fewer than 1,000 casualties, most of Saddam’s army was decimated but we stopped short of taking the capitol. We should have enacted regime change then but hindsight is 20/20.

Stephen, you seem to want Bush to be a failure because it will fit in to your predetermined views. You seize upon minor details and make them out to be grand failures of disastrous proportion. What will be your standard of success for a liberal President? 100% success?

Regarding Clinton and his war on terror, Richard Clark is certainly not an unbiased reviewer of his own work. Clinton did not a wage a war on terror no matter what you’d like to believe, there is no evidence of this. Clinton did pursue the perpetrators of terror as he would any other criminal matter. There was no Clinton War on terror.

I grasp the psychology of extremism, and we grasped the dangers of religious terrorism long before your people were even willing to admit it was a threat. You don’t back these kinds of people down by simply killing them in mass numbers. To them, that’s mana from heaven. They take their new crop of martyrs and they recruit relatives, friends, and young people simply overly impressed with these rebels against world powers. No, what you do with groups like Al Quaeda, to put it in a vulgar fashion, is you castrate them before you kill them. You take away their strength, their prestige. You show their people in prison, in chains, their plots foiled, their support networks disrupted. You prevent terrorist attacks and start putting spies among their recruits, agents to betray and undermine them. If the people of the Middle East begin to percieve that Al Quaeda’s become weak, then they will lose their respect. If we show strength and prosperity accompanying alliance with America, then people will respect that, and will not go running to Al Quaeda or other similar extremist groups.

What we’ve shown so far is that tyranny and cultural subversion come with us. So they turn to the extremist so their world can survive, and so they oppose those who make their life hell.

You quite plainly do not understand the psychology of extremism. Do you really think that they love to get killed in mass numbers? Do you think ‘these people’ are any different from you and I? You have it half right. I agree with you that you do have to arrest, foil plots, disrupt networks, etc etc. that’s a given. But they aren’t turning to extremism because of our ‘tyranny and cultural subversion’. This is where you are wrong. (Your error may stem from the liberal ideology of the dialectic of class warfare.) Our ‘tyranny and cultural subversion’ are just pretexts. (I’d like you to define exactly what our tyranny and cultural subversion is.)

I wouldn’t think you would fall for the left’s blame America first mantra. Are we making Iraqi’s life hell? As opposed to what? I hope Kerry has the honesty to use this argument in his campaign.

Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 16, 2004 02:13 PM

cf-

Also, you are neglecting that in the 1992 coalition, foreign nations paid for the bulk of the war’s costs. Japan contributed billions, as I recall, in lieu of providing troops. This time, however, the citizens of the USA are almost exclusively paying for it - through the nose I might add.

And as I have conceded before it may be a valid criticism to say that we didn’t have enough troops altogether or that we didn’t find enough support vis a vis contributions. But I hardly think that constitutes a failure. It may be that because of my personality I have no problem ‘going it alone.’ To say the Iraq war was a failure because we are paying for it does not make sense to me. If we want to do it, and we believe it needs to be done, then shouldn’t we pay for it?

Posted by: Eric Simonson at August 16, 2004 02:28 PM

Chris—

I did mean to say reconstruction money—-my bad.

MY point is that if the allegations about the Oil for Food scandal are correct, then members of the UN were against going into Iraq militarily because it would end that. The same could go for members of foreign governments who could have been in on it as well.

Your assumption that the Oil for Food issue was gonna go away is false. It only went away with the demise of Saddam, and there was much much opposition to taking him out. Sure, now that he is gone, everyone is on the “the world is better without Saddam” bandwagon. But there were so many attempts by the UN and other governments to stop the US from invading. IFFF someone from France was involved, dont you think they would have fought against any thing that would bring Saddam down?

I’m not suggesting how far the conspiracy might have gone. It might not exist, or it might include certain well placed individuals within the UN and/or within other governments. Lets look at how the left views conspiracy theory with regard to Cheney—-its assumed by some that he could be behind the war, pushing for it so that he and his cronies would profit. Notice how this kind of conspiracy could be wide or small, depending on how you want to view it.

I’m not even saying there IS a freakin conspiracy with regard to Oil for Food. I’m simply saying that those who dismiss it out of hand are burying their heads in the sand. And doing so in a fully hypocritical manner.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at August 16, 2004 03:52 PM

> I’m simply saying that those who dismiss it
> out of hand are burying their heads in
> the sand.

I agree with that. I just don’t think that any sane person after maybe January 2004 could have thought that Saddam was going to wake up a year later at home, and I don’t see how the Oil for Food scandal really had anything to do with foreign opposition to the war. There are just too many other reasons that make more sense.

Think of it this way: I wasn’t stealing Oil for Food money and I opposed the war, why couldn’t Chirac and Schroeder and Putin be similarly inclined? Think Occam’s razor.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 16, 2004 06:50 PM

Um, I meant January 2003.

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 16, 2004 06:58 PM

The Cold War had a definite, politically unambiguous enemy on the other side. The Soviet Union was communist and it identified itself as such. There was a definite rivalry for territory and political hegemony over the various areas The Hundred years war, as extended as it was, had definite sides to it as well: Protestant vs. Catholic, and would more accurately be characterized as a series of wars rather than one long war. The Crusade, too, could be better characterized in terms of multiple Campaigns, with different actors and objectives. Heck, I believe the fourth crusade went nowhere near the holy land, and instead veered off and sacked Constantinople.

Also, you should take note that at the conclusion of the sectarian battles of the hundred years war, we have a major shift in the way international law is organized- The Treaty of Westphalia. This is what we get most of our vocabulary for what constitutes an act of war, what constitutes a nation and a nation’s sovereignty.

And last but not least, you are dead wrong about the Crusades stopping the Muslim expansion. If you were right, There wouldn’t be any such thing as Istanbul. Constantinople was brought down in 1415, destroying the Byzantine Empire, and putting an end to the Second Rome.

The Ottoman Imperial Expansion would extend throughout the Eastern Mediterranean, Bringing Greece, much of Eastern Europe, The Middle East and Central Asia under Muslim Control. The Expansion would reach as far as Vienna before it was driven back. Multiple conflicts can be traced to this, including Bosnia, Kosovo, both Gulf Wars, our troubles with Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. They were the folks Churchill fought unsuccessfully in the Dardanelles, and Colonel T.E. Lawrence defeated in Saudi Arabia.

If you were to take a serious look at the Middle East, you would see the fingerprints of this Expansion. Most of the countries of the Middle East were carved out of the remnants of that Empire.

Islamofascism is no movement any Arab would recognize. You broadly generalize the character of many Arab and Muslim groups. Many of the Pan-Arabists were Secular, giving lip service to Allah the way some of ours would give lip service to Jesus, if they gave any credit at all. The Egyptian Government is a very good example of where you’re wrong- It’s a socialist dictatorship under whose Iron grip many Muslim Groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood, suffered. It’s from here that you get Qutb and his virulent rejection of the west. It’s from here that you get the Murderers of Anwar Sadat and Egyptian Islamic Jihad with its now well known leader, Ayman Al Zawahiri, the Doctor, as they call him.

Saddam himself would be closer to Mubarak and the Socialist, as would Bashad in neighboring Syria, a fellow Baathist. Of course, Syria is also in control of Lebanon, with another part controlled by Hezbollah and their shiite folks-

In short, if you think politics, ethnicity and religion are simple enough to toss under any kind of broad convenient label like Islamofascism, you’ve got another thing coming. I think you do connect religion and politics, but you do so in a way that is illusory when compared to the real thing. Religion and politics do mix in the Middle East, but they certainly don’t mix the way you would like to think they do.

Bush’s failure is not in losing soldiers to the invasion. He lost less soldiers than his father there. It’s the supposed peace, after we supposedly accomplished the mission, that’s getting the Bush the flak. We shouldn’t be losing more soldiers occupying a nation than invading it. If Germany is your model, then the casualties are far more disproportionate especially given the fact we’ve been there only a year. I don’t know the exact figures on how many soldiers we lost occupying Germany, but it’s certainly less than the tens of thousands we lost invading the place.

As for Saddam’s army, we could have wiped them out, they might have been wiped out, but your people stopped short for the fear of adverse reaction amongst our allies. As for stopping short of the capital, I don’t recall us going that far across the border. We stopped short of an invasion, and if you knew your history, you’d know your people agreed with that.

Regarding Clarke and the War on Terror, whatever biases he has, there’s proof of what they did. Clinton did wage a war on terror, no matter what you’d like to believe. Only thing is, when ever he’d send a cruise missile some terrorists way, you would accuse him of trying to duct the “real” issue, which was, at the time, according to you, Monica Lewinsky. What makes you think that a Republican Party unwilling to see past the Starr Report, fully willing to criticize him for any military adventurism, would even begin to support the full war on terror that was necessary?

And what about the Response to the Cole? A military vessel of our navy is attacked with 17 soldiers Killed, and what does Bush do when the report comes up linking it to Al Quaeda? Nothing. Supposedly, he wanted to stop firing million dollar missiles at five-dollar tents, but then again even if he didn’t use a cruise missile attack, he could have had some response.

But there was none. During the Clinton Administration, Clinton responded in kind, the old Chicago way. Iraq pulls a bomb on Bush Sr, he pulls cruise missiles on its intelligence agency and tell Saddam he’s next if he tries something again. Iran blows up our soldiers at Khobar Towers with their secret agents, and we roll them up like a Persian Rug. He gets word that Al Quaeda terrorists are mixing VX, he doesn’t wait to get political support, he blows the place up. Our Embassies get bombed, his response is immediate and brutal. He’s doing what the American public and the Republican Congress will allow at the time, and most of the time, he’s getting raked over the coals for it.

You quite plainly do not understand the psychology of extremism. Do you really think that they love to get killed in mass numbers?

If it acheives a greater impact on us, they’re willing to do that. They won’t throw their lives away though, I’ll give you that.

And no, America’s not to blame. We don’t know any better. We just do what all large, open societies with their culture- we export it. We don’t do this thinking that it overwhelms traditional cultures abroad, that it undermines traditional values in countries overseas. That’s just how it happens.

Hopefully, cultures will reassert themselves peacefully, and we’ll come to an understanding between our cultures. In the meantime, though there are some who resent our influence, and would rather abolish it than counteract it with their own reinterpretation of their culture. This is just the context of what’s happening, and we should at least understand what people have against us, so we can find a better solution to the issue.

I’m no pessimist. What’s more, I believe in the power of this culture. As much as it co-opts, it also creates, and like the Greeks before us, our legends, our mythology will become an inspiration to future generations long after our history has come to an end, as it always must.

I’m a realist though, and I know that our countrymen, and our leaders, in times past supported some pretty nasty leaders, and still do so today. And we pay the price in our prestige for their actions. We should be more conscious of that price paid, because we can no longer hide from it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 16, 2004 08:19 PM

“I wasn’t stealing Oil for Food money and I opposed the war, why couldn’t Chirac and Schroeder and Putin be similarly inclined?”

I’m glad to hear you weren’t! :)

For the record, I supported the war and a careful inspection of my stock portfolio shows no Texas Oil interests or shares in Halliburton.

The oil-for-food money scandal only provides part of those country’s motivations for keeping Hussein in power—there was also the matter of a decades long attempt to create a European rival to American influence—one not based on either economic or military power but a manipulation of international diplomatic bodies to allow these countries to claim a “moral high ground” and international “legitimacy” (the fact that these instituions were on the take should but apparently doesn’t for some call into question how “moral” or “legitimate” these bodies really are).

These motivations taken together demonstrate why nothing the Bush administration tried was ever going to work with these countries, which is why Kerry’s assertion that his diplomacy would have worked is so plainly ridiculous.

Unless we ask—worked for whom? Putin? Chirac? Kofi “show me the money” Annan?

Posted by: Martin at August 16, 2004 08:34 PM

Wow, this was a good post, Eric. Good Points on all sides.

Posted by: Greg at August 16, 2004 08:48 PM

“Islamofascism is no movement any Arab would recognize.”

Really? You can (and do) parse it a hundred ways, pointing out that different groups are motivated by different historic factors in their attempts to impose Islamic law by violence. But that doesn’t mean—again—that a very large number of groups are united in their desire and willingness to kill whoever stands in their way, to overthrow whatever goverments necessary to institute very tyrannical versions of Islam. Some may not want these purely Islamic states—like Iraq, but violent and threatening Arab nationalism is a closely related problem that had (and still needs to be) addressed. By diplomacy, of course, when possible. But by other means when necessary—especially when those rogue states are seeking dangerous weapons and have a demonstrated willingness to threaten both us and our allies.

You might as well say that the Communist movements
throughout Europe and Asia in the last century weren’t “real” because different groups had separate historic motivations. After all, Stalin and Trotsky had very different sets of ideas about Communism.

Posted by: Martin at August 16, 2004 08:51 PM

Lets see… Out of the 19 hijackers on 9/11, zero were from Iraq and 15 were Saudi citizens. Bush privately met with the Saudi Arabian ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz, on the morning of Sept. 13, 2001. Why? Declaring war on a country that didn’t attack us, and ignoring Saudi Arabia because of deep connections to the Saudi royal family reeks corruption.

As a BushCo supporter, you have no room to talk about kickbacks. Not to mention war profiteering, overcharging, fraudulent accounting practices, and no-bid deals.

Posted by: entertainment news at August 16, 2004 11:52 PM

Problem is, Martin, your people have to ignore real differences of opinion, politics, and even tribal considerations in order to paint a picture of your “movement”

The Spread of Communism was not a random, disparate event. Geography mattered. The communist countries of Eastern Europe were essentially the territories overrun during the Soviet’s push west into Europe during WWII. The countries of East Asia that had these issues bordered on China, and in fact Chinese Soldiers participated directly in the Korea Conflict.

So where is the Islamofascist country that started the whole thing? If it’s a real movement, it had to come from somewhere, someone. So far, it seems, you would have us believe in a movement without a history, without a set of founders, without any definable set of followers even.

One has to conflate so many separate histories and strains of independent thought together in a pretty unnatural way to claim “Islamofascism” exists as anything else but an academic catagory.

I parsed the groups to show where history truly divides, to prove that what you called a movement is actually several different competing, mostly exclusive factions in Middle East Politics. If you want to gloss over the facts, be my guest, I’ll win the argument quicker among the informed, but I for one think that a sensitive eye for political differences is needed, both here and abroad, and if your people can’t or won’t distinguish between arab socialists and religious jihadists, especially in countries where they’ve been in longstanding feuds (Like Egypt, where my brother had to do his tourism with an armed escort), Then your people will do little to drain the swamps that breed the problem of extreme Islam.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 17, 2004 01:59 AM

> The oil-for-food money scandal only provides part
> of those country’s motivations for keeping Hussein
> in power—there was also the matter of a decades
> long attempt to create a European rival to American
> influence—one not based on either economic or
> military power but a manipulation of international
> diplomatic bodies to allow these countries to
> claim a “moral high ground” and international
> “legitimacy”

Ah! So you’re saying that it’s sleazy of Europe to try to rival America by manipulating international diplomatic bodies, but that it’s okay for America to try to rival Europe by our exertion of military power? It seems like you see the Iraq war as a proxy war between Europe and the United States, one in which they tried to win by using the UN, but ultimately they lost because we just used our military to take what we wanted.

On a broader note, how many pro-Iraq war people think that an important objective of the war was to assert American power in the Middle East instead of someone else inevitably asserting power there? That is, to what extent was the Iraq war a justifyable strategic move to remove European, Russian, and any other potential influences over the Persian Gulf?

I am referring of course to the Carter Doctrine:
An attempt by an outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.

Again, I’ve said it before, securing control over Iraq and Middle East oil is actually the only reason for invading Iraq that I actually think is even remotely valid (it’s the only reason that isn’t ludicrious), and yet it is the only reason that the Bush Administration and its supporters refuses to actually give. This is, of course, the “Empire” argument. I don’t support it, but I think it would be good to have a national discussion about it instead of about red herring issues like ending an oppressive dictatorship or preventing terrorists from striking the USA.

-Cf

Posted by: Christopher Fahey at August 17, 2004 12:12 PM

Of course, Cf. Securing the Middle East is a big part of Bush’s energy policy which recommends that “the President make energy security a priority of our trade and foreign policy.”

And it was a Bush administration foreign policy priority from the start of his term, “While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.”

And, if we’re going to continue with our current energy policy, securing the Middle East is a vital strategic imperative. If Kerry wins and we opt for his total energy independence plan, basing hundreds of thousands of Christian troops in the Middle East is just stupid.

Posted by: American Pundit at August 18, 2004 03:41 AM

In addition the UN was profiting off of the sales themselves. … And it is another reason why the UN as an organization would be reluctant to end the program.

Eric, the UN as an organization had nothing to do with the decision to go to war. The decision was (or should have been) made by representatives of the nations on the Security Council. Are you accusing Negroponte and Greenstock of obstructing Bush and Blair?

Posted by: American Pundit at August 18, 2004 11:30 AM

When I first heard about the oil for food scandal, it was crystal clear to me that there was at least the possibility that Saddam himself would have a great incentive to hoodwink the U.N. inspector’s into believing Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Without the illussion of such weapons, there would be no reason for sanctions that led to the oil fOR food program and the billions of dollars that he and it appears many others in the U.N. and the Iraqi government were profiting from. It now appears that France, Germany, and Russia reaped billions of dollars in contracts from Iraq’s oil for food program and were disingenuous at best in their opposition to a unified approach in dealing with the greatest menace in the middle east. Europe had no such opposition when it came to going to war with Yugoslavia in 1999. Only Russia opposed takiing action against the Milosevic regime but of course, there was no program in place in Yugoslavia that they could profit from.

Posted by: Steve at September 20, 2004 01:26 PM