Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,

Let me be one of the first to congratulate you on a very well-written and convincing piece. While I support the war in Iraq on the grounds that Hussein should have been taken down right after he invaded Kuwait, I’ve been convinced from my time here at Watchblog that the timing of going back in there was ill-advised. We’d missed our chance to take him down and so to speak, had bigger fish to fry after 9/11.

My question is this: Though it SHOULD NOT have been linked to the war on terror, Iraq is now linked because the terrorists are there terrorizing the Iraqi people. How do we win another battle against terror by winning the war in Iraq? If we pull out without fulfill our promises (like building the infrostructure that provides clean water and electricity) we lose the support of the Iraqis who are now our friends. If we don’t pull out we lose any hope of gaining the support and friendship of those Iraqis who feel occupied. Either way, the terrorists will use that as fodder for their war machine, with humans as their ammunition.

While our leadership has created this problem by lack of foresight (and I would expect the President, with all his aides and all the information at his fingertips to be able to have better foresight than myself), our leadership seems unable or unwilling to alter its course. How do we act civilized and still bring the “luxaries” of clean water and electricity to the Iraqi people, as we promised to do?

I can agree with some things, but object to others. You base your argument on a false premise.

“The goal of terrorism is to win sympathizers for terrorist’s cause and increase their following.”
1.) The goal of this particular brand of terrorist’s world domination, we will all submit to the “will of Allah” or die.

“the 2nd and 3rd battles were given to the terrorists by invading Iraq without securing evidence to support the reasons for invasion, and by use of torture: our refusal to comply with Geneva Conventions in dealing with suspects and prisoners.”
1.) The evidence used by President Bush was the same evidence Clinton had access to & the congress used to base their votes of support for war.
2.) A federal court just declared this week that there was no torture: why don’t you learn to support our troops instead of accusing them of torture.
3.) The same court declared them to be enemy combatants, subject to military tribunal, & not under the Geneva Convention: even though our troops have bent over backwards to respect these terrorists. They actually eat better than our troops. They are given a Koran by the gloved hand of infidel US troops, while being spit upon & urine thrown at them. What would your reaction be if urine were thrown at you?

“Conversely, the terrorists are not counting on winning through force. They are counting on winning more battles by our surrender. If civilized society continues to surrender those laws and principles which made them civilized and free, they lose battles to the terrorists.”
1.) It perplexes me that the same people who are so set against the Patriot Act or any law that would protect us & expose the terrorists are more than willing to let our lives be controlled in every aspect by the government.
2.) I consider what the Japs did at Pearl Harbor to be a terrorist act: they acted before war was declared. We whipped their &$#?’s and sent them on their way to the stone age & yet was able to maintain our principles & laws.

“Fear dictates its own behavior and observes no principles. Fear seeks to either flee, or become more frightening than that which it fears. If civilized nations and their leaders act out of fear, they will lose to the terrorists. Terrorists are provoking civilized society to act afraid. They are provoking nations leaders to either cower, or counter with such violence and horror as to exceed that of the terrorists themselves. And in so doing, terrorists hope to show the world’s people that the so called civilized nations are no better than the terrorists themselves. If they are allowed to show the world this, they succeed in creating a power struggle for the hearts and minds of the world’s people.
The hearts and minds of people are the true objective of terrorists. Terrorist’s greatest fear is no one to replace them or honor them for their sacrifice. The battlefield is not Iraq or Afghanistan. The battlefield is any population willing to surrender its civilization to combat its fear. To remain civilized in the face of fear is the true test of courage and heroism in this war. Though there will be many casualties, the war against terrorism can only be won by the courageous and heroic peoples of civilized nations who absolutely refuse to surrender their civilized principles and freedom to live in a civilized manner, and to be governed by civilized leaders.
Rule of law, not emotion; ardent commitment to freedom, not control; and an unwaivering observance of that most civilized of all rules, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, will bring victory in the end to civilized peoples. Civilized people will starve terrorist leaders of their following, and indict, prosecute, and punish the remaining leaders as the heinous thugs and criminals they are according to the rules of a civilized people. There can be no victory for terrorists against civilization as long as its leaders remain civilized in their pursuit of victory over terrorism.”

The rest of this rhetoric is hogwash. Exactly what are you saying we should do? Stay home, ignore them, wait for Europe to help us, wait for the French (ha), depend upon the intelligence of the spineless democrats, or send them aid because they are a misunderstood group of people?

Perplexed

Perplexed, you leave no room for debate. You simply disagree with the premises. It is good to have another perspective here for folks to weigh and consider.

Thanks.

Stephanie, I stepping out the door, but, will reply in detail upon return. Thanks for the compliment.

Please feel free to debate, but I take it as an insult to consistently base your argument on flawed rhetoric. We are supposed to have minds of our own & not sound like the parrots of the democratic talking heads.

Perplexed

…terrorists hope to show the world’s people that the so called civilized nations are no better than the terrorists themselves. If they are allowed to show the world this, they succeed in creating a power struggle for the hearts and minds of the world’s people.

I agree with that statement, but I would add what is also happening more frequently is the message being sent that loss of life in the “civilized” world is more important than lives lost in the Middle East.

While many followers of Islam denounced the bombings in London, they have also made statements that they do not feel their loss of lives are being taken as seriously. I’ve questioned this as well, in Iraq people face on a daily basis the horror of what London experienced. The London bombing caused immediate main stream media coverage, demands for action, yet on the very same day in Iraq almost as many Iraqis died also at the hands of suicide bombers.

Two friends of one of the London bombers stated this to the New York Times:

“He was sick of it all, all the injustice and the way the world is going about it,” Mr. Dutt, 22, said. “Why, for example, don’t they ever take a moment of silence for all the Iraqi kids who die?”
“It’s a double standard, that’s why,” answered a friend, who called himself Shahroukh, also 22, wearing a baseball cap and basketball jersey, sitting nearby. “I don’t approve of what he did, but I understand it. You get driven to something like this, it doesn’t just happen.”

Lisa Renee,

Yes, some people get driven to perform terrorists acts. Some embrace it gladly. I believe (correct me if I’m wrong, David) what he is saying is that in order to win the war on terror one of the things we need to do is stop driving people into the terrorists’ welcoming embrace.

Perplexed,

While I readily admit to being under-informed, which is part of the reason I invest my time here at Watchblog (I also really enjoy a good, clean debate), I must say that I’ve never heard any talking heads of any kind come up with the logical, well thought out and thought-provoking kind of material that David has posted here. Talking heads, at least by my definition, spout party rhetoric that tends to be poorly thought out and is geared to get an emotional reaction, not provoke thought.

Yes, terrorists have a greater goal than just to recruit more of their ilk, otherwise they wouldn’t feel the drive to terrorize. World domination, no matter who the dominator, is evil. As well as foolhardy. I don’t think anyone short of Jesus Christ himself can pull it off, and Jesus Christ wouldn’t dominate. He will have a real tangible power that all megalomaniacs lack, the power of God. He will have the power to change people’s hearts and thus be able to show them the truth. In fact, he already does.

However, if we stop driving people to commit the die-hard terrorists’ acts the violence will subside. OBL may encourage others to perform suicide bombings in the name of Allah, but he will not and has not done so himself. He considers himself above such things. People like him are those we HAVE to take down. The sort who are recruited into their midst are those we have to stop by giving them reasons to value their own lives and those of others.

I wasn’t disagreeing with David, I was adding to what he wrote because it is another facet of the whole “civilized” versus “uncivilized” issue.

At least 58 people were just killed in Iraq by one suicide bomber, today. The reaction to those deaths will not be the same as London by the “civilized” countries.

David,
Very nice piece and a solid basis for discussion.

I realize that it is unfair to pull out one sentence and use it as the basis for an argument. It is not my intention to do this but I need the sentence to contrast my question.

You wrote….
“The goal of terrorism is to win sympathizers for terrorist’s cause and increase their following.”

My question is that if the terrorists are successful will not their ranks grow until their ranks are “army like” in numbers and, in fact they have taken over lands as a military state as a result of the civilian population fear. In the case of Iraq, would we then not have another Sadaam situation of leadership.

Trying to play nice with terrorists doesnt work very well to combat them.

They follow no laws. They want to instill fear to get what they want, worldwide radical islam.

Beagle,

So, what you are saying is that we should just kill all Muslims, and have done with it.

Perplexed,

“1.) The evidence used by President Bush was the same evidence Clinton had access to & the congress used to base their votes of support for war.”

And if that was actually the case, how old was that “intellegence”, and just how worthless was it?

Rocky,

I didn’t say anything like that.
All muslims aren’t terrorists. Islam is a religion, nothing wrong with that. There is nothing wrong with arabs or anyother ethnic group.

If a group people(gang of lawless thugs) move into your neighborhood and terrorize everyone, do you really want to shackel the cops that come to remove/arrest/kill them?
If all it took to control them was pointing out what the law was, we could send a team of lawyers.

testing

Sorry about that, I was blocked for a while and still don’t understand why. Something to do with spamming and an open relay. Don’t know.

Rocky,

How is saying “don’t kill the innocents” shackeing the cops hands?

If the cops are taking shots at my kids because the terrorists happen to be blond and so are my kids, then I’d say, “YES! Shackeling their hands!”

David,

Congrats on a very well written and thought-provoking post. I have two observations, however.

First, I think that it’s important to remember that terrorism is not monolithic. Although there may be many kinds of terrorists, I believe that there are two fundamental forms of terrorism: the strategic and the tactical. They both seek to disrupt society, but the former has a practical ulterior motive while the latter does not. By strategic terrorists I mean groups as diverse as the Bolsheviks, the Brown Shirts, the Storm Troopers, the Stern Gang, the IRA and the PLO. By tactical terrorists I mean the Symbionese Liberation Army, the Red Brigade and Timothy McVeigh et al. For the former groups, terrorism is a means to an end; for the latter groups, it is the end itself.

A large part of the current Administration’s problem in coping with terrorism in the Middle East lies in its failure or inability distinguish between these two types of terrorism. The vast majority of the terrorism in Iraq today is tactical. The insurgents object to the continuing occupation of their country by the US military, and they lash out at our soldiers and those who would cooperate with them. They have no coherent policy objectives and may view themselves as indigenous patriots.

On the other hand, Al-Qaeda is loosely-structured international organization seeks to employ terrorism strategically in order to resurrect a Moslem Empire. The tragedy of Iraq is that we have driven these two dangerous but distinct groups together. Rather than differentiating between them and thereby weakening both, the Bush Administration has fused them together.

I don’t believe that a significant number of the Iraqi insurgents yearn for the resurrection of the Taliban. Instead, they seek an autonomous Iraq (probably controlled by Sunnis). A radicalized minority, however, are (or have become) dedicated religious revolutionaries who are sympathetic to al-Qaeda’s goals. By unwittingly invoking the ancient maxim of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, we’ve strenghtened both the insurgents and the religious zealots. In short, rather than unite them, we must divide to conquer.

This leads me to my second observation. Unlike tactical terrorism, the due process of law (or as you phrase it - “civilization”) is, in and of itself, incapable of ending strategic terrorism. For example, would “the rule of law, doing unto others …” etc. have stopped a Lenin or a Mussolini or a Hitler? In addition to the impostion of physical force, the ideological principles upon which the these organizations are predicated must be discredited and opposed.

A functioning Iraqi army and police force, an improved infrastructure, an inclusive and secular constitution and the rule of law will all help to eliminate the tactical terrorists, but they will not deter the strategic terrorists of al-Qaeda. Until our government deals with latter effectively they will appeal to the former to keep Iraq in perpetual turmoil.

Al-Qaeda must be neutralized if we are going to be able to create a peaceful democracy in Iraq. Although they must be confronted by force vigorously, they can’t be eliminated by force alone. Applied unilaterally, force only enhances their claims of moral authority. It reinforces their contention that they are engaged in a war of right against might.

Their claims of a transcendent social ethos must be denied, and they must be attacked ideologically as well as militarily. We must isolate them from the popular support they need to exist, not simply by appealing to the virtues of fair play and “civilization” but by eliminating our own hypocrisy. We must determine the principles for which we stand, and then adhere to them uniformly. If our cause is just and our actions are true to that cause, Osama bin Laden will join that long list of failed revolutionaries.

Unless and until we confront al-Qaeda physically AND ideologically, however, it will continue to co-opt the Iraqi insurgents thereby either fomenting the theocracy it craves or precipitating the horrors of a sectarian civil war. If it is successful in either effort, our invasion of Iraq will have failed.

We have a lot to lose in Iraq, and I’m afraid that until we percieve the duality of the threats we confront there accurately and address each appropriately, we stand a good chance of losing it.

“The goal of terrorism is to win sympathizers for terrorist’s cause and increase their following.”

I beg to differ. The goal of terrorism is to terrorize, and with that, the intention is to get one’s adversary to change its policies, especially those viewed to be occupying forces.(IRA considered the British, Viet Cong considered the French and Americans, and Palestinians consider the Israelis on the West Bank)

Winning sympathizers is usually achieved through proselitizing and PR. Getting new recruits is done through indoctrination.

So the argument that the terrorists have failed on this count is flawed.Terrorism is primarily successful when its targets act out of fear, instead of thought. The bombings in London failed, because the people and government were not terrified nor stymied but went to work to find the cause, and are now trying to figure out how to prevent it from happening again.

I’m not sure where the Bush administration is operating from, but it’s not from thought. Otherwise they would have listened to, and heeded the advice of those who, like Colin Powell, warned of dire ramifications of invading Iraq.

I would call this a small victory for the minions of Osama bin Laden. They have gotten the world’s strongest military to chase them down in their own territory, provide a state-of-the-art terrorist training camp, and transformed our soldiers from being hunters to the hunted.

Stephanie,

It sounds like your system has been hijacked by a spam bot.
I had the same problem before, even though I purchased and run the best norton virus/spam/bot blocker I could find.

A friend( liberal school teacher) downloaded a free program to my puter called ..spybot search and destroy. Its a very small, fast, program that zapped all the bs that my PAID programs were missing!

I don’t have a link, but if you punch that into your browser I’m quite sure you’ll find it right off.
I hope that helps.

A functioning Iraqi army and police force, an improved infrastructure, an inclusive and secular constitution and the rule of law

I don’t believe that a significant number of the Iraqi insurgents yearn for the resurrection of the Taliban.
Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 16, 2005 07:31 PM

First off Chuck, there never were any Taliban in Iraq. As to your beliefs about the insurgents, what evidence are they based on?

Secondly, a Constitution is a document a nation gives to itself. The US will not give a Constitution to Iraq; Iraqis will give themselves a Constitution. Therefore, given the power sources in that country, it would be amazing if Iraq gets a secular Constitution. As to it being inclusive, yeah right. Keep sending your wish list to Santa. At the moment, the Sunni are refusing their consent to be included, and at least a part of that community is trying to incite Civil War. YOu say that Al Queda must be neutralised, that they must be isolated from the popular support they need to exist. Great idea, now, tell us exactly how you do that? One thing is for sure, The US Army is not going to defeat Al Queda. That is not what it does. The US army is a killing machine, a vast mechanism designed to take on and overwhelm a conventional military enemy. In a country where US forces do not have complete control and widespread intell, in fact, they probably have precious little sources of intell, they are never going to be more than effectively a wrecking ball to swat a fly. You will get the odd fly, but you will do a great deal of “collateral damage” in the process. And in this case, “Collateral” usually means the death of innocents. Lots of hearts and minds have been won in this war, unfortunately, not by the US, but by those opposed to the US. This is a crazy war that the US cannot win. Your only hope, is that the Iraqi Government can, and that it will survive without a civil war, or a turn towards Islamic extremism, like Iran, and spread hatred of the West. Right now, the US is an occupier to Iraqis, and all you are doing is propping up a Government that is not in control, does not have a long term future, and it not completely representative of the population. And all the while, young Americans are being killed and maimed every day. Ain’t that a great result, especially as GW found no WMD, no links to Al Queda, no connection to 9/11. Colin Powell’s advise to GW was correct and prophetic, if you break it, its yours.

David:

Great subject. I wonder if the following definition needs to be broadened.

The goal of terrorism is to win sympathizers for terrorist’s cause and increase their following.

Terrorism is a tactic, and therefore has no goals.

How about,,,

Al qaeda has a goal to rid the middle east of western influence, and have chosen terror as their main tactic.

or,

The insurgency in Iraq has a goal of driving US troops from Iraq and disallowing a democratic government to form. They are willing to us terror tactics such as suicide bombers to accomplish this.

Unless and until we confront al-Qaeda physically AND ideologically, however, it will continue to co-opt the Iraqi insurgents thereby either fomenting the theocracy it craves or precipitating the horrors of a sectarian civil war. If it is successful in either effort, our invasion of Iraq will have failed.

We cannot give them what they want. (removal of western influence in their culture). What we need to do, is figure out “what their Buffalo” is and kill it. I think one of their “Buffalo” (if you will accept a previous metaphor) is isolation. Doesn’t radicalism feed on isolation? OBL chose Afganistan for a reason. Open the cultures up!! Actually that is Bush’s plan.

Craig

Stephanie, in your response to your initial question. We cannot win the war in Iraq, Stephanie. Only the Iraqi’s can ultimately do that from what I can see. Too many insurgents are Iraqi, and Iraqi society must find the means to stop their insurgency. The best that we can do, is already being done, I think, training their police and troops for the job at hand. Bush is now pursuing the correct policy of extricating US troops as soon as the Iraqis have a fighting chance of sustaining the integrity of their country.

I personally don’t see any hope of Iraq retaining its integrity if they are left to their own resources. Let’s hope I am shortsighted on this. But, the hope that it can is alive, and it would be the wrong move for the US to remain in Iraq as peacekeepers, taking on American casualties for a decade or more, since the fact of our continued presence would remain a beckon to recruitments for the terrorists.

As for infrastructure, we are already losing that aspect of the battle. Iraq is looking to Iran, of all countries, for more and more of its infrastructure rebuilding.

Your comment implies a potential no-win quagmire. That may turn out to be the case. One thing we do know, US troops in Iraq energize terrorist recruitment efforts. We don’t have the power to eliminate the forces that could throw Iraq into civil war. But, we do have the ability to remove our presence from Iraq which acts as a magnet for terrorists who kill and maim innocent Iraqi’s. Soon, the Iraqi’s will speak to this issue directly and ask the US to leave. The US would be well advised to seize that opportunity to save face. There may not be another.

Stephanie,

Heres a link..

http://www.safer-networking.org/en/index.html

Its free and it works!

Craig, forgive me, but that is monumental arrogance. If an invading power, in a country with a history of colonialism, tries to impose its culture on that country, it will encounter massive resistance. Similarly with democracy. Iraqi will at their own option, make what they will of democracy. But as we know in the democratic west, there are certain requirements to be met before you can have a stable democracy. And Iraq is a long way from having many of them. In a best case scenario, Iraqis will find a way to work together and either bring the insurgents inside the tent, or eliminate them. Of course all of that would take a long time. The alternative is a hugely destructive civil war, with the Shia, as the majority, likely to prevail. In that case, you may well see a merging of policies and interests with Iran. In the case of a civil war, what does the US military do?

he goal of terrorism is to win sympathizers for terrorist’s cause and increase their following.

Terrorism is a tactic, and therefore has no goals.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 16, 2005 08:10 PM

Craig, terrorism is not to win sympathisers for the cause. It is to exact a price on the enemy, enough of a price to motivate them to stop acting as they are. Far from terrorism having no goals, it usually has very clear and very specific goals.
I come from a country with a proud tradition of “terrorism” tho we didn’t call it that, we called it freedom fighting. In any conflict that is assymetrical, the weaker side will use whatever strengths they have, in order to target the perceived weaknesses of their more powerful enemy. This is blindingly obvious in the case of Israel /Palestine, hence the emergence of suicide bombers. If thats all they have to strike with, then that is what they will fight with. Now I know we all abhor this tactic, but it is a reality, and there are reasons why it happens, and no amount of abhorrence is going to stop it. The fact is, I doubt the US knows in any detail the composition of the insurgency, or its aims, beyond the withdrawal of US forces. US propaganda talks of ex bathists and and Al Queda types, but for all of their talk, they have done little to silence this resistance, suggesting puny intellingence on these groups.

Craig, according to you.

The Goal in Iraq sure appears to be increased numbers of suicide bombers. For without them, the insurgency and the terrorists lose their potency to resist as well as the capacity to achive their other goals, provoking overreaction by their opposition and opposition amongst their enemies.

Successful tactics can be goals. See GW Bush for a perfect example. Remember Mission Accomplished! The tactic was to invade with overwhelming force. The tactic became the goal when Iraqi forces dissipated, as evidenced by Mission Accomplished. Some accomplishment, eh?

Lisa Renee said: “but I would add what is also happening more frequently is the message being sent that loss of life in the “civilized” world is more important than lives lost in the Middle East.”

That is a great point, Lisa. And poses a very real Public Relations and media management challenge for the Administration. Failure aids terrorist recruitments. By media management, I don’t mean media control by the government, but, careful planning in strategy and tactics to maximize positive media coverage, and minimize the negative. Something this Administration has had both successes and failures for their efforts.

Steve Smith asked: “My question is that if the terrorists are successful will not their ranks grow until their ranks are “army like” in numbers…”

That would be my guess about al-Queda. To succeed in the creation of a civil war in a Middle Eastern nation, and become brokers to peace in that nation with themselves as controllers of the national military resources, would appear to be a logical course. However, it also appears to be one of the larger goals that eludes them as long as the US and Coalition forces are proping up Iraqi and Afghani governments and martial law.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. In every country it gains a foothold all freedoms are lost. Neither the US or Israel are in any number of countries around the world & yet we find Al-Qaeda actively involved in terrorism. To say Al-Qaeda is terrorizing because of Israel or our involvement in Iraq is crazy. Terrorists have hit Spain since their communist party pulled them out of Iraq. Why? Their attacks have nothing to do with the war.

“However, if we stop driving people to commit the die-hard terrorists’ acts the violence will subside.” Wake up, do I need to tell of Indonesia, Philippines, or dozens of countries in Africa who have not been driven. They choose to kill others in the name of Allah. Submit or die.

“1.) The evidence used by President Bush was the same evidence Clinton had access to & the congress used to base their votes of support for war.”
And if that was actually the case, how old was that “intellegence”, and just how worthless was it?
It doesn’t matter, it was the only intelligence they had & as far as they were concerned it was accurate.

“Therefore, given the power sources in that country, it would be amazing if Iraq gets a secular Constitution”

I agree with Paul. Their inability to exist with any other religion will not allow them to have freedom of religion. A truly free & open society is almost impossible.

My understanding is that many of those fighting us are from other countries, Syria, Saudi, & so on.

Perplexed

David,

You’ve certainly started an interesting debate. When I posted my question to you I should have been more clear. The “we” I meant was not we Americans, or even the coalition forces. I was talking about “we” the people of the world who won’t tolerate terrorism. I believe that specific “we” would include many Iraqis who are undoubtably fed up with their friends, families and associates being blown up by their fellow Iraqis.

A civil war in Iraq may happen, but it’s not inevitable. We, as Americans, cannot stop it, but the Iraqis can prevent it and the international community can and should help. Of course, if the current Iraqi government asks our troops to leave, they should leave. If the Iraqi government falls afterwards, then… Well, I guess we’ll just have to deal with whoever arises in its wake.

I still find it difficult to believe that with all the highly educated people in this land and in the world, with all the expert strategists, we can’t find a way to win the Iraqis’ freedom. It’s their job to keep it, of course, but right now, with their country in shambles and daily terrorist attacks, they’re not free. Getting our own leadership to listen to and follow the advice of the experts is another problem, obviously.

But…I just have a whole lot of difficulty throwwing up my hands and saying “it can’t be done” and walking away. Iraq’s a mess. A lot of that is America’s fault. So we’re supposed to walk away and leave them to clean it up themselves? That does not seem like a very civilized thing to do. America has to take responisibility for its actions.

Thanks Beagle. Having some idea what happened helps a lot. My husband’s going to work on it when he gets a chance. He’s my computer guru.

Chuck, we have no disagreements at all on our understandings. You are quite right to point to the difference in the terrorists in Iraq. I could differ on whether insurgents are tactical as opposed to strategic themselves, because I believe their goal is to prevent a government from taking power that diminishes their control of government. But, that is a minor point.

You are quite correct IMO, that even if the Iraqi insurgents were put down, al-Queda may pursue terrorism in Iraq. That would depend on al-Queda’s assessment of their potential to create civil war. Without internal civil war amongst Iraq factions, al-Queda has no toehold nor hope of acquiring positions of power in that country.

We have no disagreement about taking out al-Queda terrorist leadership. The point I make in the article is that doing so becomes far, far more difficult if al-Queda has a replenishing supply of recruits and contacts and supporter connections in the various populations in which al-Queda operates. That is why the “hearts and minds” war is essential for civilized society to win. On many occasions, leadership of al-Queda have escaped using the bodies of recruits to shield their escape.

Taking out OBL, will very likely not end al-Queda. In fact, depending on how his demise is promoted, he could become a martyr vastly increasing terrorist ranks. I certainly hope that is not allowed to occur. How we capture and/or kill OBL, could have protracted consequences for or against our efforts. I am confident our Intelligence agencies and DoD are acutely aware of this. Still, this is an easy thing to lose control over.

Terrorists need contacts in the general population, they need cover, hideouts, and messengers and communications. That is where the hearts and minds war is so crucial. We can turn the population away from the terrorists if our own actions are justified, accepted by the world media as legitimate, and beyond the terrorists ability to provide evidence of our own inhumanity.

We can never win all the hearts and minds, but, we can diminsh the converts by terrorists if the media and world’s people accept our actions as necessary and justified and legal. We can’t change the horrendous mistake of claiming WMD and not being able to demonstrate those weapons to the world.

But, we can hopefully still resurrect our general image in the Middle East as a humane military force that is far preferable to be allied with by fence sitters than al-Queda. Returning to the Geneva Conventions or adapting and codifying them for this new paradigm in warfare would go a very long way toward that effort, I hope.

Perplexed said:

“However, if we stop driving people to commit the die-hard terrorists’ acts the violence will subside.” Wake up, do I need to tell of Indonesia, Philippines, or dozens of countries in Africa who have not been driven. They choose to kill others in the name of Allah. Submit or die.

Both Indonesia and the Philippines are impoverished nations. Considering our wealth… I do wonder what their motives might be?

David,
A quick question. Does IMO, mean “in my opinion”? If not, what is that short for?

Stephanie,
Yes, IMO = in my opinion

David,
Good post.

OBL has been absolutely clear about his goals. They include: 1) withdrawal of US support for Israel, 2) withdrawal of US bases in Saudi Arabia, 3) Cessation of support for autocratic Arab regimes, such as Egypt, 4) higher oil prices, 5) prevention of the spread of perceived western decadence in Islamic lands, and 6) Stop suppressing Islamic movements in places such as the Phillipines, Aceh, and Kashmir.

In summary, OBL perceives that Muslims are under attack, and that the chief culprit is the US.

OBL has been absolutely clear in making the case for Muslims to oppose this perceived attack. He has strictly followed the tenets of Islam by receiving approval from clerics and scholars to declare a defensive Jihad. (Whether those few clerics & scholars were correct in giving approval is another topic).

This clerical & scholarly approval includes justification for terrorism, for attacks against civilians and even other Muslims. This approval includes permission to use WMD’s.

OBL’s statements and actions have a 90% correlation. He means what he says, and he does what he says he will do.

OBL is one of the most formidable enemies we have ever faced, along the lines of Tecumseh, Robert E Lee, etc. He knows exactly what he is doing. He is modest, pious, intelligent, well-educated, soft-spoken, articulate, courageous on the field of combat, frugal, and willing to give up riches to live a simple life; and, he is willing to use murderous means to attain his clearly stated goals.

OBL understands the use of fear, and has spoken about it. He intentionally maintains long periods of silence because he believes that increases fear.

He is a extremely dangerous. It’s doubtful he participates in planning or operations anymore, but OBL acts as a symbolic leader fighting against the perceived oppression of Islam. His words are poison. They incite others to violence and murder.

He must be taken out at all costs.

It’s too late to do much about Al Qaida. It acted as a loosely organzied training organization, primarily for producing insurgents & foot soldiers. They’ve dispersed. At this point it’s just a matter of field intelligence and small scale warfare.

Incidentally, OBL claims he defers to one man in particular; Mullah Mohammed Omar, head of the Taliban. Like OBL, Omar was a mujahideen. He lacks of OBL’s charisma, but unquestionably Omar must be taken out as well.

What to do?

1)Take out OBL
2)Address Muslim grievances.
3)Reject an atmosphere of fear

If you’ve bothered to read this far, and think about OBL’s goals, it is obvious that, in those terms, the US has made terrible errors. We have played into his hands in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in our cultivation of a pervasive atmosphere of fear at home.

Paul:

I said:

We cannot give them what they want. (removal of western influence in their culture)

You reponded:

Craig, forgive me, but that is monumental arrogance. If an invading power, in a country with a history of colonialism, tries to impose its culture on that country, it will encounter massive resistance

So how do we remove western inflence from their culture?? Removing our troops wont do that. But the UN back in charge? Look who is on the security counsel. Do we shut down satelite feeds, or the Internet?? Western influence is there to stay. As a matter of fact, whatever the United States does, western influence will increase not decrease in their culture.

Cultural walls are coming down because of progress and capitalism. Many islamic fundamentalist will choose death over seeing their world invaded by western culture. Armed forces are easy compared to Hollywood and commerce!!

Craig

David:

Successful tactics can be goals See GW Bush for a perfect example. Remember Mission Accomplished! The tactic was to invade with overwhelming force. The tactic became the goal when Iraqi forces dissipated, as evidenced by Mission Accomplished. Some accomplishment, eh?

The tactic was to invade with overwelming force. The goal was to remove Sadaam from power.

The Goal in Iraq sure appears to be increased numbers of suicide bombers.

That would be an intermediate objective of the insurgents (not terrorism) in order to complete their goal of something else, which is,,,,,,
The insurgents are increasing numbers of suicide bombers for a purpose (goal). They aren’t just doing it because they are in to suicide are they??

Craig

phx8

OBL has been absolutely clear about his goals. They include: 1) withdrawal of US support for Israel, 2) withdrawal of US bases in Saudi Arabia, 3) Cessation of support for autocratic Arab regimes, such as Egypt, 4) higher oil prices, 5) prevention of the spread of perceived western decadence in Islamic lands, and 6) Stop suppressing Islamic movements in places such as the Phillipines, Aceh, and Kashmir.

In summary, OBL perceives that Muslims are under attack, and that the chief culprit is the US.

Excellent summary:

And OBL is absolutely right. Muslim faith, particularly in the form OBL grew up in (radical) is under attack. It requires isolation from western influence. I am certain OBL sees the “purity” of his faith (from his eyes) diminished by western “decedance”. Imagine what it is like for a fundamentalist is Saudi Arabia to hear the stories from before the oil industry came and set up shop. The golden era of islam (again through his eyes) is behind him in history, and he would rather die than face the life he sees in the future. Because western influence is taking away his culture, he is willing to make us pay by killing as many of us as he can. After all, none of his offspring will ever live in a world like what once existed, in “pure” islam.

The sad thing is that progress is very hard to stop. The world is getting much much smaller. OBL has less and less room inwhich to maneuver.

Craig

Beagle said: “Trying to play nice with terrorists doesnt work very well to combat them.”

Beagle, we can apprehend and/or kill terrorists within International Law and treaty which we agreed to both in spirit and letter, or we can apprehend and kill terrorists outside that law. If we do the latter, we are outlaws, and the terrorists will use that to the nth degree to make our job 4 fold, 10 fold or 25 fold more difficult and costly. We can fight them, or we can fight them and aid them. I would prefer we simply fight them.

“They follow no laws. They want to instill fear to get what they want, worldwide radical islam.”

Quite right, which should make demonstrating to the world that we are a far superior to them in our word and deed, and not just as bad as them by becoming outlaws ourselves.

Stephanie said: “But…I just have a whole lot of difficulty throwwing up my hands and saying “it can’t be done” and walking away.”

I understand and agree reluctantly. We do have a responsibility and obligation in Iraq now that have completely destablilized their nation. The huge question is: Does our presence and assistance prolong the destabilization or promote stabilization? The answer to that question is not clear yet, and the Iraqis themselves will be the ones to have to answer it.

Extricating ourselves while saving face may still be possible - I just don’t see the path to that end at this time. Craig Holmes is right about a number of points, not the least of which is that capturing OBL will help us, immensely, at least in the PR and media war in western cultures.

Craig Holmes, excellent observations above. To the extent that Western Society can project tolerance and acceptance of Islam, while maintaining its dogged pursuit of terrorists in a lawful manner, we can potentially win the hearts and minds of Islamic people’s, especially, if we are fortunate enough to be invited by Iraq to leave, and we do so. That one act, would do more to convince Islamic peoples that our intentions were/are taking out tyrants, than any other I can think of, and at the same time diminish the terrorist’s message that we are the tyrants.

phx8, thank you for the excellent outline of al-Queda leadership’s stated goals. That is very important context for this discussion. Much appreciated.

Thank you phx8, I’ve never seen OBL put so succintly before. While I was much more comfortable believing he was simply crazy and charasmatic…alas, ignorance is not truly bliss in a time where it just might get you dead (well, more easily than usual.

David,

I agree that we have to be above the methods terrorists, we already are. They intensionaly kill women,children,and their own people to instill fear.
In any war innocent people get killed,but we dont just target the on purpose.

I’m only talking about taking the gloves off when dealing with the known terrorists, not just large ethnic or religous groups.

If we are to go by rules made by the current UN, We better take a look at the make-up of that body? Who is on the humanrights committe ?

Hell half of them agree with the goals of the terrorists.
What are the big sucess storys of the UN winning any wars or keeping the peace ?

If every nation member of the UN were given a vote about dealing with Isreal, the majority would vote to finish what Hitler attempted !

Turning to terrorism in Iraq:

According to General Vines, third in command for the US in Iraq, we face three groups: 1) former Baathists, seeking to resurrect a secular government; 2) Sunni nationalists, who resent the US presence; and 3)foreign jihadists, including Zarqawi.

All three groups share a common goal, the end of the US occupation of Iraq.

The first two groups usually attack military targets, so they are outside this topic.

The third group consists of both foreign and Iraqi elements. They are motivated by an extreme Sunni version of Islam. According to an Arab web site listing suicide bombers, the majority of the foreign bombers come from Saudi Arabia. As for Zarqawi, many of the people from his organization, Al Qaida in Iraq, come from Iraq. Take a look at the names of his lieutenants when an arrest occurs.

OBL’s Al Qaida and Zarqawi’s Al Qaida in Iraq differ in one very important respect: Zarqawi’s group detests the Shias.

What to do?

For a number of reasons, the US will significantly reduce troops in a year. The reasons:

1) There are pitfalls, but an Iraqi government should be in place by early next year.

2) US manpower shortages will become critical in a year.

3) Spending $5 billion per month will be difficult to sustain as the US economy nears the end of the current cycle.

4) US election campaigns will be under way in fall 2006.

Recently two articles appeared suggesting US troops in Iraq would be reduced to 66,000 in a year, situation permitting.

Have no doubt; whatever it may be, the situation will permit.

However, if the Iraqis approve a constitution which favors federalism, and places the Kurds & Sunnis under Shia rule, the foreign jihadists will continue their terrorist attacks, US presence or no.

Why? They detest the Shias. Neither Saudi Arabia, Syria, nor other Sunnis countries will perceive a Shia dominated government in Iraq as in their interests. A non-Islamic, westernized, secular government would rub salt in the wound. Iran, on the other hand, will support a Shia dominated government to the hilt.

Formation of a united, federalist Iraq dominated by the Shias will result in a civil war. US withdrawal will clear the way for this civil war, with one side supported in the Sunni Saudi Arabian faction, and the other side supported by Iran.

In a curious yet sad turn of events, the problems of terrorism directed at the US could dwindle, as the Sunnis & Shias engage in a religious war.

Phx8,

Aren’t the Bathists more a political party made up of Sunni’s?
I’m not sure where the Kurds fall into that mix, is it all different views of the same religion?

I’m not trying to be cute, I honestly don’t know.

I wonder if the differences are like the differences in the Christian religon?
Catholic, Methodist, Babtist ect?
While those groups do debate and argue points, few try to kill those in the other groups.
( at least in America they dont).

I hope those different views can tolerated nonviolently in Islam soon.

Perplexed,

“”1.) The evidence used by President Bush was the same evidence Clinton had access to & the congress used to base their votes of support for war.”
And if that was actually the case, how old was that “intellegence”, and just how worthless was it?

“It doesn’t matter, it was the only intelligence they had & as far as they were concerned it was accurate.”

It doesn’t matter?

If that is the case, no wonder the situation is as it is.

What you are saying is that we rushed into a war with a soverign nation with intel from the Clintom administration, which by the way, had been out of office for 2 years already, and had only been “Wagging the dog” when the intel was gathered.
That’s ok with you?

God help us all.

The “evidence” that was used to get us into this mess is irrelevent now. Really, I would truly like to believe that Bush had the best of intentions in this, but…

The point is, we’re there, it’s a mess, and we need to do our best to clean it up in whatever civilized ways we can in order to have the war in Iraq be yet another victorious battle in the war on terrorists’ tactics.

If the war in Iraq and the war on terrorists’ tactics continues to be fought here at home as a partisan issue, then we, the American people, will lose.

Beagle,
“Aren’t the Bathists more a political party made up of Sunni’s?”
Yes, they are a secular political party.

” I wonder if the differences are like the differences in the Christian religon?”
Yes, but I suppose the difference between the Sunnis & Shias could be compared to the difference between Protestants & Catholics. Here is an article on their history.

Most Protestants & Catholics get along just fine, and I’d guess the same is true for most Sunnis & Shias. But it doesn’t take many violent people to start a whole lot of trouble.

The Kurds are Sunni, but a different ethnic group from the people of central & southern Iraq.

Stephanie,

If the leadership can’t admit it’s mistakes, it can’t help but make them again.

America can not waste the amount of resources that we are and hope that we will eventually get it right.

Those that we fight can do what they are doing forever with limited resources. They seem to be highly motivated toward their goal, and a war of attrition is not one we want to fight.

Where is the “shock and awe”?

Terrorism can never be stamped out. Terrorism has been with the human race as an innate part of human’s capacity for struggle. However, Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism can eventually be proven to be a fruitless effort in the pursuit of their goals. And that, in the long run, is civilization’s objective. It is also an objective that can be attained without losing our civilized natures.

We have the technology, the numbers, the fire power, and the media access to frustrate fundamentalist terrorism in ever reaching their goals, provided we do not become their agents against ourselves. We must retain our humanity and civilized rule of law and abide by those laws to avoid becoming agents of the terrorists in the pursuit of their goals. For one of their goals is to provoke us into action that demonstrates our lack of humanity and unwillingness to abide by our own laws, making us no better than them.

Rocky said: “Those that we fight can do what they are doing forever with limited resources.”

I have to disagree. Eventually the fact that they are using their own people to blow up their own people is going to catch up with them. We need to put forth the effort to ensure it catches up with them sooner instead of later.

Should our current administration admit it’s mistakes? Yes, damn right they should! However, and here’s the catch, if that’s your biggest card to play, and you keep playing it over and over again, then your actions aren’t productive.

Let me put it this way, and I’m making it ridiculous for a reason… If President Bush were to stop on on-coming meteor with his bare hands and throw it back into space, thus saving the entire world, the Democrats wouldn’t cheer him as a hero, they would critize him for being so arrogant as to catch the meteor himself and being so foolish as to let it get so close in the first place.

If all the Democrat can do is critize the President NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES then they are not helping anyone, least of all themselves. From what I’ve seen since Gore lost, that seems to be pretty much what’s been going on. There was a brief respite after 9/11, then it was back to politics as usual.

The Democrats don’t seem to understand that the majority of Americans still respect the President, because he is the President, regardless of whether they agree with his decisions or not. If all you can do is critize him, then you’re going to continue to lose to him.

PHx8,

Thanks for your responce.

If what you say is true(sounds reasonable to me), It would seem that there is a good chance, given time, the various forms of Islam can also learn to tolerate others sects ?

The KKK also claimed religion as the basis for the things the were doing. It took too long for religous leaders to denounce that, but eventionally they did.
With any luck(and the information age), the Islamic religion leaders will move faster.

Beagle,
“…there is a good chance, given time, the various forms of Islam can also learn to tolerate others sects.”

One would think. They live together in Pakistan, although there are occasional outbreaks of violence. The Shias live in a part of Baghdad, Sadr City, among Sunnis.

It took the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to impose the minority Sunni rule over the rest of the country. After the First Gulf War, the Shias rose against Saddam. Saddam repressed the uprising, killing 300,000 Shias. Uprisings by Kurds in the late 1980’s also resulted in brutal suppression, including the use of poison gas.

After his capture, Saddam behaved with restraint towards Americans. However, when he met a Shia official of the American-backed government, the two began hissing insults at one another…

There are times where there can be no moral choice. Most of us will never face that kind of existential choice, thank God. I recall discussion about the Holocaust. There was a dispute whether or not a Polish peasant should turn away a Jew being closely pursued by the Nazis. Or should he hide the poor guy and risk his life. Middle class young Americans, whose biggest moral dilemma is whether or not to buy products tested on animals, usually say that they would certainly take in the fugitive. But when you think about it, that may not be the correct answer. Since the Nazis would kill everyone in a household who opposed them, including infants, is it a moral choice to shelter someone? Is it a moral act to help one person at the expense of many others? I don’t believe I would let someone into my home if I thought it might mean the lives of my family and neighbors. Is it not a immoral act to seek protection if it means risking the lives of dozens on innocent people? This is a moral choice that pushes people beyond their abilities. Some people are more moral than others, but none can come out of this situation unmarked. It is like comparing an Olympic swimmer to someone who can do only the dog paddle. No matter what their relative strengths, neither can swim from California to Hawaii. Humans just can’t do some things.

Terrorism can push us to such choices. Somebody may have to do something immoral. Imagine murdering ten suicide bombers before they strapped on the bombs. Is that a moral thing to do? Of course it is not, but it might be necessary and of course we will find the act unacceptable.

The only way to maintain our morality is to keep out of some situations. This is not always possible. We fought World War II with fantastic savagery, much worse than anything we have yet brought to bear in the war on terror. Watch the old newsreels and think about the casualties we were willing to take and inflict. We used flamethrowers to flush the enemy out of fortified positions. Imagine watching that on the evening news today.

The restraint we have shown in the war on terror is remarkable. Victory over terror requires restraint, but other methods may occasionally be appropriate. The lives and health of terrorists are not as important as those of our citizens. If the tradeoff is ever necessary, we need not ponder the choice.

Jack,

While I do not disagree with your observation, it begs an addition.

Because of the actions of this nation, we’ve put the ordinary Iraqi citizens in the moral dilemma you just described regarding the Polish peasant, the pursued Jew and the Nazi soldier. Except theirs is even worse. The Jews were powerless, they had little to no means of retaliation against those who refused to aide and abed them. Yet, the insurgents are not so powerless. Does the law-abiding Iraqi citizen aide and abed the insurgent and risk the wrath of the Coalition forces? Or does the Iraqi citizen turn the insurgent away and hope the Coalition forces catches him before he can retaliate against them?

This is the situation we’ve put the Iraqis into. This is the situation we must get them out of, if at all possible. If the Iraqi government asks us to leave, we should do so. But, until they do… How can we leave them in this situation?

Jack,
Interesting you should mention that moral quandary in the first paragraphs.

In primitive cultures the virtue of hospitality is paramount. A host protects & shelters a guest, and that trumps almost all other concerns. Why? In a primitive culture, hospitality may be a matter of life & death.

The Bible offers an example of hospitality as a paramount virtue in the story of Lot. Two strangers (who later turn out to be angels) are extended hospitality by Lot. He takes the strangers under his roof as his guests. An angry crowd gathers outside & demands Lot turn over the strangers. Lot placates the mob by offering them his daughters to do with as they please.

To modern ears, this sounds bizarre; but in a primitive society, it makes perfect sense, and in Lot’s case, it establishes his credentials as a highly moral man.

After 9/11, we demanded the Taliban government turn over OBL. Mullah Mohammed Omar declared that OBL was a guest. As far as the Afghans were concerned, that was the end of the discussion, no matter how dire the repercussions.
To this day, no one will betray OBL for the reward money. He is a guest (probably of the Pashtuns).

The same recently happened with a Navy Seal. The other members of his team were killed. But when the wounded Seal was found by a boy & taken to a village as a guest, the Seal was home free. No matter how much the Taliban threatened the village, the villagers refused to turn over the Seal. It’s not because the villagers loved Americans or freedom, or anything like that. The Seal was a guest.

We’re dealing with Islamic fundamentalists. It’s a different moral point of view, a different religion, a different culture. We’re asking them to make radical changes in a matter of years, changes which we in the US took decades or even centuries to implement.

Personally, I agree with Craig & a Friedman point of view, that we should have allowed the cultural changes to take place slowly & as non-violently as possible, through the forces of globalization.

Stress, violence, & even terrorism are almost inevitable when a culture faces such radical changes.

It’s a little late now; mistakes have been made, & attempts to impose changes through military invasion & occupation have caused precisely the opposite effects desired.

We need to 1) take out OBL, 2) address Muslim grievances and recognize underlying causes, and 3) put aside the atmosphere of fear in the US.

The US cannot leave Iraq. The US is responsible for it. No matter how many years and how much the cost, America must see the job through.

Jack’s argument is very transportable. Jack defends immoral decisions and actions for practical reasons in times of threat. Jack’s argument transports to the taking of American freedoms and liberties easily if civil order is threatened. Jack’s argument transports easily to capitalism where certain numbers of millions of citizens must suffer the economic fluctuations which unregulated free enterprise will cause as temporary imbalances as adjustments to changing economic conditions arise. Jack’s argument transports well to law and order police state activities where it is sad that some innocent folks may be imprisoned or put to death, but, the guilty cannot be allowed to evade their punishment, unless of course, the guilty are of their own political party, then some crime must be tolerated in order to hold onto to the solidarity and power that one’s party must have in order to preserve the proper values and actions for the country.

Yep, very transportable argument. It is one I see Republicans use in the Red column every week.

Excellent article, David.

If civilized society continues to surrender those laws and principles which made them civilized and free, they lose battles to the terrorists.

Exactly. I just finished Colonel Thomas X. Hammes’, “The Sling and the Stone”, and he turns that statement around,

The fundamental message of the United States is the most powerful message ever crafted by mankind: we treasure the individual and provide an environment where every person can strive for his or her own dreams. Here, each person knows he can make a better life for his children. The millions of people clamoring to come to America prove this is a widely accepted and valued message. By making this fundamental belief an integral part of the message, we take advantage of the exceptional strength our open society has in a 4GW conflict. No society has ever had a more powerful message to share with the world

It is up to us to harness that message and use it to win.

The war against global Islamist insurgency will be won mainly by soft power. The terrorists are organized as a network. You can eliminate nodes, but unless you prevent new nodes from forming, it’s ultimately a futile exercise.

Let us assume for the moment that all events that precipitated the war in Iraq as described by the anti-War camp are accurate and, those same events as described by the Bush supporters are also correct. This is just to get a balanced playing field for this discussion.

Now there are large numbers of US and allied troops in Iraq who have taken huge casualties. Also there are large numbers of Iraqi soldiers dead as a result of the initial “war” (these are the Republican Guard, Iraqi regular Army, etc.).

Next, a relatively few terrorists, insurgents, etc. have been killed or taken captive.

Also a sizeable number of civilian “contractors” have lost their lives.

And, finally a large number of “innocent” Iraqi citizens are dead.

OK that foundation laid, where are we.

Basically the “war” is over if you define war as large groups of soldiers fighting large groups of an enemy. We are now chasing a few ‘known” and a large group of “invisible” insurgents/terrorists. We are doing this with approximately the same amount of troops that we used for the “war”. The two “kingpins” however (Osama Bin Laden and Zarqawi) run loose planning more “surprise attacks”.

We are chasing shadows because it is impossible to tell who the enemy is. During the day he is a vendor selling fruit and at night he is a suicide bomber. This, IMO is not a winnable situation by any definition.

What are our choices :
1. Continue in our current mode incurring more casualties and making more enemies.

2. Withdraw our troops and essentially admit defeat. Which would return the government to terrorist military rule.

3. Embark on a much more agressive approach to ending the insurgency by increasing military force and munitions and incur huge civilian casualties.

4. Is there some agreement that could be made to the satisfaction of the US and it’s allies and the terrorists.

Cute. Negotiate with Terrorists. Another Ronald Reagan wannabe…

You forgot another option and just stay the course. The Administration can encourage the citizens to join the Army and we just outlast the enemy.

Aldous,

My option #1 is staying the course. You must have skipped directly to #4 which provided you with your normal sarcastic, meant to antagonize response.

As you will note I am not advocating any of the choices just providing them for discussion.

David,

You missed one other “transportable” argument that’s being used… That because of the actions of the violent few we have the right to be prejudiced against the many who we’ve no evidence against. (something I’m very much against as per my earlier posts, though it might have been on the other thread)

Aside from that, I took Jack’s point to be something very different than you apparently did.

Jack said:

The restraint we have shown in the war on terror is remarkable. Victory over terror requires restraint, but other methods may occasionally be appropriate. The lives and health of terrorists are not as important as those of our citizens. If the tradeoff is ever necessary, we need not ponder the choice.

I’ll give you an example. I live in Wisconsin. We have lots of deer and lots of hunters and lots of guns here. Should OBL show up, here in Wisconsin, he’s going to get shot by one of those hunters, no questions asked. That isn’t the MORAL thing to do, but it is a very reasonable reaction to the events of the last few years. Morally and legally the hunter should be tried for murder, but he’d probably get off on a technicality and be revered as a hero.

Does this give anyone the right or reason to go around shooting anyone who looks vaguely like OBL? No, of course not. I personally do not think that was the sort of moral abandonment Jack was suggesting, or that he was suggesting we practice moral abandonment at all.

Stephanie, I was responding to Jacks words:

“Somebody may have to do something immoral. Imagine murdering ten suicide bombers before they strapped on the bombs. Is that a moral thing to do? Of course it is not, but it might be necessary and of course we will find the act unacceptable.”

Steve,
2. “Withdraw our troops and essentially admit defeat. Which would return the government to terrorist military rule.”

Or we could withdraw 50% of our troops by the middle of next year, and declare victory.

You can be assured we’ll declare victory.

Another way to combat terrorism is to ignore it. We’ve become so accustomed to the daily suicide bombings in Iraq, they barely qualify as news.

A few days ago seven (or eight) suicide bombings took place in one day. That’s a lot. The major newspaper in my state reported the bombings on the back page.

The suicide bombing at the gas station killed over 90 people, and seriously injured many more. That one made it to page 5.

On August 15 the Iraqis are supposed to come up with a constitution. On October 15 they hold a referendum to approve it. If the Sunni (or even Kurdish) provinces reject it, the constitution will have to be re-drafted.

I’m hoping they’ll consider a different option at that point, partition.

It’s not an option at this point, but it makes a lot of sense.

So, while we are screwing around in Iraq, what exactly is going on in Afganistan.

When will the next bumper crop of opium poppies make it’s way as heroin to America?

Will the actual original target in the war on terror be finally be captured/maimed/killed?

What exactly is happening with Al Qaeda?
They were the targets once weren’t they?

When will the Constitution for Afganistan be completed?

Are we actually building/rebuilding Afganistan or are all the resources now going into rebuilding Iraq?

I realize all of these questions could be considered retorical, but Afganistan has kind of fallen off the map, hasn’t it?

Afghanistan is a new Capitalist Democracy. America has a need. Afghanistan can supply that need. It is a simple exercise of free market.

Actually, I’m really optimistic about the effectiveness of NATO’s Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Afghanistan. God only knows why we’re not doing the same thing in Iraq.

Rocky,

I understand it’s a banner year for the opium crop. I like when news reporters walk through the poppy fields with the farmers and tribal gurus discussing how it is necessary for the economy.

Maybe we can legalize it along with the marijuana. If we make it legal it will be easilly attainable and put a lot of people out of work.

I’m curious. Can anyone here name ONE war of this type that was won militarily?

ElliottBay,
Here is a link on the British experience suppressing the Iraq Revolution of 1920. In a nutshell, the Brits put down the uprising at great cost, and quickly realized air power would not keep the Iraqis down. The Brits resolved the situation by, essentially, buying off the Arabs. It worked very well.

Interesting side note. A young Winston Churchill favored gassing the Iraqis by dropping chemical bombs from planes. The technology was not sufficiently developed until 1924, after the uprising was over.

Before the Brits invaded Iraq, they were convinced they would be greeted as liberators. Here is a portion of one speech:

“In 1917, General F.S. Maude, commander of the British forces who captured Baghdad from the Ottoman Turks, told the Arabs: “Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators. Your wealth has been stripped of you by unjust men. … The people of Baghdad shall flourish under institutions which are in consonance with their sacred laws. … The Arab race may rise once more to greatness!”

phx8,

It’s like deja vu all over again.

ElliotBay, the Brits beat a similar insurgency in Malaya in the 50’s - though it was won by “armed support for a political war, not political support for an army war.” In other words, it was won by the police and intelligence services, occasionally backed up by the military.