You crazy reality-based kid, you. Don't you realize there are only 1.2 Billion Muslims, who are all terrorists, except the Saudis? If we don't get started killing them now, we'll never get through them all.
That's why GWB is right about the war on terror.
I don't think there is any policy-based decisionmaking going on for about 2/3 of the population. They are Democrats or Republicans like they are Yankees or Red Sox fans. It doesn't matter how bad the team sucks or how marginal the manager's abilities, they still pull for them automatically.
It's the new American tribalism, except it isn't new.
I can't answer the question, of course, though I do hope baa will come back and give it a shot. From the rhetoric, it seems that "getting it" involves
(a) realizing that, in virtue of the stakes being so high, the old rules have to be revised, in particular w/r/t taking threats and potential threats quite seriously (and acting aggressively to undermine them);
(b) seeing that islamic terrorism is a single problem with many faces, or, as Lileks puts it, a single war with a thousand fronts.
(a) I think is true (as does Kerry, since it's near-platitudinous), though I disagree with the policies that flow from it; (b) I think is false and dangerously so because it conflates different problems (though the policies that result from this make the presupposition true, at least to some extent, via an awful sort of feedback loop).
Now the question is what sort of active policy difference these two claims will encourage. As far as I can see, the claims about substantive differences stem from misrepresentations of Kerry's position (e.g., "global test"). Correct me, baby.
What will Kerry do wrong? I'm tempted to give the flip answer: any major issue that should come up is one Kerry will likely bungle. Just as in the 80s he was wrong on the Cold War, as in the 90s he opposed Gulf War One (do we have a justification for that vote from the Kerry-is-a-hawk brigade?). The guy's judgment is consistnaly awful. Until recently, I had forgotten that he opposed bombing Serbia.
As I think I've written here before, it's not wrong to be skeptical of the exercise of American power, but this is not the time for that mindset in the White House. I can't predict what Kerry will screw up, but if circumstances demand the use of the US military, short of responding to direct attacks, he won't do it. I understand those who buy into a basically lefty isolationist politics loving Kerry. I understand those who don't focus on foreign policy and care more about health care and the deficit liking Kerry. But I don't get the Kerry-hawk phenomenon. Nothing in his history suggests foreign policy judgment that should comfort hawks.
More concretely? Well, I think Iraq is salvageable, but that there's a high probability that Kerry won't try to pull it out (via a peace with honor plan that doesn't work), or if he does try to pull it out, won't be as willing to kill people. How will this play out tactically? I have no idea.
On terrorism? Well, he seems less focused on state sponsors. I know this has the aspect of "getting it," but it is hard to know exactly how the wrong view will manifest in practice. One likely way: not as much pressure on Syria, Iran,. on this score. On North Korea, I find it frankly amazing to hear Bush policy derided by Jimmy Carter and the other architects of the Clinton plan. Again, how tactically will Kerry be worse? I don't really know, but I suspect he'll put the same players on the field who are responsible for the great deal that got us to this point. Last – and I know you're loving this ogged – I think he'll be too scrupulous about civil liberties. We need to change the balance between liberty and security, and while I don't trust Bush to set the balance exactly right, I think he'll be closer than Kerry.
How's that for starters?
I disagree with most everything, but I'm too tired to argue taht point, and some of the points you raise refuse of simple answers.
Instead, I want to focus the question on what Bush has done right. Quickly, here's how I score him:
1) Went to Afghanistan - nothing special. It was necessary.
2) Left Afghanistan waaaay too quickly. Very bad.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are still there. A fragile democracy has taken root in only a small part of the country.
3) Iraq. No benefit to the war on terror. It has cost American and Iraqi lives that would not have otherwise been lost and has driven up AQ recruitment. I am not sympathetic to humanitarian arguments; I think they are all erroneous. (In the runup to the war, I was neutral to those arguments - I have become antagonistic only recently)
4) North Korea - if we'd just negotiated in the first place, I don't think we'd be in the mess we're in now.
5) Iran. Well, things were looking good. Not so well now thanks to a lot of American intereference. Bungled.
6) Saudia Arabia and Lybia - very important sources of terrorist funding and recruitment. Absent from any plan by George Bush.
7) Pakistan - similar to 6.
8) Syria - somewhat important to the war on terror. Some vague tough talk and hints of threats in the last few years. Nothing real.
What's your scorecard look like?
Does it net out to this?
Foreign policy:
Bush: Aggression
Kerry: Diplomacy
I guess we'll see what the citizens want after trying aggression for 3 years.
baa, just to clairfy, i'm not asking for arguments (i obviously didn't provide any real arguments). At this point, I don't think you're going to be convinced, and I'm simply interested in just how different our impressions of recent events are.
Another thought on Iraq: were we all fools to believe that Iraq could be quickly stabalized following the fall of Saddam Hussein? I don't think we were fools to believe that, I still think it was possible. Contrasting then this theoretical possibility with what has actually happened, I conclude shows an almost unbelievable incompetance on the part of the administration. Of course, if you now believe we were complete fools to think it could happen in the first place, you won't agree with my conclusion.
Let's all remember what happened in NK in 2002-2003: They were secretly scraping together enough nuclear material to cobble together a bomb every couple of years. But they also had a nuclear reactor which was secure under the watchful eye of international inspectors. Then GWB started trash-talking about pre-emption in NK even though the US military was already spoken for in Iraq. NK, knowing their window of opportunity was closing, threw out the inspectors and broke the seals on the spent fuel rods from the reactor. As a result of George W. Bush's idle vaunting, NK's nuclear capacity increased roughly a dozen-fold.
As for Iraq: baa doesn't really try to make the case that the material result there will be worse under Kerry than Bush. He plausibly argues that Kerry will cut and run, though I disagree. But he makes no attempt to argue that that result will be markedly worse for US than the slow-motion disaster currently unfolding.
Michael,
Here's my brief response. You are in elegant continental italics, I am in forceful, all-american roman type:
1) Went to Afghanistan - nothing special. It was necessary.
While it seems like a foregone conclusion now, not every president would have decided on regime change in Afghanistan. Nor would every president have gotten the support of Pakistan. Additionally, the tactical implementation (special forces airstrikes bribes local proxies) seems to have worked very well. So I'd rate this as a big plus.
2) Left Afghanistan waaaay too quickly. Very bad.
The Taliban and Al Qaeda are still there. A fragile democracy has taken root in only a small part of the country.
Troops are still there, of course, and the regime seems more or less stable. I don't much care if Karzai can't project force across Afghanistan, what's important is a government that won't prevent the US from doing the same. So this isn't a big minus, in my view.
3) Iraq. No benefit to the war on terror. It has cost American and Iraqi lives that would not have otherwise been lost and has driven up AQ recruitment. I am not sympathetic to humanitarian arguments; I think they are all erroneous. (In the runup to the war, I was neutral to those arguments - I have become antagonistic only recently)
The big difference. I think this was a good thing to do, for Americans, for Iraqis, for the world.
4) North Korea - if we'd just negotiated in the first place, I don't think we'd be in the mess we're in now.
Were I convinced of son volt's version of the facts, I would think this was a negative for Bush. As is, I think the framework was likely being actively subverted when Bush came into office. This is a tough situation with no good options, IMHO.
5) Iran. Well, things were looking good. Not so well now thanks to a lot of American intereference. Bungled.
What's the bungle? Again, I am not really sure what the great option is here. I don't see a great way out even if we get Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four working on the problem. Bush and Kerry can say what they like, but Iran wants nukes, and we don't want them to get them. This is a big freakin' mess. If US EU bribery can do the trick, awesome.
6) Saudia Arabia and Lybia - very important sources of terrorist funding and recruitment. Absent from any plan by George Bush.
Q/K/Gaddafi coughed up the WMD, which is a plus. And I suspect all we can hope for in Saudi Arabia is a behind the scenes crack-down on islamists. Are our friends the Saudi's doing this? Likely. As much as possible? Doubtful. Has Bush met expectations here? I guess. On the plus side, our troops are no longer there.
7) Pakistan - similar to 6.
Well, they've moved from #1 sponsor of the Taliban regime to a partner in the War or Terror. So this seems like a plus to me.
8) Syria - somewhat important to the war on terror. Some vague tough talk and hints of threats in the last few years. Nothing real
I don't see Syria as a big ticket near term focus for US policy. Should there have been some big policy initiative here. I dunno. Pass.
---------------------------
son volt,
What would elements of such a case look like? It sounds like we agree that Kerry is a higher risk for cut-and-run than GWB. Can I in fact argue that cut-and-run is necessarily worse than staying in? It all depends of whether staying in does in fact entail a disastrous death of a thousand cuts. Neither of us can know this, obviously. But I think it is fair to say that many Kerry *supporters* (the hawks-for-kerry) think cut-and-run would be bad and that their man won't do it. How do you like this, more limited, argument: if you think cut-and-run (and obviously, this means a face-saving peace-with honor exit, not picking up tent pegs November 4) = disaster, do not vote for Kerry.
First, I don't allow that voting for Kerry entails a greater risk of cutting and running (including the "peace with honor" fig leaf you describe) than a vote for Bush. I think that Kerry's lowering of the exit bar to "stability" rather than "first world liberal democracy" does not fall under the fig leaf scenario, but is a perfectly valid exit strategy compatible with honoring America's interests and those of her allies. And I think the probablility of Bush "declaring victory" and getting the eff out is far from zero, especially if another conflict heats up and Bush's choices are to leave Iraq or bring back the draft.
How do you like this, more limited, argument: if you think cut-and-run [including fig-leaf scenaria] = disaster, do not vote for Kerry.
But disaster is an overwhelming probability already because of the bed Bush has made and that either he or Kerry will have to sleep in. The right criterion, it seems to me, is to assign a probability (0 to 1) and an expected value (any scale you desire) vis-a-vis American interests, to each possible event:
a: Kerry wins and abandons Iraq to its fate
b: Kerry wins and commits to Iraq until his stated criterion (stability) is achieved
c: Bush wins and abandons Iraq to its fate
d: Bush wins and commits to Iraq until his stated criterion (full-fledged democracy) is achieved
e: (other outcomes undoubtedly possible for either guy)
Then take the equation:
a * p(a) b * p(b) ?= c * p(c) d * p(d)
and whichever side of the equation has the larger value would receive the higher foreign policy mark. Here's how I'd fill in the blanks (scoring outcomes on a scale of 0 to 10, obviously YMMV)
a = 3, p(a) = .2
b = 5, p(b) = .8
c = 3 (same as a), p(c) = .2
d = 1, p(d) = .8
with the result E(K) = 4.6 > E(B) = 1.4
Baa, you should read this. It talks about some of what I think the Bush Regime has gotten wrong in Iran and the War on Terror in general.
Just got the new Foreign Affairs mag last night.
One of the first articles is about the global terrorism report. The FA article argues that it was almost impossible to get a good read from the first release of the report because of the amount of politics played with it. The initial press release severley distored the actual findings of the report, plainly for political purposes. The actual findings were also in question, because of the incompetance of those who assembled the report. In other words, there is not a serious effort being made to keep track of just how we're doing in the War on Terror, and what effort there is is tainted by gross politics.
Anyway, the authors of the article were able to conclude from the report that significant terrorist attacks have risen from 124 to 175 from 2001 to 2003, a 41% increase. My question to GW - what do you mean by "wining"?
Bush's policies have plainly resulted in an increase of terrorist attacks, and despite this, he contines to mislead the country by saying otherwise. More evidence that you just can not take this administration seriously when they say they are fighting terrorism.
Before Ben W. corrects me - "winning"
put a damn spell checker in your comments then!
Good job ogged! The trial period's almost over, soon you'll be working unsupervised!
Just read the Neglected Home Frong by Stephen Flynn (yeah, I'm on a bit of a crusade to make baa vote Kerry)
The gist of the article is that secruity at home has been sorely neglected. The Bush White House has not shown initiative in address security at home, and we're vulnerable. Not only are we vulnerable, but a terrorist attack at home would result in profound economic disturbance - one of the goals of AQ. Our very vulnerability increases the attraction of attacks here at home. What increasing security at home will require - lots of work, attention to detail, taking the initiative to get funding - are all traits I attribute much more to Kerry. As concerned about security as you are baa, this article is a must read.
just one extracted sentence:
"Although the CIA has concluded that the most likely way weapons of mass destruction (WMD) would enter the United States is by sea, the federal government is spending more every three days to finance the war in Iraq than it has provided over the past three years to prop up the security of all 361 US commercial seaports."
Out of spite, I have not re-read this post to for spelling errors.