The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Have no connection to stopping this kind of thing.
Really? The presence of al Quaeda training camps and other support and command and control facilities in Afghanistan did nothing to make it easier for it to conduct operations and the elimination of those facilities had nothing to do with stopping terrorist attacks? What is the basis of this claim?
Was this plot hatched in an Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan? Appears not -- looks like it was England again. Remember, the war in Afghanistan happened in 2001, and we put it on the back burner in 2003 because it wasn't urgent anymore.
To answer Idealist seriously, because moving militarily against the training camps and facilities against Afghanistan was successful at disrupting and scattering al-Qaida in that stage of its movement. It sounds very much like al-Q has now moved into the free-lance and franchise stage. Operations against al-Q in Afghanistan was the only possible thing the US could have done at the time, but invading and occupying nation-states isn't going to help so much with the dispersed threat.
Less serious answer: "root causes."
So remind me again why taking a policing, rather than a military, approach to combating terrorism is fundamentally unserious?
Look, the terrorists blew up our shit. Any approach that doesn't involve us blowing up shit just isn't serious. And whether the people whose shit we blow up had something to do with 9/11 (Afghanistan), or not (Iraq), shit must be blown up by us.
3: Oh, sure, I shouldn't overstate my point -- I thought military action against Afghanistan in 2001 was justified under the circumstances. But clearly, terrorism of this sort remains practical even when the terrorists are operating in countries controlled by governments hostile to them (e.g., Tim McVeigh). It's about policing.
Look, the terrorists blew up our shit. Any approach that doesn't involve us blowing up shit just isn't serious.
So in this case, the serious response is to hatch a plot to blow up their shit, but be unable to carry it out?
"It sounds very much like al-Q has now moved into the free-lance and franchise stage."
To be absolutely serious, it's not like AQ is a switch, right? The situation isn't binary: "then they were a monolithic organization, now they're not." My impression was that it's still not clear to what extent people like Bin Laden are directing/supporting/guiding/micromanaging things. And it's probably a mix of the two situations: some homegrown stuff, but maybe seeded by guys who went through training camps before (or even since) the Afghanistan war.
And even if it was clear that international terrorism was totally a franchise movement, is it then also clear that this is somehow more dangerous (harder to eradicate, sure... but more dangerous?) than the previous, more centrally-directed AQ stuff?
I probably agree with LB on most of these things, but still...
Wasn't the whole point of Al Q from the beginning that it was a loose network, not tightly centrally controlled?
And seriously, my main point is that we've heard a lot of people over the last six years mocking Democrats for wanting to combat terrorism with policing, rather than military, techniques. This kind of thing, obviously, is only amenable to being combatted through policing -- there's noplace to invade anymore but England.
terrorism of this sort remains practical even when the terrorists are operating in countries controlled by governments hostile to them (e.g., Tim McVeigh).
Sure. But, as you note, it overstates (wildly, in my view) your point to say that making it much harder to operate makes no difference. It appears that you want to argue that because terrorism still exists, the destruction of al Quaeda's support base has no continuing effect. This makes no sense. It is akin to arguing that there is no reason to eat a healthy diet because you can still get cancer even if you eat healthy. One does not follow from the other.
If you want to say that the disruption was not worth the price, or that the same rationale does not apply to Iraq, those are factual arguments that one could have (although I would think you are certainly wrong with regard to Afghanistan and wrong (but reasonable people can disagree) wit hrespect to Iraq, but those are different agruments.
Finally, is it your claim that the Administration has made no efforts to gather intelligence on terrorists and disrupt their operations? If so, I again think the facts do not support you.
And you know, when you've quoted a post of mine saying that I thought military action against Afghanistan was justified, it'd be nice to know what about that you think constitutes being "certainly wrong with regard to Afghanistan".
8.--Sure, I'll grant you the "unclear extent." There is some evidence that 9-11 was micromanaged by Zawahiri and that a lot of the 9-11 attackers went to Afghanistan to get their orders. There is some evidence that al-Zarqawi was acting with more autonomy from the al-Q leadership than they were exactly comfortable with. There is some evidence that some of the recent UK bombers never made it near Afghanistan. And there's also some evidence that a lot of the networking is happening now online, where I imagine it would be difficult for al-Q to control, really. I haven't gathered up this stuff and thoroughly questioned my hypotheses, though; it remains a strong impression.
It is akin to arguing that there is no reason to eat a healthy diet because you can still get cancer even if you eat healthy. One does not follow from the other.
Actually, it totally does.
Finally, is it your claim that the Administration has made no efforts to gather intelligence on terrorists and disrupt their operations? If so, I again think the facts do not support you.
I hate when people say "Is it your claim that (obviously nonsensical strawman)", or even worse, "Let me get this straight. You're saying that (obviously nonsensical strawman). Fine, just wanted to make sure I had that right."
Personally, it is my claim that the Administration has spent many hundreds of billions of dollars on a completely unnecessary war. This is money that could have been better spent elsewhere. And the focus of those intelligence agencies who have been devoted to the task of finding some reason to invade Iraq, and then to finding some justification for hanging around there, could have been better used trying to get intelligence on terrorists. And the focus of the U.S. military which has been hanging around there could have been better applied in preparing for actual threats to the nation, or maybe in restructuring Afghanistan.
However - and this is the pons asinorum here - by saying that $1,000,000,000,000 or so has been spent...shall we say, injudiciously, I am not saying that $0 has been spent on legitimate anti-terrorism programs. I would estimate that lots of money has been spent on those programs, and the bigger issue is people who should be working on these programs being sent to Iraq or being baffled into apathy or anti-Americanism by the Bush administration's lack of logic.
11.--Idealist, I'm seriously concerned that Iraq may be providing an excellent replacement training-ground for Jihadist wanna-bes. A lot of the Administration's talk about "foreign fighters" in Iraq annoys me because I see it as politically motivated, a way of denying how much Iraqis loathe being occupied and/or hate and fear each other; still, I believe that there are a number of foreign fighters in Iraq who are leaving Iraq with new skills and an increased radicalization, for parts unknown.
Weren't the 9/11 attacks launched by people who were living and training in the United States? It's not like they had just arrived fresh from Afghanistan, right? And didn't they get their flying lessons in the US? Etc., etc., etc.
Even if it turns out that Afghanistan was a fucking awesome idea, it's still possible that an efficacious invasion is very much the exception rather than the rule. Very few countries are like Afghanistan, which at the time of invasion didn't have an internationally recognized government, was basically run by a Mafia-like organization that enforced certain standards of Islamic law and left every other government responsibility aside.
But even the Taliban was fundamentally a non-state actor, as is being proven by the fact that they've been regaining momentum even after losing control of Kabul. And it may well be the case that they would've come back even if we gave "the proper amount of attention" to Afghanistan instead of launching our insane and depraved invasion of Iraq, creating a situation similar to the Iraqi insurgency.
Maybe the liberals who supported Afghanistan should be thankful that Iraq happened and "distracted" us, because that somehow "proves" that Afghanistan could've turned out significantly better.
See my 10.
I did. I think you are wrong. I think you are wrong in that you have created a strawman regarding what the Democrats have been criticized for, I think you are wrong as a matter of fact to imply that the Adminsitration has ignored what you call policing, and I think you are wrong as a matter of fact regarding your effort to disconnect operations planned in the UK from outside influences and support.
when you've quoted a post of mine saying that I thought military action against Afghanistan was justified, it'd be nice to know what about that you think constitutes being "certainly wrong with regard to Afghanistan".
To be clear, your talking about 6, not you original post, where you said Afghanistan had no connection to stopping this kind of terrorism, right?
I read 6 as saying that the invasion of Afghanistan has no impact or effect now, even if you found it acceptable at the time, and I find that wildly implausible. If you lose a hand, you learn to make do with only one, but it does not mean that losing a hand has no effect.
we've heard a lot of people over the last six years mocking Democrats for wanting to combat terrorism with policing, rather than military, techniques
This seems right to me, but I don't have the link storm to support it. If only there were someone here who had the whole internet in his pocket...
There isn't a strong al qaeda network in the US. Not like in the UK. This limits the effectiveness of US policing as a responce to al qaeda.
That doesn't mean invading Iraq was a good idea. Where we really want to have policing done is in countries like pakastan and Sadia Arabia and invading Iraq has made this more difficult. We really have dropped the ball.
It is okay for me to agree with Idealist here and still think Iraq is a total clusterfuck of a distaster? I think LB is overstating the point, and that while policing may be a necessary approach some military action was/may be a prudent counter-terrorist response. I'm still to this day not sure whether the war in Iraq was a good idea (in theory), even though I'm inclined to think it wasn't, because I don't know how things there would have unfolded had the invasion been planned/executed with competance. But the idea that we may need to lean hard on governments that train/harbor/arm/finance terrorists, including perhaps occasionally taking military action against them, does not in theory strike me as incorrect. (Iraq may not have factually fit this description, but that is a different question.)
re: 17
Putting to one side you concerns about the Administration's bona fides, I think you are right. This is a big problem. The question is whether the benefits outweigh the costs. I will grant you (although you may not agree) that with respect to Iraq, reasonable people can disagree on the balance. However, I continue to believe that in the long run, if we continue our engagement there, it will have been worth it.
Adam, the more recent research I've read about the 9-11 attacks suggested that the plan was very much prepared in Afghanistan, and that the key players sat down with bin Laden and Zawahiri, talked it over, and got various stages of it later approved personally by the Afghan guys, even after the 9-11 attackers were in place in the US.
As for invading Afghanistan, I'd argue that we didn't exactly do that, so much as intervene on one side of a civil war with air power, cash, and special operations guys. I wasn't exactly excited about that decision, even though it seemed to work at the time. (For values of "work" that include disrupting the al-Q operations there and setting up a eggshell-fragile non-Taliban government.)
Here's an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:
Sift through the Democrats' tough talk about terrorism and a clear divide emerges. All of them, except Joseph Lieberman, believe that the way to fight terrorism is the old-fashioned pre-9/11 way: by treating it as an international policing problem.
Funny, once we've overthrown Afghanistan, which did have a connection to Al Q, and wasted hundreds of billions of dollars overthrowing Iraq, which didn't in any meaningful sense, what are we left with? Right, an international policing problem.
On this question, once again, I recommend The Editors. And I apologize if this makes anybody feel as though their toes are being stepped upon, but anybody who still thinks that occupying Iraq has the least damn thing to do with confronting anti-American terrorism shouldn't be allowed to do anything without adult supervision.
On the topic of law enforcement vs. military tactics, can anyone make sense of this op-ed? I can't for the life of me figure out which point these guys are trying to make. Are they saying current police techniques are insufficient or are they criticizing the law enforcement approach altogether? And is there anything so bold as a policy suggestion in there?
Law enforcement investigations will certainly continue to be an integral part of our counterterrorism operations. However, with the potential use of the types of attacks that would help the jihadists reach their broader objectives, new forms of intelligence-gathering and analysis will become increasingly important. Assuming, for example, that terrorists will continue to use their current meeting places to plan their actions is not only naïve, but also reinforces the "business-as-usual" mode of thinking that has been the cornerstone of counterterrorism efforts since 9/11.
Counterterrorism and homeland security agencies must instead rethink - reimagine - their operational procedures to ensure that intelligence on larger-scale planning (the forest) is not lost amid all the detailed work on the groups (trees) that have already been identified.
Witt, that means that the government must be allowed to spy on as many people as possible.
Afghanistan seemed to disrupt al Qaeda. Also important, iirc, was tracking down and freezing the financial network (that allowed people to get visas, flying lessons, etc.), and I don't think that required military action. But I think that miltary action is part of a solution in some cases; if I had to take a guess, it's only useful in those cases where a) there are actual terrorists and not WMD fairies b) we can't rely on the government where the terrorists are to arrest them.
Iraq didn't have a damned thing to do with al Qaeda; at best it was a sort of 'while we're breaking a lot of eggs anyway, let's make a REALLY big omelette in our image' campaign.
The more I listen to these conversations, the more I think it's foolish to have a debate between "military!" and "policing!" instead of constructing a sui generis response tailored to the nature of the threat. Everything is what it is, and not some other thing, as they say.
If you lose a hand, you learn to make do with only one, but it does not mean that losing a hand has no effect.
We need to declare war on the rampant use of inapt metaphors in policy discussions. Mere policework isn't going to help -- decisive military action is our only option.
The more I listen to these conversations, the more I think it's foolish to have a debate between "military!" and "policing!" instead of constructing a sui generis response tailored to the nature of the threat.
I couldn't agree more.
31: jmcq, don't go advocating somebody else invade Idealist unless you're willing to do a little invading yourself. Me, I'm greasing up my bunker buster.
If the terrorists are using the Internet, shouldn't we invade the Internet? (I saw an episode of Chapelle's Show once where it turned out that the Internet is a physical place you can go. I had not known that before.)
34: Dude, I'm fighting just like the folks at NRO: valiantly tapping away at my keyboard!
And 30 gets it exactly right.
The terrorists are going to blow up the Tube and the Internet tubes?
a sui generis response tailored to the nature of the threat
As long as it doesn't involve illegally spying on everybody and torturing people, I'm cool with that.
Fascinatingly, the British appear to have tracked these guys down without using warrantless searches.
The more I listen to these conversations, the more I think it's foolish to have a debate between "military!" and "policing!" instead of constructing a sui generis response tailored to the nature of the threat.
I couldn't agree more.
Comity!
38: It looks like the terrorists failed to blow up the Tubes, but tried to compensate by pulling a bulletless Klinghoffer instead.
I have achieved comity with ambiguity. Huzzah.
Also, Apo's comment reminds me that, if we bomb the UK, we'll have to worry about the attack capabilities of the UK Subs.
I propose that the War on Terror be resolved by a Battle of the Bands.
As long as it doesn't involve illegally spying on everybody and torturing people...
You can't have a serious counter-terrorism policy without breaking a few laws, any more than you can make a serious omlette without breaking a few eggs. Bush's pathetic claims that his spying on domestics are in fact legal have convinced that he is in fact soft on terror. (Clinton's patently illegal receipt of blowjobs in the Oval Office, in contrast, at least demonstrates that he was taking this global threat seriously.)
Perhaps part of the effort to "sell" torture should be that Bush himself would undergo some of the techniques that supposedly fall short of the strict definition of torture, just to show that they do not violate his human dignity.
46 You'd find no shortage of volunteers to help carry out that mission. I'll bring the glowsticks.
If you want to say that the disruption was not worth the price, or that the same rationale does not apply to Iraq, those are factual arguments that one could have (although I would think you are certainly wrong with regard to Afghanistan and wrong (but reasonable people can disagree) wit hrespect to Iraq, but those are different agruments.
Idealist, could you explain why you (apparently) think the same rationale does apply to Iraq, and also explain what you believe has been disrupted by our invasion of Iraq? I don't think we can talk about whether the price of something has been worth it until we know what that something is, and I'm very unclear as to what you think that something is.
Off-topic: I dreamed last night that Michelle Malkin had cancer, and that everybody in the blogosphere was suddenly treating her with the utmost respect, but no longer paid any attention to what she said.
The "policing is unserious" complaint, is, I think, appropriately understood as the complaint that to *only* consider policing is unserious. Insofar as state sponsors remain very important enablers of terrorism, this seems like a correct point that is granted by all. Ruling out military responses to state sponsors of terrorism is, if not unserious, at least ill-advised.
Second, to comment on Fontana's post here because (no offense) it seems like a more productive comments thread: Yes, it hard to identify terrorists. Yes, that means we want there to be fewer of them. But no, it is not acceptible to stipulate without argument that we know what actions by the US net increase the amount of terrorists. Some terrorists are motivated by political objectives. Some are motivated by anger about perceived western oppression. Some are motivated by phantasmogoric religious beliefs. Some are motivated by the perception of a weak and decadent opponent. Just as we must empirically decide whether policing or military policy is the right response in every case, so too must we decide empirically, in every case what action is more likely to breed more terrorists. It is not obvious that the least hawkish option is always the correct one on this score.
52: yes, the more empirical questions the merrier. I think that's an important point, and it's also good to keep in mind that we have very little idea, in many cases, just what the terrorist-creation effects are.
It is not obvious that the least hawkish option is always the correct one on this score.
It is not obvious that anyone here is proposing "choose the least hawkish option" in all cases.
I speak for a not insignificant proportion of the left, and I think we should always choose the least hawkish option. It's always the correct choice, obviously.
Ruling out military responses to state sponsors of terrorism is, if not unserious, at least ill-advised.
Except that criticisms like the one I linked above were made in the context of a Democratic party that almost universally did support a military incursion into Afghanistan. So the idea that any substantial wing of the Democratic party categorically opposed military action under circumstances like those in Cala's 29 is wrong, and those making the 'policing is unserious' criticism were either arguing against a strawman, or were attempting to argue that attention to non-military areas of fighting terrorism was inherently evidence of a mistaken attitude toward the problem.
Now, this criticism doesn't make sense -- of course, even this administration has not totally abandoned policing in favor of military action, so for its supporters to argue that a focus on policing is useless and counterproductive would be irrational. That's my point here -- the criticism is irrational, and doesn't make sense. And for those reasons, I don't want to hear it any more.
Just as we must empirically decide whether policing or military policy is the right response in every case, so too must we decide empirically, in every case what action is more likely to breed more terrorists. It is not obvious that the least hawkish option is always the correct one on this score.
In the absence of anything approaching a rigorous model of terrorist creation, I'm not sure what this means. Moreover, the only model in this area of worry that makes an attempt at rigor and that I've heard of is Pape's model of suicide bomber creation; that's been rejected out of hand by the Reds.
Yes, but many people make the inference that the most hawkish course (or any hawkish course) necessarily is more "terror-creating." This conclusion usually seems to me unsupported. If no one here holds that view, super.
(or any hawkish course)
I couldn't have said it better myself.
It is really big of Idealist to grant reasonable people the right to disagree with him when he's wrong.
It was sort of medium-sized of him to fail to acknowledge that the reason we're having this argument at all is that his party has been aggressively and demogogically ridiculing the Democrats for emphasizing police action, which is what was successful here, rather than the invasion of an uninvolved country.
It was pretty small of him to accuse LB of having said the opposite of what she had actually said.
many people make the inference that the most hawkish course (or any hawkish course) necessarily is more "terror-creating."
Nah, nobody thinks that. But lots of people think that if we'd gone into Iraq (hawkish) with a whole bunch more troops (hawkish) and a serious civil service (imperialist-hawkish) planning for a real-live occupation / reconstruction, we'd have created lots fewer terrorists. This is what RAND concluded a long time ago, but I can't be bothered to look it up and quit giving me the stink-eye.
My super-social-scientific model of terrorist-creation says that, what makes terrorists is not going to war and occupying a country, but going to war and occupying a country on the cheap, without enough soldiers or enough plan to restore order.
Now, run along and test that empirically, will you?
59: Take out 'most' and 'necessarily' from that comment, and I'd be willing to argue with you about it. While there are certainly substantial confounding factors, one thing that leads to terrorism is the perception by terrorists that they are aggrieved by the actions of those they are attacking. And, you know, 'hawkish' implies killing people and breaking stuff. Which tends to make people aggrieved.
Now, that doesn't make a more hawkish policy necessarily, once everything nets out, a cause of more terrorism than a less hawkish policy. But it strikes me as unrealistic not to note that it is likely to make potential terrorists more aggrieved than a less hawkish policy that otherwise achieves the same results.
Stop being so unserious about terrorism, slol.
Stop being so unserious about terrorism, slol.
Well, if you didn't see this, you should.
Hawkism is going to have to take its lumps. Invading Iraq was a bad idea. It only increased the terrorism problem. Iraq had nothing to do with al queada.
>"Perceived oppression" -- nice.
My meaning was not that the oppression is not real, nor that real oppression will not ceteris paribus, cause the perception, but rather that the perception is what is doing the immediate work. Thus one can have a separation between the degree of oppression, and the degree of perception (in either direction). That's uncontroversial, right?
LB, where does this "substantial wing of the democratic party" come from? Must a left-wing position be held by 51% of the democratic party before it can be criticized? In fact, there was substantial opposition to regime change as an objective in Afghanistan. Ralph Nader, if I recall, suggested a policing solution to Afghanistan: go in under the doctrine of hot pursuit, arrest OBL, etc. He was oppossed to regime change in Afghanistan. He's not a marginal figure on the left at all. I think a bunch of you guys even voted for him, right? So let's not pretend this is a straw man. It isn't. It's a (stupid) position that some people held and hold. If you are not among them, great.
Are regime change and military action co-extensive?
Now, that doesn't make a more hawkish policy necessarily, once everything nets out, a cause of more terrorism than a less hawkish policy. But it strikes me as unrealistic not to note that it is likely to make potential terrorists more aggrieved than a less hawkish policy that otherwise achieves the same results.
Comity obtains. I agree with that. The question is always and ever whether making some people more aggrieved is merited by a) making some people scared/respectful (the "we shouldn't have left Somalia argument"), b) accomplishing some other objective.
Ralph Nader
Notably, not a Democrat. Seriously, get over yourself -- you have to turn over some pretty serious rocks before you find someone who was opposed to going after Al Qaeda with military force in Afghanistan. Suggesting that that's a position that can be attributed to Democrats generally is nonsensical.
Ralph Nader, if I recall, suggested a policing solution to Afghanistan
Ralph Nader is many things, baa, but one thing he most certainly is not is a member of any wing of the Democratic Party.
>Are regime change and military action co-extensive?
Great point! It's just the limit case, I think. What about blowing people up from drones when we are 95% sure they are Al Queda leadership? Are we all down with that? Is Ralph Nader?
>go in under the doctrine of hot pursuit, arrest OBL, etc. He was oppossed to regime change in Afghanistan.
That might not have been such a bad anti-terror stategy if it had worked. I for one am in favor of a going into pakestan under the doctrine of hot pursuit and arresting OBL.
I was suggesting that it would be possible to be for military action and against a broad program of regime change. I'm not quite sure what Nader has to do with this; he's not a Democrat and he carries what, 3% of the vote in a good year?
72: Moving the goalposts here, aren't you? It's a strawman to say that Democrats are unserious because they rule out military action in all cases in favor of policing, given that it is in fact quite difficult to find a Democrat who holds that position. So criticisms of Democrats generally as unserious for advocating policing solutions to terrorism generally are attacking a strawman if they are based on the assumption that Democrats do categorically rule out military action.
Once you start talking about particular military actions, like the imaginary one you describe in 72, we're having a different conversation. (95% sure? I'd love to know where that figure comes from in your thought experiment.)
Again, there's the left, and then there's the Democratic party. I agree that they aren't one and the same.
But seriously, didn't a bunch of you guys vote for Nader? Isn't he a fairly important figure on the American left? So he endorses precisely the view under discussion. As, by the way, did Katha Politt. These are just the ones I remember. Wave them away if you want if you grant the point. Do their views reflect those of the leftwards 5%, 10%, 15% of the democratic party. No idea. Don't much care.
Dude, baa, I attended some of those infamous teach-ins before Afghanistan, and I still supported some kind of military action against both Al-Qaida and the Taliban.
But seriously, didn't a bunch of you guys vote for Nader?
Yes, to our regret.
Isn't he a fairly important figure on the American left?
Not after 2000, he isn't.
Had Nader staked out a position on invading Afghanistan in 2000? I suspect not, and it's somewhat problematic to conclude anything about one's position on warfare or regime change before positions were discussed.
And, you know, while you can say bad things about us all for voting for Nader and we will hang our heads in shame and accept them, no one voted for him in the belief that we'd have to worry what he was likely to do if elected, because there was no chance he would be. The idea (at least in my case, and I believe for a bunch of other people around here) was to send a message that we'd like a candidate generically to the left of the ones the Democratic Party generally comes up with, not to endorse Nader himself in any kind of detail.
baa, I have difficulty not laughing at anyone who thinks that "the American left," that scrappy band of malcontents, has a significant influence on anyone -- at least anyone with any power whatsoever. The Democratic party is center-left at its most extreme. As is Unfogged, for the most part. Coming in here and arguing against the extreme fringe left position is pretty dumb.
baa, you know I love you, but Ralph Nader? For crying out loud.
Look, until recently, there's been very little difference between the Republican and Democratic positions on combatting terrorism. This administration is engaged in "policing" and almost all Democrats supported at least some military action. But two things: even while they were policing, Republicans denounced calls for policing as namby-pamby, and two, Democrats now are sometimes willing to say that Iraq is a clusterfuck and we need to get out.
How many people who comment here supported Nader? I count (I think) one: JM. Also, what's the point in finding the craziest Dem position and arguing against that, particularly when no Dem you are arguing with holds that position. Seems like nutpicking. (Sue me.)
Let's talk specifics, baa. I find it's more productive than posing hypotheticals about what might be the most "serious" approach towards the Great Cause of the day.
What military actions, exactly, have democrats opposed (real ones, not Nader or Commie McStrawman) that have proven to be remotely effective in defeating plots such as the one at issue?
Also, has anyone else come to loath the term "strawman"? Isn't there another word or phrase available?
No, we had that whole thread in which people confessed to having voting Green. I didn't confess at the time: too ashamed.
83: You must have missed the thread a few days ago when a whole bunch of us (including me, to my eternal regret) confessed to having voted for Nader. It was when that Green Party fool showed up and was giving us a hard time for being tools of the establishment.
He's not a marginal figure on the left at all.
He's not? When the Green Party Senate candidate in Pennsylvania is funded with 100% Republican money, I think we can conclude that the Green Party and its candidates are not at the center of the Left.
second question:
Weren't we getting more done in the blow job thread? Can you actually call your contributions to this thread "productive"?
85: Um.. baa-man? Even though I think I love him too.
67: People say this all the time, and mostly it's said by reptilian liars and demagogues.
The Democrats cannot be blamed for things that their non-Democratic enemies on the left (people who try to defeat Democrats) say. You cannot dig up every leftist crazy there is and use them as a stick to beat Democrats with.
I've never been a comity guy anyway, but there's no possibility of comity in 67.
I've heard a lot of stuff about how Democrats and liberals are "fundamentally unserious" about defense and counterterrorism. After looking at the things that the serious people are saying, I've come to the conclusion that seriousness itself might be the problem. If we'd let comedians plan the Iraq War, we might well be better off now.
There's no one more serious than the Germans, and if you read the stuff that Germans were writing between 1900 and 1939, it was all incredibly serious stuff. Their contempt for the unserious peoples of the world was immense. I think that the Germans would definitely have been better people, and the world would be a better place, if they'd listened to their clowns and comedians more.
When I see frowny-faced serious people talking gravely on TV, and when I hear them chopping logic and propagating lies with those serious looks on their imbecile lying faces, I really want to just give up and die. because those are the people who run the country.
There was a thing published somewhere asking whether Israel-Lebanon could bring the whole house of cards down, like Sarejevo in 1914. And it's the serious people who are doing this.
When the people here voted for Nader, it wasn't because he opposed the Afghanistan invasion. I don't see how his position on that issue is particularly relevant.
Unless my chronolorotor is acting up again.
I wholeheartedly endorse John Emerson's diatribe against serious-mindedness. Reminds me of Stendahl's position on the same subject.
You know what might be fun? If everyone in this thread posts a comment explaining what they think is at issue in this discussion. Then we can compare answers. I predict total awesomeness.
So criticisms of Democrats generally as unserious for advocating policing solutions to terrorism generally are attacking a strawman if they are based on the assumption that Democrats do categorically rule out military action
Right. Similarly, so criticisms of Republicans generally as unserious for advocating military solutions to terrorism generally are attacking a strawman if they are based on the assumption that Republican do categorically rule out policing action.
And as a great woman once said, the criticism is irrational, and doesn't make sense. And for those reasons, I don't want to hear it any more.
57: That's my point here -- the criticism is irrational, and doesn't make sense. And for those reasons, I don't want to hear it any more.
That's because policing isn't a strategy, isn't a technique, isn't an argument, it's a trope.
When you talk about policing you invoke the coddling of criminals, the Warren court, cable TV in prison, and all those other bad images. You invoke weakness.
This is about punishment. Not deterrence, not prevention, but punishment. Making bad people feel pain. That's why you have John Yoo et al. taking it out of the realm of the law and into the realm of the Commander and Chief as Big Father figure who won't spare the rod.
Wow, I'd already prepared the answer to O's 94
Similarly, so criticisms of Republicans generally as unserious for advocating military solutions to terrorism generally are attacking a strawman if they are based on the assumption that Republican do categorically rule out policing action.
And if you can show me where I've said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as such, let's make a lunch date for next week. I'll order the hat.
John Emerson is once again my hero. Teach me, grizzled one.
94: blow jobs fight terrorism, but only to the degree that Ralph Nader does not post comments on this blog.
LB, You should hire a straw man to eat your hat for you.
And if you can show me where I've said anything that could reasonably be interpreted as such, let's make a lunch date for next week. I'll order the hat.
I'm happy with you agreeing that the argument that the Administration has no interest in policing or the use of intellegence to combat terrorism is bullshit. You win. I'll buy lunch (Mexican food, not hat). Pick a day.
94: Seriously, my intent in the post was to raise, and mock, Republican criticisms (like the one I linked in 25) of a policing approach to anti-terrorism. Even several years after the military action almost everyone agreed was a reasonable response to 9/11 (that is, attacking Afghanistan), it looks as if policing is still both necessary and effective.
To the extent that the criticism of policing as unserious is the one baa describes here:
The "policing is unserious" complaint, is, I think, appropriately understood as the complaint that to *only* consider policing is unserious. Insofar as state sponsors remain very important enablers of terrorism, this seems like a correct point that is granted by all. Ruling out military responses to state sponsors of terrorism is, if not unserious, at least ill-advised.
it's not reasonably directed at Democrats generally. To the extent that it's not contingent on a total repudiation of military force by Democrats, it's just silly.
Ok, I really think this is proving my point now. There is surely some criticism we would accept of the form " it is a mistake to rely too much on a "police matter/non-state actor" approach to terrorism as opposed to a "military matter/state-actor" approach to terrorism, and those who do are insufficiently serious about the threat of terrorism." If that criticism applies to anyone, maybe it applies to someone who is deeply skeptical of military action and regime change in Afghanistan immediately after 9/11. Ralph Nader was one such guy. Ralph Nader was a standard bearer for the American Left. Ralph Nader is not marginal now because of his foreign policy views. Katha Politt isn't marginal now either. So, it seems like it is a criticsm that applies to at least some reasonable contingent of the American left. That's all I care about.
I don't care (much) about the implied claim that the left is hermetically sealed off from the Democratic party. Fine, I grant it. Nor do I much care about defending the particular deployment of some GOP talking point/meme. Fine, it was deployed unscrupulously.
94: It's a picture of Ralph Nader with baa's gun to his head, and the caption reads, "Admit the value of hawkish options or we'll shoot this moron."
Nor do I much care about defending the particular deployment of some GOP talking point/meme. Fine, it was deployed unscrupulously.
And that's my entire point -- that the GOP talking point was irrational bullshit.
To the extent that it's not contingent on a total repudiation of military force by Democrats, it's just silly.
Huh?
I know a guy who defended his voting for Nader on the basis that both Bush and Gore would have invaded Afghanistan to look for Bin Laden, but Nader would not have, because he wasn't an imperialist, and therefore there was not a dime's worth of difference.
Most of the "Democrat, Republican, I don't see any difference" people I know are like him, with opinions based on a combination of
A) Pacifism
B) A complete lack of ambition/greed, leading to a revulsion at the sight of people who are constantly seeking the approval of the rich and powerful. (This leads to a revulsion at the sight of 100% of both Republicans and Democrats, because in our system nobody can reach high office without being bribed thousands of times in order to pay for advertising.)
Note that neither of these opinions are actually what you'd call "extreme left-wing". They sound more like Quaker beliefs. But they are opinions that are marginalized and scorned by 100% of people who hold the power in America. This is true of America but not other "western" countries because America has long had the roles of undisputed military colossus and Social Darwinist free market, and the vast majority of people shape their opinions so they can succeed within that system without feeling guilty.
Baa said that the criticism was a criticism of those on the left (like Nader) who always opposed all military action. That's nonsense, because it's been directed at Democrats and liberals generally, and they don't always oppose all military action -- the vast majority of us supported Afghanistan.
So if we assume that the talking point is directed at a perceived Democratic emphasis on policing, rather than a 'total repudiation of military force', then it looks kind of silly right now, doesn't it? Policing looks fairly important in the context of this sort of story.
>the GOP talking point was irrational bullshit.
Sooooo close.
The point is not irrational. Indeed, it seems that people here grant not just that it is rational, but that it is correct. There can be flawed perspective which tips too far towards policing. The peson who just wanted to do police activity after 9/11 would be wrong, etc. It may be that the point was deployed unfairly against people who held a nuanced view. Just like it's a rational (and maybe correct) criticism to say "the nuclear freeze was a stupid idea." But unfair and unscrupulous to implu that the Democratic party was all a bunch of nuclear freeze-nics.
As I said, the reason we're having this argument about policing vs. war at all is because of buckets and buckets of demagogic lying bullshit by the Republicans and their stooges in the media attempting to marginalize and smear the Democrats. The Republicans on this thread have not acknowledged that point.
It's not marginal Michael Moore people either. Tom Delay just put out this statement yesterday: DeLay on Liberals’ Reaction to Terrorists: ‘You Can’t Go After These Wonderful People that Just Killed a Bunch of Americans’.
People are born Republicans, but it's possible to change. If you're a Republican now, Tom Delay is your guy. Where's the comity in that?
Also, just read "rely only on policing" as "rely on policing to an excessive and ill-considered degree." Seem fairer now?
But the GOP talking point has been directed at Democrats generally. If I say, for example, that it would be irrational of the GOP to say "Don't vote for Democrats because their advocacy of child prostitution is bad policy" the fact that advocating child prostitution is bad policy doesn't make the quoted statement rational, or correct.
Also, just read "rely only on policing" as "rely on policing to an excessive and ill-considered degree." Seem fairer now?
And now we're back to noting that, in the context of this story, a pretty heavy reliance on policing looks like a good idea. Afghanistan, which I've been conceding as something I supported, may possibly have had some beneficial effect on reducing the likelihood of terrorist attacks. But it certainly hasn't closed off the possibility of more attacks in the future, and there's no obvious military action that's going to have any effect at all on future attacks. At this point, focusing on policing is all we have that shows any potential of any kind of success.
"There can be flawed perspective which tips too far towards policing."
Not at this stage of the game, not unless it turns out that another state arises to house all of al qaida, and all of al qaida's leadership gathers there.
What baa is doing is generalizing a basically fake theory based on two actual interventionist events. The one was justified, the other wasn't.
But no other justified wars are on the horizon. Holding the position that the war in Afganistan was justified is in no way inconsistent with the position that, going forward, policing is the most effective policy. That and blow jobs.
Yeah, so agreed. I think the problem here was that I was interested in the actual policy argument (are there people who tip too far towards viewing terrorism as a police problem? is this a big mistake?) wheras you were mad about the GOP sliming the democrats unfairly. Really, I am happy to grant that the GOP slimes the democrats unfairly, and did so on this issue.
I am probably less convinced than some that the Republicans have an all time lead in the political opponent sliming derby, but that's a conversation that seems like an unproductive one.
Mark Schmidt is not yet aware that seriousness is a bad thing, and he's declaring Lieberman to be the unserious one. He makes a good case.
One of the foundations of the hawkish position is that the Islamic threat today is as great, or greater than the Nazi threat or the Communist threat was in the past. This is an argument which is impossible to make explicitly and in detail, but it's hysterically assumed by more or less the whole Bush constituency and a fair proportion of Democrats too.
if we assume that the talking point is directed at a perceived Democratic emphasis on policing, rather than a 'total repudiation of military force', then it looks kind of silly right now, doesn't it? Policing looks fairly important in the context of this sort of story.
I've lost track of what the talking point supposedly was, but you can see that what you have written here does not necessarily follow, right? If person A emphasizes savings and investment to plan for the future (but buys the occasional lottery ticket) and person B emphasizes buying lottery tickets (but puts $50 a month aside for her annual vacation to Atlantic City), winning the lottery does not prove that person B was being sensible or that person A was not.
To be clear, I am not accusing the Democratic position on the war as being person B (or accepting that the Republican position is B either), I'm just saying that your argument does not prove what you want to prove.
Turning to ogged's challenge, it is apparent that there is some disagreement over what we are arguing about. Taking the challenge seriously, I would say that we have been arguing about:
Whether military action has no connection to successes--even police ones--in the war on terror (I disagree).
Whether the Administration has rejected policing and intelligence as means of fighting terrorism (I disagree)
Whether Democrats have been unfairly accused of rejecting all military options in the war on terror (that accusation would be unfair with respect to the majority of Democrats, although this is not an unheard of position among leftists; I mostly think the extent to which the accusation is being made at all is wildly overblown for rhetorical reasons).
One of the foundations of the hawkish position is that the Islamic threat today is as great, or greater than the Nazi threat or the Communist threat was in the past.
Yeah. I have to say that at the rate they seem likely to blow up planes, I'd rather take the risk and get to keep my shampoo.
Baa, who is the actual contemporary Democrat who has said anything that comes within a mile of the viciousness of what Delay said? There are lots more things like that from him and other important Republicans and media people. I could probably find fifty or a hundred different statements like that with a few hours work.
If you say Al Sharpton, what office does he hold?
Public policy debate isn't at the high philosophical level. It's your team against our team, and your team is looking pretty creep and incompetent these days.
You are either with 118, or you are with the terrorists. (in other words, I agree completely)
Look, can we just agree that I was right in 29 and go out for cocktails?
118: No comity for you.
Whether military action has no connection to successes--even police ones--in the war on terror (I disagree).
Not an absolutely insane reading of what I posted, but not what I meant. If I dial it back to 'Military action is clearly insufficient to end terrorism' is that good?
Whether the Administration has rejected policing and intelligence as means of fighting terrorism (I disagree)
No one's said this, or anything that could be reasonably interpreted as this.
Whether Democrats have been unfairly accused of rejecting all military options in the war on terror (that accusation would be unfair with respect to the majority of Democrats, although this is not an unheard of position among leftists; I mostly think the extent to which the accusation is being made at all is wildly overblown for rhetorical reasons).
This isn't a particularly close representation of the slur in question. The slur is that Democrats reveal an unserious, 'pre-9-11' attitude toward terrorism by focusing on policing, rather than military force. Baa suggested that it would be fair to say bad things about someone who completely repudiated all use of military force, and sure, it would be, but it's going to be hard to find many Democrats in that category. But the claim that Democrats generally are overly focused on non-military solutions and that that reveals a fundamental flaw (unseriousness, whatever) gets made all the time, and it's worth pointing out that policing is awfully important as a means of combatting terrorism.
John Emerson's comment on serious-mindedness in 91 is the wisest and sanest thing I've read all week.
Look, can we just agree that I was right in 29 and go out for cocktails?
I pretty much agree with the first paragraph of 29, except I think military solutions have a wider application than you seem to (but that may simply reflect where we draw the line between calling something a policing action and a military action--there is a considerable overlap).
I think the war in Iraq is related to the war on Islamic terrorism because there is much much more to that war than al Quaeda, in my estimation.
But going out for cocktails on a Friday afternoon (well, Diet Coke while others drink cocktails, in my case) is always a good policy, so we have comity!
But 118 is sort of uninteresting. No one takes an absolutist position, and in the absence of a specific policy to discuss, we can all just achieve comity by agreeing that, "terrorism bad," and that, "stopping terrorism good."
Iraq is a disaster and either (a) has no influence on our security from terrorist threats, or (b) has weakened that security. More generally, the Administration's attempts to protect us are, on the whole, too expensive for the minimal protections that they have bought us, or wasted efforts that may have made us less safe and have definitely made it more expensive to conduct a foreign policy that looks out for our national interests.
you can see that what you have written here does not necessarily follow, right?
Of course it doesn't 'necessarily' follow -- very little ever does. In the contingent world we live in though, it does actually follow.
We've also occulted the actual question on the table -- granted that military action in theory might be a good thing, why did we invade Iraq? The Afghanistan invasion really got very little resistance.
The Iraq war and the Bush administration our like a couple of live hand grenades sitting on the table in front of us. We're not really going to have any philosophical discussions about counter-terrorism until we've figured out what to do about thosae hand-grenades.
"are like".
"very little resistance in the US."
130: Still standing by 'thosae', are you?
(I do, of course, agree with pretty much everything you've said.)
'Military action is clearly insufficient to end terrorism' is that good?
Military action alone? obviously true. But if you think that we are arguing about whether military action alone is insufficient to end terrorism, I do not see how this is different from arguing that the Administration has rejected policing and intelligence as means of fighting terrorism , because if you did not think this, there was no disagreement. I think you have to buy lunch next week (but I still will settle for Mexican rather than hat).
The slur is that Democrats reveal an unserious, 'pre-9-11' attitude toward terrorism by focusing on policing, rather than military force. . . . But the claim that Democrats generally are overly focused on non-military solutions and that that reveals a fundamental flaw (unseriousness, whatever) gets made all the time, and it's worth pointing out that policing is awfully important as a means of combatting terrorism.
I think we disagree on the criticism being made. I think the criticism is that there are some leftists who adopt a view of "hey, this is all overblown (or, indeed, that this is all an invention of, or even intentionally caused by, the neocons); leave it to law enforcement and they will sort it out." And I think that that is a fundamentally unserious view of what is going on, because the long term dangers we face go far beyond getting some office buildings or airplanes blown up occasionally. Is this the same level of threat that the Soviet Union posed:? Of course not (but not even the Soviets blew up office buildings in New York or US embassies). But that does not mean that it is not worth taking much more seriously than it was (and should have been by Democrats and Republicans alike) prior to September 11, 2001.
it does actually follow.
I understand that you have asserted this, but the evidence you offer--there was policing and we stopped a terrorist plot--certainly does not prove it, for the reasons I gave.
because the long term dangers we face go far beyond getting some office buildings or airplanes blown up occasionally.
Do tell. Would you like to spell them out for us?
Military action alone? obviously true. But if you think that we are arguing about whether military action alone is insufficient to end terrorism, I do not see how this is different from arguing that the Administration has rejected policing and intelligence as means of fighting terrorism , because if you did not think this, there was no disagreement. I think you have to buy lunch next week (but I still will settle for Mexican rather than hat).
You've lost me here. I'm not trying to argue here, I'm trying to rephrase something you took issue with ('no connection' or whatever I said) into something noncontroversial. There isn't an argument on this point, just me clarifying overstated language.
Do tell. Would you like to spell them out for us?
Sure. But given the implication in your comment that my assertion was unsupportable, we'll start with you. Is it your position that violent islamic fundementalism of the sort which has arisen in the past 20 years poses no dangers other than the rare terrorist attack? Can you see no other implications of the program to establish fundamentalist, anti-western control of the arc of countries from north africa to Indonesia?
And I think that that is a fundamentally unserious view of what is going on, because the long term dangers we face go far beyond getting some office buildings or airplanes blown up occasionally.
Why? What are the long-term dangers that you're talking about?
Idealist, would you say that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has weakened, or strengthened, the position of violent Islamic fundamentalists?
Here's how I see this debate: Idealist/baa/Bush administration: "Starting two wars in the Middle East was and remains an effective means of preventing Middle Easterners and their sympathizers from committing terrorist acts in the developed West. Furthermore, the methodologies of policing that are most effective in preventing terrorist acts, and killing or capturing the perpetrators or conspirators, consist of collecting vast amounts of private information on millions, if not billions, of law-abiding individuals and using the most extreme interrogation techniques possible on anyone who might be caught up in a worldwide, anti-terrorist dragnet."
Other position: "While some large-scale military action may be desirable and/or unavoidable, a much larger amount of government resources should be devoted to intelligence gathering and small-scale military intervention that has the least chance of converting current non-terrorists to support for, or participation in, terrorist actions; and simultaneously has the most chance of capturing or killing actual extant terrorists."
As an extreme leftist, but not, thank goodness, a Nader supporter ever (my ideal US Presidential ticket: Wilma Mankiller/Winona Laduke) my position is: "Military action on behalf of Western capitalism since the early 19th century has provided the context for virtually all of the militant Muslim and Arab activism over the last 100 years. US support of dictatorial regimes in the Arab and Muslim worlds necessarily creates the conditions which provoke some people to become terrorists, just as support for similar regimes in Sub-Saharan Africa, South & Central America, Southeast Asia and the Carribean did in those regions. Inevitably, regardless of the amount of police work or military action levelled against these individuals and groups, their activities will lead to major changes in the system which has made their existence possible. Whether those changes will take the form of violent disruptions or consensual change in our society is the principal variable."
Can you see no other implications of the program to establish fundamentalist, anti-western control of the arc of countries from north africa to Indonesia?
You didn't ask me, but I find it unlikely. At a minimum, even if it happens, they'll be at each other's throats. My recollection is that Kennan correctly predicted the same for a communist USSR and a communist China. So...less work for us. Good.
Can you see no other implications of the program to establish fundamentalist, anti-western control of the arc of countries from North Africa to Indonesia?
The people planning to do that are as deluded as the people who want to organize American foreign policy around fighting it. We're talking about 20-30 nations, often traditionally hostile to one another, speaking 8 or more languages, spread out over something like 5000 miles, divided into two major and many minor sects.
And the fight against this fantasy enemy began by destroying one of the very few secular nations on that arc, and one whose involvement in the actual triggering incident was close to none.
Idealist, would you say that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has weakened, or strengthened, the position of violent Islamic fundamentalists?
We will have to wait to see the long term effect, which is what we should be focusing on. My hope is that in the long run (assuming we succeed) the occupation and transition to civil government in Iraq will significantly weaken violent Islamic fundamentalists. I believe that this will happen in several ways:
--It will deter other state sponsors of regional destabilization, including terrorism. If such sponsorship dries up, many pretty dangerous flashpoints, like Israel, will cool down. Part of my view of the importance of what we are trying to do is based on the dangers posed is things go very bad. Israel has nuclear weapons. So do India and Pakistan. If the region spins out of control, it could get very bad very quick. And that is not to mention the economic disruptions.
--A successful, Islamic Iraq will show people that there is a better way. In the middle east, there are few example of islamic states which are good places to live and who are good neighbors--Turkey is pretty good, but the government was, until recently, aggressively secular, and, of course, there is no love lost between many arabic countries and their former rulers, the Turks. After that, what have we got, Egypt? Heck, Iran is better than most, that shows how tough things are.
those are two big things. There are others.
Of course, the current fighting and anger over the US presence there causes unrest and anger, obviously. And that is a negative against which the positives I see must be weighed. And there are other negatives as well, also obviously. But I think that in the long run, if successful, the net benefits of success would be significant.
83/87: Ohh, I must have missed that thread. I came really, really close to voting for Nader in 2000 -- I attended a few of his rallies and was generally very supportive of the things he said, but at the last minute I reconsidered and ultimately voted for Bush instead.
I know that probably sounds like a joke, but it's 100% truth.
Just in factual terms, the stuff Idealist is talking about seems ridiculous. I think that what we're hoping for by now is just something not too much worse than Saddam -- perhaps a long civil war where Americans aren't getting killed, for example. So we have the diametrically wrong method being used to combat a hallucinatory fear.
The specific thing Idealist is pointing to, development of a stable Middle East, seems to be the one least likely to be achieved by the military action he is committed to, and which we're seeing. Disorder and long-term multi-party warfare with an uncertain outcome seem infinitely more likely.
The exasperating thing for me is that, in the contemporary American discourse, Idealist's loony, ridiculous dream counts as sober and serious, while I count as a wacko. His people have their hands on the controls, and even though his people seem to be fucking up disastrously, it makes him seem sane and reasonable. The power of incumbency, and the prestige of the Commander in Chief, are really enormous.
143: The Iraq war has:
(1) Made if necessary for any semi-rational state actor to look into acquiring nuclear weapons;
(2) Removed a state actor, with all of the benefits that a return address confers, and replaced it with anarchy;
(3) Made clear that most of our own belief in our moral arguments about appropriate behavior are paper thin (if you can torture-lite for the minimal threat we face, you're allowed alot more when transitioning from a communist state to whatever comes next, for example);
(4) yada yada.
What's interesting to me is that while you think a claim restricting our response to police action is unserious, I honestly believe the same about any claim that the issue of whether or not invading Iraq was a good idea. Your a decent, rational person (as is baa), and I have no faith in my ability to predict what you will think is a reasonable response to more or less anything. I don't know what a bad decision to go to war looks like to you, short of naked aggression for its own sake. In the end, this is one of the things that worries me most: there is seems to be an unbridgeable gap between what I think is sane and what people I happily acknowledge are rational and decent think is sane.
The police-military discussion is fundamentally misleading. Presumably both sides think that both are neccesary, in some degree, for an effective prosecution of any fight against terror. Rather, the dichotomy is a proxy for the discussion about, as Emerson points out above, just how big the threat of terror, especially islamic terror, really is. If you believe only policing is neccesary, you "obviously" don't think it's that big. The military is a much bigger stick, so needing to use it implies a much larger threat.
145 & 146 save me the trouble of adding my own reply. I don't see how the Iraq fiasco represents a step in the right direction in any way.
Before I go out on the town with my radical friends, I want to remind my compatriots that, in fact, the terrorists have already won.
After all, if they hadn't, we'd be typing in British English or beating our slaves or working 12-hour days.
A long memory is the most radical thing in America.
It's not that one can't try to do both police and military, but that the military option seriously interferes with the police option. The most important element in this kind of police work is cooperation by people who know stuff, and aren't all the way on board with the bin Laden dream.
Invading Iraq, cheerleading the current business in lebanon, talking about a new Middle East, crusader rhetoric in general -- these things push the people away from collaborating with the US, and towards silence at best, and hostility all too often.
I don't have any evidence for this, but I think that serious efforts to capture bin Laden had to go underground -- to the extent they are still on at all -- once the Iraq war started, because it was thought likely fatal to the pakistani government to be cooperating too overtly with the US. Don't get me wrong, I think the Pakistani government has done more than they get credit for, but the risk of an Islamist takeover of that country is far greater than one of Iraq, and to the extent that aggressive pursuit of bin Laden increases the risk, it has had to be scaled back. It's not an irrational trade-off to make at this point, but one that would look very different if people hadn't been deluded that the Iraqi transition Idealist is hoping for was going to happen really quick.
Side Note: Obviously, it's bigger than just bin Laden, but I don't think one can overemphasize the importance of the continued freedom of Bin laden and Dr. Z. 1. This is a movement that depends on charismatic leadership, and may well falter if the next rank proves unable to meet that demand. 2. A non-trivial number of potential followers of radical Islamism look at events to divine the will of Allah: it is apparently currently the will of Allah that bin Laden and Dr. Z survive to continue their struggle.
I think that in the long run, if successful, the net benefits of success would be significant.
I think that in the long run, if I get to make sweet love to Angelina Jolie down by the fire, my stalking her and kidnapping her children will have been justified.
bin Laden and Dr. Z survive to continue their struggle
Holy shit-- that German dude who runs Chrysler is a jihadist?
He would not be much more annoying if he were. Also, I think the "we must protect this house" guy opposes Western values.
I went home after my last post last night, but Idealist, you're just being silly. Not all bad things are equivalent to each other. Sadaam was a horrible nasty awful person or whatever it is I have to say to establish that I'm not soft on Baathism, but he was a secular dictator (yeah, yeah, he gave a pint of blood as a stunt to copy the Koran in. Sucking up to religious leaders doesn't make you a theocrat, or if it does, Bush is a mullah.) not a step on the road to a re-establishment of the Caliphate -- the chaos we've brought to Iraq has brought it much closer to theocracy than Sadaam was ever going to. And re-establishment of the Caliphate is a fantasy fear.
You're saying that anyone who isn't focusing their concerns on a ridiculously low-odds bugaboo, and resolving to fight it through means that have been established to be counterproductive, is unserious. Rubber, meet glue.
You're saying that anyone who isn't focusing their concerns on a ridiculously low-odds bugaboo, and resolving to fight it through means that have been established to be counterproductive, is unserious. Rubber, meet glue.
Well gee, had I said that, it would be silly. But of course I did not, and it is telling that you cannot engage what I did say or answer the question I asked. The danger relates to the fight to establish fundamentalist, anti-western control of the arc of countries from north africa to Indonesia. That fight might not be successful, but its effects surely may be catastrophic, both for us and for the significant percentage of the earth's population which lives there. Israel, India, and Pakistan already have nuclear weapons. Iran likely soon will. In a fight to the death, their allies or proxies may well have access to them. If things go south in that region, they will go badly.
I know you just want peace in our time, but somethimes wishing for it--no matter how earnestly and with the best of intentions--does not make it so.
Further, I believe you are seriously mistaken about the facts if it is your position that terrorism and other destabilizing acts exist principally without state sponsorship or support. The belief that terrorism is all about poor downtrodden villagers, oppressed by the dirty Zionists and the vile imperialistic Americans, rising up to speak true to power in the only way open to them is pretty much a fantasy. And if you make policy based on that fantasy, you are making a big mistake.
I know you just want peace in our time, but somethimes wishing for it--no matter how earnestly and with the best of intentions--does not make it so.
if it is your position that terrorism and other destabilizing acts exist principally without state sponsorship or support
I can't believe these accurately describe the positions of anyone here.
It's possible to draw different conclusions from the same set of facts, no?
As I've said, I think that your fear of a fundamentalist arc from Morocco all the way to Indonesia is delusional, and the idea of trying to prevent the formation of this fundamentalist arc by overthrowing a strongly anti-fundamentalist state in the region has been proven by events to be raving lunacy (and of the target nations we've named, Syria isn't fundamentalist either), and in general the idea of fighting fundamentalism, which is a social movement that thrives on chaos, by overthrowing states is utterly misguided. State sponsorship is an element in the equation, but destroyed states are replaced by new states. The delusion is yours. Iraq is now far closer to fundamentalist rule than it was.
"I know you just want peace in our time,"
Subtle.
That "terrorism and other destabilizing acts exist principally without state sponsorship or support" isn't really something reasonable, reality-based if you will, people can disagree on. It's just a fact.
I can't believe these accurately describe the positions of anyone here.
see
That "terrorism and other destabilizing acts exist principally without state sponsorship or support" isn't really something reasonable, reality-based if you will, people can disagree on. It's just a fact.
An informed person who disagrees with 160 is a crackpot, and not serious about fighting terrorism. It's scary how the wingnuts manage to spin their lack of interest in fighting terrorists, as opposed to state sponsors, as being serious. Idealists post is a good example.
The belief that terrorism is all about poor downtrodden villagers, oppressed by the dirty Zionists and the vile imperialistic Americans, rising up to speak true to power in the only way open to them is pretty much a fantasy.
I may have missed this above. Can you direct me to anyone who actually believes this?
It's an even more dangerous fantasy to think that it's all about state support, and if one just removes the state support -- like taking out Saddam -- then terrorism will just go away. There is and has been state support of Islamist groups, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. The point, though, is whether state support is the only prop, or whether popular support (no I'm not talking about a majority, just enough popular support to stay viable) without state support is sufficient. I never thought state support from Afghanistan -- which I would characterize more along the lines as tolerance than support* -- was essential to AQ, and AQ's continuing existence, at a level sufficient to be threatening to thousands of Westerners, in Pakistan without even the support given by Afghanistan seems to me to prove that point. We don't know everything yet, but I think that no one will be surprised when it turns out that this latest London thing, like the last London thing, or the Madrid thing, didn't have any significant state support.
On Iraq, I'll grant you that 5 years from now, the current civil war will be over, and that Sunni Islamists will not have won. (A situation as to which I think 151 gets it right, in moral terms). I think the odds are very long indeed, though, that Sunni Islamists won't be able to thrive in Iraq, so long as the only violence they are willing to support takes place against Israel or the US, and outside Iraq. That is, I think that Peaceful Iraq will look a whole more like current Pakistan or Egypt, in terms of the West's struggle with Islamist movements, than the version still dreamed about. Feel free to consider that victory.
* I compare pre-9/11 Afghan support of AQ, or Saddam's support of Palestinian terrorism, with Iranian support of Hezbollah, and the former two only barely warrant the word 'support.'
Further, I believe you are seriously mistaken about the facts if it is your position that terrorism and other destabilizing acts exist principally without state sponsorship or support.
Who cares? For all I know, funding terrorists is considered, sub rosa, a legitimate tool of statecraft. And all the better if terrorism must be state sponsored--now we know who to talk to when we need to swing a deal. But there are other ways to improve our negotiating position than explicit war.
The belief that terrorism is all about poor downtrodden villagers, oppressed by the dirty Zionists and the vile imperialistic Americans, rising up to speak true to power in the only way open to them is pretty much a fantasy.
I don't know anyone who thinks this. And, again, who cares? If, in fact, terrorists only came from down-trodden villagers, we wouldn't stop wanting to either crush them or cajole them into not attacking us. Again, there's no war requirement here.
It's an even more dangerous fantasy to think that it's all about state support, and if one just removes the state support -- like taking out Saddam -- then terrorism will just go away.
Sure, good thing I never said that. My complaint is with the willful ignorance of the role of outside support to terrorist groups and the effect of destabilizing regeimes--secular or not.
There is and has been state support of Islamist groups, and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
See 162. Appaerntly, you are a crackpot, too.
I think you underestimate the value of the Taliban's support of al Quaeda. Of course, there is little evidence that it provided material support. And it had little ability to project power in support of al Quaeda. However, what it provided, and what I think is being largely overlooked here, is safe haven. A place to run training camps and run operations unmolested. People came from all over the middle east to get raining and indoctrinated by al Queada in Afghanistan. That capability, while not 100 percent eliminated, has been seriously degraded, and that is a good thing.
If you think such a capability is of no value, why did the Soviets pay for the Red Army Faction to go to North Africa to train at PLO training camps? The training, networking, indoctrination and logistical support are key in creating and maintaining an effective fighting force.
I certainly don't disagree that there's been state support of islamist groups, and in some cases significant support.
I didn't and wouldn't say 'no value.' I just don't think getting rid of it is sufficient. As I think events have shown, and will continue to show.
I don't think the Soviets got any value for their investment, whatever it was, in the RAF, but then the fact that they did something stupid is hardly surprising. I've never seen the words 'effective fighting force' used in connection with the RAF.
If I've given the impression that I think running AQ out of Afghanistan hasn't/won't have a significant effect on AQ, you've misunderstood me. I think it's been a big help in that sense. I also think, though, that much of that benefit has been frittered away by the ghastly way the US and others have handled the post-war* situation. We may well be in negative territory, just considering Afghanistan. When you throw in Iraq, it's way under water: what we get operationally is totally undercut by the popular support the other side is getting.
* I think the war in Afghanistan is over. The President does not. If he's right, then I'll say that the way has been pretty badly botched for the last 2 years.
The Taliban were closely aligned with al-Qaida, but didn't really support them much other than by tolerating them. They had nothing to offer. The toleration itself was imortant of course. I suspect they would have coped anyway, after they were kicked out of Sudan, and that 9/11 would have happened on schedule, but I don't know. Saying that al qaida "existed principally" because of state sponsorship or support would have been wrong even then, but the more pertinent point is that state sponsorhip today is a minor probem, and will remain so.
If I could shape an opponent in this kind of war, I'd rather have someone with state support and no popular support, than popular support and no state support. The former is going to be much easier to infiltrate, spy on, etc. The latter is going to have to use crude weapons and do training over the internet, but they're still going to be able to kill a bunch of people.
I've never seen the words 'effective fighting force' used in connection with the RAF.
They managed to kill American military personnel and set off bomb American military installations. They were not just a bunch of disaffected hippies sitting in a cafe complaining about imperalism and the glories of socialism.
An interesting side note relevant to the repeated claim that Saddam had nothing to do with the terrorism I am talking about. Not only does that claim ignore the substantial evidence of Iraq's support for anti-Isreali terrorists, but it ignores the fact that sometimes politics is trumped by expediency. In the 1980's right-wing and left-wing European terrorist goups sometimes sold each other weapons and explosives. Things are just not nearly as simple as many would like them to be.
We may well be in negative territory, just considering Afghanistan. When you throw in Iraq, it's way under water: what we get operationally is totally undercut by the popular support the other side is getting.
For the reasons I've stated, I think that if we do not quit, in the long run you will be proved wrong. On the other hand, I can certainly see how, assessing the situation based on a snap-shot of today, you might disagree. Time will show which of us was mistaken.
Time will show which of us was mistaken.
None of the people who will die in Iraq tomorrow will be brought back to life in your utopian future. If 10 years from now there is complete peace in the Middle East, you will still not be proven correct, because I'm telling you that my way would get there faster and with less death. You don't have to believe me, obviously. You are free to believe, though, that no eventual success of the policy you support will cause me to conclude that I was wrong about how the war(s) should have been waged.
You are free to believe, though, that no eventual success of the policy you support will cause me to conclude that I was wrong about how the war(s) should have been waged.
You seem an imminently reasonable person, but you can see how this can be read as "don't confuse me with facts," right? Of course, you are right that there is no way to prove which of us was right in ten years time because we do not have parallel universes where we can compare the outcome of different courses of action. That does not mean that it is impossible to draw reasonable conclusions regarding how well something worked.
None of the people who will die in Iraq tomorrow will be brought back to life in your utopian future.
And . . . . What follows from this? The same can be said for every war. If you believe that war is never permissible, fine. But if you do, the fact that people are dying today does not, by itself, answer the question of whether it was worth it.
Idealist, I can grant everything you've said and still not understand why invading Iraq was necessary; not a fundamentalist state, no WMD, and surely the casus belli wasn't Iraqi martyrdom checks paid to the families of suicide bombers.
These could all change, but it seems now that we run the risk of thing boiling over in the Mideast with an army tied down in Iraq. Wouldn't we have been better off rebuilding Afghanistan so it could be our shiny beacon of happy Mideast awesomeness?
it seems now that we run the risk of thing boiling over in the Mideast with an army tied down in Iraq.
We do run that risk. Invading Iraq is not what I would have done, and no one can claim that it has come off perfectly, or without significant cost. On the other hand, for the reasons I have stated above, it still is my sense that if we do not quit, it will have been worth it.
Wouldn't we have been better off rebuilding Afghanistan so it could be our shiny beacon of happy Mideast awesomeness?
No. Afghanistan has never had, to my knowledge, and certainly does not now have, the importance of Iraq in the region (and however hard making a shining beacon out of Iraq is, doing so in Afghanistan is much harder in the short- and mid-term).
We do run that risk. Invading Iraq is not what I would have done, and no one can claim that it has come off perfectly, or without significant cost.
And Idealist wins the understatement of the month award.
Of course, you are right that there is no way to prove which of us was right in ten years time because we do not have parallel universes where we can compare the outcome of different courses of action. That does not mean that it is impossible to draw reasonable conclusions regarding how well something worked.
Can you see that this thread suggests it may in fact be "impossible to draw reasonable conclusions regarding how well something worked"? You think the Iraq invasion may still be a spectacular success; I think (as I suspect most do) that possibility is well off the table, and somewhere beneath the floor. It is hard to reconcile these two views. So unless you mean for "reasonable conclusions" to include two diametrically opposed views, I think the evidence suggests that it will be impossible to find a consensus "reasonable conclusion." (After all, if it all still looks like hell in ten years in Iraq, y'all can simply extend the timeline for judgment. There don't appear to be any boundary conditions for failure in your analysis. Your success criteria are similarly obscure. (Welcome to bad planning.))
you can see how this can be read as "don't confuse me with facts," right?
Not at all. The question isn't whether the invasion of Iraq will prove to be the end of life on earth, and if, as a factual matter, you can point to continued life on earth, and therefore call it a success.
The question is over which is the best way to stop a movement that threatens the lives of innocents, here and in the Middle East.
That's have a simple example: what is the best way for me to get to New York City? I can take a plane, a bus, a train, a boat, a bicycle, or I can walk. If you tell me that walking is the way to go, and I walk, even if I eventually get to New York City, you will not be vindicated in telling me it was the right way to get there. I got there, yeah, and I guess if you'd been telling me that I shouldn't drive because cars are dangerous,* you'd point out that I dodged that bullet too, but that's all you've got. This is not 'don't confuse me with the facts,' it's 'your measuring stick is so far out of whack that it's useless for the task.'
In the Middle East, there are cars, planes, busses, and trains 'to New York City.' We're walking. With sore feet. And a bad map. In the wrong direction. Of course I hope we arrive. But every day we delay because we insist on doing it wrong costs real people real lives. Who's insisting on not being confused with the facts?
* Cars are dangerous when driven with underinflated tires. Check yours.
And Idealist wins the understatement of the month award.
No, he hasn't come close to beating "Certainly, there are differences between disaffected Goths and suicide bombers.".
Guh, 178 was responding to 175.
They managed to kill American military personnel and set off bomb American military installations. They were not just a bunch of disaffected hippies sitting in a cafe complaining about imperalism and the glories of socialism.
I bet I could do those things if I wanted to, but not without repercussions.
I agree with SCMT that odds of "spectacular success" in Iraq at this point are gnat-sized.
That said, one of the things that challenges me about viewpoints such as Idealist's are the differences in how success is defined. In other words, even people I talk to who support the war don't agree on what they're working toward or what success will look like when (if) we get there.
In informal conversations, some war supporters seem to define success as political stability, even if that means lack of rights for women (or whoever). Others define success as is economic stability, aka the ability to keep oil flowing. Some seem to define it as a government that can be counted upon to be friendly to the U.S. Very few seem to define it as personal safety and quality of life for Iraqis (reduced street crime and kidnappings; decent infrastructure in terms of hospitals and schools).
Obviously these are not mutually exclusive. Even so, I think it's problematic.
success as political stability, even if that means lack of rights for women (or whoever).
And of course, to the extent that we don't care about individual rights, we started out with political stability.
what they're working toward
s/b what we're working toward
I changed thoughts in the middle of the paragraph and didn't make it back to edit myself.
In other words, even people I talk to who support the war don't agree on what they're working toward or what success will look like when (if) we get there.
That's my precise problem. They went in with only an amorphous, hippy-dippy, utopian idea of how things ought to go. They have no idea how to judge the success or failure of the plan, which means we don't know when to leave because we've succeeded, and we don't know when to leave because we've failed. Instead, we're left with a "Dude, go with how you feel" war. And bestest of all...all this under the aegis of the "MBA President." Jeebus.