shotbanner.jpeg

July 26, 2005

Muddleheaded

The Star/Tribune still can't get it:

The list grows: New York and Washington, Bali, Riyadh, Casablanca, Istanbul, Madrid, Taba, London, Sharm el-Sheik. This is not to mention the dozens of attacks daily in occupied Iraq. People struggle to find connections: Is this one linked to Al-Qaida; who's behind that one? Which is to miss the point. It's not Al-Qaida against whom we struggle, in the main. It's a larger, more diffuse and thus more difficult enemy: radical Islam.

In a sense, it is unjustifiable to assign these suicide-bombing terrorists to Islam, for they actually have little association with the central teachings of the noble religion that brought the world many of the initial scientific discoveries upon which modern society is built. On the one hand, you can't argue with the radicals: If they say they are from Islam, then they are. On the other, they really do not represent Islam. Uleg Beg, the 15th-century astronomer from Samarkand, represents Islam. Renowned physician Abu Bakar al-Razi represents Islam, as do the many present-day Muslim scholars and political leaders.

Which is both true and obtuse.

Who represents Germany - Göthe or Hitler? Who represents the true heart of Russia - Chekhov or Stalin? Tolstoii or Rasputin?

It's not an idle question; the Strib is disingenuously asking us to ignore the bombers behind the curtain:

It is wrong to insist that individual Muslims denounce the bombers, just as wrong as it is to insist that individual Christians denounce the antiabortion extremists who kill in the name of protecting the unborn. [Which is rubbish, of course. The dimmer bulbs of the left routinely DO try to saddle all conservatism with the crimes of its fringe, which is why every time a conservative opens his mouth on any of the left's pet issues, he has to dislaim himself fully; "I don't support gay-bashing/blowing up abortion clinics/the Klan, but... - Ed.] And yet it is helpful for the learned leaders of Islam to take up vocal opposition to the terrorists, to issue fatwahs against bombings that kill innocents, as Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., has called upon them to do, and as many have done. It is essential that all civilized people of the world have no truck with terrorism.
The difference is that the overwhelming majority of Christians - even staunchly pro-life ones - not only denounced Erik Rudolph without being nagged by the press, they also participate in a system that brought Rudolph to justice. For that matter, one does not see pro-Confederacy activists driving car bombs into shopping centers in Massachussetts.

Too many in the Moslem world, on the other hand, will proclaim their love of peace out of one side of their mouth, while never quite renouncing the anti-semitism that drives so much of the world's terrorism.

Most of all what these attacks should tell us is the folly of the Bush administration's approach to terrorism -- a conclusion we reach without rancor or a desire to score political points.
Or rational thought, as we shall see below:
The Bush administration has long pooh-poohed the notion that fighting terror will be mostly a struggle of intelligence and law enforcement and international cooperation. Senior officials in the administration want mightily to believe that attacking state sponsors of terrorism will suffice, but it will not.
Which is, of course, a lie.

The Administration has always said that the effort would combine herculean efforts by everyone from spies to cops to accountants to soldiers.

For the Strib to suggest that depriving terrorists of state sponsors isn't vital is myopic to the point of covering one's eyes, ears and mouth.

What the attacks since 9/11 tell us more than anything is that terror does not depend on state sponsorship; the disparate groups that attack us need no state sponsors.
Only if you judge by the most myopic possible standards.

Since 9/11, Al Quaeda has had to scramble around under the radar, plotting attacks made from cheap, easily-available explosives (like the first London bomging) or operating in permissive territory (like the Spanish and Bali bombings), or just plain screwing up (like the second London bombing). Having no state sponsor to take the heat off, allow rest and recuperation and training and time to operate without worring about a Hellfire missile coming through your windshield or an SAS trooper tossing a flashbang through your window is having its effect.

They must be rooted out one terrorist, one cell, one potential bomber at a time. Cleaning up Afghanistan's Al-Qaida training grounds made sense. But continually mobilizing armies does not help, and in the invasion of Iraq, it only hurt, by creating so many more potential bombers.
Like the first WTC bomber. Or the 9/11 attackers. Or the Bali bombers, the Khobar and Cole and Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassy bombers...

...oh, wait.

The world seems to have come to a turning point. The latest attacks appear to portend a true globalization of the terror threat; they will attack when they want and where they want.
Note to the Strib's appallingly dim editorialist: They always have!
And for young men like the bombers from Leeds, the time has come for choosing: Either they are British or Spanish or Egyptian or they are not; their first identity must be clear.
Ah. Wasn't that basically what you said we couldn't demand at the beginning of the piece?

Posted by Mitch at July 26, 2005 06:32 AM | TrackBack
Comments

The al Qaeda ideology gives all those various forms of Islamic militant one handy all-purpose framework that they can hang all their local grievances on. If you can convince some Islamic zealot in Egypt that damaging the Egyptian tourist industry (for a year or so) is a great part of some "War Against the Crusaders," then you can probably get him to blow himself up. Apart from the suicide, it seems to work a lot like Marxism--a large ideological framework to hang all your dissatisfactions on. We didn't fight international communism in Asia, Africa, South America, and Vietnam using arrest warrants, and it'll certainly not work with international Islamic terrorism either. This is the work of decades. That’s how long we ignored it.

Posted by: RBMN at July 26, 2005 12:03 PM

The assertion that terrorism and communism are essentially the same problem is falacious and foolish. First, Communisim is of course a type of economic model that plays upon the appeal that redistribution is possible without corrupting the redistributors. Second, the fact was that there were specific, and powerful, sponsors of communisism internationally, intent on creating a hegemony of communist states. To assert that Syria, or North Korea are either powerful or ubiquitous in their sponsorship is laughable. The powerful sponsor is purely Saudi Arabia, using mostly Pakistani (and it's own) populace. Further, terrorism is hardly a ubiquitous movement, in that the IRA has nothing like the same goals as Al Qaeda. It is true that Al Qaeda, and other Sunni extremist groups have the goal of establishing a middle-eastern Caliphate, but they hardly have even a single nation behind that notion. Saudi Arabia isn't, nor is Syria, and North Korea isn't at all.

This is a loose organization of different groups which Bin Laden has some control/input into activities. The goals of those in London conform to his goals, certainly, but to assert that this is a large, organized war, is a gross overstatement that makes you all sound like conspiracy nuts. The fact that most righties equate Saddam to Bin Ladan proves how little you actually understand the issue. Bin Laden was an anethma to Houssien (up until we invaded at least), and historically the Wahabists attacked the secular Sunni's (of which Houssien's Baathists and their ancestors were members).

Further, Houssien executed hundreds of theocratically oriented Sunni's during the Iraq Civil War of 92. In short, Houssien had ZERO interest in a middle-eastern Caliphate. The fundamental distinction between Sunni and Shia is that Sunni's supported the Ottoman Empire, which was headed by a theocrat, up until the end of WWI SOME Sunni's have the goal of re-establishing that rule, but MOST Sunni's, especially Houssien and the Family Saud, had/have NO interest.

The point here is, this concept that some paranoid first folks have forwared, that the Iraqi secularists, the Iranians, Hezzbolah, Hammas, and Al Qaeda, have the ultimate goal of establishing a theocratic Sunni Caliphate, is so mind-numbingly stupid and irrepresentational as to indict US (U.S.) as assininely incapable of grasping the realities of simple Middle-Eastern politics.

Iran dispises Al Qaeda, Hammas has NO interest in a Sunni lead Caliphate, nor DID Houssien.

Further, most Muslims recognize fairly easily that theocratic rule (especially the extreme form practiced by the Taliban) is abhorant. Do they have theocratic rule in Saudi Arabia? Not at all, however they have many forms of the Koran's proscriptions regarding conduct certainly. Confusing one for the other is simplistic and wrong.

The end point here is that conflating communisism and terrorism is just boogey-man bating, and replacing one great "enemy" with another because it's convenient to continuing an unneeded military support level. You can't fight or deter terrorists with Aircraft Carriers or even Armored Divisions. You CAN deter or destroy governments like Afghanistans, and it allows for that, but using soldiers as police officers (which is what we're doing in Iraq), is a gross misuse of their abilities and training. When's the last major battle we had in Iraq? Fallujah? hardly, they melted away. Vietnam (our last confrontation with communism in a military sense - no Grenada doesn't count) taught us the problems with trying to confront geurillas with organized military forces, but even THAT had organized geurilla and even NVA forces that were looking for a stand-up fight. You don't have that in Iraq, period.

The fact is, the only catalyzing event is our presence in Iraq. NOW the secular Sunnis and theocratic Sunni's want us out and want to overturn the idea of a Shia lead, Iranian dominated state. That's the ONLY reason they are getting along (temporarily). PUHHHLEEEEAZZEEE don't bring up the Iraqi Intel Lt. who talked with Al Qaeda ONCE, we talked with Al Qaeda too, does that mean we're supporting them? For the reasons listed above, they simply had no interest in each other, and tried to kill each other.

The long and short is, it's not as simplistic as this "pan-Islamic terrorist" World War. In fact, it is our conduct as if it is, that is making it more likely that it will be. The more we act like Morroco is our enemy, the more we act like Iran is the same as Bin Laden, the more then Bin Laden gets to say "See!!! It's exactly as I said, the Infidels are on a crusade to crush Islam, they don't care about differences, we're all in it together in their eyes." The point is that would we agree that all Christians are David Koresh? Are all Christian extreemists Bob Jones? Are all Christians extreemists? and further, is the United States, or more accurately, is Britain, in alignment and sponsoring Bob Jones?
Yet right-wing comments make the same assertions in general, about Islam, and the ubiquitious nature of terrorism. It's so foolish it would be funny if it weren't so delusional and dangerous.

PB

Posted by: PB at July 26, 2005 03:19 PM

Finished reading the rest...

Mitch, do you really believe the world will tollerate, or even should tollerate, the inclusion of Syria, Iran, etc.. in the list of states we ought to invade? Such a course would lead to World War with far more folks than just most of the middle east. Further, are you asserting that any state sponsorship of terrorism justifies open war with the government? If so, I'm assuming you advocate the violent overthrow of our own government which has routinely sponsored terrorism in unfreindly states??

We cannot live in a glass house here. We supported actions not only against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but as well the murder squads in El Salvador that were nearly universally lead by the Government. Further, recently we've attemted to destabilize the government of Venezuala, including some rather shady acts. We use "rendition" to abduct folks (for example 6 of our CIA agents have been indicted in Italy), so I have to assume you're including us in that, or is it that whatever we do is "good" and therefore ok, and whatever ANYONE else does is "bad." Pardon me, but the balance of the world may not agree. So if you want the world to "get on board" we have to start actually walking the walk we say we want followed. Otherwise, it's US against the world, and US won't win.

PB

Posted by: PB at July 26, 2005 03:33 PM

Wow, PB. I don't know that I have enough spare time to answer the whole two-volume set, but I'll do my best.

"The assertion that terrorism and communism are essentially the same problem is falacious and foolish."

Not sure where that was made.

" First, Communisim is of course a type of economic model that plays upon the appeal that redistribution is possible without corrupting the redistributors."

True in principle; in practice, irrelvant. Communism was gangster rule, different only in its decorations from fascism, tyranny or thuggery in all its incarnations.

" Second, the fact was that there were specific, and powerful, sponsors of communisism internationally, intent on creating a hegemony of communist states. To assert that Syria, or North Korea are either powerful or ubiquitous in their sponsorship is laughable."

Where was that asserted? Syria is no USSR. That doesn't mean they're not capable of causing immense mischief (as indeed they do).

"The powerful sponsor is purely Saudi Arabia, using mostly Pakistani (and it's own) populace."

True, if you ignore Iran's role.

"Further, terrorism is hardly a ubiquitous movement, in that the IRA has nothing like the same goals as Al Qaeda. It is true that Al Qaeda, and other Sunni extremist groups have the goal of establishing a middle-eastern Caliphate, but they hardly have even a single nation behind that notion."

Two fewer than they had five years ago, in fact.

"Saudi Arabia isn't, nor is Syria, and North Korea isn't at all.

This is a loose organization of different groups which Bin Laden has some control/input into activities. The goals of those in London conform to his goals, certainly, but to assert that this is a large, organized war, is a gross overstatement that makes you all sound like conspiracy nuts."

Or it would, if that was anywhere close to what I said - which was that depriving terrorists of safe havens is a good thing, if making life uncomfortable for terrorists is your goal.

"The fact that most righties equate Saddam to Bin Ladan proves how little you actually understand the issue."

Red herring - but we'll get back to that later.

" Bin Laden was an anethma to Houssien (up until we invaded at least),"

That assertion has been rendered shaky on several occasions:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/850ikvwv.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1855357

Saying one was "anathema" to the other is pointlessly baroque in practice, sort of like saying that Hitler and Stalin were on opposite ends of an ideological continuum, ergo they would never be allies.

"and historically the Wahabists attacked the secular Sunni's (of which Houssien's Baathists and their ancestors were members)."

Waitaminnit - first you say that religion was not a factor, now you say it is? Was Hussein or was he not religiously motivated?

Point being that to both Hussein *and* Bin Laden, expediency trumps dogma as surely as the known links between the two trump the left's naive denial.

"Further, Houssien executed hundreds of theocratically oriented Sunni's during the Iraq Civil War of 92. In short, Houssien had ZERO interest in a middle-eastern Caliphate."

That's right. Nobody said he did. But they had other motivations that were in sync.

(You actually think that the lives of a few hundred Sunni meant a hill of hummus to Bin Laden or any of his ilk?)

"The fundamental distinction between Sunni and Shia is that Sunni's supported the Ottoman Empire, which was headed by a theocrat,"

Incomplete. The Turks used the Sunni as a favored class to play off against the more numerous Shi'a, which is of course a Colonial Government 101 trick. The Turks established the Sunni as the administrative caste and military leadership.

"The point here is, this concept that some paranoid first folks have forwared, that the Iraqi secularists, the Iranians, Hezzbolah, Hammas, and Al Qaeda, have the ultimate goal of establishing a theocratic Sunni Caliphate, is so mind-numbingly stupid and irrepresentational as to indict US (U.S.) as assininely incapable of grasping the realities of simple Middle-Eastern politics."

Maybe, but then that's not really the point here. That each share some goals does not alter the goals of the other; by what logic (especially logic known to a gangster or a tyrant) does Bin Laden's goal of the caliphate being different from Hussein's goal of being a pan-arabist uber-sheik mean that they can't (and didn't) have their uses for one another?

"Iran dispises Al Qaeda, Hammas has NO interest in a Sunni lead Caliphate, nor DID Houssien."

Already admitted, and irrelevant.

"Further, most Muslims recognize fairly easily that theocratic rule (especially the extreme form practiced by the Taliban) is abhorant."

Admitted - to an extent - in several places on this blog.

And yet would not most Democrats agree that the tripe spewed on the Daily Kos is abhorrent? And is Kos and his pack of slavering jackals the "it" bloc within the Democrat party today, despite the *fact* that much of the bread-n-butter union snuffy membership of the party finds them abhorrent?

The militant Wahabbi are indeed a minority. So were the Nazis of 1933, and the Communists of 1917. But they are the ones with the will to power. Remember also that while 90% of the world's moslems may well find militant Wahabbism/Islamofascism abhorrent, as you say, most of them live in societies where their beliefs don't amount to a hill of couscous - and live under regimes that, like Iraq and Syria (before the liberation) could find benefit in going along with with the Wahhabi, or others like Afghanistan that benefitted greatly (til the US destroyed them) from the association, or like Pakistan, which are so fragmented and corrupt that that Al Quaeda and nominal participation in the GWOT can co-exist in the same borders.

The number of Moslems that live in nations like India, Mali or Senegal (with active democracies) or Indonesia, Afghanistan and Iraq (with fledgeling ones) where their own beliefs count for anything is...well, pretty much what I just counted out.

"Do they have theocratic rule in Saudi Arabia? Not at all, however they have many forms of the Koran's proscriptions regarding conduct certainly. Confusing one for the other is simplistic and wrong. "

As is assuming that the Saud family is entirely secure in the face of Wahhabi agitation. Parts of Saudi Arabia are seething with Wahhabist discontent. The Sauds are worried.

"The end point here is that conflating communisism and terrorism is just boogey-man bating"

Or it would be, if I'd done any such thing.

"The fact is, the only catalyzing event is our presence in Iraq. NOW the secular Sunnis and theocratic Sunni's want us out and want to overturn the idea of a Shia lead, Iranian dominated state."

Where do you get the idea that a Shi'a government would be dominated by Iran?

Because Iraqi Shi'a aren't as a rule remotely sympathetic to Iran. Not only are the Iraqi Shi'a more nationalistic, but there are signficant theological differences between Iranian and Iraqi Shi'a.

"The long and short is, it's not as simplistic as this "pan-Islamic terrorist" World War."

Now, PB, you're being the simplistic one. Nobody's said that. We on the right need bigger mouths, for all the thoughs you're jamming into them...

" In fact, it is our conduct as if it is, that is making it more likely that it will be. The more we act like Morroco is our enemy,..."

...which we're not...

" the more we act like Iran is the same as Bin Laden, the more then Bin Laden gets to say "See!!! It's exactly as I said, the Infidels are on a crusade to crush Islam, they don't care about differences, we're all in it together in their eyes." The point is that would we agree that all Christians are David Koresh? Are all Christian extreemists Bob Jones? Are all Christians extreemists? and further, is the United States, or more accurately, is Britain, in alignment and sponsoring Bob Jones?"

Of course not. And I think that US policy observes the differences. I've heard nobody attacking Morocco or Algeria (both limping toward relative liberalism) or Mali or Senegal (both actually fairly liberal). Please show me if I'm in error.

"Mitch, do you really believe the world will tollerate, or even should tollerate, the inclusion of Syria, Iran, etc.. in the list of states we ought to invade?"

I doubt it will ever be an issue.

" Such a course would lead to World War with far more folks than just most of the middle east."

Why?

Not to say I want to invade Syria, but who would come galloping to their aid?

Iran is dicier, but again - who?

"Further, are you asserting that any state sponsorship of terrorism justifies open war with the government?"

You're trying to paint me (and conservatives, and the administration) into a black and white corner. Kerry gave nuance a bad rap, which is a drag, because considerable nuance is advisable.

" If so, I'm assuming you advocate the violent overthrow of our own government which has routinely sponsored terrorism in unfreindly states??"

Faulty assumptions, faulty conclusion.

"We cannot live in a glass house here. We supported actions not only against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but as well the murder squads in El Salvador that were nearly universally lead by the Government."

And, to be fair to the US (because someone in the conversation has to), we also supported the movement that reformed the Salvadoran military and government, and brought them and the Commies to the table and thence to an end of the war.

I mean, we wouldn't want to just toss around simplistic tropes, would we?

" Further, recently we've attemted to destabilize the government of Venezuala, including some rather shady acts."

Not familiar with 'em.

" We use "rendition" to abduct folks (for example 6 of our CIA agents have been indicted in Italy), so I have to assume you're including us in that, or is it that whatever we do is "good" and therefore ok, and whatever ANYONE else does is "bad." Pardon me, but the balance of the world may not agree. So if you want the world to "get on board" we have to start actually walking the walk we say we want followed. Otherwise, it's US against the world, and US won't win."

Not sure where to pick up that last bit, PB. Do I want the US to act above-board? Yes. Did some CIA agents in Italy get out of line? ALLEGEDLY so. Think they'll skate, either in Italy or here, assuming they really did anything wrong (and I'm not familiar enough with the case to render judgement)? Doubt it.

Or are you saying that because the US government has committed shady acts in the past, that we have no moral authority to act against terror (not to mention defend ourselves)? I reject the premise. You punish the misdeeds (as most have been, one way or another) and uphold the principle (that the US is a good place worth defending).

No intelligence agents employed by this blog or the NARN have ever broken foreign laws.

Posted by: mitch at July 26, 2005 04:22 PM

That terrorism and communism are not the same problem might come as a surprise to the 400 million innocents slaughtered and buried in mass graves from Siberia to the Plane of Jars.

Terrorism is the basis of the Communist military doctrine of asymetrical warfare, PB. The Arabian Crescent are all former Soviet client-states and their intelligence and security services are all extensions of the KGB, which has as its origins the NKVD and before that, the Cheka, which was active in the Middle East before anyone ever heard of Marx or Lenin, who then adopted it as an instrument of the State to enslave its own people.

You're in way over your head here, sir. You have no idea what you are talking about and are so devoid of history and reason that it is pointless to further respond to your post.

I think you want "Screw 'em" Kos, who delights in such flights of fancy and deluded anti-American harangues.

Posted by: Eracus at July 26, 2005 04:28 PM

Re: PB at July 26, 2005 03:19 PM

> The assertion that terrorism and communism are
> essentially the same problem is falacious and
> foolish.

I compare it to communism only in the sense of having overarching theories that entice the true-believers, and dreams of hegemony. You're jumping to conclusions beyond that.

From:
What Do the Terrorists Want?
by Daniel Pipes
New York Sun, July 26, 2005
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2798

excerpt:

'In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Or, again to cite the Daily Telegraph, their "real project is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide 'caliphate' founded on Shari'a law." Terrorists openly declare this goal. The Islamists who assassinated Anwar el-Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the "caliphate or death." A biography of one of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times and an influence on Osama bin Laden, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate. Bin Laden himself spoke of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." '

Posted by: RBMN at July 26, 2005 06:04 PM

Mitch.. and RBMN..

First, RBMN.. in one breath you say you weren't saying they had a universal movement, or at least that saying you said that is simplistic, and then you quote someone who says exactly that.

'In nearly all cases, the jihadi terrorists have a patently self-evident ambition: to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law.."

This implies Hezbollah and Hammas, have the same goals as Al Qaeda, and they don't...they share some, but clearly, with Iran backing Hezbollah, they have NO intention of a Clerical, Sunni, Caliphate.

Mitch..

First, taking my comments and disecting them in piecemeal is patently bad form, and normally an indication of an unwillingness to address the entire spectrum. Frankly, don't take what I wrote as singularly directed at you, second.. things like..

"Two fewer than they had five years ago, in fact."

Is both gloating, and a little juvenile, but also dead wrong. Houssien had no ambitions to sponsor religiously based states, none at all. I also never said Houssien had religious intents, which is a misquote. But as you decided to disect my post, I'll respond in kind..

Wow, PB. I don't know that I have enough spare time to answer the whole two-volume set, but I'll do my best.

>> Well, as it's your blog, you get to expound in volumes whenever you like, so I'm just using my teeney weeney opportinuty to get "equal space :)"


"The assertion that terrorism and communism are essentially the same problem is falacious and foolish."

Not sure where that was made.

>> Not made by you, but by RBMN, and by many other on the far right.

" First, Communisim is of course a type of economic model that plays upon the appeal that redistribution is possible without corrupting the redistributors."

True in principle; in practice, irrelvant.
>> First, saying something is irrelevant isn't the same as proving it. The relevance is that the appeal to one is not the same as the appeal to other. One became a national intent among many nations, the other only took hold in ONE nation. So it's entirely relevant, TYVM :).

Communism was gangster rule, different only in its decorations from fascism, tyranny or thuggery in all its incarnations.

>> Well now, that's an opinion, though decidedly not one that has been proven beyond all doubt. For example, I encourage you to travel to Cuba. It aint perfect, but it's hardly what you've lumped it in with. It HAS been that at times, but then again, so have we.

" Second, the fact was that there were specific, and powerful, sponsors of communisism internationally, intent on creating a hegemony of communist states. To assert that Syria, or North Korea are either powerful or ubiquitous in their sponsorship is laughable."

Where was that asserted?

>> It was asserted by comparing communism to terrorism.

Syria is no USSR. That doesn't mean they're not capable of causing immense mischief (as indeed they do).

>> Surely, as do we, as does Britain. No we don't do it as consistently motivated out of a grab for power, but the fact that they do mischief is irrelevant to the conclusion that pan-Islam Jihadism equates to another World War.
"The powerful sponsor is purely Saudi Arabia, using mostly Pakistani (and it's own) populace."

True, if you ignore Iran's role.

>> Hardly. Iran is not attempting to setup a Sunni rule, they are Shia. So Iran is irrelevant.

"Further, terrorism is hardly a ubiquitous movement, in that the IRA has nothing like the same goals as Al Qaeda. It is true that Al Qaeda, and other Sunni extremist groups have the goal of establishing a middle-eastern Caliphate, but they hardly have even a single nation behind that notion."

Two fewer than they had five years ago, in fact.

>> See above, one fewer, not two. and the one and only. No one felt that Afghanistan was anything other than absolutely correct to take out, just wish we'd have done so, rather than doing it half-assed.

"Saudi Arabia isn't, nor is Syria, and North Korea isn't at all.

This is a loose organization of different groups which Bin Laden has some control/input into activities. The goals of those in London conform to his goals, certainly, but to assert that this is a large, organized war, is a gross overstatement that makes you all sound like conspiracy nuts."

Or it would, if that was anywhere close to what I said -

>> See above.. I didn't say YOU said it, however you did say that the Strib doesn't GET it as in..
which was that depriving terrorists of safe havens is a good thing, if making life uncomfortable for terrorists is your goal.

>> Sure, if you feel you can reasonably attack anyone offering safe haven, which we can't. The concept that the US can unilaterally take on the world is of course wrong, not that you said we could (I think), but the fact is, we were so deceiptful on Iraq, we have no international support for ANYTHING else. The Brits supported us because of our alliance in general and Kuwait in specific, but the rest of the world will no longer believe us because of the logical and rhetorical Bull-hockey we played getting into Iraq. So unless we chose to take on Iran while under economic sanctions (at a minimum) from China, and probably a BIG chunk of Europe, forget it, we can't and so aspousing such a strategy is like aspousing going to Mars. It sounds nice, but it's irrelevant.


"The fact that most righties equate Saddam to Bin Ladan proves how little you actually understand the issue."

Red herring - but we'll get back to that later.

>> Ok.. hardly a red-herring, 60% of the US believes Houssien was involved in 9/11, so how would you resolve the fact that they felt he had ties to Al Qaeda and thereby Bin Laden when you yourself say exactly that below. It's neither a red-herring that you believe it, nor is it one in that it's falacy.

" Bin Laden was an anethma to Houssien (up until we invaded at least),"

That assertion has been rendered shaky on several occasions:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/850ikvwv.asp

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200506290912.asp

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/special/iraq/1855357

>>And the 9/11 commission as well as the US inspectors (plural there) all concluded such ties were just that, ties only, no real contact, no cooperation. Blog source, and Right-wing jingo rags like national review don't make it so. The fact that the two were diametrically opposed clearly refutes such assertions on their face, and the fact that we continue to make them only makes us appear the fool. By the way, as compared to the weekly standard, a reactionary funded lie rag, the National Review appears sane. But rather than refer to resources nearly totally lacking in creadibility, I'd suggest you look at the statements made by BUSH APPOINTED investigators and our own CIA and DIA responses to those assertions. They have been retracted in the main by the administration, its time NRO and weeklyblather caught a whiff of sanity. But candidly in one breath you say it's a red-herring (as in a false lead) to assert that Bin Laden and Houssien were equivilated in the minds of Americans, and then argue why they should be, makes no sense Mitch, sorry.

Saying one was "anathema" to the other is pointlessly baroque in practice, sort of like saying that Hitler and Stalin were on opposite ends of an ideological continuum, ergo they would never be allies.

>>Well, using the work Baroque sure sounds brainy, but Hitler and Stalin allied because Stalin was desperately afraid of being invaded. Houssien had no reason to ally with Bin Laden prior to our invasion threat, nor did Bin Laden with Houssien, and the facts are THERE IS NO SERIOUS EVIDENCE (that's for emphasis not to yell) of such an alliance. Pardon me but I believe the Non-Aggression Pact was pretty well understood.

"and historically the Wahabists attacked the secular Sunni's (of which Houssien's Baathists and their ancestors were members)."

Waitaminnit - first you say that religion was not a factor, now you say it is?


>>When did I say Houssien was religiously motivated, I didn't. Beyond that, Baath (which btw is the dominat party in Syria, is not a religion, it's a political secular movement. I am assuming you knew that, but just to be clear.

Was Hussein or was he not religiously motivated?

>> See above.
Point being that to both Hussein *and* Bin Laden, expediency trumps dogma as surely as the known links between the two trump the left's naive denial.

>> If anyone is naive (sic), I'm sorry, it's the right, they don't understand Wahabism, they don't understand Baathists, they clearly don't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni. How did they express such naivete'? By saying lumping them all together is ludicrous and claiming Bin Laden and Houssien planned things prior to 9/11 is a lie, hardly. Those who assert the other side, that we have a pan-Islamic movement, and Bin Laden and Houssien were cooperating are naive in the extreme.

"Further, Houssien executed hundreds of theocratically oriented Sunni's during the Iraq Civil War of 92. In short, Houssien had ZERO interest in a middle-eastern Caliphate."

That's right. Nobody said he did. But they had other motivations that were in sync.

>>Not enough that they were looking past the fact that they had antithetical positions on who should rule Iraq, and that my friend is the ONLY important thing that mattered in the end to Houssien. He's not giving Sarin (which all he had was entirely inert by 2003), to a bunch of folks who might very well use it to overthrow him. Asserting he did, or would, is both unprovable and has been refuted repeatedly by investigation after investigation. It didn't happen. The only assertion with even a shred of evidence is that some how, perhaps, some Iraqi's were developing Rycin, which is hardly a bio-weapon, in that it can't be weaponized, and further, it cannot be communicated. It's about as much of a Bio-weapon as rattlesnake venom. Its biological, and deadly poisonous, but not a feasible weapon, yet the NRO and the addle-brained staff at WeeklyStandard used that as "proof" of WMD activities, so who really is naive??? The administration is at least bright enough to know they'd get laughed out of the room for declaring caster beans bio weapons.

(You actually think that the lives of a few hundred Sunni meant a hill of hummus to Bin Laden or any of his ilk?)

>> I actually think that killing Wahabits makes Houssien clearly opposed to Wahabism, which Bin Laden supports. I actually think that Bin Laden declared Houssien an Apostate. I actually think and we know that Bin Laden planned to get rid of Houssien and any other secular leader. Do you actually think that the fact that they shared an enemy automatically means they could get along? Regadless, the point is much more about whether there is a Pan-Islam jihad, which you say you didn't say, but have spent about 2000 words saying.

"The fundamental distinction between Sunni and Shia is that Sunni's supported the Ottoman Empire, which was headed by a theocrat,"

Incomplete. The Turks used the Sunni as a favored class to play off against the more numerous Shi'a, which is of course a Colonial Government 101 trick. The Turks established the Sunni as the administrative caste and military leadership.

So apparently the Turks weren't Sunni, I think it may be you who are incomplete. The Turks, as well as the Indonesians, for that matter, were and are Sunnis, as are most, but not all of the Muslims (not Moslems bro) in the Balkans. The Caliphate rule was no sham, it had immense power in the empire, and the point is that Wahabism seeks to reinstate it, whatever the foibles it had. Those foibles were not the issue, the point was that Wahabism and secular Sunni-ism are antithetical. So I'm afraid I consider your comment incomplete in that it failed to consider the Turkish leadership was Sunni, and just like the Holy Roman Empire, had a direct responsibility to the Caliphate. A Caliphate in direct opposition to those Shia in Persia and parts of Messopotamia.

"The point here is, this concept that some paranoid first folks have forwared, that the Iraqi secularists, the Iranians, Hezzbolah, Hammas, and Al Qaeda, have the ultimate goal of establishing a theocratic Sunni Caliphate, is so mind-numbingly stupid and irrepresentational as to indict US (U.S.) as assininely incapable of grasping the realities of simple Middle-Eastern politics."

Maybe, but then that's not really the point here.

>>Actually, that's the ENTIRE point. WE engage in such simplistic overgeneralization of the issue as to sound stupid. I've spoken with literally dozens of Iraqis, and they are all dumbfounded at how stupid, ignorant, ill-informed, most americans, especially republicans, are about the middle-east, and how foolish and counter-productive our foriegn policy is. WE cannot win a war on terrorism by attacking uninvolved (in 9/11) countries and declaring them part of a larger attempt to establish pan-sunni secular world-wide rule, when they aren't in any way part of any such movement. The problem we face is a small number of radicals, and we appear to be using 9/11 as justification to simply take out countries we don't like, and that appearance is reinforce by even more foolish justifications which fly in the face of reality, so the Arab world thinks were just a bunch of terroristic, imperialistic pigs, and the rest of the world is beginning to agree.


That each share some goals does not alter the goals of the other; by what logic (especially logic known to a gangster or a tyrant) does Bin Laden's goal of the caliphate being different from Hussein's goal of being a pan-arabist uber-sheik mean that they can't (and didn't) have their uses for one another?

>>Ok, in simple terms, because Bin Laden wanted a cleric and Houssien wasn't, and Houssien wanted a crippled, toe-the-line Church, and whether you agree or not, Bin Laden actually is a religiously motivated guy. A crook, a deciever, sure, but still a man of strong faith, much like Koresh. They had diametrically opposing views. The question though, is silly, questions like why couldn't it happen is like asking, so because there is a CHANCE I can jump from here to the moon some day, means that it's plausible. The fact is policy has to based on LIKELY and SUPPORTABLE facts, and there simply are not anything like enough supportable facts that Bin Laden was working with Houssien prior to our runup to invasion, becuase there was not enough reason for him to do so. Beyond that, it assumes Houssien wanted to attack the US, and frankly again, you and the right are showing your niavete, Hezzbolah and Hamas, the groups Houssien backed, much more so Hamas BTW, had AVOWED policy not to attack the US, as did generally Houssien (outside his own country). The reason is that Houssien first and foremost, like all tyrrants if first and foremost concerned with staying in power. Engaging in eye-popping attacks on the US would have been suicide and he knew it full well. (and YES I know he tried to kill Bush Sr., but AFTER he was no longer President, and frankly, the murder of a former President is not a case for war - go read the Brit text on what is if you want a reasoned view on it.)


"Iran dispises Al Qaeda, Hammas has NO interest in a Sunni lead Caliphate, nor DID Houssien."

Already admitted, and irrelevant.

>>Saying so and proving so are not the same thing, further, since it's both their central themes and nothing else would cause them to want to work together, it's entirely relevant. Bin Laden didn't need Iraq as haven, and Houssien would NEVER have granted it because doing so would have been suicide.

"Further, most Muslims recognize fairly easily that theocratic rule (especially the extreme form practiced by the Taliban) is abhorant."

Admitted - to an extent - in several places on this blog.

And yet would not most Democrats agree that the tripe spewed on the Daily Kos is abhorrent? And is Kos and his pack of slavering jackals the "it" bloc within the Democrat party today, despite the *fact* that much of the bread-n-butter union snuffy membership of the party finds them abhorrent?

Well, Kos is an unknown acronym to me... but as you chose to spew the filth from weeklystandard, I'd ask you to judge yourself by your own words. I think most Americans have found the administration, like most bread-n-butter union snuffy membership may find comments by specific figures, to be abhorant.

The militant Wahabbi are indeed a minority. So were the Nazis of 1933, and the Communists of 1917. But they are the ones with the will to power.
>> and that is the danger, that by reinforcing their perverted view of the world, we drive reasonable people into extremism, just as their acts (9/11) took a reasonable nation (US) and drove it more toward extremism. Work with the moderates, let them be your surrogate, it's a lesson we learned in the cold-war. When you start shooting directly, you create real problems.

Remember also that while 90% of the world's moslems may well find militant Wahabbism/Islamofascism (that's our term, not theirs - and it includes non-Wahabits, in error). abhorrent, as you say, most of them live in societies where their beliefs don't amount to a hill of couscous - and live under regimes that, like Iraq and Syria (before the liberation) could find benefit in going along with with the Wahhabi,

>>Well, as long as we continue to provide support to represive regimes in places like Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, The Emirates, etc... yes, there is certainly a chance that Wahabism, or some other form of anti-US radicalism, and especially anti-dictatorship rebellion, will take hold..and your point is?

or others like Afghanistan that benefitted greatly (til the US destroyed them) from the association, or like Pakistan, which are so fragmented and corrupt that that Al Quaeda and nominal participation in the GWOT can co-exist in the same borders.

>>Having spoken with several Pakistani's, I'd say your characterization of the situation is pretty far off. The Pakistani government can take control of the Punjab, at any point, at any time, and in fact does conduct many raids, the problem is, they have ZERO interest in countering the Madrhas, it brings in money into the country, and the country itself has some sympathy for the poor who attend them. The Government is playing the US like a banjo, giving us folks when it suits them, and protecting those it choses.

The number of Moslems that live in nations like India, Mali or Senegal (with active democracies) or Indonesia, Afghanistan and Iraq (with fledgeling ones)

??Indonesia, a fledgling democracy, on which planet?? They killed 20,000 Timorians 3 years ago. They are one of the top nations in human rights abuses every year. The government is about as truly democratic as is China.

where their own beliefs count for anything is...well, pretty much what I just counted out.

"Do they have theocratic rule in Saudi Arabia? Not at all, however they have many forms of the Koran's proscriptions regarding conduct certainly. Confusing one for the other is simplistic and wrong. "

As is assuming that the Saud family is entirely secure in the face of Wahhabi agitation. Parts of Saudi Arabia are seething with Wahhabist discontent. The Sauds are worried.

>>Seething is a little strong, there are pockets that the Saudis either choose to not control, or can't, but those are certainly isolated. Yes, though, there is a threat, but that's the point isn't it. Saudi Arabia has NO interest in a real Wahabist state, but they sponsor Hamas, and the Madras in Pakistan HEAVILY, because in part those are seen as charities.

"The end point here is that conflating communisism and terrorism is just boogey-man bating"

Or it would be, if I'd done any such thing.

>>I think you did it throughout your reply by saying that Hitler and Stalin equated to Bin Laden and Houssien, by saying that terrorists were thugs, as were communists, and by asserting that there is a united Islamofacist front, but again, my point was as much to RBMN as to you, who did in fact say, just that, and further, in reaction to folks like the WeeklyStandard, who've said it repeatedly.

"The fact is, the only catalyzing event is our presence in Iraq. NOW the secular Sunnis and theocratic Sunni's want us out and want to overturn the idea of a Shia lead, Iranian dominated state."

Where do you get the idea that a Shi'a government would be dominated by Iran?

>>From our own CIA, who said it was one of the most likely outcomes of our activity.

Because Iraqi Shi'a aren't as a rule remotely sympathetic to Iran. Not only are the Iraqi Shi'a more nationalistic, but there are signficant theological differences between Iranian and Iraqi Shi'a.

>>Really, name me 5 that matter. The fact is that the Persian Shia don't consider the one of the sons of Mohammad quite as holy as those in Iraq do and so consider one of the holy sites not quite as significant. Past that, they are in pretty close alignment. But regardless, since it is a serious concern of the CIA, I'll take it seriously.

"The long and short is, it's not as simplistic as this "pan-Islamic terrorist" World War."

Now, PB, you're being the simplistic one. Nobody's said that.

>>REALLY, I heard Hannity say JUST that, I've heard Limbaugh say JUST that.

We on the right need bigger mouths, for all the thoughs you're jamming into them...

>>Or better memories to recall what was said. I didn't say you said it, but RBMN did, and you've implied it, if not said it directly. I recognize you are saying that you need to root out terrorism, good luck establishing enough information to really claim a government not only sponsors it, but that in and of itself is sufficient cause for invasion. Past that, even more luck defending the US when you start handing out indictments.


" In fact, it is our conduct as if it is, that is making it more likely that it will be. The more we act like Morroco is our enemy,..."

...which we're not...

>>Yet....

" the more we act like Iran is the same as Bin Laden, the more then Bin Laden gets to say "See!!! It's exactly as I said, the Infidels are on a crusade to crush Islam, they don't care about differences, we're all in it together in their eyes." The point is that would we agree that all Christians are David Koresh? Are all Christian extreemists Bob Jones? Are all Christians extreemists? and further, is the United States, or more accurately, is Britain, in alignment and sponsoring Bob Jones?"

Of course not. And I think that US policy observes the differences.

>>THAT much I agree with, US POLICY has, US words, have not. Terms like Crusade, even if ill chosen and a mistake, carry import both at home and abroad. I can't count the number of times I've heard righties say that Islam believes in terrorism. So while our Policy has been more sensible than that, except of course for Iraq where we fundementally juxtaposed a nation not involved in 9/11 for one which was, our policy has generally tried to pass the sniff test, but our words have failed, and often...


I've heard nobody attacking Morocco or Algeria (both limping toward relative liberalism) or Mali or Senegal (both actually fairly liberal). Please show me if I'm in error.

>>and I've heard plenty of comments from right-wing resources about "Islamofascism" that lumps Hamas in with Al Qaeda, when Hamas is seen as, in part, a very charitable organization, and Al Qaeda is seen as a bunch of nut jobs.

"Mitch, do you really believe the world will tollerate, or even should tollerate, the inclusion of Syria, Iran, etc.. in the list of states we ought to invade?"

I doubt it will ever be an issue.

" Such a course would lead to World War with far more folks than just most of the middle east."


Why?

>> Because we are seen as a greater threat than is China by the vast majority of the world. Why, because we asked Houssien to PROVE he did not have weapons he no longer had, and had no way of proving. The balance of the world saw through the BS rhetorical trick that represents, and our charter from the UN was to go in and inspect his palaces and use force to get there if necessary to finally conclude he no longer had them, but we perverted that into saying we had been given permission to invade and his not having them at his palaces was irrelevant to us even thought the resolution was about concluding searches not invading him. The rest of the world thinks we lied, because we did, and they have NO faith in the US being civil. Our next invasion has the risk of bieng our last.

Not to say I want to invade Syria, but who would come galloping to their aid?

>> First and foremost, most of the Arab states would at least provide indirect assistance, but probably at least Egypt, Algeria, and yes, Iran would engage in low grade opposition.
Iran is dicier, but again - who? Iran would be supported, probably directly, by China, but even if you're right, is the fact that the world is afraid of us a good justification for engaging in imperialism? Your response sounds like a guy saying, "Oh yeah, why don't you do something about it to the 98 pound weakling." Our invasion of Syria or Iran would hardly be something we could support (in the case of Iran where we would fail utterly) nor is it something we could do with a straight face while we leave Pakistan and Indonesia free and unfettered. Or is the meessge here, so long as you are a compliant dictatorship, you're safe, even if you sponsor terrorism (Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan).

"Further, are you asserting that any state sponsorship of terrorism justifies open war with the government?"

You're trying to paint me (and conservatives, and the administration) into a black and white corner. Kerry gave nuance a bad rap, which is a drag, because considerable nuance is advisable.

>>Sorry, I'm taking the point that you say taking out those who offer safe harbor means doing what you said. If you think there should be nuance to turning a blind eye to terrorism, let me know where the line is, because if it's stopping when we say stop, and leaving dictatorships in power, then we have done nothing substantive, as most terrorism in in fact NOT state sponsored, and further leaving the dictatorship in power and supporting it, only furthers the problem.

" If so, I'm assuming you advocate the violent overthrow of our own government which has routinely sponsored terrorism in unfreindly states??"

Faulty assumptions, faulty conclusion.>>and sacrasm not recognized.

"We cannot live in a glass house here. We supported actions not only against the Soviets in Afghanistan, but as well the murder squads in El Salvador that were nearly universally lead by the Government."

And, to be fair to the US (because someone in the conversation has to), we also supported the movement that reformed the Salvadoran military and government, and brought them and the Commies to the table and thence to an end of the war.

>>Well, fat lot of good that did the 40,000 or so dead Salvadoran civilians, and frankly, considering it was only done after the Dems started shedding light on the attrocities, puts it in a little different perspective. Our government for years asserted that it was the Nicaraguans and the rebels who were doing teh killing, when they weren't.

I mean, we wouldn't want to just toss around simplistic tropes, would we?
>> Apparently, you would prefer to forget that we have been pretty blind to the conduct of friends when it suits us, but then again, that would be a simplistic trope.

" Further, recently we've attemted to destabilize the government of Venezuala, including some rather shady acts."

Not familiar with 'em.
>> Perhaps you ougtht to become so. I work with a few folks from South America. They have no illusions but that we worked to overthrow the lawfully elected DEMOCRATIC, not sponsoring terrorism, regime of Hugo Chavez because he wanted to impose a 1% export fee on oil to fund his countries revitalization. GOSH!!


" We use "rendition" to abduct folks (for example 6 of our CIA agents have been indicted in Italy), so I have to assume you're including us in that, or is it that whatever we do is "good" and therefore ok, and whatever ANYONE else does is "bad." Pardon me, but the balance of the world may not agree. So if you want the world to "get on board" we have to start actually walking the walk we say we want followed. Otherwise, it's US against the world, and US won't win."

Not sure where to pick up that last bit, PB. Do I want the US to act above-board? Yes. Did some CIA agents in Italy get out of line? ALLEGEDLY so.

> If it's so alleged, let them stand trial.

Think they'll skate, either in Italy or here, assuming they really did anything wrong (and I'm not familiar enough with the case to render judgement)? Doubt it.

>>Sounds like you agree they should stand trial, but their conduct was ENTIRELY in accordance with our policy and was ordered by our government. So who should be on trial?

Or are you saying that because the US government has committed shady acts in the past, that we have no moral authority to act against terror (not to mention defend ourselves)? I reject the premise.

>>Reject it all you like, but the rest of the world thinks (ok a lot of the civilized world) thinks we're hypocrites because we turned a blind eye toward Sinn Fehn (sorry can't spell that off the top of my head), and as well backed despotic regeime after despotic regime, and have done nearly zero about Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of 19 of the 9/11 actors. So yes, I think we are lacking moral authority. We had it, but we pissed it away.


You punish the misdeeds (as most have been, one way or another) and uphold the principle (that the US is a good place worth defending).

>>That's a fine sentiment, but simplistic trope. If we actually did not order the misdeads, that would be fine, but we did. If we did not condone the despots, that would be fine, but we do. It's not any where near as simple as trotting out mother justice and putting the bad men in jail. The bad men are in charge, and we are complicit in approving their conduct because we ignore it, or worse, wilfully chose not to hear.

No intelligence agents employed by this blog or the NARN have ever broken foreign laws.

Posted by: PB at July 26, 2005 08:12 PM

This quote from the S&T editorial jumped out at me:

The Bush administration has long pooh-poohed the notion that fighting terror will be mostly a struggle of intelligence and law enforcement and international cooperation. Senior officials in the administration want mightily to believe that attacking state sponsors of terrorism will suffice, but it will not.

This is deception. If you go to whitehouse.gov
you'll see a set of bullet points that outline the Bush admin's national security strategy. Diplomacy, modernizing the military, and cooperation with friendly nations is mentioned prominently. Deposing terrorist-friendly regimes is mentioned exactly once in reference to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Sorry if this post looks strange, Mitch, but the comment preview isn't working for me today. The comment panel does have a cherry 'hi' message below the HR tho.

Posted by: Terry at July 26, 2005 08:33 PM

my last post did screw up; the URL for the bullet point list is: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/index.html

Posted by: Terry at July 26, 2005 08:52 PM

Pardon me for busting in, PB, but I have to take issue with your response to Mitch's critique of your comment, etc etc:
">>Reject it all you like, but the rest of the world thinks (ok a lot of the civilized world) thinks we're hypocrites because we turned a blind eye toward Sinn Fehn (sorry can't spell that off the top of my head), and as well backed despotic regeime after despotic regime, and have done nearly zero about Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of 19 of the 9/11 actors. So yes, I think we are lacking moral authority. We had it, but we pissed it away."
Pardon me, but this statement makes no sense. The accomodating tone toward Sian Fein (I hope the spelling is right) was promoted by the Kennedy's, first Jack and then Ted. Ted is a hero to the anti-war folks on the left. The nation we angered the most with this 'tone' was the UK. The UK is an ally in the war on terror; the Irish Republic is as hostile to the GWOT as France.
We backed despotic regime after despotic regime, as you say, and when the Soviet threat dissapeared those regimes became democracies. Except for Iran; where our tepid response to the overthrow of the Shah led to the Iran-Iraq war, Hezbollah, and a theocracy that's trying to build nukes.
France backed worse regimes than we did in Africa and SE Asia. Cuba, North Korea, and Vietnam were client states of the old Soviet Union to a much greater extent than Chile ever was to the US. Is the 'moral authority' of France and Russia in tatters?
World opinion is crap.

Posted by: Terry at July 26, 2005 09:17 PM

Not caring about world opinion can get you into a huge lot of trouble.

When the Soviets disappeared, those despotic regimes HARDLY disappeared unless you mean Indonesia suddenly becaome a nice place for the indiginous non-chinese decended population.

Comparing our backing of bad governments and France's is hardly proving a point. Being better than Satan doesn't make you a saint.

PB

Posted by: PB at July 26, 2005 10:04 PM

Oh..

and, Our tepid responose (apparently AFTER the fall of the Soviet Union in the order you presented at least) caused the Iran-Iraq war? Not really, except that we glad-handed with Houssien and gave him WMD and turned a blind-eye when he used them on the kurds, and he thought that we'd be happy with his invading Iran. Don't forget, HE started that war, not the other way round. Our tepid response did not cause Houssien to invade Iran... and I suspect you know full well Iran became a theocracy 8 1/2 years or so prior to the disolution of the Soviet Union began.

Look folks, I have a lot of respect for the U.S. in terms of the good it does, but being naive about the bad is just what drives others to thinking we're a bunch of ingoramusses. Further, folks that are so clearly motivated by corporate interests first, are not folks I'm trusting very far. You want to, go ahead, but the impacts have been obvious and bad. We're in Iraq for several reasons, not the least of which is American Hubris that we could intimidate the Middle-East terrorists into playing nice because we thought that terroris WAS like communisism and it was primarily the actions of nations pushing it. It's not, and Saudi Arabia has little more hope of stopping it than does Jordan or Lebenon. But along with that Hubris was a desire to remove US troops from Saudi Arabia to relieve pressure on the Saudi's from the Wahabists, and to make sure the SAUDI oil was never in jeapordy again (which was our worry in 91). As well, the fact that we could setup a "contractor" state in Iraq and funnel funds to our favorite companies all was for the good, in the eyes of vain and venal men like Rove, but they failed to recognize the Arab world both didn't believe us, and that matters, and that they couldn't control the extremists even if they did. Further, that Iraqis would oppose us simply because we are NOT arabs, let alone Muslim. They catastrophically miscalculated, and you may not agree with it, but in 5 years, please tell me what a stunning success Iraq has been. I said prior to the invasion that Houssien never gave WMD to terrorists, the subsequent investigations proved that true. I said prior to the invasion that defeating the Houssien Iraqi Army was not going to be hard, it was gaining the support needed before hand and especially the after part that would be hard. Two plus years later, EVERYTHING the opponents of that war feared, has come true. It is in near civil war, if not open civil war, now. Was it worth it? Was it right? If right there, why not Saudi Arabia? They are despotic, they abuse civil rights, they sponsor terrorism. The answer is as simple as it is plainly hypocritical, we CANT invade Saudi Arabia because A. They are our friends and we won't and B. It would start a war with most of the Muslim world.

World opinion matters, and we only care about principle if it's convenient.

PB

Posted by: PB at July 26, 2005 10:17 PM

PB-
Sorry for my unclear writing. I meant that Iran was an example of a despotic US client state that had turned out very badly for us, and that this was due to our timidity in supporting a friendly but despotic government against a revolutionary government that hated us and was an even worse violator of human rights. I could make much the same point about Vietnam. I suspect you would disagree.

The idea that the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons is pretty widespread on the left. It isn't true, unless you mean it's possible that a US company designed a dual-use chemical plant that was built somewhere in Iraq in the 1980's. Saddam created and deployed his sarin and mustard gas himself. Even if we had loaded Saddam up with nukes does that mean we have no moral right to take him out if he uses them in a way we don't approve?
Maybe I'm missing a social empathy gene or something but I don't know why "world opinion" should matter to me, or any American who isn't a diplomat. World opinion from the 50's thru the 70's was that the future lay in incrementally more centralized command & control economies. The world of tommorrow was collectivism. 'World opinion' was wrong then, it's wrong now.
Naivety is in the eye of the beholder. I find the belief among many on the left that man is progressing morally and that this progress is made possible by morally aware individuals taking part in and influencing the political process to be naive as well as self-serving. It's no less naive if a majority of people believe it.

Posted by: Terry at July 27, 2005 02:06 AM

Actually,

I'd agree that we hurt ourselves in Iran by not either, standing up for the Shah, which would have been pragmatic, but unethical, or by not embracing the revolutionaries post occupation. The fact is, Iran is pretty pro-US socially at this time, and it's mostly its theocrats that keep that relationship from burgeoning into something much more positive - AND that we continue this BS axis of evil talk (although that's a much lower grade of problem than the former).

In truth, I am repeating comments that we sold him WMD, so I'll look into your assertions regarding the fact we didn't. I assume to be true on face.

Regarding world opinion.. you may feel it naive to care, I don't, and further, as we operate in that world and are inextricably tied to it, having a tin ear will only wind up isolating us. We find that out many times a week in that things we propose get shot down. For example, we passed very tax friendly legislation for US-based MNC's. The European Union then put in place fees to the tune of USD 4B on products from those companies (or forms of companies) to compensate for what was seen as protectionist actions by the US. The result was that these companies requested the US rescind the tax structures, and we did.

Regarding the nature of the economy to come, the world believed that providing an ecomony more aligned with providing decent standards of living to most folks, while retaining incentives for imagination, was superior to collecting assets in the hands of an elite superclass. However, the very powerful resented this approach and the realities is brought about (like profit sharing - robust pensions, Social Securty). They spent a great deal of money, energy and time propogandizing the evils of social liberalism and the evils of organized labor. Net-net, they won, they always had more money and power. Couple that with the access to cheap labor (even forced labor) in India, SE Asia, and especially China, and the economies of Europe and the United States are under immense pressure to deflate wages or at least depress them.

If you can say that populism and middle-class orientation was doomed because of the effects of poor nations making their only resource (manpower) available in a technology community that could not be forseen, and that this was predicted in 1965, I'll agree that liberalism was in error in it's view of how the world should and would progress, but candidly, I don't think in Richard Mellon Scaife's wildest dreams he thought the confluence of the Internet, Laser technology, and the disolution of the Soviet Union (and resultant thawing of tensions with China brought about by both that and our sell out of Vietnam by Nixon), were going to work to squelch worker disaffection with negative movement in pay and standards of living. Or in short, the Goldwater Republicans had no idea that they could rely upon Rush Limbaugh and Xiang Xao Mihn to save them from the wrath of workers who should have seen the erosion of education, their buying power, and their free time.

Nevertheless, if this is kind of economy you support, OK for you, but I think that protecting the middle-class is the preservator of democracy, and protecting the press against intimidation and intrusion is the only way to gaurantee free access to information. We've seen a press increasingly coopted and intimidated by economic and political pressure, so we don't get good investigative journalism, and the middle-class, depsite 25 years of primarily conservative policy, is eroding rapidly. We had the first year in more than 60, in 2003, where wages actually fell, we'll see what 2004 holds.

PB

Posted by: PB at July 27, 2005 09:51 AM

If ever there was a more profound illustration of the failure of public education and the resulting dearth of historical knowledge, critical thinking, and objective analysis, one need look no further.

Posted by: Eracus at July 27, 2005 11:31 AM

Holla and Happy Thanksgiving. earn money betting tegretol geico car finance business degree

Posted by: ignacia at May 5, 2006 04:25 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?
hi