OT: Foreign Affairs in the 1990's

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Good thing we went in with enough "overwhelming force" to provide enough security on the ground to neutralize those terrorists we knew about....

I just gave you 250,000 more US Soldiers from my magic bag. Where do you place them to stop the madness right now?

[weinstein7]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I think the Powell Doctrine fits perfectly around a particular case-study (The first Gulf War), but at some point you have to modify your gameplan, because the enemy sure is modifying their's.

Dutch,

This is really what it all boils down to. Earlier on you made the statement that Saddam Hussein's regime was destroyed thanks to the Powell Doctrine, but I think you just contradicted yourself pretty clearly here.

Again, I don't necessarily think you're wrong about the Powell Doctrine being overly restrictive and conservative, but I was just taking issue with your inital claim that the success of the invasion justified the Powell Doctrine.

[Dutch]

Fair enough, I see what you are saying. I don't mean to be confusing. I see two distinct seperate operations. One was the overthrow a the Baath Party regime and it's military, the second was the unpopular peacekeeping that has followed while they stand up a new government.

I am certain that we overwhelmed Saddam Hussein and his military. I am not so certain that overwhelming force will stop terrorist actions in Iraq. The primary mission of the US Military now is to prevent a civil war while the new government is stood up.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Not trying to cherrypick. Just trying to prove you wrong. Don't go moving the goalposts... it's very bad form.

Well if you want to get into a semantics battle, I am correct in that he never mentioned freedom as a reason for the war. He merely expressed his belief that freedom is a good thing, which is hardly an original thought.

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity.

Freedom = good. Now compare that to the hundreds of words spent on the non-existent WMD's, and it is clear that Bush's 'doctrine' is not spreading freedom thoughout the world.

I'm not arguing the fact that that is all he talks about now, I just don't agree with revising history to say that Bush (at least publically) cared in any substantial way about the freedom of the Iraqi people in the months leading up to the war. It was a secondary consideration, at best.

EDIT: Just read something germane to the conversation:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/006233.php

[weinstein7]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Fair enough, I see what you are saying. I don't mean to be confusing. I see two distinct seperate operations. One was the overthrow a the Baath Party regime and it's military, the second was the unpopular peacekeeping that has followed while they stand up a new government.

I am certain that we overwhelmed Saddam Hussein and his military. I am not so certain that overwhelming force will stop terrorist actions in Iraq. The primary mission of the US Military now is to prevent a civil war while the new government is stood up.

Ok, I see where you're coming from. I look at it more as one continuous operation, in that the opportunity for disorder was created by the overthrow.

Not a particularly important argument as these things go, but at least we came to an understanding.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Consider, for example, the former territories of the British Empire. Without exception, there are neighboring countries that are vastly worse places to live today. You can't seriously argue that the British Empire was bad for the world. I hope our country is prepared for a similiar undertaking.

'Without exception' is a pretty strong phrase. Bangladesh is no picnic. Sudan is in the middle of a genocide. South Africa had apartheid up until about yesterday. Iraq was, is, and could be for a while, a hell hole. India is doing well, but not compared to non-colonial China or Japan. In fact, the success of China and Japan, who were never controlled by colonial powers, could be a good argument that the imperialism was bad for the world. Really, what colonies other than the US and Canada are functioning, human rights upholding democracies? (maybe you can't even hold the US to those rigours standards anymore, but that is another discussion) Like I said, imperialism has been a mixed bag for the countries involved.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well if you want to get into a semantics battle, I am correct in that he never mentioned freedom as a reason for the war. He merely expressed his belief that freedom is a good thing, which is hardly an original thought.

Freedom = good. Now compare that to the hundreds of words spent on the non-existent WMD's, and it is clear that Bush's 'doctrine' is not spreading freedom thoughout the world.

I'm not arguing the fact that that is all he talks about now, I just don't agree with revising history to say that Bush (at least publically) cared in any substantial way about the freedom of the Iraqi people in the months leading up to the war. It was a secondary consideration, at best.

You almost make it sound like if it were a primary consideration you would support the effort.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You almost make it sound like if it were a primary consideration you would support the effort.

I don't mean to imply that I would. I don't think it's a good reason. A viewing of Full Metal Jacket would show why I think that. I was for the war initially, when I had some trust that the administration wouldn't just BS the entire country. As someone once said, "There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." I figured Saddam had nukes aimed at the White House for all the carrying on that was being done. An imminent threat is a perfectly good reason to go to war. A made up, overblown threat is not, and could be considered criminal. It's amazing how the administration is trying the same tactic with SS, and I think it's just that this time it is blowing up in their faces.

[Dutch]

Some people love to say President Bush lied. They repeat it so much that it's almost believable. Lying is grounds for impeachment, without that, I will claim that anybody who says he is lying is just being slanderous.

The fact remains that Iraq was under intensive sanctions for over a decade due in large part to the WMD's. President Bush didn't make that up, neither did President Clinton, or Kofi Annan, or Tony Blair.

As for SS, it's an issue that needs to be reworked and Clinton tried and failed just the same. Everybody wants to get it fixed, but neither side wants the other to get credit for it. That's the major roadblock. Personally I think it would be suicidal for the Democrats to give in quickly on this issue because the true concern is that successful SS reform by a Republican agenda will be devastating to the Democratic platforn.

I think 30 years from now we will all care even less which side of the fence does the repairs when it comes to SS reform...but politicians will always remember.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Some people love to say President Bush lied. They repeat it so much that it's almost believable. Lying is grounds for impeachment, without that, I will claim that anybody who says he is lying is just being slanderous.

The fact remains that Iraq was under intensive sanctions for over a decade due in large part to the WMD's. President Bush didn't make that up, neither did President Clinton, or Kofi Annan, or Tony Blair.

I don't know if Bush knowingly lied to get us to go to war. But I think that the evidence makes it pretty obvious that his administration trumped up the case against Iraq and ignored dissenting opinions.

Originally Posted by Dutch

Everybody wants to get it fixed, but neither side wants the other to get credit for it. That's the major roadblock.

I think that the major roadblock is that the GOP wants to get rid of it and the Dems do not. That, and the Bush plan really doesn't make much sense in terms of being a social insurance program, and frequently the talking points me makes are misleading at best. The latest is Bush touting that you can put your private account money into US T-bills for a safe investment. The problem with that is that under his plan with the clawback, T-bills are guaranteed to lose you retirement money. That just doesn't have any intellectual honesty.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Well if you want to get into a semantics battle, I am correct in that he never mentioned freedom as a reason for the war. He merely expressed his belief that freedom is a good thing, which is hardly an original thought.


Freedom = good. Now compare that to the hundreds of words spent on the non-existent WMD's, and it is clear that Bush's 'doctrine' is not spreading freedom thoughout the world.

I'm not arguing the fact that that is all he talks about now, I just don't agree with revising history to say that Bush (at least publically) cared in any substantial way about the freedom of the Iraqi people in the months leading up to the war. It was a secondary consideration, at best.

EDIT: Just read something germane to the conversation:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/arc..._05/006233.php

Good Lord. Now who's trying to cherry pick. You left out the sentence immediately before the one you quoted.

And tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country, your enemy is ruling your country.

And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. . . .

Or the statement he made to the United Nations (before the war began):

The United States has no quarrel with the Iraqi people; they've suffered too long in silent captivity. Liberty for the Iraqi people is a great moral cause, and a great strategic goal. The people of Iraq deserve it; the security of all nations requires it. Free societies do not intimidate through cruelty and conquest, and open societies do not threaten the world with mass murder. The United States supports political and economic liberty in a unified Iraq.

Before the war, those opposed to it ridiculed the President for trying to bring democracy to Iraq. From Counterpunch (March 19, 2003):

he proclaims that his war against the people of Iraq will bring about something called "democracy" for the struggling peoples of the Middle East.

From Alternet (January 30th, 2003):

The ouster of Saddam Hussein, the administration claims, will allow the Iraqi people to establish a truly democratic government and serve as a beacon and inspiration for the spread of democracy throughout the Islamic world.

Now it's true that the spread of democracy was just one of the things the President talked about when it came to deposing Saddam Hussein. But for you to say the President never mentioned bringing democracy to Iraq before the war is patently false.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

But for you to say the President never mentioned bringing democracy to Iraq before the war is patently false.

Sure he mentioned it, he mentioned a lot of things. But the fact remains that it was considered a nice possible side effect rather than a rationale, until everything else turned out to be bs.

Originally Posted by Doug Feith

Would anybody be thinking about using military power in Iraq in order to do a political experiment in Iraq in the hope that it would have positive political spillover effects throughout the region? The answer is no. That's not the kind of thing that leads a country like the United States to commit the kind of military forces that we're committing to this effort....There's no way.

Originally Posted by Paul Wolfowitz

There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people....The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk.

Is your point that Bush mentioned democracy in Iraq once or twice, or that it was a central rationale for war? If it's the former, then I think we agree.

[CamEdwards]

My point is you're wrong. I'm going to quote you.

Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq. Only after it became politically expediant (i.e., once the other rationales were pointed out to be BS) did Bush start up his freedom and democracy rhetoric.

This is what YOU said. I think I've demonstrated (and by the way, we were talking about what the President said, not what Feith or Wolfowitz said, right?) that the President was indeed talking about freedom and democracy before the war began.

If you want to change the point you were trying to make, fine by me. But your original statement was false, and I think I've demonstrated that. Bush mentioned it in his State of the Union address, he mentioned it to the United Nations. He mentioned bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq enough that the anti-war crowd ridiculed him for the notion before the war began.

You said he didn't, I've shown he did. The statement wasn't "he didn't talk about it enough to satisfy Mr. Bigglesworth?" The statement was "Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq". And I believe any rational person would agree that I've shown he did.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

'Without exception' is a pretty strong phrase. Bangladesh is no picnic. Sudan is in the middle of a genocide. South Africa had apartheid up until about yesterday. Iraq was, is, and could be for a while, a hell hole. India is doing well, but not compared to non-colonial China or Japan. In fact, the success of China and Japan, who were never controlled by colonial powers, could be a good argument that the imperialism was bad for the world. Really, what colonies other than the US and Canada are functioning, human rights upholding democracies? (maybe you can't even hold the US to those rigours standards anymore, but that is another discussion) Like I said, imperialism has been a mixed bag for the countries involved.

Imperialism has been a mixed bag - I concede that. But never mind that Japan and China were (or are) in fact Imperial powers THEMSELVES, or that Iraq was a part of the corrupt Ottoman Empire for much longer than they were part of the British Empire, or ... what's my point again? Oh, yes, that the spread of Democracy and Freedom to the entire world is the most noble cause I can imagine our country pursuing. It should be done pragmatically, and it may not ultimately be possible, but it is worth trying.

[ISiddiqui]

I don't think one can say China was or is an 'imperialist' power in the sense that they had colonies that they exploited for resources. China was more of a country that annexed its conquests and made it part of the country itself. It's different.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

...the spread of Democracy and Freedom to the entire world is the most noble cause I can imagine our country pursuing. It should be done pragmatically, and it may not ultimately be possible, but it is worth trying.

I will agree with you here, pretty much. We should be promoting Democracy and freedom when pragmatic. We may disagree about how we should do it though. Would I sacrifice my life for the Democracy of a middle eastern country? I don't think that I would. I don't have any children yet, so I can't say for sure, but I don't think I would sacrifice his or her life either. So I don't feel comfortable sacrificing other people's lives for it.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

My point is you're wrong. I'm going to quote you.



This is what YOU said. I think I've demonstrated (and by the way, we were talking about what the President said, not what Feith or Wolfowitz said, right?) that the President was indeed talking about freedom and democracy before the war began.

If you want to change the point you were trying to make, fine by me. But your original statement was false, and I think I've demonstrated that. Bush mentioned it in his State of the Union address, he mentioned it to the United Nations. He mentioned bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq enough that the anti-war crowd ridiculed him for the notion before the war began.

You said he didn't, I've shown he did. The statement wasn't "he didn't talk about it enough to satisfy Mr. Bigglesworth?" The statement was "Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq". And I believe any rational person would agree that I've shown he did.

Ok, I see where the problem has arisen. What I said was: "Check his State of the Union speech from right before the start of the Iraq war. Freedom and democracy were not mentioned as a goal for Iraq." I meant them to be read together, meaning that in the SOTU the case was made for WMD's and terrorist connections and not freedom.

The word you continually use is 'mentioned'. Would you say that Bush 'mentioned' that there were WMD's in Iraq? There is an obvious difference. Saying that the Bush doctrine is spreading freedom is revisionist and has a disconnect with reality. That is what my point is, sorry for not being clear about that earlier.

[Desnudo]

Was Shakira here in the 90s or 00s?

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I am certain that we overwhelmed Saddam Hussein and his military. I am not so certain that overwhelming force will stop terrorist actions in Iraq. The primary mission of the US Military now is to prevent a civil war while the new government is stood up.

Take Fallujah as an example. Soon after the invasion, U.S. troops had to pull out of Fallujah because they lacked sufficient power to control the city. In the interim, Fallujah became a haven & training ground for insurgents. Eventually, when the Marines had more troops on the ground, they re-invaded Fallujah.

When "overwhelming force" is mentioned in conjunction with "providing security", this is what is meant.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Saying that the Bush doctrine is spreading freedom is revisionist and has a disconnect with reality. That is what my point is, sorry for not being clear about that earlier.

It is in fact NOT revisionist - Bush announced this change in foreign policy shortly after invading Iraq (I believe in the LAST state of the union, or it may have been on another occasion.) This was not some offhand comment designed to justify past actions, it was an announcement of major import. It was a pretty big deal at the time - a very newsworthy announcement.

Of course, the left (as in moveon.org etc.) pretty much ignored it, so I can see how some people might have missed it.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Take Fallujah as an example. Soon after the invasion, U.S. troops had to pull out of Fallujah because they lacked sufficient power to control the city. In the interim, Fallujah became a haven & training ground for insurgents. Eventually, when the Marines had more troops on the ground, they re-invaded Fallujah.

When "overwhelming force" is mentioned in conjunction with "providing security", this is what is meant.

So you would put 250,000 troops from the "magic bag" into Fallujah? Forever or for just your brief moment in time? Your strategy is making no sense.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So you would put 250,000 troops from the "magic bag" into Fallujah? Forever or for just your brief moment in time? Your strategy is making no sense.

Stop being childish.

My point is that the amount of stability & security in post-invasion Iraq has, as a major contributing factor, the size, or lack thereof, of the "overwhelming force" used to invade Iraq.

Speaking specifically to this:

Originally Posted by Dutch

I am not so certain that overwhelming force will stop terrorist actions in Iraq.

I would say this: had we gone in with enough troops to do the job thoroughly and correctly from the beginning, it's altogether likely that we would have seen less insurgency & terrorism in the past couple of years. I believe that type of outcome is what the Powell Doctrine sees as a good goal.

As supporting evidence, I'll suggest the news of today, that it would appear terrorists in Iraq are starting to lose morale, presumably in part because the increased, and increasingly effective U.S. presence has made life more difficult for them.

Imagine if we had had the number of troops on the ground in the beginning of the invasion as we have now. I imagine amongst the benefits we would have seen were:

• Less terrorist & insurgent activity.
• More stability in key regions.
• Better security for utilities-related facilities.
• Easier & faster development of an Iraqi government.

It's these kinds of things that I think the Powell Doctrine speaks to.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It is in fact NOT revisionist - Bush announced this change in foreign policy shortly after invading Iraq (I believe in the LAST state of the union, or it may have been on another occasion.) This was not some offhand comment designed to justify past actions, it was an announcement of major import. It was a pretty big deal at the time - a very newsworthy announcement.

Of course, the left (as in moveon.org etc.) pretty much ignored it, so I can see how some people might have missed it.

Like you said, the freedom rhetoric stepped up AFTER the invasion of Iraq. That's not in doubt. My point was that it was not there BEFORE the invasion, and that the administrations actions afterward in other countries (Russia, Venezuala, Sudan, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) belie the notion that the President's doctrine is freedom for all.

That's not to say that I disagree with all of America's foreign policy. Politics always makes strange bedfellows. I just think everyone has to realize that the United States does what is in it's best interests, and it's best interests aren't always freedom for all. Again, not that I necessarily disagree with that.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Like you said, the freedom rhetoric stepped up AFTER the invasion of Iraq. That's not in doubt. My point was that it was not there BEFORE the invasion, and that the administrations actions afterward in other countries (Russia, Venezuala, Sudan, Mexico, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc) belie the notion that the President's doctrine is freedom for all.

That's not to say that I disagree with all of America's foreign policy. Politics always makes strange bedfellows. I just think everyone has to realize that the United States does what is in it's best interests, and it's best interests aren't always freedom for all. Again, not that I necessarily disagree with that.

I'm not sure about all those countries you named but Russia and Mexico both have open elections - there may be corruption in government, and their systems may not be ideal in other ways, but what the Bush Doctrine is about is primarily free elections. I am fairly certain that there is a lot of discussion/thought about Saudi Arabia and Sudan in DC - one can't do everything all at once, though, and until one is ready to flex one's power, one must be realistic.

Also, you are mostly correct, but you didn't draw the conclusion that I've heard described by members of the Bush Adminstration, which is that freedom everywhere IS in our self-interest; the countries most responsible for breeding/harboring terrorists are places like Syria, Iraq, etc. it is at least partially a pragmatic philosophy.

As a centrist, it annoys me that the left doesn't even speak to the Bush Doctrine, when really they should claim credit for it; it was at least partly shaped (or pre-figured) by Clinton.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Russia and Mexico both have open elections

Umm.. yeah, that's what all the dictators say... When the political opponents end up in prison, state runs the media, the President appoints the governors, and the political parties appoint the Duma representatives.. I'm not sure what you call that. But you definitely don't call it democracy..

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

As a centrist, it annoys me that the left doesn't even speak to the Bush Doctrine, when really they should claim credit for it; it was at least partly shaped (or pre-figured) by Clinton.

To the extent that the Bush Doctrine is to promote democracy, of course liberals support it. But that's not much of doctrine. Who doesn't want to promote democracy? The Bush Doctrine (aka the Neocon Doctrine) is to promote American Democracy through military force and intimidation. Diplomacy, tact, allies, human rights standards, a true Patriot needs not these things. I think that where the left has some problems with it...

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I'm not sure about all those countries you named but Russia and Mexico both have open elections - there may be corruption in government, and their systems may not be ideal in other ways, but what the Bush Doctrine is about is primarily free elections. .

Mojo answered the rest I think pretty well, but as far as Mexico goes the mayor of Mexico City, Obrador, who was leading in early polls to unseat Fox, is potentially being jailed by the Mexican congress by murky charges. Not a word from the Bush administration, probably because Obrador is a leftist politician and part of his appeal is his wish to make Mexico less dependant on the US.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/11479896.htm

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Stop being childish.

My point is that the amount of stability & security in post-invasion Iraq has, as a major contributing factor, the size, or lack thereof, of the "overwhelming force" used to invade Iraq.

I would agree that "overwhelming force" is not present in post-war Iraq. Nor is it needed. Nor is it a force multiplier in peacekeeping operations. Stacking units on top of one another when terrorists are planting hidden bombs would only multiply coalition casualties, not enemy casualties.

I would say this: had we gone in with enough troops to do the job thoroughly and correctly from the beginning, it's altogether likely that we would have seen less insurgency & terrorism in the past couple of years. I believe that type of outcome is what the Powell Doctrine sees as a good goal.

What strategy that involves more troops are you referring to? You keep talking about more troops. Twice as many? If you recall, it's hard enough to get 80 billion dollars a year for this effort during surge operations, I don't recall any opposition strategy that was arguing we should spend more money.

As supporting evidence, I'll suggest the news of today, that it would appear terrorists in Iraq are starting to lose morale, presumably in part because the increased, and increasingly effective U.S. presence has made life more difficult for them.

There is no doubt that we are getting better at dealing with terrorists.

But another vastly over-looked reason is that it's very hard to harbour terrorists in a democracy that rejects terror.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I would agree that "overwhelming force" is not present in post-war Iraq. Nor is it needed. Nor is it a force multiplier in peacekeeping operations. Stacking units on top of one another when terrorists are planting hidden bombs would only multiply coalition casualties, not enemy casualties.

Well, I disagree. Maybe I've heard/read too many interviews with commanders on the ground talking about how they could have used/could use more troops (typically quality troops, but still).

What strategy that involves more troops are you referring to? You keep talking about more troops. Twice as many? If you recall, it's hard enough to get 80 billion dollars a year for this effort during surge operations, I don't recall any opposition strategy that was arguing we should spend more money.

Again, part of the Powell Doctrine. I believe many estimates pre-war indicated a number around 250,000 - 300,000 - a number we're getting close to, these days, but which the Administration neglected to send originally. According to the Powell Doctrine, if you can't raise enough support to send these troops initially, to make this commitment, then maybe you shouldn't go.

Instead, of course, you end up in the situation, years after the initial event, where you have to continue to come to Congress & the American people, hat in hand, asking for more money, more troops.

[Dutch]

There is no doubt that we are getting better at dealing with terrorists.

But another vastly over-looked reason is that it's very hard to harbour terrorists in a democracy that rejects terror.

I'm going to guess that since you had nothing to say about this part of my post, you agreed. You need to offer that olive-branch every once in a while, else I'll think you don't like me.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

There is no doubt that we are getting better at dealing with terrorists.

But another vastly over-looked reason is that it's very hard to harbour terrorists in a democracy that rejects terror.

I would agree with the former assertion -- the counter-insurgency operations are increasingly effective.

This has very little to do with democracy--since the Iraqi government in its present form does not even have complete control over the country, let alone have enough strength to guarantee the civil liberties of its citizens.

If democracy were all that was necessary to eliminate terrorism, groups like the IRA, ETA, the PKK, FARC, M-19, MRTA, etc., etc., etc. would have been rooted out long ago.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

I would agree with the former assertion -- the counter-insurgency operations are increasingly effective.

This has very little to do with democracy--since the Iraqi government in its present form does not even have complete control over the country, let alone have enough strength to guarantee the civil liberties of its citizens.

If democracy were all that was necessary to eliminate terrorism, groups like the IRA, ETA, the PKK, FARC, M-19, MRTA, etc., etc., etc. would have been rooted out long ago.

??? Those are anti-government groups fighting Democratically elected governments (at least the ones I recognize), they aren't being harboured.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm going to guess that since you had nothing to say about this part of my post, you agreed. You need to offer that olive-branch every once in a while, else I'll think you don't like me.

Likewise (regarding my last post).

I agree with you that we're getting better at dealing with the terrorists, but there's still a long, long way to go. And we're getting better tactically, but not strategically. That means that the folks on the ground, from the soldiers to the intelligence agents, are getting better at it, but the Administration that directs them isn't learning strategically.

As for your comment on terrorism & democracy, I didn't want to answer that here for fear it would lead us off on even more of a tangent. While an open & free democratic society may have less problems with terrorists, I don't think there's as strong a causal relationship there as you're attempting to portray. Klingerware mentions some of the counter-examples, but look, Saddam Hussein didn't have problems with local terrorists. Fact is, few dictators do. Given that, one could argue that the most effective government for dealing with a terrorist threat is a dictatorship.

I think there's a very, very interesting discussion to be had there, but I'd rather not bog down on that right now.

Suffice it to say, I don't think democracy by itself is the solution to Iraq's problems. Even today, as they continue to attempt to form an interim government, we're seeing problems with the Sunni minority and their lack of trust in the government that's being formed. Is it democracy that will solve that, and the unrest derived from it which begets the violence which enables the terrorists? No, not democracy alone. The solution to this problem will be one which satisfies the needs and desires of all three ethnic groups (Shiite, Sunni, Kurdish) and makes them all feel part of the process. I'm not sure what that solution is, but it's probably not democracy alone.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

??? Those are anti-government groups fighting Democratically elected governments (at least the ones I recognize), they aren't being harboured.

Ah, we both misunderstood you, I think. I took your comment to mean that democratic societies are more free from terrorism that others. It made sense in the context of recent reports from Iraq that we're getting better at fighting the terrorists over there.

What I think you actually meant is that democratic societies are less likely to harbor (or even support) terrorists. That's an interesting point, but does seem to be a bit of a digression from what we're talking about.

To digress, though, frankly, I think you overestimate the threat from Saddam-sponsored terrorists. Despite his bluster, Hussein wasn't very active on the world stage, from a terrorism standpoint. Yes, he sponsored regional terrorism, but he certainly wasn't the only dictator to do so. On the flipside, of course, Al-Qaida, for instance, had no significant presence in Hussein's Iraq, but they do now.

And there's the crux of the matter. We'd like to focus on state-sponsored terrorism, because it conforms to our experience in the 20th century as a whole (i.e. state-vs-state conflicts). It fits easily into our worldview. However, terrorism in the 21st century, I think all would agree, is a different game, and is definitely not limited to states. Al-Qaida, of course, is a very good example of this. This is not to say that we should ignore state-sponsored terrorism. It is to say that we need to focus on new methods of dealing with these new threats. It also means that you need to look at Iraq and compare what we stopped (state-sponsored terrorism) with what took its place (a fertile ground for the support of a decentralized terror network).

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Dutch

??? Those are anti-government groups fighting Democratically elected governments (at least the ones I recognize), they aren't being harboured.

My point here was to speak to your argument about democracy and the rejection of terror. Most of these organizations have operated for decades--in countries that are democratic (at least nominally), some of these countries actually have a very good track record with civil liberties (UK, Ireland, etc). But the fact that these organizations have operated for so long demonstrates that they are being harbored by segments of the population, and it also demonstrates that the presence of democracy alone is not always enough to quell the presence of terrorist groups especially since, as Flere notes, state-sponsorship is less of a necessity for the operational effectiveness of contemporary terror orgs....

To your point about democratic governments that have harbored or supported terrorist groups (to name a few): Ireland (IRA), France (Red Brigades), Greece (EOKA, PKK), India (Tamil Tigers), Israel (Lebanese Phalange) US (Contras, Mujahadeen, UNITA, Phalange), South Africa (UNITA, RENAMO)

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

What I think you actually meant is that democratic societies are less likely to harbor (or even support) terrorists. That's an interesting point, but does seem to be a bit of a digression from what we're talking about.

I believe it is actually one of the theoretical foundations underlying Bush's philosophy...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

To digress, though, frankly, I think you overestimate the threat from Saddam-sponsored terrorists. Despite his bluster, Hussein wasn't very active on the world stage, from a terrorism standpoint. Yes, he sponsored regional terrorism, but he certainly wasn't the only dictator to do so. On the flipside, of course, Al-Qaida, for instance, had no significant presence in Hussein's Iraq, but they do now.

I think we are beginning to agree on certain fundamental issues, this one bothers me still.

Hussein was in containment by the UN Sanctions and US/UK/Aus enforcement of those sanctions., that's why his activity was so limited. One of the reasons I supported action by the US coalition as far as the timing was because the next step with regards to Iraq was the fight with Russia and France over the legitimacy of the sanctions. They wanted those sanctions lifted ASAP so they could begin rearming Iraq for their own profit. France had a lot of Oil Contracts set up for when sanctions were lifted and the Russians had some unworldy ammount of Armored Vehicles (tanks) and weapons to sell for oil.

I am impressed with the way Al Qaeda moved right into Iraq (a nation they apparently had never been in before) and are *very* comfortable and hidden and effective there. It's almost like they have a support system already in place.

[st.cronin]

2 points that I haven't seen brought up.

1 - Hussein was one of the key supporters of the PLO's various terrorist groups.
2 - Powell's Doctrine was formed mainly with Vietnam in mind.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

2 points that I haven't seen brought up.
1 - Hussein was one of the key supporters of the PLO's various terrorist groups.

"Key" is definetly overstating it. Saddam offered money to the families of suicide bombers, and only in like his last 2 years of power. Hardly a key anything. If you want see key supporters of Palestinian terrorism, you look to Iran and Syria formost (though Syria mostly just funded Hezbollah).

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I believe it is actually one of the theoretical foundations underlying Bush's philosophy...

I'd agree with that. However, just because it's one of the foundations of Bush's philosophy doesn't mean it's not flawed.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Hussein was in containment by the UN Sanctions and US/UK/Aus enforcement of those sanctions., that's why his activity was so limited. One of the reasons I supported action by the US coalition as far as the timing was because the next step with regards to Iraq was the fight with Russia and France over the legitimacy of the sanctions. They wanted those sanctions lifted ASAP so they could begin rearming Iraq for their own profit. France had a lot of Oil Contracts set up for when sanctions were lifted and the Russians had some unworldy ammount of Armored Vehicles (tanks) and weapons to sell for oil.

I agree with you here, but with veto power on the Security Council (which the U.S. has hardly ever hesitated to use), it would have been trivial for the U.S. to have the sanctions continued.

I've maintained since the beginning that there were ways to keep Saddam controlled without sending U.S. Soldiers into harm's way. In another thread I quoted Cheney & Powell even saying so in 2001 & 2002.

Why use soldiers when you can use lawyers & diplomats?

I am impressed with the way Al Qaeda moved right into Iraq (a nation they apparently had never been in before) and are *very* comfortable and hidden and effective there. It's almost like they have a support system already in place.

Note I said "no significant presence". Perhaps I should have said "no active operational presence". Al-Qaeda's an international organization. They have networks in many countries including, probably, the United States. They also have significant resources.

Setting up a base of operations and commencing those operatings in an area of chaos is one of those things that successful terrorist organizations do.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

2 points that I haven't seen brought up.

2 - Powell's Doctrine was formed mainly with Vietnam in mind.

Are you suggesting this is a bad thing? Vietnam - perhaps the biggest confluence of political and military clusterfucks in the 20th century. What's astonishing, really, is that it took so many years for someone to develop a policy designed to help us avoid future Vietnams.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

Are you suggesting this is a bad thing? Vietnam - perhaps the biggest confluence of political and military clusterfucks in the 20th century. What's astonishing, really, is that it took so many years for someone to develop a policy designed to help us avoid future Vietnams.

I was just surprised nobody had brought it up. Powell's doctrine, honestly, isn't much of a doctrine - it's just common sense guidelines designed in order to avoid another Vietnam.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I was just surprised nobody had brought it up. Powell's doctrine, honestly, isn't much of a doctrine - it's just common sense guidelines designed in order to avoid another Vietnam.

Ah. Fair enough, then.

[Klinglerware]

On the issue of democracies and the harboring of terrorists, the United States is currently facing a conundrum--Luis Posada, an anti-Castro terrorist and a figure in the Iran-Contra affair, got into the US with a phony passport (in itself an embarassment for our new emphasis on homeland security) and requested political asylum. The Venezuelan government has requested the extradition of Posada for his role in bombing a Cuban civilian airliner in the 70s. The Cuban-American community is exerting a bit of pressure on the administration to grant Posada asylum.

It could be interesting to see how the administration deals with this--and we could be getting more clarification on how the US defines "terrorism" and when it considers a nation to be "harboring terrorists".

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7750967/...wsweek/page/2/

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/09/national/09exile.html