quote:

---

Rumsfeld Strikes Back at Critics of U.S. Effort on Terror

HANNON, Ireland, Sept. 8 � With costs and casualties rising in the war on terrorism, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld struck back today at the administration's widening circle of critics, saying they were complicating an already difficult task.

Mr. Rumsfeld did not mention any of the domestic critics by name. But he suggested that those who have been critical of the administration's handling of the war in Iraq and its aftermath might be encouraging American foes to believe that the United States might one day walk away from the effort, as it has in past conflicts.

"We know for a fact that terrorists studied Somalia, and they studied instances that the United States was dealt a blow and tucked in, and persuaded themselves that they could in fact cause us to acquiesce in whatever it is they wanted to do," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

"The United States is not going to do that; President Bush is not going to do that," he said.

But, he went on: "To the extent that terrorists are given reason to believe he might, or, if he is not going to, that the opponents might prevail in some way, and they take heart in that, and that leads to more money going into these activities, or that leads to more recruits, or that leads to more encouragement, or that leads to more staying power, obviously that does make our task more difficult."

Similar points were made by President Bush in his address to the nation on Sunday night in regard to Somalia and an attack on a Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, in 1983. Mr. Bush said that terrorists had asserted "that that if you inflict harm on Americans, we will run from a challenge," adding, "In this, they are mistaken."

---

He had not previously suggested that the administration's critics might unwittingly be aiding the terrorist cause. He made that point in response to a question about criticism from Democratic presidential candidates and others, which Mr. Rumsfeld described as the "hits" that the administration was taking over issues related to costs and casualties, and whether the United States had enough troops in Iraq.

"There should be a debate and discussion on these things," he said. "We can live with that. We can live with a healthy debate as long as it is as elevated as possible, and as civil as possible."

Douglas Jehl, The New York Times

---

quote:

---

Any other point of view supports terrorism.Not fighting terrorism supports terrorism.Not recognizing the effects of terrorism supports terrorism.

---

quote:

---

There are going to be losses if you do nothing, as we learned on Sept. 11

---

quote:

---

Afghanistan is the perfect object lesson for this.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:

quote:

---

Afghanistan is the perfect object lesson for this.

---

Thereby indicating another aspect of Mr. Bush's policy in shambles??

---

quote:

---

And the point of Mr. Rumsfeld's words are not to point to critical Juxtaposition between Iraq and Vietnam, no,

---

quote:

---

Rumsfeld wants us to be good little people like Britney Spears who says, "Honestly, I think we should just trust our president in every decision that he makes and we should just support that."

---

quote:

---

Because there isn't any.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay the Obscure:

quote:

---

Because there isn't any.

---

Well, Iraq certainly has the chance of turning into a mire starting qith quag.

---

quote:

---

"See how much more fun it is when you find a purpose. Having your social order shook up by totaly illogical strikes from out of no where by someone whose attitude makes no sense, Has actually made you come together. Your society has been changed. For the better. Or not."

---

quote:

---

"Put it another way.. if we DO walk away from Iraq before our task of rebuilding it is complete, we ARE aiding the terrorists and the fanatics."

On that we can at least agree. It's too late to pull out, anyway. Bush knew of and was warned well in advance about the consequences war would bring. He wittingly accepted those consequences from the moment US troops crossed the border. Rebuilding Iraq and restoring any semblance of order is his responsibility now. Abandoning that task would be 1) an affront to the Iraqi people, 2) disastrous for the entire region, and 3) a serious loss of face which the US can ill-afford.

Besides, there's still that nagging WMD issue...

---

Agreed. But I am somewhat torn about the idea that the U.N. should have a role in rebuilding Iraq. On the one hand, it IS the U.N.'s mandate, and it would be folly for them not to participate. On the other hand, should the U.N. play janitor to the U.S.'s messes?

On the other side, some hawkish diplomats say that the U.N. should be consulted as the U.S. would appreciate the help, but other diplomats say that the U.N. is a useless rotten piece of junk and should be left that way.

And then there is that nagging WMD issue. How long has it been, hmmm?

Jay: We're too late. I'm heading off to the local corner store for a few sticks of dynamite and C4. Care to join me?

[ September 09, 2003, 08:56 PM: Message edited by: Saltah'na ]
 

---

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Already got mine. I'll meet you at the secret location.



Watch, I'll probably get a call from the F.B.I. now.
 

---

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
 
Another way to coddle terrorists. . .
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
So we boil them in large containers full of butter?

M'Kay...

So we've all come to the conclusion that the current powers that be are NOT handeling the middle east situations in a way that will work in either the short OR long term....right?

So: does any of Bush's political detractors (and presidential hopefuls) have a plan for Afganistan?
we've kind of left them hanging there....
I've also not heard ANY set plan by ANYBODY to work with the local clerics and existing police agencies to eliminate terrorism.
The plan seems to be that our presence alone in the region will make these terrible people cower or reconsider their fanatical ways.
Should'nt we be making a kind of middle-east Interepol that can travel between arab nations and is composed mostly by arabs to stop this problem?
The local populations sure as hell are'nt going to aid westerners so mabye they'll assist thir own people.
The UN could oversee the agency.

Hell it's just a wild thought bur anything beats no plan at all.......
 

---

Posted by Mountain Man (Member # 1114) on :
 
Jason your reasoning is sound. Thats a good idea.Ps I'm not entering into the coversation just giving credit where credit is due.
 

---

Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Unless, of course, the local populations view the Arab interpol as an agent of the US or western interests in general. Islamists in particular would probably have something to say about a police force which presumeably wouldn't enforce sharia (sp?) law.

On the other ahnd something does have to be done, paticularly to contain Islamic fanatacism and fundamentalism.

As for Iraq, yes it is far too late to pull out now and hopefully it won't turn into anything like Vietnam. But what worries me is the apparent lack of after war planning by the US and UK governments. Surely they must have realised that after the war they would be effectively in charge of the place and held responsible by the locals?

Finally Rummy's comments are just plain silly; just because you do not agree with a government's actions or policies does not automatically mean that you support the terrorists.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
The thing I'm concerned with is that nither Democrats OR Republicans have any solid plan.
Either we keep the fuckos in power now or we vote for fuckos with no platform other than they hate and critique the current administration.

Makes all that recall nonsense in California seem (even more) trivial by comparison does'nt it?


I think the arab countries will have to see the West in a positive (or at the least neutral) light before we can really say the "war on terror" is over.
So....how the hell do we pull this off?
Hmmmm...we could kill all their firstborn children....
 

---

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
A "solid plan" is guaranteed to fail. Only a "fluid" plan can succeed.

There's an old military saying about no plan of action surviving engagement with the enemy.

In my experience, this is more of a Universal Truth than a mere military maxim. No plan survives implementation.

Those of you who are responsible for planning things (from those who manage businesses to those who run RPG's) probably know what I'm talking about.

Thinking that there wasn't a plan is folly. The Spanish Armada had a plan. Napoleon had a plan at Waterloo. Even Custer had a plan at Little Bighorn.

Understanding that the plan didn't last, is more accurate. The plan may have been inadequate to the actual ciircumstances. Many, perhaps most, plans end up that way. I don't recall any claims of infallibility, so I don't flip out when plans go awry. We're behind schedule, not losing.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
The only problem with relying on local police agencies in our newest protectorates is that there aren't any local police agencies to rely on. Afghanistan had completely withered away as a state, and we ran the guys who had taken on the role of the police out of the country. In Iraq you can either put high-level Ba'ath apparatchiks back into the stationhouses or try to build something new out of humble beat cops and green trainees. In either nation, it is certainly not outside the realm of imagination that the U.S. will wind up handing the keys back to the Taliban and to Saddam's functionaries, with an injunction to play nice this time, or at least to play with us, but that kind of outcome leads to a grim and unpleasent future where values like liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been swallowed by simple animal survival.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:
Understanding that the plan didn't last, is more accurate. The plan may have been inadequate to the actual ciircumstances. Many, perhaps most, plans end up that way. I don't recall any claims of infallibility, so I don't flip out when plans go awry. We're behind schedule, not losing.

---

Um...have you heard even a "fluid" general plan?
From anyone?
Obviously relying on the local's being grateful and governing themselves is not working out.
I know it's a bit early to say that but anybody we put in power in a democracy is going to be replaced by a duly elected american hater.
Installing a UN "peacekeeping force" is what theother governments seem to want but that's usually our cue to wash our hands of a bad situation and watch from afar as it quickly spins out of control again....

How do we win a war of ideaology with a people that have been conditioned by both their former governments and their religous leaders for generations to hate us and our way of life?

My solution for the middle east: Hookers. Possibly casino gambling.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
Incidently, Iraq and Afghanistan, and even Syria, are already members of Interpol. It isn't really a policing agency, you know, so much as a clearinghouse for police agencies to share information.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Yeah, but saying "They should establish something like interpol" sounds better than saying "They should establish something like G.I. Joe "
 

---

Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by First of Two:
Those of you who are responsible for planning things (from those who manage businesses to those who run RPG's) probably know what I'm talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cartman:
But when you orchestrate a military campaign in a political and religious POWDER KEG and fail to prepare for or even consider the aftermath (because dear Rummy & Co remained dubiously silent on that subject), "the plan may have been inadequate" doesn't quite cover the fucking mess you've created.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wraith:
I hate to have to say this but...

the "fuck"?!?

---

quote:

---

Obviously relying on the local's being grateful and governing themselves is not working out.

---

quote:

---

Working with Zogby International survey researchers, The American Enterprise magazine has conducted the first scientific poll of the Iraqi public. Given the state of the country, this was not easy. Security problems delayed our intrepid fieldworkers several times. We labored at careful translations, regional samplings and survey methods to make sure our results would accurately reflect the views of Iraq's multifarious, long-suffering people. We consulted Eastern European pollsters about the best way to elicit honest answers from those conditioned to repress their true sentiments.

---

quote:

---

The results show that the Iraqi public is more sensible, stable and moderate than commonly portrayed, and that Iraq is not so fanatical, or resentful of the U.S., after all. � Iraqis are optimistic. Seven out of 10 say they expect their country and their personal lives will be better five years from now. On both fronts, 32% say things will become much better.

---

quote:

---

The toughest part of reconstructing their nation, Iraqis say by 3 to 1, will be politics, not economics. They are nervous about democracy. Asked which is closer to their own view--"Democracy can work well in Iraq," or "Democracy is a Western way of doing things"--five out of 10 said democracy is Western and won't work in Iraq. One in 10 wasn't sure. And four out of 10 said democracy can work in Iraq. There were interesting divergences. Sunnis were negative on democracy by more than 2 to 1; but, critically, the majority Shiites were as likely to say democracy would work for Iraqis as not. People age 18-29 are much more rosy about democracy than other Iraqis, and women are significantly more positive than men. � Asked to name one country they would most like Iraq to model its new government on from five possibilities--neighboring, Baathist Syria; neighbor and Islamic monarchy Saudi Arabia; neighbor and Islamist republic Iran; Arab lodestar Egypt; or the U.S.--the most popular model by far was the U.S. The U.S. was preferred as a model by 37% of Iraqis selecting from those five--more than Syria, Iran and Egypt put together. Saudi Arabia was in second place at 28%. Again, there were important demographic splits. Younger adults are especially favorable toward the U.S., and Shiites are more admiring than Sunnis. Interestingly, Iraqi Shiites, coreligionists with Iranians, do not admire Iran's Islamist government; the U.S. is six times as popular with them as a model for governance.

---

quote:

---

� Our interviewers inquired whether Iraq should have an Islamic government, or instead let all people practice their own religion. Only 33% want an Islamic government; a solid 60% say no. A vital detail: Shiites (whom Western reporters frequently portray as self-flagellating maniacs) are least receptive to the idea of an Islamic government, saying no by 66% to 27%. It is only among the minority Sunnis that there is interest in a religious state, and they are split evenly on the question. � Perhaps the strongest indication that an Islamic government won't be part of Iraq's future: The nation is thoroughly secularized. We asked how often our respondents had attended the Friday prayer over the previous month. Fully 43% said "never." It's time to scratch "Khomeini II" from the list of morbid fears.

---

quote:

---

� You can also cross out "Osama II": 57% of Iraqis with an opinion have an unfavorable view of Osama bin Laden, with 41% of those saying it is a very unfavorable view. (Women are especially down on him.) Except in the Sunni triangle (where the limited support that exists for bin Laden is heavily concentrated), negative views of the al Qaeda supremo are actually quite lopsided in all parts of the country. And those opinions were collected before Iraqi police announced it was al Qaeda members who killed worshipers with a truck bomb in Najaf.

---

quote:

---

And you can write off the possibility of a Baath revival. We asked "Should Baath Party leaders who committed crimes in the past be punished, or should past actions be put behind us?" A thoroughly unforgiving Iraqi public stated by 74% to 18% that Saddam's henchmen should be punished. This new evidence on Iraqi opinion suggests the country is manageable. If the small number of militants conducting sabotage and murder inside the country can gradually be eliminated by American troops (this is already happening), then the mass of citizens living along the Tigris-Euphrates Valley are likely to make reasonably sensible use of their new freedom. "We will not forget it was the U.S. soldiers who liberated us from Saddam," said Abid Ali, an auto repair shop owner in Sadr City last month--and our research shows that he's not unrepresentative.

---

quote:

---

None of this is to suggest that the task ahead will be simple. Inchoate anxiety toward the U.S. showed up when we asked Iraqis if they thought the U.S. would help or hurt Iraq over a five-year period. By 50% to 36% they chose hurt over help. This is fairly understandable; Iraqis have just lived through a war in which Americans were (necessarily) flinging most of the ammunition. These experiences may explain why women (who are more antimilitary in all cultures) show up in our data as especially wary of the U.S. right now. War is never pleasant, though U.S. forces made heroic efforts to spare innocents in this one, as I illustrate with firsthand examples in my book about the battles. Evidence of the comparative gentleness of this war can be seen in our poll. Less than 30% of our sample of Iraqis knew or heard of anyone killed in the spring fighting. Meanwhile, fully half knew some family member, neighbor or friend who had been killed by Iraqi security forces during the years Saddam held power. Perhaps the ultimate indication of how comfortable Iraqis are with America's aims in their region came when we asked how long they would like to see American and British forces remain in their country: Six months? One year? Two years or more? Two thirds of those with an opinion urged that the coalition troops should stick around for at least another year. We're making headway in a benighted part of the world. Hang in there, America.

---

 

---

Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
 
But can we deliver?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
A VERY intresting article, First of Two.
Thanks.

Scary that Democracy is a 50/50 split though: it's easy for a small minority that favor democracy to be bullied into the other view.

Not too suprising that Bin Laden is not Mr. Popularity: Saddam didint want that level of uncontrollable fanatism in his country- it would have been a constant threat to him and I'm sure that behavior was discouraged.

Good to hear from the women!
I hope they get the change they have needed for so long.
If anyone has a chance of coming out of this for the better, it's the Women of Iraq.

Odd that Great Britan nd Japan were'nt offered as governmental models: Japan's system could work well in Iraq (another small country with export as it's main source of revnue).
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
"Export" in this context is so general a word as to be useless. Japan is a thoroughly modern post-industrial society. Iraq is not.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Well, no, not yet.
If Iraq really does gain control of it's oil supply and with UN help, they'll be an industrial nation within our lifetimes.
....and nothing brings a country into the democratic, western frame of mind like a high standard of living among it's citizens.

Hope springs eternal, at least.
 

---

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
And why exactly should your average Iraqi want a "western frame of mind?" Indeed, that's the one export that part of the world finds the most dangerous.

Of course, one can have a wealthy, industrialized or post-industrialized society minus much of the western value set. Take Singapore. Or, increasingly, China. But Iraq has spent at least the last decade watching its infrastructure rot away. It doesn't even have tank or airplane factories that can be retooled for Volkswagons or Segways because it bought all its tanks and airplanes from elsewhere. (Note, I don't know for sure that Iraq lacks any military manufacturers, but I am willing to bet that, if there are any, and they are stills standing, they are exceedingly insignificant.) Nor does it have vast quantities of oil money saved up to pay for a bootstrapping program ala Dubai, as, again for at least the past decade, Iraq hasn't been selling large quantities of oil, and what it has been selling has either been under the limitations of the oil for food program, or sold on the black market, the profits pocketed by Hussein.

Setting up Iraq as a bright beacon of the New World Order is an idea that's neato to the max, and worth working towards, but I'm having trouble imagining a more difficult foreign policy task. Except maybe doing the same for Afghanistan.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
What's this "Afghanistan" you speak of?
It sounds vaguely familliar....I almost forgot about those saps...er...people we liberated.
I know the White House sure did!
After all, It's Iraq that needs all our money, supplies and attention now.
 

---

Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
 
What I find kinda strange in the poll is, how do the Iraqi's know enough about these other forms of government to make a good decision on which one they want. Most people don't fully understand other governments to make a choice like that.
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Nonsense!
Iraq is a world leader in education of governmental and socio-economic political structures.
....that or they just polled Fox News's correspondants.
CNN was too busy interviewing disgrunteled wives of our troops to take part in the survey.
 

---