posted
Re: coalition members: Afghanistan, as a nation, really doesn't exist, for any reasonable definition of nation. Just something that caught my eye. It's the textbook definition of a failed state.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was worried till I saw we had the Marshall Islands on our side.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
quote:I fail to see why we must address whatever econo-political problems yielded Islamofascism first.
Because, if you don't, every terrorist you kill will just inspire ten more to strap on a belt of explosives and blow themselves up for their greater cause.
quote:Waiting around to try diplomatic and cultural transformation of the underlying conditions would not stop those already hell-bent on killing now.
No, but it would stop those that might become hell-bent on killing in the future.
quote:It's not a matter of choosing one theater to the exclusion of others until you find a silver bullet answer to the problem. I don't think anyone in the national security establishment, be they Ds or Rs, really thinks just trying one method of engagement is going to suffice. Granted, some will think some forms will be more effective than others, but saying we have to look to underlying causes first has never been a winning strategy in any war.
But this war isn't like any other war. It cannot be won with strategies of the past, so new ones have to be drawn up. And that hasn't been done. Combating terrorism isn't about bombing training camps and arresting cell leaders, which are reactionary stopgap measures, but about long-term investments in improving the social/cultural/economic conditions in those countries where it is originating from. There's your silver bullet on a silver platter, you just have to be willing to fire it.
quote:The most effective multi-pronged way of warfare similar to the way we are fighting right now is the Philippine insurrections of the very early twentieth century. While the US Army fought the rebels in the mountains, engineers followed after and built infrastructure like roads and schools that eliminated many of the conditions the rebels had been complaining about. It worked then. It can work again.
While I do not know to what extent the Philippian situation can be considered a microcosm of terrorism in all its facets today, eliminating the problems that spawn Islamic fundamentalism is going to take more than building a few roads and schools, and is absolutely not something that can be completed in the sort of timeframe that this administration appears to have in mind for, say, Iraq (which it criminally underestimated the task of rebuilding of). And just like it's naive (at best) to think you can transplant a set of Western ideas and ideals which needed centuries to mature to a country/region of the world with a totally different history and expect everyone there to accept them as gospel, thinking that terrorism will "go away" if you kill enough extremists is equally devoid of any sense of reality.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Matthew Yglesias reminds me of one serious bit of foreign policy in the news in recent days.
quote:Nonproliferation Notes
Readers may recall that about a month ago I was dumbfounded by reports that the Bush administration was scuttling the verification component of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. The Treaty would, if properly enforced, damage US interests not at all while making it harder for terrorists and rogue states to acquire nuclear weapons. The administration's official line on why they'd done this -- that it was too expensive -- seemed to seriously call into question their sanity. Verification may be expensive, but it could hardly be too expensive to reduce the single greatest security threat facing the nation.
The current issue of the Economist has a seriously buried lede explaining that the main motivation was, in fact, "the worries of Israel and Pakistan, two allies that want to keep the option of adding to their stockpiles." We scuttled a treaty that will keep bombs out of the hands of terrorists so that Israel and Pakistan (!) can build bigger arsenals? Israel and Pakistan! The same Pakistan whose chief nuclear scientist was operating a global proliferation market. The same Pakistan whose intelligence services built the Taliban and nurtured al-Qaeda in its early days. The same Pakistan whose military runs terrorist training camps. That Pakistan? Apparently so.
In a significant shift of US policy, the Bush Administration has announced that it will oppose provisions for inspections and verification as part of an international treaty to ban production of nuclear weapons materials.
For several years the US and others have been pursuing the treaty, which would ban new production by any state of highly enriched uranium and plutonium for weapons.
At an arms control meeting in Geneva last week the US told other countries it supported a treaty, but not verification.
US officials, who have demonstrated scepticism in the past about the effectiveness of international weapons inspections, said they made the decision after concluding such a system would cost too much, require overly intrusive inspections and would not guarantee compliance with the treaty.
However, they declined to explain in detail how they believed US security would be undermined by creating a plan to monitor the treaty.
Arms control specialists said the change in the US position would greatly weaken any treaty and make it harder to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the hands of terrorists. They said the US move virtually killed a 10-year international effort to persuade countries such as India, Israel and Pakistan to accept some oversight of their nuclear production programs.
Matthew links to Laura Rozen's thoughts on the issue:
quote:----
This administration is insane. I have no words.
Hard right conservatives and neocons have always disdained arms control treaties saying "Why bother? They can't be verified." But by killing the verification component of this treaty which would ban production of nuclear materials, they have surely made that a fait accompli. To what end? It surely couldn't hurt, and it's not like the US has such a good track record of intelligence on WMD issues in India, Iraq, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran, or Libya.
And, in one of those moments where movies speak volums about real life, Matthew links to Brad DeLong:
quote:Kurtz: "What did they tell you?"
Willard: "They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound."
Kurtz: "Are my methods unsound?"
Willard: "I don't see any method, at all, sir."
Foreign policy, Bush Administration style.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: Now, at the traditional Labor Day start of the presidential campaign homestretch, Kerry must once again fight back from a deficit. And even though running for president is many degrees more difficult than competing for the Democratic nomination or running for the US Senate in Massachusetts, no one is counting him out. Even Republicans acknowledge Bush's lead - 11 points in Time and Newsweek polls taken during the GOP convention last week - will settle down.
posted
I really think people are making too big a deal out of the Time and Newsweek polls that show Bush ahead 11-12 points. There's obviously something wrong there. No way could that joke of a convention have given him such an extreme push.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
You give people more credit than they are actually, historically, due.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I try not to. But, a jump of that much would imply that a very large number of Kerry supporters started supporting Bush during the RNC. The number of undecided voters hasn't really changed, and there weren't that many of them, anyway. So, essentially, the poll numbers are showing that the convention caused a full fifth of Kerry's supporters to switch sides. That seems unlikely, no matter how much stupidity you assign people.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Time and Newsweek both registered massive bounces for Bush during the Republican National Convention. Rasmussen says he would be showing Bush with a five point bounce (and, therefore, a four point lead) except his Saturday sample was terrible for Bush, giving him a slight 1.2 percent lead in the three day moving average. Now Gallup is showing a two point bounce based on a weekend poll that's moved Bush from one point behind to one point ahead (and now we're in the territory where sampling error matters, so it's not entirely clear than anything changed at all). Obviously, something a bit nutty is going on with polls taken on, say, Friday showing dramatically different results from polls taken over the weekend. Is this "faster public opinion" where people love Bush after seeing his speak and then forget all about it after 36 hours of hurricane coverage? As I recall something similarly screwy happened with Kerry -- he got a big bounce on Friday and then by the following Monday it was gone.
It's hard for me to understand the psychology of folks who would let their votes be swung by a speech -- we've had four years to watch Bush and his performance in office seems like an infinitely better guide to what you should do than is a speech -- so from my point of view there's really no telling.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Returning to the thread topic, we are looking at 1000 dead this week. Today, CNN reported in the last twenty-four hours 12 soldiers have died in fighting in Iraq bringing the number of dead to 998. And, from what I am reading and hearing, our government is conceding cities and the surrounding lands to the anti-American forces in Fallujah, Sadr City, Najaf, and so on. I am not in favor of abandoning Iraq which is one of the reasons my support of Senator Kerry is waning. Our country created this mess and we should damn well fix it, or the anti-American, anti-Israeli elements of the Muslim world will have a second major victory in their pocket. The first was the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon.
I thought I was writing for the casualties thread. I wasn't. However, this makes no difference. I agree with President Bush on staying the course in Iraq. I just wish this administration would do a better job.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Speaking of casulities in Iraq, wasn't the capture of Saddam Hussein supposed to make America safer?
Thomas F. Schaller over at The Gadflyer notes that this has not been the case.
quote:Today Marks the Pre-/Post Hussein Capture Period Cutoff
Well, here we are: Today � September 7th � is the official inflection date marking an identical period both before Saddam Hussein was captured and after he was captured.
That�s right: There were a total of 269 days from the war�s start date of March 19, 2003, and Hussein�s capture on December 13, 2003; there have been 269 days since then, including today. If you doubt me, double-check my numbers at Lunaville.org�s incomparable site.
I realize I must sound like a broken record on this site about the American fatalities rates during these two periods. But, now that we have experienced exactly the same number of days in Iraq both before and after that purported turning point, allow me to report the final numbers for the two periods:
Before capture: 459 American fatalities (1.71/day) After capture: 539 American fatalities (2.00/day)
This is not a matter of "he said, she said" wherein FOX News can bring somebody in from both sides to debate what, exactly, constitutes a cardinal number, and thus whether, in our postmodern world, 539 might somehow actually be lower than 459. No, it's a ineluctable fact: The number of fatalities and, thus, the average daily rate of casualties is higher post-capture than pre-capture.
Any response Mr. President, Mr. Vice President, Mr. Gillespie, Mr. Rove, Mrs. Hughes, Mr. Mehlman, Mr. Dowd, Mr. McClellan, or Ms. Devenish?
quote:The latest hope -- that the transfer of soveignty would fix things -- has also proven empty. There were 42 casualties in June, followed by the transfer and 54 casualties in July, followed by 66 casualties in August. We're about 23 percent of the way through the month of September and already 20 American soldiers have been killed. That projects to around 85 deaths for the month.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"I agree with President Bush on staying the course in Iraq."
You would re-elect a man who would destroy this country just so that he doesn't have to admit that he screwed up in Iraq?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Israel invaded Lebanon in the 1980's and for many years afterwards the conflict was a drawn on lives and money. This became an issue in the national election for prime minister. The winning candidate promised a withdrawal of troops from Lebanon. Troops were withdrawn from Lebanon. Hezbollah, based in Lebanon and supported by the Iranina government, proclaimed this a victory against the Israeli government and people. This reactionary organization stepped up its terrorism against the Israeli nation by providing additional support to the Palestinians and made a proclamation that war wouldn't end until all Jews were in the sea. After suffering many casualties on both sides and the building of a wall to prevent further incursions, the Israelis and the Palestinians are living in a surreal world where both are entrapped by their own anger and hatred.
My point-if we abandon Iraq, as Kerry has suggested to the UN or NATO, the leaders of Al Queda and other terrorist organizations will proclaim this a victory. They believe Americans are incapable of facing death and will do whatever it takes to preserve the lives of our children from death. When faced by an enemy who believes this, and is willing to sacrifice their young, showing weakness is not the option available to us.
I don't agree with the handling of the Iraqi situation for we are conceding cities to the theocrats and the reactionaries as has happened in Fallujah and Najaf. I feel, however, that Senator Kerry's stance is not the correct solution either and his position at times has mirrored the president's on occasions.
Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
