Comments on: A couple of points

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:05:02 +0000

I’m sure Al Queda are shaking in their bad-guy boots at the prospect of facing down your words of mass destruction. They won’t know what hit them; all their followers will denounce bin Laden in favor of my remorseless logic. Certainly my WMD are more effective than those found by Bush.

By: Dave F

Dave F — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:07:39 +0000

No Preference, the word “territory” now seems ill-chosen. What I mean is guerrilla territory – as commonly accepted, in the heart of communities. Fish in an ocean is the traditional terminology. By bringing about democratic changes and the decline of tyrants in the Middle East, that territory is systematically denied to people like al-Qaeda. Terrorism is indeed a tactic of guerrilla warfare, as I would have thought you were aware. Of course you want to deny it is warfare, but ETA, IRA, and others haver used it to wage war against the state. This notion that somehow this is just a criminal act, once again regrettably stated by Javier Solana today, seeks to divorce terrorism from its political and ideological motivation in order to pretend it can be policed. I t can’t and the geo-political strategy is demonstrating that fighting terror may not be cheap, but it’s a damn sight cheaper than before the Iraq war, because the Pakistanis, the Saudis and to some extent the Indonesians are perforce helping squeeze out the jihadists in their territories. What put the IRA off to a large degree (I’m not saying you are entirely wrong about the attrition) was the negative effect of the Real IRA Omagh incident and other atrocities on civil support at home and abroad.

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 03:57:36 +0000

hankfully though, talk is not cheap, and so there are ways of making and emphasizing a point that do not require strapping on an AK-47. I'm sure Al Queda are shaking in their bad-guy boots at the prospect of facing down your words of mass destruction. [Yawn]

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:32:05 +0000

Talk is cheap if you ignore the fact that the war on terror is as much an ideological war as it is a physical one—both of which are crucial. Thankfully though, talk is not cheap, and so there are ways of making and emphasizing a point that do not require strapping on an AK-47. I’ll that to the grave too, thank you.

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:55:02 +0000

And no, I don’t have to leave dramatic proclamations to others if I mean what I say, and I mean what I say. To the grave, then. Talk is cheap rajeev. Talk is very, very cheap.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 21:14:19 +0000

Williestyle: You took my remark out of context. I’m defending “to the grave” not the decision to go to war, but the fact that the war is not irrelevant to combating terrorism. Now that you mention it though, I’d defend the former assertion similarly. I strongly disagree that the moral burden of war should rest solely on the pro-war camp. Those that oppose a war are burdened with the consequences of their actions as well, and those may be less, equally or more disastrous. To take an extreme example, if those that opposed Vietnam invading Cambodia in 1979 had their way, Cambodia would have remained under Khmer Rouge control. So don’t tell me that the anti-war crowd needn’t be morally burdened with decisions of war and peace. Only the ignorant and nihilistic can claim to be free from heart-wrenching decisions. And no, I don’t have to leave dramatic proclamations to others if I mean what I say, and I mean what I say. To the grave, then. (On a side-note, I’d like to point out that “to the grave” is a common phrase used for emphasis, and isn’t always meant literally… just checking)

By: WillieStyle

WillieStyle — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 20:05:59 +0000

Opposing a war should be as difficult and heart-wrenching as supporting one. No it should not. I supported the war in Iraq at the time, but even I have the sense to know that the burden should rest on those in favor of war to advocate it. In any case, talking about defending the decision to go to war to your grave from behind your computer is way too fucking easy. Support or opposse the war. It's your business. But leave such dramatic proclamtions to those actually putting their lives on the line. reconstructing Afghanistan is not mutually exclusive with invading Iraq, unless you really believe the US is short on resources for these all-important endeavors (which it is not). Do you know what a "Stop Loss" order is?

By: Hi

Hi — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:56:42 +0000

I think Maurnaisky (?spelling) is right. Terrorists will attack us no matter what we do or don’t do. It just depends on who they are mad at (or can attack easily) at that moment. Trying to analyze mad people for motives is mad itself.

By: roger

roger — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:20:54 +0000

Dear S.A. I believe Osama bin L. was sick pre 9/11, so the U.S. coming for him or not would have changed the date of his meeting with his maker very little. Should we then have let nature takes its course, and not responded to 9/11? I don’t think so. The symbolism of Osama is integral to the morale of the terrorist network. Personally, I think it is now too late to undo the symbolic message encoded by Osama’s survival, and the inability of the U.S. to exert its full force to get him. That message is that martyrdom and earthly success can both be satisfied in this kind of warfare. Nobody thinks that Saddam Hussein, in hiding, was targeting the enemy—but he was a symbolic prize, and his capture, I think, shifted the landscape in Iraq—towards democracy, insofar as the Shi’ites were able, after his capture, to articulate their desire for early elections, etc. One ignores symbols in war at one’s peril.

By: S.A. Smith

S.A. Smith — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:39:10 +0000

Despite what the bush administration wants me to believe and despite what bush’s critics want me to believe, I think bin laden is most likely dead; if he isn’t, what would explain his sudden video shyness following the bombing of tora bora? I don’t understand these feeble audio recordings and letters. Did someone break his video recorder? There might be another explanation but the only one that makes any sense is that he is so frail, ill or injured that he doesn’t want to appear this way to his enemies or followers.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:23:40 +0000

The “relevancy” debate belongs in Quiggin’s other post. Sorry to disinter it here. Coleman: Opposing a war should be as difficult and heart-wrenching as supporting one. Yes there are graves, yes I’ve seen the pictures on Robert Fisk’s website, but I still believe the alternatives were worse. Further, most of the disastrous predictions made pre-war have thankfully been discarded as exagerration. As such I could turn your logic on you, but only hypothetically: had Saddam remained in power how many graves under his rule later would you renounce your opposition to this war? Boucher: I completely agree, and that’s why I think the decision of Spain’s socialist government, while not appeasement, was short-sighted. Marky: Pakistan is a tight-rope act, and you should be grateful the Bush administration approached that country with more prudence than it approached Iraq. I too am disappointed in the Bush administration’s reconstruction of Afghanistan—but reconstructing Afghanistan is not mutually exclusive with invading Iraq, unless you really believe the US is short on resources for these all-important endeavors (which it is not). The US is not reconstructing Afghanistan because it can’t summon the ideological willpower—this is where Bush’s thinking is constipated. But none of this disputes the fact that the Iraq war was just. Finally, I agree that al Qaeda has come to Iraq. It’s the “sinking ship” analogy, and it’s a good thing for the war on terror. Now I have to cut that last thought short… phone call

By: roger

roger — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:57:45 +0000

The pseudo-Churchill crowd always makes me laugh. How about this for appeasement: your forces have already broken the state that protects your enemy; you have battled him once in a very inaccessble place in the mountains; you have failed to kill him; so you withdraw, let him go, decide not to worry about him any more, make up a bogus connection that you don’t even believe with another, vulnerable power; and as time passes, you invent stories about how you’ve destroyed 3/4ths of his forces. I’d call that feebleness masquerading as strength. The ‘brilliant military work” of Rumsfeld, et al., in invading Iraq seems to have rather neglected the forces in their rear, constituted by Al Qaeda—but of course, they never believed their lies, anyway. They knew there was no connection between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. They knew that was trash for public consumption. Result: the network has ramified. The supposed leaders of the free world, Bush, et al., have left the people of the free world more vulnerable, not less, to terrorist attack. When the people respond by kicking their hind ends out of office, it is considered appeasement. No, it isn’t appeasement. It is being fired. For incompetence. When Carter bungled the hostages, the networks all made it into a count: day number x of the hostage crisis. By my count, it is day number 931 since Bush promised to bring Osama in dead or alive. So where is he?

By: marky

marky — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:30:59 +0000

I do heartily agree that Iraq was relevant to the war on terror—-it was a huge plus for AQ, as if Allah himself had inspired Bush to become the number one recruiter for AQ by fighting in Iraq, while at the same time leaving Bin Laden alone for two years, and ignoring the nuclear Walmart in Pakistan. OH yes, the war was relevant!

By: marky

marky — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:26:56 +0000

If you’re going to credit AQ with victory whenever they influence elections, then they already scored victory in 2002 when the Republicans were able to use 9/11 to turn an evenly divided populace slightly in their favor. This whole business of basing your decisions on what the terrorists would think is the real cave-in. Get rid of a bad leader like Aznar and a horrible leader like Bush and AQ will be worse off.

By: Andrew Boucher

Andrew Boucher — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:52:58 +0000

“Iraq was not irrelevent to fighting terrorism…” Well maybe. On the other hand, can we all agree that now Iraq is relevant to fighting terrorism?