Comments on: The war on terror and the war in Iraq

By: robbo

robbo — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:04:07 +0000

“Say the magic words ‘multi-lateral’ and everything is fixed.” Actually, the idea is to use America’s unique military and economic strength, combined with our putative “commitment to democracy and human rights” to forge solutions and lead coalitions that other countries can’t or won’t. We’re the world’s undisputed superpower. What other country could even dream of spending several hundred BILLION dollars on the type of adventure we’re now embarked upon? ALL I’m saying is that we can be smart about it or stupid as a bag of melons, and we’ve been the latter. In spades. It pisses me off, I don’t trust those in charge, and I don’t understand why any other thinking person would.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:36:50 +0000

Whoa, there I’m not defending Bush. I’m saying that the current multi-lateral crap is purely magical handwaving. Say the magic words ‘multi-lateral’ and everything is fixed. Use the incantation and the magic occurs. “Isolate and punish them” are you quite serious? Iraq 1991-2002 is the perfect illustration of how that doesn’t work. Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to control the oil of the world. How long did the will to contain him last outside of the US and UK? Less than 6 years. What did ‘the world community’ want to do after Saddam ceased allowing the inspectors to work in 1998? Nothing. They condemened Clinton (not Bush, Clinton) for bombing while they made absolutely no suggestions for action to get the inspectors back in. Clinton caved because he had no further support from the world community. As a result, the world community didn’t have the spine to force further inspections until Bush unilaterally put Marines at the doorstep. Why would dealing with Pakistan or North Korea be any different Mr Kiernan? In fact, we know that dealing with North Korea wouldn’t be different. Half of the US time is spent convincing South Korea and Japan to not resume oil and food shipments to prop up one of the most vicious dictators currently alive—just as we did when he was building the nukes he has now. “Issue this ultimatum: so long as they refuse to allow international inspections and disarmament, if any nuclear weapons are detonated in the U.S.A. or in any of our allies, we will hold both Pakistan and North Korea equally as responsible as if it were their own Air Forces dropping the bombs, and we will retaliate immediately and massively, with the nuclear annihilation of Pakistan and North Korea as the result.” Yeah because the French love ultimatums. They barely signed off on ‘serious consequences’. This would be a great US policy. It doesn’t stand a chance as a multi-lateral policy. “Almost all the other governments of the world would willingly cooperate – Al Qaida threatens everybody – unless you go out of your way to piss them off.” If this were really true, why hasn’t the rest of the world gotten together to make their own solution? Clearly say France had a better idea they could shop it to the world and show us stupid Americans how to do it right. Couldn’t they? Why have they not done so? In summary, I see precisely two suggestions for action, everything else is just chanting the words ‘multi-lateral’ without saying what the multi lateral coalition should do. You suggest the ultimatum route which can’t even get support in clear cases like North Korea so don’t even make me laugh aloud by suggesting it would work elsewhere. You suggest ‘isolate and punish’. Seems to be working wonders for Mugabe. Worked pretty well against the Taliban too didn’t it? They were so scared of being isolated that they couldn’t even harbor bin Laden? North Korea gained nuclear weapons while being isolated. Saddam gassed Kurds while being isolated and punsished.

By: robbo

robbo — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:53:02 +0000

No kidding, w. kiernan. You must be a super-genius to have figured out that America would have been far better off focusing on the actual terrorists who pulled off 9/11 and who were threatening our allies around the world. Sebastian, I’ve had the impression from other threads that you’re a smart guy, so I have to wonder how it happens that you’re blindly carrying water for the likes of George Bush. Bush’s utter incompetence (at governing) and his administration’s disdain for democracy (in America, Venezuela, France, Germany, Haiti, etc., etc.) have only grown more obvious as time’s gone by. Are you simply frustrated with the slow pace of political and cultural changes effected by means other than full-scale war?

By: W. Kiernan

W. Kiernan — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:45:53 +0000

holsclaw sez: How do you want to deal with Al-Qaeda and other anti-Western, anti-modern groups like it. Don’t like Bush’s method? Give an outline of your own. Sure. Keep in mind that I am but a humble construction worker, and not a Harvard’n’Yale educated genius like George W. Bush, so the possibility exists that there might be a few rough edges to my strategy; needless to say, after miraculously finding myself in the White House I’d seek information and advice from specialists. Now here’s what I would have done had I been President in 2001, in the broadest outline. First thing first: ignore Iraq, utterly ignore Iraq, they’re no threat to the U.S.A. at all. Fire Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and everybody else associated with PNAC the very instant they suggest going after Iraq first. Fire them, cancel their pensions, fumigate their offices. Instead focus, focus, focus: go after Al Qaida. Put an all-out effort into it, don’t allow yourself to become distracted by any other projects while Zawahari and bin Laden remain un-hung. Almost all the other governments of the world would willingly cooperate – Al Qaida threatens everybody – unless you go out of your way to piss them off. So don’t do that. I’m no diplomat but the U.S. government has plenty of diplomats; my policy would be to not undercut them and if my domestic campaign manager exposes the identity of any CIA agents hot on the WMD tip, put him in prison and throw away the key. As far as those governments that won’t cooperate – as of 9/12/2001 there were three of them that I know of, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan – make it our longer term policy to isolate them and punish them for taking bin Laden’s side instead of ours. After capturing, trying and hanging the bin Laden gang, go after the nuclear arms proliferators. Again, this means ignore Iraq, which has no nukes and which, as of 2001, can export nothing seriously threatening; focus on Pakistan and North Korea, which not only have atomic bombs, chemical/biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems, but which eagerly vend them out to one and all. Issue this ultimatum: so long as they refuse to allow international inspections and disarmament, if any nuclear weapons are detonated in the U.S.A. or in any of our allies, we will hold both Pakistan and North Korea equally as responsible as if it were their own Air Forces dropping the bombs, and we will retaliate immediately and massively, with the nuclear annihilation of Pakistan and North Korea as the result. Now please tell me in what way my proposed anti-terrorism strategy is inferior to the chickens-with-heads-off strategy followed by the GWB White House these last two and a half years.

By: Antoni Jaume

Antoni Jaume — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 22:24:59 +0000

Well, I’ve already put that at Calpundit, but it may be good to repeat it here, so let me say that in Spain Al Qa’ida was not a factor in the elections, ETA was. The PP had at the end of 2003 a dwindling expectation of votes. However a childish act of one of the leader of ERC, who tried to convince ETA to renounce terrorism like his party had achieved quite a few years ago with “Terra Lliure”, backfired since it did not achieve anything and worse, was publicized by the PP as an intent to defuse terrorist attack from Catalonia to te rest of Spain. That was a big gulp of air for the PP, whose electorate hates nationalists and tends to conflate then with terrorists. Even so the estimation of votes was once again in the direction of losing votes, nearly certainly the absolute majority the PP had enjoyed these last 4 years would not happen. And the PSOE had some remote possibility of a relative majority. That bore badly for ETA who gains when crispation rise, since it gives the backing of the Basques. So everyone expected an ETA attentate, and the detention of to militants with more than 500 kg (1100 pounds) of explosives pointed in that direction, in itself that detention was another boost for the PP. When the explosions happened, the first thought was “ETA did it again”, the foreign rumours pointing to AQ were discounted as wishful thinking. However it was thought that in such case the PP would lose some votes, and PP analysts seem to have agreed, so any link to AQ was downplayed, and even when they turned more solid, the government insisted to claim it was ETA. People got angry, very angry, at this shameless intent to manipulate. DSW

By: yabonn

yabonn — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:50:07 +0000

james, Sure irak played a part. This kind of decision taken against a 90% in a democracy is quite exceptional : people in spain were hugely against this war.That and aznar’s daughter wedding, iirc, began the divorce between him and the spaniards. But : – the terrorist memos you quote give no information on what people in spain really think, and the way al qaeda sees these elections is irrelevant to the way we should see them. – the image of the cowardly spaniard running to the urns (second higher particiption ever) to “appease” just after that bloody massacre is beyond ridiculous : disturbing. After closely witnessing the kind of natural unanimous mobilisation there is after an attack of this type, the “appeasement” theory of some warbloggers implictly denies the spaniards any kind of conscience -i’d even say humanity. It’s disgusting. Was there a big movement to “appease” after the 9/11? Is there a movement to “appease” in england after some ira bombing? It must be an olive oil, moustache or brown skin thing then.

By: Russell L. Carter

Russell L. Carter — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 19:07:11 +0000

“Now stop before this analogy gets too tortured.” Oh we all love torturing analogies here. What happens if your take instead is evidence that Al Qaida is analagous to a submarine? But seriously, and this is related to Sebastion’s complaints about what the strategy should be. I can’t understand why the architects of 9/11 should be presumed to be so stupid as to conduct the self-anhiliation of their movement by moving all significant resources to Iraq, then consuming all those resources in a game of asymmetrical warfare against the greatest concentration of American power in the region. Evidently they’re primarily interested in terror against unarmed masses of western civilians, and obviously the most cost-effective targets are not located in Iraq. I’m also puzzled as to why Afghanistan did not suffice for the flypaper. One might think that that bit of usurpation (from OBL’s POV) would have pissed them off enough (plus home field advantage, smaller US force infrastructure). At any rate, basing an antiterrorism strategy primarily on the hope that the enemy is operationally stupid seems unwise at best.

By: james

james — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:49:52 +0000

yabonn, It would seem unlikely that the bomb was three days before the election by accident. Yesterday’s Sunday Times: “Osama Bin Laden…warned last October that Spain would be targeted for backing the war. A senior Al-Qaeda official later wrote on a website: ‘We must make maximum use of the proximity to the elections in Spain…Spain can stand a maximum of two or three attacks before they will withdraw from Iraq’”. The report doesn’t give any more detail, so I don’t know how reliable it is. When I heard of the bomb I was instantly skeptical of the government’s blaming ETA - because it seemed obvious to me that if it was Al-Qaeda that could seriously damage the government in the elections, what with 90% of the population hostile to the war in Iraq. I presume this was equally obvious to Al-Qaeda, even if Aznar could have changed the equation with a different reaction. “Imho, one can’t safely enter into the terrorist supposed motives, intentions etc if one want to keep them irrelevant to actual political life. What their strategies, desires are, are irrelevant to the democratic process : you can’t really critisize the spanish elections on these supposed motives” But my fear is that the Spanish people have done just that – they have reacted according to what they percieve the terrorists motives to be: to punish Spain for Iraq, and have in turn punished the government – which they weren’t going to do before, for all the war’s unpopularity.

By: Shalom Beck

Shalom Beck — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:25:15 +0000

You folks all assume that the PSOE has the same view of the war on terror that John Kerry and Howard Dean do. Nothing I have seen gives me any reason to believe that, and the one actual expert on Spanish politics (and ETA) I consulted, a Socialist himself, assures me that the switch to the PSOE was mtoivated by “Hate America/Appease Osama” The big joke is that, as with the Roh victory in Korea, the PSOE is neither going to pull out of Iraq (that’s what those weasel words about the UN mean) nor alter the Spanish stance on the War on Terror. P.S. Since the UN Security Council condemned ETA for the bombings, and the UN is the ffont of all international righteousness, does that mean that the PSOE is lying about Al Qaeda :>)

By: yabonn

yabonn — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 18:05:34 +0000

james, “It?s disastrous because it gives a boost to the terrorists, it demonstrates their effectiveness to, and bolsters their standing among, their actual and potential supporters” Any act of terrorism has the same effect. Any of these is disastrous. How do we know al qaida had a choice for the date of this one? How do we know al qaida expected to boost the ps and not the pp? Aznar flunked it because he lied, but i don’t see how you could have been sure that this terrorist attack would weaken “mr anti terrorism” himself -as you mention. Imho, one can’t safely enter into the terrorist supposed motives, intentions etc if one want to keep them irrelevant to actual political life. What their strategies, desires are, are irrelevant to the democratic process : you can’t really critisize the spanish elections on these supposed motives. So, wether spaniards are cowards, or there’s no problem with this election : the space for the “cowered or not, they objectively reinforce terrorists, boosting al qaida etc” critic seems rather slim to me.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:54:58 +0000

“Is your point that unless I devise a superior plan that I should just shut up?” No. My point is that you should be able to sketch out the general outline of a broad concept of a typical approach for actions which would be more effective. The closest you come is to suggest that Bush squanders foreign good will. But good-will TO DO WHAT? So far as I can see there wasn’t much will to make any major changes in the Middle East. Do you believe that leaving the Middle East relatively unchanged is the proper course? If so please say so. If not, please outline the general concepts of a broad course of action. I’m not asking for exact troop/police placements. I’m not asking for precise dollar figures. I’m asking for a general strategy. Keep in mind though, that sanctions, by example, have proven a particularly ineffective way of causing regime change or even regime softening and often make things worse. See Castro, Kim, and Mugabe if you don’t believe me.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 17:31:26 +0000

They should certainly ponder the fact that al Qaeda is located in Iraq, as they’ve just been cruelly reminded that al Qaeda is located in Madrid. The “sinking ship” analogy seems fine with me, your flopping attempt at caricature aside—al Qaeda has allied itself against democracy in Iraq, and that retrograde resistance isn’t going anywhere but to the bottom of the ocean. Now stop before this analogy gets too tortured.

By: Russell L. Carter

Russell L. Carter — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:48:00 +0000

“At any rate, al Qaeda IS NOW closely affiliated with Iraq — they’ve jumped aboard a sinking ship, and when that ship sinks so will its depraved crew. If I were a Spanish citizen, I would have spent more than a few siestas pondering that fact alone.” First, it was “flypaper”. Now Iraq is a “sinking ship”, and presumably terrorists are less intelligent than rats. (Odd metaphor for a success scenario, when you think about it) Next it will be hopefully labelled a black hole, or maybe a strange attractor. But I suspect when the Spanish take their siestas, the fact that Madrid is not located in Iraq is one of the things they ponder.

By: james

james — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:47:36 +0000

a differant chris, “Our right wing friends… See you in November.” If I did have vote in US elections – which as a European I don’t – I would probably vote for Kerry, regardless of whether there was an attack or not. Chris Bertram’s latest post touches on the tiresome tendency of American debate – which nonetheless evidently remains good enough to retain the interest of foreigners like him and me – to percieve matters through the partisan-electoral prism. Maybe Glenn Reynolds or Andrew Sullivan are using this to support Bush’s re-election – I don’t know. But I would have thought that regardless of which side in an election you want to win, one would be somewhat squeamish at the thought of the result being determined by deliberate blackmail in the form of a terrorist attack. Similarly one might support, say, France or Germany, in opposing the war in Iraq – but one wouldn’t like to think they were doing so in order to let others bear the burden of the terrorist threat, rather than on more principled grounds. It’s disastrous because it gives a boost to the terrorists, it demonstrates their effectiveness to, and bolsters their standing among, their actual and potential supporters and it surely increases tremendously the chances of attacks against other countries in the days running up to their elections. So, no, the results are not entirely positive, even if Bin Laden wouldn’t have surrendered if the election result had been uneffected, as your asinine rhetorical question has it.

By: robbo

robbo — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 16:47:35 +0000

Hi Sebastian, “Precisely how much time did you expect it would take to make any non-Israel Middle Eastern country democratic?” Five years, five months. Of course, real “democracy” means the people get to decide a lot of central things about their own government. Do you think our actions over there have inclined people to want a government that licks American boot? The only way it makes sense for us to spend our lives and billions on Iraq is if we succeed in installing a secular regime friendly to American interests. The story we’re asked to swallow is that this equals “democracy.” And if you think George Bush and crew believe their own party line about this you’re simply deluded. “And what precisely is your preffered method of dealing with Arab countries?” According to the UN charter and simple common sense. I would not spend hundreds of billions of my own dollars to undertake a clumsy bombing and occupation, get caught spying on members of the UN Security Counceil, falsify the reasons for my pre-emptive war, fail to understand that fighting a pre-emptive war on false grounds is incredibly de-stabilizing around the world, etc. etc. Oh, are you asking me what, precisely, I would have done sitting in the Oval Office? Sorry, Sebastian, a man’s got to know his limits. I’m a biologist, not a statesman. With the division of labor in modern society, I pay taxes that go to pay hefty salaries to diplomats, military leaders, and politicians who specialize in that sort of thing. I expect them to devise solutions that make my great country safer, stronger, and more widely respected around the world. Is your point that unless I devise a superior plan that I should just shut up? “Would you prefer that we support dictators who say they are on our side? Shall we install Middle Eastern Pinochets?” We are the 800 pound gorilla of geopolitics. It behooves us to be much smarter than George Bush and his crew have shown themselves to be. I have not choice but to let the high-level diplomats and politicians decide how we will deal with the Middle East and its problems. Sometimes this means maintaining alliances with those we’d rather disassociate from. But can we just be smarter about it? “All whine, all the time. Just what I expect from the left.” George Bush has been an abject failure in just about every area of foreign and domestic policy. That’s why he has nothing to run on now except for the dead bodies of 9/11 and defense of heterosexual marriage. If you come up with something he’s done exceptionally well I suggest you let the RNC know about it pronto, so that they can put together an advertisement that lets people know. A lot of us see only incompetence and corruption in this administration, and our wining is only going to get louder and louder.