Comments on: Wars against evil

By: No Preference

No Preference — Wed, 17 Mar 2004 04:16:51 +0000

Which agendas are misguided, and why is mistrust of them “rightful” Bush's National Security Strategy for the US with its vision of US world dominance through military supremacy; endorsement of "preventive war"; and contempt for multilateralism is misguided. The notion that we have some right to transform the Middle East by force is misguided; it's actually an Israeli idea. Why worldwide popularity polls should matter regarding policy has never been clear to me. No country can take on the rest of the world and win. Even, in fact, a Worse Thing Than War. Have you been in a war? Actually, the best response to you is an excerpt from Juan Cole's post Did al-Qaeda Win the Spanish Elections? . . .No, it is a defeat only for the Bush administration and the Neoconservative philosophy of Perpetual War. They hold that the US, the UK and Turkey are the only permanent allies and shifting coalitions "of the willing" are put together for particular wars, depending on who can be cajoled, bribed or bamboozled into joining up. This system of US-led shifting coalitions removes all restraint on US militarism. If you have permanent allies, like Germany and France, you might have to pay attention to them. If all you have is a shifting coalition, you can do what you please when you please. Multilateralists are like a set of married couples who are old friends; the Neocons' unilateral superpower is like Hugh Hefner, surrounded by a constantly changing bevy of hand-picked "girlfriends." Unfortunately for this adolescent power fantasy, the real world does not reward naked power and action solely in self-interest. NATO and the United Nations have hung the US out to dry in Iraq, ensuring that its troops take the brunt of the ongoing insurgency.

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 23:40:42 +0000

no preference: Which agendas are misguided, and why is mistrust of them “rightful”, particularly? Why worldwide popularity polls should matter regarding policy has never been clear to me. Winning the cold war was “unpopular” in Europe, if I recall, was it not? “Arguably”, Bush’s policy created more terrorists than it has killed/captured/deterred? Well, let’s hear the argument. Ideally one with some sources. And are these new terrorists “kids who don’t like America because a bomb killed their pet goat”, replacing “trained and battle-hardened muj veterans or bombmakers trained by the best international islamism has to offer”? Quality matters, too. (Though I doubt the actual number has increased; if it’s even remained the same, quality is almsot certain to have decreased.) (Henry: The Vietnam war was defensible to the end, even if some few specific methods of fighting it might not have been. But, hey, I’ve always been of the crazy idea that Communist dictatorship is a Bad Thing. Even, in fact, a Worse Thing Than War. I imagine many, nay most, of those killed in the post-war purges would agree.)

By: No Preference

No Preference — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 21:36:46 +0000

I think that Spain will likely “vigorously attack Islamist terrorism” by pursuing the people who committed the bombings, and following up closely with related countries like Morocco. Drama is not always good. It may be better to have an undramatic foreign policy than a “foreign policy designed to deal with Islamist terrorism” like Bush’s, which arguably has created more terrorists than it has eliminated. Perhaps the Spanish people have clicked to that. If so, good for them. It’s not that I don’t think that Islamic terrorism is a problem. It’s that I think that the Bush “War on Terrorism” is really a bundle of different agendas, some of them very misguided, that the rest of the world rightly distrusts. A new poll from the Pew Research Center just came out that shows that Bush is viewed favorably in only one of nine countries surveyed. That country is the US. A Year After the Iraq War.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 20:41:28 +0000

No preference, Saudi Arabia is also the number one monetary sponsor. But no, of course I’m not suggesting that Spain, or anyone attack Saudi Arabia. I understand the symbolism of ‘defenders of Mecca and Medina’. I’m saying that the Socialist Party has no foreign policy designed to deal with Islamist terrorism. Withdrawing from Iraq isn’t fighting terrorism. Even if you believe that Iraq is irrelevant it doesn’t count as fighting against terrorism. The Socialist government cannot effectively dispel the notion of appeasement while announcing their dramatic foreign policy change because the only way to do so would be to vigorously attack Islamist terrorism in some other way. They have no foreign policy options which let them do so.

By: No Preference

No Preference — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:54:27 +0000

I guess my only hope is that Spain will take clear action in other fronts. But what? Are they going to spearhead an attack on Saudi Arabia? Even politically? I doubt it. Are they going to take dramatic action against Pakistan? No. sebastian, how does fighting terrorism equate to waging war on Saudi Arabia? The Saudi regime is the number one target of Osama bin Laden. It looks as though you buy into the notion of a civilizational struggle as advertised by the neocons. This is insane. Think for a minute – what would the effect of an unprovoked attack on Saudi Arabia, home of Mecca and Medina, have on Muslim opinion worldwide?

By: No Preference

No Preference — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 18:53:24 +0000

Juan Cole has a trenchant post today that effectively answers the argument that the election in Spain was a victory for al Qaeda. The election was a blow to Bush’s so-called “War on Terror”, but very likely a victory for sane resistance to terror. If so, al Qaeda will find the election results to be a very expensive “victory” in the long term.

By: Christophe B.

Christophe B. — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 06:46:16 +0000

Neudoxis is probably right. In the long term, the Islamists would dearly love to reverse their "defeat" at the hands of the crusaders, but their short term goal is to eliminate what they see as our proxy in the Middle East, the sons of apes, i.e. Israel. It is at once a harder target but a more attainable goal. And, paradoxically, it can be accomplished, or at least advanced, by attacking the more pliable crusaders. The question is, who's next?

By: Matt McIrvin

Matt McIrvin — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:24:03 +0000

The warblogger outrage over the Spain vote establishes that terrorists can easily destroy the United States by attacking us whenever we do something stupid or self-destructive. Then we’ll be morally obligated to continue, indeed intensify, those self-destructive policies in order not to be capitulating to the terrorists. It’s diabolically clever! Watch me hit myself with this brick!

By: brian

brian — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 04:03:13 +0000

Anon, your observation about the good intenions of the vast majority of Muslim people is correct and does you credit, but if we are concerned about further acts of violence, then it is the small minority harboring thoroughly ROTTEN intentions who we should be concerned about. The fact is, AQ’s demands require active acquiesence on the part of the West; simply laying low as you suggest won’t cut it, and I’m afraid attacks would only continue. Catching the terrorists is a no-brainer (we are in agreement), but given the track record so far, thats not always gonna work. In the end, the best we can do (aside from refreaining from bone-headed policies which inflame the situation—I agree with you there as well) is to make the act of terrorism as futile and difficult as possible, and therein lies the problem with the Spanish election. Now, if I were asked to blow myself up, I’d want to know I was accomplishing something (killing tourists wouldn’t be enough). But, hey, shifting the course of an entire nation by influencing its democratic process—boy there’s something worth dying for (if you’re inclined toward that sort of thing). We can debate whether or not this is a correct assessment, but, sadly, this is one debate where someone is going to get proven right or wrong. Elections are regular events. Either the bombs go off or they don’t.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 03:23:27 +0000

John Bragg, good to see you! Here’s my take on it: I don’t care what those f****rs think. They’re terrorists; their opinions are worthless to me. I think it starts and ends there. C.

By: neudoxis

neudoxis — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 02:15:47 +0000

Muslims are not champing at the bit to viciously attack Europe. They are champing at the bit to viciously attack Israel. Spain has been cowed into fully accepting a neutral stance no matter what the Muslims will do against Israel (or the United States). As Europe is learning that a vocal detachment of the US is, by itself, not sufficient for peace from the militant factions of Muslims, she will take it a step further and allow the destruction of Israel for final “appeasement”. The Spaniards voted to protect themselves. It was in their short term interest to do so. They will likely see no further violence from Al Qaeda directed them. Europe wants peace for itself above all. But, woe! At what future cost to the world!

By: anon

anon — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 01:15:11 +0000

Sebastian, I find myself frustrated by your seeming imperviousness to logic and rationality when it comes to “war on terror” issues. The battle is indeed for “hearts and minds” in the Moslem world. But you seem to be assuming that the uncommitted masses in the Moslem world are slavering at the bit to engage the West violently, and need only the most minor evidence of “weakness” to do it. In other words, you are assuming that the Muslim majority are already your enemies and are kept in check only by their own cowardice. Once you buy this script then war and violence are the only way to go. The “rationality” of war is just the playing out of the implicit assumption that the whole world is your enemy and is disciplined only by fear. How about this instead: the great majority of Muslims in the world just want to live their lives, like the majority of people anywhere else. Al Qaeda is a small fanatical minority within the Muslim world that is trying to convince the rest of the Muslim population that Western Christians will not let Muslims live their lives in peace, so that Muslims must defend themselves. Their major recruiting tool is Western intervention in the Muslim world. The more there is of it, the more radicalized the Muslim population becomes, the more reasonable Al Qaeda looks and the more recruiting they can do. The best tactic against this is viciously punishing actual terrorists when they are found and leaving the rest of the Muslim world alone. By electing a government that wants to pull out of Iraq, in accordance with the wishes of the great majority of the Spanish population (who also just want to live their lives), Spain may well be pursuing a more rational anti-terror strategy than we have been. You say you are a libertarian. Yet you seem to have little appreciation for the many benefits of just leaving other people in distant lands the hell alone. Unless, of course, they, personally, actually are terrorists.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:42:22 +0000

I’m confused. We moved the airbases and command structure before the war. We phased almost all of our troops into Kuwait before the war. Did we withdraw from Saudi Arabia in response to 9-11? No. We did it because Saudi Arabia chose not to be helpful in the war on terror or against Iraq (as if they were cleanly different). Did Spain announce their withdrawal in response to M11, absolutely. And even if they did not the 72 hour timing is such that Al Qaeda still gets a total win out of it.

By: Matt Weiner

Matt Weiner — Tue, 16 Mar 2004 00:22:12 +0000

Sebastain, you’re putting the cart before the horse. Many people say that one of the benefits of invading Iraq was to enable us to get our troops out of Saudi Arabia. See the Jacob T. Levy post that Henry links—and one of the points JTL cites is that the troops were an irritant that helped Al-Qaeda recruitment.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Mon, 15 Mar 2004 23:41:02 +0000

RDB, the Spanish can elect whomever they choose. It is the circumstances of their choice and the reversal of their choice based on 200 murders that makes it a victory for Al Qaeda. Are you suggesting that US troops left for a purpose other than invading Iraq? If you would care to explain I would be happy to engage. But before you begin, remember that bin Laden acts as if Iraq is part of the war on terror even if you choose to believe that it is not.