Comments on: Thoughts in my pocket like grains of sand

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:19:50 +0000

Well, to make on thing clear: again I’m all for debate, and love hearing criticism of the occupation effort from those who believe it is fundamentally important. I agree that on a tactical level there have been major setbacks. But here’s where you’re misreading me. When I say that Zapatero’s line was foolish, and that it hampers efforts in Iraq (I’ll drop the ‘symbolic’ tag), I’m not saying that Spain shouldn’t have a say in the reconstruction, or that the Bush line is the only line. If Spain were to come forth and strongly suggest a new direction of progress, say a reversion to the pre-Ramadan 7 points, then I’ll think fine that’s a worthy contribution to the political debate (of course, even if Bush disagrees with it) But when Zapatero comes out and calls the entire effort a fiasco, a statement that the majority of Iraqis would even disagree with, I can’t help but think that he’s callously playing with the lives of Iraqis for political benefit. Zapetero’s line is foolish; it is nothing but empty cynicism to dampen worldwide support for reconstruction. By calling the occupation a fiasco he is putting it in a very unpopular light, and the last thing the Iraqi people need are more members of the “peace movement” holding up “end the military occupation now” signs, oblivious to the fact that this so-called occupation is the best opportunity the Iraqi people have had in decades. And as I explained above, by calling a line foolish I am not ever implying that the world should unyieldingly follow Bush’s orders—I don’t even agree with Bush, particularly concerning his all-to-convenient June 30th pullout date. But by vocally criticizing the June 30th pullout date, am I hampering efforts in Iraq? Not at all, I’m just pushing for a better reconstruction. And Zapatero? When he calls the occupation a fiasco (a patently false statement), what is he accomplishing? Is he out there providing better suggestions for reconstruction, or just throwing political red meat to his base at the expense of the Iraqi people? (For fairness in the above comparison, graciously ignore the fact that my voice is far far less audible or important than Zapatero’s…) PS. I know very well it’s not just about America. It’s about Iraq first and foremost.

By: mc

mc — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:22:05 +0000

PS - read: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh031904.shtml

By: mc

mc — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 13:09:56 +0000

rajeev: I’m not having any fight at all, I’m perfectly cheerful, thank you very much. I just find it so striking you keep dismissing as “irrelevant” the very factors that most directly characterised the Spanish elections – the 42%-38% results, Aznar’s behaviour after the attacks, the whole background of Spanish politics, the fact June 30 was already scheduled to mark UN contribution, which reduces Zapatero’s announcement to a mere rhetorical trick, and no hampering at all – if you see UN intervention itself as hampering, then blame the US for making that decision. You dissmiss all of those facts and keep insisting there is going to be “hampering” of efforts in Iraq. That just looks very obtuse and short-sighted on your part. What’s ‘symbolical’ hampering? There’s either real hampering, or not. Right now, the real hampering to efforts to rebuild Iraq comes from terrorists and religious fundamentalists, and that raises more questions on how exactly that rebuilding should be managed – that is very much an open issue, no matter what one thought of the war. Recall his line: “La ocupación está siendo un fiasco.” If Zapatero stays in for the long-haul, if he shows a commitment to Iraq, then that’s terrific — but why damage everything with such foolish rhetoric? Oh, excuse me, so you’re saying no politicians should express the opinion that the intervention in Iraq didn’t produce good results? You may not agree with that conclusion, but it’s a perfectly legitimate line. You can’t say that it’s foolish, otherwise you’re demanding that everyone has only one opinion, one position, and one that is necessarily of 100% approval of how the US is managing the situation in Iraq. Now that kind of demand is foolish, and completely ignores the nature of political debate. Besides, aren’t there political forces in the US who are also saying the very same thing as in that Zapatero line? Should they all say things are perfect? Where would the debate be? It doesn’t matter what you think is the most sensible view. You can’t assume that a view you do not consider sensible equals “hampering” efforts or favouring terrorists; you can’t assume there’s only one way to fight terrorism or deal with the million issues about democracy in Iraq, one policy that is right, and that it coincides with the current US one. Otherwise, you’re saying bye bye to the very essence of political debates in democracies. Even if you fundamentally approve of the US approach in Iraq (and I do too, for instance – emphasis on fundamentally), you’ll have to concede there’s room for discussion and improvement? Especially since more than one country is involved, and everyone has to factor in the consequences that intervention in Iraq has had or will have on their own country, not just on Iraq and the world at large. That’s what I meant by not demanding Spain simply takes orders from Washington. They have a right to have a say too. Even if it differs from the Bush party line. This is not just about America, you know.

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 05:04:35 +0000

Cheer up MC, let's not turn this into a barfight. You're putting positions in my mouth that I never claimed. I have the upmost respect for Spanish democracy, and would never insinuate that their political process should be undermined by Washington. But this does not prevent me from calling their decision short-sighted -- so please restrain yourself from caricaturing my every word. It doesn't make for a productive argument. Now: I agree with you that we should be grateful for the Spanish contribution so far; I agree with you about the 4%, about all of these wonderful things. Yet they are all irrelevant to the point I am trying to make, which is that any decision to hamper efforts in Iraq is myopic because of the all-important conflict taking place in that country. I am claiming that Zapatero has been symbolically hampering efforts in Iraq. His statements have been geared toward diminishing public support for reconstruction. Recall his line: "La ocupación está siendo un fiasco." If Zapatero stays in for the long-haul, if he shows a commitment to Iraq, then that's terrific -- but why damage everything with such foolish rhetoric?

By: mc

mc — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:10:29 +0000

rajeev: but so far there has not been, or been enforced, any decision to hamper anything at all. Will you consider the facts for once? Zapatero says, we pull out on 30 June unless the situation changes. 30 June is when the whole situation with the military in Iraq was already scheduled to change to include UN and NATO contribution. Unless Zapatero’s next move is “threatening” to pull out unless they get Bob Geldof and Bono and Elton John involved as well, I don’t see where the hampering is? But ok, let’s assume Spain has already pulled out – which it hasn’t, but let’s assume. They’ve been there one whole year,right? Now, I suppose expecting an “ok, fair enough, and thank you guys for all you contributed so far!” may be too much, but, even if what is going to change after 30 June was not already scheduled to change… … is it or is it not the Spanish new government’s sacrosanct right to enforce their own policies on their own military and decide one year of presence is enough? Or are they supposed to take orders directly from Washington? No really, the nerve. – and again, what Zapatero described as “withdrawal or UN” is exactly what has already been announced by Rumsfeld & co. Just try and fit that little factoid into your tunnel vision, maybe.

By: W. Kiernan

W. Kiernan — Sat, 20 Mar 2004 18:39:39 +0000

mario sez: Let’s say that there is an attack on our embassy in Vienna by a previously unknown terrorist group. Subsequently, we locate a substantial training ground for this group in India, but the Indian government will not allow us to attack it. I believe that Bush would attack that camp anyway and that Kerry would not. Your supposition is hypothetical; nine-eleven was real. I think you’re fantasising. When, if I am wrong, can we expect Not-to-be-Dissuaded Battle Action Bush to send our troops roaring into North Pakistan, to the devil with what Musharref thinks, to whip up on them Al Qaida fellows?

By: Rajeev Advani

Rajeev Advani — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 18:05:17 +0000

MC: Any decision, whether by the US or Spain or any other country, to hamper the efforts at reconstruction in Iraq—even symbolically as Spain did—are short-sighted. It doesn’t matter if the decision is made by a democracy, a dictator, or an alien authority from Mars. And when I call the Spanish short-sighted, of course I’m referring only to those who desire a troop pull-out. I’m glad you expressed yourself non-delicately, by the way.

By: dave heasman

dave heasman — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 17:43:08 +0000

Chris Lawrence says ” Iraq’s tolerance of AQ affiliate Ansar al-Islam within its sovereign borders” which is enough to ignore anything else he writes. These are weasel words. The camp was within Iraq’s birders all right but it was in the Kurdish autonomous region which was protected by the no-fly zone. There was no way that Saddam’s forces could do anything about that camp. And this is common knowledge. Any effort to associate the Saddam regime with this camp has to be assumed to be deliberately dishonest. Patrick NH seems to be right.

By: mc

mc — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 09:26:47 +0000

Matt Weiner: Iraq did not fund the anti-American terrorists. Those of you who are taking this line should be asking why Bush hasn’t confronted Saudi Arabia. Shhh… Don’t even go there. Forbidden entry. Though, Iraq did fund some terrorist groups, it seems. Gave refuge to a few most wanted items too. But yeah, the Saudi issue is very thorny. To say the least. rajeev: On 3b: Calling an entire nation cowardly, short-sighted, and silly is still not contempt for democracy. Pretending that a democracy is so delicate that it cannot stand these comments both insults and belittles the democracy in question. The point of democracy is open controversy, so let them have it. Enough rules about what constitutes “fair discourse.” Hmm, I think you missed the point. Personally I don’t care if anyone ‘insults’ Spain or any other country I am attached to or live in or whatever. It’s not a matter of being delicate and fair discourse as in having to be gentle and corny about one’s political opinions. It’s a matter of what makes sense and what doesn’t. You tell me, when there’s two big parties coming so close in elections, and getting a difference of only 4%, what sense does it make to be so damn certain that the terrorist attacks swinged the vote? And what sense does it make to ignore the fact Aznar alienated many people with his ETA-blaming coverup attempt? What sense does it make to ignore that after 8 years at the government, the PP stood a high change to be ousted anyway? What sense does it make to ignore Zapatero’s sly annoucenemnt on troops withdrawal doesn’t change a thing about Iraq or Spain’s position, since the whole current operation in Iraq will have changed already by June 30, as that’s precisely the date when the UN and NATO take over and more control is handed to Iraqi forces? Or is that decision short-sighted too? But it’s a decision the US took. So, ok, it’s not “contempt for democracy” to ignore all that and say the Spanish vote was appeasement to Al Qaeda, victory for Al Qaeda, or even “short-sighted”. It’s just plain nonsense and ignorance. To put it non-delicately, as you asked.

By: marky

marky — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:47:32 +0000

Reading Roger’s post brought a question to mind: Is Chalabi an Iranian agent? I’ve seen that accusation bandied about a few times, but not with any evidence attached. On the other hand, his actions are consistent with being an Iranian agent. Is there anything solid on this question?

By: Marky

Marky — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 03:41:01 +0000

Just a quick thought, sebastian: If you’re not going to be intellectually honest, please don’t respond to me. I didn’t say I was referring only to Sharon’s actions as P.M. Sharon has a 50 year record of butchering Arabs, as you well know. While he wasn’t prime minister in the early 80’s, he was a general, and had authority when Israeli troops allowed the Phalangists to massacre Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla. The record from BEFORE Sharon became prime minister showed what kind of leader he would be. Actually, don’t bother trying to be factually accurate, because I likely won’t be reading your messages in the future. Just for the record, the Israelis droppped a bomb on an apartment building solely because a certain person was living there, not because of a bomb factory. Also, there have been public assassinations by helicopters which have resulted in high civilian casualty rates. Discussing the proper response to terrorism with people who insist on lying about the facts is not helpful. Chris, you mentioned that Al Qaeda fighters have been attracted to Iraq. Just curious, but is Madrid a city in Iraq? The evidence that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq is spotty at best. As a matter of fact, the implication of the Zarqawi letter from a few weeks ago is that Al Qaeda is having difficulty operating in Iraq. The name for the theory you have about Iraq is the “flypaper” theory, which the Bush administration was touting with great fervor several months ago. While I’m aware of many thousands of casualties in Iraq since the end of the war, I’m not aware of a single member of Al Qaeda being caught in Iraq. It makes me stop to think—-what about you?

By: Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Patrick Nielsen Hayden — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 02:08:03 +0000

“The argument that the right is showing contempt for democracy by decrying the results of the Spanish election is silly.” Dunno about that. In a cab today, I listened to some woman on Fox News Radio explaining how the Europeans are fundamentally different from us Americans. They don’t believe in nation-states! They think their rights come from [heavy contempt here] lawmakers, rather than being a gift from God! Of course, to deride “lawmakers” like that is an incredibly effective way to undercut the basic idea of democracy, which is that everyday people ought to have a say in their destiny. Those crazy Europeans with their belief in “lawmakers”, as opposed to God. “it was easy to believe that we were all basically on the same side. [...] Fundamentally, I still believe that.” I don’t. I think there’s a powerful coalition of people in modern America that explicitly means to do me and mine harm. I think that’s true even of many of the people who get praised as “civil” by that nice Ted Barlow. I no longer believe that more than a fraction of these people actually think we’re all “basically on the same side.” I think they regard us, all we own and all our work and all we’ve built as a civil society that once valued public-spiritedness and cooperation and other suspiciously socialistic ideals, as lunch.

By: roger

roger — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 01:16:25 +0000

Chris, your argument with me seems to be with things other people have said, instead of me. “One of the great mysteries to me, is how some can blame the current administratin for being to ‘gun ho and unilateralist’ and yet in the next breathe say that they aren’t doing enough.” Well, it turns out I’m not ‘some.’ Not to pick on Roger, but PUH-LEESE—don’t respond to my comments by attributing to me what other people say. In fact, my personal views recede before the facts of the case. One thing you got right, however. Bush’s problem is a mix. On the one hand, not gung ho enough, on the other hand, gung ho in the wrong direction. 1. The distinction between military and law enforcement methods is a bit bogus. Both depending on eliminating perpetrators of terrorist acts. One is simply a more intense method that uses all the equipment and forms of the military to battle terrorists—the other uses methods of detection, employs, sporadically, paramilitary units, and is not as uniform in the pressure it brings against a terrorist force. Both, really, are needed. Tough talk by the right disguises the fact that Bush has abjectly ceded the ground to law enforcement methods against Al Q. because he missed the opening to use the advantage accrued by having overwhelming force on the ground. This is simple, it is decisive, and the result has been, as anybody could have predicted, the resurgence of terrorist activity, such that wiping out Al Q. now will probably only dent the dispersed group. 2. However, your description of the situation in Afghanistan in 2002 is pure fantasy,from your own notion of what is entailed by police action to what is entailed by military action. “To me, there is a big difference between policing someone and investigating crimes/attacks after the fact (a tact that Keer seems more likely to take) vs. continuing to pursue with military means.” Say what? In the next sentence, you then describe our continuing activity in Afghanistan as—precisely—police activity, on the model of American police cooperation in Colombia, which is what Kerry has talked about in the past: “I am Sure, we would love to have AQ come out ‘in the open’ in Afghanistan, so we could engage our superior fire power. But the reality is, they have withdrawn to a different country (Pakistan) and we have chosen not to pursue into a region that is not friendly to the Us and our troops (seems like a smart thing to me). No need to press and risk your people lives unnecesarilly.” So you are totally against those bad law enforcement methods, and you are also totally for them. Huh, let’s see, whose lives are at risk? I count the people of Riyadh, Baghdad, Istanbul and Madrid so far. As well as a continuing insurgency in Afghanistan. But a “friendly power” (that just happened to create and put in place the Taliban) has to be respected, while Iraq has to be invaded. Wow, I love this logic. It is like the joke about the guy who lost his wallet in a dark alley, so he went into a lighted street to find it, because the illumination is better. 3. “Roger than goes on to blame the current administration for not being aggresive enough in stomping out terror worldwide. ‘… As a military matter, though, Al Q.’s surprisingly easy time in recruiting a group of Moroccans to produce chaos and destruction in the heart of one of the coalition allies speaks volumes about the failure of the Bush administration to roll up terrorist networks. As does the proceeding hits on Istanbul, Casablanca and Riyadh.’So Roger, were not doing enough? So, we should take the fight where ever it goes? Even onto allies lands? Should we be the force of good all over the world? Should we be the world’s police? Their military protector?” Actually, Chris, you have spotted the fatal flaw in relying entirely on the military option to combat Terrorism. Welcome to the real world. Here, we should have been much more aggresive in setting up an association between our law enforcement forces and those of other countries to track down and get terrorists. Perhaps we could have used the 200 million to 400 million we’ve overpayed Halliburton to do this. 4. The war in Iraq was a huge mistake, but it happened. Kerry, as well as any american president, can’t get out of it. First of all, the U.S. interests in the Middle East would take a hit that would be extremely bad for the U.S. economy. Thus, he has every reason to proceed with setting up a nation there that at least has a semblance of a friendly relationship with the U.S. On the other hand, there is no point in trying to set up one that reflects Bush’s conservative ideology, with private enterprise for all, and its hostility to Iran and Syria. The former idea has been abandoned by the Bushies, finally; the latter is the last gasp of a neocon strategy that never did make any sense. As for the War in Iraq being the same as the war on terrorism—if this is true, Bush’s administration has been astonishing incompetent in preparing to fight it on both fronts, with 400 billion dollars at its disposal, and should be voted out for their numerous and critical failures; if false, they have diverted critical forces at a critical time from a fight we can’t avoid, due to a failure of policy and imagination. They’ve made all Western nations more unsafe, and they respond to their massive failure to secure us by accusing those who point this out of appeasement. Got to get rid of these people, Chris.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 19 Mar 2004 00:44:58 +0000

“A reasonable person can look at Sharon’s record, which for 50 years has been that no opportunity for escalation of hostilities must be unmet, and could come away thinking that Sharon doesn’t have much to offer besides bloodshed.” I’m sorry were you talking about Sharon’s record? I was talking about an unfortunate habit of ‘yes, but’ that I saw people employ in the late 1990s. Sharon wasn’t in power then. In fact I believe a government that tried to give the Palestinians their own homeland was in power then. They were repaid for their efforts with the renewed intifada. ONLY THEN was Sharon elected to power. It helps to get the timeline straight. It is easier, however, to keep track of when Arafat has been in power. Power hungry dictators who kill off their opposition tend to have some staying power There is a reason why the PLO terrorists put their bomb factories in the same buildings as civilians. It is so they can get you to beat up on the Israelis when they act against the PLO. Mighty clever aren’t they?

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 18 Mar 2004 22:34:43 +0000

For marky: You asked, ‘Chris, If you’re going to be pissy about supposed logical errors, why are you unable to grasp that an administration that is gung-ho unilateralist is not necessarily acting strongly against terror? The unilateral decision to attack Iraq has been compared to some of the worst strategic decisions in military history, and has not aided on bit in the hunt for Al Qaeda.’ While I will respect that the above may be your opinion on the matter, it is factually incorrect. By definition, unilateralist means; ‘A tendency of nations to conduct their foreign affairs individualistically, characterized by minimal consultation and involvement with other nations, even their allies.’ Now, you may feel that what was done in Iraq was unilateral, but you would be wrong. As I previsouly mentioned, there are more than 30+ countries involved in the ‘coalition’: some provide troops (e.g. England, Australia, Poland, Spain), some provide use of bases and air rights (e.g. Turkey, Germany, Kuwait, etc.) and some provide intangibles such as Intelligene (e.g. Pakistan). In addition, there was substantial consultation on the issue of Iraq. Substantial efforts were made to get a consensus opinion. But, just as you and I might not agree on all issues, the UN was unable to see eye to eye on this issue. Now, you may feel that without a UN Resolution, that we do not have legitimacy in Iraq. Again, that is an opinion and this being a free country – you are entitled to that opinion. So I have clearly showed that the actions taken were not unilateralist! Now, as to you saying that, ‘decision to attack Iraq has been compared to some of the worst strategic decisions in military history.’ I am not sure where you got this from, if you have a specific reference then please present it. Otherwise, I will take that as another opinion of yours and not based upon facts. How, from a military execution perspective, would someone possibly be able say that it was a bad decision? It was one of the swiftest battles in history, the casualty rate was incredibly low (especially if you look at the combat related fatalities vs. total fatalities) and we accomlished our missions goals ahead of schedule. Now, you may feel that ‘strategically’ it was bad, but I am not sure I understand what you mean by ‘strategically’? I would argue (and I previsouly have) that it was a very smart strategic decision because it moved the front line of the WOT out of your and my neighborhood and into a theatre of combat that we better equiped to fight on. Again, you may disagree, but I don’t see you presenting any evidence to support your assertion (although the lack of domestic attacks and our success in killing foreign fighters lends credence to my arguement). Finally, you state that the war in Iraq has not aided us ‘one bit in the hunt for Al Qaeda’. Again, I will have to respectfully disagree. I think that by attracting Al Qaeda fighters to Iraq, to do battle with our troops, we have slowed them in the execution of their plans (here I assuming that they have further plans to kill all infidels as they have previously stated). Yes, there have been some recent spectacular attacks by Al Qaeda cells (namely Spain), but logically one can deduce that if we are engaging 20%, 30% or 40% of their supporters in the Iraq theatre of battle, those same people are not able to follow through in their plans of blowing up another major target outside of that theatre. Now, in addition to that, I feel that there are opportunities for us to capture Al Qaeda members in the Iraq theatre and interrogate them – possibly leading to breakthroughs in hunting down their leadership (such as Bin Laden). This may seem like a strategic misstep to you, but then I would ask, ‘what would you propose we do to addres not only terrorist organizations, but also terrorist states?’