Maybe we don't believe that so-called radical jihadism is a serious threat. It is certainly not an existential one. Do you think Europe defines itself in relation to terrorism? I think not, yet they have suffered many more terrorist attacks than the US.

Hey Kevin Drum,

Since you're still up and posting, would you please go back to the prior post's comments and get rid of all the off-topic 500 line posts that were used to try to kill off the discussion of Joe Lieberman?

While you're at it, slim needs booting.

Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism.

What that a gang of thugs and well funded "mafia" get a few lucky hits on us every decade?

In all reality, that's what it is. It's not the billions of people guning for us like the right would have you believe.

Of course, one of those lucky hits could be nuclear or biological, so we have to work hard to protect against that.. but going out and pretending it's WWIII isn't working too well for us now, is it? And it plays right into the hands of the Osama "bosses" of the world.

But, yes, perception is reality, and just as there was no missile gap inthe 50's, people believed it. We, as a party, do need to address this coherently.

Thanks,

Mike

Well, I think part of it is true, in that most Democrats are more interested in domestic policy, which is odd becuase in 2004 Kerry beat Bush by almost 20 points among Americans who own a passport. This is true. You'd think with our worldly tendencies we'd be more interested in world affairs. Yet we're more comfortable talking about health care and education.

But the other half of it is that it's hard to separate the war on terror from George Bush. And George Bush pisses us off. Every time we want to talk about terrorism, we have to confront the fact that Bush is and will be president for the forseeable future, and will continue to screw things up.

At least that's how I handle it, and I blog a lot (relatively speaking) about foreign policy & GWOT stuff.

This is a total non-sequitur - the liberal blogosphere has almost no influence in terms of 'substantively defeating jihadism'. Expecting "them" (whoever they are) to "talk about it" (whatever that would constitute) in order to prove they are "serious" (in whoever's eyes) is silly. The liberal blogosphere apparently has a mild capacity to contribute to the replacement of politicians with odious views with better leaders. Maybe that's why that's a major topic of discussion.

I think you are right and I think that is a bit of a problem, but it is easy to see why. Bush and company spend so much time trying to amplify the severity of the problem no one wants add fuel to the flame. Combine that with the tribalism we all fall into from time to time and you almost convince yourself if Bush says one thing the opposite must be true.

I've noticed even serious, relatively hawkish bloggers as yourself and Josh fall into this cone of silence more often than not. It's hard.

If you have followed the causes of the attacks on the US, it dates back to our involvement with troops on the ground in Lebanon in the early 1980's. We were warned, over and over again, by the terrorist elements that they found this totally unacceptable. So, we started suffering terrorist attacks in a big way with the attack on the Marine's barracks in Beruit at that time. We pulled OUT of Lebanon in response to those terrorist attacks. Did anyone call Reagan a cut-and-runner? No.

Then, we led the coalition to oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1991, and in doing so parked thousands of troops, again, on holy soil in the middle east, this time in Saudi Arabia. Big No No. So, we started getting attacked in a BIG way. The first WTC bombing, etc., culminating in 9/11/2001.

Please note that after 9/11, we actually, and finally, pulled our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Funny, that.

There is a solution here. Pull our troops off the ground in Arab lands and the terrorism will stop, perhaps gradually. However, we need to project power in the region due to our dependence on their oil, so.... we've got a conflict. We used to just project power there with our carrier groups, which didn't anger the religious factions.

Read what Osama has said and written. It's all there, and those who study him for a living say he is remarkably transparent; he does what he says he'll do.

So, pull out the troops. It will stop. It has worked before.

I always do this thought experiment when considering this problem. Imagine that our country was occupied by Chinese troops. That they patrolled our streets, came into our houses. Bombed our cities. Etc. How would we feel about the Chinese?

aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it.

In the absence of any actual ability to influence policy, any discussion by the left of what to do about radical jihadism will just be a meaningless gafest in which everyone and his uncle offers his foolproof plan, which is vastly superior to everyone else's plan for the following 50 reasons.

We know this is what happens, because it is what happened to the left's end of the discussion of said struggle against radical jihadism from Sept. 12, 2001 through November 2004. Everybody has ideas, but they're all rendered meaningless by the continuous flow of policy blunders executed by the other side, which is utterly uninterested in what the left thinks ought to be done.

The final blow to such discussion was the invasion of Iraq, a mistake so colossal and which has so altered the terms of debate that it renders it difficult for anyone on the left to do much but shrug their shoulders and say "we told you so". What is the point, progressives feel, of continuing to think and argue about this, when our recommendations will end up in the "what-ifs" drawer, next to "what if Kennedy had lived and pulled out of Vietnam?"

There are, of course, very many serious people who would have great influence in a Democratic administration who are discussing alternative approaches to the struggle against radical jihadism. I would look at the International Crisis Group and CFR to start. But to demand that left bloggers spend their screen space on serious discussions about this issue is just ridiculous. Ask the Republican blogosphere for a serious proposal to cut the deficit or carbon dioxide emissions. They're the ones with the power to do something about it.

Part of the problem with facing up to the threat of radical jihadism is that we don't have a government that can be trusted to accomplish the mission. We can cook up strategies and solutions, but there is no chance that any of them would be implemented effectively by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice or that idiot Bolton.

Let's get a decent crew in the White House first- then I'll be ready to face the jihadists.

It's only a problem if the hippie pacifists against all war have a bigger voice than the more rational minds on the left who are merely anti this war. It's certainly a danger, but it's not the given that Weisberg makes it out to be.

I like to believe that there are honest conservatives who hold their nose while accepting the religious right as a necessary evil for having a viable party. I would like to think that there are honest progressives who understand that a working Democratic coalition has similar undesirables, whether they be extremists on the left or DLC types.

THE FUNDAMENTAL DISCONNECT WITH REALITY:

The fundamental disconnect with reality that so many Regressive-Democrats have is the concept that "war is not the answer." In fact, that is sometimes true; but in the vast majority of cases, it is the answer. E.g., why do you, as an American have freedom of speech? War. Why do we have elections to determine those in authority? War. Etc. Pacifism is ridiculous on its face as are inanities like an eye for an eye makes both sides blind. No, at some point one side surrenders qua surrenders and a resolution exists just as by any other means of diplomacy.

As long as Regressive-Democrats believe war is not, or even typicially, not the answer, they will never have power in this country; which unbenkownst to them is the best break they'll ever have.

TOH

1. To be fair, there is no substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism on the other side of the blogosphere; only exhortations to various forms of mass slaughter.

2. The fight against radical jihadism is over, and we have won (see the cover article of the most recent Atlantic). The problems that we face now have nothing to do with shadowy Al-Qaida-wannabe Islamo-facist cells, and everything to do with hostile state (Iran) and substate (Hezbollah, Kurds, Madhi Army) actors, which are to be dealt with in the same way that states and substates have always been dealt with, i.e. with a mix of force, diplomacy, and stratergy. And on that front the consensus of the liberal blogosphere is pretty clear: first, do no harm, i.e. stop doing harm, i.e. withdraw from Iraq. It's really quite simple.

Kevin makes the mistake of assimilating the fight against Al-Qaida to the fight against the Iraqi insurgents and Hezbollah, when he should know better...

Also, just strategically, it doesn't make sense for the left to force a discussion on exactly what to do about radical islam when the answers favored by different parts of the coalition are so disparate. The left shares a predilection for multilateralism and a reluctance to use force except where absolutely necessary. A policy can be forged with those democratic tendencies in mind, once things so change so that Dems are involved in policymaking. Until then it's just silly to try to hammer out more specific ideas.

And yet, much as I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it. Emphasis counts, and this widespread silence makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that liberal bloggers just don't find the subject very engaging.

Are you fucking mad?

He attacked a stable, secular middle-eastern nation, albeit one run by a thung nearly as bad as, say, the nuclear armed thug in Korea, and he turned it into a killing zone, a breeding ground for terrorists (who weren't there before) and ignited a civil war there.

But I'm supposed to debate whether or not LIBERALS, those who PREDICTED this, take terrorism seriously?

Peddle another, genius.

Marty Pertez and his cronies are opff talking about how like it or not there are two wars a raging (there are actually at least three, counting the real one they forgot about in Afghanistan) and the next President is going to have to deal with that so be "realistic".

Are you focking nuts?

This argument amounts to "we shit the bed so bad it can't be unshitted and you can't trust the people who predicted this would happen not to try to unshit the unshittable, which would be worse."

Come up for air, Drum.

"And yet, much as I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it."

Could it be that the bloggers simply lack the expertise to seriously take part in such a discussion? Recognizing that Iraq was a huge mistake is pretty easy, but proposing an alternative is a lot harder (which is not to say the real foreign policy experts on the left haven't proposed viable alternatives). I think Howard Dean suffered from the same problem.

Still, the silence from the Lefty bloggers is vastly preferable to the "Take the gloves off" mantra of the Right.

Kevin;

For one thing, I never see a conservative blogger question his/her perspective on ANY subject, so kudos for leading with your chin.

As to your point, the war on terror is a complete FUBAR. How does one enter a cyclone exacerbated by the war president's environmental vacuity, and argue the metrics of good meteorology.

I often hear from those war supporters when they
run out of discursive gas; "Well, what's your solution?" I always say; "You created this multi-vehicle car wreck, and you want me to clean up after you?"

No way to put the yolk back in the shell when it lay shattered on the floor. Nothin' left to do but
scramble it. The Cons knew this street was one-way
but didn't bother to post warnings. What do you
want anti-war blogs to do? Suggest we poach? or
should we just throw what's left of the Iraq egg
out, and leave the few who want democracy sucking on their own egg? Don't know anything except the criminals who foisted this fiasco should be drawn and quartered.

There are plenty of other Democratic incumbents who supported the war (and continue to support the war)

Such as...? Does Weisberg name one Democrat who has been as aggressive a spotlight junkie and Bush/Rumsfeld apologist as Lieberman?
As for the threat of "jihadism", it's not a traditional war, it can't be won with troops and bunkerbusters, even if there may be occasions where these tools are necessary complements to the main weapons of intelligence and international police work. Kerry tried to sell this, but it's hard to sell when there are demogogues in politics, and a subtle, effective approach doesn't make the Andrew Sullivans and Jonah Goldbergs and Sean Hannitys and the Toby Keiths--and their belazyboy'd brethren accross the land--feel macho and manly as they watch things get blown up on TeeVee and say "Fuckin' A, Raghead, Red white and blue boot up yer ass".

Maybe if people like Weisberg and Russert and others who know better would stop treating the Liebermans and the McCains as if they know what they're talking about, we could have that debate on actually fighting jihadist terrorism effectively.

Sampling of blog kvetches:

Get the Homeland Security act together. If we can not handle Katrina... Port security. Finish the job in Afghanistan. Where is enemy No 1 - Osama. Don't give India nuke technology unless they play by the rules. Don't give Pakistan a free pass for harboring Osama and proliferating nuke technology. Control loose nukes. When will the Republicans collect taxes to pay for the war? When will Republicans start a dialogue with the bad guys - Iran, Syria & N. Korea? How do we change the perception of the US and Israel as warmongers with Muslims as well as the rest of the world? Why are we condoning torture? Why are we recruiting so many enemies? What is our war mission? How do we win a civil war in another country? Etc.

The blogs kvetch about policies as they seem designed to move us in the wrong direction on the war on terror. Yes we need to be vigilant in the war on terror, blogs say give me a smarter war please.

The current 4th World war is indeed an existential threat. The fundamentalism of the Islamic radicals is just as much a threat as Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao once were. The problem as pointed out above lies in the fighting of this war. Most wars are started fighting the LAST war, they say, and we are indeed trying to fight this new war the way we fought old wars. Speak softly and carry a big stick, an adage of a few wars ago, might be better here than what Bush is doing. Unfortunately, Democratic Party nuts like those who want us to just bury our heads in the sand are the same ones who argued for unilateral disarmament in the 3rd World War, the cold war. Who know what won that war, but certianly unilateralism, appeasement and liberal do nothingness did not. The Democratic Party needs to be the one getting us further into winning the Islamic Extremist War, on the battleground of ideas, of freedoms, of accountability, of engagement. Can they pull it off? Not with people like Lemont

the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it.

Fair comment? Or foul?

Foul.

Weisberg and others want us to believe that Iraq was a necessary, if poorly executed, step in the fight against jihadism. Say what?

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq I never once saw the fight against jihadism listed as a reason to overthrow Saddam Hussein. I'll eat my hat if you can provide a cite.

This new fixation with 'jihadism' appears merely an attempt to rewrite history and avoid responsibility for their failed policies. On NPR tonight David Brooks said twice "the war against Ira-islamic jihadism". He wasn't used to the new talking points, I guess.

The other problem with discussing the fight against terorism/jihadism/real solutions in the Middle East is that Israel cannot be discussed - if we disagree with Israeli policy we risk being labeled anti-semites; or loons like slim hijack the discussion and drag your site down.

Again, I invite you or the esteemed Mr. Weisberg to provide us with a cite discussing jihadism and Saddam Hussein, pre-invasion. Not the linkage between Saddam providing death gratuities or other support for terrorists - no reputable person on the left side of the blogosphere is a terrorist supporter. But jihadism.

I don't think it exists - I think 'jihadism' is the new talking point, just an attempt to change the subject from Iraq. And it seems you were gullible enough to be distracted.

It's really rather academic until January '09.

I have strong opinions about foreign policy and terrorism (generally along the lines of Clinton's State Department, Clarke, even Powell if he was given free reign) -- but having a discussion at this point is a little too "drama nerd" for me. The Bush administration isn't even listening to it's own best advisors and if they were they would screw up the ideas during the implementation.

E.g., why do you, as an American have freedom of speech? War.

You mean, because we beat the British?

In that case...how come the British also have free speech?

Which war did we fight over freedom of speech, exactly?

the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it.

Discussing what to do about radical jihadism is too much like arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin. The immediate issue is simpler and more substantive. Al Qaeda attacked us and the Taliban enabled them. Those are our immediate targets. Iraq is a tragic mistake based on a fantasy of lies. That issue has been beat to death in the blogosphere and elsewhere, and there's not much more to say on the subject.

The real bigger picture is poverty and alienation around the world, and that's not just confined to Arabs and Muslims. Radical jihadism, like radical anything-else-ism, is fed by poverty, alienation, and despair. We (the developed world) need to find a way to bring the whole world into the 21st Century without tearing societies apart. It's morally the right thing to do, plus our long-term survival depends on it.

And we (the United States) need to end our dependence on foreign oil. It contaminates our foreign policy and makes us vulnerable to blackmail from the likes of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. It forces us into short-term actions that are not in our best long-term interest. And, at least as applied to the Neocons in the Bush administration, it makes us do crazy, irrational things.

aa

I agree with one of the posters above who disagrees with the basic premise of your post: that liberal blogs should offer a constructive alternative to "winning the war on terror." This was the same right wing tactic during the social security debate. Shouldn't the first question seriously be: "What is the Bush administration's plan to win the war against Islamic jihadism?" Sure we have the first part of the answer which would sound something like bring democracy to the middle east. But the bigger, and harder problem, is how do we really do that.

Why is it that liberal blogs have to offer substantive and detailed policy outlines while Bush can get away with offering meaningless plaittudes such as "staying the course?"

Anyways, the bigger issue is this. Almost all bloggers agreed on the first step of the equation after 9/11. Let's go into Afghanistan and get Osama bin Laden. While we are there let's also "roll back" Al-Qaeda's capabilities.

The problem is that before finishing step one we went to step two which was let's go into Iraq and start democratizing. Followed by step three, let's allow Israel to engage Lebanon militarily without itervening quickly to prevent escalation.

So, rather than having hte necessary resources to deal with the war on islamic jihadism, we have two other problems to deal with first before we can get back to fixing the missteps in (1).

Thanks.

Since when did the Cold War become World War III? So now we're renaming wars after the fact like they were old Star Wars movies or something?

I call foul.

The underlying assumption among the "anti-war left" seems to be that the way middle-eastern radicals are created is by 1) violence against communities and injustice (imprisonment, torture, etc) by outsiders, 2) poverty and desperation, and 3) the polarization of the region's politics into "western" and "islamist" forces in such a way that outside intervention often immediately damages the political forces or institution we'd like to see prosper.

All of these things encourage a fiercely defensive and xenophobic element (organizations such as Hezbollah, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc) who promise to protect a community's interests and manage to deliver, on some level, at relieving both the ruinous effects of war and poverty (homelessness, starvation, etc) and the emotional condition of helplessness.

I would say that there are a small number of legitimate criminals in the middle east, crazy people who would blow things up, kill people, or steal and destroy public and private property regardless of whether or not they were being treated unfairly by global institutions or western nations. There is a far greater pool of people who are prepared to be radicalized, however, and will back limitless "defensive" violence because they perceive militant leaders to have their best interests at heart in the way that the various Western visitors who've come into the region in the last couple centuries do not.

The distinction might not really be this stark, but in a way, it seems a rehash of the nature-vs-nurture battle, and Weisberg seems to be presupposing that Muslims are violent or crazy by nature, and that to ignore this "fact" makes one unserious about dealing with the threat.

That's nonsense. Just as the violent destruction of the World Trade Center radicalized Americans to support military action which has not turned out to be to our benefit, our actions in the middle east can and do actually make more terrorists. We have inflicted the proportional damage of 100 9/11s in Iraq: how can we expect that those in Iraq will handle this very physical and psychological damage like wise, international-minded adults when we ourselves are unable to do so?

Call it the new liberal realism, or whatever: our actions can make things better or worse, and we have to act in such a way that diminishes the 3 factors above. The people in the Mideast matter, and any policy that treats them as a singular, fixed quantity not only is destined to fail, but will further isolate and radicalize those moderates who probably still do make up the majority of the population over there. The guiding principle of these liberal realists is probably "first, do no harm" - and it is vocalized as clearly by leaders like Howard Dean and Ned Lamont as principles like "the world is a very dangerous place" and "you're either with us or against us" are by conservative leaders.

It is thoughtless hawks like Weisberg who fail to take the threat of fundamentalism seriously - quite possibly because he himself endorses the domestic flavor cultivated by the "always-strike-first" branch of the American conservative movement. However, what that ideology doesn't acknowledge is that we will not always be right, just as no political actor in the middle east will always be right. This is an omission at least as grave as the one Weisberg claims he recognizes on the left.

And my answer to the omission that he identifies is this: we must depend on institutions that can right economic, military, or criminal injustices, and insofar as those institutions don't exist or function today, build and empower them through democratic processes. As the oldest democracy on earth, it's our responsibility to start acting like grownups.

the Cold War WAS World War three. And wars are constantly being renamed to match their context in history, reprobate. Do you think they called it World War 1 during the damned thing?

The main judgement I can make on "jihadism" is that we have stepped in a very stinky cow poop, we're in a field full of more stinky cow poops, and the cowboy in charge of our motor control is a recovering drunk who believes we must stomp on the stinky cow poop until it doesn't stink anymore.

The cowboy needs more oversight and more critical review (until he leaves office). Baby steps. It's that simple.

"Fair comment? Or foul? I want to be convinced I'm wrong, so let me have it with both barrels in comments."

Kevin,

You're correct to a certain extent, and you seem to have been incorporating some rhetoric of late about getting smart on the GWoT that is designed to help fix the problem.

The idiotic "Bush Doctrine" (i.e. preventive, pointedly not "preemptive", war) contains the seed of the wholesale destruction of liberal internationalism.

The "Bush Doctrine" undermines, subverts 'n corrupts every tenet of liberal institutions, and it spreads global fear, distrust and instability. It isolates us internationally, cripples us militarily and makes us a magnified target for vengeance.

It counterproductively makes a preexisting problem (radical jihad) worse.

A bad tree bears bad fruit.

Think it's some kinda tough arguing about the "proper" response to international jihadism for liberals when the 800-lb. gorilla in the room nobody ever seems to address except timidly is this:

For sanity to return to our foreign policy, the "Bush Doctrine" needs to be repudiated.

It ain't no big surprise that useful idiots like Peter "prime-fighting-age" Beinart are quietly coming back around to liberal internationalism now that reality has finally outstripped his gullibility and intellectual vanity.

(Keep plugging along, Tom Friedman, you're almost there, ya nitwit!)

"Hearts and minds" used to be an American ideal before it was just an empty PR slogan to make everyone feel better about dropping 500-lb. bombs.

The Cold War didn't get won overnight and neither will the whole radical jihad bidness, but one thing's damn sure:

In the fantasy-land of the neocons, that way madness lies.

It'd be one thing if, for alla their ruthlessness, their juvenile theories actually worked. But no. They've been wrong -- about everything -- every. fucking. time.

The country's long overdue for a multi-partisan dog-pile on these selfish arrogant (largely chickenhawk) radical extremist revolutionaries.

This "threat" of "radical Jihadism" is being constantly exaggerated and oversimplified. Right now, Al Qaeda is our enemy, and should be our target, not all fundamentalist Muslim organizations.

I hope Paul Berman is witnessing what he's helped create here, because the right wing is cynically shouting "Islamic fascism" and "radical Jihadists" in the most absurd propaganda campaign I've heard to date, and it's working with less-informed people (listeners).

And, to be quite honest, it's all a crock of shit. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we should be engaging Islamic fundamentalist cultures, not driving them together with our belligerence in self-fulfilling but unwitting prophecy.

Just to clarify slightly: I'm not suggesting that liberal blogs are going to post learned white papers on this subject, or even come up with any great ideas. I'm just wondering why the subject is barely even discussed.

(I don't think the Social Security analogy works, either. In that case, there was no need for a Democratic plan because there was no serious crisis to be resolved. But Islamic jihadism really does need to be addressed. We can't just ignore it.)

And needless to say, I'm not saying that conservative blogs have the right answers (and I doubt Weisberg is either). Obviously I don't think they do. But they do talk about it.

"the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it."

This is not true.

I read plenty of discussion about fighting jihadism. Unfortunately we can't fight jihadism because he are stuck in a quagmire in Iraq. The war is preventing us from fighting Al Qaeda.

Bin Laden is still at large. Afghanistan is turning into another failed war. It is because we are stuck in Iraq.

Jacob Weisberg who supported the war is still in denial about how much the Iraq war has set us back in fighting terrorism. Our international reputation is in ruins. We have lost allies. Everything we need for a multinational fight against terrorism has been squandered in Iraq.

Perhaps because not every blogger shares the Amero-Western-centric view of the planet earth.

Just maybe, not everyone wants to be like "us" and would rather we picked up our war toys and immoral politico-economic notions and went home.

What the hell is "jihadism"? Does it mean the same to everyone shouting it? Is it really some kind of unified "fascist" force that truly threatens us, or is it disparate elements that only share fundamentalist Islam in common (and not even the same understanding of fundamentalist Islam at that)?

Then, there is the more specific "violent jihadism", and I doubt most people shouting that really understand the disparate elements of those cultures either.

It's a bunch of crap, and it's not fascism by any stretch of the imagination.

Well, can our plan for taming jihadism actually make the taboo suggestion that we as a nation stop trying to subjugate the Middle East out of our sense of post-colonial entitlement? Or would that be "unserious"?

the problem there is that the liberal approach to fighting terrorism is to focus on the less sexy aspects - doing the grunt work of securing airports and ports, powerplants, continuing the work tracing banking transactions, continuing to monitor groups and building human intelligence to infiltrate them. Basically all the same as the GOP approach but with fun, sexy invasions taken off the table and more emphasis on efficiency and impact minimization.

Well, it does get some discussion at sites like Informed Comment, War and Piece, and TPM Cafe, but usually in terms that question the premise. What is Islamic jihadism, anyway? Hizbollah isn't the same as Al Qaeda in goals or origins, Sunni bombers aren't the same as Shia bombers except in tactics. And there certainly isn't any world-wide movement of "Islamofascists," Marshall Wittman and others notwithstanding.

Maybe the short answer to the question what to do is to quit being Crusaders who believe in fighting Jihadists. Not a very persuasive political slogan, I admit. If we were to rephrase the question, how can we arrive at a successful political statement of a workable foreign policy regarding the Middle East, I'd be more interested.

I've actually heard commentators on TV, and not just Fox News, put "Islamic jihadism" on the same kind of threat level as the Nazis, even as "Nazism", which is absurd, considering the actual threat and military that the Nazis had at their disposal, compared to the largely toothless threat of "Islamic jihadists".

As for that term itself, "Islamic jihadism", isn't that redundant? I'm not aware of any other "jihad" or "jihadists" except in the language of Islam. It doesn't traditionally mean what we have chosen to give it meaning through pejorative either, which is violent and insane.

I really think that the fundamental problem that non-"radical" liberals like you, Kevin, have to deal with on the whole jihadism issue is this: (a) we, the West, are actively pursuing a policy designed to keep the Middle East under our collective thumbs; (b) the people who live there are lashing out in response.

If you refuse to acknowledge that (a) is true, there can be no cogent approach to (b). That's all there is to it. I'm sure Weisberg will assiduously avoid dealing with that reality, and probably you will, too. But if you accept that we are fucking over the Middle East on an ongoing basis, and that terrorism is the way that certain populations therein are responding, then we owe Weisberg no answers except "stop doing that."

Just keep in mind that our enemy is not some misunderstood propaganda slogan shouted on television sets, but is very specifically Al Qaeda.

That is all.

At least in terms of 9-11.

I disagree with Weisberg's "way to perpetual Democratic defeat." The "way to perpetual Democratic defeat" is for Dems to roll over like lapdogs for George Bush and the Reeps. Look where it's gotten them so far. I think 99% of the perception that Dems aren't strong enough, to whatever extent that notion is out there, is because they can't find a way to effectively oppose the Reeps here at home. It has little to do with their foreign policy proposals or having a more serious discussion about Islamic fanaticism. It's a real problem for any party not in power, although the Dems this decade have taken the poor hand dealt them and played it as badly as anyone could.

Maybe the Dems have not had the kind of serioius discussion about Islamic terrorism that Weisberg and Kevin want to see. So what. Who is having that serious discussion? The Reeps? Bush? Puh-leeze! The Reeps have used the GWOT as an excuse for their political charades and they have done absolutely zippo to address the underlying problem. In fact, they have made it worse. They have given justification to the once-crazy claims of our worst enemies.

So in comparison, if the Dems take power and do nothing to make the problem worse, we are way ahead of where we are today. That might not make a flashy campaign slogan, but it's true.

What can really be done anyway? I don't think we can win the "war on terror" (let's get a better metaphor for this too). The Army, the Navy, the Marines, and the Air Force are not going to win this one, because it's not a military problem. It's a complex problem that will likely take decades to successfully combat. We should start by not being assholes...like invading countries halfway around the world for no good reason, for instance.

Getting us out of Iraq will be an early and necessary step for addressing the longer-term threat of terrorism. Let the Islamic world find its own way. If it were not for oil, we truly would not be bothered anyway. As sure as we need the oil, the Middle Eastern countries need to sell it to us. Meanwhile, if we can seriously invest in alternative fuel resources, which we have to do anyway, we can be much more rational about creating a policy to deal with what will continue to be a troubled region for many years to come.

Analogies between Iraq and Vietnam are not perfect, but we did withdraw from the misguided and tragic war in Indochina and communism did not take over the world. When we get out of Iraq we'll discover that terrorists won't take over either. (If we take them at their word, they say they just want us out.) We don't need hundreds of thousands of troops to fight the terrorists. We can refocus our resources and fight them where we need to (like getting that Osama whatshisname guy). But we don't need to occupy countries. Nothing good happens till we get out.

Working hard, in this busy time for you called. This is my friend and the Boke,just established, the time is not long. The issue here isthat everybody can see my Boke, Ha-ha, raising some visibility, which caused trouble to ask your forgiveness! We all hope to see. Please! 如烟往事博客 记忆深处博客 漠北孤烟博客 天涯无悔博客 月光城市博客 寂寞如烟博客 三国演义博客 江南记忆博客 青海日光博客 月复西斜博客 马帮茶道 雨天下雨博客 秋日私语博客 苍凉世界博客 把酒问天博客 逍遥过客 铿锵玫瑰 寂寞雨夜 乡下孩子博客 天上人间博客 我心飞翔 尘封往事博客 岁月如歌博客 庐山之恋 三间茅屋博客 wanqiudaocao

That is seriously foul. Almost sufficient to land a place in department of homeland security. And what would happen if realists, lefty types or just regular folks had a plan for dealing with 'fanatical Islamic jihadism'? Having a discussion with folks that are delusional and lie all the time is very difficult. It doesn't matter what you say the policy won't change until the people in charge change. Sometimes that can be the people in charge of the media -- the CW pundit class has a serious case of head up assism. It is possible that the repudiation of Bush's Love Child will cause a new strand of coverage, although given the gullability of the media and commentariat, it is very possible, that it will only lead to a new round of terror alerts in an attempt by Bush to change the subject.

Important first steps:

1) lick bush (and his neo-colonial conservative imperialists)

2) failing that subjugate bush (with a strong democratic congress)

3) institute intelligent and efficient diplomacy, intelligence, and security

I think a lot of liberal blogs talk about the first two, if not all three.

Jacob Weisberg's analysis is flawed. Like a lot of pundits he is fixated on Vietnam and the McGovern defeat.

As Mark Schmidt argues the present political climate is different from the Vietnam era. For one thing Democrats had started the Vietnam war. Democratic party was on the defensive. Iraq is GOP's war.

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/aug/06/a_few_last_thoughts_on_connecticut

"Also, I’m really tired of the Vietnam/Democrats analogy, in which the entire political history of Vietnam is reduced to McGovern’s loss in 1972. The real reason the Vietnam War divided and discredited Democrats and splintered the liberal consensus was because - let’s not be afraid to admit it -- Democrats started that war. Opposition to the war didn’t unify or define the party, it divided it. Nixon won the 1968 election because Humphrey was associated with the war, couldn’t split with LBJ, and Nixon promised - dishonestly -- to end it."

There's no point.

Back in the runup to the Iraq invasion, my impression was that there was a serious discussion underway in what has since become the blogging strata of People Who Think About This Stuff. Here's an example of how that conversation was starting to unfold - deep recognition of the game in play and how to dismantle the threat (hint: if you know how to contain and ultimately dismantle a modern industrial state with 200 million people and a bunch of nuclear weapons, you can probably figure out how to contain and ultimately dismantle 6,000 homicidal religious nuts with good media sense) but deep skepticism that whacking the wrong target with a sledgehammer was going to fix anything.

The problem is that Iraq, and the mindless descent into chaos that followed, has poisoned the well of ideas. There is absolutely no reason to engage with the Bush Administration on these issues (or any issues, for that matter) because this government will never, ever engage in a good faith discussion. Any attempt at rational discussion simply marks you as the enemy. Can any of you think of a single exception since Bush became President, on any policy topic?

It's no longer about Al Qaeda, which has been seriously degraded as anything beyond a brand name. It is about unwinding the damage that this administration has caused so that we can get on with dealing with the real problem - a deadly serious one - of transnationsl syndicates who use terrorism as a routine politcal tactic. The rule of the hole is in play here. When you are in over your head, the first thing to do is stop digging.

Matt has it mostly right, "lefty" blogs are used to thinking in practical solutions and all the practical solutions are boring grunt work. Do what we already know to do, just put in more effort and be more efficient.

But the "lefty" blogs, once again being practical, don't see "jihadism" as a major problem. If the government does its job, it is a non-issue that gets resolved in the background. The "righty" blogs exist to find someone/something to attack, so they WANT to talk about it all the time. Unfortunately, none of their solutions will ever work, just make the problem worse.

Where the "lefty" blogs fail is reassuring people that the "jihadists" are not a serious problem. It should be pointed out repeatedly that BUSH is the one who purposely ignored the machinery Clinton put in place to deal with terrorists and allowed 9/11 to happen. If the government had done its job, we would have been safe. We need to demand a better government, we already had the mechanism in place to protect us, the Bush administration didn't execute competently.

TT

By the way, "Islamofascism" = "Communism" in the language of propaganda. It conveniently fits the vacuum for the enemy other that unites the fearful (and enables a number of continuing conspiracies).

That the Nazis and the Soviet Union were massive degrees more powerful and dangerous (to the point of absurdity) doesn't really matter to the people shouting "Islamofascists" and "Islamic jihadists". It fits the script.

Perhaps some Transactional Analysis is in order, or better yet a real progressive revival resisting this kind of dangerous and deceptive rhetoric.

Kevin is correct that the liberal blogs do not offer much of substance on the terror issue. But the more important issue is that the democratic politicians fail to do so. Aside from partisan politics, there is little reason for not having a high level of cooperation between the parties.

By the way, Lieberman's loss was clearly about Iraq. Kevin and others who say it was not because other pro war democrats were not targeted is silly. The circumstances of other pro-Iraq war senators up for reelection did not lend themselves to a challenge and, in any event, the fact that others were not challenged on Iraq does not mean Lieberman did not lose becasue of Iraq. It is obvious he did to anyone looking clearly at the situation.

I think the consensus is that Weisberg is an ignorant hack, and that there's no really good reason to take his advice about "perpetual defeat" or anything else since he obviously buys into every other empty slogan tossed out by the conservative movement. I understand there's a certain, ahem, decorum to be preserved between top-level pundits, but if you can't call Jacob out for being so clueless, at least your commenters are not so shy.

Other than that (I was the "matt" who wrote the dissertation at 2:03), everything dj moonbat said.

What to do about jihadism? I'm an American residing in Pakistan. Most people are as scared of jihadis here as they are there. The best way to combat the ultra right Islamic parties is to be seen doing actual good -- supporting education, health, development. Pretty much the exact opposite of what the US is actually doing and even more disheartening and worrying for moderates and progressives here than there. US policy in Iraq and Lebanon galvanizes the right here just as 9-11 has strengthened the right there.

First -- how large a problem is it? In the past 10 years, cancer has killed 5,000,000 Americans, traffic accidents have killed 500,000 and terrorism has killed 3,000. And nobody in their right mind believes that Arabs can pull another 9/11.

Yet we have spent half a trillion dollars, and had another 2,600 Americans killed in Iraq, and killed tens of thousands of Iraqis, all in the name of the "war on terrorism".

And of course, that half trillion dollars has mostly been counterproductive -- as observed by other posters above, all it has accomplished is to turn a stable secular Arab country (not that different from Egypt) into a breeding ground for more jihadists (which it was not before).

Meanwhile, there is very little discussion of what this enemy is after. We are told that "they hate us for our freedoms". Occasionally, some brave voice (most recently Lincoln Chaffee) points out that the solution to our problems requires a just solution of the Palestinian problem -- but these voices are drowned out. They never reach the American people.

So Kevin, Chaffee has an answer for you: to deal with the jihadists, let's start by applying real pressure on Israel to return all lands acquired in 1967. (This used to be the official US position, by the way, until W was elected. Nobody's talking about it any more).

Rationalist has it spot on. We have, in large part, made the jihad. Bin Laden has indicated that his quarrel is not with us per se, but with us when we have troops on Muslim soil.

Now, Israel rightly deserves our support (albeit not a blank check), but short of that, a large part of this "jihad" has been self-inflicted.

"Fair comment? Or foul? I want to be convinced I'm wrong, so let me have it with both barrels in comments."

Cool.

You are frequently a moron. A moron who internalizes right wing talking points and parrots them back out in the hopes of appearing "serious".

This is just another case of that. You have accepted the nonsense that Wahabi jihadism is the same as Shia fundementalism. You have internalized the bullshit that these people want to end their lives destroying America, as opposed to having largely valid grievances or political ambitions.

They don't hate us because of our way of life. They don't really care if we drive a lot, buy a lot of useless shit, each a bunch of fatty foods, and listen to prefab souless music.

They hate us because our country has its hands in everyone elses pie, and doesn't like to share it. They hate us because we built Israel over their lands and kicked half a million arabs off those lands. They hate us because we continue to side with Israel, protect it from every attempt by the international community to reign in that aparthied state, rearm it even in the middle of a war it would have otherwise lost, and let it define the relationship the US has with every Muslim state.

They want us out of their lives, usually for good reason.

You unblinkingly accept that the very few who actually would kill themselves to kill Americans have any real power. They got lucky that America was handed over to incompetants in 2001, and in spite of numerous flaws in their plan, the government failed to stop them.

They. Cannot. Hurt. Us.

Their biggest wet dream of an attack is a mosquito bite on this country. They are pissants that could be ferreted out with law enforcement, espionage, and surgical special forces actions. There is no place in the world Al Qaeda has a big enough foot hold that it requires several divisions of military power to destroy them.

If the US was "serious" about defeating Al Qaeda, it would empower the internation criminal court, sign intelligence sharing and law enforcement treaties with the rest of the world, and stop doing things that aid Al Qaeda to gather money and followers. It would stop supporting "friendly" dictators.

No "serious" analysis of our geopolitical policy could come to the conclusion the US is "serious" about defeating Al Qaeda or terrorism in general. A LOT of liberal commentators and bloggers have in fact pointed this out. The fat you don't give them credence while internalizing the bullshit of the Mashall Whitmans and Glenn Reynolds of the world says a lot more about you than the reality-based blogosphere.

Way, way foul. I'm not so sure you even touched the ball, so I'm pretty sure it's just a plane old strike.

This is a false parallel. Bush has granted himself enormous authority to launch and run a war and he has done it very badly. Of course, he also set low expectations for his ability to articulate his rationale, which is one reason why we're even having this discussion.

But to shift any of the moral burden onto Bush's critics is silly. He got us into this mess and until November there's nothing we can do about it but raise hell. Everything else is too clever by half.

republican_strategy()
{
propaganda()
}

enum enemy
{
nazism
fascism
communism
islamofascism
}

void propaganda()
{
try
{
if enemy
{
win
}
else
{
throw bums
}
catch bums
{
lose_and_regroup
}
end try
}
}

Beyond what I said immediately above, if it's not clear, my vote is "foul."

Weisberg and other liberal hawks don't want to admit they are, were, and always have been wrong on the substance of the issue and not just the execution of it in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Israel/Hezbullah give people like Weisberg a chance to gin up their spin machines anew.

BUSHCO. AS THE SORCEROR'S APPRENTICE

Got onna soap-box and never answered the question.

To wit: think it's substantively true that liberals don't spend too much time discussing how to confront global jihad.

That said, think there's a fair reason for that, so lemme play the liberal's-advocate.

I reckon it seems sorta futile for liberals to spend much time discussing how to fight global jihad most effectively when the Bush Administration foolishly pursues policies that are counterproductively creating more jihadists than they are quelling.

It seems something of a parlor game at this point. We, after all, are not exactly among "history's actors" right now, as that notorious White House source told Suskind so long ago.

Most liberals answers to the question would involve mundane things like alliances, economic aid, diplomacy, training, cultural exchange, focused and discriminating use of force when necessary -- the sort of things right-wing reactionaries delight in ridiculing.

It almost seems like this whole childish neocon experiment has gotta play itself out, be shown to collapsed upon its own organic failings, before people will listen to reason and sanity again. Cuz otherwise, it's a race to the bottom to screech about who's "weak on defense" cuz we don't happen to think indiscriminate use of force and unilateralist bluster are effective.

Might make Charles "shut up 'n apologize, rabbi!" Krauthammer feel better, but it ain't effective.

The Bush Administration's neoconned approach to global jihad is sorta like Mickey Mouse in the Sorceror's apprentice before the wizard returns.

The neocons sprinkle some their patented naive reckless destructive wishful-thinking hope-for-the-best! Candide-w/a-military magic and watch as the threats multiply instead of diminish.

Gosh, who woulda guess that'd happen!

So asking liberals to spend their time commenting on a fictional reality wherein their ideas about confronting jihad matter in the real world is like asking one of the brooms to stop and discuss the neoconnish black magic that Mickey has unleashed that shows he doesn't have the first fucking clue: a) what he's doing or b) how to stop it.

There just ain't enough lipstick to cover the ugly on that pig.

"And yet, much as I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it."

Give me a break. Just the other day you had a piece up suggesting the nature of the conflict we face, you called it a “Global Counterinsurgency”. I agree that’s what’s in order. And for anyone who understands what that means, the left is not a party of peaceniks.

Done properly the War on Terror is a combination 3 soft and hard uses of US power.

- Diplomatic pressure to force state actors to expel and expunge terrorists, as well as curtail the dissemination of WMD.

- Its also a paramilitary, CIA, run CI Ops in countries where state actors can’t be compelled through diplomacy. North Africa, Middle East and Asia. *And for those who don’t understand what this means, its having the CIA and paramilitary troops in Pakistan, Iran, North Africa identifying and slaughtering terrorists. See Steven Spielberg’s “Munich” for the armature version of what I’m talking about.

- Finally it’s a robust domestic security plan. Sealing ports from nuclear materials entering. Real preparedness for disaster relief. And so on.

Unfortunately, these knuckle heads have pissed away all America’s soft and hard power. We’ve dumped colossal resources into Lieberbush’s useless Homeland Security Department. Our military has crashed and burned on a craggy hilltop in Iraq. And we’ve got John Bolton in the UN doing his level best to destroy it from the inside.

Not to mention having pissed away, what I consider the Height of American power. Three months before we invaded Iraq, we had virtually unlimited hard and soft power. Now, we’re a washed up superpower waiting for China or Europe to take the lead in global affairs.

We’ve been screaming into storm, about this, for years. Personally my throat is parched and I’m tired of it. Lets bring it up once the Dems take back the congress. When perhaps we can begin to reshape our GWOT and America’s place in the world.

T

The Liberalsagainstterrorism is devoted to this subject, and it's got some of the smartest best-informed bloggers out there.

And Obsidian Wings has had discussions of the subject for years. Hilzoy is a big proponent of anti-proliferation measures and Wesley Clark's views (as am I).

But if you want a position paper, go check out what Clark has to say, or read Kerry's speeches - most liberal bloggers would be happy to see such policies implemented and don't need to push them because their readers agree and the Weisbergs out there wouldn't pay any attention if they did.

W. - "You are either with us, or with the communists."

Did you drink out of the wrong kool-aid bottle? We DO take the war against Al Qaeda and other jihadists seriously, which is PRECISELY why we hate the Shrub with his little Iraq detour.

The point is that republican adventurism in Iraq has done more to enable the jihadists than almost anything else in recent memory. And it has crippled our Afghanistan effort.

Now why is that so hard even for morons like Weisberg to understand?

Jim, you asked for other "pro-war" (defined as someone who voted for the Iraq War Resolution in 2002, and opposes a firm deadline for withdrawal from Iraq) Senators up for reelection in '06 besides Lieberman.

Blue States
Maria Cantwell, WA
Tom Carper, DE
Hillary Clinton, NY
Dianne Feinstein, CA
Herb Kohl, WI

Red States
Ben Nelson, NE
Bill Nelson, FL

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted No on the Iraq War Resolution, but oppose a firm withdrawal deadline, and are up for reelection in '06.

Blue States
Deborah Stabenow, MI

Red States
Robert Byrd, WV
Kent Conrad, ND

Democratic Senators who voted against the War Resolution, support a date-certain withdrawal, and are up for reelection in '06.

Blue States
Daniel Akaka, HI
Ted Kennedy, MA
Robert Menendez, NJ

Red States
--None--

There are no Democratic Senators up for reelection in '06, who supported the War Resolution, but now support a firm deadline for withdrawal.

Did the vice president shoot his friend with both barrels or am I missing a common American idiom?

W. - "You are either with us, or with the drug lords."

Bullshit.

It's the Bushies who have failed to take the war on terror seriously. They failed to get bin Laden, and they turned it into an excuse for war profiteering and political bloodletting.

The next terror attack on US soil will be because Bush did not take his obligation to protect the US as seriously as he took his desire to enrich his golfing buddies. It's a sick joke played on all the gullible idiots who voted for him, and the rest of us who are going to have to pay the $300 Billion (and counting) bill, and the 2500 poor souls who thought they died to protect Freedom.

Foul. There is no point in discussing a rational response to the relatively minor security threat posed by radical Islamic terrorists until the psychotic winger nutjobs who currently sit on the levers of power are removed. The left-wing blogosphere seems to be pretty aware of this and have their priorities straight: first establish an environment in which a debate has meaning, then have a debate.

Most wars are started fighting the LAST war, they say, and we are indeed trying to fight this new war the way we fought old wars.

Excellent point. Before expounding further on that, though, let me tackle this: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it.

1) If the blogosphere consists of the 2-3 dozen top-trafficked liberal blogs plus the two dozen blogs each of those bloggers read, it's easy to make bad assumptions about the tens of thousands of liberal bloggers, because your representative sample is very small.

2) Blogging is afflicted with ADD. The most effective bloggers find a riveting topic and provide a focal point to rally others and get something done. Massive topics like defeating poverty, global warming or global terrorism, can't be easily attacked that way. They get analyzed and discussed, but we move on to things that can be addressed faster. Immediate gratification and blogging work well together.

3) Soundbites and simplicity is US politics today. Long historical backgrounds and complicated analyses get lost in a readership that prefers to scan.

But, back to Chris' point about fighting the last war, I find it useful to gain an understanding of histories, via scholars like Juan Cole and Noam Chomsky. Then to find current realities from people who are in the countries in question, or were there not long ago, I turn to people like Riverbend, or Editor:Myself .... or indie reporters like Chris Allbritton or Kevin Sites (though Sites now works for ABC).

Thus, with the history and present-day covered, I seek sound military analysis from places like Intel Dump, and Foreign Affairs magazine.

Finally, I find it essential to read up on the very few bloggers looking forward, not backward, like John Robb at Global Guerrillas, who regularly defines fourth generation (4G) warfare.

Ultimately, I presume terrorism, by its nature, will always exist. It's a method of resistance of the small against the powerful. Seeking its eradication is perpetual folly. Seeking its confinement and limiting its spread is a realistic goal. It takes wise statesmanship, active diplomacy, greater human intel, effective military measures and a healthy heaping of common sense to accomplish.

And when all's said and done, ideologues and think tank academics won't be cruising the blogs for better answers. So bloggers will engage in these topics, but few will tarry long when their impact can be greater elsewhere.

That bastion of liberalism, New York City, takes the threat of terrorism as seriously as anyone does. Dismissing liberals as unserious about the topic overlooks the long history of liberal concerns. For example, in the nuclear disarmament movement of the 1980s, it was the liberals raising the alarm that nukes could easily fall into radical hands. Few elected officials listened then. And they dismiss us now because of their selective hearing.

In short, the problem's not that our mouths are shut. The problem's that the power wielders' ears are shut.

Since the number of Jews who have addressed the questions raised by this article is few, and the number of Jews who have considered it seriously, is almost zero, and the number of Jews who have ignored it is almost all, and it is so relevant to what is going on in Gaza and Lebanon, I feel it needs to be posted again:

WHY DOESN'T THE MEDIA PUBLISH THIS? I wonder indeed.

Israel Fakes a Provocation for WAR (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Gilad Shalit)

The following passages in italics are from this article published in the Telegraph on 26/06/2006.

Last night two Israeli soldiers were killed and another kidnapped in a dawn attack by Palestinian militants who tunnelled under Gazas heavily protected border.

The attackers, believed to number seven or eight, surprised Israeli forces when they appeared at first light through a tunnel on open ground 300 yards inside Israel near a kibbutz.

Gaza is built on old semi-consolidated sand dunes. It is extremely unlikely that anyone could tunnel 500, or more, yards in the sandy ground of Gaza (300 yards into Israel plus 200 yards of no-mans land plus more to the tunnel entrance), without the tunnel collapsing at some point, or the Israeli listening equipment, hearing their tunneling activity.

They split into three groups before launching simultaneous attacks on three Israeli defensive positions - a look-out tower, plus a tank and an (unoccupied) armoured personnel carrier, both dug in, facing Gaza.

If you were only seven or eight, would you split into three groups? If you were only two, or three, would you attack a tank over flat ground, manned by four soldiers waiting inside to kill you?

They blew open the tanks rear doors (this probably means it was a merkava) with a missile fired from point-blank range before tossing grenades inside. Two of the tank crew died and another was severely wounded but the final crew member, the gunner, was forced out of the wreckage at gunpoint.

The rear doors are blown off and a few grenades popped inside. Tanks are not made to fall apart. Blowing off the rear doors would have taken a blast sufficient to seriously hurt those inside. The grenades would have then made mincemeat of them.

One wonders, if it is standard practice to wear a bulletproof vest inside a hot tank. One would think that the tank would be bulletproof enough not to require such a vest. Can Israeli tanks stop bullets, or not?

Later reports, from the New York Times and others, tell us that Shalit suffered only minor injuries to his abdomen and one arm, even though everyone else in the tank was severely wounded or killed. Shalit would have been very close to those killed (there isn't much spare room in a tank). And, how exactly did the Jew press find out about this, when no one else seems to have known.

Israeli trackers said they found his blood-stained bulletproof vest close to the Gaza perimeter fence.

The militants force Shalit to take off his bulletproof vest and leave it close to the Gaza concentration camp fence, in order to help the Israelis with their investigation.

By the way, whose blood is it on his bulletproof vest? Did his minor wounds bleed profusely, or was it the other soldiers blood and guts all over him. Pity their bulletproof vests didn't save them.

Meanwhile, two other militants attacked a nearby concrete watchtower.... The troop carrier was also damaged in another attack but it was unoccupied. The attackers then escaped back into Gaza by cutting their way through the perimeter fence.

Interestingly, the attackers escaped easily by cutting through the (electrified) perimeter fence, yet cutting through the perimeter fence in order to get in, was so hard to do, that they burrowed through half a mile of sandy ground instead. Something wrong with this story, perhaps?

After all this commotion, the soldiers in all the nearby Gaza concentration camp guard-towers, manage to miss a few Arabs running the 300 yards, over flat ground, back to the perimeter fence, miss them when they cut through it, and miss them running across no-mans land to safety. And why, you may ask, did they not return through the tunnel they had painstakingly dug?

Not only did the Israeli watchers sleep during the explosions and pandamonium, but our heroic freedom fighters did not put a foot wrong as they ran through the no-mans land minefield. Allah, was truly with them.

If you believe this sad tale, I have a bridge to sell you.

The Hamas political leadership sought to distance itself from the incident last night when a spokesman said it had no knowledge of the fate of Cpl Shilat. Ghazi Hamad, a spokesman, said: "We are calling on the resistance groups, if they do have the missing soldier to protect his life and treat him well."

Yes, the Hamas political leadership had no idea of the fate of Cpl Shilat, as the story is a total fabrication.

The Jew press then claims that the Popular Resistance Committees, the armed wing of Hamas and the (previously unknown) Army of Islam were jointly responsible for the kidnapping of Shilat.

Why three groups you may ask?

The reason for three groups, is so that each of them might believe that the other has the "kidnapped" soldier, when, in fact, none of them have him. He is sipping coffee in Tel Aviv.

And why did a "previously unknown" group put up its hand?

Well, just in case one of the groups had doubts that the other group had the "kidnapped" soldier, they certainly couldn't be sure the "previously unknown" group didn't have him,... because after all, they don't have any idea who is leading, or anyone in, this unknown group.

So the reason for the weird "I did it arrangement," is so that the Jew press can claim that the Arabs claimed responsibility, when all they have done, is to NOT deny they did it.

Oh yeah, the "previously unknown" group is a Jew invention. It doesn't exist, except in the Jew newspapers.

Of course, shortly, the Army of Islam will need to be created (by the Jews) in order to negotiate the "release" of Shilat.

As part of the fabrication, the Jews chose to have a Israeli/French citizen "kidnapped," as the French have not been slavishly following the Jew script, and this could be used to force their hand in the desired way.

If you are not already convinced that the whole story is a fabrication, ask yourself; What were the four Israeli soldiers doing in the tiny confines of that dug-in tank? Ask your self; How long were they going to continue sitting in that tank? All day perhaps, or till they roasted in the desert sun? Or, till another group of four took over on the next shift? And of course, having four soldiers in just one tank, wont provide a defense, so there will have to be hundreds of tanks and hundreds of soldiers all sitting in these tanks,...

all waiting,... all waiting,... all waiting,.... for exactly what?

Waiting for Palestinian children to throw stones at them, perhaps? Perhaps, waiting attentively for militants to dig a half mile tunnel through sandy soil, pop up, and rush them over flat ground, but not attentively enough to see them approach? Perhaps, they were waiting for the Egyptian army to materialize, Star Trek like, from their bases hundreds of miles away on the other side of the Suez canal? I dont know,... you tell me why?

Yes, the story is a total fabrication. A fake provocation to start a war. Yes, the Jews are evil people.

"Since you're still up and posting, would you please go back to the prior post's comments and get rid of all the off-topic 500 line posts that were used to try to kill off the discussion of Joe Lieberman?

They were posted to get/justify blog registration, possibly by K. himself.

Terrorism is what the newspapers say is terrorism.

But the newspapers LIE (mainly by omission and bias (the most effective lies)).

Someone upthread suggested that one reason why the blogging left has "ignored" the topic of how to address jihadism is the fact that most lack the knowledge to make practical suggestions.

That's as true on the right as it is on the left, but it is true, nonetheless. It is not just ignorance about what it takes to deploy and employ military power. It is equally a lack of understanding about Middle East politics and international politics in general. That's understandable, as either subject is a lifetime study. It is a natural human tendency to pay close attention to the problems right in front of you and deal with less immediate issues only when they smack you in the face.

It is an ironic fact that the segment of the American public with the most direct experience with Muslims and the Middle East is the military. By now, most in the military have spent at least 3/4 of their careers preparing for, being deployed to, and recovering from one Islamic hotspot after another. Some of the experience goes back even further. I recall in 1978 delivering personnnel and supplies for the Navy to Masirah, Oman and a week later landing the second US military aircraft in Egypt after Camp David. Back then it was a side show to the Cold War. Now, it's what we do.

And it just ain't all gonna go away once the Bush Administration is history. We could bravely run away from Beirut in 1983 because we had a still bigger enemy to face. Now we face problems related to jihadism in a dozen places from the Philippines to Africa and Europe. It never was, and isn't now, all about the oil.

W. - "You are either with us, or with the penguins."

Slim, what on earth are you getting at?

That booting Holy Joe from the Democratic Ticket or being opposed to the Iraq War is anti-Semitic?

Or are you actually the kind of nut you appear to be?

*God I hope you’re a Zionist making a freaky ironical rhetorical point, and not what you appear to be. Because I shudder to think that people like you walk the streets.

Coincidentally, Scotland Yard just disrupted an apparently sizable operation intended to destroy multiple aircraft en route to the United States. Over twenty people in custody. There is no guarantee that these people will stop, even if we choose to withdraw from the half of the world where they operate.

What's your point trashhauler?

I think most dems would love to see policy guided by career diplomats, anti-terror experts, and level headed military veterans. Camp David is a good example of a concerted effort along this front, and Beirut 1983 is a good example of executive decisions made by political and ideological hacks. The same idiots that labled the ANC a terrorist group and funded and armed the facist death squads in El Salvador.

And it just ain't all gonna go away once the Bush Administration is history.

No shit. It'd be a good start though. Their actions have destroyed a spirit of global sympathy and cooperation following 9/11 and replaced it with an almost universal distrust of the US. Guess what happened to Bin Laden's popularity in the Islamic world over the same period?

They're fighting a honey bee nest with rocks.

I want to be convinced I'm wrong, so let me have it with both barrels in comments.

If you really wanted to find examples, you could Kevin and you know it. But do you really want to...it would ruin your strawman and your holier than thou sense of your blog that seems to pop up every now and then...

I have never seen any takes on this subject on Juan Cole's diary, Kos, Digby, Billmon...nope, they never talk about it...

You have two choices...get out more and read something other than Kaus, TNR, and NRO...or get over yourself...

B, my point was that it's a complicated subject and it's no wonder that the blogosphere doesn't shed much light on what we should do. No single thread can cover it all, especially when interspersed with equal parts denial of the scope of the issues and insistence that "we have no duty to think about it because the Bush Administration screwed it up." It's too important to toss away like that.

Re the Camp David accords, they were a diplomatic coup, but not an unalloyed blessing. One side effect was to reinforce authoritarian rule in Egypt and (however benign) in Jordan. And pulling out of Beirut wasn't a mistake. The deployment was intended as part of a larger international effort that failed to materialize. Nothing much was going to be accomplished by a few hundred Marines and some 16-inch shells. No sense sticking around to no purpose.

Mistakes are always a possibility, no matter who is in charge. The stripey-pants brigade and the spooks very often have no greater idea about what to do than anyone else - they're just more willing to open their yaps about it.

And yet, much as I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it.

This is simple nonsense. The liberal blogosphere routinely discusses security measures that are actually effective, like port security and improved security at chemical plants.

The liberal blogosphere has also noted, repreatedly, that the eliminating civil liberties to lock people up without trial, and torture them, doesn't advance the "fight against radical jihadism." It makes things worse, reinforcing the message of the jihadists while not actually proving that they represent a threat.

But, IAC, the threat of radical jihadism is way overstated. We've got the right acting like this is the equivalent of the Cold War, and it simply isn't. We're in a state of war, civil liberties suspended, massive debts being run up, in a foreign land that has nothing whatsoever to do with "radical jihadism and what we get is hand wringing claims that liberals don't care about the threat from jihadists.

This is not nuclear weapons staged next door. This is not ICBMs targeted at Washington. This is not about troops staged on the borders of Germany.

This is a ragtag collection of non-state actors who do not have the resources to pose a threat that requires a state of war response. In fact, the US response is doing much more damage to America than any attack did. See James Fallows in this month's Atlantic (sub req).

But the overall prospect looks better than many Americans believe, and better than nearly all political rhetoric asserts. The essence of the change is this: because of al-Qaeda’s own mistakes, and because of the things the United States and its allies have done right, al-Qaeda’s ability to inflict direct damage in America or on Americans has been sharply reduced. Its successor groups in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere will continue to pose dangers. But its hopes for fundamentally harming the United States now rest less on what it can do itself than on what it can trick, tempt, or goad us into doing. Its destiny is no longer in its own hands.

“Does al-Qaeda still constitute an ‘existential’ threat?” asks David Kilcullen, who has written several influential papers on the need for a new strategy against Islamic insurgents. Kilcullen, who as an Australian army officer commanded counter-insurgency units in East Timor, recently served as an adviser in the Pentagon and is now a senior adviser on counterterrorism at the State Department. He was referring to the argument about whether the terrorism of the twenty-first century endangers the very existence of the United States and its allies, as the Soviet Union’s nuclear weapons did throughout the Cold War (and as the remnants of that arsenal still might).

“I think it does, but not for the obvious reasons,” Kilcullen told me. He said the most useful analogy was the menace posed by European anarchists in the nineteenth century. “If you add up everyone they personally killed, it came to maybe 2,000 people, which is not an existential threat.” But one of their number assassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife. The act itself took the lives of two people. The unthinking response of European governments in effect started World War I. “So because of the reaction they provoked, they were able to kill millions of people and destroy a civilization.

“It is not the people al-Qaeda might kill that is the threat,” he concluded. "Our reaction is what can cause the damage. It’s al-Qaeda plus our response that creates the existential danger.

Jay, I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Kilcullen. However, it's always been true that most wars are less than existential events. Almost nobody is prepared to ignore any situation that might require the use of force, simply because it involves jihadism. There are always going to be dustups, tragedies, and assorted nastiness that cannot be resolved by diplomacy alone. And hunkering down behind homeland defenses is nearly always a mistake.

Man you guys totally rewrote this thread didn't you.

the Cold War WAS World War three.

Chris...you are an idiot. You're just pissed because you liked WWII so much, but the producers ultimately decided against a sequel.

The Cold War was - guess what? - the Cold War. End of story.

Weisberg admits the war was a mistake. But if his reason it was a mistake is not the same as my reason it was a mistake, then I must be wrong, I must be weak, and I must be against war, and I must be labeled as a threat. This is the essence of his argument.

Am I wrong to believe that that it is not wrong to expect that decisions to take this country to war will entail a rigorous exercise of democratic debate rather than be decided by a handful of men in secrecy? Am I wrong to question the characterization of threats, the means of militating against threats, the evaluation of a course of actions, or changing course by selecting through the electoral process those who will better represent my views?

Why am I such a polarizing, appeasing, liberal weenie to expect this in a democracy?

Kevin, did you set up this discussion in the comments so us right-wingers could (somewhat) selectively take excerpts from it to prove the left is crazy?

Anyway, I think you're right, of course. If you've been following just the left-wing blogs lately, you'd think Lieberman was a much bigger threat than Hezbollah. I'll be interested in how many even mention the terror plot in Britain while the right will undoubtedly analyze it to death.

But there are less significant things to overanalyze.

Well, Kevin, since no matter what Democrats *ACTUALLY* do or say, they get labeled by Karl Rove/George W. Bush/Republicans/studiously "non-partisan" assholes on the DC cocktail party circuit as being "weak on terror" or "soft on national security" or "a bunch of liberal pussies", I think it's pretty fucking silly to claim that the "liberal blogosphere" needs to come up with a "serious" anti-terrorism policy, when *NOBODY* in the commentariat is holding George W. Bush's feet to the fire on this.

I mean, what the fuck, Kevin, when George W. Bush said "We want Osama Bin Laden dead or alive" (rough quote), did you *think* Bush would *settle* not just for *ALIVE* but *UNCAUGHT*? (while, of course, he's running down *Democrats* as "soft on terror") I mean, this guy's been on the loose for what, almost five years now, and Bush just chirps now, "I don't know if we'll ever catch him" and Dick Cheney says, "Well, Connecticut voters are sending a message to Al Qaeda by voting for Ned Lamont!" as nuclear weapons spread from Pakistan to Iran to god knows where while this Administration encourages Israel to lay the groundwork for the Apocalypse so their reality-averse base can be saved from the temptations of abortion, premarital sex, and gay marriage (among other things), and people like you and Weisberg think, "Wow, it's too bad liberals don't have a *serious* plan for national security"?

You know why we don't have a plan for national security? It's because Republicans have decided that *their* plan is to alternate between being inept and insane, and it's kind of fucking hard to have a coherent response to that, because the usual rational ideas aren't working, and nobody's even giving anyone on the left credit for trying, much less doing, *anything*, because that wouldn't fit with their Karl Rove-approved storyline, that "Democrats are soft on national security" which people like you and Weisberg, Lieberman and Cheney, happily repeat, apparently for kicks. You think it's productive to call Democrats soft on terror? How would you like it if people started calling you a fucking moron and alternately mocked and ignored you when you tried to respond to their arguments?

[I have more barrels if you'd like ;-)]

OH, you're right Kevin - and Weisberg even moreso in the right - and your TIMIDITY in expressing this view is clear indication of how right you are: the extreme left is becoming once again a force to be reckoned with and that's mucho bad for moderate [ie electable] Democrats.

Once again Kevin falls prey to doing the all-war, all the time crowd’s bidding (or is Kevin just Lieberman-lite), by framing the discussion that if you’re not talking some form of invasion or military operation then you’re not serious about terrorism. If the kevin’s of the world would stop looking for their next erection from the next invasion on TV and get the shit out of their ears, they could hear the screaming for a route cause approach coupled with a law enforcement and international cooperation and coordination approach that is completely unsexy for them, but that is the only sane answer as a counter-terrorism approach.

Foul.

Osama is in Pakistan/Afghanistan. Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Quaeda. Its a liberal blog meme that George Bush stopped fighting Al-Quaeda to fight Iraq, and that is the primary reason the Iraq war is a mistake. Its the wrong war against the wrong people.

You can argue about democracy in the Middle East and blah blah blah. But the fact is that on 9/11 Al-quaeda attacked America, not Saddam. Who cares that Saddam is in prison when Bin Laden is merrily issuing press releases ?

Get out of Iraq and get Al-Quaeda. Its a simple impossible to disagree with security plan. Its marketable to the electorate. Its fundamentally different to the Republican approach. Liberals should universally endorse it.

Here, Here, (another) Chris!

2595

Sorry Kevin, it's foul - and worse, as noted above, it's based on republican talking points.

If you're serious - or any liberal is serious - about fighting the GWOT, a term I despise, there are actions that make sense. (1) Take care of the issue in Afghanistan. Bring bin Laden and Mullar Omar to justice. Put more money there, in the right hands, to make it clear that we're serious about changing the climate there. (2) Take care of security in the U.S. Stop funding anti-terror measures based instead on who has political clout and based on where the threats really lie and what really constitutes a target. Get serious about security at our nuke (and some chemical) plants and start scanning all arriving containers entering our ports. (3) Stop creating failed states and start solving the problems associated with why states fail. Iraq is now a failed state - and the problem is there is no good solutions. Wars that leave a county with virtually no infrastructure and warlords that fight to the last bullet for the last of the spoils are the proximate causes for failed states, but poverty and oppression and the perception that jihad offers the best alternative in most cases are the more fundamental causes.

It's not that liberals or leftists are appeaseniks. It's that we have a fundamentally different perspective on how to win the war, or perhaps I should say how to win the peace since winning the war is often the easy part.

It's not a question of avoiding strong military actions. After 9/11, if Bush had said "nuke bin Laden" or invade Afghanistan, I suspect that many (most?) liberals would have been willing to sign on. But once you address the appropriate military targets, then it's a question of how do you deal with the aftermath. Liberals, quite appropriately IMO, haven't been willing to sign on to this part. But not signing on doesn't mean softness in the GWOT. It means only that the solution is not always the barrel of a gun.

Almost nobody is prepared to ignore any situation that might require the use of force, simply because it involves jihadism. There are always going to be dustups, tragedies, and assorted nastiness that cannot be resolved by diplomacy alone. And hunkering down behind homeland defenses is nearly always a mistake.

Who suggested hunkering behind homeland defenses in the face of an actual threat? The US response to 9/11 was widely supported, here and abroad, and was effective. Al Qaeda was denied access to state resources, lost their training facilities and had their communications and finances disrupted. It's unfortunate that the administration didn't finish the job by eliminating their leadership, but they were tremendously weakened.

Invading Iraq was decidedly not a response to terrorist threats--Saddam was not involved in terrorism directed against the US. It was decidedly not a response to a threat from another state--the inspectors showed that there was no threat there.

Worse, invading Iraq accomplished one of bin Laden's goals--trapping the US in an unwinnable quagmire, while feeding al Qaeda propaganda. Or, worse, actually confirming that it is not propaganda. Fallows again:

So far the war in Iraq has advanced the jihadist cause because it generates a steady supply of Islamic victims, or martyrs; because it seems to prove Osama bin Laden’s contention that America lusts to occupy Islam’s sacred sites, abuse Muslim people, and steal Muslim resources; and because it raises the tantalizing possibility that humble Muslim insurgents, with cheap, primitive weapons, can once more hobble and ultimately destroy a superpower, as they believe they did to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan twenty years ago. The United States also played a large role in thwarting the Soviets, but that doesn’t matter. For mythic purposes, mujahideen brought down one anti-Islamic army and can bring down another.

The conflation of support for the war in Iraq with being "strong on national security" is pure Rovian nonsense. That an administration use materiel and men rather than diplomacy and negotiation is not a sign of strength when the use of force cannot achieve the objective. (BTW, do you know what the objective in Iraq is?)

So to say that opposing the Iraq war is weak, or implies hunkering behind homeland defenses is a canard. We would do well to remember the Powell doctrine.

Foul, Kevin, foul. And it should be fairly obvious. There are no Americans who don't take terrorism seriously. None.

It's a straw man argument, Kevin, obviously.

Weisberg is just like his hero Joe Lieberputz. He's more afraid of having Bill Kristol call him names than he is of terrorists. Hence he will support whatever wildass idiotic policy the neocons push just so he can look tough. And it is in his personal interest to beat up on phantom lefties who don't take terrorism seriously because then -- you guessed it -- it gives him an opportunity to lok tougher than thou.

For assholes like Weisberg and Lieberputz it has nothing to do with a principled concern for American security and everything to do with their own personal insecurity when it comes to looking tough.

Let me take this opportunity to send Weisberg a big, "FUCK YOU, PAL". You're NOT tough, asshole. You're physically and morally weak. Fuck off, you little pussy.

Islamists are members of a religious cult. Read "People of the Lie" by Scott Peck for an eye opening definition of human evil and an exploration of the common characteristics of every cult. A suicide bomber has been programmed. They need to be deprogrammed or killed. If Dems are guilty of ignoring the issue Republicans are certainly guilty of enabling religious fundamentalism in it's American form.

Just to clarify slightly: I'm not suggesting that liberal blogs are going to post learned white papers on this subject, or even come up with any great ideas. I'm just wondering why the subject is barely even discussed.

This is the Kevin Drum that I find so annoying. Hey Kevin, if you actually bothered to read some of those blogs, you'd find that yes, they do talk about it to exactly the extent that you think they should, if not moreso. But no, you're too busy reading Kaus and Sully and Glenn Reynolds and a whole host of other unserious hack writers, and taking their word for it that "they don't even talk about it."

Say, when was the last time you actually read more than 5 or 6 comments down a thread?

If you've been following just the left-wing blogs lately, you'd think Lieberman was a much bigger threat than Hezbollah.

Lieberman has been a two-faced enabler to the man who has been a most horrific abuser of the incredible power of the US, which is a power far greater than anything Hezbollah possesses. To that extent, Lieberman is certainly the bigger threat that those of us who actually give a shit about this country's improvement can actually do something about.

Now that Lieberman is marginalized, which he should have been a long time ago, we can get on to other matters.

..Iraq war ....is just a misstep.

If a mistake by Weisberg's surgeon during a major operation left him paralyzed from the waist down, he would still go back to him as it was just a misstep.

Coincidentally, Scotland Yard just disrupted an apparently sizable operation intended to destroy multiple aircraft en route to the United States. Over twenty people in custody. There is no guarantee that these people will stop, even if we choose to withdraw from the half of the world where they operate.

Scotland Yard? You mean the British approached terrorism as a law enforcement problem, just like those dirty peacenik hippies propose, and their approach worked? I thought the tough, manly, macho approach was to treat it as a war -- which means, I suppose, that we should invade the U.K. immediately.

There is no guarantee that these people will stop, even if we choose to withdraw from the half of the world where they operate.

And yet one of the Bush regime's main apologias for the attack on Iraq was that "we have to fight them there so we don't fight them here." Now we are fighting them there, yet this has not, as the bomb plot attests, stopped them from fighting us here. Another rationale down the drain....

Trashauler: Mistakes are always a possibility, no matter who is in charge.

In theory, yes. But we don't have just theory -- we have five and a half years of Bush regime history to look back on, and we know for a fact that with Bush mistakes aren't merely a possibility, they're a fucking dead-on certainty. This sort of wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, "oh there'll always be mistakes so let's not judge too harshly" equivocation is infuriating, because it attempts to exonerate those most at fault under the guise of a spurious fair-mindedness.

"Aside from kvetching about the fact that Bush is driving our car directly into a brick wall at 80 miles an hour, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of how we actually get to I-70 from here."

The first step to getting to I-70 is not steering directly into a brick wall. The first step to taking care of radical jihadism is extricating ourself from the catastrophe that is Iraq, and testosterone-based foreign policy in general. It's like the man says "When you're in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging." We haven't done that yet, so why talk about anything else?

Why do you do this shit? Are you afraid of being labeled a "liberal pansy"? Weisberg is a tool, and this is just right-wing enabling. Bush and the neocons have never been serious about security because they're just a bunch of fantasists moving pieces around a stratego board. Would you call pissing away half a trillion bucks and breaking the back of the US Army in the sands of Iraq being serious about anything? We've had fucking "terrorism" since the dawn of time. It takes all kinds of forms, some associated with civil war/national liberation (see, e.g., Stern gang) and some just some psychopaths out for thrills (Osama et al.). There is no global jihad movement, just a spectrum of insurgent groups, resistance movements, serial killer cults and quasi-mafia gangs that have a loose nexus around Islam. "Jihad" just means "struggle," which, of course, means a lot of different things to different people.

You could tell that the Bush crowd wasn't serious about the latter type of terrorism when they didn't deliver on the "dead or alive" rhetoric and outsourced the hunt for Osama to a bunch of Afghan warlords. The Osama jihadis have always belittled the US for being afraid to take casualties and we fell right into character. Somehow, rightwing nutbags morphed Osama's dig into the bullshit line that "being serious about terrorism" entails being willing to kill a lot of innocent bystanders and take on big imperialist projects that, conveniently, line the pockets or certain groups. So, instead of the current clusterfuck, it would have been better to endure 1000 or more US casualties taking out Osama/Mullar Omar at Tora Bora, and then get the hell out of dodge. That would have been "being serious about terrorism," i.e., sending a clear message that (1) we don't have any imperial aims on your land and resources but (2) we'll bear any burden to track your ass down if you fuck with us. Bottom line, the current US leadership is not serious about terrorism, it just cares about empire and domestic politics (the same thing, really). Put your fucking question to them, not us.

It is, above all, a mistake to elevate the conflict with radical Islam into a "war." It is a far bigger mistake to cast ourselves as in a war on "Terror." This Administration has enlarged the war in a way that Osama bin Ladin could only have dreamed about, multiplying our enemies and dividing our friends. From all accounts, the President truly does think that he is on the side of God in a clash between good and evil.

"The thing is, I'm against terror." Wouldn't taking the fight against radical jihadism seriously involve not elevating it to the center of national life, and not sacrificing our traditions on its behalf? ("Then, the terrorist have won.") 3,000 people, and the core nature of the country has to change? All our previous wars didn't do that to us.

From the standpoint of the nation, radical jihadism has been and will remain a pinprick (and I'm 200 yards from ground zero, and have several dead friends and relatives there)until and unless a subnational group acquires nuclear weapons. But we're not doing much about that either.

As always, Digby says it best in her response to Lord Weisberg:

I'm getting really tired of this. I would really like to see some evidence. This assertion misrepresents the far more complex view that many of us have that challenges the the GOP's silly neocon manicheanism. If Weisberg wants to endorse Bush's absurd formulation that's his privilege. But it is not the only valid way to look at it.

First of all, there can be no debate that there was a "cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11." We've seen Karl Rove's power point presentation and we've been through two elections. The result of that is that we now have a government suffering from "cry wolf" syndrome in which nobody knows whether you can believe what they say. That is a very dangerous and stupid thing to do.

Most of us take the threat of Islamic fundamentalism --- indeed fundamentalism of all kinds --- far more seriously than the Republicans with their comic book and paint ball approach to complex problems. I think most of us feel that Bush has exacerbated the threat to such a degree that we are in vastly more danger today than we were before he undertook his absurd neo-congame. Again when you are actually right about something for some reason these elites consider you a fool and therefore you can't be taken seriously on national security matters. With that kind of thinking we'll be lucky to avoid blowing up the planet.

If Weisberg and the rest of Karl Rove's bitches would like to know what a typical "Lieberman insurgent" thinks of Bush's performance in dealing with Islamic fundamentalism, maybe this from Wes Clark today will suffice:

"You see, despite what Joe Lieberman believes, invading Iraq and diverting our attention away from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden is not being strong on national security. Blind allegiance to George W. Bush and his failed 'stay the course' strategy is not being strong on national security. And no, Senator Lieberman, no matter how you demonize your opponents, there is no 'antisecurity wing' of the Democratic Party."

One of the hallmarks of liberalism is its belief in empiricism. When things aren't working we try to figure out why and solve the problem. Despite our unfounded reputation for starry-eyed naive belief in human perfectability, we are the practical thinkers who are looking to the future and trying to figure out a way to make things better. It is a grave misreading of the current sentiment to assume that we don't care about national security. The reason we are trying so hard to change things is because we do care about it. I don't think I'm the only who feels much less secure than I once did knowing that we have alienated half the world out of some misplaced faith in machismo as a diplomatic strategy. The world stage isn't high school and I'd like to see something a little more sophisticated than locker room psychology brought to bear to solve these problems. In case nobody's noticed, the middle east isn't looking so good right now and the Republicans are shrieking like banshees in ever more hysterical terms. Far be it for me to object, what with the need to live down the summer of love and all, but that just doesn't seem like a good situation to me.

Kevin Drum, fact-free as usual.
.

It's a foul comment Kevin. One you probably should not have validated. It's also a strawman. Let me explain, as many books detailing the inner working of this administration and the conservative brain trust have shown, the problem is not that the United States does not know what to do in the fight against terror but that the conservative ideologues are sabatoging the foreign policy professionals from advising the nation.

A Democratic Congress and Presidency would allow America's National Security Administration to function properly on empirical terms not ideological terms.

In fact Weisberg's thinking is muddled and inherently pro-republican from the start because he assumes that ideology is important in defeating terrorism; it isn't.

JayAkroyd wrote:

"Who suggested hunkering behind homeland defenses in the face of an actual threat? The US response to 9/11 was widely supported, here and abroad, and was effective. Al Qaeda was denied access to state resources, lost their training facilities and had their communications and finances disrupted. It's unfortunate that the administration didn't finish the job by eliminating their leadership, but they were tremendously weakened."
_____________

Jay, though you did not suggest it, some have. However, my sentence was made in partial demurral of Killcullen's observation that the effort against jihadism is not an existential event. As you've just pointed out, even though it isn't, we still need to retain the ability and willingness to act with military force from time to time.

Without even trying to justify the war in Iraq, it should be pointed out that neither Fallows nor anyone else is in a position to prove that "it generates a steady supply of Islamic victims, or martyrs." There is no way to prove that and it has not proven so in many past counter-insurgencies. To make that claim is akin to the old marxist concept of inevitability, as expressed in Mao's theory of warfare. To buy into either concept makes a convenient argument against any action with which one happens to disagree.

Late to this party, Kevin, but I want to make a point about the WAY terrorism is fought, and the distinction that Democrats ought to be making.

Our response to September 11 thus far has been strong. But it has not been smart.

(There. Is that simple enough for even Republicans to understand?)

In this short-attention-span, rather-not-think-about-things country, a purely or primarily military response is sexy and obvious. Militarism will need to be part of any response to terrorism, but it is not the answer in and of itself. And Republicans, unfortunately, simply do not seem to grasp this. They really do think that everyone who hates America can be intimidated by our overwhelming military force.

But this certainty is a fallacy, and one need only look at what has happened in Iraq to disprove it. We have not cowed the insurgents despite out overwhelming firepower; Israel has not intimidated Hezbollah despite their overwhelming superiority of arms. It hasn’t happened and it’s not going to happen, and we need to disabuse ourselves of the notion that if we only applied MORE force, if we only dropped MORE bombs and killed more terrorists that it would. For in dropping those bombs we will also kill those who aren’t terrorists, and the fury this generates guarantees the perpetuation of Islamist terrorism - because it proves, to them, that Osama bin Laden was right about us all along.

One of the common criticisms of Iraq was a failure to plan for after victory. If Democrats believe they can win in November, or in 08, they better have a plan. Placing blame may gain you a victory, but then what. The entire Middle East is a problem, not just Iraq. Whoever wins had better start thinking now about long, medium, and short term strategies to deal with the area.

Without even trying to justify the war in Iraq, it should be pointed out that neither Fallows nor anyone else is in a position to prove that "it generates a steady supply of Islamic victims, or martyrs." There is no way to prove that and it has not proven so in many past counter-insurgencies.

What? That's sheer nonsense. Anyone with any familiarity with the Arab Muslim world knows about the profusion of martyr stories -- the books, poems, songs, posters, DVDS, magazine articles, TV shows, etc. -- that are coming out of Iraq. Just sit in any cafe in Cairo or Amman for ten minutes and you'll get your proof.

To make that claim is akin to the old marxist concept of inevitability, as expressed in Mao's theory of warfare. To buy into either concept makes a convenient argument against any action with which one happens to disagree.

What??? I'd respond to this, but it's hard to respond to nonsense and bafflegab -- which is, I suppose, the point in writing it.

Ooops...I originally posted my response on the wrong thread. Take two:

The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it.

Really? What, pray tell, is the basis for this perception? For my part, Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it have been more than enough reasons to oppose his policies.

The problem, of course, is that Bush's apologists can no longer argue Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it, so they need to beat that tired old straw man, that people who oppose Bush's agenda are "not serious." And lo and behold!

Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously.

Au contraire -- opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it indicates you do take national security seriously; defending Bush's incompetence and mendacity is solid evidence you don't. Which is, of course, why Republicans can't be taken seriously on national security.

They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict.

Even granting, arguendo, that this statement is true, Weisberg seems to presume that Iraq is not purely a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11 -- an assertion not at all in evidence.

Moreover, many opponents to Bush's Folly argued precisely that his obsession with Iraq was in fact a distraction from the struggle against terrorism.

Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism.

To the contrary -- it's beyond obvious that Iraq (to say nothing of Bush's unqualified support for Israel in its assault on Lebanon) is not helping our struggle against terrorism. Opposing the Iraq war indicates a fundamental appreciation of the problem of terrorism. Supporting Bush's debacle is what indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism.

Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat.

Oh, really? A clear majority of the US population oppose Bush's disastrous war in Iraq -- which is exactly why the GOP and iots apologists desperately raise, once again, gthe straw man that those whose opposition to the war puts them squarely in the mainstream view are somehow "not serious." And what's more, the GOP is likely to raise that straw man no matter what the Democrats' actual position is.

By the way, I note with pleasure the British apparent disruption of a major terrorist plot. I note with interest that they appear to have done so using law enforcement and intelligence assets. There's clearly a role for the military in opposing terrorism, but it's also clear that law enforcement and intelligence, not military force, are the primary and most effective tools in combarring terrorists.

Totally disagree Kevin. Your distinction is bogus: There is no difference between criticizing Bush's conduct of the fight against radical jihadism and engaging in a substantive discussion about how to conduct that fight.

If I say "Bush is going about the war on terror incompetently," aren't I necessarily advocating a change in course? Of course any discussion about our response to terrorism is going to start with an assessment of where the Bush administration is taking us.

If liberal blogs didn't find the fight against radical jihadism engaging as a subject, they wouldn't talk about it at all. You can argue that liberal blogs don't make a lot of constructive comments (although I disagree there too), but to say the liberal blogs don't care is absurd.

Without even trying to justify the war in Iraq, it should be pointed out that neither Fallows nor anyone else is in a position to prove that "it generates a steady supply of Islamic victims, or martyrs."

Fallows interviewed 60 security experts. One of the things he found striking was the degree of consensus among them. But it is certainly the case that there is a steady supply of dead Muslims in Iraq.

Another point in the article is that sectarian conflict in Iraq is weakening bin Laden. Ordinary Muslims do not like to see pictures of dead children.

But this is all beside the point. The point is that opposing the war, now or from the start, is not a "weak" position. The war was clearly a mistake from the outset. Tools like Weisberg who claim that everyone who said this was a mistake was nonetheless wrong are pretty damned ridiculous.

But to demand that left bloggers spend their screen space on serious discussions about this issue is just ridiculous.

It's worse than that, brooksfoe. What the Republicans and their apologists intend by this line of argument is that their critics concede, in advance, many of the GOP's assertions regarding the nature of the debate.

Bush's debacle in Iraq has shifted the debate away from the Republicans' comfort zone.

As Weisberg admits, the debate takes place in an atmosphere in which Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it are no longer subject to serious to debate. Naturally the Republicans would prefer to suggest that their opponents, and not they, have the inherently weak position, but that dog just won't hunt.

There's no reason at all to let the Republicans redefine the terms of the debate in the name of being "taken seriously," especially as their support for this debacle and the massive harm it has done US national security indicates it's they who are not serious, and the debate is now about how best to fix the mess that Bush created.

I think that most of the discussion in this thread avoids the core issues that are really at play here.

1. The collective fear that drives this issue is that the United States public and it&s leaders can
   conceive of the day that a nuclear device or some other "weapon of mass destruction" will be used in a
   United States city. It is no longer considered implausible that the access to such weapons or the will to use
   them exists in the wider world


2. It is generally believed among most progressives, the left blogosphere and an increasingly large number of those
   in conservative sphere&s of influence that the Iraq War and some of the other military actions that
   the United States participates in today increases the risk that the scenario described in the statement above
   will occur.
   


3. Therefore the most positive step that we could take, since we cannot turn back the hands of time, would be to stop
   doing the things that we are doing, in this case prosecuting an illegal and immoral war.
   

It is not often that we get ourselves into a situation where the most positive statement that can be made is a negative,
but I think that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in. I am more than willing to admit that I do not know
know what the next step should be. I would even suggest that it is foolhardy to suggest the next step. It is easy to
get bogged down in a discussion of how we would accomplish such a thing. I believe this to be such a major challenge
that we cannot adequately predict conditions are likely to exist afterwards.

As far as I am concerned, everything else is a political discussion that results in obscuring the basic issues
of the day.

And remind me why going after Al-Qaeda, building a successful nation in Afghanistan after removing the Taliban. putting effort into a Palestinian-Israeli settlement and moving the offending air base in Saudi Arabia would not have had an affect on the creation of Islamic terrorists and their now widespread terrorists. At home, increased funding of port security; increased screening of checked baggage on airflights; securing power plants and water supplies; increased surveillance of ground mass transit in urban areas; general increrased protection of infrastructure.

"The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict."

Weisberg makes 2 huge errors in his argument:

1) Seeing Iraq as a politicized right-wing response is not mutually exclusive with taking terrorism seriously. Weisberg acts like you must take one position or the other. Well, no. I take terrorism seriously even though Republicans have politicized terrorism.

2) Weisberg allows that anti-Lieberputz Democrats may rightly oppose Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonesty, and his incompetence in managing it. But he thinks we go even farther. I think those 3 things are quite enough. There is no need to look for more. Those 3 reasons are plenty of reason to oppose Bush and his enablers like Lieberputz. There's no need to pose the factually false hypothesis that anti-Lieberputz Democrats also oppose Lieberputz because they don't take terrorism seriously.
The Fool | 08.10.06 - 9:52 am | #

Jihadism isn't the problem. It is the symptom. Begin with Israel and Palestine.
Devise a solution both sides can live with, whether a two state solution or a shared state with right of return for Palestinians. It's time for a more even-handed policy.

Sometimes I wonder what planet Kevin is living on.

Dems and bloggers have consistently called for checked luggage and cargo containers to be searched for explosives. Now apparently the British have uncovered a plot that intended to exploit this known weakness in security.

Dems and bloggers have consistently pointed out that killing people makes their relatives into enemies. Now public opinion in Lebanon is almost 100% behind Hezbollah. The people in Iraq who welcomed our arrival can't wait to see us go.

And when it comes to fighting "jihadism", there's plenty of that to do at home. There's no difference between our American fundamentalists and the Jewish or Muslim kind, so when are all the people who "fight jihadism" going to come out foursquare for our freedom to not worship at their church?

Kevin, I can only say to you what my father would say to me when he saw me reading a comic book- "Stop reading that crap."

And pulling out of Beirut wasn't a mistake. The deployment was intended as part of a larger international effort that failed to materialize.

For Reagan, the mistake was going in to a with the expectation of being greeted as a neutral actor. Shultz, Weinberger, and MacFarlane were hoping to prop up and pressure a weak lebanese government in the middle of a complex 7 year civil war and at the same time receive flowers and fruit baskets from the other factions.

He failed to realize that the Syrians, Palestinians, Druze, Lebanese Shia, etc. were capable of observing the trajectory of artillery shells, reading newspapers, and piecing together the text written on bombs fragments.

The commander in chief still thought he could hoodwink the savages on the ground into believing US press releases. From his diary:

PLO and Syrian have launched a new attack against the Lebanese Army. Our problem is do we expand our mission to aid the Lebanese Army with artillery and air support? This could be seen as putting us in the war. [no shit sherlock]

. . . I've ordered the use of naval gunfire. My reasoning is that this can be explained as protection of our Marines hoping it might signal the Syrians to pull back. [gee, I hope they don't interpret the shells landing on their positions as an indication we're not on their side.

Agreeing with all the previous comments about the fundamental lack of seriousness and reality in the way Kevin framed the question, I will also add this:

Should the "liberal blogsphere" come up with the perfect plan for countering difficult problems of terrorism, Karl Rove would immediately take what was offered, turn it inside out, and use it to attack Democratic candidates in the next election. So there is zero incentive for the base of the party which is currently utterly out of power to publish anything on this topic.

Cranky

Shorter Kevin: Why won't liberals join the debate about what country to invade next?

What's the point of a serious discussion when the other party isn't listening, and just increases their insulting behavior when you make the attempt? That's a more pressing issue for us than terrorists, because we can't deal with the terror issue until we can find a way to come up with a plan of action.

Should the "liberal blogsphere" come up with the perfect plan for countering difficult problems of terrorism, Karl Rove would immediately take what was offered, turn it inside out, and use it to attack Democratic candidates in the next election. So there is zero incentive for the base of the party which is currently utterly out of power to publish anything on this topic.

Exactly. And again, the straw man about the "unseriousness" of Bush's critics on the struggle against terrorists is intended solely to shift the debate from Bush's manifest and obvious failures and indeed to establish the presumption that Bush is right -- in concept if not execution, at least -- by default.

By and large, this straw man was blatantly obvious to Bush's critics who post here. It's a pity it apparently wasn't so obvious to Kevin himself.

Speaking of straw men, "Trashhauler" wrote: Jay, though you did not suggest [hunkering behind homeland defenses in the face of an actual threat], some have

I call. Who, exactly, suggested such a thing?

"By the way, I note with pleasure the British apparent disruption of a major terrorist plot. I note with interest that they appear to have done so using law enforcement and intelligence assets. There's clearly a role for the military in opposing terrorism, but it's also clear that law enforcement and intelligence, not military force, are the primary and most effective tools in combarring terrorists." - gregory

"There has been an enormous amount of co-operation with the US authorities which has been of great value and underlines the threat we face and our determination to counter it," he said in a statement." - Tony Blair

Just FYI greggy, GW is fighting this battle on both fronts.

"There's no reason at all to let the Republicans redefine the terms of the debate in the name of being "taken seriously," especially as their support for this debacle and the massive harm it has done US national security indicates it's they who are not serious, and the debate is now about how best to fix the mess that Bush created." - greggy

November 1979: Muslim extremists (Iranian variety) seized the U.S. embassy in Iran and held 52 American hostages for 444 days, following Democrat Jimmy Carter's masterful foreign policy granting Islamic fanaticism its first real foothold in the Middle East.

1982: Muslim extremists (mostly Hezbollah) began a nearly decade-long habit of taking Americans and Europeans hostage in Lebanon, killing William Buckley and holding Terry Anderson for 6 1/2 years.

April 1983: Muslim extremists (Islamic Jihad or possibly Hezbollah) bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 16 Americans.

October 1983: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) blew up the U.S. Marine barracks at the Beirut airport, killing 241 Marines.

December 1983: Muslim extremists (al-Dawa) blew up the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing five and injuring 80.

September 1984: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) exploded a truck bomb at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut, killing 24 people, including two U.S. servicemen.

December 1984: Muslim extremists (probably Hezbollah) hijacked a Kuwait Airways airplane, landed in Iran and demanded the release of the 17 members of al-Dawa who had been arrested for the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Kuwait, killing two Americans before the siege was over.

June 14, 1985: Muslim extremists (Hezbollah) hijacked TWA Flight 847 out of Athens, diverting it to Beirut, taking the passengers hostage in return for the release of the Kuwait 17 as well as another 700 prisoners held by Israel. When their demands were not met, the Muslims shot U.S. Navy diver Robert Dean Stethem and dumped his body on the tarmac.

October 1985: Muslim extremists (Palestine Liberation Front backed by Libya) seized an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, killing 69-year-old American Leon Klinghoffer by shooting him and then tossing his body overboard.

December 1985: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed airports in Rome and Vienna, killing 20 people, including five Americans.

April 1986: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed a discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen in West Berlin, injuring hundreds and killing two, including a U.S. soldier.

December 1988: Muslim extremists (backed by Libya) bombed Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing all 259 on board and 11 on the ground.

February 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, possibly with involvement of friendly rival al-Qaida) set off a bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding more than 1,000.

Spring 1993: Muslim extremists (al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya, the Sudanese Islamic Front and at least one member of Hamas) plot to blow up the Lincoln and Holland tunnels, the U.N. complex, and the FBI's lower Manhattan headquarters.

November 1995: Muslim extremists (possibly Iranian "Party of God") explode a car bomb at U.S. military headquarters in Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. military servicemen.

June 1996: Muslim extremists (13 Saudis and a Lebanese member of Hezbollah, probably with involvement of al-Qaida) explode a truck bomb outside the Khobar Towers military complex, killing 19 American servicemen and injuring hundreds.

August 1998: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) explode truck bombs at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing 224 and injuring thousands.

October 2000: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) blow up the U.S. Navy destroyer USS Cole, killing 17 U.S. sailors.

Sept. 11, 2001: Muslim extremists (al-Qaida) hijack commercial aircraft and fly planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania, killing nearly 3,000 Americans.

GW created all of this, wow!

"The trouble with Carter
by Klaus Rohrich
Friday, August 5, 2005

Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer and former U.S. President, has a huge problem: his mouth. The things emanating from that orifice are bizarre in the extreme, considering that Carter was arguably the worst president in the history of the United States. His most recent foot-in-mouth episode involves his running commentary on George W. Bush’s veracity and the "atrocities" committed by American soldiers in the war on terrorism. Carter maintains that had the U.S. not waged war against the Taliban who were sponsors of Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, or deposed Saddam Hussein, then the Islamic terrorists would have no excuse for attacking the West.
To say this sentiment is naïve is charitable, given Carter’s history of extreme failure as America’s 39th president. For those too young to remember, under Carter’s tenure in the White House inflation and interest rates rose to their highest levels since the Second World War. In 1978 interest rates of 20 percent were not unheard of, as Carter dithered with the U.S. economy. It was also under Carter’s watch that Iranian fundamentalist Muslims took 66 American diplomats hostage and held them for 444 days, while Carter was powerless to do anything but posture.
It is ironic that this happened, as Carter was directly responsible for the Ayatollah Khomeini’s takeover of Iran. Carter had decided that Mohammed Reza Palavi, the Shah of Iran and a committed friend of the United States, wasn’t democratic enough for Carter’s taste. As a result, Carter insisted the Shah democratize his regime, the result of which was the takeover of Iran by the Ayatollah when the Shah left Iran for cancer treatment in the U.S.
More ironically still, the takeover of Iran by the Islamic fundamentalists emboldened Saddam Hussein, who had just begun his tenure as absolute dictator of Iraq. Believing that the departure of the Shah and the chilling of American/Iranian relations would render Iran ripe for an invasion, Saddam attacked Iran in hopes of securing that country’s oil fields and deposing the Shia Muslim theocracy there. The result was that over 1,000,000 men died during that conflict, which remained at a stalemate for years.
Had Carter not been instrumental in deposing the Shah, then Saddam would likely have remained a bit player in the region, which might have resulted in greater stability.
In 2002, Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development". This sounds to me like it may have been the booby prize, given that Carter actually never accomplished anything concrete that resulted in the resolution of international conflicts, the advancement of democracy or even the promotion of economic and social development. Quite the opposite, as under Carter’s reign the "misery index", which was Carter’s own invention (leave it to a Democrat to focus on misery), climbed by over 50 percent! But then, we have to remember that the Nobel Peace prize also went to Yassar Arafat, the notorious murderer who is responsible for thousands of deaths, both among Israelis as well as Palestinians.
It’s so characteristic of Democrats in the U.S. to take total failures, flunkies who accomplish less than nothing, and elevate them to some mythical pantheon of liberal heroes because they had good intentions. My grandmother used to tell me that the road to hell was paved with them"

This is where and how the mess started greggy. The brilliance of liberalism.

The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. . They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism.

The problem with what Weisberg says here is that, well, its misses the point. The "global battle against Islamic fanaticism" isn't, at least in the way its being executed by the current administration even excluding the Iraq fiasco, serious. Its a misguided misadventure not because the administration made an isolated mistake in Iraq, but because the administration fundamentally misunderstands how to deal with an ideological movement that breeds violent terrorism and consistently screws it up.

The problem is that Iraq is not an isolated symptom of a cynical and politicized response to 9/11, the entire "bigger conflict" that it is sold by the administration as part of (though its entirely counterproductive too, though not alone in that) is a failure because its all a cynical and politicized exploitation of 9/11 to pursue a pre-conceived neoconservative agenda of which aggression against Iraq was the centerpiece, rather than a serious effort to deal with the root causes of terrorism in a way which has a realistic likelihood of bearing positive fruit.

"Shorter Kevin: Why won't liberals join the debate about what country to invade next?"

The Mother of all Strawmen.

The Objectionable Hysteric says...
Regressive-Democrats have is the concept that "war is not the answer...

Oh, please kind sir, do tell us how war against unknown, ill-defined, non-state terrorist actors is the answer. I really want to know.

Jay, how many times are you going to cut and paste that bullshit list of yours that has been debunked and dismissed? It's kinda like spam at this point.

What's the point of a serious discussion when the other party isn't listening, and just increases their insulting behavior when you make the attempt? That's a more pressing issue for us than terrorists, because we can't deal with the terror issue until we can find a way to come up with a plan of action.

The Democrats could call for a nuclear attack on the entire Middle East, enslaving any survivors and sowing the ruins with salt, and the next day Karl Rove and Ken Mehlmann would be on TV denouncing that plan as appeasement and soft on terror -- and, what's worse, the media would report it as a "he said, she said" story without ever weighing the truth of those claims.

Just FYI greggy, GW is fighting this battle on both fronts.

Just FYI Jay, there should be NO Iraqi front. And the Afghani front should never have been weakened. And if you now agree with the law enforcement front, why do you and your rightwing ilk make fun of Kerry for suggesting it?

"Its a misguided misadventure not because the administration made an isolated mistake in Iraq, but because the administration fundamentally misunderstands how to deal with an ideological movement that breeds violent terrorism and consistently screws it up." - cm

".....rather than a serious effort to deal with the root causes of terrorism in a way which has a realistic likelihood of bearing positive fruit." - cm

"January 06, 2006]

In bid to get varied opinions, Bush meets with old guard

(Boston Globe, The (KRT) Via Thomson Dialog NewsEdge) Jan. 6--WASHINGTON -- President Bush met with a dozen former secretaries of state and defense yesterday, including those who have openly criticized his Iraq policy, in what he described as an effort to solicit divergent opinions on the war.

Click here to learn more about e911 and its impact on VoIP
Click Here to Learn How You Can Profit from IP Communications. Live, in Person at INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference & EXPO West 2006 in San Diego.
Click here to learn more about e911 and its impact on VoIP
Get Your IMS Education from The Expert Team at INTERNET TELEPHONY Magazine and TMCnet. This Fall in San Diego at IMS Expo.

The White House's first invitation to members of the old guard, ranging from two Vietnam-era Pentagon chiefs to the war Cabinets of Bush's father and Bill Clinton, marked a rare instance of the president seeking input on national security matters from people outside his tight-knit inner circle.

The participants, representing much of the US foreign policy and military hierarchy of the past 40 years, urged Bush to be more frank with the American public and as one put it, told him "some things he did not like."

The former secretaries warned that the war is stretching the armed forces to the breaking point, according to participants. Bush was also urged to not conflate the Iraq war with the wider war on terrorism and was advised to do more to enlist Sunni Iraqis in the political process.

Among those in attendance were Bush's national security team and senior administration officials linked in by video from Iraq.

"Not everybody around this table agreed with my decision to go into Iraq, and I fully understand that," Bush said in brief remarks after the session in the Roosevelt Room. "And I am most grateful for the suggestions that have been given. We take to heart the advice."

The eminent group included Robert S. McNamara, who at 89 was the senior statesman in attendance, having served under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson; Melvin Laird and James Schlesinger, who served under Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford; Harold Brown, who was Jimmy Carter's secretary of defense; Frank Carlucci, Ronald Reagan's defense secretary; and William Perry and William Cohen, Pentagon chiefs during the Clinton administration.

The former top diplomats on hand were Colin L. Powell, Bush's first secretary of state; Alexander Haig and George Shultz from the Reagan administration; Lawrence Eagleburger and James Baker from the administration of George H. W. Bush; and Madeleine K. Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton administration.

The hourlong meeting was also an opportunity for Bush to ask for their help in maintaining support for a mission all agreed must succeed because the United States has so much at stake in Iraq.

Cohen, who is also a former Republican senator from Maine, said Bush asked the group to speak out about the importance of the Iraq mission during their foreign travels and to use their business contacts to help enlist support for investment in Iraq's shaky economy.

The meeting was cordial, according to participants, but not without its share of dissent.

"He heard some things he did not like. He heard some things he did like," said Laird, who recently penned an article in Foreign Affairs that both accused the Bush administration of ignoring the mistakes of Vietnam and called for a phased withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

Each participant was given the opportunity to say their piece and "whoever felt compelled to speak up did, and almost everybody did," Cohen said by telephone. "All of us went there with the understanding that the president was reaching out. It was an opportunity for individual members to say 'Here's what I think you need to be doing.' "

The session ran about 15 minutes longer than expected, before the participants were ushered into a separate briefing by Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley.

Some members of former administrations who were not at the meeting saw the president's decision to invite the former officials -- both Republican and Democrat -- as signaling a new willingness to listen to his critics and possibly apply some of their advice.

"There has been this legitimate concern that he has been isolated," said David Gergen, former White House chief of staff and aide to four presidents. "It is a smart move on his part to do this. Presidents in the past have frequently called in the old guard. He gets the benefit of hearing different views and is seen as getting out the bubble."

Added Gergen, director of the Center for Public Leadership at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government: "Before Christmas we began to see a change in tone on Iraq, even though the policy didn't change. Perhaps in the new year there will be a new political approach."

"It is encouraging they are reaching out to see how they can find a better way to approach the problem," said retired Admiral Stansfield Turner, who served as CIA director under Carter and has been a vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policy"

Well it appears American administrations have been "misunderstanding how to deal with the ideological movement" for decades.

Maybe it's because the "idological movement" doesn't want to be understood and only wants to kill and win.

"....why do you and your rightwing ilk make fun of Kerry for suggesting it?"

beacause Kerry said it was "strictly" a law enforcement issue. Pay attention.

"Jay, how many times are you going to cut and paste that bullshit list of yours that has been debunked and dismissed? It's kinda like spam at this point."

Exactly what has been debunked and dismissed? The litany of jihadist mayhem or Carter's incompetence?

"and this widespread silence makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that liberal bloggers just don't find the subject very engaging".

Kevin,

I have to say that the above statement by you is an overly simplistic characterization. By using the word silence you imply that there is a room (nation) full of listeners (Americans) waiting patiently to hear a well thought out argument. Instead, what we have had in America these last five years is a nation full of people shouting down any opinion that did not resonate with the Republican leadership.

When anyone other then a true Republican (definition: never, ever, disagree with the party line) has talked about the subject in an honest way they have been vilified by the true Republicans and their obedient enablers. And what I mean by "in an honest way" is with a rational debate that tries to take into account the enormous complexity of the problem - the nuances that make the current crop of Republicans scream "weak on terrorism".

It is obvious today that a small majority of Americans were not ready to hear this nuanced debate. Maybe now they will have the strength to shout down the fear mongers and quiet the room so the adults can speak.

Kevin, didn't you post on Robert Wright's Progressive Realism just a week or two ago?

Foul - This was a cheap shot from Lord Weisberg to distract from the basic point that his analysis for what to do was disastrous both for the country and the Democratic Party.

1) Major Bloggers like you, Kos, Atrois, Digby and others have looked at how the US should make sure that religous nuts both in the Middle East and an at home "Radical Jihadism" should be bes denied any access to power.

2) You have all made the essential point that the first thing we need to do is to stop doing what's self destructive.

3) You have all made the point that the discussion of what do should be based on empirical evidence and not some vague hopes, and cheap political shots. If you deny reality you're going to fail.

4) You've all made the basic point that we should listen to people who have proven they know what they're talking about. And stop listen to people who've proven repeatedly they're fools, like Weisberg, Whitman, Krauthammer and the like.

Foul, Cheap, Slanderous - and I really thought it was Sullivan when I read it first.

Kevin-
Alas, you're right. There is a need for discussion of radical Islamism by the left. The field should no be left to the right-wing ideologues who will use it as a rationale for their own delusions. There is a need for rigorous and honest thinking about Jihadism and what to do about it.

"and this widespread silence makes it hard to avoid the conclusion that liberal bloggers just don't find the subject very engaging".

Are you kidding me? The incessant whining from the left is deafening everyday.

"When anyone other then a true Republican (definition: never, ever, disagree with the party line) has talked about the subject in an honest way they have been vilified by the true Republicans and their obedient enablers. And what I mean by "in an honest way" is with a rational debate that tries to take into account the enormous complexity of the problem - the nuances that make the current crop of Republicans scream "weak on terrorism"." - evolvedreason

"It is encouraging they are reaching out to see how they can find a better way to approach the problem," said retired Admiral Stansfield Turner, who served as CIA director under Carter and has been a vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policy"

Would you like to restate that?

"...that a small majority of Americans..."

um...that's an oxymoron.

I almost spit out my cereal when I read Kevin's comments here: "aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it."

I think this is EXACTLY the kind of rhetoric that Rove loves Democrats to make -- to basically cave in and say "yeah, they're right -- liberals really don't have a plan and aren't serious about terrorism". In this case, liberals being the liberal blogosphere.

There's two things wrong with this, the first being that it's obviously untrue. Liberals, liberal bloggers, and Democrats have since 9/11 brought forth to the table plenty ideas of how to fight terrorism. Some quick examples come to mind -- oh I don't know... NOT invading Iraq and keeping an eye on the ball in Afghanistan, being a fair broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, perhaps working with the international community in policing terrorism more. Now one can argue over how much "kvetching" that is vs substantial discussion, but hey I won't be alone in saying that there were countless times actual substance was being debated, not just generalized theory.

The second problem with what Kevin has stated is that despite lots of ideas being thrown around by the left, the control of the actual discussion when it reaches the mainstream is always in the hands of the right. Liberals and Democrats hardly have a chance to echo their ideas about terrorism because when it reaches the forefront, Regressives always focus on something else that isn't terrorism related. Oh I don't know... THE WAR IN IRAQ for one. Liberals don't seem to have "substantive discussion" of the fight because the fight is ALWAYS BEING DEFINED BY THE RIGHT.

I'm not sure if this was mentioned already by other posters, but I think it's unfortunate that Kevin has decided to fall in this Rovian trap of self-defeat.

Why stop at blaming a President from 26 years ago? Isn't it really all FDR's fault. It could take a century of Republican rule to undo all his screw-ups.

Why stop at blaming a President from 26 years ago? Isn't it really all FDR's fault. It could take a century of Republican rule to undo all his screw-ups.

Personally, I blame McKinley.

It's not "kinda like spam". It is spam. And I for one would welcome a moderator who would just remove Jay's spam as soon as he posts it.

To get back on topic, liberals have always been about defeating jihadism. Or maybe I should say radical leftists are against jihadism, because a sad number of "liberals" have supported the dictatorships that keep their people in poverty and manipulate their anger to turn it against women and Jews.

And that's the real dynamic of jihadism- development and change blocked for 50 years by American support of dictatorships. When you get down to cases, it was our own CIA agents, or their surrogate killers employed by dictators, who killed the moderates.

And it was the Republicans who created AQ, who funded the madrassahs and the Afghani warlords, and in our own hemisphere (to offer just one example) have supported the Uribe government in Colombia while it pardons the druglords and does nothing to stop the murder of labor leaders and journalists.

No, Weisberg does not have a point. The liberal cure for jihadism is well known to anybody with a rudimentary education in sociology, history and science. It is to create a secular alternative that does a better job of delivering the goods.

IOW, stop pandering to religious freaks and make Plan B available over the counter- as science and law say it should be. Just one of hundreds of "liberal" positions that support the advance of the human condition, and the concomittant defeat of religious ignorance and hatred.

It's not the fault of liberalism if listening to science is regarded as a "radical lefty proposition".

I think the first and most profound difference between the parties is this:

Republicans act as if there are a finite number of terrorists, whom we have to find and kill/imprison.

Democrats act as if there are a potentially infinite number of terrorists, and devise foreign policy to limit the number of terrorists, while finding and killing/imprisoning those who are currently radicialized and acting.

Liberal foreign policy has to be focused on the prevention of terrorism and radicalizing of islamic fundamentalists, with a strong police/enforcement action, and when necessary military action (Afghanistan)

Conservative policy coversely actually increases the terrorist threat because by its actions it creates more radicalized populations.

that is the difference.

Actually, B, what's interesting about that list is how short it is. It's remarkable that the wingnuts and neocons have gotten away with labeling response to a series of isolated events by small, non-state actors a "war."

It really turns on the iconic value of the WTC attack. It worked just the bin Laden wanted. He has pointed out that the attack cost him about $100,000 and 14 people. The US response has cost over half a trillion dollars, thousand of American lives, tens of thousands of Iraqi lives, with no end in sight.

Terrorism is in part about encouraging this kind of disproportionate response. We now have any number of security taxes in place, from the surcharge on your ticket to paying for a cop to sit at the entrance to the George Washington to bridge to ensure that no trucks use the lower level. Our civil liberties have been eroded. Our standing in world has been diminished. Our moral authority as the former head of the free world is all but gone.

I'm sure, despite having crippled his organization, bin Laden is very pleased by all this.

And I know that some of the people who supported this war did it for cynical, political reasons to create an Orwellian enemy so they could remain in power. I can't think of a more appalling political action.

sc: It's not "kinda like spam". It is spam. And I for one would welcome a moderator who would just remove Jay's spam as soon as he posts it.

Especially this part of Jay's post:

Click here to learn more about e911 and its impact on VoIP
Click Here to Learn How You Can Profit from IP Communications. Live, in Person at INTERNET TELEPHONY Conference & EXPO West 2006 in San Diego.
Click here to learn more about e911 and its impact on VoIP
Get Your IMS Education from The Expert Team at INTERNET TELEPHONY Magazine and TMCnet. This Fall in San Diego at IMS Expo.

"Liberals don't seem to have "substantive discussion" of the fight because the fight is ALWAYS BEING DEFINED BY THE RIGHT"

Well that's because, oh I don't know.....this was debated ad nauseum in 2004 and GW's policies won by more than 3.5 million popular votes.

"Isn't it really all FDR's fault. It could take a century of Republican rule to undo all his screw-ups." - B

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The Four Freedoms

What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition -- clear, definite opposition -- to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the endLet us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

B - FDR was a brilliant leader, unlike anything in The Democratic party today.

I don't know about liberal bloggers; in fact I think their influence and importance is generally overstated. But Democratic politicians nationally have had a long-standing under-involvement in foreign affairs and national security issues that traces its roots all the way back to the disastrous McGovern candidacy in 1972.

Democrats will usually beat Republicans on domestic issues. Since McGovern they have usually lost when national security and foreign affairs were salient with voters -- and a lot of the Democrats who won were Southern Democrats who aren't around anymore. After the Soviet Union fell this disadvantage momentarily disappeared in Presidential politics, which was why Bill Clinton could get elected. 9/11 brought it back with a vengeance.

The good news for liberal Democrats, or at least for some of them, is that to reduce their disadvantage on national security and foreign affairs they don't need to change that many of their substantive positions. They merely have to show interest -- in defending American interests and allies abroad, but particularly in the military.

A quick story illustrates what national Democrats have done wrong: not long after George W. Bush became President the Navy decided to name a planned nuclear aircraft carrier after his father. This was (and is) outrageous sucking-up even by the standards of the Navy brass, completely inappropriate in every way. John Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran, never mentioned it -- seemed not to be aware of it, in fact. The point is not that he missed a good campaign issue, but that he missed a chance to show that he was involved in defense issues. The truth is, he hadn't been for most of his career in the Senate; they promised little political benefit to him, and hadn't absorbed his interest personally either. Most national Democrats have the same problem.

I love that bullshit about liberals don't have any ideas. In fact, as people have argued upthread, we've proposed many of them.

But even if it were true its pretty fucking absurd. If you're in a car and the driver is about to go off a cliff do you really criticize the passenger who tells him to turn the wheel because he doesn't have a complete alternative itinerary on hand? Especially if most of the other passengers are telling the guy who says not to drive off the cliff to shut up?

What do the survivors say to the passenger who said turn the wheel afterward? All you did was bitch about heading for the cliff but you didn't have a better destination in mind, so you're the one who ought to get shit?

I hear plenty of suggestions from the left, and pretty much constantly. Improve homeland security. Building healthier international relations (emphasized by Lamont in this victory statement) is essential to our safety. Do a better job in Afghanistan. Get bin Laden (I actually believe this administration likes having him alive out there; it works for their booga-booga fear-mongering). Alter course with Pakistan, India, and more. Build schools instead of dropping bombs. Stop being grossly hypocritical about our deepest principles. And more. It says something if even our own side doesn't recognize that the left says plenty about this. Talk about whistling into the (Republican Noise Machine) Wind!

"To get back on topic, liberals have always been about defeating jihadism. Or maybe I should say radical leftists are against jihadism,"

Really?

"Michael Moore is the shining example of the Anti-Israel left wingers in this country. A leftist by nature is an appeaser. In the context of the war on terror the American Left believes that if we just do what the Muslims want us to do they will leave us alone. Many believe that if we abandon our friendship with Israel the terrorists will "leave us alone". If we just pull our bases from the Middle East the terrorists will "leave us alone". If we just appease the terrorists they'll just "leave us alone". Chamberlain employed that same appeaser philosophy against Hitler in the 1930's. The result was catastrophic."

"In October of 2003, Moore was quoted in the University of Michigan’s student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, as saying “there is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.”"

That's a funny way of fighting jihadism.

"I'm sure, despite having crippled his organization, bin Laden is very pleased by all this."

Yeah sure, every leader delights when his organization is dismantled.

"What do the survivors say to the passenger who said turn the wheel afterward? All you did was bitch about heading for the cliff but you didn't have a better destination in mind, so you're the one who ought to get shit?" - the fool

Well you did pick the right moniker.

Well it appears American administrations have been "misunderstanding how to deal with the ideological movement" for decades.

Perhaps, they have. Trying to distract from present problems by spreading blame around does little to deal with the present policy failures.

Maybe it's because the "idological movement" doesn't want to be understood and only wants to kill and win.

Well, that it just wants that is precisely why it needs to be understood, so it can be combatted effectively. If you don't understand it, you can't stop it from spreading (and thus being more able to "kill" and "win".) If you, for instance, do exactly the response it seeks (as Bush has done), which feeds its ability to spread its ideas and grow its movement, then you aren't fighting it, you are aiding it.

Making you either an deliberate enemy of America, or simply a dupe of the terrorists.

Hey, I'm a liberal blog commenter. I'll chime in.

Find the people who intend to kill Americans. Capture and imprison them. Kill them if that's what is needed.

Will that do as a sufficiently anti-jihadi position?

What any of the above has to do with Iraq is beyond me, or any other sane person.

Enough of this garbage.

Thank you.

It should be obvious to an ass that the greater the dependence of the United States upon MidEast oil, the greater its vulnerability to terrorist threats.

It also should be obvious ot an ass that a country running the deficits the United States now is cannot contintue to spend as much on its military as the rest of the world combined.

These are hard facts, that if the democratic processes cannot address, will nevertheless assert themselves in the fairly near future.

And that will be the end of the War on Terror whether Weisberg, Lieberman, Drum, Cheney, or anybody else likes it or not.

I think the left has hardly been absent from this discussion. The problem is, the basic outline of what to do about Islamic terrorism is pretty short, and we've already blown it so big-time, so you can easily miss the non-domestic part of the discussion.

If it was September 12, 2001 all over again, here's what we'd ideally do about Islamic jihadism:

1) We'd organize a good chunk of our foreign policy to use the post-9/11 wave of sympathy to keep the bulk of the Islamic world more on our side than on Osama's, thereby drying up the sea in which the terrorists would swim.

2) We'd protect the homefront through screening of cargo entering through our ports, heightened security procedures at chemical plants, restricting shipments of large quantities of hazardous chemicals from heavily-populated areas, etc.

3) We'd track down al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups with global reach, increasing our numbers of Arabic, Farsi, etc.-speaking intelligence officers, putting more emphasis on the humint side of things, and gaining intel from captives by painstakingly building up relationships with them, rather than going the torture route.

This has all been said many times. But Iraq, and now Lebanon, have so completely and totally fucked up #1 that it'll take us twenty years to have as much sympathy in the Arab/Islamic world as we did on September 10, 2001, let alone on September 12.

#2 has been discussed ad nauseum, and we know nothing's been done for the usual reason: business' bottom line trumped the War on Terror.

#3 has several parts, but the part about building up relationships with captives has been killed by Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, etc., etc. (much discussed in the blogsphere); the Bushies would rather kick Arabic-speaking intel guys out of the military for being gay than keep them to help fight the War on Terror (ditto). And in general, how well #3 goes is going to depend on #1, since the best way to track down al-Qaeda is by having sympathetic Arabs share info with us when they notice suspicious activity. And since #1 is well and truly fucked, #3 isn't in good shape. This has also been discussed with some frequency.

There. That's all that needs saying, and now it's been said one more time.

It's also been said frequently that the Bush Administration effectively has no War on Terror, because they've fucked up #1 and #3 totally, and haven't bothered with #2, except for the part about harassing us when we travel by plane.

"If you, for instance, do exactly the response it seeks (as Bush has done), which feeds its ability to spread its ideas and grow its movement, then you aren't fighting it, you are aiding it.

Making you either an deliberate enemy of America, or simply a dupe of the terrorists."

I am not saying the current policy is THE policy to win this battle. The current policy however employs military (Iraq), law enforcement (today's UK thwart great example) and diplomacy
(the current dialogue with Lebanon) which is the right track.

"Perhaps, they have. Trying to distract from present problems by spreading blame around does little to deal with the present policy failures."

None of this happened in a vaccuum. America's policies, actions or inactions throughout the past four decades have culminated in the current debacle. GW is employing all tactical measures and leaving nothing off of the table.

Consider this: Would you really want to say the Iraq incursion was a mistake/failure if, after the fall of Saddam, things had turned out "OK" as most people would agree? Really, if not, just for the sake of some grey-area international norms, in the face of Iraqi public contentment? (On principle of course we should still decry the intelligence failure/fraud.)

I think that is the dividing line between what I call reasonable opposition to the war as it actually turned out, and reflexively saying there couldn't *have been* a way for it to turn out acceptably.

'Radical jihadism' does not exist, at least not in the way neo-cons and DLC/TNR Israeli apologists explain it. There is no overwhelming militant force working to overthrow the West, so the reality based community does not spend much time trying to eliminate that bogeyman.

Good liberals and Leftists understand that much of the violence directed at the US and the West is a result of an emotional need to retaliate against an implacable foe who kills children and civilians without remorse and with merciless brutality. It is the viscousness of the US and its allies that has caused its victims to believe their only recourse is to act in kind. What needs to be done is relieve the suffering the US, the West and its wealthy corporations cause. This approach is anathema to neo-cons and rabid nationalists and confuses moderates, who enjoy the fruits of their country's militant dominance and do not want to give them up.

It is troubling so many moderates cannot discern the terrible things their government does to others in the name of protecting the accumulated wealth of the establishment as terror deserving a response. That moderates think punishing the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak will protect them and their way of life can only be attributed to hysteria or bloodlust.

America's policies, actions or inactions throughout the past four decades have culminated in the current debacle. GW is employing all tactical measures and leaving nothing off of the table.

Look, its not about how many different tools you use, how you use them is more important that what categories of tools you use.

"...that a small majority of Americans..."
um...that's an oxymoron.

Jay,

No, the term "small majority" is not an oxymoron. For example 53% is a small majority where as 80% would be a large majority. Now, for some Republicans, 53% is a mandate so maybe that is where you are getting confused.

"Good liberals and Leftists understand that much of the violence directed at the US and the West is a result of an emotional need to retaliate against an implacable foe who kills children and civilians without remorse and with merciless brutality." - hostile

UBL is that you?

"What needs to be done is relieve the suffering the US, the West and its wealthy corporations cause. This approach is anathema to neo-cons and rabid nationalists and confuses moderates, who enjoy the fruits of their country's militant dominance and do not want to give them up." - hostile

Yes I believe it is you. Say hi to Zawahiri.

"That moderates think punishing the poorest of the poor and the weakest of the weak will protect them and their way of life can only be attributed to hysteria or bloodlust." - hostile

Of course this is all brainwashed stupidity without any factual evidence to support the delirium. And this does represent a large portion of the thinking on the left. History will detail how this type of ignorant head-in-the-sand thinking helped to prolong the violence in the world.

Would you really want to say the Iraq incursion was a mistake/failure if, after the fall of Saddam, things had turned out "OK" as most people would agree?

No, in the same way that I wouldn't say that the policy of dropping thermonuclear bombs on US cities to deal with terrorism was a failure if the bombs happened, magically, to vanish when they hit the ground, and simultaneously all the terrorists in the world dropped dead and democracy inexplicably appeared in the Middle East.

I think that is the dividing line between what I call reasonable opposition to the war as it actually turned out, and reflexively saying there couldn't *have been* a way for it to turn out acceptably.

That's nonsense. The issue isn't whether there was or wasn't some merely logically possible way that good results could have come from the war, the question is whether the war was a course of action which could reasonably have been anticipated to be likely to produce beneficial outcomes that justified both the probable costs and the risks associated with the war.

Almost any approach has a way that it could turn out right; that such good results are theoretically possible in almost all courses of action does not make them all reasonable.

"Look, its not about how many different tools you use, how you use them is more important that what categories of tools you use."

Point taken. My point is that at this stage, every tool in our arsenal needs to be employed.

Jihadism is well understood. There is no jihadism in general. This kind of thinking casts all sorts of unconnected theologies, ideologies, histories and nationalist struggles together as one vast mass movement of religious irrationalism, violence and anger. Propagandists whose enemies are Muslims or Arabs, or both, present jihad as the global movement of Islamofascism. Like communism and historic fascism, Islamofascism is an incarnation of absolute evil that strives to engulf the whole free world with a black ideology. Sadly, this is really just anti-communist rhetoric warmed over and has no basis in reality. This comes as no surprise since the neoconservatives who rationalize and advocate for confrontations with anti-Israeli Arabs and Muslims cut their teeth on anti-communism. But the third world nations of the Middle East and their (mostly) poor populations make a very weak substitute for the Soviet Union.

This is plainly absurd propaganda. What is occurring is obvious to most of the regular posters on this site.

The neoconservatives and the Israeli lobby in the US are deeply interested in defeating Israel’s enemies. Making no distinction between Israel’s enemies and those of the US is in their interest. Confounding all kinds of struggles and creating “Islamofascism” is one way to get the sense of urgency needed for the military and political defeat of Israel’s enemies. There has been a long history of Western Imperialism in the Middle East. The struggle against terror and dictatorship provides a nice cover story for the old struggle for resources and markets. Emergency and security also helps keep authoritarianism in power at home, just as Orwell observed. And there are those for whom the lust for war has replaced sex.

Here's the thing. A true attack against radical Jihadism from my perspective opens one up to the "Blame America First" charge. Because I really do believe that the roots of radical Jihadism at least to the degree that it is directed at us is a consequence of what has been described as "blowback" against misguided interventionists policies that have been pursued, in a bipartisan manner since WWII. So the solution is two fold. Defensive, law enforcement oriented, for the short term, coupled with a commitment to stop the covert destructive meddling in the internal affairs of these countries in the Middle East. That doesn't mean that we don't promote our values and champion liberalization etc. But we do it in a transparent way. Above board. Knock of the clandestine hijinx, double games and dirty tricks. Just be straight above board and true to our values.

I think that is the dividing line between what I call reasonable opposition to the war as it actually turned out, and reflexively saying there couldn't *have been* a way for it to turn out acceptably.

There are two responses to this line of argument. I heard the first from Mark Danner. He said that it's certainly possible to decapitate an essentially Stalinist state and replace it with a new state. The trouble is that such states have no political infrastructure other than a massive internal spying and security apparatus. Making the new state requires, first, replacing that security apparatus with a new one that is just as effective that ruthlessly puts down insurgency. Second, it takes a long time, at least a decade to build up local, then regional then provincial then national governing bodies. Danner said he opposed the war because he did not believe the US had the political will to go through this process.

Tristero (of digby's Hullabaloo) has argued that if you constructed a Bayesian decision tree with all the possible events and their probabilities reflected, the probabilities of anything remotely resembling success would have been very small--single digits at best.

Now it's hard to assess these arguments in the current environment, because the execution was so completely botched from the outset. But I do believe that if the administration had presented a plan like Danner's, it would have been voted down. And I do believe that even if it had not been, the odds were very, very bad.

But that does not change the fact that in the event, the War's opponents were right--whether because the US would not commit the time and resources to nation-building, or because it really was well-nigh impossible or because these incompetent fantasists were certain to screw it up--they were right. And Weisberg was wrong.

Consider this: Would you really want to say the Iraq incursion was a mistake/failure if, after the fall of Saddam, things had turned out "OK" as most people would agree? Really, if not, just for the sake of some grey-area international norms, in the face of Iraqi public contentment?

The principle that one country shouldn't attack, invade and occupy another country that poses no threat to it is hardly a "grey-area international norm." It's one of the most basic rules of international law there is, and if it's routinely ignored as the US now ignores it we'll sink into anarchy.

Consider this: Would you really want to say the Iraq incursion was a mistake/failure if, after the fall of Saddam, things had turned out "OK" as most people would agree? Really, if not, just for the sake of some grey-area international norms, in the face of Iraqi public contentment?

Consider this: There is a body of work, parts of it hundreds of years old, on the concept of "Just War".

As I understand it, part of the reason for defining just wars, is that in the experience of Europe, unjust wars sometimes/usually/almost always led to a poor, short-lived peace, followed by more war.

The invasion of Iraq was an unjust war. It can have no good and lasting solution without further conflict, except in the minds of people engaged in wishful thinking.

W. - "You are either with us, or with the manatees."

Absolutely foul. WTF Iraq is counterproductive. The destruction of Lebanon is counterproductive. Both create more enemies than they eliminate. Iraq is a training ground in weapons, tactics, strategy with real live American soldiers for the Jihadis to practice on. Does anyone think that Iraq is working or making us safer? Hello.

Combatting terrorism has always been about establishing justice, preventing failed states, support for international institutions to resolve disputes and improve economic and health conditions for everyone and cooperation by states to eliminate terrorist cells.

Long ago, planes were hijacked to Cuba. That ended when the countries of the world got together and agreed to arrest all hijackers on arrival. Elimination of terrorist organizations by providing a non-violent means of seeking justice eventually works. It worked in Northern Ireland. It worked between Egypt and Israel. Bush believes in the supremacy of military force or military threat and "doesn't do diplomacy".

I'm late to this thread, and haven't had time to read all the comments, so I apologize if I'm stepping on anyones lines.

Aside from al-Qaeda, Radical jihadism is no threat to the US; there's nothing to talk about.

And bin Laden's al-Qaeda has been marginalized, according to President Bush.

Stefan wrote (about the idea that no one can tell how many jihadists are created by the Iraq war):

"What? That's sheer nonsense. Anyone with any familiarity with the Arab Muslim world knows about the profusion of martyr stories -- the books, poems, songs, posters, DVDS, magazine articles, TV shows, etc. -- that are coming out of Iraq. Just sit in any cafe in Cairo or Amman for ten minutes and you'll get your proof."
______________

Stefan, it's quite true that the war is providing all sorts of jihadist propaganda. What is far more difficult to quantify is how many young men are sufficiently motivated by it to actually join the jihad. No matter how often it is asserted, no one can prove that such activity will provide an endless stream of would be martyrs. Then too, we are missing the other side of the equation, that being how fast these volunteers are attrited from the ranks, by fear, unsuitability, illness, death by military action or suicide attack.

What we do know is that, though foreign jihadists have entered Iraq, their numbers have never grown to sufficient size to provide useful manuever elements. Removal of the Fallujah sanctuary made it difficult to gather and use these recruits. Their primary use is as suicide bombers, mostly against soft targets - Iraqi civilians.

The situation was (and is) different in Afghanistan. There the Hindu Kush provides large areas where foreign jihadists can gather and train. Though we have liberated and can probably secure the cities and low lands of Afghanistan, we can never subdue the Kush with the military we have. That's why we haven't tried. We are content to observe and strike any group of Taliban that shows evidence of growing power. From a military perspective, the terrain in Afghanistan is far more conducive to a long insurgency than that of Iraq.

Stefan,

The principle that one country shouldn't attack, invade and occupy another country that poses no threat to it is hardly a "grey-area international norm." It's one of the most basic rules of international law there is,

Really? Then why did the Clinton Administration ignore it, and why aren't you blasting the Clinton Administration for ignoring it?

Kevin,

On the one hand you're superficially correct, especially on places
like Kos, Atrios and FireDogLake where the idea is to focus all
attention on the failures of the Bush admin. It *does* seem that
the failing so-called war on terror is a mere means to the ends
of further demonstrating the disaster of this admin and the GOP.

On the other hand, you're mind-bogglingly wrong, as Juan Cole
should amply demonstrate to you. In the lead-up to the war I wasn't
blogging; I was posting on the NYT Iraq fora, and the discussion
often revolved around the nature of Islam; the opinions bifurcated
into two camps: Is Islam an irredeemably anti-modern religion --
antithetical to democracy and peace -- or has it been hijacked by
extremists who prosecute anti-Western aggression for other reasons?

Bush tried to square this circle by arguing the latter through the
means of the former. Hence, we "shock and awe" a primitive people
in the only language they'll understand to get them to accept a
modernism that all human beings crave, whether they know it or not.

There is no way a thinking person can miss the folly of this approach.

The Democratic approach (and this includes liberal hawks like
Friedman and Berman) has been to take the second answer at its
word -- Muslims are just like us, and will respond well to being
treated with dignity. Thus we argue to de-emphasize the grandiose,
radical ideologies of a tiny handful of fanatics by viewing
the war on terror as fundamentally a matter of law enforcement.
Sure, give help to whatever movements there may be in the
Islamic world that yearn for greater democracy and freedom, but
don't expect that destabilization will lead to true democracy.

The Republicans counter with their trump argument "we don't want the
smoking gun to turn out to be a mushroom cloud." They say that we have
to root out threats before they bear potentially catastrophic fruition
rather than prosecuting crimes after the fact. This is, granted, the
toughest argument that a law-enforcement approach needs to face down.

At the end of the day, though -- what has foiled
genuine terrorist plots like the truly frighening
one in today's front pages invoving bombing British
commercial planes bound for America? It was Scotland Yard.

Angst-ing over the nature of Islam is something Democrats
avoid because it gives off a distinct whiff of racism. Bush
has tried to ju-jitsu this by saying that it's really liberals
who don't believe that brown-skinned Iraqis are capable of
democracy -- this is a Rovian projective inversion.

Democrats believe the culture -- environment -- is extremely
important. It has nothing to do with the nature of Islam, as
our own peaceful communities of Muslim-Americans attest (our
uniquely American pluralist approach to immigration is better
than both the European approaches of assimilationism and
multiculturalism). Bush and the neocons are radical
individualists who radically de-emphasize the role of
cultural environment to posit an individual who must choose
between Good and Evil. If Muslims don't live in democratic
societies, it's because they're either oppressed by despotic
rulers or oppressed by the evil ideology of "Islamo-fascism."

This simplistic dualism misses what's readily apparent in,
say, the average color piece on Afghanistan in the NYT -- that
"primitive" villagers can live by both extremely conservative
flavors of Islam and be perfectly decent people, besides.
Democrats reject the idea of forcing people to abandon their
religious traditions in the name of a threatening modernity
because they're either "with us or with the terrorists." We
realize that this only backs Muslims against a wall and postpones
the inevitable day of reckoning with extremist ideologies.

We have faith in the historical process. We look
to the cooperation we extended in the aftermath
of WW2 and the fruits of alliance it bore.

We see war as a tool of regression, not progress. We know that
if we cooperate with Muslim regimes to root out criminal cults of
takfiri Salafists that are at least as much a threat to them as
they are to us, this will stand a greater chance of bearing fruit
than invasions -- which only serve to rally Muslims of all stripes
together in the name of the Umma, postponing Islamic self-criticism.

So yes, Kevin -- it's hard for any thinking Democrat to buy
into Bush's simplistic shibboleths about the so-called GWoT
-- and especially so considering that our global law enforcement
is working at cross-purposes with our foreign policy, which
is creating new terrorists almost as fast as our detectives
and intelligence agents can root out their plots.

What any of this has to do with Democrats "not taking
terrorism seriously" to be perfectly honest I have no idea.

Bob

Jay--Point taken. My point is that at this stage, every tool in our arsenal needs to be employed.

But the measure of success is, as cmdicely points out, whether the tools are being used successfully. The Iraq War is a huge drain of resources directed at a target that, prior to our invasion, had nothing to do with al Queada and only a very tangential connection to terrorism. We don't have an infinite set of resources to power our arsenal with, so misdirection on such a grand scale makes us more vulnerable in other areas.

My point here is that the criteria you are using to determine if the current policy is the right one is not rigorous enough to be useful. Using everything we have is not a strategy of any particular depth or note, and is certainly not one that is specific to GW. Anyone confronted with 9/11 would say we need to use everything at our disposal to defeat these people (and pretty much everyone has said this). The question is how do we do this?

"Little minds try to defend everything at once, but sensible people look at the main point only; they parry the worst blows and stand a little hurt if thereby they avoid a greater one. If you try to hold everything, you hold nothing." --- Frederick the Great

Then why did the Clinton Administration ignore it, and why aren't you blasting the Clinton Administration for ignoring it?

What country did the Clinton Administration "attack, invade and occupy" that posed no threat?

Jayackroyd,

But that does not change the fact that in the event, the War's opponents were right

The war's opponents were right about what? The war's opponents are a disparate group of people who made all sorts of claims and predictions, many of which are demonstrably false, and many others of which are at least arguably false, so you need to describe more precisely what you are talking about here.

The very first comment on the thread should about cover it. That and exacerbating the problem is counterproductive and should stop forthwith.
My first reaction was that you were trolling your readers.
Where is the majority of U.S. capablility and influence ? At home.
Where does the most capacity exist for dealing with problems ? Ditto.
The old saw that "An ounce of prevention is worth a pund of cure" relates well to another. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". So if you go full out to intimidate and terrorize, a bumper crop of new problems will appear. Brilliant !
Anybody who can't triangulate the difference between Al-Quaeda ( a minor movement ) and Saddam ( a vicious paranoid ) shouldn't be trusted with triage for foreign problems.
Since all valid criticisms by professional analysts were disregarded, misconstrued, etc. it's obvious the interests of the nation were not those being served.

Weisberg's argument is mere hairsplitting and overanalyzing, and his conclusion about perpetual Democratic defeat is way overblown. And while we're talking about that, let's not overestimate the influence of bloggers, liberal or conservative.

The Iraq War was never an appropriate battlefield in the fight against terrorism. That is now obvious to all who have studied the issue. The war was and continues to be sold by a dwindling group of die-hard neoconservatives as fighting terror, but informed people now know Iraq had nothing to do with Islamic terror, and everything to do with neoconservative geopolitical goals. The left-leaning blogosphere played a significant role in disseminating that idea, but is by no means the only way and probably not the major way the public has been informed about Bush and the neocons' dishonesty in pushing the country into an Iraq invasion. Take a look at the many books that have been published in the last three years that have made Bush's Iraq lies obvious. Not all of these books were written by lefties.

The only grain of truth in Weisberg's view is that there is a sizable segment of Americans who remain uninformed--they don't read political blogs, or they only read the right-wing blogs, and they don't read books about Bush and the Iraq war. It is these uninformed or misinformed that can pollute the process, because many of the uninformed still vote. That is why Bush got re-elected, even though it was obvious two years ago to many on the left, and to anyone who informed themselves that Bush had told the country a huge lie about Iraq.

But misinformation has a limited life. Over time, the truth comes out. I'm not sure precisely how this happens, but I think it has something to do with the increasing frequency of dissemination of the facts by scholarly publications and moderate media outlets. Eventually intellectually honest leaders in politics, academia, and journalism understand what really happened and they begin to transmit that idea to the masses. This is a dynamic process that is constantly in flux, but at some point the truth becomes known by more people than not. It just does. The lies of politicians cannot stand indefinitely, and when they become generally known to be lies, the group that perpetrated them or covered them up--in the case of the Iraq war, the Republican Party--will be punished for their mendacity.

I believe this is the way history has always played out. At first a falsehood about a complex issue can be sold to an uninformed electorate, especially one fraught with emotion, but over time, the information disseminated into the "marketplace of ideas" gets through to the public and the majority of them turn against those who misled or lied to them. This happened to isolationist politicians of the thirties, to the Democrats who sold the country the Vietnam War in the sixties, and to Republicans in the seventies after the Nixon gang's criminal acts and cover-ups during the Watergate affair became known.

Are we at the point yet where the country will begin punishing Republicans for the Iraq War Lie? Maybe not--the poll a few weeks back saying that 50% of Americans still believe Saddam had WMD before Bush invaded Iraq shows the truth is still hidden from many. So maybe we still have another election cycle to go before the public is ready to punish Republicans for letting Bush happen. But the day will come, I'm certain of that.

cmdicely,

What country did the Clinton Administration "attack, invade and occupy" that posed no threat?

The Clinton Administration attacked Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War. Yugoslavia had not attacked the U.S. and posed no threat to the U.S.

Kevin quotes Weisberg: "Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism."

The invasion and occupation of Iraq absolutely was and is "a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict."

Iraq had nothing to to with 9/11. The invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with responding to the 9/11 attacks. It was planned from the day the Bush administration took power, and before (PNAC). Weisberg is reciting the Big Lie that the long-planned invasion and occupation of Iraq was a response to the 9/11 attacks.

Kevin writes: "... aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it."

The invasion and occupation of Iraq had and has NOTHING to do with any "fight against radical jihadism", except to create more enemies by killing and brutalizing tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians and thus give Al Qaeda and its ilk a powerful recruiting tool, and a place where they could go to receive training in urban warfare and make themselves deadlier enemies of the USA.

Weisberg and Kevin are both spouting rubbish.

Stephan wrote:

(Quoting me) "To make that claim is akin to the old marxist concept of inevitability, as expressed in Mao's theory of warfare. To buy into either concept makes a convenient argument against any action with which one happens to disagree."

What??? I'd respond to this, but it's hard to respond to nonsense and bafflegab -- which is, I suppose, the point in writing it.
____________

Stefan, I'm not certain I know which part of this you think is bafflegab (cool word), but, what the heck, I'll expand a bit.

Marxist revolutionary theory includes the idea of the inevitable victory of the proletariat. After initially failing in the cities, Mao modified that by proposing the idea of a peasant-based marxism. Mao went further and crafted a theory of warfare that described conflict as a spectrum, from agitprop to insurgency to conventional war. He inserted the inevitability aspect into his theory of war, claiming that if the leader moved prematurely from one stage of warfare to another, he might suffer temporary defeat, but not to worry, he can always pull back to an earlier stage and try again.

Very useful stuff. "You can't win and we can't lose." Bringing it up to date in terms of the jihad, the idea is that whatever we do to defeat the enemy is constantly undone by the new enemies we create. Very convenient rhetoric, unprovable, yet requiring no proof. If we lose, well, we were bound to, weren't we? If we don't lose, well, it just hasn't happened yet, has it? As I said, it's potent stuff.

The Clinton Administration attacked Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization took collective action against Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War because, among other reasons, the expanding war in Kosovo, which had already included cross-border attacks in Albania, posed a clear threat to other countries in the region, including, though not most especially focussed on, members of the Alliance.

Sheesh Kevin.

You enjoy tlking to your self?

Bush is President and he does not give 2 shits what you say.

For fucks sake, we have to win an election.

Do elections bore you?

cmdicely,

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization took collective action against Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War

The fact that other countries also attacked Yugoslavia is irrelevant. The Clinton Administration attacked Yugoslavia despite the fact that Yougoslavia had not attacked the U.S. and did not pose a threat to the U.S.

because, among other reasons, the expanding war in Kosovo, which had already included cross-border attacks in Albania,

What cross-border attacks in Albania?

posed a clear threat to other countries in the region,

So your position now is that if a country poses a threat to other countries in its region, the U.S. may justifiably attack that country despite the absence of a threat to the U.S. itself and despite the absence of any attack by that country on the U.S.? Is that it?

In that case, since Iraq posed a clear threat to other countries in its region, the U.S. attack on Iraq was justified for that reason. Iraq had previously invaded both Kuwait and Iran and had been a persistent source of conflict and instability in the middle east for decades.

Stefan, it's quite true that the war is providing all sorts of jihadist propaganda. What is far more difficult to quantify is how many young men are sufficiently motivated by it to actually join the jihad. No matter how often it is asserted, no one can prove that such activity will provide an endless stream of would be martyrs.

Who's having trouble meeting their recruiting quotas, us or them? Furthermore, we have the objective fact that by the Bush regime's own standards worldwide terrorism attacks have tripled in the last few years -- so someone must be carrying them out.

Then too, we are missing the other side of the equation, that being how fast these volunteers are attrited from the ranks, by fear, unsuitability, illness, death by military action or suicide attack.

Terrorist growth overtakes U.S. efforts
By Sharon Behn
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
March 2, 2006

Thirty new terrorist organizations have emerged since the September 11, 2001, attacks, outpacing U.S. efforts to crush the threat, said Brig. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, the Pentagon's deputy director for the war on terrorism.

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created," Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve.

Kevin;

You asked for both barrels, and they gave it to you with reloads. Your question needed to be asked, but I'm not sure there are any answers.

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: In that case, since Iraq posed a clear threat to other countries in its region, the U.S. attack on Iraq was justified for that reason.

The invasion of Iraq was "justified" to the American people, the United States Congress and the United Nations Security Council by the repeated, elaborate, and false claims of the Bush administration that Iraq's nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" and nonexistent "links to Al Qaeda" posed an urgent threat to the USA.

The topic of this thread is "Talking About Terrorism" and Jacob Weisberg's spurious conflation of the invasion and occupation of Iraq with the so-called "war" against so-called "radical jihadism".

The invasion of Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with any "war" against "radical jihadism"; it was planned from the earliest days of the Bush administration and before; and it was and continues to be falsely sold to the American people as a "response" to the Al Qaeda attacks of 9/11/2001.

And as usual, you have nothing to offer but scripted, programmed, boilerplate Bush-bootlicking bullshit.

Kevin, maybe you haven't read all the blogs that pointed out in 2002 and ever since that the war in Iraq was diverting money and troops from the fight against terrorism. That in fact it was creating more terrorists. That we were idiots to focus on Iraq (no tie to Al Qaeda) when Pakistan was probably harboring him AND had nukes.

Well, heck. You know, I don't know how to fight "jihadism". But I know now we have no chance to do so, because all our troops and all our funds are tied up in Iraq.

Not sure what you want. We have to deal with reality. And there are 2 realities I see:
1) Jihadism is not Naziism. It's not as big a threat, and accepting that actually will make it possible to deal with the threat it is, rather than the threat it isn't.

2) Bush has -- by pretending jihadism is something it's not-- embroiled us and the entire army and marine corps in a war that means there's nothing left to fight the real jihadists. Now what? Where are "We" going to find the troops, the intel, the money to do what should have been done 4 years ago? The reality is-- Bush is the president. He's the only one with the power. And he chose to squander it all in Iraq, for his own probably deep psychological reasons. There ain't nothin' left. If "jihadism" wins, whatever that means (and no, it doesn't mean anywhere near as bad as if Hitler had won, let's be real here), well, you reap what you sow, I guess. We don't have a moral right to win if we have fought a lousy fight, and that's what the US has done-- a terrible job fighting. And heck, it's not as if there weren't plenty of voices warning of just this.

How about those who thought getting involved in a war in Iraq was a great idea come up with a solution now? There ain't nothing we can do to fight Jihadism until we are through with that mess Bush created in Iraq.

Trashhauler: Marxist revolutionary theory includes the idea of the inevitable victory of the proletariat...He inserted the inevitability aspect into his theory of war...he might suffer temporary defeat, but not to worry, he can always pull back to an earlier stage and try again.

Very useful stuff. "You can't win and we can't lose." Bringing it up to date in terms of the jihad, the idea is that whatever we do to defeat the enemy is constantly undone by the new enemies we create. Very convenient rhetoric, unprovable, yet requiring no proof. If we lose, well, we were bound to, weren't we? If we don't lose, well, it just hasn't happened yet, has it? As I said, it's potent stuff.

Those are good points to keep in mind when discussing the effectivity of a certain strategy or action during asymmetrical warfare. Mao obviously had a great sense for PR and was able to marry that up with at least a passable understanding of stategy (or at the very least he had read his Sun Tzu). But there are aspects to what he said that are applicable to asymmetrical warfare. It is a type of warfare that is less influenced by the criteria which cause conventional wars to succeed or fail. And in part, it is a war for the hearts and minds of a populace, often a populace whose minds the instigator of asymmetrical warfare knows better than does his opponent.

I think you're right that Mao's argument for the effectivity of his strategy is flawed and not an objective assesment, but we wouldn't want to ignore entirely the kernal of truth at the heart of what he says. Too often the present administration has gone for the "shock and awe" option that may provide short term gains in terms of PR at home, but long term makes us less safe.

My best effort to convince Drum that he is wrong.

The problem is that you are allowing the Republicans to frame the narrative again: "radical jihadism". Let's talk instead about how to destroy Al Qaeda. Let's talk about how to undermine and neutralize Hezbollah. That is, let's approach this as a series of specific conflicts, each with its own strategies and solutions. Let's not homogenize the conflict. And let us certainly not pitch the conflict as being against some rather vague idea. As long as the enemy remains faceless, the Republicans win points fanning fear. If we think about these problems concretely, we will make more progress on them. I want policy rather than paranoia.

Neither Europe nor the United States "defines itself in relation to terrorism", but they do define themselves in relation to democratic and humanistic values, both of which radical jihadism would destroy.

The problem with radical jihadism, as a generic inclusive term, is that it's a rising intellectual class, like 19th century radicals whose actions and ideas evolved into the Soviet Union on the one hand and Nazi Germany on the other, or, in earlier centuries, the Puritans who brought about the English Civil War. The speed and scale with which our technology is evolving simply do leave us the time to watch it play out through its whole natural cycle. Within the next hundred years the human race will be largely working on creating a successor species. Do we want that species to be created in a world of internice malice, and violent conflict?

What matt and brooksfoe said.

I think everything that the liberal blogosphere can, or needs to, say about the current situation is "there is no way to unshit this bed."

Stefan wrote:

"Who's having trouble meeting their recruiting quotas, us or them?"

I don't know, Stefan. What are their recruiting requirements and how short are they?

Stefan also quoted Gen Caslen:

"We are not killing them faster than they are being created," Gen. Caslen told a gathering at the Woodrow Wilson Center yesterday, warning that the war could take decades to resolve."

Was he talking about the thiry new organizations or the actual number of jihadists? Sounds like he was selling the "long war" idea. God help us.

In that case, since Iraq posed a clear threat to other countries in its region, the U.S. attack on Iraq was justified for that reason.

Iraq didn't pose a clear threat to other countries in its region the way the expanding war in Kosovo did to other countries in the region; nor would the US attack which was not structured in any way so as to be reasonably likely to reduce any such threat justified be justified by such a threat in any case, as such a threat could only justify action aimed at and likely to succeed at reducing it.

GOP: In that case, since Iraq posed a clear threat to other countries in its region, the U.S. attack on Iraq was justified for that reason. Iraq had previously invaded both Kuwait and Iran and had been a persistent source of conflict and instability in the middle east for decades.

Well no, Iraq did not necessarily pose a clear threat to the U.S. or the region anymore. There were quite a few people who did not think Iraq was a threat, starting with Secretary Powell's statements of 2001:

"He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

Zinni says Iraq was the wrong war at the wrong time - with the wrong strategy. And he was saying it before the U.S. invasion. In the months leading up to the war, while still Middle East envoy, Zinni carried the message to Congress: “This is, in my view, the worst time to take this on. And I don’t feel it needs to be done now.”


“All sounds very good, all very noble. The trouble is the way they saw to go about this is unilateral aggressive intervention by the United States - the take down of Iraq as a priority,” adds Zinni. “And what we have become now in the United States, how we're viewed in this region is not an entity that's promising positive change. We are now being viewed as the modern crusaders, as the modern colonial power in this part of the world.”

Okay. Let's envision a scenario-- a PROBABLE scenario, based on our observations of reality immediately past.

1) Liberals bloggers get together with thinktankers, military experts, Mideast experts, etc, and after months of study, discussion, and hard work, come up with what Kevin wants: A comprehensive plan to deal with jihadism, complete with exhibits, footnotes, sub-reports, minority reports, dissents, appendices, etc. This is released and widely distributed.

2) No one listens. The media ignore it. Maybe after a month or two it gets a mention on page A-14 because Walter Pincus threatens to quit unless it's covered. But it's just a mention.

3) Bloggers keep talking it up. Liberals all over the country neglect their paying work to read the .pdf file, all 300 pages of it, and discuss it.

4) The Republicans are also searching it. Closely. They find one tiny little reference in it to, I don't know, the role the France-based Doctors without Borders group might have in establishing clinics in refuge camps. The Repubs seize on this to say that liberals want France (where they speak FRENCH like John Kerry!) to take over as superpower. The liberals want to give France control! Pretty soon we'll be talking French too! Or we'll be guillotined!

5) The Repubs put this out to Bill O'Reilly, who faithfully rises to the occasion and spends a few shows on how liberals want to turn the country over to the French, who will burn the flag and do away with Christmas!

6) Fox News reports this as a news story. "Liberal bloggers led by foreign-born Markos Moulitsas want to give control of the war against terrorism to the FRENCH! And what will that war consist of? Well, sending doctors to build clinics to help the terrorists get better health! In fact, they mean to build a clinic especially for Bin Laden, so he can have his dialysis in the poshest of conditions! The liberals want to make sure he's comfortable! Talk about giving aid and comfort to terrorists!"

7) The MSM dutifully reports on what Fox said, and interviews a whole bunch of Republican congressmen who speak, more in sorrow than anger, about how once the Democratic Party was the party of Harry Truman, but now it's the party of Bin Laden nurses! They do call Kos for a comment. He spends a half an hour carefully explaining what the report really says, and of that half hour, one line is put into the articles: "Kos said, 'I mean, don't we all like French fries?' This would seem to reflect what Republicans say is the blindness of the extreme leftist bloggers to the patriotic views of most Americans."

8) The Republicans continue putting out talking points about how liberal bloggers want to move the French ambassador into the White House and change the national anthem to La Marseillaise, which, never let us forget, was adapted for use by the COMMIES and is about as unamerican as can be!

9) The press dutifully reports on every talking point. They provide "balance" by finding a liberal music professor who points out that La Marseillaise was used in the film Casablanca and was once considered a great marching song.

10) Ken Mehlman goes on This Week and says that the current national anthem is just fine with him, and why isn't it fine with liberal professors and bloggers? George Stephanopoulos says meekly that he's always liked our anthem, and Sam Donaldson points out it can be kind of hard to sing. Cokie Roberts looks at Sam like he's total scum-- FRENCH scum-- and remembers watching the 1955 season opener of the Washington Senators with her sainted senator father, and Frank Sinatra sang the national anthem, and if it was good enough for them, it ought to be good enough for Sam.

Someone asks Tony Snow about the issue at a presser. He says that the president loves baseball, and Frank Sinatra besides, and liberal bloggers are out of touch with mainstream America since they all hate baseball and prefer Stravinsky to Sinatra.

11) Liberal bloggers once again-- for the fifth time-- release the report, along with a precis of its salient points. The Guardian does a story on it. The NYTimes doesn't, and when pressed, the editor says, "Oh, that's old news. Everyone's talked about that weeks ago. You really expect us to do a story about a report on French fries?"

Yeah, Kevin, you go head. Put together a great strategy for winning the war against jihadism. I am all set for a major argument with the Republicans about French fries, aren't you?

"And as usual, you have nothing to offer but scripted, programmed, boilerplate Bush-bootlicking bullshit."

I'm assuming you disagree with the other guy?

ArchModerate2006 wrote: I'm assuming you disagree with the other guy?

"Scripted, programmed, boilerplate Bush-bootlicking bullshit" is an impartial and objective characterization of Don P's writing.

cmdicely asked: What country did the Clinton Administration "attack, invade and occupy" that posed no threat?

Don P posting as GOP replied: The Clinton Administration attacked Yugoslavia in the Kosovo War.

How about "invaded" and "occupied"?

Trashhauler: you wrote: Jay, though you did not suggest [hunkering behind homeland defenses in the face of an actual threat], some have

I call. Who, exactly, suggested such a thing?

"The principle that one country shouldn't attack, invade and occupy another country that poses no threat to it is hardly a "grey-area international norm." It's one of the most basic rules of international law there is, and if it's routinely ignored"

You're partly right Stefan, and Saddam continually violated that premise and yet you will not, and would not, hold him responsible. That's called being a hypocrite!

UN Security Council Resolution/687

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2981st meeting, on 26 March 1991

The Security Council,
.....
7. Invites Iraq to reaffirm unconditionally its obligations under the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and to ratify the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction, of 10 April 1972;

8. Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of:

(a) All chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities;
(b) All ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres and related major parts, and repair and production facilities;

32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism;

33. Declares that, upon official notification by Iraq to the Secretary-General and to the Security Council of its acceptance of the provisions above, a formal cease-fire is effective between Iraq and Kuwait and the Member States cooperating with Kuwait in accordance with resolution 678 (1990);

34. Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area.

cmdicely,

Iraq didn't pose a clear threat to other countries in its region the way the expanding war in Kosovo did to other countries in the region;

Yes, it did. In fact, Iraq didn't just pose a threat, it had a decades-long record of aggression towards its neighboring countries, including invasions of two of them. And unlike Yugoslavia, Iraq also posed a threat to America's vital national interests and to the global economy, because of its threat to the supply of middle-east oil. So, again, if the Clinton Administration was justified in attacking Yugoslavia despite the absence of an attack by Yugoslavia on the U.S., and despite the absence of any threat by Yugoslavia to the U.S., why wasn't the Bush Adminsitration justified in attacking Iraq?

Do you have a clear set of legal and ethical rules that clearly distinguishes these two cases, or don't you? You seem to have completely abandoned your previous "no pre-emptive attack" rule.

nor would the US attack which was not structured in any way so as to be reasonably likely to reduce any such threat justified be justified by such a threat in any case, as such a threat could only justify action aimed at and likely to succeed at reducing it.

The U.S. attack was likely to and has reduced the threat from Iraq both to other countries in the region and to the vital national interests of the U.S. It has removed from power a despotic leader with a 20-year record of attacking neighboring countries and slaughtering his own people. It has also eliminated the need for the previous policy of economic sanctions against Iraq, which caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens and which were strongly supported by the Clinton Administration.

I read a lot of debate about how and why we got in Iraq and who is responsible. I suggest we leave those burning issues to the historians and concentrate on the future.

What is the best exist policy for our country, Iraq, the middle east, and the world at this point?

"Clearly, the experts (i.e. anyone other than the neocons) knew that Iraq had nothing to do with fighting the brand of terrorism that was resonsible for 9/11, and that an invasion of Iraq would actually degrade our ability to prosecute any "war on terror." Anyone who conflates a critique of the war on Iraq with not being serious about combating terrorism is starting from such false assumptions that any conclusion they come to will be useless or nearly useless. The lefty side of the blogosphere has been constantly been trying to seperate the false conflation of the invasion of Iraq with the "war on teror" exactly because we're serious about combating terror effectively, and not using it for it political gain."

Really?

"Michael Moore is the shining example of the Anti-Israel left wingers in this country. A leftist by nature is an appeaser. In the context of the war on terror the American Left believes that if we just do what the Muslims want us to do they will leave us alone. Many believe that if we abandon our friendship with Israel the terrorists will "leave us alone". If we just pull our bases from the Middle East the terrorists will "leave us alone". If we just appease the terrorists they'll just "leave us alone". Chamberlain employed that same appeaser philosophy against Hitler in the 1930's. The result was catastrophic."

"In October of 2003, Moore was quoted in the University of Michigan’s student newspaper, The Michigan Daily, as saying “there is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.”"

Care to restate any of that?

"...nor would the US attack which was not structured in any way so as to be reasonably likely to reduce any such threat justified be justified by such a threat in any case, as such a threat could only justify action aimed at and likely to succeed at reducing it." - cm

Have you been paying attention?

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday.
The division assumed primary control of its area of responsibility from the 101st Airborne Division. This is the fifth of 10 division headquarters in Iraq to assume the lead in regional operations.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called the development a key benchmark in the effort Iraqis are making to take control of their own country. The division will be in the lead for security in Salah Ad Din, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk provinces. This area includes the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Samarra and Iraq’s northern oil fields.
Overall, Iraqi security forces are in the lead with five army divisions, 25 army brigades and 85 army battalions, Whitman said. The Iraqi national police have two battalions in the lead in other areas.
In northern Iraq, 33 battalions, nine brigades and two divisions have demonstrated their ability to operate independently and now lead the fight against terrorists and anti-Iraqi forces. The 5th Iraqi Army Division assumed the lead in Diyala province in July."

"What is the best exist policy for our country, Iraq, the middle east, and the world at this point?" - ArchModerate2006

"Franklin Delano Roosevelt: The Four Freedoms

What I seek to convey is the historic truth that the United States as a nation has at all times maintained opposition -- clear, definite opposition -- to any attempt to lock us in behind an ancient Chinese wall while the procession of civilization went past. Today, thinking of our children and of their children, we oppose enforced isolation for ourselves or for any other part of the Americas.

Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end. Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge."

Please bring back the old Democratic Party.

George Bush is a primitive brainless oaf and so are 99% of all Republicans. He simply pursues a policy of primitive brainless oafness and the result is an international vindication of primitive brainless oafness, which has managed to give the impression of discreditting democracy and western values, when, in fact, they reflect precisely a rejection of democracy and western values. That's the Bush legacy.

In fact, Iraq didn't just pose a threat, it had a decades-long record of aggression towards its neighboring countries, including invasions of two of them.

So did Germany in 1950, but it wasn't a threat then, either.

You're also omitting, GOP, the "invading and occupying" components of cmdicely's statement. Of course, there's little doubt that's an accident.

cyntax,

You're mighty selective in your appeal to expert opinion. Are we to understand that you consider Bush Administration official Colin Powell a reliable and trustworthy source? Or do you appeal to his opinion only on questions on which you happen to agree with him and ignore it otherwise? In any case, numerous experts on middle-east issues believe that Saddam Hussein posed a clear and serious threat to the stabilty of the region. Here's Kenneth Pollack, for example:

Saddam Hussein's regime was still a source of considerable instability in one of the most important and fragile regions of the world. Setting aside the invasions of Kuwait and Iran, and the wars he threatened with Syria and Israel, his behavior throughout the 1990s (when he did not have nuclear weapons and after suffering the horrible defeat of the Gulf War) was still astonishingly aggressive, risk-tolerant, and determined to overturn the status quo. His 1993 attempt to assassinate George Bush, his 1994 threat to Kuwait, the 1996 attack on Irbil, provoking Desert Fox in 1998, and trying to move Iraqi ground forces to the Golan to provoke an Israeli military action in 2000 all speak to the problems his regime created as a matter of routine.

There was still a residual WMD threat. What we have learned since the fall of Baghdad is that Saddam remained determined to acquire these weapons at some point in the future and had preserved rudimentary elements of the programs, which he intended to use to rebuild them after the sanctions were lifted.

And here's Fareed Zakaria:

...let me point out that the elimination of Saddam Hussein has been a big plus for American national security. The most anti-American and expansionist regime in the Middle East has disappeared. An actual and potential threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait has been eliminated. A violent, rejectionist state has faced consequences. This has had a sobering effect on the region: See Syria and Libya's recent behavior. Given our interest in a stable Middle East, this is good.

Hey Jay,

I stand by my statement that the left side of the blogosphere has spent a lot of time and energy trying to skewer the conflation of the war in Iraq with the war on terror. I'm sure you can find some exceptions to that (though I don't consider Micheal Moore to be part of the blogosphere), but by and large that's what's been going on.

"George Bush is a primitive brainless oaf and so are 99% of all Republicans"

This is all you guys have, all you guys are and all you will ever be. You have no plan, no vision, no comprehension, no attention span and you're nothing more than hateful, selfish, immature, self idolizing, small minded, myopic transparent fools.

Keep up the rantings, I enjoy knocking you down one by one.

Have a nice day.

"George Bush is a primitive brainless oaf and so are 99% of all Republicans."

I suggest this is the attitude that keeps them in office.

greggy, the only thing Clinton "invaded" and "occupied" was Monica. And that's your vision of a real man?

Gregory,

So did Germany in 1950, but it wasn't a threat then, either.

Er, Germany had been defeated in war in 1945, occupied by the U.S., and had a completely new liberal democratic system of government installed in place of the previous fascist government of Adolf Hitler, so it's hard to see what relevance you think your observation has to the question of the threat posed by Iraq.

You're also omitting, GOP, the "invading and occupying" components of cmdicely's statement.

No, I'm not. Are you under the impression that cmdicely objects only to attacking, invading and occupying a country, but does not object to attacking a country without a subsequent invasion and occupation?

"......left side of the blogosphere has spent a lot of time and energy trying to skewer the conflation of the war in Iraq with the war on terror."

I know. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
That's why we're here, to save you from yourselves.

Kevin:

Since you asked, here's where you may be able to find your way back to solid ground.

Echoing Weisberg, you say: "And yet, much as I'm reluctant to agree with him, Weisberg has a point: aside from kvetching about Bush's policies, the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it."

Are you clear on what you mean about "the fight against radical jihadism"? What sort of a fight are you talking about? Do you propose to seek out people discussing jihad, analyze their degree of radicalism, and kill them if you think they're going too far? If there is to be a fight against radical jihadism, it must be intellectual, political, cultural. There will be no military victory against radical jihadism, and attempts at military solutions are demonstrably exacerbating the real violence in the Middle East, which may or may not be connected to "jihadist" theories.

Look at it another way. Rather than kvetch about the lack of discussion in the "liberal blogosphere," lead by example. Say something intelligent and substantive about "the fight against radical jihadism," and don't neglect to define your terms and place them in context. Can you formulate an intelligent response that includes any of the actions we have taken in the Middle East?

Are you talking about dangerous ideas? Resistance to invasion? A dagger aimed at the heart of America? Who are these people? How is it that you can recognize them while I can't?

Be clear about what you are saying and perhaps you'll be clearer about what you believe.

I suggest this is the attitude that keeps them in office.

Exactly, fraud corruption and vulgarity.

The Left-Wing Blogger and the Right-Wing Blogger have one thing in common, a closed mind.

"Exactly, fraud corruption and vulgarity."

An which political party is pure as the driven snow? This is actually kind of funny.

Germany had been defeated in war in 1945, occupied by the U.S., and had a completely new liberal democratic system of government installed in place of the previous fascist government of Adolf Hitler, so it's hard to see what relevance you think your observation has to the question of the threat posed by Iraq.

Iraq had been defeated in war by the US in 1991 as well, and like Germany in 1950, posed hardly any military threat to the region, let alone the US.

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are. Clinton attacked Kosovo but didn't invade or occupy it, so your analogy is worthless.

Are you under the impression that cmdicely objects only to attacking, invading and occupying a country, but does not object to attacking a country without a subsequent invasion and occupation?

I'm only under the impression that you're putting up a false equivalence. I can't speak for cmdicely, but I would certainly agree that attacking, invading and occupying a country poses much greater risks than merely attacking one -- risks which, I might add, were identified by George Bush and Colin Powell in 1991. Even if your assertions were ture -- which they aren't, of course -- you're comapring apples to oranges.

The problem is that you are allowing the Republicans to frame the narrative again: "radical jihadism". Let's talk instead about how to destroy Al Qaeda. Let's talk about how to undermine and neutralize Hezbollah. That is, let's approach this as a series of specific conflicts, each with its own strategies and solutions. Let's not homogenize the conflict. And let us certainly not pitch the conflict as being against some rather vague idea. As long as the enemy remains faceless, the Republicans win points fanning fear. If we think about these problems concretely, we will make more progress on them. I want policy rather than paranoia.

Excellent.

I really like that "policy rather than paranoia" finishing touch.

"Are you clear on what you mean about "the fight against radical jihadism"? What sort of a fight are you talking about? Do you propose to seek out people discussing jihad, analyze their degree of radicalism, and kill them if you think they're going too far?"

No Mavis, we're talking about people who fly planes into buildings, shoot school children in the back, blow up commuter trains, blow up nightclubs, behead people on TV....things like that.

"If there is to be a fight against radical jihadism, it must be intellectual, political, cultural."

And that's been tried to, hence the defined border agreements, all of the UN resolutions and all of the econimic aid given to the ME.

You know the definiton of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. Since we have been trying to solve this situation diplomatically for over thirty years, do you think another tactic might be in order?

What university do you teach at?

"Iraq had been defeated in war by the US in 1991 as well, and like Germany in 1950, posed hardly any military threat to the region, let alone the US."

um.....we did not depsose Saddam (like we did Hitler) at that time. Got it.

"I'm only under the impression that you're putting up a false equivalence. I can't speak for cmdicely, but I would certainly agree that attacking, invading and occupying a country poses much greater risks than merely attacking one -"

Really? It seems as though our attacking, invading and occupying Europe in WWII has turned out pretty well.

Care for anymore intellectually dishonest arguments?

An which political party is pure as the driven snow?

The point is more, which politcal party is black as sin.

If NATO doesn't intervene in a civil war on European ground with rampant ethnic cleansing and possible genocide, I'm not sure what the organization would ever do.

Also, some of the neighbors in the region were NATO alliance members, and the U.S. is bound by this alliance to defend them as it would our homeland.

As for Iraq, they were not currently a threat to anyone while they were being starved by sanctions. Also, there are no Iraqi neighbors who are NATO members. Further, the risks were much greater than the reward in going into Iraq, especially in view of our concerns about violent Jihad.

Finally, we took measured action to prevent further ongoing violence, ethnic cleansing, and genocide in Kosovo and Yugoslavia, and met our objectives, all without creating conditions that would promote more violence in the future, either through occupation or other conditions (this is not the case in Iraq).

AreIn fact, Iraq didn't just pose a threat, it had a decades-long record of aggression towards its neighboring countries, including invasions of two of them.

Yes, that's what justified the 1991 war.

Its history after that war is what is relevant here.

Oops: brilliant and hilarious post.

You know the definiton of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

I've been meaning to tell you this, Jay, but that's not really the definition of insanity, just a pithy observation.

The definition of insanity is actually "a semi-permanent severe disorder of the mind, typically as a result of mental illness."

Are you under the impression that cmdicely objects only to attacking, invading and occupying a country, but does not object to attacking a country without a subsequent invasion and occupation?

The objection was Stefan's. I only challenged your suggestion your attempt to draw an equivalence between Bush and Clinton with respect to Stefan's objection.

ArchModerate2006 wrote: I read a lot of debate about how and why we got in Iraq and who is responsible. I suggest we leave those burning issues to the historians and concentrate on the future.

That's very convenient if what you are primarily concerned about is ensuring that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and other principals of the Bush administation will never be held accountable for deliberately, repeatedly lying to the American people, the United States Congress and the United Nations Security Council about what they knew to be a nonexistent "threat" to the USA from nonexistent "Iraqi WMD" and nonexistent "links" between Iraq and Al Qaeda in order to justify an illegal war of unprovoked aggression against Iraq.

Is that what you are primarily concerned about?

An which political party is pure as the driven snow?

No one has said that any political party is "pure as the driven snow." To assert that the Republican Party is worse -- much worse -- than the Democratic Party is not to assert that the Democratic Party is perfect.

What do you have to offer besides appeals to let those responsible for the Iraq war escape accountability for their actions, and silly strawmen?

Jay, I have a question for you.

Why is it that you never (as far as I have seen) give the sources of the article excerpts that you post? No links, no citations, no attributions. No way to know what the source is.

Jay wrote: Care for anymore intellectually dishonest arguments?

If we do, we know we can count on you. Although in your case the word "intellectually" is neither applicable nor necessary.

GOOP: And here's Fareed Zakaria:...let me point out that the elimination of Saddam Hussein has been a big plus for American national security. The most anti-American and expansionist regime in the Middle East has disappeared. An actual and potential threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Kuwait has been eliminated. A violent, rejectionist state has faced consequences. This has had a sobering effect on the region: See Syria and Libya's recent behavior. Given our interest in a stable Middle East, this is good.

Hilarious. Zakaria's quote above is from January 15, 2004, i.e. over two and a half years ago, and GOOP presents this as if it has any relevance to the current situation. Think nothing has changed since then?

the liberal blogosphere has chosen to almost unanimously sit out any substantive discussion of the fight against radical jihadism and what to do about it

What. The. Fuck. ?

Jay:

What university do I teach at? Since we're all here, pull up a chair. This is the university I learn at. Maybe you can, too, if you pay attantion and engage.

Let's look at what you're saying:

"No Mavis, we're talking about people who fly planes into buildings, shoot school children in the back, blow up commuter trains, blow up nightclubs, behead people on TV....things like that."

These are very bad, I would even say evil, people. But is this your definition of radical jihadism? I want to punish terrorists, but I'm also very concerned about stopping them. Once they qualify under your criteria, it's too late.

Assuming Kevin's good faith, I understand him to be talking about an "ism" that underlies the "ist." How do you fight the theoretical, religious, political formation that creates your "radical jihadist"? If your only answer is guns and bombs, you are not thinking seriously.

You demonstrate your lack of engagement by dismissing the intellectual-cultural arena with "And that's been tried to, hence the defined border agreements, all of the UN resolutions and all of the econimic aid given to the ME." What's been tried, too, Jay? Is it really time to stop thinking?

How tired are you? Have you really carried so much of the diplomatic burden that you can't go another step further? This is not admirable reasoning: "You know the definiton of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome. Since we have been trying to solve this situation diplomatically for over thirty years, do you think another tactic might be in order?" And so you throw up your hands and settle for war? Allow your fellow student at the Ad Hoc Univerisy of Listen Here to remind you that what you call "another tactic" has been tried longer than any other.

I have faith in you, Jay. Don't declare your bankruptcy so early in life. Use your head, and don't forget to use your heart.

GOP: You're mighty selective in your appeal to expert opinion. Are we to understand that you consider Bush Administration official Colin Powell a reliable and trustworthy source? Or do you appeal to his opinion only on questions on which you happen to agree with him and ignore it otherwise?

Actually, I don't think I'm being selective. Can you find anyone with seniority and knowledge of that theatre in the military who thought Iraq was a threat and not a distraction? Here's a short list (from the link) of others who agree with Zinni:

But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

I trusted Powell up until the point that political considerations force him to toe the party line. Once the coercion comes into play, he's just doing his job of implementing a policy he doesn't agree with.

As for Kenneth Pollack, I consider his opinion questionable at best in comparison to General Zinni. Pollack was implicated in the AIPAC espionage scandal (the passing of information about US policy on Iran to Israel) though, I believe never charged. Still seems a bit too partisan to effectively rebutt Zinni, to say nothing Schwarzkopf et al.

For Fareed Zakaria, I give you Juan Cole:

Worse, the American invasion of Iraq is a major recruitment poster for al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda's message was that the Americans are coming to Muslim lands. "They will invade your countries, expropriate your property, rape your women, and humiliate your men," al-Qaeda screams. What does Bush do? He proves al-Qaeda right.

Zakaria on Rumsfeld (after recent testimony before Senate):

Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria observed, "[Rumsfeld] seems literally in a parallel universe and slightly deranged. If you listen to what he said last week about Iraq, he's living in a different world, not a different country."

Jay: I know. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
That's why we're here, to save you from yourselves.

Just don't get what? Really, I'm happy to try and have discussion with you but what are you talking about?

A little more of Zakaria's current thinking, which is still handicapped by trying to cover for some of the crap he said a few years ago:

There are better and worse ways to handle radical Islam. We should not feed the fury that helps them win adherents. The Bush administration's arrogance has been a great boon to the nastiest groups in the Middle East, which are seen as the only ones who can stand up to the imperial bully. We should recognize how varied these groups are: some violent, others not, some truly anti-modern, others not—and work to divide rather than unite them.

When, for example, Bush added Chechen brutalities to his list of crimes of "radical Islam," he made a mistake. Russia has waged a horrific war against Chechnya for two decades, killing more than 100,000 civilians. To speak of that conflict in the same breath as the London bombings, as Bush did, is to suggest that any time a Muslim kills, whatever the provocation, it's all the same to him.

Given what Jimm (nice work) has posted we can see a pretty broad consensus from Juan Cole to General Zinni to Fareed Zakaria.

Sounds like even the experts who weren't saying Iraq was a bad idea before we went in are saying it now. Which gets us right back to point of the false conflation of invading Iraq with fighting the war on terror (jihadism). You really have to question the wisdom of anyone who doesn't see the problems invading Iraq has caused, and that just begs the question of why we should listen to someone who still insists that Iraq was the right war at the right time.

"How tired are you? Have you really carried so much of the diplomatic burden that you can't go another step further?"

Not all Mavis. I am all for using every tool in our arsenal; the full stregth of our military, law enforcement and diplomacy. The jihadists need to understand that we just begun to fight and this time, everything possible weapon we have is on the table.

"Jay, I have a question for you.

Why is it that you never (as far as I have seen) give the sources of the article excerpts that you post? No links, no citations, no attributions. No way to know what the source is."

Sometime is my rush I do forget the link (seldom though as you will see most of them are there) I will not make that mistake again, but you have heard of google haven't you?

"Jay: I know. YOU JUST DON'T GET IT.
That's why we're here, to save you from yourselves.

Just don't get what? Really, I'm happy to try and have discussion with you but what are you talking about?"

I am talking about the lefts desire find the non-common threads of jihadism, when in fact the broad global jihadist movement is real, active, and intertwined with a common goal. What happened in Iran in 1979 is completely relevant to what is happening today.

btw, I appreciate and delight in open, robust, non-confrontational debate of the issues, realizing that sometimes we may never agree. Thanks for your help.

"You really have to question the wisdom of anyone who doesn't see the problems invading Iraq has caused, and that just begs the question of why we should listen to someone who still insists that Iraq was the right war at the right time."

Please provide your vision of the world had we left Saddam in power.

"Hilarious. Zakaria's quote above is from January 15, 2004, i.e. over two and a half years ago, and GOOP presents this as if it has any relevance to the current situation. Think nothing has changed since then?" - Stefan

I have a feeling that what you did yesterday is completely irrelevant to what you are doing now. That's what happens when you have ADD.

"Just as our national policy in internal affairs has been based upon a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all our fellow men within our gates, so our national policy in foreign affairs has been based on a decent respect for the rights and the dignity of all nations, large and small. And the justice of morality must and will win in the end. Let us say to the democracies: "We Americans are vitally concerned in your defense of freedom. We are putting forth our energies, our resources, and our organizing powers to give you the strength to regain and maintain a free world. We shall send you in ever-increasing numbers, ships, planes, tanks, guns. That is our purpose and our pledge." - FDR

The more I read this paragraph, the more I am blown away by the vision and leadership of one of the greatest Democratic Presidents, if not all Presidents, of our time.

I'd recommend reading "The End Of Faith" (by Sam Harris) since it makes a good argument about how Islam poses a unique challenge to the world right now. While no religion holds a monopoly on cruelty and authoritarianism, he does a good job of pointing out how Islam should not be seen on an equal footing as more peaceful religions (which do not encourage martyrdom). I am a liberal and found my views expanded a good deal by the book.

Everyday, I have a greater chance of being hit by lightning than of being killed by a terrorist. How come leftyblogs aren't talking about how to solve the lightning problem?

How does one fight a sucessful GWOT.
You can't win a war, even a global one, against a tactic. You could change the 'T' to terrorists and start killing actual terrorists but that is hard work and doesn't lend itself to photo-ops like mission accomplished. When did the British declare major combat operations over in N. Ireland? I believe getting rid of the Bush Administration is the first, best step to be taken in sucessfully combating terorrism. (If i were a righty I would just say kill them all)
Lefty blogs tend to spend a lot of time on this.

Jay: I am talking about the lefts desire find the non-common threads of jihadism, when in fact the broad global jihadist movement is real, active, and intertwined with a common goal. What happened in Iran in 1979 is completely relevant to what is happening today.

In many nations that have a sigificant muslim population there is a ground swell of popular sentiment that is decidely anti-US and anti-European. But I don't know that we can approach it as a monolithic, global movement. We can't assume that a tactic effective in say Afghanistan (military intervention and toppling of a "government") will be effective in other theatres (Malaysia for example). Iran in 1979 is relevant as is the fact that we helped overthrow their deomcratically elected leader in 1953. But since you bring it up, what relevance do you draw from 1979 and for that matter 1953? What do you see as the lessons we need to learn but aren't paying attention to?

Reason magazine reviews Sam Harris' book:

In The End of Faith, Sam Harris, a UCLA philosophy grad student, has seized on the all-too-real specter of Islamist terror as the occasion to revisit the village atheist waterfront, compulsively itemizing all the irrational, surly, atavistic features of faith. Never mind that, among the world’s one billion Islamic believers, the vast majority of clerics and lay Muslims renounce the politicized brand of Islamist dogma that extremists seek to inflict on Muslim and non-Muslim populations alike. Identifying all Islamic beliefs with extreme Islamist terror, as Harris does throughout the book, is a little like saying that the Maoist guerrillas of Peru’s Shining Path are cognate with the Democratic Leadership Council.

Never mind, as well, that militantly atheist movements like Soviet and Khmer Rouge communism—as well as volkish pagan ones like Nazism and Tutsi supremacy—stand behind some of the worst mass violence of the past century. Harris believes religious belief is the single greatest threat to the survival of the human species. Religious faith is not merely a maladaptive superstition, Harris writes; it is the “common enemy” for all reasonable people concerned with the preservation of the world as we know it. All extant religious traditions, to him, are without exception “intellectually defunct and politically ruinous.”

And that's from a libertarian magazine. Imagine the devastating critiques given Harris and his book from people actually knowledgeable and who care about Islam.

Jay wrote: What happened in Iran in 1979 is completely relevant to what is happening today.

What happened in Iran in 1979 is that a country whose legitimately elected, secular, democratic government was overthrown by the US in the 1950s when its leader proposed to nationalize its oil industry, and then suffered under the brutal jackboot of a US-installed and US-supported dictatorship for a generation, overthrew that US-backed dictatorship.

I would say that you are correct -- that is completely relevant to what is happening today, since everything that his happening in the region today has the same root cause as the US overthrow of Iran's legitimate elected government in the 1950s.

Namely, the oil.

While no religion holds a monopoly on cruelty and authoritarianism, he does a good job of pointing out how Islam should not be seen on an equal footing as more peaceful religions (which do not encourage martyrdom).

I'm assuming that Christianity is excluded from that list of more peaceful religions, since Christianity not only encourages martyrdom, it glorifies in it (the symbol of Christianity, after all, is a torture instrument, and its founding myth is the martyrdom of Jesus Christ).

Please provide your vision of the world had we left Saddam in power.

Way more time, money, and resources to chase terrorism where it lives (i.e. the tribal areas of Pakistan). A focus on using more than just military might (you can't simply throw money at a problem, but poverty helps these guys recruit). A much lesse energized Arab street. Maybe we could have focused a little more on that non-telegenic bugaboo of Palestine and Israel. Iran wouldn't be the up and coming power-broker in the Mid East that it is now.

Not least of all we wouldn't have ~20,000 American casualties (WIA and KIA), and an Army that is stretched to it's breaking point.

Those are just a few things off the top of my head.

Of course Islamic jihadism is a serious threat and it must be taken seriously, but it also must be dealt with COMPETENTLY, above all else. Invading countries willy-nilly is just not a rational response to this threat. John Kerry was mocked by the Rovian pigs for suggesting that it was a matter more of international policing and cooperation than of massive military response, but he was absolutely right. Today's "plot failure" had nothing to do with troops on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan, and everything to do with cooperative police work.

The Bushpigs have squandered thousands of lives and untold billions of dollars in Iraq and have achieved negative results in the struggle against jihadism. And now they want to be given immunity against justice for the war crimes they have committed along the way!

"What happened in Iran in 1979 is that a country whose legitimately elected, secular, democratic government was overthrown by the US in the 1950s when its leader proposed to nationalize its oil industry, and then suffered under the brutal jackboot of a US-installed and US-supported dictatorship for a generation, overthrew that US-backed dictatorship." - secular

http://www.utexas.edu/lbj/faculty/gavin/articles/iran.pdf

Politics, Power and U.S. Policy
in Iran, 1950-19531

On August 19, 1953, elements of the Iranian army acting on orders from the Shah

and with covert support from the C.I.A., deposed Mohammed Mossadegh as the Prime

Minister of Iran. Mossadegh’s overthrow climaxed more than two years of crisis caused

by Iran’s clash with Great Britain over the nationalization of the British owned Anglo-

Iranian Oil company. Early in the crisis, the United States was sympathetic to

Mossadegh’s nationalization program, and went to great lengths to convince the British to

negotiate a fair settlement with Iran. Throughout 1951 and 1952, the U.S. steadfastly

refused to sanction any unilateral attempt by Great Britain to end the crisis through non-

diplomatic means. As a result, U.S. participation in the 1953 coup has been taken as

evidence of a dramatic shift in American policy towards Iran.

Well it seems that we were attempting to thwart economical communism in the protection of our best allies; Great Britain. And this is what your "stand-up" leader of Iran was doing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadeq

Mossadegh got his start in Iranian politics in 1920 when he was appointed Governor General of the Iranian province of Fars by Ahmad Shah Qajar and was bestowed with the title of Mosaddegh os-Saltaneh by the Shah. He was later appointed finance minister, in the government of Ghavam os-Saltaneh in 1921, and then foreign minister, in the government of Hassan Pirnia Moshir od-Dowleh in June 1923. Later in 1923, he was elected to the Iranian parliament and voted against the selection of Reza Khan as Reza Shah Pahlavi.

By 1944 Reza Shah Pahlavi had abdicated, and Mossadegh was once again elected to parliament. This time he ran as a member of the National Front of Iran (Jebhe Melli), a nationalist organization which he had founded that aimed to end the foreign presence that had established itself in Iran following the Second World War, especially regarding the exploitation of Iran's rich oil resources.

After negotiations for higher oil royalties failed, on 15 March 1951 the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Prime minister General Haj-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. Razmara was assassinated on 7 March 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam.

[edit]
Prime minister
On 28 April 1951 the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets.

Responding to the latter, the British government announced it would not allow Mossadegh's government to export any oil produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. A blockade by British ships was established in the Persian Gulf to prevent any attempts by Iran to ship oil out of the country. Furthermore, the AIOC withdrew its British trained technicians when Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry. Thus, many of the refineries lacked properly trained technicians that were needed to continue production. An economic stalemate thus ensued, with Mossadegh's government refusing to allow any British involvement in Iran's oil industry, and Britain refusing to allow any oil to leave Iran"

Fair point.

And its based on a combination of fear and intellectual laziness. (which both exist in great measure on the right as well, but lead to diffent pathological conclusions - but that's a subject for another thread)

Far too many on the progressive left harbor a control fantasy - that Islamic terror is an almost mechanically predictable consequence of American foreign policy decisions. This is attractive because American foreign policy decisions can be altered by the American people. Get rid of the offending policies and presto! you get rid of the terror! We're in control here!

It's much more harder to accept that our jihadist enemies are unpredicatble, have wills of own, and have worldviews and animosities that cannot be easily altered. And, that we are not in control no matter what we do. The proliferation of "911 was an inside job" bumper stickers here in the Bay Area are a perfect example.

So much easier to beleive that all ills on planet flow from the Bush administration. Because then - we can vote and protest evil away ! One can feel that they are fighting terror with the same kind of political activism they've always engaged in, as if the problem of Islamic facism is of the same piece as fighting poverty and standing up to the Kyoto Protocol.

No need to expand one's mental universe to grapple with new and hard problems, or to consider that there might be serious threats to liberal values that extend beyond the Bush Administration, or "capitalism" or "imperialism" or whatever. To do that would fuck up the narrative. And narratives are oh so hard to contruct.

Jimm quoted Reason magazine: "Religious faith is not merely a maladaptive superstition, Harris writes; it is the "common enemy" for all reasonable people concerned with the preservation of the world as we know it."

The March 2006 issue of the Buddhist magazine Shambala Sun featured an article by Sam Harris in which he essentially admonished Buddhists for calling themselves "Buddhists" and implying that merely by identifying themselves as "Buddhists" they are culpable in the violence that he attributes to religion.

Harris actually praises Buddhist teachings and practice, writing that "One could surely argue that the Buddhist tradition, taken as a whole, represents the richest source of contemplative wisdom that any civilization has produced", and that "Buddhism is very much like science [and the] spirit of empiricism animates Buddhism to a unique degree".

However, he complains, the "wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism" and that "the continued identification of Buddhists with Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world" which is "both morally and intellectually indefensible" since in his view, religion -- all religion -- is a uniquely "potent source of violence".

Harris concludes that "there is much more for us to understand about how the mind can transform itself from a mere reservoir of greed, hatred, and delusion into an instrument of wisdom and compassion. Students of the Buddha are very well placed to further our understanding on this front, but the religion of Buddhism currently stands in their way."

But "students of the Buddha" know that the "religion of Buddhism" is no more and no less than the teachings of the Buddha and the practice of those teachings -- the Dharma.

Harris writes, "If the methodology of Buddhism (ethical precepts and meditation) uncovers genuine truths about the mind and the phenomenal world -- truths like emptiness, selflessness, and impermanence -- these truths are not in the least 'Buddhist.'"

This is silly. Newton discovered truths about the universe, and no one complains when people speak of "Newtonian physics" or "Newton's law of gravity." Einstein discovered truths about the universe, and no one complains when people speak of "Einstein's theory of relativity" or "Einsteinian physics". Buddha discovered truths about the universe, and those truths and the tools for realizing them experientially have been taught through the various Buddhist schools for 2500 years, and there is no reason they should not be referred to as "Buddhist".

And as the Reason magazine review notes, Harris ignores the non-religious, and even explicitly atheist, ideologies and beliefs, as well as the ethnic and tribal and "racial" conflicts, and struggles for access to and control of physical resources and wealth, that have fueled at least as much violence throughout human history as has religion of any kind, and the historical fact that "religion" has often been invoked to "justify" conflict and aggression whose actual causes were far more mundane.

Sam Harris has his own "jihad" -- a "jihad" against religion, in which he seeks to lay all the blame for humanity's problems on religion, instead of where it belongs: on human beings themselves.

I'm starting to think that "Jay" is yet another handle for "Charlie".

"So much easier to beleive that all ills on planet flow from the Bush administration. Because then - we can vote and protest evil away ! One can feel that they are fighting terror with the same kind of political activism they've always engaged in, as if the problem of Islamic facism is of the same piece as fighting poverty and standing up to the Kyoto Protocol." - John

I could not have said that better.

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.htm

""Coup" controversy
There is disagreement among scholars and political analysts as to whether it is correct to call the 1953 plot a coup. The term is commonly used in media and popular culture, though technically the overthrow of Mossadegh was neither purely military in nature nor did it lead to a change in the form of government or the constitution in the country. Technically, in fact, it led to the preservation of the constitution, which Mossadegh had been repeatedly neglecting during his term in office."

secular, care to elaborate on what a fine man Mossadegh was.

"Sam Harris has his own "jihad" -- a "jihad" against religion, in which he seeks to lay all the blame for humanity's problems on religion, instead of where it belongs: on human beings themselves" - secular

I agree 100%. That's why Islamo-fascism is not about Islam. It's about the perversion of the interpretation of that faith for the purpose of oppression, power and control. All represent the worst traits in Man, not of any God.

John wrote: "Far too many on the progressive left harbor a control fantasy - that Islamic terror is an almost mechanically predictable consequence of American foreign policy decisions [...] It's much more harder to accept that our jihadist enemies are unpredicatble, have wills of own, and have worldviews and animosities that cannot be easily altered."

False dichotomy. Those two ideas are not mutually exclusive.

It is not hard to accept or understand that "American foreign policy decisions" -- for example, overthrowing elected governments, thwarting popular self-determination and supporting brutal dictatorships that favor US economic interests in oil-rich countries -- might have the "predictable consequence" of inspiring anti-American sentiment, and anti-American terrorism; and that once that anti-American sentiment and anti-American terrorism gets rolling, it takes on a life and an agenda of its own.

The lesson of that understanding addresses the questions of how we avoid creating more such problems for ourselves, how we avoid making the existing problem worse, and even how we might mitigate the legitimate resentments that fuel anti-American sentiment, as a result of ongoing and future "American foreign policy decisions".

To me the difference between "the progressive left" and whatever you'd like to call the "right" is that the progressive left wants to look deeply into the causes of these problems and address them at a fundamental level, in particular looking at the role of our own actions in causing, aggravating, or mitigating these problems, and considering the legitimate complaints of people throughout the world about the actions of the US government; whereas the "right" simply wants to shout "Enemy! Enemy! Kill! Kill!"

Jay: Well it seems that we were attempting to thwart economical communism in the protection of our best allies; Great Britain. And this is what your "stand-up" leader of Iran was doing.

Perhaps someone else called him a "stand-up" leader, I certainly didn't.

And yet we went from "attempting to thwart economical communism in the protection of our best allies" to supporting the Shah's death squads. It's a complicated world out there to be sure, and I don't think that we can fight terror with political activism (seems a bit of a strawman argument of the views expressed here) but if we don't learn from our mistakes, we may very well suffer the consequences.

Jay wrote: secular, care to elaborate on what a fine man Mossadegh was.

It is sufficient to note that you are trying to "justify" the US overthrowing the legitimately elected, secular, democratic government of another county and replacing it with a brutal dictatorship.

You are every bit as much of a thug as any loudmouth jihadist supporter of Osama Bin Laden in some back alley of the "Arab street".

I'm sure that when they talk about their "justification" for the mass murders of 9/11, they sound a lot like you.

cyntax wrote: "... if we don't learn from our mistakes, we may very well suffer the consequences."

Jay's point of view is: "We are the USA! That means we don't have to learn from our mistakes! Enemy! Enemy! Kill! Kill!"

".....to supporting the Shah's death squads."

Indirectly at best. The Pahlavi family had ruled Iran since 1925. There was a very legitimate argument that Mossadegh had hi-jacked the country by fueling the "nationalism" (communism) fervor. Mossadeghs rule was brief and tumultuous. In support of Great Britain and the long time Pahlavi rule, are we all sure America did the wrong thing? And what was the alternative?

Gregory,

Iraq had been defeated in war by the US in 1991 as well,

But it was still a dictatorship under the control of Saddam Hussein, a despotic ruler with a long history of aggression against both neighboring countries and his own people. Did you miss that?

and like Germany in 1950, posed hardly any military threat to the region, let alone the US.

Nonsense. Saddam Hussein continued to pose a serious threat to the region and to U.S. national interests until he was deposed by the 2003 invasion.

Clinton attacked Kosovo but didn't invade or occupy it, so your analogy is worthless.

You're not listening. Are you now claiming that you have no objections to attacking other countries, only to invading and occupying them?

"It is sufficient to note that you are trying to "justify" the US overthrowing the legitimately elected, secular, democratic government of another county and replacing it with a brutal dictatorship" - secular

Here's some more facts for you secular.

"After negotiations for higher oil royalties failed, on 15 March 1951 the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Prime minister General Haj-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. Razmara was assassinated on 7 March 1951 by Khalil Tahmasebi, a member of the militant fundamentalist group Fadayan-e Islam."

On 28 April 1951 the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12. Aware of Mossadegh's rising popularity and political power, the young Shah was left with no other option but to give assent to the Parliament's vote. Shortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets"

The pahlavi rule was called autocratic, and since they had ruled Iran since 1925, I don't think helping them return to power in 1953 could be called "replacing".

"Reza Shah the Great, also Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran (Persian: رضا پهلوی) (March 16, 1878 in Alasht, Mazandaran – July 26, 1944 in Johannesburg, South Africa), styled His Imperial Majesty, was Shah of Iran from December 15, 1925 until September 16, 1941. He was the first monarch of the Pahlavi dynasty, and is credited with greatly modernizing his nation.[1]"

Care to try again?

cmdicely,

Yes, that's what justified the 1991 war.

And also the 2003 invasion.

You didn't answer the question: Do you have a clear set of legal and ethical rules under which the Clinton Administration's attack on Yugoslavia was clearly justified while the Bush Administration's attack on Iraq clearly was not, or don't you?

In both cases, the U.S. attacked another sovereign nation that had not attacked the U.S. itself.

Or are you just a hypocrite on this question too, like you are on so many others.

"March 1951 the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). Prime minister General Haj-Ali Razmara, elected in June 1950, had opposed the nationalization bill on technical grounds. Razmara was assassinated on 7 March 1951......On 28 April 1951 the Majlis named Mossadegh as new prime minister by a vote of 79-12"

It is sufficient to note that secular endorses this form of "replacement" government.

Well it seems that we were attempting to thwart economical communism in the protection of our best allies; Great Britain. And this is what your "stand-up" leader of Iran was doing.

Hardly. If so, why were we initially "sympathetic" to it, and "went to great lengths to convince the British to negotiate a fair settlement with Iran?"

Nationalism does not equal communism, or economical communism, whatever that is. Plus, it was the Iranian Parliament itself, before Mossadegh wasn't even prime minister yet, that overwhelmingly voted to nationalize the oil industry.

After negotiations for higher oil royalties failed, on 15 March 1951 the Iranian parliament (the Majlis) voted to nationalize Iran's oil industry and seize control of the British-owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC).

I wonder why they did this?

Mossadegh was once again elected to parliament. This time he ran as a member of the National Front of Iran (Jebhe Melli), a nationalist organization which he had founded that aimed to end the foreign presence that had established itself in Iran following the Second World War, especially regarding the exploitation of Iran's rich oil resources.

Now we have the proper context, and after the prime minister is assassinated, Mossadegh becomes prime minister and "[s]hortly after coming to office, Mossadegh enforced the Oil Nationalization Act, which involved the expropriation of the AIOC's assets."

One can guess that Iran wanted to benefit from its own natural resources more than an imperial power, and Mossadegh was just enforcing the will of parliament (though undoubtedly having great influence in shaping it, of course).

Stefan,

Zakaria's quote above is from January 15, 2004, i.e. over two and a half years ago,

Yes, and Colin Powell's statement quoted by cyntax is from 2001, and General Zinni's comment quoted by cyntax is from 2004. So I have no idea what point you think you're making. Did you even read cyntax's post that I was responding to?

The British were too greedy, and unwilling to give a fair deal. Eventually we cut some deal to get a piece of the action (from the British, and screwing the Iranian people).

As for the "replacement" government, I'm assuming they followed the legal procedure, with the majority party voting one of their own into the vacant prime ministership. I'll refrain on speculating more about the nature of the assassination sans evidence.

The comments in the thread prove the point of the OP.

Yes, and Colin Powell's statement quoted by cyntax is from 2001, and General Zinni's comment quoted by cyntax is from 2004. So I have no idea what point you think you're making. Did you even read cyntax's post that I was responding to?

One difference is that Powell and Zinni's comments were accurate then, and still accurate (stood the test of time). Further, one can assume they haven't changed their mind (Zinni for sure). Zakaria has already admitted "we" didn't understand Iraq, and made a lot of bad judgements, and has totally changed his stance over the course of time. That's called reality-based and empirical, as opposed to faith-based or cynical.

A 79-12 vote by the parliamant to fill the vacant prime ministership seems pretty definitive to me of the will of that body.

Don P posting as "GOP" wrote: "Or are you just a hypocrite on this question too, like you are on so many others."

You are spewing bullshit on this "question" too, like you do on all others.

More on the American-led coup of Iran's elected government:

The CIA, with help from British intelligence, planned, funded and implemented the operation. When the plot threatened to fall apart entirely at an early point, U.S. agents on the ground took the initiative to jump-start the operation, adapted the plans to fit the new circumstances, and pressed their Iranian collaborators to keep going. Moreover, a British-led oil boycott, supported by the United States, plus a wide range of ongoing political pressures by both governments against Mosaddeq, culminating in a massive covert propaganda campaign in the months leading up to the coup helped create the environment necessary for success.

We live with the results. How many deadly sins did we and the British, and the Iranian collaborators, commit in this affair? Greed, hubris, lust, gluttony, etc.

"The British were too greedy, and unwilling to give a fair deal. Eventually we cut some deal to get a piece of the action (from the British, and screwing the Iranian people)." - jimm

100% conjecture.

The Pahlavi family had ruled Iran since 1925 and only had that power usurped by the nationalist movement of the Majils and the Prime Minister at the time Mossadegh (Ramzarrah had opposed the Majils). Mossadegh was attempting to overthrow Pahlavi by asking him to abdicate and leave.

cyntax,

Actually, I don't think I'm being selective. Can you find anyone with seniority and knowledge of that theatre in the military who thought Iraq was a threat and not a distraction? Here's a short list (from the link) of others who agree with Zinni: But he wasn’t the only former military leader with doubts about the invasion of Iraq. Former General and National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft, former Centcom Commander Norman Schwarzkopf, former NATO Commander Wesley Clark, and former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki all voiced their reservations.

The claim of yours I am disputing is that Iraq was not a threat to the region and to the U.S. Obviously, having "doubts about the invasion of Iraq" is not the same thing as denying that Iraq was a threat, so your claim above is completely irrelevant to the question in dispute.

If you think you have evidence that there was a consensus amoung experts that Iraq had ceased to be a threat to the region and to the interests and security of the U.S. by the time of the 2003 invasion, then produce it.

Clearly, as the quotes from Zakaria and Pollack that I provided show, at least some experts believed both before and after the invasion that Iraq continued to pose a serious threat until we invaded and deposed Saddam.

A final word, then back on subject:

The "28 Mordad" coup, as it is known by its Persian date, was a watershed for Iran, for the Middle East and for the standing of the United States in the region. The joint U.S.-British operation ended Iran's drive to assert sovereign control over its own resources and helped put an end to a vibrant chapter in the history of the country's nationalist and democratic movements. These consequences resonated with dramatic effect in later years. When the Shah finally fell in 1979, memories of the U.S. intervention in 1953, which made possible the monarch's subsequent, and increasingly unpopular, 25-reign intensified the anti-American character of the revolution in the minds of many Iranians.

Fearing opposition, the Shah cracked down on dissent. In the holy city of Qom, theological students who were agitating against a scheduled opening of liquor stores were attacked by the Shah's paratroopers and by his security agents - SAVAK. The disturbance spread to students in the city of Tabriz, and there and in Qom government forced killed hundreds.

When speaking to honor the dead, the Ayatollah Khomeini attacked the Shah's rule, calling it tyrannical. Then the government made matters worse for itself by retaliating against Khomeini. Khomeini was arrested, and in the eyes of many Iranians he was seen as a fearless leader with strong convictions. Khomeini had become a hero. His arrest caused anti-government demonstrations and rioting in a variety of cities. The Shah declared martial law. Tanks and troops with orders to shoot to kill were sent against the rioters. Iran's airforce strafed a great column of marchers. In two days the rioting was crushed. Many had been arrested, including twenty-eight ayatollahs. A Western academic in Iran estimated that many thousands had died. An Iranian, Dr. A.R. Azimi, put the number at 10,000, while the government estimated the number of dead at 86.

The Shah had armed might but he was losing hearts and minds. His government sent Khomeini into exile, Khomeini settling in a Shiite community in southern Iraq. Hope in Iran for doing away with the Shah remained centered on Khomeini, and, from Iraq, Khomeini continued his attacks on the Shah, sending into Iran pamphlets and tape recordings. Khomeini stated that Islam was opposed to monarchy. He described the title King of Kings used by the Shah as the most hated of titles in the sight of God. Monarchy, he said, was shameful, disgraceful and reactionary.

There is disagreement among scholars and political analysts as to whether it is correct to call the 1953 plot a coup. The term is commonly used in media and popular culture, though technically the overthrow of Mossadegh was neither purely military in nature nor did it lead to a change in the form of government or the constitution in the country.

None of those are defining elements of a coup; use of the military is a defining element of the subsets of coups known as "military coups", a change in the form of government or constitution combined with a forcible change of leadership would be more often described as a "revolution" than a mere "coup". A coup, or more precisely a coup d'etat is, per Merriam-Webster online, "a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics; especially: the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group".

The overthrow of Mossadegh was most assuredly a coup d'etat.

The Pahlavi family had ruled Iran since 1925 and only had that power usurped by the nationalist movement of the Majils and the Prime Minister at the time Mossadegh (Ramzarrah had opposed the Majils). Mossadegh was attempting to overthrow Pahlavi by asking him to abdicate and leave.

Jay, you're an ass clown. The Majlis is the parliament (like the House of Representatives), not some faction. The only "usurping" was by a democratic and nationalist movement against a tyrant/monarchy through passing legislation. Razmara had opposed the law proposed in parliament to nationalize the oil resources, since he was spearheading negotations with the British to get a fairer deal, but it was passed by the parliament regardless.

The Majlis of Iran or Iranian Parliament (locally referred to as the Majlis) (Persian:مجلس, originally an Arabic word for "assembly"), was the lower house of the Iranian Legislature from 1906 to 1979, the upper house being the Senate.

jimm,

One difference is that Powell and Zinni's comments were accurate then, and still accurate (stood the test of time).

No, they're not accurate. As Pollack points out, Saddam Hussein continued to exhibit aggressive and risk-tolerant behavior towards the region and the U.S. during the 1990s.

Further, one can assume they haven't changed their mind (Zinni for sure). Zakaria has already admitted "we" didn't understand Iraq,

You're also trying to change the subject, like cyntax. The issue is whether Iraq was still a threat. I quoted Zakaria stating in rather clear and unequivocal terms that, in his judgment, Iraq was most definitely still a threat. You have provided nothing indicating that Zakaria has since abandoned this view. Zakaria has certainly been critical of the way in which the Bush Administration has conducted the war, but that is obviously not the same thing as denying that Iraq was a threat or denying that the decision to invade was justified.

At 7:54, I mistakenly combined two subquotes. The first paragraph is the first subquote, and the rest the second.

GOP: If you think you have evidence that there was a consensus amoung experts that Iraq had ceased to be a threat to the region and to the interests and security of the U.S. by the time of the 2003 invasion, then produce it.

Well General Zinni said it was the wrong war at the wrong time; for my money that goes right to the issue. Let me add to that the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit had to say

"In the judgment of people who were working the issue of Al Qaeda and thinking about Iraq, the threat level was so infinitesimal from Iraq and so dramatic from Al Qaeda that I don't think people really took it seriously. It was kind of talk. You knew that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld [had] and certainly the president has the reputation of wanting to get Saddam for having tried to kill his dad.

But clearly, Saddam was a Third World, tinpot, disarmed, ruthless dictator. Osama bin Laden we were worried about, according to the words of the president and all of his advisers, were worried about him having a nuclear weapon to use on the United States. There really wasn't any balance between the two threats, but clearly by 2002 in the springtime, it was almost taken for granted that we were going to go to war with Iraq, in addition to having missed Osama bin Laden."

Iraq was not an imminent threat, and on the overall list of threats, way down the list, and far off actionable.

The invasion was not justified, but it may be the case that Zakaria still believes it was, I don't know.

Okay, I just found something from Zakaria:

Three years ago this week, I watched the invasion of Iraq apprehensively. I had supported military intervention to rid the country of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, but I had also been appalled by the crude and unilateral manner in which the Bush administration handled the issue. In the first weeks after the invasion, I was critical of several of the administration's decisions -- crucially, invading with a light force and dismantling the governing structures of Iraq (including the bureaucracy and army). My criticisms grew over the first 18 months of the invasion, a period that offered a depressing display of American weakness and incompetence. And yet, for all my misgivings about the way the administration has handled this policy, I've never been able to join the antiwar crowd. Nor am I convinced that Iraq is a hopeless cause that should be abandoned.

Some may call it semantics, but I'd say "how" you do an invasion, and who you choose to do it with, contributes to its "justification". If so, then Zakaria may have felt an invasion of Iraq was justified, but not just any invasion, at any time, as if it's black and white, but one with particularly agreeable and risk-managing parameters, and especially not carried out "crude"ly and "unilateral"ly (as Zakaria puts his reservations).

Still, as I mentioned earlier, Zakaria is particular obtuse in the matters, and I don't buy anything he peddles, especially since it's clear he is still grappling with how to justify his initial stance in the face of utter and complete failure, clusterfuck, and strategic disaster.

Oops. This is Zakaria:

Three years ago this week, I watched the invasion of Iraq apprehensively. I had supported military intervention to rid the country of Saddam Hussein's tyranny, but I had also been appalled by the crude and unilateral manner in which the Bush administration handled the issue. In the first weeks after the invasion, I was critical of several of the administration's decisions -- crucially, invading with a light force and dismantling the governing structures of Iraq (including the bureaucracy and army). My criticisms grew over the first 18 months of the invasion, a period that offered a depressing display of American weakness and incompetence. And yet, for all my misgivings about the way the administration has handled this policy, I've never been able to join the antiwar crowd. Nor am I convinced that Iraq is a hopeless cause that should be abandoned.

Last word from Zakaria:

There is no doubt that the costs of the invasion have far outweighed the benefits.

Actually, too bad those aren't really his last words, which would be much more honest. Fareed, just let it go. You don't have to justify prior positions, only evaluate them in the course of finding your positions today.

Clearly, as the quotes from Zakaria and Pollack that I provided show, at least some experts believed both before and after the invasion that Iraq continued to pose a serious threat until we invaded and deposed Saddam.

Sure, you could find some people that were toeing the party line, but who are they and how reputable are they? If you're setting the bar so low that anyone with access to a public forum who expresses a dissenting view is able to outweigh a CentCom Commander well, I think that's the very definition of disingenuous:

Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating

"Jay, you're an ass clown. The Majlis is the parliament (like the House of Representatives), not some faction. The only "usurping" was by a democratic and nationalist movement against a tyrant/monarchy through passing legislation. Razmara had opposed the law proposed in parliament to nationalize the oil resources, since he was spearheading negotations with the British to get a fairer deal, but it was passed by the parliament regardless."

OK Jimmy, pay attention here I'll go slow. Razmarra WAS the elcted Prime Minister of the Majil who opposed the Nationalism movement and was subsequently ASSASINATED and which time the Majil propped up Mossadeagh with very reluctant support of the ruling family Pahlavi.

Your intellectual dishonesty and moral equivalency is nauseating.

And why do hate ass clowns?

".....and I don't buy anything he peddles, especially since it's clear he is still grappling with how to justify his initial stance in the face of utter and complete failure, clusterfuck, and strategic disaster."

More dishonesty from jimmy.

"WASHINGTON, Aug. 9, 2006 – The Iraqi army is halfway to its goal of 10 divisions as the 4th Division assumed command of the area north of Baghdad yesterday.
The division assumed primary control of its area of responsibility from the 101st Airborne Division. This is the fifth of 10 division headquarters in Iraq to assume the lead in regional operations.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman called the development a key benchmark in the effort Iraqis are making to take control of their own country. The division will be in the lead for security in Salah Ad Din, Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk provinces. This area includes the cities of Tikrit, Kirkuk and Samarra and Iraq’s northern oil fields.
Overall, Iraqi security forces are in the lead with five army divisions, 25 army brigades and 85 army battalions, Whitman said. The Iraqi national police have two battalions in the lead in other areas.
In northern Iraq, 33 battalions, nine brigades and two divisions have demonstrated their ability to operate independently and now lead the fight against terrorists and anti-Iraqi forces. The 5th Iraqi Army Division assumed the lead in Diyala province in July."

jimmy, come back when you receive your new talking points.

God, Kevin, this is so damn easy - work with
other law enforcement agencies, enforce the
law, if things require military actions go
through normal military procedures to war
bulidup (note to self: tell the truth, it helps in the long run).

Did the Brits need our help to figure out
people might set off explosive liquids? Did
they have to lie to their constituents?
Did they put up a color-coded response, or
simply say, "Wait - we've got a crisis and
you're going to be delayed".

Every crap answer the Bush Administration has given has
been answered in stoicism on the British mainland
and professionalism on the British-held Iraqi
regions. So figure it out - the Brits have
learned some lesson that the Yanks have ignored
and made fun of.

Part of the reason Dems will kick ass this November.

".....the Brits have
learned some lesson that the Yanks have ignored
and made fun of." - Desider

Is this the lesson you're referring to Desider?

"A federal grand jury has indicted three Toledo-area men for terrorist activities. Prosecutors say the three conspired to wage a "holy war" against the United States and coalition forces in the Middle East. The indictment was unsealed Monday.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales says it was work by the F.B.I. and the Toledo Joint Terrorism Task Force that led to the indictments. If the three are convicted on the most serious charges, the suspects could be sentenced to life in prison"

"Part of the reason Dems will kick ass this November" - Desidhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

I couldn't finish that with a straight face.

cyntax,

Well General Zinni said it was the wrong war at the wrong time;

General Zinni is a distinguished military officer, but he is only one man. He's not a consensus.

Let me add to that the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit had to say

I'm not sure why you think the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit would have any particular expertise on the question of whether Iraq was a threat at the time of the invasion, other than through its possible involvement with bin Laden and Al Qaeda.

People like General Zinni, Secretary Powell, Deputy Secretary Armitage, General Shwarzkopf and Michael Scheuer are much more convincing to me than anyone you've quoted so far.

But Colin Powell does not support your position. You quoted comments he made in 2001, and even those comments do not deny that Saddam was a threat to the region or to the U.S.

Jimm,

You can post as many quotes as you like from Zakaria criticizing the way in which the Bush Administration has conducted the war, but that's not the issue. The issue is whether Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the region and to the U.S., and whether going to war against Iraq was justified. And as your latest quote demonstrates, Zakaria believes that going to war against Iraq was the right thing to do.

Sure, you could find some people that were toeing the party line,

Huh? "Toe the party line?" These aren't members of the Bush Administration. They're not even Republicans. They're members of that large group of people called "liberal hawks."

but who are they and how reputable are they?

They're recognized experts on the middle east with no discernible political bias towards either the Bush Administration or the GOP in general. In fact, on many questions they are strongly critical of the Bush Administration. But they also believe (a) that Saddam Hussein remained a serious threat to the region and to the U.S. until he was removed from power by the U.S. and (b) that the decision to go to war against Iraq was justified, even if there problems with the timing and conduct of the war.

And as your latest quote demonstrates, Zakaria believes that going to war against Iraq was the right thing to do.

How, exactly, do you get that from Jimm's latest quote from Zakaria, which is (in its entirety): There is no doubt that the costs of the invasion have far outweighed the benefits.

But Colin Powell does not support your position. You quoted comments he made in 2001, and even those comments do not deny that Saddam was a threat to the region or to the U.S.

Yes, actually the date of 2001 was intentional, because it shows what Powell thought before the invasion. Once Powell couldn't convince the President otherwise it was his duty to follow orders. But he clearly recommended otherwise before the invasion which from your previous posts about Zakaria, seems an important distinction to you. So either the timing of Powell's comments lends extra weight to them, or your critique of Jimm's quotes isn't valid, but you can't honestly maintain this equivocation.

Also let me repost Powell's comments because they most clearly do state Saddam is not a threat:

"He [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors."

If you don't think the head of the bin Laden unit for the CIA would know whether Iraq was part of 9/11 and whether Iraq was a threat to the US... well, then that's your opinion.

"I had supported military intervention to rid the country of Saddam Hussein's tyranny ... I've never been able to join the antiwar crowd."--Fareed Zakaria

What part of this don't you understand?

They're recognized experts on the middle east with no discernible political bias towards either the Bush Administration or the GOP in general.

One of them is a middle east expert and has been identified as one of the US government sources in the AIPAC spying case; Fareed Zakaria, at least to my knowledge, is more of a recognized expert in more general political science and political philosophy who gets a lot of attention on the Middle East because he happens to be the editor of Newseek International at a time when the Middle East is pretty much the center of international affairs news, not because his expertise is especially focussed on the Middle East.

Whether you think leaking classified information on Middle East strategy options and deliberations to members of a pro-Israel lobbying group is indicative any kind of bias that might relate to the Iraq war, I'll leave for the reader.

cyntax,

Colin Powell interview, 2004:

SECRETARY POWELL: The only thing that I think we got wrong, really, was that [Saddam] did not have stockpiles. And I think between what Mr. [David] Kay [former head of Iraq Survey Group] has said and what Mr. [Charles A. Duelfer [current head of Iraq Survey Group] has said, it appears they did not have weapons. But I still have no doubt in my mind about the intention that he had and the capability that he retained. And as you saw from the Duelfer report, he was doing everything he could to get out from under the sanctions. He was cheating on the sanctions. He was deceiving the world, sometimes in ways that are incomprehensible as to why he was trying to deceive the world in that way, which was just putting him at greater risk. But that's what he was doing.

And the intention and the capability were there, the history was there of what this guy has done in the past, and there was no reason to believe -- at least in my judgment and in the judgment of the president and the other coalition leaders -- that if left to his own devices and allowed to be free of the sanctions regime, you could put a bet down: Was he going to go back to weapons of mass destruction or not? And I don't think it was reasonable to think he would not. And certainly Duelfer, when you read the report, it pointed in that direction.

You can then make an assumption, as you did in your question: oh, he was just doing this to deter Iran. Well, you could believe that if you wish. He has used them in the past to kill his own people; and in the post-9/11 world, do you really want that kind of regime around with potential connections to terrorist organizations? Zarqawi had a presence in Baghdad. He traveled in and out. He had murdered, was responsible for the murder of Mr. Laurence Foley in Jordan. And all those things taken together suggest that this was a danger to the region, to the world; and in a post-9/11 environment, it was a risk the president was not going to take, nor were the other coalition leaders.

They're recognized experts on the middle east with no discernible political bias towards either the Bush Administration or the GOP in general. In fact, on many questions they are strongly critical of the Bush Administration. But they also believe (a) that Saddam Hussein remained a serious threat to the region and to the U.S. until he was removed from power by the U.S. and (b) that the decision to go to war against Iraq was justified, even if there problems with the timing and conduct of the war.

Well as I stated before, Pollack was implicated in passing US information on Iran to the Israelis, so that suggests he actually does have a bias, one which falls in line with Feith and Wolfowitz.

And Zakaria is certainly no more convincing than Juan Cole and particularly less so than Michael Scheuer (the head of the CIA's bin Laden unit).

"I had supported military intervention to rid the country of Saddam Hussein's tyranny ... I've never been able to join the antiwar crowd."--Fareed Zakaria

What part of this don't you understand?

If that's what you were actually referring to with the "latest" comment, I don't understand how you thought it was Jimm's latest quote from Zakaria, sinc e it wasn't, and the actual most recent quote was 40 minutes prior to your response, so it seems extraordinarily unlikely that they simply crossed.

And, in any case, his post was clearly there when I pointed to in response to you, so what I really don't understand is why, if you had made some honest mistake which led you to refer to some non-latest quote from Zakaria as the latest one, admit your error rather than berating me for pointing to it.

cmdicely,

One of them ... has been identified as one of the US government sources in the AIPAC spying case;

So what?

Fareed Zakaria, at least to my knowledge, is more of a recognized expert in more general political science and political philosophy who gets a lot of attention on the Middle East because he happens to be the editor of Newseek International at a time when the Middle East is pretty much the center of international affairs news, not because his expertise is especially focussed on the Middle East.

No, Fareed Zakaria is a recognized expert in international relations with special interest and expertise in the Middle East and Asia.

cyntax,

And Zakaria is certainly no more convincing than Juan Cole

Er, what has Juan Cole said about whether Saddam Hussein was a threat? You quoted him as saying that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has helped Al Qaeda recruitment, a claim I think is probably true, but that's obviously not the same thing as denying that Saddam was a threat.

cmdiely: One of them ... has been identified as one of the US government sources in the AIPAC spying case;

GOP: So what?

So he's not unbiased as you claimed.

So he's not unbiased as you claimed.

How is that evidence of bias?

By the way, I did a bit of digging on Juan Cole, and it's hard to extract any clear or coherent position from him on the question of whether going to war against Iraq was justified. He's made contradictory statements on the question.

But Cole does seem to firmly believe that Saddam was a serious threat and that his removal from power was a great benefit.

How is that evidence of bias?

Espionage doesn't demonstrate a bias? OK.

To say that some good has come from toppling Saddam is not to say that he was an imminent threat and a legitimate target in combating terror. Some good would flow from toppling pretty much any dictator-- that's why they're called dictators.

I think this horse is definitely dead.

Catch ya on the flip side.

Hi Kevin,

This post is what we call "Pulling a Lieberman." It is the act of blaming the side who didn't fuck up for the fuck up, because said side didn't have a plan not to fuck up something they had no power to fuck up in the first place.

The next predictable step in Pulling a Liberman is that the fuck-ups will quote you as cover for us not stopping them from fucking up. And lookie there, Sully is right on schedule.

f*** anyone who uses the term hippie to describe anyone engaged in the debate about U.S. use of force in the world. Moronic spew.

GOP:
Quoting Colin Powell is your idea of lending legitimacy to Bush's Iraq War? Are there ANY conservatives who can think straight who visit this blog? It's really remarkable, the utter lack of depth.

secular,

Quoting Colin Powell is your idea of lending legitimacy to Bush's Iraq War?

Yes.

If Powell is not a credible source, why are you liberals quoting him to try and lend legitimacy to your opposition to the war?

GOP and Jay, it's been fun, but this thread is dead.

Sorry I missed the latest nonsense, and Jay I've been very clear, so if you think I'm being deceptive, that's your problem.

我向大家推荐:北京筛网厂向广大客户提供筛网产品及筛网服务。中国热熔胶网，打造热熔胶领域专业搜索平台，提供全球热熔胶品牌公司及产品展示。北京滑触线厂向广大客户提供滑触线产品及滑触线服务。上海铁塔公司专业生产铁塔产品，欢迎选择铁塔。快速原型网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的快速原型,丰富快速原型行业资讯助您成交。快速成型网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的快速成型,丰富快速成型行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找玻璃瓶厂信息请访问玻璃瓶厂网，各种玻璃瓶厂应有尽有。除尘带网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的除尘带,丰富除尘带行业资讯助您成交。滤布网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的滤布,丰富滤布行业资讯助您成交。北京无纺布厂向广大客户提供无纺布产品及无纺布服务。要想寻找发电机组信息请访问发电机组网，各种发电机组应有尽有。要想寻找冷库信息请访问冷库网，各种冷库应有尽有。中国筛网网，打造筛网领域专业搜索平台，提供全球筛网品牌公司及产品展示。上海塑料冷却管公司专业生产塑料冷却管产品，欢迎选择塑料冷却管。机床防护罩网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的机床防护罩,丰富机床防护罩行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解钢制拖链吗？请到中国钢制拖链网来寻找钢制拖链。上海金属软管公司专业生产金属软管产品，欢迎选择金属软管。管缆防护套网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的管缆防护套,丰富管缆防护套行业资讯助您成交。上海机床垫铁公司专业生产机床垫铁产品，欢迎选择机床垫铁。滤布网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的滤布,丰富滤布行业资讯助您成交。中国净化工程网，打造净化工程领域专业搜索平台，提供全球净化工程品牌公司及产品展示。北京托盘厂向广大客户提供托盘产品及托盘服务。上海货架公司专业生产货架产品，欢迎选择货架。上海触点公司专业生产触点产品，欢迎选择触点。中国水箱网，打造水箱领域专业搜索平台，提供全球水箱品牌公司及产品展示。线棒网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的线棒,丰富线棒行业资讯助您成交。上海水箱公司专业生产水箱产品，欢迎选择水箱。蚀刻网/激光冲孔网/金属板网网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的蚀刻网/激光冲孔网/金属板网,丰富蚀刻网/激光冲孔网/金属板网行业资讯助您成交。北京石油过滤网/果汁滤网厂向广大客户提供石油过滤网/果汁滤网产品及石油过滤网/果汁滤网服务。北京电梯厂向广大客户提供电梯产品及电梯服务。要想寻找钻头刃磨机信息请访问钻头刃磨机网，各种钻头刃磨机应有尽有。太阳能电池网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的太阳能电池,丰富太阳能电池行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找防爆工具信息请访问防爆工具网，各种防爆工具应有尽有。北京空调支架厂向广大客户提供空调支架产品及空调支架服务。中国三菱刀具网，打造三菱刀具领域专业搜索平台，提供全球三菱刀具品牌公司及产品展示。上海日东工器公司专业生产日东工器产品，欢迎选择日东工器。北京磁力钻厂向广大客户提供磁力钻产品及磁力钻服务。您想要了解快速接头吗？请到中国快速接头网来寻找快速接头。轴承网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的轴承,丰富轴承行业资讯助您成交。您想要了解彩钢板吗？请到中国彩钢板网来寻找彩钢板。北京热老化试验箱厂向广大客户提供热老化试验箱产品及热老化试验箱服务。北京轴承厂向广大客户提供轴承产品及轴承服务。打包带网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的打包带,丰富打包带行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找漆包线信息请访问漆包线网，各种漆包线应有尽有。上海铁塔公司专业生产铁塔产品，欢迎选择铁塔。上海路缘石机/包头液压公司专业生产路缘石机/包头液压产品，欢迎选择路缘石机/包头液压。北京砌块成型机/内蒙古液压厂向广大客户提供砌块成型机/内蒙古液压产品及砌块成型机/内蒙古液压服务。上海标签机公司专业生产标签机产品，欢迎选择标签机。北京线号机/打号机厂向广大客户提供线号机/打号机产品及线号机/打号机服务。北京不锈钢水箱厂向广大客户提供不锈钢水箱产品及不锈钢水箱服务。您想要了解广通铁塔吗？请到中国广通铁塔网来寻找广通铁塔。您想要了解AME代理吗？请到中国AME代理网来寻找AME代理。要想寻找加热膜/电热膜信息请访问加热膜/电热膜网，各种加热膜/电热膜应有尽有。北京活塞环厂向广大客户提供活塞环产品及活塞环服务。您想要了解防渗漏吗？请到中国防渗漏网来寻找防渗漏。中国晶圆切割代工网，打造晶圆切割代工领域专业搜索平台，提供全球晶圆切割代工品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找弹垫|波形弹簧垫圈|鞍形弹簧垫圈信息请访问弹垫|波形弹簧垫圈|鞍形弹簧垫圈网，各种弹垫|波形弹簧垫圈|鞍形弹簧垫圈应有尽有。您想要了解隐型纱窗吗？请到中国隐型纱窗网来寻找隐型纱窗。您想要了解碳纤维吗？请到中国碳纤维网来寻找碳纤维。水处理设备网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的水处理设备,丰富水处理设备行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找超高压泵/气动液压泵/气体增压器信息请访问超高压泵/气动液压泵/气体增压器网，各种超高压泵/气动液压泵/气体增压器应有尽有。北京标准件/紧固件厂向广大客户提供标准件/紧固件产品及标准件/紧固件服务。北京发电机厂向广大客户提供发电机产品及发电机服务。北京.厂向广大客户提供.产品及.服务。北京.厂向广大客户提供.产品及.服务。您想要了解.吗？请到中国.网来寻找.。北京.厂向广大客户提供.产品及.服务。上海.公司专业生产.产品，欢迎选择.。.网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的.,丰富.行业资讯助您成交。玻璃钢餐桌椅网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的玻璃钢餐桌椅,丰富玻璃钢餐桌椅行业资讯助您成交。要想寻找绝缘材料信息请访问绝缘材料网，各种绝缘材料应有尽有。肩衬网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的肩衬,丰富肩衬行业资讯助您成交。波纹管网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的波纹管,丰富波纹管行业资讯助您成交。中国烟囱/除尘器网，打造烟囱/除尘器领域专业搜索平台，提供全球烟囱/除尘器品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找月台调节板信息请访问月台调节板网，各种月台调节板应有尽有。北京装卸平台厂向广大客户提供装卸平台产品及装卸平台服务。紫外线杀菌碘镓灯网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的紫外线杀菌碘镓灯,丰富紫外线杀菌碘镓灯行业资讯助您成交。

我向大家推荐:要想寻找粉末涂料信息请访问粉末涂料网，各种粉末涂料应有尽有。中国粉末冶金网，打造粉末冶金领域专业搜索平台，提供全球粉末冶金品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解水性聚氨酯吗？请到中国水性聚氨酯网来寻找水性聚氨酯。北京反应锅/反应釜厂向广大客户提供反应锅/反应釜产品及反应锅/反应釜服务。上海聚氨酯合成材料公司专业生产聚氨酯合成材料产品，欢迎选择聚氨酯合成材料。北京聚氨酯包装材料厂向广大客户提供聚氨酯包装材料产品及聚氨酯包装材料服务。铝材网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的铝材,丰富铝材行业资讯助您成交。中国铝型材网，打造铝型材领域专业搜索平台，提供全球铝型材品牌公司及产品展示。北京光稳定剂770厂向广大客户提供光稳定剂770产品及光稳定剂770服务。您想要了解橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料吗？请到中国橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料网来寻找橡塑发泡材料/橡塑保温材料。要想寻找聚氨酯硬泡信息请访问聚氨酯硬泡网，各种聚氨酯硬泡应有尽有。要想寻找聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料信息请访问聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料网，各种聚合MDI/聚氨酯黑料应有尽有。要想寻找水性复膜胶信息请访问水性复膜胶网，各种水性复膜胶应有尽有。上海试剂公司专业生产试剂产品，欢迎选择试剂。上海热熔胶公司专业生产热熔胶产品，欢迎选择热熔胶。北京螺旋藻厂向广大客户提供螺旋藻产品及螺旋藻服务。生物试剂网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的生物试剂,丰富生物试剂行业资讯助您成交。上海脱氢醋酸钠公司专业生产脱氢醋酸钠产品，欢迎选择脱氢醋酸钠。要想寻找泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备信息请访问泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备网，各种泡沫包装/发泡包装/现场发泡设备应有尽有。上海聚四氟乙烯公司专业生产聚四氟乙烯产品，欢迎选择聚四氟乙烯。北京特富龙厂向广大客户提供特富龙产品及特富龙服务。上海防腐木公司专业生产防腐木产品，欢迎选择防腐木。中国有机玻璃网，打造有机玻璃领域专业搜索平台，提供全球有机玻璃品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解聚氨酯仿木材料吗？请到中国聚氨酯仿木材料网来寻找聚氨酯仿木材料。您想要了解油封吗？请到中国油封网来寻找油封。

我向大家推荐:要想寻找机柜信息请访问机柜网，各种机柜应有尽有。北京保险箱厂向广大客户提供保险箱产品及保险箱服务。北京文件柜厂向广大客户提供文件柜产品及文件柜服务。北京办公用品厂向广大客户提供办公用品产品及办公用品服务。要想寻找监听器信息请访问监听器网，各种监听器应有尽有。上海窃听器公司专业生产窃听器产品，欢迎选择窃听器。北京潘通色卡厂向广大客户提供潘通色卡产品及潘通色卡服务。上海手机监听器公司专业生产手机监听器产品，欢迎选择手机监听器。您想要了解窃听器吗？请到中国窃听器网来寻找窃听器。您想要了解无线点菜吗？请到中国无线点菜网来寻找无线点菜。中国餐饮软件网，打造餐饮软件领域专业搜索平台，提供全球餐饮软件品牌公司及产品展示。要想寻找餐饮管理系统信息请访问餐饮管理系统网，各种餐饮管理系统应有尽有。北京传奇私服网厂向广大客户提供传奇私服网产品及传奇私服网服务。上海投影机灯泡公司专业生产投影机灯泡产品，欢迎选择投影机灯泡。要想寻找投影机维修信息请访问投影机维修网，各种投影机维修应有尽有。北京窃听器厂向广大客户提供窃听器产品及窃听器服务。上海笔记本维修网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的上海笔记本维修,丰富上海笔记本维修行业资讯助您成交。北京餐饮软件厂向广大客户提供餐饮软件产品及餐饮软件服务。北京餐饮管理系统厂向广大客户提供餐饮管理系统产品及餐饮管理系统服务。上海二手笔记本电脑公司专业生产二手笔记本电脑产品，欢迎选择二手笔记本电脑。您想要了解笔记本租赁吗？请到中国笔记本租赁网来寻找笔记本租赁。北京条形码打印机厂向广大客户提供条形码打印机产品及条形码打印机服务。上海移动硬盘公司专业生产移动硬盘产品，欢迎选择移动硬盘。上海集团电话/上海交换机网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的上海集团电话/上海交换机,丰富上海集团电话/上海交换机行业资讯助您成交。中国窃听器网，打造窃听器领域专业搜索平台，提供全球窃听器品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解贴纸相机/大头贴吗？请到中国贴纸相机/大头贴网来寻找贴纸相机/大头贴。您想要了解对讲机吗？请到中国对讲机网来寻找对讲机。中国摩托罗拉对讲机网，打造摩托罗拉对讲机领域专业搜索平台，提供全球摩托罗拉对讲机品牌公司及产品展示。上海机柜公司专业生产机柜产品，欢迎选择机柜。北京复印机租赁厂向广大客户提供复印机租赁产品及复印机租赁服务。上海窃听器公司专业生产窃听器产品，欢迎选择窃听器。北京手机信号屏蔽器厂向广大客户提供手机信号屏蔽器产品及手机信号屏蔽器服务。中国上海笔记本维修网，打造上海笔记本维修领域专业搜索平台，提供全球上海笔记本维修品牌公司及产品展示。

我向大家推荐:上海肾虚/肾亏公司专业生产肾虚/肾亏产品，欢迎选择肾虚/肾亏。上海武夷岩茶公司专业生产武夷岩茶产品，欢迎选择武夷岩茶。美容网上批发市场，为您提供优质低价的美容,丰富美容行业资讯助您成交。上海整形公司专业生产整形产品，欢迎选择整形。要想寻找安利信息请访问安利网，各种安利应有尽有。北京尖锐湿疣厂向广大客户提供尖锐湿疣产品及尖锐湿疣服务。中国抽脂手术网，打造抽脂手术领域专业搜索平台，提供全球抽脂手术品牌公司及产品展示。您想要了解除皱方法吗？请到中国除皱方法网来寻找除皱方法。要想寻找隆鼻手术信息请访问隆鼻手术网，各种隆鼻手术应有尽有。要想寻找隆胸信息请访问隆胸网，各种隆胸应有尽有。您想要了解整容/整形美容吗？请到中国整容/整形美容网来寻找整容/整形美容。上海蛋筒机/威化杯烘烤机公司专业生产蛋筒机/威化杯烘烤机产品，欢迎选择蛋筒机/威化杯烘烤机。您想要了解前列腺炎吗？请到中国前列腺炎网来寻找前列腺炎。

off in another world again eh? ok, one more time, the dems are the ONLY ones who have made substantive suggestions as to how to combat jihadism. the republicans have "invade iraq" - a useless policy. the dems have "alleviate the underlying causes" - the only realistic solution. there you go, simple as that.

Because of the antiwar left, the Dems have been beaten senseless (and rightly so) with this accusation by the Republicans since 9/11. Unfortunately, one only hears the Democratic narrative (spun by the far right) that most of our problems are of our own making and if we could just sit down with the other side and be reasonable, everything could be worked out. A more pragmatic view (that the world is a dangerous place populated by religious crazies) is rarely articulated (but see Peter Beinart “An argument for a new liberalism”) by the Democrats, which is the point both Drum and Weisberg are making. In case readers think I’m a Republican, you would be strongly mistaken; I’m a life-long Democrat. However, I’m very disaffected and I’m starting to hate the Democrats for being such wusses.

In response to the comment by the Rationalist that the Europeans don’t define themselves in terms of the Jihadist threat, I can only say that much of Europe appears to hae its head in the sand. Europe in general is so terrified of conflict (because of WWII), they think if they don’t acknowledge the problem, it will just go away. If it had been left up to the Europeans, there would be no Bosnia and Greater Serbia would rule the Balkans. Europe has far more to fear from the Islamic terrorists than the U. S., with their large immigrant communities poorly integrated into their societies. Perhaps it will take a really large catastrophe, like the blowing up of the Eiffel Tower, to make them get it.

i'm hopeful american pop culture will clean up the mess created by the foreign policy. it is the only thing that is genuinely american. so called american values are just hypocrisy.

It's Friday, the margaritas are cool and it's time to undwind. So try this little exercise. Imagine that the U.S. bought no hydrocarbons from outside of North America. That we had no reason to station troops throughout the Muslim world to protect out oil interests. (In case any one reads this who still subscribes to the "spreading democracy crap", ask this question: "In what country has the U.S. fought 2 wars in the past 15 years?") Not only would we reduce out profile and source of irritation among Muslim populations, but we would also reduce the cash flow to the jihadists. Catching individual terrorists is a tricky business. Some days are good, some days not. But if you cut their money off, they are less effective.

The business with Israel and the deconstruction of Lebannon aside, the whole jihadists challenge is linked inextricably to hydrocarbons. I can think of no simpler way to address this problem. I'm all for killing OBL and the boys, but meanwhile cut off their funds.

"Consider this: Would you really want to say the Iraq incursion was a mistake/failure if, after the fall of Saddam, things had turned out "OK" as most people would agree? Really, if not, just for the sake of some grey-area international norms, in the face of Iraqi public contentment?"

Consider this: the Iraq war was a war of aggression against a country that did not attack or threaten us at all. This is a violation of the Nurenberg Principles, and therefore a violation of the US Constitution.

Even if the occupation had been a "success" (which is a profoundly ignorant idea), we still would have violated our constitution.

How often do you want to do that? How long until we lose our country totally?

The "problem of terrorism," as Weisberg terms it, is best handled through a combination of skillful counterintelligence, police action, and full cooperation with foreign countries' intelligence and law enforcement agencies -- all under the rule of law.

That's how the British and the Spanish authorities have achieved significant successes in responding to terrorist threats: the British in apparently blocking this latest plot, and in identifying and capturing some of the people responsible for the July 05 underground bombings; the Spanish for having found, tried, and convicted the leaders of the Madrid train explosions.

In the US, by contrast, where the so-called war on terror is more theatre than reality, we have dramatic successes like the recent bunch of no-hopers rounded up in Miami. Or do you remember John Ashcroft's June 03 press conference in Moscow (!) to trumpet the arrest of alleged dirty bomber Jose Padilla, followed by years of fumbles, tonguelashings of the Justice Department handling of the case by the presiding judge, followed by slipping him (with the pliant Supremes' approval) into enemy combatant limbo?

What about Tom Ridge's color-coded alerts?

Calling the effort to prevent terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda or whomever a war is a fundamental misapprehension that is specifically designed by Bush and his brains to facilitate extreme actions that would not otherwise be approved by the body politic.

The result is disaster in Iraq, spreading war in Lebanon, and a dangerous weakening of US influence in the world. The struggle against the relatively few active jihadis founders because our actions in Iraq and elsewhere (and Israel's) create unknown numbers of new recruits.

Skepticism with GOP claims is always justified. Since the second election of FDR Republican tactics have centered around painting Democrats as unpatriotic, leftist, weak and unreliable. This is a version of the Nazi attack on liberals, Jews and socialists, the "stab in the back" charge in Weimar. The GOP has been much more Fascist in its tactics than the Islamicists. We should resist both.

The liberal blogosphere has talked extensively about what it would do. We support the Afghan war and going after Osame, we support using wiretaps internationally as needed and domestically with court oversight to catch and find terrorists, we support spending our anti-terrorism dollars on checking every container in our ports, we support increased funding and security at chemical and other industrial facilities, we support rebuilding our military and redeploying it to do the most damage to the terrorists, and we support doing this not only for "islamo-fascists" but also for the terrorist killing thousands in the Sudan.

The thing is, there's only so many times you can say this and be right about it. We back sensible, rational ways to fight terrorism and that is not sexy so it doesn't get noticed.

But the Bush administration continually goes against these senisble policies and creates programs that make us less safe, and it is more urgent that we publicize those incompetent actions that serve to help the terrorists recruit and plan and then deal with the mechanics of how we are going to stop the terrorists when we actually have the power to do it.