What are we spending all this money on, anyhow?

We have a fifth of the troops than in Vietnam, we've privatized Army healthcare to the point that generals are being demoted because it stinks...

Is all this just for fuel and ammunition for troops stationed elsewhere that are supposed to be stations to defend the homeland?

Where is all this money going? It'd even be a large part of our economy if it were being spent at home...

"short of turning the Middle East into a glassy plain"

More and more, I think that this is the true goal of the Bush administration. The sad thing is that Middle East was the fountain of knowledge and culture just a millenium ago. What is it with some Christians and their need to eliminate this faith that rivals their own?

Good question, and the most essential, Crissa.

The entire premise of so-called GWOT specious, and when you look at it from a bean-counter's point of view, it would be far more cost-effective to rain Adidas on the Middle East than anything we're doing now.

Kevin wrote:
We should be spending more on non-military responses to the GWOT than we do on military responses, not a mere 1% or even 10% as much.

Yeah, but it's harder to corporatize non-military responses. Gotta pay back all those donors and lobbyists and cronies, ya know. It's soooo easy to throw $$ around on military hardware and troop support services. Added bonus: a military solution begets a military solution, keeping the whole gravy train thing going.

It'll be interesting to see if Cheney goes back to Halliburton in 2009.

Wars are won by guns, not diplomats. The more we spend on diplomacy the fewer wars we are likely to fight, so money spent on diplomacy is wasted, anyway. Bush has carefully though these things out, and come to yet another wise decision you foolish liberals just can't understand.

Here's a serious question: does anyone here believe we'd be on a substantially different track with a more competent/Democratic chief executive? That we'd be somewhere other than on the brink of war with Iran, that we wouldn't be spending more money on armaments than the rest of the world combined, that jingoistic, violence celebrating films like 300 wouldn't be so popular with mainstream viewers? We probably wouldn't be in Iraq, I'll certainly grant that, but looking around at the culture we have it seems to me that Bush's drunken driving got us to a place we were heading towards anyway, just faster.

Wars are fought with guns and ended with diplomats.

And yes, I believe that things would be appreciably different if we had never known president aWol.

Trojans 63 Texas 47 - Holy Crap Kevin, things are going better this go round eh?!

Some find it so easy to send others into battle.

We probably wouldn't be in Iraq, I'll certainly grant that, but looking around at the culture we have it seems to me that Bush's drunken driving got us to a place we were heading towards anyway, just faster.
Posted by: Steppen

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, if we'd focused all our energy on Afghanistan, there's a possibility we might actually have left that country in relatively good shape. I say "relatively" because that's a country unlikely to rise out of feudalism anytime soon.

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, there's a very good chance that Iran wouldn't have gotten all puffed up thinking they had to demonstrate their importance in the region. It has to be very unsettling to have an extremely belicose and unstable militarist creating chaos in the country immediately adjacent to yours, and the Iranian response has been to attempt to equal the neocons' belicosity with their own.

As to the investment in weapons: that's not going away, because so much money depends on it. When push comes to shove, a Democratic administration is just as willing to issue huge military contracts as a Republican administration.

I agree with our host about the 'hearts and minds' aspect, but he seems to have left a few things out of the equation. Many of those on the far-left think the U.S. is a bigger terrorist than, you know, the terrorists. Moderate Democrats don't exactly seem to be doing their part to reign in people like that.

On the wider issue, both the GOP and Dem leaderships are willing to put the U.S. at great risk out of fear of alienating their respective interest groups.

Recall that ChuckieSchumer pulled a web video about BorderControl simply because one or two Hispanic groups sent out press releases. Rather than taking them on, he capitulated. And, here's something most probably don't know either: HezbollahTerrrorists have infiltrated the U.S. over our porous SouthernBorder. That happened on Bush's watch, but you haven't heard any Democrats speak out about it.

Perhaps the GOP leadership should put the U.S. CofC on hold and think about protecting the U.S. And, perhaps the Dems should put the NationalCouncilofTheRace on hold and think about the same duty.

What war on terror? Are we talking about the terrorists we are creating in Iraq, or the ones who threaten to retake Afghanistan? The latter are the ones who nailed us many times before. So why are we all but ignoring that situation?

Oh, I forgot. The more groud the Taliban wins back, the more military we need to take it back again, the more profits Halliburton makes. Their profits will drop drastically when (not if) we pull out of Iraq w/o another major war.

It has to be very unsettling to have an extremely belicose and unstable militarist creating chaos in the country immediately adjacent to yours

We pretty much have them surrounded. We have troops on two borders and a bomber wing in a country that shares a third. If you can read a map, you can understand their consternation.

Wha? You can read a map? I thought they were just purty wall decorations. That geography thing must have been left behind with our children's education. Oh well.

If we hadn't invaded Iraq....

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, then what? The country would still be tortured by sanctions no Republican would lift, and no Democrat politically could, with the big, bad, dangerous Saddam (or his successor -- it really doesn't matter) in charge, a threat, as we have seen, to the entire world with his WMDs. War with Iraq was almost inevitable, just as some kind of military confrontation with Iran is inevitable. It was, and is, a matter of time. Everyone is focusing on Bush, but I think Bush is more a mirror for the country.

Look at this American Hawk person, who, if he or she were brighter or had wit, I would assume was caricaturing not just the right of this country, but large parts of the mainstream, who think the same sorts of things. But he/she isn't caricaturing anyone -- they are serious, and they are speaking for many more people than themselves. Bush is a symptom of something, as well as a cause, and focusing on him is a mistake in my view.

I know I shouldn't feed TLB, but I just can't help myself.

Hezbollah invading the US? BAHAHAHAH! Using Tom Tancredo as if he were a reliable source? Stop, man, you're killing me!

Better go check your fridge, TLB, the terrists are probably replacing your whole milk with skim milk as we speak!

It would really be amusing if it turns out there's been nothing to fight. As has been pointed out, Khalid Sheik Mohammed's recent confession could mean that far from there having been some massive pan-Islamic movement behind 9/11 and other attacks, it was basically just a small bunch of troublemakers. I emphasize "could" because this is not certain. It's also worth noting that there have been zero Islamic terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11, and also that the London and Madrid train bombings were both the work of locals with no international ties.

Chickenshit: "As I recall, Hitler was defeated by a brigade of negotiators."

And you point is...? Nothing, as usual.

Let's face it: if you were German in the 1940s, you'd still be cheering Der Führer as the last bombs fell.
So who gives a flying V-1 what you think?

It's quite simple: the diplomatic corps and other non-military foreign policy institutions don't have a major corporate-industrial base that gives enormous donations to the Republican Party. Ergo, they can't possibly be important and worth investing in (i.e. paying back).

It'll be interesting to see if Cheney goes back to Halliburton in 2009.

They already broke ground on his bunker in Dubai....

Let's face it: if you were German in the 1940s, you'd still be cheering Der Führer as the last bombs fell.

Only from the safety of Argentina.

Right, and he'd be calling everyone else cowards for letting down the leader. LOL!

George Bush wanted to be the war president. His defense of the indecency of his administation's barbaric brutality in the interview on Meet the Press back in 2/04 was "We are at war, I am a war president."
It is an identity crisis he has been having, and we are paying the price.
Our soldiers have paid the price, as have the Iraqis. He says he is a Christian,
but he doesn't act like one.
His passive construction of thought in 1/07 that "mistakes were made" just showed his hollowness and pathetic lack of empathy.
The war is over. He lost.
But Halliburton is moving to Dubai.

What would have happened to democracy in the U.S. if Bush had actually succeeded in Iraq? Think about it! The republicans would want to make him Caesar.

As it is, watch for General Petraeus to run for president if he can manage a halfway decent outcome i.e. an honorable exit.

First of all, we shouldn't get too caught up in the spending numbers before analyzing them to distinguish spending genuinely related to terrorism from things the Pentagon would be asking Congress for anyway. Most procurement falls into the latter category.

Even after doing this, though, the fact remains that Kevin is essentially correct, not only that the Pentagon has a much larger role in counter-terrorism than the State Department but also that the current administration has turned increasingly to serving or retired military officers to fill posts outside the Defense Department. As I've written here before, the Pentagon's increased role reflects the continuation of a trend begun years before George Bush became President -- and, among other things, the fact that we have not had a strong Secretary of State since James Baker, while since Bill Clinton took office we have had two very powerful Secretaries of Defense (Perry and Rumsfeld).

Though Sec. Gates has indicated a willingness to dial back Rumsfeld's expansion of the Pentagon's role in the intelligence business somewhat, overall we still have the same dynamic -- a very weak Secretary of State serving with a Secretary of Defense determined to run his department. This is bound to produce a diminished role for State in making foreign policy generally, and in fighting terrorism in particular. You won't see that change without a President who has thought enough about foreign policy to understand that this kind of bureaucratic imbalance is fundamentally unhealthy. The good news for Democrats is that some of their 2008 Presidential candidates -- Dodd, Biden, perhaps Richardson -- fit this description. The bad news is that the current front-runners -- Obama, Edwards, and perhaps especially Clinton (during whose husband's Presidency most of the damage was done)-- do not.

Iranian Chickenhawk,

"As I recall, Hitler was defeated by a brigade of negotiators."

Yes, he was. You see it was the diplomats who worked out deals with Britain and Russia (a huge enemy before and after the war) to get them armanments that greatly benefited the war effort. Moreover, Ike had to be a diplomat to get anything done in the allied army, because of so many different nations that were part of it.

Everyone,

Please stop bashing 300. It was movie. For that matter, a good movie. It was not historical, as the filmakers said, but based off of Frank Miller's comic. If you've seen Sin City, you wouldn't be bitching. B/c in that movie, the Catholic Church is full of corrupt bureaucrats who take part in canibalism. It's a movie, leave it alone.

I'm a retired US Army officer who agrees totally with just how foolhardy this administration is. I, and many of my contemporaries (Vietnam vintage) agree that military action should be the last resort and that diplomacy must always be first. Augmented, of course, with robust and professional intelligence work, which complements diplomatic approaches. We think State should be the point of the spear.

But there is a problem. The generals cited by Kevin may well be the most qualified people for those jobs. Fact is, the State Department has withered on the vine. Senior military officers are often far better educated and much more versed in the realities of the world than are senior State Department people. Generals often speak more foreign languages than their State peers and are much more at ease with the realities of today's world. Many generals are not war lovers and more often fit the model of Eisenhower or MacArthur rather than that of Patton.

The State Department has worked assiduously to make itself irrelevant since Vietnam days. Its senior people opt out of going to troublesome locales; they all want to be in Paris or London. Hardships and sweating are not in their lexicon. Dealing with foreign devils is often distasteful or beneath them. They really are all too often the striped pants set and it's easy to understand how buffoons who want action right now pass them by.

Besides, what would one expect from a cabinet department headed by Condoleeza Rice?

It's also true, I believe, that military leaders are more often more inclined to view their oath as being to the country, not to the party currently in power.

I don't even know how this consortium of gangsters, chickenhawks, killer fruits, and fundamentalists managed to wrap themselves in the flag of the military—except that they really, realty wanted to, and nobody stopped them from co-opting the brand. Consequently, all too many recruits go into the army, especially, thinking they are in a branch of Republican Party—only to be literally bit on the ass once they get in the field or need something in return from Uncle Sam.

How do Dems, with their much higher percentage of veterans, address this fatal distortion when it seems to pain them (as it should) to toot their own military horns?

...more often more...

Sheesh, a little overemphatic there. Sorry.

As to cost, the GAO estimates that each member of the regular services ( approx. 1.4 million active duty) costs $100,000 per year. So just the active duty military costs $144 billion per year.

this was one of the better posts that you've written kevin. maybe inspired by how well the pac-10 did this weekend? :0) but seriously, everyone's eyes have been taken off the ball: China. we've been running in place because of this administration's basic incompetence/corruption. my bigger point: good post.

Sorry--the war on terror has been brought to you by those with the vision for a global empire, or "Pax Americana," described in the description for Project for A New American Century in June, 1997, with the goals of nurturing a powerful military, "challenging regimes hostile to our interests and values,"
and needing "to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilites today and modernize our armed forces for the future,"
and signed by Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Don Rumsfield, Paul Wolfowitz, Steve Forbes, William Bennett, I. Scooter Libby, et al.

"The biggest role -- assuming we actually want to win, that is -- will be played by programs and policies that work to convince the Muslim world that we're not at war with them." - Drum

I think some of them understand that Kevin. Surprisingly though, you don't. This article is dated March 16, 2007 by the BBC'S Marie Colvin:

Marie Colvin, Baghdad
March 19, 2007

"MOST Iraqis believe life is better for them now than it was under Saddam Hussein, according to a British opinion poll published today.
The survey of more than 5,000 Iraqis found the majority optimistic despite their suffering in sectarian violence since the American-led invasion four years ago this week.
One in four Iraqis has had a family member murdered, says the poll by Opinion Research Business. In Baghdad, the capital, one in four has had a relative kidnapped and one in three said members of their family had fled abroad. But when asked whether they preferred life under Saddam, the dictator who was executed last December, or under Nouri al-Maliki, the prime minister, most replied that things were better for them today.
Only 27% think there is a civil war in Iraq, compared with 61% who do not, according to the survey carried out last month.By a majority of two to one, Iraqis believe military operations now under way will disarm all militias. More than half say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.
Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, said the findings pointed to progress. “There is no widespread violence in the four southern provinces and the fact that the picture is more complex than the stereotype usually portrayed is reflected in today’s poll,” she said."

IMPEACH BUSH

Please stop bashing 300. It was movie. For that matter, a good movie. It was not historical, as the filmakers said, but based off of Frank Miller's comic. If you've seen Sin City, you wouldn't be bitching. B/c in that movie, the Catholic Church is full of corrupt bureaucrats who take part in canibalism. It's a movie, leave it alone.

300 isn't the problem. It's the fact that thinking, well meaning people like yourself don't understand that, that is, in part, the problem.

Kevin talks about the militarization of the "war on terror" as a problem; I think it's a natural outgrowth of public attitudes -- much like the content and popularity of 300. This is, after all, a democracy. We have the leadership we deserve and vote for, and we're in the process of voting for more of it, to judge by the leading candidates at this juncture.

Just to make myself clear, I'm not one of those "One party is the same as the other"
people. I'm just a little bit frightened that -- four years into a stupid, disastrous war -- none of the leading candidates seems able to even begin to honestly discuss making profound changes to the direction of our foreign policy. The only conclusion I can draw from that is that we are, collectively, getting the foreign policy, militarization and all, that we want.

"But it still wouldn't be within light years of where it should be. We should be spending more on non-military responses to the GWOT than we do on military responses,..." - Drum

Like what and how much? Be specific. It's pathetically easy to continue to criticize what's being done, and a hell of a lot harder to offer concretet alternatives.

If the Democrats think they know how to best win the war on terror, why is their ONLY plan, a plan of withdrawal?

Kevin Drum >"...It's the fastest way imaginable to lose the war on terror and mortgage our country's future to the Bank of China at the same time..."

At least, unlike many posting here, Kevin "gets it".

The King of The Hill always has to be deposed somehow.

Mission Accomplished through Dick & George`s Great Adventure.

"For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill" - Sun Tzu

Noah >"...in that movie, the Catholic Church is full of corrupt bureaucrats..."

And this is different from the real world how ?

"We have enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another." - Jonathan Swift

As Paul Craig Roberts claimed, "The new American Militarism has abandoned the Founding Fathers, deserted the Constitution, and unrestrained the executive. War is first resort. Militarism is inconsistent with globalism and with American ideals. It will end in abject failure.
The world is a vast place. The U.S. has demonstrated that it cannot impose its will on a tiny part known as Iraq. American realism may yet assert itself, dispel the fog of delusion, cleanse the body politic of the Jacobian spirit, and lead the world by good example. But this happy outcome will require regieme change in the U.S."
"American hubris, which flows so freely from President Bush's mouth, explains why half the U.S. population yawns over the U.S. slaughter of Iraqi civilians and communist-style torture of Iraqi prisoners. The cake-walk war...the delusion...
"America's security and the well-being of the world are threatened by America's belief in the efficacy of force....being assigned such an exalted role creates the delusion that America's virtue is unquestionable, and its use of preemptive coercion is infallible, a delusion that led to the "cake walk war" that would entrench democracy in the Middle East and have the troops home in 90 days."

"....yawns over the U.S. slaughter of Iraqi civilians and communist-style torture of Iraqi prisoners." - consider

Your above post was really good. You were able to spew every left wing talking point without one original thought or grain of truth.

>"It would really be amusing if it turns out there's been nothing to fight"

You are probably a lot closer to the truth than you think. Find the BBC documentary 'The Power of Nightmares' on Google video and watch it. It's all in there.

If you want a good pattern for the 'War on Terror' look no further than the raging success of the 'War on Drugs'. Billions spent on military goodies, the constitution trashed and overall the program is wildly ineffective.

Someday the american people will figure out they'be been had.

Ok, now go watch that documentary. If you don't have 3 hours, at least watch the last episode.

Kevin: the payoff to the donors isn't near as much for State Department type expenditures as it is for the Pentagon and the stuff they do and companies they use etc.. I am disappointed you didn't point that out as a major reason.

OOps, sorry big guy, I suppose by saying "money talks" you did put that up as a reason for military getting the best lift, albeit somewhat obliquely.

The biggest role -- assuming we actually want to win, that is -- will be played by programs and policies that work to convince the Muslim world that we're not at war with them.

What would it actually take to persuade the Muslim world that attacks against Serbs, against Baathists, and against the Taliban are not part of a war against Muslims?

Or, to put it differently, that wars in support of Muslims in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, in support of Muslims in Iraq, and in support of Muslims in Afghanistan, are not parts of a war against Muslims?

Millions of Muslims live in the U.S. Hundreds of thousands others have studied here or do study here. Billions of dollars are spent annually on commercial projects linking U.S. and Muslim firms. Thousands of American sailors have enjoyable shore leave in the U.A.E. monthly. A U.S. aircraft carrier carried water and food into Aceh after the tsunami. What exactly are you proposing that the State Department do while the military is fighting against those few Muslims who are our military enemies, compared to the billions already spent annually on trade and development projects? The actual Muslim enemies, like the suicide bombers in Baghdad and the aircraft hijackers who destroyed the WTC are not interested in projects of understanding and cooperation. They want reconquest of Iraq by Sunnis, reconquest of Afghanistan by Taliban, reconquest of al Andalus by Moors, and they want conquest of southern Thailan, northern Malaysia, and most of Indonesia by Wahhabist-trained and financed fighters there.

To a modest and hard to measure degree, France, G.B. and Belgium are under attack by Muslims despite the nearly complete absence of military measures against Muslims in those nations.

Exactly what role can diplomacy play in all these places if the military does not defeat the militant Muslims arrayed against them? Especially in light of the fact that the early success of the surge, not politics or diplomacy, is creating a greater air of optimism in Baghdad and the rest of Iraq?

More than half (Iraqis surveyed) say security will improve after a withdrawal of multinational forces.

So, Jay, according to your cite most Iraqis favor the Democratic approach. Kay?

Democrats have plenty of ideas about dealing with terrorism. Maybe it's difficult for you to hear a proposal if it doesn't involve the use of deadly force.

You aren't well, Jay. Maybe suck up your courage and take a crack at therapy.

Kevin, it's the WAR on terror, not the spending spree on terror. Wars are won with bombs and guns and missiles, not handouts. And the measure of a war's success is not how cheaply it is fought, but the pride that Americans feel in its armed forces. Most Americans who aren't defeatist liberals take great pride in Operation Iraqi Freedom and in our mission to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East.

Exactly what role can diplomacy play in all these places if the military does not defeat the militant Muslims arrayed against them?

Maybe its a job better performed by police work and not the military, for the most part.

Is it possible that military action can be counterproductive? In fact, if you look at what we have wrought in Iraq with an objective eye how can you avoid exactly that conclusion?

Bush & crew are very good at multiplying our enemies. That's because paranoia, fear-mongering, belligerence and an utter lack of capacity for negotiation and statesmanship are great news for arms dealers and terrible news for peaceful coexistence.

>"It would really be amusing if it turns out there's been nothing to fight"

Like the moon landings, the WTC destruction was actually staged. If you visit NYC instead of just viewing tv shows, you can see it still standing. The Taliban are religious students engaged in pilgrimmages and reflective retreats. The "Bali Bombing" was an exploding meth lab inside the club. The Janjaweed in western Sudan are soliciting funds for the financing of medicines and hospitals for the Palestinians of the West Bank. It has, amusingly, all been cleverly contrived by the MSM to look different.

Even the murder of Theo van Gogh was a fake: van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali staged it because their earlier movie was not box office success, and in order to facilitate Hirsi Ali's admission to the U.S. for refuge from political "persecution".

At the end of "Wag the Dog", the director asks "What could I do to top that?" Now you know.

Ah, Kevin.

Yes, The crazy man of Iran, Achmadinejad, is open to reason. We can negotiate with him and trust him. He just wants to be understood. Poor little Ahmadinajid.

We can feel all warm inside while his nuclear warheads are falling upon us.

Jay--deep down you know what Roberts said is right. Andrew Bacevich--West Point grad, soldier for over 20 years, and a conservative like yourself, wrote--"in the aftermath of a century filled to overflowing with evidence pointing to the limited utility of armed force and the dangers inherent in relying excessively on military power, the American people have persuaded themselves that their best prospect for safey and salvation lies with the sword."
" America will share the fate of all those who in ages past have looked to war and military power to fulfill their destiny. We will rob future generations of their rightful inheritance. We will wreak havoc abroad. We will endanger security at home. We will risk the forfeiture of all that we prize."

Not much of a historian, are you?

Got war?

Here's another way to put it, spider:

Do you think it is effective to attack a Muslim nation that did not attack us and had nothing at all to do with 9/11?

Is it rational? Would you choose to be represented by irrational leaders? Would you trust irrational leaders to protect our nation?

When Donald Rumsfeld wrote, immediately after the 9/11 attacks, "Sweep everything up, things related and not" he made the Bush teams irrationality explicit. What you see in Iraq is the fruit of their madness.

If you think events there bode well for our security I would say you're living in dreamland.

You really think that little twerp is anything other than a fugurehead? He was only allowed to become president because Bush pissed off the mullahs with that "Axis of Evil" crack. They stuck a diminutive thumb in his eye.

He gave a speech at his own alma mater and the students shouted him down and torched pictures of him. His cars were bouncing off one another - literally - as his panicked drivers tried to flee the scene at 25 mph. He took a thumpin along the lines of the thumpin Bush took just a few weeks earlier.

He sure as hell won't be around the ten years it would/will take them to go nuclear.

But go ahead and tremble. It's what you do best.

George W. Bush showed how "tough" he was in dealing with terrorism when he sat staring blankly into space for seven minutes on 9-11, after being told by Andrew Card that "America is under attack". We have it on videotape. Then, he jetted off to hide in a cornfield in Nebraska for the rest of the day, while America yearned for a real leader to provide words of comfort to a grieving country, like Bill Clinton would have.

However, a plutocratic coward like Bush has a couple of other reasons to throw trillions at the Pentagon. Being a deserter from the National Guard, Bush can assuage some of his inevitable guilt by dressing up in flightsuits and calling himself "the Commander-in-Chief" incesantly. Finally, he probably snorted coke with a lot of the guys who are now the CEOs of Raytheon, Lockheed-Martin and other defense contractors and may still owe them from old drug deals.

obscure: Is it possible that military action can be counterproductive? In fact, if you look at what we have wrought in Iraq with an objective eye how can you avoid exactly that conclusion?

1. Yes, it is possible.

2. Any objective account of Iraq has to include the fact that most Iraqis are better off (at least they say so, and it is clear they are in about 14 of the 18 provinces); and the fact that most of the infrastructure that degraded during the sanction regime has be rebuilt. Whether the net effect has been good or bad might be debateable. Whether even a good net effect was worth the American investment in lives and treasure is also debateable.

At the outset of the war a lot of war protestors maintained that the sanctions regime was working and that it should be continued. I don't presume to know your opinion on that, but the sanctions regime was also a military solution. Very few people at the time were in favor of a completely non-military solution. Among the possible plans, all with costs and shortcomings, it is not obvious that the invasion was counterproductive. It may yet prove so, and I think that in the U.S. today it is considered that the gains were not worth the costs. I respect the votes of my fellow American voters; I took the 2006 vote as a strong repudiation of the war, and I am concerned that the Congress is acting too cautiously. With that out of the way, I do not think that the invasion and occupation have been counterproductive.

Like the moon landings, the WTC destruction was actually staged.

Don't be an ass.

The question is, who perpetrated the crime? And what is the most effective response?

George Bush, who admitted to knowing nothing of the difference between Sunni and Shiite Iraq just 2 months before he invaded, will go down in history as one of the most ignorant and disastrous leaders ever.

Osama kicked us in the balls, so GWB stuck a grenade in Saddam's ass. And threw a lighted torch on the middle east in the process.

A couple of years ago I said the fuse had been lit on the bomb that could blow up the world, and TBROSZ called me a drama queen.

If he was here I would ask him if he remembers that?

With that out of the way, I do not think that the invasion and occupation have been counterproductive.

I can not make head or tail of this statement.

Of the sanctions I don't really know. But I trust Hans Blix orders of magnitude more than I trust the current administration. Weapons inspections were working. We know that. What more was needed?

Why go around setting precedents for unprovoked aggression?

Why get our military bogged down in a completely unnecessary civil war?

Why cause unnecessary death, destruction and RESENTMENT OF THE USA?

Why attack someone who did not attack us? Is that so difficult to get your head around?

hey BGRS:

Save the drama for yo mama!

LOL!

Talk about drama queens!

Go on and tremble, it's what egbert's do best.

obscure: The question is, who perpetrated the crime? And what is the most effective response?

Read the comment that I was responding to: it said that we are fighting our nightmares and have no actual enemies.

Of the sanctions I don't really know.

No one really knows. That is why we can not be sure whether the invasion and occupation have, to date, been counterproductive or not.

You do not always object to attacking people who do not attack us, do you? We attacked the Serbs because sitting passively by would, we thought, have been the greater of the available evils. The U.S. invaded Iraq for the same reason, basically, but the details were written out in the Congressional declaration that was voted out, unlike the case of the Balkans wars. The reconstruction of the infrastructure has been a non-negligible outcome of the invasion of Iraq, as has the reflooding of the lands of the Marsh Arabs.

Right. That's what I said.

Sweep everything up, things related and not.

Like the moon landings, the WTC destruction was actually staged. If you visit NYC instead of just viewing tv shows, you can see it still standing. The Taliban are religious students engaged in pilgrimmages and reflective retreats. The "Bali Bombing" was an exploding meth lab inside the club. The Janjaweed in western Sudan are soliciting funds for the financing of medicines and hospitals for the Palestinians of the West Bank. It has, amusingly, all been cleverly contrived by the MSM to look different.

Like the moon landings, the OKC Federal Building destruction was actually staged. If you visit OKC instead of just viewing tv shows, you can see it still standing. The White Nationalists are anthropology students engaged in academic study and reflective retreats. The bombing of abortion clinics were because of exploding meth labs inside the buildings. The Christian Identity movement in the western U.S. is soliciting funds for the financing of medicines and hospitals for the poor whites stuck in the ghetto. It has, amusingly, all been cleverly contrived by the MSM to look different.

Even the murder of Barnett Slepian was a fake: Slepian and James Charles Kopp staged it because abortions weren't getting the exposure they needed, and in order to facilitate Kopp's extradition to the U.S. for refuge from persecution by snobby French waiters.

Anyone who thinks we're not a war with Christian Whites is a fool.

/snark

Aren't hasty generalizations fun? Let's see, 5 billion Muslims - the hundred thousand or so tops involved in all the unrelated examples you gave = less than one tenth of one percent of all Muslims.

Not to mention the fact that the Taliban were a political entity as well as a religious one who despite their theocratic ways actually brought stability to their region after ten years of civil war. And let's completely ignore the fact that none of the entities you mentioned actually share a coherent ideology (e.g. the Taliban and the Iranian Mullahs are bitter enemies) and all of them were acting out of disparate and regional political ends.

A more facile analysis you could not possibly make. But I know that won't stop you from trying.

"The question is, who perpetrated the crime? And what is the most effective response?"

Answer 1: A splinter group of about 30 Saudi Arabians who were enraged by the presense of US bases on Muslim soil.

Answer 2: Spend a trillion dollars (or so) by invading a nation not involved. Kill a half million (or so) people. Construct torture chambers. Conduct assinations. Turn a pool of 700 active Islamic terrorists worldwide [CIA estimate] into tens of thousands of willing Jihadists... who can be very, very patient.

Great strategy, this.

Love the snark - the wit is rapier - just one quibble...it's one billion Mislims - but other than the typo - rock on!

Make that one billion Muslims

The number of Mislims is still undetermined.

A more facile analysis you could not possibly make. But I know that won't stop you from trying.

I could not possibly make a more facile analysis, but the following, that I quoted, is indeed more facile than what I, or you, wrote:

>"It would really be amusing if it turns out there's been nothing to fight"

It appears that we are in agreement: there is something, indeed some things, to fight.

Read the comment that I was responding to: it said that we are fighting our nightmares and have no actual enemies.

No.

'Peter' at 7:33 wrote:

It would really be amusing if it turns out there's been nothing to fight. As has been pointed out, Khalid Sheik Mohammed's recent confession could mean that far from there having been some massive pan-Islamic movement behind 9/11 and other attacks, it was basically just a small bunch of troublemakers. I emphasize "could" because this is not certain.

At 9:39 'Buford' responded to 'Peter':

You are probably a lot closer to the truth than you think. Find the BBC documentary 'The Power of Nightmares' on Google video and watch it.

Neither Peter nor Buford made the assertion that we have no actual enemies. Obviously we do. And one of our worst enemies is excessive paranoia. You can take that to the bank.

There are rare occassions when it makes sense to attack a regime in the absence of aggression towards us. Certainly the Nazis are a textbook example. If you can't see a rather LARGE distinction between the Nazis and Saddam then I just don't know what to say...

Mislims are the lite version — you know, like Reform Jews. Most notable are the Virginia Mislims.
(Yes, they've come a long way, baby. Just ask old Macaca-head.)

Talk about drama queens!

You rang?

Listen. It's quite simple.

The best way to lose the war on terror? Stop fighting.

The other side doesn't actually want us to win. They want us to divide against one another, turn on our leaders, form intractable partisan opinions that cannot be bridged via compromise, and give up.

So the classic liberals method of solving problems--which is to give up and throw tax dollars at it--isn't going to work in this case.

Well, this conservative will never give up. I have dedicated myself to absorbing the ire and the bile and the abuse here so that our leaders can go about the business of defending us. I am fighting you here so that they don't have to listen to your incessant whining.

You're welcome.

2. Any objective account of Iraq has to include the fact that most Iraqis are better off (at least they say so, and it is clear they are in about 14 of the 18 provinces)

No they're not, and no they don't. They say they are glad Saddam Hussein was removed from power. They don't say they are "better off". Their position is similar to most Americans, who are also glad that Saddam Hussein was removed from power, but who nevertheless, all things considered, wish the US had never invaded Iraq.

I'm going to post here without reading. It's the first time I've ever done that but I have never had any reply to what I have said many times before about the war on terra, etc.

War on poverty, on drugs, on terror. Pure politics.

How come no European country has declared war on "terror". Not the UK/IRA. Not Spain/Basque. Not Israel/Palestinian, though they do. Not Germany/Red Brigade. Not any of them against Islam. Why?

The US has a habit og being near hysterical when it sees outside violence although near comatose when domestic; Oklahoma, Waco, black youth death, etc.

Some US person give me a logical argument for the lack of coherent thought behind reaction to violence.

Please?!

The best way to lose the war on terror? Stop fighting.

How interesting. The exact opposite is true.

It appears that we are in agreement: there is something, indeed some things, to fight.

Yes there are some things to fight -- but you're making the ridiculous argument that it is some monstrous monolithic Islam that has its sights set on wiping us out -- clearly you've been proven wrong there.

Secondly, you're using the conservetard tactic of mixing literal terms with metaphors and adding a boatload of emotional appeal to obfuscate the issue. For example, being at "war" with Germany is a deadly existential issue while saying we're in a "war" on drugs or pornography is sloganeering to win over weak minds.

Here's a short list of things "we" -- the U.S. -- apparently need to "fight" gleaned from your post:

Murder (that's definitely a bad one)

Religous intolerance of controversial filmmakers (being something of an iconoclast that bugs me too)

Small, international criminal groups fighting back after a few hundred years of colonialism (those guys are bad, no question)

Civil wars in small African nations (not sure how this is something we have to fight)

Terrorist acts committed in tiny island nations in which the majority of victims were Muslim and Hindu (you're really starting to lose me now)

Yes, these are all things that are bad and that we should one way or another use our influence to actively work toward ending. Having nearly lost my life to a drunk driver I hate those guys too, and despite the fact that they wound and kill tens of thousands of Americans a year they're not a threat to Western Civilization nor should we roll tanks against them. We "fight" them by different means.

The items you mentioned are of very different scales, arising out of different motivations, and some of which have nothing at all to do with us.

Mister Rogers: "They want us to divide against one another, turn on our leaders, form intractable partisan opinions..."

There you have it, folks. The way to defeat totalitarianism is to surrender our democracy. That'll show the bastards.

The best way to lose the war on terror? Stop fighting.

How interesting. The exact opposite is true.

Hilarious. You wrote that without first considering anything. You had no time to absorb the comment and think about what you wanted to say. You're just a pithy one-liner away from being Mr. Sillypants.

If the stated goal of terrorists--the destruction of Western Civilization and the enlavement of all Western persons--were not so laughable as to be impossible to achieve via their means of fighting us, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better way of explaining how this really works.

They cannot ever hope to defeat us. They cannot match us militarily so they attack us in a cowardly manner and try to bleed us. So the only hope they have is that their tactics will become so grisly and unacceptable that we, in effect, surrender by refusing to fight them.

Next time, a moment of reflection will keep you from looking foolish in public.

"It'll be interesting to see if Cheney goes back to Halliburton in 2009."
WTF makes you think he ever left?

brooksfoe -- right on!

Norman Rogers -- You are so wroong. Look at history.

There you have it, folks. The way to defeat totalitarianism is to surrender our democracy. That'll show the bastards.

You are correct in one, simple way. We do need to reassert civil liberties in this country and probably revoke major portions of the Patriot Act. These things would not bother me so much if the disturbing reports of the abuse by the Federal Bureau of Investigation prove to be substantive in nature.

No, your point has more thought to it than that of Mr. Bookfoe. We must not surrender our civil liberties--one cannot have Democracy without civil liberties.

Norman? Are the meds kickin' in, Darlin'? That was damned near lucid. You are scaring me...

Norman Rogers -- You are so wroong. Look at history.

Quitting, appeasement, conciliation and compromise with people who have a state goal of wanting to destroy Western Civilization--show me where, in history, any of that ever led to anything other than invasion and war.

When liberals tell you they oppose the Iraq war but support the war in Afghanistan, they prove the point made by Mr. Bookfoe completely wrong. There are places where we should be fighting terrorists and denying them a base of operations. You disagree with whether we should be in Iraq? Fine. We have consensus that we SHOULD be in Afghanistan.

But, without thinking, Mr. Bookfoe has stated that his position is that we should not fight terrorists and that we will win if we give up. So do we pull out of Afghanistan?

Sound the call, liberals. Let's turn inward and leave the world to fend for itself.

The likelihood of catastrophic terror attacks against the US would be very substantially reduced if we simply pulled out of Iraq as rapidly as possible. This remains true even though morons who have spent the last 6 years being repeatedly wrong about literally every aspect of the war on terror, Mr. Rogers included, insist that it is "silly".

Norman? Are the meds kickin' in, Darlin'? That was damned near lucid. You are scaring me...

Well, if the moderators would do something about all of the parodists and the liars who have besmirched my good name, perhaps I would get the respect I so richly deserve.

Do you see your uncle Norman giving up? Of course not. I am here to put the stick in your eye and the shiny loafer up your kiester and to explain how the world really works to anyone who has the stomach for it. The rest of you can inhale slowly and pass the roach clip.

trex: but you're making the ridiculous argument that it is some monstrous monolithic Islam that has its sights set on wiping us out

not so. I merely mocked the following absurd line: >"It would really be amusing if it turns out there's been nothing to fight"

On the occasions when I note the large number of targets under attack (restoring al Andalus, the WTC, the Bali nightclub) I use the far more restrictive names al Qaeda, Wahhabist, Salafist, or Islamofascist, and I distinguish between them and most other Muslims. It's not a "monolithic Islam" (pun: they do, however, all worship the "one rock", the Kaaba), but it is monstrous.

It is also worth noting that, while the war in Afghanistan was justified and logical as a response to catastrophic terrorism against the US (which is why it had broad international support, even within the Muslim world), we have now botched it so badly that within a year or so the country may be no less a haven of radical Islamic terrorism than it was before the war. Which would mean that ultimately, the entire military aspect of the US's "war on terrorism" over the past 6 years would have proved counterproductive; and we would literally have been better off, and more secure, not having a military capable of waging war in the Middle East, than having one.

The likelihood of catastrophic terror attacks against the US would be very substantially reduced if we simply pulled out of Iraq as rapidly as possible. This remains true even though morons who have spent the last 6 years being repeatedly wrong about literally every aspect of the war on terror, Mr. Rogers included, insist that it is "silly".

Well, I would tend to agree with you. There isn't anyone in Iraq who has the capability of attacking the US as it stands right now.

But you did a nice dance to the left, a dance to the right, and ducked the point. I said that the best way to lose the war on terror was to stop fighting. You said the opposite is true. I made a very salient point about Afghanistan and you made a little remark about Iraq and left the question hanging in the air like a wet fart.

Should we just withdraw from everywhere, leave all of the fronts in the war on terror--and this would include East Africa, the Phillipines, Colombia, the Balkans (where we have caught al Qaeda), Iraq and Afghanistan?

Perhaps you are correct in making this all about Iraq. I won't quibble. But this notion that we must stop fighting terrorists is one that no serious contender for the Presidency would dare to make. Unless you're a Kucinich man.

I note, Norman Rogers, that you have not answered the question about other countries relatively successful answer to terrorism compared to the US.

I also note that you answer with analogies to state-to-state war (I assume Germany) rather than a small proportion of people fighting a state.

Everything the US has done so far since 11th September has been to expand that very small base.

Please discuss.

I have gotten some grief for mocking the following stupid line: >"It would really be amusing if it turns out there's been nothing to fight"

I guess everybody else here thinks it's really swell.

I just thought it was kind of inane so I ignored it.

"restoring al-Andalus"

Gee, they sure seem to be pursuing that goal with singleminded dedication. There were the Madrid attacks in 2004, and then...and then...er...

Did it ever occur to you that the radical Islamic goal of "restoring al-Andalus" might be kind of similar to the RAHOWA white-power movement's goal of establishing a pure white Christian state from Alaska to Georgia? I.e., not something to really keep yourself awake at night worrying about?

Which would mean that ultimately, the entire military aspect of the US's "war on terrorism" over the past 6 years would have proved counterproductive; and we would literally have been better off, and more secure, not having a military capable of waging war in the Middle East, than having one.

That's an amusing moral compass you seem to have misplaced.

Which terrorists would it be okay for us to go fight, then? Some? All? None?

I note, Norman Rogers, that you have not answered the question about other countries relatively successful answer to terrorism compared to the US.

Like Spain? How they gave up and went home?

No one "succeeds" in their fight against terrorism. They make small progress, they hold it back in some areas, and ultimately there are failures in trying to contain it.

Wishing it away and giving up? Not sure if that has ever worked.

brooksfow --

RAHOWA?

Why use it? It trivializes what it is about.

RACIAL HOLY WAR (I had to look it up, which I resent).

Effing RACIAL Holy War. Spell it out. Every time.

But you did a nice dance to the left, a dance to the right, and ducked the point.

No, no, no. You jump to the left and put your hand on your hip...

Should we just withdraw from everywhere, leave all of the fronts in the war on terror--and this would include East Africa, the Phillipines, Colombia, the Balkans (where we have caught al Qaeda), Iraq and Afghanistan?

Each needs to be assessed and the appropriate assets applied. It isn't one-size-fits-all, all-war-all-the-time. In none of the cases you list is the use of direct military force the appropriate countermeasure.

Did it ever occur to you that the radical Islamic goal of "restoring al-Andalus" might be kind of similar to the RAHOWA

Perfect. Fucking. Analogy.

I also note that you answer with analogies to state-to-state war (I assume Germany) rather than a small proportion of people fighting a state.

We have fought Afghanistan; I believe we are more threatened by the Saudis than the Iranians, but that's another pet peeve of mine.

A fine analogy would be Northern Ireland. Do you believe the IRA to be a movement of freedom fighters or an organized crime syndicate.

Careful, now. Freedom fighters usually avoid dabbling in the drug trade.

Each needs to be assessed and the appropriate assets applied. It isn't one-size-fits-all, all-war-all-the-time. In none of the cases you list is the use of direct military force the appropriate countermeasure.

Well, Bookfoe thinks you are wrong. notthere just goes along like a lackey.

Do you believe the IRA to be a movement of freedom fighters or an organized crime syndicate.

Are you fucking insane? (Don't answer that - we know it's Norman...) I would never, in a thousand years, proclaim either way on that issue.

However,in recent history virtually all of the resistance movements that lay claim to the mantle of freedom fighter dabble in all manner of nefarious affiliations and black-market dealings. Drugs, diamonds, human bondage and slavery - revolutions require cash, and black-market cash is easier to lay hands on.

brooksfoe: Did it ever occur to you that the radical Islamic goal of "restoring al-Andalus" might be kind of similar to the RAHOWA white-power movement's goal of establishing a pure white Christian state from Alaska to Georgia? I.e., not something to really keep yourself awake at night worrying about?

sure. also not something to ignore or run away from. In fact, the U.S. fought a sort of anti-insurgency against the KKK for decades. The analogy has some flaws: for example, al Qaeda has lots more money, and the agents fly internationally, and use the international banking system. They are a more dedicated and serious enemy.

Norman Rogers --

the idea that you can hammer other people to come to your view is redundant.

UK/IRA: the sinn Fein/IRA won 80% of the nation and it has taken peace, not war, to bring the other 20% into a conversation, except where the British military/intelligence went outside always within the legal framework. Red Brigade was taken out within the civil legal framework. Spain/Basque-ITA closer now than ever to peace, within civil law. USA until 2001 treated civil unrest within civil law. 11th September 2001, another foreign attack, decided to treat it outside civil law. Why?

I don't think there is any doubt that the last 4 years have been very counter-productive to the "war on terror".

Should we just withdraw from everywhere, leave all of the fronts in the war on terror--and this would include East Africa, the Phillipines, Colombia, the Balkans (where we have caught al Qaeda), Iraq and Afghanistan?

East Africa: withdraw. Get the Hercules gunships the hell out of there before we turn yet another population against us.
Philippines: we're not there in any significant way.
Colombia: what the hell does this have to do with the war on radical Islamic terror? For the record, yes, the drug war in Latin America is largely idiotic and we should get out of it.
The Balkans: We are in the process of drawing down in Bosnia, which is secure, and moving towards a secure permanent solution for Kosovo. So, yes, we should withdraw, as we are already doing.
Iraq: withdraw.
Afghanistan: we have one last shot at pouring effort into that country and trying to leave it a better place than it was when we went in there. We should get the hell out of Iraq and redeploy to Afghanistan.

Dealing with radical Islamic terrorism should involve as little overt violence as possible, especially aggressive violence, especially on the level of massive interventions against entire states. It's in that sense that I think "the way to lose to the terrorists is to stop fighting" is exactly wrong. We should be trying to stop fighting in as many places as possible. We are fighting too much already, and we are loudly threatening even more fighting (in Iran).

Perfect. Fucking. Analogy.

I am "irony challenged" (someone said that last week.) was that ironic?

al Qaeda finances people to go into Iraq and commit suicide by exploding trucks filled with chlorine, in order to kill as many innocent civilians as possible.

Drugs, diamonds, human bondage and slavery - revolutions require cash, and black-market cash is easier to lay hands on.

In the case of the IRA, you missed the boat and failed to note that US contributions from the Northeast (Democratic, almost exclusively) was their primary source of cash. The drug dealing was just another way to keep people in line.

Failing to take a stand means you and everyone else cannot understand what the war on terror is REALLY all about.

In each and every one of these difficult situations, you cannot sit on the fence and hem and haw. You have to take a stand and you have to take a side.

Doing nothing will merely lead to your defeat.

No, no, no - perhaps I wasn't clear - I'm not touching the IRA question.

In fact, the U.S. fought a sort of anti-insurgency against the KKK for decades. The analogy has some flaws:

Like, except for not sending C-130 gunships to bombard towns in Alabama? Or except that the KKK was IN THE UNITED STATES and therefore entirely a matter of law enforcement? That's an analogy that's nothing but flaws. European governments' efforts to combat radical Islamic groups in Europe are a conceivable analogy to the US's efforts to combat white supremacist groups; you'll note that neither of those cases involve the use of, say, air power.

Any organization with a idealogical primacy will take maoney from where they can get and the morality will come second. As a Brit I am not going to ctiticize the IRA for making money where they can to wage their war. The UK or US governments, with means of taxation, is a different matter so, for instance, Iran-Contra is a completely different matter.

Nothing that happened before, on or after 11th Srptember, 2001 justifies any action outside the law.

That includes suspending Habeas Corpus (wow! That's a biggy), putting individuals outside normal law, or fighting an illegal war.