Wow Kerry took the Florida primary!

[kandrathe]

Why haven't the Saudis gotten anything more than a slap on the wrist? Oil. Apparently, if someone has the US by the balls, in terms of fuel, they get a "get out of the axis of evil free" card.

Well, more than oil. They have hosted our soldiers for awhile, and they are the focal point of Islam. The house of Saud is vast in numbers, as well as ideologies and sympathies. Wahabism asserts the importance of Saudi Arabia as the seat of Islam -- I pointed out in a differest thread the political advantages to the rulers of having a mind control tool such as this religion. If they were to acknowledge the truth, they would just be another desert covering a vast oil supply. If you are a non-Islamic state in a war with Saudi Arabia, you are in a de facto war with Islam. In an interesting twist, I watched a documentary tonight on the rise and fall of Saddam. His real consolidation of power came in the early 70's after the 1968 bloody coup that reestablished the Ba'athe party to power in Iraq. Because of the OPEC oil embargo on any nation aiding Isreal, the World economy was tanking fast -- it was Iraq that while denying it to OPEC was breaking the embargo and selling oil at high prices to the west. This gave them vast wealth, and thereby the means to build the worlds 6th largest army, free hospitals, free education, and vast investment in Iraqi infrastructure.

Yes, they have. And if Islamist terrorist recruitment triples as support for these governments plummets, that would certainly paint the "obviously you must be against terrorism!" notion in rather a different light. If the people of these nations feel unrepresented by their governments, the best case scenario is that they join terrorist organizations by the hundreds. The worst is that the whole governments come down, a la Iran.

Well I see your point, but something wreaks about it. I think it is because I feel that each individual needs to have a morality. Peace is not only between nations, but between peoples. Even a soldier must make a determination when the time comes to it, whether or not to pull the trigger and take another human's life. When an ideology has the power to strip a person of their morality (such as that that motivates terrorists, or a nationalism that motivates soldiers to act as in Bosnia unquestioning), is when and maybe why we see so much violence and death in our world.

Let's use the recent bombing in Spain as an example. The first message was one of bloodshed. There was no al Queda (or ETA) terrorist representative standing up and calling for an end to Spanish support for the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just the bombs and the blood, the terror and the tyrannts, the viciousness and the victims. If this is what is destined for the youth of the states that take a stand against the immorality of terrorism, then our future is destined for another world war.

Right after 9/11 bigotry flared here is the US for a few weeks, it was quickly checked by rational people calling for tolerance and calm. Eventually, somewhere, maybe here or maybe where you live, that tolerance will end. I am sure if you asked Islamic or Arab Americans and those of Middle Eastern decent they would concur that attitudes of people toward them have changed. And if you don't think that process has started, I would point toward the PATRIOT Act and every sort of infringement on personal liberty in the name of security. So, just maybe that fear you, I, and others have been feeling is that we are coming to realize that WW4 has started.

[Occhidiangela]

I never saw them as friends of America, and a bunch my buddies in the Army who fought in 91 had this to say:

"A great many Saudis saw Americans as someone who came to help them out with Saddam, who was a threat to their hallowed ground, and were sure that if we ever were needed again, Allah would see to it that we showed up to take care of our mutual interests. In between times, they'd be just as happy to have us piss off."

Now, the Saudi's and the US have a "I use you you use me" relationship, and have had for some time . . . since about 1979, when Ayatollah Khomeini decided to start the Islamist revolution.

I have commented here before: The Saudi's were in the OPEC embargo of the US in 1973, and I'd suggest they were leaders in it.

Friends? Not really. Occasional allies? Yep, when conditions warrant it. The Saudi's love us for our money (that buys their oil and makes some of them rich) just like any good whore loves a GI for his money on the weekends.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

I heard "you either throw the terrorists out or you don't. If you harbor them, you have just made us your enemy. Stand the f*** by for bad news."

(We have both commented on how the Irish had best batten down the hatches as soon as we have the Oil bit sorted out. There is a Guinness producing land that needs straightening out, what with all of their harboring IRA terrorists, and such. . . and we can even converse with them. !)

Now, I have since heard pundits galore launch all over anyone who disagrees with taking out Saddam. That was momentum from launching on folks who objected to the US heading out to kill Taliban and Al Qaeda folks in Afghanistan. I can understand the objections to the Iraq Operation far better than the other.

Can cutting the cancer out of Iraq be done without leaving a power vacuum in the Mid East and lots of unrest? It is all tied to more than oil, it is a risk taken with a view to changing the security calculus in the Mid East. Change it it has, but the final answer is not out, and won't be for some years. Was it worth taking the risk? Still have mixed feelings on that, but it beats sitting back and waiting for the next jackass to take the initiative and destabalize the Mid East on his own time table. The timid pussies of the world have been whining at the doers and achievers for longer than I have been alive, so of course there was going to be a Greek Chorus calling for "more time and wait and see . . ."

I was quite frankly surprised to see how few chem and bio weapons stocks have been uncovered to date, given the history of those programs. We discussed elsewhere how much of the leaked intel was quite possibly bravado aimed at making his neighbors think he had the goods, a deception plan that backfired when it ran up against Pres Bush's view of the world after 9-11.

As to the "for us or against us" stand in re our NATO allies, far too many folks ignore that some chose to move with us, for better and for worse. France and Germany aren't all of Europe. Indeed, you may note how lame their attempts at European Security have panned out, in re the Balkans, without US assistance. What ever happened to Ardant Du Picq, Erwin Rommel, Charles DeGaulle (the tank commander, not the PM) and Erich Hartman? Is the blood really that thin?

The deadly Iraq mess is still a work in progress: can you bring "democracy" to a country at the point of a bayonet? Not sure, but I am sure you can't, responsibly, have both guns and butter, as the Soviets and LBJ both found out, which pairing is what a war and a tax cut try to create. :unsure:

I still have my bets on the "don't pass" line on that crap table bet in re bayonetting democracy into action. I see an Islamic Republic in Iraq in the near future, though not one identical to Iran's. That would make the whole venture look like "be careful what you wish for, since you are sure to get it." Pres Bush wanted Saddam out of Iraq. He has that now.

Now what?

Occhi

[Sourskunk]

As far as containment goes, that was a pretty rousing success, except for all those dead babies, which I suppose is just the price of doing business.

You can't possibly be this nonchalant about it, can you?

[Sourskunk]

On the Iraq/terrorism link, which is weak compared to countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran I admit, is two facts with Iraq. One, there were pockets of terrorists in northern Iraq that Sadaam would not/could not evict. Two, he was providing funding to families of dead Palestinian suicide bombers. The latter more than the former isn't exactly a benign tie to terrorism. What do you think? Now, if you wanted to argue there were other threats we should have gone for first or even that Iraq didn't match up to the risk-reward formula, again, that's fair. But that's not the problem you have, is it?

On the "futile" angle, we've been hearing from other countries that what America was trying to do was impossible for...well, before we declared independence from England and beat the tar out of them, created a lasting democracy, became an economic superpower, defeated the Soviet Union...and defeating those two countries that were supposed to cause "quagmires". So, if you don't mind me saying, your calls of futility...fall on deaf ears and have done so for...longer than I've been alive. The United States has been in the business of doing what the rest of the world can not for 238 years, long before oil was a gleam in a Texan's eye ;). That's a track record I'm willing to stand on.

As to the concept that we run around willy-nilly destroying anyone we don't like, it hasn't exactly worked that way. We gave the Taliban a chance to give up Bin Laden and they refused. We gave Sadaam a chance to quit playing games with the inspectors and do full disclosure of past systems (which we now know why he wouldn't reveal them) and he refused. They chose to stand tall to the alliance...which puzzled me because it's hard to stand tall when they get squashed by America and its MANY allies. Seriously, our list of supporters is much longer than your list of detractors.

Do you think that the families of the 200 dead Spaniards in Madrid believe "It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" or that their family members died to a freak mass occurance of spontaneous human combustion? What about the dead in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bali, and hundreds more? Need I also remind you that two groups which would symbolize the peace and negotiation you so dearly embrace, namely the United Nations and the Red Cross, were the first two non-US groups to be attacked by terrorists in Iraq and now the terrorists have moved on to focusing on Iraqi civilians? They don't give a damn about motives and they surely don't give a damn about non-aggression. Terrorists can not be appeased. That leads to one last point.

There may be ways to significantly set back terrorism. Keep the intelligence networks tight. Undercut support for terrorist networks by removing their causes. Offer support to populist governments rather than oppressive ones. International police actions, rather than full-scale wars.

This is called playing defense. The only way to keep the intelligence tight enough to prevent attack would be to become totalitarian regimes ourselves and I have enough problems with the Patriot act already thank you very much. We're trying to undercut support by creating democracy and prosperity in the countries where it comes from. Is it a fool's game? Perhaps, time will tell but I already told you how I feel about foreign predictions of futility. But that goes into your offering support to populist governments...like the new ones in Afghanistan and Iraq (hopefully). And finally, the same requirement for police actions holds the same in downtown Ontario as it does for downtown Baghdad or for that matter downtown Belgrade in Serbia, you can not have an effective police force without the support of the people you are policing. Seriously, ask the people in Kosovo and Serbia, let alone Rwanda, Haiti, and Bosnia how international police actions do to better the situations there.

But one final thing. That support I was talking about? The building Iraqi police force along with their dead brothers, killed by terrorists afraid of the stability they are bringing, are the solemn demonstration of the support that an effective police action, domestic instead of international, can bring.

[Occhidiangela]

Well, uh, no. The sanctions did plenty. First and foremost, they killed a lot of people. Whether that was worth it or not depends on where you sit, we're not going to go over that again. But past that, they apparently prevented Saddam Hussein from obtaining anything even resembling a WMD program after the Gulf War, and indeed prevented Iraq from rebuilding anything at all, except Saddam's ego. The invasion has even verified that he was far weaker than even our lowest estimates considered.

Not hardly. The sanctions put an economic crimp on Saddam and his power base, but the seal on Iraq was hardly airtight. The scrutiny that Iraqi import/exports underwent certainly slowed down the programs he was developing. What the sanctions could not do was anything about the programs already in place if he did not fully cooperate with the UN weapons inspections, which was the case from the word go. The sanctions did what they always do, and what blockades have always done: the cost a lot of money and effort to maintain, and hurt the poor more than they hurt the rich by slowing down the economy.

As to the bit I italicized, hindsight is 20-20. When you deal with securitythreats, you deal with the combinations of capability, intentions, and capacity for collective action. The intentions bit has always been the hardest nut to crack. As a stellar example, Saddam was rather surprised that Pres Bush, the elder, reacted as he did to the Kuwait invasion. He misread US intentions, had a pretty good idea as to our capability, and was also way off on the capacity for collective action.

The entire problem of the war on terror, and such links as Iraq does or does not have to it, is that of uncertainty. (State sponsored terrorism: paying families of Palestinian suicide bombers as an incentive is exactly that, though that terrorism is aimed at Israel. Think of 'War on Terror" as something far more than "revenge for 9-11" and you will see a different picture.)

More hindsight: A forthright effort early on, in 1991-1992 by Saddam and friends to meet the 90 day deadline and comply would have left to outcomes: the economic freedom to rebuild faster, be it economy or weapons programs, and a better political hand internationally in re "OK, we played by your rules, now back off." Such a position would have put some Americans back to sleep, and left the political will for vigilance rather less powerful than the stance that induced Pres Clinton to keep Iraq on the front page by sending Tomahawks their way every now and again.

In hindsight, we can play with a lot, and see any number of things more clearly. What you have to deal with as a decision maker is:

risk and uncertainty, and the question of:

If I do this, what will that do to "5-10 years from now?"
If I don't do this, what will that do to "5-10 years from now?"

Jester, where will you be, lifewise, in 5 years, and how to you plan to get there? What is your plan for 10 years from now?

If you know the answer to those two questions, chances are that in 5 and 10 years you can look back and see how close to that plan your life followed.

If you don't know the answer to those two questions, you probably need to consider them. While you are doing so, tell me how you feel competent to judge anyone whose decision horizon includes not just himself, but an entire nation, and for that matter a considerable part of the globe.

Uncertainty. How to deal with it? Don't suggest to me what NOT to do, consider what TO DO to deal with uncertainty.

Occhi

[Jester]

You'd have to have read an argument we had long ago where I said "The sanctions (on essentials, not the sanctions on weapons or WMD paraphenalia) are killing people at a horrifying rate, and are affecting Saddam little or none. Let's stop this, and re-evaluate what we have to do, because this is clearly both inhuman and innefective."

But, apparently, the fungial nature of aid meant that anything less than a total blockade was bound to be innefective, and we were tied into invading him again, just letting him go on his merry way without any particular action, or continuing the total sanctions. I thought there might have been a more humane way to deal with the situation, but I suppose we'll never know now.

But, yes, I am actually quite nonchalant about killing babies. It seems to be a pretty common function of foreign policy, and if you want to talk about international politics without getting hysterical, you've got to get over your squeamishness.

Jester

[Occhidiangela]

When leadership does not give a hoot about the people they govern, economic sanctions just hurt the people who already have a boot on their neck.

However, THAT is a UN sanctioned way to deal with people. How ironic. Makes the UN a self licking ice cream cone: starve them, then feed them, starve them, feed them.

I realize you were not replying to me, but the sanctions were stoppable by Saddam by simply "getting it over with." International law is only as good as its enforcement. If you don't carry through on your promises, threats, then you may as well not make them.

Cheers.

[Jester]

Analogies are slippery. Let's dispense with them, lest we end up talking about everything from here to ancient Babylon.

The kind of terrorism that is most dangerous from an international standpoint, the Al Qaeda brand of terrorism, has a few key features. First, it is religiously based. That means they recruit their leaders from the terribly rich, and their agents from the lost and the angry. They are rational only from their own absurd assumptions.

They are too dangerous for most countries to support. Afghanistan was anomalous in that it is less a country than a collection of hill tribes. Like Colombia, anyone who can shoot a gun can be a force in Afghanistan.

Motives are also key. What is Al Qaeda angry about? A few things. First, the state of the Arab nations, something I agree with them about, although their solution, to return to fundamentalism, is insane. Specifically, the Saudi monarchy is odious. To Al Qaeda, they are decadent hypocrites occupying the holy sites. Second, they're pissed off about Israel.

So long as both Saudi Arabia and Israel are clients of the USA, undercutting Al Qaeda support is basically impossible. Further, any attack from that angle is, by the current "war on terror" ideology, giving in to terrorism. Now, that suits Mr. Bin Laden just fine, since he doesn't really want to make peace with anyone anyway; he wants to blow up infidels in the name of Allah.

If the options to undercut them are off the table, that leaves us with preventing each operation to minimize the harm done. Intelligence is our only weapon. Infiltrate what we can, buy agents if possible, try to keep a close eye on them. Whatever you do, don't popularize them. Downplay their importance on the outside, keep at them covertly. Don't do their recruiting for them.

Invasions and whatnot only present exactly the image Bin Laden is trying to reinforce: Westerners are arrogant infidels who don't know how to stay out of Islamic business. Now, if you'd like to get into a guerilla war spanning the Middle East with newly recruited soldier-fanatics, you're welcome to it. I'd recommend not doing that.

Now, that's just dealing with Al Qaeda. The problem only gets more complicated if you add other groups. My advice: focus on Al Qaeda. Don't bite off more than you know you can chew. But, hey, I thought you should have stopped at Afghanistan. Why didn't you? My contention is that your Administration is more interested in their NeoCon wet dreams than in actually winning the fight against Al Qaeda.

Jester

[Jester]

"The only thing that would make sense would be that either you take part in harboring terrorists, or it is within your power to stop some terrorists, but you refuse to do it."

Oh, but I am. As a Canadian citizen, I'm harbouring plenty of terrorists. And, y'know what? I'll continue to do so. We have freedoms, and freedoms require a certain laxity in security. We'll help you to the extent of our abilities; I have no particular love of Islamist terrorism. But will I violate the freedoms of my fellow citizens? Will I support turning Canada into a terrorist-hunting machine? Nope.

According to some studies that have been raising eyebrows up here, Canada is just about the perfect haven for terrorists. And I prefer it that way, since the conditions that cause that are also the conditions of my rights and freedoms.

Am I for you, or against you?

Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

but what do you do when you have the power to solve a problem

That's a "might makes right" attitude. We (the USA) do not generally operate that way. In addition to the power, we usually seek the moral right to interfere. That's why we haven't invaded Cuba, half of South America, most of Africa, and a goodly part of Asia. We are not, and should not be, the world's policeman. And no country or super-national entity should enforce its mores and attitudes through warfare.

Sanctions have been proven repeatedly to do nothing but hurt the people of the country they are opposed upon, and Saddam had no interest in reforming, so what other options could we have had to deal with him other than removing him or ignoring him?

The number of options were very large, but the two you gave are sufficient. We should have ignored him until such time as he was a (real) threat to us or our allies, until the UN decided to enforce the sanctions, or until the Iraqi people formed some form of revolutionary government that requested our aid.

Although not covered by most of the US media, there are places where the living conditions are worse than Iraq's were under Saddam. Some of these places are even our "allies". Should we then call up some more reserve and Guard units and invade everyplace that is misruled, mismanaged, or has some internal conflict? If the *only* justification for invading Iraq is that we improved their living conditions, then we'd damn well be ready to start invading most of the world.

"Saddam was a bastard" is not a reason, it is a rationalization used when all the previously given reasons have been shown to be lies.

--Pete

[LiquidDamage]

I was thinking more "with great power comes great responsibility" than "might makes right". I guess I was assuming that we had the moral right to interfere based upon the way Saddam used/killed his people. What makes the moral right to interfere, exactly? Is the answer "we only help if they ask us"? If so, how do the poor of some downtrodden country like Iraq contact us to ask for help?

I feel like we are in a catch-22. If we don't do anything about some bastard exploting/killing his people, we are criticised as being uncaring. If we do something, we are criticised as sticking our nose where it doesn't belong. We get blamed for U.N. action, and then criticised as not using the U.N. when we act without them.

I believe there are worse places than Iraq. I'd like to see us help in those places as well, but considering the power and influence Iraq has because of its oil, it seems logical to help them first, since it can have such a tremendous impact on the rest of the world.

I don't see war like I used to. When I was younger, I thought all wars were like WWII and Vietnam, where thousands or millions of people died, when only a few people were the problem. Our capabilities prevent that kind of loss now. If the people of Iraq had stood up and tried to revolt against Saddam, the number of dead would have been staggering in comparison to what actually happened, so I have trouble seeing what happened as a bad thing.

I'm thinking about what you and others have said, and the only thing I see as a valid criticism of the war is that Bush may have lied about WMDs. The rest seems to be some inherent philosophical opposition to war that you have. I just can't imagine a quicker and more painless way for Iraq to improve than what just happened. Yes, it wasn't quick or painless, but I am speaking in comparison to other options I can imagine. Help me to imagine something better, and I will change my mind.

[LiquidDamage]

We have freedoms, and freedoms require a certain laxity in security. We'll help you to the extent of our abilities; I have no particular love of Islamist terrorism. But will I violate the freedoms of my fellow citizens? Will I support turning Canada into a terrorist-hunting machine? Nope.

If it makes you feel any better, that sounds like you are "for us", to me. Maybe not to Bush, but we will see if that matters in another year.

[--Pete]

Hi,

I just can't imagine a quicker and more painless way for Iraq to improve than what just happened.

Let's let this matter rest for now. In five years, if we're still in touch through forums or whatever, let's revisit all this in view of what Iraq looks like then. Let's see if we indeed were able to bring in democracy at the point of a bayonet or if we just spent dollars, lives, and the goodwill of the world for nothing more than the ego of an idiot. I'm betting on the historical outcome (Algeria, Morocco, Iran, etc.). But I'll be overjoyed to be proven to be wrong.

--Pete

[LiquidDamage]

Deal.

By the way, if your theory is that you cannot give freedom at the point of a bayonet, then I think I see where you are coming from.

I don't know anything about us trying this with Algeria, Morocco, or Iran, by the way. If this very same thing occurred to disasterous results, then I'd say my history classes didn't do what they were supposed to do.

[Sourskunk]

Analogies are slippery. Let's dispense with them, lest we end up talking about everything from here to ancient Babylon.

Not going to be that easy, Jester ;). Show where they break down with modern day and I will dispense with them. If you can't, then I assert they're still appropriate to modern day.

The Marshall plan of Europe, especially as it applied to our enemies, ended the base for continued threat from either country. On the other hand, the containment policy via the Treaty of Versailles was an abject failure which ruined the economies of friend and foe alike and led to the tidal wave of hatred that Hitler rode to the Chancellory. See any similarities with our sanctions on Iraq? I sure do. I again submit that the spirit of the Marshall plan is exactly the policy that will work in Afghanistan and Iraq if we can prevent Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria from tearing it down.

Then there's any number of analogies I can make where other countries claimed our goals were futile and we succeeded anyway. That doesn't mean that this will be a guaranteed success, only that you'll need more basis for your assertion than "I feel that it's really, really hard" to have credibility for me or other Americans. Now, I think the point your trying to make is that any action will make it worse so we shouldn't do anything. That one, we'll have to wait and see. But if Afghanistan and/or Iraq go from the provisional constitutions into a functioning government (which will probably look really weird to all of us due to their unique situations), then the case will be settled. Those two we can expect to see within 2-5 years and a high rate of probability of success if we can protect them.

If Iran crumbles under its own weight because of oppressed Iranians looking across the border for what they want, that will be even more (I hear conflicting reports on the chance of that occuring however). If Saudi Arabia loses both it's energy and religious influence due to changing of neighboring Islamic countries around them (and that would be a looooong time in the making I'm certain if ever), that would be astounding. Those two are less certain and would require at least a generation.

The kind of terrorism that is most dangerous from an international standpoint, the Al Qaeda brand of terrorism, has a few key features. First, it is religiously based. That means they recruit their leaders from the terribly rich, and their agents from the lost and the angry. They are rational only from their own absurd assumptions.

I agree with you here.

They are too dangerous for most countries to support.

After 9/11, and only overtly, yes. They may be too dangerous to support openly but they're too dangerous to some dictators to oppose either. Therein lies the problem. However, I'm still boggled that the Taliban gave us our reason on a platter and ditto with Sadaam other than them both buying into their own hype.

Motives are also key. What is Al Qaeda angry about? A few things. First, the state of the Arab nations, something I agree with them about, although their solution, to return to fundamentalism, is insane. Specifically, the Saudi monarchy is odious. To Al Qaeda, they are decadent hypocrites occupying the holy sites. Second, they're pissed off about Israel.

So long as both Saudi Arabia and Israel are clients of the USA, undercutting Al Qaeda support is basically impossible. Further, any attack from that angle is, by the current "war on terror" ideology, giving in to terrorism. Now, that suits Mr. Bin Laden just fine, since he doesn't really want to make peace with anyone anyway; he wants to blow up infidels in the name of Allah.

That last line undercuts the very point you were trying to make. Your point is that if we cave on Israel (didn't we already remove most of our troops from Saudi Arabia which was Bin Laden's primary gripe), then even though Bin Laden and crew will still want to wage a war on terrorism, that there will be only about 5 people on planet Earth that Bin Laden will still be able to recruit (or whatever number you would deem to be small enough to declare success) so that he'll be undercut. It's all I can assume you were trying to say because you talk about Saudi Arabia and Israel as what we have to do to undercut Al Qaeda.

Instead, I assert that if we don't change the climate over there at its root by promoting freedom there, then everything else is window dressing. If we completely caved on Saudi Arabia on Israel, hell, if we marched all Israelis into the sea and let Bin Laden himself personally rape each of thier bloated corpses, he, as you pointed out, would still continue to operate as usual since he's not interested in peace. Instead, he'd move to Arabic poverty, or MTV, or relgious pluralism in Canada and the US, or just the fact that there aren't enough dead white people or Christians or Jews or Atheists yet. The man is the master of the shifting goalposts and to run behind him to try to keep up with his demands is to die tired.

And others, with goals similar to his, would continue to fund him which Bin Laden and crew would still continue to use to fund their propoganda and menial assistance of the poor to gin up support. That's what gets him much of his support, similar to Hamas in Palestine, it's that they give peanuts to the poor so they look like heroes so that everything they say is taken as gospel (well...Koran...ish...I guess). The religous backdrop and the talking points are all window dressing on top for us foolish foreigners to look and have some empathy with them.

If the options to undercut them are off the table...

They are. Off the table, swept up, and thrown in the cash.

...that leaves us with preventing each operation to minimize the harm done.

Didn't work on 9/11. Didn't work in Turkey. Didn't work in Bali. Didn't work in Madrid. Won't work anywhere. Sorry, it's a fools game. Prevention is just for minimizing harm while we solve the problem. If we're not going to solve the problem, an endless process of prevention is doomed to fail. Poland learned that lesson in 1939.

Intelligence is our only weapon. Infiltrate what we can, buy agents if possible, try to keep a close eye on them.

Are really willing to do all it takes to back that up? Get in bed with less than virginal people? Crude means of interrigation? Intelligence can't be your only weapon and then at the same time shout the mantra that it's supporting civil rights at all costs.

Whatever you do, don't popularize them. Downplay their importance on the outside, keep at them covertly. Don't do their recruiting for them.

We tried that process of ignore and marginalize for 20 years. We're supposed to try that for 20 more?

[Jester]

I think Pete's got the right of it here.

If you've read history, and you think you can give people the gift of freedom at the point of a gun, then ignore my objections. We'll see where we are in five, ten, twenty years.

If you think you've got the plan to prevent another Madrid, another Bali, another 9/11, we'll see if they stop happening.

If you think your analogies about Poland, the USSR, the Munich agreement, etc... are relevant to deal with the current situation, go ahead. My prediction is of a long, costly failure that erodes every last dram of international support, stretches your military far too thin, and recruits twenty terrorists for every one you remove.

If I'm wrong in five years, I'll say so. Certainly it would be nice to see the people of Iraq doing well.

Jester

[Griselda]

My husband has a bumper sticker that says

Cthulhu for President!  Why vote for the lesser of two evils?

-Griselda

[kandrathe]

Ok, but what about Sudan? What about Bangladesh? What about Indonesia? The Phillipines? It will never stop. There will always be another place more down trodden to run off to and build another network of the disenfranchised. If this thing is going to be stopped, you have to cut off its head. Yes, use intelligence to figure out what a cell might be up to and take out that limb, but also you must cut out the heart.

Ultimately this is a psychological war, and so you must prove that these means are worthless. If the reaction of the world is capitulation to their violence (such as our weak response to the embassy bombings in Africa, our pulling out of Somalia, and launching a few Tomahawk missles once in a while at dubious targets), then of course it will embolden them and there will never be an end to it. Of course, we have seen that the reverse is true. If you respond to these heinous acts with a cool resolve, and instant and appropriate repercussions they seem to stop. The ultimate answer is equality, education and opportunity. A young man with the prospect of a good education, raising a family, and having a useful and meaningful life would be less likely to throw it all away to follow the likes of OBL.

We can't stop at Afghanistan, because most of the surviving bad guys have moved on and regrouped somewhere else. Probably Bangladesh, or Indonesia, or maybe they are still dispersed. We are probably still chasing some around the upper wastelands of northern Pakistan, but I think that is just subterfuge. I think al Queda would only leave a token force in Afghanistan to funnel new recruits from the madrasas into their network, harrass the Americans and the new Afghan government, and wait their time to return. Maybe when another weak and pathetic American President takes office and begins the hand wringing again. Their best tactic is not to directly confront soldiers, but kill them with road side bombs and blow up their barracks when they are sleeping. I believe they will focus on the tactics of terrorism that have worked for them in the past, and that is choose random weak targets with a huge impact. Like Spanish commuter trains. Whatever is most valuable that you are not protecting. All they need to do is wait for a good target to present itself to show that your government is powerless to stop them. Do that enough and a cowed and terrorized nation of people will demand their government to capitulate.

Whatever you might think about the US invasion of Iraq, to me another truly ruthless despot has been brought down with a minimal loss of life. Far less than that which suffered under his miserable regime, and to me that is a good thing. But we can't just be the reckless cowboy nation that charges into to every hell hole in the world either. In one regard the Bush doctine against terrorism is right on the mark, a world united against terror can win. Unfortunately, the Bush administration are terrible salesmen.

[kandrathe]

According to some studies that have been raising eyebrows up here, Canada is just about the perfect haven for terrorists. And I prefer it that way, since the conditions that cause that are also the conditions of my rights and freedoms.

Am I for you, or against you?

Maybe if the Skylon or CN tower is a pile of rubble you might have a different opinion. If it is as you say, then your time will come.