KD in CA Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I see, so you are assuming that we have had huge wins that we just don't know about for one reason or another? "Probably because..." Wouldn't the simple answer be because there just haven't been that many? Yes, that would be a very simple answer. The fight against terrorists is a war fought in the shadows. The Pentagon is not going to issue body count estimates for the enemy. I can't believe that just becasue you don't see it on the 6:00 news you take the opinion that it doesn't exist. And I certainly question whether you would take that position if Kerry, Clinton or Gore lived at 1600 Penn Ave.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 The author is still working for the CIA. You are simply assuming that he no longer works there. The CIA vetted his book before publication. He is not a disgruntled former official. He is still working on this. As for his view being "incomplete", that is again an assumption. Besides, none of us have a complete view, all we can do is review what we have and go from there. What are you suggesting? Should we ignore what we do know because we don't know everything? Should there be a moratorium on discussing this issue because our information is less than absolute? Read my posts in this thread and you will see that I don't credit Kerry with any better of an idea than Bush as to how to fight this war. What scares me is that neither seems to realize what we are up against. Bush is obsessed with the idea that the only dangerous terrorists are those that are supported by rogue states when it seems clear that stateless terrorists are just as able to cause mass casualties. A complete unwillingness to discuss what isn't going right with this war for fear that it might possibly reflect, even the tiniest bit, negatively on Bush is not, imho, in the best interests of America. 20678[/snapback] Government on the whole is going to have difficulty adapting to this type of war because it is fought by an enemy without the same burdens. Virtually everything except resources is on their side. As I've said before, we're continuing to ignore the symptoms (at least on the outside) of what causes terrorism. Addressing that at the lowest level is where this war will eventually be won.
MichFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 As I've said before, we're continuing to ignore the symptoms (at least on the outside) of what causes terrorism. Addressing that at the lowest level is where this war will eventually be won. Could you even begin to address many of these symptoms with Saddam in power? My personal justification for this war was that you had a guy in power who, whenever you started to form a scab on the wounds in the Middle East, would incessantly scratch it open at the first possible opportunity. If, and I know it's an if, we are able to get Iraq and Afghanistan to be reasonably stable democracies, the floodgates could open for stabilizing the broader region. Diplomatic means will probably work at this point as well, and save massive numbers of lives compared to the numbers we see in the media today.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Could you even begin to address many of these symptoms with Saddam in power? My personal justification for this war was that you had a guy in power who, whenever you started to form a scab on the wounds in the Middle East, would incessantly scratch it open at the first possible opportunity. If, and I know it's an if, we are able to get Iraq and Afghanistan to be reasonably stable democracies, the floodgates could open for stabilizing the broader region. Diplomatic means will probably work at this point as well, and save massive numbers of lives compared to the numbers we see in the media today. 20723[/snapback] As I have said before, the wisdom of the current strategy won't truly be known for 15-20 years of longer. I sincerely hope the President is right, though when people don't have to fight or sacrifice for Democracy it often has trouble working. I have a hard time justifying our continuing intervention into the business of soveriegn nations, especially when our own political apparatus forces us to be nice to scumbags because we need something from them (in this case, petroleum).
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Author Posted September 7, 2004 Could you even begin to address many of these symptoms with Saddam in power? My personal justification for this war was that you had a guy in power who, whenever you started to form a scab on the wounds in the Middle East, would incessantly scratch it open at the first possible opportunity. If, and I know it's an if, we are able to get Iraq and Afghanistan to be reasonably stable democracies, the floodgates could open for stabilizing the broader region. Diplomatic means will probably work at this point as well, and save massive numbers of lives compared to the numbers we see in the media today. 20723[/snapback] Those are huge ifs, especially in Afghanistan. We are allied with a minority and not with the Pashtuns. That is the same mistake that we made when the Soviets left and eventually Kabul fell. Rather than side with the Islamist Pashtun fighters we supported and who beat the Soviets, we sided with minority tribes whose leaders sat out the war in exile because they weren't fundamentalists like the mujahideen. The question is whether such a regime, made up of Tamliks and Uzbeks, will have a prayer of lasting beyond our ability or willingness to keep them in power by force? I'm thinking not. Only the Pashtuns can govern that country and anyone else will eventually meet with a dedicated effort on behalf of nearly the entire population to oust them from power. I'd love to see a free and democratic Afghanistan but is that anything more than a delusional fantasy? Are we justified in thinking they hate us any less than they hated the Soviets? Are we comfortable pinning any part of our national survival on winning a guerilla war in Afghanistan? Maybe we should just kill every terrorist we can find there and then just leave them to a civil war.
MichFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Those are huge ifs, especially in Afghanistan. We are allied with a minority and not with the Pashtuns. That is the same mistake that we made when the Soviets left and eventually Kabul fell. Rather than side with the Islamist Pashtun fighters we supported and who beat the Soviets, we sided with minority tribes whose leaders sat out the war in exile because they weren't fundamentalists like the mujahideen. So do you have anything positive to say today about the war on terror? Jeez, we are fudging up the war on terror, we fudged up Afghanistan, we fudged up Iraq. We are billsfanone, I mean D O O M E D. Dealing with this liberal PCS (post-convention-syndrome) is even worst than dealing with my wife's PMS. Look -- Kerry is the clearly best answer for you libs when it comes to the war on terror. The guy will wage the war on terror in so many conflicting ways, one of them is likely to produce some kind of positive result (and we will all know as soon as he gets any kind of result ).
Mike in Syracuse Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 As I have said before, the wisdom of the current strategy won't truly be known for 15-20 years of longer. I sincerely hope the President is right, though when people don't have to fight or sacrifice for Democracy it often has trouble working. I have a hard time justifying our continuing intervention into the business of soveriegn nations, especially when our own political apparatus forces us to be nice to scumbags because we need something from them (in this case, petroleum). 20740[/snapback] Darin, You touch on a very important piece that's central to a lot of out issues we're facing today. We, as a nation, can't continue with the "An enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy. We supported and armed Saddam when he was fighting Iran! We supported and armed Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets! Our past is biting us in the ass! Unfortunately neither party seems willing or able to figure this out.
Typical TBD Guy Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Kind of easy to make it look bad when you post a list of every terror strike that has been successful since 9/11 and when probably 99.9% of terror plots that have been prevented since then remain classified. Also, it is an interesting proposal that the time to track terrorism started with 9/11. It reflects the type of thinking we can't afford to put in office right now. At least one candidate's administration understands the history of global terrorism and that there is a big picture in this war on terror that is so much more than capturing bin Laden and getting the French on board. 20488[/snapback] Good post. I originally came onto this board thinking Mickey was a voice of reason, but now I see him as just another partisan troll.
MichFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 We supported and armed Saddam when he was fighting Iran!We supported and armed Bin Laden when he was fighting the Soviets! Our past is biting us in the ass! Unfortunately neither party seems willing or able to figure this out. So what is either party supposed to do once they figure this out? Sit in the corner with a dunce cap on? Tell the country that we deserved what we got? Hard decisions need to be made. You can always look back and second guess them. But what if the Soviets had easily taken Afghanistan? What if Iran had defeated Iraq? Would we be better off today? I doubt it. Both parties do know these facts, but in even their worst partisanship they don't let it stop us from moving forward. You know a politician is a real hack when he/she mentions our support of Iraq in the 80's as a reason for not going to war last year.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 So what is either party supposed to do once they figure this out? Sit in the corner with a dunce cap on? Tell the country that we deserved what we got? Hard decisions need to be made. You can always look back and second guess them. But what if the Soviets had easily taken Afghanistan? What if Iran had defeated Iraq? Would we be better off today? I doubt it. Both parties do know these facts, but in even their worst partisanship they don't let it stop us from moving forward. You know a politician is a real hack when he/she mentions our support of Iraq in the 80's as a reason for not going to war last year. 20815[/snapback] I think the answer is not making promises you don't intend to keep.
MichFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I originally came onto this board thinking Mickey was a voice of reason, but now I see him as just another partisan troll. I think Mickey's just having a bad day. We are all partisan trolls at times (except for a few who seem to avoid detailing any positions ). There seems to be a relationship between where your candidate is in the polls and how "objective" you can be discussing politics. Mickey seems much more optimistic when his horse is in the lead. We'll all be much more optimistc come election time if the Bills are 5-2. Politics probably woun't matter quite as much if that is the case.
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I originally came onto this board thinking Mickey was a voice of reason, but now I see him as just another partisan troll. 20807[/snapback] Typically he is...but he's also decidedly left of center, and I think the divisiveness of this election year's politics has him more defensive than is typical. Understandable, really...it's hard not to be affected by the excessive partisianship this year.
MichFan Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I think the answer is not making promises you don't intend to keep. Pardon my ignorance, but what promises did we make that we didn't keep? Can't recall anything with regards to Iraq. It's been suggested that the Afghans thought they were going to get more economic support from us, but that is not something that al Quaeda uses against us to justify their war on America. Certainly one could argue that it set conditions for the Taliban to take power which then enabled al Quaeda to accelerate it's development. I doubt giving them $5 billion would have stopped this from happening though. Are we going to be sitting here 20 years from now wondering why we put Karzai in power in Afghanistan, partnered with Putin in the war on terror, and thumbed our noses at the French? Probably not, but who knows? Decisions have to be made and lived with.
SD Jarhead Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 I think GW got it right last week when he pondered that the war against terror may be unwinnable. Understanding that terror is a tactic that has been used for thousands of years, realistically what hope do we have of preventing it? In this age of asymetrical warfare, even if we win we may not realize it. There will be no flag raising when we defeat this enemy, no victory parade etc. and in fact, some other disgruntled group will eventually raise it's head. As far as the safety issue, I think theres two types of safety...the physical safety that prevents terrorist from striking domestically, but almost as important is the psychological feeling of being safe among the general public. Since our economic machine depends so much on feelings of optimism toward the future, this is one important aspect that must not be overlooked in considering the whole equation. If terrorists are successful in stripping away our feelings of security, we'll be in for some rough times ahead...hence the term terrorism. If we are to be successful in the long run, then I agree with AD that we must change the culture and conditions that would inspire a person to blow themselves up for Allah. One measure that I agree with is the Isrealli tactic of destroying the homes of the terrorists family. As brutal as it sounds, it's been relatively successful. We must let these vermin know that there will be a cost to those that they care about after they desend into Hell. Unfortunately, we lost seven Marines yesterday to bring our death toll in Iraq to nearly 1000. We must not let these mens contributions be for naught. There will be a media circus when we reach the 1000 dead mark, but in reality, it's going to cost ten of thousands of American lives over the next several years if we are to come out on top of this epic battle.
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Author Posted September 7, 2004 Good post. I originally came onto this board thinking Mickey was a voice of reason, but now I see him as just another partisan troll. 20807[/snapback] That is an interesting conclusion to draw from a list of facts covering terrorist attacks since we declared war on terrorism. Which of those facts is partisan and therefore worthy of being dismissed? That list comes from a book written by a 22 year CIA officer who headed the bin laden unit from 1996 to 1999 and who still works for the agency and who is actually a republican. Is there some item on that list that is not accurate? Have you not read the several posts in this thread where I point out that this has nothing to do with the Bush-Kerry debate? The author's ideas as to how we should be fighting this war would actually be far more repugnant to democrats than republicans. I don't think Kerry has any more of a clue on how to fight this war than the current administration. Apparently you can't digest anything without first straining it through your partisan filters and then regurgitating a partisan response. For once though, just for a change, why not try and just look at the facts rather than grope for the first plausible argument to justify ignoring the ones you don't like. The response you applaud relies on nothing but speculation, ie, the idea that "probably" plots that have been frustrated are classified. That is nothing but a guess but since it supports your partisan position you applaud it. If anyone else posted that kind of guess you would have been all over it. Even if it's true, what reasonable inference can be drawn? Don't you think there are some losses in this war that are also classified? The facts show that AQ and Islamist terrorists are killing lots of people in lots of places depite claims that AQ has been crippled or the Taliban eradicated. Some of their defeats are certainly unknown and so are some of their victories. We can debate the unknown and pretend it supports either position or we can look at the facts, the things we do know. That is what I presented, actual attacks. Your response: Gee, maybe there are great but secret victories and Mickey is a democrat. How fascinating. Do you think the regime installed in Afghanistan will last any longer than our willingness and ability to keep them in power by force? Do you think it wise to have installed a minority tribe in Afghanistan as against the Pashtuns, the majority tribe, the guys who sent the Soviets packing? Do you think the Taliban have been eradicated? Do you think AQ has been crippled or are they as dangerous, if not more so, than they were before 9/11? Is UBL more admired than despised by Muslims in the Arab world? Do you think there are more or less jihadists in the world since 9/11? The invasion of Afghanistan? The invasion of Iraq? Do you think that we are going to eventually be dealing with the same level of frequent attacks as the Russians and Israelis are now? If not, why? These are the kinds of questions that list poses and they are not democratic or republican questions. This kind of horror is going on in many places. I have no delusions that we are immune from having to live through the same thing that Russians and Israelis are dealing with every day. That list shows not just that the bad guys are still capable of killing thousands. It shows what we are in for.
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 That is an interesting conclusion to draw from a list of facts covering terrorist attacks since we declared war on terrorism. Which of those facts is partisan and therefore worthy of being dismissed? I think the bigger issue is: is that list actually representative of the war? Or it it representative of the reporting of the war? Necessarily and by definition, we can't know what's omitted or unreported based on that list...so how from that list can you pose the rhetorical question "Are the bad guys winning?" You say it yourself... The response you applaud relies on nothing but speculation, ie, the idea that "probably" plots that have been frustrated are classified. [...] Even if it's true, what reasonable inference can be drawn? Don't you think there are some losses in this war that are also classified? Either way, the list therefore cannot be considered to be complete, and hence not representative of the situation as it is. It's a hell of a thing on which to base the aforementioned rhetorical question. The facts show that AQ and Islamist terrorists are killing lots of people in lots of places depite claims that AQ has been crippled or the Taliban eradicated. Some of their defeats are certainly unkown and so are some of their victories. Sorry...but this a typical American view. Failure is measured as a deviation from perfection. Any deviation from perfection is failure. Pardon me...but that's a piss-poor definition of "failure". And the "facts", as posted, demonstrate virtually anything someone wants them to demonstrate, being as they're posted in a virtual vacuum. 3000+ people have died in terrorist attacks in two years...how many haven't? How many were saved from terrorist attacks that never happened? How many died that otherwise would not have, if Iraq hadn't been invaded? That logic is kind of like deciding that Germany won WWII because they killed 14 million more Russians than the Russians did Germans. That logic also harkens back to the Vietnam "body count" definition of success and failure. Real wars don't work that way. A simple listing of facts exclusively as they are seen in the news is a poor estimation of success or failure...not just in warfare, either. Just ask Al Gore.
Mickey Posted September 7, 2004 Author Posted September 7, 2004 Yes, that would be a very simple answer. The fight against terrorists is a war fought in the shadows. The Pentagon is not going to issue body count estimates for the enemy. I can't believe that just becasue you don't see it on the 6:00 news you take the opinion that it doesn't exist. And I certainly question whether you would take that position if Kerry, Clinton or Gore lived at 1600 Penn Ave. 20707[/snapback] I take no position on the unknown. If you want to imagine that we have won great but secret victories and at the same time believe that we have suffered no equally secret defeats, fine. What I listed are known facts provided in a book written by a 22 year CIA officer who is a republican and who was in charge of the bin Laden unit from 1996-1999. He still is with the agency. He would have far more access to all the secrets there are to know than you or I and he wrote a book subtitled "Why the west is losing the war on terrorism". What does he know right? Given your own partisanship, I can understand why you naturally assume that everyone else must be a raving partisan as well. That becomes easier, especially in this case, if you ignore all the posts I put up saying that the author of this book would not think much of Kerry or the democrats and in fact, advocates a harsher approach than we are currently pursuing. Of course, if you didn't ignore those comments you wouldn't be able to dismiss the facts you don't like by simply attacking my politics. Let me try and say this as clearly as I can one more time in what I am sure is a futile attempt to get through your "bush good, kerry bad" bubble: The list of terrorist actions since 9/11 is not being offered as an indictment of George Bush but as an indication that we may very well not be winning the war on terrorism. Gore would likely, with the exception of the Iraq war, have also invaded Afghanistan. I see no reason to even speculate that he would have done any better. Further, I have little reason to think that Kerry would also be anymore successful at fighting terrorists than Bush has been. Now, can we put the partisanship aside and discuss how to most effectively fight terrorism?
VABills Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Just ask Al Gore. 20905[/snapback] Don't ask him. He'll go into a big speech about how he invented it.
Alaska Darin Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Don't ask him. He'll go into a big speech about how he invented it. 20912[/snapback] Or start screaming like an idiot on crack. Funny how the libs thought that was OK, but Zell Miller was out of line when he did pretty much the same thing.
DC Tom Posted September 7, 2004 Posted September 7, 2004 Don't ask him. He'll go into a big speech about how he invented it. 20912[/snapback] But it depends on what your definition of "invented" is. If it's "co-sponsored the legislation that led to facilitating someone else's decision making process that put someone else's work into the public domain", then yeah, he invented the internet. Still, it's a step up from Kerry, who invented it before he didn't invent it. Or Bush..."Laura...where's the 'any' key?"
Recommended Posts