Dying to Win by Robert Pape

[Ghost of BiB]

I agree.

423076[/snapback]

 

Most people have very little idea how much has been done to prevent that from happening. Successes are never cheered because few are known about. It makes it tough on those running the show, especially the administration because nothing screams news like a failure.

[Ghost of BiB]

I disagree, If we were attacked again now, Bush would look silly for attacking Iraq and putting all our resources there (at least for the people who still don't realize it). Even more people will wake up and say "I thought they wouldn't attack us here if we invade Iraq" 

423075[/snapback]

 

Realize what?

[Black Panther]

Most people have very little idea how much has been done to prevent that from happening. Successes are never cheered because few are known about. It makes it tough on those running the show, especially the administration because nothing screams news like a failure.

423104[/snapback]

 

absolutely right Bib. My cousin is a NY State Police Lt, and he tells me what he can. There is so much that goes on to prevent infiltration and there have been so many attempts by terror groups to organize here in the states that have been detected and obstructed. My other Cousin, a long time CIA agent, doesn't tell me much at all, but he indicates that it's a daily scramble to identify and take out TC activity. and they are successful.

[Black Panther]

Realize what?

423141[/snapback]

 

That an extraordinary amount of resources (billion$, boots, intel, etc.) into one cause. It may have been appropriate to focus on AQ in Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc. I really think Iraq should not have been our #1 priority.

[Ghost of BiB]

That an extraordinary amount of resources (billion$, boots, intel, etc.) into one cause. It may have been appropriate to focus on AQ in Iran, Syria, Yemen, etc. I really think Iraq should not have been our #1 priority.

423198[/snapback]

 

You entirely missed the point of most of my posts. This is not one cause, that is why I posted the references. I'd be more than happy to explain the concepts and the nuances of the documents I referenced if anyone wants to ask pointed questions. Big picture, and long term goals. You can take my answers for whatever worth you give them.

 

Not too many Americans appreciate or like what is going on, but it is a sound strategy. It's also suffering growing pains, not due to incompetence, but through a learning curve. Another poster pointed out that terrorism was being viewed criminally for a long time. Became a CSI episode for the FBI. Anything I could write about how it was misread by the Clinton administration would get turned into a partisan rant, with links. From both sides, and chances are they'd all be pointless and stupid.

 

Anyhow, this is what we have. We're awfully behind in the power curve, but whether you or anyone else wants to believe it, we aren't doing bad. It's very hard in our society to look 20 years down the road. Americans want 20 minutes or less.

[Mickey]

Read the documents I linked. You're a smart guy, you can read behind the lines as to the implications. No one is saying that attacking them will prevent attacks. Part of the strategy is to deny them safe haven to organize and build up regional partnerships. To answer an earlier question, yes, remaining in the M/E makes it much harder on them. Sorta-kinda why we're there. Eventually, things are going to fizzle in Iraq for AQ, and AQ will move into the the Horn of Africa as a base. However, THIS time we are actively engaged in cutting off that alternative.

 

Like I said, read - and think it through. There are going to be plenty more attacks outside the M/E. Count on several ala 90's style in the Horn and East Africa. Count on more in Europe and Asia. But at the same time, figure in the factor of scale. Don't think for a second that there is some "mandate" for AQ not to attack the US right now. For one thing, what sense would that make? The visible allied military support to the US is pretty small in proportion to what we ourselves provide to the effort. Don't think either that Spain has quit being an ally just because they withdrew a few troops. That is a tip to the iceberg as to what this "coalition" is all about. Things like guys in body armor look good on the news, and it's a propoganda victory to see them board an airplane to leave. But it's not that important. Everyone in Europe knows that they are not going to be safe as long as the present a perceived threat to the "great plan". Those with some more balls, like Great Britain, Italy and Poland have to watch their back a lot harder. Folks like France have a long history of playing both sides, and are safer.

 

As crappy as it sounds, just because someone writes a book, it doesn't make them automatically right (unless, around here your name is Darwin...). This guy's opinions are probably shared by many other academics and ex-officials, but are also probably not shared by a large majority of working operators that most likely have access to better information than he does. Too bad many of them don't have time to write books. His basic precepts may have had merit in the 90's, but don't reflect the realities of today. Sorry, I'm not saying you are agreeing with him, but still,  they don't.

 

Vacating the M/E now would be a strategic, political, psychological, informational, tactical and ultimately an economic disaster. Once again, as I have screamed from the rooftop many a time, there is a big picture and most people tend to focus on a few pixels, for whatever their own reasons.

422078[/snapback]

Terrorists, especially suicide terrorists, seem to look for two things, a soft spot and an opportunity for mass casualties. There is no shortage at all of soft spots here in the US or among our allies in terms of easy to hit targets. The goal of terrorism is to coerce the target state into taking or refraining from taking an action. Usually its occupying with troops the lands they view as their homeland. That is the other facet of a target being "soft", not just easy to hit but also being the most likely to successfully coerce the target state. To that end, Madrid was perfect. It was soft in that it was an easy enough target and it was soft in that Spain was far more ripe to be coerced than us. I think there are plenty of reasons for such a strike by them to make perfect sense. There are also plenty of reasons for them to, in the short term, concentrate on our allies, especially the ones most likely to alter their political position as the result of an attack or series of attacks.

 

The reason I think they have decided to not attack us for now is simple, they haven't. We can't stop meth sales or illegal immigration. I could name dozens of other criminal activities that we can't stop and none of them involve criminals so bent on accomplishing their crime that they are willing to die for it. Sure, our efforts might be making it more difficult and perhaps we are stopping some attacks but given that suicide attacks on the whole have doubled every year since we invaded Iraq, we clearly haven't made it difficult enough. AQ specifically has accomplished 15 suicide attacks since 2002 which is more than all their attacks combined from its founding until 9/11.

 

At some point, if attacks keep going up, you have to question either the strategy or its execution.

 

In any event, Pape's book is one of the only ones I have seen to study specifically suicide terrorism and to amass the raw the data he has. I think it would be easier to find agreement on the soundness of his facts first and worry about what those facts mean as to policy choices later. This discussion is sort of skipping ahead of where I wanted to go which was to first look at the facts. I realize that once you get into policy, the discussion is going to follow its own path but it might help if people can at least agree on some of the basic facts. Pape's study certainly blows up plenty of myths I have seen presented here as rock-solid facts.

 

I am still working through the links you provided but my time is a bit limited lately.

I appreciate your insight and please don't take anything I have posted as some sort of attempt at a refutation. I'm just telling you what, from my limited perspective, things look like.

[Ghost of BiB]

I appreciate your insight and please don't take anything I have posted as some sort of attempt at a refutation

 

I guess my take is colored by the fact that I don't care. What I mean by that is in my own mind, I don't differentiate between the suicide bomber and some other type of bomber. It's the terrorist system overall that catches my attention. A suicide bomber is a delivery system, the poor man's F-18.

[Mickey]

I guess my take is colored by the fact that I don't care. What I mean by that is in my own mind, I don't differentiate between the suicide bomber and some other type of bomber. It's the terrorist system overall that catches my attention. A suicide bomber is a delivery system, the poor man's F-18.

423866[/snapback]

Near as I can figure it, one of the reasons for studying suicide terrorism separately is that it is on the rise and far more deadly than the usual variety of terrorism. Between 1980 and 2003, suicide terrorism accounted for only 3% of all terrorist attacks but inflicted 48% of the casualties not including 9/11. If you count 9/11 in the statistics, suicide terrorism inflicted 73% of the casualties. Even before 9/11, the frequency of non-suicidal attacks was decreasing. In other words, such attacks were on the decline long before we invaded either Afghanistan or Iraq so it may not be entirely sound to attribute a decline in non-suicidal attacks to those invasions. There were 666 such attacks in 1987 but that number was down to 348 by 2001. Essentially, the number and lethality of suicidal attacks are on a sharp rise while the number and lethality of non-suicidal attacks have fallen.

 

The end result is that as bad as other terrorism can be, suicidal terrorism is the worst threat we face on that front. It also is a form of terrorism that is far more of a mystery to us than is the standard variety. I guess I'd rather deal with a Timothy McVeigh than a Mohammed Atta. I would think that an attack that requires an escape route is more difficult to achieve and more likely to be detected.

[Ghost of BiB]

I would think that an attack that requires an escape route is more difficult to achieve and more likely to be detected.

 

Naturally.

 

And, they will almost always be more destructive because the delivery system is guided to the intended target and the detonation takes place at the moment of peak lethality. Cruise missiles are more destructive to their intended target than a "dumb" iron bomb.

 

Once again, IMO, it's a readily available accurate delivery system. The question is WHY is it readily available. I go back to the idea of Jihad and the opportunity for martyrdom for a cause. Rest assured, given a choice unless it were a 9/11 style plan AQ would rather not expend the assets if they didn't have to. But, there is also the understanding of the psychological impact of those willing to die for the cause. Doesn't this make the cause just? In a bizarre way, it helps recruiting more of the semi-guided missiles.

 

This is slowly manifesting itself into a reason to pull out of the middle east. In the short term and on the surface you might see a decline in suicide attacks like we are seeing in Iraq. Why? Because there are less targets. You will still have them among themselves, but less Americans to shoot at results in less bombings. Also, it is unlikely that AQ is going to go through the effort and logistics of importing a bunch of suicidal jihadists into the US in numbers large enough to make a difference. It wouldn't take picking up very many of them to compromise more sophisticated operations they may have working.

 

So, if the point of this exercise is to reduce suicide bombings by withdrawing back to within our borders, there is superficial merit in that - but only because it's a question of mathematics more than tactics or ideology. The strategic result would be to give the bad guys another victory, putting them closer to their goals.

 

As an analogy of sorts, suicide attacks increased in the Pacific exponentially during the period late 1944 to 1945. There was a marked reduction, actually to the point of zero...when we defeated the enemy. Yes, the conditions for victory were much easier to define than they are now, but the idea of scurrying away to keep something bad from happening gives them the win. What would have happened if the Pacific fleet said "Holy Crap! They are diving airplanes on us...we better turn around now and go back to the house!"

[VRWC]

Pape Quote:

 

“The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.”

 

I have a big problem with this statement. I can not understand the fact that if they (Islamic fundamentalism) want us out of their lands, all they have to do stop attacking their people and our troops. It’s as simple as that. We would have withdrawn over 50% of our troops by now if the attacks never happened and be well on our way to being out’ a there. They don’t seem to understand US policy or our modern history in regards to imperialism (we are not now imperialistic). As long as they continue to attack and disrupt the process, we will continue to keep our troops deployed in their lands. For this reason I think Pape is full of crap. Maybe the bomber themselves have been brain washed into thinking their acts will make foreign armies leave their land but I’m sure the leaders know the real reasons.

 

This argument is extremely simplified give the circumstance and I know other factors such as Syria, Iran, Saudi, etc. all have outside influences but the underlying argument remains the same. I believe these people using this “military in our land” as a cover for a much more provocative and sinister plots against the west in general. I’m 100% sure that if Islamic states do not pose a threat to the US or other democracies that we would not have troops knocking on their doors.

[KRC]

Pape Quote:

 

“The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.”

 

I have a big problem with this statement.  I can not understand the fact that if they (Islamic fundamentalism) want us out of their lands, all they have to do stop attacking their people and our troops.  It’s as simple as that. We would have withdrawn over 50% of our troops by now if the attacks never happened and be well on our way to being out’ a there.  They don’t seem to understand US policy or our modern history in regards to imperialism (we are not now imperialistic).  As long as they continue to attack and disrupt the process, we will continue to keep our troops deployed in their lands.  For this reason I think Pape is full of crap.  Maybe the bomber themselves have been brain washed into thinking their acts will make foreign armies leave their land but I’m sure the leaders know the real reasons.

 

This argument is extremely simplified give the circumstance and I know other factors such as Syria, Iran, Saudi, etc. all have outside influences but the underlying argument remains the same.  I believe these people using this “military in our land” as a cover for a much more provocative and sinister plots against the west in general.  I’m 100% sure that if Islamic states do not pose a threat to the US or other democracies that we would not have troops knocking on their doors.

424441[/snapback]

 

 

They see our reactions to the first WTC, embassy bombings, Somalia, USS Cole and they think that by applying the pressure, we will wilt and run away. They see what is happening in our country and how a long, messy war lessens our resolve. They are using that to their advantage. The American public cannot stomach this type of war for too long. That is exactly what they want and they are succeeding.

 

That is why they continue the attacks. They do not see it as "well, if we stop, then the U.S. will leave."

[Mickey]

Pape Quote:

 

“The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.”

 

I have a big problem with this statement.  I can not understand the fact that if they (Islamic fundamentalism) want us out of their lands, all they have to do stop attacking their people and our troops.  It’s as simple as that. We would have withdrawn over 50% of our troops by now if the attacks never happened and be well on our way to being out’ a there.  They don’t seem to understand US policy or our modern history in regards to imperialism (we are not now imperialistic).  As long as they continue to attack and disrupt the process, we will continue to keep our troops deployed in their lands.  For this reason I think Pape is full of crap.  Maybe the bomber themselves have been brain washed into thinking their acts will make foreign armies leave their land but I’m sure the leaders know the real reasons.

 

This argument is extremely simplified give the circumstance and I know other factors such as Syria, Iran, Saudi, etc. all have outside influences but the underlying argument remains the same.  I believe these people using this “military in our land” as a cover for a much more provocative and sinister plots against the west in general.  I’m 100% sure that if Islamic states do not pose a threat to the US or other democracies that we would not have troops knocking on their doors.

424441[/snapback]

To them, the troops we have had in Saudi Arabia since the end of the Gulf War is an occupying force. Polls among Saudi's show that around 95% of the population there wants those troops out. Fortunately or unfortunately I guess, the 5% that wants our troops there happen to run the country. So we are there.

 

I am not sure where Pape is going in terms of the policies he would recommend based on the facts he has put together. He states many times that neither military force alone nor concessions alone would do it. Perhaps having the ability to strike where we need to without having to have troops "occupying" these places is an option worth considering. I have no clue as to what military strategy is involved in having troops stationed there and as for Afghanistan and Iraq, plainly we aren't going anywhere anytime soon. I would imagine that for your average suicidal terrorist, looks all around him and sees Arab lands "occupied" by the US or Israel.

 

Obviously, the way we "occupy" these places is not the way a true imperial power would occupy them. For whatever reason, they don't see that as an important difference.

[Ghost of BiB]

This argument is extremely simplified give the circumstance and I know other factors such as Syria, Iran, Saudi, etc. all have outside influences but the underlying argument remains the same. I believe these people using this “military in our land” as a cover for a much more provocative and sinister plots against the west in general. I’m 100% sure that if Islamic states do not pose a threat to the US or other democracies that we would not have troops knocking on their doors.

 

As I alluded in earlier posts, the Jihad has usurped this particular cause, but at the same time a certain group embraced that as a cause to create their own Holy War. I'll have to get around to reading the book, but (gag) I actually trust Mickey to objectively present what the guy is saying as he reads it himself. He's being manipulative, but he's a lawyer and I understand that. From what was written so far, and what I Googled, it seems like the author is trying to have it both ways. As Tom the slinging simian and others are so fond of pointing out, one can take statistics and make them support anything - often opposing sides to the same problem. Whatever the viewpoint is here, it needs to lead to a conclusion, and from that conclusion a course of action. The conclusion here, is that if we walk away the suicide bombings will decrease. Well, duh...yeah they will. I tried to cover that in an earlier post too. If that is your course of action, cool. It doesn't address the problem.

 

This is a complicated issue with more twists and turns than a snake on a hotplate. A politics message board truly can not do it justice. There are a heck of a lot of moving pieces here. I think that zeroing in on "suicide bombers and why" distracts from the issue, and maybe is meant to as a means to promote other thoughts.

 

As so many "linkers" here (and elsewhere) would say, "The facts (statistics) bear this out".

[Mickey]

Naturally.

 

And, they will almost always be more destructive because the delivery system is guided to the intended target and the detonation takes place at the moment of peak lethality. Cruise missiles are more destructive to their intended target than a "dumb" iron bomb.

 

Once again, IMO, it's a readily available accurate delivery system. The question is WHY is it readily available. I go back to the idea of Jihad and the opportunity for martyrdom for a cause. Rest assured, given a choice unless it were a 9/11 style plan AQ would rather not expend the assets if they didn't have to. But, there is also the understanding of the psychological impact of those willing to die for the cause. Doesn't this make the cause just? In a bizarre way, it helps recruiting more of the semi-guided missiles.

 

This is slowly manifesting itself into a reason to pull out of the middle east. In the short term and on the surface you might see a decline in suicide attacks like we are seeing in Iraq. Why? Because there are less targets. You will still have them among themselves, but less Americans to shoot at results in less bombings. Also, it is unlikely that AQ is going to go through the effort and logistics of importing a bunch of suicidal jihadists into the US in numbers large enough to make a difference. It wouldn't take picking up very many of them to compromise more sophisticated operations they may have working.

 

So, if the point of this exercise is to reduce suicide bombings by withdrawing back to within our borders, there is superficial merit in that - but only because it's a question of mathematics more than tactics or ideology. The strategic result would be to give the bad guys another victory, putting them closer to their goals.

 

As an analogy of sorts, suicide attacks increased in the Pacific exponentially during the period late 1944 to 1945. There was a marked reduction, actually to the point of zero...when we defeated the enemy. Yes, the conditions for victory were much easier to define than they are now, but the idea of scurrying away to keep something bad from happening gives them the win. What would have happened if the Pacific fleet said "Holy Crap! They are diving airplanes on us...we better turn around now and go back to the house!"

424341[/snapback]

You hit on another point Pape gets into which is the effect of concessions. He would agree that concessions won't solve the problem either. In fact, a point he makes several times over is that the reason they do this is because it works. Ultimately, democracies do back down. He looks at all the suicidal terrorist campaigns against democracies and for the most part, they have worked to one degree or another.

 

Between April and December of 1983, Hezbollah ran 5 suicide attacks against the US and the French killing 393 people in a campaign to get those nations to withdraw from Lebanon. They did.

 

Starting at near the same time but not ending until 1985 Hezbollah ran 11 suicide attacks against Israel to get them out of Leb. Israel partially withdrew into what became known as the Lebanon Security Zone.

 

The Tamil Tigers ran 15 suicide attacks killing 206 that eventually resulted in the Sri Lankan gov't negotiating with them. When those broke down they ran another 54 suicidal attacks killing 662 betweem 1995 and 2000. They ran another 6 attacks killing 33 in 2001 and the ultimate end was complete autonomy.

 

Concessions, just as you point out, can be just as dangerous as sticking it out. Like I said, I'll have to see what kind of policies are to stem from these facts.

[Ghost of BiB]

You hit on another point Pape gets into which is the effect of concessions.  He would agree that concessions won't solve the problem either.  In fact, a point he makes several times over is that the reason they do this is because it works.  Ultimately, democracies do back down.  He looks at all the suicidal terrorist campaigns against democracies and for the most part, they have worked to one degree or another.

 

Between April and December of 1983, Hezbollah ran 5 suicide attacks against the US and the French killing 393 people in a campaign to get those nations to withdraw from Lebanon.  They did.

 

Starting at near the same time but not ending until 1985 Hezbollah ran 11 suicide attacks against Israel to get them out of Leb.  Israel partially withdrew into what became known as the Lebanon Security Zone. 

 

The Tamil Tigers ran 15 suicide attacks killing 206 that eventually resulted in the Sri Lankan gov't negotiating with them.  When those broke down they ran another 54 suicidal attacks killing 662 betweem 1995 and 2000.  They ran another 6 attacks killing 33 in 2001 and the ultimate end was complete autonomy.

 

Concessions, just as you point out, can be just as dangerous as sticking it out.  Like I said, I'll have to see what kind of policies are to stem from these facts.

424676[/snapback]

 

We were posting at the same time. IMO, the best "policy" (I prefer course of action) is to do something different, which is what we ARE doing, and it really has an effect. Why do you think 20 somethings are blowing themselves up daily? We don't have a political process anymore. The rest of the world is very aware of that. And, unless in times of serious crisis 60 years ago and before we never stick to anything. It's a personal B word of mine, but no matter what the situation is, America doesn't stick with anything. We have been waited out or "opinion protected" for better than 50 years.

[Mickey]

They see our reactions to the first WTC, embassy bombings, Somalia, USS Cole and they think that by applying the pressure, we will wilt and run away. They see what is happening in our country and how a long, messy war lessens our resolve. They are using that to their advantage. The American public cannot stomach this type of war for too long. That is exactly what they want and they are succeeding.

 

That is why they continue the attacks. They do not see it as "well, if we stop, then the U.S. will leave."

424452[/snapback]

I think they are looking back a lot further than the first WTC attack. Pretty much every suicide terrorist campaign against a democracy has more or less worked going back to 1983.

 

I wouldn't be so hard on the American people. We have stuck it out before but we were attacked by Japan. No matter how justied you may feel the invasion of Iraq was, it was not as compelling a case that we had no choice in war for national survival.

 

Maybe the resolve of Americans to fight a pre-emptive war against Iraq isn't what it would be against a foe more clearly a threat to us. Some want to ignore the WMD thing or chalk it up to partisanship but the bottom line is that it was very much one of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq and we were wrong. I am not accusing anyone of lying or running off on that tangent. We were wrong, no matter how you cut it. Being that wrong on something that big, well, something like that can shake people's resolve.

[Ghost of BiB]

I think they are looking back a lot further than the first WTC attack.  Pretty much every suicide terrorist campaign against a democracy has more or less worked going back to 1983. 

 

I wouldn't be so hard on the American people.  We have stuck it out before but we were attacked by Japan.  No matter how justied you may feel the invasion of Iraq was, it was not as compelling a case that we had no choice in war for national survival.

 

Maybe the resolve of Americans to fight a pre-emptive war against Iraq isn't what it would be against a foe more clearly a threat to us.  Some want to ignore the WMD thing or chalk it up to partisanship but the bottom line is that it was very much one of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq and we were wrong.  I am not accusing anyone of lying or running off on that tangent.  We were wrong, no matter how you cut it.  Being that wrong on something that big, well, something like that can shake people's resolve.

424691[/snapback]

 

Ah, you've been reading, eh? (I'll bet you ten spot not many have, too hard).

 

I'm also not being hard on the American people. I'm talking perceptions and "policies" (your term) enacted in political support of those perceptions.

 

You are being a lawyer, and playing nuances and argument tactics. You also shifted the focus to something I can explain, but can not do adequately in the courtroom.

 

Cool. You don't do bad with it, if there is a need I'll hire you.

 

Some want to ignore the WMD thing or chalk it up to partisanship but the bottom line is that it was very much one of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq and we were wrong.

 

Cute.

[Mickey]

Ah, you've been reading, eh? (I'll bet you ten spot not many have, too hard).

 

I'm also not being hard on the American people. I'm talking perceptions and "policies" (your term) enacted in political support of those perceptions.

 

You are being a lawyer, and playing nuances and argument tactics. You also shifted the focus to something I can explain, but can not do adequately in the courtroom.

 

Cool. You don't do bad with it, if there is a need I'll hire you.

Cute.

424719[/snapback]

I don't have a point of view I am arguing bib. Whether we should have gone or not is a good question in evaluating our leadership but otherwise, we are there, we did go so the most relevant question is what we should do now.

 

I do think that blaming the American people for not having the stomach for the Iraq war is counterproductive. The things that make a general population willing to endure a long war are probably pretty complicated. Under the right conditions, they will. If they aren't in this case, there may be very good reasons why. This is really an isssue that is getting ahead of the game. For what it is worth, however, the idea that a democracy can't continue a long war without pretty deep support for that war to begin with is probably not all that earth shaking of an insight on my part or anyone elses. Some might see that as a weakness of democracies, others see it as a strength.

 

As for the WMD thing, I don't understand your response and in any event, it is a side issue in this discussion. I raised it just as an example of the type of thing that could effect public support for a war. It isn't a polemical trick on my part. We really did think their presence was a "slam dunk" and we really didn't find any. That is my belief anyway.

[Ghost of BiB]

I do think that blaming the American people for not having the stomach for the Iraq war is counterproductive. The things that make a general population willing to endure a long war are probably pretty complicated. Under the right conditions, they will. If they aren't in this case, there may be very good reasons why. This is really an isssue that is getting ahead of the game. For what it is worth, however, the idea that a democracy can't continue a long war without pretty deep support for that war to begin with is probably not all that earth shaking of an insight on my part or anyone elses. Some might see that as a weakness of democracies, others see it as a strength.

 

Good points, especially the one I highlighted. Many Americans, and British and a lot of others for that matter don't have an understanding of the issues. Something like WW2, or even the "Cold War" was a lot easier to defend, much easier to point a finger at. Nothing about this conflict is politically correct. Therefore, real clear explanations of issues aren't going to come out of the media or the administration, especially when the true indicators of success won't be seen for 10 or 20 years. Even when one can explain it, it seems to me that many people refuse to believe it. It is in many ways so convoluted that it sounds like it's made up. I don't know how to get around that one. The lack of perception will be manifested in the voting booth. Should an opposing view win in the elections, they aren't going to be able to continue activities the same way. Hard to predict what might happen, but odds are it won't be good. Concessions don't have to look like concessions to be concessions.

[KRC]

I think they are looking back a lot further than the first WTC attack.  Pretty much every suicide terrorist campaign against a democracy has more or less worked going back to 1983.

 

That goes without saying. You can even go farther back than 1983. I was just listing some examples.

 

 

I wouldn't be so hard on the American people.  We have stuck it out before but we were attacked by Japan.  No matter how justied you may feel the invasion of Iraq was, it was not as compelling a case that we had no choice in war for national survival.

 

Maybe the resolve of Americans to fight a pre-emptive war against Iraq isn't what it would be against a foe more clearly a threat to us.  Some want to ignore the WMD thing or chalk it up to partisanship but the bottom line is that it was very much one of the chief reasons we invaded Iraq and we were wrong.  I am not accusing anyone of lying or running off on that tangent.  We were wrong, no matter how you cut it.  Being that wrong on something that big, well, something like that can shake people's resolve.

424691[/snapback]

 

Japan was a different generation. Times were much different back then. I do not think that you can compare war against Japan with war against Iraq.