2
   

Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy

 
 
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 07:51 am
Howard Dean wrote:
I think we need a strategic redeployment over a period of two years. Bring the 80,000 National Guard and reserve troops home immediately. They don't belong in a conflict like this anyway. We ought to have a redeployment to Afghanistan of 20,000 troops, we don't have enough troops to do the job there and it's a place where we are welcome. And we need a force in the Middle East, not in Iraq but in a friendly neighboring country to fight (terrorist leader Abu Musab) Zarqawi, who came to Iraq after this invasion. We've got to get the target off the backs of American troops.


source:http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47753

Questions for Dean or Dean apologists...

1) What kind of conflict should National Guard and reservists be in?
2) Where does Mr. Dean plan to get another 20,000 troops to deploy to Afghanistan? The Army's already at its limit.
3) How do you fight Zarqawi from a "friendly, neighboring country". Does Dean have any inkling of the logistical and political nightmare of fighting an enemy in one country from another? In all his comparisions of Iraq to Vietnam, has he forgotten the Viet Cong's habit of disappearing into Cambodia when pressured only to return later? Hasn't he learned from that particular lesson? Hasn't he learned anything from 9-11 where Bin Laden killed 3000 plus Americans from the safe haven of Afghanistan?

In same interview, Dean said the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong..." I am absolutely astounded by this incredibly defeatist attitude and am heartened to see in today's Washington Post (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707.html) that several Democrats (besides Lieberman) are steering away from Dean's attitude.

Wash Post wrote:
"Dean's take on Iraq makes even less sense than the scream in Iowa: Both are uninformed and unhelpful," said Rep. Jim Marshall (D-Ga.), recalling Dean's famous election-night roar after stumbling in Iowa during his 2004 presidential bid.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 541 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 07:55 am
Quote:
Hasn't he learned anything from 9-11 where Bin Laden killed 3000 plus Americans from the safe haven of Afghanistan?


Meaning?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 07:58 am
Why would anyone respond to an assertion that they are a "Dean apologist?" Rather a silly expectation--do you really think it that simple to bait people?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 08:01 am
Quote:
I am absolutely astounded by this incredibly defeatist attitude


I am absoulutely astounded by anyone who can't see the Iraq is not winnable. No one can even define what a victory would ne much less how to achieve it. Most Americans realize this and more will, the longer we are stuck in this quagmire.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 08:10 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Quote:
Hasn't he learned anything from 9-11 where Bin Laden killed 3000 plus Americans from the safe haven of Afghanistan?


Meaning?


Meaning that he is arguing a return to the same worldview we innocently held pre-9-11. Evidently he believes, the US can withdraw into a shell, allowing terrorist free reign to develop their murderous schemes only this time in Iraq instead of Afghanistan. I suppose Dean figures that, once in a while, we can lob a few guided missiles to take out the terrorist camps (although I can already imagine the indignant cries that the US is infringing on Iraqi sovereignty). This didn't work pre 9-11 and won't work post 9-11.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 08:11 am
Setanta wrote:
Why would anyone respond to an assertion that they are a "Dean apologist?" Rather a silly expectation--do you really think it that simple to bait people?


Sorry....wasn't trying to bait anyone....consider it a challenge to those (like Roxxxanne) who share Dean's position.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 08:11 am
How relatively evident that contention is seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 10:02 am
Re: Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
slkshock7 wrote:
Questions for Dean or Dean apologists...

I am neither the former nor the latter, but I'll give it a shot.

slkshock7 wrote:
1) What kind of conflict should National Guard and reservists be in?

Well, pulling them out of illegal conflicts would be a good start.

slkshock7 wrote:
2) Where does Mr. Dean plan to get another 20,000 troops to deploy to Afghanistan? The Army's already at its limit.

I suggest instituting a draft among members of various College Young Republicans organizations.

slkshock7 wrote:
3) How do you fight Zarqawi from a "friendly, neighboring country". Does Dean have any inkling of the logistical and political nightmare of fighting an enemy in one country from another? In all his comparisions of Iraq to Vietnam, has he forgotten the Viet Cong's habit of disappearing into Cambodia when pressured only to return later? Hasn't he learned from that particular lesson? Hasn't he learned anything from 9-11 where Bin Laden killed 3000 plus Americans from the safe haven of Afghanistan?

If you want us to believe that it is difficult to hit an enemy from another country, I don't you'd be well-advised to include, in the same statement, a reference to bin Laden's attack on the US. Clearly, if bin Laden could launch a successful attack on the US from Afghanistan, exactly how hard could it be for the US to launch a long-range attack of its own?

slkshock7 wrote:
In same interview, Dean said the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong..." I am absolutely astounded by this incredibly defeatist attitude and am heartened to see in today's Washington Post (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707.html) that several Democrats (besides Lieberman) are steering away from Dean's attitude.

Defeatist, realist -- to-ma-to, to-mah-to.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 10:08 am
Roxxxanne wrote:
Quote:
I am absolutely astounded by this incredibly defeatist attitude


I am absoulutely astounded by anyone who can't see the Iraq is not winnable. No one can even define what a victory would ne much less how to achieve it. Most Americans realize this and more will, the longer we are stuck in this quagmire.


Victory has been defined revolving largely around the quantity and quality of Iraqi security forces. While slow, no one can doubt that progress is being made. Even Al Queda fears this progress as is evident by the redirection of their attacks against fellow Muslims supporting the US rather than US forces themselves.

I don't like the term quagmire. This war will only be a quagmire if we allow it to become one. A tough problem which requires a long time to solve is not a quagmire unless we give up on it before reaching resolution.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 10:18 am
Re: Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
joefromchicago wrote:

slkshock7 wrote:
1) What kind of conflict should National Guard and reservists be in?

Well, pulling them out of illegal conflicts would be a good start.


This doesn't answer the question. This conflict is not illegal.

joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
2) Where does Mr. Dean plan to get another 20,000 troops to deploy to Afghanistan? The Army's already at its limit.

I suggest instituting a draft among members of various College Young Republicans organizations.


Too silly a response for me to waste time with.

joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
3) How do you fight Zarqawi from a "friendly, neighboring country". Does Dean have any inkling of the logistical and political nightmare of fighting an enemy in one country from another? In all his comparisions of Iraq to Vietnam, has he forgotten the Viet Cong's habit of disappearing into Cambodia when pressured only to return later? Hasn't he learned from that particular lesson? Hasn't he learned anything from 9-11 where Bin Laden killed 3000 plus Americans from the safe haven of Afghanistan?

If you want us to believe that it is difficult to hit an enemy from another country, I don't you'd be well-advised to include, in the same statement, a reference to bin Laden's attack on the US. Clearly, if bin Laden could launch a successful attack on the US from Afghanistan, exactly how hard could it be for the US to launch a long-range attack of its own?


I didn't argue that it is difficult to launch a long-range attack from one country into another. I argue that it is difficult, no....it is impossible to win a war against terrorism that way, which seems to be Dean's suggestion.

joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
In same interview, Dean said the "idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong..." I am absolutely astounded by this incredibly defeatist attitude and am heartened to see in today's Washington Post (source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/06/AR2005120601707.html) that several Democrats (besides Lieberman) are steering away from Dean's attitude.

Defeatist, realist -- to-ma-to, to-mah-to.


Couldn't be said better by Osama himself
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 10:39 am
Re: Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
slkshock7 wrote:
This doesn't answer the question. This conflict is not illegal.

Sure it is.

slkshock7 wrote:
Too silly a response for me to waste time with.

C'mon, fair's fair. I wasted time responding to your post.

slkshock7 wrote:
I didn't argue that it is difficult to launch a long-range attack from one country into another. I argue that it is difficult, no....it is impossible to win a war against terrorism that way, which seems to be Dean's suggestion.

No, that wasn't your argument, but if you want to make it your argument now, that's fine. And if you are comfortable in arguing with what you think Dean is suggesting, then that's up to you as well.

slkshock7 wrote:
Couldn't be said better by Osama himself

If bin Laden also believes that the US cannot win the "war on terrorism" by pursuing an illegal and ultimately counterproductive war in Iraq, then I agree with him. Of course, I'm sure you're not implying that the fact that we agree on one issue means that we agree on all issues. After all, it would be logically fallacious on your part if you did that.
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 11:19 am
Re: Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
I didn't argue that it is difficult to launch a long-range attack from one country into another. I argue that it is difficult, no....it is impossible to win a war against terrorism that way, which seems to be Dean's suggestion.

No, that wasn't your argument, but if you want to make it your argument now, that's fine. And if you are comfortable in arguing with what you think Dean is suggesting, then that's up to you as well.


OK, I shouldn't have said "seems to be Dean's suggestion". That is clearly his idiotic alternative to continuing the fight in Iraq....to fight a war long distance from some other country.

joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
Couldn't be said better by Osama himself

If bin Laden also believes that the US cannot win the "war on terrorism" by pursuing an illegal and ultimately counterproductive war in Iraq, then I agree with him. Of course, I'm sure you're not implying that the fact that we agree on one issue means that we agree on all issues. After all, it would be logically fallacious on your part if you did that.


No, my point was that you, Dean and Osama would judge success for your respective points of view the same way...by the US leaving Iraq. I'm quite sure that there are many other issues, however, that you, Dean and Osama would disagree on.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 11:21 am
Personally, i think Osama has no sartorial sense--by whom i mean the terrorist leader, our friend Osama down at the bank shows excellent taste and color sense and wears some of the nicest ties i've ever seen . . .

(If you think that's silly, just read the opening post again . . .)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 12:06 pm
Re: Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
slkshock7 wrote:
OK, I shouldn't have said "seems to be Dean's suggestion". That is clearly his idiotic alternative to continuing the fight in Iraq....to fight a war long distance from some other country.

Some other country? What country do you think the terrorists all live in now? Terrorvania? The terrorists are everywhere, so basing troops in one country should be just as good as basing them in another.

slkshock7 wrote:
No, my point was that you, Dean and Osama would judge success for your respective points of view the same way...by the US leaving Iraq. I'm quite sure that there are many other issues, however, that you, Dean and Osama would disagree on.

The US leaving Iraq would not be a success: it would mark the final act in a tragic error.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 12:37 pm
slkshock7 wrote: Too silly a response for me to waste time with.

joe wrote: C'mon, fair's fair. I wasted time responding to your post.

Our household is agreed that this is the funniest thing we've read all week.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 12:39 pm
Correction. A new competitor has just come in...

"Some other country? What country do you think the terrorists all live in now? Terrorvania?"
0 Replies
 
slkshock7
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 12:44 pm
Re: Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
OK, I shouldn't have said "seems to be Dean's suggestion". That is clearly his idiotic alternative to continuing the fight in Iraq....to fight a war long distance from some other country.

Some other country? What country do you think the terrorists all live in now? Terrorvania? The terrorists are everywhere, so basing troops in one country should be just as good as basing them in another.


Of course all terrorists do not live in Iraq or Afghanistan, but a lot of them do. So why not continue the fighting in Iraq? I don't see us fighting them in battles outside of Afghanistan and Iraq right now. Dean and you seem to believe that we can pull out of Iraq to the safety of some Middle East "friendly nation" and then kick back and, at our leisure and comfort, knock off terrorists from afar. You seem to think that by "redeploying" to this friendly country that somehow we'll be able to continue the battle unmolested by IEDs and suicide bombers.

Of what possible benefit could moving from Iraq to some other country do? Other than encouraging the terrorists with some reason to gloat and offering them safe haven in Iraq. Do you think they'll simply ignore us if we move out? Of course not, they'll enjoy the respite we've given them by abandoning Iraq and attack us anew elsewhere.

Dangnabit, I've used that phrase "seem to think" again...well, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your position.

joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
No, my point was that you, Dean and Osama would judge success for your respective points of view the same way...by the US leaving Iraq. I'm quite sure that there are many other issues, however, that you, Dean and Osama would disagree on.

The US leaving Iraq would not be a success: it would mark the final act in a tragic error.
Again I agree...so why leave??? How does leaving Iraq in any way, shape, or fashion, advance the war on terror in our favor?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 01:37 pm
Re: Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
slkshock7 wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
OK, I shouldn't have said "seems to be Dean's suggestion". That is clearly his idiotic alternative to continuing the fight in Iraq....to fight a war long distance from some other country.

Some other country? What country do you think the terrorists all live in now? Terrorvania? The terrorists are everywhere, so basing troops in one country should be just as good as basing them in another.


Of course all terrorists do not live in Iraq or Afghanistan, but a lot of them do. So why not continue the fighting in Iraq? I don't see us fighting them in battles outside of Afghanistan and Iraq right now. Dean and you seem to believe that we can pull out of Iraq to the safety of some Middle East "friendly nation" and then kick back and, at our leisure and comfort, knock off terrorists from afar. You seem to think that by "redeploying" to this friendly country that somehow we'll be able to continue the battle unmolested by IEDs and suicide bombers.

Of what possible benefit could moving from Iraq to some other country do? Other than encouraging the terrorists with some reason to gloat and offering them safe haven in Iraq. Do you think they'll simply ignore us if we move out? Of course not, they'll enjoy the respite we've given them by abandoning Iraq and attack us anew elsewhere.


I don't understand. Why on Earth did you think Howard Dean wants the US to attack from a completely different country?

He stated, "a force". Not "our force", so obviously he doesn't care who they are as long as they are with the US and fighting for the US against the terrorists.

That, I find, is frankly ridiculous. Where's he going to find a force that's friendly to the US in Iraq? Thanks to Bush, nearly everyone in the world either hates the US or is very wary of it.

As far as illegal wars go, the US is in an illegal war because they technically never made an official declariation of war to Saddam. Then again, official declariations of war haven't really been made since World War II, so technically every war since then has been illegal.

The war is not going to be won, but since the US started the conflict it might as well slog on to the very end. Never do things half-arsed (which should really have applied to its invasion of Iraq in the first place).

Quote:
joefromchicago wrote:
slkshock7 wrote:
No, my point was that you, Dean and Osama would judge success for your respective points of view the same way...by the US leaving Iraq. I'm quite sure that there are many other issues, however, that you, Dean and Osama would disagree on.

The US leaving Iraq would not be a success: it would mark the final act in a tragic error.
Again I agree...so why leave??? How does leaving Iraq in any way, shape, or fashion, advance the war on terror in our favor?


To think that invading Iraq was an advance in the war on terror in the first place was a fallacious idea. There wasn't any connection between Saddam and Osama. Sure, it was nice to get rid of Saddam and everything, but it really wasn't going to advance the War on Terror.

I rue the day, though, when the British created Iraq in the first place in the 1920s. They kind of created a country and shoved a load of different tribes together, most of which hated each other. Then when the British occupied Iraq in 1920 the Arabs and Kurds kinda rebelled...

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

Quote:
[BACKGROUND: In 1917, following the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, the British occupied Iraq and established a colonial government. The Arab and Kurdish people of Iraq resisted the British occupation, and by 1920 this had developed into a full scale national revolt, which cost the British dearly. As the Iraqi resistance gained strength, the British resorted to increasingly repressive measures, including the use of posion gas.] NB: Because of formatting problems, quotation marks will appear as stars *

All quotes in the excerpt are properly footnoted in the original book, with full references to British archives and papers. Excerpt from pages 179-181 of Simons, Geoff. *IRAQ: FROM SUMER TO SUDAN*. London: St. Martins Press, 1994:

Winston Churchill, as colonial secretary, was sensitive to the cost of policing the Empire; and was in consequence keen to exploit the potential of modern technology. This strategy had particular relevance to operations in Iraq. On 19 February, 1920, before the start of the Arab uprising, Churchill (then Secretary for War and Air) wrote to Sir Hugh Trenchard, the pioneer of air warfare. Would it be possible for Trenchard to take control of Iraq? This would entail *the provision of some kind of asphyxiating bombs calculated to cause disablement of some kind but not death...for use in preliminary operations against turbulent tribes.*

Churchill was in no doubt that gas could be profitably employed against the Kurds and Iraqis (as well as against other peoples in the Empire): *I do not understand this sqeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poison gas against uncivilised tribes.* Henry Wilson shared Churchills enthusiasm for gas as an instrument of colonial control but the British cabinet was reluctant to sanction the use of a weapon that had caused such misery and revulsion in the First World War. Churchill himself was keen to argue that gas, fired from ground-based guns or dropped from aircraft, would cause *only discomfort or illness, but not death* to dissident tribespeople; but his optimistic view of the effects of gas were mistaken. It was likely that the suggested gas would permanently damage eyesight and *kill children and sickly persons, more especially as the people against whom we intend to use it have no medical knowledge with which to supply antidotes.*

Churchill remained unimpressed by such considerations, arguing that the use of gas, a *scientific expedient,* should not be prevented *by the prejudices of those who do not think clearly*. In the event, gas was used against the Iraqi rebels with excellent moral effect* though gas shells were not dropped from aircraft because of practical difficulties [.....]

Today in 1993 there are still Iraqis and Kurds who remember being bombed and machine-gunned by the RAF in the 1920s. A Kurd from the Korak mountains commented, seventy years after the event: *They were bombing here in the Kaniya Khoran...Sometimes they raided three times a day.* Wing Commander Lewis, then of 30 Squadron (RAF), Iraq, recalls how quite often *one would get a signal that a certain Kurdish village would have to be bombed...*, the RAF pilots being ordered to bomb any Kurd who looked hostile. In the same vein, Squadron-Leader Kendal of 30 Squadron recalls that if the tribespeople were doing something they ought not be doing then you shot them.*
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Dec, 2005 03:29 pm
Re: Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
slkshock7 wrote:
Of course all terrorists do not live in Iraq or Afghanistan, but a lot of them do. So why not continue the fighting in Iraq? I don't see us fighting them in battles outside of Afghanistan and Iraq right now.

"Them?" "Them" in Iraq aren't all terrorists (unless you adhere to a rather loose definition of the term). A lot of "them" just want the invading forces to leave the country. If the war in Iraq is a war against terrorism, we're wasting our time and resources fighting and killing a bunch of non-terrorists.

slkshock7 wrote:
Dean and you seem to believe that we can pull out of Iraq to the safety of some Middle East "friendly nation" and then kick back and, at our leisure and comfort, knock off terrorists from afar. You seem to think that by "redeploying" to this friendly country that somehow we'll be able to continue the battle unmolested by IEDs and suicide bombers.

Personally, I favor redeploying American troops to the US. If Dean wants US forces to remain in the region, then he probably favors a plan like the one advocated by John Murtha: a rapid deployment force located in the Gulf region (Kuwait, Qatar, or Saudi Arabia) that would respond to specific threats.

There's a good deal to recommend that approach. Rather than attempting to subjugate a fractious, dangerous populace in Iraq, a small, light, highly mobile force could concentrate on attacking terrorist training camps or other smaller targets.

slkshock7 wrote:
Of what possible benefit could moving from Iraq to some other country do? Other than encouraging the terrorists with some reason to gloat and offering them safe haven in Iraq. Do you think they'll simply ignore us if we move out? Of course not, they'll enjoy the respite we've given them by abandoning Iraq and attack us anew elsewhere.

Well, first of all, you don't know that. Secondly, if we establish something resembling a functioning government in Iraq, then it will be the job of the Iraqis to combat terrorism within their borders, not ours. Thirdly, in the event that Iraq devolves into chaos and civil war (which I consider more likely), then it doesn't really matter if the US positions forces inside or outside of Iraq: the terrorists will set up camp there regardless. Better then to be in safe surroundings rather than in the midst of the chaos if and when that occurs.

slkshock7 wrote:
Dangnabit, I've used that phrase "seem to think" again...well, please correct me if I've misinterpreted your position.

Yeah, you've misrepresented it, but Dean's position isn't necessarily mine.

slkshock7 wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
The US leaving Iraq would not be a success: it would mark the final act in a tragic error.
Again I agree...so why leave??? How does leaving Iraq in any way, shape, or fashion, advance the war on terror in our favor?

If you agree that the war is a tragic error, then I fail to understand why you want to compound that error by continuing the war.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Are all Republicans Idiots? - Question by BigEgo
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Howard Dean's Confusing Anti-Terrorist Policy
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 2.8 seconds on 09/30/2014 at 07:49:36