History Lessons About Germany

Ah, lessons learned about Germany. The clear direction of the thread has been about British attitudes regarding German culpability for Nazi era behavior. I would like to talk, just a bit, about the lessons that might be drawn from the Great War that existed from 1914-1945. I think these two conflicts need to be studied together as if they were one, with a brief interlude. Though the lessons that might be drawn from Great War have been demonstrated in other times and other places, they weren't well learned before 1914, nor after 1945.

· Secret treaties that States regard as bound to honor can have disastrous results. After the Vienna conference, the European powers settled down to "civilized" competition. Relatives made secret pacts with their cousins just like a friendly holiday family game of monopoly. When events triggered the secret clauses, everyone felt bound to act - even against their better judgment. During Act II, Hitler and Stalin made a secret pact to divide Poland and Europe into spheres of influence. No honor among thieves. On the upside, politics at the international level has become steadily more pragmatic and States no longer act so much from idealistic notions of "Right and Wrong", as from "What will advance the interests of the Nation".

· Frontal assault on entrenched military forces armed with modern armaments results in mass slaughter. The machinegun, the Mauser action and good artillery made WWI an immense and effective killing machine. By WWII the major powers had adjusted battlefield doctrine to account for the changed conditions. Though the importance of moral remained unchanged, the idea that fighting spirit was more important than modern tools of war should have been given an inglorious funeral. The Iran-Iraq war demonstrated that some idiots failed to learn anything at all about modern warfare.

· Ruinous reparations forced upon the defeated by the victors are a prescription for renewed and bitter conflict. Though Germany certainly shared responsibility for WWI, it did not deserve to be treated as the sole aggressor. Reparations intended to eliminate Germany as a military threat, instead were an important element leading to WWII. Reparations destabilized the German economy by encouraging runaway inflation, and increased the bitterness felt by the population against the victors. Humiliated, the German People were anxious to find scapegoats and to throw off what they regarded as a degenerate republic forced upon them.

· Economic and national uncertainty tends to foster the rise of charismatic leaders who promise to return order, stability and national pride. Hitler and FDR both rose to political prominence as a result of the Great Depression. Both became head of state after defeating other charismatic leaders. Of course, their techniques were different, but both offered the promise of fixing conditions that threatened to destroy the nation. Stalin, Mao, Castro, and better than half of the leaders in sub-Saharan Africa also came to power during times of great national upheaval.

· Strong central government can be effective in restoring stability during times of political and economic disorder. On the eve of WWII, the United States and Germany were headed by stronger and more effective central government than at any time in their pasts. That government strength made possible the great war machines that resulted, and ultimately resolved WWII. On the other hand, the centralization of power exercised by the USSR was inefficient and ultimately led to its downfall.

· One cannot "buy-off", or ignore, an aggressive bully intent upon expansion. National leaders were reluctant to strongly oppose Hitler's opening moves for fear that the horrors of WWI would be replayed. Compromise and acquiescence merely encouraged Hitler to enlarge his demands. Folks like Hitler, Stalin and Saddam, only feel contempt for those they are able to intimidate. These sort of folks only understand force, and then only if the force is perceived to threaten their personal survival. By equivocation and delay the threat is only increased as the enemy consolidates his power and further perfects his forces.

· More is better than less. Germany developed a wide array of armaments, but they tended to concentrate on high quality. The result was relatively low production rates of superior equipment that easily succumbed to the chaos of combat. In the U.S. and the USSR, the emphasis was on mass production of simple designs that would be very robust when carried into war by relatively untrained soldiers. A Tiger Tank was an awesome weapon, but they broke down easily and were lost before a swarm of allied armor. Even though the entire population of Germany was almost totally devoted to the war effort, its numbers were greatly smaller than those of the USA, OR the USSR. Though the U-Boats came near cutting Britain's Atlantic lifeline, they failed because the German navy could not sustain the losses, while the US merchant fleet grew by leaps and bounds. Every raid over Britain resulted in a shift in relative numbers, until the German air force was reduced to a skeleton unable to retain air superiority after Normandy. There is little more important than logistics.

· Troops armed with automatic assault rifles are superior to those carrying bolt action weapons. It is difficult for those carrying bolt-action weapons to seize the initiative from infantry with rapid firing assault weapons. This increases the assault forces moral and willingness to press attacks aggressively. On the downside, the high rate of fire increases the logistical difficulties, and the combat load of the infantry.

· Propaganda, especially with mass audiences, can be very effective, but has distinct limitations. Hitler's use of propaganda, especially radio and film, were important tools in establishing and maintaining public acceptance of Nazi rule. Germany became one of the most Politically Correct states that ever existed, with the USSR and PRC as strong contenders. Though many were persuaded by propaganda, PC really rested on the government secret police to brutally suppress any deviation from the Party Line. Axis propaganda was not effective against Britain, whose population was if anything made more resolute in their determination to prevail, or die. Allied propaganda was no more effective in persuading German civilians to surrender. However, when the battlefield situation became hopeless, German soldiers surrendered en mass carrying Allied propaganda sheets promising good conditions to those who surrendered.

· Victors should be careful of the rules of conduct imposed on defeated leaders. The Allies were so horrified and disgusted by the Hitler Camps that they strongly believed that some punishment was required. Unfortunately, it would have been very difficult to punish the Nazi leadership under International Law that existed up until the end of WWII. There was no such thing as "Crimes Against Humanity", and national laws were solely the business of national governments. If a nation wanted to have a law that prescribed death to a whole segment of their population that was their business alone. Everything that Hitler and his cronies did, they did within the legal code that they themselves promulgated. They didn't commit any crimes under German Law, or International Law. That just wasn't an acceptable choice to those who had witnessed first hand the mass murder of Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mental defectives, political prisoners and et. al. The Allies invented a new set of Laws and applied them Ex Post Facto to Nazi leadership. If it had stopped there perhaps it would have been all right.

However, the changes in International Law resulting from Nuremberg have greatly muddied the waters since. How far can the international community impose itself on national sovereignty? Nuremberg opened the door to prosecuting soldiers for battlefield behavior that previously had been, if not accepted, at least overlooked. Men in the heat of combat do not behave as rationally as they might in less stressful conditions. We let loose social restraints against killing and encourage young soldiers to kill on command. The lines between who should be killed and who should be protected is difficult to find when the adrenalin is pumping and your best friends brains are on your sleeve. After Nuremberg, even how war is initiated changed and has made the Declaration of War obsolete. Today, largely as a result of Nuremberg and United Nations Treaties, any war that is not defensive in nature or authorized by the United Nations is, at least technically, illegal. "Technically", because in some ways the old "Might Make Right" has returned to international law. Maybe it was always that way.

· Modern warfare, especially when conducted, in the midst of a densely populated industrial society, can be very destructive. When the military might of a strong nation is unleashed, virtually nothing is safe from destruction. No matter how "smart" the weapons, nor carefully launched they are, there will be collateral damage. "Innocent" people will mutilated and die. Churches, cultural monuments and factories producing the most innocuous items will be reduced to dust. The foundations on which the modern world will be severely damaged, or totally destroyed. Electrical, communications and transportation systems are all legitimate military targets, but civilian populations will suffer when they are destroyed. The more crowded the battlefield, the greater the damage will be to persons and property. Cities are not a good place to be when the bombs begin to fall. The modern battlefield is a dangerous place, and though great care is taken the number of friendly fire casualties remains high. Some studies seem to suggest that during the Great War perhaps over 20% of all casualties were the result of friendly fire. If so we have made great improvements in fire control.

· Even the most thoroughly destroyed country can be rebuilt in relatively short order - if the victor is beneficent and wise. Germany and Japan both rose from the ashes to become power players in the world. Japan has greatly benefited from its post-war constitution and the protection it has received from the United States. The Marshall Plan made West Germany one of the most productive nations in Europe. In fact, some of our allies were miffed that we provided more aid to Germany than we did to Britain or France after WWII.

. Today's enemy may be tomorrow's ally. Germany and Japan were our most bitter enemies half a century ago, and today are important elements in Pax Americanus. The USSR in a few more years will probably duplicate the experience of an enemy transformed into an ally. If an enemy can become an ally, it is reasonable to suppose that an ally can someday be an enemy. Pragmatic diplomacy is something, aint it. We find ourselves supporting people who are no better than thugs and gangsters, because they provide some necessary element in maintaining international stability, or whose existence advance our national interests. That's a hard sell to a People who seldom see beyond the moment, or more subtly than total evil black villainy v. total white purity and virtue. This also involves us in the danger of losing sight of the values we hold most dear. How can one ignore the contradictions to one's core values without losing the moral high ground? Congress and National Policy, adopted with the best of intentions, prevented the Intelligence Community from maintaining and developing Humint that might have prevented 911. We opted for the "clean" use of Sigint and Elint, because we didn't want to deal with unsavory agents. Now we have difficulty in forming a clear picture of our enemy. We also have great difficulty in keeping sight of our core values in the murky world of terrorism.

Finally, it's a bad idea to wake a giantess from her sleep. Yamamoto knew that, but who listens to a soldier. I don't think Hitler ever did figure it out, and Saddam is even less bright than Hitler. Bin Laden thinks he can escape by attacking us using a novel doctrine. We'll see. We'll see.

Setanta, what have I overlooked here. The lessons are so many its hard to suppose that a brief essay here could do more than touch on some of the more obvious.

Asherman, Your essay is well written, but mingled with many truths are some questionable statements or ideas. I do not believe that past history is a lesson for our future, because of the many dynamics that have changed during the past half century. The most important one is the global economy. The EU, NAFTA, and other smaller economic organizations of the world will defeat the likes of Sadaam or Al Qaeda if and when they show any aggression against their neighbors. The UN is another reason why smaller aggressive states and tyrants have no chance at survival today or tomorrow. The only threat I can observe now is China, but their younger compatriots are moving towards moderation in their political and economic stance. I also see the extremists of Islam as a short-term threat to peace. The unhappiness of Arabs towards the US can be alleviated quickly when another president takes over the helm. I hope GWBush is a one term president. c.i.

Cicero,

Conditions and the specifics surrounding social problems do undoubtedly change. However, humans today are remarkably similar to those at the dawn of history in their behavior patterns. This is especially true when people react to perceived and serious challenges group survival. We may have greater technical resources, may have a better understanding of our environment and the world, but we are still self-centered, shortsighted and easily led by our emotions. Communications and transportation have shrunk the world, but have left the human heart unchanged. Generals often make the mistake of fighting the last war because they think that the experiences of their youth are eternal and unchanging. Things do change and the solutions to one generation's problems may not work for another's. We need to learn how people act, interact and react to challenges, and then apply those lessons to the unique challenges that will face us.

The complexity of the world's economy and the impact that one economy can exert on all the others is a distinctly new phenomenon. There has always been some impact, but the degree to which economies are now related is new. The world economy is driven by the large First World states, not the small Third World nations that struggle merely to exist. The state of the Afghan economy has really very little to do with the success of India to maintain itself. If it weren't for the oil reserves on which many of the Southwest Asian states are dependant, their economies would be negligible to the rest of the world. Were Iraq's neighbors capable of expelling Saddam from Kuwait without the Coalition led by the United States? If a petty dictator could be driven from power by economic sanctions, how is that Castro will probably rule until he dies?

You certainly have more faith in the power of small States to effectively deal with a determined aggressor or dictators than I have. Dictators have the guns and their People have a need to survive. Survival for dissidents in Iraq is not very good. Al Qaeda isn't even formally associated with any particular nation, but is a loose confederation of people dedicated to the destruction of Western culture in general and the United States in particular. Bin Laden exists because he has support among reactionary Muslims, and within those states who regard the United States as an enemy. Bin Laden brought down by the economic, or even military power of small states? C'mon.

By acting together small states may become formidable, but the historical record doesn't provide many examples of effective alliances by such states. The Greek City States were able to defeat the Persians, but then the alliance fell apart and eventually Greece became just another part of the Roman Empire. The United Nations has had a pretty poor record in dealing with rogue states and dictators. Neither the Killing Fields of Cambodia, the interminable tribal wars, famine and epidemics of Africa, nor any of a hundred other world problems have been solved, or even much alleviated by that august organization. It sometimes seems as if the UN is more dedicated to wounding the United States than in curbing the abuses and aggression of the rest of the world.

I absolutely agree that China is a serious problem and could become a world threat very quickly. I don't however agree that the PRC is becoming less of a threat as one generation succeeds another. Chinese insularity and chauvinism is as great today as it was fifty years ago. True, the top leadership is less dedicated to the idea of Communism, but they are no less committed to the personal survival of the ruling class within China. China should be watched very carefully because it has the capability of plunging the world into the sort of war that might get seriously out of hand. This is not a short-term problem, and may become much worse in the future. Both famine and epidemics (like the Spanish Lady) are increasingly likely, and could destabilize the situation there quickly.

The problem we are currently facing with Al Qaeda is another problem that isn't going to go away soon, or by wishful thinking. The resentment and hatred of the West, as exemplified by the United States, runs deep within the populations of Southwest Asia. These are folks who believe that they are the Chosen of God, and their economic and military inferiority rankles. Western media promises much that is proscribed by their traditional cultures, and is able to deliver little. These are folks who see their traditional cultures threatened by the dominant world culture, and some will fight to the death to defend that way of life. We can kill Bin Laden, but he will be a martyr and someone else will take his place. Al Qaeda doesn't have a center of mass that we can strike at, so we are reduced to stomping on anthills. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda aren't in business because of Shrub, or Clinton, or any particular person --- they hate our system of government. They hate the idea that women are the equals of men. They hate the fact that heathen Christians drive big cars to the beach where they can watch unclad women bath. They hate Jews living on land that they regard as their own. This isn't a problem that's going to dissolve into mist with the breaking of a new day, but is likely to go on for a very long time. We can reduce the damage that Islamic terrorists do to our people and us by waging a relentless war against individual terrorists, their cells, and the governments that supply and support them. We can only win though if the Islamic middle turns their backs on the radicals.

Actually, my intension was just to publish that article at the beginning of this thread.

The actual theme now ... well, you may discuss it here.

Walter, When I saw your name appear as the last poster, I was hoping for your input. How about it?

Asherman, Al Qaeda and bin Laden is not a world threat. Too many in this world view them as their enemy. This is a group of extremists without a country to call their own. Their only goal is terrorism against people who have done no harm to them. Their existance must remain underground to survive. Most Arabs do not support Al Qaeda. Most Arabs do not hate Americans, but the government of our country. GWBush did more harm by declaring Sharon "a man of peace." I have Arab friends in Egypt, Iran, and Tanzania. Turkey (when we toured Turkey, our Turkish-Islam guide did not wear a headress), Egypt, Jordan, and some other Middle East countries modifying their stance towards the west, including more freedoms for women. Even Iran's trend is towards moderation, and the middle class wants to normalize relations with the west. The problems of Israel will remain as long as both sides continues their killing of innocents. The Arabs have a right to voice their displeasure of the US support of Israel. If I were an Arab, I'd probably do the same. If I were a Jew, I'd probably complain about the killing of innocents by suicide bombers. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see both sides of this issue from the outside. It was almost ironic that you would make the statement, "By acting together small states may become formidable, but the historical record doesn't provide many examples of effective alliances by such states." But I'm sure you are aware of the alliance of many Baltic states that have become part of the EU. It's not necessary for small states to alliance with other small states. They can become part of a larger union. That gives them a bigger economic and political voice. c.i.

I agree that anti-German feelings may be direct result of the "tabloid culture" that simplifies things that cannot be simplified.
Germany exists (either as a unitary state, or as a conglomerate of small-to-medium princedoms) for more than 1,000 years, and Nazi period of its history lasted for only 12 years in 1933-45.
Nazism is not a specific derivative of German national character. Racism was not invented in Berlin, it appeared together with mankind, and only specific conditions of post-Versailles Germany paved way to the extreme racist to power. If instead of humiliating the side that lost the war, the Western allies would apply some kind of "Marshall Plan" in '20s, NSDAP would remain a kind of marginal exotic political movement without sufficient parliamentary representation (the same refers to the Communists).
As far as I know the political parties and movements sharing ideology with NSDAP exist in most of the countries in the world (there are some even in the USA, Russia, UK and France, the countires that led the anti-Hitler coalition), but under the normal conditions they have no chance to gain enough supporters to be transformed into serious political factor.
Sometimes some conservative politicians are being confused with neo-Nazis; this happened with LePen in France. But LePen is rather a "politically incorrect" conservative politician, than a rabid racist; he does not call for murder, he just wants to limit migration from the Third World and to preserve French character of France. Therefore, relative success of LePen in course of elections is not tantamount to Nazi threat, it only shows that French people are being tired with crime and terror imported from the former colonies in the North Africa.
It is necessary to uncouple the terms "German" and "Nazi" in the public opinion, and this really may be a challenging task to the British history and citizenship teachers.

Cicero,

I beg to differ with you re. the seriousness of the threats to the United States and world peace posed by El Queda and other terrorist organizations. They have been at war against Western Civilization for a long time. Attacks have been conducted against Americans, and American interests for years, but it took a large number of casualties on American soil to wake the People to just how risky our world will be until El Queda and Co. are safely tucked away in the dustbin of history.

Americans and it's allies will be at risk of terrorist acts for a long time to come. Some attacks may easily rival 9/11 in casualties and damage. These people believe that it is victory over the West, or death. They are idealogically ready to die for their cause, and those are hard people to stop. Why do they hate us so? Because the West is still in the ascendant, while Islamic culture is stagnent, or in decline. They believe that they are the chosen, and to die for Righteousness is better than to live with what they regard as evil. Western culture is very seductive, yet the rewards of Western technology and ways are pretty meager if you live in Southwest Asia.

Being nice to El Queda is like giving a machine-pistol and a legal pass to any mass/serial murderer. They just regard our sense of justice and desire for peace as a weakness to be exploited. I'm afraid that the real killing lies ahead. Gird your loins.

C.I., your claims about Israelis killing Palestinians sound as if Israelis do it just for fun, and they kill random Arabs that have a bad luck to pass by an armed soldier. In fact, except the collateral damage (that is inevitable while fighting in the densely populated areas), all the Palestinians killed are armed militants that attack or attempt to attack the Israeli soldiers and civilians. There were almost no casualties in course of the first intifada in 1987-93, when Palestinians restricted themselves to rock throwing and terror attacks with knives and axes. But when they start to shoot, to launch homemade rockets and to explode bombs, there is no wonder that they get a reciprocal treatment.
Their only chance to get an independent state is to stop violence, to neutralize their own terrorists and to resume negotiations with Israel. Mr. Sharon really wants peace, and he agrees with establishment of the Palestinian state by side of Israel.
The things he will never agree are:
a) establishment of the Palestinian state instead of Israel . [/i]
b) negotiating under fire.
c) returning of the Palestinian refugees into Israel in its 1967 borders -- this will irreversibly change demographic balance in Israel and make Israelis a minority in their own country.

steissed, I couldn't agree more that the Palestinians must stop their suicide bombings to kill innocent Israelis in order to seek peace. On the same token, the Israelis must stop expanding their settlements, provide more freedoms for the Palestinians, and find ways that will enhance the lives of the Palestinians. The Israilis must give the Palestinians some hope through human acts. Nobody, except some Palestinian radicals, expect to have a Palestinian state without an Israili state. There are also some Israelis that do not want a Palestinian state. I also believe that more Arab states need to speak out against the suicide bombings by the Palestinians in addition to their cries against Israel (and the US). As with many Israelis, I also do not trust Arafat, and I do not see much progress for the future as long as he is the leader. Either he is powerless, or he is complicit with the terrorism against Israelis.

Asherman, The Al Qaeda was successful in destroying the WTC, because we failed to respond to the intelligence available before nine-eleven. Yes, almost three thousand people lost their lives, but how many have been killed since then? The world community is doing a pretty good job of controlling more terrorism world-wide. Any organization without a leader works in chaos, and I'm not so sure that the many branches of Al Qaeda has strong leaders who can determine on their own what terrorism to exact on any population. Funding is also being cut off and restricted. Members of Al Qaeda are being thrown into jail/prison. Some people's fear of Al Qaeda goes beyond rational thinking. As for myself, I feel that driving in my car is more dangerous than what any Al Qaeda can do to me. As the saying goes, most people's fear is based on fear of an unknown. I'm not about to let any terrorist restrict my style of living. c.i.

Cicero,

Al Queda is a determined enemy capable of conducting effective terrorist attacks on Western targets. True, there haven't been any attacks to rival the 9/11 operation, but there have been many smaller attacks around the world on American and Western targets. There have also been a number of attacks thwarted before they could be actually launched that have received some public notice. There have been more terrorist operations that have been foiled but not publicized.

There will be more attacks focused on American and European targets in the future. Some will succeed.

The world is not a safe place, and the American propensity for hidding its head in the sand will not make it safer. North Korea and China are both potentially dangerous areas that could easily lead to a major world catastrophy. Pakistan could easily destabilize and the conflict with India flare up again. The potential for a limited nuclear exchange within the Pakistani/Indian area should not be ignored. Radical Islamic movements hostile to the United States and Western culture are evident in almost every Southwest Asian country. Israel isn't going away, and there is a continual risk of some wider conflict that could ignite a very dangerous war.

Asherman, Yes, terrorists is a determined enemy, but they are being squashed by the world community. There are many crazy people in this world, including Americans, that can conduct terrorist attacks in this country or anywhere else. The mathematical odds of being a victim of terrorism is slim when compared to other hazardous potentials in our lives. I'm not foolish enough to travel in Israel, Afghanistan, or Pakistan right now, nor go to Venezuela or Argentina. If I should become aware of other hot spots, I will purposely keep my distance. So, how many have died so far from terrorist attacks? According to the latest stats I can obtain, the US had 43,458 deaths in 1997 from auto accidents. That's 16.2 deaths per 100,000 population. What's the earth's population now? I think it's over six billion. The mathematical odds of my dying from a terrorist attack is minimal compared to my driving on the US roads. People must learn to put things into its right perspective. Otherwise, the terrorists win the war, and free peoples everywhere will stop living. c.i.

Cicero,

You are quite right in pointing out that the odds against any single individual being a victim of terrorist is extremely low. Wide-spread hysteria and fear of personal injury is not justified. The number of active terrorists in the world is measured in thousands out of a world populatioon that is many millions. Operational planning generally selects targets that will effectively advance organizational priorities. Individuals are not usually great targets unless they have some greater importance to the world than most of us do. People can sleep at night without fear for the personal safety.

However, the current enemy IS focused on the destruction of our system and cultural values. Al Queda seeks the triumph of radical Islam over Western Civilization. To them, we are the personification of evil and ungodliness. The seductiveness of our way of life has slowly been erroding the faith of their masses. Islamic women want washing machines, and lipstick, and frilly stuff from Victoria's Secrets. This challenges men's roles and the basic morality demanded by radical Islam. Children want to play computer games and watch television all day, and that displaces religious fervor. The pursuit of material success and the possession of worldly goods undermines fundamentalist values.

Al Queda, and other terrorist groups, can not meet us openly on the battlefield, so instead they attack us by stealth. They look for, and try to capitalize on our weakest links. They will use the media to spread panic, or to sooth our outrage to the point where we decide that the danger is past. They always will be looking for the easiest target, and suprise is one of their greatest assets. We have to guard everywhere, and they only have to be successful once in a while. In an open society with our sort of values, the enemy feels invulnerable. We are saps by their lights. The terrorists will kill as many as needed to achieve their goals. The Goal, Islamic Purity for the whole of humanity, justifies any and all actions.

How do we effectively resist and fight such enemies?

Our government is doing the best that it can under the circumstances. There are very good people who have dedicated their lives, for very low pay BTW, to protecting the United States and our way of life working everyday to keep the threat to its minimum. They are successful more times than the general public will ever know. To be effective, we must not educate the enemy as to our methods and means, so secrecy is a valued part of how we protect the public. Most Americans can rest easy and live in dreamland because there are folks within our government who are awake and doing their job.

Asherman, We are coming to agree on some of our perceptions concerning "terrorism." Who knows? Maybe, we can begin to agree on other issues also, and I look forward to more discussions with you on A2K. c.i.

Asherman,

If you think our government is doing the best it can then how do you explain the massive intelligence failute on 9/11/01? How do you explain the failure of the American military at the battle of Tora Bora and the fact that Bin laden was allowed to slip out of our grasp?

I wish I were as happy as you are with the Bush Admninistration, Asherman. Now they propose a war against Iraq that will inflame the entire Muslim world against America. is that your idea of "doing their best?"

Asherman,

If you think our government is doing the best it can then how do you explain the massive intelligence failure on 9/11/01? How do you explain the failure of the American military at the battle of Tora Bora and the fact that Bin laden was allowed to slip out of our grasp?

I wish I were as happy as you are with the Bush Admninistration, Asherman. Now they propose a war against Iraq that will inflame the entire Muslim world against America. is that your idea of "doing their best?"

Asherman,

If you think our government is doing the best it can then how do you explain the massive intelligence failure on 9/11/01? How do you explain the failure of the American military at the battle of Tora Bora and the fact that Bin laden was allowed to slip out of our grasp?

I wish I were as happy as you are with the Bush Admninistration, Asherman. Now they propose a war against Iraq that will inflame the entire Muslim world against America. is that your idea of "doing their best?"

Larry,

1. "Explain intelligence failure to identify the threat and prevent the events of 911". First, understand that the Intelligence Community did repeatedly warn that terrorist attacks on American soil were probable for years prior to 9/11/01. America didn't want to hear it, much less believe it. Political considerations within the Congress and Executive outweighed taking any effective action to improve intelligence capability, or to increase national security for priority targets. Indeed, the intelligence Community was virtually forbidden to develop or use HumInt sources. Field intelligence shriveled, new recruitments fell to zero and old networks perished. The political leadership favored placing our entire reliance on SigInt and ElInt sources, and that's what they got. Though SigInt and ElINt can do wondrous things, they can not provide much in the way of "intent", or specific information regarding precise plans -- that information is gathered by having agents inside the targeted structures. American Intelligence was also hobbled by legal constraints over who and how they gathered data. Much of the leadership of the Intelligence Community fell into the hands of risk-adverse technocrats and bureaucrats, as field case officers were forced out.

In spite of these handicaps, an increase in signal traffic between "suspected" terrorists was detected. There was no way to determine where, when, or how an attack would occur. In fact, though analysts feared an attack was coming they had nothing specific and persuasive enough to cause politically sensitive folks to act.

The responsibility for any intelligence failure prior to 911, can be laid at the feet of Congress and all those who insisted that we should never utilize unsavory methods like spying.

2. "Explain military failure at Tora Bora, and escape of Bin Ladin". Again you assume a failure, where none existed. The military objective was to destroy the hold that the Taliban/Al Queda had over Afghanistan. That was achieved, though the terrain and battlefield were especially difficult to master. Use of air superiority and precision munitions kept civilian casualties to a minimum, while utterly destroying Taliban/Al Queda formations. The campaign was conducted quickly and efficiently. The broken and disorganized Taliban/Al Queda survivors were killed, captured, driven from the country, or into the vastness of the Afghan mountains. A concentration of those forces was discovered in the Tora Bora, and attacked. More enemy forces were killed, captured, or driven from the country. In difficult terrain it is almost impossible to root out every single individual. Apparently Bin Ladin was among those who managed to escape. That some of the enemy escaped to fight another day should not be surprising, nor regarded as some sort of "failure".

3. "How can you be happy with an administration that will inflame Muslim hatred toward American?" O.K., I paraphrased your assertion to make it into a question. You assume, incorrectly, that I'm happy with the Bush Administration. I have grave doubts about the Shrub's ability to manage the economy, and though I will personally benefit by some of his tax proposals, I think most of them are wrong-headed. I think his inability to communicate hampers efforts to forge international cooperation. On the other hand, he has shown resolution and commitment to doing what is necessary even though it is unpopular and may be political suicide. As is so often the case, the boy has grown in office. Bush has assembled a distinguished group of advisors, and has utilized them well. The advisors are not "yes men", nor is there any evidence that the President is not the final arbiter of policy. We may disagree with some of those policies, but Bush is the executive with the Constitutional responsibility for making and directing policies.

As to the consequences of militarily defanging Saddam, you assume an outcome that is by no means certain. We have been the target of terrorist attacks by radical Islamic factions for over a decade, and they will continue into the future no matter what we do. Do you think that the teeming crowds celebrating the 911 acts seen in Palestine, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran and dozens of other countries with large Islamic populations will hate us any more than they already do? I believe, with somewhat better reason, that the people of Iraq will greet Anglo-American forces as liberators. Wouldn't it be nice if celebrating crowds were cheering for us, rather than against us?

By eliminating a supplier and sponsor of terrorist organizations, it will be more difficult for terrorists to carryout operations against western targets. A reconstituted Iraq may well provide a stabilizing influence over the region, and the threat to Iraq's neighbors will be reduced. The message sent from the coming operation will be that American is capable and willing to back up its demands with military force. Now, some of you will point to that remark and argue that is what will frighten people into an anti-American opposition around the world. Most of those who will hate us for this action, already hate us and pray for our destruction. Those anti-American states will have to seriously reconsider whether sponsoring and supporting terrorist groups is a useful strategy. The DPRK may suddenly decide that nuclear threats will not cause the United States to backdown. Some previously "friendly" states, like France, may sever some mutually advantageous relations. That will hurt them as much, perhaps more, than it will harm the United States.

Al Queda and The Old Man of the Mountain
Remember the cult of the "assassins". They terrorized their enemies for generations until they were destroyed by the Mongol conquest of almost the entire Middle East. I see many parallels to the present situation.

Where to the Germans come into this? The Franks? No. Goths? No. Saxons? No.

I think this is off-topic, but, then, it's not my topic.

Somehow, Setanta, there is an Indo-Germanic connection.