0
   

The unlimited enemy

 
 
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:32 am
The unlimited enemy
Thomas Sowell

Cats are supposed to have nine lives but fallacies must have at least ninety. Some notions will be believed, no matter how many times they have been refuted by facts.

One of these seemingly immortal fallacies is the implicit assumption that our enemies have unlimited resources, so that our efforts at strengthening ourselves militarily are doomed to be self-defeating.

At least as far back as the 1930s, the intelligentsia and others have warned against military spending as setting off an "arms race" in which each side escalates its military buildup in response to the other, making the whole thing an expensive exercise in futility. The same notion was repeated throughout the long years of the Cold War.

Today's version is that, no matter how many Middle East terrorists we kill, new ones will take their place and we will have nothing to show for all our efforts and sacrifices. People who talk this way are completely undaunted by the fact that Ronald Reagan proved them wrong during the Cold War.

President Reagan understood that the Soviets did not have unlimited resources -- and in fact their resources were far more limited than ours. Going directly counter to those who wanted a "nuclear freeze" or other weapons limitations agreements, Ronald Reagan began a military buildup that kept upping the ante until the Soviets had to throw in their hand, ending the Cold War.

When Reagan ordered a bombing of Libya in retaliation for Libyan terrorism, the immortal fallacy was immediately voiced by former President Jimmy Carter, who declared that this would only make matters worse and bring on more terrorism. But Libya toned down its terrorist activities.

Years later, when Saddam Hussein was overthrown in Iraq and was then dragged out of his hiding hole, Libyan dictator Kaddafi decided to end his nuclear program and cooperate with monitors. Unlike Jimmy Carter, he knew that he did not have unlimited resources.

Those who argue today that virtually every military action we take only arouses "the Arab street" against us and provokes a new stream of terrorist recruits fail to understand that international terrorism requires more than new recruits. It requires huge amounts of money, sophisticated leaders and an intricate structure of command.

President Bush hit the terrorists in the pocketbook with the help of countries around the world by exposing and disrupting their financial networks. Then many of the top terrorist leaders were killed or captured and their training bases in Afghanistan destroyed.

There is not an unlimited supply of money, sophisticated leaders, or countries willing to risk American military action by aiding and abetting international terrorism. A number of countries have begun cooperating, making this one of the largest international operations ever to be called "unilateral."

There may not even be an unlimited supply of potential suicide bombers in "the Arab street," now that Saddam Hussein is no longer there to subsidize the families of suicide bombers who kill civilians in Israel or to provide sanctuary for other terrorists.

Critics of the Bush administration may keep saying that there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism but the terrorists themselves seem to believe otherwise. Why else are they pouring into Iraq, in what they themselves have characterized as a crucial battle to stop the Americans from reconstituting that country in ways that will make their plans for the region harder to carry out?

There is a cost to this war as there have been costs to all wars, including the Cold War. And there have been painful setbacks and surprises in this war, as there have been in all wars.

George Washington lost most of the battles he fought but we still came out of it as a new and independent nation. But there were grownups in that war and in our other wars.

The big question today -- and for our future -- is not whether our enemies have unlimited resources but whether we have an inexhaustible supply of immaturity in our media and among our politicians.

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 716 • Replies: 10
No top replies

 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:50 am
Quote:
Those who argue today that virtually every military action we take only arouses "the Arab street" against us and provokes a new stream of terrorist recruits fail to understand that international terrorism requires more than new recruits. It requires huge amounts of money, sophisticated leaders and an intricate structure of command.


Untrue. Terrorism might cost huge amounts of money, but it's paltry compared to the amount of money we spend on the Armed forces, including many things terrorists simply don't have to pay for, like safety equipment, research on weapons, legal issues, et cetera.

The structure of command is in no way near as intricate as that of a standing army. We hear all the time about the ability to create 'cells' of enemies, active or sleeper, who can operate independently of command.

All in all, this article is ridiculous. If it comes to a long-term conflict, it will cost us a hundred times as much money to fight our end of the fight as it will the terrorists and insurgents, who convienently get scads of tax- and accounting-free dollars from arabs who are pissed off at our presence. It's not like the arabs are going to run out of money; think about the amount which we give them every year, and you'll see what I mean.

Quote:
Critics of the Bush administration may keep saying that there is no connection between Iraq and terrorism but the terrorists themselves seem to believe otherwise. Why else are they pouring into Iraq, in what they themselves have characterized as a crucial battle to stop the Americans from reconstituting that country in ways that will make their plans for the region harder to carry out?


Critics of the admin say there WAS no connection between Iraq and terrorism. We know very well why there is now; because Bush would rather fight terrorists in Iraq than at home. It is one of the little-talked about reasons for invading, partially because it's not very 'humanitarian' to invade someone else's country so you don't have to fight in your own, and partially because it is pretty stupid; it increases our supply lines tremendously while shortening theirs, and opens the US up to tiny little attacks, day after day, which bleed us dry.

Don't believe me? Ask the Russians how well they did against this sort of war. And don't forget that they had no qualms about being ruthless with the enemies, hawks.....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:55 am
Good points and let me add that I can turn Sowell's point about George Washington right around. The lesson that Washington taught Ho , Mao and the insurrectionists in Iraq is that you can conquer as much territory as you can afford to but if you don't win the hearts and minds you will ultimately fail. How many times do we have to learn this lesson?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 11:57 am
Great point panzade.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
gav
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 01:18 pm
panzade wrote:
How many times do we have to learn this lesson?


The only thing that we can learn from history is nobody learns from history
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 02:11 pm
A cynic is not merely one who reads bitter lessons from the past, he is one who is prematurely disappointed in the future.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 02:14 pm
The Arab Street.
Interesting.
Mr. Sowell seems to have missed the lesson on where Islam is growing fastest. It's not The Arab Street.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 02:25 pm
Here are some numbers on the fight overseas, vs the "fight" on American soil:

*Basic security upgrades for subway and commuter trains in large cities: $6billion dollars, or roughly the cost of 20 days in Iraq.
-Bush bugeted only $100 million, or 8 Iraq-hours.

*To equip airports with machines that screen baggage for explosives would cost $2 billion, or roughly 10 Iraq-days.
-Bush bugeted only $400 million or 32 Iraq-hours.

*Amount needed for security upgrades at 361 US ports is $1.1 Billion, or 4 Iraq-days.
-Bush bugeted $210 million, or 17 Iraq-hours.

*Cost of radiation portals to detect "dirty bombs" at US ports: $290 million, or 23 Iraq-hours.
-Bush allocated $43 million, or 3 Iraq-hours.

*To meet the needs of firefighters prepare for future terrorist attacks: $36.8 billion, or 122 Iraq-days.
-Bush has allocated $500 million, or 40 Iraq-hours.

*To train and prepare emergency response teams and medical crews for future/potential terrorist attacks would be $1.4 billio, or 5 Iraq-days.
-Bush previously allocated $50 million to this before ultimately eliminating the program altogether.

Sources: American Public Transportation Association, FY 2005 buget, Government Accountability Office, Council on Foreign relations, US Coast Guard, house Appropriations Committee.



Draw your own conclusions....
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 02:27 pm
gav wrote:
panzade wrote:
How many times do we have to learn this lesson?


The only thing that we can learn from history is nobody learns from history


You mean no one heeds the "advice" that past experiences have given us?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 02:29 pm
Thanks Candidone1!

I've been saying for a long time that a president who was actually concerned with the defense of America would have authorized a lot more money/time to get it done....

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 Nov, 2004 03:57 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Thanks Candidone1!

I've been saying for a long time that a president who was actually concerned with the defense of America would have authorized a lot more money/time to get it done....

Cycloptichorn


Being "concerned with the defense of America" and being
"concerened with re-election" are mutually exclusive mandates. Bush was clearly directing more energy toward the latter than the former, massaging and inflating America's perception of an impotent Homeland Security Agency.
The numbers I quoted perviously were Homeland Security allowances for said security upgrades.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The unlimited enemy
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 10:47:23