Has the war on terror gone too far? Or has it just started?

The key to ending the conflict in the Middle East is to give support and voice to the Liberals and the Moderates. The problem is that the radicals, those who want and benefit from a military escalation are calling all the shots.

The radicals are increasing in power by demonizing the enemy. They point to things like the occupation, use of torture, the deaths (accidental or not) of civilians. The ugly things that always happen in war are enough to make anyone hate you... the extras like Abu Graib, reports of torture and the shame of occupation are rightfully seen as grave injustices.

The solution is to convince people in general that military escalation is not the solution to what they see as threats to their security or grave injustices.

There are people in the world of Islamic extremism who want to see this as a cataclismic clash of cultures. They want to demonize the enemy, exaggerate the wrongs and overemphasize the stakes.

The radicals in the Islamic world want people to believe the US is barbaric, immoral and would enslave them. They want people to see this as an Apocalyptic battle of good and evil that must be won at all costs.

If people would just stop listening to calls for more violence, less rights and harsher tactics...

Liberals in the region would shun brutality for any reason, favor dialog and understanding to military escalation and refrain from using exagerrated claims to demonize the other side . Liberals would also defend human rights over the claims that they only weaken Islam in the face of the enemy.

The US should do whatever it can to make support and strengthen the standing of Liberals. It is only this way that we can stop the cycle of violence, hatred and revenge that we are now in the middle of.

Asherman,

As far as your hypotheticals... I think only the first one is probable (and I don't think Bush's policies will be able to stop it without a permanent occupation). The second one is possible. I would point out that the Iraq war (the front line on "the war on terror (tm)") made both ot these situations a lot more likely.

I would point out that a nuclear Iran is a bad thing, but it doesn't mean that Iran would be able to "blackmail" the region with will. The policy of mutually assured destruction worked with the USSR... and in this case it would be without the "Mutually" (we would get a black eye and Iran would be decapitated). I agree a nuclear Iran is not a good thing, but it is not the end of the world as we know it (in fact a nuclear NK scares me a lot more because they, unlike Iran, have nothing to lose).

Obviously a nuclear attack on Israel, Europe or the US would have to be responded to strongly. We may even agree.

But my point is this... you make the Middle East more stable and the very bad consequences of a big escalation (military or otherwise) by supporting the moderates and minimizing the radicals.

Thank you Cycloptichorn. I applaud your good intentions. Though I believe your faith in the proposition that a drastic change of course for U.S. policy is misplaced. Primarily though I asked a reasonable question and you gave a thoughtful reasoned answer. That wasn't so hard now, was it.

[quote]
1st, we absolutely must get assistance and backing from other countries in this fight. Without worldwide condemnation of the actions of the terrorists, they will always have a place to run, a place to hide, a place to grow. We won't be able to stamp them out, no matter how hard we try, because we simply cannot invade every country out there, let alone all the countries that are unfriendly to the US.[/quote]

We are in agreement that it is preferable that the efforts to defeat radical Islamic terrorism be a joint concern of the world's major nations. Strength is almost always related to the degree that your goals attract alliances. The question is, however, what do you do when other nations refuse to stand up together against a common enemy? Why are other countries reluctant to be involved? Some are in denial that any threat exists, others are afraid that they will be targeted more if they stand against the terrorists and their sponsors. What happened in Spain is a pretty example of why some leave it to the US to bell the cat. Some countries remain anti-American because their affinity for Socialism and Marxism makes them the "natural allies" of the downtrodden (i.e. anyone who is an enemy of the U.S.).

Should this administration spent more time trying to get France, Russia, Germany et. al. to join us in bringing Saddam down? The problem with that is that those nations all had a stake in keeping Saddam in power, and they hadn't acted after multiple Cease Fire violations over the course of a decade. There is no reason to suppose that if we held our forces in place for another year it would have made any difference in garnering support. Also its worth noting that you can't keep significant military forces indefinitely poised for a major operation. Many knowledgable people think we waited too long as it was, and Saddam had far too much time to cover his sorry ass. You can't buy or force people to join you, even when the dangers are clear and imminent. So it always has been, and so it shall always be.

[quote]2nd, we must make it clear that state sponsoring of terror=death for your country at the hands of the rest of the world. You'll notice that the unity seen during the attack on Afghanistan was unparalled; why? Because the moral objective was quite clear to everyone, hell, the Taliban rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks and dared us to do something about it. So we did. But it can't be just the US who is doing the policing/attacking/guarding of the world from state-sponsored terror. You see, the force of the entire group of nations combined, though you may not agree, is seen as somewhat more persuasive than just the US, to the rest of the world. So we are going to have get others to support us in our goal of stopping state sponsored terror. This has the added bonus of overwhemling our enemies with other enemies, diminishing their focus on attacking the US. [/quote]

So are you saying that your administration's policy would be to respond to any terrorist attack traced to Iran would result in an all out war against that country? What would your policy be for another 9/11 attack on CONUS that could only be traced to Al Quida, or some other organization that has no clear ties with any nation in particular? They hit us once, and we hit .... who? Do we put out an arrest warrant and ask the Islamic nations to serve it? What if Iran blackmails the other Gulf States into adopting a policy that threatened to disrupt the economies of other nations, but there was no support at the UN or by anyone else afraid they might be hurt in some manner by opposing them? Do you think that the families of those killed in a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv, London, or Seattle would be "happy" to know that your administration will destroy Iran for supplying the weapon?

[quote]4th, we have to stop giving Israel billions of dollars every year and even more in military support. They've been around now for as long as many other nations, they have plenty of money to work with, a strong military (thanks to us) and a strong nuclear arsenal. It is time to let them sink or swim on their own. We are not permanantley indebted to Israel, and the truth is that they don't do much for us (sometimes they sink our ships, and we conveinently look the other way, even!). One of the major complaints about the US is that we have enabled Israel, well, let us discontinue our support. It isn't as if we provide any other of our allies with such huge support, why should we to them, especially given such problems it causes us? [/quote]

I'm not so sure that the United States government provides all that much support to Israel in the first place. Surely we spend more to support ROK, Japan, Taiwan, and a dozen other nations that are either threatened now, or have been threatened in the past. Israel has on the whole been a friend and ally to this country, and where I'm from its dishonorable to abandon a friend in need who is threatened by a gang of outlaws. I'm sure that the perception is widely held that Israel is somehow a creature of the United States (or the other way around in some lunatic circles). That doesn't make it so. Iran blasts Tel Aviv, and Iran is likely going to be utterly destroyed ... unless the U.S. is led by a the spiritual descendent of Neville Chamberlain.

[quote]5th, we have to start acting like the rule of law means something to us. No more kidnappings, no more spying on citizens, no more holding people without trial, no more torture. No more flaunting international courts, no more hypocrisy. We continually admonish others for things we are guilty of ourselves, and it has to stop, because our moral superiority is by far the strongest weapon that we have![/quote]

During times of war, and this is a war even if it is a most unusual one, governments are forced to act in ways that would not be countenanced in times of peace. So it as always been, and so it shall always be. Civil liberties are curtailed, because that is necessary to protect and defend the nation from enemies who are ready, willing and able to murder thousands of our citizens without a moments hesitation. We are fighting a sophisticated enemy who is not identifiable by a uniform, or even acting in a recognizable military formation. We are dependent upon intelligence, and intelligence isn't effectively carried out by any set of gentlemanly rules or protocols. It has been a disaster trying to conduct intelligence operations by lofty principles. Moral superiority is a fine thing, a thing that I personally endorse and ground I prefer. It will not stop a bullet, it will not make enemy leaders into Boy Scouts, nor will it persuade a suicide bomber to desist.

ebrown,



And which liberals and moderates in Iran, Syria, and Iraq those be? Iran is ruled by a religious dictator, and the liberal/moderates aren't permitted any opportunity to gain the least bit of power. In Iraq it is the moderates and liberals that we've been trying to help gain control over that poor country.

As you point out the radicals are bent on escalating the violence as a means of building opposition to the war in the U.S. electorate. How are you gong to get them to de-escalate? How do you propose we convince the Islamic masses in the region to "stop listening to calls for more violence, less rights and harsher tactics"?

Ebrown,



E... the past is behind us, and the four hypotheticals are likely outcomes if the U.S. were to withdraw from the region/conflict. Now that isn't going to happen at least for another two years, and probably more like six years. The hypothetical really is: If you were the President and decided upon a radical different policy in the war on terrorism, what would your policies be, and (2) how would you hand the four outcomes that I believe are likely to follow U.S. disengagement in Iraq and Afghanistan?

You don't believe that Iran would use nuclear weapons to coerce others to either support its policies, or to threaten others in the region? Why do you think the Mullah's want nukes, if not to destroy Israel and seize leadership in the region? You are unable to see how the risks of a regional nuclear war go up if Iran has nuclear weapons? You're willing to gamble millions of lives that Iran only wants to light up the streets in sheep villages? C'mon, you have to be putting me on.

See how much more interesting this can be when we behave ourselves, and treat one another with at least minimal respect.

Cycloptichorn, Thank you for doing the yeoman's job of trying to articulate the impossibly difficult situation in which the "war on terror" in Iraq finds us, as a nation. You said it perfectly - we cannot "un-invade", or turn back the clock on this gigantic blunder.

I agree with your prediction that this cannot end well without a drastic change in policy, which would include among other things a serious recruitment to the armed conflict of other nations in the region.

From the Institute for Policy Studies:

Although the Administration refuses to issue an official list of its coalition partners, we have
identified 34 that have been cited in press reports as supportive of the U.S. position (see
appendix). Bush officials have claimed that this represents strong multilateral support, but it is
worth pointing out that these 34 nations represent only about 10 percent of the population of the
world's 197 countries. Subtracting the estimated 75 percent of their populations that opinion
polls show are not in favor of war, the war supporters in the "Coalition of the Willing" countries
make up only about three percent of the world's population. It is also telling that only Britain has
committed a significant number of troops to the military action.

A closer look at the list reveals that many members of this so-called "Coalition of the Willing"
are extremely vulnerable to U.S. pressure, and have likely succumbed because of either military
or economic interests.

http://www.ips-dc.org/COERCED.pdf


I agree with your prediction that this cannot end without being much more costly. I also agree that we will eventually be forced to leave. I have talked to several soldiers fresh back from Iraq. I work with several of them.

They are generally reluctant at first to say anything at all but what is expected of them - "Hey we're there, so we have to do what we have to do." But if I talk to them over a period of time, the confusion and frustration comes to the surface - the shared question that even the non-politically minded can't keep out of their minds, once they've seen the chaos on the ground - "What in the holy fu*k are we doing there?" "They don't want us there - why are we there?"

Asherman, You have got the Iraq-Iran connection completely backwards (the other themes are interesting too, but let's start here).

I want to point out that the US is not omnipotent (I am not sure if you mean to imply this or not). Everything that the US does has costs and consequences (just as everything that Iran does has consequences) and there is a chance that the US simply can not prevent Iran from getting the nuclear bomb with the resources we have and with acceptable costs. Of course you will have to decide what costs are acceptable (i.e. how many American lives, how many Iranian lives and how much international turmoil) for the goal of preventing this from happening.

My main point is The US doesn't get any advantage with its conflict with Iran by being in Iraq. There is no case to be made that our withdrawral from Iraq would make the situation any worse. Quite the contrary-- Iran wants us to stay there.

If we were not in Iraq we would be in a better position to make a credible threat to Iran. Our troops wouldn't be bogged down and we wouldn't be having public divisions in the US over the war (which are a charactaristic of a democracy in a controversial and costly war).

The fact that we have troops bogged down in Iraq is a big liability since it provides a very easy way for Iran to strike back. We have made ourselves very vulnerable and it provides Iran several ways to cause us pain. If they are a little upset, they can simply up the leval of military hardware flowing accross the border which will cost us money and men. Then they can escalate all the way to full attack on the thousands of US troops stationed their. Think of how much damage they could do with even short range missles.

Of course this would be the end of the Iranian government (and the beginning of another messy occupation), but that is not the point.

We have given Iran a powerful deterrent, not exactly mutually assured destruction, but they know and we know that if they choose to escalate, we will pay dearly.

Not only that but Iran poses another problem-- We say we want democracy, but unfortunately democracy in Iraq (as shown by the elections) means close ties with Iran.

The invasion put the people who like Iran in power. Now we have to face the consequences of that.

It is clear that our invasion of Iraq helped Iran immensly. Our presence there gives them both political capital, and military options. I fail to see a single reason that our withdrawral could make this situation any worse. It is probably the first step to making things better.

good point... maybe it has gone too far and only just started. i also agree that it is probably some kind of electoral scheme to show a ''strong'' government, but they've really messed up with the whole thing haven't they... its gone too far.

So, ebrown is it your contention that the current situation is so bad, so hopeless, that there would be no negative effects from our suddenly changing course and pulling our military forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan?

We greatly differ here. I foresee a whole series of negative effects that would likely occur by withdrawing our troops from Iraq and Afghanistan before those infant governments become strong enough to stand on their own against a determined enemy backed by supply and sanctuary in Iran and Syria. Apparently you see no downsides to abandoning those people to their fate, whereas I think it dishonorable to turn Iraq and Afghanistan back over to Iran and the Taliban. Those who have worked and sacrificed would be purged, and the forces of the Radical Islamic Movement would be encouraged to seen another victory somewhere else. Already Americans have a bad reputation of bugging out if the going gets tough, and abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan would completely destroy our credibility with old allies. If the U.S. is seen as undependable, governments fearing terrorist attack would have to choose between compliance with terrorist demands, or building their own military/security apparatus to the max. That would probably mean a remilitarized Japan with nuclear weapons, which would in turn up the ante throughout Asia.

Iran, flush from defeating the United States, would dominate the Gulf States and might well see the overthrow of every pro-western government in the region, with the exception of Israel. The pressures on Israel would increase. The number of terrorist attacks inside Israel and cross border armed attacks would increase. I think that under these circumstances, it would be very likely that Israel would feel justified in making a nuclear strike on Iran's weapons facilities. That possibility alone would further destabilize Pakistan and lead to renewed nuclear tensions between Pakistan and India.

Freed from terrorizing the innocent civilians of Iraq and Afghanistan, thousands of "blooded" terrorists would be "out of work" and seeking new employment. What do you think they would do? Settle down and raise a family, or put their skills to work jabbing at the Western materialism and humanistic values of Europe and America? I believe that radicalism in Western enclaves would increase, and the number and magnitude of terrorist operations would increase. Do you think that the same sort of chaos we've witnessed in Tela Viv and Baghdad could never happen in Europe or the United States? Our security measures are much better than on 9/11, but even with the best security some terrorist operations will inevitably succeed, and thousands of our citizens would die.

Nothing is simple, and the interconnections and secondary effects are very complex. The Iranian nuclear weapons program will almost certainly go forward whether or not the U.S. continues its military presence in the region. You seem to suggest that we should abandon Iraq and Afghanistan so that we might put boots on the ground in Iran. Actually, we are in a better position to take military action to forestall Iran's nuclear weapons program if we remain in Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently we have three avenues of possible attack, from Afghanistan, from Iraq and by sea. Trying to stage an amphibious attack by sea alone would be near impossible without horrendous casualties on both sides, and the risk of failure is far too high. Actually, I expect that nothing effective will be done to delay Iran's weapons program, and that in 5-10 years there will be a devastating regional nuclear war with millions of dead in Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, and the neighboring States. Why? Because I don't think that this administration will decide to act directly and on its own to shut down the Iranian program and threat. I suspect that the GOP will continue to occupy the Executive, but that the window of opportunity will have closed by 2009-12. One shudders to think what would happen if a Chamberlain-like President were elected.

No person, group or government is omnipotent, or omniscient. When we discuss and plan future action, we deal with probabilities. When it is human activity we want to forecast, the number of variables goes way, way up. People aren't always rational and our species has other characteristics that make accurate predictions almost impossible. We are helped by an understanding of how humans have behaved in the past, and by tracing large and persistent trends, but in the end Art is a full partner to Science in forecasting. Short term forecasts tend to be much more accurate than long term forecasts, except when the longer term is reduced to vague generalities. As flawed as the current state of prognostication is, it is far better than basing our expectations on idealistic theories, what we want to happen, or what would satisfy virtue/morality/god, etc., etc.

ebrown, you keep looking back with perfect hindsight joined with faith in the power of traditional virtues. What I'm asking of you is to look forward and assess realistically what can be done NOW, or in the near term future to improve the situation. Our first consideration MUST be the defense and security of the United States, its citizens and interests. Radically reversing our policies vis-a-vis the war on terror would trigger many direct and indirect consequences. Risks of making what you regard as a bad situation worse have to be considered. I'd like to hear proposed policies that reduce the negative risks in number and magnitude.

Asherman. Iraq doesn't belong to the US.

Iran is our enemy. This doesn't mean that it is the enemy of Iraq. In fact to most Iraqi's including the democratically elected government, a closer relationship with Iran is a good thing.

If you think the Iraqi's could choose their own fate (either Iran, or the US) who do you think they would pick?

Iraq belongs to the Iraqis. If they choose to be closer to Iran, do we have the right to stop them?

First, Ash, I would like to say this:

If you really believe that this is the struggle of our times, and that this is a confrontation between religious zealots who are trying to do away with the West at any cost and the West, then surely you can agree that we must continue to attempt to recruit more allies.

This struggle could last a long time - 10, 20, 50 years. Stamping out religious beliefs is extremely difficult and the martyrdom aspect of the issue guaranees that simply killing our foes won't do the job right away. So why have we spent less than three years engagings allies, and then given up because it hasn't worked yet?

This is the heght of idiocy. We must get a group in who will do what it takes to unite the West in this struggle. It goes without saying that Bush et al are not the people to do this; they are regarded so poorly by the rest of the world that it would be an impossible challenge, especially combined with their apparent penchant for Unilateralism and idiocy when it comes to diplomacy.

Cycloptichorn

If you were an Iraqi which would YOU choose to be closer to: the United States, or Iran?

If the Iraqi government at some future time decides without coercion to ally themselves with Iran, that's their affair ... even though I believe that would weaken our position in the region. That hasn't happened yet even though Iranian munnitions are being used to murder Iraqi citizens every day in an attempt to dominate the country.

Our enemy is the Radical Islamic Movement, which happens at the moment to control Iran and Syria to a slightly lesser extent. I think that many, perhaps even most, Iraqi Muslims feel closer to their fellow religionists in Iran than they do to Christians, Jews, or Buddhists. I don't believe, however, that they are eagerly anticipating losing their opportunity for freedom to a radical religious dictatorship.

If the duly elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan asked us to leave, I imagine we'd be gone very quickly even though the negative outgomes were almost certain.

You seriously think this is true?

Why would we leave an area to the Radical Islaamists?

Iraq represents perhaps the biggest investment the US has made in the last 20 years. If we were to leave the area, it would be a tremendous loss in captial, both monetary and political. If you think that we would simply pack it all in and leave, you are living in a fantasy world.

Cycloptichorn

This assertion isn't accurate, because as you yourself wrote in an earlier post:



It is Western intervention in Southwestern Asia that has provoked extremist reaction from the inhabitants there, and the crux of the tort of the West's manipulations is the imposition of the ethnocentrically discriminatory and oppressive Zionist regime upon the people of Palestine.

Cycloptihorn,

Yes, I agree that the effort to enlist the active participation of other nations in the fight should be unremitting, and constant. However, nothing can be done to force others into alliance, and we can't call "time out" while others discuss and argue their positions. We have to go ahead, or adopt some alternative policy that is not inherently more risky to our security and interests ... both long and short term.

Yes, this is not going to be a short easy effort. Think the Hundred Years War. Think the Wars of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, except fought with modern weaponry instead of ineffective smooth bores.

Who do you think has any better chance of mustering international support? Other countries aren't reluctant because they don't like Bush, who is only a temporary head of state. They have a whole multitude of reasons for watching from the sidelines. Some are afraid, and with good reason, to call attention to themselves. Some have business interests that they don't want to jeapordize. Why unnecessarily take the chance that they will lose their source of petroleum. Some really don't believe that they personally are just as hated by the radicals as any American. Fear, self-interest, ignorance, and a forlorn hope that by staying out of the fight they will escape unscathed. Not much anyone can do regardless of what their political party, or how "statesman-like" their image.

Sure, you don't think that other countries will have to be convinced to help?

Hell, if they all wanted to go along already, the task would be easy. Obviously it is not, it is horribly complicated.

The major problem right now is that we aren't doing anything any longer to try and convince countries. We have given up. And, yes, foreign dislike of Bush and his administration, foreign fears about our willingness to go to excesses in the name of 'ending terror' do scare foreigners into not wanting to ally with us. These things matter in international politics.

So, we must convince other countries through several different methods - economic incentive. Statemanship. Leading by example.

I think your defeatist attitude towards international diplomacy is indicative of a large problem with the Right wing of thought in America. If we spent as much time trying to get more allies as we do demonizing other countries for not being as aggressive as we are, we would have more allies. If we showed more restraint and judgement, we would have more allies. But we don't, so we don't.

Do you honestly believe that we will win the 'war on terror' without garnering much more international support?

Cycloptichorn

The previous Iraqi government never asked for our help, played no part in 9/11 and was no threat to the US. However, we took it upon ourselves to "liberate" the Iraqi people thus creating anarchy, creating more terrorism and installing a puppet government. I'm sure the Iraqi people are singing our praises as we reduce their country to rubble, eliminate the free schools and free health care they once enjoyed and destroy their infrastucture. Is it any wonder we have created terrorism?