Was Bush's foreign policy smarter than Obama's? [Archive]

Darth Rotor

19th January 2010, 04:24 PM

I guess the correct answer is probably; "there hasn't been enough time to tell yet", but I'd be broadly sympathetic to the 10 reasons listed in this Daily Telegraph opinion pience:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100022714/10-reasons-why-george-w-bush-was-a-smarter-world-leader-than-barack-obama/

(Note: I've snipped the discussion from the article to just quote the headline points below, read the article for the reasoning behind each one)

1. Bush never apologised for his country
2. Bush identified and confronted evil
3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda
4. Bush defended [US] national sovereignty
5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship
6. Bush cultivated key allies
7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence
8. Bush believed in fighting a global war
9. Bush did not compromise US security
10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

I don't suppose anyone would take issue with the above, would they?
Absent his decision to go to Iraq without laying the hard to do foundation, yes.

However, that's a non trivial percentage of the grade.

Given that President Obama (by the way, I'll thank you to refer to my president by his proper title, as one would refer to Queen Elizabeth as "Queen Elizabeth" and not "Windsor") has been in office about a year, I do not find any comparison between the two to be valid. Different body of work.

So, the Texan judge says: need more data.

To be clear: I voted John McCain for pres, and given that President Obama won, he is now my president. This is the John Wayne philosophy, in re John F Kennedy.

"His name is John, he must be a good president."

Wait, I think I messed up the John Wayne quote. ;)

DR

KingMerv00

19th January 2010, 05:47 PM

I'll agree with #10. That isn't necessarily a compliment.

JihadJane

19th January 2010, 05:56 PM

2. Bush identified and confronted evil

Sucker!!

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war

What's good about that?

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

You mean like supporting them one year and killing them the next?

Travis

19th January 2010, 07:02 PM

1. Bush never apologised for his country

Even if true I'm not sure that is a good thing. America has made mistakes and I would rather we face up to them than pretend they never happened.

2. Bush identified and confronted evil

The CIA/FBI identified the evil and the military and law enforcement are confronting it in a struggle that continues to this day under Obama.

3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda

Obama hasn't?

4. Bush defended [US] national sovereignty

Obama hasn't?

5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship

Obama doesn't?

6. Bush cultivated key allies

I seem to recall losing Spain under Bush's watch. Has Obama lost any yet?

7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence

The importance of missile defense is arguable. However I don't think that Obama has exactly thrown it under the bus totally either.

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war

That global war that Obama is fighting still?

9. Bush did not compromise US security

Obama has?

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

"We are invading you to free with but with no plan on how to do it" isn't kinda mixed? What are Obama's mixed messages?

Upchurch

19th January 2010, 07:32 PM

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

"We are invading you to free with but with no plan on how to do it" isn't kinda mixed?

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

***Six Months Pass***

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Now, that is what you call not sending mixed messages in the face of the enemy.

Hlafordlaes

19th January 2010, 07:56 PM

If you think a list like that implies smarts, then undoubtedly you'll agree, in an aimless, slack-jawed sort of way.

Brainster

20th January 2010, 01:17 AM

As with many things, I think America is well-served by a mixture of both approaches; cowboy and conciliation. We can argue which is needed when, but the fact that the conciliator has the cowboy waiting in the wings and vice-versa keeps things reasonably in balance.

ANTPogo

20th January 2010, 05:42 AM

Praktik

20th January 2010, 07:14 AM

1. Bush never apologised for his country

Ok. A few issues here. First this assumes we accept the conservative spin that Obama was cravenly "apologizing for America". I dispute that's what happened. I suggest re-reading the entirety of the speeches where it is alleged that this what he did. Read commentary from outside America. Was this the way the speeches were perceived?

I'm a graduate of international relations and have access to materials from around the world. The only place this was perceived was in the conservative quarters of America. Its a gross oversimplification of what Obama said and is predicated on a comic book/schoolyard understanding of international relations and obsession with projecting the image of "strength" and never appearing "weak" (where is the substantiation using foreign sources to show that a "weak image" is what was understood in foreign quarters?). Add in a dose of "my country right or wrong" and I can see why the shrill on the right could see it this way: they're just living in a bubble.

2. Bush identified and confronted evil

Bush should be applauded for portraying the conflicts of the new millenium in a Manichaean manner more appropriate a few millenia ago?

In any event, it's not as if Obama has discarded this approach: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091210/pl_politico/30448)

Gingrich told The Takeaway, a national morning drive show from WNYC and Public Radio International, “He clearly understood that he had been given the prize prematurely, but he used it as an occasion to remind people, first of all, as he said: that there is evil in the world."Is Nile Gardiner even paying attention? Or regurgitating pablum he thinks is true because all his friends say so?

3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda

Ah yes, Mr. Gardiner cloaks a Godwin and invokes the specter of WWII by using the familiar "appeasement" meme that Americans have been fond of using on such various targets as Ronald Reagan (for arms control) and Eisenhower.

Forgive me if I immediately grow nauseous here... hang on.. <deep breath> ok... that's better.

In any event, it's not as if Obama has thrown away the Wilsonian approach to world affairs that Bush adopted. After all, he surged in Afghanistan, America is still in Iraq, still funding democratic organizations around the world to the tune of billions, lobbying for democratic reforms in key countries. And this is besides the issue of whether all of these American actions are truly deserving of attempts to put them on a pedestal of "advancing freedom". To accept the premise of this point implies that one has accepted certain pre-requisite beliefs about America's role in the world.

Again, Gardiner is assuming Obama doesn't share these prerequisite beliefs and that he has somehow forsaken America's noble role - this is the kind of thing that is truly bipartisan: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan)

And we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights, and tend to the light of freedom and justice and opportunity and respect for the dignity of all peoples. That is who we are. That is the source, the moral source, of America’s authority.

4. Bush defended [US] national sovereignty

And for this Gardiner doesn't offer any evidence apart from things he thinks Obama might do, chief among these worries that the US would lose sovereignty when Obama "signs treaties". Was he worried when Bush signed the SORT treaty in 2002, which limited America's nuclear arsenal?

Once again the understanding of international relations here is at the grade school level.

America, as the most powerful nation in the world, loses no sovereignty when it signs a treaty. In fact, by engaging with other nations, by working to make sure the rules of the treaty coincide as much as possible with the national interest (something America can easily do and does all the time) then its sovereignty is actually enhanced. If we remember that America has the clout to ignore treaties when it suits its convenience, we can realize that all these concerns amount to just another expression of the macho worry of "strength" and "weakness". Ironically, what these people think increases "weakness" can actually increase "strength".

5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship

Maybe I should leave this one to parky? ;)

6. Bush cultivated key allies

The myopia on this one is just incredible. If we're going to talk about who's the better diplomat, who has strengthened alliances and who has sown rifts among previously stable and productive relationships, is it any contest?

Taking any time to refute this would be a waste, its obvious on its face that the premise of this point is ridiculous. Trying to convince someone who believes this that it isn't true would be as futile as convincing Avery that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence

Obama understands the politics of missile defence and the way that plays out with important nations like Russia and also understands that defence dollars are best spent elsewhere.

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war

Ok, Im beginning to not take this seriously anymore. You know who else believed in fighting a global war? Hitler.

9. Bush did not compromise US security

False. By entangling America in two messy wars Bush sowed the seeds of resentment that will bear bitter fruit for decades (according to the Pentagon), he enacted a policy of torture that jeopardizes the security of American troops caught by antagonists and enflamed the muslim street (causing instability in key states like Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt), he alienated key allies and antagonised states like Russia (whose co-operation is required in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, the balkans and elsewhere). America's forces are now tied down, drained of resources and perhaps unable to successfully confront a third (or 4th!) threat.

This is to say nothing of the way his economic policies, a key facet of security, brought the country to the brink of ruin.

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

Ah yes, another WWII reference from the nostalgic Gardiner, who can't seem to get past the shoe-horning of modern politics into the template of the Good War. He was hoping for "Churchilian grit" in his President, and Obama is coming up short, in his view. Obama saying that "America could not wage war against the Taliban indefinitely" is a strike against him (ignoring that this is a simple statement of fact, and well, true).

What we have here really is a clash of philosophy: Gardiner has a distaste for classical realism, and would rather see international relations in his juvenile macho way - he wants a Churchill, not a Chamberlain! He wants "grit" - not lily-livered "diplomacy".

Another question: is Gardiner, a scion of Thatcher and a member of the Heritage Foundation, the best source from which to get an objective assessment of Obama's foreign policy? He's displayed here a rather thin grasp of how international relations truly operate in addition to a partisanship that has him completely ignoring the actual words of Obama when they conflict with the template he's shoehorned him into.

I'd rather take a look at more serious, academic and objective sources for these kinds of evaluations - tempered with views from around the world.

I'd rather not waste my time with a chest-beating, history-distorting, partisan flake like Gardiner if I truly wanted to get to the bottom of this question.

This stuff plays well to a right-wing American base, but not so much elsewhere. There's too many assumptions one has to believe in to accept Gardiner's argument that exist only in the minds of the lower echelons of conservative thought.

Darth Rotor

20th January 2010, 08:43 AM

Maybe I should leave this one to parky? ;)
The special relationship with the UK, or Israel? The former remains an important policy, the latter not so much.

Obama understands the politics of missile defence and the way that plays out with important nations like Russia and also understands that defence dollars are best spent elsewhere.
Another person who doesn't actually understand TBM's. Nice.

DR

Praktik

20th January 2010, 08:45 AM

The special relationship with the UK, or Israel? The former remains an important policy, the latter not so much.

Ya missed on that one... he was writing about britain... chalk it up to the author being British (though perhaps one who wishes he were born on the other side of the atlantic).

Israel is mentioned in another point though.

Another person who doesn't actually understand TBM's. Nice.

DR

Ya Gardiner doesn't seem to understand much at all...;)

Darth Rotor

20th January 2010, 08:52 AM

Ya missed on that one... he was writing about britain... chalk it up to the author being British

That was the cue for me. For my money, Israel does get mentioned far too often ...
Ya Gardiner doesn't seem to understand much at all...;)
There is a two edged political sword in re TBMD, which includes the country you are happy to throw under the bus ... Poland. Yes, I agree that Russia is hugely important to the US, and I wish more of our policy makers agreed with me. That does not make Russian/Putin lies about a threat to them from a defensive missile system true.

Again, if one bothers to understand how TBMD and BMD works ...

DR

Praktik

20th January 2010, 08:53 AM

There is a two edged political sword in re TBMD, which includes the country you are happy to throw under the bus ... Poland. Yes, I agree that Russia is hugely important to the US, and I wish more of our policy makers agreed with me. That does not make Russian/Putin lies about a threat to them from a defensive missile system true.

Again, if one bothers to understand how TBMD and BMD works ...

DR

...or doesn't work?

;)

Reasonable people on this can disagree without it necessarily being chalked up to ignorance.

Anyway, guess I missed again, didnt realize that was directed at me!

My biggest objections on that stuff has more to do with geopolitics and the opportunity cost to the defense budget, over whether or not it actually works..

Darth Rotor

20th January 2010, 08:55 AM

...or doesn't work?

;)

Not gonna derail. Cheers. :)

leftysergeant

20th January 2010, 11:56 AM

as written by a moron in defense of a moron. That simple.

theprestige

20th January 2010, 05:26 PM

I don't know from "smarter", but I do want to know what-all Obama's foreign policy has gained the US in the past year.

Any valuable concessions from major powers like Russia or China? Moderation of hard-line stances from any of the more troublesome regimes on the planet? Substantially increased commitments to any major endeavor on the part of our allies? Any measurable increase in American prosperity or security, as a result of hard-fought diplomatic efforts to bring reluctant negotiating partners around to our side of the issues?

I'm not interested in soft claims like "maybe Iran will relax after another year or so of the Obama treatment" or "Russia is probably being very cooperative behind the scenes" or "people hate the US less now that Obama is president".

I simply want to know, has Obama's foreign policy substantially improved the position of the US in global affairs?

Peephole

20th January 2010, 05:51 PM

1. Bush never apologised for his country
Horrible idea, countries make mistakes. Acknowledging them make people like the country in question more. Point to Obama (although he probably should do more on this front, like prosecuting torturers).
2. Bush identified and confronted evil
Simplistic and childish worldview. In practice Obama is waging just as much war as Bush was. Regarding the world in this fashion and bombing everything leads to people hating your country. The consequences of which you saw on 9/11.
3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda
Yeah, he bombed various countries into freedom. Whilst upholding close relationship with longstanding democracies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And again, not much difference with Obama here.
4. Bush defended [US] national sovereignty
So does Obama. (Why would any U.S. President do any differently?)
5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship
What?
6. Bush cultivated key allies
Ah yes, "Old Europa." Thanks for that! Point to Obama.
7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence
Missile defense is a sham of the defense industry and actually increases nuclear proliferation and world instability. Also, Obama also "understands the importance of in missile defense", which is why he is pursuing it further. Although he isn't as crazy on this front as Bush was. Half a point to Obama.
8. Bush believed in fighting a global war
See point 2.
9. Bush did not compromise US security
See point 4.
10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy
Yeah, you know, waging war on four Islamic countries at a time, really isn't exactly "sending mixed messages". Whether under Bush or Obama, I think the average Islamic fundamentalist understands the U.S.'s message crystal clear.

Upchurch

20th January 2010, 06:04 PM

I don't know from "smarter", but I do want to know what-all Obama's foreign policy has gained the US in the past year.

{snip}

I simply want to know, has Obama's foreign policy substantially improved the position of the US in global affairs?
And compare to how Bush's foreign policy substantially improved the position of the US in global affairs.

You know, if you can think of any way that he did over eight years.

Peephole

20th January 2010, 06:17 PM

I'm not interested in soft claims "people hate the US less now that Obama is president".
Yes, a country hated by so many, victim of terror attacks, sure can't use a little goodwill.

theprestige

20th January 2010, 06:17 PM

And compare to how Bush's foreign policy substantially improved the position of the US in global affairs.

You know, if you can think of any way that he did over eight years.
Honestly? I can't.

So: Is Obama's foreign policy any smarter than Bush's?

I'll take your preceding post as a flat admission that no, it isn't. Maybe you can turn it around in your next post, though.

Upchurch

20th January 2010, 06:39 PM

I'll take your preceding post as a flat admission that no, it isn't. Maybe you can
You know what happens when you assume.

Truth is I'm on my phone so I can't look anything up or provide citations. However, the OP claim is that Bush's foreign policy was smarter than Obama [sic]. If you concede that Bush didn't manage to improve our foreign policy position, then that is a pretty low bar to meet.

Darth Rotor

20th January 2010, 07:28 PM

Yes, a country hated by so many, victim of terror attacks, sure can't use a little goodwill.
Says the boy whose nation stood aside as its former colony collapsed into genocide: ever hear of Rwanda?

Yes, you have.

You have no standing, none, and no room to complain.

DR

Eddie Dane

21st January 2010, 01:11 AM

Project much?

The article (as just one of 10 points) refers to events such as:
Berlin; Obama downplays US (and UK) involvement in such events as the Berlin airlift and fall of the Berlin Wall in favor of sentimental "we are the world/ yes we can" mush
Cairo; A rather generous spin was put on Islam's relationship with Science and the West as well as some apologetics for past US actions.

Of course he overstated the achievements of his hosts and underplayed Western achievements.

'Good evening everybody. before I'll get into all the oil contracts and strategic concessions I want from you. I'll start by publicly reminding you of the fact that your countries have really low literacy and produce less scientific research than the tiny state of Israel. Furthermore I'd like to rub in your faces that you are actually quite backward and that we built the Hubble telescope.
Now, with the formalities out of the way, why don't you guys ease up on that Israel-Palestine thing, eh?'

Look, If you want stuff from people, you start by saying that their wives are charming and their children are smart. And if your own children are attending MIT and you're dating Scarlet Johanson, you casually mention it. But you don't rub it in. That would be undiplomatic.

It's about trading a symbolic victory (acting arrogant) for a real victory (actual concessions). Acting arrogant is only useful to make the nether regions of your domestic public feel good about themselves.

Now you are going to say 'where are those real victories, then?'
And that is a good question. The Iranian leadership did not unclench it's fist in the face of a more polite America. But that leadership is also looking pretty stupid to it's own population for isolating the country and the "great Satan" looks suddenly very much like a fabrication. Public opinion is turning.

A polite approach will never sway the likes of Al Qaeda, but it will have a huge effect on the general public opinion. These things take time.

Praktik

21st January 2010, 03:55 AM

Says the boy whose nation stood aside as its former colony collapsed into genocide: ever hear of Rwanda?

Yes, you have.

You have no standing, none, and no room to complain.

DR

IS this the game we're playing now?

Pick a shady move by a poster's home country in a rhetorical attempt to silence them?

Does an American really want to start a game like that? ;)

ponderingturtle

21st January 2010, 05:02 AM

Says the boy whose nation stood aside as its former colony collapsed into genocide: ever hear of Rwanda?

Rwanda is always a fun example, you get people at the time claiming it wasn't genocide just acts of genocide.

The Painter

21st January 2010, 05:36 AM

Ahh, this brings back memories. You lefty libs just can't pass up a chance to bash Bush. Memories of a better time, you know, before Obama. Good times.

Lets see. The consensus seems to be that Obama's policy is not the great, but Bush sucks.

theprestige

21st January 2010, 06:01 AM

You know what happens when you assume.
I asked a question. You responded with tu quoque, a logical fallacy. At that point, no assumption is necessary: the only reasonable conclusion is that you have no good arguments to make.

Truth is I'm on my phone so I can't look anything up or provide citations. However, the OP claim is that Bush's foreign policy was smarter than Obama [sic]. If you concede that Bush didn't manage to improve our foreign policy position, then that is a pretty low bar to meet.
Oh, you'll get no disagreement from me that Obama is adept at more-or-less clearing pretty low bars.

Upchurch

21st January 2010, 06:33 AM

I asked a question. You responded with tu quoque, a logical fallacy.
Not at all. I expanded the question so that it fit within the thread topic. The topic is not the effectiveness of Obama's foreign policy. The topic is whether or not Bush's foreign policy is more effective (or "smarter") than Obama's. It is the comparison of the two that we are discussing.

I'm not saying that it is okay if Obama doesn't achieve certain goals because Bush never did, which would be a tu quoque argument.

At that point, no assumption is necessary: the only reasonable conclusion is that you have no good arguments to make.
I wasn't actually making an argument. (Unless you count my assertion that Bush didn't further our standing in the world with his foreign policy, which wasn't really my point. Anyway, you agreed with me on that.)

So, yes. You were making an assumption that I didn't provide examples of how Obama had furthered the US's standing in the world because there were none to be found. Personally, I've not looked into it in any detail. I didn't provide any examples because I wasn't in a position to with the tools I had available to me.

Oh, you'll get no disagreement from me that Obama is adept at more-or-less clearing pretty low bars.
.....so, if you agree that Bush set a low bar and you agree that Obama is more than able to clearing that low bar, are you disagreeing with the OP that Bush's foreign policy is smarter than Obama's?

Upchurch

21st January 2010, 06:37 AM

Ahh, this brings back memories. You lefty libs just can't pass up a chance to bash Bush.
Lefty libs? Giz started the comparison in the OP, praising Bush based on false and misleading claims. Is Giz a lefty lib?

Lets see. The consensus seems to be that Obama's policy is not the great, but Bush sucks.
The way I read it, the only consensus is that it is too soon to determine how good Obama's policy is, but Bush's did indeed suck (or was, at least, a wash).

Praktik

21st January 2010, 06:47 AM

Fareed Zakaria, who people might remember was considered conservative prior to the advent of Dubyaism, likes Obama's foreign policy better: (http://www.newsweek.com/id/189240)

As George W. Bush's term came to a close, he had few defenders left in the world of foreign policy. Mainstream commentators almost unanimously agreed the Bush years had been marked by arrogance and incompetence. "Mr. Bush's characteristic failing was to apply a black-and-white mindset to too many gray areas of national security and foreign affairs," editorialized The Washington Post. Even Richard Perle, the neoconservative guru, acknowledged recently that "Bush mostly failed to implement an effective foreign and defense policy." There was hope that President Obama would abandon some of his predecessor's rigid ideological stances. But, the Post warned, "it won't be easy to undo what Mr. Bush has done."

In fact, though consumed by the economic crisis in its first 50 days, the Obama administration has nevertheless made some striking moves in foreign policy. Obama announced the closure of Guantánamo and the end of any official sanction for torture. He gave his first interview as president to an Arab network and spoke of the importance of respect when dealing with the Muslim world—a gesture that won him rave reviews from normally hostile Arab journalists and politicians.

Hillary Clinton has racked up more miles in a few weeks than many of her predecessors as secretary of state did in months, mixing symbolic gestures of outreach with substantive talks. The administration has signaled a willingness to start engaging with troublesome regimes like Syria and Iran. Clinton publicly affirmed that the United States would work with China on the economic crisis and energy and environmental issues despite differences on human rights. She has also offered the prospect of a more constructive relationship with Russia. Obama said he was open to the prospect of talking to some elements of the Taliban in an effort to isolate its hard-core jihadis.

These are initial, small steps but all in the right direction— deserving of praise, one might think. But no, the Washington establishment is mostly fretting, dismayed in one way or another by most of these moves. The conservative backlash has been almost comical in its fury. Two weeks into Obama's term, Charles Krauthammer lumped together a bunch of Russian declarations and actions—many of them long in the making—and decided that they were all "brazen provocations" that Obama had failed to counter. Obama's "supine diplomacy," Krauthammer thundered, was setting off a chain of catastrophes across the globe. The Pakistani government, for example, had obviously sensed weakness in Washington and "capitulated to the Taliban" in the Swat Valley. Somehow Krauthammer missed the many deals that Pakistan struck over the last three years—during Bush's reign—with the Taliban, deals that were more hastily put together, on worse terms, with poorer results.Of course this is to be expected, Zakaria is a realist in the IR undertsanding of the term and so is Obama.

Realist foreign policy is very much rooted in conservatism - and so we should recognize that there are critics of Bush foreign policy grounded in a respected foreign policy tradition that aren't "lefty libs".

headscratcher4

21st January 2010, 06:52 AM

George Bush looked after the "security" of the United States by essentially bankrupting the country. The off-budget $trillon+ war of his in Iraq, leaves the United States increasingly in a situation not unlike Brittan at the end of WWII -- a war they had to fight, as opposed to a war of choice because Bush understood "evil."

I don't think there is any consensus about what Obama's foriegn policy has or has not achieved yet. I do note that quietly, Bush spent the last two to three years of his administration trying to undue some of the damage -- torture, ignoring allies, etc. -- that he let Cheney/Rummy talk him into during the first six.

In any event, Bush's foriegn policy, imo, will always be judged by the War in Iraq. Historians, me thinks, will marvel at the waste of resources, men and time on Iraq and a war of choice rather than focus on the identified enemy -- AlQeda. There will always be those wonderful pictures of Powell lying/mistating facts to the Security Counsel to compare to Stevenson's brilliant performance during the Cuban Missle Crisis. There will always be the US's decline into moral ambibuity over torture/enhanced interrogations that will stain our efforts to promote openess, rule of law and freedom going forward from here.

FarmallMTA

21st January 2010, 07:32 AM

Bush/Cheney's foreign policy was clearly superior to Biden/Obama's.

First, they faced the issues as they are, rather than kowtowing to the wishful thinking and craven self-dealings of other leaders, such as of France, Germany, Russia, China.

Second, they took concrete steps to ensure the safety of the country after 9/11 that their predecessors Clinton/Gore should have taken, including aggressively demolishing terrorists and their state-sponsors overseas. Unfortunately, some of those are under threat of dismantlement, such as the offshore seizure/holding/justice process of Gitmo.

Third, Bush/Cheney prevented the implementation of the incredibly stupid and unscientific notion of CO2 regulation to mitigate the equally fantastical Man-made Global Warming hoax. Saving our economy from the untender mercies of the statists has to be an accomplishment of the first order.

I could go on, but these are signal achievements of Bush and Cheney. Thanks for the 8 years of sanity and competence, guys!

leftysergeant

21st January 2010, 07:59 AM

First, they faced the issues as they are, rather than kowtowing to the wishful thinking and craven self-dealings of other leaders, such as of France, Germany, Russia, China.Hog wash!

They dealt with the issues according toi their ear crickets and sold us a line of manure about Saddam being as big a threat as Hitler, and made up crap to help them sell the idea that invading Iraq would actually make the world safer.

Second, they took concrete steps to ensure the safety of the country after 9/11 that their predecessors Clinton/Gore should have taken, including aggressively demolishing terrorists and their state-sponsors overseas.

And the Republican bed-wetters got their panties in a wad and started shrieking "No blod for Monica" when Clinton started lobbing cruise missiles at know al Qaeda targets.

Unfortunately, some of those are under threat of dismantlement, such as the offshore seizure/holding/justice process of Gitmo.

Gitmo does nothing to imporove our safety and makes us look like the Nazis did when they put their death camps in Poland.

Third, Bush/Cheney prevented the implementation of the incredibly stupid and unscientific notion of CO2 regulation to mitigate the equally fantastical Man-made Global Warming hoax. Saving our economy from the untender mercies of the statists has to be an accomplishment of the first order.

In other words, he threw scientists under the bus so that the bean counters could run the scientific policies. Almost as stupid as supply-side ecconomics and Creationism in the public schools.

I could go on, but these are signal achievements of Bush and Cheney. Thanks for the 8 years of sanity and competence, guys!

"Sanity" is realizing that we were led by a dry drunk and a lunatic for eight years.

Upchurch

21st January 2010, 08:14 AM

...the incredibly stupid and unscientific notion of CO2 regulation to mitigate the equally fantastical Man-made Global Warming hoax.
....er, Poe?

Lurker

21st January 2010, 08:14 AM

Second, they took concrete steps to ensure the safety of the country after 9/11 that their predecessors Clinton/Gore should have taken, including aggressively demolishing terrorists and their state-sponsors overseas. Unfortunately, some of those are under threat of dismantlement, such as the offshore seizure/holding/justice process of Gitmo.

If Bush/Cheney took concrete steps to ensure safety of the country that Clinton/Gore should have done can you please point me to what they did BEFORE 9/11? If your claim is that Clinton should have done them then why didn't Bush do them BEFORE 9/11? Did he even propose any changes?

Do you see the logical error you have made?

The Painter

21st January 2010, 08:19 AM

Lefty libs? Giz started the comparison in the OP, praising Bush based on false and misleading claims. Is Giz a lefty lib?

Your thinking is so convoluted that this doesn't even make sense. You and your ilk are the lefty libs, because you can't resist an opportunity to bash Bush. Get it now??? Where did Giz bash???

"Sanity" is realizing that we were led by a dry drunk and a lunatic for eight years.

So if Bush was a "dry drunk" would that make Clinton a "dry hump"? Just askin'.

Upchurch

21st January 2010, 08:47 AM

Your thinking is so convoluted that this doesn't even make sense. You and your ilk are the lefty libs, because you can't resist an opportunity to bash Bush. Get it now??? Where did Giz bash???
He didn't bash Bush, but he was the one who brought up the merit of Bush's foreign policy. It isn't like anyone critical of Bush was going out of their way to tie this back to him.

Are you saying that any criticism of Bush's foreign policy is "Bush bashing"? Even if that is the topic at hand?

Praktik

21st January 2010, 09:10 AM

I can't believe Zakaria would engage in such blatant bush bashing!

What a lefty-lib!!

zaphod2016

21st January 2010, 09:31 AM

(Note: I've snipped the discussion from the article to just quote the headline points below, read the article for the reasoning behind each one)

1. Bush never apologised for his country

Jingonism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingoism) defined; sometimes the right thing to do is man-up and admit error.

2. Bush identified and confronted evil

Bush made an arbitrary decision to invade Afghanistan, rather than Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.

3. Bush made the advance of freedom a key component of his agenda

I can concede this on an International front, but on domestic policy, I strongly disagree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act).

4. Bush defended [US] national sovereignty

From who? The most credible threat to our sovereignty is illegal immigration, which was not adequately addressed.

5. Bush believed in the Special Relationship

Bush's "beliefs" were a major source of his hubris.

6. Bush cultivated key allies

The UK has been our ally for a Century now, no other members of the "Coalition of the Willing" are worth mentioning.

7. Bush understood the importance of missile defence

I agree 100% on this point. SDI is a legitimate, peace-keeping technology. I sincerely hope this is where the future of our military lies.

8. Bush believed in fighting a global war

A global war against the tactic of terrorism, a criminal act, plotted in remote areas around the world, more often than not targeting major population centers. The entire premise is flawed; the solution to terrorism is law enforcement. Expecting our military to police the world is not only prohibitively expensive, the current rules of engagement are asinine, and getting our men and women killed.

9. Bush did not compromise US security

NORAD, 9/11- remember, the whole reason the War on Terror began?

10. Bush did not send mixed messages in the face of the enemy

I concede. See #1 above.

I don't suppose anyone would take issue with the above, would they?

I have explained my position.

The thread's title asks- is Obama's foreign policy smarter than Bush's?

In my honest opinion, neither policy is "smart"; both are based on many of the same flawed premises and irrational expectations of our military.

However, I will say that George Bush's foreign policy was far more intellectually honest than President Obama's foreign policy thus far.

President Bush had a painfully simplified view of the situation: Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are evil, 9/11 was an act of war, and the USA intended to destroy the enemy. Although I morally oppose such an attitude, I can appreciate the pragmatism of it- swords out, slaughter the men, rape the women, enslave the children- we do this Roman style. War is war. The goal of war is to win.

Now, most Americans are horrified by this proposition. I submit to them: if you oppose carnage, war is the wrong tool to fix this particular problem. It is unfair, irrational and simply ridiculous for Americans to send our children to the front of war, and then have the audacity to ask them to "play nice" with the animals responsible for planting the bombs which have stolen so many limbs from their injured bretheren. tl;dr- do you want a war, or don't you?

Barack Obama is the personification of this hypocrisy. He campaigned on a promise of ending the war in Iraq, and after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize, has escalated the war in Afghanistan (which was another campaign promise). It would be convenient to say that Obama is simply ignoring his base, but this isn't true. Obama was crystal clear: "I intend to bomb the snot out of Afghanistan". And that base, the same who once marched in the streets in opposition to these same wars, voted for in droves.

I'm really ranting now, so I'll shut up. Short version: either win the war, or end it. This "have your cake and eat it to" nonsense is killing me.

Upchurch

21st January 2010, 09:36 AM

Bush made an arbitrary decision to invade Afghanistan, rather than Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 9/11 hijackers.
Not arbitrary. While Saudi Arabia was the homeland of most of the hijackers, Afghanistan was where the brains of the operation were. Going into Saudi Arabia would have been merely revenge. Going into Afghanistan was an attempt to stop the problem. Needless to say it was a decision I support.

Losing focus on Afghanistan to invade Iraq, now that was an arbitrary decision that made no sense in the context of everything else that was going on at the time.

Lurker

21st January 2010, 09:38 AM

Zaphod:

How do you propose we win the war and how we will know when it is won?

headscratcher4

21st January 2010, 09:51 AM

We will know the war is won when all of our enimies, both real and imagined, are dead.

Tricky

21st January 2010, 09:54 AM

We will know the war is won when all of our enimies, both real and imagined, are dead.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly

zaphod2016

21st January 2010, 01:03 PM

Zaphod:

How do you propose we win the war and how we will know when it is won?

I propose that winning a "War on Terror" is akin to winning a "War on Crime" or a "War on Poverty" or "War on Drugs" or any other "War on [Social Issue]"

This is a fallacy; you cannot win a war against an idea. You cannot bomb a concept. You cannot shoot at a viewpoint. And so long as this is how the debate is framed, things will not change.

How do I propose stopping terrorism? The same way we have in the past- qualified, trained, equipped law enforcement. You know- the same folks who responded in 1993 when the WTC was bombed; or a few years later when McVeigh snapped- the same folks we expect to stop horrible crimes everywhere else they occur.

On a macro scale, we will defeat terrorism the same way we defeated the USSR- free trade, encouraging internal movements towards more democracy (see also: the youth of Iran). Just like the USSR, step 1 is to sell them blue jeans- it may sound like I'm being sarcastic but I'm not- start with trade, and the freedom will come- just like it always has.

How will we know when we've won?

When the average Moslem is more concerned with their own prosperity than the death of America. Arguably, by this framing of the debate, we've already won. All we need to do now is declare victory and leave.

Terrorism is a criminal act. It is not the act of an organized military. Using our military against a terrorist is akin to sending the Marines against the Mafia. I'm all for defeating terrorism. I suggest we start by locking them up, then holding a fair and open trial, and then convicting them based on evidence. Naturally, this is far more than the enemy is willing to give us, but that's nothing new. America will win as it has won before- by leading the world towards freedom and justice.

It is also worth pointing out that there really isn't any alternative anyway. See also: Guantanamo. These suspected terrorists are not quite POWs, and not quite civilian criminals, and as a result, no one is quite sure what the hell to do with them. This is what happens when we pretend our military is a police force.

zaphod2016

21st January 2010, 05:19 PM

Not arbitrary. While Saudi Arabia was the homeland of most of the hijackers, Afghanistan was where the brains of the operation were.

Valid point, but herein lies the entire fallacy. The enemy is not Saudi Arabia, nor is the enemy Afghanistan. The enemy is a small faction of zealots hiding throughout the planet.

Going into Saudi Arabia would have been merely revenge.

Forgive me for being cynical, but in my mind, the War in Afghanistan was revenge for 9/11. We didn't send the CIA to arrest those specifically responsible, we sent in the troops and took over.

Going into Afghanistan was an attempt to stop the problem. Needless to say it was a decision I support.

But what is the end game? We can easily carpet bomb Afghanistan back the stone age (again). And what then? I will concede that "just march out" is a simplistic answer, but the only alternative I've seen is more of the same.

Also, have I mentioned just how expensive this decade-long occupation has been?

Losing focus on Afghanistan to invade Iraq, now that was an arbitrary decision that made no sense in the context of everything else that was going on at the time.

I agree with you 100%.

Question for anyone who wants to take it:

Assuming our forces has captured/killed Osama in Tora Bora back in 2002, do you think we would still be there now?

leftysergeant

22nd January 2010, 04:54 PM

Assuming our forces has captured/killed Osama in Tora Bora back in 2002, do you think we would still be there now?

Probably not. Congress would have started asking the Shrub what we were wasting our money on.

That may be why he screwed up the mission.

He can't play Superman with his Lex Luthor.

ponderingturtle

23rd January 2010, 06:15 AM

....er, Poe?

You forget sufficiently advanced woo is indistinguishable from parody. So I don't think so.

zaphod2016

23rd January 2010, 10:23 AM

Probably not. Congress would have started asking the Shrub what we were wasting our money on.

That may be why he screwed up the mission.

He can't play Superman with his Lex Luthor.

Here's the thing- I don't think Bush was "playing dumb", and I certainly don't think he had the intellect required to be a James Bond movie super-villain.

But, let's hop down this rabbit hole and see where it leads. I'll pretend I am George Bush, the year is 2002, and I've got Osama Bin Laden surrounded. I need him to keep making mischief so I can justify my War in Iraq next spring. Just capturing and killing him is no good, because that would end the war in the minds of most Americans.

Ok- here's what we do- stick Osama in some black site detention center, hand him a camera, and have him start pumping out video threats wherein he discusses his pal Saddam Hussein, and how the two co-conspired to hit New York. Just water board the son of a bitch until he cracks, and then send the video to Fox News via UPS. Done and done.

In my best guess, Osama is dead, and has been dead for awhile, and no one is 100% sure where the body went. This is useful to the Al Queda, who can now use his image as either a martyr, or something akin to North Korea's reverence for Dear Leader, who they believe is more than a mortal man. As a tactician, Osama already served his purpose anyway. His major value now is as propaganda, ironically, this is true of both sides.

If Bush had captured him, he most certainly would have leveraged this in the 2004 re-election, if not at the end of his term to protect his legacy. As-is, he let the bad guy get away, and left just as the economy collapsed on itself. Not very impressive, certainly not by "Goldfinger" standards.

WildCat

23rd January 2010, 10:57 AM

I propose that winning a "War on Terror" is akin to winning a "War on Crime" or a "War on Poverty" or "War on Drugs" or any other "War on [Social Issue]"

This is a fallacy; you cannot win a war against an idea. You cannot bomb a concept. You cannot shoot at a viewpoint. And so long as this is how the debate is framed, things will not change.
Good thing we're not at war with an idea then, isn't it? If you think we are, feel free to point out the part(s) of the AUMF authorizing military force against an idea. You can find it here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/sjres23_eb.asp

Good luck, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your strawman.

Sporanox

23rd January 2010, 12:17 PM

Fareed Zakaria, who people might remember was considered conservative prior to the advent of Dubyaism, likes Obama's foreign policy better: (http://www.newsweek.com/id/189240)

[. . . ]Of course this is to be expected, Zakaria is a realist in the IR undertsanding of the term and so is Obama.

Realist foreign policy is very much rooted in conservatism - and so we should recognize that there are critics of Bush foreign policy grounded in a respected foreign policy tradition that aren't "lefty libs".

I'm coming into this late, so I haven't read the thread too much, but I have a few words about the op-ed:

As George W. Bush's term came to a close, he had few defenders left in the world of foreign policy. Mainstream commentators almost unanimously agreed the Bush years had been marked by arrogance and incompetence.

Rats generally abandon sinking ships. No, seriously - many events, particularly in this past year, have proven that a significant number of journalists are interested first and foremost in their Beltway cred.

In fact, though consumed by the economic crisis in its first 50 days, the Obama administration has nevertheless made some striking moves in foreign policy. Obama announced the closure of Guantánamo

By now, of course, the order to close Gitmo is a farce and in fact a great example of why Obama shouldn't have got the job - he doesn't know how to get anything done. The only thing he accomplished there was scalping one of his top attorneys. EDIT: and ticking off other nations. I hear he's going to keep 50 or so detainees indefinitely at this point.

Perhaps he was moving in the right direction on torture - but his new interrogation policy is the equivalent of the Wizard of Oz. All smoke and mirrors. The HIG doesn't even EXIST yet, and his DNI forgot about that little fact.

Incompetent.

He gave his first interview as president to an Arab network and spoke of the importance of respect when dealing with the Muslim world—a gesture that won him rave reviews from normally hostile Arab journalists and politicians.

Question is, what are those rave reviews worth? Do these Arab journos and pols even BELIEVE what they wrote?

I think we need to abandon the mentality that somehow most of the pols in the US have employed platitudes and empty gratifications in order to cover up deeply sinister goals, yet leaders of countries in the ME will let their true feelings out if we simply make a nice gesture. Ultimately, national leaders are after one thing - what's in it for their country.

Now, Obama hasn't necessarily hurt anything, but he's not helping. Or, perhaps he is hurting us with the general effect of his signals - giving the appearance of weakness.

The administration has signaled a willingness to start engaging with troublesome regimes like Syria and Iran.

Again, what difference does it make? Iran's quite comfortable instructing us to take our inspectors on a long walk off a short pier.

Clinton publicly affirmed that the United States would work with China on the economic crisis and energy and environmental issues despite differences on human rights.

How accommodating has China been? See Copenhagen. Not so much.

She has also offered the prospect of a more constructive relationship with Russia.

Heh.

Obama said he was open to the prospect of talking to some elements of the Taliban in an effort to isolate its hard-core jihadis.

:rolleyes: Out of everything written in the op-ed so far, this is probably the worst. I used to respect Zakaria, but he's strongly attached to centrism. Sometimes, the most moderate position is not the right one to take.

Praktik

23rd January 2010, 01:17 PM

:rolleyes: Out of everything written in the op-ed so far, this is probably the worst. I used to respect Zakaria, but he's strongly attached to centrism. Sometimes, the most moderate position is not the right one to take.

Ok well, a lot here. Its good to see the legwork being put in buddy..)

However I think that to engage in the usual kind of picking apart of each post point by point would be more work than it's worth, since I suspect we are philosophically so far apart* that we'd not do much more than be stating our opinions at each other with little chance of reconciling the differences.

Also maybe discussing Zakaria's editorial would be a little unfair since its brevity does not allow him to elaborate in that format (and its 6 months old).

But I singled out this quote because I think it may prove a more fruitful launching point to further this discussion. I've already laid out my position on the previous page after all.

The reason I highlighted it is because it immediately generated a question in my mind, the answer to which I think might illustrate clearly the gulf between us.

So, if this is the thing in Zakaria's piece that you think is the "worst" I have to ask, what exactly do you envision for the end of hostilities in Afghanistan? How is it going to be brought to an end?

----

** for full disclosure I'll share how I self-identify when it comes to international politics: though I am centre-left in domestic policy I've had a hard time extending that to the international arena, which I think realism (in the IR sense) captures best. I believe in the law of the jungle, the constant quest to safeguard the national self-interest and that might often can make right (though not always without self-defeating unintended consequences).

To illustrate: I try to root my opposition to things like the Iraq War not so much in morality, though I do think the occupation was immoral, but rather the practical concerns of launching the war. How it affected the region, the chances for future terror attacks, the strain it put on alliances, the drain on American resources and so on.

Call me a leftist at heart with a realist brain..;)

Sporanox

23rd January 2010, 01:49 PM

Ok well, a lot here. Its good to see the legwork being put in buddy..)

However I think that to engage in the usual kind of picking apart of each post point by point would be more work than it's worth, since I suspect we are philosophically so far apart* that we'd not do much more than be stating our opinions at each other with little chance of reconciling the differences.

Also maybe discussing Zakaria's editorial would be a little unfair since its brevity does not allow him to elaborate in that format (and its 6 months old)..

Point taken about the quote fragments. I'm trying to wean myself off the habit. Zakaria's editorial, though, was too ripe to pass up in my eyes - the very fact that it made a number of testable predictions (in effect saying these are good ideas) six months ago was awesome.

The reason I highlighted it is because it immediately generated a question in my mind, the answer to which I think might illustrate clearly the gulf between us.

So, if this is the thing in Zakaria's piece that you think is the "worst" I have to ask, what exactly do you envision for the end of hostilities in Afghanistan? How is it going to be brought to an end?

I'd be more definite in response if not for the way Iraq has gone so far. I would never have dreamed the last Marines would have been withdrawing by now.

I have hopes for progress in Afghanistan. I think we will secure the country and train its army effectively enough to deny a second al-Qaeda nest. I believe President Obama realizes that withdrawing will only add to a growing perception that he can't get things done.

Praktik

23rd January 2010, 03:26 PM

Point taken about the quote fragments. I'm trying to wean myself off the habit. Zakaria's editorial, though, was too ripe to pass up in my eyes - the very fact that it made a number of testable predictions (in effect saying these are good ideas) six months ago was awesome.

I'd be more definite in response if not for the way Iraq has gone so far. I would never have dreamed the last Marines would have been withdrawing by now.

I have hopes for progress in Afghanistan. I think we will secure the country and train its army effectively enough to deny a second al-Qaeda nest. I believe President Obama realizes that withdrawing will only add to a growing perception that he can't get things done.

Well I didn't really have an issue with your quote fragments per se, it gave you an opportunity to state your position and as I gain experience tangling in message boards I've come to be satisfied with a "here's my position" -> "here's my position" format without having to continue on until someone "wins".

Sometimes there can be no winner, maybe even most of the time..:)

What I was getting at with that one part I wanted to use as a launchpad to change the discussion about how Afghanistan would end is that to me it appeared as if your incredulity at Zakaria's statement stemmed from the idea that the Taliban could be successfully eliminated, and that that was the reason for your disagreement. Therefore, someone suggesting that elements from within the Taliban should be courted would appear to be either naïve or insufficiently committed to victory.

And I think this is where a lot of disagreement on Afghanistan is rooted: people like Zakaria and myself and many others see that the end game will involve some kind of accommodation of the Taliban, and that it is impossible to eradicate their presence from the country. The end game is therefore to weaken them militarily while also doing so politically: finding elements within the taliban whose demands are more easily filled who could be peeled off from the others, convincing some of the Taliban that giving up fighting brings more benefits than continuing to fight. This kind of approach was used successfully in Iraq with the insurgent Sunnis.

So Obama's statement was singled out by Zakaria as worthy of praise because it recognized an endgame that deviated from the previous impression, that it was possible to eliminate the Taliban and that the Taliban represented a force with whom no accommodation could ever be realized short of complete military victory.

Its that kind of thinking that led to disaster in Algiers and Vietnam (and early on in Iraq).

And I think that this difference of opinion is one of the most visible fault lines between these opposing schools of thought.

Sporanox

23rd January 2010, 04:25 PM

And I think this is where a lot of disagreement on Afghanistan is rooted: people like Zakaria and myself and many others see that the end game will involve some kind of accommodation of the Taliban, and that it is impossible to eradicate their presence from the country. The end game is therefore to weaken them militarily while also doing so politically: finding elements within the taliban whose demands are more easily filled who could be peeled off from the others, convincing some of the Taliban that giving up fighting brings more benefits than continuing to fight. This kind of approach was used successfully in Iraq with the insurgent Sunnis.

I assume that what you see as the ultimate, primary goal is the elimination of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan so our military endeavor is not completely devoid of meaning. With that in mind, a few points wrt the opposing position:

1: Assuming we can accommodate the Taliban, with the aforementioned goal in mind, also assumes that there are sections of the Taliban that would not shelter al-Qaeda. There is no basis for this assumption, i.e. accommodating any Taliban means sending a tacit acknowledgement that al-Qaeda can operate with them. There is also no way to verify that these so-called more moderate, interested-in-benefits elements are not sheltering al-Qaeda afterwards.

Another point is that whenever one acquiesces to Taliban demands, you are making a deal with the devil that will only result in more and more demands. See Pakistan's experience with Sharia law: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/21/pakistan.taliban/

2: It's harder to insist that you're fighting for human rights when you essentially give up a chunk of the country's population to be poppy field slaves, unwilling taxpayers, dead if gay or female student, etc

3: Your analogy to the Sunnis in Iraq is close to comparing apples to oranges. The Sunni insurgency was nationalist, not religious, and they turned against al-Qaeda before we started reaching out to them. The ideological difference is particularly important, since they weren't likely to throw acid on schoolgirls after the fighting stopped. al-Qaeda was an interloper pulling faction strings throughout the entire Iraqi conflict, and never enjoyed the close relationship with the Sunnis that they do with the Taliban. Also, the Sunnis weren't interested in taking over Iraq through brute force.

Short summary: the Taliban isn't going to fight al-Qaeda. Neither are grassroots; both are oppressors.

Ziggurat

23rd January 2010, 05:55 PM

This is a fallacy; you cannot win a war against an idea.

Yes you can. It's rather common, in fact. We won a war against the idea that England could control the fate of its American colonies. We won a war against the idea that states could secede from the union. We won a war against the idea of national socialism. We won a war against the idea of Japanese imperialism.

Of course, in this particular case, the idea in question isn't really "terrorism", but jihad. The "war on terror" is a politically correct euphemism, and I'm not fond of it, but it's still a hell of a lot closer to reality than "overseas contingency operations".

How do I propose stopping terrorism? The same way we have in the past- qualified, trained, equipped law enforcement.

And here's where the mislabeling can get you in trouble: we have never stopped an idea like jihadism with police.

You know- the same folks who responded in 1993 when the WTC was bombed

I wouldn't really call that a success story (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks).

or a few years later when McVeigh snapped

A terrorist, but not a jihadist.

the same folks we expect to stop horrible crimes everywhere else they occur.

Except in the cases you mentioned, horrible crimes were not stopped, we only caught the perpetrators after the fact.

How will we know when we've won?

When the average Moslem is more concerned with their own prosperity than the death of America.

No. We'll know we've won when we stop getting attacked by jihadists. Your "victory" condition isn't sufficient to achieve that.

Arguably, by this framing of the debate, we've already won. All we need to do now is declare victory and leave.

If you think you can declare victory by simply reframing the debate, well, you're not dealing with reality.

leftysergeant

23rd January 2010, 09:59 PM

Yes you can. It's rather common, in fact. We won a war against the idea that England could control the fate of its American colonies. We won a war against the idea that states could secede from the union. We won a war against the idea of national socialism. We won a war against the idea of Japanese imperialism.

Horse feathers.

We "destroyed the enemies' ability to resist our will in matters of policy."

There are still Nazis. Some of them post to this board. There are still seccessionists in America. We threw the British off of a good part of North America, but they went on to colonize a whole bunch of other places. We wrested control of all of the captured territories from the hands of the Japanese Empire and convinced the Japanese people that the cost of continued hostilities was unrerasonably high.

The Fail Boat is here to take you home.

zaphod2016

23rd January 2010, 11:42 PM

There are still Nazis. Some of them post to this board. There are still seccessionists in America. We threw the British off of a good part of North America, but they went on to colonize a whole bunch of other places. We wrested control of all of the captured territories from the hands of the Japanese Empire and convinced the Japanese people that the cost of continued hostilities was unrerasonably high.

An excellent, excellent point. Ideas are immortal, and jihadism is no different.

Of course, in this particular case, the idea in question isn't really "terrorism", but jihad. [...] And here's where the mislabeling can get you in trouble: we have never stopped an idea like jihadism with police.

Have we stopped jihadism with war? Quite the contrary; Al Queda recruitment is on the rise (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291015-3&showFullAbstract=1).

And, let's give some credit where credit is due: the police stop jihadist activity. Every (http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=127611). Single (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\19\story_19-1-2010_pg7_10). Day (http://www.panorama.am/en/law/2010/01/22/cherkesia/).

In the cases you mentioned, horrible crimes were not stopped, we only caught the perpetrators after the fact.

Very true. But we caught them, put them on trial, and delivered justice. And the whole world watched us do it- along with any other would-be terrorists.

No. We'll know we've won when we stop getting attacked by jihadists. Your "victory" condition isn't sufficient to achieve that.

When the jihadists' children decide they are more interested in buying DVDs and a new car than sacrificing themselves for Allah, I will have achieved total victory.

If you think you can declare victory by simply reframing the debate, well, you're not dealing with reality.

And if you think you can achieve victory by persuing the same failed tactic, nether are you.

zaphod2016

23rd January 2010, 11:52 PM

Good thing we're not at war with an idea then, isn't it? If you think we are, feel free to point out the part(s) of the AUMF authorizing military force against an idea. You can find it here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/sjres23_eb.asp

Good luck, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your strawman.

My good friend WildCat- cheaper than law school and just as painful. ;)

From your link:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent [9/11] attacks launched against the United States.

This begs two questions:

1. Who was responsible?

2. Have those people responsible been neutralized?

For example: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was 1) responsible and 2) neutralized. By this logic- the war's over; we won. We did exactly what this resolution set out to do.

If this war is NOT over, and those responsible have NOT been neutralized, this begs another question:

What are we waiting for? Seriously. The past two administrations have been given every dime in funding they've asked for, and this war is now 8 years old. Consider that for a moment: this war is older than an average 3rd-grader.

Fallacy notwithstanding, the facts of the case are thus:

1) The objectives of this resolution have been met, and the war has already been won (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et all, have been killed or captured).

Or-

2) Even with 8 years and unlimited funding, this is simply not a resolution our military is capable of enforcing, and thus, a new policy is needed.

In either event, continuing this madness is illogical.

McHrozni

24th January 2010, 12:45 AM

...which pretty much everybody does at this point.

It's only fair - Bush was blamed for the 2000-2001 recession as well as early as 2002.

Either look for deeper reasons, or accept that whomever is in power gets the blame. Your pick.

McHrozni

McHrozni

24th January 2010, 12:48 AM

In either event, continuing this madness is illogical.

If there is an alternative approach that has a snowflakes' chance in a volcano in hell to work, of course. Is there?
What would you do? A peace conference, where we discuss our common ground with every possible branch of Islamic fanatics and try to reach a compromise? Something else? Please, speak, I am interested in your solutions.

McHrozni

McHrozni

24th January 2010, 12:56 AM

This is a fallacy; you cannot win a war against an idea.

This is also a fallacy. You can win a war against an idea. You can't destroy an idea with a war, but there are lesser goals you can achieve that are just as effective in such a war.

Using the example of Nazism in another reply to this statement - there is a profound difference between an idea, supported by a few radical groups worldwide, that may be able to gang together and beat up a few people here and there and an idea, supported by majorities of several of the worlds' richest and most powerful nations, with off shots around the world.
The fact Nazism wasn't rooted out completely doesn't mean it wasn't utterly defeated.

McHrozni

WildCat

24th January 2010, 08:54 AM

My good friend WildCat- cheaper than law school and just as painful. ;)

From your link:

This begs two questions:

1. Who was responsible?

2. Have those people responsible been neutralized?

For example: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was 1) responsible and 2) neutralized. By this logic- the war's over; we won. We did exactly what this resolution set out to do.
KSM was the sole person responsible for 9/11? There aren't any other members of al Qaeda? No other groups, such as the Taliban, provided material support for al Qaeda?

Your point makes no sense at all unless the above is true, which it clearly isn't. The war against Japan didn't end when we shot down Yamamoto's (the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack) plane. Though this was a big blow to them, the rest of Japan's armed forces were still fighting.

If this war is NOT over, and those responsible have NOT been neutralized, this begs another question:

What are we waiting for? Seriously. The past two administrations have been given every dime in funding they've asked for, and this war is now 8 years old. Consider that for a moment: this war is older than an average 3rd-grader.
So it can't be a war since it's over 8 years old? :boggled:

Fallacy notwithstanding, the facts of the case are thus:

1) The objectives of this resolution have been met, and the war has already been won (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et all, have been killed or captured).
There you go again, claiming the war was only against a few people. In the link to the AUMF you will find that the war is actually against "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

Has everyone in that group since been pacified? You'll find the answer is "no". Al Qaeda still fights on, as do their Taliban allies. I don't think any nations (other than Afghanistan) were involved, so that part is likely satisfied.

Or-

2) Even with 8 years and unlimited funding, this is simply not a resolution our military is capable of enforcing, and thus, a new policy is needed.

In either event, continuing this madness is illogical.
It's only illogical insofar as your scenario (the war was against KSM) is true, which it isn't.

The war will be over when Congress decides it is and rescinds the AUMF.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that this is a war against an idea... :rolleyes:

Thunder

24th January 2010, 09:20 AM

Bush prevented an Indian-Pakistani nuclear war. Bush invaded Afghanistan to kick out Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban.

These are the only good things Bush did, as far as foreign policy is concerned. Everything else was a disaster.

mortimer

24th January 2010, 09:48 AM

Thunder

24th January 2010, 09:55 AM

What about Bush's Africa anti-AIDS/HIV policies?

that was good too.

zaphod2016

24th January 2010, 10:29 AM

KSM was the sole person responsible for 9/11? There aren't any other members of al Qaeda? No other groups, such as the Taliban, provided material support for al Qaeda?

KSM was not the sole person responsible, nor was he the only one captured or killed.

Your point makes no sense at all unless the above is true, which it clearly isn't. The war against Japan didn't end when we shot down Yamamoto's (the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack) plane. Though this was a big blow to them, the rest of Japan's armed forces were still fighting.

You are comparing a nation-state's uniformed army with a band of disenfranchised zealots. Apples and Oranges.

There you go again, claiming the war was only against a few people. In the link to the AUMF you will find that the war is actually against "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

The enemy: those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided or harbored the 9/11 terrorists. I think we agree here.

For the past 8 years, our armed forces have done everything in their power to capture and kill these folks. I think we still agree.

Has everyone in that group since been pacified? You'll find the answer is "no". Al Qaeda still fights on, as do their Taliban allies. I don't think any nations (other than Afghanistan) were involved, so that part is likely satisfied.

I think your argument supports my overall premise that:

a) The military is non designed for this sort of threat

b) The enemy has been poorly defined

c) The enemy has been emboldened by our strategy thus far

The war will be over when Congress decides it is and rescinds the AUMF.

Legally, this is totally correct.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that this is a war against an idea... :rolleyes:

This is the "War on Terrorism", right? What is terrorism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism)? By my definition, terrorism is an ideological tactic.

The "War on Terror" includes a variety of enemy-specific police actions, such as Afghanistan, but the overall premise is a declared war against a political ideology.

It is the difference between a war against the Axis powers (as defined by a specific geographical territory, defended by a uniformed army under the flag of a nation-state) and a war against Nazism (as defined by a political ideology, defended by a loosely affiliated group of people in violation of their own nation's laws).

zaphod2016

24th January 2010, 10:57 AM

If there is an alternative approach that has a snowflakes' chance in a volcano in hell to work, of course. Is there?
What would you do? A peace conference, where we discuss our common ground with every possible branch of Islamic fanatics and try to reach a compromise? Something else? Please, speak, I am interested in your solutions.

McHrozni

The basic premise:

A. I agree with the hawks than any sort of lasting compromise with jihadists is futile. The jihadist culture is not interested in a peaceful resolution with us, and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

B. The gross majority of Moslems worldwide do not subscribe to, nor support, the jihadist mentality. The jihadists are a minority subset of Moslems, just like the 7th-Day Adventists do not represent the whole of Christianity*

C. Most terrorism is a crime of opportunity; it is easier to prevent an attack like 9/11 (months of planning, infiltration onto our own shores) than it is to prevent a jihadist scumbag sniping at a Marine in Baghdad, or planting a IED near a Tikrit marketplace.

Assuming I were in charge, here are my orders:

1. Host a global summit in which we a) define the legal status of a terrorist b) define the legal right rights of terrorists and c) define due process regarding terrorist prosecution.

In other words, when is it acceptable to shoot them dead, and when is it more appropriate to arrest? What sort of court system is used? Which law applies? Rather than deciding this unilaterally, we find a legal consensus with our global partners against the jihadists.

2. Announce a 4-year plan in which all US forces in not-hostile regions are redeployed, and our local bases either sold to ally governments, or disassembled/abandoned. All our forces sitting around in Germany, in Guam, in South Korea, can be brought back home.

3. In conjunction with our withdrawal, announce repeatedly that any act of aggression against our interests will be met with war. I.e. if they are dumb enough to shoot at us as we are leaving (after decades of peace) we turn around and crush them.

4. Forces left in hostile regions would be trained according to the new legal consensus on terrorism, and be fully equipped with all the resources no longer spread around the rest of the world.

5. Forces returning to the USA could elect to be trained (and eventually discharged to) civilian law enforcement. In other words, since their services are no longer needed to patrol Guam, they can be put to better use.

6. In a nutshell, my military would focus on maintaining air and naval superiority, but focus far less on the ground troops. With modern technology,we could deploy from the continental USA to anywhere in the world within a matter of days. Air and naval support can move in with the support of local allies, even if we no longer have a base or other occupation in the hostile zone.

7. The primary duty of law enforcement would be prosecute violent crime. After diverting significant military resources to this task (see #5), we could divert even more resources by decriminalizing other non-violent crime. I.e. instead of arresting potheads wandering around, the police focus instead on thwarting violent crimes, such as terrorist acts.

8. The military returns to a role of self defense. If attacked, we re-deploy, crush the enemy, and return home. When not in active combat, our military patrols our air, sea and land in constant lookout for the enemy, or other threats to America. They can act as a supplement to law enforcement, so long as new and more effective rules of engagement have been established (see #1).

9. To ensure our ability to respond to a credible threat, we have the draft, not to mention 40,000 nuclear weapons. We could easily destroy any nation state that marches against us. Any other threat would be considered criminal, and addressed by the judicial (see #7)

TL;DR I advocate that America embraces a foreign policy which acknowledges that the Cold War ended almost 20 years ago.

* Not comparing ideologies, just populations

leftysergeant

24th January 2010, 10:57 AM

What about Bush's Africa anti-AIDS/HIV policies?

Sucked. Utterly. He opposed actual health-based sex education.

zaphod2016

24th January 2010, 11:13 AM

Bush invaded Afghanistan to kick out Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban

And what a fine job he did! (http://news.google.com/news?q=taliban+in+afghanistan)

Peephole

24th January 2010, 12:00 PM

Says the boy whose nation stood aside as its former colony collapsed into genocide: ever hear of Rwanda?

Yes, you have.

You have no standing, none, and no room to complain.

DR
Ah yes, because Belgium, together with the rest of the world, stood aside while a genocide happened, all my opinions are suddenly invalid.

What did your country (the U.S.?) do exactly to prevent the Rwandan genocide?

Sporanox

24th January 2010, 01:40 PM

[. . .]

I'm going to try not to respond to all of the points for the sake of brevity.

1: I can guarantee that our allies [EDIT: I said in the fight against terror...for discussing this, I should have said against non-state actors and their supporters] will not agree. French and China will not agree, with each other and the US, to say nothing of Russia. The result will be a polite diplomatic expression of quagmire, such as Copenhagen.

2-3: Here's what will happen once we withdraw - al-Qaeda will attack us again. Then you're back to square one, it seems, unless you want to conduct a reprisal solely with Predator drones, which of course require boots on the ground to be useful, and so on...

Similarly, 6-8: To crush a jihadist enemy, we must first find them. The difficulty wrt completing that task is multiplied exponentially when we have no intelligence-gathering net on the ground. Other things that will be out of control: civilian feelings to the US when when our civ casualty rate skyrockets, and terrorist recruitment as a result of the previous in conjunction with allowing terrorist safehavens in Afghanistan to fester.

6 is particularly interesting, as the only war that has been won solely through airpower has been the conflict with Serbia, Kosovo; that was when we faced a completely conventional army. You won't be able to rely on allies in the region for on-the-ground information either, as they are commonly unprofessional (Af army), timid (Pakistani government), in bed with the enemy (Pakistani intel), and/or under the impression that they can demand the Predator control for themselves (Pakistani government).

leftysergeant

24th January 2010, 04:15 PM

Al Qaeda still exists only because the Shrub and Rummy let Osama escape from Tora Bora. All we can do now is figure out how to get the Afghans and Pakistanis to turn against them.

We are not going to do that by pointing guns at their civilian populations.

MaGZ

24th January 2010, 07:38 PM

This is also a fallacy. You can win a war against an idea. You can't destroy an idea with a war, but there are lesser goals you can achieve that are just as effective in such a war.

Using the example of Nazism in another reply to this statement - there is a profound difference between an idea, supported by a few radical groups worldwide, that may be able to gang together and beat up a few people here and there and an idea, supported by majorities of several of the worlds' richest and most powerful nations, with off shots around the world.
The fact Nazism wasn't rooted out completely doesn't mean it wasn't utterly defeated.

McHrozni

Today National Socialism has a foothold in every White country in the world. Even in Israel where Russians who claimed to be Jewish immigrated. It turned out some of these Russians were Nazis.

Thunder

24th January 2010, 07:44 PM

Today National Socialism has a foothold in every White country in the world. Even in Israel where Russians who claimed to be Jewish immigrated. It turned out some of these Russians were Nazis.

and as before, Nazism will be defeated, by any means necessary.

Ziggurat

24th January 2010, 11:08 PM

An excellent, excellent point. Ideas are immortal, and jihadism is no different.

This is far less profound than you seem to think. First off, you are confusing defeat with destruction. Second, defeat is almost always temporary, both of ideas and nations.

Have we stopped jihadism with war?

Yes, as a matter of fact, we have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars), though that fact seems to have been largely forgotten.

Quite the contrary; Al Queda recruitment is on the rise (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/291015-3&showFullAbstract=1).

And I bet the German army's recruitment rose after Britain declared war on them.

And, let's give some credit where credit is due: the police stop jihadist activity. Every (http://mystateline.com/content/fulltext/?cid=127611). Single (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\01\19\story_19-1-2010_pg7_10). Day (http://www.panorama.am/en/law/2010/01/22/cherkesia/).

That's. Not. Enough.

I want an end to attempts at terrorist attacks. Police work isn't going to do that.

Very true. But we caught them, put them on trial, and delivered justice. And the whole world watched us do it- along with any other would-be terrorists.

And what good did that do in regards to the 1993 WTC bombers? Not much, not much at all. It took Al Qaeda some time, but they finished the job.

And if you think you can achieve victory by persuing the same failed tactic, nether are you.

There's a difference between tactics and strategy. And even with strategy, well, there's more than one possible strategy for war. But this is a war. Our enemies know it, they declared it as such, and they fight like it. Refusing to recognize that reality is a "failed tactic", and the failure should have been obvious even before 9/11. You can't win a war (and again, it IS war) unless you actually fight. Policing isn't fighting.

Praktik

25th January 2010, 04:55 AM

Yes, as a matter of fact, we have (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_Wars), though that fact seems to have been largely forgotten.

Interesting. This is the 2nd time I've come across the example of the Barbary wars in discussing modern terrorism and war - though the first time was an attempt to draw back a line of "muslim extremism" to the Barbary pirates, and the poster was unwilling to provide any support.

Now we're confronted with a different take on the Barbary wars, that they represent a template of defeating jihadist ideology through military conflict.

I guess the defeat wasn't all that sound given what happened subsequently over the centuries, but I am curious on a practical military level, just how this example could provide a useful template for modern policy vis à vis islamic terror threats.

Sporanox

25th January 2010, 09:16 AM

And, let's give some credit where credit is due: the police stop jihadist activity. Every. Single. Day.

How many terrorist arrests were enabled by intel work done by national security agencies? I would guess a significant amount.

Bob Blaylock

25th January 2010, 01:01 PM

...which pretty much everybody does at this point.

Look, I fully acknowledge that saying 9/11 was Bush's fault is glib and ridiculously simplistic, but that doesn't mean I've got to give the guy a pat on the back for a job well done.

9/11 happened on his watch. That's not an accusation but rather a statement of fact. To ignore that, and pretend how safe America was while he was president is revisionism of the most blatantly dishonest variety.

You do know, of course, that this was the SECOND terrorist attack directed at the World Trade Center, right? It surely would be equally wrong to blame the administration that was in power during the first attack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_World_Trade_Center_bombing), for this attack which happened on its watch. But of that administration had reacted appropriately to that attack, I think there's a very good chance that the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented.

leftysergeant

25th January 2010, 02:35 PM

But of that administration had reacted appropriately to that attack, I think there's a very good chance that the 9/11 attacks would have been prevented.

Stop that. Clinton did respond properly. One word: RESSAM.

The Shrub had every reason in the world to expect anopther attack and had been on the scene where a similar attack had been threatened in Italy. You cannot put this back on Clinton. The Shrub, Rummy and the nosferatu should have been on this from day one, not plotting to steal Saddam's oil fields.

Sporanox

25th January 2010, 04:38 PM

Stop that. Clinton did respond properly. One word: RESSAM.

The Shrub had every reason in the world to expect anopther attack and had been on the scene where a similar attack had been threatened in Italy. You cannot put this back on Clinton. The Shrub, Rummy and the nosferatu should have been on this from day one, not plotting to steal Saddam's oil fields.

Yeah lefty, they weren't planning to do that either.

EDIT:

Al Qaeda still exists only because the Shrub and Rummy let Osama escape from Tora Bora. All we can do now is figure out how to get the Afghans and Pakistanis to turn against them.

We are not going to do that by pointing guns at their civilian populations.

First statement: no. Do you really believe that if we had captured OBL then, al-Qaeda wouldn't be around today? Second statement: yes, that's what we have to do. Third: I agree. Good thing we aren't doing that. I'm not sure where you got that impression.

JihadJane

26th January 2010, 03:54 AM

2-3: Here's what will happen once we withdraw - al-Qaeda will attack us again.

How is occupying Afghanistan stopping al Qaeda from attacking the USA?

Lurker

26th January 2010, 05:05 AM

How is occupying Afghanistan stopping al Qaeda from attacking the USA?

The more time the spend worrying about their survival the less time they have to recruit, train, organize, and plan attacks.

Upchurch

26th January 2010, 06:20 AM

The more time the spend worrying about their survival the less time they have to recruit, train, organize, and plan attacks.

That might be a good plan, if that happened to be there at the moment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111019644.html).

Lurker

26th January 2010, 06:25 AM

That might be a good plan, if that happened to be there at the moment (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/10/AR2009111019644.html).

Not sure what to make of the syntax you chose. I agree that there is a distinction between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. We seem to be fighting the Taliban more in Afghanistan than we are fighting Al Qaeda. To my recollection, the Taliban was a local phenomenon and not involved in any exporting of terrorism. It is a sticky situation.

Praktik

26th January 2010, 06:54 AM

The more time the spend worrying about their survival the less time they have to recruit, train, organize, and plan attacks.

Fightem over there so we dont fight em over here, eh?

I guess the only issue with that is the plain fact that the enemy is not localized within Afghanistan or Iraq - it is a nebulous network that has tentacles in all countries of the middle east and of course - extending to America proper and Europe as well.

So the question is, to what degree do American occupations and the associated misery galvanize individuals not in Afghanistan and Iraq to "recruit, train, organize and plan attacks"?
A 2006 NIE said that "activists that define themselves as jihadists...are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion". (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf)

There may very well be convincing and reasonable arguments to continue military operations and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, I have yet to be convinced by many of them but at the very least, it should be clear that the idea that operations there can act in such a way as to thwart terror attacks since the jihadists there are too busy dealing with the occupations is not one of them. It is not supported by the evidence.

In fact, there is much evidence to suggest that such actions increase the likelihood of future attacks since they galvanize resistance not just in the theatres of operation but in the hearts of observers in countries not directly involved.

Lurker

26th January 2010, 07:02 AM

Praktik:

I agree with you. I supported the invasion of Afghanistan in order to root out Al Qaeda and destroy their base there. We did the best we could at the time and now the war in Afghanistan has turned towards the Taliban. Not sure what to do at that point. Pull out? Continue? No good solution.

Praktik

26th January 2010, 07:12 AM

Ya Im not sure what to do and there's a lot of diverging opinions.

I think someone like Rory Stewart probably has the kind of understanding of Afghanistan that can help us find a way. He's not very optimistic though.

Sporanox

26th January 2010, 10:05 AM

Fightem over there so we dont fight em over here, eh?

I guess the only issue with that is the plain fact that the enemy is not localized within Afghanistan or Iraq - it is a nebulous network that has tentacles in all countries of the middle east and of course - extending to America proper and Europe as well.

So the question is, to what degree do American occupations and the associated misery galvanize individuals not in Afghanistan and Iraq to "recruit, train, organize and plan attacks"?
A 2006 NIE said that "activists that define themselves as jihadists...are increasing in both number and geographic dispersion". (http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/Declassified_NIE_Key_Judgments.pdf)

There may very well be convincing and reasonable arguments to continue military operations and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq, I have yet to be convinced by many of them but at the very least, it should be clear that the idea that operations there can act in such a way as to thwart terror attacks since the jihadists there are too busy dealing with the occupations is not one of them. It is not supported by the evidence.

In fact, there is much evidence to suggest that such actions increase the likelihood of future attacks since they galvanize resistance not just in the theatres of operation but in the hearts of observers in countries not directly involved.

I disagree. This is an old chestnut which could be used to justify stopping any counterterrorist action (or, for that matter, Western cultural behavior) on the basis of OBL/Hezbollah/take your pick mentioning it in their podcasts. If you go down that road, you may also want to rethink - I apologize if this is not your personal belief - the liberal talking point that terrorism is motivated primarily by poverty.

Furthermore, "fight them over there so we don't have to fight over here" may still be accurate, despite jihadism in Britain and Spain. These countries do not condone or shelter terrorism or terrorist training camps, while Afghanistan openly did so and Iraq never exactly opposed it. By denying them their unrestricted home bases, we are taking out the nerve centers of al-Qaeda - which they can't reconstruct in their areas of dispersion.

JihadJane

26th January 2010, 10:28 AM

The more time the spend worrying about their survival the less time they have to recruit, train, organize, and plan attacks.

How many al Qaeda operatives are there left in Afghanistan? Last I heard it was about 100 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861).

How many more troops will be needed to defeat them?

Praktik

26th January 2010, 10:29 AM

Furthermore, "fight them over there so we don't have to fight over here" may still be accurate, despite jihadism in Britain and Spain. These countries do not condone or shelter terrorism or terrorist training camps, while Afghanistan openly did so and Iraq never exactly opposed it. By denying them their unrestricted home bases, we are taking out the nerve centers of al-Qaeda - which they can't reconstruct in their areas of dispersion.

I guess I subscribe to the "air mattress" theory of terrorism. Sure, by pushing down on one part of the half-inflated mattress you might be squeezing away the potential for terrorist attacks to come from that specific location - but in so doing the air mattress is "bumped up" in other areas.

Sure, they may not have as much freedom of action in Afghanistan and IRaq, but as more and more people are driven to action through the scenes of misery occuring there they increase the threat of terror attacks from places where they can set up networks - and this can be done easily in non-occupation zones both in the middle east and in europe. By increasing the number of terrorists and galvanizing them, even without safe havens in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are in fact increasing the probability of future terror attacks.

There's a very simple dynamic at play here that is close to an ironclad law of human behaviour: "outsiders" coming in to a region to enforce their will through military means - whatever the justifications that have currency in the home country - will always drive a reaction to that military force. Its the "foreigners taking over" dynamic and it has countless examples throughout history.

I think you're oversimplifying in your reference to OBL podcasts. I'm certain the NIE I linked to wasn't based on podcasts, but rather on actual intelligence and other metrics used to guage the relative growth of terror networks.

They already identified that trend in 2006. Others can point to sliding opinions of the US on the muslim street (http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/591.php?lb=brme&pnt=591&nid=&id=) (interesting link there). Or the words of ex-jihadists who mention concretely (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/renouncing-islamism-to-the-brink-and-back-again-1821215.html) how specific American policies post-9/11 galvanized them to action.

Now, one can debate whether or not these concerns of jihadists should mean that US policy be automatically bent to suit them. Clearly, they should not have a veto over US foreign policy. But on a more reasoned consideration of policy outcomes, it is difficult to deny the direct effect of launching two US wars in the middle east on terrorist recruitment: the NIE and the pentagon both have recognized that this has fed terror networks and widened their penetration in different societies across the world.

So, is that a cost worth paying? Maybe it is. But it belongs on the ledger and should be weighed against the apparent gains of the policy - and "preventing terror attacks" is not one of those gains given the concrete evidence that the policy has actually exacerbated the threat.

Sporanox

26th January 2010, 10:30 AM

How many al Qaeda operatives are there left in Afghanistan? Last I heard it was about 100 (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/president-obamas-secret-100-al-qaeda-now-afghanistan/story?id=9227861).

How many more troops will be needed to defeat them?

You missed this line.

As the President acknowledged, al Qaeda now operates from Pakistan where U.S. troops are prohibited from operating. "We're in Afghanistan to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country," he said.

Praktik

26th January 2010, 10:40 AM

Al Qaeda though is kind of a red herring. The real threat is amorphous, and currently we are talking about Al Qaeda. However even a total defeat of Al Qaeda will bring only temporary success.

Look at the myriad number of organisations the Palestinians have gone through over the decades.

WildCat

26th January 2010, 10:42 AM

I think your argument supports my overall premise that:

a) The military is non designed for this sort of threat

b) The enemy has been poorly defined

c) The enemy has been emboldened by our strategy thus far
Ignoring the threat isn't an option, and I don't think the enemy is emboldened. Recent polls show 70% of Afghanis support our troops being there, while only 10% or so support the Taliban. This can hardly be good news for the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies.

This is the "War on Terrorism", right? What is terrorism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism)? By my definition, terrorism is an ideological tactic.

The "War on Terror" includes a variety of enemy-specific police actions, such as Afghanistan, but the overall premise is a declared war against a political ideology.

It is the difference between a war against the Axis powers (as defined by a specific geographical territory, defended by a uniformed army under the flag of a nation-state) and a war against Nazism (as defined by a political ideology, defended by a loosely affiliated group of people in violation of their own nation's laws).
The actual shooting war our military is involved in is but a subset of the greater "war on terror" as it is colloquially known. You are confusing the part with the whole.

Praktik

26th January 2010, 10:48 AM

One of the few silver linings for America in the current wars in the Middle East though, and not sure how much this is ever talked about, is addressing the rather HUGE defecit in language and cultural understanding of the middle east.

By putting thousands of people right in the middle of two middle eastern countries you are generating a pool of people who are gaining firsthand experience with the culture and languages.

One of the big reasons for 9/11 was the dearth of individuals who could speak the language and understand the culture. Bob Baer is on record talking about the hollowing out of many CIA posts there towards the end of his tenure.

You gotta think that though the price was high and the experience bitter, that at least now American intelligence has a deeper pool of individuals they can use for on-the-ground intelligence, deep cover, and that know how to navigate the currents of middle east culture better.

Sporanox

26th January 2010, 10:49 AM

I guess I subscribe to the "air mattress" theory of terrorism. Sure, by pushing down on one part of the half-inflated mattress you might be squeezing away the potential for terrorist attacks to come from that specific location - but in so doing the air mattress is "bumped up" in other areas.

Sure, they may not have as much freedom of action in Afghanistan and IRaq, but as more and more people are driven to action through the scenes of misery occuring there they increase the threat of terror attacks from places where they can set up networks - and this can be done easily in non-occupation zones both in the middle east and in europe. By increasing the number of terrorists and galvanizing them, even without safe havens in Iraq and Afghanistan, you are in fact increasing the probability of future terror attacks.

You assume that this increased number of terrorists are competent. Many are not, and thus easier to stop. They also plot smaller and smaller attacks. I'd take attempts to bomb a subway system in NYC (see Zazi) over another 9/11 or the ten-airline liquid bombing plot. Would you?

The air mattress is indeed bumped up in other regions. But the net effect is a blow to the jihad.

There's a very simple dynamic at play here that is close to an ironclad law of human behaviour: "outsiders" coming in to a region to enforce their will through military means - whatever the justifications that have currency in the home country - will always drive a reaction to that military force. Its the "foreigners taking over" dynamic and it has countless examples throughout history.

Except we managed to change that dynamic by labeling al-Qaeda as the "outsiders" in Iraq, which is why it has quieted down so much there. That's the idea in Afghanistan, as well, to a certain degree - trying to get the locals to drive out the Taliban themselves.

I think you're oversimplifying in your reference to OBL podcasts. I'm certain the NIE I linked to wasn't based on podcasts, but rather on actual intelligence and other metrics used to guage the relative growth of terror networks.

On page 2, the NIE lists these factors as fueling the growth of global jihadism:

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)
Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western
domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the
Iraq “jihad;” (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and
political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US
sentiment among most Muslims—all of which jihadists exploit.

Note they have already listed "grievances" (our Saudi barracks, etc) and Iraq in factors 1 and 2. This sentiment is what OBL et. al. exploit in their missives.

So, is that a cost worth paying?

Yes. See previous. If your report is to be believed, it's too bad that Muslim countries don't like us in the ME (which has little bearing on Iraq/Afghanistan), but as long as they don't bomb us then we have to do what we have to do.

WildCat

26th January 2010, 11:02 AM

Assuming I were in charge, here are my orders:

1. Host a global summit in which we a) define the legal status of a terrorist b) define the legal right rights of terrorists and c) define due process regarding terrorist prosecution.

In other words, when is it acceptable to shoot them dead, and when is it more appropriate to arrest? What sort of court system is used? Which law applies? Rather than deciding this unilaterally, we find a legal consensus with our global partners against the jihadists.
By our "global partners" do you mean the UN? If so, good luck with that. Many UN member states actively support the jihadists. Including some of our so-called allies.

2. Announce a 4-year plan in which all US forces in not-hostile regions are redeployed, and our local bases either sold to ally governments, or disassembled/abandoned. All our forces sitting around in Germany, in Guam, in South Korea, can be brought back home.
So you want to eliminate all our forward operating bases? This will have a great effect on out ability to project power and respond to crisis overseas.

3. In conjunction with our withdrawal, announce repeatedly that any act of aggression against our interests will be met with war. I.e. if they are dumb enough to shoot at us as we are leaving (after decades of peace) we turn around and crush them.
Uh, after we've already run away the "we will crush you" bluff will be called. Particularly since you also severely curtailed our ability to respond by closing our forward operating bases.

5. Forces returning to the USA could elect to be trained (and eventually discharged to) civilian law enforcement. In other words, since their services are no longer needed to patrol Guam, they can be put to better use.
Who's going to pay for all these extra police, and what will they be doing?

6. In a nutshell, my military would focus on maintaining air and naval superiority, but focus far less on the ground troops. With modern technology,we could deploy from the continental USA to anywhere in the world within a matter of days. Air and naval support can move in with the support of local allies, even if we no longer have a base or other occupation in the hostile zone.
This is a pipe dream. If our forces are confined to the continental US no, we cannot deploy "anywhere in the world within a matter of days". It's simply not possible. And you don't hold ground with air and naval power, you need boots on the ground for that.

7. The primary duty of law enforcement would be prosecute violent crime. After diverting significant military resources to this task (see #5), we could divert even more resources by decriminalizing other non-violent crime. I.e. instead of arresting potheads wandering around, the police focus instead on thwarting violent crimes, such as terrorist acts.
We need more manpower applied to this task? What, exactly, will they be doing?

8. The military returns to a role of self defense. If attacked, we re-deploy, crush the enemy, and return home. When not in active combat, our military patrols our air, sea and land in constant lookout for the enemy, or other threats to America. They can act as a supplement to law enforcement, so long as new and more effective rules of engagement have been established (see #1).
How will you "crush the enemy" after you've obliterated our ability to do so? Just getting there would take many months after you've abandoned all our forward operating bases. And no, I don't want troops enforcing domestic laws on the streets of the US.

9. To ensure our ability to respond to a credible threat, we have the draft, not to mention 40,000 nuclear weapons. We could easily destroy any nation state that marches against us. Any other threat would be considered criminal, and addressed by the judicial (see #7)
You can consider it criminal if you like, but you're still proposing the military to go after them?

And FYI, the US a total of 2,626 active nuclear warheads, and a little less than 7,000 in reserve. I don't know where you got the 40,000 figure.

Lurker

26th January 2010, 11:51 AM

Praktik

26th January 2010, 12:32 PM

My opinion is still out on Bush's foreign policy. I don't agree with it but I reserve the right to be proven wrong. Frankly, if democracy somehow takes root in Iraq and it turns into a relatively peaceful country then I will admit I was wrong and Bush was right in his vision. A democratic Iraq would be a long term good for the region as I see it.

I think these things can take time and although we have given Iraq some 6 years for democracy to flourish I am unsure whether the results are in yet. I'll reserve judgement on Bush's record just a little while longer.

All that being said I have severe doubts whether I will see a democratic, peaceful Iraq in the next 10 years but I am hoping to be proven wrong.

I can agree with this. I think the consequences of the first decade of the new millenium will play out for decades longer. OF course the longer you go the more difficult it might be to trace current events in 2046 to the Bush years. That being said, there are some links to be made from modern times to say, the decision to install the Shah of Iran - so such a line of inquiry is not always fruitless.

Ziggurat

26th January 2010, 01:31 PM

That being said, there are some links to be made from modern times to say, the decision to install the Shah of Iran

Who installed the Shah of Iran? Not the US.

Praktik

26th January 2010, 01:40 PM

right, right, CIA/MI6, or alternatively US/UK..;)

anyway always seemed to me that Operation Ajax was a joint operation.

We still talk about the American war in Afghanistan, despite the fact that also is a joint operation involving more than just the Americans...

peptoabysmal

28th January 2010, 08:05 AM

Aside from benignant speeches recited from a teleprompter, what tangible change to foreign policy has Pres. Obama implemented?

Ziggurat

28th January 2010, 08:51 AM

right, right, CIA/MI6, or alternatively US/UK..;)

anyway always seemed to me that Operation Ajax was a joint operation.

You missed my point: Operation Ajax didn't install the Shah. The Shah was already the Shah, and had been for quite some time. It was the Shah, after all, who nominated Mosadeq in the first place. We took sides in a power struggle between them which helped remove Mosadeq. But whatever the rights or wrongs of our actions were, claiming that we (the CIA, MI6, US, or UK) installed the Shah is a gross historical inaccuracy. That's simply not what happened.

Praktik

28th January 2010, 08:59 AM

Aside from benignant speeches recited from a teleprompter, what tangible change to foreign policy has Pres. Obama implemented?

More productive relationship with Russia
Draw down on Iraq
greater engagement with Europe
Shift in Afghan policy
Shift from unilateralism to mulitlateralism
Strong anti-torture posture

But in the big contours you're right, its early and given the continuance of Bush's wars and the war on terror its tempting to think there hasn't been a big change. When it comes to indefinite detention and some other bush policies such as the invoking of state secrets to quash lawsuits, there is continuity.

But you have only to look internationally to see that the rest of the world has perceived a change. You have only to look at certain conservative quarters in the states to see that they think a lot has changed, and for the worse. All this on mostly a change in tone. When it comes to the world of diplomacy and balance of power, posture and tone count for a lot.

--------

Had the OP on the backburner and there really are two questions in the OP.

Is Obama's foreign policy smarter than Bush's - out there in the real world?

Is Obama's foreign policy smarter than Bush's - in the American bubble?

Because the American public diverges strongly from the way things are thought about in the rest of the world the answers to each question may diverge also. One might be better in serving the national interest in tangible ways abroad yet be pilloried in America proper, one might be better electorally in the US yet be stupid abroad.

Praktik

28th January 2010, 09:00 AM

You missed my point: Operation Ajax didn't install the Shah. The Shah was already the Shah, and had been for quite some time. It was the Shah, after all, who nominated Mosadeq in the first place. We took sides in a power struggle between them which helped remove Mosadeq. But whatever the rights or wrongs of our actions were, claiming that we (the CIA, MI6, US, or UK) installed the Shah is a gross historical inaccuracy. That's simply not what happened.

Actually I thought your post might be rooted in a quibble like that after I had already posted. Duly noted, but you know what I was getting at anyway..;)

The larger point is valid: actions of decades ago have consquences that play out for some time, and I used that as an example of unintended consequences to illustrate that.

Surely they didn't see 1979 coming back in the fifties... and all the difficulties that came after.

This is why the full cost/benefit analysis of Bush's foreign policy won't be known for a while.

peptoabysmal

28th January 2010, 09:40 AM

More productive relationship with Russia
Draw down on Iraq
greater engagement with Europe
Shift in Afghan policy
Shift from unilateralism to mulitlateralism
Strong anti-torture posture
1) He tells Russia to stop interfering with Ukraine and Georgia and rebukes them for "old ways of thinking." He then makes a deal with Russia to cut both our nuclear arsenals by 1/3 which appears well intentioned, but clearly benefits Russia more than the US.
2) Draw down in Iraq already in progress, no change.
3) He pledges more troops to Afghanistan, then tells the Taliban when they can expect to win.
4) multilateralism - in what tangible way? more "feel good" words?
5) anti-torture, already in progress... no change.

But in the big contours you're right, its early and given the continuance of Bush's wars and the war on terror its tempting to think there hasn't been a big change. When it comes to indefinite detention and some other bush policies such as the invoking of state secrets to quash lawsuits, there is continuity.
Take those rose colored glasses off, he hasn't even made good on his promise to show the debate on health care on CSPAN.

Furthermore, many of the despised Bush administration policies continue to this date. These include rendition; the proposed use of Bush-style military commissions to try some detainees; the expansion of Bagram prison in Afghanistan and the denial of habeas rights to inmates not captured on the Afghan battlefield; the repeated use of the “state’s secrets” defense to block lawsuits by former detainees seeking redress for mistreatment; and the effective grant of immunity to those who designed, ordered and executed torture policies under the Bush administration. War and occupation continue as well.
http://www.illinoistimes.com/Springfield/article-6899-fasting-for-obamarss-broken-promise.html

But you have only to look internationally to see that the rest of the world has perceived a change. You have only to look at certain conservative quarters in the states to see that they think a lot has changed, and for the worse. All this on mostly a change in tone. When it comes to the world of diplomacy and balance of power, posture and tone count for a lot.

I agree that, on the surface, this is a good thing, but still no real change in policy.

--------

Had the OP on the backburner and there really are two questions in the OP.

Is Obama's foreign policy smarter than Bush's - out there in the real world?

Is Obama's foreign policy smarter than Bush's - in the American bubble?

Because the American public diverges strongly from the way things are thought about in the rest of the world the answers to each question may diverge also. One might be better in serving the national interest in tangible ways abroad yet be pilloried in America proper, one might be better electorally in the US yet be stupid abroad.
What broad are you calling stupid?:p
I'm not saying that Obama's foreign policy is smarter or dumber that Bush's, I'm saying that he hasn't implemented much change in foreign policy at all. That being said, I do agree that his dialogue is more acceptable in a global viewpoint. I hope he can balance that view with the President's primary job of protecting the interests of the country he has been elected to lead. So far he has led us into debt on a scale of which previous administrations have never dreamed of.

Ziggurat

28th January 2010, 10:56 AM

The larger point is valid: actions of decades ago have consquences that play out for some time, and I used that as an example of unintended consequences to illustrate that.

Fair enough. And I don't disagree with that general point. But I felt that the characterization you gave (that we installed the Shah), while it may have been incidental to the point you wanted to make, has been used to support so many other arguments which are not valid that it should not go uncorrected.

Surely they didn't see 1979 coming back in the fifties... and all the difficulties that came after.

Probably not.

This is why the full cost/benefit analysis of Bush's foreign policy won't be known for a while.

Yes, I would agree with that.

Sporanox

28th January 2010, 12:39 PM

I don't have much confidence in Obama's administration wrt Afghanistan at all. He waited and waited, despite common sense dictating the Taliban would take advantage of that, he teleconferenced with McChrystal only once in the span of several months (during which time he took place in a number of highly unnecessary festivities), and the VP made a hilariously stupid policy proposal that would withdraw everything but our drone operations. Having said that, though, I haven't given up hope. He hasn't withdrawn us yet, after all.

JihadJane

29th January 2010, 05:10 AM

You missed this line.

A permanent occupation of Afghanistan and a covert/proxy war in Pakistan...

Is this all about India?

zaphod2016

29th January 2010, 10:14 AM

This is a pipe dream. If our forces are confined to the continental US no, we cannot deploy "anywhere in the world within a matter of days". It's simply not possible. And you don't hold ground with air and naval power, you need boots on the ground for that.

As we agree, we can deploy naval and USAF units into combat area in a matter of days. The B52 and C130s here at Patrick AFB can hop over to Europe by lunch time, and land in Turkey a few hours after that. And no one has any problem with our navy continuing to patrol International waters, or continuing our existing alliances.

I am under the impression that the goal of our military is to destroy our enemies, not hold ground. Therefore, we don't need boots on the ground- assuming the military is focusing on self defense and support allies, and not outright occupation.

The only ground we need to hold is the territory of the USA, and this is where our boots belong.

How will you "crush the enemy" after you've obliterated our ability to do so? Just getting there would take many months after you've abandoned all our forward operating bases. And no, I don't want troops enforcing domestic laws on the streets of the US.

No one wants the US military to serve as police; my argument is that we need police to fight terrorism more so than we need boots in Guam. Therefore, some of those boots in guam can elect to transfer to a more purposeful and effective anti-terrorism role, by joining a CIVIL police force.

And as I already said, I don't need boots on the ground to crush an enemy; long-range bomber deploy faster, minimize risk to our forces, and inflict more damage, faster, than a conventional brigade of men with rifles could ever hope to.

You can consider it criminal if you like, but you're still proposing the military to go after them?

The problem with the enemy occurs when they survive and are detained.

If the military kills the enemy, there is no legal issue to speak of. The enemy is dead, their lawyers are dead, their family is dead. There is no one left to raise a fuss.

But when we capture and detain the enemy- now what? I advocate that any capture and detention must be based on the framework of civilian police enforcing criminal laws. This is the only legal means by which the enemy can be put on trial and rightfully condemned.

When we fail to enforce this judicial standard, we end up with situations like Git Mo, where we have a population too dangerous to be released, but no lawful method of incarcerating them long-term. Not only is it bad PR, it is the Achilles' heel of the current war effort.

If the local civilian authorities want the US military to support their efforts (as is the case in Afghanistan), there is no major moral problem, besides expecting US taxpayers to pay for Afghan security. However, the actual arrests and detentions must be made via the local authority, and based on the local judicial. And if these enemy combatants are not entitled to any sort of legal system, a swift slaughter is the more pragmatic, and ideologically consistent tactic.

tl;dr- go Roman style and slaughter the enemy, or assist the locals in dealing with their own outlaws. This is either a war, or a police action; playing both sides of this coin is not only bad strategy, it is incredibly bad PR, not to mention fundamentally immoral.

And FYI, the US a total of 2,626 active nuclear warheads, and a little less than 7,000 in reserve. I don't know where you got the 40,000 figure.

I stand corrected, however, my point remains valid. 10,000 nuclear weapons is more than enough self defense against any standing nation state who would attempt conventional war against us.

zaphod2016

29th January 2010, 10:38 AM

I'm going to try not to respond to all of the points for the sake of brevity.

2-3: Here's what will happen once we withdraw - al-Qaeda will attack us again. Then you're back to square one, it seems, unless you want to conduct a reprisal solely with Predator drones, which of course require boots on the ground to be useful, and so on...

Therein lies the modern fallacy. The Al-Qaeda are already attacking us, have already attacked us.

And to prevent this I don't need an entire army, I need a single vigilant F-22 pilot over NYC on September 11 @ 8am. I also need an intelligence network capable of getting that F-22 where it needs to be, when it needs to be there.

Similarly, 6-8: To crush a jihadist enemy, we must first find them.

No, to kill a cockroach I leave out a trap, and let them come to me.

It will be far easier to identify and arrest a member of Al-Queda at the Boston airport than the desolate foothills of Tora Bora.

The difficulty wrt completing that task is multiplied exponentially when we have no intelligence-gathering net on the ground.

Why can't we divert some funds from pointless patrols of non-threats to this intelligence gathering net? Furthermore, is the military the best organization to use as intelligence? Perhaps an existing organization is better equipped, or an entirely new organization is called for.

6 is particularly interesting, as the only war that has been won solely through airpower has been the conflict with Serbia, Kosovo;

Actually, the last war the USA won via an unconditional surrender was World War II, which we fought Roman Style. This is to further my point that our great nation has no problem when it comes to actually winning wars; our problem lies in pretending the military is a cure-all for a lack of socioeconomic development combined with a destructive religious worldview.

If you want to win the war, I can take 1 of my 10k nukes and covert Afghanistan to glass by 4pm EST today.

If you want to police the Middle East, I'd rather focus on drones and air support. Better range, less risk for our troops, and more effective at laying waste to an enemy. Better still- let the locals deal with their own problems.

You won't be able to rely on allies in the region for on-the-ground information either, as they are commonly unprofessional (Af army), timid (Pakistani government), in bed with the enemy (Pakistani intel), and/or under the impression that they can demand the Predator control for themselves (Pakistani government).

Are these our enemies or our allies?

Trick question: both.

Solution: either leave them to kill themselves, or do it for them. If you elect the latter, we can do this faster, and cheaper, if we stop pulling punches.

Please note: in either case, the enemy will continue to attack us, as they have for the past 20+ years. Americans will continue to die. No matter how many nations we invade, no matter how many billions we spend, no matter how many Americans make the ultimate sacrifice, the long-term solution to this global conflict is the economic development of the Muslim 3rd-world.

Sporanox

29th January 2010, 11:11 AM

I am under the impression that the goal of our military is to destroy our enemies, not hold ground.

You'd be wrong about that, because winning wars requires taking and holding ground. Also, how do you think the USAF gets the intel to place their strikes?

Therein lies the modern fallacy. The Al-Qaeda are already attacking us, have already attacked us.

I don't understand. What I meant was that shortly after you have pulled back, while bluffing furiously, al-Qaeda or some other network will call your bluff.

It will be far easier to identify and arrest a member of Al-Queda at the Boston airport than the desolate foothills of Tora Bora.

Yes, if they shoot someone first. Re: your trap analogy, the Taliban routinely visit civilian villages in Afghanistan.

Why can't we divert some funds from pointless patrols of non-threats to this intelligence gathering net? Furthermore, is the military the best organization to use as intelligence? Perhaps an existing organization is better equipped, or an entirely new organization is called for.

The military secures the environment, which can then be used to gather intel. The reason they do so is to gain the trust of the locals, who then provide information. Without a quid pro quo, good luck on getting anything out of the Afghanis. (Anyone who talks to an American is at risk of losing their head even now.) No, the CIA guys holed up in safehouses across the surrounding area will not be able to provide our side of the equation adequately.

I'm overly generalizing what the military does over there, but that doesn't change the fact that it's necessary.

Actually, the last war the USA won via an unconditional surrender was World War II

I said through airpower, which is directly applicable to your fantasy of dealing with our threats with Specters and Tomahawk missiles. This is a non sequitur.

If you want to police the Middle East, I'd rather focus on drones and air support. Better range, less risk for our troops, and more effective at laying waste to an enemy.

You do know why they call it air support right? I've already explained how our intel gathering capacity will diminish without boots on the ground.

Better still- let the locals deal with their own problems.

A big part of why we're there is to bring the locals up to a standard by which they can do so. Fact is, they're not at that standard yet.

Are these our enemies or our allies?

Trick question: both.

No.

the long-term solution to this global conflict is the economic development of the Muslim 3rd-world.

Bunk. Many terrorists are highly educated and Western-born.