Torture is The New Gay Marriage

Andrew Sullivan opines on last night's debate amongst the Republican Presidential candidates:

The final clarifier for me was, yes, torture...

Some issues really are paramount moral ones. Two candidates opposed it clearly and honorably: McCain and Paul. All the others gleefully supported it - including Brownback. He's a born-again Christian for torture. Giuliani revealed himself as someone we already know. He would have no qualms in exercising executive power brutally, no scruples or restraints. Romney would double the size and scope of Gitmo, to ensure that none of the detainees have lawyers, regardless of their innocence or guilt. That is in itself a disqualification for the presidency of the United States. A man who has open contempt for the most basic rules of Western justice has no business being president.

...For me, the moral question of torture in many ways settles this race. Just hearing Brit Hume curl his lips around the phrase "enhanced interrogation techniques" was a brief moment of insight. I was glad that McCain called these hideous methods by their proper name, and that Paul described Hume's weasel words as "newspeak." I was surprised to see Romney so aggressively embrace torture and Gitmo. On reflection, however, I was being naive again. Romney aims to please. He knew where he was - South Carolina. You can largely determine his beliefs in advance by judging the audience he is attempting to win over. For me, then, the debate winnowed the field of candidates down to two: McCain and Paul. That was quick.

Whatever.  I continue to believe that some "enhanced interrogation techniques" can be distinguished from "torture"; I also strongly suspect that the threat of torture may motivate prisoners to be a bit more forthcoming, so I wonder whether about the trade-off of good PR versus more resolute prisoners that John McCain is promoting here:

Senator John McCain of Arizona, a prisoner of war in Vietnam, said he would not resort to torture because the United States would lose more in world opinion than it would gain in information.

“When I was in Vietnam, one of the things that sustained us, as we went — underwent torture ourselves — is the knowledge that if we had our positions reversed and we were the captors, we would not impose that kind of treatment on them,” Mr. McCain said. “It’s not about the terrorists, it’s about us. It’s about what kind of country we are.”

FWIW, the Times transcript is here, so let's puzzle over this from Mr. Sullivan:

Giuliani, interestingly, openly lied about Ron Paul's position on 9/11. Paul specifically did not make a statement, as Giuliani immediately claimed, that the U.S. invited 9/11. I rewound to double-check. It was the Fox questioner who ratcheted up the stakes on that question, not Paul. Paul demurred on a specific answer and switched the question to the general issue of blowback.

I suggest Mr. Sullivan hit rewind a third time - I am reading this, following Ron Paul's paean to the Republican history of isolationism:

MR. GOLER: Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir?

REP. PAUL: What changed?

MR. GOLER: The non-interventionist policies.

REP. PAUL: No. Non-intervention was a major contributing factor. Have you ever read the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there; we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years. We've been in the Middle East -- I think Reagan was right.

We don't understand the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics. So right now we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican. We're building 14 permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing this in our country or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attack, sir?

REP. PAUL: I'm suggesting that we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it, and they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, "I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier." They have already now since that time -- (bell rings) -- have killed 3,400 of our men, and I don't think it was necessary.

MR. GIULIANI: Wendell, may I comment on that? That's really an extraordinary statement. That's an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of September 11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th. (Applause, cheers.)

And I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that. (Applause.)

MR. GOLER: Congressman?

REP. PAUL: I believe very sincerely that the CIA is correct when they teach and talk about blowback. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the shah, yes, there was blowback. A reaction to that was the taking of our hostages and that persists. And if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think that we can do what we want around the world and not incite hatred, then we have a problem.

They don't come here to attack us because we're rich and we're free. They come and they attack us because we're over there. I mean, what would we think if we were -- if other foreign countries were doing that to us?

Well - the specific use of the word "invited" came from the moderator, but Ron Paul twice went to the moral equivalence argument with his ruminations about what the US might do if China were putting bases in the Gulf of Mexico.  And what a great question!  Does anyone else remember Jack Kennedy blowing up some buildings in Moscow as a response to the Cuban missile crisis?   Maybe Ron Paul could expound on that.

MORE:  I risk losing my bloggers card if I fail to note that Jack Bauer of "24" tortures people routinely, and almost always gets prompt, reliable, life-saving intel.  Surely this tells me something about the attitudes and values of the American people, or at least some of us?

And since torture works, sometimes, this is a real issue - I would love to see the Dem candidates tackle this at one of their debates (as if!).  Would they ever contemplate torturing a terrorist, presumably after first reading him his rights and apologizing for the many indignities the United States has heaped upon his country and the world?  Imagine my suspense.

Comments

[Other Tom]

This is the kind of thing that is best left un-debated. I am extremely confident that something describable as "enhanced interrogation" has been done by the US since time out of mind. Before Frank Church opened the can of worms, it was simply not discussed. (This was back in the day when Robert McNamara could contend that it was his duty to lie to Congress, and no one would do much more than bat an eye.) But in this era nothing is off limits, and we're by no means better off as a result.

[PeterUK.]

Islamic terror threats against France for electing a jew. What was Ron Paul saying about being attacked because you provoked the Jihadis? Everything provokes them,just being provokes them!

[Dale in Atlanta]

McCain has lost his mind!

And as someone who has been a POW, and been tortured, he should know better!

There is NO "enhanced interrogation" technique, that is currently used by the US, that comes CLOSE to being "torture"!

Anyway who says that, is a complete fool!

Making someone cold, or hot, or not feeding them enough, or making them listen to loud music, or stand up for too long, or even waterboarding them, IS NOT TORTURE!

Torture is what the Jihadis do to our guys, adn the Iraqi civilians they capture!

Torture is cutting off limbs, and pulling fingernails, and cutting off digits, and putting people in large Shredders and raping them, and pushing them off of rooftops, and sexually humiliating them, and making them drink bleach and eat broken glass, that IS "torture".

The "enhanced interrogation" techniques, the same things that are done to OUR OWN TROOPS; who go thru SERE school, to give them the experience to Resist REAL Torture; and the same things, by the way, or worse, that are done on a 100 college campuses a day in this country, as part of Hazing Riturals, are NOT TORTURE!

So, get over yourself McCain, and all the bozos, right and left, who foolishly agree with him!

And besides, his argument that we shouldn't use "torture" (which I agree with by the way, but he so very wrongly defines "torture", and he should know, because he WAS Tortured, for REAL!) is that if we do it, then our enemies will do it too!

What a stupid ass statment: THEY ALREADY DO, DO IT!

The cut peoples limbs off, they cut peoples heads off; ask the troops who've found dozens, if not scores of REAL "torture" chambers over in Iraq.

Ask the victims, if you could, of the BEHEADINGS in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Thailand, and the Philippines!

Ask McCain himself, the Vietnamese tortured him; and the Cubans use it, and many other African countries, etc.

The fact that we don't use it, is not cited by any of our enemies as a "strength", they laugh at us, because we don't use it!, and consider us weak, and foolish, because we don't!

No need to bring up "Abu Ghraib"; I know all about it, and that was an aberration, NOT "offical policy".

[Jane]

I remember having a conversation with someone a few years back who said that if someone was about to kill his wife and kids and torture would guarantee their safety, he would resign himself to losing his wife and kids.

WHO THINKS LIKE THAT?

Like Andrew Sullivan, the question of torture settles the race for me too. Anyone who would not consider torture regardless of the stakes is not someone I would vote for.

[Wagster]

This is why conservatives cannot be trusted to fight the war on Islamic radicalism.

Your discussion of torture glosses lightly over the humanitarian and the practical aspects, but it completely avoids the value of torture as a propaganda weapons for the other side. The administration used this card very effectively in the run-up to the Iraqi war -- one of the reasons given for going in was because Saddam had torture rooms. When war opponents heard this argument, they would immediately be put back on their heels, saying yes indeed, Saddam's human rights record was terrible. Now that argument is being used by our opponents, and its value is immense. Intutitively, people all over the world understand that nations that torture do not have any respect for human dignity.

This is not World War II, where brute strength and will alone win the day. We are in a global counter-insurgency. Counter-insurgencies are won as much politically as militarity; the hearts and minds of the populations need to be won over. In the minds of conservatives, however, caring about what others think is a sign of weakness. They don't understand the nature of this conflict and therefore are unequipped to fight it.

And to the poster above, who thinks things like waterboarding and sleep deprivation are not torture... somehow, I think only a few years ago his definition of torture would have been a bit different. Rather than getting into these legalisms, how about a dictionary definition? Why don't we say torture is the infliction of pain to extract information. Or is respecting the meaning of language going back to a pre-9/11 mindset?

[Jane]

So Wagster,

We will put you down in the column of people who would let your family be killed rather than engage in torture - good to know.

Can you give us a run-down of the order of our rights you are willing to give up? I'm interested in knowing whether stoning the gays comes before or after forcing women to wear berkhas.

[Dale in Atlanta]

Wagster: your post exemplifies why we can never, NEVER, EVER, let Democrats in charge of this country again!

Truth hurts!

You haven't a clue what we are up against; you're parroting Democratic talking points, the Al Gore " we all live in a Utopian World, and this is a law enforcement issue.." type of approach, that will get you, and your family converted to Islam at the point of a sword, your womenfolk put in Burqas, or, worse, all your heads cut off!

You're not a serious person, and you don't have a clue, that's obvious!

[clarice]

I'm with Jane. (And I think Sullivan has daily dipped his toes in the dementia vat.)
After the debate McCain in a conversation with the mods, indicated that in a really exigent circumstance the President retained the power to okay real torture,BTW. (Of course, immediately after McCain's buddies on the other side of the aisle would leak it to the NYT and institute impeachment proceddings.
We are in very perilous times and a lot of people are just not honest or serious.
(What would Edwards' notion of "torture" be--withholding cream rinse?)

[hit and run]

Why don't we say torture is the infliction of pain to extract information.

By that definition, writing that post to get to this question...

Or is respecting the meaning of language going back to a pre-9/11 mindset?

...is torture.

[cathyf]

Why don't we say torture is the infliction of pain to extract information.

So Hugh Christopher Newsom and Channon Gail Christian weren't tortured? What "information" were their torturers attempting to extract from them?

[Wagster]

Jane:

I'm not willing to give up any rights: to lousy Islamic jihadists or an out-of-control executive branch.

Dale:

Read Petraeus's counter-insurgency manual... hell, read anything about counter-insurgency. Any military theorist will tell you that hearts and minds are key. To conservative pols trying to make political hay, however, a tough guy pose is far more important than a common sense wartime strategy.

[Sue]

Counter-insurgencies are won as much politically as militarity; the hearts and minds of the populations need to be won over

I'm all for that. What exactly do you propose we do, politically? And how do we win their hearts and minds?

[Sue]

Wait, I just noticed the words as much in your post. So you advocate both? Military and political? What sort of military action is appropriate? In your opinion?

[clarice]

Why not publish a manual telling the jihadis they are safe in our hands and detail exactly what we can and cannot do to them so they know to just clam up?

Actually, we can just go back to the Clinton days when we turned them over to Arab countries who know this hearts and minds things is inapplicable to terrorists and let them do the dirty work? Back to rendition..

[Other Tom]

Wagster: Please recount for us each and every instance in which non-Muslims have won the hearts and minds of Muslims. Otherwise, please stow this "hearts and minds" bullshit altogether.

It is the dream of the western Left--and certainly the Democratic party--that we can come out of all of this modern strife intact without killing anybody, and without any of our soldiers being kille. That is, indeed, a dream, and nothing more.

[Other Tom]

"killed"

[Wagster]

Sue:

Helping resolve the Israeli-Palestine conflict would go a long way to calming things in the mideast. I think we also have to make clear that the principle of self-determination is antecedent to the principle of democracy. We have to make clear that yes, we favor democracy, but countries have a right to decide how they govern themselves; that there cannot be democracy without self-determination.

Also, we have to use all our soft power levers to encourage civil society, free press, independent judiciary, secular education, etc. These are the things that fertilize the ground for democracy, and will make populations more favorable to our values.

We have to prosecute the war in Afghanistan far more energetically than we've been doing. We still need to punish those who harbor terrorists hostile to us, and strike the terrorists directly, but generally, our military profile should be minimized while maintaining the leverage we need.

[PeterUK.]

"Your discussion of torture glosses lightly over the humanitarian and the practical aspects, but it completely avoids the value of torture as a propaganda weapons for the other side".

Yes the "other side" is well aware of the propaganda value of torture,that is why they use torture as a matter of course.

To take the possibility of torture off the table is lunacy in the light of the certainty of torture and death to those who cooperate with interrogators.

[southside]

Sue,
You are asking Wagster to display some complexity of thought and perhaps attention to the reality of a blood thirsty enemy. Conflating Petraeus' counter-insugency approach to a large scale population with the possibility of specific actions against known terrorists to obtain critical information is a tactic often employed by those not willing to discuss the hard point. Is it not possible to to agree that torture is never the desired or preferable method and shouldn't be given as policy, but sometimes there are conditions that call for someone to make that call.

[clarice]

More, B.S> from Wagster. The Arab despots keep abusing their own people , stirring up hatred and then yelling we have to solve the Arab-Israeli conflct and that will settle everything. Utter nonsense. The Sunni/Shiite fight has nothing to do with the P.A.; the Algerian thugs have nothing to do with the P.A.; the Syrian occupation of Lebanon has nothing to do with the P.A. The Iranians as a general rule feel absolutely no sympathy with the Palestinians and do not care what happens to them.

If Israel were destroyed tomorrow these same gasbags would be saying, "First we have to deal with the claims to Andalucia"

[Sue]

Helping resolve the Israeli-Palestine conflict would go a long way to calming things in the mideast.

Oh brother...

We have to prosecute the war in Afghanistan far more energetically than we've been doing.

Speaker Pelosi told me the war in Afghanistan was over.

We still need to punish those who harbor terrorists hostile to us, and strike the terrorists directly, but generally, our military profile should be minimized while maintaining the leverage we need.

There are terrorists in Iraq that are hostile to us. Should we strike them directly? How do you tell a terrorist from an insurgent? How do we maintain leverage if we flee the battlefield?

[PeterUK.]

"Helping resolve the Israeli-Palestine conflict would go a long way to calming things in the mideast. I think we also have to make clear that the principle of self-determination is antecedent to the principle of democracy."

Palestine was created by the Arab countries to be a festering sore in the Middle East,there is enough wealth and land in the region to solve the problem.Note, the KSA does nothing t ameliorate the problem.
The only price that was temporarily assuage Palestinian demands is the dismantling of Israel.
Secondly democracy is anathema to Islamism.

[Wagster]

Other Tom:

The guy that sold me the falafel sandwich I had for lunch. We've won him over. And probably most of the 5 million or so muslims in the U.S. I don't think any of them have actually carried out a terrorist attack.

But don't let me stop you from generalizing about a billion people worldwide.

[Wagster]

Sue:

Oh, brother...

Tony Blair and the Iraq Study Group agree that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an aggravant. What is there to lose? Is the conflict helping Israel? Or Palestine? Or anyone? It probably won't bear fruit, but a good faith effort on our part is necessary.

[Enlightened]

Hmmm, this one's a toughy.

1) Waterboard an asshole that was just videotaped cutting off an American's head and holding it aloft, grinning from ear to ear. Inform future beheaders they can expect the same.

OR:

2) Don't waterboard the asshole, try and reason with him. Let him vote for his punishment. Let his associates vote for his punishment. Release asshole with no charges since holding him without charging him is also toture. Asshole swiftly beheads American number 2.

Yeah that's a pretty damn tough call.

Probably why the insurgents feel so empowered - Americans are being forced to conduct a war without violence, while the enemy engages in uncivilised, depraved brutality, which is OK because hey - that's their religion.

PUK said it yesterday - the derangement level is exceedingly high the last few days - most likely sunspots.

[clarice]

Maybe, Wagster. The first generation of Moslem immigrants to England were rather the same as your falafel seller. As soon as there was a critical mass, however.
Pym Fortune signalled it first in the Netherlands--that his nation was allowing in thousands of immigrants who did not share its liberal tolerant views and that tradition was about to be lost because of it. And he was right.

[Enlightened]

Wagster says:

"The guy that sold me the falafel sandwich I had for lunch."

Nothing like reducing 5 million people to generalization. I suppose you are against profiling huh?

Did you ask Falfel Seller if he was Muslim?

[PeterUK.]

"Tony Blair and the Iraq Study Group agree that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an aggravant. What is there to lose? Is the conflict helping Israel? Or Palestine? Or anyone? It probably won't bear fruit, but a good faith effort on our part is necessary."

This of course begs the question,whether an attempt at resolving a problem deliberately designed to bring conflict to the region.It is obvious that the US government is,as are many Western governments,attempting to resolve this intractable problem.
The central question is that, when the only issue that unites the waring factions in Palestine is the destruction of Israel,what can be brokered by outside agencies?

[Wagster]

Clarice:

I don't think the difference between Moslem immigrants in UK and the US is due to volume or generation. Some parts of Detroit are very high-density moslem. I think the U.S. has always been more assimilative than Europe.

Peter:

The central question is that, when the only issue that unites the waring factions in Palestine is the destruction of Israel,what can be brokered by outside agencies?

Maybe nothing, but the chances are better with U.S. participation than without. And by the way, what you say about the warring factions in Palestine could have been said of Egypt at one point.

[Wagster]

Enlightened:

Did you ask Falfel Seller if he was Muslim?

It's a halal stand so I thought it was a safe bet.

[Enlightened]

So, why would the warring factions in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict benefit from US participation, but the warring factions in the Iraq conflict should not?

[Sue]

Tony Blair and the Iraq Study Group agree that the Israel-Palestine conflict is an aggravant.

I'm not sure what Blair and ISG have to do with my "oh brother". I still say "oh brother".

What is there to lose?

What else is there to do? They (Palestinians) have made it clear they will not live in peace with Israel. Appeasement isn't working.

Is the conflict helping Israel?

Of course not. It isn't Israel that is unwilling to live in peace.

Or Palestine?

Absolutely. If they lay down their arms and live in peace, what else do they have?

Or anyone?

It will be something else if the conflict between Israel and Palestine is ever resolved. You will have to trust me on this one, because the conflict will never be resolved and as such, I have no way of proving my statement.

It probably won't bear fruit, but a good faith effort on our part is necessary.

A good faith effort? On our part? You keed. You joke...

If Palestine laid down its arms today, there would be peace. If Israel laid down its arms today, they would be pushed into the sea. The problem is not Israel.

[Wagster]

So, why would the warring factions in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict benefit from US participation, but the warring factions in the Iraq conflict should not?

I think the warring factions in Iraq are benefitting in the short term. I do think it's likely that the situation would get worse after we withdraw. But I think that by propping up the government we are extending the conflict. Why?

1) Any government we back will not have sovereign legitimacy. It will be seen by the people as our puppet.

2) Any government we back will not have credibility of force. Civil wars are not over until one side knows it's lost. The Sunni insurgents will not know they have lost until the U.S. leaves and they find out whether they can take on the Shiite government alone.

3) Any government we back will not be able to cultivate its own constituency. Its only real constituency is us, and what pleases us displeases everyone else in Iraq.

As to Al Qaeda, they are a terrorist group not an insurgency. They have alienated the Sunni sheiks now, who are fighting them with us, so they have no natural allies left in Iraq. The only thing that keeps them going is that Iraq is in anarchy and we are there winning them propaganda points.

We should not withdraw, but disengage within Iraqi borders. What we can achieve there is act as a trigger force discouraging the neighbors from entering, and we can take shots of opportunity at Al Qaeda. We should do those things we can do, not the ones we can't.

[boris]

Bernard Lewis has a good article relevant to Mideast mindset.

The response to 9/11, so completely out of accord with previous American practice, came as a shock, and it is noteworthy that there has been no successful attack on American soil since then. The U.S. actions in Afghanistan and in Iraq indicated that there had been a major change in the U.S., and that some revision of their assessment, and of the policies based on that assessment, was necessary.

Returning to a pre 9/11 Mideast approach would be an invitation to catastrophe.

[boris]

we are there winning them propaganda points.

Speak for yourself.

[PeterUK.]

I don't think the difference between Moslem immigrants in UK and the US is due to volume or generation. Some parts of Detroit are very high-density moslem. I think the U.S. has always been more assimilative than Europe.

Same old BS,give it time.Those who perpetrated 7/7 were born and raised here,came from reasonably well off families.
Something else is at work here,this generation is less assimilated than their parents,why? Because the numbers are such that they don't have to be. Immigrants from the Indian subcontinent are marrying spouses from the old homeland,often the wife or husband cannot speak English.The customs of the old country are taking precedence.
Oddly the Arab custom of wearing the Hijab has increased,rare to see thirty years ago,even more odd that it isn't a custom in the part of the world they come from.

The central question is that, when the only issue that unites the waring factions in Palestine is the destruction of Israel,what can be brokered by outside agencies?

"Maybe nothing, but the chances are better with U.S. participation than without".

If you raise another strawman like this,you will be entitled to the JOM agricultural subsidy.

[cathyf]

From Taranto today, this seems particularly on-topic:

In his Sept. 11, 2000, column the late Bob Bartley argued that the press tends to deal in stereotypes, which arise "out of a tension between the ideal of objectivity and the reality of a liberal background and environment." We were reminded of this observation when we saw a piece posted on the BBC Web site yesterday, which exemplifies just how blind journalists can be to their own prejudices--even when the stories they are reporting run counter to those prejudices.

The headline: "US Detainee 'Mentally Tortured.' " The lead paragraph:

A Pakistani-born US resident detained at Guantanamo Bay has said he was "mentally tortured" there, according to a transcript released by the Pentagon.

It is true that the detainee, Majid Khan, claims to have been "mentally tortured." It is also true that the press stereotypes Guantanamo as a place where wicked Americans commit unspeakable atrocities against innocent terrorists. But if you read the BBC story to the end, you discover that Khan's claims actually refute the press's stereotype:

Mr Khan complained about how US guards had taken away pictures of his daughter, given him new glasses with the wrong prescription, shaved his beard off, forcibly fed him when he went on hunger strike, and denied him the opportunity for recreation. . . .

Later, Mr Khan produced a list of further examples of psychological torture, which included the provision of "cheap, branded, unscented soap," the prison newsletter, noisy fans and half-inflated balls in the recreation room that "hardly bounce."

The poor dear has half-inflated balls! Oh, the humanity! None of the inconveniences Khan describes even remotely qualify as torture, yet the Beeb accepts his characterization at face value. The stereotype prevails even though the facts make clear that it is false. This is journalism?

[PeterUK.]

1) Any government we back will not have sovereign legitimacy. It will be seen by the people as our puppet.

Worked with Germany and Japan.

2) Any government we back will not have credibility of force. Civil wars are not over until one side knows it's lost. The Sunni insurgents will not know they have lost until the U.S. leaves and they find out whether they can take on the Shiite government alone.

Not the Shiite alone,Iran and Syria have a dog in this fight.
Of course,the US will have lost and will suffer the consequences.

3) Any government we back will not be able to cultivate its own constituency. Its only real constituency is us, and what pleases us "displeases everyone else in Iraq".

"But don't let me stop you from generalizing about a billion people worldwide."
Pot,kettle black.

"As to Al Qaeda, they are a terrorist group not an insurgency. They have alienated the Sunni sheiks now, who are fighting them with us, so they have no natural allies left in Iraq. The only thing that keeps them going is that Iraq is in anarchy and we are there winning them propaganda points".

Anarchy is the stock in trade of terrorists,if the US retreats,AQ will turn Iraq into another Afghanistan.

"We should not withdraw, but disengage within Iraqi borders. What we can achieve there is act as a trigger force discouraging the neighbors from entering, and we can take shots of opportunity at Al Qaeda. We should do those things we can do, not the ones we can't".

This last,I particularly like,indicative of solar activity.

[Wagster]

if the US retreats,AQ will turn Iraq into another Afghanistan.

This is pure fantasy. 60% of Iraq is Shiite! Even the Sunnis have come to despise AQ, which is why the situation in the western provinces has so improved. The prospects of AQ being friendly with the next Iraqi government is zero, zip, nilch, nada. They can blow things up, but that's all they can do.

[Wagster]

if the US retreats,AQ will turn Iraq into another Afghanistan.

This is pure fantasy. 60% of Iraq is Shiite! Even the Sunnis have come to despise AQ, which is why the situation in the western provinces has so improved. The prospects of AQ being friendly with the next Iraqi government is zero, zip, nilch, nada. They can blow things up, but that's all they can do.

[Jane]

I'm not willing to give up any rights: to lousy Islamic jihadists or an out-of-control executive branch.

Of course you are. That's what you plan to negotiate about. Isn't that the way to win the global war on terror for you?

So what is it you think the jihadists are after? A seat on the world bank?

Let's have another chorus of kumbaya!

[PeterUK.]

"This is pure fantasy. 60% of Iraq is Shiite!"

You are forgetting that "60% of Iraq was Shiite!" when the Sunnis under their dictator Saddam Hussein ruled the country.

"he prospects of AQ being friendly with the next Iraqi government is zero, zip, nilch, nada. They can blow things up, but that's all they can do."

Yes that is what they do,just as Hezbollah turned the Lebanon into a shit hole,just as Hamas reduced Palestine to one of the depths of hell.It's what they do.

[Wagster]

Jane:

When did I say anything about negotiating with terrorists? I just don't want to make it easier for them to win sympathizers than is necessary. Nobody on this board seems to recognize this as a legitimate consideration, which is why you're not cut out to fight a global counter-insurgency.

[Sue]

which is why you're not cut out to fight a global counter-insurgency.

Fight? You don't want to fight anything. Except a bomb here, a bomb there. That sounds a lot like the Clinton way of fighting.

[SMGalbraith]

Any wagers on when Sullivan embraces the "Bush knew/was involved in 9/11" lunacy?

He's already stated that we live in a "thinly disguised military dictatorship" (my guess is that even the Paulists don't go that far; but I wouldn't want to lay the house on it). BTW, he's removed the above statement from his archives.

Seems the logical step: dictatorship to mass murder.

There is a modicum of logic in this: If one thinks that the current Administration is corrupt, evil and unjust when exercising power at home, why not believe that they're unjust when projecting that power abroad?

Makes sense. But I guess Alex Jones' worldview is logical too.

SMG

[PeterUK.]

"which is why you're not cut out to fight a global counter-insurgency".

And "Jack "Over the Horizon" Murtha,Nancy "Why can't we all be Friends" Pelosi, Clinton " Cut the funding" Obama and " disengage within Iraqi borders" are?.

The liberal left ploy of putting all their cards face up on the table must have them rolling in the aisles from Tripoli to Kabul.

[PatrickR]

From the Bernard Lewis piece boris linked to:

During the Cold War, two things came to be known and generally recognized in the Middle East concerning the two rival superpowers. If you did anything to annoy the Russians, punishment would be swift and dire. If you said or did anything against the Americans, not only would there be no punishment; there might even be some possibility of reward, as the usual anxious procession of diplomats and politicians, journalists and scholars and miscellaneous others came with their usual pleading inquiries: "What have we done to offend you? What can we do to put it right?"

IOW, Osama has all along been playing to the Andrew Sullivan-Ron Paul--Usual Suspects. And, it may work.

If it does, we can look forward to something like what Christopher Hitchens found in his old neighborhood:

It's impossible to exaggerate how far and how fast this situation has deteriorated. Even at the time of the Satanic Verses affair, as long ago as 1989, Muslim demonstrations may have demanded Rushdie's death, but they did so, if you like, peacefully. And they confined their lurid rhetorical attacks to Muslims who had become apostate. But at least since the time of the Danish-cartoon furor, threats have been made against non-Muslims as well as ex-Muslims (see photograph), the killing of Shiite Muslim heretics has been applauded and justified, and the general resort to indiscriminate violence has been rationalized in the name of god. Traditional Islamic law says that Muslims who live in non-Muslim societies must obey the law of the majority. But this does not restrain those who now believe that they can proselytize Islam by force, and need not obey kuffar law in the meantime. I find myself haunted by a challenge that was offered on the BBC by a Muslim activist named Anjem Choudary: a man who has praised the 9/11 murders as "magnificent" and proclaimed that "Britain belongs to Allah." When asked if he might prefer to move to a country which practices Shari'a, he replied: "Who says you own Britain anyway?" A question that will have to be answered one way or another.

[Wagster]

PeterUK:

You are forgetting that "60% of Iraq was Shiite!" when the Sunnis under their dictator Saddam Hussein ruled the country.

Yes, that's why Saddam ruled as a secularist. AQ doesn't have that option. And to compare AQ in Iraq to Hamas and Hezbollah!? These are broad-based political movements... AQ in Iraq is just a fringe group with no popular support. Hezbollah grows its constituency with charity work; AQ in Iraq doesn't even try to grow a constituency, because you know, blowing up people at random tends to not make you very popular among the population.

[MikeS]

The fear is not that al Qaeda will take over all of Iraq, only Anbar Province and perhaps a bit more. Southern Iraq would likely go to Iran or Iranian puppets.

I agree with Wagster that we should consider winning 'hearts and minds' important. I just don't agree that Wagster is right about how to do that.

[PeterUK.]

"Yes, that's why Saddam ruled as a secularist."

Which is why he had a copy of the Koran written in his own blood.

This should,though it won't,enlighten you.

Newsweek article written Sept 2002 Seeing the Evil In Front of Us Christopher Dickey

Its January 1993 So Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression. Chechens in Persian-lamb hats, Moroccans in caftans, delegates who hailed “from Jakarta to Dakar,” as one Senegalese put it, poured into Baghdad’s Rashid Hotel, where Saddam’s minions urged them to embrace jihad as “the one gate to Paradise.” And the greatest holy warrior of all? “The mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers,” they were told. “Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state,” declared Saddam’s deputy Ezzat Ibrahim. The Americans had colonized Lebanon; they had colonized Saudi Arabia. But the line against them would be drawn in Iraq. Believers would triumph, said Ibrahim: “Our stand now can lead us to final victory, to Paradise.”

That was in January 1993. I was there, and every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a “secular Baathist ideologue” who has nothing to do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they’re talking about.