Libertarians At War (With Each Other)

Glenn Reynolds links to Steven Green, who argues that the war against Islamofascism is more fraught with peril than the Cold War:

With the one tiny (and farfetched) possibility of instant and total nuclear annihilation, the stakes today are much, much higher than they ever were during the Cold War.

On the other hand, John Tierney, libertarian columnist for the NY Times, thinks that, although it made sense for Osama Bin Laden to market his jihad in apocalyptic terms, it was foolish for Bush to play along (other than for political advantage - yes, this column represents, for Tierney, a real Bush-basher, so I'll excerpt a lot for the non-Times Select crowd out there.)

Somewhere, Osama bin Laden must be smiling. Or at least he will be whenever his couriers deliver the next batch of press clippings.

Once again he has beaten America at an American game: public relations. He may be sitting powerlessly in a cave, but his image is as scary as ever. He doesn’t even have to cut a new video. He released an old one last week, the equivalent of a fading musician putting out a greatest-hits album, only this one’s getting played every hour.

Last night, President Bush paid him homage by quoting his warning that America will face “defeat and disgrace forever” it if loses in Iraq. Bush himself called the war on terror a “struggle for civilization,” and said it was essential to ”maintain the way of life enjoyed by free nations.”

It was just the kind of apocalyptic language favored by bin Laden, except that, for all his delusions, he might realize that American civilization is not really in jeopardy. Americans can try to copy him, but they don’t understand his rhetorical technique.

They continually misinterpret his equine theory of international relations: “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse.” This is supposedly a reason America was attacked on Sept. 11 — it was perceived as weak for failing to respond to Al Qaeda’s earlier attacks — and why it can’t leave Iraq.

...

But bin Laden knows something else the Bush administration hasn’t figured out: You don’t actually have to be the strong horse. You just have to look stronger. You can be weak, you can be pummeled in a fight, but as long as your opponent looks more scared than you, you can save face by simply declaring victory.

As an act of war, the attack on Sept. 11 was a blunder by Al Qaeda, and not merely because of the counterattack that destroyed Al Qaeda’s training camps and ousted the Taliban. It also alienated former jihadist allies in the Arab world, and caused a rift within Al Qaeda.

One of its senior members, Abu al-Walid al-Masri, broke with bin Laden and accused him of having an “extreme infatuation” with international publicity. The attack, as Fawaz Gerges notes in Foreign Policy magazine, demonstrated that “bin Laden was prepared to sacrifice Afghanistan and Mullah Omar at the altar of his public relations campaign.”

But at least bin Laden knew his P.R. Al Qaeda wasn’t a serious military threat to America, but it could play one on television. As Al Qaeda’s losses mounted and America recovered from the attack, bin Laden and his cohorts didn’t let the facts get in the way of their campaign to promote fear (and themselves). They hid in caves and proclaimed themselves champions.

America, meanwhile, accentuated the negative. Instead of declaring victory against terrorists after routing the Taliban and sending bin Laden into hiding, it invaded Iraq, reinvigorating Al Qaeda with a new tool for recruiting. Instead of putting the terrorist risk in perspective, Bush (with the full cooperation of Democrats and the press) set an impossible standard for making America safe.

“We’re on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront,” Bush said last week, “and we’ll accept nothing less than complete victory.”

When you define victory that way, when you treat one attack from a disorganized band of fanatics as a menace to civilization, you’ve doomed yourself to defeat and caused more damage than they could. You can’t completely stop terrorism, but you can scare people into giving up liberties, wasting huge sums of money and sacrificing more lives than would be lost in a terrorist attack.

My interpretation of the Tierney Strategy - as a nation we should keep our eye on the threat but not scream about it.  As an example, could George Bush have gotten expanded wiretapping authority from Congress without hyping the terror threat?  Who knows or cares?  Bush operated under Executive authority there, with Guantanamo, and in many other ways.  But I'll wager he could have calmly gotten authorization from Congress even with a bit less of the apocalypse now in his rhetoric.

Since Glenn also links to James Joyner, let's put him in the mix as thinking the Cold War was more dangerous:

There’s a minor problem, though, with the argument: It is simply inconceivable that the Islamists will defeat us militarily, let alone impose their culture on us. As scary as Bin Laden and company are, they are not going to amass an arsenal of nuclear weapons capable of annihiliting the planet many times over.

In hindsight, the only way we’d have lost to the Soviets was through nuclear holocaust. They were simply no match for us in the things that matter in conventional war, a strong economy and a highly trained, technologically advanced force. But that actually made threat of a war between the two superpowers excalating to a nuclear conflagration a near certainty if war ignited.

For myself - the Cold War was more dangerous.  From a PR perspective, America could have been well-served by delivering a tub-thumping in Afghanistan, trumpeting our victory, and then quietly maintaining a high level of vigilance.

Invading Iraq and transforming it into a stable democracy also represented a way to advance America's strategic interests.  However, invading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward.

Comments

[Pofarmer]

"http://www.nisnews.nl/public/130906_2.htm"

Yeah, maybe, except for this little problem. See, they don't neccesarily have to defeat us militarily, but, unfortunately, it looks like we do. They know this.

The title of the article is

"Minister Welcomes Sharia In Netherlands If Majority Wants It"

[Pofarmer]

When you define victory that way, when you treat one attack from a disorganized band of fanatics as a menace to civilization, you’ve doomed yourself to defeat and caused more damage than they could. You can’t completely stop terrorism, but you can scare people into giving up liberties, wasting huge sums of money and sacrificing more lives than would be lost in a terrorist attack.

And to make that statement, you really have to have your head in the sand.

[bgates]

OK, I'll grant that Islamists won't be able to get enough nukes to destroy the planet repeatedly. But let's say they get, oh, 25. [For the sake of argument, pretend there are 50+ nuclear weapons in a country near Osama's Afghan hideout with a military/intel complex thoroughly penetrated by Islamists.] And suppose we manage to catch 80% of those. So the only places that are hit (and not even completely destroyed) are NYC, DC, Paris, Tel Aviv, and (because we're not their only enemies) New Delhi. Would that be a good opportunity to say the attack proves our enemies are scared, and declare victory?

[boris]

was probably not be the way

But now all their bases are belong to us!

[boris]

Which is "more" dangerous? High odds of a small nuke war vs low odds of a world ender?

Flipping Iraq cuts the odds of a small nuke war. Also gives better strategic presence for a long term conflict. Vigilance is another open ended cold war scenario. Reagan didn't win the cold war with it, he toppled the USSR by proactive military buildup and winning the arms race.

[lurker]

Where does Larry Elder fit in? I know he's a libertarian.

[cathyf]

It is simply inconceivable that the Islamists will defeat us militarily, let alone impose their culture on us.

Gee, have you noticed how the middle east, the craddle of Judiaism and Christianity, is still 95% Jewish and Christian? Uh, huh, me neither. I bet the Byzantine Church thought it was inconceivable, too.

As I have often said over the years, "And your lack of imagination impresses me exactly how?"

[Jane]

It is simply inconceivable that the Islamists will defeat us militarily, let alone impose their culture on us..

I find this an incredibly naive outlook. All we need is a spineless president who is happy to concede all sorts of weapons, liberties and anything else to avoid confronting the threat. Having that outlook bolstered by the press, will hasten the loss. And if you don't think we will concede, think about the Mohammed cartoons.

Okay okay, we've already had a spineless president, and we only lost 4,000 people - but then again the weapon was box cutters. President Feingold or Kerry would happily concede just about anything, to avoid war.

I just can't forget what happened in Iran. It went from a sophisticated, relatively free flourishing culture to women covered by shrouds suddenly valued at half that as men, almost overnight.

[Brendan]

yes, this column represents, for Tierney, a real Bush-basher

Oh, please!!

[Brendan]

Justice Minister Piet Van Donner:

"For me it is clear: if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Sharia tomorrow, then the possibility should exist,"

Sounds to me like the minister was engaging in a bit of political correctness. It doesn't sound at all like he would really welcome it, or was worried about it actually happening.

[sammy small]

The Cold War more dangerous? That's hard for me to fathom.

I spent two years in the mid 70's in Europe sitting Victor Alert, where we were the second or third nuc strike on our planned tactical targets. Even back then then we figured the chances for the balloon to go up were about as close to none as you could get. At least the USSR was sensible.

The Jihadis are driven with a zeal to convert or destroy the infidel world. They will eventually get their hands on one or two to set off in Israel and/or the U.S. or just to use as blackmail. The odds of that are nearing the high end of the spectrum in my opinion.

[Kevin B]

For myself - the Cold War was more dangerous

For your children this war is more dangerous.

Islamic fundamentalism is currently advancing all over the world and they are doing it on their timescale. I'm not just talking about Mark Steyn's demographic time bomb, but the Wahhabist project of conquest which is making significant inroads in Africa, Asia, the Far East and Europe.

It goes like this. Take over a mosque, open a madrassa and preach jihad. Once you have a significant number of local converts, you point out all the apostates, infidels and heathens in the district and exhort your converts to do their duty.

Read up on the last thirty years in Nigeria, or Thailand or the Philipines or Malaysia.

Here in Europe the the project is only in it's early stages and they have already demonstrated that the troops are available in Madrid and London and Paris and Hamburg and Amsterdam. How sure are you that the seeds are not already germinating in Chicago and Washington and New York.

But, you might say, it was our response to 911 that brought out the terrorists, that recruited more.

No, it was 911 itself that did the recruiting. Jihadist Islam is a Warrior culture and a huge victory like 911 does wonders for troop morale and recruitment. A weak response to 911 would have been far worse.

The Bush Doctrine of taking the war to the middle east in the hope of producing democratic states which won't make war on each other has a slim chance of winning. The by product of taking the war into their own back yard and defeating the jihadists on their own ground, will dishearten the jihadists and embolden those in Africa or South East Asia who are on the other front lines in the GWOT.

This is why the constant refrain of "We're losing, and what's more we don't deserve to win" is so destructive. There are Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Animists and most of all Muslims, dying every day in this War and the dumb western press doesn't even notice.

Bush keeps telling us that this is a long war, and yet ninety percent of us still want the troops home by Christmas, (sorry Winter Holiday). He's right. It's a long war which will flare and subside, but we better be prepared to keep fighting it and we'd better find some moral sense, some shared civilizational values to fight for.

[Pofarmer]

"This is why the constant refrain of "We're losing, and what's more we don't deserve to win" is so destructive. "

That's why the Democrats bitching today that Bush's speeck last night was all Political is so--unhelpful, to be polite.

[Jim K.]

I used to like Tierney back eight or ten years ago when he wrote about New York City issues. My guess is he's enjoying the NY Times cocktail party scene a bit too much (and I don't mean the drinking).

[I]nvading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward.

Tom, don't tell me you're doing that hindsight thing. Ok, so they underestimated the difficulty of nation-building. Where do we go from here?

[PeterUK]

KevinB,
Whilst I agree with much you say,Jihadism is not a "Warrior Culture",it is an Assassins culture,the culture of the gangster and the thief in the night.Al Qaeda owes more to the "Old Man of the Mountains" than it does Saladin.

To All,an interesting article by Melanie Phillips

[Barney Frank]

Well, lets see, the cold war lasted about forty five years, although the USSR was bent on our destruction from its inception.
The analagous date for the present conflict should therefore, I think, be 9/11 2001, with any earlier conflict analogous to pre WWII cold war manuevering.
Therefore it seems logical that we should revisit this question in about forty years, after Islam has been demographing all over Eurabia and using forty more years of oil revenue to build plenty of mideast bombs. And the Islamic bomb will prove to be pretty darn numerous if France goes under.
Was the cold war more immediately dangerous? In one sense yes because the USSR had thousands of nukes and a huge military. But history is never static and as we see in Iraq a huge military is more easily defeated than some scrappy little nutjobs with a few bombs and an ideology they actually believe.
If we allow Islam to retain its present aggressive growth for long and continue its uneasy alliance with China, I consider it extremely unlikely the Islamic war will end as the cold war did. The closing sequences of Dr Strangelove come to mind.

[Syl]

Bush and bin laden do share a common goal--transform the Middle East.

Bush has to get there first.

[Terrye]

I don;t think it is a fair comparison. The Soviets had more nukes, but they had no desire to die, they did not seek martyrdom.

The jihadis might only get one weapon like that, but they would not hesitate to us...and then I can not imagine what would follow.

And btw, why don't give the whole Iraq/nonplan thing a rest. Wars are messy, fact of life.

[Syl]

When you define victory that way, when you treat one attack from a disorganized band of fanatics as a menace to civilization, you’ve doomed yourself to defeat and caused more damage than they could. You can’t completely stop terrorism, but you can scare people into giving up liberties, wasting huge sums of money and sacrificing more lives than would be lost in a terrorist attack.

ONE FRIGGIN' ATTACK?!?!?!? 9/11 was the latest in a SERIES of FRIGGIN' attacks.

DISORGANIZED BAND OF FANATICS? They even had a VACATION policy. They have manuals. They have training camps. They publish books. They have TV networks. They have a very clear mission statement! They have branches in over 100 countries! They have supporters in high places!

So, John Tierney, nothing to see here eh? Just move along now eh? Treat this a law enforcement issue waiting for tips to find out who might be planning an attack eh? Can't arrest anyone unless you know who they are and you have evidence that an attack was imminent, eh? If you're lucky, eh?

That worked out real good before 9/11 didn't it eh?

Say, John Tierney, if we do it YOUR way will you be one of the first to convert to Islam just to make them STOP?

[Kevin B]

Yes PeterUK, you're right.

Jihadism is not a "Warrior Culture",it is an Assassins culture,the culture of the gangster and the thief in the night.

It's also an 'Honour' culture, or more properly a dishonour culture.

[Terrye]

Syl:

The libertarians are almost as incoherent as the left. In fact it is getting harder and harder to tell them apart.

[Jane]

Whilst I agree with much you say,Jihadism is not a "Warrior Culture",it is an Assassins culture,the culture of the gangster and the thief in the night.

It's both. Historically Arabs are warriors. The jihadists are assassins. I don't know about the 'honor' thing.

[Soylent Red]

See this is the problem with libs and dopertarians...

"Just relax maaaaan. It's all good."

The disturbing thing to me is not the mindset. I take that for granted from the cannabis set.

What scares me is the logical conclusion. If we publicly take the islamist threat seriously, we're playing into their hands. If we do not take the threat seriously in public, nobody will believe there's a threat because we're obviously not taking it seriously.

The reason we haven't already won this thing is because the vast majority of John Q. Sixpacks don't really believe that we are facing an existential threat. Even those with a glimmer are sitting around thinking, "Well eventually somebody will figure out what to do. Now be quiet... "The Real World" is on!"

So great idea Tierney. Let's do everything conceivably possible to downplay things to the American people, because we're not already complacent enough. God forbid we give Osama a reason to laugh at us, 'cause then we'd just look stupid.

Or, alternately, we can keep Osama from laughing at us by taking a different course: scatter him in flaming chunks across the Paki countryside.

[Lew Clark]

"However, invading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward."

Gee Tom, you've been hanging out on those leftist-defeatist blogs too long.

Certainly with 20/20 hindsight we can all say "It should have been done differently". More troops. Troops pre-trained for an occupation role. Keep more of the Iraqi government in place. Close the Syrian and Iranian border, etc. etc.

But the plans were made without hindsight. We had never had to face a situation where we occupied a country before we had totally decimated the enemy. The Saddamites just faded into the woodwork to fight another day. They were "reinforced" by Al Qaeda recruits who were armed by Iran and Syria.

We had hoped for a lot of resistance and the opportunity to knock out the majority of the Saddam loyalists in conventional battles. When they faded away, we knew we were in for a long hard time.

We also didn't expect the fifth-columnists in the U.S. to be as numerous and effective. We certainly didn't expect the "other party" to start cheering the terrorists and praying for our defeat with such vigor. I strongly feel that the Iraq war would be over. A stable government in control of it's own security would be in place, and most, if not all our troops would be home now, if not for the "aid and comfort" our enemies have received from our own citizens.

Plus we got this nation building from "bleeding heart liberals". I was for a scorched earth approach. Get Saddam, his sons, and as many of his inner circle as we could. Destroy Iraq's infrastructure and their capacity to make war. Go home and let the civil war happen. Check out who won and decide if we need to hit them again any time in the near future. But when i saw those purple fingers, I said it was worth it. So sad so many who once supported the war are now saying KOS is right "screw them" .

[Syl]

From a PR perspective, America could have been well-served by delivering a tub-thumping in Afghanistan, trumpeting our victory, and then quietly maintaining a high level of vigilance.

Some airstrikes, route the Taliban, then leave trumpeting our victory? Without catching bin laden? How do you think the Left would have reacted to THAT?!? From a PR perspective the world would be laughing at us.

And if we hadn't invaded Iraq, I wonder how many Americans would be shouting 'What about Iraq!?!??!' You don't think the propaganda about a peaceful Saddam during Clinton's administration had an effect?

You can make up scenarios and completely leave the American people out of it as if they'd go along with this policy or that one without a fuss.

Yes, there's a noisy antiwar movement, but a good half of the Americans disgusted with Iraq are disgusted because we HAVEN'T WON YET not because we're there.

[Semanticleo]

'The libertarians are almost as incoherent as the left. In fact it is getting harder and harder to tell them apart.'

Indeed. It seems less like a war between
'Libertarian'(which is about as descriptive
a term as 'vehicle', and is more of a catch basin for conservatives who like to appear
as independent thinkers) and more like a dispute over tactics, not strategy. There is no tolerance for a broad 'grey' area over the issue, and that plays into the hands of the extreme 'black or white' single-dimensional thinkers. Plenty of them still around.

[Syl]

For your children this war is more dangerous.

KevinB is spot on with this.

The Cold War is OVER. It means NOTHING to your children and grandchildren who have to live with THIS threat.

Comparing this war with the Cold War is as fruitless as comparing Iraq to Vietnam! Sheesh.

[Soylent Red]

Ah and one more thing...

PR perspective?

When, in the history of mankind, was a war won because of PR? Mobilize Madison Avenue!

I just don't get it anymore with these people. Why is it so important to them what anyone else thinks about how we protect and promote our national interests?

Even prior to 9/11, nobody was waiting in line to tell us how wonderful we were.

All paintjob and no engine with these guys.

[Syl]

Yeah!

re PR perspective

What we need is our own Tokyo Rose to scare them sh*tless and mock them! That's the PR we need.

Instead we're trying to make them think we're just nice guys so why would you want to kill us.

This is a** backwards!

[clarice]

Right , Soylent. In any event the record is clear, right up to the invasion of Iraq the entire world adored us, especially the French and those practicing for Sept 11 --and financing and aiding them. The world's losers and green eyed layabouts looked at the only Utopia in the history of the world that worked, and said "America, God bless her. Shining city on the hill and all that."Correcto.

[Soylent Red]

Syl:

We could steal from Frank Zappa and call our version of Tokyo Rose...

Sheik Yerbouti

"This is Sheik Yerbouti signing off once again and reminding all you jihadists out there that your wives and sisters are exposing their ankles and riding bicycles while you are away..."

[clarice]

Soylent, you are wicked anough to be perfect for the job.

[Soylent Red]

If only I spoke Arabic and Farsi and had access to a 100 megawatt station.

Seriously though. Does anyone know if we have something like this going? Drive those peckerwoods nuts...

[Uncle BigBad]

Rep Fool Delahunt is on C-SPAN right now with a blown-up picture of PM Malaki shaking hands with Ahmadinajhad.

He's (Delahunt) is reciting how much money we have spent (and how many lives) in liberating Iraq - and now this. I'm not sure what his point is. Maybe he wants to invade Iran and rescue Malaki? Maybe he thinks Malaki is proposing a merger with Iran?

It couldn't be that he's setting the stage for a major Bush bash? Naaa, that would be too craven even for a Democrat.

[Syl]

re my Tokyo Rose comment

I meant it more in sarcasm than as a policy I'd truly advocate.

I just want to make that clear.

[Syl]

On the other hand ::evil grin::

[Toby Petzold]

Maguire:

However, invading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward.

That's nonsense, frankly.

The War for Iraq may appear to have been unplanned and half-assed, but the truth is that it was intended to be a place for us to make our stand in the Muslim Middle East. And that's what our fighting men and women have made it. It's a place far from American soil where an enemy regime has finally been destroyed. It's a place in the midst of police states and would-be theocracies where the example of representative government has been given a chance to succeed. It's also a place where these savage Submitters ---like al-Qaeda--- have been drawn to. Purposely and strategically, Tom ---not half-assedly (if that's a word).

That's why our best and bravest have been called on to make a sacrifice of themselves ---and on our behalf--- against mass murderers and other sorts of Islamofascists.

In the long-term, the world will benefit from what our military has done in Iraq. No amount of anti-Bush rhetoric will change that.

[Ari Tai]

It's too easy to people to move forward while looking backwards - expecting few surprises.

We're now to the point that small groups with training and dedication can do a trillion dollars worth of damage. Tomorrow individuals will be able to do the same. The same dynamic that makes us all wealthy and powerful (as information flows freely, materials become widely available at purities that in the past were reserved for governments, special purpose (rare and expensive) hardware is replaced by general purpose hardware with cheap or free "software,") is moving inexorably towards putting the power of a sun in every person's pocket (and soon a pharmacopeia and virologist's lab).

We only have a few decades to get (the world) to the point where these violent passions as seen in fascists and other extremists are vented in peaceful processes. If we want to live free we need to act now (or we will live up to the fable of our reputation of practicing genocide).

If we do not or find we can not implement the National Security Strategy we won't have a prayer of being able to hold nation-states responsible for policing and limiting the damage that can be done by their people who will do bad things - given that it will be impossible to restrict access to information and general purpose tools... Note that this new world makes arms-control that regulates "things" (dangerous things likes guns, not violent people) look even more foolish than it does today.

The good news is we'll be welcoming citizens with concealed weapons permits back onto planes sooner than later with a much faster security process (where the question is "who are you and do we trust you to fly?, v. what's in your bags?").

We'll have a choice. Overweening regulation and intrusion into private lives with a loss of individual liberty that will make the U.S.S.R look attractive, or dealing quickly and harshly with those who break-windows, who choose violence over other outlets. We could do this without demanding freedom for the people of these other states but then we'll be faced with sterilization choices we don't want to make, and won't make until we're left with no choice. We'll find it easier to sleep at night if we make this attempt today and fail - rather than not to have tried at all when we find ourselves facing the Truman decision after another trillion dollar event, or, say, a dirty bomb kills tens of thousands of U.S. citizens vacationing in Cozumel, or retired in Warsaw.

/Ari

p.s. I find it amazing when people talk about the government or military "not having a plan." We've never had more clear statements of strategy and goals than we have today (in documents like the National Security Strategy). It's not clear we know how to accomplish these goals, but then Edison didn't really know how to make a lightbulb when he started. Those people that make a big deal about plans remind me of the Russian and Chinese Politburos with their 5-year plan and Great-Leap-Forward. What's important isn't "the plan" but a direction, metrics and willingness to adapt to a learning (and perhaps smarter) enemy (and leadership that makes decisions sooner than later - on very imperfect information, knowing that it is and will always be imperfect, leadership that measures and adjusts the rudder appropriately).

[boris]

The other thing about Iraq is that it's not Afghanistan. It's got a pretty decent shot at being a real country with a real economy and a real military.

[Soylent Red]

I meant it more in sarcasm than as a policy I'd truly advocate.

I don't know why not, Syl. I not only would advocate it, but if I could find a way, I would do it myself.

"This is Sheik Yerbouti broadcasting to you from the Al-Quds International House of Ill Repute and Pancakes, and bringing you all your favorite fatwas and decadent Western dance music, WITH NO COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTION!

Let's get back to the music with "Like a Virgin" to remind all you martyrs what your sister used to be like before you toddled off to Iraq. If you send me your forwarding address, one of my army will mail you her underwear..."

[clarice]

We had a less hilarious plan than Soylent's. Congress appropriated money for it. The President ordered it, but DoS in a series of truly skillful bureaucratic moves killed it.(Story should be up next week).That meant in the post-invasion period the only nationawide TV and radio was that from Al-Jazeera and the Iranian channel which broadcast 24/7 anti-coalition propaganda.
*************

Ari, what a brilliant response!

[Anonymous Liberal]

This will probably only further exasperate your commenters, Tom, but I essentially agree with every word of your post. Well said.

[clarice]

DoS (and the star of the Plame show) did lots of this , messing up the occupation, but on this there is--unlike the others--a paper trail.

[sammy small]

Isn't the DoS just one step away from the UN. Maybe that explains a lot.

[clarice]

Like the CIA it is full of trans-nationalists who do not believe foreign policy should be the province of elected nationalistic barbarians.

[lurker]

"Maguire:

However, invading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward.

That's nonsense, frankly."

Agreed. World War II was just about as half-assed non-plan and limbo; yet, it turned out to be a way, perhaps, not the only way, to move America or freedom forward.

Likewise with the Civil War.

"As an example, could George Bush have gotten expanded wiretapping authority from Congress without hyping the terror threat? Who knows or cares? Bush operated under Executive authority there, with Guantanamo, and in many other ways. But I'll wager he could have calmly gotten authorization from Congress even with a bit less of the apocalypse now in his rhetoric."

Think NYT's leaking article was the origin for creating the apocalypse that's in Bush's rhetoric.

Until NYT's leak, those two committees that reviewed every 30 to 45 days had no problems with Bush using his executive authority to rout out terrorism.

[lurker]

Check Mac Ranger's post about Philippines, who actually caught Ramzi Yousef.

Fighting Terrorism the RIGHT way.

[clarice]

The biggest problem with all these leaks, is that it has spooked our allies---and under the radar we had many around the world working with us to round up terrorists. They stuck their necks out and stuff like the secret prisons leak has put them in such hot water , it will be hard to engage them to work with us on sensitive matters again.

[lurker]

Agreed, Clarice. Now we face such news plus Brian Ross (check Mac Ranger):

al-Qaeda And The Nuclear Threat

Forcing terrorists to fight in their own land or appeasing them emboldens them - either way. But forcing them to fight in their own land will eventually weaken them over time.

Appeasement simply allows them to get stronger and stronger over time.

[lurker]

John Cornyn - Hugh Hewitt interview

Waiting for transcripts.

[Thomas Morrissey]

New Entry at Mac Ranger's

Armitage to be added to CIA leak civil suit

Links to MSNBC,don't bother,money quote,

Melanie Sloan, an attorney for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, who are representing the Wilson's, tells NBC that is was not okay for Armitage to leak Plame's name to Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward and columnist Bob Novak.

But, Sloan says, Armitage's apparently inadvertent leak did in fact damage Plame's covert career at the CIA.

[clarice]

You're late. I beat him by at least an hour.LOL

[lurker]

"But, Sloan says, Armitage's apparently inadvertent leak did in fact damage Plame's covert career at the CIA."

So....how can Rove, Cheney, and Lewis, being not the original leakers, damage Plame's "covert" (if really, really covert anyway) career at the CIA?

[clarice]

I guess it's like that "revirgining" movement.

[MayBee]

Tierney:

But bin Laden knows something else the Bush administration hasn’t figured out: You don’t actually have to be the strong horse. You just have to look stronger. You can be weak, you can be pummeled in a fight, but as long as your opponent looks more scared than you, you can save face by simply declaring victory.

Is he sure it's the Bush administration that hasn't figured this out? Who is it constantly putting the pressure on him to admit his mistakes? To discuss withdrawl? To talk about numbers of Americans dead?

Left to his own devices, Bush was more apt to say things like "Mission Accomplished", and "Smoke them out of their caves", and "we'll get them dead or alive". All the macho bluster one cowboy could throw at another.

Now it's Bush that doesn't understand it's bad to look scared? I'm not seeing that, Mr. Tierney.

[Syl]

Soylent Red

"This is Sheik Yerbouti broadcasting to you from the Al-Quds International House of Ill Repute and Pancakes, and bringing you all your favorite fatwas and decadent Western dance music, WITH NO COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTION!

Let's get back to the music with "Like a Virgin" to remind all you martyrs what your sister used to be like before you toddled off to Iraq. If you send me your forwarding address, one of my army will mail you her underwear..."

LOL!!

Well, I'd support the policy if they hired you!

[Syl]

Okay, on a more serious note.

What saddens me is that while we Americans are playing word games and politics, there are real people in Iraq who want a future for themselves and their country.

They're always left out of the picture.

Tonite I saw a report from Iraq. Baquba, northeast of Baghdad. The Iraqi Army and Iraqi doctors came in and gave checkups and medical care to Iraqi kids in the town. There were a few of our guys, but they were just hanging around. The Iraqi people, because of Saddam, have to learn to trust Iraqis in uniforms and this type of activity certainly helps.

These were just regular people. Some translated snippets from a couple of Iraqi dads who had brought their kids.

Darned those kids are so cute. And something I've noticed about Iraqi kids is that their moms always dress them neatly and cleanly.

Iraq can have a future, a good one, and these people can live normal decent lives and I think about them and their purple fingers a lot. Believe m.

So when I hear these political complaints of Bush Lied! or No Plan! it just makes me want to PUKE!

What matters is that we finish what we are doing and much of what we are doing over there has nothing to do with guns and shooting...it's helping the Iraqi people help themselves.

And to anyone over HERE who just wants to score political points about Iraq I say screw you!

[Soylent Red]

What saddens me is that while we Americans are playing word games and politics, there are real people in Iraq who want a future for themselves and their country.

While this saddens me also, what really worries me is this...

Iraq or no Iraq, the people we are fighting don't give a rat's ass about politics or scoring points or poll numbers. No libertarian introspection or liberal self-loathing. They are 100 percenters.

And while I agree with Syl that what we are doing in Iraq is noble, winning there for me is not primarily about doing what is noble.

These guys won't stop, and complacency just backs us into a corner. At that point it becomes a knife fight, and spreading democracy will be far down on the list of priorities. The veneer of nobility will be gone for good.

So ultimately myopic domestic gotcha politics, or worse, complacency is going to bring us to a place where we will be forced to kill a lot of people in order to survive. And as a response to a domestic nuke attack or chemical attack, Americans won't bat an eye about it.

I don't want to be put in a position where our survival depends on killing a lot of regular standup Arabs and their kids because our domestic politics was more important than doing the job right when it was still relatively easy.

[Patton]

Don't you love when Democrats get all worked up over tapping terrorist phone calls, but have no problem with stealing Micheal Steele's credit report and Arhnolds private files.

Guess its just like Clinton and the Republican FBI files, ITS OK when a Democrat does it to win elections, not when a Republican does it to win a war against terrorists.

[Dwilkers]

I think I've detected, via careful observation over the months, that Maguire is sick of the war in Iraq.

Me too for what its worth. I'm still not sure what we should do about it now though.

Hard to plan for. War, that is. Was it a half-assed plan? Seems that way, seemed that way to me at the time too. It seems now like we expected to mow weeds over there and have Irises and Tulips grow in our wake. Seemed to me at the time like there should have been a half million electrical linemen and telephone guys running along behind us fixing the power and telephones.

Hard to get all worked up about how great democracy is when you can't even keep a bottle of milk cold for the baby. Then again apparently they aren't used to being able to keep a bottle of milk cold for the kids anyway.

Which just sort of drives home the point from my perspective. The point about the half-assed plan I mean. How do you plan for an engagement like this with people so foreign to your experience that we can't even relate to them in this basic way?

I guess the biggest lesson I take away from Iraq is about the limitations of hard power. We're pretty good at killing people and blowing shit up. In fact I'd argue that's the only thing our government is good at. And don't get me wrong, I'm as big a fan of blowing shit up as the next guy.

[JM Hanes]

The first decade or so of the Cold War was scary as hell. By its last decade -- apart from the ongoing travesty of Eastern Europe -- what worried me was not the size of the Russian arsenal, but what the likes of Qaddafi could do with the odd nuke or two. What shocked me during the Iran hostage "crisis" was how unbelievably long it took to get conventional forces to the region -- and that wasn't even a function of the "peace dividend." We've steadily improved mobility but the crazies are still what worry me. It just doesn't get more dangerous than when you're talking crazies with an ideology and long term plans.

Now if someone can cite me a war that was substantively less half-assed than Iraq I'd appreciate the learning opportunity. Strikes me that the most efficient folks always seem to be the ones we've ended up having to fight against. Just maybe the messy democratic process has something to do with what's been a consistent lack of preparedness. As far as I'm concerned, we'd better plan on staying in Iraq just as long as it takes to figure out how to win this war, because wars between nation states are not what we're going to be fighting in the future.

Just because the Cold War is officially over doesn't mean that mutally assured destruction isn't still an operative deterrent. What we don't know how to deter are insurgencies which come in an ever proliferating array of shapes and sizes and methodologies. If we leave Iraq because we're failing, it will only serve to confirm the model. In the end, it's not just a training ground for jihadis, it's a training ground for us.

[PeterUK]

Jane,
"we'd better plan on staying in Iraq just as long as it takes to figure out how to win this war,!

That is why you went in the first place,Iraq had had its military degraded since Gulf WarI,there is a deep water port,airfields...and surprise surprise Syria an Iran next door,on the other side of the latter Afghanistan,on the other side of the former,Israel,that is the plan.

[PeterUK]

Sorry JMHanes.

[Kevin B]

Now if someone can cite me a war that was substantively less half-assed than Iraq I'd appreciate the learning opportunity.

The example of the Falklands War really doesn't meet your criteria JM but I think it's illustrative anyway.

We had virtually zero international support for using military force to retake the Falklands and the fighting took place at the end of a prohibitively long logistical lines.

We lost ships and planes and of course men. Relative to the size of our forces, and the size of the task force we lost a lot of men.

But on the plus side virtually all the inhabitants of the islands were on our side as were a large percentage of Brits. The Fifth Column and the Fourth Estate didn't really get into their stride until after the sinking of the Belgrano and by then it was too late.

Maggie showed tremendous courage and
resolution and the people, (and most of the media at first), backed her, and the troops showed enormous bravery.

Of course we couldn't do it now. We don't have the Navy, the Airforce or probably the will.

The war was also the starting point for a lot of people in this country who swore that this should never happen again. Look at the names of many of the anti-war left and they came to public prominence at this time.

Tony Blair showed great political courage to get us in the coalition of the willing but as the meme spreads among the great and good here that Afghanistan and Iraq were gross overreactions to a non-existent threat, his successor will struggle to keep us in.

Of course if his successor doesn't know now the true extent of the threat to Western Civilization, he will by the end of his first week in office, but the temptation to accept some kind of hudna and kick the problem down the road will be very strong.

[HM]

"America, meanwhile, accentuated the negative"

This one bothers me.
Tierney and the MSM should look in the mirror.

HM

[PeterUK]

Rather than the Joe Q.Sixpacks being the problem it is the Lionel L Latte II and the Amanda Tofus who are the main disbelievers, add to the nuancier classes the drug damaged detritus of hippiedom and you have the political wing of Jihad.

[Pa]

Drudge:

NOVAK: ARMITAGE DID NOT TELL ALL... DEVELOPING...

[Verner]

OT Novak Speaks--via Drudge:

Novak, attempting to set the reocrd straight writes: "First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he 'thought' might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson. Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column."

OK, so Armitage knew where she worked. Kind of bolsters the idea that VAL WAS NOT COVERT at her Langley position, and that the covert stuff was past history--exactly what Harlow implied to Novak. That also explains why a) she was mentioned in the memo and b) why Harlow did not follow normal procedure for a covert agent. Now, we need to see ALL of the documentations surrounding that referral.

And if all of that is true, Fitz needs to go. Big Time.

[sad]

No wonder Jeff has been so negative about Novak.

[maryrose]

Novak is finally free to tell all and that is why Jeff fears him and doesn't believe what he says. Jeff still believes the whistleblower theory. That just tells me he has his head in he sand and his hands over his ears and is chanting""Libby is guilty, Libby is guilty I just know it! I don't have any proof but I know it."

[verner]

Yeah Sad. Because Novak has been saying all along that this was junk. They should have listened to him. Also, remember Armitage's remarks about never seeing a "covered" agent's name in a memo--I think that can be viewed as a sly confirmation that she wasn't. When he talked to Novak, he knew exactly what she did. And so do the press, cause you'll notice they dropped it like a hot potato.

Prediction. When it all comes out, we'll find that the same people who pushed the Fulton Armstrong BS in the Bolton hearings, are the same who were responsible for the Plame referral, and they somehow twisted Tenet's arm to reinforce it with a follow-up letter. There is lots of circumstantial evidence to indicate that the two are linked.

[maryrose]

TM
I respectfully agree to disagree with you on this one. We need to hunt down every Taliban fighter and terrorist that draws breath.

[Neo]

You don’t actually have to be the strong horse. You just have to look stronger.

For a complete understanding of the folly of this approach consult Saddam Hussien. This is exactly what he did from 1995 to early 2003.

The "paper tiger" approach works well until it is tested. Even UBL got a humbling at Tora Bora. He may have saved his own worthless skin, but a large part of al Qaeda went in search of the 72 virgins.

[sad]

When people talk of being "sick" of the war, what are they referring to?

-That is so last week, change the subject...
-I'm tired of all of the shortages caused by the war...
-I'm tired of living in a war zone..
-My injuries cause great pain and affect the quality of my life...
-I can't buy food for my family bacause the war costs so much...

What?

[boris]

Half assed non plan ... retake Flight 93.

[Dell]

Scary Larry and pals have sent their garbage here and its works.

Good luck with comments.

[creepy dude]

Nice TM! Now separate yourself further from the no-account Free Republic fools you let fester here. I always knew there was a touch of sense in your black heart.

[Jane]

Easy to see where you got your name.

[Gabriel Sutherland]

The current issue of "Reason" has interviews with libertarians on the war. They comment that the US Military is designed to fight a major state player in conflict, but the war on terror is clearly the exact opposite of that. Ergo, rather than massive armies and divisions, what is necessary is light, quick, and immediate assault strike teams to disrupt what in the past were probably referred to as roving tribes of barbarians. By past I'm going way back, three or four centuries or so.

verner: I like that angle about Armitage supporting his statement that he's never seen a covert agent's name in a memo before by asserting that Plame wasn't covert, couldn't be covert because Armitage knew all about her posts and activities for the Agency.

[no one of consequence]

You don’t actually have to be the strong horse. You just have to look stronger.

It's the age old proverb: "Speak loudly and carry a small stick"

[maryrose]

I'd rather be a strong horse than pretend to be one. AlQueda and the Taliban operate with smoke and mirrors and the dems fall for it. We always have our back-up plan B -bomb them to eternity.

[JJ]

...invading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward.

Glad this was mentioned, and I wish someone would mention it again.

Because underneath the howling by the Dems on the war in Iraq has been this question all along that has been begging for some intelligent input.

Because isn't establishing democracy is a war in itself that requires strategy and tactics all of its own? So, how did we prop Japan and Germany up after WW2 and what techniques could be used in Iraq that were used there.

OK, back to listening to the whining about no WMD...

BTW, the conservatives could find a voice on this too, eh?

[JJ]

*Because isn't establishing democracy is a war*

Reread: Because isn't establishing democracy a war in itself that requires strategy and tactics...

[lurker]

Time is on our side, providing that we continue to stand up against terrorism.

[maryrose]

OT;
Menendez in trouble in New Jersey as he is the subject of a federal investigation. Does anyone recall the cut-off date for a replacement candidate as in Lautenberg replacing Torricelli?

[nittypig]

“We’re on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront, and we’ll accept nothing less than complete victory.”

-Bush

"we say-all the United Nations say-that the only terms on which we shall deal with an Axis government or any Axis factions are the terms proclaimed at Casablanca: "Unconditional Surrender." In our uncompromising policy we mean no harm to the common people of the Axis nations. But we do mean to impose punishment and retribution in full upon their guilty, barbaric leaders..."
-FDR

So which is "doomed to defeat" and which "caused more harm" than the enemy could?

What does Tierney want Bush to say? That our goal is to have terrorists kill less than 100 Americans per year? 200? How is that a realistic goal?

[Syl]

Soylent

And while I agree with Syl that what we are doing in Iraq is noble, winning there for me is not primarily about doing what is noble.

But isn't it odd that winning there achieves two goals in one: our national self defense interest AND a better life for the Iraqi people?

Win one and you have the other! They cannot be separated.

So there are reasons for left AND right to support Iraq. Alack and alay.

Yes, victory is harder to achieve if our goal is self-governance with democratic institutions. I mean, the easy way out is to depose Saddam, install some other milder tyrant, and get the hell out.

But that would be retaining the damn status quo of the M.E. and its peoples which led to this mess in the first place. Just a bandaid and, well, everybody believes in bandaids!

Unfortunately for the Iraqi people, more than for us, the jihadis are hell bent on not allowing this to happen. But a strange thing happened on the way to the caliiphate. The Iraqi people rejected the foreign jihadis and want them gone.

I don't think Americans have a clue how important that is.

Now the problem is more of a tribal nature with sectarian violence. And this is, unfortunately, a learning experience for Iraqis and their leaders too and another stage of their road to freedom they are experiencing.

Reject the violence they will. And that will be as important to the world as their rejection of the jihadis.

I don't think Bush had any idea how much violence and killing there would be in Iraq. But I'm sure he feels for every Iraqi civilian caught up in it as he does for every American killed or injured.

But the Iraqi people themselves will win this--with our help. It's not OUR war anymore, it's theirs.

And it's extremely important that we don't give up on them. Because Iraq, as an Arab country, is learning the hard lessons of the violence of Islamic extremism whether in jihadi form or sectarian violence, and they reject it. Outright reject it. They don't want to merely contain it, they want to end it.

And that rejection itself is as important in our struggle as killing every jihadi we can hunt down.

It's not easy. It's not quick. It's not a bandaid.

And the rest of the Arab world is watching Iraq closely. Some with disdain. Some with fear. Some with hope.

For those who say the muslim world has to shape up or die (a harsh view, but prevalent in many circles) look at Iraq. Watch them over the next few years, decades even. Iraq is the muslim world 'shaping up'.

And pray they succeed.

[boris]

pray they succeed

Amen

[Soylent Red]

Syl:

I agree with you today. Tomorrow however...

My point is that what while we are doing now achieves both goals: spread of democratic governance, war on islamofascism, we are rapidly propelling ourselves, by virtue of politics, to a place where those two goals will diverge. Not that the democracy angle will ever go away completely, but that the spread of democracy will become a lower priority.

If we allow the Murtha plan or some other nonsense to become a reality, subsequent administrations will be forced to look to Iraq as a Mogadishu moment for terrorists. One that weakened our position and strengthened theirs. And as has been demonstrated, when islamofascism thinks they have stared us down, they become bolder in their actions.

Simultaneously, Iran marches toward nukes which could possibly precipitate the Saudis and Turks to do the same. Pakistan already has them and is now negotiating with the Taliban. So it is not beyond the realm of possibility that terror groups will have several outlets to get their hands on nukes.

Therefore, bolder action by terrorist orgs could involve nukes that accidentally or on purpose fall into the wrong hands from one of several sources. When that happens, it is only a matter of time before someone touches one off, either here, in Europe, or in Israel.

It will be at that point that enduring a long and costly struggle to democratize the region will fall by the wayside. People will demand decisive and most likely brutal action to stop the threat. Today's 4G low-intensity media-driven war will revert back to flat out 2G indiscriminate bombing.

Oddly, libertarians ought to fear this outcome more than pointing out the threat in the strongest terms now. It is when our existence is threatened that the greatest urge will be to trade civil liberties for security.

I hope the Iraqis step up and make my doom and gloom just a bit of scary projection. Moreover, I hope we finally can put down the partisan gamesmanship and address the problem before the two goals diverge.

Pray they succeed? Yes, for more reasons than one.

[Syl]

Soylent

I agree that if nukes get involved, everything else is forgotten.

But that would happen whether we're trying to democratize Iraq or not.

I think some forget that we are doing many things at once in this war--and that we are actually able to do so. Guarding against a nuke attack is just as important as what we are doing in Iraq, and is being addressed.

I think there are too many who have forgotten, or never understood in the first place, our goal for Iraq. Daily news reports of only the violence get in the way.

[clarice]

Of course, if we'd just defeated Saddam and strung him up and left the place in the hands of another dictator, the oppo would be mewling (that time correctly)that we were oppressing the poor and selling them out to dictators, wouldn't they? And wouldn't that make enmity against us greater then staying and trying against almost impossible odds to build a democratic government there?

[JM Hanes]

TM:

"Invading Iraq and transforming it into a stable democracy also represented a way to advance America's strategic interests. However, invading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward."

Let's assume, for the moment, that regime change & transformation were not simply rhetorical objectives. Having decided that such a alterations would be in our best interests, it would be nice to think that we could take all the time we liked on preparations. The idea that we can commence hostilities at a time and place of our own choosing, however, is only true in the broadest possible sense.

The reality depends on a complicated array of both predictable and unpredictable events, from the logistics of moving armies and seasonal contraints, to politics both domestic and international == just for starters. In a perfect world, means and opportunity would neatly coincide, in the real world, you go when you can, ready or not, or you risk not going at all.

At the heart of the reservations you express is the fact that we siimply do not know for sure what we risked by not going at all. If a "half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo" were the worst case scenario for invasion, would you opt instead for Ahmadinejad x 2, in the form of a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq, once sanctions were lifted on Saddam (or just ever more effectively ignored by 3 of the Security Council's permanent members)?

Picture Uday & Qusay taking over where their father left off. Throw terrorists, to whom Al Qaeda proved we were devastatingly vulnerable, into that toxic mix and remember that the no-fly zones weren't just window dressing. It's crunch time, and you have to decide whether to use the troops you've got in place or bring them home, knowing that in all likelihood, you'll never be in a position to make that choice again.

It seems to me that what all too many people are doing is taking the worst case scenario for invasion and comparing it to the speculative best case scenario for restraint.

[boris]

comparing it to the speculative best case scenario for restraint

Even worse, they compare to nonspeculative status quo. "What's so bad about how it was?"

911

[Syl]

911

To which the left scoffs: Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11!

Which entirely misses the point! The problem is the M.E. and breeding terror against the West--not just a bearded, but dangerous, guy in a cave in Afghanistan.