WSJ(Op-ed): Was Osama Right?

[Art]

Well, Art did say 'once we move off the battlefield we don't have a chance.'

In response to that, the outcome of The Cold War is a pretty good counter.

Actually, no it's not, as there was no battlefield for the U.S. and Soviets, therefore, we never moved off it. We never fought and won, only to lose the part that comes after. The Cold War has no similarity to what the conversation is. So, it's a poor response.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We've allowed ourselves to become the men in bright red coats marching down the center of the road waiting for the enemy to stand in front of it taking turns firing at each other.

This I'll agree with.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Holding accountable can only get you so far... The real, lasting change comes from elsewhere... see crime in US vs crime in Japan as an example.

Poor analogy. Especially since we don't actually hold Criminals accountable for their crimes here in the United States.

The other problem is the Fear vs. Respect concept. I'm a firm believer that the best way to ensure someone treats you properly is to make sure they know what the result will be if they don't treat you properly, more than trying to make them agree with you. I have no problem with differing opinions, but if you try to tell me I'm wrong on something, you better be willing to accept that's more than likely the end of any friendly relationship between us. You can have the differing opinion, just keep your mouth shut on it, if you want to continue having a relationship with me.

[headexplode]

Resilience. We beat our enemies by outlasting them, by wearing them down, and crushing them under the weight of our industrial and economic might. There's no King of America. You can't beat us by killing George Bush. You can't kill us by knocking down our big buildings. We are a nation of the people run by the people. For every little Islamic freaky that is willing to step in and be Osama, we've got a little Timmy who wants to be President. The difference is we don't need little Timmy to be a billionare prince with years of classical education and training. He's got the money and the training of the entire US behind him. If he dies. The next guy (or girl) has all of those resources as well.

On of the reasons we beat out the Soviets was that their leaders died off, and the new guys simply weren't capable of maintaining mid-century iron-fisted control of a turn-of-the-century nation. Remember after Breshnev was Andropov, who died after a year or so, then Chenyenko (sp?) who died after a few months ... then they ran out of the Old Guard and had to elevate Gorby, who was young and didn't feel the connection to the old days. End of USSR. Keep an eye on Cuba. My guess is the same thing will happen to them in the next ten years.

We don't have that problem. Osama does. He's mortal. Sooner or later he will die. So will his henchmen. The US, however, will still be here.

We never win fights by out-evil-ing our enemies. It's not in our nature. However that nature is also the source of our greatest strength: A government of the people, by the people. That strength has enabled us to become the strongest nation in the history of history. I say we go with our strength here.

Eloquently stated, as always. More and more, I find myself tempted to write, "defer to Henry" whenever I want to post something, now. I'm superfluous.

[Prosperity]

Oddly, we're still here and the Soviets aren't. Why should we be modelling our foreign policy on a government that collapsed and died trying to sustain their foriegn policy?

Because Ug want to crush! Ug want to bash!

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

How about fighting to ensure "Western" remains a "civilization"?

Thank you.

this doesn't make sense, because you say that "we're fighting to ensure" western civilization will be around in the coming decades, yet you present your argument as if there were no threat, what's the threat to Western civilization? You can't be fighting to ensure something if you're not fighting against something, this is the inherent nature of conflict.

I'm not sure if you are a big history buff or is you ever sit in front of the TV for a whole day and watch the History Channel (yes I'm admitting to that guilty pleasure:doh: ), but if you look at the history of "THAT" region, aka Muslim world, and you see the past conflicts over many, many, many centuries, then you will see what "THEY" are capable of.

You see, some of the people running the government and making these decisions are on the up and up on their history and know that there are a lot of Muslims out there (extremists), who interpret the Koron as saying they are not to rest until the infidels (western civilization) has been destroyed. So there is you justification for us being over there to secure of civilization will remain around and not fall like others have in the past. How do you think the Roman Empire lasted as long as they did? It surely wasn't because they rolled over like a puppy with their legs in the air saying "we give up, please don't hurt us".

[jpillian]

Soviets did not do that by just being ruthless, a HUGE part of it was economic ties and weapon sales.... I didn't know you had me on ignore

BTW, to clarify, I don't have you on ignore (I don't know if that comment was just a jibe to me not addressing your point, or something you observed) :laugh: I just am not going to be able to go point to point with anyone while at work!

I certainly agree that the Soviets economic ties with the region played a large part, and their weapons sales even larger. I don't believe this is a point lost on Professor Lewis -- but was probably just a victim of the scope of the opinion he was trying to present.

[airborneskins]

Zarqawi is dead. - The media.

:laugh: true

But his preachings are not. You have to understand the enemies TTP's. This is one of the weapons that they are using in thier favor. :2cents:

[headexplode]

I'm not sure if you are a big history buff or is you ever sit in front of the TV for a whole day and watch the History Channel (yes I'm admitting to that guilty pleasure:doh: ),

I don't think the History Channel is a great place to find out about actual history, but it is pretty entertaining at times.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Because Ug want to crush! Ug want to bash!

No. Actually Ug realized very early on in life that the caveman who not only waved his club around and shouted, but used that club with all his strength and skill when necessary got a lot more of what he wanted than the cavemen who waved their clubs around but were never actually willing to use them.

[Art]

Henry and HE,

We won WWII by out-evil-ing our enemies. But, it wasn't evil because we valued the lives of our citizens and soldiers more than we valued the lives of the citizens of the enemy. You fight now with WWII ruthlessness and our power and we'd do just fine. We won't, so we can't win over the long haul in a war and occupation that follows all war.

The description you make, Henry, about our ability to outlast an enemy no longer applies. We don't have the stomach for a multi-generational occupation as we had in Japan and Germany. We are, as we have been, our own worst enemy.

[Kilmer17]

I've been saying this for 2 years now.

Osama was absolutely dead on correct.

We're feckless wimps.

We no longer have the stomach needed to win wars. We're to concerned with the way things appear in the press than we are with results.

Shame really.

[Prosperity]

No. Actually Ug realized very early on in life that the caveman who not only waved his club around and shouted, but used that club with all his strength and skill when necessary got a lot more of what he wanted than the cavemen who waved their clubs around but were never actually willing to use them.

Ug want smash, ug want bash!

Yes I agree though that sort of mentality is good for cavemen. I guarantee Ug got a lot of what he wanted provided he was strong and persistent. Unfortunately for Ug, (but fortunately for us) that is no longer the most efficient way to achieve goals, not when we have morality, and other practical things to consider.

Personally I think it is rather idiotic to base policy on whatever happens to be the opposite of what the terrorists want. We have goals we will achieve them in a way that is as moral as possible and as efficient as possible. That is something that Ug never understood.

[alexey]

Poor analogy. Especially since we don't actually hold Criminals accountable for their crimes here in the United States.

The other problem is the Fear vs. Respect concept. I'm a firm believer that the best way to ensure someone treats you properly is to make sure they know what the result will be if they don't treat you properly, more than trying to make them agree with you. I have no problem with differing opinions, but if you try to tell me I'm wrong on something, you better be willing to accept that's more than likely the end of any friendly relationship between us. You can have the differing opinion, just keep your mouth shut on it, if you want to continue having a relationship with me.

That's it, I'm breaking up with you over irreconcilable differences

Crime in Japan, while being a poor analogy, is a great example of something being achieved by means other than holding people accountable. I suspect you will have a hard time finding a similar success rate in ANY system rooted in fear of punishment. Then again, you could always argue that the problem is "not enough punishment"... and no argument can address that one because there can ALWAYS be more punishment

My main point is that the dualistic "Fear vs. Respect" limitation you assume is self-imposed. A combination of Fear AND Respect is most effective, and that's what we should be going for.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

I don't think the History Channel is a great place to find out about actual history, but it is pretty entertaining at times.

I my own experience, in cross referencing the information they air, I find it very accurate and a nice tool to spit out useless trivia and knowledge in conversation that most people are unaware of.

[909997]

Ok, let me enlighten you. Texas did not assassinate Kennedy, nor was the State of Texas involved in planning the assassination.

There is a HUGE difference between a country's government planning out a assassination and one individual planning and carrying it out on his own. Texas was just the place it happened. I seriously can not believe you actually made that ignorant comment to try and justify your slamming of MSF. Trust me, there's a lot more people out there to do that on this board that actually think out their attacks against him (some very well thought out may I add).

Let me also just say that I'm not siding with MSF (although I do share some of his views, but not to the extreme), but I'm rather pointing out the flaws in your statement.

If you want to try and blame a government for the assassination of Kennedy, you might want to start looking at Cuba and the dealings that Castro had with Oswald.

Do some research and then come back to me:thumbsup:

How about because THEIR GOVERNMENT assisted in the planning of an assassination attempt on a US Citizen, a former US President, and I believe that the citizens of a country should be held accountable for the actions of their government.

If citizens can be accountable for government actions, cant the government be accounted for citizens actions?

We had many presidents in the united states that were assassinated by AMERICANS themselves.

If we cant respect our own president what makes you think others will?

[DjTj]

The cold war was not a war. There was no killing and our enemy was a fatally flawed economic system that was going to destroy itself in any case. In war where there is killing, we can't win anymore, because we won't actually let ourselves fight unfairly.

Korea? Vietnam? There might have been some killing there ...

We've allowed ourselves to become the men in bright red coats marching down the center of the road waiting for the enemy to stand in front of it taking turns firing at each other.

You say this as if it would be better for us to be the worse-equipped and more poorly trained army that is surviving only through guerilla warfare ... Anyone given a choice would much prefer to be on our side where the casualties are far lower and the benefits are nicer ... those red coats come with body armor and are supported by tanks and helicopters.

The description you make, Henry, about our ability to outlast an enemy no longer applies. We don't have the stomach for a multi-generational occupation as we had in Japan and Germany. We are, as we have been, our own worst enemy.

We have been in Korea longer than we were in Germany ... it's not the length of time necesary for an occupation, it's the difficulty. There was no major insurgency in Germany or Japan after World War II like we faced in Vietnam and are now facing in Iraq.

[Henry]

Henry and HE,

We won WWII by out-evil-ing our enemies. But, it wasn't evil because we valued the lives of our citizens and soldiers more than we valued the lives of the citizens of the enemy. You fight now with WWII ruthlessness and our power and we'd do just fine. We won't, so we can't win over the long haul in a war and occupation that follows all war.

The description you make, Henry, about our ability to outlast an enemy no longer applies. We don't have the stomach for a multi-generational occupation as we had in Japan and Germany. We are, as we have been, our own worst enemy.

Art, read my last paragraph again. I agree with some of your points.

I've said in the past that once the decision to go to Iraq was made, it needed to be a total war. Not this 'shock and awe' nonsense. You go to war or you don't. There's no half-way. I am on board with that concept. Occupation of a country we didn't really defeat isn't going to work. That I agree with as well.

That does not mean, however, that we need to start relating to other nations and peoples the way the Soviets did. :laugh:

[Prosperity]

when you use total war or no war as a basis you really limit your options... I don't see how having fewer options is the smart thing to do. Take Iraq, would we have been more successful in installing a democracy or a liberal oligarchy or even just a puppet if we had used total war and destroyed all of the countries infrastructure and a few million people?

And comparing the Nazi war machine to al qaeda is at least as ridiculous as comparing the war on terror to the war on communism.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Crime in Japan, while being a poor analogy, is a great example of something being achieved by means other than holding people accountable. I suspect you will have a hard time finding a similar success rate in ANY system rooted in fear of punishment. Then again, you could always argue that the problem is "not enough punishment"... and no argument can address that one because there can ALWAYS be more punishment

In the system I would prefer there is a 0% rate of recurring arrest for felons and the prison system gets considerably more space.... because we EXECUTE felons in a public place, and have it televised. Something tells me there isn't any way for there to be more punishment than that.

My main point is that the dualistic "Fear vs. Respect" limitation you assume is self-imposed. A combination of Fear AND Respect is most effective, and that's what we should be going for.

In my nearly thirty-three years on this planet I've found that only one of those two options is actually useful in getting things done. It's nice to be respected but if I can only get one, FEAR is always the choice for me. Respect just doesn't get things done most of the time.

[Destino]

Some of you have an interesting world view. All machismo and no thought process at all. We drag in World War 2 and Vietnam yet fail to recognize the difference. In World War II we were hit by an enemy that threatened to crush us. In a few days time our fleet was at the bottom of the harbor and the enemy rapidly conquering all of Europe had declared war on us.

The nation was at real risk of destruction. Not an implied threat, not a possible attack, none of this "what if" business. We were hit hard and told in no uncertain terms the war was on. The US responded in kind.

Then came the Vietnam police action. Instead of the natural instinct of self defense we entered into a conflict with manufactured consent. The nation convinced itself that this was somehow a worthy effort, in part thanks to the Tonkin lie. We never let the attack dogs out full force with the intent of crushing our enemy... we couldn't, it was a police action with the aim of liberation. The people of the US are not interested in sending their children to their deaths for a difficult to nail down morally ambiguous motive. Support fell and we had to leave without victory.

The reason Osama is thought to be “right” is because he hasn’t said anything that shouldn't be obvious to anyone picking up a history book. The people of a democratic nation are not going to indefinately support a morally ambiguous war.

The war on terror has seen both scenarios play out. The first a war on a nation that struck us. The Afghanistan conflict had massive support from the people. They had a great deal of responsibility for the attacks on 9-11 and people were demanding the President strike at them immediately.

Then came the Iraq conflict. A war with such unclear logic, that a case for it actually had to be argued for several months in the press. (compare that Afghanistan and WWII) It is not surprising that support has vanished… it was manufactured to begin with unlike legit wars that are instinctual.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Ug want smash, ug want bash!

Yes I agree though that sort of mentality is good for cavemen. I guarantee Ug got a lot of what he wanted provided he was strong and persistent. Unfortunately for Ug, (but fortunately for us) that is no longer the most efficient way to achieve goals, not when we have morality, and other practical things to consider.

I think you overstate the amount we've moved away from that caveman philosophy being the most useful way of dealing with things. Especially when dealing with the stone age people that exist as the main species in the area of the world we're currently engaged in militarily.

Personally I think it is rather idiotic to base policy on whatever happens to be the opposite of what the terrorists want. We have goals we will achieve them in a way that is as moral as possible and as efficient as possible. That is something that Ug never understood.

Obviously we shouldn't base our policy on simply being the opposite of what the terrorists want, but we also shouldn't be changing who and what we are simply as an attempt to reduce the amount of terrorism. I'm sorry but compromise and giving in to an enemy is NEVER a moral action so far as I'm concerned.

[MurrayH81]

I have no problem with differing opinions, but if you try to tell me I'm wrong on something, you better be willing to accept that's more than likely the end of any friendly relationship between us. You can have the differing opinion, just keep your mouth shut on it, if you want to continue having a relationship with me.

Lol, MSF has been revealed as RL GWB!

/wink

(ed note) Now let's all hope that MSF doesnt actually get to pass along his genes or outlook.

[alexey]

In my nearly thirty-three years on this planet I've found that only one of those two options is actually useful in getting things done.

Those are not radio options but check boxes, and a combination of them is more effective then any single one.

[headexplode]

Henry and HE,

We won WWII by out-evil-ing our enemies. But, it wasn't evil because we valued the lives of our citizens and soldiers more than we valued the lives of the citizens of the enemy. You fight now with WWII ruthlessness and our power and we'd do just fine. We won't, so we can't win over the long haul in a war and occupation that follows all war.

The description you make, Henry, about our ability to outlast an enemy no longer applies. We don't have the stomach for a multi-generational occupation as we had in Japan and Germany. We are, as we have been, our own worst enemy.

I wouldn't say we "out-evil-ed" our enemies to win WWII. We did what we had to to survive (though I do question Truman's use of the Bomb) and to crush our enemy. That war, though, bears no resemblence to the one we are now fighting. The Iraq war is the fast food version of war, one that was supposed to be quick and easy and convenient. High on fat and low on nutritional value. And like eating fast food, though it tastes so good is really bad for you and over time will clog your arteries and give you diabetes. There is a reason we didn't invade Iran or North Korea, countries we know to be far more dangerous than Iraq: because we wanted something easy, and we wanted something quick--and Iraq was the best possible option. Of course, we didn't count on this very inconvenient civil war and probably didn't expect over 3,000 soldiers to be killed.