WSJ(Op-ed): Was Osama Right?

[Henry]

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?

I think so. Sorry.

It's eaiser to raise a kid from birth than to start when he's 15. Having total control over the nation, rebuilding from scratch, instead of having to cajole the locals into wanting to do what you want them to do, would certainly make establishing infrastructure and security easier. It would take a lot more of our people, though. A lot more. And an immense time committment up front.

Bush would have never convinced the American people to commit 800,000 troops and 20 years to an expidition in Iraq. But he wanted this war on this battlefield so he took what he could get. It was bad politics, and he should have picked his battles better (literally and figuratively.)

Sure hindsight is 20/20, but that's why we have elections. And Presidential term-limits.

[MikeInJc aka M.I.A.]

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?

By far one of the most contradicting post in this thread. You actually think that EVERY single person in the world has they ability to choose who is their leader? I would like to point to North Korea, China, Cuba and many other foreign governments that don't have free elections or non-rigged elections.

So with that being said, no citizens can not be accountable for government actions.

[Kilmer17]

We werent attacked by Germany.

A fact conveniently ommitted when this debate occurs.

Bill Richardson stated perfectly the WRONG view of the current world affairs on Sunday. He said that John Edwards was right saying there is no war on terror, only a war against Al Queda.

That limitted view, that Al Queda is the only terror group we are fighting, is a disaster. In the same way that saying we would only wage war on Japan would have been a disaster.

Japan=Al Queda

All other ISlamic terror groups=Germany

All other rogue nations (ie NK,Venezuela et al) = Italy

[sacase]

Interesting how this is the most popular weapon seen in the hands of those fighting against the US in the Middle East. Anyone want to guess where its made?

That is a Type 56, enclosed front sight, it was made in China.

Also china sent a lot of those to Afghanistan.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

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.

No, I could never be as wishy-washy and immoral as GWB has been throughout his six years in office. Additionally, Iraq would have already been over if I'd been sitting in that office making the decisions.

My genes will not get passed along (I wouldn't want to bring a child into this wretched hive of scum and villiany that the USA has become); but I do attempt to pass my outlook on to as many people as possible, in the vain hope that maybe I'll find more people who actually want to get this country back on track before there is no chance to resuscitate it from the brain dead coma we're currently in.

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

We'll have to disagree on that, since that is not what my experience in life has lead me to believe.

[AsburySkinsFan]

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".

Ok, wow, this is the first time that I've actually heard someone compare the US to the Roman Empire as if it were a good thing. Holy smokes man, the Roman Empire isn't what we are supposed to be, neither is the Soviet Union. We aren't building our legacy of might makes right.

I get the sense here lately that people would rather have the US be Sparta, than Athens, and this is just sad.

[Destino]

We werent attacked by Germany.

Germany declared war right after we had been attacked. Germany in this case wasn't an extremist group threatening violence, they were a force on the move rapidly conquering Europe. The threat was far greater then someone blowing up coffee houses. This was a state proving they could conquer nations and bring western powers to their knees.

I don't know why people insist on raising this current enemy to such a level. They are not capable of destroying the US. They are not capable of conquering any nation. They are capable of isolated acts of extreme violence outside of their area in the middle east. Should they get their hands on better weaponry they would be capable of inflicting great harm... but they still can't conquer anyone. They aren't even close to what Germany or the Soviet Union were in terms of threat.

Also something has to be said about how the wars were framed. WWII was not about liberation, it was a war in the real sense. We aimed to defeated Germany. Not some Germans. We weren't going to spare churches or certain areas... any and all targets that had value in destroying were open for bombing. The police actions of today with their flimsy reasoning and restrained prosecution are nothing like that.

[Sarge]

Riiiiiight, so let me ask you Sarge what are we fighting against in the Middle East?

We're fighting against people who are wrapped up in an ideaology. That ideaology is the violent side of islam. You know, the side that islam must rule, and that it's OK to lie to any non muslim to attain that goal. That it's OK to use whatever means availible to to acheive theri goals. That includes lopping off heads and hiding behind and or killing women and children

BTW, anyone want to know what the Russians did in Lebenon? Once their national was kidnapped, the KGB sent a note to the bad guys. Basically it said let our guy go or we're coming to see you.

OF course the bad guys ignored it, thinking the Ruskies would be ******* like us.

Mistake

When relatives of the bad guys started showing up in dumps with their nuts stuffed in their mouths (literally), they decided to let the Russian go

[Chump Bailey]

BTW, anyone want to know what the Russians did in Lebenon? Once their national was kidnapped, the KGB sent a note to the bad guys. Basically it said let our guy go or we're coming to see you.

OF course the bad guys ignored it, thinking the Ruskies would be ******* like us.

Mistake

When relatives of the bad guys started showing up in dumps with their nuts stuffed in their mouths (literally), they decided to let the Russian go

Sarge,

1. Were the Marines guarding the barracks in Lebanon even armed - I don't think they were - please confirm...

After the attack I believe the Marines were given .50 caliber rifles which seemed to serve as an effective attitude adjustment for those giving the hairy eyeball to our forces. I think the French lost quite a few paratroopers also.

2. Anyone - Is it truly accurate that we left in a whimper of sorts - didn't Reagan order shelling the living #### out of that place with our destroyers while pulling out.

[alexey]

We'll have to disagree on that, since that is not what my experience in life has lead me to believe.

When people are doing something out of fear alone, they will hate whatever they fear, and they will resist it.

If you sprinkle a little bit of respect into the mix they will still fear you, but they will make themselves believe they are following you because you know better, and they will love you long time.

This is basic psychology... Stockholm syndrome lite, if you will. I am sure you have encountered this throughout your life experiences and are well aware of it.

[Sarge]

Sarge,

1. Were the Marines guarding the barracks in Lebanon even armed - I don't think they were - please confirm...

After the attack I believe the Marines were given .50 caliber rifles which seemed to serve as an effective attitude adjustment for those giving the hairy eyeball to our forces. I think the French lost quite a few paratroopers also.

2. Anyone - Is it truly accurate that we left in a whimper of sorts - didn't Reagan order shelling the living #### out of that place with our destroyers while pulling out.

We had some screwed up ROE's for that adventure, until the bombing. Of course, than it was too late. Afterwards, and whenever we got good intel, we shelled the **** out of the Syrian backed Druse militia, complements of the USS New Jersey.

And again, our manginas hampered us in another area. We had a SEAL team in Lebenon at the time. They had concocted radio device that emmitted selected radio waves. Driving around with this device and tuning in different frequencies had the awesome effect of detonating car bombs that were radio activated.

Unfortunately, the US ambassador forbid the SEALS to do more of this. ToOo afraid civilians might get hurt. He sent the SEALS home and about a week later

KA-BOOM

[TheLongshot]

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 don't think ruthlessness or the lack thereof has anything to do with our problems in Iraq. Really, the "war" part is over. We went in and crushed Iraq's government and pretty much most of their infrastructure. Now, we are in the "post-war" phase, and that's where we are failing. It isn't because of resolve, but because of a lack of a plan, or the lack of a good plan. Where's a George Marshall when we need him?

The US military has never been good when it comes to an enemy where a good percentage of the populace engages in guerilla warfare. I mean, in that case, who are you fighting against? Is the only solution to kill everyone? Then, what is the point in "liberating" Iraq?

And what has this war done to quell terrorism? We certainly haven't gotten Bin Laden, or put Al-Qaeda out of business. Sure, we haven't had an attack on our soil, but is it because we give them ready-made targets in Iraq more than any success we have had? Does the growing civilian body count contribute to the problems we are having there?

The War On Terror is a valid fight, but I don't think it is a war that is going to be won with soldiers on the field of battle. The enemies are mostly not leaders of contries, but private individuals who are well funded by interests who don't like our way of life. This is a war that is mostly going to be won with good intellegence and surgical strikes, not by massive millitary strength.

Jason

[Mass_SkinsFan]

When people are doing something out of fear alone, they will hate whatever they fear, and they will resist it

If they're resisting you haven't instilled an appropriate amount of FEAR into them.

If you sprinkle a little bit of respect into the mix they will still fear you, but they will make themselves believe they are following you because you know better, and they will love you long time.

If you mix in a little bit of respect, you make them think that they and their ideas have some level of value to you and are therefore less likely to simply do what they're told when they're told to do it. Remember, we're talking about FOREIGN policy not domestic policy

This is basic psychology... Stockholm syndrome lite, if you will. I am sure you have encountered this throughout your life experiences and are well aware of it.

Stockholm syndrome... the idea that your hostages smile while you shoot them in the head. It's generally caused by having hostages who don't comprehend the difference between Right and Wrong and therefore can be corrupted into betraying their side and agreeing with the enemy.

[sacase]

We need to start fighting the war like we did in WWII. Civilians die....sorry, perhaps you should have moved. There needs to be limits to press on the battle field. IF there are 5 insurgents in a mosque, set the perimiter and put a 2000lb bomb on it, if you incite violence (Sadr) then you get tossed in jail. Its really very simple, if you fight a war in the media, you will loose. War is not nice.

[Chump Bailey]

We had some screwed up ROE's for that adventure, until the bombing. Of course, than it was too late. Afterwards, and whenever we got good intel, we shelled the **** out of the Syrian backed Druse militia, complements of the USS New Jersey.

And again, our manginas hampered us in another area. We had a SEAL team in Lebenon at the time. They had concocted radio device that emmitted selected radio waves. Driving around with this device and tuning in different frequencies had the awesome effect of detonating car bombs that were radio activated.

Unfortunately, the US ambassador forbid the SEALS to do more of this. ToOo afraid civilians might get hurt. He sent the SEALS home and about a week later

KA-BOOM

Thanks Sarge...

[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.

One thing I just thought of ... how is this different from the War on Terror? In many ways, this is also not a war (certainly less so than the Cold War, where we were fighting another nation and there were far more casualties). Our enemy has a fatally flawed belief system that is going to destroy itself in any case ...

If we won the Cold War the way we did (without invading the Soviet Union with a D-Day operation), it seems reasonable that we could also win the War on Terror with a combination of military, political, and economic tactics. It may not be quick or easy, but it has proven effective.

[Prosperity]

As an aside, how would some of you guys have dealt with the indian independence movement if you were the Brits. Would you have executed Ghandi if you were the viceroy?

[alexey]

If they're resisting you haven't instilled an appropriate amount of FEAR into them.

If you mix in a little bit of respect, you make them think that they and their ideas have some level of value to you and are therefore less likely to simply do what they're told when they're told to do it. Remember, we're talking about FOREIGN policy not domestic policy

Stockholm syndrome... the idea that your hostages smile while you shoot them in the head. It's generally caused by having hostages who don't comprehend the difference between Right and Wrong and therefore can be corrupted into betraying their side and agreeing with the enemy.

People tend see every problem as a nail if the only tool at their disposal is a hammer.

Also, any human mind can be corrupted... sorry but it's really not as rommantic as you make it sound

[PeterMP]

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.

Maybe I'm confused, but Japan has low crime partly because they do hole people accountable. They do a great job of catching criminals therefore in Japan crime practially doesn't pay. Unlike here.

[PeterMP]

We werent attacked by Germany.

A fact conveniently ommitted when this debate occurs.

Bill Richardson stated perfectly the WRONG view of the current world affairs on Sunday. He said that John Edwards was right saying there is no war on terror, only a war against Al Queda.

That limitted view, that Al Queda is the only terror group we are fighting, is a disaster. In the same way that saying we would only wage war on Japan would have been a disaster.

I don't like the "war on terror" because I think it is a strategic mistake. You group together people that are not really related. For example, there are differences between Hamas and Al Qaeda, and they have actually had some verbal spats. Yet realistically they both could be considered terror organizations, but by lumping them together, you might actually force them together and to cooperate. The better option is first to divide them where possible.

[sacase]

Maybe I'm confused, but Japan has low crime partly because they do hole people accountable. They do a great job of catching criminals therefore in Japan crime practially doesn't pay. Unlike here.

Japan is a poor analogy. Criminals in Japan expect to be caught and often times turn themselves in. They have a sense of national honor that we will never posses. That honor has been instilled in them for a couple thousand years.

[Sarge]

I don't like the "war on terror" because I think it is a strategic mistake. You group together people that are not really related. For example, there are differences between Hamas and Al Qaeda, and they have actually had some verbal spats. Yet realistically they both could be considered terror organizations, but by lumping them together, you might actually force them together and to cooperate. The better option is first to divide them where possible.

Both need to be wiped out, so what's the difference?

[sacase]

Personally I feel that we need to make a bigger surge into the tribal regions of Pakistan. EVERY terror plot against us has come out of that region, but do to political reason we don't go there.

[Art]

One thing I just thought of ... how is this different from the War on Terror? In many ways, this is also not a war (certainly less so than the Cold War, where we were fighting another nation and there were far more casualties). Our enemy has a fatally flawed belief system that is going to destroy itself in any case ...

If we won the Cold War the way we did (without invading the Soviet Union with a D-Day operation), it seems reasonable that we could also win the War on Terror with a combination of military, political, and economic tactics. It may not be quick or easy, but it has proven effective.

I'm saddened to see you suggest the war on terror is not a war on the level of the cold war. People are dying. They are openly trying to kill us. Destino suggests we shouldn't take them seriously as they aren't really as serious a threat as WWII enemies. I say the voice I'm hearing is the same one that allowed Germany to rise. Appease. Please.

Our enemy now only has a fatally flawed belief system if we allow ourselves to name it and call it one and fight against it wherever it exists. But, unlike the cold war where we named our enemy, we are afraid to call an islamic fundamentalist an islamic fundamentalist. Thus, we have yet to even embrace the fact our enemy is our enemy.

[Predicto]

Personally I feel that we need to make a bigger surge into the tribal regions of Pakistan. EVERY terror plot against us has come out of that region, but do to political reason we don't go there.

The political reason being a pretty powerful one: Pakistan has nukes.

If we are seen as invading Pakistan, then the government of Musharraf could likely fall. And if the current government falls in favor of a Muslim extremist government, then Muslim extremists would have nukes.

These are not small considerations.