WSJ(Op-ed): Was Osama Right?

[SkinsHokieFan]

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.

Bingo.

An article in the Washington Post talks about what gives you power in Pakistan. God, The Army, and America

Musharaf doesn't have the religious on his side (this being the 'God' factor). The Army still likes him. America is still behind him

If his gov't went down it would be a disaster considering which fool may take over.

[PeterMP]

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.

Different situation. We weren't being killed on a regular basis in Germany and Japan. In general, I don't think the problem is that we are not "evil" enough. The problem is we did not use overwhelming force and even w/ the surge aren't. I've posted the numbers before if you look at other successful democratizations (e.g. Germany and Japan) and calculate how many troops we need, you can do the calculation two ways, based on the size of the country or the population of the country. For Iraq, depending on the democratization you use as your example and population or size, you come up w/ we need 300,000-1,000,000 toops. This actually dovetails nicely w/ plans by Gen.Shinseki and other before Rumsfeld got involved that required about 500,000 troops:

"Personality clashes apart, Shinseki and Rumsfeld had significantly different approaches to military doctrine. For example, following September 11, 2001, Rumsfeld was in a meeting whose subject was the review of the Department of Defense's (Contingency) Plan in the event of a war with Iraq (U.S. Central Command OPLAN 1003-98). [11] The plan (as it was then conceived) contemplated troop levels of up to 500,000, which Rumsfeld opined was far too many. Gordon and Trainor wrote:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki

Now, if you want to say that we have changed and no longer have the heart to see that many people put in the field (and therefore potentially killed), then I won't argue, but I think our inability as less to do w/ our willingness to be "evil" rather than our willingness to sacrafice our lives (or for people to acknowledge the sacrafice of their loved ones might be required). But I'm not even sure that is the case. I am becoming more convined that Bush didn't want to call for numbers like that because that would caused everybody to hesitate and ask why. He wanted to keep the numbers low because things were more likely to go forward w/o problems.

I think, especially after 9-11, people would have been willing to put those kind of numbers into Afghanastan.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

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

If the hammer is the only proper tool for a particular job, using a screwdriver means you have no chance to get the job done.

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

If a person can be corrupted, then they didn't really believe in what their mind has been changed from to begin with.

[Chief skin]

We as a country attempt to fight nice, clean, and tidy conflicts, problem is that is not reality and our leaders refuse to learn the lessons history has taught. Combat is messy so once you decide it is the only option, you had better go in there with such overwhelming force that it scares the hell out of the enemy as well as the locals. Otherwise you leave yourself open to guerilla fighters(insurgents) you break there will from the get go. I still have not heard or read what I consider the real reason Bush had such a hardon for the place. But. now we have created such a mess of Iraq that we had better fix it now or it is going to come back and haunt us. Problem is our mentality as a nation does not like long drawn out anything let alone a war, the enemy knows this so they figure fight to a stalemate and we go home. Saddam is going to look good to us in comparison to what Iraq is going to morph into. The islamic republic of Iraq right next door to islamic republic of Iran.

[PeterMP]

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

The difference is it easier to wipe them out if you can isolate them and wipe them out independently and maybe even use one against the other. Certainly you have heard of divide and conquer.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

My chief problem with "The War on Terror" has always been the simple fact that it is a war on a tactic, not on a "thing." At least the war on the barbary Pirates was on a somebody. To me, it is like naming World War II, "The War on Pinzer Movements."

My second issue is that "war" in the traditional sense will only get us so far. In fact, too much war - as Iraq has shown - leads us into a blind alley.

This - far more than the Cold War - is an ideological battle. You can pretend that the Cold War was about "Communism vs. Capitalism" or "Freedom versus Opression" but at its heart, it was too large empires seeking hegemony over large parts of the world. There was nothing really ideological about it, unless you count installing dictators like the Shah, Marcos, Noriega, and even our old buddy Saddam Hussein (who was not installed per se by the US but inherited the regime that was) etc. as freedom triumphing over oppression.

So, it is an ideological clash that is fueled by two concepts: 1) The appeal of Radical Islam to an alarmingly large portion of the world and 2) US military, business, and cultural dominance in the post-Cold War Era.

So, yes, we by all means need to kill bad guys where we can. And we need to stop terrorist attacks before they happen. But until we address the 1) the appeal of radical Islam by offering some sort of alternative and 2) somehow easing our dominance in the world, this is never going to end.

[Destino]

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.

Where have I said we shouldn't take them seriously? What I said was that they are not on the same level as past enemies. I think that lifting them up is HELPING them. We've raised them to the super power status crying out that they will destroy us if we fail. Think about how that plays to crazy little extremists?

They need to be crushed like bugs and treated like bugs. Sadly we decided to take a little timeout and engage in some nation building instead of going after those behind 9/11.

[sacase]

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.

yeah I know that is the reason.

they use nukes they can kill a few thousand troops we use them we can knock out their whole country. Plus India would have fun too.

But like I said every terrorist plot has contact with the tribal regions of afghanistan/pakistan.

[Predicto]

yeah I know that is the reason.

they use nukes they can kill a few thousand troops we use them we can knock out their whole country. Plus India would have fun too.

But like I said every terrorist plot has contact with the tribal regions of afghanistan/pakistan.

You think they would use nukes on on the battlefield?

The first nuke would take out Tel Aviv. The second one would be sent to the Port of New York.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

yeah I know that is the reason.

they use nukes they can kill a few thousand troops we use them we can knock out their whole country. Plus India would have fun too.

But like I said every terrorist plot has contact with the tribal regions of afghanistan/pakistan.

You do realize that a nuclear war on the subcontinent would probably mean the deats of tens of millions of Indians (ostensibly our allies).

Actually, the Mushareff issue is a prime example of what has been wrong with our foreign policy for 60-some years. We tend to view short-term stability as the end-all and be-all. We are terrified of real democracy in the Muslim world, because it is messy and can result is someting like Hamas being a legitimate part of a government.

So, we back strong-men, who create conditions in which more terrorists can be created.

I don't know what the solution ultimately is, but I am pretty sure that the genocide being discussed here is not, in fact, it.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

You think they would use nukes on on the battlefield?

The first nuke would take out Tel Aviv. The second one would be sent to the Port of New York.

Both are unlikely. I don't think they have the range to hit Tel Aviv and it is pretty difficult to transport a missle to New York.

What is most likely is there no longer being an India and China having to deal with a nuclear holocaust on its southern border. I would estimate about 400 million deaths all told.

[Predicto]

Both are unlikely. I don't think they have the range to hit Tel Aviv and it is pretty difficult to transport a missle to New York.

What is most likely is there no longer being an India and China having to deal with a nuclear holocaust on its southern border. I would estimate about 400 million deaths all told.

Why use a missile?

I'm talking about a terrorist government, or the nukes getting out of the hands of the government and into the hands of terrorists.

Slap it into a container ship, in a big cargo box labelled "Plastic Picnic Spoons." Ship docks in NYC. Kablooie.

[headexplode]

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

It's amazing how you can both decry brutal, inhumane tactics on one hand and then celebrate them in the same post.

[sacase]

You think they would use nukes on on the battlefield?

The first nuke would take out Tel Aviv. The second one would be sent to the Port of New York.

2500 km falls a bit short.

The israelis have one that has a 6000km range.

Please stop watching the movies. Nukes are not easy to transport, arm and detonate.

[DjTj]

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.

Well it certainly is not on the level of the Cold War yet. Not in terms of casualties or in terms of people openly trying to kill us ... the numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan simply pale in comparison to those in Vietnam and Korea.

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.

I agree that our rhetoric might be a bit lacking, but I think it's not as simple as naming our enemies. The reason this is the "War on Terror" is not really because of how we look at the bad guys but how we look at ourselves: We are the force of peace and harmony and modern civilization fighting against the barbaric forces of terror: Peace vs. Terror - it's like Democracy vs. Communism, Freedom vs. Fascism, etc. If it were a War on Islamic Fundamentalism, I don't know what that would make us - the side of Liberal Christianity?

The war THEY want to fight is Islam vs. Christianity or Islam vs. Judaism or, more generly, Islam vs. the Infidels ... we would like to draw the line somewhat differently, and "War on Terror" might not be the best way to do it, but I think it's better than simply declaring a war on Islamic Fundamentalism (at the very least that's too many syllables ).

[AsburySkinsFan]

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 classic; 3 choices in life; 1) agree with me, 2) don't and shut up, 3) die. Beautiful!

Oh, and I love the last bit about "keep your mouth shut...if you want to continue having a relationship with me." LOL, as if we are all here to be in relationship with you, and as if the whole idea of relationship being bilateral just goes right out the window. MSF, once again I'm convinced that you don't want America, you want to be in a dictatorship that calls itself America, because at every turn you repudiate everything that America was ever founded upon. Oh, and I won't keep my mouth shut on it so do what you must.

[Predicto]

2500 km falls a bit short.

The israelis have one that has a 6000km range.

Again, why does it have to be a missile?

Please stop watching the movies. Nukes are not easy to transport, arm and detonate.

No, they are not. But Pakistan already has a nice little cadre of nuclear scientists who can help with the process - after all, they built the nukes in the first place. I think they can figure out how to detonate one without attaching it to a missile, especially since the missile is just a means of transportation, not the means of detonation.

Sheesh, why are you fighting me so hard on this. The point is, it is scary that a place like Pakistan has nukes, and if the mobs in Karachi take over from the elites in Islamabad, it gets much, much scarier.

[AsburySkinsFan]

We're fighting against people who are wrapped up in an ideaology. That ideaology is the violent side of islam.

That's right its an ideology, an idea, and do you really think that killing people is going to make the idea go away? All evidence points to the contrary, you beat a bad idea by giving people reason to believe a better idea. In this way to take away the audience of those lunatics like Bin Laden, and you relegate them to being a lone voice in the wilderness where everyone looks at him and goes "wow, what a nut job." You do not beat it by becoming what they already claim we are, and you certainly don't beat that idea by killing people because then you only swell the ranks of those who are against you.

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

Yeah, that's a great model that we should really be striving for. :doh:

Dear God Sarge, do you really believe that this is a good thing? If so then I truly hope that you are in the VAST minority of opinion, because that's just sick.

[Sarge]

It's amazing how you can both decry brutal, inhumane tactics on one hand and then celebrate them in the same post.

That's because I have a moral compass. Something some folks seem to have misplaced

See, for the KGB, that was business as usual, all day everyday. For us, doing something like that is a stretch

But the bottom line is, the **** worked, didn't it?

The islamists released their hostage. Unfortunately, when you deal with inhuman, backassed, 17th century savages, that's the way you have to act sometimes

[Predicto]

That's because I have a moral compass. Something some folks seem to have misplaced

See, for the KGB, that was business as usual, all day everyday. For us, doing something like that is a stretch

But the bottom line is, the **** worked, didn't it?

The islamists released their hostage. Unfortunately, when you deal with inhuman, backassed, 17th century savages, that's the way you have to act sometimes

No, the bottom line is that the Russians suck and their methods suck, and there is a reason America is different.

Oh, and if this is your "moral compass" than your moral compass sucks too.

[Sarge]

That's right its an ideology, an idea, and do you really think that killing people is going to make the idea go away? All evidence points to the contrary, you beat a bad idea by giving people reason to believe a better idea. In this way to take away the audience of those lunatics like Bin Laden, and you relegate them to being a lone voice in the wilderness where everyone looks at him and goes "wow, what a nut job." You do not beat it by becoming what they already claim we are, and you certainly don't beat that idea by killing people because then you only swell the ranks of those who are against you.

Yeah, that's a great model that we should really be striving for. :doh:

Dear God Sarge, do you really believe that this is a good thing? If so then I truly hope that you are in the VAST minority of opinion, because that's just sick.

Normally, one beats a bad idea either by debate or actions, showing people that the idea is bad

Unfortunately, most people over there will not be able to separate the concept from the religion simply because of ignorance, so you're screwed.

It'd be nice if we could fight the war with both sides using the Queens Rules. Unfortunately for us, we're the only ones using those rules, while the other side is using gutter tactics. It's getting our guys killed.

[JMS]

Raise the Green Lantern

How can you publish urban legend in the WSJ and expect to be taken seriously. That myth about the soviets attacking terrorists families came out of the Reagan Whitehouse. It's been a known fable for more than 20 years. Reagan actually brought it up with his confused soviet counterparts who didn't know what he was talking about. I don't know if that was before or after Ronnie brought up the UFO's.

Either way I like Ronnie, but he didn't always get his history factually accurate. Neither does this guy Lewis.

( . . . for anyone who thought this post title was clever, it was -- when Scott first used it back in November . . . My bad!)

The laughing-stock of the historical profession is at it again. Bernard Lewis, appearing at the WSJ Wingnut Open Mic Night, delivered his latest free verse poem decrying the will of Americans to effectively smoosh the Islamic menace. This time, however, instead of offering the embarrassing doomsday predictions of August last, Lewis decides to mangle the history of the cold war Middle East in order to prop up his thesis that Americans have not brought the pain in sufficient quantities to the proper recipients.

A sample of the insanity:

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

Much of the piece reviews the standard right-wing history of American "appeasement" that runs from Tehran through Beirut and onward to Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania and Yemen -- an allegedly continuous narrative that concluded with the Bush Doctrine, whose ferocious application in Iraq momentarily stupefied an Islamic world used to viewing Americans as cowards. We also get the usual "clash of civilizations" fable that refuses to acknowledge meaningful historical discontinuities between the 7th and 21st centuries. In its own right this is all bad enough, but I want to focus on Lewis' other suggestion -- that the Soviets were more feared in the Middle East than the US -- because it's also an astonishing statement from someone reputed to be an historian.

Lewis is understandably reluctant to provide examples to support his insistence that Muslims submitted to "Soviet authority" from Afghanistan to Libya, because such examples are non-existent. The simple fact is that while the Soviet Union sought -- especially during the 1950s -- to assert some counter-pressure against the United States in the Middle East, those efforts had by and large foundered by the time Kennedy came to power in the US. Although the logic of the cold war continued to govern US policy in the region, and anxieties about Soviet influence in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, or Yemen continued to shape the work of ever president from Carter through Reagan, there's no credible path to suggest that the Soviet Union acted as a region hegemon in any way comparable to the position enjoyed by the US until 1979. It was not the Soviet Union, after all, that engaged in "swift and dire" actions such as toppling the government of Iran to thwart nationalist economic policies; or attempting to guide or orchestrate coups in Syria and Iraq on multiple occasions in the 1950s and early 1960s; or by providing lists of suspected internal communists to the leaders of Iraq, Egypt and Iran (who disposed of their adversaries in all the predictable ways); or by offering Israel a green light (and then material support) for its humiliating invasion of Lebanon in 1982. I realize this shouldn't bear repeating, but if the US became a target for Islamic resistance in the Middle East, it did so by virtue of its authority there -- not because the Soviets had somehow cowed the region into submission.

But here again we see how conservatives like Lewis depend on the fable of the US as morally weak, its responses to crisis ineffectual and belated, its presence in the world driven by naivete -- and always more sinned against than sinning. Why these people hate America, we'll likely never know.

http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2007/05/raise-green-lantern.html

[sacase]

Predicto, your argument would make sense if you were dealing with Americans or other 1st world people.

But the Muslim mindset is radically different than ours. They don't understand or respect peace talks. We are infidels and they have no problems lying to our face and stabbing us in the back. They say they want to kill us and they truly mean it. Its not just rhetoric. They see us as weak because we want to talk things out. The only thing they understand is violence. Which means we need to speak their language if we want them to understand us and we need to speak loudly.

Look at their history, they are always killing people inhumanly, its not going to change.

[Sarge]

No, the bottom line is that the Russians suck and their methods suck, and there is a reason America is different.

Oh, and if this is your "moral compass" than your moral compass sucks too.

But at least in that instance, they WON, didn't they? Yeah, they won nasty, but at the end of the day, they won. Whereas we had hostages held, displayed on TV and even killed over there for years. I think I'd rather cut off a few ballzacs

And what most of you armchair generals here are not taking into account is the arab mentality.

At the end of the day, the only thing they understand is power, authority, a boot in the ass.

Anyone that shows weakness, that shows a lack of power and/or authority, is going to be ****ed with.

It's not that hard to figure out

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's amazing how you can both decry brutal, inhumane tactics on one hand and then celebrate them in the same post.

BINGO!!!!

And again I ask, who exactly are the terrorists?

Heck we got people on here calling for relatives of the terrorists to be killed and have their gentials stuck in their mouths, others are calling for the use of nuclear weapons in Pakistan, and others are calling for a foriegn policy of absolute fear. I'm sorry but you guys are advocating for the same exact things that the Jihadists are advocating! This is hypocrisy at its greatest. The only thing that differentiates you from them is the fact that you live here, and they live there.