The Rising Cost of Fear

[zartan]

From Harpers. Brilliant points on the reality of the threat we face. Remember Roosevelt's "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"? Shame that our leaders have forgotten this lesson - especially given that, in Roosevelt's day, we had a very real fear of actual complete annihilation...

--

Terror, like ecstasy, tends to magnify perceptions. Just as affection becomes adoration in the physical act of love, so too does vigilance sometimes become morbid obsession in the face of spectacular violence. To be effective, this normal function of survival must also be temporary. It is now more than two years since our own national incident of spectacular violence, however, and although the United States remains obsessed, it is not unfair, or even insensitive, to begin considering the events of September 11 from a more detached perspective.

In 2001, terrorists killed 2,978 people in the United States, including the five killed by anthrax. In that same year, according to the Centers for Disease Control, heart disease killed 700,142 Americans and cancer 553,768; various accidents claimed 101,537 lives, suicide 30,622, and homicide, not including the attacks, another 17,330. As President Bush pointed out in January, no one has been killed by terrorists on American soil since then. Neither, according to the FBI, was anyone killed here by terrorists in 2000. In 1999, the number was one. In 1998, it was three. In 1997, zero. Even using 2001 as a baseline, the actuarial tables would suggest that our concern about terror mortality ought to be on the order of our concern about fatal workplace injuries (5,431 deaths) or drowning (3,247). To recognize this is not to dishonor the loss to the families of those people killed by terrorists, but neither should their anguish eclipse that of the families of children who died in their infancy that year (27,801). Every death has its horrors.

Anti-terrorism nevertheless has become the animating principle of nearly every aspect of American public policy. We have launched two major military engagements in its name. It informs how we fund scientific research, whose steel or textiles we buy, who may enter or leave the country, and how we sort our mail. It has shaped the structure of the Justice Department and the fates of 180,000 government employees now in the service of the Department of Homeland Security. Nearly every presidential speech touches on terrorism, and, according to the White House, we can look forward to spending at least $50 billion per year on “homeland defense” until the end of time.

* * *

Is all this necessary? One of the remarkable things about September 11 is that there was no follow-up—no shopping malls were firebombed, no bridges destroyed, no power plants assaulted. This is, no doubt, partly the result of our post-2001 obsession with preventing just such disasters. We must at least consider the possibility, however, that this also represents a lack of wherewithal on the part of would-be terrorists. Although there may be no shortage of those angry enough to commit an act of violence against the United States, few among them possess the training, the financing, or the sheer ambition necessary to execute an operation as elaborate as that of September 11. The nineteen who have already done so are dead, and in the two and a half years that they have enjoyed their martyrdom and their virgins, few have stepped forward to join them. In the United States, none have.

This may be because it is very hard to kill thousands of people at once. It turns out, for example, that the radioactive “dirty bombs” of Jose Padilla’s fantasies are in fact “not very effective as a means of causing fatalities,” according to Richard Meserve, who is the chairman of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Smallpox was eradicated from nature in 1978, is impossible to manufacture, and—if terrorists did somehow get hold of what little of the virus remains in Russian and U.S. hands—is exceedingly difficult to spread. It is safe to assume that many aspiring terrorists have killed only themselves, with prematurely dispersed sarin or perhaps an all-too-successful anthrax experiment. And contrary to their designation as “weapons of mass destruction,” anthrax and sarin, as well as mustard gas, VX, tabun, and a host of other high-tech horrors, are more accurately called simply “weapons.” Aum Shinrikyo—which had 65,000 members worldwide, $1.4 billion in assets, and a secret weapons lab run by scientists recruited from Japan’s best universities, and spent years underground during which no investigative body knew of them, much less was seeking them—managed to kill sixteen people in a Tokyo subway station. A boy with a machine gun could have done worse.

Real nuclear weapons, of course, are a different matter, but they also are incredibly hard to make. Libya recently gave up on the project. North Korea has been at it since the late sixties and may now have as many as two. As for the much-feared loose Russian nukes, Aum Shinrikyo, with all its money, tried just after the Berlin Wall fell to buy one and failed. This is why Al Qaeda, despite all its well-financed malice, used planes. It was the best they could do.

In the unlikely event that a terrorist organization did manage to steal or, more likely, build a nuclear weapon, smuggle it into the United States, and detonate it near a major population center, the predicted casualty rate starts at 10,000 and climbs, in some estimates, to as high as 250,000. This would be a singular crime. But it would be a horror not unlike many that this nation has faced before and many that this nation will face again, terrorists or no terrorists. The country would go on, just as it did after the influenza epidemic of 1918 (600,000 deaths) or during the current AIDS epidemic (500,000 deaths and counting). Attorney General John Ashcroft has called terrorists “those who would destroy America,” but a successful nuclear attack would not destroy America. It would not even come close.

* * *

In this coming election, as in every other, genuine differences of opinion will inform much of the political debate. A tax cut in a time of recession might make sense to you, or it might not. Perhaps we should build a moon colony instead of funding public schools. Reasonable people may differ. Terror, though, will not be argued on logic or ideology or even self-interest. It will be argued on the basis of emotion. It is an emotion.

Moreover, it is a seductive emotion. Our current obsession with terrorism is premised on the fiction of an unlimited downside, which speaks darkly to the American psyche just as did the unlimited upside imagined during the Internet bubble. Indeed, this hysteria can be seen as a mirror image of the bubble, a run on terror. Whereas before we believed without basis that we could all be illimitably wealthy with no work, we now believe without basis that we will die in incalculable numbers with no warning or determinable motivation. Both views are childish, but the Internet bubble at least did not require calling out the National Guard.

Contrary to the administration’s claims, the War on Terror is not “a challenge as formidable as any ever faced by our nation.” It is not the Cold War, in which our enemy did in fact have the ability to destroy the Earth. Nor is it the Second World War (405,399 dead Americans), nor the First (116,516). It certainly is not the Civil War, still the deadliest conflict in American history (364,511 dead on the Union side, and an estimated 258,000 dead in the South) and one that specifically threatened to end the American experiment. It is not even a war in the “moral equivalent of war” sense of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Fighting it does not make us a better people. It is much closer to the War on Drugs—a comic-book name for a fantasy crusade. We can no more rid the world of terror than we can rid it of alienation. This may sound like a splitting of linguistic hairs, but we made a similar category error in Vietnam by calling a U.S. invasion a Vietnamese “civil war.” That misidentification cost 58,200 American lives.

As opposed to terror, murder, at the hands of Al Qaeda or anyone else, is a very real threat. But it is not a supreme threat, and by calling it what it is we can recognize that it does not require the wholesale reorganization of the American way of life. The prevention of murder does not require the suspension of habeas corpus, nor does it call for the distribution of national identity cards, nor does it require the fingerprinting of Brazilian tourists. Preventing murder certainly does not require war, which of course is quite murderous in and of itself. What preventing murder requires is patient police work.

In New York City we have a program called Comstat, in which police carefully track various crime statistics, detect anomalies, and marshal their forces appropriately. It works. There were 596 murders here in 2003, down from 2,245 in 1990. This sort of effort lacks election-year grandeur, however, which may partially explain why the Department of Homeland Security does not bother to track the number of Americans killed by terrorists. (The FBI tracks terror fatalities within the United States and the State Department tracks the same abroad, but each uses a different definition of terrorism and neither has domestic numbers beyond 2001.) Similarly, there is no comprehensive watch list of likely terror operatives. What we have instead is a sophisticated public-relations system, the color-coded “Homeland Security Advisory System,” that works to terrify Americans without the grisly work of actual terrorism.

Many desired activities, from shopping to watching television, have been cited as examples of what we must do, or else “the terrorists will have won.” This is debatable. What is not debatable is that if the American people are terrified the terrorists have won. And, in this regard, they will have been working with the full cooperation of the current administration.

[zartan]

bumpety bump

[zartan]

bump-bumpety bump

[nietzsche]

I dunno where to start. So I won't. Read Bob Gates "In the Shadows", or Robert Baer "See No Evil", or Chris Andrews "For the President's Eyes Only". All of these guys are former CIA operatives, with Gates being a former DCI. You just can't read these historical accounts and then make a statement like, "We must at least consider the possibility, however, that this also represents a lack of wherewithal on the part of would-be terrorists."

Whether you read Clarke's "Against All Enemies", or Miniter's "Losing Bin Laden", you never get a sense that the threat of foreign attack is not real.

There is absolutely no " lack of wherewithal", as these accounts will atest. And those are just the 5 that I read. I also work with 2 former CIA operatives (both KGB and war on terror) that have told me some pretty crazy fuckin stories, most of them ending with the message of how narrowly we averted being hit.

I am not saying that I know or have heard the whole story. Who is this author? Maybe they have some credibility. But everything I've read, seen, heard or been told says that this threat is very, very real. And if given the choice, being uneccessarily afraid is better than dismissively naieve.

[antifa]

There's going to be another attack on the US.

Al-Qaeda and their global jihadists are bent on destroying the Great Western Devil and instilling a worldwide Islamic theocracy, and no one can convince them otherwise.

However, instead of having the color-codes and repeated warnings of unknown imminent threats in unknown major cities, Bush should go on air and simply say "We're going to get hit again, so be ready, and keep an eye out."

If we -know- we're going to be attacked, they should tell us. They should've told us before 9/11, because they knew then too. Thus, it's not a huge fucking surprise when it does happen. Furthermore, it instills a kind of fatalism that would bring down the national stress level, instead of hyping it up with bright colors every few months.

The terrorists are still extremely dedicated and very active, however with all our increased security measures they're having a damn hard time getting much done. Nonetheless, it's impossible to catch every threat before it happens, as we've seen, so we should just acknowledge the danger and get on with it.

I don't think that would fly very well politically, but the truth hardly ever does.

[nietzsche]

"If we -know- we're going to be attacked, they should tell us. They should've told us before 9/11, because they knew then too"

OK, wtf? so the Pres. should just come out and say we "know" we're going to be attacked, so....what? What exactly do you mean by "know"? BC they certainly don't "know" the time and place, otherwise they would stop it. If they "know" that the odds are good and that they can't stop every terrorist everywhere all the time, well that is something different - AND the government has told us that.

Second, about the color codes: those aren't for us. They mean something to the first responders such as police, fire, rescue, and other emergency mgmt. agencies. But as far as we are concerned, just keep your eyes and ears open and report everything. But it's not like you need to start duck taping your windows bc we move to an elevated level.

[antifa]

Exactly, the president should come out and say 'There's inevitably going to be an attack on American soil, one of these global jihadists is going to make it through our nets at some point, and there's nothing we can do about.' I'm not advocating he do it before a perceived impending attack, he should do it tonight and get it over with.

"AND the government has told us that."

...when?

If the color codes aren't for us, why do the highway signs say "Report Suspicious Activity, Dial 1-800-429-TIPS" whenever we go code orange or whatever it is. If they aren't for us, then why does Ashcroft go on national television and announce that shit, and why does FoxNews have a "Terror Alert: Orange" graphic on the screen 24/7. The government has better avenues of communication to get to their first responders than this bullshit.

[zartan]

"if given the choice, being uneccessarily afraid is better than dismissively naieve."

this is an artificial distinction. You have a habit of distilling the discussion of terrorism into a false dichotomy: support for Bush or cowardly/dismissive naivete.

how about a middle path that takes the lessons of our past successes and failures in the war on terrorism and weighs them against the numerous other threats (violent and otherwise) that we face?

[nietzsche]

"if given the choice, being uneccessarily afraid is better than dismissively naieve."

this is an artificial distinction. You have a habit of distilling the discussion of terrorism into a false dichotomy: support for Bush or cowardly/dismissive naivete.

how about a middle path that takes the lessons of our past successes and failures in the war on terrorism and weighs them against the numerous other threats (violent and otherwise) that we face?

fair enough. but on some of these questions, it's tough to find that line. Like on Iraq: should we have prepared better for the peace? sure. But on the fundamental question of whether or not Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power, I think it's a yes or no question.

[zartan]

ahh, exactly. that is a yes or no question. but its also a question that does not necessarily have any bearing on your desire or capability to fight Islamic Fundamentalism (or terrorism, if you prefer to mischaracterize the argument as the POTUS does). It's that formulation: that pulling out of Iraq "lets terrorists win" - that drives me so insane.

As I've thought through it recently, I've refined my opinion a bit. I now believe that by INVADING Iraq, we let the terrorists win. Osama and his cronies must be absolutely overwhelmed at their good fortune in having George W. Bush in the white house to serve as the perfect foil for their activities. It's stunning: even the word Bush prefers to misuse, 'terrorism,' implictly acknowledges that the point of these criminals is to inspire terror. Bush has unquestionably locked up many voters who will cast their ballots based on their fear of this unknown; the government has steadfastly refused to offer any argument like the one starting this thread, FDR's famous "all we have to fear is fear itself" speech, or a similar opinion. Both he and Bin Laden are terrorists, not in a way that makes their actions morally equivalent - they are not - but in the way that they are manipulating fear to create leverage for their own political strategy. Each of their organizations and strategies would be significantly weaker without the others' reactions to serve as their foil.

[BizarroCub]

fair enough. but on some of these questions, it's tough to find that line. Like on Iraq: should we have prepared better for the peace? sure. But on the fundamental question of whether or not Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power, I think it's a yes or no question.

Like with all things, it's all about how you ask the question.

E.G. - You can ask the most vehemant anti-Iraq-war protestor whether Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power, I'm almost 100% certain you'd get a Yes answer from most of them.

Now...if you ask that question as "Do you think WE through direct unilateral miliary action should remove Saddam Hussein from power?" then you'll get a completely different answer.

None of us have ever argued or disagreed with you that he needed to go, but the how's, why's, and when's have ALWAYS been the problem here. Not the What or the Who.

[zartan]

good refinement; I absolutely agree.

one of my big quarrels with this administration's rhetoric is the way it constantly sets up false dichotomies between their position and it's "opposite", defined in a way that makes it either morally repulsive or transparently misguided. this technique allows them to shape the whole way the debate is taking place and puts people who disagree with their position - unfairly - in the role of seeming to advocate the "opposite" position.

"you are either with us or against us"
"you either support the war, or prefer a murderous dictator keep raping his country"
"you either keep your troops in Iraq, or the terrorists win"

each of these standard canards oozing from the White House functions in precisely the same, divisive, unproductive way: destroy nuanced debate, ensure public policy discussions take place entirely on their terms, and cause the 'average American' watching on TV to reflexively agree with the Bush-advocated side of each argument.

[Methodus]

Like with all things, it's all about how you ask the question.

E.G. - You can ask the most vehemant anti-Iraq-war protestor whether Saddam Hussein should have been removed from power, I'm almost 100% certain you'd get a Yes answer from most of them.

Now...if you ask that question as "Do you think WE through direct unilateral miliary action should remove Saddam Hussein from power?" then you'll get a completely different answer.

None of us have ever argued or disagreed with you that he needed to go, but the how's, why's, and when's have ALWAYS been the problem here. Not the What or the Who.

Yes, but what good does criticizing the ongoing plan of action without offering up a different one instead? Should the UN have been more involved? It was pretty clear that they weren't doing much about it. Not to mention all the backdoor deals that are coming to light regarding Russia, France and Germany getting paid off. I think the UN is morally bankrupt at this point. Only time will tell though.

[Methodus]

good refinement; I absolutely agree.

one of my big quarrels with this administration's rhetoric is the way it constantly sets up false dichotomies between their position and it's "opposite", defined in a way that makes it either morally repulsive or transparently misguided. this technique allows them to shape the whole way the debate is taking place and puts people who disagree with their position - unfairly - in the role of seeming to advocate the "opposite" position.

"you are either with us or against us"
"you either support the war, or prefer a murderous dictator keep raping his country"
"you either keep your troops in Iraq, or the terrorists win"

each of these standard canards oozing from the White House functions in precisely the same, divisive, unproductive way: destroy nuanced debate, ensure public policy discussions take place entirely on their terms, and cause the 'average American' watching on TV to reflexively agree with the Bush-advocated side of each argument.


But what should have been done instead? Should we have held debates that could have lasted for months and years regarding these issues? This isn't a direct democracy, we have representatives who represent our views, and they voted for this war. And that is what has been done. But seriously, I understand that you can disagree with the war in Iraq, but how would it be percieved to the rest of the world and more importantly Al Queda if we were to disengage there ? Again, that doesn't mean that you should just support the war without questioning it, but we do have to take in account how it will be percieved by terrorists. Unfortunately, these situations are delicate. What do you do?

[zartan]

"the UN have been more involved? It was pretty clear that they weren't doing much about it"

I am always interested to see people claim the UN wasn't doing much about it, given the evidence that Saddam was succesfully kept from having WMDs, which is exactly what they were asked to do. In fact, the regime of inspections, no-fly-zones, etc seems to have done precisely what it was designed to do: keep Saddam contained and not a danger to the world.

I love how the fact that the UN didn't want to summarily invade Iraq is presented as evidence of their ineffectiveness and moral bankruptcy, despite the strong evidence that the UN's actions were demonstrably 100% successful in achieving their goals.

You write "only time will tell." Time HAS told - it's been a YEAR since we invaded, and we haven't found any WMDs. IMO, time has told that the UN was right. If we had found a huge cache of biological or nuclear weapons, I honestly wouldn't be sitting here writing this right now: I would be defending our actions as an unfortunate but necessary step. Just prior to the war, I had a strong impulse that maybe we WERE doing the right thing. I heard Colin Powell present the evidence, and it seemed plausible that we WERE right, that the UN was wrong and ineffective, and that Bush might have been doing the right thing.

But - as you rightly said - time has told; we were wrong.

[zartan]

First of all, thanks for the interesting posts Methodus. You honestly used to be a complete horses' ass on here with nothing useful to say. Recently this has changed dramatically and I am interested in your perspective.

Anyway, you wrote: "how would it be percieved to the rest of the world and more importantly Al Queda if we were to disengage there?"

You're right: we can't disengage. I'm not saying we should - though I hope that Bush gets his just reward in November for leading us there. I'm just pointing out the rhetorical technique of this administration, and a very effective technique it is.

[Methodus]

"the UN have been more involved? It was pretty clear that they weren't doing much about it"

I am always interested to see people claim the UN wasn't doing much about it, given the evidence that Saddam was succesfully kept from having WMDs, which is exactly what they were asked to do. In fact, the regime of inspections, no-fly-zones, etc seems to have done precisely what it was designed to do: keep Saddam contained and not a danger to the world.

I love how the fact that the UN didn't want to summarily invade Iraq is presented as evidence of their ineffectiveness and moral bankruptcy, despite the strong evidence that the UN's actions were demonstrably 100% successful in achieving their goals.

You write "only time will tell." Time HAS told - it's been a YEAR since we invaded, and we haven't found any WMDs. IMO, time has told that the UN was right. If we had found a huge cache of biological or nuclear weapons, I honestly wouldn't be sitting here writing this right now: I would be defending our actions as an unfortunate but necessary step. Just prior to the war, I had a strong impulse that maybe we WERE doing the right thing. I heard Colin Powell present the evidence, and it seemed plausible that we WERE right, that the UN was wrong and ineffective, and that Bush might have been doing the right thing.

But - as you rightly said - time has told; we were wrong.

Come on, you really think that a year time limit is all we need in order to successfully asses what has happened in Iraq? With all the ongoing violence, many Iraqi's are still frightened to speak up. I think your "one year" time limit is completely arbitrary and useless.

Iraq was also consistently firing upon us in the no-fly zones, inspectors were kicked out, and Hans Blix also has said that they were actively pursuing a nuclear program. The UN was a complete failure in Iraq. And time will tell, and I will not hold them to a one-year get-it-done time limit.

[zartan]

So if I understand your position correctly, you still expect us to find WMDs?

I'm not trying to set an arbitrary time limit - only to say that, given what I've learned in the past year, that so far it seems the UN was doing a good job COMPARED to what we're doing now.

Now, there is complete anarchy in parts of Iraq; afghanistan is back to chaos and drug trading due to lack of attention by the US; we have created 10,000 martyrs; we have squandered our good will with many people around the world. You have to compare the shortcomings of the UN approach with the shortcomings of the US invasion approach. IMO, despite the few things you point out (firing at planes in no-fly zones, etc), the UN approach was comparing favorably to the outcomes we're getting by our own involvement.

[zartan]

Here's some of Blix' testimony to our congress from 2/02. I'd be interested to see the reference you mention about him saying that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons programs. Sounds to me more like the IAEA and UN were doing a good job of tracking potential threats

"In connection with this investigation, Iraq has been asked to explain the reasons for the tight (ph) tolerance specifications that it had requested from various suppliers. Iraq has provided documentations related to the project of reverse engineering and has committed itself to providing samples of tubes received from prospective suppliers. We will continue to investigate the matter further.

In response to the IAEA inquiries about Iraq's attempt to procure a facility for the manufacture of magnets and the possible link with the resumption of a nuclear program, Iraq recently provided additional documentations, which we are presently examining.

In the course of an inspection conducted in connection with aluminum tube investigation, the IAEA inspectors found a number of documents relevant to transactions aimed at the procurement of carbon fiber, a dual-use material used by Iraq in the past clandestine uranium enrichment program for the manufacture of gas centrifuge rotors.

Our review of these documents suggests that the carbon fibers sought by Iraq was not intended for enrichment purpose, as the specification of the material appear not to be consistent with those needed for manufacturing rotor tubes.

In addition, we have carried out follow-up inspection, during which we have been able to observe the use of such carbon fibers in non-nuclear-related applications and to take samples. The IAEA will nevertheless continue to pursue this matter."

[Methodus]

So if I understand your position correctly, you still expect us to find WMDs?

I'm not trying to set an arbitrary time limit - only to say that, given what I've learned in the past year, that so far it seems the UN was doing a good job COMPARED to what we're doing now.

Now, there is complete anarchy in parts of Iraq; afghanistan is back to chaos and drug trading due to lack of attention by the US; we have created 10,000 martyrs; we have squandered our good will with many people around the world. You have to compare the shortcomings of the UN approach with the shortcomings of the US invasion approach. IMO, despite the few things you point out (firing at planes in no-fly zones, etc), the UN approach was comparing favorably to the outcomes we're getting by our own involvement.

I take a highly different approach. To be honest, things are not perfect in Iraq or Afghanistan. But I firmly believe that things are much better now than before we engaged in those countries. And yes, I think we will eventually find WMD's (not necessarily in Iraq, but maybe in a neighboring country). Today, the people of Iraq are experiencing freedom. The unemployment rate is comparable to many other third world nations, women and children are attending school, etc. Afghanistan is no longer under the brutal rule of the Taliban, a group harboring terrorists like Bin Laden.

[Methodus]

Here's some of Blix' testimony to our congress from 2/02.


From the date alone, I can tell you I won't find it there. This was much more recent testimony. Probably in 2004. Or am I thinking of David Kay? I'll do some research.

[nietzsche]

well, whether you agree with it or not Eric, it's good political strategy and both sides use it for every issue. You're either For or Against seniors, or children or single mothers, or "choice". Welcome to politics.

[Methodus]

A lot of that traces to the failure on April 9 to establish immediately physical security in Iraq -- the unparalleled looting and destruction, a lot of which was directly intentional, designed by the security services to cover the tracks of the Iraq WMD program and their other programs as well, a lot of which was what we simply called Ali Baba looting. "It had been the regime's. The regime is gone. I'm going to go take the gold toilet fixtures and everything else imaginable."

-David Kay Jan 28. 2004

[BizarroCub]

TO Methodus:

So...knowing what you know now about the premises that went to war would you knowing what you know now still have supported it a year ago?

Do you think the inspections should have been given more time to work?

Do you think that the current situation can at all be attributed to a planning failure by the administration? And if so, do you think this at all represented an intentional misrepresentation on their part?

[zartan]

thanks for the condescending tone, brian. my point is not that this is some new and innovative political/rhetorical technique; obviously it is not. however, on some issues, this technique serves to divide people when IMO it would be better to engage them in open and honest discussion.

It cuts right to the heart of my problem with the Bush administration: it's reflexively, staggeringly political, at the expense of any other consideration.

[zartan]

"A lot of that traces to the failure on April 9 to establish immediately physical security in Iraq -- the unparalleled looting and destruction, a lot of which was directly intentional, designed by the security services to cover the tracks of the Iraq WMD program and their other programs as well, a lot of which was what we simply called Ali Baba looting. "It had been the regime's. The regime is gone. I'm going to go take the gold toilet fixtures and everything else imaginable.""

That is an incredibly strong argument for NOT going to war... How it can be seen as somehow justifying the war, I don't understand.

one of the clearest arguments against invading iraq was the likelihood of creating instability in the region. the country had a stable, nonsecular dictator. An evil man, yes, but there are many evil men, and we have routinely ignored their crimes when it is convenient to us. IMO creating the conditiosn that David Kay described for the objective of removing an evil dictator from power was a mistake of the first order.

so thanks for making my point. the war was a bad idea - bad strategy, bad execution. bad bad bad. bush bad.

[Methodus]

TO Methodus:

So...knowing what you know now about the premises that went to war would you knowing what you know now still have supported it a year ago?

Do you think the inspections should have been given more time to work?

Do you think that the current situation can at all be attributed to a planning failure by the administration? And if so, do you think this at all represented an intentional misrepresentation on their part?

Yes, I still would have supported the war. I think Saddam was long overdue for a bullet in the head. I think the inspections were given enough time. I don't think that cat and mouse game would have benefitted in the slightest had we given it anymore time. The only benefit I could see from allowing more time would be more international support-- which I doubt would happen because of all the alleged back door deals that were going on between our "allies" and Iraq.

Are you reffering to the ongoing skirmishes we are having with insurgents? If so...

Yes, I think the current situation can be attributed to a planning failure by the administration. We expected for more resistance in the militaristic portion of fighting and far less resistance in the stabilization portion. I do not think this represents any intentional misrepresentation on the administration. What would they misrepresent? I guess Rumsfield was a little off when he said they would greet us as Liberators, but they did greet us as liberators.. most of them. Remember all the Iraqi's cheering in the streets? Now we are met with a small insurgent force that is dedicated to decapitating our plans for democracy. I do not think this reflects the mindset of the majority of Iraqi's.

[Methodus]

"A lot of that traces to the failure on April 9 to establish immediately physical security in Iraq -- the unparalleled looting and destruction, a lot of which was directly intentional, designed by the security services to cover the tracks of the Iraq WMD program and their other programs as well, a lot of which was what we simply called Ali Baba looting. "It had been the regime's. The regime is gone. I'm going to go take the gold toilet fixtures and everything else imaginable.""

That is an incredibly strong argument for NOT going to war... How it can be seen as somehow justifying the war, I don't understand.

one of the clearest arguments against invading iraq was the likelihood of creating instability in the region. the country had a stable, nonsecular dictator. An evil man, yes, but there are many evil men, and we have routinely ignored their crimes when it is convenient to us. IMO creating the conditiosn that David Kay described for the objective of removing an evil dictator from power was a mistake of the first order.

so thanks for making my point. the war was a bad idea - bad strategy, bad execution. bad bad bad. bush bad.

My intent was to note David Kay's indication that Iraq had an ongoing WMD program.

[BizarroCub]

My intent was to note David Kay's indication that Iraq had an ongoing WMD program.

I don't think it outright indicates an ongoing WMD program, considering he outright said he didn't find one. What I think he was refering to is documentation from the old programs, but I could be wrong.

[nietzsche]

thanks for the condescending tone, brian. my point is not that this is some new and innovative political/rhetorical technique; obviously it is not. however, on some issues, this technique serves to divide people when IMO it would be better to engage them in open and honest discussion.

It cuts right to the heart of my problem with the Bush administration: it's reflexively, staggeringly political, at the expense of any other consideration.

not meaning to be condescending. i was serious. you have to see that it is a political tactic.

that being the case, it should "cut to the heart" of your problem with all polarizing of issues - not just Bush. and that was my point.

[zartan]

anyway, back to the point - after reading this article, does our extreme attention to the terrorism issue make sense? I'd say no.

[BizarroCub]

anyway, back to the point - after reading this article, does our extreme attention to the terrorism issue make sense? I'd say no.

Yes Eric. That article is just plain awesome. Speaks a good point pretty much exactly as it needed to be. However, I also don't see that perspective coming up in the American mainstream anymore. The whole psychological "Fascination of the Abomination" type thing is really strong in America. Like watching the car accident, not being able to look away. I dunno. I'm rambling, but yeah...I really dug it.

And yes, I do think that the fear that is constantly being inspired and manipulated is definately the 'terrorists' truest victory.

[zartan]

These are two beautiful paragraphs:

Moreover, it is a seductive emotion. Our current obsession with terrorism is premised on the fiction of an unlimited downside, which speaks darkly to the American psyche just as did the unlimited upside imagined during the Internet bubble. Indeed, this hysteria can be seen as a mirror image of the bubble, a run on terror. Whereas before we believed without basis that we could all be illimitably wealthy with no work, we now believe without basis that we will die in incalculable numbers with no warning or determinable motivation. Both views are childish, but the Internet bubble at least did not require calling out the National Guard.

Contrary to the administration’s claims, the War on Terror is not “a challenge as formidable as any ever faced by our nation.” It is not the Cold War, in which our enemy did in fact have the ability to destroy the Earth. Nor is it the Second World War (405,399 dead Americans), nor the First (116,516). It certainly is not the Civil War, still the deadliest conflict in American history (364,511 dead on the Union side, and an estimated 258,000 dead in the South) and one that specifically threatened to end the American experiment. It is not even a war in the “moral equivalent of war” sense of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty. Fighting it does not make us a better people. It is much closer to the War on Drugs—a comic-book name for a fantasy crusade. We can no more rid the world of terror than we can rid it of alienation. This may sound like a splitting of linguistic hairs, but we made a similar category error in Vietnam by calling a U.S. invasion a Vietnamese “civil war.” That misidentification cost 58,200 American lives.

[BizarroCub]

Yeah...those are good ones.

[zartan]

bumpety bump, regarding the relative risk of terror vs. real threats to our nation and economy

[BizarroCub]

bumpety bump, regarding the relative risk of terror vs. real threats to our nation and economy

You know it's kinda funny going back and reading some of those old threads...that pretty much every single thing we claimed or thought or predicted about this stupid war has come to pass...

[empath]

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

My god if this doesn't wake up people to the disaster that Bush has been for this country, nothing will.

The man should be in prison right now, not the white house.

[zartan]

do hurricanes hate freedom? or do they just evil?

[velvetgoldmire]

Mother Nature is an ecoterrorist. Didn't you guys know that?

[zartan]

this thread is like a fine wine

I take a highly different approach. To be honest, things are not perfect in Iraq or Afghanistan. But I firmly believe that things are much better now than before we engaged in those countries. And yes, I think we will eventually find WMD's (not necessarily in Iraq, but maybe in a neighboring country). Today, the people of Iraq are experiencing freedom. The unemployment rate is comparable to many other third world nations, women and children are attending school, etc. Afghanistan is no longer under the brutal rule of the Taliban, a group harboring terrorists like Bin Laden.


Are you reffering to the ongoing skirmishes we are having with insurgents? If so...

Yes, I think the current situation can be attributed to a planning failure by the administration. We expected for more resistance in the militaristic portion of fighting and far less resistance in the stabilization portion. I do not think this represents any intentional misrepresentation on the administration. What would they misrepresent? I guess Rumsfield was a little off when he said they would greet us as Liberators, but they did greet us as liberators.. most of them. Remember all the Iraqi's cheering in the streets? Now we are met with a small insurgent force that is dedicated to decapitating our plans for democracy. I do not think this reflects the mindset of the majority of Iraqi's.


rotflmao

[RickyRicardo]

damn, whatever happened to nietzsche anyway? I barely ever agreed w/ him, but he made you think.

[Funshine]

damn, whatever happened to nietzsche anyway? I barely ever agreed w/ him, but he made you think.
Yeah, I've missed him for a while :(

I guess he got bored with our PA forum. It's a shame because he really made me re-think my views on a lot of things.

[zartan]

yeah nietzsche ruled

[Kitsune Fugazzi]

I just attribue to the fact that if he came back he'd have to admit how wrong he was about the whole Middle East foreign policy thing...

[Methodus]

I just attribue to the fact that if he came back he'd have to admit how wrong he was about the whole Middle East foreign policy thing...

since your a mod, give me his email address and I will try to contact him and lure him back... lol

[Kitsune Fugazzi]

since your a mod, give me his email address and I will try to contact him and lure him back... lol

I'll see what I can do, but your best bet is to send him a PM and theoretically it should still notify him via e-mail that he has it.

[method]

he has a way of reappearing when he's discussed...

kinda like saying biggie smalls while looking in a mirror...



nietzsche...















nietsche...

[Methodus]

he has a way of reappearing when he's discussed...

kinda like saying biggie smalls while looking in a mirror...



nietzsche...















nietsche...


lol...

[Kitsune Fugazzi]

he has a way of reappearing when he's discussed...

kinda like saying biggie smalls while looking in a mirror...



nietzsche...















nietsche...

Don't be a pussy...that's only twice...

[Methodus]

this thread is like a fine wine





rotflmao

I still agree with much of that statement I made back in 2004. A few weekends ago I was enlightening a very liberal friend of mine about Ron Paul and was telling him about some of his positions, the conversation ended and later I sent him an email with some more information.

He responded back asking if I was abandoning my support for the war.

I replied:

I supported the war based upon pre-war "intelligence", and I continue to support our troops on the ground, and would love to see some mutually beneficial outcome. Ron Paul's argument (on foreign policy) has lots of merit though, but I tend to disagree (in this particular case: Iraq) because we can't change what has already happened. Leaving now would certainly create a vacuum filled by the extremists or some sort of totalitarian strong man, likely to cause us problems in the future. However, there are some reports (I'm not sure how accurate they are) that the Iraqi parliament has voted for measures asking us to leave, and if that is the case, I feel that we should make plans to withdraw as soon as possible.

Ultimately Paul is right, we should have avoided foreign entanglements in the first place, and that they are attacking us not because of our freedoms, because of the blowback described by the CIA -- unintended consequences of our foreign policy in the middle east.

These days I tend to agree with non-interventionism, but not isolationism. This view is shared by Ron Paul.

[method]

Don't be a pussy...that's only twice...


ok, i admit it.


i do not have the will to powar