Iran, aww shit

[nietzsche]

From the New Yorker and Sy Hersch:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/050124fa_fact

It's 9 pages, so I'm not gonna post it, but I didn't have to sign up to see it. If you do have to sign up, the New Yorker is worth it.

About the article:
Iran is sticky. In honesty, this reaction to Iran seems odd. They were instrumental in helping us with the war in Afghanistan. Not to mention agreements to help us search for al-Quaeda in turn for our assisstance wih the MEK. Now we're "talking tough" on nukes. That's one strategy that's often used, but as we've learned, this Admin means what it says and if they say they are going to use force against Iran, then they probably will. I guess that's the point, right?

So many different things that could be going on here.

[Kif]

From the New Yorker and Sy Hersch:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/050124fa_fact

It's 9 pages, so I'm not gonna post it, but I didn't have to sign up to see it. If you do have to sign up, the New Yorker is worth it.

About the article:
Iran is sticky. In honesty, this reaction to Iran seems odd. They were instrumental in helping us with the war in Afghanistan. Not to mention agreements to help us search for al-Quaeda in turn for our assisstance wih the MEK. Now we're "talking tough" on nukes. That's one strategy that's often used, but as we've learned, this Admin means what it says and if they say they are going to use force against Iran, then they probably will. I guess that's the point, right?

So many different things that could be going on here.
Are you saying you didn't see this coming?


My #'s aren't right but don't they hold like 7% of the worlds oil reserves?









This war is not about oil, and neither will the one be against Iran :ontome:

[BizarroCub]

Well...maybe someone finally bought Bush a Spell and Say and he finally figured out typing in I-R-A-Q does not spell Iran.

[nietzsche]

seriously, it doesn't make sense. We were allied - if only uniffically - with Iran during the Afghan war. They even unofficialy gave us emergency landing rights on their soil. They also agreed to help us seal the border, in return for support in squashing MEK cells.

The oil thing is completely unfounded. No serious intelligence or international security analyst takes that arguement seriously.

[BizarroCub]

It does make sense, when you think about the insanity that is the Neo-Con agenda. You seriously thought that minor allegances would prevent their desire for Middle Eastern American Emperialism?

I think not...

[mouse]

two words: nuclear bomb

[Light Touch]

The US government's posture on Iran is very, very stupid.

Iran is a fairly progressive country undergoing an identity crisis -- is it pro-democracy, pro-business, or is it anti-democracy, pro-Islamic extremism?

I don't see military action there being very likely, and it would be VERY unpopular worldwide. I suspect this is just a ploy to get the extremists to back down or to bolster the students'/progressives' confidence.

[empath]

OIL AND WAR

Halliburton Unit Wins Contract in Iran

State Dept. Says It Is ‘Looking Into This’

By ELI LAKE Staff Reporter of the Sun



WASHINGTON — A subsidiary of Halliburton, the company Vice President Cheney ran between 1995 and 2000, won a contract this week to develop a much sought-after oil and gas field in Iran, a country accused by the White House in recent months of covertly developing nuclear weapons.

A Halliburton spokeswoman, Wendy Hall, confirmed to The New York Sun yesterday that the subsidiary, Halliburton Products & Services Ltd., won the contract first announced on Iranian TV to develop phases nine and 10 of the south Pars oil and gas field. The Halliburton unit, headquartered in Dubai, is reportedly the target of a grand jury investigation regarding possible violations of an executive order barring American companies from substantial investment in Iran’s energy sector.

“Halliburton’s business is clearly permissible under applicable U.S. laws and regulations,” Ms. Hall said.“These entities and activities are staffed and managed by non-U.S. personnel. If Congress decides to change the laws and provisions, Halliburton will, of course, comply.”

Yesterday, the Agence France-Presse news agency quoted Pars Oil and Gas Company’s managing director, Akbar Torkan, announcing on state TV that Halliburton and an Iranian concern, Oriental Kish Co., won the final bid to drill in the oil and gas fields located on a field bordering Qatar.The Pars field is believed by industry analysts to be one of the world’s largest reserves of natural gas.

The news wire quoted an anonymous official with Mr. Torkan’s company as saying the deal was worth $310 million. Ms. Hall said in an e-mail, however, that she believed the quoted figure was higher than the actual deal. She did not provide further details.

Mr. Cheney, who was the chief executive officer of Halliburton, came under considerable fire from Democrats during the campaign season for his ties to the oil services giant. In the last year, government probes have been launched regarding not only HPSL, but also Halliburton business dealings in Nigeria, where the company allegedly bribed government officials to secure winning bids.

According to an October 21, 2003, report from Halliburton to the managers of the pension funds for the New York City police and fire departments, the total earnings from Halliburton’s business in Iran represents 0.5% of the company’s total revenues. HPSL does between $30 million and $40 million annually in oilfield service work in Iran, the report said. That work consists of “cementing, completions work, downhole tools and well testing, stimulation services, PDC drilling bits, coring bits, fluids logging, and the provision of drilling fluids.”

In the late 1990s,when Mr.Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, he was one of the harshest critics of President Clinton’s unilateral sanctions against Iran. At this time, Halliburton became one of the founding members of an industry lobbying group, USA Engage, devoted to ending bilateral sanctions against rogue states. Upon assuming office, Mr. Cheney surprised many of his former colleagues when his task force on energy policy declined to recommend the lifting of the 1995 executive order that prohibited American businesses from investing in Iran’s oil and gas sector in a task force report on energy policy that he authored.

“With respect to these current reports, the facts have yet to be determined,” a spokesman for the State Department, Kurtis Cooper, said yesterday. “From a policy perspective, however, we have long stated that we do not believe U.S. or foreign firms should be helping Iran develop its oil industry, so long as Iran refuses to set aside its nuclear weapons ambitions and continues with other destabilizing policies.”

Under the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, the State Department can deny foreign and domestic companies access to American capital markets for investing more than $40 million in Iran’s energy sector.While the law has rarely been enforced, another State Department official yesterday told the Sun that Foggy Bottom is “developing more information.We are looking into this.”

The Treasury Department, which has jurisdiction over the executive order specifically barring American oil companies from doing business with Iran, had no comment. “Separately incorporated foreign subsidiaries are not included in the definition of U.S. persons in the current U.S. executive order. We are not commenting on the individual cases,” a Treasury Department official said.

One of the original sponsors of the Iran Libya Sanctions Act, Rep. Elliot Engel, a Democrat of New York, said the White House should launch a new investigation into these reports. “I am calling on the president and vice president to open an investigation into this matter and publicly condemn Halliburton for doing business with a nation that has American, Israeli, and other innocent people’s blood on its hands,” he said.

The president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Clifford May, also criticized the company Mr. Cheney used to head. “It certainly sounds as though Halliburton is violating, if not the letter of the law, at least the spirit of the law,” he said. “Most important, this regime that is ruling Iran needs to know that there will be severe repercussions if it goes ahead with nuclear weapons, but that there are clear incentives if it forgoes that option.”

The Halliburton deal was also a hot topic yesterday on many of the Iranianbased Web logs that are committed to the new movement to hold a popular referendum on their country’s constitution. One Iranian-American activist, Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi, said the timing of the deal was terrible. “An American company such as Halliburton should know better to continue these investments in Iran at the same moment when the Bush administration is trying to get European companies doing this kind of business to pressure the regime through threats of divestment,” she said. Ms. Zand-Bonazzi is the daughter of an Iranian journalist and political prisoner, Siamak Pourzand.

[BizarroCub]

seriously, it doesn't make sense. We were allied - if only uniffically - with Iran during the Afghan war. They even unofficialy gave us emergency landing rights on their soil. They also agreed to help us seal the border, in return for support in squashing MEK cells.

I mean...I get your confusion Brian, but I'm not surprised and expected it and am surprised you didn't.

[BizarroCub]

Whoah whoah whoah...isn't that like...illegal?

[Light Touch]

IMHO, this posture would be better targeted at Syria than Iran.

Even better -- let Egypt and Jordan take the lead in the Middle East, and back our asses out of the region.

[empath]

i'm sure that condi rice and dick cheney will both do the right thing and stop this deal in it's tracks.

Trading with the enemy is a serious crime.

[zartan]

The oil thing is completely unfounded. No serious intelligence or international security analyst takes that arguement seriously

the same group of intelligence and security analysts that brought you the Iraqi WMD justification?

brian you always poo-poo this idea (that petroleum is the issue) because you always assume the person making that charge is describing near-term control of oil - e.g. America will go to war to get the near-term profits from Iran's oil reserves. I honestly don't believe that was the case in Iraq or Iran.

What I do think is that the administration is angling to be sure we have as much influence as possible over as much oil as possible because of the fact that energy has a strong potential to become something wars do get fought over at a later date (when more scarcity occurs) and because control of cheap energy has traditionally been a strong driver of economic expansion.

[Zimma]

empath, what's the date on that article?

[empath]

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/m2.asp?Issue=NYS/2005/01/12&ID=Ar00103&Mode=HTML

[nietzsche]

It's not imperialism. The problem, the neo-con arguement goes (not mine), that the US had right after (well, actually before) 9-11 is that the Arab world does not take the US military might seriously. There's nearly three decades of evidence indicating that the Americans simply aren't willing to committ the kind of resources needed to squash an enemy.

The war in Afghanistan was merely retaliatory. If you read the reports (and books) from some former inside intel guys, no one in the Admin seriously considered occupying Afghanistan. I think that opinion bears out when you look at what is going on over there.

But Iraq was different. Al-Quaeda did not fear the United States bc of our history in that region. The main objective in Iraq was to demonstrate US resolve; that we were indeed a formidable force. To do so would have several positive outcomes: it would prove to Al-Quaeda that we were willing to fight, it would force the Pakistanis to take a hardline against the supporters of the Taliban (and subsequently, Al-Quaeda) within the ISI, it would call the Saudis bluff (they had claimed the war build up was causing pressure on them from conservatives Saudis, and therefore wanted our forces in SA removed. They assumed we wouldn't remove them, thus forcing us to back down from Iraq), and, of course, it put the US in a strategic postiton within the Middle East.

You have to understand this central point to see why the neo-cons see Iraq as such an intergral part of the war on terror. Iraq was the key to showing the Arab - namely, Al Quaeda - world that we meant business.

What happened, of course, was horrible planning in this endeavour, thus causing near disaterous proportions and potentially threatening any of goals, if not just making the whole thing worse.

But this is def not about oil, and not about imperialism.

[zartan]

Bush’s reëlection is regarded within the Administration as evidence of America’s support for his decision to go to war. It has reaffirmed the position of the neoconservatives in the Pentagon’s civilian leadership who advocated the invasion, including Paul Wolfowitz, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Douglas Feith, the Under-secretary for Policy. According to a former high-level intelligence official, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the election and told them, in essence, that the naysayers had been heard and the American people did not accept their message. Rumsfeld added that America was committed to staying in Iraq and that there would be no second-guessing.

what happened to my conservative revolt?!

[zartan]

of course, it put the US in a strategic postiton within the Middle East.

exxxactly

But this is def not about oil, and not about imperialism.

rotfl

[BizarroCub]

But this is def not about oil, and not about imperialism.

You wouldn't call the forcible realligning of peoples societies to be more in tune with your own, making them more allies, creating a government more like your own, as well as, an economy more like your own and thereby being able to pump in your ideals , products, and military into the country/region a form of Idealogical Imperialism?

I certainly would.

[nietzsche]

I don't see military action there being very likely, and it would be VERY unpopular worldwide. I suspect this is just a ploy to get the extremists to back down or to bolster the students'/progressives' confidence.

That's what I think too. But what sense does it make to initiate the War in Iraq to prove American resolve and then make idle threats about Iran? Like the article says, the neo-cons don't think diplomacy is going to work so they're not even planning for it. The conclusion is obvious.

But why? Israeli policy toward Iran hasn't changed since they bombed the first Iranian nuclear site. If they had good intel on a new site, they would just bomb it again. What's so different that the US needs to get involved?

[BizarroCub]

If they had good intel on a new site, they would just bomb it again. What's so different that the US needs to get involved?

No split government and Neo-Con domination in positions of power. :shrug:

[zartan]

i was just going to write something exactly like that.

the fact is that the rules of the world have changed and you are absolutely right to think that the US neither wants nor can get anything like the british empire or the triangle trade across the atlantic. but that doesn't make the objectives of imperialism obsolete - it simply changes the rules. you don't need some haughty british foreign service officer to forcibly run your abusive t-shirt factory or oversee the transfer of the elgin marbles out of greece or oversee the production of rubber on your plantation; the rich countries have put in place a structure that achieves dramatically greater results with much less unseemly occupations and conquerings.

[BizarroCub]

I also wouldn't be surprised, call me a pessimist, if we suddenly saw an upswing in missionaries in churches in Iraq now.

Once things settle a bit, of course...

[zartan]

yeah - nothing comforts an exploited populace like the promise of christian heaven! tailor made for corporate america.

[nietzsche]

You guys have to get this notion out of your head that our leaders (whichever side) are simply fools or greedy. There are complex geo-political issues going back decades with all kinds of relationships effecting and reflecting policy.

This isn't simple. Not at all. All of this stems from the very real international conspiracy to strike the United States and its allies. And the world view of our leaders is that in order to protect the United States we must have positions of leverage. And that's what I'm saying. We don't have leverage against al-Quaeda. And in dealing with an enemy who has no soverign state and is willing - nay, prefers - to die for the cause completely unsettles those who have been and are charged with our protection.

So we have Iraq. in the grand scheme of things, Iraq was a small step, but at least (to the neo-cons) it was a step; a step toward legitimacy in the eyes of our enemy. That legitimacy was in the form of fear and a realization - or at least the perception - that the United States was for real.

[empath]

just some trivia, in case anyone thinks this would be a cakewalk:

Iraq (as of 2002):


Area:
total: 437,072 sq km
Population:
24,001,816 (July 2002 est.)
GDP:
purchasing power parity - $59 billion (2001 est.)
Military manpower - military age:
18 years of age (2002 est.)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 6,135,847 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
males age 15-49: 3,430,819 (2002 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 274,035 (2002 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$1.3 billion (FY00)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
NA%



Iran:

Area:

total: 1.648 million sq km
land: 1.636 million sq km

Population:
69,018,924 (July 2004 est.)

GDP:
purchasing power parity - $478.2 billion (2004 est.)

Military manpower - military age and obligation:
18 years of age for compulsory military service; 16 years of age for volunteers; soldiers as young as 9 were recruited extensively during the Iran-Iraq war; conscript service obligation - 18 months (2004)
Military manpower - availability:
males age 15-49: 20,937,348 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - fit for military service:
Definition Field Listing
males age 15-49: 12,434,810 (2004 est.)
Military manpower - reaching military age annually:
males: 912,569 (2004 est.)
Military expenditures - dollar figure:
$4.3 billion (2003 est.)
Military expenditures - percent of GDP:
3.3% (2003 est.)

[empath]

In case anyone doesn't feel like doing the math. Iran is 3 times larger, has 3 times the population and has an army 3 times the size of Iraq's before we invaded.

So unless the US can figure out away to get an additional 400,000 troops in theater, I really, really doubt we're going to invade them. The Mullahs in Iran could spit in our eye and we'd smile and take it.

[empath]

You guys have to get this notion out of your head that our leaders (whichever side) are simply fools or greedy. There are complex geo-political issues going back decades with all kinds of relationships effecting and reflecting policy.

This isn't simple. Not at all. All of this stems from the very real international conspiracy to strike the United States and its allies. And the world view of our leaders is that in order to protect the United States we must have positions of leverage. And that's what I'm saying. We don't have leverage against al-Quaeda. And in dealing with an enemy who has no soverign state and is willing - nay, prefers - to die for the cause completely unsettles those who have been and are charged with our protection.

So we have Iraq. in the grand scheme of things, Iraq was a small step, but at least (to the neo-cons) it was a step; a step toward legitimacy in the eyes of our enemy. That legitimacy was in the form of fear and a realization - or at least the perception - that the United States was for real.
Right, they realized that we really are an imperial power bent on dominating the region, destroying islam and torturing raping and killing innocents.

Way to go, neo-cons.

[BizarroCub]

So...what has that accomplished?

And I don't think their fools, I simply am a firm believer that power and the desire for power inherantly corrupts. Look what power did to Colin Powell. *shrug*

What I'm saying is that in the grand scheme of things, that attitude has done far more harm than good and that if you are going to accomplish anything it needs to be accomplished through polished nuance and not the bullshit idiotic sledgehammer methodologies I'm seeing on all sides. Including the UN. While I've said I don't think these men are fools, a lot of this is all too cloudy and downright stupid. I'm sorry, what kind of leader is given specific advise from about every military advisor you have and you completely ignore it, instead taking the optimistic approach from your croonies and then botch it. Is this how you accomplish legitimacy? Is fear what we really need? Instead this aggressive concept, in the face of the current Geo-political situation, has backfired horribly and aggitated the already tenuous situation and created the problems and threats originally overblown.

You want to combat Al-Queda, undercut their base, we have created a fucking hydra man. Everyhead you cut off, two grow back with a vengance. So what, do you keep slicing em off? Going into Afghanistan apparently didn't do it...going into Iraq didn't do it...I dunno...I'm rambling at this point so I'll shut up...after work :bandito: and all...

I'm just saying, I can see why you don't think it's the same kind of Imperialism, but even if it ain't...it sure looks like it and that can be as much of a problem.

[zartan]

You guys have to get this notion out of your head that our leaders (whichever side) are simply fools or greedy. There are complex geo-political issues going back decades with all kinds of relationships effecting and reflecting policy.

no one is stating that, brian. they're not greedy fools. but they are, as you state, manipulated by many forces, including advisors with warped militaristic views of the world and vice presidents who used to run the "only company" that could do the fix-up work their bombs caused.

yeah, we don't have leverage over al qaeda, except that we walked all over their training ground and have been regularly exposing and arresting terrorist cells. that's not leverage i guess.

[empath]

So...what has that accomplished?

Let's start with the completely fucking predictable and obvious:

Iraq New Terror Breeding Ground
War Created Haven, CIA Advisers Report

By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 14, 2005; Page A01

Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with "a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills," said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. "There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries."

Low's comments came during a rare briefing by the council on its new report on long-term global trends. It took a year to produce and includes the analysis of 1,000 U.S. and foreign experts. Within the 119-page report is an evaluation of Iraq's new role as a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists.

President Bush has frequently described the Iraq war as an integral part of U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. But the council's report suggests the conflict has also helped terrorists by creating a haven for them in the chaos of war.

"At the moment," NIC Chairman Robert L. Hutchings said, Iraq "is a magnet for international terrorist activity."

Before the U.S. invasion, the CIA said Saddam Hussein had only circumstantial ties with several al Qaeda members. Osama bin Laden rejected the idea of forming an alliance with Hussein and viewed him as an enemy of the jihadist movement because the Iraqi leader rejected radical Islamic ideals and ran a secular government.

Bush described the war in Iraq as a means to promote democracy in the Middle East. "A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East," he said one month before the invasion. "Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both."

But as instability in Iraq grew after the toppling of Hussein, and resentment toward the United States intensified in the Muslim world, hundreds of foreign terrorists flooded into Iraq across its unguarded borders. They found tons of unprotected weapons caches that, military officials say, they are now using against U.S. troops. Foreign terrorists are believed to make up a large portion of today's suicide bombers, and U.S. intelligence officials say these foreigners are forming tactical, ever-changing alliances with former Baathist fighters and other insurgents.

"The al-Qa'ida membership that was distinguished by having trained in Afghanistan will gradually dissipate, to be replaced in part by the dispersion of the experienced survivors of the conflict in Iraq," the report says.

According to the NIC report, Iraq has joined the list of conflicts -- including the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, and independence movements in Chechnya, Kashmir, Mindanao in the Philippines, and southern Thailand -- that have deepened solidarity among Muslims and helped spread radical Islamic ideology.

At the same time, the report says that by 2020, al Qaeda "will be superseded" by other Islamic extremist groups that will merge with local separatist movements. Most terrorism experts say this is already well underway. The NIC says this kind of ever-morphing decentralized movement is much more difficult to uncover and defeat.

Terrorists are able to easily communicate, train and recruit through the Internet, and their threat will become "an eclectic array of groups, cells and individuals that do not need a stationary headquarters," the council's report says. "Training materials, targeting guidance, weapons know-how, and fund-raising will become virtual (i.e. online)."

The report, titled "Mapping the Global Future," highlights the effects of globalization and other economic and social trends. But NIC officials said their greatest concern remains the possibility that terrorists may acquire biological weapons and, although less likely, a nuclear device.

The council is tasked with midterm and strategic analysis, and advises the CIA director. "The NIC's goal," one NIC publication states, "is to provide policymakers with the best, unvarnished, and unbiased information -- regardless of whether analytic judgments conform to U.S. policy."

Other than reports and studies, the council produces classified National Intelligence Estimates, which represent the consensus among U.S. intelligence agencies on specific issues.

Yesterday, Hutchings, former assistant dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, said the NIC report tried to avoid analyzing the effect of U.S. policy on global trends to avoid being drawn into partisan politics.

Among the report's major findings is that the likelihood of "great power conflict escalating into total war . . . is lower than at any time in the past century." However, "at no time since the formation of the Western alliance system in 1949 have the shape and nature of international alignments been in such a state of flux as they have in the past decade."

The report also says the emergence of China and India as new global economic powerhouses "will be the most challenging of all" Washington's regional relationships. It also says that in the competition with Asia over technological advances, the United States "may lose its edge" in some sectors.

Staff writer Bradley Graham and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

[empath]

no one is stating that, brian. they're not greedy fools. but they are, as you state, manipulated by many forces, including advisors with warped militaristic views of the world and vice presidents who used to run the "only company" that could do the fix-up work their bombs caused.

yeah, we don't have leverage over al qaeda, except that we walked all over their training ground and have been regularly exposing and arresting terrorist cells. that's not leverage i guess.
I don't think they're stupid. Just insane.

[IcePrincess2250]

Not to mention, Iran has 2 large mountain ranges going through it. Plus it has many resources, oil or otherwise. The mullahs are mad rich. They have private swimming pools, bad fashion, and segregated buses. They're the real deal.

[BizarroCub]

Brian...Imagine this...

Imagine if we had turned the kind of nation building resources we are blowing on Iraq, someplace like Sub-Saharan africa. I think we could have gone in their and made a real difference helping folks. Not fucking up governments, not destorying towns, trying to stop Janjahweed or the fighters in Congo. We could have helped people return to their homes, get food, work to help their governments and actually handle it and do it right, without the U.N. You helped them flourish through ideals and help, teaching em how to fish instead of forcing em to work at a fishery. Imagine the support we could have mustered for this. Imagine the global perception of us at this point. Imagine the international ability we would have had to actually try and make some of the positive geo-political changes I actually agree with them on.

Hell...even if it was out of retaliation, how about we not have totally banged Afghanistan and left it with 50 bucks on the counter and thanked it for it's good time. How about we have stayed and actually did the things I listed about Africa. I think the same thing holds true. THAT could have been the beginning of real change. We could have strengthened ties with India. We could have done a lot of things for that region. Lead by example and we did everything BUT that. We proved our enemies right. Now they can say they'd been right all along.

So what has spreading democracy got us? Well...animocity towards the concept of democracy. Guess it's really workin out for us...

[BizarroCub]

Iran: We can repel U.S. attack

Tuesday, January 18, 2005 Posted: 4:52 AM EST (0952 GMT)

TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- Iran has the military might to deter attacks against it, its defense minister said in remarks published on Tuesday, one day after U.S. President George W. Bush said he would not rule out military action against Iran.

Iranian Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani said the Islamic Republic, which has seen U.S. forces topple regimes in neighboring Afghanistan and Iraq in the last three years, did not fear attack.

"We are able to say that we have strength such that no country can attack us because they do not have precise information about our military capabilities due to our ability to implement flexible strategies," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Shamkhani as saying.

"We can claim that we have rapidly produced equipment that has resulted in the greatest deterrent," he said, without elaborating.

Bush said on Monday that Washington would not rule out military action against Iran if it was not more forthcoming about its suspected nuclear weapons programme.

His comments followed an article in the New Yorker magazine on Sunday which said U.S. commando units were conducting secret reconnaissance missions inside Iran to identify hidden nuclear and chemical sites for possible future strikes. Full story

Iran denies its nuclear facilities are to be used to make nuclear weapons and Pentagon officials have rubbished the New Yorker report. Full story

Iranian officials have given no public reaction to the New Yorker article which suggested Pentagon officials were eager to tackle Iran in the second term of the Bush administration.

Mehr news agency, which analysts say has close ties to the office of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in an editorial entitled "Futile espionage" ridiculed U.S. attempts to destabilize Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution.

"The United States is well aware that Iran has strongly withstood U.S. pressure for over 25 years ... Today, the Islamic Republic has acquired massive military might, the dimensions of which still remain unknown, and is prepared to attack any intruder with a fearsome rain of fire and death," it said.

"The U.S. and Israel know that they can never militarily challenge Iran, since attacking the Islamic Republic would be biting off more than they could chew and would only choke them if they attempted it," it added.

[Light Touch]

Iran would fuck us up in a ground war, IMHO.

[nietzsche]

yeah, we don't have leverage over al qaeda, except that we walked all over their training ground and have been regularly exposing and arresting terrorist cells. that's not leverage i guess.

things have changed...NOW. but that is due directly BECAUSE of the Iraq war. Again, you have to understand that the US's primary objective in Iraq was to show the Arab world that we were serious about taking on the threats that were scattered all around the region and supported by state governments. The war in Afghanistan was one of retribution. It was never intended to be occupied and did not achieve the US's primary objective. Iraq was and would.

Besides, for a myriad of reasons, the US in Afghanistan wasn't a threat to the rest of the region. Nobody seriously wanted the Taliban around except hardliners in Pakistan's ISI. Saudi oil supremacy was kept intact. And everybody knew the US had no interest in staying.

But Iraq was different. Iraq was directly connected to the Arab psyche. And it is why everything has changed. Iran, Pakistan, Lybia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and yes, as you point out, Al-Quaeda. Islamic fundamentalists have done a great job in convincing others to hate us more, I suppose thatn they hated us before. But now they also fear us, which was the whole objective in the first place and EXACTLY why we have any leverage over any of those governments and even Al-Quaeda.

And now, that leverage is the reason these events are happening in Iran.

[BizarroCub]

Well...I'm glad we slaughtered countless thousands of innocents, to an order of 5-10 times the victims of 9/11 to...make a point.

[BizarroCub]

So...Brian...while I know you differ from the Neo-Cons and such...

But in your opinion, is this kinda thing okay? Seriously...are you cool with this? Is that how you want conservatism represented?

[nietzsche]

Brian...Imagine this...

Imagine if we had turned the kind of nation building resources we are blowing on Iraq, someplace like Sub-Saharan africa. I think we could have gone in their and made a real difference helping folks. Not fucking up governments, not destorying towns, trying to stop Janjahweed or the fighters in Congo. We could have helped people return to their homes, get food, work to help their governments and actually handle it and do it right, without the U.N. You helped them flourish through ideals and help, teaching em how to fish instead of forcing em to work at a fishery. Imagine the support we could have mustered for this. Imagine the global perception of us at this point. Imagine the international ability we would have had to actually try and make some of the positive geo-political changes I actually agree with them on.

Hell...even if it was out of retaliation, how about we not have totally banged Afghanistan and left it with 50 bucks on the counter and thanked it for it's good time. How about we have stayed and actually did the things I listed about Africa. I think the same thing holds true. THAT could have been the beginning of real change. We could have strengthened ties with India. We could have done a lot of things for that region. Lead by example and we did everything BUT that. We proved our enemies right. Now they can say they'd been right all along.

So what has spreading democracy got us? Well...animocity towards the concept of democracy. Guess it's really workin out for us...

I really have no other way of saying this, but that is utopian multiculturalist hooey. You can't simply throw up your arms disavow a century of foreign policy and say 'you're sorry' to the whole world. The have long, long memories. Besides, what the fuck does Osama bin Laden care if we dedicate massive amounts of relief to the Congo? The goal of al-Quaeda is not to turn the US into some peace loving humanitarian refief effort. The goal is to return fundamentalist Islam to the Caliphate. The goal will still be to oppose by force the governments that cooperate with non-fundamentalist countries. Even if America pulled out of the region, it still wouldn't stop the killing. It still wouldn't change anyone's heart or mind.

Further, you cannot look at the foreign policy decisions of the past in a vaccum and say "this" was the right choice and "that" was the wrong one. That we shouldn't have (publicly) sided with Iraq or the mujahedeen in the 80's, or that we should have done XYZ bc it would have prevented the problem we are having now. You have to take a Socratic approach to it: "All I know is that I know nothing at all". From there, immerse yourself in the context of the day. Figure out what the real reasons were, the justifications, and why our leaders thought it was the best available option.

That is why i am trying to get across to you what this Admin thought; why Iraq, to them, is was seen as central to the War on Terror; why Iraq was necessary. Bush says it a million times: resolve. But not about the American resolve to withstand sacrifices, it's about American resolve in fighting our enemies. That we are willing to build our leverage in the region by the only means necessary, and the only means they will respect: fear of impuning their interests. That relief effort shit is meaningless.

[BizarroCub]

I really have no other way of saying this, but that is utopian multiculturalist hooey. You can't simply throw up your arms disavow a century of foreign policy and say 'you're sorry' to the whole world. The have long, long memories. Besides, what the fuck does Osama bin Laden care if we dedicate massive amounts of relief to the Congo? The goal of al-Quaeda is not to turn the US into some peace loving humanitarian refief effort. The goal is to return fundamentalist Islam to the Caliphate. The goal will still be to oppose by force the governments that cooperate with non-fundamentalist countries. Even if America pulled out of the region, it still wouldn't stop the killing. It still wouldn't change anyone's heart or mind.

Nor do I care if Osama Bin Laden cares, but part of his strength has been in recruiting people and making them hate America. You take away his base, that being the people that he can recruit and the communities that support him and you take away his strength. Part of why they've strengthed is because the current administration policy has in the eyes of the people of the region proven Bin Laden and his ilk 100% correct.

That is why i am trying to get across to you what this Admin thought; why Iraq, to them, is was seen as central to the War on Terror; why Iraq was necessary. Bush says it a million times: resolve. But not about the American resolve to withstand sacrifices, it's about American resolve in fighting our enemies. That we are willing to build our leverage in the region by the only means necessary, and the only means they will respect: fear of impuning their interests. That relief effort shit is meaningless.

It is meaningless, because you don't seem to get the power that perception has on what's playing out here. We are the bad guys. That's how it looks. You change that image and you begin to take away what currently has been one of the greatest weapons leveled againist us...public opinion.

And what fear or respect has been generated? A successful insurgency? Bin Laden is still free and laughing? We showed we are willing to use their tactics. What has this approach accomplished. You can say all you want that it was to make a point or show some resolve, but that hasn't exactly worked has it?

And understanding why the administration did what they did is by NO means a pass on what they did. It was stupid. It hasn't worked. It isn't going to work and in general they have screwed the American public with it. For what...to make people fear us...to make a point? That's assinine.

And I still want to know Brian...do you at all really buy into this or are you simply offering an explaination?

[empath]

I really have no other way of saying this, but that is utopian multiculturalist hooey. You can't simply throw up your arms disavow a century of foreign policy and say 'you're sorry' to the whole world. The have long, long memories. Besides, what the fuck does Osama bin Laden care if we dedicate massive amounts of relief to the Congo? The goal of al-Quaeda is not to turn the US into some peace loving humanitarian refief effort. The goal is to return fundamentalist Islam to the Caliphate. The goal will still be to oppose by force the governments that cooperate with non-fundamentalist countries. Even if America pulled out of the region, it still wouldn't stop the killing. It still wouldn't change anyone's heart or mind.

Further, you cannot look at the foreign policy decisions of the past in a vaccum and say "this" was the right choice and "that" was the wrong one. That we shouldn't have (publicly) sided with Iraq or the mujahedeen in the 80's, or that we should have done XYZ bc it would have prevented the problem we are having now. You have to take a Socratic approach to it: "All I know is that I know nothing at all". From there, immerse yourself in the context of the day. Figure out what the real reasons were, the justifications, and why our leaders thought it was the best available option.

That is why i am trying to get across to you what this Admin thought; why Iraq, to them, is was seen as central to the War on Terror; why Iraq was necessary. Bush says it a million times: resolve. But not about the American resolve to withstand sacrifices, it's about American resolve in fighting our enemies. That we are willing to build our leverage in the region by the only means necessary, and the only means they will respect: fear of impuning their interests. That relief effort shit is meaningless.
Why not? Russia did.

[zartan]

but that is due directly BECAUSE of the Iraq war. Again, you have to understand that the US's primary objective in Iraq was to show the Arab world that we were serious about taking on the threats that were scattered all around the region and supported by state governments. The war in Afghanistan was one of retribution. It was never intended to be occupied and did not achieve the US's primary objective. Iraq was and would.

i do understand that, brian, but i challenge your assertion that we have made such progress against al qaeda specifically because of the iraq war. we have picked up most of the al qaeda guys in other countries like afghanistan or in europe.

[nietzsche]

So...Brian...while I know you differ from the Neo-Cons and such...

But in your opinion, is this kinda thing okay? Seriously...are you cool with this? Is that how you want conservatism represented?


it wasn't "to make a point", Grizz. it was to protect Americans. The Admin is trying to erase 3 decades of American foreign policy that, to Arabs, was 'attack us and we will retreat, not attack you, or attack you in an insignificant way". Embassy bombings in Lebanon, Tanzania, and Kenya, WTC '93, USS Cole, and many more, are all proof of this doctrine. Something else had to be done.

That I am cool with. How it was done is completely another story, one I blame Donald Rumsfeld for almost solely.

That said, to understand the complete failure of the US to complete its objectives you have to get your head around the massive failures of our so-called intelligence community. It really is staggering and one that has never been fully articulated in news reports. The Iran/Chalabi connection alone will make your head spin. The press reported it as sort of the US putting it's faith in a criminal, blah, blah. We knew he was a criminal. And we knew he was tied to the Iranians which is why we used him in the first place. The Iranians were supporting our efforts by 1) feeding us information about al-Quaeda, and 2) promising to prevent a Shiite uprising while we faught the Sunnis (This was done through Sistani), all in return for promising the Shiites majority control in the new government.

But then something happened. Once Sadr and the Sunni problem was winding down the US began to publcly proclaiming about free elections, calling for equal representations, etc. The Shiities viewed this as the US going back on their word and started feeding the US bad info and brought up nukes again. Whcih is exactly why the Iranians are talking tough shit right now. They want majority a in Iraq. They need the buffer zone. They are hoping these nuke negotiations will put an Iraqi majority back on the table.

Am I cool with this? Who knows right now. I just know it was a massive failure of our intelligence not to predict this, not to see it when it was happening, and to refuse implementing corrective measures. I am just trying to comprehend it all actually.

[BizarroCub]

Brian, but what I also find staggering is that if we, as peons not in the intelligence community could have predicted this and DID predict this, why couldn't those in the know do it too?

And it's further found that people who did predict this kind of thingwere whole heatedly ignore and put down by the administration. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

Yes, the intelligence community failed, but those who were getting the intelligence failed in it's application too.

And Rumsfeld solely? Come on now...Wolfowitz...Cheney...what about them? Where's their culpability? They helped orchestrate this massive failure. Bush did too. I'm sorry, this is bigger than just Rumsfeld.

[nietzsche]

It is meaningless, because you don't seem to get the power that perception has on what's playing out here. We are the bad guys. That's how it looks. You change that image and you begin to take away what currently has been one of the greatest weapons leveled againist us...public opinion.

And what fear or respect has been generated? A successful insurgency? Bin Laden is still free and laughing? We showed we are willing to use their tactics. What has this approach accomplished. You can say all you want that it was to make a point or show some resolve, but that hasn't exactly worked has it?


Grizz, I exactly understand that. That was the whole point of the Iraq war. To enforce the perception that the US was willing to go after it's enemies in a significant way. What you are saying is that the perception that we are "good" guys would be more effective foreign policy, that it would be more effective in negotiations. That is categorically incorrect, Grizz. There simply is no evidence of it, nor any serious analyst or follower of intelligence or foreign policy who thinks that. That's not how al-Quaeda works, it's not how Pakistan, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia work. It's not even how the Israeis work. They have other geo-political relationships besides ours to worry about. Pakistan is in constant threat of nuclear war...and not by us.

If we were to simply stop playing by those rules and "use our forces for good", the response from the rest of the world would be, "good, now with the Americans out of the way, we can exert our leverage". You can't lead if nobody's following you, and the geo-political reality is that nobody would.

"And what fear or respect has been generated?"
Ask anybody? Al-Quaeda, having finally induced the US into a global war, is no closer to their goals than they were on Sept. 10th. In fact, they are in a much worse position. They have lost Afghanistan and the Taliban. Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have all been forced to help us. Lybia and Syria feel threatened enough to at least publicly support us. Al-Quaeda can't attack any of those countries - thus removing their goal of attacking collaberating governments - bc if they did it would compound the support for America. And, best of all, they have yet to initiate another attack, at least suggesting that they have not aquired WMDs, especially nukes. Regardless of the specifics on the ground in Iraq, the larger goals of the US have seemed to come into line.

[BizarroCub]

If the perception of the US in the countries is irrelevant, than why use the Tsunami and it's relief effort, as a pro-US P.R. opportunity in the muslim world?

[empath]

To enforce the perception that the US was willing to go after it's enemies in a significant way.

I just don't see how you can seriously believe that this is what we did.

[zartan]

is no closer to their goals than they were on Sept. 10th.

oh, i disagree - iraq has been converted from a secular nation to one where peoples' primary identity is becoming more and more based on religion.

brian you keep shrugging off all of our points because we apparently don't understand how geopolitics works, blah blah blah. well i'd submit that maybe your problem and the problem of the people in power here is that they are applying old lessons to new circumstances. al qaeda is not a state, doesn't have a government, and can't conscript a single person to fight for its cause (unlike, say, north korea). It RELIES on voluntary recruitment of people who are willing to die to support its aims. Thusly, its survival and growth is wholly reliant on creating the conditions that will cause people to take this bait and take up arms.

All your points about flexing our muscle may make sense when applied to USSR or NKorea. But Grizz, Empath, myself, and many others from the start have been making the point that it may not apply here. And, the latest national intelligence report showing that Iraq is now the international center for terrorist training bears this out.

I'm surprised you don't at least contemplate this view instead of dismissing it out of hand.

[nietzsche]

Brian, but what I also find staggering is that if we, as peons not in the intelligence community could have predicted this and DID predict this, why couldn't those in the know do it too?

And it's further found that people who did predict this kind of thingwere whole heatedly ignore and put down by the administration. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it.

Yes, the intelligence community failed, but those who were getting the intelligence failed in it's application too.

And Rumsfeld solely? Come on now...Wolfowitz...Cheney...what about them? Where's their culpability? They helped orchestrate this massive failure. Bush did too. I'm sorry, this is bigger than just Rumsfeld.

first, don't be infected by dellusions of gandeur. The Army said we needed more troops. ok, and you might have agreed with him? But how could you have "predicted" the Iranian response? How could you have predicted al-Sadr? Does the fact that Sadr is trying to act within the bounds of Iraqi laws, now make you wrong?

Exactly what evidence did you have that lead you to believe pre-war that Saddam would plan for insurgency, rather than war?

But I digress, to me, all of that is moot and easily dismissable, particularly when the brunt of the discussion we had was NOT about post-war Iraq, but rather about WMDs, etc.

[BizarroCub]

Also, you say, "There simply is no evidence of it, nor any serious analyst or follower of intelligence or foreign policy who thinks that.", but I ask, is there evidence to the contrary?

You seem to think I'm worried about changing the perception of the US in some sort of Buerocratic sense. I'm talking about to Person A on the ground. If there is no one to recruit for your terror organization, then you have no terror organization.

Ask anybody? Al-Quaeda, having finally induced the US into a global war, is no closer to their goals than they were on Sept. 10th. In fact, they are in a much worse position. They have lost Afghanistan and the Taliban. Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia have all been forced to help us. Lybia and Syria feel threatened enough to at least publicly support us. Al-Quaeda can't attack any of those countries - thus removing their goal of attacking collaberating governments - bc if they did it would compound the support for America. And, best of all, they have yet to initiate another attack, at least suggesting that they have not aquired WMDs, especially nukes. Regardless of the specifics on the ground in Iraq, the larger goals of the US have seemed to come into line.

But none of that has to do with "fear" or "respect" That is simply a function of killing till there aren't people to fight you anymore. I mean seriously...right now, what does Iran have to fear from us? Invasion? We'd get hammered. Nuclear assault? That'd make them martyrs.

But we're going in circles here, so for the moment I'll digress.

[BizarroCub]

first, don't be infected by dellusions of gandeur.

I didn't realize that calling onesself a peon indicated dellusions of granduer.

The Army said we needed more troops. ok, and you might have agreed with him? But how could you have "predicted" the Iranian response? How could you have predicted al-Sadr? Does the fact that Sadr is trying to act within the bounds of Iraqi laws, now make you wrong?

Looking at the information that was presented and formulating a hypothesis based on what we know.

Exactly what evidence did you have that lead you to believe pre-war that Saddam would plan for insurgency, rather than war?

Because that is the historical context of occupation. Name one occupation that hasn't ended in an "insurgency" as it.

But I digress, to me, all of that is moot and easily dismissable, particularly when the brunt of the discussion we had was NOT about post-war Iraq, but rather about WMDs, etc.

Well...we predicted all that too. Look...almost every reason they gave to go to war crumbled. It crumbled and crumbled for almost exactly every reason myself and others here said, over and over and were called stupid or crazy. It's called making a hypothesis. Taking an opinion based on the available information. Low and behold we were right.

[zartan]

also, you speak of bin laden's desire to return the middle east to the caliphate. well, what's a more effective way of stopping this - making the people of the middle east not WANT the caliphate, or stationing hundreds of thousands of troops there to not allow them to have what they want?

in other words, we have to present to the people of the middle east an alternative that is better than an islamic caliphate. in the past, institutions like the american university in cairo and our approach to providing aid to egypt in exchange for remaining moderate and non-belligerent towards israel have been effective in this way. now, our alternative to the caliphate is seen as a marauding bunch of crusaders, effectively causing the average arab to be more and more receptive to the message that he is a patriotic freedom fighter if he gives his life to keep us out.

again, i think you really miss the point that osama bin laden can't conscript or draft a single man; he must persuade. and i'll say again that our reaction to his actions is precisely what he wanted and his best tool in this endeavour.

[BizarroCub]

Exactly...

You can only stop creating the army that is fighting you when you take away the desire for people to fight and fear and respect only make people want to fight you more.

[zartan]

this other thread's article is quite germane:

Iraq Rebels Vent Frustrations at 'Peace Conference'

Tue Jan 18, 7:53 PM ET World - Reuters


By Lin Noueihed

BAQUBA, Iraq (Reuters) - When dozens of suspected insurgents showed up for a "peace conference" in troubled Baquba on Tuesday, they told the governor sponsoring it why they would not lay down their weapons ahead of elections.

Midnight raids by U.S. and Iraqi forces that rudely awaken women and children in the conservative Arab country were unacceptable.


Arbitrary arrests and unemployment were driving more men, young and old, to a raging insurgency.


When the suspected guerrillas and their sympathizers were handed an oath of non-violence, few asked "where do I sign?"


Many of the men -- from clerics to tribal leaders to ex-army officers and ordinary professionals -- just wanted to know when U.S. forces would leave.


"I will not sign because if I sign I will have to stick to it," said Ahmed al-Obeidi, who said he was accused of being an insurgent, and hinted that he actually was.


"I would have signed it if it said no attacks on Iraqi forces, but no attacks on U.S. forces when they are occupying the country?"


The men were seeking money and jobs, not promises of prosperity and security almost two years after U.S. troops invaded.


As they aired their grievances to the governor, police chief and a senior Iraqi National Guard officer, armed U.S. troops lining the walls of the room looked on.


American diplomats sat in the back and listened, the kind of scene that reinforces Iraqi suspicions that Washington is running the show in their country.


GROWING FRUSTRATIONS


One day earlier, gunmen killed eight Iraqi soldiers at a checkpoint near Baquba, whose governor, Abdallah al-Jibouri, said he had survived 14 assassination attempts. The violence prompted him to look for new ways of ending the bloodshed.


"Some of them have been deceived and some have done it for money. They sign a piece of paper saying they are no longer insurgents," said Jibouri.


He said whoever signs gains amnesty, making them eligible for jobs in a grim town where thousands were left unemployed after Iraq (news - web sites)'s former U.S. occupation power disbanded the army.


The oath, printed in both Arabic and English, committed signatories not to participate in or support any attacks against Iraqi security forces, the government or U.S.-led troops.


It demands they pledge not to support acts of violence or intimidation against voters during the Jan. 30 polls and not to speak against U.S.-led and Iraqi forces or the elections.


Secretary of State-designate Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) on Tuesday pointed to the Jan. 30 elections as a way to stabilize Iraq by advancing democracy and depriving the insurgency of the motive for opposing a U.S.-picked government.





But those at the conference were skeptical.

"This pledge commits you to not even speak against the Americans. I cannot sign it," said cleric Fouad Attiya, 40.

"If I call from my mosque for occupation forces to leave my country does that make me a terrorist? Is this the freedom and democracy they are bringing us?"

The conference was the third of its kind to be held in Baquba, a mixed city of Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims 65 km (40 miles) north of the capital. But virtually all of those invited to the conference were Sunnis, like Jasem al-Obeidi, who has felt increasingly marginalized since the U.S.-led war that toppled fellow Sunni Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

"I was arrested by the Americans and spent five months in Abu Ghraib (prison) because they accused me of being a Wahhabi," said the 64-year-old former army officer, referring to radical Sunni Islamists blamed for many bombings and hostage beheadings.

"I may be a Baathist, but I am not a Wahhabi. They have raided my house three times since then. I live across the road from a National Guard station. Every time someone attacks it they raid my house."

Iraq's majority Shi'ites long oppressed by Saddam are expected to cement their new-found power during the polls.

Some Iraqis say the Americans and the government should not assume all rebels were radicals determined to derail the elections. But night-time raids, checkpoints and arbitrary arrests were merely creating more enemies.

"The raids happen around 3 a.m.," said shopkeeper Mohammed Kamel. "We open the door before then so they don't knock it down."

[nietzsche]

oh, i disagree - iraq has been converted from a secular nation to one where peoples' primary identity is becoming more and more based on religion.

brian you keep shrugging off all of our points because we apparently don't understand how geopolitics works, blah blah blah. well i'd submit that maybe your problem and the problem of the people in power here is that they are applying old lessons to new circumstances. al qaeda is not a state, doesn't have a government, and can't conscript a single person to fight for its cause (unlike, say, north korea). It RELIES on voluntary recruitment of people who are willing to die to support its aims. Thusly, its survival and growth is wholly reliant on creating the conditions that will cause people to take this bait and take up arms.

All your points about flexing our muscle may make sense when applied to USSR or NKorea. But Grizz, Empath, myself, and many others from the start have been making the point that it may not apply here. And, the latest national intelligence report showing that Iraq is now the international center for terrorist training bears this out.

I'm surprised you don't at least contemplate this view instead of dismissing it out of hand.


No doubt I have. I have come around on the "War" on Terror and now view law enforcement-esque tactics has being central to fighting Al Quaeda. But I do feel that cooperation for existing states is key. If that's "Cold War", so be it. But unless our plan is to dominate every country in the region (which no one seriously [or no one serious] contemplates) we have to have thier support. And the only way to achieve that is through the perception that their interests are threatened. That is just the way it works.

Given the intel climate you have to look at the intel report for what it is. Iraq is certainly NOT a "terror training center" the way Syria, Afghanistan, and parts of Saudi Arabia had been. This is more on-the-job training, and I think that's the way the CIA characterized it. I won't argue tha Iraq is not in trouble and very much due to the incorrect expectations of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheney, and others. But it doesn't change my view that our foreign policy had to change to meet the reality.

Eric, it's a good question. What encourages/deters people to committ to al-Quaeda and the insurgency. I very much see your point, war begets war. But under the context of the last 30 years, I don't see non-war as begetting anything else, either.

[BizarroCub]

Seriously...wtf?

"This pledge commits you to not even speak against the Americans. I cannot sign it," said cleric Fouad Attiya, 40.

[zartan]

grizz, that's the whole thing - the administration has this sense that if you just ram democracy down their throat enough, eventually it will start "flowering" and all the shit you went through to get there will seem like a great idea in hindsight.

well, i hope it works. but it seems, for the reasons I stated above, that ramming it down their throat is not going to happen unless we want to take iraq apart like we did japan before the end of WWII

[nietzsche]

also, you speak of bin laden's desire to return the middle east to the caliphate. well, what's a more effective way of stopping this - making the people of the middle east not WANT the caliphate, or stationing hundreds of thousands of troops there to not allow them to have what they want?

in other words, we have to present to the people of the middle east an alternative that is better than an islamic caliphate. in the past, institutions like the american university in cairo and our approach to providing aid to egypt in exchange for remaining moderate and non-belligerent towards israel have been effective in this way. now, our alternative to the caliphate is seen as a marauding bunch of crusaders, effectively causing the average arab to be more and more receptive to the message that he is a patriotic freedom fighter if he gives his life to keep us out.


I can agree with that. But is that the response you expected after 9-11? Sorry about the low oil prices. Here, have a university.

[zartan]

I don't see non-war as begetting anything else, either

well, the problem is the last 30 years of "non-war" have been infested with cold war politics, back-room dealing (remember rumsfeld shaking saddam's hand), support for israeli policies which are seen as the actions of our proxy and rightfully viewed as atrocities by some in the arab world, etc. much of this based on two things - countering communism, and making sure oil flowed. the oil crisis of the 70s scared the shit out of politicians and sent jimmy carter out of the white house (remember how well hsi "turn down your thermostate and wear a sweater" advice went) and left a continuing concern for making sure oil flows from the middle east. surely you don't discount htat, do you? this is what i'm talking about when i say the war is about oil - its about making sure we don't repeat the 70s oil crisis. hell, a lot of the same guys were in power in the early 80s.

given the oil crisis, we spent decades sucking up to the saudis, etc and ignoring the obvious fact that they were creating a generation of idle, fundamentalist youth, supported terrorists, etc. i'm saying, the right way to get a good result in the middle east would be to make it clear to the average arab that we really, seriously want them to have peace and democracy, and want to deal with them on economic/energy issues the way we deal with the europeans - as equals with self-determination. this is manifestly not the way we are seen now. further military action pushes us further in the wrong direction.

finally, this point:

And the only way to achieve that is through the perception that their interests are threatened. That is just the way it works.

that's exactly the key where I disagree with you. for two reasons. One, you may get more "cooperation" from a government who perceives its interests are threatened by military strike, but this cooperation may be incomplete, faked, or not shared by the majority of its populace, busily signing up to be martyrs. Two, the example of china shows us the opposite approach. we have achieved an unprecedented amount of movement towards freedom and democracy in china - a task still incomplete, but anyway - by appealing to their economic interests and making the capitalist system something incredibly attractive to their PEOPLE. All of rural china is moving to cities to assemble your TV sets because the siren call of capitalism is so powerful. How about trying to replicate that in the middle east?

[BizarroCub]

Thank for articulating Eric, what I've been trying to get across all day...

[zartan]

But is that the response you expected after 9-11? Sorry about the low oil prices. Here, have a university.

To the 9/11 terrorists? Hell no. That's why I support the invasion of afghanistan. But that doesn't mean anyone country populated by arabs suddenly becomes our enemy, does it?

the fact is that across the middle east (and europe) our actions in afghanistan were seen as valid, and revulsion over 9/11 was profound. sure, you can find me anecdotes of palestinians dancing in the streets, but look at the conditions in those refugee camps and try to keep from generalizing those views to the average arab.

you keep making the point that the only thing that will work is force, and i'm just saying that i don't see how force can work unless your intention is to kill every potential terrorist. and, given the overwhelming evidence that military action to do so in arab countries has the effect of creating more, it's hard for me to see a reasonable end game to this strategy. which is why i believe we MUST try something else, even if it seems impossible, looks like it is rewards bin laden from some perspectives, etc.

[nietzsche]

Exactly...

You can only stop creating the army that is fighting you when you take away the desire for people to fight and fear and respect only make people want to fight you more.

when taken without context, that philosophy doesn't bear out. Was our goal in WWII to win the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese? Clearly in that situation, what contributed to the desire not to fight was complete destruction of their countries, not some altruistic appeal to their better side.

In the case of the Germans, and much like al-Quaeda today, they had much of themselves to blame for thier disparate conditions. And their solution was to blame others and incite a strong sense of nationalism. I agree that in this context, al-Quaeda clearly doen't have a home state to bomb. But that doesn't automatically presume that the way to end the threat is through mild capitualtion and a PR campaign of our own.

[nietzsche]

Two, the example of china shows us the opposite approach. we have achieved an unprecedented amount of movement towards freedom and democracy in china - a task still incomplete, but anyway - by appealing to their economic interests and making the capitalist system something incredibly attractive to their PEOPLE. All of rural china is moving to cities to assemble your TV sets because the siren call of capitalism is so powerful. How about trying to replicate that in the middle east?

isn't that what started this whole thing in the first place? Al-Quaeda effectively persuading others that the various governments were capitulating to Western principles of captitalism, democracy, and markets?

[BizarroCub]

when taken without context, that philosophy doesn't bear out. Was our goal in WWII to win the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese? Clearly in that situation, what contributed to the desire not to fight was complete destruction of their countries, not some altruistic appeal to their better side.

In the case of the Germans, and much like al-Quaeda today, they had much of themselves to blame for thier disparate conditions. And their solution was to blame others and incite a strong sense of nationalism. I agree that in this context, al-Quaeda clearly doen't have a home state to bomb. But that doesn't automatically presume that the way to end the threat is through mild capitualtion and a PR campaign of our own.

Not engaging in violence does not equate to "capitulation" mild or otherwise. Al-qaeda only exists as a function of it's ability to play on peoples situations and recruit them, now even easier, because of the actions ofthe US. It's like a hydra. You can cut off all the heads you want, it'll just grow two more.

So...take away their ability to respawn, which can only be done through aid, diplomacy, and a realistic and true showing of American leadership and good will, and the hydra cannot stand.

[zartan]

isn't that what started this whole thing in the first place? Al-Quaeda effectively persuading others that the various governments were capitulating to Western principles of captitalism, democracy, and markets?

sure, that's part of it. if you read bin laden's lecture from the eve of our presidential election you will get a pretty clear picture of what his strategy is.

and yes, that obviously has some appeal in terms of getting volunteers. however, it has limited appeal in the face of the appeal of the fruits of capitalism; for evidence, look at the prevalence of satellite TV, porn, etc in iran and iraq and other countries like that. i would say the right strategy is to reinforce the appeal of capitalism while working as hard as possible to demonstrate the principles of democracy as a positive force and something to be worked toward.

i don't doubt that even with my plan we would have years and years of dealing with fundamentalist backlash - as we STILL SUFFER TODAY in the united states; for example, see the abortion clinic bombers that refuse to countenance our government's structure and laws. you know many criminals who refuse to buy into our country's drug laws. i'm saying, though, that with the approach I outline, you are moving TOWARD the goal of moving the average arab into the camp of desiring democracy and capitalism - like the ukranians - and with Bush's approach you are moving the average arab AWAY.

What confuses Bush is that it appears we are moving forward because our military power lets him influence and install leaders who kowtow to his wishes and "talk the talk" of democracy. Hell, Libya seems to have capitulated as a result of our actions. But, if you dig deeper, a big reason Libya capitulated is because Khaddafi's son is extremely westernized, western-educated, and is a visionary who understands how Libya could function in the greater capitalist system. Are you familiar with him? Interesting character.

In the case of the Germans, and much like al-Quaeda today, they had much of themselves to blame for thier disparate conditions. And their solution was to blame others and incite a strong sense of nationalism. I agree that in this context, al-Quaeda clearly doen't have a home state to bomb. But that doesn't automatically presume that the way to end the threat is through mild capitualtion and a PR campaign of our own.

But Brian, AGAIN you miss the point that the Germans could CONSCRIPT THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY TO FIGHT. Al Qaeda cannot. Therefore, the correct way to turn that problem around is unrelated to dealing with Al Qaeda, because in the case of the Germans, you had to destroy the government doing the conscription, while with Al Qaeda, you have to remove the incentive to volunteer.

Was our goal in WWII to win the hearts and minds of the Germans and Japanese? Clearly in that situation, what contributed to the desire not to fight was complete destruction of their countries, not some altruistic appeal to their better side.

EXACTLY. TOTALLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. In that situation, we had to beat the shit out of those states to destroy the government and social structures that were all shrewdly and comprehensively designed to support the war effort against the west.

[nietzsche]

To the 9/11 terrorists? Hell no. That's why I support the invasion of afghanistan. But that doesn't mean anyone country populated by arabs suddenly becomes our enemy, does it?

the fact is that across the middle east (and europe) our actions in afghanistan were seen as valid, and revulsion over 9/11 was profound. sure, you can find me anecdotes of palestinians dancing in the streets, but look at the conditions in those refugee camps and try to keep from generalizing those views to the average arab.

you keep making the point that the only thing that will work is force, and i'm just saying that i don't see how force can work unless your intention is to kill every potential terrorist. and, given the overwhelming evidence that military action to do so in arab countries has the effect of creating more, it's hard for me to see a reasonable end game to this strategy. which is why i believe we MUST try something else, even if it seems impossible, looks like it is rewards bin laden from some perspectives, etc.

regardless of the validity of our actions in Afghanistan (or the support we recieved), it still did not achieve the objective of getting support for hunting Al-Quaeda from other countries. The win in Afghanistan was meaningless if it just meant that al-Quaeda could turn to another foreign government for help. Money talks and al-Quaeda had a lot of it.

Where was our leverage? We just put an AU in Islamabad and cross our fingers that a) they don't trash the place, al la the embassy and 2) someday in the distant future they percieve a warmer, friendlier US? Meanwhile al-Quaeda regroups, recieves financial support from the Pakistanis, Iranians, and Saudis and plot out another 9-11?

not an option, imo.

[nietzsche]

Not engaging in violence does not equate to "capitulation" mild or otherwise. Al-qaeda only exists as a function of it's ability to play on peoples situations and recruit them, now even easier, because of the actions ofthe US. It's like a hydra. You can cut off all the heads you want, it'll just grow two more.

So...take away their ability to respawn, which can only be done through aid, diplomacy, and a realistic and true showing of American leadership and good will, and the hydra cannot stand.

Removing trops from Saudi Arabia IS capitulation. Ignoring our energy interests IS capitulation.

[nietzsche]

"But Brian, AGAIN you miss the point that the Germans could CONSCRIPT THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY TO FIGHT. Al Qaeda cannot. Therefore, the correct way to turn that problem around is unrelated to dealing with Al Qaeda, because in the case of the Germans, you had to destroy the government doing the conscription, while with Al Qaeda, you have to remove the incentive to volunteer."


Right, right. My point was that Grizz's philosophy does not work without context. What you have done (and I in order to give an example) was add context.

[BizarroCub]

Removing trops from Saudi Arabia IS capitulation. Ignoring our energy interests IS capitulation.

Excuse me, I was thinking of a different reference.

[zartan]

regardless of the validity of our actions in Afghanistan (or the support we recieved), it still did not achieve the objective of getting support for hunting Al-Quaeda from other countries. The win in Afghanistan was meaningless if it just meant that al-Quaeda could turn to another foreign government for help. Money talks and al-Quaeda had a lot of it.

sure - i agree. but the evidence of IRAQ being the chosen country for this is flimsy if not nonexistent.

where is al qaeda today? Pakistan and post-invasion Iraq. What are we doing in Pakistan? Read your New Yorker article.

Even WITH the invasion we can't rout him out of Pakistan. Sure, Musharef is cooperating and probably scared as shit of US power, but this just demonstrates the inadequacy of your approach of trying to get GOVERNMENTS to cooperate with us by scaring them.

[BizarroCub]

Right, right. My point was that Grizz's philosophy does not work without context. What you have done (and I in order to give an example) was add context.

Exactly what kind of "context" am I lacking...?

[nietzsche]

Exactly what kind of "context" am I lacking...?

"You can only stop creating the army that is fighting you when you take away the desire for people to fight and fear and respect only make people want to fight you more."

That in the context of WWII it was fear of our military might that made them stop fighting.

[zartan]

this has been an interestin discussion... i would also submit brian that it may be that a politically impossible WWII-like effort to run roughshod over the middle east and force its capitulation is the only expedient way to end terrorism and turn the area around. certainly, such an action would be morally indefensible with our prevailing morality and ethics relating to international relations, but that may be one workable solution.

the current approach - OR anything like it - is IMO not going to work.

I believe the model of China and the peaceful revolutions of eastern europe present a third way that should be explored, but unfortunately will not be.

[nietzsche]

sure - i agree. but the evidence of IRAQ being the chosen country for this is flimsy if not nonexistent.

where is al qaeda today? Pakistan and post-invasion Iraq. What are we doing in Pakistan? Read your New Yorker article.

Even WITH the invasion we can't rout him out of Pakistan. Sure, Musharef is cooperating and probably scared as shit of US power, but this just demonstrates the inadequacy of your approach of trying to get GOVERNMENTS to cooperate with us by scaring them.

That assumes that Musharref's government knows where bin Laden is. Bin Laden isn't that stupid to allow that to happen.

The adequacy of my approach is proven by the successes in fighting al-Quaeda across the globe, as you sarcastically noted in a prior post. It might be true that we haven't found bin Laden, but that can hardly be blamed on the unwillingness of governments to help us. If Pakistan knew, they would use that as leverage against us in a New York minute. We'll give you bin Laden, if you give us XYZ.

[nietzsche]

this has been an interestin discussion...

indeed.

[BizarroCub]

That in the context of WWII it was fear of our military might that made them stop fighting.

Or could it have been the complete obliteration of their infrastructure?

That might have held true for Japan, but it only took the use of Nuclear weapons to accomplish this.

[nietzsche]

Or could it have been the complete obliteration of their infrastructure?

That might have held true for Japan, but it only took the use of Nuclear weapons to accomplish this.

...that "obliteration" or the use nukes was necessary was the point, as opposed to playing nice to get people to like us.

[zartan]

That assumes that Musharref's government knows where bin Laden is. Bin Laden isn't that stupid to allow that to happen.

The adequacy of my approach is proven by the successes in fighting al-Quaeda across the globe, as you sarcastically noted in a prior post. It might be true that we haven't found bin Laden, but that can hardly be blamed on the unwillingness of governments to help us. If Pakistan knew, they would use that as leverage against us in a New York minute. We'll give you bin Laden, if you give us XYZ.

sorry still have to disagree. My point is exactly what you are saying - that you can have full cooperation from the governments, and still not attain your goals.

what would REALLY get bin laden in hot water would be to change the prevailing view of the people protecting him so that they would turn him in. Musharref to them is just another infidel cooperating with the west.

I'm not entirely disagreeing - I think you need cooperation from governments, strong police work + international police cooperation, apparent American power and willingness to use it, and an effective program of democratization and foreign assistance that does not rely on beating people into submission. Our efforts in this regard have been largely superficial - sure, we've had the military building schools, but what the fuck is the military doing building schools? Why not work on building some schools in Palestine without invading them first? Remember wheen the Bush administration hired that ad executive who later resigned to run the PR campaign? I just have to shake my head and laugh at this. The approach was "hire a PR person and get them to spin this in our favor!" Its all about superficiality, when the aftereffects of bomb attacks, midnight raids, etc are anything but. You get a nice package of cookies from USAID but your uncle and his family get caught in a car bombing. Clearly, the Bush administration does not see the potential power of working hard on this axis of influence, and that's a major thing that I thought John Kerry would have done better. (not to bring the election into it!)

[BizarroCub]

...that "obliteration" or the use nukes was necessary was the point, as opposed to playing nice to get people to like us.

Yes, but the situations creating the opposing armies, why they are opposing us, the help we have to fight them, and the scale do not align enough to make that a good analogy Brian.

[nietzsche]

Remember wheen the Bush administration hired that ad executive who later resigned to run the PR campaign? I just have to shake my head and laugh at this. The approach was "hire a PR person and get them to spin this in our favor!" Its all about superficiality, when the aftereffects of bomb attacks, midnight raids, etc are anything but. You get a nice package of cookies from USAID but your uncle and his family get caught in a car bombing. Clearly, the Bush administration does not see the potential power of working hard on this axis of influence, and that's a major thing that I thought John Kerry would have done better. (not to bring the election into it!)

which is still just spin. what you are suggesting is exactly what bin Laden does with those tapes; how he appeals to the American people, the "stolen" elections in Florida, all that crap he said right before the election. Would you say it was effective?

[zartan]

no, i'm saying the US should be doing things that demonstrate the principles i hear about in bush's speeches to the average arab on the ground. not spinning this war into an exercise in building schools.

[empath]

What was the point we were trying to make in Iraq again?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-iraq-photostory0119,0,5445645.photogallery?coll=ny-world-big-pix&index=13

[Zimma]

Supporting our troops means more than waving a flag as they go to war.
It means being able to look them in the eye when they come home.

[Light Touch]

Note to Iraqi civilians -- when the big men with big guns instruct you to stop, do so.

[PYVND]

There are too many conflicting things going on. Within the last couple of months:

The US has sent Library of Congress staff to Iran to sign cooperation deals. This will allow all kinds of Persian literature to makes its way into the library of congress.

Haliberton has signed a deal as sub-contractor to Oriental Kish to take part in phases 9 and 10 of development of the South Pars field. South Pars is the world's biggest natural gas field. LNG is fuel of the future and Saudis have very little of it.

Within the last couple of months Iran has:

Signed energy deals with China and India to supply them with LNG over the next 25 years. I am certain that the United States does not like this.

Signed a deal with Sri Lanka to sell them $150 in weapons.

Agreed to provide Afghanestan (our brothers) with $150 in aid over the next few years.

Agreed to provide Azarbaijan (until recently, a place the US tried to jack but failed) with electricity and economic aid.

Signed an agreement with Russia and Tajikestan to build hydropower dams in Tajikestan.

There have also been several major economic deals with Europe over the last year. Iran is currently trying to get some serious shopping done with Europeans. Iran needs reliable aircraft badly. They want tons of weapons too I'm sure. Iran is also looking to build connections with African nations, as evideneced by Iran's president's current tour of seven African coutries.

I think the United States knows that having Iran as an ally (whether by force or by business) is essential to its future world dominance. When you add Israel to the mix and the fact that neocons are crazy (you know they are) attacking Iran is a very real threat. Iranians say that it would not be possible for American commandos to have been on the ground in Iran. I say bullshit. Tons of drugs are smuggled over that land. I don't think sneaking a dozen commandos would be very tough. At the same time, I don't doubt the Iranian governments claims of being able to deter an attack.

Iran has already been through a hellish war. Couple of years after that war ended, they started building sh*t and they haven't stopped. Probably they have greatly sped up that process during the last couple of years. Them giving drones to the Libanese is but one example of the kind of planning they are doing. I think, they have designed their stuff to be launched on multiple fronts. Still, the US could cause serious damage and it would be catastrophic in the end. Just super super bad. Another way must be found. But I don't expect any solid moves right now. Too many people (Europe, Russia, China, Iran, US) are jockying for position. If this was 5 years ago, maybe US and Iran cozying up would be a given, but not now. I am hopeful of Condi Rice, but not too much. At least Bolton is out, but the neocons have won. It will take a lot not to make a huge mistake.

[PYVND]

Note to Iraqi civilians -- when the big men with big guns instruct you to stop, do so.

Yeah. But I think they are afraid and just want to get the f*ck home. I can't imagine what it's like over there. But maybe if they stop for Americans, some anti-American group will kill them instead. So maybe they take their chances.

I used to be for the Iraq campaign. I never thought it would become this way. We f*cked up BAD.

[NYGblue]

I think the United States knows that having Iran as an ally (whether by force or by business) is essential to its future world dominance.

Except China beat the US to the punch... Better start getting use to it.

[nietzsche]

well, the problem is the last 30 years of "non-war" have been infested with cold war politics, back-room dealing (remember rumsfeld shaking saddam's hand), support for israeli policies which are seen as the actions of our proxy and rightfully viewed as atrocities by some in the arab world, etc. much of this based on two things - countering communism, and making sure oil flowed. the oil crisis of the 70s scared the shit out of politicians and sent jimmy carter out of the white house (remember how well hsi "turn down your thermostate and wear a sweater" advice went) and left a continuing concern for making sure oil flows from the middle east. surely you don't discount htat, do you? this is what i'm talking about when i say the war is about oil - its about making sure we don't repeat the 70s oil crisis. hell, a lot of the same guys were in power in the early 80s.
etc...


Read something like you and Grizz's "kill 'em with kindness" plan in the New Republic and this is what i have wrong with it.

First, what's your timeline for changing the hearts and minds of Arabs? Maybe a generation or more? Certainly not in the next 5 to 10 years. You yourself said it would take a long time. but how much time do we have?

By my count al-Quaeda has attacked the US 6 times, and narrowly avoiding 2 others by sheer luck, in under 9 years: WTC '93, Khobar Towers, Kenya, Tanzania, USS Cole, 9-11, and by luck avoiding the USS Sullivans and LAX. The timeline for al-Quaeda attacks is very small, by comparison. In each attack they are getting bolder, and often times deadlier

So say it's the day after we declared victory in Afghanistan: what have you got? You control a strategically worthless country that nobody wanted anyway. You failed to destroy al-Quaeda and the entire Arab street thinks you are a coward. They have no reason to help you seek for terrorists cells that not only find haven through bribes or tribal relations, but are actually supported by prinicple officials within those governments.

What's your leverage? Why would countries help you root out al-Quaeda? On the one hand you have the United States who is viewed as a military joke, all bark and no bite. On the other hand you have al-Quaeda who has successfully attacked the US 6 times with little to no reprucussions, has threatened attacks against any government (particularly Arab ones) that support the US, and high ranking individuals within your own government who support them philosophically and financially. What would you do?

So now say you're the National Security Advisor making a briefing to the President. You would suggest that the short and long term security of the US is to take the next couple of decades to indoctrinate American values into Arab society? Build a couple dozens schools in the heart of the world that has absolutely no respect for you? And then what? Cross your fingers for the next 20 years? You have no leverage. Al-Quaeda has all of it. They don't give a shit about your PR campaign, and in all liklihood you'd just be building future targets.

But let's go ahead and game that strategy out. Let's say Syria and Pakistan DO decide to let you build AU's and you give them access to trade agreements with the promise of economic advantage, blah blah blah. Meanwhile, al-Quaeda, spurred by 9-11 and the meaninglessness of losing Afghanistan, regroups amid friendly countries (Saudi, Iran, Pakistan, Syria) and continues to carry out attacks on your interests: military bases, embassies, perhaps even in the US again.

You don't think that would increase recruiting? You know what else breeds like hatred? Success. And that's exactly how al-Quaeda recruited all through the 90's. It wasn't American imperialism. Read bin Laden's old speeches. All he talks about is how weak the Americans are, how we never respond to their attacks, and the success of al-Quaeda.


Seems to me this plan of trying to indoctrinate the Arab world with American values (or at least make them think we're not beasts) is not simply a process of apologizing for the last 2 years, it goes back decades. This is will take a generation or two (if at all!) to accomplish minimal success. This is simply not an acceptible plan to fend off enemies who are currently engaged in an international conspiracy to harm America and her interets. In my view, that plan will get more an more Americans killed, bolster the view of America being a weak and cowardly country, and only encourage more and more Arabs to join the fundamentalist Islamic cause.

[BizarroCub]

Brian...the point is...imagine if we hadn't treated Afghanistan like a cheap hooker, stayed around fixed our destruction of it before we left and went to fuck someone else up. If Afghanistan could have been pointed as a flourish and rebuilt islamic state that had attained stability and some reasonable state of life without the Taliban, then a lot of the fodder used againist us would not exist nor would the fodder for recruiting soldiers.

Then we might have had a leg to stand on in Iraq.

Further, who said this process is about apologizing for the past two years...? Frankly, where did I say anything about apologizing. What I described is a case of genuine altruism. Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing and if you're lucky you'll win people over with that.

Where in any of this conflict have we "shown" or "demonstrated" "American Values"? How have we shown people that what they're trying to offer them is a good alternative? Where have we really tried to make people want what they're trying to give them?

They didn't...like I've said time and time again Democracy cannot be forced into people down the barrel of a gun. They will resist. You must make people want what you're offering them instead of violently forcing it upon them. And if you can do that, you take away a weapon of your enemy.

[BizarroCub]

Also...

So say it's the day after we declared victory in Afghanistan: what have you got? You control a strategically worthless country that nobody wanted anyway. You failed to destroy al-Quaeda and the entire Arab street thinks you are a coward. They have no reason to help you seek for terrorists cells that not only find haven through bribes or tribal relations, but are actually supported by prinicple officials within those governments.

And this is exactly why we called them idiots for handling Afghanistan the way the did in the first place. Neither I, nor Erick, strategically, would have let this happen.

[nietzsche]

Brian...the point is...imagine if we hadn't treated Afghanistan like a cheap hooker, stayed around fixed our destruction of it before we left and went to fuck someone else up. If Afghanistan could have been pointed as a flourish and rebuilt islamic state that had attained stability and some reasonable state of life without the Taliban, then a lot of the fodder used againist us would not exist nor would the fodder for recruiting soldiers.

Then we might have had a leg to stand on in Iraq.

Further, who said this process is about apologizing for the past two years...? Frankly, where did I say anything about apologizing. What I described is a case of genuine altruism. Doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing and if you're lucky you'll win people over with that.

Where in any of this conflict have we "shown" or "demonstrated" "American Values"? How have we shown people that what they're trying to offer them is a good alternative? Where have we really tried to make people want what they're trying to give them?

They didn't...like I've said time and time again Democracy cannot be forced into people down the barrel of a gun. They will resist. You must make people want what you're offering them instead of violently forcing it upon them. And if you can do that, you take away a weapon of your enemy.

Did you actually read anything I wrote? Here's the Cliff Notes verison. The day after we declare victory in Afghanistan, the Arab world still think we are a military joke, al-Quaeda has essentially escaped into other countries where they can receive haven by those governments who have NO reason to help the United States. Meanwhile al-Quaeda has a history of striking with deadlier and bolder force every couple of years.

If you admit that enacting a plan to kill them with kindness will take a generation or two, What do you suggest the President do now to protect the American people?

[Tigger]

Yakes!

[nietzsche]

Also...

And this is exactly why we called them idiots for handling Afghanistan the way the did in the first place. Neither I, nor Erick, strategically, would have let this happen.

Taking Afghanistan was only meaningful to the American people. It meant shit to the Arab world. Controlling it had no strategic value and defeating the Taliban was a threat to no one in the region. Even if we had parked the next fucking George Washington in Kabul, there was still no reason for surrounding governments to help us track down al-Quaeda.

Without the Bush Doctrine and the perception that we were willing to act, it is all meaningless. Al-Quaeda still exists and they will still attack.

This is what the attack on Iraq was all about. Get it, yet?

[BizarroCub]

Did you actually read anything I wrote? Here's the Cliff Notes verison. The day after we declare victory in Afghanistan, the Arab world still think we are a military joke, al-Quaeda has essentially escaped into other countries where they can receive haven by those governments who have NO reason to help the United States. Meanwhile al-Quaeda has a history of striking with deadlier and bolder force every couple of years.

And did you not read what I wrote, those things are the exact reason I and other around here would have handled the tack differently from the get go.

If you admit that enacting a plan to kill them with kindness will take a generation or two, What do you suggest the President do now to protect the American people?

Well...I wouldn't have given Bin Laden a several month headstart on me after he attacked us. I would have actually built a Real coalition of the willing and not alienating the people who would help you. And I'm sorry...when one country is bearing 95% of the burden that ain't a real coaltion, that's one in name. How about actually have worked on securing Afghanistan, not letting Al-Qaeda scatter. Not letting them regroup and begin making a shitload of money off of it's sale. How about work with the people to restart a real government that THEY want them to have instead installing my oil cartel puppet to help me out with my trans siberian oil/gas lines. How about not getting rid of tons of my arabic speaking military translators cause they're gay. Working with other countries that have a much longer history of being hit by terror than we ever have and find out what strategies work. How about not creating illegal internment camps weaking our moral position to get the job done. How about using the policing strategies that other countries use and that work to get the job done instead of using MOAB's.

I can think of a lot of things I'd have done differently.

However, as we can see, the current strategy is meeting with MIND blowing success, eh?

[BizarroCub]

Without the Bush Doctrine and the perception that we were willing to act, it is all meaningless. Al-Quaeda still exists and they will still attack.

This is what the attack on Iraq was all about. Get it, yet?

And even WITH the Bush Doctrine Al-Qaeda still exists and will still attack.

I never didn't get what you're saying, I just still think the current doctrine is stupid and obviously not working.

[nietzsche]

And did you not read what I wrote, those things are the exact reason I and other around here would have handled the tack differently from the get go.



Well...I wouldn't have given Bin Laden a several month headstart on me after he attacked us. I would have actually built a Real coalition of the willing and not alienating the people who would help you. And I'm sorry...when one country is bearing 95% of the burden that ain't a real coaltion, that's one in name. How about actually have worked on securing Afghanistan, not letting Al-Qaeda scatter. Not letting them regroup and begin making a shitload of money off of it's sale. How about work with the people to restart a real government that THEY want them to have instead installing my oil cartel puppet to help me out with my trans siberian oil/gas lines. How about not getting rid of tons of my arabic speaking military translators cause they're gay. Working with other countries that have a much longer history of being hit by terror than we ever have and find out what strategies work. How about not creating illegal internment camps weaking our moral position to get the job done. How about using the policing strategies that other countries use and that work to get the job done instead of using MOAB's.

I can think of a lot of things I'd have done differently.

However, as we can see, the current strategy is meeting with MIND blowing success, eh?


We were attacked on 9-11. The war in Afghanistan started on Oct. 7th. Get your history straight. So you're saying you could have mobilized a massive military force and built coalitions with sensitive geo-political relationships half way around the world in less than 30 days? You're not thinking about this Grizz.

And we DID build coalitions. Where do you think our staging grounds were? How do you think we got to a land locked country?

You're missing the point. Even if we had established one of the world's greatest democracies in Afghanistan, IT'S MEANINGLESS. No one cares about Afghanistan. It is not strategically important to anyone. It has no resources other than opium. None of it's neighbors was put in jeopardy by its falling. Nothing you or Eric could have done differently can change that.

"Working with other countries that have a much longer history of being hit by terror than we ever have and find out what strategies work"

What reason do they have to work with us, particular considering that simply "working with us" puts them at risk?

Again:
Why would countries help you root out al-Quaeda? On the one hand you have the United States who is viewed as a military joke, all bark and no bite. On the other hand you have al-Quaeda who has successfully attacked the US 6 times with little to no reprucussions, has threatened attacks against any government (particularly Arab ones) that support the US, and high ranking individuals within your own government who support them philosophically and financially. If you were Musharref, what would you do?

[BizarroCub]

Why would countries help you root out al-Quaeda? On the one hand you have the United States who is viewed as a military joke, all bark and no bite. On the other hand you have al-Quaeda who has successfully attacked the US 6 times with little to no reprucussions, has threatened attacks against any government (particularly Arab ones) that support the US, and high ranking individuals within your own government who support them philosophically and financially. If you were Musharref, what would you do?

First off, when was the finest military in the world considered a military joke? Where are you getting this from? Who is saying this? I find that highly dubious.

Afghanistan has no resources? Wait...they haven't been working to get massive pipelines built through and from Afghanistan?

And would not be meaningless, it's called an example. LEADING BY EXAMPLE! That's the point.

[BizarroCub]

And you'll forgive me Brian, but none of this was amoungst the justifications for this madness I was hearing from you a year ago. I'm sorry, but I feel like you're trying to re-write the reason all this crap went down, since none of the original reasons or justifications have panned out.

[nietzsche]

Afghanistan has no resources? Wait...they haven't been working to get massive pipelines built through and from Afghanistan?

And would not be meaningless, it's called an example. LEADING BY EXAMPLE! That's the point.

"First off, when was the finest military in the world considered a military joke? Where are you getting this from? Who is saying this? I find that highly dubious."

From every book I've ever read on the subject. Most noteably, Steve Coll's "Ghost Wars", George Friedman's "America's Secret War", Michael Sheuer's "Imperial Hubris", and Bob Baer's "See No Evil".

Coll is a Senior Editor and pulitzer prize winner, formerly of the WP.
Sheuer and Baer are former CIA operatives.
And Friedman runs a private intelligence firm, Stratfor.
I've also been privvy to private round table discussions with current and former security officials, including former CIA directors Gates and Woolsey.

What are your sources?

"Afghanistan has no resources? Wait...they haven't been working to get massive pipelines built through and from Afghanistan?"

You've been watching too much Michael Moore. The Unocal crap is a red herring and has been started and abandoned several times. But even if they've started it up again, that's opnly meaningful if you're suggesting that the reason for the Afghan war was to control that area for oil. That can't be why you think we invaded Afghanistan.

And here's the history on Afghanistan: without it's neighbors and the promises we made with them, there would have been no Afghan war. The primary deal we made with the Tajiks, the Turkmen and the Uzbeks was that we would use their area as staging grounds provided we had no interest in staying long term. That was it. Obviously the Pakistanis and the Iranians could not let us use their land, nor make any pubic deals.

What would you have done in that situation? Promised a long post-war campaign to establish democracy? Sorry, no war, no end to the Taliban and no OBL on the run. Meanwhile you have a blood thirsty American country who is waiting for (j