Obama Would Invade Pakistan

[calbiterol]

Please take none of this personally. I'm going to say things bluntly, but I am attacking your point, not you; please read it this way. This is just my little disclaimer to keep things civil - which is something I've rarely had a problem with at SFN, but it's been a solid year since I've posted here regularly, so I thought I'd say it again.

 

In order for al-Qaeda to win its war, the USA must be stupid enough to make all Islam the enemy. That is, al-Qaeda must convince Muslims that the USA is against Islam. If that happens, then the West is grossly outnumbered in people and then al-Qaeda can turn this into a conventional war and actually militarily defeat the West. It can't do that by terrorist tactics.

I beg to differ. I cite the Vietnam War. We had every possible military advantage over the Viet Cong / NVA. We even had a real, practical experience in the jungle by the war's end that equaled that of our enemy. And yet, we still lost the war. Why? Because Ho Chi Minh convinced the American people that the war was not worth winning. If al Qaeda does the same thing, we are finished.

 

 

...tribes in the region...

They sure wouldn't. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it's some of those very tribes that are truly harboring terrorists in their homes.

 

 

The military failed Carter, not the other way around.

No. The military did not fail. The military bureaucracy failed. This is a subtle, but very important, difference. It was not until much later that the "failure" of Operation Eagle Claw was fully understood. The operation was needlessly complex and, more importantly, there was no adequate air contingent to match the skills and requirements of Delta Force, as well as the general Special Forces. This spawned the creation of the 160th SOAR and USSOCOM. The ultimate deciding factor that caused the abortion of Operation Eagle Claw was mechanical failure. Too many of the helicopters had become inoperable for the mission to be given the go-ahead. During the evacuation staging, a helicopter pilot became disoriented and crashed into a C-130.

 

I have spoken to one of the more superior officers among the Special Forces who were at Desert One, and he was extremely confident that, had there been no technological failures, the mission would have been a resounding success.

 

That is all largely off-topic and irrelevant but I couldn't leave it alone.

 

 

3) I will say this again: we have overreacted to the "danger" of al-Qaeda. We are so afraid of Americans (us as individuals) being killed that we have let that fear rule our response and cloud our judgement. al-Qaeda can kill some Americans, but al-Qaeda cannot destroy the USA.

But fear can. You said it yourself: "In my very strong opinion, people are so scared that they might be killed in a terrorist attack that they have lost all judgement and are advocating policies to keep them 'safe' that are disastrous." In my equally strong opinion, fear merits nothing - not action, not inaction, nothing - and I think you would agree. However, motivation by fear is one of the many principles behind terrorism, and it is working. When any American decides not to do something because of fear of attack, terrorism has a small victory. When any American voices support for security legislation that curbs his rights as a US citizen out of fear for an attack, terrorism wins. Terrorism can and will destroy the United States as we know it, but only if we let it. And we must not let it. Fight legislation made out of fear. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

 

 

We would never tolerate military action on our soil by a foreign power, even when they claim "self-defense".

Not a military action when called such. Simply rephrase it to a police action, however, and it becomes forgivable. Also, keep in mind that the US has definable, protected borders. The border of Pakistan in question is neither pronounced, defended, secured, or protected. There is NO analogy between the two, and any comparison is apples to oranges.

 

 

Our rights stop at the border of another sovereign nation. We are proposing to ignore that.

Absolutely false. Our rights as a sovereign nation never cease, no matter where we are. This is often the reason that wars start in the first place. The right and responsibility of a nation to protect its citizens DOES NOT STOP when a citizen visits a foreign nation. The right and responsibility of a nation to secure its economic well-being through the procurement of resources DOES NOT STOP when those resources come from overseas. The right and responsibility of a sovereign state to defend itself DOES NOT CEASE when the enemy is in another sovereign state. Soft diplomacy is the preferred method, but (and I say again) military diplomacy is not out of the question. This is a basic principle of international relations.

 

 

And there is always collateral damage.

This is absolutely false. The statement that every operation has collateral damage is a skewed perspective brought on by the fact that the ONLY operations we hear about are those with collateral damage because of a number of very complicated political reasons within the news media.

 

 

That's an oxymoron if ever there was one!

Military diplomacy is a synonym for hard power, also know as hard diplomacy or certain types of power politics. In short, it is the use of military force, aggression, provocation, or the threat thereof to coerce another nation to the will of the aggressor.

 

 

And this is a problem with a lot of people on this subject. The supposition is that killing a few leaders will stop al-Qaeda.

I agree with you 100% on this notion. HOWEVER, terrorist organizations are highly compartmentalized. By killing the high-ranking leaders, you eliminate the few people in the entire organization that are aware of more than just a small amount of information. That means that another person must be found that can be trusted, then that person must be brought up-to-speed on a vast amount of information previously unknown to him. This takes a lot of time and causes a lot of temporary confusion, which can be taken distinct advantage of to attack the cause behind the organization.

 

Furthermore, the ideal operation in the event of a meeting of high-ranking officials is NOT to eliminate them. Ideally, these officials would be captured for interrogation, which, when concerning high-value targets, is extremely valuable information. These are the few people who know where bin Laden is, and the capture and trial of bin Laden would, without a doubt, remove the public leader of al Qaeda and severely cripple its cause. The symbolic meaning of bin Laden's capture, trial, and execution would be so significant that al Qaeda would be hard-pressed to recover (under that name, at least). From an illegal standpoint, the BEST outcome of such an operation against high-ranking leaders is to capture them, stage their deaths, and then torture the information out of them.

 

 

Well, not "deniable". If a bomb drops out of the sky, it's pretty sure the USA did it.

Wrong. Absolutely deniable. The point is that, if done correctly, no one would even know that there was a bomb or missile in the first place. The event would simply be a massive explosion. No muss, no fuss, and absolute deniability. Black ops.

 

 

Please don't be so naive. Israel has been trying this for years, but still ends up being criticized for it.

You have just contradicted yourself. I'm talking about operations with absolute deniability. When I say "The mysterious explosion or execution of a number of high-ranking al Qaeda," I mean just that. There is no attributable source of this event, it just happened - as far as anyone other than the target and the aggressor are concerned. If it "just happened," it cannot be criticized without backlash.

 

 

An alternative would be to insert some spec ops teams to laser-designate training bases etc for more massive airstrikes.

If any Special Forces team(s) were involved, then the mission would involve a capture scenario. The targets would then simply be missing or captured, and the location of capture would be stated as Afghanistan, and the world would say, "Oh how nice, al Qaeda leaders were captured in Afghani caves!" and go about its dinner.

 

Again, please don't take this as an attack ad hominem, as it is anything but.

 

 

People's real lives being our entertainment.

I can deal with this. I don't like it, but I can cope. It's when people's real deaths become entertainment that I am sickened. If you are reporting on a war to inform people about it, if you are showing the cost of war in a way that makes people stop and listen in silent reverie, then that is one thing, but reporting on war death to raise ratings, with no other good reason, is disrespectful. Honor the fallen. Don't make a mockery of their sacrifice. George Stephanopoulos' segment "In Memoriam" on This Week does an excellent job of avoiding this.

 

Cheers,

Calbit

[fattyjwoods]

go calbiterol !! I agree with you but really this is turning into a alleycat brawl

[swansont]

I think it's been glossed over that Obama actually answered a hypothetical scenario question where all of the other candidates routinely duck them.

[calbiterol]

Wow, I didn't even think about that, and that sure isn't trivial.

[ParanoiA]

I think it's been glossed over that Obama actually answered a hypothetical scenario question where all of the other candidates routinely duck them.

 

Awesome point. And then to think that Hillary and company actually slammed him for answering it, giving "absolutes"...how insulting considering your point here.

[swansont]

Awesome point. And then to think that Hillary and company actually slammed him for answering it, giving "absolutes"...how insulting considering your point here.

 

I saw it mentioned somewhere, and links lead back to an article in Slate

http://www.slate.com/id/2171610/fr/rss/

 

Biden and Clinton apparently called him naive, but naive about political tap-dancing is fine with me. It certainly distinguishes him from most of the other candidates, and the President.

[ParanoiA]

Biden and Clinton apparently called him naive, but naive about political tap-dancing is fine with me. It certainly distinguishes him from most of the other candidates, and the President.

 

Fine with me, too. That's really a compliment as far as I'm concerned. That's another reason why I like (..here's comes the shameless plug..) Ron Paul. He, too, isn't one for political tap-dancing and makes the rest of the republicans look like the car salesmen they seem to be...

[ecoli]

Two years ago, Tancredo said that he would bomb mecca for national security interests.

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/27/tom_tancredos_prescription_for_homeland_security_threaten_to_bomb_mecca.php

[calbiterol]

?!

 

That's the biggest load of horse refuse I've heard outside of the "Border Fence Project!" Wow, I hope Tancredo is stupid enough to visit Mecca while it's being bombed.

[ParanoiA]

Two years ago, Tancredo said that he would bomb mecca for national security interests.

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/27/tom_tancredos_prescription_for_homeland_security_threaten_to_bomb_mecca.php

 

Pretty bold. That certainly isn't tap-dancing...

 

I understand his reasoning in terms of taking out something precious of theirs to equal ours - trying to create a logical MAD scenario between us. The problem is, of course, that we would be taking out mostly innocent people that don't represent extremist militant Islamofascists and inflame an entire region into becoming extremist militant Islamofascists.

 

That would be very stupid.

 

But this brings up a solid point, in my opinion, supporting why no one should be doing any business with that region. With mature, grown up nations, we can trade and do business with a rationale that we understand and can reasonably deal with. With the trust fund states of the middle east and their Islamofascist murder clubs out of control as they are, we have no rational means of protecting ourselves when doing business with them.

 

We can't bomb their countries, because of the mostly innocent populus that these people hide within. We can't invade these countries to deal with them hands-on, sorting through the innocent because then we become occupier and become a recruiting slogan for insurgency and end up fighting everyone instead of just the Islamoracist murder cowards. We can't, apparently, expect these trust fund states to deal with it themselves or else they would already be dealt with. We're damned every which way.

 

We just have no means of protecting ourselves while retaining something of a moral code, when dealing with the anti-american, Islamic extremist middle east. I just don't see how we can stay there in any capacity. I just don't see why we should stay there in any capacity...

 

wow..i sure drifted off topic huh...sorry

[CDarwin]

?!

 

That's the biggest load of horse refuse I've heard outside of the "Border Fence Project!" Wow, I hope Tancredo is stupid enough to visit Mecca while it's being bombed.

 

He couldn't visit Mecca.

[calbiterol]

That's besides the point.

 

And he could, it would just make bombing irrelevant for him!

 

I wonder if that policy will ever change.

 

Meh, off topic now.

[lucaspa]

I am just proposing that, realistically, all they have to do is see the US coming at them a mile away, and they fade away into the populace. It sounds like a really stupid idea.

 

OK, I hear what you are saying. If the attack isn't covert and a surprise, then al-Qaeda simply either leaves or hides their guns and pretends to be peaceful villagers. I agree. Obama, Hillary Clinton, Bush, etc. are all working on the idea that if you kill the leaders, the movement will end.

 

You don't agree. And I agree with you. This is a battle of ideas, not military or even police. Basically, if we are to "win", then eventually people within Islam are going to have to adapt Islam to live in a diverse, tolerant, secular world and keep their religion private. This is what al-Qaeda is resisting: liberal, secular Western ideas.

 

However, in the interim we can minimize the harm al-Qaeda can do by making it hazardous to be a follower of al-Qaeda. Exactly what strategy and tactics we think will do this the most effectively is what we are discussing.'

 

IOW, is the benefit of a covert ops raid into Pakistan to kill some al-Qaeda leaders greater than the cost of violating the sovereign territory of a state most of whose people are Muslim?

 

You know, I don't get that. Nobody I talk to seems scared of anything,

 

Oh no, I see that fear quite frequently. I see it in forums of people who think their loved ones are sure to die in a terrorist attack UNLESS the war in Iraq continues. I hear it in all the politicians who stated that we need to keep troops in Iraq otherwise the "terrorists will follow us home." I hear it in the first wild speculations that the collapse of the I35W bridge was a terrorist attack. I hear it in Bush's remarks that he is going to ask the Secretary for Homeland Security just ONE question about the eavesdropping bill: "Will it give you what you need to keep everyone safe?". If "no", then Bush would veto.

 

Fear is involved, but I'm wondering if that's as overblown as the idea that the terrorists attack us because we're "free".

 

I'll consider your other motive. There may be a partial motivation there, but I think it is very much the minority.

 

Anyway, I just can't help wondering now if many americans just wanted something to be "going down". Something important, serious - war. Terrorists gave us an excuse, and now we have War TV. People's real lives being our entertainment.

 

I too wonder about "reality" TV and its popularity. However, I notice that no one suggested a war until we were attacked. All those years Clinton kept the No Fly Zones, I never heard anyone say "let's invade Iraq for something to do".

[ParanoiA]

I too wonder about "reality" TV and its popularity. However, I notice that no one suggested a war until we were attacked. All those years Clinton kept the No Fly Zones, I never heard anyone say "let's invade Iraq for something to do".

 

And I, as well as the rest of america, never heard anyone say "hey, let's get Halliburton rich!", but many would contend that was the sole purpose of war in Iraq.

 

I don't think "invading Iraq for something to do" is what's going on in people's minds. People love drama. Look at TV. We're head over heels for drama.

 

9/11 was the best thing to happen to the media in a long time. They made a ton of money off of 9/11. All the drama and sensationalizing by the mainstream media is in response to the american thirst for such drama. All this "care" reporting in the wake of some tragedy...where they tell us about the victims and their personal life, and show their family's tears - none of which has anything to do with the news. It's about real life drama.

 

I'm not convinced people are really that scared...I think they're just using the situation to justify being more dramatic. Which, I should add, isn't necessarily inappropriate, just disingenuously exaggerated.

[ecoli]

I hear what you're saying Lucaspa. I don't believe the terrorists necessary want to follow us home. I believe that our foreign policy has led to the Islam in the middle east to become more and more extreme.

 

However, unless we radically change our foreign policy, which revolves around the consumption of foreign fossil fuels, there's really not much we are going to change.

 

Tancredo's remarks (and to a lesser extent Obama's) is a good example of this. There is no reason not to think that the peoples of the middle east do not want democracy. And, there is no reason to think that any oppressed people who want democracy should want our help. However, it ruins our credibility when we go into a country and build the world's largest embassy. That tells the Iraqi people that, we don't really care about them, we just are thinking about ourselves. And that this war is being conducted to exploit them and their resources.

 

I think, instead of invading Pakistan, we should trade with the non-terrorists there. Show them how great life can be. I think that the terrorists would get sick of living in their caves and realize that the west is worth befriending. If they still don't like the west, then let them try and recruit members when they don't control the minds of the civilians by controlling the resources.

[lucaspa]

I beg to differ. I cite the Vietnam War. We had every possible military advantage over the Viet Cong / NVA. We even had a real, practical experience in the jungle by the war's end that equaled that of our enemy. And yet, we still lost the war.

 

BUT, was the existence of the USA EVER threatened by the VC/NVA? NO! "Winning" for the VC/NVA was independence of Vietnam, NOT destruction of the USA. But "victory" for al-Qaeda is destruction of the government of the USA and our tolerant, secular society. Can al-Qaeda achieve those objectives? NO!

 

Because Ho Chi Minh convinced the American people that the war was not worth winning. If al Qaeda does the same thing, we are finished.

 

But we are talking about apples and oranges about what we are being "convinced" about. Ho Chi Min and colleagues convinced us that Western control of South Viet Nam was not worth the casualities. However, al-Qaeda has to convince us that our representative form of government, the Constitution, freedom of religion, the futures for our daughters, etc, should be given up. I can't see that nor would I personally agree to that. Can you really see al-Qaeda convincing us to give up all of our ideals and way of living?

 

No. The military did not fail. The military bureaucracy failed. This is a subtle, but very important, difference.

 

In the context I was using, the distinction doesn't matter. I was pointing out that Carter didn't have a military option because, when he tried such an option, it didn't work. However, I understand and agree with the distinction you are trying to make: between the troops on the ground and the infrastructure/bureaucracy that set up the situation. I'm sure the troops on the ground did everything humanly possible to try to make the mission succeed.

 

The operation was needlessly complex and, more importantly, there was no adequate air contingent to match the skills and requirements of Delta Force, as well as the general Special Forces. This spawned the creation of the 160th SOAR and USSOCOM. The ultimate deciding factor that caused the abortion of Operation Eagle Claw was mechanical failure. Too many of the helicopters had become inoperable for the mission to be given the go-ahead. During the evacuation staging, a helicopter pilot became disoriented and crashed into a C-130.

 

Yes, and here the military as a whole failed: to provide the required expertise in planning (Carter, after all, as a civilian, could not plan the operation but relied on military people to do it), inadequate maintenance, inadequate backup helicopters, etc. You separate the people on the ground from the "bureaucracy", but the S-3s who did the planning should have once have been shooters and just didn't do their jobs correctly.

 

I have spoken to one of the more superior officers among the Special Forces who were at Desert One, and he was extremely confident that, had there been no technological failures, the mission would have been a resounding success.

 

But, for Carter's options, it doesn't matter exactly why the mission failed, does it? Once it did fail, Carter couldn't use the military again because the hostages were separated and moved. His only military option was a full scale invasion and, even if the US military was large enough to do that (it wasn't), that would not have saved the hostages.

 

But fear can.

 

Can what? Destroy America? Yes. We can allow fear for our lives such weight that we allow our government to take away our freedom in the name of "protecting us". Is this what you meant?

 

However, motivation by fear is one of the many principles behind terrorism, and it is working. When any American decides not to do something because of fear of attack, terrorism has a small victory. When any American voices support for security legislation that curbs his rights as a US citizen out of fear for an attack, terrorism wins. Terrorism can and will destroy the United States as we know it, but only if we let it. And we must not let it. Fight legislation made out of fear. "He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security."

 

Not a military action when called such. Simply rephrase it to a police action, however, and it becomes forgivable.

 

No, we would never have let British planes bomb houses the IRA was using in the USA.

 

Also, keep in mind that the US has definable, protected borders. The border of Pakistan in question is neither pronounced, defended, secured, or protected. There is NO analogy between the two, and any comparison is apples to oranges.

 

Irrelevant. You are confusing tactics with the strategic idea. The strategic idea is that it is OK to stage a military action inside a sovereign nation in order to get at people who are plotting action against your nation. It doesn't matter what the borders are. As I noted, that the USA has pronounced borders didn't prevent IRA members from coming to the USA to raise money, recruit, train, and plan. Just what al-Qaeda is doing in Pakistan! In order for the British to get those IRA members, we required them to go thru our law enforcement agencies. We didn't let the British land SAS commandos and raid houses! And yet we are saying that we can send LURRPS or SEALS into Pakistan. Double standard.

 

Our rights as a sovereign nation never cease, no matter where we are. This is often the reason that wars start in the first place. The right and responsibility of a nation to protect its citizens DOES NOT STOP when a citizen visits a foreign nation.

 

Apples and oranges. We are not talking about American citizens visiting Pakistan! Instead, we are talking about Pakistani citizens plotting attacks on Americans outside Pakistan.

 

The right and responsibility of a nation to secure its economic well-being through the procurement of resources DOES NOT STOP when those resources come from overseas.

 

Yes, it does. Remember, this is the justification Japan used for starting WWII in the Pacific. We didn't agree, did we? Also remember Gulf War I. A justification Iraq used was that it was securing economic well-being by invading Kuwait. There are limits as to what we can do to secure our economic well-being. We are not allowed to invade another country that refuses to sell us what we want to buy. Tough shit for us.

 

The right and responsibility of a sovereign state to defend itself DOES NOT CEASE when the enemy is in another sovereign state. Soft diplomacy is the preferred method, but (and I say again) military diplomacy is not out of the question. This is a basic principle of international relations.

 

It's a double standard. What you call "military diplomacy" has been called, in the past, "gunboat diplomacy". It is used when one sovereign state is vastly more powerful militarily than the other. When the 2 states are approximately equal in military power, then military diplomacy as we are discussing it is out of the question. That's why we have a double standard going. Remember, the USA had granted "asylum" to people other sovereign states have said are dangerous to them. After all, the USA equipped and trained the people who invaded Cuba in 1962. We would never tolerate a government exercising its "right and responsibility" to launch a military attack on the USA to get at those people. Think about it: would you tolerate Cuba bombing Miami to get at the exile Cuban community that was planning the Bay of Pigs invasion?

 

This is absolutely false. The statement that every operation has collateral damage is a skewed perspective brought on by the fact that the ONLY operations we hear about are those with collateral damage because of a number of very complicated political reasons within the news media.

 

I am going back thru history to operations that are now declassified. I can't find one that didn't have collateral damage. If you can, please name them. But this vague reference to successes that "can't be named" doesn't help your case.

 

Military diplomacy is a synonym for hard power, also know as hard diplomacy or certain types of power politics.

 

Your own source doesn't list "military diplomacy" as a synomym. Oops.

In short, it is the use of military force, aggression, provocation, or the threat thereof to coerce another nation to the will of the aggressor.

 

I thought we were using it in defense, but you say it is used by "the aggressor". Oops again.

 

I agree with you 100% on this notion. HOWEVER, terrorist organizations are highly compartmentalized. By killing the high-ranking leaders, you eliminate the few people in the entire organization that are aware of more than just a small amount of information. That means that another person must be found that can be trusted, then that person must be brought up-to-speed on a vast amount of information previously unknown to him. This takes a lot of time

 

By the data, I dispute that "lots of time". Remember when we killed the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq? How much of a pause was there? The very decentralization means that killing a few leaders doesn't stop the organization. Apparently, knowing the "entire organization" just isn't that important.

 

Furthermore, the ideal operation in the event of a meeting of high-ranking officials is NOT to eliminate them. Ideally, these officials would be captured for interrogation, which, when concerning high-value targets, is extremely valuable information. These are the few people who know where bin Laden is, and the capture and trial of bin Laden would, without a doubt, remove the public leader of al Qaeda and severely cripple its cause.

 

I disagree. First, once the higher-up is captured, all the lower cells simply change operating patterns and the info the leader had is now obsolete. The very autonomy you cite makes one person less valuable. Think of even the US military. Say a Scud missile would have killed Gen Swartzkopf. Gens Horner, Frank, Yeosock, Johnston, etc. would have carried on. They knew the general goal and the general plan.

 

bin Laden hasn't been very public and yet al-Qaeda goes on. I also can't remember the idea that, if we could just capture Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi insurgency would be "severely crippled". Didn't work out that way.

 

There's lots of data against your idea and only wishful thinking for it.

 

The symbolic meaning of bin Laden's capture, trial, and execution would be so significant that al Qaeda would be hard-pressed to recover (under that name, at least).

 

And how did that work with Hussein? How's the Iraqi insurgency doing? The only significance would be to make bin Laden a martyr.

 

From an illegal standpoint, the BEST outcome of such an operation against high-ranking leaders is to capture them, stage their deaths, and then torture the information out of them.

And that is best for whom? Do you really think their deaths would be secret from al-Qaeda? No, all this does is make us be them.

 

Absolutely deniable. The point is that, if done correctly, no one would even know that there was a bomb or missile in the first place. The event would simply be a massive explosion.

 

Bombs and missiles leave fragments. So yes, everyone would know it was a bomb or missile: just look for the fragments.

 

I'm talking about operations with absolute deniability. When I say "The mysterious explosion or execution of a number of high-ranking al Qaeda," I mean just that. There is no attributable source of this event, it just happened - as far as anyone other than the target and the aggressor are concerned. If it "just happened," it cannot be criticized without backlash.

 

There is no such thing as "absolute deniability". You simply look for motive and capability. Explosions leave physical evidence. Evidence you don't even need an advanced forensics lab to work out. Tom Clancy tried to do "absolute deniability" in Clear and Present Danger but it failed. Even such a fan of the US military as Clancy realized that you can't get "absolute deniability". The best you can hope for is no "proof sufficient for a court of law". However, we aren't playing this out in a court of law. The downside comes in the court of public opinion. If enough Pakistanis and other Muslims are convinced and pissed off at us for this violation of Pakistani sovereignity, then whatever we gained in killing a few al-Qaeda is overwhelmed by the cost in alienating all those people.

 

As to your saying "we captured them in Afghani caves" as a lie, what are the consequences when the lie is discovered? Have you ever thought of that? Consequences in the US citizenry losing faith in their own government and allowing such an operation -- no matter how necessary -- in the future AND the consequences in the world at trusting the USA ever again.

 

I am dismayed that you can be so clear sighted to say "When any American voices support for security legislation that curbs his rights as a US citizen out of fear for an attack, terrorism wins." but can't see that "When an American government adopts the tactis of a totalitarian government -- kidnap, torture, death, lying to its own people -- terrorism wins". You are advocating that we as a people tolerate a government that acts like a totalitarian one.

 

I hear what you're saying Lucaspa. I don't believe the terrorists necessary want to follow us home. I believe that our foreign policy has led to the Islam in the middle east to become more and more extreme.

 

However, unless we radically change our foreign policy, which revolves around the consumption of foreign fossil fuels, there's really not much we are going to change.

 

There are other things, IMO, that we need to change in our foreign policy in the MidEast.

 

What bothers me about the "terrorists will follow us home" argument is that it implies that we are staking out our military men and women over there as sacrificial lambs and saying "attack them and leave us candy-ass scared civilians alone".

 

It's one thing in a war to get lucky enough to have a strategic and tactical situation where all the fighting and casualties can occur on foreign soil. The USA has been terribly lucky so far. Far more luck than we deserve and that any other country has enjoyed.

 

Now we are in a situation where the tactics are such that casualties can occur within the continental USA. Fighting al-Qaeda in Afghanistan really doesn't prevent them, by itself, from launching attacks within the USA. However, the idea seems to be that, as long as we have military in Iraq and Afghanistan, one of the purposes these people serve is to provide American targets a whole lot closer and easier to get to than coming to the USA.

 

It's one thing to have a volunteer military to defend me, and that they may be killed in that endeavor. However, as a citizen part of my responsibility is to be in danger if that is the situation. I have a moral objection if the major or only service the military persons are serving is to be targets so that I am not.

 

Two years ago, Tancredo said that he would bomb mecca for national security interests.

 

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/27/tom_tancredos_prescription_for_homeland_security_threaten_to_bomb_mecca.php

 

From the article:

 

"Tancredo may not have apologized but he tried to downplay his remarks by saying he was just trying to consider different possibilities of preventing such an attack. "And one of the ways we might think about - and I'm just presenting this as a possibility - is saying that if that happens, and if it's perpetrated by people who are in fact Islamic extremists, then we can take out their holy sites. I didn't say nuke anything. I just said take out... The prevention, the deterrent... We've got to think about something that may in fact be as catastrophic in their world as destroying 7 or 8 american cities would be in ours..."

 

Oh, so that's all he meant."

 

Tancredo is an idiot. Worse, if he really thinks bombing Mecca is a deterrent, he's a positive danger to the USA! Lock him up as a national security risk!

 

This is how we lose! Bombing Mecca doesn't hurt al-Qaeda at all, but makes all Islam our enemy. And then we lose.

[ParanoiA]

Can al-Qaeda achieve those objectives?

 

Sure. Why not? How many nuclear warheads going off on our soil would it take to defeat us? Surely you're not going to make the mistake of under estimating your enemy...they really love that. If they can coordinate 4 jets on 9/11, then they can coordinate other flying things too...things like nuclear weapons.

 

We're a free society. We're not set up to stop that really on our own soil, except at the border. And we're not doing that either.

 

Not trying to stir fear, just reality. Don't think we're unbeatable just because we got fancy war toys.

 

I am dismayed that you can be so clear sighted to say "When any American voices support for security legislation that curbs his rights as a US citizen out of fear for an attack, terrorism wins." but can't see that "When an American government adopts the tactis of a totalitarian government -- kidnap, torture, death, lying to its own people -- terrorism wins". You are advocating that we as a people tolerate a government that acts like a totalitarian one.

 

Why is that so hard to understand? In WWII we murdered, slaughtered thousands if not millions. Our government had better behave that way when called for. Your government's actions against others is not even the most remote indication of their intent to you and your countrymen, so totalitarian-like or not, it's irrelevant. Torture, kidnapping, lying to their own people - all actions of humans defending their packs. These are techniques that work. That's why it's done. Terrorism hasn't "won" anything.

 

Terrorism wins when you give them what they want. They don't win anything if we get all kooky and kill everybody on the planet. They don't win anything if we become despicable and inflame our malice. They only win something when they get what they want. What they want is for us to leave their precious soil. I have no issues with that win. It's a wish they will come to regret if it were really granted.

 

This idea that they want us to convert to Islam and make our women subserviant and all is about as important to them as WMD's were important to Bush. They wouldn't be attacking us if we didn't violate their religious ground. It's about our presence there, not how we behave and live over here.

[ecoli]

 

This idea that they want us to convert to Islam and make our women subserviant and all is about as important to them as WMD's were important to Bush. They wouldn't be attacking us if we didn't violate their religious ground. It's about our presence there, not how we behave and live over here.

 

I think this is a side effect, though. I think this extremist position that westerners don't deserve to live if they don't embrace Islam is a result of negative western presence in the middle east. People don't just wake up and decide that they hate a certain group of people... there's always a reason for it.

 

There is no reason to assume we can't get back to being friends again if we drastically change our foreign policy, and let the extremist movements die out. Because, our current military policies are not working.

[ParanoiA]

There is no reason to assume we can't get back to being friends again if we drastically change our foreign policy, and let the extremist movements die out. Because, our current military policies are not working.

 

I disagree with that first part, but I hope I'm wrong, I really do.

[bascule]

Why should it be any of our business? If we concentrated on defense here at home and quit spreading "freedom and democracy" with guns and bombs then why would anyone attack us?

 

Normally I'd agree with you and advocate isolationism. I think historically the United States intervention in foreign affairs has had negative outcomes.

 

That said, nuclear weapons are a different story. They represent an extinction risk for the human species. We live each day under Damocles' atomic sword. I believe the potential negative consequences of not combating nuclear proliferation outweigh the potential negative consequences of intervening from a foreign policy perspective. I also believe that while the chances of the latter are much higher than the former, the risk that the former poses is so much greater that they cannot be ignored.

 

However, for the most part the nuclear situation has been stable. This is due to the idea of MAD, and the knowledge of the consequences of both instigating a nuclear attack and retaliating against a false alarm. Those consequences are the extinction of the human species. They are the most dire consequences humanity can possibly imagine.

 

While you'll typically see me writing off things like terrorism as a scare tactic and an ambiguous ideology at the basis of neo-McCarthyism, my attitude towards nuclear weapons is fear.

 

I support full nuclear disarmament. Furthermore, I support international action intended towards preventing any further countries from obtaining nuclear weapons. I don't buy the "If US, China, France, etc. have nuclear weapons then everyone should have them!" bullshit. Nuclear proliferation is BAD.

 

I did not support the Iraq war. I think the negative consequences of America's invasion Iraq will be both severe and drawn out, in the same way our previous intervention (e.g. instating the Shah) have been.

 

I would not advocate an interventionist policy towards anything which did not represent an existential risk for the human species.

 

Nuclear weapons do.

 

The international nuclear situation is increasingly precarious. Nations with somewhat undeveloped sensibilities towards the dangers of nuclear weapons are obtaining them. These countries, including both Pakistan and Iran, are both politically unstable and in my opinion not trustworthy to safeguard a nuclear stockpile against those who might try to steal them. Furthermore, I personally do not regard them as having the discipline and restraint to possess nuclear weapons. That's not to say I really believe any of the other nations who possess them do, but I believe it's much more pronounced with Pakistan and Iran. And as I said, I advocate full nuclear disarmament, with the hope that were this ever to happen that the international community would crack down immediately and severely on anyone who attempted to develop them.

[ParanoiA]

I would not advocate an interventionist policy towards anything which did not represent an existential risk for the human species.

 

Nuclear weapons do.

 

I respect your opinion and is certainly well stated. I guess my thinking is that concentrating on missle defense and border security - actual' date=' [i']for real [/i]national security - will achieve a similar end without endangering ourselves by putting a bull's eye on our country. Acting like world police and shoving people around - which is how it's interpreted no matter how noble we're actually trying to be - just keeps us hated and targeted.

 

I agree with whole notion of ending nuclear proliferation and destroying what arsenol we all have. As long as we're just another number, one of many nations added to the chorus denouncing nuclear weapons and urging non-proliferation than I think we can eliminate being a target for destruction.

 

But selling out our sovereignty to the UN, and retaining our power and authoritarian status while pushing nuclear non-proliferation inflames the east, motivates non-nuclear states to develop the technology to protect themselves against, what is perceived as, an imperial power. After all, I would expect an imperial superpower to deny my efforts to become a nuclear state. Kind of like how the reversal of our second amendment would be a good idea for an oppressive, totalitarian government.

[bascule]

I respect your opinion and is certainly well stated. I guess my thinking is that concentrating on missle defense and border security - actual, for real national security - will achieve a similar end without endangering ourselves by putting a bull's eye on our country.

 

Missile defense is and always has been a joke.

 

Star Wars (i.e. the original SDI plan of space-based lasers) could be defeated simply by coating a missile with mirrors.

 

The present interceptor missile-based system is susceptible to both MIRVs and decoys.

 

Iran has some pretty advanced ICBM technology as well (the Shahab-6, based on the North Korean Taep'o-Dong 2). I certainly would not put it past them to be able to launch several of these, even if only one had a nuclear warhead. That's all you need to confuse interceptor missiles.

[geoguy]

What would be the purpose of hitting some 'high profile' target in Pakistan?

 

It's OBL and sideshow Bob. Dead. then what?

 

'If' it actually accomplished anything then so be it and the consequence would need to be weighed (I think it would be a disaster for relations with Pakistan, etc.).

 

I don't see, however, how it would accomplish a darn thing. OBL just becomes a martyr 'or' nobody believes he was actually killed. No Islamo- nutbar is going to say 'gee whiz' and put down his rifle or his Koran.

 

There is no 'target' in this type of conflict that is going to make a hill of beans if removed. OBL and his thugs probably serve a better rallying point alive for the West than if dead. Kill him and if the next day nothing changes....then what? Hitler was an evil dude in WW2 but better to have his hated face up there for our soldiers to see than a nobody.

 

Then again, everything in Iraq got peachy after Saddam was captured....or after Zarqawi was killed.. . No target in Pakistan would have an upside greater than the negative consequences.

[Sisyphus]

I doubt killing ODB would have much effect on Islamic terrorism. He's in hiding and very unlikely to be actually coordinating anything. His value is as a symbol, and in that he's valuable to them either alive or dead. Dead he's a martyr. Alive he is a symbol of the impotence of the West in their failure to find one guy despite an unprecedented manhunt. At this point I don't even think it would be much of a morale boost in the West, since it's taken so long, and if we do find him it won't seem like anything but dumb luck.

[geoguy]

The nuclear issue is a tough one. Think of all the crazies (Hitler, etc.) that lived in the last 200 years...there will be as many crazies in the next 200 years. Only the crazies in the future will be screwballs in a nuclear world.

 

We may have faith in USA or Russia or China to have nukes...at least in 2007...but what about 2017 or 2037? And another half dozen states? Pakistan today but in 20 years? Who would have cared about Korea or Vietnam or Iran back in 1907?

 

In a static world we might say, 'fine' . Those with nukes keep them and try and discourage the rest. But, it's not going to stay static. It's in the interest of the USA, Russia etc. to phase out nukes while they still have the upper hand. Phase them out now through a position of strength. In a hundred years with advancing nuclear technology it won't matter who has what weapons as even modest nations may have the capabilityof killing everyone else.

 

A possible forward step towards nuclear sanity would be for a country like the UK or France to announce it is getting rid of nuclear wepons. They would could be given defense guarantees by the USA and Russia. The example would be a positive example and moral coup in being able to ask the same of developing countries. The leader of the disarmed counry would be a strong figure and have the moral high ground when going to Tehran or Pyongpang. What's happening now is a dribble towards more and more nuclear countries because the developed world has a weak or even hypocritical position in stopping nuclear proliferation.