Here's a great example of a blogger being quoted as an expert, and pseudonymously at that. Wretchard, now self-revealed as Richard Fernandez, has been quoted in a Times Online article about missing US SEALS in Afghanistan.
“Its insertion represented an extraordinary risk,” said the author of an influential military blog known as Wretchard. “They would be operating in an area known to be a stronghold of the Taliban, where any contact with the enemy automatically meant they would be grossly overmatched.”Another source noted that Murphy’s unit bore all the hallmarks of a long-range sniper team sent to hunt down a particular target. US Navy Seals are trained to spend long periods operating clandestinely.
“The fact that the US did not send in several hundred troops for a sweep instead of the four-man recon team strongly suggests the team’s mission was to fix a very high target before it could flee from an airmobile assault,” Wretchard said.
The post being quoted is here, and there are a few later follow-ups. As I've written in the past, the strength of the blogging medium is that the experts themselves are doing the writing without being filtered through ignorant reporters and editors. (Ignorant in the sense that they don't know anything about the topic they're reporting on.)
Wretchard also has a post about the London bombings being both a blessing and a curse.
The Al Qaeda have characterized the attack on London as 'punishment' for Britain's temerity to resist the inevitability of Islam. It is the kind of punishment these self-ordained masters of the universe are accustomed to meting out against harem women and insolent slaves. A few administered licks, and no doubt the cowardly kuffar will crawl back to his place. The tragedy is that Al Qaeda's perception is perfectly correct when applied to the Left, for whom no position is too supine, no degradation too shameful to endure; but incorrect for the vast majority of humans, in whom the instinct for self-preservation has not yet been extinguished. It will result in history's greatest case of mistaken identity; the mismatch that should never have happened. The enemy is even now dying at our feet, where we should kick him and kick him again.
I think his characterization of the left is pretty accurate, and in their constant striving for false peace they bring us ever closer to the brink of total war.
Update:
You'll also want to refresh your memory by reading Wretchard's Three Conjectures that explain why Muslims had better hope the West wins this war as quickly as possible.
Yeah, that's why 80% of those who'd be considered on "the Left" supported our actions in Afghanistan to pursue Al Qaeda.
But that's fine. You can buy into Karl Rove's misrepresentation of "the Left" all you want.... but it doesn't turn crap into gold.
One of the most obvious conclusions that can be drawn from the London subway bombings is that the "attack them in the M.E. so they won't attack us here" approach has some significant limitations. Iraq is a magnet to some terrorists... and breeds others... but, in spite of all that, it won't prevent attacks like the ones in Madrid and London... nor would it prevent a similar attack in the US. If anything is doing us any good to defend our homeland, it's the work of the Homeland Security department and all of the other government agencies who monitor and eliminate any terrorist cells operating or attempting to operate here.
I'm a proud member of what most anyone who reads and comments on this blog would consider "the Left"... and I fully support finding and killing terrorists. I also know the following:
- Iraq was not Afghanistan as far as terrorism is concerned. Saddam certainly loathed the US and his own people... but he also loathed any threat to his power from within.
- Terrorism is about more than terrorists and the atrocities they commit... it's an attitude, an idea, a mindset. And so, the solution to terrorism is about more than killing terrorists and preventing the atrocities they commit. If we want to win this war on terrorism, we have to start treating the disease instead of just the symptoms. Otherwise, we're fooling ourselves in calling this a "war", a term that implies existence of a definite victory... when a more accurate description would be to call it a "chronic contagion".
Mark: You can't believe both that Iraq isn't integral to the WoT and that fighting there incites terrorism. Plus, as many commentators have pointed out, despite rather dismal homeland security efforts the Islamofacists haven't been able to perpetrate as many attacks as they were doing in the past. I wonder why?
It's illogical to believe that fighting and killing terrorists somehow creates more than it kills. There isn't an unlimited supply. Just as Americna forces are spread thin throughout the world, so are the terrorists, and fighting on one front is a standard military strategy to weaken an enemy on another front. It makes no sense to think that terrorists are exempt from standard limitations of war.
MW: We made Iraq more integral to the WoT than it otherwise would have been. As such, we have to take responsibility for the unintended and unwelcome consequences of that decision. Some of which are:
- The terrorism training that many terrorists are receiving in Iraq (Zarqawi).. that they then take elsewhere.
- The Iran factor. We've given Iran everything they've wanted: removal of Saddam, a foothold in the Iraqi government, and a good connection directly to the Iraqi people.
Of course there isn't an unlimited supply of terrorists... but guess what... like us, their ranks can grow (and are). That's why I said that killing terrorists isn't enough to win the "war".
Mark you are right in that "Terrorism is about more than terrorists and the atrocities they commit... it's an attitude, an idea, a mindset. And so, the solution to terrorism is about more than killing terrorists and preventing the atrocities they commit." We can't get every terrorist but every terrorist needs support they need money the way you beat them is to cut the the roots off. Iraq provided that support to terrorists in the past to deny that may make you look as bad as Ron, despite the evidence that in addittion to paying for the killing of people in Isreal, Saddam did asist terrorists. it is also foolish to think that if we had left Saddam in Iraq that the terrorists would not of headed there after the fall of the Taliban as the infamous Richard Clarke once said "Osama would boogie to Baghdad." However, to cut those roots of support you hve to go on the offense at some point in time and not sit back on defense praying to be lucky 100% of the time.
I would also add that Iran seems to want the bomb even more than anythign else right now and that al-Sadr who wasthe most visable arm of Iran in Iraq has been largely marginalized in the democratic process.
tP: Oh, something did indeed have to be done with Iraq.. but not what we chose to do.
I would also add you that "cutting the roots off" is, again, one part of the solution.... but not the only part.
I'd also like you to find where I suggested that what I think we should do is "sit back on defense praying to be lucky 100% of the time.".
The point remains that Iraq was not Afghanistan. As such, the way we should've dealt with it should've been different from how we dealt with Afghanistan.
So you're saying that we should not of removed the ruling tyrants in Iraq like we did with Afghanistan dispite Saddam's connection to terrorism, his willful disregard of the 1991 cease fire, his continual shooting at US & UK planes in the no-fly zone, just to name a few?
Is not working to cut off the funding and support systems to terrorists world wide the MOST important part of fighting terrorism and limiting their ability to take their murderous actions across the globe?
We can't deny we're in a war, its been openly declare on us so we might as well call it was it is and fight it. Some messages are a little to strong to ignore.
Leaving Saddam in power would have been sitting back on defense allowing him to use his intellegence services and ill-gotten oil-for-food money to fund the murder of innocent people while just waiting to respond when something happened.
tP: I'm saying that the path we chose in dealing with Iraq was not the only reasonable one.
As for the list of things Saddam has done, it's funny... those apparently weren't enough to convince newly-elected President Bush back in 2000/2001 that Saddam needed to be removed.
I'd agree with you more about the cutting off of funding for terrorists if we were actually doing it. What about Syria? What about Iran? The former is a major source of terrorists and the latter is more of a friend to terrorists than Iraq ever was.
As for what to call this struggle we're in regarding terrorism, I'd say both "sides" are delusional about what we're really involved with. Neither side will give up and neither can achieve a complete victory over the other. The terrorists will always face destruction from us... and we will always face a risk of terrorism. The terrorists aren't fazed by our wrath... and we're not fazed by theirs. What does that look like to you? A "war"? No.. it looks much more like a chronic disease... a constant, perhaps.
Oil-for-food could've been dismantled and Saddam's intelligence services could've been destroyed (or rendered useless) without doing what we did in Iraq.
There were two choices leave Saddam in power or remove Saddam from power. History had already proven trying to contain Saddam using UN resolutions did not work and given the support he was buying/influencing to get rid of sanctions do you honestly think he would of cleaned up his act without someone looking over him?
Of course for the first 9 months of his Presidency Bush didn't think about actively removing Saddam, neither did Clinton when he signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. But its amazing how a few planes in a few buildings can get you to focus like a laser beam.
So removing Saddam wasn't cutting off a source of funding for terrorism? Tell that to all those Jews whos loved ones were murdered at the hands of sucided bombers who recived money from Saddam or do the Jews not count as victims of terrorism? We picked Saddam because he was the big kid on the block you knock him down first, plus the evidence was far more infavor of dealing with him first and as Hitchens pointed out Saddam harbored some of the most notorious terrorists of the past and present. Or can you deny the airplane hijacking practice area saddam had or was it for stewardess training? Of course we are dealing with Iran, but first priority there is keeping the nukes out of their hands, given that they said it should be used to kill the Jews. Then looking to Syria we are draling with their border and looking to the fact that Syria is actually treating Lebanono with kid gloves in regards of self-government it shows they are feeling some pressure from the world about their previous oppression of the people.
No only our side is delusional about this, the terrorist are pretty sure of what they want, convert to their form of Islam and join their view of the worrld wide Islamic Empire or die. Pretty simple and straight foreward, if you don't want to take them seriously in what they say thats your choice. But it doesn't change the fact that they did declare war. The Japanese weren't much fazed by our wrath untill we nuked them, hell we did pretty well on the unfazed section after Pearl Harbor. To win you can't be fazed and I didn't see many people talking about WWII being a chronic disease or was the Cold War refered to as such (which is more like the War on Terrorism) and many said that no one would ever win. Just look how that turned out.....someone won! Admiting you can't win is the first step to losing.
Oil-for-Food dismantled, yeah like the UN would do that and lose the kick-backs or you could of lifted sanctions and that would of worked really well....
As far as the intellegences services being dismantled it wasn't done under the rapidly crumbling UN Sanctions, so how exctly would it of been done other than removing Saddam. Given that the oil-for-food program didn't stop Saddam from using oil sales to grease his pockets, its a safe bet that attempting to get Saddam to dismantle his intel would not of worked.
But you may of developed a feaseable soultion that would of worked to deal with Saddam while leaving him in power, so lets hear it.
Part of the lesson of 9/11 is focusing on what really matters with regards to terrorism... and in my estimation, Iraq was a few rungs down on the priority list of nations to deal with. Iran and Syria are higher on the list. We should not have gotten so committed in Iraq.. so all options would truly be on the table for Iran and/or Syria.
The terrorists in Iraq could've been removed, oil-for-food exposed, and connections to terrorism disrupted without removing Saddam. The Iraqi people should've been the ones who removed Saddam. They have to want freedom from tyranny and a powerful and legitimate democratic government for themselves more than we do or it's never going to happen. By doing their work for them, we've made this our thing. It can't be our thing... it has to be theirs. We can arm, train, and assist... but it's their job to take back their country. I've always looked at the Iraq situation from the standpoint of value is taught through direct involvement. Doing something for someone doesn't teach them anything nor does it create a sense of ownership or value in what was done.
I never said the terrorists aren't delusional about what we're dealing with. Notice that I said both sides are delusional. I also never said that I didn't take their threats seriously. Neither WW2 nor the Cold War were like the War on Terrorism. Both of those wars involved governments who had concerns for tactical, socioeconomic, and infrastructure losses. Terrorists have none of the above. Those wars also had relatively definitive ways with which to conclude that they were won. Terrorism does not. I think we shouldn't be calling this a "war" because it doesn't fit the standard. The definition of "winning" in this chronic struggle is different from the definition of "winning" in every other "war" we've been involved with. It's not about admitting you can't win... it's about defining what constitutes "winning"... and that definition is going to be different from wars that concluded with treaties, formal surrenders, and formal disarming.
If you think Iraq is a few rungs down in its support for terrorism from Syria and Iran rather than one of the major supporters, in my estimation you have other reasons to place Iraq there, one of which is spelled b-u-s-h.
How would you have left Saddam in power and stopped his support of terrorism, knowing what we know now about the ineffectiveness of UN Sanctions?
The Iraqi people did try to rise up before, now we dig their bodies up...but I guess they really didn't want it that much. Same for those 8 million plus that under threat of death went out to vote, I guess they really didn't want it that much either. The Iraqis are fighting for their country and freedom, but if that is not evident through their actions I don't think anything will convince you.
Thats good you did say the terrorists are delusional, I'm the one that said they are not. The know exactly what they want conversion or death. Did you happene to ctach the Theo Van Gogh murder after being shot the first time, he begged his murder to talk about their differences. He was shot again, then his throat was slit to the bone and a not threating a member of Dutch Governmet mixed in with Koranic Verses was stuck to him with the very knife that slit Theo's throat. He was clear in what he want kill the man who insulted the Koran, he said he would do it again. He may be nuts but he is not delusional about his goal. The only people who are delusional are the ones who do not think this is a war.
Iraq was not a "major" supporter of terrorism. Iran and Syria are, however.
As we learned during our march to Baghdad, Saddam didn't have much in the way of a military. Just as we swiftly marched through Iraq.. we could have seized his money, found what we needed to find about oil-for-food and his terrorism connections while simultaneously working with the Iraqi people to help them oppose and overthrow Saddam.
Yeah, many Iraqis went out to vote... but they didn't have a hand in actually fighting for and achieving their victory over Saddam. They weren't the ones chasing him and his ilk out of power... we were. The Iraqi people are fighting insurgents now... but if we had begun this training in preparation for their assistance in the removal of Saddam, they might be in a better position to do this fighting by themselves.
As for being delusional, you have misunderstood me (as you have a tendency to do). They're not delusional about their goals... they're delusional about what this whole effort really is. Whether they declare it a war or not... it's not really a war. It's a constant condition. War is not a constant condition. Terrorism is something we'll always face. The threat of destruction is something the terrorists will always face. We cannot completely "win" and neither can they. Wars end because one side surrenders. In the case of terrorism, neither "side" will surrender.
Are you blind? Saddam pays families of homicide bombers for blowing up buses, cafes, stores, etc filled with women and children (specifically Jews) and he's not a major supporter. He provided training facilities for terrorists and hes not a major supporter. He provided aid, comfort and refuge for terrorists like Abu Abbas who murdered Leon Kilinghoffer, Abu Nidal who ordered the murder of near 1,000 people in 20 countries, Ramzi Yousef who mixed the 1993 World Trade Center bomb entered the United States using Iraqi documentation, Iraqi intellegence agents assited 9/11 conspirators in getting through Mayalsian customs as VIP and attended their 2000 planning meeting, and the fact that people like Richard Clark suspected that Osama would flee to Iraq if he could not stay in Afghanistan. Just to name a few examples. If thats not being a major supporter, I'd like to know what is.
Once agian I state how would you of left Saddam in power and done that? Considering the weaking of UN resolve there was no realistic way to leave him in power and stop his support of terrorism. Also given that the information on oil-for-food did not come to light until after we had seized Iraqi documents showing the corruption, ow would you have discovered it?
We engouraged them in 1991 and failed to support them. We said we would support them in 1998 and did nothing to follow through. They didn't have the means to do it on their own and as Saddam had no problem murdering anytone who was suspected of thinking about it, being realistic they were in no position to be able to do it on their own. If they protested like the Lebanese did, they all would of been shot or gassed.
How would you have trained the Iraqis while Saddam was in power? Asked polietly to set up some training facilites in Iraqi or just convinced a few ten thousand Iraqis to come to America for some training? As long as Saddam was in power it would of been impossible to train anyone to overthrow him and run their own country because Saddam wouldn't let them leave, killed them and their families for asking to or killed them and their families when they returned (just look what he did to his son-in-laws when they came back to Iraq after they had fled).
The problem is you are adding conditons to the definiton of war. Various definitons are usually similar (taken from Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com & Wikipedia):
The fight against terrorism meets those definitions, surrender is not a condition that defines a war. It is one way that defines the end of a period of war (wars also end when you inflict damages on your enemy so great they are no longer a serious threat, like in the Cold War, the USSR never surrendered to us they collapsed it didn't get rid of all the commies that want to get rid of the United States but it ended their ability to do so.). The terrorists have a defined goal that they are fighting for, we are fighting against them, its a war. No one says wars have to end, its just better that they do. If you chose to change the definiton of war so you don't have to call this a war, you have every right to be wrong.The governments of Iran and Syria do all of that and a lot more... so yeah, I tend to view Iran and Syria as major supporters and Iraq as not so major. It's also why either Iran or Syria would've been a better place to start after Afghanistan.
We don't have to "remove" Saddam from power to do everything I said we should've done. We do what we set out to do in spite of his governance. If he objects, too bad. We can protect the Iraqi people from him while we equip and train them, in Iraq and/or elsewhere, to overthrow him and govern themselves.
The struggle against terrorism is not a "war". Everything in the past that's been called a "war" has been totally different from what we face regarding terrorism. That's what makes this something other than a "war". What we consider "winning" in this situation is going to be considerably different from what constituted "winning" in every prior conflict. The enemy in this situation is considerably different from every other enemy we've had in the past. It's far more a chronic conflict than a war.
Aside from the fact there was far more supporting justification to go to war with Iraq than Iran or Syria. Then considring the opposition (mostly from the left) against going to war in Iraq, dealing with Iran or Syria would never of happened thus leaving nothing changed in the region. Iraq was amajor supporter you may not consider harboring and supporting the men who carried out or ordered many of the terrorists and funding the wholesale murder of Jews major enough, but thankful you aren't incharge of making those distinctions. Of course the Iraq war has really helped to turn more Muslims against us.
Then to go to say we could of trained Iraqis to overthrow the government, yeah that would last for a day then we'd be at war with him anyways. Not to mention it completely ignories the reality of a tyranical ruler. There would be no way to preform you other suggestion with in Iraq with Saddam in power shown by the lack of change under the utterly useless UN Resolutions. Its the same as suggesting we ask Hitler to set up some bases to train the French Resistance to avoid D-DAY, its not honest and it would not of happened of course. Or one could suggest D-DAY never happened and we should wait patiently ffor the German people to overthrow Hitler, both completely idiotic ideas that would of failed.
Despite the fact the war we are in meets the definiton of a war its not a war. Excuse if I said oh lets go to the park and take our baseball bats, baseballs and baseball gloves so we can play football. Just because I call it football doesn't change the fact we'll actually be playing baseball. Over history what have been wars has changed, was World War 2 the same as the Cold War, nope but yet both were wars...so are we now to believe that one wasn't a war because they weren't the same? Of course the enemy is different thats what makes this war different from every other war. It boild down to you don't want to call it a war so you will won't call it a war and you have every right to be wrong.
I don't care about opposition from the left. I'm saying what I think should've been done.
Believe me, I'm far more thankful that you're not in charge of making any foreign policy decisions than you are that I'm not in charge of those things.
To hell with Saddam... to hell with "utterly useless UN resolutions". We're not asking Saddam to setup training bases. We're going to do it and if Saddam wanted to use what little of a military he had to attack us in the process then he should go right ahead. The result wouldn't have been favorable to him anyway. Whether we wait for the Iraqi people to form their own government and get themselves up to speed on national security and defense (what we're doing now)... or we wait and help them form all of these things first.. so they can be the ones who remove Saddam (what I suggested).. the end result is the same: We wait. At least with my suggestion they'll have some sort of organization for security in place instead of us having to provide it for them. Perhaps if it was the Iraqis themselves who removed Saddam there wouldn't be as many native insurgents and the democratic process could've been that much further on its way to fruition.
Of course every war was a little different. The fight against terrorism isn't just "a little different", though. It's very different, almost to the point where I don't recognize it as a "war". Was the Cold War against communism? No, not really... it was against the government of the USSR. Was WW2 against fascism? No, it was against the governments of the "Axis" countries. This fight against terrorism isn't a "war"... it's a perpetual struggle against an ideology. You may prefer to look upon this constant state of conflict as "war"... but I do not. You may think I'm wrong... but that doesn't necessarily make it so. If you're going to bring the dictionary into this discussion.. allow me to bring the thesaurus:
Main Entry: war
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: CONFLICT
Synonyms: battle, combat, cCONFLICT, contention, contest, enmity, fighting, hostilities, hostility, strife, strike, STRUGGLE
And so, this becomes not a matter of right and wrong... but a matter of preference. The facts of this struggle against terrorism convince me that it's a "constant conflict and struggle". You prefer to look at it as "war". There's really nothing more to say about that part of our argument.
I was commenting on your distinction between what makes a major supporter of terrorism and a lesser supporter of terrorism. If you can honeslty go visit the Jerusalem Bus 19 Tour and you can see what "a few rungs down on the priority list" did. Then we didn't even talk about what he had done to his on people. But your choice to say, he wasn't high on a priority list, despite his previous acts and declared intentions.
Did we try in the past to set up a group of people to take their country back over? Yeah and the Bay of Pigs worked really well...sure taught Castro one heck of a lesson. That solution is totally impractical to develop a native Iraqi force to over throw an murderous leader, give me a break it would not of worked. The minute we moved in to set up training or moved the tens of thouands of Iraqis required to do it Saddam would of responded and we would of fought back and deposed him, its the exact same result as now. Can you honestly not see under Saddam it would not of worked. you also forget their is a large group of non-iraqis over there fighting mainly killing Iraqis and the Iraqis are the ones fighting back and to say their democratic process isn't that far along to furition....the 8 million plus Iraqis who went out and voted was what then group self gratification? Looking at other countries where we have diposed dictators (Germany & Japan come to mind) Iraq is light years ahead of those in terms of progress from the overthrow. Your way we would of waited while Saddam continued on his merry way happily funding the murder of innocent people of coure in a few rungs down on the priority list kind of way. Speaking of which what qualifies one for a few rungs down? The terrorists he harbored only bombed the Trade Center but didn't knock it down? or he only shot one wheelchair bound jew in the head and threw him overboard? or that bomber he funded only blew up 13 Isreali mothers and school kids?
Just so I know how you would like me to quantify what would move someone a few rungs up on the major list.
Actually this made me laugh:
>>constant state of conflict as "war"
Mark: Well, one reason we couldn't set up bases to train is that we thought Saddam had WMD. We were even afraid, if you remember, that he would use them against us while we were positioning troops to attack. He used poison gas numerous times, and he certainly would have done so again if we started setting up rebellious training camps. Plus, the Iraqis weren't in a hurry to trust us, after Bush I abandoned them the first time.
Second, Iran has a much more powerful military than Iraq did, and would have been much harder to overthrow. Further, we didn't have UN resolutions to back up an Iran invasion like we did for Iraq (despite ex post facto objections). Remember, the UNSC voted unanimously to authorize our invasion of Iraq.
Iraq was the low-hanging fruit. Just be patient; the mullahs know their days are numbered.
tP: I never questioned that Saddam was an evil man who committed atrocities against his own people and others in the region. The issue, though, isn't about atrocities committed... but about support of terrorism... and Iran and Syria are bigger supporters of terrorism than Iraq was. Don't talk to me about our purpose being to put an end to atrocities while the genocide in Darfur goes on with barely any response from the Bush administration.
Iraq isn't Cuba. My suggestion is impractical? What do you call our current plan: Okay, let's go to Iraq and remove Saddam without giving a second thought to what happens after he's gone, let's disband the Iraqi army so we have no native apparatus for making Iraq secure, let's pray that the Iraqi people will appreciate democracy and what we've done enough not to elect another dictator. Don't talk to me about my suggestion being impractical when our current plan is quite impractical as well.
I didn't say the democratic process wasn't that far along... I said that it would be further along.
Hiding behind synonyms? Fine. I guess you were hiding behind the dictionary then. If this was really about the facts-on-the-ground and not about technical definitions, you wouldn't be so adamant about it being a "war" and wouldn't care that I chose to call it a synonym instead. If this really was about technical definitions, then you'd have no basis for calling me wrong... and since that doesn't suit you very often... well... that's a ball game.
Stop putting words into my mouth. I never said that since we can't win we shouldn't even try. Indeed our survival depends on trying. I said that the definition of "winning" is going to be different than that of any engagement in the past. Someone's going to draw the line, and it's going to be far from a complete victory... because the world will never be terrorism-free.
MW: Ahh yes, the infamous WMD's. Well, if it was worth the risk to position our troops to attack... it would've been worth the risk to position our troops to setup rebellious training camps. As for the trust issue, yeah... we would've had to work through that... but guess what? We have to work through that now.
Don't talk to me about the UN. If conservatives like you had their way, we'd pull out of the UN entirely. For you to use them in your argument is disingenuous.
If Iran would've been too difficult, in your estimation, what about Syria? Guess where most of the terrorists in Iraq are coming from? Syria.
Mark: Maybe you don't remember, but everyone thought, in 2002-2003, that Saddam had weapons. Apparantly even he thought so. And risking our troops by pre-positioning is one thing, but if we had set up training camps in Iraq then we would have been risking hundreds of thousands of civilians, who we know he wouldn't hesitate to gas.
As for the UN, obviously I don't care for it, but I'm citing the resolutions because you think it's important. That's not disingenuous, that's knowing my audience.
We probably could have taken Syria, but they weren't as useful as Iraq. Their geographical position isn't as good, they're smaller, and we didn't have an on-going war plus dozens of UN resolutions. All this is obvious.
MW: I remember that. The risk to civilians of Saddam using WMDs is the same if we're there or not.
As for the UN, I neither like nor dislike it.
Syria was (and is) a bigger supporter of terrorism than Iraq, so that is why I think we should've gone after them first... regardless of geographical position (which isn't all that useful) and UN resolutions.
I mean... the risk to civilians of Saddam using WMDs is the same whether we're there to attack or there to train a rebellion.
Okay if its just about terrorism tell how you would consider Saddam a major supporter of terrorism? What would he have to do over and above what he had already done to become major supporter like Syria in your mind? Aslo if you read the authoriztion for use of force it does cite Saddam's atrociites against his own people as a reason.
Ironically the UN, African Union and European Union like to use your favorite word to discribe Darfur, its a 'conflict'. Actually memebers of the Bush administration were the only ones to call it what it is a genocide. Of course that didn't sit well with Human Rights Commission Char, Sudan who led the criticism of the US when they boycotted Sudans election to that role. Of course Bush is trying to go through the UN to resolve the genocide, given the loud criticism of him not being a full partner. Its a same we just don't deal with it, instead of having to make nice with the UN. However the AU does want to do soemthing but is beign stalled by the dilly dallying of the UN and the conflict between the EU and NATO.
Just to clarify a good portion of the Iraqi army disbanded itself (weither out of fear of dying or to mount a guerilla war), but its hard to deny that it would of most likely been better in hindsight to keep the army in place. But their would of been difficulties with loyalists and the such in that case too. However they have developed native Iraqis like Colonel Muhammad Faiq Raouf. They did have a plan for Iraq after a war but actual circumstances (including a under estimation of the influx of terrorists) forced the plan to change after the war had begun. Just like how Yalta wasn't conducted untill 1945 or we can look to the Marshall Plan which wasn't devised untill 1947 after the inital ideas for the recovery of Europe were found not to be working. But you're saying that despite the fact we have made the transfer of a foreign nation by militaraly overthrowing a dictator and setting up a democracy has gone faster than any other time we have done it before isn't quick enough. Just checking where the goal posts are. If Bush would of followed your plan it would of fallen gone the same way as now, because the war would of broken out the minute he tried to impliment it, then the democrats, victicrats, socialists, communists, statists, collectivists & wild-eyed-leftists would be out their shouting Bush lied about training the Iraqis, he failed doing it, and on and on and on.
The facts on the ground show its a war. Word selection is dependant on a persons view of the situation.
You call it the infamous WMD, issue when many governments in the world believed he had them so much so the Iraqi Army had chemical gear on them. The situation now is much more advantageous to building trust because we put out money where out mouth is, unlike previous times where we supported them to overthrow Saddam and left them to be butchered. Setting up rebellion training camps would have fallen right back into our past abandonment of the Iraqi people's desire to overthrow Saddam.
If the UN continues to be corrupt and ineffective and takes no honest steps to correct their problems. Plus it maintains it as a form for butchers and tyrants to have a equal voice with countires of free people, why should we remain in there when we can build a partnership with nations who actually want to get things done that help people in the world rather than blame the Joooos and the US for their problems.
Actually the terrorists are coming through Syria and they are from many more places than just Syria, if we had gone into Syria they'd be coming through Iraq instead. Then you would be blaming Bush for going into Syria instead of Iran or Iraq. Of course Syria is currently weak, given its releasing its strangle hold on Lebanon also they have tehe pressure of their citizens watching Iraqis vote in their country for a leader, while they cannot. Internal pressure could already crumble a weak tyrant. As for Iran we should stand by the students protests and ironically the Ayatolla's Grandson, who as Hitchens pointed out in Vanity Fair is looking to the US for support and as a model on how to set up governemnt that has a government free of religious rule. Where the War in Iraq has emblodened the pro-democracy and pro-freedom movements in those countries to stand up for their rights.
The government of Iraq, under Saddam, used terrorists like a small extension of its armed forces. The governments of Iran and Syria are made up of terrorists. Saddam controlled the terrorists that operated out of Iraq... whereas the governments of Iran and Syria are controlled by terrorists.
Actually, I'm not saying that the timetable in Iraq isn't moving quickly enough... I simply said that it could be further along the path.
You're probably right about who'd complain if Bush followed my suggestion... but what you don't realize is that I don't care. I'm saying what I think should've been done. If you or anyone else has a problem with my suggestion, you (and they) can shove it.
The facts on the ground lead you to call it a war? Fine. The facts on the ground lead me to call it a chronic conflict and struggle.
How would setting up rebellion training camps be "falling right back into our past abandonment"? We're (rightly) staying the course now.. so why couldn't we stay the course in setting up rebellion training camps?
The porous borders of Iraq don't have to be the porous borders of Syria in the scenario of an invasion of Syria. Porous borders are one mistake associated with Iraq that wouldn't have to be repeated.
I don't know how I'd react if Bush invaded Syria instead of Iraq... but I can guarantee you my reaction would've been far better than when he invaded Iraq.
Wait a second Syria is another regieme in the Ba'athist movement like Iraq under Saddam, that supports and aids terrorist groups (a largly palestinian terrorists in Syria's case) while not explicitly being a terrorist organiztion itself.
Okay if its not as far along as you think it should be simply saying currently it is moving too slow. They are making pretty good progress on developing their first democratic constitution ever. How long did it take the US to ratify our Constitution after declairing Independnce from the UK and for a good portion of that people from all over the region weren't trying to murder them on a daily basis.
Pull yuour head out of your ass and get the point, the problem with your view is it is an impractical solution. There was no feasble way for it to work with out adressing the glaring problems in it. Its like the people who say we should all grive hydrogen fuel cell cars, with out ever addressing the problem of meeting the power requirements that will be needed to generate the hydrogen fuel that are inherent in the thermodynamic equations. (H2 + 02 2H20 + Energy) Or for another example its like Ghandi sugesting pacifism to defeate the Nazis, sure it would be nice to do it that way, but giving the uncivilized nature of the Nazis that nice idea just wouldn't work. Flat out if we had expected the iraqis to overthrow Saddam on their own, even with our training they would of been slaughtered wholesale and we know Saddam had no problem doing that to his own people.
Fine....ooh breaking out the female f-word eh?
How would setting up rebellion training camps be "falling right back into our past abandonment"? - Actually that was in reference to the trust issue, where previously we said we would support them and did not, the neature of setting up trainign camps for them to do this would of run the risk of them not trusting us because of our past abandonment. Taking active steps to help them goes further to build trust, more than just saying we'll support them to do so on their own. We could stay the course, but history would make it a much more difficult.
As far as the Syria-Iraq border recently they ahve been trying to address the issue through military operations. Securitng the border in hindsight should of been more important given the Syrian's government's willing ness to assist terrorists in crossing the border, which if we were in Syria, its a pretty safe bet Saddam would of done the same as Bashir is doing now.
So if Bush invaded Syria where he would have had far less evidence and justification than he did for invading Iraq you would of been more supportive of invading Syria. So let me try to understand what your saying... is it that the justification for a going to war plays no role in your decision process on support of the war, excuse me 'chronic conflict & struggle'?
Perhaps you should take your own advice and pull YOUR head out of your ass. Our current plan is impractical. Few endeavors in foreign lands are not impractical. Impracticality, though, doesn't eliminate an idea's merit.
We could've easily protected the Iraqi people from Saddam just as we easily marched through Iraq to Baghdad. Saddam's forces wouldn't have been any more effective on offense as they were on defense.
"Taking active steps to help them" is exactly what I'm talking about. The key difference between my suggestion and our current approach is who does the actual removal of Saddam. My suggestion involves us helping the Iraqis overthrow Saddam for themselves while our current approach involves us overthrowing Saddam for the Iraqis while simultaneously not trying to make it look like it's for us instead of them.
Yes, I would've been more supportive of invading Syria than of invading Iraq.