Priorities -- Iraq or al Qaeda?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

Here is what I think is a brilliant article. I agree with his OPINION whole-heartedly and I think it is written wonderfully…Enjoy.

[quote]BUSH’S MAGIC SHOW MAKES ONLY LIVES DISAPPEAR
By: LEONARD PITTS JR./COMMENTARY/Miami Herald

Three years later, Osama bin Laden is still free, apparently hiding somewhere in the mountains of Afghanistan.

Three years later, a spirited presidential campaign is in full swing, the candidates sparring over Vietnam.

Three years later, there comes news that the American death toll in Iraq has surpassed a thousand.

Iraq, as you know, is the front line in the War on Terrorism that began Sept. 11, 2001. Or, at least, that’s what the president keeps stubbornly saying and polls indicate half of us keep stubbornly believing. And never mind that intelligence experts say Iraq had about as much to do with Sept. 11 as Canada did. No need to focus too closely on that.

We’re watching a sort of magic show, after all, public opinion manipulated like a handkerchief borrowed out of the audience. Nothing up his sleeve, presto! The lie becomes the truth.

And a thousand people die.

It’s one of those numbers that always gets the media’s attention, carrying as it does the weight of milestone. But I am reminded of something a reader told me after an earlier column lamenting the toll, which, at that point, stood just south of 600.

That’s not that many, he said.

By the grim mathematics of war, he has a point. Even a thousand deaths represents the barest fraction of those who were lost in Vietnam. During the Civil War, many times that number were often lost in a single day.

Besides, the death count is slightly misleading, given that it includes not just Americans killed in action, but also those who died from accidents, suicides and other causes.

NOT INSIGNIFICANT

But the weight of the milestone is not so easily shrugged aside and, even given those caveats, a thousand lives lost is not an insignificant thing. One life lost is not insignificant. Especially when you consider all the mothers, fathers, children, husbands, wives, co-workers and friends each loss affects.

Of course, the sobering truth is that life is the currency of war, the means by which a nation purchases its goals when they cannot be obtained by peaceful means. Or when the nation refuses to wait for peaceful means to bear fruit.

Given that this currency is so precious, we’re morally obligated to spend it carefully. So even though we’re talking about ‘‘only’’ a thousand lives, it seems fair to pause and consider what they have bought.

Actually, it’s easier to list the things they have not bought.

They have not bought a sense of security. Pollsters say more than half of us expect a terrorist strike in the near future.

They have not bought peace for Iraq. The death toll rose by four while I was writing this column.

They have not bought the world’s respect. We are feared by allies and vilified by people we purported to liberate.

So what have those lives bought? As near as I can tell, only tickets to a magic show.

SEARCH FOR MEANING

Maybe you consider that an insult to those who lost their lives in their country’s service. I would only point out that the search for meaning in death has nothing to do with the dead. It is, rather, a comfort the living give themselves to soften the rough edges of mourning. Will we insist on that comfort even if doing so requires us to believe what is not true?

That’s a question I could not have imagined asking that September morning three years ago.

But three years later, the man who authored that unholy day is on the back burner.

Three years later, our moral authority is squandered, our sense of purpose wasted.

Three years later, the death toll in an unnecessary and unrelated war climbs above a milestone number.

And the president presents a magic show. Abracadabra! A quagmire becomes a showcase for his iron resolve. Maybe for his next trick, he will pull an election out of a hat.

You might be able to enjoy his act. I keep thinking we paid way too much to get in.

42

rainjack you are killing me: “try to have a koolaid free moment.” Hahaha

43

[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
I wasn’t “having fun.” I am now unclear as to what you mean[/quote]

You must be trying awfully hard not to understand it. Let’s use an example.

I have one cookie.

I decide that I am going to give that cookie to someone.

It would be a Bad Idea to give the cookie to a diabetic.

So it is a Good Idea to make sure that whoever I choose is not diabetic.

Notice that there is still only ONE cookie, and it is still being given to ONE person.

Is it clear now, or do you need more explanation? When we needed to eliminate a government, we also needed to make sure the public and Congress would support our decision to eliminate whomever we chose. While “whomever” can conceivably be plural, in this case it is singular.

The people in charge of our military and our government made the call as to which of many possible actions should be taken. It may be argued that these people are not experts on everything, but it is also patently obvious that they had ready access to experts in the relevant fields, and have a certain level of judgement in recognising when those experts are needed.

Simply put? Before you go around complaining that you would have done things differently, it would make a certain amount of sense to consider why nobody asked you to do these things in the first place.

44

ZEB,

 I've been to Iraq, twice.  Save the naive kid comments please.  Any statement needs to be backed up by evidence.  That's just the way intelligent individuals create persuasive arguments.  I see a lot of bashing at other people on this site.  I see very few conclusions that a drawn from facts on the ground. 
 Believing statements from others based on blind faith is naive.

Todd

45

[quote]toddjacobs13 wrote:

ZEB,

 I've been to Iraq, twice.  Save the naive kid comments please.  Any statement needs to be backed up by evidence.  That's just the way intelligent individuals create persuasive arguments.  I see a lot of bashing at other people on this site.  I see very few conclusions that a drawn from facts on the ground. 
 Believing statements from others based on blind faith is naive.

Todd[/quote]

Toddjacobs13:

Well Todd, I was certainly not talking about you when I used that term “naive.” Anyone who has served in Iraq has my complete respect and is obviously not naive when it comes to matters of war.

It seems that many (not all) college, and High School kids are a bit clueless when it comes to Iraq, and other matters of importance such as paying taxes etc.

I thank you for your servie to our country!

Zeb

46

No comments on the article?

Take me to task on this one, please…you do on everything else!

47

How does one take you to task for copying and pasting an article?

Should I call you out for not having the ability to form an original thought on your own?

Should I take the writer to task for not having the common sense God gave a piss ant?

Your ABB party line utterances are getting so old and stale that it is no longer worth my time or effort to engage you in debate.

If you hate Bush so much, why don’t you have an original reason for it? You don’t. You copy and paste. You parrot the whole ABB mantra. At leaest have an original thought.

I may disagree with much of what Elk says, but at least he knows for himself why he believes the way he does. The same cannot be said for your talking points regurgitation.

48

Rainjack,

you musn’t know me too well, as I think I spend most of my time declaring what I think and not “copying and pasting.”

If “copying and pasting” is a problem to you, take it up with Mr. Boston Barrister.

Do you care to challenge me to a duel?
lol
Any question you’d like to ask me, I’d be happy to respond to you…and I guarantee I can do it by copying and pasting my own remarks from previous threads…(this might take some time, though! lol)

This article, however, was one that really struck a nerve because it was written fantastically and makes points that I, frankly, agree with wholeheartedly…

49

Todd,

You wrote:

“I don’t think you understand what I am getting at. You have no evidence to back up your claim that Al Qaeda was in Iraq prior to March 21, 2003. There were a few low level meetings that took place outside of the country. So if you know something the rest of us don’t, why don’t you share?”

Sure.

“http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp”

Warning!!! You may have to put on your thinking cap. Read it several times. Put it together. Notice the interlocking levels of confirmation. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

If you are unwilling to read it or if you dismiss it out of hand with the silly comment: “The intelligence agencies lied about WMD, they are wrong about everything else” please don’t bother responding.

Have a great day!!!

JeffR

50

In reply to JeffR,

 Not a bad article.  Let's play devil's advocate.

A clear lionshare of the contacts take place outside of Iraq, as I stated in my previous post. The was clearly a consistent contact relationship prior to mid-1999. Then your article states:

INTELLIGENCE REPORTS about the nature of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda from mid-1999 through 2003 are conflicting. One senior Iraqi intelligence officer in U.S. custody, Khalil Ibrahim Abdallah, “said that the last contact between the IIS and al Qaeda was in July 1999. Bin Laden wanted to meet with Saddam, he said. The guidance sent back from Saddam’s office reportedly ordered Iraqi intelligence to refrain from any further contact with bin Laden and al Qaeda. The source opined that Saddam wanted to distance himself from al Qaeda.”

The bulk of reporting on the relationship contradicts this claim. One report states that “in late 1999” al Qaeda set up a training camp in northern Iraq that “was operational as of 1999.” Other reports suggest that the Iraqi regime contemplated several offers of safe haven to bin Laden throughout 1999.

It goes on to say that the statement is refuted by the following:

  1. The actions of an autonomous Iraqi operating in Kuala Lampur, Indonesia.

  2. The Iraqi Intelligence Chief of Islamabad, Pakistan who suggests to Iraq (not the other way around) that al Qaeda bases could be established in Northern Iraq.

  3. Chemical-Biological Weapons training support. What does this mean exactly? No specifics given as to type of training received.

  4. A Saudi intelligence report that caused an abbreviated, heightened state of alert in Saudi Arabia.

  5. Prague meetings with an independent Iraqi. No NSA reporting to indicate that this was a channel for al Qaeda communications with Baghdad.

The following summarizes the 9/11 Commission’s findings on the Prague meetings:

The staff of the The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission) issued a statement June 16 saying it found “no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.” It also said “contacts” between al Qaeda and Iraq “do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.”

The article then delves into post-9/11 activities. All of the cited activities take place after September of 2002, at least a year after 9/11.
The most potentially damning is this quote:

Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi’s procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.

But it clearly states that Zarqawi’s actions were contingent upon a US invasion of Iraq and had gotten stronger in the months leading up to that contact (well after 9/11). Clearly, the invasion of Iraq was felt to be a strong possibility by both al Qaeda and Iraq. We now have a chicken and egg scenario. Did the US invade Iraq because al Qaeda was active there, or did al Qaeda operate in Iraq because the US was going to invade?

Sorry, JeffR, I’m not convinced, nor do I believe that this article closes the case.

Todd

51

Todd,

Thanks for giving this your attention.

I’m sorry your not convinced that the evidence points to more than just a “few low level meetings.”

I’m not sure the level of proof that you would require to alter your perceptions.

I could be wrong about you. However, most people who oppose the war in Iraq (like rsu/lumpy/danh/chinadoll) are unable to take the next step. They know (correctly) that if the link to Al Qaeda is made, their whole DNC driven mantra of “Bush lied, people died” is shattered forever. If that happens, then they start to realize the Cheney has nothing to do with Halliburton’s management and actually gives away his yearly settlement from them to charity. Then they start to see that perhaps Bush wasn’t AWOl after all. Then they start to wonder if Bush has been right all along about other things…

You see how that can get messy for a diehard partisan.

Again, I’m curious to see if you are of the same ilk. If you are, say so openly and save me some time.

Does playing the Devil’s advocate mean that you were moved by some of the other points?

JeffR

52

Again, JeffR, you’re unwilling to leave the slightest margin of error for Bush…it isn’t even possible, is it, that the things you mention are actually true of him?

–From what I understand, the bi-partisan 9/11 Commission (which Bush didn’t even want and had to be accompanied by Cheney to testify – noble and legit, JeffR?) has determined there to be no link between al Qaeda and Iraq. It was bunk. Wrong.

–Halliburton has attained enough no-bid contracts in Iraq to raise an eyebrow…your eyebrow is steadfast, however.

–Bush wasn’t AWOL? The news has been flooded with documents stating otherwise (though I concede that apparently there is some question about whether or not they’ve been forged…odd situation there), and there have been plenty of folks who’ve declared similarly that Bush didn’t report when he was supposed and in fact lost his flight status.

(I don’t care much about his service, so I don’t want to get too far into it here)

Let’s stick to the question of priorities post-9/11 and let’s hear if it is acceptable to turn away resources from a concrete enemy and toward an imaginary one.

53

Jeff,

 I would place myself squarely in the moderate category.  To partisans on both sides I probably seem partial because I do not kowtow to any extreme.  I find myself in the same boat as many Americans:  I believe that there are entirely too few politicians in Washington that are worth any level of admiration.  A leader should inspire a healthy majority of those whom he is supposed to be leading.  There is a small handful of elected officials in this country who can honestly make that claim, and none of them are currently strong contenders for the presidency.  That's where I'm coming from politically.

The reason why I decided to join in on this conversation was because your claim in your message that I originally quoted. Stating people are wrong (as well as name calling and general bitching) does not foster intelligent conversation. That is particularly true for complicated problems such as the one that is being “discussed” here. I find that 95% of political posters on this board are blinded by highly partisan viewpoints coming from one side or the other. Those trying to find some level of common ground or truth in matters are left shaking their heads in frustration.

Hopefully that clarifies some of my motives.

Todd

54

RSU:

The author has a very good point in that, while the number of combat-related fatalities is historically quite low, each soldier lost is a tragedy, as it is someone’s son or daughter, husband or wife, brother or sister, and each is a Patriot lost. But the author glossed over the first point in order to make the second, and the first is a very valuable point: historically, the rate of casualties is very low. The cost, in terms of percentage GDP – a very different and less important measure, but one I’ve seen brought up on different threads – is also historically quite low. WWII cost upward of 50% of GDP per year; Iraq has cost less than 1%.

I want a quick digression on the “Mission Accomplished” banner. Mission Accomplished does not mean Victory attained, enemy surrendered, all further costs and effort over. It merely means the objective of the particular mission has been attained. Saddam’s regime was out of power, so that particular mission was accomplished. It was obviously bad political judgment from his aides, given the way people have hammered on Bush for the banner, but in doing so people are willfully disregarding the plain and usual meaning of “mission accomplished.”

Now, back to what our efforts in Iraq have “purchased” thus far. To do so, I would like to ask whether you would personally feel safer if, all others factors held constant, Osama bin Laden was captured tomorrow? If so, how much safer would you feel? If your answer was more than just a little tiny bit safer, you’re ignoring the realities of the world at the moment. Capturing Osama bin Laden would be an excellent political coup (even though a lot of folks think he is already dead), but it wouldn’t do much in terms of disabling terrorism. THere are others doing the planning and heading the operations now.

So, let’s look at what has been accomplished: 1) The U.S. has a military presence in a key area w/r/t geopolitical importance, and the whole area has become more stable by the removal of a dictator who had previously invaded his neighbors and used WMD, and we are in the process of helping to establish an Islamic democratic-type government as a key ally in the region; 2) Libya has given up its WMD program, and we are in position to deal with Iran should it refuse to do so; 3) The Saudis and Pakistanis are cracking down on terrorism within their own borders – by no means are they perfect, but they are putting more effort in than previously, and we will help them to further their efforts; 4) Other states in the area are less likely to sponsor terrorism because they have seen the consequences that can arise from doing so.

Not directly related to Iraq, we have done much to shore up our homeland security since 9/11. It is by no means perfect, but we are safer than before. Conversely, people see more soldiers and guards against terrorism than they did previously, which makes them worry about terrorism more. This is actually a good thing if if makes them more aware of the world around them – maybe tips from citizens will be how we can avert a future attack. But, in this case, the actual efforts taken to make people safer likely make them feel less safe. Seeing items related to terrorism on the news probably makes people less safe too, even though they are more aware.

So, whether people “feel safer” or not is really not a good measure of whether they are safer. Just because people were living in a coccoon prior to 9/11, whereas now they are aware of the fact that terrorism poses a threat here at home, does not mean they are less safe.

Another small digression. THe author did something that many are in the habit of doing, in that he said that because Iraq was likely uninvolved in 9/11, the fight in Iraq is not related to the War on Terror. That is a non-sequiter. Iraq sponsored terror – perhaps not the specific terrorists responsible for 9/11, but Saddam sponsored terrorists before we went in to Iraq. Now, irrespective of whether you believe al Queda was in Iraq before we took out Saddam, they are there now. So, fighting in Iraq against al Queda insurgents and the foreign Islamist terrorists who have come in to make trouble is indubitably part of the War on Terror. Every terrorist killed in Iraq is one that cannot be part of an attack against the U.S. or U.S. interests again.

As for our “world standing”, I don’t give that much credence. European countries such as France and Germany, and also Russia, were following their own national interests in opposing Iraq. Even in the Clinton Administration they had realized it would become increasingly difficult to build coalitions to act if the Europeans were going to follow their own interests – which is one of the reasons why the U.S. held back for so long w/r/t Kosovo (that and the fact that area wasn’t vital w/r/t U.S. interests).

Everyone points to the fact that the world was sad when 9/11 happened as evidence that Bush squandered some “good faith” of the world. Well, I seem to remember a lot of Arabic countries that were dancing in the street – and this was before Bush did anything at all w/r/t invading Iraq or Afghanistan. A headline in Le Monde saying “We are all Americans now” doesn’t mean diddly squat if the people making the declaration had no intention of helping you do anything about it. Where were the big helpers when we went into Afghanistan? Seems to me we carried the brunt of that load.

As for peace in Iraq, it will come. There are a few areas that are problematic, but the majority of the country is rebuilding. If we weren’t worried about letting the Iraqi government and army establish legitimacy, we might have taken care of at least al Sadr already, but the strategy now is to have our forces provide back-up for the Iraqi forces. It’s a work in process, definitely – some feel we didn’t kill enough of the Baathist hard-core soldiers, and this is why we’re having this problem. Maybe they are correct. We definitely could have done some things better, but it’s tough to hold the planners to a standard of perfection. Things seem to be improving, and while the problems won’t go away overnight, the establishment of a democratic ally in that fital area will be worth it.

So, while you and the author may disagree, many of us believe that much has been, and will be, accomplished via Iraq, and, more generally, by the War on Terror.

55

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
RSU:

The author has a very good point in that, while the number of combat-related fatalities is historically quite low, each soldier lost is a tragedy, as it is someone’s son or daughter, husband or wife, brother or sister, and each is a Patriot lost. But the author glossed over the first point in order to make the second, and the first is a very valuable point: historically, the rate of casualties is very low. The cost, in terms of percentage GDP – a very different and less important measure, but one I’ve seen brought up on different threads – is also historically quite low. WWII cost upward of 50% of GDP per year; Iraq has cost less than 1%.

I really struggle with the comparison between WWII and our invasion of Iraq…How can you compare one to the other?

I want a quick digression on the “Mission Accomplished” banner. Mission Accomplished does not mean Victory attained, enemy surrendered, all further costs and effort over. It merely means the objective of the particular mission has been attained. Saddam’s regime was out of power, so that particular mission was accomplished. It was obviously bad political judgment from his aides, given the way people have hammered on Bush for the banner, but in doing so people are willfully disregarding the plain and usual meaning of “mission accomplished.”

Now, back to what our efforts in Iraq have “purchased” thus far. To do so, I would like to ask whether you would personally feel safer if, all others factors held constant, Osama bin Laden was captured tomorrow? If so, how much safer would you feel? If your answer was more than just a little tiny bit safer, you’re ignoring the realities of the world at the moment.

This is important as a point of reference…“at the moment”…

Capturing Osama bin Laden would be an excellent political coup (even though a lot of folks think he is already dead), but it wouldn’t do much in terms of disabling terrorism. THere are others doing the planning and heading the operations now.

So, let’s look at what has been accomplished: 1) The U.S. has a military presence in a key area w/r/t geopolitical importance, and the whole area has become more stable by the removal of a dictator who had previously invaded his neighbors and used WMD, and we are in the process of helping to establish an Islamic democratic-type government as a key ally in the region;
…“the area has become more stable…”? By what measure can you POSSIBLY say the area is more stable…
2) Libya has given up its WMD program, and we are in position to deal with Iran should it refuse to do so;
…Most of the Army’s maneuver brigades are already stationed overseas. Those remaining in the US are below our stated contingency reserve. I shudder to think what would happen if we had to deal w/ Iran (or for that matter, North Korea, or Sudan, or any of the other “hot spots” around the world).
3) The Saudis and Pakistanis are cracking down on terrorism within their own borders – by no means are they perfect, but they are putting more effort in than previously, and we will help them to further their efforts;
…shortly b-4 the first gulf war, Saudi Arabia’s chief of intelligence, Prince Turki elicited help from someone other than the United States to defend the Kingdom from Saddam…and that was Bin Laden…if you want to find a connection to terrorism, there it is…well, the king chose the US Army to defend the kingdom, which really pissed bin Laden off…

  1. Other states in the area are less likely to sponsor terrorism because they have seen the consequences that can arise from doing so.

LESS likely?..I believe if you compared the number of terrorist attacks in the area that have taken place since we invaded Iraq to the previous, say, 10 years, I believe you’d find considerably more attacks since the invasion.

Not directly related to Iraq, we have done much to shore up our homeland security since 9/11.

It is by no means perfect, but we are safer than before. Conversely, people see more soldiers and guards against terrorism than they did previously, which makes them worry about terrorism more. This is actually a good thing if if makes them more aware of the world around them – maybe tips from citizens will be how we can avert a future attack. But, in this case, the actual efforts taken to make people safer likely make them feel less safe. Seeing items related to terrorism on the news probably makes people less safe too, even though they are more aware.

So, whether people “feel safer” or not is really not a good measure of whether they are safer. Just because people were living in a coccoon prior to 9/11, whereas now they are aware of the fact that terrorism poses a threat here at home, does not mean they are less safe.

…a survey of 168 cities across the country showed that 90% of them had not received any significant additional federal assistance since 9/11. Unfortunately, many National Guard units are overseas, when they should be here…protecting the “nation”. One year after 9/11, the New York police force had been cut by 4,000 officers from the number on the rolls on 9/11.

Another small digression. THe author did something that many are in the habit of doing, in that he said that because Iraq was likely uninvolved in 9/11, the fight in Iraq is not related to the War on Terror. That is a non-sequiter. Iraq sponsored terror – perhaps not the specific terrorists responsible for 9/11, but Saddam sponsored terrorists before we went in to Iraq. Now, irrespective of whether you believe al Queda was in Iraq before we took out Saddam, they are there now. So, fighting in Iraq against al Queda insurgents and the foreign Islamist terrorists who have come in to make trouble is indubitably part of the War on Terror. Every terrorist killed in Iraq is one that cannot be part of an attack against the U.S. or U.S. interests again.

As for our “world standing”, I don’t give that much credence. European countries such as France and Germany, and also Russia, were following their own national interests in opposing Iraq. Even in the Clinton Administration they had realized it would become increasingly difficult to build coalitions to act if the Europeans were going to follow their own interests – which is one of the reasons why the U.S. held back for so long w/r/t Kosovo (that and the fact that area wasn’t vital w/r/t U.S. interests).
…yea, not much oil in Kosovo

Everyone points to the fact that the world was sad when 9/11 happened as evidence that Bush squandered some “good faith” of the world. Well, I seem to remember a lot of Arabic countries that were dancing in the street – and this was before Bush did anything at all w/r/t invading Iraq or Afghanistan. A headline in Le Monde saying “We are all Americans now” doesn’t mean diddly squat if the people making the declaration had no intention of helping you do anything about it. Where were the big helpers when we went into Afghanistan? Seems to me we carried the brunt of that load.

As for peace in Iraq, it will come. There are a few areas that are problematic, but the majority of the country is rebuilding. If we weren’t worried about letting the Iraqi government and army establish legitimacy, we might have taken care of at least al Sadr already, but the strategy now is to have our forces provide back-up for the Iraqi forces. It’s a work in process, definitely – some feel we didn’t kill enough of the Baathist hard-core soldiers, and this is why we’re having this problem. Maybe they are correct. We definitely could have done some things better, but it’s tough to hold the planners to a standard of perfection.
…PERFECTION?..my God, there was NO planning…prior to the war, we indicated we just wanted Saddam, and a few of his top hencemen; as a result, many of the Iraqi commanders did not fight, and actually sent their troops home…then we disbanded their military completely and releived anyone who was in the Baath Party, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of individuals suddenly out of work with no pension. No wonder the US popularity plummeted and critical infrastructures and services ceased to function, not to mention the wholesale looting and pillaging.
Things seem to be improving, and while the problems won’t go away overnight, the establishment of a democratic ally in that fital area will be worth it.

So, while you and the author may disagree, many of us believe that much has been, and will be, accomplished via Iraq, and, more generally, by the War on Terror.[/quote]

I am a veteran from the Viet Nam era. I was very fortunate (I got shipped to Germany); many friends went to Nam… way too many came back in body bags. I’m afraid our invasion of Iraq (when and how we did) may go down in history as the most serious mistake this country has ever made. Even Pres. Bush, in Sept. '03 stated clearly that there was “no evidence that Iraq was involved the 9/11 attacks.” Unfortunately, it will be our children and grandchildren who will pay for this folly.

56

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
RSU:

The author has a very good point in that, while the number of combat-related fatalities is historically quite low, each soldier lost is a tragedy, as it is someone’s son or daughter, husband or wife, brother or sister, and each is a Patriot lost. But the author glossed over the first point in order to make the second, and the first is a very valuable point: historically, the rate of casualties is very low. The cost, in terms of percentage GDP – a very different and less important measure, but one I’ve seen brought up on different threads – is also historically quite low. WWII cost upward of 50% of GDP per year; Iraq has cost less than 1%.[/quote]
I think the point is that those 1000 or so troops were lost fighting in a war that was based on false information.

Good point, but C’MON BB! The banner was hung and the event was held to convey success to the American people.

[quote]
Now, back to what our efforts in Iraq have “purchased” thus far. To do so, I would like to ask whether you would personally feel safer if, all others factors held constant, Osama bin Laden was captured tomorrow? [/quote]
No I would not.

I agree, which is why our resources should have been focused in that direction, and not occupying Iraq.

I thought the men and women on the 9/11 Commission declared there was no tie between Iraq and al Qaeda.

[quote]
Not directly related to Iraq, we have done much to shore up our homeland security since 9/11. It is by no means perfect, but we are safer than before. [/quote]
How so? Because it seems to me hijackings could happen today just as easily as they did on 9/11. This is not necessarily a knock on Bush, it is a testament to the simplicity of the attack.[quote]
Conversely, people see more soldiers and guards against terrorism than they did previously, which makes them worry about terrorism more. This is actually a good thing if if makes them more aware of the world around them – maybe tips from citizens will be how we can avert a future attack. But, in this case, the actual efforts taken to make people safer likely make them feel less safe. [/quote]Convenient predicament! Thus the various levels of warning and the evidence, no evidence Ashcroft and Ridge tomfoolery?[quote] Seeing items related to terrorism on the news probably makes people less safe too, even though they are more aware.

So, whether people “feel safer” or not is really not a good measure of whether they are safer. Just because people were living in a coccoon prior to 9/11, whereas now they are aware of the fact that terrorism poses a threat here at home, does not mean they are less safe.

Another small digression. THe author did something that many are in the habit of doing, in that he said that because Iraq was likely uninvolved in 9/11, the fight in Iraq is not related to the War on Terror. That is a non-sequiter. Iraq sponsored terror – perhaps not the specific terrorists responsible for 9/11, but Saddam sponsored terrorists before we went in to Iraq. [/quote]…And this will be your response to my 9/11 Commission comment above, no? [quote] Now, irrespective of whether you believe al Queda was in Iraq before we took out Saddam, they are there now.[/quote]woah, wait a minute! you’re pointing out fallacious arguments by Pitts and arguing back utilizing your own fallacies? [quote] So, fighting in Iraq against al Queda insurgents and the foreign Islamist terrorists who have come in to make trouble is indubitably part of the War on Terror. Every terrorist killed in Iraq is one that cannot be part of an attack against the U.S. or U.S. interests again.[/quote]and how many Arabs who only previously hated America now wants to tear our fucking guts out because we invaded a country for the shit of it?

[quote]
As for our “world standing”, I don’t give that much credence. European countries such as France and Germany, and also Russia, were following their own national interests in opposing Iraq. Even in the Clinton Administration they had realized it would become increasingly difficult to build coalitions to act if the Europeans were going to follow their own interests – which is one of the reasons why the U.S. held back for so long w/r/t Kosovo (that and the fact that area wasn’t vital w/r/t U.S. interests). [/quote]
“If Clinton had…”
Well, “If Bush had…” stuck around the White House a bit after taking office and if Bush had listened to Dick Morris that al Qaeda needed to be addressed and if Bush had an ounce of knowledge regarding foreign affairs…things might be different too. I think the world standing issue is important, because Bush’s cowboy talk and action has left a very bitter taste in the world’s mouth, it seems.

[quote]
Everyone points to the fact that the world was sad when 9/11 happened as evidence that Bush squandered some “good faith” of the world. Well, I seem to remember a lot of Arabic countries that were dancing in the street – and this was before Bush did anything at all w/r/t invading Iraq or Afghanistan. A headline in Le Monde saying “We are all Americans now” doesn’t mean diddly squat if the people making the declaration had no intention of helping you do anything about it. Where were the big helpers when we went into Afghanistan? Seems to me we carried the brunt of that load.[/quote]
Good point.

[quote]As for peace in Iraq, it will come. There are a few areas that are problematic, but the majority of the country is rebuilding. If we weren’t worried about letting the Iraqi government and army establish legitimacy, we might have taken care of at least al Sadr already, but the strategy now is to have our forces provide back-up for the Iraqi forces. It’s a work in process, definitely – some feel we didn’t kill enough of the Baathist hard-core soldiers, and this is why we’re having this problem. Maybe they are correct. We definitely could have done some things better, but it’s tough to hold the planners to a standard of perfection. Things seem to be improving, and while the problems won’t go away overnight, the establishment of a democratic ally in that fital area will be worth it.

So, while you and the author may disagree, many of us believe that much has been, and will be, accomplished via Iraq, and, more generally, by the War on Terror.[/quote]
And so it goes…thanks BB.

57

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
RSU:

I want a quick digression on the “Mission Accomplished” banner. Mission Accomplished does not mean Victory attained, enemy surrendered, all further costs and effort over. It merely means the objective of the particular mission has been attained. Saddam’s regime was out of power, so that particular mission was accomplished. It was obviously bad political judgment from his aides, given the way people have hammered on Bush for the banner, but in doing so people are willfully disregarding the plain and usual meaning of “mission accomplished.”
[/quote]

BB: I’ve been meaning to find this quote of Bush’s, but haven’t had the time. Thanks to the DNC commercial that I just heard, I can voice it now – It wasn’t JUST that the banner “Mission Accomplished” was hung on the carrier on Bush’s Top Gun audition, it was comments such as this that seemed, well, naive and blatantly misleading:

“Major combat in Iraq has ended - the US and its allies have prevailed.”

I could look up the date of this comment, but would you agree that Bush was quite simply wrong when he made this comment?

58

Alright, although I haven’t read the whole thread, I’ll weigh in briefly. Although I will vote (reluctantly) for Bush, I think that Iraq was a big mistake, and NOT just in hindsight, knowing now that there were no WMDs. Even if Saddam had what we thought he had, so do a handful of other countries (Iran, N. Korea, Syria, etc.) which are, realistically, much bigger threats.

To me, it as absolutely, unbelievably inexcusable that, over 3 years after 9/11, Bin Laden and al-Zawahiri are NOT FUCKING DEAD YET! If we had to send 200,000 troops into Afghanistan to blanket the territory and find them, fine. If we had to take significant casualties in the process, although I hate to see that, so be it. If Pakistan didn’t want to let us cross their border but we had to do so anyway with hundreds of thousands of troops and aerial bombardments, fine. But GET IT FUCKING DONE. NOW!!! If anyone out there doesn’t think that Al-Qaeda and their ilk are THE threat to our national security right now, I strongly suggest you read the book “Imperial Hubris.” The fact that OBL and al-Z weren’t killed in much quicker fashion after the fact (meaning within, say, a year, as opposed to 3 or 4), sends a much less forceful message to the terrorists. Bush took his eye off the ball on this one. In addition to all the shit we now (unnecessarily) have to deal with in Iraq, Al-Qaeda appears to be under practically zero pressure. I want to see the video of a masked US special ops guy sawing Bin Laden’s head off – with a fucking spoon.

But maybe I’m just extra sensitive about the whole issue – I’m from New York.

59

I think a President should be omniscient so that liberal college kids cannot look back and claim the President didn’t know everything. “Look at that, your President didn’t even know that insurgents would continue to attack our troops. Na na na na na na.”

It’s a rough job when liberal college kids get to second guess your every move…When they can’t even pull an “A” on their political science final. Whahaha

60

RSU,

“left a very bitter taste in the world’s mouth, it seems.”

Maybe you could go join your friends in France.

They agree with you.

I’ll stick with the “Cowboy.”

Evil-doers and Bad Guys beware.

JeffR