Well, not so much on the financial support. Bin Laden was broke, having been cut off by his family after he was kicked out of Saudi Arabia, and having spent all his own money in the Sudan.
No cite, but I remember many, many news stories from 2001-2002 stating bin Laden was bankrolling the Taliban out if his private fortune.
In The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, Lawrence Wright argues that at the time he left the Sudan, most of bin Laden’s money was gone. He claims that bin Laden stated that his net loss in Sudan was $160 million, that Mohammed Loay Bayazid claims that Bin Laden left the country with about $50,000, and that Hassbulla Omer of Sudanese intelligence says he left the country with “nothing”.
Except that we’ve made Iraq into our mortal enemy, so a stable Iraq is just going to support terrorists or otherwise work against us more effectively. Before, Saddam was our enemy; now it’s the whole country.
If we fail to stabilize Iraq, the chaos and suffering will produce recruits for terrorism. If we succeed, we’ll have an enemy nation that will likely support terrorism, and probably try to build nukes when and if it recovers enough. If we put in a puppet dictator as Saddam II, that will recruit people to terrorism, and he’ll probably quietly support or ignore terrorism against us anyway, to divert anger from himself.
I see no plausible alternative that isn’t bad, for us and the Iraqis.
I’d be hesitant to condemn Petraeus as being the same as Powell. As much as he’s being used as an excuse here, I think there’s three critical differences to bear in mind:
-
Colin Powell was never the paragon of integrity and virtue and genius he was widely credited with. I’ll grant this is my opinion and others are entitled to disagree with me, but my reading of his record is that he was ALWAYS a careerist and always willing to kiss whatever ass needed kissing, even if that meant helping to bury the truth; see My Lai as an example. This is as opposed to Petraeus, who has a legitimately outstanding record of being a smart, insightful, and effective officer with nary a blemish on his integrity that I can find.
-
Powell was, in his role as Secretary of State, a civilian employee of, and controlled by, the President. Petraeus, at least, can use his uniform to be a bit more candid with the truth. And finally,
-
Powell simply lied to the UN and the world; there’s no getting around it. He knew, at the absolute, documented minimum, that his intelligence was extremely thin and was not as certain as he claimed it to be. Petraeus, on the other hand, didn’t say anything to Congress that isn’t true. His judgment on those limited matters that he’s responsible for is almost certainly as accurate as anyone’s could be. His calls for troop drawdowns would not really reduce the U.S. presence, at least not to anything lower than it was in, say, 2005. Whether any of this means an improvement in Iraq’s future or political stability (which are, of course, still hopelessly fucked) is a different question, and really not Petraeus’s job to determine. Blaming David Petraeus for this is kind of like hiring an exterminator, telling him he can’t use baits or sprays and is only allowed to stomp on the ants, and then when he comes to you and says “I’ve stomped a lot of ants” saying it’s his fault there are still ants in the woodwork.
Petraeus is a focal point now but he’s still just a soldier tasked with a specific mission and given very, very limited resources with which to do it, and he’s done about as good as job as humanly possible, really, and he’s reported with what sounded like honesty on how far he’s gotten. He’s not even the top soldier in the organization; he’s like five organizational steps below the asshole who started all this mess.
Powell was an active participant in the deception and treachery that started the Iraq war. Yes, I know, he’s supposedly the guy who tried to stop the Wolfowitzes and the Cheneys, and he supposedly fought them behind closed doors. Whatever; a reluctant accomplice is still an accomplice. If I drive the getaway car after you rob the bank but say “I don’t feel so good about doing this” I’m still an accessory. He joined the Bush team and stayed on the Bush team knowing they were planning war with Iraq. When Bush said he would go to war with Iraq only as a last resort, which was a baldfaced lie, Powell stood by him. When he was handed supposition, misdirection and guesswork and told to say it was ironclad evidence in front of the UN, he did as he was told. When it was revealed it was all bullshit, he cheerily supported Bush through re-election. Oh, it was okay for him to criticize the President in front of his offiers when the President was Bill Clinton and the subject was gay soldiers, but once it was George W. Bush and Dick Cheney committing war crimes, well, he kept his mouth shut until it was time to spout George’s lies. Only when the shit was piled neck-high and Bush was safely handed a second term did he resign, just in time to avoid the REAL public backlash. He was happy to plant the wind but he doesn’t want to reap the whirlwind.
David Petraeus hasn’t done anything like that and doesn’t deserve to be compared to Colin Powell, who in my opinion is a complete slimeball.
I would argue that this kind of redefines “Failed state” into something that really doesn’t match the definition of “Failed.”
Pakistan I would agree is not the best-functioning of all states, but what about Singapore?
I’d argue a state, in order to be considering a functioning state, is one that not only overwhelmingly controls affairs within its borders but is also governed by, or largely by, civilians.
That seems reasonable.
RickJay:
Your points are well taken. I would mention a relatively minor, but telling, incident: that the good General chose to offer an exclusive interview to Fox Gnaws, a wholly owned subsidiary of BushCo. In and of itself, this would be minor, but speaks volumes about the Commander of Candor’s function as an administration shill. I am also troubled by inconsistencies in his testimony. For instance, he claims that the amazing progress in Anbar could not have been predicted, and is little short of miraculous, but he predicted a trend line himself at the time.
As to his previous record before his annointment, I frankly don’t know, I’d never heard of him until the launching of the new! improved! war strategy. If he was such a widely acknowledged expert on “counterinsurgency” (whatever the hell that is…) then why was he not prominent before his acension?
Your criticisms of Powell are perhaps less than generous, but are soundly based on fact. I too was troubled by his lackluster performance regarding the My Lai horror. It is entirely possible that my positive regard for him is founded mostly on my impression of him as the only sane officer on the bridge. He could still do his country service by speaking out forthrightly and forcefully, rather than through surrogates, but seems to shy away. Alas.
Democratic principles? History is full of highly successful, effective, stable states that were not democratic in any sense. So is the contemporary world. Is Burma a “failed state”?
My definition is idiosyncratic. You are under no obligation to share, nor do I expect you to.
One might argue that the whole “reliable government based on firm democratic principles” thing situationally disqualifies the USA at the present moment.
In fact, it’s kind of surprising that it hasn’t already been argued, under the circumstances.
No argument. My love is not blind, but perhaps a bit near-sighted.
At this point, I don’t think its that saving Iraq is going to make things better in other countries so much is an attempt to merely keep things from becoming so much worse.
I think this about sums it up.
Given the state of things now, I’d certainly be very impressed.
You expect that the Bush Admin always went with the best and brightest and did not, instead, use other criteria to fill their job openings?
This resort to competence is the Bush Amdin’s version of desperate measures.
Perhaps. But if their judgement is so unsound, why should we trust it when it comes to judging competence? Why should we accept their judgement that Gen Petreaus is the deux ex machina? They’ve been wrong about everything else, but they are right about him?
I’m certainly not trusting the Bush Admin.
I made my own decision about Petraeus years ago.
One could argue the reverse-that we have been creating thousands of embittered young men, who blame the USA for the mess they are in. Unfortunately, I think the longer we stay the worse it will get. Look at the British-they have made their decision. Who is still in the “coalition of the willing” -us and a handful of bulgarians and poles?
Ahh, forget the Poles!
Because every time a stated goal turns out to be just another fantasy, another one that has some not-completely-ridiculous chance of happening somehow in the next six months is trotted out to replace it. Called “staying the course”, don’tcha know.
Every available fact, every historical precedent, every understanding of human nature we have says that destroying a country and killing large parts of its people just gets them angry and want to get revenge. But Bush and his acolytes still insist on a fantasy that The Terrorists are some evil force, bent on hatred of everything we stand for, that can somehow be wiped out, so that Good can conquer Evil. That mindset is as childish now as it has ever been - and too many people have died or been maimed in its cause.
We didn’t invade Iraq to stop terrorism. We are not concerned about the future threat of terrorism from Iraq. We are not currently occupying Iraq in order to stop terrorism. It’s a red herring, used for domestic political purposes to instill fear so we can continue the occupation. But the American people, for the most part, have become immune. But can you imagine if we were spending all this energy and blood to stop some hypothetical, inconsequential terrorist attack at some unspecified point in the future? With a military occupation? It is to laugh.
Argued on this board? Or in general? I can’t speak to the former, but I can to the latter, although the author would argue there’s no need for the qualifier of “currently.”
That’s what galls me – I live in a homeland now! What kind of shit is that? I don’t want to live in a homeland. I’d prefer to live in a motherland, that jibes more with American values. You know the phrase: as American as baseball, mom, and apple pie. Although I never quite understood that one, since I’m pretty sure every country in history has had quite a lot of mothers hanging around…but no matter, motherland > homeland.
Iraq is becoming more like Vietnam every day. General Patreaus is right in that we can win military victories - in case anyone forgot we won the war back in 2003 - but the point of the surge wasn’t to win in the battlefield; we were supposed to be creating an environment that made it possible for Iraq to form a stable government. And Iraq clearly doesn’t have a stable government and there are no signs one is on the horizon.
So if Iraq isn’t going to turn itself into a stable country, what’s the goal? Are we supposed to just stay there and try to keep American casualties low while fighting with various insurgent groups?