Well, I was certainly all for the WoT (such as it is) when it was about knocking over Afghanistan for harboring ObL and other AQ personnel. But I never have seen a valid connection linking Iraq to AQ.
The problem being that the President needs to be seen as doing something about it. And spending hundreds of billions of dollars does have that going for it. Whether it’s effective or not is a whole other matter. I’d certainly say that the people of Madrid have doubts about whether GWII have managed to contain Al Qaeda.
The easiest fact to see is that conventional military action is not effective against an enemy who is decentralized and not geographically controlled like a nation-state. The WoT is one that is properly fought with intelligence and assassination.
Discover the location of your target
Kill him
Profit! (sorry, couldn’t resist)
It would astonish me greatly if Al Qaeda didn’t have other plans in action against US targets in plan now. I certainly would if I were them.
Heck, I’ll give you an outline right now. I outlined this a while back to a pal who’s in military intelligence and he didn’t think little of it.
Skip blowing up buildings. That’s flashing but short term.
Instead go after targets in the ME, Africa, and South America…oil infrastructure.
Destroy refineries, transhipment platforms, tankers, well heads, and pipelines. Disrupt the international flow of oil.
Wait for gas prices in the US to shoot up to $5 per gallon.
Sit back and watch as the recession intensifies and the United States no longer has the economic power or political will to continue the war.
Oh, and lest you all think I’m off in my Condi Rice predictions here’s some quotes from Howard Kurtz’s Media Notes today:
While Condi’s been more visible than any other individual Administration figure, she’s hardly been out there alone. There’s quite a flock of 'em quoted in DeLong’s Circular Firing Squad of Flying Monkeys piece. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfie, they’ve all been out there. Colin Powell was on TV about this in just the past day or so.
Yeah, but Rove can’t fire her; only Bush can do that. And I’m betting he won’t do so soon enough to contain the damage: he won’t be able to bring himself to do so until the necessity is politically obvious to even his small brain, and by then the fire will be out of control.
This is like saying, “I support our fight only as long as I agree with your commander strategy.”
I am confused: are we spending too much or too little? Because I keep hearing both accusations. Also, is alQ moving into Iraq or elsewhere?
I don’t wish to denigrate your insight and experience in the matters of National Security, but if you indeed have good knowledge of these matters, you must know that there are also such realities as “chain of command”, “need to know”, etc.
Leaving aside the issue that media once again is covering the inquiry of a national tragedy as some sort of sporting event, why is it so hastily assumed that C. Rice is going to come out as nothing but loser? What if she will come out a clear winner? Is it not possible?
Oh, she might. But it’s really a matter of positioning between Clarke and the Administration with Rice as point right now. And so far she’s coming off worse in the press…and that can be fatal. Public perception is reality as far as political viability goes.
Well, we have this thing called ‘democracy’. I, and all of us, have the right to support and not support the administration and their actions as we see fit. Suggesting that it’s better to blindly support the administration as the ‘commander strategy’ is not only foolish but an abrogation of my responsibilities as a citizen of the United States.
Be confused. I don’t think I’ve ever said we were spending too much on national security. What I said was that the hundreds of billions of dollars will, prima facie, not be cost effective as a means of reducing the threat of terrorism. Call me a businessman but I always look at bang-for-buck. And a much cheaper operation following the overthrow on Afghanistan targeted on intel and destruction of AQ cells would have gotten the job done cheaper. Instead we have bells and whistles (apparently) signifying little in Iraq.
I expect you and I both have the same access to information that classified at this point. The real difference is that I’m not willing to assume that ‘older and wiser’ (such as it is) heads know more so I should just carry on. I believe that elected leaders are accountable to the electorate and should continually prove that they’re leading in a good direction. That’s why we have opinion polls and suchlike. It indicates whether the overall electorate (or populate…it’s not the same thing) believes the administration is doing a good job of reflecting their beliefs and interests.
And, FWIW, I’m a member of the media and spent some time covering politics in Washington, DC. I don’t claim this gives me superior knowledge of policy issues. But I do believe I’m better informed that the average bear on how the news cycle works and how the spin in the press can build up or break down public figures.
JC - the Daily Howler has also been talking about Condi’s kid-glove treatment in the press. What’s the deal here? (It shouldn’t take a relative of a 9/11 victim to be the one to point out that, no matter what Condi says, there was intelligence suggesting AQ might use planes as missiles.) But maybe that’s finally changing.
BTW, here’s the Center for American Progress’ take on Condi:
You are leading me on! Already I suffer “sharp and shooting pains”, now you are killing me with suspence! But I’ll follow you…
I based my comment on the “entirety” of the quote that was given, nothing else. Of course there was a bit more to it:
So, now that they killed the whole bunch of us, is exactly the time to get on their good side?
The ideology that convinced 19 young men that the best thing they can do with their lives is to slit throats of inncents, use airplanes full of innocents as missiles, direct them into buildings full of innocents? The ideology that brought many people to celebrate in the streets when it happenend? How the hell can you inflame that any further? Actually, it was all downhill from there.
He said many things, including that we are cowards and will run away from the “real” fight.
Just realize, this is our erstwhile “terror czar” speaking. The wizard. The guru. The guy who presided over fighting terror through administrations. Is it any wonder that 9-11 took place? This man had to be out of the job a decade ago.
I assume that was adressed to me. If so, apparently it was in reference to my statement,
, which was made in response to your statement,
If so, I criticized you for trying to have it both ways: support the WoT, but object to the strategy. I believe sincerely that this is the greatest country precisely because one can, and should, say anything one wants (I said that many times on this board, do I need to make it a permanent disclaimer?). However, once you join the fight on a certain side in any other capacity than “the commander”, you have to be prepared to follow orders. If you are not ready to do so, better not to join the fight: there is plenty of opportunity to comment on the events from the sidelines. Indeed, being a “conscientious objector” might be useful and noble stance; joining the ranks and sniping at superiors is worse than useless.
I think my “responsibilities as a citizen” are to think, constantly educate myself, make up my own mind and follow through on what I believe is right. Sorry for all the pathos.
I think you missed my post up there that answered your previous one.
I might note that, even having thought the invasion of Afghanistan was a good idea, anything beyond that invasion that I feel is a bad idea I have the responsibility to say so.
Frankly, I’m confused. Do you say that just because I think well of one policy choice by an administration I am, from that point forward, no longer capable (ethically or somesuch) of criticizing a further policy choice by that same administration?
Wouldn’t that be dangerous? Suppose the next step in the war on terror concerned arresting Americans of the street and locking them up without access to legal representation simply by claiming the person under arrest is a ‘material witness’ or ‘actively involved’ with terror groups? Should I also then support that simply because I believed that knocking over the Taliban was a damn fine idea?
I hate to disappoint, but there’s no call for suspense. I was just curious. Good thing I asked you too, 'cause I’da guessed all wrong. I really misunderstood what you’d written.
See, here I suspected that you had the type of objections that could be backed up with some cited facts presented to make a case that either we didn’t have “a window of opportunity” or that we still had “a window of opportunity”.
Instead, part of the test you used to see if the qoute posessed the quality of inanity was a temporal one. You’re saying that now, after “they killed the whole bunch of us,” is, in fact, not an appropriate “time to get on their good side.”
But, to be fair, this was a kinda tricky thing for me to try and guess. I mean, the quote uses the phrase “Islamic world,” and you equate “Islamic World” with “al Qaeda (et al)” or “terrorists” or whatever other phrase that could reasonably be referred to by the pronoun “they” in your clause, “they killed the whole bunch of us.” How was I to know that you’d equate a population of more than a billion people with the actions of less than one hundredth of one percent of that population?
Even though al Qaeda et al may desire the eminence of being emissaries of the “Islamic World” so much that they’ve convinced themselves that they have it, it’s eminently reasonable to doubt that al Qaeda’s as representative of the Islamic world as aQ likes to let on.
So the only rebuttal to this part I have to uphold my end of the debate is a very dull and undoubtedly disappointing one.
Here it goes:
“al Qaeda et al” does not equal the “Islamic world”
“terrorists” does not equal the “Islamic world”
the “Islamic world” does not equal “al Qaeda et al”
the “Islamic world” does not equal “terrorists”
I’d’ve expected a straightforward counter-assertion about:
how the number of young Muslims who morph into “radical Islamic terrorists” isn’t actually increasing; or
if it is increasing, it’s not increasing as a result of US actions; and/or
if it is increasing, then there would’ve been a signifigantly larger percentage “rate of increase in the rate” of young Muslims morphing into “radical Islamic terrorists” if not for US actions.
The reason I say that I expected only a straightforward counter-assertion’s because, as per SECDEF’s memo, authoritative metrics on these sorts of clandestine events are hard to come by, and even then they’re dodgy.
However, I was wrong, again.
Here you made a great point in that suicidal terrorists are likely to be as inflamed as they’re ever going to get. (Candidly, I’m afraid the power of ideology includes the capacity to incite humans to acts even more thoroughly suicidal than’s yet been seen. Is this fear a generational thing?)
However, given the rest of the quote, and Mr. Clarke’s specific reference to the “Islamic world” instead of the “19 young men” I don’t think it’s fair to expect
me to geuss you’d say what you did. So, if it’s all the same to you, I’d like a do-over on that geuss.
I know that as far as the debating goes, I’m slogging. I don’t even have new rebuttal. Instead, I’ve only a rerun of the previously recorded rebuttal contrasting the Islamic world with al Qaeda et al and terrorists.
See, no suspense.
As much as I’d like to cede this point to you along with the previous one, I just can’t. An ideology can become inflamed beyond inciting whooping schadenfreude.
Personally, I think that I deserve at least partial credit here. This could reasonably be construed as a terse expression of what I’d geussed and alluded to earlier- a case that we didn’t have “a window of opportunity,” as such after September 11. I say only partial credit because, honestly, if I were making a test for paranormal psychic abilities, I would want to structure the criteria for a “hit,” or correct “geuss” to exclude the geuss I made about your objections.
I’d’ve gotten this one more or less spot on. Full credit.
Even though we must do somethings that UbL has predicted we would do, not everything that we have had to do has “played right into the hands of al-Qaeda.” Mr. Clarke is expressing the idea that some of the things we did that UbL predicted we would do, we did not have to do. And some of these things that UbL predicted we would do and which we did not have to do “played right into the hands of al-Qaeda.”
While UbL’s prediction that “we are cowards and will run away from the “real” fight,” may be similar to, it is not necessarily the same thing as, what Mr. Clarke referred to as playing “right into the hands of al-Qaeda.”
I hope that the murkiness of the link between UbL’s reported “coward” comment and Mr. Clarke’s comment is clear.
Not at all. I just perceived your change of opinion as too facile. I’d like to see the doubt, the insecurity, the anxiety, the mental anguish. I can’t feel your pain! Why am I the only one suffering here?
Not too bad, all the assurances to the contrary notwithstanding. All them words you know! But I always knew you are the smart one and I’m just good looking…
Still, I am not quite convinced yet. It seems your whole post is based on accepting at face value this one asinine statement,
given to us by fired burocrat as an acknowledged fact. I asked for a cite on this two times already, but three times is a charm, so,
Ci-i-i-i-i-te!
(I’m sorry, but the pains are getting intolerable.)
Why is it that nobody is giving me one single cite, yet I am expected to provide cites for all sorts of arcane connections that didn’'t even occur to me in the first place?
While we are on Mr. Clarke, I’d like to revise my diagnosis of his mental state. I was wrong. It isn’t childishness he is afflicted with. It is senility.
Because you painted me as some sort of anti-Islamic bigot, I’d like to say that I admire Islamic culture. You know how Gospels are called “The greatest story ever told”? I like the lives of Mohammed and first Caliphs much better. I don’t relish the deaths of great many innocent Muslims. The point is that the State must respond decisively to terrorism. That’s what Saladin has done against the Crusaders. Saladin was running the most prosperous and progressive polity of those times (the Caliphate) and most Crusaders were the terrorists: plundering, murdering, fanatically sanctimonious brutes. So he chased them out of Palestine and beheaded the worst of them with his own hands. Many innocents died, too; but there was no other way. Thousand years passed and tables have turned, but principles of good governance remain unchanged. Arabs understand those things very well, btw. Much better than many Western intellectuals.
As to your original “request” for a citation:
Clarke was clearly paraphrasing an opinion, not quoting anyone. However, following the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, nearly every political leader in the Islamic world expressed shock at the attack, support for the people killed and injured, and condemnation of the perpetrators. In fact, there were only one or two leaders who did not publicly condemn the attacks.
Based on that situation, Clarke has made a logical inference. (Certainly a better inference than Bush’s idea that if we go storming into a sovereign nation (one that is already divided among multiple ethnic groups) without either a clear plan or the support of the rest of the world, we will magically transform the region into a hotbed of democracy.)
