Other Democrats, what do you think of this? My initial reaction, frankly, was that I’m just surprised he said it. But I think he’s right, and I don’t think I’m alone. But I’m curious. Is it right? Could it be too negative? Too strong? I don’t know, that’s what I’m interested in hearing discussed.
And there’s more, obviously, but that’s the bit relevant to what I’m asking.
I’ve held this opinion since at least March of 2003, I’m surprised it took this long for a politician to come out and say it.
Of course, I don’t have concrete evidence that it’s true, but I’d love to see cites.
Is this a surprise? Anyone with three brain cells to rub together vis-a-vis foreign policy realizes that Bush’s Iraqi Misadventure™ is the greatest thing to hit Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorism since the invention of the waterproof Koran. “See? SEE? We told you the western devils were out to destroy us and seize our land, and here they are doing it! How can you passively sit by now? Join today!”
The only people who think Bush’s Iraqi Fuckup has helped reduce terrorism are either the folks in the Administration or their legion of know-nothing apologists. The only novelty here is that Kerry is a high-profile politician with the cojones to finally recognize the elephant in the room that everyone else has been ignoring.
One of many, many, many elephants.
I agree with Kerry. It seems like such an obvious thing that I’m surprised that this seems to be the first time it has been mentioned. Is it really the first?
I thought this when we went into Afghanistan. I told a co-worker that this was a war, the war on terror, that we would never win. He called me a traitor. While I tended to support the invasion of Afghanistan to rout the Taliban and find bin Laden (where is he, by the way?), I knew then that we would birth a whole new generation of terrorists by killing the mothers and fathers of future terrorists. I got into terrible arguments with this person who wouldn’t even consider such a thing. And then we go and do it again in Iraq!
I think the problem is not so much the ‘recruitment’ of terrorists, whatever that means. Instead it is the sacrifice of legitimacy.
Look the US had a legitimate beef but it overstepped the mark in a number of grievous and obvious ways.
How much quiet acquiescence and passive support this will channel to the tiny minority of radical activitists is anyone’s guess.
So the worldview doesn’t gel. The US has to deal with a world that isn’t neatly bifurcated: Terrorist/Loyal Ally of the US. Instead losing the middle ground is the real problem with Bush’s policies.
Ted Kennedy was saying this well before Iraq was invaded.
Lil’ Georgie should learn to respect his elders.
Bolding is mine. A little father to son talk about diplomacy would be in order.
I’m reading Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror by a CIA analyst who was once in charge of the hunt for Bin Laden. He argues exactly the point that Kerry made, that this war has mobilized Islamist fighters in the same way the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan did.
He said Bush’s response to 9/11 fulfilled Bin Laden’s “wildest dream.”
A recent Zogby poll shows that it’s the policy.
Frustration with American foreign policy has dercreased the positive and increased the negative of the US in parts of the ME. The number one answers about why the US has come to be seen as such an unwelcome giant all involve foreign policy- relations with Israel re the Palestinians and Iraq.
From the summaries:
• Overall favorable ratings toward the US have declined in the past two years.
• Attitudes toward American values, people, and products remain mostly favorable,
but have also declined in the past two years.
• Attitudes toward US policy in Iraq and Palestine are extremely low, in the single digit range
• Attitudes toward US policy on terrorism are somewhat higher, though still quite
low. These too, have declined precipitously in the past two years.
• US policy is the major factor that accounts for the low US favorable ratings and the decline in these ratings.
• Most Arabs have only indirect or received knowledge about America. The
principle source of that knowledge comes from the Arab media.
• Arabs who have learned about America by visiting the US, knowing Americans or
watching American television programs have somewhat more favorable views
about US values, people and products.
These factors have no impact on Arab attitudes toward US policy, which remains
low and drives overall favorables down.
• Arabs, whose principle source of knowledge about the US, comes from Arab
commentary or Arab media have somewhat less favorable attitudes toward
American values, people and products, except in Saudi Arabia, where these
attitudes actually are somewhat higher among those who watch Arab television.
It serves to seperate various aspects and measure the impact of these things.
The critical moment occurs when a young person decides that killing americans is a good idea. The more of these moments that occur, the larger the pool of potential terrorists.
I believe that some of this was covered in a State Dept report last year.
from the Pew Research Foundation:
Approval rate of the U.S. in Jordan, 2002: 25%
Approval rate of the U.S. in Jordan, 2004: 1%
Disapproval rate of the U.S. in Indonesia, 2002: 36%
Disapproval rate of the U.S. in Indonesia, 2004: 83%
Approval rate of the U.S. in Turkey, 2002: 30%
Approval rate of the U.S. in Turkey, 2004: 15%
Disapproval rate of the U.S. in Nigeria, 2002: 11%
Disapproval rate of the U.S. in Nigeria, 2002: 36%
Page 133 (pdf)
Only in America could it come as a surprise that more and more people hate us. Even the 9-11 Commission said in its report that terrorists hate us for what we do, not for what we are. All this Bush “they hate are freedoms” rhetoric is absolute nonsense.
Wes Clark said in 2002 that an unjustified war in Iraq would supercharge recruiting for Al Qaeda. Perhaps the better question is, does anyone now think that Clark is wrong? Because if he isn’t, Kerry is right.
Finally Kerry has said that the emperor has no clothes. I don’t think there’s any question that Bush has been the best recruiting tool that AlQaeda ever had. Even if they catch Osama, it’s like the proverbial snake that grows seven new heads whenever one is cut off. Bush’s policies have emboldened terrorists and alienated our allies. It’s about time the Democrats were able to spot the bleeding elephant in the snow.
This is all that’s necessary. For people to let it happen around them. If there’s no one who can present good counter-arguments in the cafes then those who advocate bloodshed etc will be unrestrained y public opinion. It’s not necessary to mobilize the entire population- just to render a bulk of it abivalent or otherwise passive.
Every time someone young says, “Death to America,” and there’s no elder there to say, “Settle down and drink your tea,” the terrorists win.
Even if someone older realizes the implications of such statements are blodshed and tears, if they don’t have a good counter-argument they will say nothing, or worse yet join in.
The prevailing attitude in a society has impact on the likelihood of certain behaviors arising within its members. If the attitude toward teh US is, “They deserve it,” then no one will stop what they think’s coming to us.
Those who’re terrorists now are prob’ly beyond conversion; but, those who have yet to make such a committment are reachable.
It’s not enough to wipe out terrorists as they arise, there must be valiant efforst to prevent the ocurence of future terrorists to take their place.
This is all that’s necessary. For people to let it happen around them. If there’s no one who can present good counter-arguments in the cafes then those who advocate bloodshed etc will be unrestrained y public opinion. It’s not necessary to mobilize the entire population- just to render a bulk of it abivalent or otherwise passive.
Every time someone young says, “Death to America,” and there’s no elder there to say, “Settle down and drink your tea,” the terrorists win.
Even if someone older realizes the implications of such statements are blodshed and tears, if they don’t have a good counter-argument they will say nothing, or worse yet join in.
The prevailing attitude in a society has impact on the likelihood of certain behaviors arising within its members. If the attitude toward teh US is, “They deserve it,” then no one will stop what they think’s coming to us.
Those who’re terrorists now are prob’ly beyond conversion; but, those who have yet to make such a committment are reachable.
It’s not enough to wipe out terrorists as they arise, there must be valiant efforst to prevent the occurence of future terrorists to take their place.
I’m not so sure about this. Recall Rumsfeld’s ‘long hard slog’ memo’s discussion of ‘metrics’. There’re those who say that there’s a Straussian plan behind the plan going on. The purported plot is to get the US inextricably entangled in the ME. Then we will have to be commtted to remaking the area whether we want to or not.
This lengthy delay is some of what disheartens me about our politics in general. Surely these sophisticated DC types were able to see these things before us provincial yokels in the backwaters of Arkansas. But …
Most Dopers understand and agree with Kerry… the problem is getting the average US voter that has a short attention span and a tendency to enjoy military might displays to understand that.
To them its simple… I’ve followed conservatives in many boards: Bush is killing a lot of arabs… a lot of these arabs are terrorists. Potential recruits wouldn’t want to be killed and would be dissuaded. The US is showing muscle and keeping terrorists low.
So how do you make these guys understand that suicidal terrorists don't fear death ? (yep should be self explanatory) That killing 400 terrorists and then AQ getting 1000 new angry recruits = 600 more terrorists. That arabs have pride too ! I've tried to argue with no results... way too many americans think terrorism is a military problem to be solved with military means.Kerry agreeing with Dopers is part of what I consider a good sign. 
Even if that’s true, major combat in Iraq ended a year ago, and at this point polls are showing a majority of people don’t think it was worth it.
Still somehow Bush claims the intel was bad and he had good intentions… that an evil dictator was taken down… even while still claiming WMD will be found… duh… Polls still indicate Bush wins the election… so Iraq isn’t spoiling Bush’s party enough.
The recruitment poster for al-Qaeda is not bin Laden pointing directly like Uncle Sam, but the thumbs-up soldier peeking under a pile of prisoners’ bodies like it was some Mapplethorpe statue.
Can I get a cite on that? I haven’t heard him say anything of the sort in a good long time.
No, they don’t. Polls indicate things are up in the air and that either guy could win.
It’s the same not-really-lying insinuation crap still, marley23. Today’s Talking Points Memo reports:
Kerry is just saying what many of us did, well **before ** the invasion, as one of the many reasons it was a stupid idea. He’ll get the usual “traitor” and “crazy” crap from the usual gasbags, but they won’t be able to say why he’s wrong.
Rashak, not all polls agree, but the bulk of them point to a Kerry lead right now. If your point is that Bush could actually win despite himself, well, yes, that thought is disturbing.