Might Bush's Bad Cop be good for the US in the long haul?

Great Debates
21

From CarnalK

And what would constitute ‘reasonable proof’? We showed them plenty of evidence that AQ WAS in fact in Afghanistan. My understanding was that we asked not just for ObL but for any and all AQ leadership and members. BTW, do you have a cite for the Taliban saying “Show us some reasonable evidence and we’ll hand him over”? I’m curious, not questioning.

As to examples…you are wrong. The US pretty much stayed out of the ground aspects…we certainly didn’t commit to a full scale ground war in Afghanistan. Mostly we did what we did with air power and special forces, with a very limited committement wiht ground troops. So, what message DID SH get out of that? Certainly not that the US was willing to totally commit itself in a ground war. Also, I think that SH didn’t exactly correlate what we did in Afghanistan with what we intended to do with him.

From CarnalK

Well, I’m not sure your point here. Why would it have helped us ‘catch’ SH? As to ObL…well, we certainly gave it a good shot in Afghanistan. Whats your point though? Afaik ObL hasn’t turned up either officially or unofficially in any other country. There for, no OTHER country is harboring him. So that part DID in fact work…no? Same with SH I suppose, if this is your point…he certainly hasn’t turned up in Syria or any other country. At a guess, most of the countries in the region (if not the world) wouldn’t touch either of them with a 10 foot pole atm…and for the very realistic reason that they know a ton of bricks would be falling on their head if they did.

-XT

22

Well furt I’m familiar with the concept that the entire world should bend quickly to the will of the mighty, fair enough. It’s just wrongheaded to call it a “Bad Cop” act, more like “Rogue Cop”. Didn’t Kissinger call it the “Madman” policy?

I don’t think all the social ramifications were explored in “Dirty Harry” but he got things done dammit!
:slight_smile:

23

Evidence that ObL was involved in 9/11. My quickest search link

Well someones helping SH so everyone’s not scared off. My point is it doesn’t seem to be a useful strategy re actually catching militants. I was merely speculating as to that being an actual Bush admin wish/strategy re Afghanistan.

24

From CarnalK

IMO he’s basically helping himself. The man is/was a billionare after all, and also the sole dictator of a nation state for decades…a nation he built all kinds of hidy holes in, one he turned into a vast armory of weapons and caches of money and supplies. In addition, appearently he has been a paranoid for decades as well, adept at staying alive in a hostile environment. If anyone is currently helping him out (I assume you mean another nation state, or some other powerful group) they are doing a hell of a job keeping it under cover. And thats kind of the point…he’s on the run without any VISIBLE support from any other nation state. So I guess it DID work out, to a certain degree.

As to the Bush wish/strategy re Afghanistan…I don’t think the two are related to be honest. If you could give more of your thoughts on what you think the link is, it would be helpful. I see them as totally separate. Afghanistan was the US trying to basically react to 9/11 and hunt down ObL and AQ…run him/them to ground and destroy their organization. The Taliban was simply in the way.

Iraq was all about SH as well as showing US power and commitment in the region…IMO. Afghanistan, for the reasons I gave you earlier (was an air war, limited ground commitment, etc) was NOT a true demonstration of US power in the region (at least, IMO the Bush administration didn’t think so. Personally I think they were wrong, but thats just me).
Trying not to turn this into an Afghanistan hijack…

As to your assertion that the Taliban was willing to hand over ObL IF the US gave ‘concrete’ proof…thats ridiculous. ObL was certainly a prime suspect then (the kind the police arrest and send to trial), and the Taliban knew it. We had enough circumstantial evidence (not even counting ObL basically confessing the deed) to arrest the man if this were simply a criminal case. In addition, we KNEW there were AQ terrorist camps in Afghanistan. The US/Britain basically gave them an ultimatum…turn over members of AQ or suffer the consequences. There WAS no negotiations.

If they REALLY wanted to avoid war (and stay in power incidentally) they would have turned him over to the US…or, they would have offered to turn him over to a neutral third party (say Russia, or China) while the evidence was compiled (as a sop to their ridiculous position about him being innocent). At that point, again, there WAS no negotiations…it was turn over ObL and other members of AQ or face the fire…and they CHOSE to face the fire.

Why? On the surface of the thing, its insane for an Afghanistan to court war with a major power like the US over…a technicality. So, why would they do so? Part of it might have been fear of AQ of course. At a guess though, their main reason was because they WANTED to have the US attack them (I think this is what ObL wanted as well…I think THIS was his plan in fact). Again…why? Well, because they either thought the US was bluffing, the US would merely toss a few tomahawks their way or an air strike or two and they figured BFD, or they thought they could win in a ground war, bleeding the Americans and British white and forcing them to bolt for home eventually. They beat the USSR after all…why not those pussies in the US?

It was a serious (even fatal) miscalculation on the part of the Taliban IMO. At a guess, I’m betting they are regretting their stance now, ya…I bet they wished they had of played ball, or at least made a serious effort to avoid war.

-XT

25

War is barely controlled madness, and the message that is being sent is that we DO consider harboring, funding, consorting, or playing Jai-alai with known anti-american terrorists to be grounds for war, and we WILL prosecute. And yes, once a war is underway, you DO bend quickly to the will of the mighty, which is why you don’t want to start wars with them.

The “Madman Policy” thinking was more similar to what caused this situation. As I understand it, the idea was that you deliberately left your likely response to provocation undefined; people were never sure what you would do. They were scared of you, but you’d still keep your options open. That is the opposite of a Bad Cop approach. I’d like everyone to know exactly how seriously we take terrorism, and exactly what the consequences are for playing footsie with the Jihad Club. Once that’s firmly established beyond any doubt in anyone’s mind, then we can be Good Cop. But not until.

26

Do you have any support for this assertion? Because my understanding of the situation was that the reason the US didn’t “finish” the Persian Gulf War was because we were following the mandate of the UN – e.g., the war was about removing Iraqis from Kuwait, not about overthrowing Saddam’s government. Marching into Baghdad in 1991 would have brought a sh*tstorm down on the US for overstepping its bounds.

27

Which shows the stupidity of the mandate. Should we have stopped at the German border in 1945, having restored the status quo?

The UN has invented the concept of “war without cost”, where a nation can wage war and if they win, great. If they lose, they really lose nothing because they will recover all their territory and keep power. This has emboldened wannabe Hitlers all over the world.

28

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by furt *
NOT if it’s just empty saber-rattling. Nor do I advocate an all-tough-all-the-time approach.

[/quote

That’s news to me.

I certainly wasn’t advocating pacifism, I just don’t think pre-emptive strikes on nations that are no real threat to us solely for the purpose of “sending a message” to the world is effective foreign policy.

That’s a strawman; I never said “everyone is bound to get along with one another if we’d just sit down and talk.” That doesn’t mean we have to go nutzo attacking every country that looks at us sideways (or doesn’t).

Like I said, I see no evidence that such a strategy has paid off at all. I understand your opinion, I just disagree with it.

29

I disagree. We are dealing with people who are not only willing, but are happy to die for their cause. Do you honestly think such people have any fear of U.S. retaliation, especially when we don’t even go after the right target? The only effect the Iraq invasion is going to have on terrorists is to increase their resolve. The U.S. has been throwing its weight around for a long time; everyone was already well aware of what we can do. You’re expecting the logical response of backing down in the face of our superior military power, but refusing to consider the possibility that they will respond not with logic, but with anger.

30

Amazing how such a short post can contain so much stupidity and ignorance.

  1. By 1945 I suppose you mean the second World War. This had its roots in many things, including the settlement terms from the first World War. It started when Germany invaded Poland, and Britain honoured its treaty obligations to protect Poland.
    Since you obviously don’t know, the UN was not involved.

  2. By your use of ‘we’ above, I assume you mean the US alone, since this would fit in with your behaviour of considering everything from the US point of view only.
    The US was technically neutral for several years, but joined in when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.
    The Soviet Union alone suffered about 15 million casualties (including civilians). Millions of Jews were slaughtered in an attempt at genocide. The US took the terribly difficult decision to drop atomic weapons on civilians.
    How charitable of you to dismiss all these deaths as nothing - simply ‘stopping at the border would restore the status quo’, would it? :rolleyes:

Perhaps you meant ‘The Bush Administration has invented the concept of “war without cost”, where a nation can wage war and if they win, great (they get all the oil contracts). If they lose, they really lose nothing because the US electorate will still think Bush was fighting the War on Terrorism. This has emboldened wannabe terrorists all over the world.’

31

**1. By 1945 I suppose you mean the second World War. This had its roots in many things, including the settlement terms from the first World War. It started when Germany invaded Poland, and Britain honoured its treaty obligations to protect Poland.
Since you obviously don’t know, the UN was not involved.
**

Uh, I do know. Had there been a UN, they probably would have called for a halt to Allied offensive actions as soon as they reached the German border.

**How charitable of you to dismiss all these deaths as nothing - simply ‘stopping at the border would restore the status quo’, would it?
**

Did it bring back all the Kuwaitis Saddam killed, or coalition troops for that matter? What possible justification in your mind was there for the UN’ insistence that he not be deposed?

Perhaps you meant 'The Bush Administration has invented the concept of “war without cost”, where a nation can wage war and if they win, great (they get all the oil contracts). If they lose, they really lose nothing because the US electorate will still think Bush was fighting the War on Terrorism. This has emboldened wannabe terrorists all over the world.'

The theory applies to the US as well as to anyone else, since the UN is not very effective. What little effectiveness it does have is mainly applied to restraining Western nations while leaving dictators a free hand.

32

That is easily the most ridiculous statement I have seen on the SDMB.
Does your hatred of the UN blind you to the fact since it was not even formed in 1945, you have no clue what its policy would have been?
Do you not know the difference between the reasons for WW2 and this Iraq invasion?

Oh, so you think that this war was about avenging casualties from a war 10 years previously? :confused:
Are you perhaps the only person on the planet who thinks this?

Could you provide a cites for:

a) Bush announcing that the forthcoming war was about deposing Saddam (not those imaginary WMD’s)
b) the UN passing a resolution that Saddam not be deposed

Or is this all in your imagination? (like your stupendous assertion above)

Ah, more vivid imagination. I like the way you decide to start insulting the UN by saying it’s ineffective, then realise you will look silly, so swiftly announce that the UN is effective in one area only - controlling the Western nations. Just make it up as you go.

But do feel free to give cites for your silly allegations. Which dictators, which UN resolutions etc.
You do know what a cite is, don’t you? (Clue: it’s not saying how the UN would behave before it was formed).
Do particularly point to how the UN ‘restrained’ Bush from invading Iraq. (That argument should be really worth seeing.)

33

**That is easily the most ridiculous statement I have seen on the SDMB.
Does your hatred of the UN blind you to the fact since it was not even formed in 1945, you have no clue what its policy would have been?
Do you not know the difference between the reasons for WW2 and this Iraq invasion?
**

The discussion is not over the differences between WWII and the current Iraq war, but between WWII and the 1991 Gulf War. THe causes were similar: one country invaded and annexed another. The responses were vastly different. What I want to know is why? Well, we know why, the UN restrained the coalition. Do you think if the UN had been around in 1945 they would have done differently? I think not.

Do particularly point to how the UN ‘restrained’ Bush from invading Iraq. (That argument should be really worth seeing.)

Did Saddam go to the UN and deliberate for months about the need to invade Kuwait? What about the other 23 wars that took place since the formation of the UN without UN approval?

34 
When the world denies support to the Iraq Adventure and when they don't donate money to occupy Iraq they are saying "dont interfere in something we regard important" too: International Order, UN and multilateralism. The US could have "reminded" them without hurting so bad relations... which in the end is self defeating against terrorism.

Furt, the major problem of your analysis are that they are always about what the US wants... what the US needs... what the US can do. Never what others are interested in. Bush's greatest mistake is seeing everything in Black and White. When the Chinese Delegations showed up soon after Bush in other Asian countries the comment was that it was way more productive. Why ? Because Bush goes on and on about terrorism... these countries care little about Al Qaeda. The Chinese delegation was all about Business and regional issues that were very relevant. (Check Newsweek's Zakaria) The US is spending too much money and time with Al Qaeda and too little with important things.

Bush has become a one trick pony... the great terrorism fighter. (As far as other countries are concerned.. US voters have a different possible view.)

So back to the OP... will this help the US long term ? I think not. This was the wake up call that balance of power is necessary always. That the US can go despostic and overbearing like any other empire. The image of the benign giant is gone... naturally the next more reasonable president will have huge amounts of good will and will be a breeze of fresh air to the world... but he will have to ammends and repair a lot of damage. 

Consequences ? People will deal way more pragmatically with the US no matter who is the boss... Europe will seek more independent military power. Asia will sure spend more in defense and alliances. Does this mean the US will spend less in Defense ? Nope... on the contrary... this means the US won't be so far ahead in any theater than it was before... if the US accepts that reality and cuts back spending is of course internal politics... but the result is that other countries either through the UN or through regional blocs will try to counterbalance US hegemony.

 Overspending by Bush might also result in a long term reluctance of depending on the US dollar. This might lead to the Euro becoming the standard international currency with or instead of the dollar. This means the US will have less luxury of not balancing their spending and just printing more money. Which means the super strong US economy will lose fuel...
35

You do know that Iraq and SH had nothing to do with 9/11.

You do know that the war in Iraq had nothing to do with terrorists - apparently it was about freeing those poor Iraqi’s from SH’s rule.

So what you are saying is that because an atrocity was commited on 9/11 you can do what you like to who you like and not expect to be criticised for it?

36

adaher your analogy is twisted. It might fit if you talked about stopping at the German border after Poland not the entire conquest of Europe.

So if we had repelled Germany from Poland then instituted no-go zones in northern and southern Germany would we have stopped Hitler? Well it apparently had Saddam stopped until the coup de grace, so maybe.

37

Well get settled for a long wait because most people remember that the U.S has a long history of supporting terrorists and terror states. Or do you deny that the US likes to play footsie with El Salvador death squads?

38

not to mention the publicly lauded Contras.

So we’ve successfully got the word out: be sneakier! :wink:

I don’t remember hearing all this circumstantial evidence. And the video of ObL bragging about it to some moneymen… I’m not really sure of when that came out. Note that part of the problem was that the US was refusing to deal directly with the Taliban. Instead insisting on going through Pakistani diplomats.

Anyhoo, I think all this obsfucation actually proves my point, the US is not sending any “clear message” about anything. Because I can tell you even if you don’t remember/disregard the Taliban offer or SH allowing the inspecters full access, people in the Arab and Muslim worlds(and probably Europe and Asia for that matter) do.

39

Oh, you think the cause of WW2 was Germany invading Poland?
Have you ever studied any history?
Do the terms ‘Versailles agreement’ ‘hyperinflation’ and ‘Reichstag fire’ mean anything to you?

I find your statement ‘the UN restrained the Gulf War coalition’ particularly worrying.
Do you know what the UN is?
Do you know what the Security Council is?
Do you know what the military strength of the UN is?
Do you know if the US is a member of the UN?
Do you know who was in the Gulf war coalition?
Do you know the strength of the US in the Gulf war coalition armed forces?
Do you know who made the decision not to invade Iraq?
Do you know about China invading Tibet?
Do you in fact know anything about this topic?

I’ll give you one little hint why I find your posts so laughable. Here is a short history lesson:

On June 6, 1944, the largest sea invasion in history took place in Normandy. It involved the UK, the US and many allies. Meanwhile the Soviet army set out to invade Germany from the East.
At the point when these massive armed forces arrived at the German borders, you consider that if the UN had existed, it would have stopped them.
Could you tell us which armed forces the UN would have used?
(If you need help, I’ll start you with Switzerland. They were neutral in WW2, you see. I think they had a unit of pikemen and somebody who knew how to use a crossbow…)

Since you thought I meant the Gulf War, it’s handy that this question applies to the recent conflict too.
Do share with us your incisive analysis of how Bush was unable to get UN support, and therefore was unable to invade Iraq recently.

I’m sorry I don’t see your point.
Saddam was an evil dictator. (It’s best not to supply these sort of people with weapons.) He invaded Kuwait without UN approval. The UN formed a coalition, led by the US and rightly threw Saddam out.
As for your other 23 wars, you’re the one that claims the UN can stop wars. Got any proof?

40

**So if we had repelled Germany from Poland then instituted no-go zones in northern and southern Germany would we have stopped Hitler? Well it apparently had Saddam stopped until the coup de grace, so maybe.
**

Oh, I"m sure it would have. Hitler’s army was in pretty sorry shape by the time the German border was breached anyway. He had no more air force worth speaking of. But would it have been wise? Where would Germany be today if the Nazi Party had been permitted to stay in power for a couple of more decades at the very least?

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, that should have been it for his regime. Stopping at the Iraqi border was absurd.

**Oh, you think the cause of WW2 was Germany invading Poland?
Have you ever studied any history?
Do the terms ‘Versailles agreement’ ‘hyperinflation’ and ‘Reichstag fire’ mean anything to you?

**

I know about those things, and I know about the root causes. But the invasion of Poland was the immediate cause, the casus belli, that kicked off WWII, just as Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait kicked off the long 12 year war with Iraq. We could get into Kuwait’s history with Iraq if you really wanted to, but we are talking about immediate causes here.

As for the power of the UN, Western nations are a lot more likely to restrain themselves at UN behest than dictatorships.