Yeah, we all know radical muslim = terrorist. Why don’t we start picking off the Televangelists and Militia leaders as well?
The major thing I can think of is the whole Guantanomo Bay nonsense. If you declare a war, even a really vague war, doesn’t that make the prisoners P.O.W.s?
No (part one) and (part 2).
I agree with you when it comes to the simplistic “Good vs Evil” rhetoric being tossed around, and I’d also like to see long term policy changes in the way we deal with Middle Eastern countries, but I’m going to quibble with your statement that use of ground troops was not politically feasible. In the aftermath of the most serious attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor, I believe that American citizens WOULD have supported ground troops, fully understanding that casualties would result. The people of the United States aren’t cowards, or children - too bad that our politicians don’t seem to understand that, and aren’t willing to discuss issues in anything other than simplistic terms, or trust that we are willing to shed our blood in a truly “just war” situation (as opposed to such military shenanigans as Grenada or Panama).
Rjung, it is good to see that we can agree on something! (Or in this case, two things.)
I view the radical muslims as the ‘Nazi Party’ to the Arab world. Short of full-scale invasion, ala WW2, wouldn’t eliminating these nuts and getting at least the roots of a democracy in the Middle East be our best bet?
In the short term, it is fine and all to hunt Al Queda members, but in the long run, we have to address the root cause, which at its most fundemental level is the lack of democracy in the Middle East. (Apart from Israel, but I bet that even that situation would be made better if there were less dictatorships floating around).
The speech that I would have made on 9/12 would have laid out everything
I would then rename the Department of Defense, the War Department, reactivate the Civil Defense Administration, and in 72 hours, launch a full-scale war against Afghanistan and anyone else with Al Qaida connections (Excepting, of course, those nations which have been actively trying to oust Al Qaida elements from their country, in those instances, I’ll simply order the Air Force to bomb the shit out of the Al Qaida centers once the local governments have given their approval.) and when its done, spend billions to rebuild the various nations so that something like this never happens again. (Assuming, of course, I don’t get assassinated by someone who happens to disagree with my policies.)
**And he loved it, and it showed. We should have been ashamed of him, and we were not. God help us, the self-important little twit thinks he’s Churchill. **
Wow - not only can you read minds, you are also comfortable prescribing emotions for others.
**Naturally, with the subtle diplomatic skills that Texans are known for, we wiped our butts on their offer.) **
Now this is a great example of a diplomatic statement. I thought diplomacy had something to do with not offending people.
There’s no way the US could have launched a “full-scale” war against Afghanistan within 72 hours of 9/11. Starting a war is a complicated business involving such things as:
Since the US didn’t really have any military presence in that area of the world prior to 9/11, it would have been plain irresponsible to attempt military action without proper planning. I thought they commenced military action about as quickly as was possible in the circumstances (in fact, I was suprised by how quickly they managed to get started).
Including Pakistan? and Yemen? and Somalia? and Saudi?
You’re going to launch a silmultaneous attack on all these countries within 72 hours? Good luck to you, you’re going to need it.
Many al qaeda types take refuge in the lawless areas of northern Pakistan. Pakistani law doesn’t apply in these areas and everyone owns a gun. Rooting out al qaeda from this area would be almost impossible (since people would cover for them) and it would involve huge casualties for the invading army - that’s why Pakistan has never tried to bring them under control.
Also, there’s evidence to suggest that Musharraf isn’t entirely in control of the ISI (Pakistani secret services) and that the ISI have helped a lot of these groups (particularly those in Kashmir).
In Saudi, the government would claim that it doesn’t support al qaeda yet most al qaeda operatives seem to come from Saudi. There is a bombing campaign going on at the moment in Saudi which is probably being carried out by al qaeda. In fact a bomb went off just yesterday killing a British banker.
Yet for some reason the Saudi’s refuse to acknowledge that al Q is active in their country.
The whole thing is a murky world of shifting allegiances, non-governmental actors and corrupt officials. Military action is not always the best way of overcoming all this - sometimes it’s better to cut a quiet behind-the-scenes deal with the right people.
“Bombing the shit” out of people just leads to an increase in support for the terror groups. Look at the Israel/Palestine situation.
Jojo, the bit about starting the war in 72 hours wasn’t meant to imply that we’d immediately start bombing and send in the 101st Airborne, but that I’d get the ball rolling and the war would start as soon as was logistically possible.
They might be a little slow to acknowledge it, but they do admit it. The Saudi family is in a precarious position, as far as control of their country is concerned. They do a delicate balancing act, and they don’t always do it well.
Who said anything about only using a military solution? Covert-ops have been a necessary aspect of warfare since the beginning of time. I did say
in my OP.
It all depends upon whom you’re bombing and how you’re bombing them. The Afghans weren’t so distraught over the US bombing that they’ve taken up arms against us en masse, nor have the folks of Yugoslavia. Hitting military targets as hard as you can, while doing everything possible to spare civilians (especially when the civilians have been forced to live under an onerous faction) will eliminate more enemies than it makes.
Were the Israeli’s to take the gloves off, go into the Occupied Territories and round up every weapon, every piece of dynamite, and every known member of a terrorist organization, in one fell swoop, it would certainly change the tenor of events over there right now.
Conversely, if the Palestinians were to launch an attack with a hundred suicide bombers setting themselves off simultainiously, it’d also change the tenor of the events.
Not necessarily for the better, mind you, but if either side did as I stated, you can bet that the situation would be solved. Wars are not pretty, and wars of attrition are even worse. What’s happening in Palestine and Israel right now, is a war of attrition. Both sides are taking as much action as they dare without risking losing international support. Until someone forces the two sides to come to the table, makes an agreement, and then sees to it that both sides stick to it, we’re going to have a continuation of the suicide bombings, followed by the incursions, followed by more bombings, unless both Sharon and Arafat undergo personality inversions at the same time and decide to sit down and talk the matter over like rational adults for a change.
In addition to getting after, and keeping after, the terrorists’ financial base I wouldn’t have used the word “crusade” as GW did in the immediate aftermath of the WTC attack.
Another thing I would do differently is not to say that those not overtly with us are against us. And I wouldn’t act like we are the only ones subject to such attacks. And I wouldn’t act like we are only ones who know how to fight terrorism and insist on international cooperation strictly on our terms.
And I would do a lot more consultation with those who we would like to have help us in this. Diplomacy, intelligence and financial pressure seem to me to be much better tools than the military. Military action is such a blunt instrument and is really not all that effective against an almost worldwide, clandestine enemy.
Most of the “shoot 'em gang” that I read seem to have little grasp of the limitations of military power in situations like the present one.
Don’t you have that backwards? It seems to me that the ‘don’t shoot’ crowd has been consistently wrong about what the military could do since this thing started, just as they were in the first Gulf War.
Remember the ‘quagmire’ Afghanistan was going to turn out to be? Remember how the people in the streets were going to rise up against the Americans? They cheered instead.
So far, the benefit of the doubt has to go with the military when they say they can do something.
Only the most simple-minded conservative would truly believe that the panacea for the problems in the middle east is more democracy. :rolleyes:
Brutus, the real reason there’s so much anti-United-States hostility in the middle east is because we’ve been spending the last sixty or so years pissing off the natives there. In case you slept through your history class, the United States has been merrily overthrowing democratically-elected leaders (Iran), supporting repressive non-democratic regimes as long as they cooperate with our oil industries (Qatar), making overt threats to overthrow their leaders (Iraq), and generally letting them fight wars for us and leaving them to twist in the wind once we have no further use for them (Afghanistan).
Despite what G. W. “nucular” Bush says, the typical middle easterner doesn’t hate the United States out of jealousy for our freedoms and shopping malls and gas-guzzling SUVs – they hate us because we’ve been treating them like pagans and jerking them around all this time.
And if we really want to address the root cause, we should burn our existing foreign policy for the middle east and replace it with one where we stop being hypocritical manipulators who will say and do anything just to protect our oil interests.
It is true that the military approach was a good one to overthrow the centralized Taliban government. That’s the sort of action that armies are good for. From that, does it then follow that the military approach will root out and defeat the widespread terrorist network? Has it even gotten rid of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, or in Pakistan right next door?
Remember George Patton’s maxim. Never believe the first reports. The real situation is neither as bad as first reported nor as good. The dust hasn’t completely settled in Afghanistan yet. I would say, let’s not yet count all those chickens as being safely out of the egg.
One thing I’ll give GW and his team credit for. Our current, actual military presence in Afghanistan is seemingly quite limited. Good idea.
P.S. I also wouldn’t have personalized the battle in Afghanistan as a Get bin Laden, Dead or Alive!
Or has that aspect of the GW approach been forgotten already?
Rjung,
First, I must address a major beef. We did NOT fight a proxy war in Afghanistan ('79-80’s). The Afghani resistance was going to fight that war, American assistance or not. We did not go there and say ‘Gee whiz, wouldn’t it be swell if you folks pretend like you have a few hundred years history of fierce resistance to foreign invaders’. They fought on their own; We simply supplied some logistics.
And I seriously hope you are not referring to Prime Minister Muhammed Mosaddeq, the man appointed by the Shah (not elected, as some of us whacky democracies do now and again.) He was the proto-Ayatollah.
No, I am talking about true democratic reforms in the mideast. I know that America has a pretty machiavellan record in our dealings over there; That shouldn’t prevent us from doing it right, this time.
I all all for withdrawing support for the despostic dictatorships in the mideast. And not just ignoring the various nations, but fostering reform covertly, and if needed, forcing it overtly. I know this will not happen overnight, but better late then never.
We cannot just leave these nations to there own devices. That will breed more terrorism (which hurts us), but often overlooked is the fact that the people of the mideast themselves would be the greatest beneficiaries of a dictator-sweeping.
I am willing to wager that quite a bit of the angst over there is people thinking to themselves ‘Shit, they help people in so many countries in the world (Europe twice, for instance), but they leave us to our Arafats, Hussiens, and Ayatollahs.’
Hell, look at Afghanistan. They are sort of picking their own government for the first time in how long? And no offense to Afghanistan, but that is one of the most backwards, least educated nations in the world. If they can do, surely the people Syria, Iran, Iraq, etc, can determine their own destinies as well.
And I bet if they do, we won’t have to bomb them back into the stone age. (Which, of course, is my plan B).
I would like to see some practical advice being given out. I’m not talking about hiding under school-desks or bringing gas masks and parachutes to work, but there are some actual steps people can take. For example: having bottled water handy in case there is a disruption in service or knowing if I should or should not use my cell phone in an emergency because it might clog up the lines.
For the most part, I think that offensive driving courses or using paintball guns to train in CQB tactics is fairly useless for the average person.
But then there is also too much information. IE In the building where I work, they are explaining to us all this stuff like
-The “Aoogo Aooga!!!” siren means a fire on this floor
-The “whoop-whoop! Whoop-whoop!!” siren means a fire somewhere in the building.
-Close the doors in the event of a fire
-Open the doors in the even of an explosion
-If the power goes off we have a backup generator, unless its been disabled
Yeah…whatever…I see smoke or fire or hear any siren in my building I’m on the West Side Highway sprinting uptown waving my arms and screaming like a little girls.
What am I supposed to do with a leather glove? Challange the terrorist to a duel by slapping him in the face?
Certainly there are many aspects of defense training we can engage in, and I’m not talking about learning to be a deadly weapon.
I’m talking about using tax breaks to encourage building managers to hire security firms for a security audit.
I’m talking about educating people to do little things like drive around on the top half of their gas tank instead of the bottom half, so that if a city has to be evacuated we won’t have stalled vehicles blocking the roads.
I’m talking about simple training for people who work in higher-threat areas that teaches them how to spot preparations for an attack.
And yes, for those who want to, I would encourage physical defense training, firearms training, and an increase in the number of concealed-carry permits.
As for long leather gloves - it makes all the difference in the world when you are trying to subdue someone who has a razor blade or knife. Even better would be a pair of light chain mail gloves like they use for shark-proof suits. The extreme would be something like a fencing helmet, protective vest, and protective gloves. Give a couple of large passengers a setup like that, and they can defend the plane against knife-wielding attackers. Now you don’t need to waste all your airport resources by trying to stop every possible cutting implement from getting on board, which means you can do a better job of stopping guns and bombs, which are the real threats.
**As for long leather gloves - it makes all the difference in the world when you are trying to subdue someone who has a razor blade or knife. Even better would be a pair of light chain mail gloves like they use for shark-proof suits. The extreme would be something like a fencing helmet, protective vest, and protective gloves.
** Sam Stone
I can see this practice as the basis for some sort of litigation between the airline and the passenger that was injured in some sort of “protective combative exercise”. The lawyers may argue that the airline was negligent because their policy regarding terrorist attacks depended on passengers to use equipment provided by the airline. They may argue the point that the airline should have used a more sophisticated plan in dealing with this kind of threat.
Maybe they should offer free air travel for all law enforcement and certain fields in the military. Or better still, why not put the air marshalls on every flight?
I agree with the idea that we should all be more watchful and aware. But, I am not sure what we should be watching for. I know the obvious - buying explosives but other than overt stuff like that, I wouldn’t know what to be watching for.
Would it create panic or undue anxiety if the government issued a statement that said:
Keep your tanks at least half full.
Have at least a weeks supply of food and water.
Have a planned evacuation procedure prepared for your family.
Know when to use your phone and when to keep the lines available.
I suspect stocks would take a pretty big hit if a statement like this was released.
I just wanted to chime in with support for the “fire the bastards” sentiment expressed above. Why has no one lost their job over this? How many generals did Lincoln fire during the course of the Civil War? If I were the man in charge, I would have called the heads of the intellegence agencies on the carpet on September 12 demanding to know what went wrong. Those who are unable to supply satisfactory answers would be immediately sacked. Those who were would be given three months to prove themselves worthy of holding the post or face the sack.
Tommy “Tampa” Franks would most certainly have been removed after failing to commit troops to Tora Bora. Those who say that there would have been no political support for such things are just plain wrong. We were attacked in just about the most horrific manner imaginable. American combat deaths incurred in the course of engaging and destroying the people who perpetrated the attacks would have been met with appropriate sorrow, but no huge political backlash. It’s war, after all. Or so we’ve been told.
jacksen9 said:
Look. We’re at war. I don’t give a rat’s ass about civil liability. But hell, tell you what - if a passenger has to use these gloves against a terrorist, then either he’s going to fail and they’ll all die and there will be no lawsuit, or he’ll be successful and save an entire plane full of people and whatever the plane was going to hit. And if he’s injured or dies saving the plane, and his family sues the airline with the argument that they shouldn’t have provided the gloves and just let them all die, well, let them try.
And if they win and some retarded jury gives them ten million dollars, that doesn’t even pay for the down payment on the jet that was saved. It’s still a good deal.
And if the airlines don’t like it, tough noogies. This is a war. Enough coddling.
Forget the free air travel, but why not let law enforcement officers carry their weapons aboard? And sure, more air marshals is a fine idea. I don’t know if we need one on every flight, but enough should be out there that there is a good chance that there is one on a flight. If the terrorists don’t know which flight may or may not have an air marshal aboard, we’ve just complicated their plans and probably forced them into a different mode of attack.
Which is why we need training. There IS no one, general thing to ‘watch for’. The specifics depend on the industry involved. If you’re running a power plant, there are some specific security measures you can take, which will be different than the measures a Ryder Truck rental outlet can take, and which is still different than the measures a boat rental company can take. That’s why we need to hire experts in security, and why I recommended that the government offer tax breaks to encourage people to do this.
This is the attitude that the government has. And I think it’s totally wrong. The citizens of of the United States are not children. They won’t panic. If they hear information that makes sense and is useful, they’ll accept it, apply it, and get on with their lives.
I remember hearing about the mass panic that would ensue if terrorists attacked buildings and airplanes before 9/11, but look what happened - even AFTER the first WTC tower fell, by all accounts the evacuation of the second tower went smoothly and calmly, and people stopped and helped each other out. There were no mass stampedes or panic. And on flight 93, AFTER the people realized that they were under control of some fanatics who were about to kill them, did they panic and scream? No, they calmly gathered together, and formed a plan. They carried it out, and saved the Capitol.
During the Blitz, Winston Churchill told the people that it was their most desperate hour, and they would stand and fight until the end. Did the people panic at hearing that? No, they firmed up their resolve, worked harder, and stood tall.
I’m sick of hearing how easy it is to panic us all, and how the government has to hide the truth, treat us like children, reassure us all the time, and in general be out nanny. We all know a war is going on, and we all know that there is an organization of thousands of people frantically trying to kill as many of us as possible. I don’t see any panic.
Give us the tools, give us encouragement, tell us the truth, and let us help out. It’s the only way to defend a free country. There aren’t enough soldiers and guardsmen to protect every vulnerable installation in the United States. So the people have to pitch in.
The Israelis, btw, do exactly this. They allow the citizens to arm themselves, the citizens are given detailed threat assessments to do with as they please, citizens hire armed guards for stores and cafes, etc. And many, many terrorist attacks have been stopped this way. Bombers have been spotted by citizens and stopped, gunmen have been shot by armed citizens, and many, many bombings were less effective than they could have been because the bomber had to detonate in a suboptimal spot after being stopped by a private security guard.
Uh, yeah. We simply trained their soldiers, gave them weapons (including the selfsame Stinger missiles that some pundits were worried al Qaeda would use against American forces earlier this year), and told their leaders that we’d toss lots of money into their country once the Russians vacated. I’m so sure the Afghanis were ready to buy their own missiles; we just saved them a trip to Ammo-Nation, right?
Actually, I’m thinking of the guy who was in office before the Shah (and gosh darn if I misplaced my reference). Even though he was elected by a majority of the Iranian people, he dared to talk about nationalizing the Iranian oil reserves, so the CIA got him tossed out and stuck the US-friendly Shah in power instead. Which promptly pissed off the Iranians, led to the hostage situation mess, got a really anti-American Ayatollah in power, yadda yadda yadda.
Besides, even if we are talking about Mosaddeq, what of it? If you’re in favor of more democracy in the middle east, then you have to accept whoever the locals properly elect to power – saying “You must have free elections to choose the leaders that we like” is moronic beyond words.
Don’t hold your breath, especially with this administration. Heck, just last week it was revealed that the (non-democratic, repressive) Saudi Arabian government was refusing to hand over 13 al Qaeda suspects to the United States. But since Bush and his oil buddies need Saudi oil to make themselves richer, don’t expect any of that “you’re either with us or you’re with the terrorists” rhetoric to actually mean anything.
Ah, so when we’re sponsoring terrorism and the destruction of hostile governments, it’s okay, right?
Just checking…