Why did G.W Bush wait so long to say anything about Iraq?

Great Debates
61

I fear I boggle your mind on a regular basis, Sua, I assure you its nothing personal.

From Ben Franklin to the Maginot Line, in one supple leap. No doubt, the strategic foundation of German Blitzkreig has some bearing on skulking terrorism. What that might be yet escapes me.

Splendid idea! Lets! Let us recognize one basic, essential fact: the strategic approach that applies to conventional warfare does not necessarily apply to an approach to terrorism. Indeed, it would be an excellent stroke of luck to have a bunch of terrorists all in one bunch. And if they are stupid enough to offer us that opportunity, I say whistle up a Predator.

Terrorist don’t attack in platoons, brigades, etc. along a defined front. They skulk, they sneak, they plot darkly. Diffusion is not a disadvantage, it is positively beneficial, even necessary.

However, if Al Queda should launch a amphibious landing on say, Los Angeles, well, that would be different. Regratably, nothing short of that will make your argument relevent.

62

They were. We did. The survivors scattered.

Hope that helps.

63

Pithy. Succinct. Pointless.

64

Look, maybe my point is lost in fuss 'n feathers. A terrorist unit is much less base-dependent, if you will. No doubt the camps in Afghanistan were convenient and useful. It does not necessarily follow that the loss of those training camps represents a crippling blow to al-Queda’s capabilities. Why should it?

65

Because many of the participants are dead or in custody. And their support structure is controlled by hostile forces.

Regards,
Shodan

66

…No doubt the camps in Afghanistan were convenient and useful. It does not necessarily follow that the loss of those training camps represents a crippling blow to al-Queda’s capabilities. Why should it?..

…No doubt that Bin Ladins leadership is convenient and useful. It does not necessarily follow that the loss of that leadership would represent a crippling blow to al-Queda’s capabilities. Why should it?..

…No doubt that Al Quedas financial networks were convenient and useful. It does not necessarily follow that the loss of those financial networks represents a crippling blow to al-Queda’s capabilities. Why should it?..

…No doubt the support of the Taliban regime was convenient and useful. It does not necessarily follow that the loss of that support represents a crippling blow to al-Queda’s capabilities. Why should it?..

You’re probably familiar with the “paradox of the heap”: if you remove a little bit of sand from a heap of sand then you will still have a heap of sand left. Following that logic, of course, leads to the conclusion that, no matter how many times one removes a little bit of sand, the heap will remain. But we all know that that isn’t true. Eventually all the sand will be gone.

Each step in the war on terror (or just about any war, for that matter) can be criticized as “not enough”… “this blow wasn’t the decisive blow”…“that wound wasn’t a crippling wound”…etc, etc and etc. But, does it not make sense to you that, just as with the heap of sand, if we continue to pound away, blow after blow, wound after wound, at some point the damage done will be decisive?

And what is the alternative? Would you really have us believe that Al Queda is somehow so incompetent that, free from attack and in possession of all of its assets and facilities, it is unable to pose a greater threat than when it has been driven underground?

Think "training, coordination of action, communications, intelligence (remember the USS Cole was vulnerable for only four hours every month), supplies and finances. All factors which are facilitated by exactly the sorts of institutions which the administration is targeting.

67

Not only has the U.S. completely disrupted al-Qaida operations, but they have arrested hundreds of members. They have in custody Bin Laden’s chief strategist, and the head of middle east operations. They killed dozens of high-ranking al-Qaida in Afghanistan, and recently killed six high-ranking al-Qaida officers in Yemen.

Bin Laden is forced to stay in hiding and communicate via audio tape, which means he can’t direct operations. Every bit of communication is much harder now as all the cells work to avoid detection when they talk to each other.

Much of their money supply has been cut off, and the U.S. is about to issue an ultimatum to Saudi Arabia to cut most of the rest off.

But the thing that REALLY annoys me about the Democrats in general and the nitpickers on this board in particular is that they offer NO alternatives. It’s really easy to sit on the sidelines and say, “You’re not doing very well”, when you haven’t offered a coherent alternative to the current strategy, nor defined what you would consider success.

No doubt if the military had managed to kill Bin Laden in Tora Bora, the usual suspects on this board would be claiming that Bush was crazy to focus his efforts on Bin Laden, and that he should have spent more time going after the rank-and-file.

In fact, if you aren’t prepared to discuss alternative strategies and lay down markers for what you would consider a job well done, you can just sit there and nitpick at anything short of perfection.

68

I’m not going to join the nitpickers kvetching about ‘how well the war is going’. The partisans on both sides are getting quite retchful.

However: this is quite revisionist:

Bush did not say that.

What he said is that the primary focus is not just Bin Ladin (& Al Queda).

So, QED, Bin Ladin is indeed one of the primary focuses of the war on terrorism.

No, not the only focus. But one of them.

Clear?

69

And a great big “Thank You” to squeegee for his efforts to raise the tone of the debate.

No….what Bush said is:

“I think that this is a long-term battle, war. There will be battles. But this is long-term. After all, our mission is not just Osama bin Laden, the al Qaeda organization. Our mission is to battle terrorism and to join with freedom loving people.”

The implication is clear, the capture of Osama can be thought of as one battle in a larger war. In this quote Bush doesn’t specify if that particular battle (Osama) is of primary importance, secondary importance, tertiary importance or no importance at all. He doesn’t use the word primary. I looked for it. It ain’t there.

The key point of this quote is that here we have Bush, one week after the World Trade Center attack, saying, in effect, don’t put all your focus on Bin Ladin and Al Queda but recognize that there is a larger goal at issue here.

As I have stated before, whether or not capturing Bin Ladin is a primary goal depends entirely on which definition of primary one uses. I believe that everyone on my side of the aisle will happily agree that capturing Osama was one of the goals of the war on terror. I believe that everyone on my side of the aisle believes that capturing Osama is still one of the goals of the war on terror.

The debating points are:
Was the capture of Osama ever defined as so important to the success of the mission that the failure to effect that capture justifies labeling the said mission a failure?

Has President Bush redefined his goals in order to cover up such a failure?

70

No. I am sorry, but your interpretation of the Bush quote is itself revisionist.

You have added the word “just” to the quote, which changes the meaning of what Bush said from “bin Laden and al-Queda are not our primary focus” to “bin Laden and al-Queda are just a couple of our primary focuses”.

Bush was (in my view, rightly) taken to task during the campaign for a quote from his website listing his objectives.

(This is not a direct quote, but it gives the gist.)

How can you have more than one primary focus?

Bush is saying, very clearly and specifically, that the goal of the war on terror is not to get bin Laden and al-Queda. He is waging war on terror in general. That is his “primary focus”.

All of the statements that allege that the war on terror will be a failure unless and until we capture or kill bin Laden are coming from Bush’s opponents. He has never stated or implied this.

As others have said, this is a way to define the war on terror as a failure. Set up a goal for Bush, and then call him a failure until he meets it. If he does meet it, belittle the result.

But the first step in the process is to try to get people to believe Bush said something he did not.

Regards,
Shodan

71

Shodan, this is getting quite frustrating.

Nonsense. I quoted what Bush said. Jeezus, I even quoted what you said he said. Read your own post above.

cite.

72

In short, that was insulting bullshit from one of the usual sources, so used to wearing partisan blinders that he isn’t even aware of them anymore. I’d call you a liar except I’m sure you believe it.

It is more of the same insulting bullshit from one of the usual sources to claim that there are no alternative strategies being proposed, or that the complaints are about strategy instead of execution. The strategy of concentrating military and political effort on finding the leader of the attacks should have been continued, and performed better. The cynical change to concentrating on an old, contained, but familiar foe is to be resisted - but, since it comes from a Republican administration, is not the subject of any apparent thought or questioning from its partisans.

Leaders are judged by results. You’re seeing people demanding results. If you don’t know better, you certainly should.

73

Hmm, manhattan has decided to walk away instead of retract his slanders, it would seem. Well, that shows his level, anyway.

74

Another lie. I have demonstrated each and every factual point that’s more difficult to understand than “the sun rises in the east.” You can whine all you want, but it doesn’t change the facts.

75

squeegee -

You are correct; I was not.

I had two windows going at the same time, and I responded based on the wrong memory. My apologies.

The rest of my point - that Bush has not made bin Laden the sole or most important goal of the war on terror - stands.

Regards,
Shodan

76

I realize that your current obsession with manhattan probably makes coherent thought difficult at this time; but, given the voluminous evidence that has already been presented showing that neither of the above propositions is correct, do you actually intend to present evidence or arguments in their defense or do you just plan to continue spouting the same old lines ad nauseam?

77

Quite ironic, coming from you.

Well, first, they DO continue to try to apprehend or kill OBL. Second, how would YOU ensure it is performed better? (and should I bring up Clinton’s failure to kill OBL? “Leaders are judged by results”, after all, so does that mean Clinton was a failure? :rolleyes:)

78

What I’m more interested in, instead of quote-checking, are the practical effects of not getting Bin Laden.

Is Bush paying a price for the failure to capture or kill the man currently? Should he? Will he, come, say, 2004, if Bin Laden is still whipping out 4-track masterpieces? Is necessary for him to obfuscate this fact?

Besides. At the end of the day, what a politican says is less important than what people believe he said. I believe, personally, that Bush promised Bin Laden in chains dragged through the streets of New York with a public drawing and quartering… waitaminute, that was Rudy G, nevermind.

I remember getting a cold sense of satisfaction that day when he delivered his ‘they will be dealt with’ line at a press conference. If anything, I think he handed Bush the gravedigging task.