And your point is what?

Definitely not supported by the media, especially as they would cast it as a war of aggression conducted by a Republican president under false pretenses and in contravention of the rule of US law.

the seeker:

The point is the lack of historical perspective that is
permiating the debate about the war in Iraq and the toll we are willing to take to see freedom spread in the Middle east. Could you imagine if we had the media we have today at the Battle of Gettysburg
where we lost 3000 union soldiers and between 2500-4000 confederate soldiers in a few days or about 2500 killed in a few hours at Omaha beach.

the seeker:

How about 7000 dead in 40 days of fighting on Iwo Jima.

Lincoln lied, people died!

Lincoln's probably the only president who has suffered the degree of crap being flung at George W. Bush. Read contemporary opinion pieces about Lincoln, it's uncanny. Stupid, emarrasing, monkey-looking, etc. Virtually the same epithets slung at Bush.

It may be perspective, but it sure doesn't make me feel good that that many Americans lost their lives no matter how noble the cause.

I'm listening to Larry Elder. He's talking about the media going nuts over the 2000 mark. Mothers of soldiers - dead and alive and still serving over there are calling up and saying how much it upsets them what the fkn media is doing. God, I would love to kick a reporter's ass right now.

And your point is what?

Nothing, nothing.
Go back to sleep.

If there are textbook examples of a just war, it would be the Civil War and World War II. Iraq was a war of choice against a nation which never attacked us to find WMD which do not exist. Had we been attacked by Iraq, I am certain that you would find broad support across the political spectrum for a war in which we suffered high casualty rates. Your suggestion that there is an incongruity for acceptance of high casualties at Omaha Beach but not in Fallujah founders because the fight against Hitler was a necessity while the war in Iraq is a tragic mistake.

If there are textbook examples of a just war, it would be the Civil War and World War II.

Just goes to show you don't know jack shit about the history of either conflict.

The Civil War was a bitter and drawn out conflict between citizens of a deeply divided nation. It did not start out as a war to end slavery; in fact, Lincoln himself said that if he could win the war while keeping slavery intact, he would do it, but that if it took freeing the slaves to win the war, he'd do that too. The Civil War was about States' Rights, Northern vs. Southern "cultures", the battle between industrialization and agrarianism...the list goes on. Northerners were hardly united in their cause (look up the New York draft riots sometime); nor was the South. Lincoln was hated more virulently by far in his day than W. is now, and by as many Northerners as Southerners.

And World War II was opposed by many in America for a variety of reasons. No less a light than Charles Lindbergh came out against the war, and there was a very strong isolationist bent in the States right up until the attack on Pearl Harbor. Many have theorized that had Japan not attacked first, the Americans might not have entered the war at all -- England could not have held out against the North Atlantic wolfpacks much beyond 1942, and America would not have been able to stage an invasion force without England.

You might actually want to study your history a bit before embarassing yourself in this way.

Except Lincoln is billed an American Hero. He has his face carved into a mountain. Can you imagine what the environmentalist would say if that was proposed for Bush?

"Had we been attacked by Iraq..."

Exactly, sneeker. IF we were attacked, then it is okay for war.

Fuck that. I don't want to wait to be attacked. Pre-emptive strikes are the way to go. Hit the fuckers before they even think of fucking with us.

The Iranian chants of "death to America" is reason enough to bomb the shit out of them. Hmm, let's see, they want to anhiliate us for no good reason except they hate us and they aspire to build nuclear weapons and sell them to others that hate us.

Okay, you wait for the mushroom cloud and then retaliate (with a stern leaflet campaign).

Forget the WMDs. It was only ONE of the many reasons why we invaded Iraq. And don't shit us with what wars you deem justified. You'd be against any war that was initiated by any Conservative.

Yes and your point is? My god what a stupid comment as the worth of a cause can be measured by the percentage of deaths of a population. If its a family member of yours that died the numbers aboslute or relative don't matter much do they fuck bag? Get a life.

WesB:

People tend to forget that Lincoln was reviled in the South for decades after the Civil War (which they called "The War of Northern Aggression"). I'll bet that if you look up some elderly geezers in some small southern towns, you'd still find people who can't say Lincoln's name without spitting. (FDR tends to have the same effect on many veterans of WWII).

I am always bemused at how little people know of the politics surrounding the Civil War. Part of my admiration for Abraham Lincoln stems for his genius at navigating the treacherous waters of Washington, D.C. while at the same time managing a bloody war of attrition against an enemy that always seemed to be two steps ahead of him. Lincoln was probably one of the most hated presidents ever until his reputation underwent a burnishing during the 1920's as the result of some groundbreaking scholarship among Civil War historians.

Seriously: if you're interested in the Civil War at all, ready Shelby Foote's magnificent three volume history. (Or at least read the account of the battle of Gettysburg, called Stars In Their Courses.)

I do not disagree that the Civil War was fought for reasons other than the emancipation of slaves. I would argue that it was a just war because a) a war can be just if it is fought for the wrong reasons but has an unintended result which justifies it (in this case the abolition of slavery) and b) it was necessary to save the Union from dissolution.

However, the main point of Monty’s post – that the Civil War was opposed by many and World War II was opposed by some, including Charles Lindbergh – is irrelevant. Whether a war is just or unjust does not depend on the popular opinion of the day. If you believe in the concept of a just war, then a war is considered to be just if the good which results from it is greater than the harm which is caused by it. I would consider America’s intervention in Bosnia to be a just war, because it stopped genocide with relatively light casualties. You may disagree. However, whether this or any war is just has nothing to do with the number of people who opposed it at the time – rather, it is a utilitarian judgment which is independent of consensus.

And let me give any arrogant lefties out there fair warning about fucking around with the Civil War and WW II analogies: I've been studying this shit for almost twenty years. I know whereof I speak. Don't even try to run any shit past one me this. If you're going to spout, you better make goddam sure you have for facts straight or I'm going to nuke you from orbit.

Whether a war is just or unjust does not depend on the popular opinion of the day.

Couldn't have said it better myself, seeker. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Bart: yes, precisely. If we are attacked, then we should respond with force. We were not attacked by Iraq, they had nothing to attack us with, there were no plans for an attack, and yet we bombed the crap out of them. In doing so, we ruptured the relationships with allies we need to fight real terrorists, our actions have led any moderates in the Middle East to run for cover, we spent untold billions, and had two thousand soldiers died. Your enthusiasm for this debacle is pathetic.

Hey, asswipe, why are you jumping to conclusions?

Where does it say that we should relativize the mission with the number of deaths?

Uh, because a war with 50,000 dead is harder to justify than a war with 50 dead?

"And your point is what?"

Obviously, just beyond your grasp.....

Over 65,000 die every year due to the flu. Over 100,000 in car accidents. Over 73,000 to diabetes...

Diabetes is directly due to stressing your pancreas in the over-production of insulin. That happens when you eat too damn much sugar.

The point? If it's not just beyond your grasp... these deaths are preventable. Just like the paltry casualty figure we have in Iraq. How come the left is wringing their hands over a statistic of HEROES when they could be campaigning for something that kills MORE loved ones than this stupid liberal fantasy that Bush lied and we're all dying now?

The left seems to want to forget war was declared on US and not by our choice.

Actually, I might have given seeker a kiss-off too soon. His point seems to be that there is some abstract morality to going to war, divorced from the politics of the parties themselves. Seeker has apparently never heard of the term war is diplomacy by other means. Modern warfare is an explicitly political exercise -- we use military force to achieve a beneficial political end.

Seeker likes the war in Bosnia because it "ended genocide" and had "light casualties". Well, Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during his tenure; do we care more about Bosnians than we do about Arabs or Kurds? And should the relative weight of casualties determine the morality of a conflict? Seeker's own examples of the Civil War and WW II would argue against it; WW II alone resulted in nearly half a million American dead and three times that many wounded. And the Civil War was a bloodbath beyond modern comprehension -- casualties in the 50-60% range was not uncommon, and this was in battle affter battle.

War is a political act in the modern world. Wars are waged to achieve political ends. This does not necessarily mean that the ends cannot also be moral -- I believe that in Iraq they are certainly moral. But they needn't be moral as long as they are beneficial to the interests of the United States. Consider the Hiroshima bombing: I would not argue that it was a moral act, but I would argue that it was a necessary act to win the war.

Read up on your W. T. Sherman, Seeker. You cannot wage war humanely or gently. If you choose to wage war for a moral ideal, then the only moral course of action is to win.

This would be the same Hitler that did not attack the U.S. I guess the right thing would be to let a potential adversary seriously degrade your offense so more people can suffer the experience of a conflict conducted later rather than sooner. The WMDs did exist. Look to the comments made by Saddam, Dr. Germ, Chemical 'Ali', Aziz, the Kurds, the Iranians, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, the U.N. etc. Bluffing at a high stakes game has consequences.
Lucky for future Americans that the South did things properly by firing on Fort Sumter so the North could initiate a textbook response. Should we have continue arguing while people with no voice continue to suffer. The Civil war has been fought, WWII has been fought, the Iraq war is closer to resolution. the seeker's comments are an arguement of the past, not the present or the future.

Nobody on the left that I know is advocating that more people die from diabetes or car accidents. People die. To the extent that we can prevent death, we should do it. However, that has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. It’s regrettable that people die from the flu, but that doesn’t justify a (smaller) number of people dying in Iraq. One thing simply has nothing to do with the other.

Also, while war was declared on the US, it was not declared by Iraq. Sorry to intrude with the facts.

"we ruptured the relationships with allies we need..."

No, we didn't. France and Germany are not our allies in time of war, any war.
If you really believe they are, were, our allies, then you have to believe they would not turn their backs on us when we fight the "real terrorists."

But I know they won't. They will never be on board with us during conflict because they share the same weak-kneed ideology as you.

No thanks, I'm quite satisfied with taking action against a perceived threat rather than waiting around for France's approval.

Paul Erlitchs POPULATION BOMB has turned out to be a real dud

Also, while war was declared on the US, it was not declared by Iraq. Sorry to intrude with the facts.

Seeker, apparently you missed all those speeches Saddam gave during the 1990's where he proclaimed a state of war against the Imperialist Aggressor (the US) and the Zionist Lackeys (Israel). Much martial imagery (sands running red with American blood, etc. etc. etc.). He also shot at planes patrolling the no-fly zone, and was implicated in a plot to assassinate GHW Bush.

Sure sounds like a declaration of war to me. Am I wrong?

... and before we get into the stupid liberal parrot squawking about Iraq not bombing us on 9/11 - I read the 9/11 report. Iraq begged bin Ladin to have a hand in his attack.

Bin Ladin refused. However, agreement was made between Iraqi intelligence agents and Al Queda that Iraq would cooperate and provide haven for Al Queda in their efforts against the US.

The left continues to willfully ignore this because ignoring the truth is better for their rhetoric.

Funny, John Kerry FREAKED out over Iraq and how dangerous the place was. Try this collection of Kerry's statements about how the real enemy was Iraq:
http://www.antiprotester.com/kerry%20on%20iraq.htm

Ignoring the truth about Iraq just makes the left look really really stupid. And they're supposed to be elites? Of what? Assmonkeys?

HA!

AS fast as I typed my bit about the stupid parrot squawking of the dumb "Iraq didn't attack the US" line... he squawked it before I could finish.

What a joke.

I am familiar with the quote that war is politics by other means. It was first said by Bismarck. However I disagree with it.

You can make a case that some nations are so odious that it is justifiable to invade them to prevent further suffering. You could further make the case that Saddam’s Iraq fits the bill (or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or North Korea, etc.). I believe that is the only cogent explanation for the war (although it is not the argument made by the Bush administration in going to war). I respect that argument, but I disagree with it because I think that the net effect of this war will have many unintended consequences which are adverse to American interests. Among these are the obvious ones (weakened relations with our allies, cost in money and lives, the creation of a new breeding ground for terrorists). Less obvious ones, which I believe will be borne out by history, will include Iranian domination of Iraq and a reversion to a Saddam-like figure who the Iraqis will turn to in hopes that the insurrection and bloodshed will end. We will find out about these two. The guy who was head of the NSA under Bush I recently said that the Iraq war was the worst strategic decision made by the US in the last one hundred years. While it is a good thing that Saddam is in prison, that is far overshadowed by the many adverse consequences of this war.

Seeker, history is not on your side.

You could further make the case that Saddam’s Iraq fits the bill (or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, or North Korea, etc.). I believe that is the only cogent explanation for the war (although it is not the argument made by the Bush administration in going to war).

The 2003 SOTU which laid out the administration's rationale for going to war described three compelling reasons for invading Iraq: 1) defiance of UN resolutions; 2) humanitarian relief of the beleaguered populations; and 3) the presence of WMD and Hussein's coziness with terrorists. I'd say that he did indeed make the argument you're looking for.

Seeker wants to go back in time and re-fight the 2004 election battle. It was a referendum on the Iraq War, and his side lost. The majority of Americans are behind the effort in Iraq, and will remain behind it regardless of the pissing and moaning on the left. Seeker wants some "higher authority" to give assent for a war (one presumes the UN), without explaining exactly how that would be any more "moral" in an abstract sense.

Wars are nasty, brutal, and leave scars that last for generations. If you doubt it, travel through the American South sometime -- there are still Civil War scars, a century and a half after the fact. Japan was a blasted, hollow shell for a decade after WW II; Germany was broken into two pieces and remained that way for nearly fifty years. There was nothing neat or clean about it.

It has only been two years since we invaded Iraq, and already they have voted on a constitution with a record turnout of voters. The vast majority of Iraqis are living lives of peace and prosperity they couldn't have dreamed of when Saddam ruled with a fey and bloody hand. The people of Afghanistan have know the first years of relative peace in more than a generation.

Iraqis have a future now. Afghans have a future. These people have been born back into the modern world, and it was done primarily with American military might. I truly think that some decades hence when tourists are strolling through the long Baghdad avenues, there will be a monument commemorating the American soldiers who gave their lives that this time might come to pass.

a war can be just if it is fought for the wrong reasons but has an unintended result which justifies it (in this case the abolition of slavery)

Add the destrction of a hostile nuclear weapons program (see, Lybia) and how does that differ from Iraq? Oh, right. We intended to end the tyrant's totalitarian regime of mass murder and torture.

We might as well throw in the Revolutionary War as a bad one too since it didn't have majority support, overthrew a legit government, and also had casualties that were much higher than this one. Good thing the moonbats aren't in charge of anything more important than throwing feces at passers by.

Japan was a blasted, hollow shell for a decade after WW II

Monty, you are probably much better at this than I am. Would you care to offer an analysis of how the perception of our strength in Japan, having obliterated two of their cities on the eve of even more deadly mass suicides, contributed to achieving lasting peace, respect and a beneficially transformed martial culture there? How does this compare to the dynamic among the Middle Eastern cultures? Would you say the moonbats' bedwetting creates any short term and long term problems for acheiving analogous results there?

1) Re "Seeker wants to go back in time and re-fight the 2004 election battle. It was a referendum on the Iraq War, and his side lost.:" Well, no. It was a referendum on a lot of things and the result was razor thin, with 60,000 Ohio votes determining the result. If the election were held now, Bush would surely lose. If there were a referendum on Iraq, it would surely be defeated.

2) Re "The majority of Americans are behind the effort in Iraq:" factually incorrect. Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans against the war.

3) I did not say that we need a higher authority to go to war. I don't believe that and you cannot infer it from anything I wrote.

4) I agree that wars are nasty and brutal. That is why there should be an extremely high bar before we enter into war. That was not the case in Iraq.

5) Re everything else: well, we will see.

Actually Iraq was a re-emptive strike. I don't know why the administration didn't make this case stronger. We ended the 1991 conflict with a cease-fire and not a surrender. The cease-fire had certain terms. Saddam snubbed those terms and Clinton said they were a threat, lobbing in cruise missiles from time to time and using Operation Desert Fox, Northern Watch, and Southern Watch.

After the attacks on 11 September President Bush decided we could no longer mess around with bad guys. He looked at the trouble Saddam had been causing, what the Clinton adminstration had been saying about them, etc. He decided to end the cease-fire by resuming fire or a re-emptive strike.

It was Clausewitz not Bismarck who is quoted with, "War is the continuation of policy (politics) by other means."

It was a referendum on a lot of things and the result was razor thin, with 60,000 Ohio votes determining the result.

60,000 votes?

Razor thin?

Hm.

The Florida vote could fairly be characterized as razor thin. Saying the same of the much larger margin is a stretch, to say the least.

But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Poll after poll shows a majority of Americans against the war.

Ah, just the words Zarqawi was hoping you'd say. He's been waiting for 2 years for this, and the non-stop hammering by the media and the left has finally paid off.

Re 2004: as you recall, the results of the election were not known until hours after the last poll closed. For a few hours, it appeared that Kerry would win. That is a razor thin margin.

Re Zarqawi: the majority of Americans oppose the war because it is wrong, not because of the media or the left. The disaster is there for all to see. The fact that Zarqawi achieved his desired result is because Bush pursued a policy which would inevitably lead to failure, not because most Americans recognize this.

VRWC Agent:

The Japanese were, in my opinion, a much more fearsome enemy than the Jihadis can ever dream of being. For one thing, Imperial Japan was a technologically advanced culture and could bring a military to bear against us that was in many respects either equal to or superior to the American forces arrayed against them. For another, the Japanese soldiers and sailors were inculcated with the spirit of bushido, which forbade surrender as a shameful thing. That's one of the reasons so few Japanese soldiers were captured alive. The Japanese at the time were both highly nationalistic (something most Arab peoples are not), highly patriotic, and ethnically homogeneous. Their (predominantly Shinto) faith revered their Emperor as a literal Godhead, and they would obey his bidding with no doubt or question.

The Kamikaze (Divine Wind) attacks were actually an aberration, and only occurred fairly late in the war when Japan's defeat was all but certain. However, it is important to note that even in extremis, the Kamikazes attacked only military targets, not civilian ones.

The Japanese were in many other ways just as brutal as the Jihadis -- they viewed surrender as a shameful thing, so they would treat their prisoners abominably. They would behead prisoners with swords, disembowel them with bayonets, and press the local women into prostitution as "comfort girls". One Japanese detachment in the Philippines killed scores of infants in a maternity hospital with bayonets.

Just remember these things, and how far the Japanese have come since then. Where once they were a terrifying and formidable enemy, they are now one of our stoutest allies in the region. I hope for the same outcome in Iraq, but to expect this in a matter of merely two years is just madness.

The Islamist enemy has almost none of the strengths that Imperial Japan, and a plethora of weaknesses. We can defeat them; we are defeating them, if only the media would open their eyes and report honestly. Iraq may in time become a democratic beacon in the Middle East in much the same way that Japan is in Asia; and that would be a good thing indeed, both for us and for them.

(Jesus, that post was encroaching on Bean-O length. Sorry for being so prolix, but it's a complicated subject.)

Re 2004: as you recall, the results of the election were not known until hours after the last poll closed. For a few hours, it appeared that Kerry would win. That is a razor thin margin.

The only thing that led people to believe Kerry might win was some inaccurate exit polling, not the vote in Ohio, which was never particularly close.

That is not a razor thin margin, and repeating that phrase won't make it so.

So, in seeker's view, the conditions that prevailed in 2002-03 ... a brutal dictator about whom there was global consensus that he possessed or was developing WMD's, who had aggressively attacked two of his neighbors and was continuing to fire at aircraft patrolling his no fly zone in defiance of the cease fire agreement, who was in violation of 14 UN resolutions to disarm, and who was known to support terrorists and harbor them within his own territory, and who was using bribery to subvert the sanctions already in place on his country ... should have been left alone because despite all that, and despite the absence of any credible alternative to military force... he just wasn't bad enough to justify removing him, making sure he would never possess WMD, and democratizing his people.

As long as people are dying in cells with no TV cameras around at the hands of dictators who oppose the US, liberals don't really give a rat's ass, do they?

The elections in 2000 and 2004 were the closest elections in forty years. If you want to believe that it is anything but razor thin, then believe what you want. However, it is indisputable that regardless of how the electorate felt about Bush in 2004, they feel much differently about him today, as he is in the process of getting laughed off the stage.

These cute quips keep popping up that the polls show the majority disapprove of the war.

Excuse me, please provide just ONE war where the "approval" for the war ever exceeded 50%.

Now I know the Iraq war hit the 60s, but it has since fallen - just like ALL other wars.

Americans don't like to fight wars. We like to win and get out. Guess what? We've won. We're waiting to get out. Be patient.

The media was hyperventilating for THREE years after we beat Germany in WWII about how the occupation and war was a failure and how we needed to bring all the troops home and just cry.

Nothing has changed and this war is no different from any other.

Still waiting....... please supply ONE war where approval was above 50%... hello? (echo)(tumbleweeds)

Closest election in 40 years? Wow........

Let's go back and overturn that election from 40 years ago. I'm sure we can dig up some "fraud" and change things.

Let's leave no election so obviously flawed.....

VRWC Agent:

Just to finish my thought -- as fearsome as the Japanese were, they had to be beaten in order to change their ways. And I mean beaten: absolutely, finally, and completely defeated beyond doubt or question. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were psychological blows as much as physical; they changed Japanese minds and set them on a path towards the prosperity and freedom they enjoy today.

Something similar can be said of the Nazis (or of Stalin, or Saddam, or any despot really): they would never have stopped on their own. If you want to have nightmares, try to imagine a world where the Nazis and Japanese won WW II (and it very well could have happened, folks -- it was a close-run thing). You cannot imagine the awfulness of such a thing. However awful WW II was in terms of bloodshed and chaos, the alternative would have been immeasurably worse.

We invaded Iraq for many reasons, of which WMD was only one. We did what the rest of the world, led by the corrupt and useless UN, could not do. We brought democracy to an area of the world where democracy is all but unknown; we removed a tyrant every bit as bad in his own way as Mao, Stalin, or Hitler; and we gave the poeples of Afghanistan and Iraq the reins to their own destinies. I just hope they can do as the Japanese did: look inward, take stock, and opt for a better life.

World War II, Korea, Afghanistan

The election of 1960 was seriously flawed, no doubt about it.

I said nothing about over-turning any election -- only said that it was a thin margin which cannot be used as a putative referendum on the war in Iraq.

The elections in 2000 and 2004 were the closest elections in forty years.

President Ford would probably disagree with you there.

The reason I disputed your analysis of the 2004 election results is because I do not believe the closeness of an election has anything to do with the way Americans feel about the war. As you said, it was a referendum on a number of things, right?

So honestly, I don't see why you and those who believe as you do take time to point out the closeness of an election they loss, other than to console themselves with irrelevancies.

You know, I must have missed the part where seeker and his fellow lefties spelled out an alternative strategy to military intervention in Iraq... you know, a strategy other than simply repeating the previous twelve years of failed policies.

as fearsome as the Japanese were, they had to be beaten in order to change their ways. And I mean beaten: absolutely, finally, and completely defeated beyond doubt or question.

Exactly. Anything less than absolutely crushing force would have made reconstruction a shameful thing to be resisted at all costs. But uncompromising and ruthless devastation meant defeat at the hands of someone who had earned respect in total victory and could be accepted afterwards without shame. Friends who have lived in Japan and got to know the culture informally confirm this thesis, counterintuitive as it may be to many of us.

It seems to me a similar ruthlessness might serve us well in the Middle East where strength is similarly respected and squeamishness is a sign of weakness. Anything less plants the seed for continued conflict, at least as I see it, which makes the moonbats' wailing a potentially deadly problem. Your view?

Afghanistan, Korea, and WWII.

I'm looking each one up. So far, Afghanistan shows an approval of 42% from a high of almost 90.

BZZZT. You lose on the first one.

Checking the others....

"which they called "The War of Northern Aggression" " -- Monty

What is the -ed doing at the end of the verb 'to call', Monty?

Apparently you don't know many of the people where I was raised.

Korea was close. Approval got as low as the high 40s.

BZZZT. Wrong on the second one, too.

Birkel:

Hah! I lived in Charlotte for a couple of years, but I traveled quite a bit to little towns in Tennessee, Georgia, South Carolina, and Kentucky. You ain't kidding: some of those old boys still nurse a grudge, even four or five generations down the line.

VRWC Agent:

Don't be too quick to wish the kind of devastation we leveled on Japan on anyone else. Curtis LeMay's bomber crews killed many tens of thousands of Japanese civilians in the firebombing raids late in the war. Many tens of thousands of Germans died in similar raids on Dresden and Berlin. I don't think the American people have the stomach for that kind of slaughter any more, even in the face of a great provocation: not even a nuclear weapon detonation on US soil would do it, I don't think.

And perhaps that kind of thing was a product of the times. Curtis Lemay used firebombing because "precision" in those days meant you could land your bomb within a square mile of the aim point (and that was on a clear day). Our tactics and weaponry have advanced to such an extent that we needn't level whole city blocks to kill two insurgents; we can simply drop a smart bomb or a Tomahawk on them, or send in a SOG team to kill them individually. For all the talk of civilian deaths in this war, they are actually very light for a conflict of this size and duration.

Ah, World War 2.

You got that one right. Support (once the war had started) never dipped below 70%.

Amazing since we had so little support BEFORE the war.

Korea scored in the high 30s at its lowest at another site.

1 out of 3. Not bad - I expected you to get them all wrong. So out of all the wars you can think of, only World War 2 showed consistent public support.

After the war, the media claimed failure, but the public never gave up. I think that speaks volumes.

How did 120,000 votes become 60,000 votes in Ohio?

What "seeker" means is that if 60K votes were switched Kerry would've won. Right?

Just fact-checkin' that ass, is all.

Re Zarqawi: the majority of Americans oppose the war because it is wrong, not because of the media or the left. The disaster is there for all to see.

Evasive claptrap. Americans oppose the war because the left and media are telling them that it is unwinnable, which is a sad lie. The insurgents have been fighting a political battle since day one, and the focus of that battle has been to reach out to the American center and convince them that Iraq is a disaster. Ably aided by the media, who have been silent or grudgingly approving on all the positive achievements of the past two years, the center is starting to weaken.

We've had trivial casualties over the past 2 1/2 years, but the left is talking them up as some sort of horrendous milestone. Ask yourself this - what level of effort by the insurgents would be required to drive the US military from Iraq? How many casualties would it take?

The insurgents have one shot at success - convincing America to leave before Iraq is strong enough to take care of itself. That's their only hope, but fortunately you're there to carry their torch for them.

William: Afghanistan had overwhelming support when it was a hot war. Polls taken several years after the war ended are irrelevant. As you note, WW2 had popular support throughout the duration of the war. I don't have the facts to contradict you on Korea, but I'm surprised at the figures you cite.

To Birkel: correct

"a) a war can be just if it is fought for the wrong reasons but has an unintended result which justifies it"

Then Iraq is justified, and the purple fingers prove it.

Agreed? Your words, after all.

"a) a war can be just if it is fought for the wrong reasons but has an unintended result which justifies it"

Then Iraq is justified, and the purple fingers prove it.

Agreed? Your words, after all.

Monty,

You're right about precision. During WWII to destroy a house you send about 1,000 bombers. In Korea it took a few hundred to destroy a house. During Vietnam, laser guided bombs started to be developed and you needed to send 4 planes to destroy a house. The Persian Gulf War had one plane, one house. Now it's one plane, more than one house. I can't remember the exact numbers, but the rations are close.

Is that the type of progress "progressives" mean when they call themselves that?

To Geoff: it is both wrong and elitist of you to suggest that the American people can't make up their minds for themselves, but are just dupes of the left and the media. The violence continues endlessly. You can't drive safely from the airport to Baghdad. The infrastructure continues to crumble. The economy is on life support. I'm not carrying a torch for anybody -- the facts on the ground are evident for all to see. But don't take my word for it: as noted above, the NSA director under Bush I recently noted that the Iraqi war was the worst strategic mistake made by the US government in the last one hundred years. To suggest that all of this is simply illusory and those who disagree with you must be dupes is simply untrue.

the seeker,

I knew I was correct.

What that makes you is incorrect.

You are guilty of spreading worthless rhetoric for no good reason.

You should be either more precise or less partisan.

to JimK: interesting point. You may be right, although I doubt it. If Iraq develops a self-sustaining democracy and becomes the beacon that Bush keeps describing, then you could make a case that it was worth it in the end. However, I don't think so, both because I don't see things headed that way, and because even if a democracy is established I am not sure that it is worth the enormous cost in lives, money, prestige, and the resources which could have been used elsewhere. Neither of us will know this for years, but I just don't see it that way.

the NSA director under Bush I recently noted that the Iraqi war was the worst strategic mistake made by the US government in the last one hundred years.

Who gives a shit?

Really.

So one guy blows his opinion out his ass and you take it as gospel truth? We could likely counter that with our own 'experts' who say the opposite. You've mentioned this guy more than once, but have offered no reason why his ass-spewing means so much to you.

Birkel: well, no. You suggested that no war ever had an approval rating over 50%. World War II and Afghanistan did. QED.

it is both wrong and elitist of you to suggest that the American people can't make up their minds for themselves, but are just dupes of the left and the media.

In a stunning revelation, I never said that. The problem is that all the information they're getting to make their decisions is coming from the left and the media.

I've read LtGen Odom's (served under Reagan, BTW) piece on pulling out, and it seems incredibly shallow, naive, and forgetful of even recent history. Didn't convince me that he had a clue. But if you want to go point-by-point over his analysis, I'd be happy to oblige you.

OK, I guess someone who runs the NSA for a Republican president doesn't know much. I guess Brent Scowcroft isn't worth listening to either, or Chuck Hagel. I realize you couldn't care less what Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy might have to say -- but when blue blood Republicans stand up and state the obvious, might as well ignore them too.

the seeker,

Don't you mean "William Thrash"? I stated that you were wrong about the margin of Bush's victory in Ohio.

Once again I beseech you to be more precise.

Seeker... the comparisons are valid.

Almost EVERY war we've been in has started over 50% approval. During the "hot" of the war, American support remained high.

In referring to Iraq, the war was over 2 years ago. We're in the occupation phase and my figures are a comparison to that. During the "hot" of the Iraq war, our figures were well over 50%. So if we're quoting this week's polls about the Iraq occupation, then my occupation numbers are all valid.

As for WW2, I can only find figures to the end of the war in 45. Nothing hard about %s in post-war Germany except that "public support has fallen." Could it have dropped below 50%? Maybe, and maybe not. Depends on how desperate the media was to paint the occupation a failure. So many articles came out claiming total US failure in post-war Germany that it is possible.

But, lacking hard numbers, I have to give you WW2.

Monty,

If you are right, with all our improvements we could not have beaten yesterday's Japan to the necessary degree with today's America.

Effing Gramsci. We've got decades of work ahead.

Ooohh...snark.

This guy ran the NSA for a Republican President more than a decade ago, when the greatest strategic threat was the Soviet Union. I don't begrudge him his opinion, but his hyperbole is a bit much - the worst strategic error in a century?

Give me a break.

Even if he is a Republican, that was a stupid comment that doesn't deserve the respect or reverence you seem to expect us to give it.

Well, unless you've been to Iraq, of course you get your information from the media. But what you said is that the reason the American people disapprove of the war is the "constant hammering" they get from the left and the media. This implies that the media somehow obscure the real facts so they can "hammer" the American people with their pre-conceived notions. There are plenty of media outlets which have been constant cheer-leaders for this war (e.g., Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, talk radio, etc.). There is no shortage of diverse reporting about the war. Americans object to the war because the facts are obvious -- not because they were "hammered" by the media.

because it stopped genocide with relatively light casualties

at what rate of casualties would it have become an unjust campaign?

We justify these things by casualty rate now, do we?

Birkel, I had (elderly) relatives when I was a kid who still said "War of Northern Aggression.

I will jump back (after scrolling through some responses) to support Seeker on one point he made to Birkel:

All wars from World War 2 to the current date had an approval rating over 50%. EVEN VIETNAM.

However, as time passes, support invariably drops below 50% - exception, WW2, and we started WW2 with only 30% of the US public supporting going to war. Support shot up to the 80s and remained steady, never dropping below 73%. WW2 is the only war to start high and remain high, not dipping below 50%.

At the very end of the Korean war, with the enforced stalemate and firing of MacAurthur, public opinion hit a low of 37%.

The Iraq war ended two years ago? That's why the casualty rate keeps going up?

The war we are in is still a very hot war. The only difference is that we are no longer fighting a standing army, and instead are fighting an insurgency. Your artificial demarcation between war and occupation is a distinction without a difference.

William Thrash,

I never argued that point with "the seeker" or anybody else.

All I said was that "the seeker's" 60K voters in Ohio meme is nonsense.

Try harder with the reading, please.

There is no shortage of diverse reporting about the war.

Well, then, let's have a little test, sans Google:

Bad News:
How many American soldier's have died in the war? How many Iraqi civilians?

Good News:
How many Iraqi divisions are currently operational? How many are taking a lead in battles with insurgents?

I don't think the average American has heard much about the latter, save perhaps through the recent highly negative flap on the number of divisions at Readiness Level 1.

To Dave in Texas: casualty rate has to be one criterion in evaluating a war. Bosnia was worthwhile, in my opinion, with a loss of (I think) 45 or 50 Americans, but it would not have been justifiable with the 55,000 we lost in VietNam. That's just reality. I could turn it around on you and ask if the war in Iraq would be justified if every American soldier died in it. Of course not. The question is where you draw the line.

To Dave in Texas: casualty rate has to be one criterion in evaluating a war.

Oh, what a load of happy horsecrap. Was the invasion of D-Day unjustified because we lost 2500 men in one battle?

No, D-Day was justified despite the cost in lives because it was a war of necessity. Iraq is not (nor was Bosnia). The determinant is not how many people died. It is how many people died in relation to how necessary (for lack of a better word) the war is. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

seeker.

narrow it down. tell me your number between 45 and 2000. Which number makes it just, to you?

I'll just assume for the sake of discussion you don't think it's as high as 54,999.

The German army suffered relatively light casualties when it invaded France.

I guess that makes that particular part of WWII okay, right?

No, D-Day was justified despite the cost in lives because it was a war of necessity. Iraq is not (nor was Bosnia). The determinant is not how many people died. It is how many people died in relation to how necessary (for lack of a better word) the war is. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

But, seeker. Hitler never attacked us.

Why didn't we focus on the real enemy, Japan, that did attack us?

It seems to me that the necessity of war is an awfully subjective determination, by the way.

How do you quantify such a criteria?

Or is it based on "feelings?" Or maybe on who is president at the time, and what party he belongs to.

One of the biggest flaws in reporting (resulting from both a lack of understanding of the military, as well as a prediliction for bad news), is the incoherent reporting on the military's operations. From media accounts, our hapless soldiers wander out on pointless patrols and get blown up by IEDs or shot by snipers.

You never hear about Operation River Gate or Operation Iron Fist, and if you do, it's not in the context of a broad strategy to cut off insurgent support lines and establish permanent stability in critical regions.

Nobody wants a pollyanna press, but our media have given their audience a very dismal view of the situation in Iraq.

Hitler did not attack us. He did, however, attack our allies and he tried to dominate Europe and Northern Africa. Japan did attack us and they were allied with Germany. And we did attack Japan. What's your point?

Regarding quantification: you can't do anything except make rough judgments, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't make any judgments at all. If I told you that you could cure all childhood diseases at a cost of a nickel per child, would you do it? Or course. If I said it would cost a million dollars per child, would you do that? Maybe not. The point isn't to determine at what exact cost it is worthwhile to save a child's life. Rather, there are some judgments which in the real world have to be made but are not reducible to cells on a spreadsheet.

Meant to add: of course it has nothing to do with who is President and what his affiliation is. The war in VietNam was wrong and it started and escalated during Democratic administrations. The war in Kuwait, in my opinion, was justified and it was in a Republican administration. I resent being accused of partisanship -- I try to look at the facts and go where they lead, regardless of party affiliation.

Casualty rates aren't going up. They are holding steady or declining, depending on whether you are counting "casualty" as both wounded and killed in action or just killed in action.

More soldiers are dead now than were dead this time last year, but that doesn't mean that the rate is going up, only that more time has gone by.

My imprecision: the casualty rate is steady, the number of casualties is increasing.

geoff, How many Iraqi divisions are currently operational? How many are taking a lead in battles with insurgents?

Also, how many casualties have we inflicted on, and bases of operation have we denied to, the enemy? Seems to me that if you are only going to keep score for one team, you'll have a hard time telling who's winning. Which is pretty much the MSM agenda.

If you want to know how we are doing, ask whom the troops support.

But, seeker. Hitler never attacked us.

And when Japan attacked us, didn't we turn around and invade Iceland?

And we did attack Japan. What's your point?

I asked why didn't we focus on Japan?

And on quantification, I prefer not to think of it in such utilitarian terms. I think, unfortunately, the left is doing just that in this case. They are saying this war is unjustified because we've lost 2000 soldiers.

In fact, the casualty figures matter little except as a way to bolster the anti-war arguments they've been articulating for years. In other words, it's not the casualties that are forming opinions, they are simply making it 'easier' for those who disagreed with the war to voice their doubts.

In other words, they were saying the war wasn't worthwhile even before one soldier was killed. Trying to make the argument now that it's an unjustified war becuase 2000 are dead is more opportunistic than principled.

VRWC Agent:

You'd think these sorts of questions would be fundamental to judging the situation in Iraq. After all, our strategy has been to build up the Iraq army and police forces so that order can be maintained as we withdraw. And this is the progress that those 2000 lives have paid for - the other side of the equation.

Lefty pundits should be tracking the force buildup and critiquing their effectiveness in encounters with insurgents, so that they can forecast the US withdrawal they're craving. But I haven't really seen much attention from that side.

Well, we did focus on Japan, except not exclusively, as we also fought Germany and Italy. They were part of the original axis of evil. I'm still confused as to what your point is.

The number of American casualties is not the only reason most Americans oppose the war. There are plenty of other reasons people opposed the war even before there were casualties. The increasing number of casualties only adds weight to the argument, but it is far from the sole reason why this war is a tragic mistake.

Well, we did focus on Japan, except not exclusively, as we also fought Germany and Italy. They were part of the original axis of evil. I'm still confused as to what your point is.

Join the club. I was simply reciting one of the left's talking points against the war in Iraq, only I substituted "Japan" for "Iraq." Good to see that it seems as insipid to you as it does to those of us who support the war.

Why was this war a "tragic mistake" in your opinion?

the seeker,

Could the number of casualties decrease? If not, then for Pete's sake quit using the trite "increasing number of casualties" meme for political gain.

Question: What was the rate of US casualties due to terrorist attacks prior to the US invasion? What has it been since then? Let's DO talk about rates.

Regrettably I can only give you a quick answer, because it looks like the Sox-Astros game is going into extra innings and I want to watch it. However, I believe that the war is wrong because we attacked a country that had never attacked us because of putative WMD which do not exist. You simply do not bomb a country without absolute proof of an impending danger. (Unlike Kuwait, when Iraq did invade another country). It is wrong because we do not have a God-given mandate to use American force to install democracy, regardless of how wonderful democracy may be. It is wrong because our first priority is to fight terrorists who may attack us, and the war in Iraq is counter-productive both because it impedes our relationships with the allies we need to fight the war on terror, and because it exceeded Osama Bin Laden's dream scenario of American troops bogged down on Muslim soil. I guess the crux of it is Donald Rumsfeld's question of whether our adventure in Iraq kills terrorists at a faster rate than they are being created due to the gasoline we are throwing on the fire by being there. I have to answer that question as a yes. Off to see the Sox-Astros.

Edward:

Uh, well, France doesn't like us as much any more, for one! And Gorgeous George Galloway isn't going to be getting any more of that sweet filthly oil lucre from Saddam, either!! And we've totally destabilized Syria's hold over Lebonan and embarassed Lybia and Pakistan, too. Our standing in the world is crumbling!

Regrettably I can only give you a quick answer, because it looks like the Sox-Astros game is going into extra innings and I want to watch it.

Actually, I don't mind a short answer, because I need to sleep. I'll respond in the morning. Maybe.

Birkel - I was only remarking about what I read on Seeker's post - I didn't read that far, as you correctly assumed.

Iraq war is still going on? Well, then so is Afghanistan. World War 2 didn't end until 1947 by your reckoning. Korea is STILL GOING ON. Do you know we lose soldiers to Korean snipers once every year or couple of years? There was a truce, not a peace.

I fail to see any logic in just picking one war and claiming that it's still going, two years after we annhilated their army.

What is going on is an invasion by foreigners from Syria, Iran and other places to attack Americans. The Iraq war is OVER. It's been over. The comparisons are valid.

Occupations have never been easy for Americans or any other country. Ever. Anywhere.

William Thrash,

Hope only the first 'graph was aimed in my general direction. Otherwise, I'm not sure with whom you're conversing.

Bah... everything in my last post from the second sentence on is directed at Seeker. Don't fret, Birkel, that I have targeted you unjustly or some such nonsense....

Sortelli - France has never liked us. France is America's oldest enemy. France has never, ever liked America and considers us upstart barbarians.

Anti-Americanism is absolutely NOTHING new to the French. And Kerry wouldn't have changed that.

Not worried... confused.

I gathered 'the seeker' was the intended target. Nice of him to come out and play. I'm off to the extra innings myself.

Go 'Stros.

Birkel,

You mean the great and powerful Karl Rove doesn't know an undead turning spell so that our casualties could decrease? What good is he then?N

You simply do not bomb a country without absolute proof of an impending danger.

Or maybe an impeachment about to land in the papers. And then there was our recent unpleasantness in the Balkans. But wait. Good results were enough to justify the war a little while ago. Right? See my post of 9:24.

the war in Iraq is counter-productive both because it impedes our relationships with the allies we need

Nobody who isn't with us would have been with us otherwise. Frankly, the only Euro power than can physically carry any weight anyway is Britain. That's just hard math, the Euros having freeloaded their security from us throughout the Cold War and now being fatally addicted to welfare entitlements they can't pay for. Posing as dissenters just saves face and capitalizes on anti-Americanism that has been around for decades. The only thing they would be "contributing" is "help" with reconstruction contracts, something they wanted for Iraq too.

we do not have a God-given mandate to use American force to install democracy, regardless of how wonderful democracy may be

Ba'athist Stalinism being much more morally palatable.

it exceeded Osama Bin Laden's dream scenario of American troops bogged down on Muslim soil.

Killing sympathizers to his cause by the thousands while he is free to, uh, keep hiding. Genius.

the crux of it is Donald Rumsfeld's question of whether our adventure in Iraq kills terrorists at a faster rate than they are being created due to the gasoline we are throwing on the fire by being there. I have to answer that question as a yes.

Apart from the "gasoline" characterization, I think most of us here would say yes also. We should be in agreement, then, that this is a just and productive war and that we should prosecute it fully so we can finish the job and move out.

Sortelli - France has never liked us. France is America's oldest enemy. France has never, ever liked America and considers us upstart barbarians.

I am rather fond of the Statue of Liberty, now, but I'm not going to argue that the current condition of France is anything other than a helpful marker for all the things a country should never be.

My spelling in that post scuked, but I was hoping the sarcasm carried through.

Hey Folks:

Bill Roggio over at The Fourth Rail has been invited to Iraq to do some first hand reporting on what our troops are up to. He's done some fantastic analysis of the military situation in the past, so his trip should be well worthwhile.

He needs money to get over there, and is currently soliciting donations. If you can afford it after being sucked dry by Ace, please try to help him out.

Recall what happened to the Mother of the 1000th soldier to die?
Now that the Peace(?) activists are gearing up for their 2000th fatality vigil, it might not be a bad idea for me to bring forward what happened when they celebratred the 1000th Soldier to die,
Or rather

WHAT THEY DID TO HIS MOTHER

Getting back to the original point, I wonder if anyone looking at the south in, say, 1870 would have said that the war was worth it. Blacks were still second class citizens in danger of being killed, the economy was still not recovered and the southerners still hated (and attacked) union troops.
Not to mention the thousands of young men on the streets with no arms or legs.

NO BLOOD FOR COTTON!

My mom called it the War of Yankee Aggression, and her mom wouldn't lick a one-cent stamp because it had Lincoln's picture on it. We learned all sorts of (undoubtedly bullshit) family stories about what happened with the Yankees came through. This stuff dies hard.

All Civil Wars are ugly and mean, but ours was especially so, as it was getting on for a modern war. And the Reconstruction was famously worse than the war in terms of the damage it did to the South. There's a reason why white Southerners are the one group in America you're allowed to make fun of as savagely as you like. It isn't a happy or smart reason, but it's a reason.

And -- oh, yeah -- remember the Solid South? Southerners were so determined to vote Democrat because Lincoln was a Republican that they kept the Democrats in control of government for decades, even as the whole party got crazier and meaner and more inimical to everyone's interests. Even now, the only way Democrats win the Presidency is to put Southerners on the ticket and hope to swing a few votes that way.

The enduring badness of the Civil War is with us still...

To VRWC:

1) Bosnia was not a matter of impending danger: it was a matter of real and existing danger. People were getting killed by the thousands in “ethnic cleansing.” Working with NATO, we sent troops which stopped the killing and stabilized the country at minimal loss of life. In my opinion, this is a good thing.
2) Maybe I was imprecise, but my point here was that we need the Europeans and others in fighting terrorists through their intelligence and police services, not how many troops could fight or how much ordnance they have. I think all of the 19 people from 9/11 lived in Europe at some point – terrorists’ money, resources, and people flow through borders – if they are eager to help us, we will be much safer than if they give us information and help grudgingly or not at all.
3) You miss my point. Of course democracy is better than Baathism. That’s not the issue. The question is whether American troops should be sent in a war of discretion to impose democracy. I think not.
4) We may be killing sympathizers by the thousands (although the number may be much lower, we don’t really know how many dead bodies are sympathizers and how many are innocents someone had a grudge against). However, we are growing them by the tens of thousands. Osama’s wildest dream come true. To many, Osama is perceived not as a loser in a cave but as someone who gave the Americans a black eye. As one example, press reports several years ago showed how the younger generation of Iranians thought we were pretty cool. America to them was Tom Cruise, McDonald’s, and jeans. Our troops are now in their neighboring country, having invaded with the stated reason of finding weapons which do not exist. Imagine how you might feel twenty years ago if Russia invaded Canada. Bush has single-handedly contributed to another Death to America generation over there. If you open your eyes and try to imagine what America and the occupation of Iraq might mean from the perspective of someone who lives in Saudi Arabia, for example, you might reconsider who is winning and who is losing.
5) My mistake for typing too quickly. I meant to say that the answer would be no (i.e., we are creating terrorists faster than we eliminate them).

We were on the wrong side of the Bosnian conflict. We should have been helping Milosevic.

The muslims had been murdering christians and committing atrocities (yes I have links). Milosevic had finally had enough and decided that instead of killing them, he would push them out of his territory.

He didn't cleanse them by killing - unless they resisted. He cleansed them by booting them out of his territory. Pretty tame if you ask me.

Since I know you'll ask:

HERE
and HERE

for starters. Clinton wanted to appeal to a "protected group" for propoganda efforts while ignoring the real plight of the murdered christians.

Christians don't like being murdered? They're fighting back?? We can't have that! Bomb them to hell!!

Bosnia was a collossal failure as far as intent went, and a humanitarian crime for what we did.

Well, that is an interesting perspective. I don't claim any expertise about Bosnia, and I've gone along with the generally accepted version that there was a lot of guilt on both sides, but much more on Milosevic's side. NATO and the US came in with white hats and ended the violence, and things have been more or less hunky dory since then. If I am wrong, I am eager to learn why. I will look at your links later but it is now morning in sunny California and time to get to work.

Iraq never attacked us? I guess Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy were hallucinating about the attempted biological weapons attack on them.

It's not like Iraq had any interest in or personnel dedicated to producing weapons-grade anthrax or anything.

I've gone along with the generally accepted version...

Therein lies the problem with your entire worldview.

Oh, please. The link goes to an article which speculates that the anthrax attacks may have been created by state sponsored terrorism. Not a shred of evidence connects it to Iraq. I don't deny that Iraq had biological weapons programs, as many countries do. The fact is that they did not attack us.

As for my worldview: you have no idea what my worldview is.

I don't deny that Iraq had biological weapons programs, as many countries do. The fact is that they did not attack us.

WHAT? THERE WERE NO WMDS!! BUSH LIED PEOPLE DIED!!

As for my worldview: you have no idea what my worldview is.

Bullshit, you've laid it all out on this thread for us to see.

Me above.

Seeker... I came to this on my own and started doing my own research on it. Why?

I start smelling something funny when a war sounds confusing. When the media refuses to report why the sides are killing each other, I know a media cover-up is in progress.

I've had these on my desktop for a while. Here's some more.

myth
myth
myth
myth

The rest of my links deal with muslim atrocities that were covered up by the media in other areas, so those are all the Bosnian ones I have. I could search for more - there's plenty.

I developed my nose for stories when I learned that we were being lied to about Bosnia. And I'm not really blaming Clinton. I didn't vote for the guy but he didn't do a bad job. It seemed that the entire world (UN) was obfuscating, lying, pulling whatever they could out of the "trick bag" and trying to make us think a certain way.

I don't like being told how to think. Not by the UN, not by leftists, not by televangelists, and not by conservatives.

If we can't think for ourselves, what good are we to society as citizens? We are nothing more than slaves if we accept the mental handicap of being told how to think.

There are supposedly only 4 anthrax strains world-wide.

Ours, the Soviets, the nazis (that got passed on to Iraq) and one other that I cannot recall.

I remember reading that the anthrax attacks here in America were of the nazi strain, or so claimed by one of the biologists who was in the loop.

I never saved any of those links, though, and don't even know where to look. Being that the US loves to deny terrorist connections - like the commonly held group-think that we have NOT been attacked since 9/11 - I tend to give credence to the idea that the anthrax attacks were, in fact, sponsored.

But... not definite and don't really care. If it was, we beat Iraq and Saddam is on trial. If not, then the attacks are over and the idiot who facilitated it is caught. Was that guy ever charged? Hmmm......

Also, Iraq lent assistance to the terrorists in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.

In the NPR interview, Cheney nevertheless said "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, citing "documents indicating that a guy named Abdul Rahman Yasin, who was part of the team who attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, when he arrived back in Iraq was put on the payroll and provided a house, safe harbor and sanctuary."

Cheney went on to make reference to links between 9/11 and Iraq, which the Post rebutted, but the Post never challenged the 1993 link.

And I want you to keep saying that the Washington Post is an unreliable source, since that's where a large portion of anti-Bush talking points (the ones that aren't too outrageous, anyway) posted by brainless trolls come from.

Oops, forgot the link to the Post article.

I meant to say that the answer would be no (i.e., we are creating terrorists faster than we eliminate them).

The pool of incipient terrorists is huge and needs to be addressed. Lack of response or restricting response to police actions simply emboldens the terrorists and enlarges the pool, as we saw quite clearly over the last two decades. A combination of hammering them in Iraq and controlling the inflammatory rhetoric in mosques around the world seems like an effective long-term strategy, although the latter approach is lagging the former. But it will take at least a decade before reductions in the pool are noticeable.

You know, I've looked at the history of anthrax and cannot find the German connection. I must have some other biological agent and am confusing the two.

Also, I cannot find any supporting evidence for what I posted, so just ignore it. Don't bother refuting it - I refuse to stand by something if I cannot prove it.

Bosnia was not a matter of impending danger: it was a matter of real and existing danger.

But not to us. Just to the locals. Like Iraq. (We are ignoring the actual merits of that conflict versus this one just for simplicity and the fact that you already approve of it.)

Working with NATO

... because the UN wanted no part of it, as usual.

We need the Europeans and others in fighting terrorists through their intelligence and police services

We don't have that? I disagree. We share intelligence as a matter of self-interest.

So you agree that the only allies we can count on in an actual shooting war are the ones we have and that ignoring France & Co. has cost us just about nothing militarily. It's a good point to concede.

Of course democracy is better than Baathism. That’s not the issue. The question is whether American troops should be sent in a war of discretion to impose democracy.

Bosnia was a war of discretion. The Revolutionary War was a war of discretion and fought to "impose" democracy. What you omit, and what my remark about Ba'athist stalinism should have reminded you about, was that we did not go in merely to improve abstract systems of government.

We may be killing sympathizers by the thousands ... However, we are growing them by the tens of thousands.

Source?

Osama’s wildest dream come true.

As I indicated before, only if his wildest dream was to have two sympathetic totalitarian states flip to the free side of the ledger, have his minions chewed up by our military instead of blowing up more buildings full of innocents, and to be reduced to scurrying like a rat hoping to evade capture in a world increasingly hostile to him. Like I said, genius.

Our troops are now in their neighboring country, having invaded with the stated reason of finding weapons which do not exist.

Uhh, no. That is the "stated reason" that the moonbats decended on and have been playing through the MSM echo chamber. Bush actually laid out multiple reasons, any one of which was sufficient reason to go.

Imagine how you might feel twenty years ago if Russia invaded Canada.

You are aware of the inherently silly equivalency there, right? A better example would be to ask how subjects in Poland or the Ukraine would have felt if we had flipped Russia back in the day.

try to imagine what America and the occupation of Iraq might mean from the perspective of someone who lives in Saudi Arabia

A failure of imagination and vision are not really faults you can lay on this side of the debate, my friend. Try to imagine what a free Iraq will mean to those people once we have finished the job and cleared out. THAT'S this issue.

I meant to say that the answer would be no

And when you say zee no, it sometimes means zee yes, oui?

Source your statement that we are "creating" terrorists faster than we are eliminating them. The fact is, and this is an earlier point, what we are actually accomplishing goes almost entirely unreported. Telling, that.

As I pointed out in that 9:34 comment I referred you to, this war already fits your stated view of a just war. The rest of this discussion seems to be devoted to trying to rationalize a different conclusion.

The link goes to an article which speculates that the anthrax attacks may have been created by state sponsored terrorism. Not a shred of evidence connects it to Iraq.

Relevant excerpts from the Post article I linked earlier:

Scientists suggested that the loner theory appeared flawed even in the opening days of the investigation. The profile was issued three weeks after U.S. Army scientists had examined the Daschle spores and found them to be 1.5 to 3 microns in size and processed to a grade of 1 trillion spores per gram -- 50 times finer than anything produced by the now-defunct U.S. bioweapons program and 10 times finer than the finest known grade of Soviet anthrax spores.

[...]

Also early in the case, U.S. authorities dismissed the possibility that Iraq could have sponsored the attacks because investigators determined that the spores had been coated with silica to make them disperse quickly, rather than the mineral bentonite, regarded by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command as Iraq's additive of choice.

However, Iraq's alleged preference for bentonite appears to be based on a single sample of a common pesticide collected by U.N. authorities from Iraq's Al Hakam biological weapons facility in the mid-1990s. By contrast, the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency warned in declassified documents as early as 1989 that Iraq was acquiring silica to use as a chemical weapons additive.

In 1998, Iraq reported to the United Nations that it had conducted an artillery test of a live biological agent that used silica as a dispersant. And U.N. and U.S. intelligence documents reviewed by The Post show that Iraq had bought all the essential equipment and ingredients needed to weaponize anthrax bacteria with silica to a grade consistent with the Daschle and Leahy letters.

[...]

Some fumed silicas are extremely difficult to make, but at least two -- Aerosil and Cab-O-Sil -- are readily available and sold commercially in bulk. Either product, in theory, could be used to coat anthrax spores. Aerosil is based in Germany and Cab-O-Sil, in Boston. Both firms have offices around the world.

Ken Alibek, a former deputy director of the Soviet bioweapons program now running an Alexandria biotechnology firm, said the Soviets used Aerosil in agent powders, and a classified Defense Department memo in 1991 said Iraq had "imported approximately 100 MT [metric tons] of Aerosil during the last 8-9 years." Spertzel said the United Nations reported in the 1990s that Iraq had 10 metric tons of Cab-O-Sil, probably destined for its chemical weapons program.

[...]

The United Nations also documented the presence of three Niro Inc. spray dryers [machinery possibly used to weaponize anthrax] in Iraq in the 1990s. Spertzel said two were destroyed, and the third was scoured and sterilized before inspectors could examine it.

Gee officer, the suspect said he wanted to kill the gunshot victim, the suspect had a gun, and the bullets in the gun matched the bullets in the victim, but there's not one shred of evidence that connects the man to the shooting.

but it is now morning in sunny California and time to get to work.

That was just uncalled for.

Sure, rub it in.

*mutter*

Growing terrorists?

That wasn't happening before 9/11? The 9/11 report talks about how Al Queda went from the ass-end of a Datsun pick-up truck to an international organization with tens of thousands of members - LONG before they ever struck us - and all in the span of a decade.

If we don't face them "over there," we're going to face them over here - as we did on 9/11.

How many more 9/11s do you think we need to justify taking the fight over there? How many more 1000s need to die HERE before you realize that unless we strike on their home turf, we're always going to be a victim?

Do you want us to always be a victim? Or do you want us to win this war?

The fact is, we're not fighting Iraqis over there - not in the majority. According to the Iraqis themselves, most of the "insurgents" are foreign. The Iraqis are not pleased.

We're thinning the herd and depleting the stock of suicide bombers and murderers. Until the religion changes, we're going to need bullets, because, yes, terrorists will continue to replace the ones we kill. But we have to provide a place where free muslims provide a safe place for imams to practice the doctrine of abrogation. This will take years.

But if we just give up and go away, the hydra will still grow and we're going to start seeing those murderers killing our school children over HERE.

VRWC and Sue and on f'n' fire

Sue: uh, no. The article speculates on limited evidence that Iraq could have produced the strain of anthrax which was used. We do not know who else in the US and elsewhere had access to equipment which would produce this strain. There is no explanation of which Iraqis did it or how it was done. Even if they did produce this type of anthrax – which is not established – there is no evidence to connect them to the crime. I may have a loaded gun, but that does not mean that I have used it.

VRWC and William: I’m not wimping out of a fight here, but I don’t have time at the office to get into this. I will say quickly to VRWC that I agree that we do not need the French militarily and I would not consider them to have been allies since at least before de Gaulle. I also agree regarding the UN. Everything else: well, I’ll try to get to it later in the show.

there is no evidence to connect them to the crime.

Face it, there is no amount of evidence that will convince you.

You wouldn't happen to know Cleopatra, would you?

Maybe I missed it, but did seeker in any of his responses provide a credible, effective response to the 2002 Saddam scenario other than military action?

Monty, wasn't Lindberg against the U.S. entering the war because he was a Nazi sympathizer. Why use him to make your point?

Sue: untrue. If there were clear and credible evidence, I would certainly believe it. There simply is no evidence here. The standard in a criminal case is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The standard to invade a country should be at least as high. Your insistence that because Iraq probably had the capability to produce the anthrax, it therefore was guilty of the crime is ludicrously short of this standard.

V the K: I believe that continued containment was the best of the lot of imperfect alternatives. As with North Korea, there are no satisfactory options, and I believe that it will become increasingly evident over time that the invasion of Iraq is counter-productive to the goals of defeating terrorism and keeping America safe. I am not thrilled about Saddam remaining in power, but I believe that had we not gone into Iraq, we would have the resources, alliances, and credibility to fight the real war on terror, of which Iraq played at most a bit part.

I dunno, colon. I've read that "Nazi sympathizer" is pushing the case a bit. Anyhow, before the war, it would have been quite possible to look at the Nazi party and see...I dunno...clean living, physical fitness, love of country and representational art as their main characteristics. Doesn't mean one would automatically endorse shoving Jews into ovens.

We've had half a century of watching the film of mountains of corpses being bulldozed into pits at Auschwitz as a helpful visual aid to understanding what "Nazi" means.

You suggest the Nazi Party represented: clean living, physical fitness, love of country and representational art as their main characteristics

Both Lindburgh and Henry Ford sympathized and openly campaigned for the Nazi party my friend. You're outlook is full of the optimism of a child- a white haired, blue-eyed boy, if I'm not mistaken. Nevermind. I suppose you've decided not to note Hitler's Mein Kempf, written way before the first corpses filled those ditches- which you strangely suggest reframe the Nazi party in a more negative light. Or, Hitler's obliteration of counter parties and the purge he initiated in his own party. Your ideology is clear. Your history is muddied.

Your insistence that because Iraq probably had the capability to produce the anthrax, it therefore was guilty of the crime is ludicrously short of this standard.

First thing, you don't seem to understand the standard. We're not talking about the ingredients and technology it takes to make a custard pie. This is weapons-grade anthrax we're talking about here.

The technology used to make the anthrax found in the Daschle and Leahy letters is beyond what the U.S. and the Soviet Union had at the height of their bioweapons programs.

You seem convinced that other countries had this technology. Please list them.

List every other nation besides Iraq that could produce spores 1.5 to 3 microns in size and processed to a grade of 1 trillion spores per gram, with silica as a dispersant. Once you get that list, name the ones that had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out these attacks.

Once you're done with that, credibly refute the huge amount of publicly documented evidence that Iraq had WMD after Gulf War I.

Credible refutation does not consist of waving your hand and chanting the words "no evidence."

I won't waste my electrons debating someone too dim to follow a point or make up a name to post under. Go caricature someone else, dipshit.

You caricatured your self just fine.

I'm not going to get into Lindbergh's political views, where weren't so much sympathetic to the Nazi cause so much as what the Nazis were viewed to be in America. During the 1930's (almost right up until the invasion of Poland), the Nazis were viewed pretty indulgently in the West: they could get a little extreme, sure, but they were getting Germany back on their feet, weren't they?

And it's also important to note that anti-semitism was rampant in Europe (and pretty common in the U.S. as well), so the early depredations upon the jews by the Sturmabteilung and other thugs went largely unremarked (or even tacitly approved).

Many in America shared Lindbergh's view that the European war was not our war, and that the Nazi menace was overblown (you hear similar sentiments about the islamofascists nowadays; the wheel turns). Had Adolph Hitler not pre-emptively declared war on the US, FDR would have had a very difficult time persuading the Congress to go to war in Europe. There was a lot of resentment in America when a "European theater first" strategy was adopted; many felt that the Japanese were our only true enemy, and that we were simply playing boot-boy to the British. (Atkinson's An Army At Dawn gives some very illuminating background on this dynamic.)

In a way, Hitler guaranteed his own defeat by declaring war on America; had he held his tongue, he would very well have defeated England in 1942 or 1943, and been able to concentrate his Eastern Front forces and avoid the catastrophe that began in Stalingrad.

I believe that continued containment was the best of the lot of imperfect alternatives.

Because the cost of letting Hussein continue to build up with cash from the Oil for Food scandal (which would never have been uncovered but for the war) and continue with the executions, torture, rape rooms and terror was so low as compared to, say, Bosnia?

believe that it will become increasingly evident over time that the invasion of Iraq is counter-productive to the goals of defeating terrorism and keeping America safe.

Because defending Kuwait and turning it back to the locals alienated everyone in the region so badly? Because a democratic Iraq will not share intelligence or be a relative ally in the region? Because the Euros, who need us at least as much as we need them, don't share intelligence anymore?

I believe that had we not gone into Iraq, we would have the resources, alliances, and credibility to fight the real war on terror

We either fight it here or we fight it there - to the gain of the Iraqis and, ultimately, the surrounding peoples. There is a reason most "insurgents" are from over the border, you know. The despots next door know perfectly well where all of this leads. Our success means dramatic human rights improvements or their outright end.

So which side of this internal debate would Saddam have preferred to prevail 2 1/2 years ago? Which side do the present day despots want to win? Do the Iraqis want Saddam restored to power?

Questions, questions.

1) Re containment: because there will always be despicable regimes which torture and enslave their people. North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, whatever. Whether these regimes are better or worse than Hussein’s is anyone’s guess. Let me be very clear: I am not saying that because we cannot engage with all of these dictators, we therefore should not engage with any of them. I believe that some regimes are so odious that the nations forfeit any right of sovereignty, and I believe that each of these regimes (including Hussein) fits the bill. However, I think Iraq was the wrong battle because, for the reasons noted above, I believe that our adventure there is and will be counter-productive to our true interests of fighting terrorism and keeping America safe. I fully admit that containment is a crappy way to go. However, I believe it is far less crappy than the route we have chosen.

2) Re Kuwait: totally different series of events – Iraq crossed the border and invaded Kuwait, and we liberated them. Re a democratic Iraq: a) far too early to call it democratic, b) whether they will have useful intelligence is too early to know, and c) whether they will be an ally is also too early to know – Kuwait isn’t such a reliable ally these days. Re the Euros: it is indisputable that our relationships with them are badly strained. Whether they need our intelligence, or whether they share all of their intelligence, are things which neither of us know. However, by bullying them we have not helped the free flow of information. Once can only assume that the passage of intelligence between states is a discretionary thing – they can provide it or not as they see fit – and it is only logical that a robust and cooperative partnership will be more helpful to us in tracking terrorists and their money/resources than the current state of affairs.

3) It is not an either/or situation where we fight them here or we fight them there. England is fighting them in both places. So was Spain until they withdrew from Iraq. Terrorists can cross borders and there is nothing about a military occupation of Iraq which, for example, precludes a militant Islamist in Toronto from crossing the border and causing mayhem. The question is whether our actions in Iraq have led to circumstances where a greater or lesser number of people are willing to die so they can kill Americans. Also whether they have enhanced or impeded the ability of Arab moderates to exert influence. On both counts, I think the results are pretty clear.

4) Are despots in Arab countries rooting for us to win or to fail? I am not being disingenuous in saying that I don’t know. We have been supporting despots like Mubarak and the house of Saud for years, and I wouldn’t presume to know who they want to win. Since we don’t seem to be putting any pressure on them to reform their own governments, maybe they want us to be bogged down in Iraq so we leave them alone.

5) Do the Iraqis want Saddam to return to power? Well, the Sunnis and the Kurds certainly don’t. I am not saying that removing Saddam is not a good thing. I am saying that it has not been justified by the cost thus far, broadly defined to include lives, money, our ability to fight terrorists, and other American strategic interests. My personal opinion is that within the next few years, the Iraqi people will be so tired of the endless violence and upheaval that they will find another strongman with tacit American support. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Sorry, meant to write "Shiites and Kurds" in the last paragraph, not "Sunnis and Kurds"

So, basically, seeker's answer to when you have a dictator who has committed multiple acts of aggression against his neighbors, repeatedly violated the terms of a ceasefire, defied 14 UN Resolutions to disarm, funds and harbors terrorists, rapes and butchers his own people, and is believed by the global community to be developing WMD ... is to basically let him keep doing what he's doing.

OK, then. You are comfortable with Saddam butchering his own people. You are OK with him funding and harboring terrorists who kill Americans. You are OK with him developing WMDs. You are OK with him defying his own treaty obligations. And, if not OK, you certainly don't want to do anything that would actually fix the situation. OK, I understand that. And I don't agree with it. I would prefer the situation got resolved before Saddam developed nukes and supplied his terrorist buddies with them to slaughter Americans... but that is a price seeker is willing to pay in exchange for not being put to any trouble. I disagree with that assertion.

You are taking what I said and twisting it out of context. I am not OK with the things which Saddam did. However, I recognize that there will always be evil in the world that we can do very little about. In Africa, the Hootoos and the Tootsies (or however you spell it) are butchering each other. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers are killing innocents by the truckload. Kim Il Jong is starving his people to death. The governments of Cuba and Burma enslave their people. Now let me ask you a question: should American force be used in each of those instances to come to the rescue and change regimes? If yes: then you have no conception of the limits of American power. If no: then I assume you are OK with all of this?

The question is in which instances is it appropriate to put American lives at risk. This is a question which should be answered with American self-interest and strategic interests in mind. I won’t repeat myself by restating why I believe that our interests are not well served by our invasion of Iraq. You obviously disagree, and I respect that. Time will tell. If Iraq turns into the beacon of democracy which illuminates the entire Middle East, I will kiss your ass in Macy’s window when the Thanksgiving Day parade goes by. If, on the other hand, Iraq turns into civil war, or another Saddam-like strongman, or a client state of Iran, then I will forgo the pleasure of seeing you kiss my ass. Regardless of who is right and wrong, the fact that I consider Iraq to be a tragic mistake for our interests does not mean that I am OK with rape rooms and gassing Kurds. It means nothing more than in the realpolitik of the situation I think it was a very bad route to take.

there will always be despicable regimes which torture and enslave their people

So the presence of evil in many places makes it morally unjustified to end it in any place?

Iraq crossed the border and invaded Kuwait, and we liberated them.

Quite different from butchering your own population. That's legit.

. Re a democratic Iraq: a) far too early to call it democratic

Oh, give me a break!

b) whether they will have useful intelligence is too early to know

In their neck of the woods, I'll pretty much guaranty a good security apparatus.

c) whether they will be an ally is also too early to know – Kuwait isn’t such a reliable ally these days.

Again, for the neck of the woods they are in, Kuwait does fine and Iraq will too.

t is not an either/or situation where we fight them here or we fight them there. England is fighting them in both places. So was Spain until they withdrew from Iraq.

And WHY did they go after Spain, hmmmm?

The ones we aren't fighting over there would be free to fight here. Or Europe. Or wherever else. The flypaper analogy applies.

The question is whether our actions in Iraq have led to circumstances where a greater or lesser number of people are willing to die so they can kill Americans.

No, the utilitarian question is whether there are more of them who are actually able to harm Americans. It's (number that would have existed anyway) + (number inspired by our actions) minus (number discouraged by our actions) minus (number taken out of circulation). We don't have those numbers, but attacks on our interests have certainly dropped dramatically.

Euros: it is indisputable that our relationships with them are badly strained. Whether they need our intelligence, or whether they share all of their intelligence, are things which neither of us know.

Our relationships were badly strained before. You might want to reexamine who the Oil for Food players were, for example. They have acted purely out of cynical self-interest and will continue to do so. And they know, incidentally, that we WILL do the heavy lifting that ultimately makes them safer even if they can't. That part of the Cold War dynamic hasn't changed for the reasons I alluded to earlier.

Are despots in Arab countries rooting for us to win or to fail? I am not being disingenuous in saying that I don’t know.

Then you have some homework to do.

We have been supporting despots like Mubarak and the house of Saud

How do Syria and Iran feel? Mubarek is already starting small steps for reform, like the Saudis, that he obviously had not wanted to make prior to our invasion. As for the Saudis, they have always been a harder problem to sove since the tyrants are more moderate than the electorate. I like to think we are saving them for last -- which also pretty much sums up the Saudis' own strategy for the last 30 years.

Do the Iraqis want Saddam to return to power? Well, the Sunnis and the Kurds certainly don’t.

Neither do most Sunnies. Hitch had a nice essay on this recently that you might want to check on the next time you are slumming on Slate.

My personal opinion is that within the next few years, the Iraqi people will be so tired of the endless violence and upheaval that they will find another strongman with tacit American support.

That strikes me as the core of all your other rationalizations. It is only the stuff of self-fulfilling prophecies. Compare Russia with Germany/Japan. If we stick with reconstruction, the Iraqis will do well. If we pull the plug and leave them to their own devices, however, your fears will likely come true and everything we have done will be wasted. Which outcome would you prefer?

1) No, I did not say that it is never morally justified to American security or interests, we ought not to do it.
2) Iraq may or may not be in the infancy of a democracy, but it is not there yet. In their election, candidates ran anonymously so they would not be assassinated. Their constitution denies rights to women and uses Sharia law as a cornerstone of their judicial system. These are not the hallmarks of a democracy. I’m not saying that they won’t get there – it’s too soon to tell – but they are definitely not there yet.
3) Useful intelligence: if your assumption of a viable democracy comes to pass, then who knows if terrorists will pass through Iraq – your argument seems to be that they will not, so who knows what useful intelligence results.
4) Quite clearly, they bombed the train stations in Spain to shift the elections their way. It worked. The Spanish left Iraq and Azzar, our ally, lost his Presidency. What’s your point?
5) The flypaper analogy is bogus. There is not a finite group of terrorists who are being eliminated one by one in Iraq. Are you familiar with whack-a-mole? You hit plastic moles when they come out of their holes with a big plastic mallet? That’s who we are fighting. Sure they are in Iraq, but they are also in Bali, Spain, England, Egypt, and who knows where else. Just as the portrayal of Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo as evil incarnate (which they were, of course) drove Americans to enlist for World War II, our occupation of Iraq, combined with the pictures of Abu Ghraib, dead Iraqi civilians, etc., is the motivating force to increase the ranks of terrorists far faster than we can eliminate them.
6) Attacks on our interests have dropped dramatically? London, Bali, Sharm-el-skeik are all attacks on Western interests. If there were a terrorist incident on American soil tomorrow, would you then agree that the effort in Iraq has been futile?
7) Your comment on our relationship with the Euros is factually incorrect. It was much stronger under Clinton than under Bush. Also much stronger immediately after 9/11 than it is today. Besides the bullying attitude of the Bush administration, it is the war in Iraq which more than anything else which has caused this.
8) Mubarak is making steps to reform? That’s why he jailed his electoral opponent a few weeks ago?
9) The Saudis are also making steps to reform? Could have fooled me.
10) If I thought that Iraq would turn into another Japan or Germany, I would feel very differently. For starters, we had a Marshall Plan in place for Europe and made similar efforts to help Japan. There is no such program for Iraq, and there is neither the money nor the political support to create one. Obviously neither of us can prove what will happen in the next few years. However, based on the ineptitude of the American occupation thus far, Iraq appears to be headed much closer to the Russian model than Japan or Germany.

First paragraph got mangled somehow. Should read: I did not say that the presence of evil in some places does not justify the use of force in any place. Rather, I said that there are instances (including Iraq) where even though it may be justifiable to use force from a moral standpoint, the use of force can be counter-productive to American interests from a strategic or military standpoint. I believe that our adventure in Iraq has made us less safe. For that reason, I believe that it was a tragic mistake to go there, regardless of whether it could be justified morally.

I take exception to the idea that Mussolini was evil. He might have been a dictator, but he only killed commie leaders.

In the beginning, Mussolini tried to align with Britain against Hitler (from Mussolini's memoirs), but was ignored by the Brits.

While Hitler and Stalin (as the other two fascists) were hard left wing, Mussolini (who started left wing in the 20s) moved to the center. Anti-communist with a few socialist leanings, but very respectful of private property and private industry.

Mussolini had no death camps or gulags and the commonly cited "collaboration" with Hitler's anti-semitism came after he was rescued by Skorzeny and not in control of his country, anyway.

His policies were heavy-handed, but he brought Italy into the 20th century as a modern power.

Seeker just perceives the problem in a different way than VRWC and I do. To his way of thinking, if America sits back and lets a dictator like Saddam continue to support terrorism and develop WMD (as every industrialized country believed he was) ... that will somehow keep other people from becoming terrorists. I don't see how that works, frankly. If you tell a bully to cut it out or there will be serious consequences and you don't follow through, it doesn't exactly encourage a bully to change his behavior.

Also, we shouldn't have done anything about Saddam's brutality because... 'aw, all the other kids were doing it.'

You read all of his responses and it all amounts to, "it's just too hard to try and make a difference, so, what's the point in even trying?" It is one way some people look at the world.

Fortunately, not everyone does.

It bears repeating:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." ~ John Stuart Mill

I'll have to pitch in my disagreement about there being too many dictators and oppressed people, so therefore we can't do any.

America has the ability to take one or two at a time. Those tutus? Or whatever? Did they attack America or sponsor terrorism against us? If not, then they don't matter.

Nations on the list for more immediate action should be:

Iran, Syria, SAUDI-FRICKIN-ARABIA, Egypt, PAKISTAN, and North Korea.

These are all high, hard sponsors of terrorism against us. In one way or another, including military action, they need to be dealt with.

My heart weeps for what is happening in Sudan. The Christians there are getting butchered every single day by Islamic murderers. But Sudan is not a national threat to us, so it would have to wait.

Doing nothing and letting it all happen to us is as stupid as playing on the freeway at night.

Well, no. First, Saddam did not have WMD, nor did he have an active program to develop them. His relationship with Al Qaeda was minimal to non-existent. Our invasion of Iraq quite clearly did not do anything to stop terrorism. He was the wrong target.

Nor did I say anything resembling “it is too hard to try.” The wars in Kuwait and Afghanistan, in my opinion, are clearly justified, and neither was a walk in the park. If we were fighting enemies which attacked us, no effort would be too much. This is not the case here. But I repeat myself.

How do you stop terrorism? By fighting terrorists. Afghanistan was a successful venture until it was neglected post-invasion by the Bush administration. Tracking the flow of funds and resources is another method. Tightening border controls is a third. I am all for fighting terrorism. If the war in Iraq had much to do with fighting terrorism, I would heartily support it. But it does not. In fact, it has made things much worse.

The other way to fight terrorism is to provide a moral example to the world. There is nothing immoral about attacking Al Qaeda. There is nothing wrong with using force in the right circumstances. However, you do not fight terrorists among Muslims by having images shown around the world of US troops using dogs on the prisoners at Abu Ghraib. You do not fight terrorists by supporting despots like Mubarak and the House of Saud while proclaiming how wonderful democracy is. You do not fight terrorists by telling the world how great the Bill of Rights is and then holding prisoners at Gitmo with no charges or access to counsel.

We could fight terrorism by pointing out to the Muslim world that we shed American blood to save Muslim lives in Bosnia. You could fight it by pointing out that we rushed aid to Muslim tsunami victims and we put pressure on Israel to leave Gaza. However, we don’t even do this: when Karen Hughes went to Saudi Arabia, she lectured them on how if they would be more like us everything would be hunky-dory over there. This administration is so inept that they play the wrong cards and leave the right cards in the deck.

You also fight terrorism by having a realistic sense of the limits of American power and when it is judicious to use military force. Going in with guns blazing is not always the answer, and it is emphatically not the answer in Iraq. We have many levers to us to fight terrorism, but regrettably we have been using the wrong ones.

Furthermore, just because the first draft of Arab Democracy doesn't look like Sweden, I don't consider that a failure by any means. After the Korean War (a war that consumed 16 times as many American lives in a comparable period of time with a far less decisive outcome), South Korea remained under an authoritarian government for most of the next four decades before finally emerging as a vibrant democracy. Our American ADD and demands for immediate gratification, unfortunately, make too many of us too often impatient to stick with a project for the long-haul.

Not to mention, if Truman had had the balls to stand up to the pinkos in the State Department and say, "Screw Realpolitik, we're taking it all," and left us with a United Korea, we wouldn't have to even deal with Kim Jong-Il. If Carter hadn't been such a limp-dick and had knocked out the Ayatollah (in defiance of realpolitik), he might have averted a generation of accelerating Islamic terror.

Realpolitik does not make the world a safer place. It just kicks problems down the road so that future generations have to deal with them once they are much bigger and deadlier. Maintaining the status quo doesn't solve the problem, it just raises the body count. The bill for leaving Saddam in power would not have come due until he actually did have WMD's... and terrorist allies to dispense them.

The John Stuart Mill quote (from On Liberty?) is absolutely correct. However, it is also absolutely irrelevant. I am not advocating pacifism. I am advocating the judicious use of force when it is appropriate. It is not appropriate in Iraq.

And if a situation in which a brutal dictator with a history of aggression against his neighbors, believed to be developing WMDs, who was openly defying sanctions and treaty obligations, who was known to support and harbor terrorists in a region of the world that was spreading terror globally, is not an occasion to use force, then what is?

I know, we were supposed to wait until a few thousand American civilians were dead, first.

South Korea is not a good example. As you admit, they had authoritarian rule for forty years. We have kept our troops there for over fifty years and we are very unpopular among the younger generation of Koreans – a recent poll in Korea listed George Bush as a greater menace to the South Koreans than Kim Jong Il. There is still no armistice and technically we are still in a state of war. You’re happy with these results?

Realpolitik is not synonymous with inactivity – it is simply the recognition of national self-interest in the context of what state power can and cannot achieve. Sometimes doing nothing pushes the ball down the road, as you say. However, sometimes doing something – such as a military invasion – does not solve the problem, and instead makes things worse. That is the situation in Iraq. The question is not whether we do something or not – the question is whether we have done the right thing. In the case of Iraq, we have not.

At the risk of repeating myself: Afghanistan and Kuwait are occasions to use force. Iraq is not, for the reasons stated above.

Nor is it in any way clear that invading Iraq prevented any American deaths, much less a few thousand of them. Saddam did not have the weapons to use or the people to use them. There was no imminent threat. In fact, there probably was no threat at all. There was a very real threat posed by Soviet Russia, but we chose not to invade them. There is now a very real threat posed by North Korea, but we can’t even think about doing anything about it because our troops are bogged down in Iraq. There is a very real threat posed by Al Qaeda cells throughout the world, but we are hamstrung in our ability to fight them – or to limit their numbers – for the reasons stated elsewhere above. But I repeat myself.

Seeker - You don't think Iraq should have been on the hitlist.

Neither did I back in 2003.

I felt Saudi Arabia needed to be next. However, I assumed Bush would not have the balls to go after the money-tit of Islamofascism. Instead, he picked Iraq.

Perhaps he picked Iraq because:
*We had been in Iraq and knew the terrain for an easier victory
*Saddam had begged Osama to coordinate and cooperate on joint efforts (9/11 report)
*Iraq had violated so many UN resolutions and deadlines that "making the case" was far less difficult than just another standard petty dictatorship that happened to support terror (so loved by the UN)
*We knew the populace had suffered mass atrocities and would be likely to welcome a change (unlike Iran - sharia but no atrocities)

I tend to think that after 2 years, I think Bush made the right choice. BUT.... this post is meant to ask:

What country would YOU have targeted (militarily), if at all?

I would have targeted Afghanistan but not Iraq. I would have used our resources to put more pressure on North Korea. After all, they have WMD and their leader is a certifiable nut job. Say what you will about Hussein, but he seems to have some sense of his own self-interest. He is crazy like a fox. Kim Jong Il is just crazy. I realize that the military option in Korea is a very difficult one, so I am not saying we should necessarily have gone in with guns blazing, but I consider it to be the much greater threat and where we should have devoted our resources and leverage.

To be a little more precise: have a few Navy boats on regular patrol in the Korean straits. Inspect North Korean cargo for drugs or weapons. Fire warning shots across the bow when Kim Jong Il makes the wrong moves. Offer asylum to anyone who can escape North Korea and then react militarily if he shoots to stop them. I'm not a military expert, and I don't pretend to be one. However, I do know that the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to him, and I also know that the war in Iraq has drained our military resources to the point where our hands are tied.

All actions have unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of the war in Iraq are only beginning to unfold.

Only with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight can you say Saddam was not a threat. That was not the consensus in 2002. And, I still believe he was, given that he was actively subverting the sanctions regime, supplying money to terrorist groups and harboring them inside Iraq, bribing the French, the UN, George Galloway, and who knows who else with Oil-for-palaces money. An imminent threat, with 20-20 hindsight, one could arguably say no. A long-term threat, decidedly so.

And I think with thousands of terrorists dead or imprisoned, the beginning of a democratic self-rule in Iraq, and the possibility of Saddam ever acquiring WMD foreclosed once and for good... things are decidedly better in Iraq.

As proof, I cite a simple fact that under Hussein, nearly 4,000,000 Iraqis... near 20% of the population... fled the country. Now, if things were as awful there as the media and the left would have us believe, we could expect a massive Iraqi refugee problem. But that is not the case. Not only are Iraqis NOT fleeing their country, some ex-pats are returning. The real estate markets in Baghdad, Mosul, and the oil-bearing Kurdish regions are booming. People don't make those kinds of investments unless they have faith that things are improving. Your assertion that the invasion has "made things worse" implies that Iraqis were better off when the rape rooms and children's prisons were in operation. I find that sentiment callous and vile.

Well, I am using 20/20 hindsight. I initially supported the war because Hussein's regime was odious and I, too, thought there were weapons of mass destruction. I believed that in a post-9/11 world, the standards of proof should be relaxed somewhat. However, I did not know at the time that the government distorted the intelligence they had to lead to a pre-determined result. I also did not know how entirely inept the Bush team would be. I thought: these guys are the A-Team, they've been through it before and they know what to do. I sure was wrong about that. However, truth be told, without hindsight I supported the war -- however, with hindsight, no way.

I hope you are right and I am wrong about the future of Iraq. However, I just don't see it.

When I said that the invasion of Iraq made things worse, I did not mean that it made things worse for the Iraqis (although in some ways it has: I am sure that in Hussein's day you could get from the airport to town without getting shot at). Rather, it was in the context that it made things worse for Americans insofar as it impeded our ability to fight our true enemies.

North Korea sure is a basket case. On the one hand, a "military option" there is asking for the mushroom cloud on millions of South Koreans. But the war is winnable.

On the OTHER hand, North korea is the best example of why we need to take out basket-case regimes before they complete their nukes.

With some occasional disturbing news the Kim Dong Ill is actively advertising he'll sell WMDs to any terrorist that wants them, I'd say he would have been a more immediate threat than Saddam. But then you have to consider that we pissed away our opportunities in the 90s to do something about it.

Sure, Saddam was not a total ballsack in the brains department like Kim, but he also wanted to support terrorism against America and begged Osama to let him in on it all.

Weighing the two ballsacks side-by-side, Saddam was the easier of the two because he had not yet developed nukes. While Kim was more dangerous, he was also more deadly to confront.

(ahemIstillwould'vewentafterSAUDIARABIAcough)

I agree with everything you say about North Korea.

My only disagreement is with the suggestion that Hussein was somehow close to developing nuclear weapons. There was no evidence unearthed since the invasion which suggests that.

I would add that loose Russian nukes pose a far greater nuclear threat than Saddam ever did, and their containment seems to be an afterthought to this administration.

seeker wrote:
Well, no. First, Saddam did not have WMD, nor did he have an active program to develop them. His relationship with Al Qaeda was minimal to non-existent. Our invasion of Iraq quite clearly did not do anything to stop terrorism. He was the wrong target.

Earlier, seeker wrote:
I don't deny that Iraq had biological weapons programs, as many countries do.

You're losing track of the lies you believe.

Not at all. It is a fact that Hussein had WMD in the early 1990's-- after all, he gassed the Kurds. However, there was no evidence that the programs to develop them were still in existence at the time we invaded Iraq. There were no laboratories or infrastructure which was discovered to point to this. There were no vials of toxins or cannisters of gas which were found. Given the intensity of our search, it is difficult to imagine that these programs existed and we simply could not find them. The most likely explanation is that these programs discontinued at some point in the 1990's.

That's great, seeker, but I still haven't forgiven you for reminding me that it's warm in other states. Sure, it was an offhand remark to you about "sunny California," but remember your frozen bretheren!

It's 36 frickin' degrees here.

*mutters*

Well, I have a secret to reveal. I typed that post before the sun rose. It turned out to be a rainy and crappy day in the Bay Area. Rain all over the hot tub and the wind chimes. Probably Bush's fault.

It turned out to be a rainy and crappy day in the Bay Area

Ahhh...outstanding! You've made me feel a bit better.

The rain has finally stopped here (it was snowing a bit earlier) so maybe all of those leaves on my deck will dry enough for me to be able to sweep them off tomorrow.

sunny, 70s.

I love fall. I wrote a poem about it.

Texas Weather

Spring has sprung and fall has fell
when summer gets here, it'll be hotter than hell

thank you. yes. goodnight

Snowing? In October? Where do you live -- Winnipeg?

Hmmm... and I thought the only good thing to come out of Texas was I-10...

Dave, that poem is, er, lovely.

70s would be great.

seeker, no. I live in Maine. Parts of the state got a foot of snow yesterday and today.

While Kim was more dangerous, he was also more deadly to confront.

The reason we haven't taken a stronger stance with North Korea is China. Iraq had no China, and in fact had no friends in the Middle East. An ideal spot to attempt a reformation of a poisonous ideology.

So if you believe Iraq was a no-no, then no number of deaths would matter? This goes back to post #1.

So if there had been only 2 deaths, you'd still be shaking your head? No deaths and a resounding success? Still no?

Slublog: great state, I love Maine

Geoff: I think China is a piece of the puzzle, but by far the greater consideration is the fact that Seoul is about a 25 minute drive from the border, and a hot war would likely lead to the immediate deaths of an unimaginable number of people.

William: do you mean if we went to war in Iraq, but nobody died -- no US soldiers, no Iraqi soldiers, no civilians -- would it have been worthwhile to topple Hussein? Of course it would -- but that is so far from the reality that your point eludes me.

Afghanistan was a successful venture until it was neglected post-invasion by the Bush administration.

It was a successful venture until Al Qaeda crossed the border into Pakistan where we can't follow. Fortunately the Pakistanis are occasionally uprooting their nasty little nests. But they're not nearly as dogged about it as we would be.

Slub, you were kind to me last month when we were still dealing with 100s dragging into Sept.

So I'm not going to rub it in now that your weather has taken that harsh turn, and ours is mild and enjoyable. Especially since I know you've been here and know exactly what I'm talking about.

Oh hell, who am I kidding? Suck it.

Dave, thanks for the consideration and your words of encouragement as I deal with Maine's turbulent fall.

Oh, and bite me.

Geoff: I think China is a piece of the puzzle, but by far the greater consideration is the fact that Seoul is about a 25 minute drive from the border, and a hot war would likely lead to the immediate deaths of an unimaginable number of people.

Just look at the six-nation negotiations going on over NK. China's using NK to keep us (and Japan) off balance and weaken our support for Taiwan. If we invaded North Korea, China would take Taiwan and their support for the NK resistance would dwarf Iran's support for Iraqi insurgents.

brrrrrrrrr!

No argument there -- although I'm not sure about the Taiwan thing -- I used to live in Asia and I have great respect for the Chinese, and in this situation they are playing the cards they are dealt --

Slub:

Don't worry, Dave's only got 2 weeks of the year when the weather's tolerable. You've got at least 14. Of course in Colorado it's more like 40, but pointing that out would be rude.

Well, for Slub to get to Texas, all he has to do is go West until he smells it and then South until he steps in it. On the other hand, Geoff can pretty much go due South to reach Texas. So I would have to say advantage Geoff here.

Funny thing is, I was actually born in Texas.

I've realized that I almost prefer extreme cold to extreme heat. When you're cold, you can put on coats, cover yourself with blankets, etc. to get warm.

If you're hot, though, there's nothing short of A/C that will make you comfortable.

I frickin' hate snow, though.

we just get nekkid

Funny thing is, I was actually born in Texas.

Spent 4 years of my tender youth in Austin. No desire to return, specially if Dave is nekkid.

Their constitution denies rights to women and uses Sharia law as a cornerstone of their judicial system.

The first part was applicable to our own Constitution for over a century and the second misstates what their constitution says. And even of this were not so, Democracy doesn't mean secularism; it means the people get to choose. They have been and will continue to do so.

if your assumption of a viable democracy comes to pass, then who knows if terrorists will pass through Iraq

First, shared intelligence obviously does not require a viable democracy although I do believe the Iraqis will have one. Second, are you saying intelligence requires the physical presence of terrorists within one's borders?! Finally, I think it's obvious that a free Iraq will continue to draw elements from surrounding regimes that seek to undermine it - hence my assurance that they will indeed have a well functioning security apparatus before we leave just as a prereq for their own survival.

clearly, they bombed the train stations in Spain to shift the elections their way. It worked. The Spanish left Iraq and Azzar, our ally, lost his Presidency. What’s your point?

That weakness of resolve invites worse attacks than steadfast opposition to the enemy.

The flypaper analogy is bogus. There is not a finite group of terrorists ... Are you familiar with whack-a-mole?

There is not a finite number of flies, either. You may want to think a little more on this. As for whack-a-mole, I think shooting prarie dogs might be a better analogy. Even if they are breeding, it's better to be picking them off. Whack-a-mole or prarie dog shooting both fail as analogies, however, since the objects of whacking are not being drawn from surrounding places to the place where they get whacked.

our occupation of Iraq, combined with the pictures of Abu Ghraib, dead Iraqi civilians, etc., is the motivating force to increase the ranks of terrorists far faster than we can eliminate them.

Once again, I'll challenge you to source that math. If you were right, AQ would be more powerful than before we toppled Saddam. The reports I have read say just the opposite. They also suggest that the foreign "insurgents" who preponderate in Iraq are not exactly a spontaneous grassroots phenomenon.

Attacks on our interests have dropped dramatically? London, Bali, Sharm-el-skeik are all attacks on Western interests.

So were WTC I, Riyadh, Khobal Towers, the IRC shootings in Karachi, the IG attack in Luxor, the AQ bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the Cole, the 2000 plaza bombing in Manila, WTC II and the anthrax letters. I'm probably ignoring a host of other attacks too. And WTC II was supposed to be the beginning of a full court press that escalated this kind of thing. Isn't happening, is it?

Your comment on our relationship with the Euros is factually incorrect. It was much stronger under Clinton ... Also much stronger immediately after 9/11 than it is today.

Baloney. A photo-op is not a functional relationship. The best you can say is that Clinton's strategy of making promises of reprisal and then doing nothing about attacks was better aligned with the Euros'. That gives you a great "alliance" when it comes to getting lumped and exactly nothing when you start swinging back. An alliance of victimhood is in no way a useful relationship. I'd rather have one ally who will break some furniture with me when things get ugly than 10 who offer sympathies for my ass getting kicked.

Example of our "better" relations: When was the Oil for Food scam hatched? Was it before or after we "alienated" our "allies" by resuming military engagement in Iraq?

Mubarak is making steps to reform?

I believe I said, "small steps ... that he obviously had not wanted to make prior to our invasion." The release of Ayman Nour, the (mostly show) allowance of multi-party voting would be examples. This isn't a democratic revolution by any stretch; it's more like the reforms Castro undertook when the Sovs collaped. There is movement in the right direction despite an obvious hatred for the change.

The Saudis are also making steps to reform? Could have fooled me.

I am sure nobody meant to. The Saudi's have made largely cosmetic reforms allowing for greater local democratic participation accompanied by small devolutions of power to local governments. As with Egypt, even this is not something they want. And, as with Egypt, there is a REASON they are taking these admittedly inadequate steps.

What do you think they are reacting to? Do you think it will lesson with these small reforms or get bigger? I'd say the answer depends largely on our success in Iraq.

we had a Marshall Plan in place for Europe and made similar efforts to help Japan. There is no such program for Iraq

HUH?! WTF are you talking about? I'll admit that you don't ever hear about it on the news, but we have been staging massive rebuilding efforts in Iraq. You may at least dimly recall the complaints that it wasn't happening as fast as we hoped and the response that we had not been aware of how badly Hussein had allowed the country's infrastructure to decay. Any of this ring a bell?

To the degree that these is resistance to our continued rebuilding of Iraq, it isn't coming from the conservative camp.

neither of us can prove what will happen in the next few years

I think we can agree on what will happen if we withdraw. We are in this thing, so let's finish it properly and see which side is right about what success means.