Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Another fifth anniversary
Today is the fifth anniversary of President George W. Bush's great speech before a Joint Session of the United States Congress following the attacks of September 11, 2001. The speech (transcript and links to video) names the enemy and declares the tactics that will be used against it. A reading of that speech today against the last five years reveals that the president has acted, or at least tried to act, in accordance with the principles and tactics he described on that day to bipartisan applause and approval. Certainly the Bush administration has not executed perfectly on each objective set forth in the speech, and critics will no doubt complain that Iraq was a catastrophic diversion. Nevertheless, President Bush's measurement of the enemy on that day has become the conventional wisdom, and he has mostly done what he said he would do. Many of the people who attack the president for the tactics he is using today applauded that speech five years ago. Did they applaud then because they didn't believe him, because they thought he would do a better job with the paperwork, or because they've changed their mind since?
Naming the enemy
President Bush's description of al Qaeda on that day is the conventional wisdom five years later, largely unaltered by subsequent scholarship. In the following passage he identifies the networked, "loosely affiliated" nature of al Qaeda's ideological allies, their victories to date, that al Qaeda is leading an insurgency within Islam, and its global penetration and reach.
Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking, "Who attacked our country?"
The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as al Qaeda. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya and responsible for bombing the USS Cole.
Al Qaeda is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money, its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere.
The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics; a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam.
The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Osama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan.
There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. (bold emphasis added)
Since then, of course, al Qaeda has repeatedly taken credit for the attacks of September 11.
Where do these terrorists come from? Well, notwithstanding the subsequent surprise of the British, Dutch and other Europeans who were shocked to learn of the jihadis in their midst, President Bush told them five years ago:
They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction.
The president then tagged the state sponsors, starting with the Taliban regime in Afghanistan but leaving no doubt that the scope of the war extended beyond that one vicious regime. Note particularly where the president was interrupted by applause, and -- if you watch the video -- see if you can detect any indication that Democrats sat on their hands (bold emphasis added):
The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends. Our enemy is a radical network of terrorists and every government that supports them.
(APPLAUSE)
Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
(APPLAUSE)
"Why do they hate us?"
Critics of the Bush administration say that it misapprehends the reasons for al Qaeda's objectives, that it is simplistic to say that al Qaeda hates us because of who we are, that American policies are to blame (see, e.g., Michael Scheuer's book Imperial Hubris). To my eyes, President Bush's description has withstood the test of time, including particularly the subsequent pronouncements of al Qaeda:
Americans are asking "Why do they hate us?"
They hate what they see right here in this chamber: a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other.
They want to overthrow existing governments in many Muslim countries such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. They want to drive Israel out of the Middle East. They want to drive Christians and Jews out of vast regions of Asia and Africa.
These terrorists kill not merely to end lives, but to disrupt and end a way of life. With every atrocity, they hope that America grows fearful, retreating from the world and forsaking our friends. They stand against us because we stand in their way.
This is, in fact, a four-square response to al Qaeda's pronouncements, both before and since. Al Qaeda has made it extremely clear that democracy is apostasy because its conception of Islam permits no sovereign other than one derived from Allah. Well, democracy depends from popular sovereignty, which is heretical to the jihad. Similarly, the jihad is not driven by our failure to mediate a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, it is opposed to the existence of Israel. Finally, the last paragraph in the block above precisely foreshadows the tactics that al Qaeda would use in Iraq (which causes me to wonder, I might add, why we were not more prepared for those tactics).
President Bush also tied Islamic extremism to fascism, a description that is surely accurate even if it may have been unwise (a question about which I remain undecided):
We're not deceived by their pretenses to piety.
We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies.
"How will we fight and win this war?"
President Bush declared his intention to use the means that we are still arguing about today:
Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?"
We will direct every resource at our command -- every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -- to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.
Now, this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.
These paragraphs were not idle words. The Bush administration declared its intention to use every "tool of intelligence" and every necessary weapon of war in this battle, and the Congress rose to its feet in bipartisan applause. What did they think he meant?
The passage also includes two other concepts that have influenced American policy to the present outrage of the American left and transnational progressives everywhere: that we will "turn [terrorists] against each other" and that we will regard any nation that "continues to harbor or support terrorism" as "hostile." An obvious purpose -- if not the purpose -- of indefinite secret detention is to raise the distress and suspicion of terrorists who have not yet been caught -- to "turn them against each other." Those of you who wonder why we won't engage diplomatically with Syria and Iran need to argue that we shouldn't treat as hostile regimes that continue to "harbor or support terrorism."
None of this is particularly to defend the actual record of the Bush administration. It is obvious that we could have done many things much better. However, it is very useful to consider the purported outrage of Bush's critics in light of that speech of September 20, 2001, especially with regard to those elements of the war that he outlined quite clearly -- a policy of hostility toward any country that supports terrorism, the extension of the war beyond al Qaeda, and the use of any tool of intelligence and necessary weapon of war. In the main, he has done what he said he would do. Journalists should pull the speech out and ask the administration why it has not done some of the things it said it would do, and its critics why they now oppose policies that they seemed to applaud five years ago.
29 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Sep 20, 11:03:00 AM:
What can I add to this but Amen.
By 
Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Sep 20, 11:26:00 AM:
Yes, most of us agreed with that assessment then. Since then, many Americans have recanted, and now scoff at the very ideas they applauded five years ago.
If the Bush opponents were taking the tack that they still agree with these aims, but this administration hasn't done very well at it, that would be an honorable position. You will notice that almost no voices from the left are making that claim, however. The criticism now focusses on the denial that anyone ever thought these were good ideas.
By Consul-At-Arms, at
Wed Sep 20, 12:10:00 PM:
Thanks for the anniversary post.
What warplan is ever executed in every particular. In the main, I have to give the administration credit for, mostly, keeping their collective eye on the ball, despite mighty distractions.
I've linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/09/re-another-fifth-anniversary.html
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 12:51:00 PM:
Bush is horribly, horribly wrong on this point. Murder, rape, and oppression of non-Muslims is not, and never has been, rejected by Muslim scholars. Doing such things is not a "fringe movement" nor is it a perversion of Islamic teaching. If Bush geniunely believes this, then he's foolishly listening to "experts" who are conducting a campaign of taqiyya against him while being willfully blind to what's actually preached and written by Islamic scholars in Islamic countries.
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 02:13:00 PM:
Where's Osama?
Dead or Alive?
Or just forgotten maybe? (until October perhaps)
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 02:36:00 PM:
To Consult-at-Arms -
This administration has kept its eye on the ball?? What????
The ball is Bin Laden and he is now living in a country (Pakistan) that is knowinglt harboring terrorists. Are they the enemy as your boy Dubya would define it?? Well, no, they are our ally.
It's not that everyone has jumped off the Bush bandwagon, it's that he has steered that wagon far from its original course.
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 02:44:00 PM:
Those of you who argue, like the original poster, "those of you who wonder why we won't engage diplomatically with Syria and Iran, need to argue that we shouldn't treat as hostile regimes that continue to "harbor or support terrorism."
... need to argue why we engage diplomatically with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, regimes that continue to "harbor or support terrorism."
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Sep 20, 02:52:00 PM:
Those of you who argue, like the original poster, "those of you who wonder why we won't engage diplomatically with Syria and Iran, need to argue that we shouldn't treat as hostile regimes that continue to "harbor or support terrorism."
... need to argue why we engage diplomatically with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, regimes that continue to "harbor or support terrorism."
Not to defend either the Saudis or the Paks, but they, unlike Iran and Syria, have gone to war against al Qaeda. The Paks did it right away, although not without considerable resistance within their own army and intelligence service, and the Saudis did it in the spring of 2003, after we invaded Iraq. Sure, there are factions within both countries that support al Qaeda, but both countries have spent a lot of blood going after the jihadis since 9/11 (in no way defending their track record before then). Both countries are still riddled with sympathizers, but both are officially on our side in the war. That is quite different from Syria and Iran.
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 02:56:00 PM:
> Not to defend either the Saudis or the Paks,
> but they, unlike Iran and Syria, have gone to war against al Qaeda.
It is a curious kind of "war", that lets Pakistan host the leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden for the last 5 years.
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 03:04:00 PM:
I applauded the speech because it was about going after terrorists.
Bush did not tell America that he was going to pick a middle-eastern country that ended with "-an" or "-aq" and engulf us in a war that had little to nothing to do with terror. He did not say we were going to throw our high moral values in the trash and become our enemies.
He blew it. Period.
By skipsailing, at
Wed Sep 20, 03:27:00 PM:
My goodness what a reaction.
Frankly I am pleased that we are in Iraq. It was absolutely the right thing to do. Further we have performed there quite well.
all this peripheral complaining is simply a demonstration of an ignorance of how wars are fought and won.
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 04:07:00 PM:
I googled Bush + incompetent and got over 8 million hits - most of em left wing sites.
I just want islamofascist mass murderers and their egyptian puppetmasters brought to justice. Enough screwing about already!
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 04:50:00 PM:
skipsailing, please tell me what planet you're on; I'm looking for an out-of-the-way vacation spot...
By skipsailing, at
Wed Sep 20, 05:03:00 PM:
Why, I'm on the third rock from the sun, just like you.
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 07:17:00 PM:
For all of you Iraq war critics, consider this -- When the Clinton Admin. decided to stop issuing 30 yr. bonds, they took a gamble that interest rates wouldn't go up and cost us more in short-term interst payments. That gamble paid off by saving us at least $8 billion per year in interest payments and Clinton deserved credit for that.
It is clear that Al Queda recognized that a democracy in Iraq could seriously damage their long-term plans for radical Islamic domination of Asia & North Africa, and that is why they entered Iraq and took up the position of opposing American and free Iraqi forces.
I am confident that Bush could not have foreseen the magnetic effect on Al Qaeda that has drawn thousands of them into Iraq to oppose us and the democratic government of Iraq. But you critics cannot deny the fact that it is far better that they fight the Iraqis and the US military there, than to perpetrate attacks on US civilians elsewhere in the world or on our shores. For that accidental success, Bush deserves credit for having had the courage to act, and did so within the stated guidelines of the speech that Tigerhawk has analyzed in this thread.
Your continued attempts to separate Iraq from the war vs. Al Qaeda are purely exercises in theoretical wishful thinking, and can only lead rational Americans to question both your commitment to fighting radical Muslims wherever they are, and your ability to take all facts related to this war into account. Until you can get past this issue, it is apparent that your primary concern is to produce situations that look like failures for Bush, regardless of whether or not they result in harm to other Americans or our soldiers, or a loss of prestige around the world.
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 08:52:00 PM:
I bet Bush’s real plan is to fuel up the Shia vs. Sunni thing while getting alternate fuel strategies going while allowing more domestic drilling until it all pans out. Then we exit the middle east stage left and let em nuke each other into oblivion. He's the crafty one I tell ya.
By Assistant Village Idiot, at
Wed Sep 20, 10:09:00 PM:
Freethinker complains that Iraq wasn't mentioned five years ago. I thought the standard complaint against Bush was that he had planned to go into Iraq all along.
By , at
Wed Sep 20, 10:54:00 PM:
Asst Village Idiot indeed: "Freethinker complains that Iraq wasn't mentioned five years ago. I thought the standard complaint against Bush was that he had planned to go into Iraq all along."
He WAS planning on Iraq all along. The fact that he would conceal his true plans in a nationally televised speech by (surprise) not mentioning said plans is hardly an inconsistant arguement. Bush often says one thing publicly and does something different in policy. I would think even most conservatives would agree with the well known "MO" of this administration.
By , at
Thu Sep 21, 12:28:00 AM:
From Day One I knew the trouble we were in for with GWB. Waaay back in November 1994, the night of the midterm elections, I heard on CNN that "George W. Bush, the son of former president Bush, has won the race for Governor of Texas" I immediately thought "UH-OH, we have a problem." And, at that time, I didn't know any thing about
the Bush family, much less about George Jr. Big psychic hit.
Not one time have I EVER applauded this "man" for anything. He is a total fraud. Notice how he still speaks in the unchanged voice of an adolescent? An emotional infant.
Anyone who has ever supported him should feel embarrassed, if they have any sense of decency at all.
To all of you who do support him, he WILL be your friend as long as you continue to serve him.
AMERICAFIRST: You bet he's way crafty. Not for nothing did he spend his daze as Gov. of Texas playing video games,(when he wasn't on the treadmill or hanging out at Enron) He knows how to win at games and its all a game to him. It makes me crazy when people say he's stupid. He knows what he's doing.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Sep 21, 06:44:00 AM:
My goodness what an enormous amont of verbiage from Tom, none of which is persuasive.
For myself, I understand the military priorities concerning OBL. If he's alive at all he's holed up in the highest reached of the most backward location as can be imagined. Just contrast "leading" from a cave while in hiding with addressing the general assembly in full view of the world.
I wonder if he text messages Hassan Nasrallah another brave arab fighter making flowery speeches from hiding. Such courage!
The focus on OBL says two things about the Bush critics, IMHO. First, that they simply have no fundamental understanding of the enemy we face and next that they value symbol over substance.
This statment ...Saddam never killed Iraqis so ruthlessly and indescriminately as this war does,... is diagnostic of the current confusion.
The commenter who originated this statement has tacitly admitted that it is NOT Americans killing Iraqis, it is a "war". but the sad fact is that Iraqis are killing Iraqis. At a rate slightly higher than American blacks are killing each other in our urban ghettos.
One supposes that the enlightened liberals, those who claim "honor", believe that simply throwing american tax reciepts in their general direction will solve this problem. Utter nonsense.
Are there more terror events now than prior to our frontal assault? What data can you provide to support this contention? We've gone five years without an attack after a long string of provocations that lead directly to 9/11. I see no mention of this stunning success in Tom's comments.
As another commenter pointed out, Al Q in Iraq is a good thing. It is so much easier to kill this vermin when they charge headlong into our bayonnets. Was this intentional? Who can say, but our presence in Iraq has significantly changed the landscape.
This is another pure canard: Pretty well everyone in the world is now aware of these facts except your increasingly small group of crazies. Bigotry at its finest.
This statement ignores the facts on the ground. One must suppose that the person holding this opinion has no knowledge of the pope's recent lecture and the violent response it engendered. Perhaps the recent speech by the reitred ArchBishop of Canterbury has reached Tom's ears. One lives in hope.
The sad fact is that denial is a standard means of protection. By denying this threat, in this case relegating the concern to a "bunch of crazies" the denier hopes to sustain the cozy cocoon one more day.
Sadly, the difference between acting now and acting only after the next enormous provocation from the Islamic madmen can be measured in human deaths.
The lesson of 1938 is clear. Fighting now will kill thousands. Fighting later will kill millions.
In either case we will fight because our enemy wants a war.
By , at
Thu Sep 21, 10:45:00 AM:
How is it that those who supported the Iraq war and continue to believe in the rationale of the mission are not outraged by the incompetence with which the war and mission have been conducted? Where is the reconstruction? Where is the thriving democracy? Where is the transformative influence on regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia?
If you support these ideals and goals, how can you so blithly sign off on the prosecution of the mission? Either way, pro- or anti-Iraq war, the conduct of the war by the Bush Administration has been pathetically inept at best. They failed to imagine and plan for anything that has come to pass since the initial assault. It's unbelievable; it's certainly inexcusable.
Is this what Tigerhawk calls paperwork? Such a comment paupers the imagination. $350 billion and counting. My god, is there nothing this president could do that would disappoint you?
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Sep 21, 10:56:00 AM:
I've actually been pretty critical of the prosecution of the mission, at least to the point of acknowledging the validity of the criticisms of others. In any case, the reference to "paperwork" was a snarky reference to the missing FISA warrants, not the conduct of the Iraq war. That may "pauper the imagination" too, in your book, but it certainly is a lot closer to paperwork than, for example, the entire CPA regency.
By skipsailing, at
Thu Sep 21, 12:23:00 PM:
Why I am not outraged, by Skipsailing
There are a variety of very good reasons.
First, we are quite clearly winning. The contrast between the status of Iraq today and that of just one year ago today in enormous.
last year at this time I and 10,000 others attended a funeral service for 15 brave marines that were killed by an IED while assaulting a town near the Syrian border.
when was the last time anybody heard about a pitched battle between american forces and the "insurgents"? It is my opinion that we are near the end of the line for military effectiveness in IRaq. Much of what's left is criminal prosecution and political haggling.
Next, I am not outraged because I recognize that we do in fact face an enemy. We are fighting that enemy on his turf and he is (was)determined to win. This isn't monday night football, the stakes are high and the enemy is quite clearly willing to die to obtain victory. contending with such an enemy is difficult and while there is much that we are learning about the arab/muslim culture, there is quite a bit we already know about insurgencies.
Next I am not outraged because I believe we are absolutely doing the best we can with what we have. Many in the anti victory camp despise Don Rumsfeld, yet he often says things that make complete sense. he said "we don't go to war with the Army we wish we had, we go to war with the army we've got". One of the wonders of the American culture is our ability to adapt and learn. As in industry so to in the military. We've learned, we've adapted and we've constantly presented our enemy with new challenges. That's how you win: on offense. There's a reason why the sunnis are once again at the bargaining table and its not because the US military is failing, quite the oppasite.
I am not outraged because I cannot recall any war effort that didn't make mistakes, many of them huge. eisenhower was elected president by an adoring public. did any snarky reporter ask Ike how many soldiers died needlessly in Market Garden? did anybody ask Ike how many generals he was forced to relieve for failure to perform? We were completely unprepared for the landing at Guadalcanal-- our Marines lived on captured rations-- were the Americans outraged? hardly, those people recognized that there were in a war and in a war we do what me must, even if we are not perfectly prepared.
By , at
Thu Sep 21, 06:06:00 PM:
Skip,
You're reasoning is utterly bankrupt, but I'm glad you're so sanguine in your fantasy of victory in Iraq. Let's take 3 cases:
1. It is my opinion that we are near the end of the line for military effectiveness in IRaq. Much of what's left is criminal prosecution and political haggling.
I agree, we are at the end of the line for military effectiveness in Iraq and have been for some time. However, the present reality in Iraq is not conducive to your happy talk fantasy of a leisurely mop up. To wit, do you sincerely believe that there are any credible institutions in liberated Iraq capable of providing meaningful "criminal prosecution and political haggling?" We are at the end of military effectiveness and are faced with civil war not the mighty gears of Iraq's democratic institutions coming up to speed. In Kurdish Iraq, the local leaders don't even fly the Iraqi flag. How do you manage to cling to these fantasies? Do you believe that Rumsfeld's compromising of the military leadership's ability to tell the truth about the fight they are in is somehow equivalent to Ike's firing incompetent general officers? Would that the Bush administration held one person accountable for this bloody and expensive fiasco instead of handing out Presidential Medals of Honor like so much Halloween candy.
2. U.S. Military Intelligence reports that al Qaeda effectively rules Anbar province while U.S. forces are pulling out to beef up "security" in Baghdad. Al-anbar consists of a huge border with jihadist breeding Saudi Arabia, the entire Jordanian border, and a huge Syrian border. Given such circumstances, the insurgents hardly need to fight pitched battles with our much better trained and armed military.
3. Guadalcanal. Thanks for slapping some sense into me. By this time next year, the U.S. military will have been in Iraq longer than it took us to defeat the Japanese in WWII following the destruction of virtually the entire U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor. Oops. Just because no plan survives contact with the enemy doesn't mean one is better off without a plan. I'm sure there was a plan to have rations at Gaudalcanal just as the need for body armor for 140,000 American troops was unplanned for. After Gaudalcanal rationing got much better. There is still not enough body armor in Iraq. But let's not forget to buy more magnetic ribbons for our SUV. Remember, in 1940, the U.S. had the World's 17th largest armed forces with badly outdated equipment. In 2003, the U.S. had the most powerful, if not the largest, military the world has ever seen! The army you have indeed.
Ahmad Chalabi, by the way, is not a plan. Greeted as liberators with flowers and candy is not a plan. "6 days, 6 weeks, I don't think we'll be there as long as 6 months" is not a plan.
Seriously, how can you, a professed supporter of this squandered enterprise not be outraged? Clearly, a big part of your formula consists of being naively misinformed and inclined to slogan in place of thought. Glad it works for you. Keep supporting the troops, they're grateful for your help even if you consider them an inferior "army you have" sort of force.
By Dawnfire82, at
Thu Sep 21, 08:21:00 PM:
Anonymous: Your #1 'rebuttal' is simply a collection of assumptions and beliefs that you cannot be reasoned out of. ('You can't reason a man out of...') Thanks for sharing and all, but it doesn't really contribute.
2. "U.S. Military Intelligence reports that al Qaeda effectively rules Anbar province"
I did a search on this, (no hits, by the way) and I found this: http://billroggio.com/archives/2006/09/drawing_the_battleli.php
along with this:
"I've talked to several sources in the military and intelligence who have actually seen the entire report (and not been fed excerpts). They are angry over the media's characterization of the report... Since my sources were unwilling to go on the record, I chose not to address this directly. If the military community is unwilling to step up to the plate and defend itself, except in vague terms, about the situation in Ramadi then they will have to deal with the backlash of this decision. Good work has been and continues to be done in Anbar. The military has a problem with public affairs, plain and simple, and fails to realize that the impact on remaining silent on this report far outweighs the need to keep the information classified."
Naturally, I feel that this guy, as with most civilians, completely misunderstand and underestimate the value and nature of classifying information and sources. Sometimes even the reasons for the classification are classified. Also, they tend to operate under the assumption that all we have to worry about is the media. That's not true; we also have to worry about every single other foreign intelligence service in the world.
"Given such circumstances, the insurgents hardly need to fight pitched battles with our much better trained and armed military."
They did before. They did often. Before we got Zarqawi and his henchmen, it was fairly common. They don't now. Wonder why? You imply this but don't explore it because it would damage your case; they are there but avoiding us because they are hiding there.
3, "There is still not enough body armor in Iraq."
Last I heard, troops (specifically Marines) were bitching about being sent and ordered to wear new, super body armor in place of their old ones that is SO protective (i.e. bulky) that they become heat casualties and suffer limited mobility. Hmph.
"Seriously, how can you, a professed supporter of this squandered enterprise not be outraged?"
And this really gets to me.
Because I don't exist in a naive fantasy world where everything is foreseen and planned for and no one ever fucks up, misses clearing a mine so their buddy gets blown up, drops a bomb on the wrong target, accidentally shoots a civilian who suddenly steps around a corner and startles you, or fails to predict that the Baathist security apparatus actually planned for the collapse of the military and arranged to fight a dispersed guerilla war. The people bitching about 'incompetence' and 'failed this, failed that' are almost entirely 1) political opponents of the administration who don't care about the truth of the statements so long as it hurts them, and/or 2) civilians who don't know shit about warfare. They think that if someone dies, then there's been some horrible mistake and someone should be court-martialed or fired; oh no, a trustworthy, highly placed Humint source was wrong, axe the head of intelligence; a platoon got surrounded and chopped up, remove the company commander.
War sucks. People die. Even successes cost lives. After long the enemy is not stupid because the stupid ones tend to die off. They do score hits now and again. Not every bit of information received is accurate. Local constraints including but not limited to tribal allegiances, rules of engagement, levels of ammunition, state of equipment, weather, and so on all interfere with the planning, execution, and consolidation of operations.
I often hear/read "They should have known X." Did you know it? Did you predict it? I sure didn't. Did the Democrats in Congress, who are especially proud of this statement, predict a massed, pre-planned insurgency with specially reserved moneys, arms, agents, and hiding places? And if they did, where are the records of their voices asking to ensure that the military was prepared for a prolonged counter-guerrilla campaign? Rumsfeld and co. have staffs, think tanks, the entire freaking defense establishment, thousands of years of experience, thinking about these things for them, and this establishment said "there's no need to worry about general partisan warfare, the populace hates the government and most will not even consider fighting for it. Eradicate the security services and that'll be that." But go ahead, call for Rumsfeld's head, or Bush's, or whomever you prefer. Because they're not psychics.
To pre-empt, the counter I always hear is "Well General Shinseki wanted more troops; he knew what would happen." No he freaking didn't. He wanted more troops to be able to impose martial law on a conquered country, a la Japan. However, this view has been retroactively altered for the purpose of criticizing the administration and, to a lesser extent, make it look like big egotistical Rummy over-rode the Army, which really knew what it was doing all along.
If you and your ilk are such geniuses, run for office and do better. Enlist. Join the CIA. Do something about it.
"In 2003, the U.S. had the most powerful, if not the largest, military the world has ever seen!"
Yet somehow we're losing?
By , at
Fri Sep 22, 12:40:00 AM:
"We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions.... "
Like sacrificing 30,000 to 50,000 Iraqi lives to serve his radical right wing vision of "remaking the Middle East."?
By skipsailing, at
Fri Sep 22, 07:15:00 AM:
Dawnfire, thanks for your response to anonymous.
Once again Tom, let me repeat: you're complaining about the actions in Iraq simply demonstrate your ignorance of the way wars are fought.
Let's stay with the Hitler analogy because you seem to dislike it so. Imagine yourself as you are now but living in november 1942. You would be complaining bitterly about our first major operation in the European theatre: Torch.
You would be saying: why are we invading North Africa when hitler is in Germany? How will spending our children's money (a particularly egregious lie btw) on a madcap adventure in Casablanca when Hitler is still running around in Bavaria?
I doubt you'd say these things too loudly since they'd likely get your butt kicked, but that's essentially your position.
There were at least three good reasons for torch and those reasons apply quite nicely to Iraq:
(1) there was an enemy in north Africa. I'm sure you've seen the movies about tobruk and all so I wont belabor that. Invading north africa, just like invading Iraq, ended a potential threat and reduced the enemy's options. You can argue about Saddam's role in all of this but the simple fact is he was an evil man who is now on trial. His public hanging will be a great event for the Iraqis he brutalized and starved. It will be a sad day for the forces of evil who relied on his tacit approval or outright support.
(2) The allies needed a strategic base for the invasion of europe. All they possessed at the time was gibraltar. The easter Med was in Axis hands. Gaining a foot hold in north Africa dramatically changed the landscape. So too in Iraq. We now possess an uncontestable base for military operations against any foe the choses to assault us. Niether Iran nor Syria could directly aid Hezbullah because they could not overcome our position in Iraq. As a direct result, lebanon has another chance at democracy and the Palestinians are suing for peace.
(3) The allies needed the practice. Our army was comprised of stone cold rookies. We had an officer corp that consisted of some old line warriors and many 90 day wonders. Getting this group into action improved over all performance and allowed the Allies to pick future commanders based on past performance in COMBAT. so too in Iraq. At this point the two national militaries with the most experience fighting arabs in their region are the IDF and the US. We have learned a massive amount about fighting in this region and terrain. We have learned and adapted both in our combat doctrines and our political policies. Such experience is invaluable in what will be a long long struggle.
This comment attempts a factual response to your emotional outburst. Dawnfire and I (and others) have provided cogent, thoughtful analysis while you have engaged in thoughtless school yard "name calling". My strong suspicion is that you simply have no other means of understanding and that's sad for you.
Fortunately for my country there are many many educated, thoughtful, serious men and women who are managing the effort in Iraq quite brilliantly. I am glad they rely on their knowledge and not on your emotion.
By , at
Sun Oct 15, 10:53:00 PM:
One thing that struck me as odd in the days after 9/11 was Bush saying "We will not tolerate conspiracy theories [regarding 9/11]". Sure enough there have been some wacky conspiracy theories surrounding the events of that day. The most far-fetched and patently ridiculous one that I've ever heard goes like this: Nineteen hijackers who claimed to be devout Muslims but yet were so un-Muslim as to be getting drunk all the time, doing cocaine and frequenting strip clubs decided to hijack four airliners and fly them into buildings in the northeastern U.S., the area of the country that is the most thick with fighter bases. After leaving a Koran on a barstool at a strip bar after getting shitfaced drunk on the night before, then writing a suicide note/inspirational letter that sounded like it was written by someone with next to no knowledge of Islam, they went to bed and got up the next morning hung over and carried out their devious plan. Nevermind the fact that of the four "pilots" among them there was not a one that could handle a Cessna or a Piper Cub let alone fly a jumbo jet, and the one assigned the most difficult task of all, Hani Hanjour, was so laughably incompetent that he was the worst fake "pilot" of the bunch. Nevermind the fact that they received very rudimentary flight training at Pensacola Naval Air Station, making them more likely to have been C.I.A. assets than Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. So on to the airports. These "hijackers" somehow managed to board all four airliners with their tickets, yet not even ONE got his name on any of the flight manifests. So they hijack all four airliners and at this time passengers on United 93 start making a bunch of cell phone calls from 35,000 feet in the air to tell people what was going on. Nevermind the fact that cell phones wouldn't work very well above 4,000 feet, and wouldn't work at ALL above 8,000 feet. But the conspiracy theorists won't let that fact get in the way of a good fantasy. That is one of the little things you "aren't supposed to think about". Nevermind that one of the callers called his mom and said his first and last name, more like he was reading from a list than calling his own mom. Anyway, when these airliners each deviated from their flight plan and didn't respond to ground control, NORAD would any other time have followed standard operating procedure (and did NOT have to be told by F.A.A. that there were hijackings because they were watching the same events unfold on their own radar) which means fighter jets would be scrambled from the nearest base where they were available on standby within a few minutes, just like every other time when airliners stray off course. But of course on 9/11 this didn't happen, not even close. Somehow these "hijackers" must have used magical powers to cause NORAD to stand down, as ridiculous as this sounds because total inaction from the most high-tech and professional Air Force in the world would be necessary to carry out their tasks. So on the most important day in its history the Air Force was totally worthless. Then they had to make one of the airliners look like a smaller plane, because unknown to them the Naudet brothers had a videocamera to capture the only known footage of the North Tower crash, and this footage shows something that is not at all like a jumbo jet, but didn't have to bother with the South Tower jet disguising itself because that was the one we were "supposed to see". Anyway, as for the Pentagon they had to have Hani Hanjour fly his airliner like it was a fighter plane, making a high G-force corkscrew turn that no real airliner can do, in making its descent to strike the Pentagon. But these "hijackers" wanted to make sure Rumsfeld survived so they went out of their way to hit the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top brass are located. And this worked out rather well for the military personnel in the Pentagon, since the side that was hit was the part that was under renovation at the time with few military personnel present compared to construction workers. Still more fortuitous for the Pentagon, the side that was hit had just before 9/11 been structurally reinforced to prevent a large fire there from spreading elsewhere in the building. Awful nice of them to pick that part to hit, huh? Then the airliner vaporized itself into nothing but tiny unidentifiable pieces no bigger than a fist, unlike the crash of a real airliner when you will be able to see at least some identifiable parts, like crumpled wings, broken tail section etc. Why, Hani Hanjour the terrible pilot flew that airliner so good that even though he hit the Pentagon on the ground floor the engines didn't even drag the ground!! Imagine that!! Though the airliner vaporized itself on impact it only made a tiny 16 foot hole in the building. Amazing. Meanwhile, though the planes hitting the Twin Towers caused fires small enough for the firefighters to be heard on their radios saying "We just need 2 hoses and we can knock this fire down" attesting to the small size of it, somehow they must have used magical powers from beyond the grave to make this morph into a raging inferno capable of making the steel on all forty-seven main support columns (not to mention the over 100 smaller support columns) soften and buckle, then all fail at once. Hmmm. Then still more magic was used to make the building totally defy physics as well as common sense in having the uppermost floors pass through the remainder of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air, a feat that without magic could only be done with explosives. Then exactly 30 minutes later the North Tower collapses in precisely the same freefall physics-defying manner. Incredible. Not to mention the fact that both collapsed at a uniform rate too, not slowing down, which also defies physics because as the uppermost floors crash into and through each successive floor beneath them they would shed more and more energy each time, thus slowing itself down. Common sense tells you this is not possible without either the hijackers' magical powers or explosives. To emphasize their telekinetic prowess, later in the day they made a third building, WTC # 7, collapse also at freefall rate though no plane or any major debris hit it. Amazing guys these magical hijackers. But we know it had to be "Muslim hijackers" the conspiracy theorist will tell you because (now don't laugh) one of their passports was "found" a couple days later near Ground Zero, miraculously "surviving" the fire that we were told incinerated planes, passengers and black boxes, and also "survived" the collapse of the building it was in. When common sense tells you if that were true then they should start making buildings and airliners out of heavy paper and plastic so as to be "indestructable" like that magic passport. The hijackers even used their magical powers to bring at least seven of their number back to life, to appear at american embassies outraged at being blamed for 9/11!! BBC reported on that and it is still online. Nevertheless, they also used magical powers to make the american government look like it was covering something up in the aftermath of this, what with the hasty removal of the steel debris and having it driven to ports in trucks with GPS locators on them, to be shipped overseas to China and India to be melted down. When common sense again tells you that this is paradoxical in that if the steel was so unimportant that they didn't bother saving some for analysis but so important as to require GPS locators on the trucks with one driver losing his job because he stopped to get lunch. Hmmmm. Yes, this whole story smacks of the utmost idiocy and fantastical far-fetched lying, but it is amazingly enough what some people believe. Even now, five years later, the provably false fairy tale of the "nineteen hijackers" is heard repeated again and again, and is accepted without question by so many Americans. Which is itself a testament to the innate psychological cowardice of the American sheeple, i mean people, and their abject willingness to believe something, ANYTHING, no matter how ridiculous in order to avoid facing a scary uncomfortable truth. Time to wake up America.
By , at
Tue Apr 22, 03:31:00 PM:
The Hypercet Cholesterol Formula can help
support and maintain your healthy cholesterol levels already within the normal range. This formula is designed to work with
and assist your normal body functions to help maintain optimum health.
Cholesterol is being talked about a lot these days, and almost all the reports are confusing. They make “cholesterol” sound
like a really bad thing to have. They don’t tell you that your own body manufactures cholesterol in the liver.
All natural herbal supplement formulated to naturally increase the size, shape and firmness of women's breasts. It is
specially manufactured with over thirteen unique herbs to assist in the development and natural growth of a woman's breasts.
Breast Gain Plus natural enlargement offers a non-surgical
solution to attaining fuller, bigger, firmer breasts with the help of a balanced combination of safe, all-natural ingredients.
Stress, anxiety and weight loss formula Relora®
Max is a natural proprietary blend of a patented extract of Magnolia officinalis and a proprietary extract from
Phellodendron amurense. Relora® was developed as an ingredient for dietary supplements and functional foods that could be used
in stress management and for stress-related appetite control. This patented blend of plant extracts is the result of screening
more than fifty plant fractions from traditional plant medicines used around the world. Relora® has excellent stress
management properties without causing sedation.
If you have any kind of acne, even very severe acne, there is nothing you will find that works better to clear your complexion
than our revolutionary Natural skin treatment Acnezine
solution! Acnezine is all-natural and scientifically formulated to treat acne from the inside out. Practically everyone has to
deal with acne from time to time. It's not because we eat chocolate. It's not because we don't wash our face enough. In fact,
washing too vigorously can make acne worse!
No Prescription Necessary! You can have realistic gains in just a few weeks. Thousands of Satisfied Customers Worldwide!
href="http://www.herbal-store.net/penis-enhancement-pills">Complete penis enlargement pills that is Laboratory Tested! Do
you want a bigger penis? Do you want to pleasure your partner every time? Do you want your penis to be hard all the time? If
you are serious about enlarging, strengthening and developing your penis naturally, then you have finally found what you are
looking for.
