Five years after the terrorist attacks on New York, the best that can be said about our situation is that it could be worse. The response from our elected leaders, and particularly the Bush Administration, has been comprehensively bungled, or worse, undermined by the pursuit of private and political advantage, and pre-existing political agendas, at the expense of a concerted attack on those who are trying to kill us. Incompetence and worse has been rife at every level from the tactical (the failure to catch bin Laden when he was surrounded) to the operational (the various stages of the Iraq occupation, starting with a Provisional Administration hired from Republican job message boards) the strategic (the whole Iraq war) and the moral (the many crimes that have blurred the difference between us and the terrorists). All of these things have squandered our resources, while acting as a recruiting banner for our enemies.
The only thing that has prevented things being even worse is the gratuitous bloodthirstiness of our enemies. Brutal attacks in Muslim countries, executions of innocent people shown on video, and the continuous suicide-terror attacks on ordinary people going about their daily business have shown their true nature, and discredited radical Islamism among many who remain deeply hostile to the US and the Bush Administration. As I mentioned a year ago, in countries like Indonesia , the Iraq war has been highly unpopular, but the great achievement of JI has been to make themselves even more unpopular.
The most significant change since last year is that we no longer hear much about “good news from Iraq”, except in the same context as “mission accomplished”, “turning the corner” and similar discredited phrases. A year ago, pro-war opinion was united in the belief that the Mainstream Media were presenting an overly gloomy picture and that the truth could be found in sites like Arthur Chrenkoff’s Good News from Iraq, which cataloged steady improvements on all fronts, from electricity supplies to security. Chrenkoff ceased publication just under a year ago, and handed the baton to Good News from the front, which appears to have given up the struggle around May 2006.
In retrospect, it is obvious that the Mainstream Media have consistently got things wrong, but in the opposite direction to that claimed by the Good News. At every stage, things have gone worse than would have been expected by anyone relying on say, the New York Times, rather than bloggers like Juan Cole It’s been at least a couple of years since Western reporters could safely travel independently anywhere in Iraq, and they’ve been increasingly reliant on the Pentagon for news.
Of course, there are still some, totally cut off from reality like our own Andrew Bolt. In the alternate universe inhabited by Bolt, everything is going swimmingly, and patience is all that is needed.
Recognising that the Iraq venture has been a disastrous failure doesn’t help us that much, since all our options there are awful. But maybe some sort of partition can be managed, enabling the Coalition to declare victory and pull out without leaving too much chaos behind them. Then perhaps, we might focus on our real problems.
John Quiggin 
Terje, How does the ‘wilful insubordination’ on part of Claus von Stauffenberg fit into your model?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claus_Schenk_von_Stauffenberg
Paul Kelly in today’s Australian I think finds the right middle ground. The Iraq war was a bad mistake – with the worst outcome being the division it has created within the West. We’ve taken our eye off the common enemy and are too busy squabbling amongst ourselves. Whether that be left v right or US v Europe.
Bush / Rumsfeld et al are dangerous…. they’ve made a complete hash of the war on terror. But unfortunately the left now seems to be playing the man rather than the ball. I’ve also heard it been described as ‘Moral Relativsim’….. we seem to be losing our moral compass.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20400672-12250,00.html
The end passage sums up –
“The West remains confused and divided about the nature of this conflict and how to respond. It is polarised between the radical conservative reaction typified by Bush and Tony Blair and the mind-set of denial typified by their progressive opponents. The West has succeeded in the mechanics of tighter security, intelligence and policing. But it has failed in the battle of ideas, the proof being the ongoing recruitment to jihadist ranks in its own societies.
Bin Laden has won a dividend he never expected. This is the divide between Bush-Blair-Howard executive governments and their progressive critics, whose final denial is their refusal to admit they are part of the problem.”
Great editorial in The Australian today [LINK] on how the War on Terrorism is being won and al-Qa’ida is increasingly being degraded. On Iraq:
“Bush / Rumsfeld et al are dangerous.”
Indeed.
C.L – “Making the case on the ABC’s Lateline program on Monday that as an incubator for al-Qa’ida and a refuge for its terrorists on the run, Iraq posed a serious world threat, US commentator Christopher Hitchens underscored this possibility.”
Taken from the article this is factually wrong. Iraq was never an incubator for al-Qa’ida at all. It became this AFTER the invasion and SH was removed. As a secular state, before the invasion, Osama Bin Laden was viewed as a threat to SH and Iraq and was in opposition to the regime. SH repeatedly rebuffed contacts with Bin Laden.
The problem with al-Qa’ida is that the US wants to view it as a heirachical organisation with leaders and a chain of command. In this view then al-Qa’ida is being degraded. However al-Qa’ida is not organised like this – it is system of independant cells with only loose ties to a central command. The only way to deal with this sort of organisation is to reduce support for the operating cells and ignore the ‘high’ command. Large scale military operations only recruit more cell members through resentment.
The divisions in the west are slowly dissolving as countries new to the EU throw off the shackles of socialism and embrace freedom.
Even Sweden is feeling the draughts of change.
“The left has continued to support Saddam Hussein.”
An interesting linguistic difference.
For the left “support” means “supply with money and weapons to be used against his own people”, as the Republicans did in the 1980s, or “assist in ripping off his population”, as AWB did with the connivance of the Aust government, and the continuing support of their cheer squad. So, we think it’s the right that supported Saddam.
For the war lobby it means, “not be willing to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of innoncent people in the pursuit of a (belated) vendetta against”, and its in this sense that they claim that the left supported Saddam.
…this is factually wrong. Iraq was never an incubator for al-Qa’ida at all.
The 9/11 Report:
[…]
Re the bombing of the al Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan:
The Saddam-al Qaeda connection was made by the Clinton Administration. This is an historical fact that cannot be disputed except by eccentrics.
EG,
Stauffenberg and his kind were clearly a threat to Hitler. Hitler would have been mad to forgive such bold insubordination, more so in the midst of war. So it fits neatly with my article. No doubt Stauffenberg was smart enough to appreciate this and was very brave in his attempt to blow up Hitler.
Subjegating other people to your will through force is clearly a moral mindfield. However if you decide to invade a nation and are prepared to exercise violence against innocent individuals in the process (ie war) then it would be expected that you intend winning. As such you should seek to kill or disarm and capture enemy soldiers (ie physical submission). When it comes to enemy leaders the goal should be to kill them or else gain both physical and psychological submission. If they do not admit defeat, if they openly deny that you have prevailed, if they do not tell their followers that it is time to end hostilities and submit to the mercy of the victor then they are in effect still waging war with you. If you wish to win the peace then you should not be prepared to accept such a challenge to your legitamacy.
Regards,
Terje.
p.s. I hate war, but if it is to be had then the goal should be victory.
p.p.s. Some of my relatives on mums side were part of the Norweigen resistance and later died in Nazi hands.
Observa,
you claimed Saddam financed Hamas. He didn’t. He gave money to the families of those idiots who went and killed innocent Israelis.
There is a great difference.
CL, what was the conclusion from the 9/11 report on the links between Saddam and AQ you know the unanimous conclusion from representatives of the CIA. FBI etal?
Homer, take it up with Richard Clarke and the other Clinton administration officials who believed in the connection. (Indeed, they bombed al Shifa partly because they thought a bin Laden-owned factory was making chemical weapons for Saddam Hussein).
For my part, the connection is irrelevant anyway. Regime change in Iraq was important in its own right. That’s why the Clinton administration made regime change official American policy. (Though, as also demonstrated in their many flopped atttempts to capture bin Laden, they didn’t have the guts to do anything about it).
Famously, Bill had his mind on other things!
C.L – “The Saddam-al Qaeda connection was made by the Clinton Administration. This is an historical fact that cannot be disputed except by eccentrics.”
Seems like everything can be blamed on Clinton – convenient. However you cannot fix what you do not acknowledge.
Not sure what 9/11 report you are reading however this article sums it up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html
” But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday’s hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
The staff report said that bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996, but that “Iraq apparently never responded” to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, “but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.” ”
and finally this group of eccentrics, the US senate intelligence comittee concluded:
“According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam “was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime.”
It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But “postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.”
In June 2004, Bush defended Vice President
Dick Cheney’s assertion that Saddam had “long-established ties” with al-Qaida. “Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida,” the president said.
The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or had ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.
“The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida,” said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee. “
Ender – ““The report is a devastating indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration’s unrelenting, misleading and deceptive attempts to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein was linked with al-Qaida,â€? said Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., a member of the committee. “
Wow – A democrat criticising the Bush-Cheney administration – how unusual!!!
The connection was made by the Clinton administration.
The Washington Post’s seriousness can be judged by its coverage of the Valerie Plame “scandal” – a topic on which they’ve had to admit they were totally, comprehensively wrong.
Democrats have conveniently changed their minds about a lot of things in recent years.
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.”
— Bill Clinton in 1998
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”
— Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.”
— Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
— Sandy [“Underpants”] Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
— Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.”
— Madeline Albright, 1998
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.”
— Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
— Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
Andrew = “Wow – A democrat criticising the Bush-Cheney administration – how unusual!!!”
Gee – a conservative ignoring the facts and homing in on petty party politics – how unusual!!!!!
Ender, yup…. got me…… sorry, I’ve just been caught doing exactly what I was complaining about above – playing the man and not the ball. Just couldn’t resist.
Actually – I don’t disagree with anything you say….. Iraq has been a complete c#@k-up from go to whoa (if there is a whoa that is). The neo-cons were just looking for an excuse for regime change and 9/11 was a pretty good excuse.
However – none of that changes the fact that 9/11 happened, and we in the West need to pull together to beat the threat from radical Islam. As Paul stated in the Australian today – the first step is to stop denying there is a threat. That doesn’t mean blindly following Bush/Rumfeld into their next folly – but it does mean acknowledging the reality of the threat and to stop pussy footing around the fact that this is an Islamic problem. It seems to me that moderate Muslims need to do a lot more to stamp out extremism in their ranks.
The neo-cons were just looking for an excuse for regime change and 9/11 was a pretty good excuse.
Regime change in Iraq became policy under Bill Clinton.
Regime change is a “bad thing?”
Like in the Congo, the West sits back and congratulates itself for not imposing any “regime change” but on “global warming” demands instant action
Ahh quotes.Let’s have a look again at Kerry from a September 2002 op-ed
Andrew – “However – none of that changes the fact that 9/11 happened, and we in the West need to pull together to beat the threat from radical Islam. As Paul stated in the Australian today – the first step is to stop denying there is a threat.”
What is the threat from radical Islam? What about the threat from radical christianity? That scares me as much as radical Islam.
The threat from radical Islam is reasonably easy to solve – stop occupying their lands and repressing the people there. However while this society needs oil this is not going to happen.
Ah, quotes.
– San Francisco Chronicle, 23 December 2004.
Quite so.
And with Saddam captured and the corner turned, nine months later September 20th
and we all lived happily ever after.
No disagreement from me on the fact that Saddam’s capture was good news or that Kerry is prone to vacillation.
Still, given the mess Bush and the Republicans have made of things, I’d prefer to take the optimistic view that America can get things right in the end, a view not shared, apparently by most of the Australian right, whose line nowadays is that however bad Bush may be, the Democrats are even worse.
Ender ‘What is the threat from radical Islam?”…. oh… my goodness!!!
If we can’t even acknowledge that there is a threat from radical Islam then I’m not sure there is much point in debating anything else.
It’s a bit like the climate change issue – until people stop being denialist that there is a problem it is very hard to come up with solutions. That to me has been the real disaster from Iraq – it’s been an incredibly divisive issue in the West at a time when we need to be united.
Oh – and yes, I wholeheartedly agree that radical christianity is a problem as well.
Tom Englehardt, an apparently pretty well-known American antiwar blogger, sums up some salient facts here.
Andrew, the nature of the western world pretty much precludes it being united on much. There are always going to be petty jealousies and political realities that end up with the west being divided. Because we are free to disagree on any and everything, you can be sure that we always will. For that most part, that’s a good thing, I don’t want the west to move lockstep like the ME does, directed around by despots. It’s mesier no doubt. But still preferable.
Andrew – “If we can’t even acknowledge that there is a threat from radical Islam then I’m not sure there is much point in debating anything else.”
I can tell you the threat from climate change. It is the threat of major disruption to our food growing system, increased natural disasters, mass exctinctions from warming and displacement of people due to sea level rises. All real and potentially disasterous.
I was not denying the threat from radical Islam I was asking you to list the threat that radical Islam poses to Western society. This is because although I have heard the rhetoric that radical islam poses a major threat I have never seen anyone list what the dangers are that can threaten the foundations of western civilisation. I would like you or someone else to list them or point me to a reference where someone explains the threat so I can learn what they are.
Most of the radical islam threat that is normally mentioned is regional and in response to actions in a particular country and are no more a threat to the whole of Western society than the IRA bombing campaign in the nineties, the Red Brigade of the seventies or the current conflict in Sri Lanka where suicide bombing was first used.
What region of the world is not being negatively affected by radical islam?
Here’s a partial list of the threat of radical islam:
1) the Bali restaurant bombing that killed Australians and Indonesians
2) the 1972 Olympics slaughter of the Israeli olympic team
3) the USS Cole bombing
4) the 1996 WTC bombing
5) the slaughter of Theo Van Gogh on the street
6) The 7/7 London bombing
7) the recent plan to highjack 10 planes in London
8) 9/11
9) The recent murder of a senior shite cleric outside an Iraqi mosque
10) The attempted destruction of Danish embassies as well as the killings over some cartoons
11) the murder of Sergio Viera de Mello, the Brazilian UN envoy
12) the attempt to blow up the Parliament in New Delhi
13) the destruction of the Golden Dome in Samara
14) synagogue bombings in Tunisia
15) synagogue bombings in Turkey
16) synagogue bombings in Morocco
17) the slaughter of Daniel Pearl and numerous other journalists and civilians, all filmed for later enjoyment
18) the recent conversions at swordpoint to islam of two western reporters/cameraman, also filmed
19) 3/11 in Spain
Ender,
I would have thought the list was pretty obvious….. but to name a few;
9/11
Bali I
Bali II
Madrid
London
Jakarta
Jordan
Mumbai (perhaps?)
You misunderstand my point perhaps….. I am not saying that radical Islam is ‘threat to the whole of Western society’… our society is way too resilient to be defeated by a ragtag group of islamist extremists.
But radical Islam is a real and present danger that if not contained will result in more bloodshed – and perhaps close to home. Do you really believe that if given the opportunity, a cell of JI wouldn’t create carnage in an Australian city?
My point is that the Iraq debacle has distracted the West from more coherantly dealing with this issue – we are too busy trying to score political points with other (see Liz Jackson’s interview with JH on Four Corners)
http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2006/s1738199.htm
Milano – yes good point, in many ways the capacity of the West to have these internal divides and debates is ultimately one of its great strengths – and probably the ultimate reason why we’ll win any ‘clash of civilisation’ with Islam, but it certainly doesn’t help in the short term with the immediate battle with Islamic extremism.
milano803 – “What region of the world is not being negatively affected by radical islam?”
Yes these things are terrible however how does it affect the foundations of Western Civilisation? The worst damage that has been done to democracy has been done by ourselves with new terrorist laws.
It affects all civilization, not just western. No area of the globe is safe from radical islam, including the ME.
Andrew, yes I agree, in the short term it slows down an effective response to islamic terror. But the interesting thing to me is that had Al Gore won in 2000 or Kerry in 2004, I think they would have taken very similar actions to what Bush has taken. If for no other reason than the ONE thing the US public won’t stand for is inactivity in the face of known danger. The argument that Clinton should have done more, while true, ignores the fact that Clinton, like Bush in early 2001, didn’t have the information that would have allowed him, had he been inclined, to take stronger actions than he did. Should he have had that info? Certainly. But he didn’t.
But Gore and subsequently Kerry, could not have ignored the known as of 9/11 danger. While they take shots at Bush for his actions, they would have had to do the same things. What would they tell the US public? We’re not going to do anything about Saddam? After 9/11? At that point, the danger from the ME, the entire ME, came into stark evidence.
milano803 – “It affects all civilization, not just western. No area of the globe is safe from radical islam, including the ME.”
Yes that is probably true however how does this affect our economy and/or civilisation apart from what we have done ourselves? How does terrorism work to threaten the mechanism of our society? Why is the terrorism threat different now as compared to the threat that say England faced from the IRA? I don’t recall the Poms screaming that the Harrods bombing changed the face of terrorism.
Quigging I think I’m starting to like you, you’re so shameless in your employ of logical fallacies.
I find it interesting how the Fedayeen Saddam trained thousands of foreign Arabs in basic guerilla warfare and terrorist strategies and techniques and shipped them back to their home countries from 1994 up to the invasion, that Saddam slipped money to Palestinian terrorist groups in addition to his gift of 25 grand to the families of “martyrs,” etc., yet Iraq under his rule was not an “incubator” of terrorism. If it was not, then pray tell what is?
“Yes that is probably true however how does this affect our economy and/or civilisation apart from what we have done ourselves? ”
I just told you. I gave you an entire list. Not a thing on it, did anyone other than islamic fanatics “do themselves”.
“Why is the terrorism threat different now as compared to the threat that say England faced from the IRA?”
It isn’t. It was up to England to do something about terror threats it was facing.
“I don’t recall the Poms screaming that the Harrods bombing changed the face of terrorism.”
If you can write this in English, I’ll try to reply.
Ender,
Terrorism does not threaten the ‘mechanism of our society’… we will win this war on terror. But that does not diminish the near term tactical threat from radical islam.
There is a world of difference between the IRA and radical Islam….. I can’t imagine the IRA blowing up the Empire State Building, a Sydney Ferry, a German hotel or a Pakistani Mosque…. I can see radical Islam doing all that and more if given the chance.
I find it frustrating and a little scary that a significant minority of Westerners cannot even acknowledge this threat. Is it for fear of providing succour to the real enemy (Bush/Howard et al)? Why can’t we simultaneously hold the view that Islamic extremism needs to be tackled head-on, but that Iraq was/is a complete c#@k-up?
Andrew – “But that does not diminish the near term tactical threat from radical islam.”
And that is what? Also if terrorism does not threaten our society why are we rapidly dismantling our democracies and turning them into police states?
“There is a world of difference between the IRA and radical Islam….. I can’t imagine the IRA blowing up the Empire State Building, a Sydney Ferry, a German hotel or a Pakistani Mosque…. I can see radical Islam doing all that and more if given the chance.”
Why is there such a difference? The IRA was, at its height, every bit as ruthless and desperate as any Islamic group. Why do you think that Islamic terrorists will blow up the Empire state building etc??? If for instance we joined a war occupying Northern Island during the eighties and nineties and caused resentment among the Catholic community there could have existed the possiblity that IRA attacks could have happened here.
I do agree that terrorists in all forms must be dealt with. What I find difficult to deal with is the hysteria surrounding the islamic terrorist boogie men that can apparently and conveniently strike anywhere in the world at anytime. Also the head boogie man despite a huge operation conveniently cannot be found after 5 years of looking.
“I find it frustrating and a little scary that a significant minority of Westerners cannot even acknowledge this threat.”
Again to me the threat has been hyped out of all proportion to the acual threat. You have said yourself that “Terrorism does not threaten the ‘mechanism of our society’… we will win this war on terror.” so how is the tactical threat of bomb blast a strategic threat to our civilisation? Also to you, what will be the end of the war on terror? ie: what event will define the surrender or cessation of hostilities in the GWOT? Do we have signing on a battleship or should we pick a train? Who will sign for the terrorists??
milano803 – “I just told you. I gave you an entire list. Not a thing on it, did anyone other than islamic fanatics “do themselvesâ€?.”
You gave a list of attacks that have happened. How did these attacks bring Western civilisation to its knees? Obviously the didn’t so you premise may be incorrect.
“It isn’t. It was up to England to do something about terror threats it was facing.”
Yes but they did not respond by invading France.
“If you can write this in English, I’ll try to reply.”
OK
I do not recall that the people of England reacted to the bombing campaign of the IRA by screaming to the world that the nature of terrorism had changed.
Ender,
As I keep saying – Islamic terrorism is not a ‘strategic’ threat to our civilisation. Stop putting words in my mouth. However – it is a tactical threat – you say ‘what is that?’ – but haevn’t we moved on from there? The list of terrorist acts from Milano was more comprehensive than mine.
“What I find difficult to deal with is the hysteria surrounding the islamic terrorist boogie men that can apparently and conveniently strike anywhere in the world at anytime. Also the head boogie man despite a huge operation conveniently cannot be found after 5 years of looking.”
So you are one of those conspiracy theorists who think this all just a lot of hyped up nonsense by Bush/Blair/Howard to keep the masses in thrall whilst they implement their right wing domestic agendas? Frankly – I have more faith in my fellow citizens…. they will make their own mind up about the conservative domestic agendas at the polls.
Andrew – “As I keep saying – Islamic terrorism is not a ’strategic’ threat to our civilisation”
So why is it such a huge problem?
“So you are one of those conspiracy theorists who think this all just a lot of hyped up nonsense by Bush/Blair/Howard to keep the masses in thrall whilst they implement their right wing domestic agendas?”
Well you have stated that it is not a strategic threat to our civilisation yet this is exactly what Bush/Blair/Howard are saying it is. And a lot of right wing agendas have been enacted in the name of counter terrorism. So why the huge response to a minor tactical threat? You can see where conspiracy theories spring from. I agree that the list of terrorist acts recently is quite long. Terrorism did not start with 9/11 however the hysteria did. Also in the list of terrorist acts 9/11 stands alone and is quite unique again adding fuel to conspiracy theorists.
“Recognising that the Iraq venture has been a disastrous failure”
Leftys have no trouble recognizing what a disaster the campaign in Iraq has been…for their Baathist pals and the Baathists’ terrorist proxies (e.g. the late Abu Abbas).
That’s why they’re constantly whining and sniveling about how horrible the war is.
For the rest of us, the war has been a smashing success.
Dave Surls – “That’s why they’re constantly whining and sniveling about how horrible the war is.”
Are you there fighting it?
“Are you there fighting it?”
Q. What’s that have to do with the subject at hand?
A. Nothing.
“For the rest of us, the war has been a smashing success.”
Got any data to back up that whopper? Even among RWDBs, that’s not a claim getting much airplay these days. Certainly the beribboned brass running the war from the front, as opposed to their armchairs, don’t make claims like that any more. Heard ‘mission accomplished’ from George W recently?
At any event, the terrorists’ game is to make up for their lack of actual firepower by doing things that make the public far more fearful of them than the risk they really represent. This was the IRA’s game, and it is AQ’s game. And the media plays along with it. Why? Because the things that really threaten you and me are mundane things like motor vehicle accidents, heart disease, cancer and, oh yes, the catastrophic effects of climate change. Compared to these genuine threats to life and limb, terrorism is down there statistically with bee stings, lightning strikes and attacks by wild animals. And rather less than attacks by old fashioned criminals like serial killers.
Now, we could take action to reduce the real risks dramatically, but we don’t because of the inconvenience it would represent. For example, speed limiting all motor vehicles to 30 kmh would save each month more Australian lives than have been lost in all terrorist incidents everywhere in all history. We don’t do that as a society because we are prepared to wear the carnage in exchange for getting around that bit faster.
It would be perfectly rational for us to make the same choice about, say, airport security. In exchange for the convenience of not having to waste an hour in security checks for each flight (the way we used to), we could be prepared to risk the small but real chance that we’d be blown up. I’m sure it would still be less than the chance of being torn limb from limb in a motor vehicle accident.
Meanwhile, the resources being devoted to the Iraq war alone would, if spent elsewhere, have significantly reduced any number of genuine threats to the lives of all of us and indeed to western civilisation. Climate change, public health – you name it. Meanwhile this fabulous treasure is being squandered on a war where every statistic demonstrates deepening failure – numbers of casualties, numbers of attacks, remaining areas secure from attacks etc etc.
It is instructive to compare the GWOT with Britain’s IRA experience. While ever the British responded to the IRA with the kind of military-security tactics we’ve seen so far in the GWOT – preemptive imprisonment, assassinations, massive security clampdowns etc – the IRA campaign intensified, was aimed more at mass murder of civilians and was carried onto mainland Britain (and indeed British installations elsewhere). What brought victory was dialogue and attempts to address genuine grievances and injustices. It is not difficult to imagine what the results would have been if instead the British had invaded and occupied the Irish Republic. Yet that is pretty much what the GWOT tactics have been so far. They have and will continue to exacerbate the risk of terrorist attack for all of us. To paraphrase the old Vietnam protest slogan – fighting a war on terrorism is like ….ing for virginity.
In conclusion, I’m always bemused by the logic of GWOT armchair warriors as regards terrorist recruitment. It reminds me of logic of the moral alarmists’ view of homosexuality, which is that homosexuality is such an inherently attractive lifestyle that if children even learn about its existence they’ll all become homosexuals. Thus no homosexual should ever be allowed to teach, and all references to the orientation should be censored. Similarly, it seems GWOT warriors would like to censor any discussion about who the terrorists are and what their grievances might be. In their inchoate aims and international reach, AQ most resemble the anarchists whose campaign plagued Europe in the nineteenth century. Hamas, Hizballah and the Iraqi insurgency, meanwhile, look like common or garden nationalist movements – like the LTTE, the IRA or dare I say it the American Minutemen (each of which have or had religious as well as nationalist underpinnings). Still, I imagine it’s unlikely that public debate on the subject should be founded on rational analysis while the ‘Iraq has been a smashing success’ view has some currency.
“Got any data to back up that whopper?”
I guess you’ll just have to accept my word that I’m content with the outcome of the military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Dave Surls – “Q. What’s that have to do with the subject at hand?
A. Nothing. ”
Its got an enormous amount to with it. Generally people that are most in favour of war are a lot less likely to have actually fought in one.
There are plenty of chickenhawks that think war is grand as long as someone else does the dying.
“Its got an enormous amount to with it.”
Nah, it has nothing to do with how successful the military campaigns have been.
“There are plenty of chickenhawks that think war is grand as long as someone else does the dying.”
This is a subject on which which western anti-American leftists are expert, for while there are legions of them who whine and moan about American “agression” and “imperialism” Bush “fascism”, etc., not one of them has the balls to pick arms and fight against the wicked Americans in Afghanistan, Iraq or inside their own countries (most of which have American bases) They’re quite content to let Iraqi guerrillas etc. do the dying…while western leftists handle the bitching and moaning end of things
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not complaining. I’m glad leftists are too cowardly to take up arms against us. We’d have a much harder time of it, if he had to fight the Baathists, Talibaners, Al Qaida terrorists AND western anti-American left wing loons.
Dave Surls – “We’d have a much harder time of it, if he had to fight the Baathists, Talibaners, Al Qaida terrorists AND western anti-American left wing loons.”
By you non-commital answer you are obviously not among the people actually in combat so I do not know where the ‘we’ comes from.
So I repeat are you actually one of the people that are putting their life on the line or just another chickenhawk. If you are you are in pretty good coompany – all the prominent neo-cons are exactly that – happy to send boys into action without being prepared to do the same.
So when you speak of those who consider war a terrible, horrible thing that should only be entered into in the most direst of circumstances as whiners and moaners at least we do not order young men to die in horrible ways for our particular brand of obsession. We also do not risk collateral damage of thousands of civilian deaths. We also did not send a too small force into a large country. We also did not let the irreplaceable treasures from the cradle of civilisation be looted when the oil fields were the first to be secured. We also did not allow through total incometance the armouries of Saddam Hussein to be looted which then became the arms of the insurgency.
“just another chickenhawk.”
You’ll never hear the leftist scum make comments like that about supporters of Hezbollah, Al Qaida, the Baathists et al, who aren’t actually taking part in the fighting.
That’s because the leftist scum aren’t going to call people who are on their side cowards (especially themselves).
I think we’ll call a halt there. Dave, thanks for the insight you’ve given us into the pro-war viewpoint.
jq – sorry – I never learn do I?