Defining the Enemy

[Edward Campbell]

I guess my biggest problem with the current imbroglio is semantic.

I don't like the term: war on terror because I don't think we should go to war against a tactic, especially not one which has, in my lifetime, served us well.  (What do you think the SOE folks, many of them Canadians, were doing in France and Yugoslavia in the early '40s?  They were terrorists.  What do you think Churchill meant when he said, to his special operations people, "Set Europe ablaze!â ??  He wasn't planning a Christmas party with a brightly burning Yule log.)

I believe we should, clearly, especially in our own minds, come to grips with the fact that we have been attacked, again and again since the '70s, by an avowed, self declared enemy: a loose coalition of movements which share five characteristics; they are:

"¢ Arab nationalist, in the main, or Arabist in the sense that they adhere to a set of (mainly religious) beliefs which demand acceptance of selected Arab social mores;

"¢ Extremist;

"¢ Fundamentalist - in both the religious and social mores sense;

"¢ Islamic; and

"¢ Supported, overtly or covertly, by many Middle Eastern governments.

That's what and who attacked us - the American led West - and that's what and who we need to defeat in whatever form this most modern war demands.  Defeat, the last time I checked, still meant: to destroy the enemy's will to fight - no matter what form of fighting the enemy chooses.

We, the American led West, including Canada, are at war with the Taliban and al Qaeda and several other like minded groups and their supporters - governments and individuals, alike.  We need to fight this war on conventional battlefields in the Middle East and West Asia and on the sidewalks (and TV screens) of Toronto, Paris and Geneva, where the enemy's bankers and apologists congregate.

It may be that it is politically unpalatable to tell a half million Canadians that their friends, neighbours and relatives back in the old country are now the enemy.  That's tough.  They - those friends and neighbours and relatives - are the enemy, just like German farmers and factory workers were the enemy in 1939-45.

It is my personal belief that the people in the Middle East and West Asia want democracy and freedom and all the things were take for granted.  I believe that they are ready and able to develop and practice their own forms or democracy and the rule of law, just as the Japanese do, now.  It is also my belief that they may have to endure a couple of generations of suffering in rebellions, revolutions, civil wars and bloody regional wars while they (and 'we') sort out the oligarchs and mullahs and the like.

I think it will be a long, long war and we had best stop pussy-footing around the issue.  Clash of Civilizations has a nice ring to it, don't you think?

 

[muskrat89]

Thanks Sir. Great post.

 

[canadianblue]

What does this have to do with anything?
I know that this is how democratic elections take place. However, is it not possible that due to so much rhettoric and propaganda people may be un informed or mis informed?

Maybe you should stop and wonder why all those people in the world hate us. Maybe then you will get a better perspective of where I am coming from.

Why do all of those people hate America, I don't know. Whenever they seem to need some foreign aid, or need the military to save their asses they seem to fine with America. As well what is this propaganda you talk of, look at what 3/4's of the world, and they pale in comparison to what the US has ever done. I was watching John Stewart the other day were a liberal senator compared what American's were doing at Gautanoma Bay, and this was his response.

Seriously, nazis, really people if the nazi's were to ever shackle people, feed them, and make them shit on their chest they would be happy. It would be one of the nicest things the nazi's ever did for anybody. They would be like, yeah its shackles day.

 

[dutchie]

Re: Edward Campbell's post:

I agree with 99.99% of what you posted. Oddly enough we sometimes cannot choose who our enemies are, sometimes they choose us.

As unsavory as it might be, you have to admit when you are being targeted by a particular group in war. The fact that this group happens to be (reasonably) universally Muslim and Arab (ie-a visible minority group in Canada), does not mean they are less a threat than say, the big bad Soviets of the Cold war.

 

[a_majoor]

Don't worry, Old Glory can take the heat

June 26, 2005

BY MARK STEYN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

The House of Representatives passed a constitutional amendment on flag burning last week, in the course of which Rep. Randy ''Duke'' Cunningham (Republican of California) made the following argument:

''Ask the men and women who stood on top of the Trade Center. Ask them and they will tell you: Pass this amendment."

Unlike Congressman Cunningham, I wouldn't presume to speak for those who died atop the World Trade Center. For one thing, citizens of more than 50 foreign countries, from Argentina to Zimbabwe, were killed on 9/11. Of the remainder, maybe some would be in favor of a flag-burning amendment; and maybe some would think that criminalizing disrespect for national symbols is unworthy of a free society. And maybe others would roll their eyes and say that, granted it's been clear since about October 2001 that the federal legislature has nothing useful to contribute to the war on terror, and its hacks and poseurs prefer to busy themselves with a lot of irrelevant grandstanding with a side order of fries, but they could at least quit dragging us into it.

And maybe a few would feel as many of my correspondents did last week about the ridiculous complaints of ''desecration'' of the Quran by U.S. guards at Guantanamo -- that, in the words of one reader, ''it's not possible to 'torture' an inanimate object.''

That alone is a perfectly good reason to object to a law forbidding the "desecration" of the flag. For my own part, I believe that, if someone wishes to burn a flag, he should be free to do so. In the same way, if Democrat senators want to make speeches comparing the U.S. military to Nazis and the Khmer Rouge, they should be free to do so. It's always useful to know what people really believe.

For example, two years ago, a young American lady, Rachel Corrie, was crushed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza. Her death immediately made her a martyr for the Palestinian cause, and her family and friends worked assiduously to promote the image of her as a youthful idealist passionately moved by despair and injustice. ''My Name Is Rachel Corrie,'' a play about her, was a huge hit in London. Well, OK, it wasn't so much a play as a piece of sentimental agitprop so in thrall to its subject's golden innocence that the picture of Rachel on the cover of the Playbill shows her playing in the backyard, age 7 or so, wind in her hair, in a cute, pink T-shirt.

There's another photograph of Rachel Corrie: at a Palestinian protest, headscarved, her face contorted with hate and rage, torching the Stars and Stripes. Which is the real Rachel Corrie? The "schoolgirl idealist" caught up in the cycle of violence? Or the grown woman burning the flag of her own country? Well, that's your call. But because that second photograph exists, we at least have a choice.

Have you seen that Rachel Corrie flag-burning photo? If you follow Charles Johnson's invaluable Little Green Footballs Web site and a few other Internet outposts, you will have. But you'll look for it in vain in the innumerable cooing profiles of the "passionate activist" that have appeared in the world's newspapers.

One of the big lessons of these last four years is that many, many beneficiaries of Western civilization loathe that civilization -- and the media are generally inclined to blur the extent of that loathing. At last year's Democratic Convention, when the Oscar-winning crockumentarian Michael Moore was given the seat of honor in the presidential box next to Jimmy Carter, I wonder how many TV viewers knew that the terrorist ''insurgents'' -- the guys who kidnap and murder aid workers, hack the heads off foreigners, load Down's syndrome youths up with explosives and send them off to detonate in shopping markets -- are regarded by Moore as Iraq's Minutemen. I wonder how many viewers knew that on Sept. 11 itself Moore's only gripe was that the terrorists had targeted New York and Washington instead of Texas or Mississippi: ''They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, D.C. and the plane's destination of California -- these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

In other words, if the objection to flag desecration is that it's distasteful, tough. Like those apocryphal Victorian matrons who discreetly covered the curved legs of their pianos, the culture already goes to astonishing lengths to veil the excesses of those who are admirably straightforward in their hostility.

If people feel that way, why protect them with a law that will make it harder for the rest of us to see them as they are? One thing I've learned in the last four years is that it's very difficult to talk honestly about the issues that confront us. A brave and outspoken journalist, Oriana Fallaci, is currently being prosecuted for ''vilification of religion,'' which is a crime in Italy; a Christian pastor has been ordered by an Australian court to apologize for his comments on Islam. In the European Union, ''xenophobia'' is against the law. A flag-burning amendment is the American equivalent of the rest of the West's ever more coercive constraints on free expression. The problem is not that some people burn flags; the problem is that the world view of which flag-burning is a mere ritual is so entrenched at the highest levels of Western culture.

Banning flag desecration flatters the desecrators and suggests that the flag of this great republic is a wee delicate bloom that has to be protected. It's not. It gets burned because it's strong. I'm a Canadian and one day, during the Kosovo war, I switched on the TV and there were some fellows jumping up and down in Belgrade burning the Stars and Stripes and the Union Jack. Big deal, seen it a million times. But then to my astonishment, some of those excitable Serbs produced a Maple Leaf from somewhere and started torching that. Don't ask me why -- we had a small contribution to the Kosovo bombing campaign but evidently it was enough to arouse the ire of Slobo's boys. I've never been so proud to be Canadian in years. I turned the sound up to see if they were yelling ''Death to the Little Satan!'' But you can't have everything.

That's the point: A flag has to be worth torching. When a flag gets burned, that's not a sign of its weakness but of its strength. If you can't stand the heat of your burning flag, get out of the superpower business. It's the left that believes the state can regulate everyone into thought-compliance. The right should understand that the battle of ideas is won out in the open.

Copyright © The Sun-Times Company
All rights reserved.

 

[54/102 CEF]

Why there are so many of "Them" out there is partially answered by this CBC link

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/warwithoutborders/salafist.html

The Islamic radicals have been on the go since long before radio - awareness of the origins helps understand the modern day carnage.

The fix is a long time coming in the future

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Of course it's not like they are getting any help from the "well-intentioned":

Well-known Canadians offer to back security detainee
Last Updated Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:26:31 EDT
CBC News

Hassan Almrei, one of five Muslim men jailed in Canada for alleged connections to terrorism, had some high-profile support at a bail hearing in Toronto Monday.

Almrei has been held for more than 3 ½ years on a security certificate, under which a detainee can be held indefinitely without a trial. The government is also allowed to keep the evidence a secret.

Alexandre (Sacha) Trudeau has offered a $5,000 bond, saying in an affidavit to Federal Court that he is concerned about the Syrian national's lengthy detention in solitary confinement.

The son of the former prime minister also wrote that he believed Almrei would honour the conditions of his release.

Canadian writers and journalists Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis and Heather Mallick also supported Almrei's release with bonds totalling $300.

Anti-globalization activists Lewis and Klein said they had not met Almrei but were aware of his plight due to a fundraiser earlier this year for people being held under security certificates. It attracted other supporters such as writers Stuart McLean and Linda McQuaig.

Almrei and his lawyers have not been allowed to see much of the evidence used by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to have him arrested nor has he been charged or given a trial.

CSIS alleges that Almrei is connected to al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and is a threat to Canadian security.

Almrei, who denies the allegations, has admitted to working for a Saudi honey company accused of funnelling money to the terrorist network. He also admits he entered Canada on a false passport and knows an alleged al-Qaeda operative now being held in the U.S. in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks.

The certificate used to arrest Almrei was supposed be a device that could have him quickly deported back to Syria, his country of origin. But Almrei's lawyers successfully argued before a judge that Syria is a country where the police use torture as an interrogation technique. As a matter of policy, Canada doesn't deport people to countries where they might be tortured.

Matthew Barrens, a political activist who has kept in close contact with Almrei during his time in prison, said Almrei is in legal limbo.

"One choice is to be sent back to torture. The other is indefinite detention here in Canada," he said.

Barrens said the government should either let Almrei go or give him a trial. Since no formal charge has ever been laid against him, Barrens said at the very least he should be granted bail.

John Thompson, a security analyst who advocates tough measures to combat terrorism, said even he agrees you can't hold someone forever.

"If you can't build a case against someone in four or five years then maybe you shouldn't be holding them," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/27/almrei050627.html

I have an extremely difficult time believing the current federal government would hold anyone under these circumstances unless they were really sure ...

P.S> For anyone who might have missed the math: $5,000 + $300 = $5,300, but Sacha Trudeau "believes he would honour the conditions of his release."  :rage:

 

[Edward Campbell]

Anti-globalization activists Lewis and Klein said they had not met Almrei but were aware of his plight due to a fundraiser earlier this year for people being held under security certificates. It attracted other supporters such as writers Stuart McLean and Linda McQuaig.

For the benefit of Sacha Trudeau, Linda McQuaig, Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis, Heather Mallick et al, I repeat:

" We, the American led West, including Canada, are at war with the Taliban and al Qaeda and several other like minded groups and their supporters - governments and individuals, alike.  We need to fight this war on conventional battlefields in the Middle East and West Asia and on the sidewalks (and TV screens) of Toronto, Paris and Geneva, where the enemy's bankers and apologists congregate.â ?

They (Trudeau and all his little friends who worship his father) might want to consider which 'side' they are on.

----------

Now, to the other side of the coin.

We are only going to win this war if we are better than the enemy - at everything.  We must outfight the enemy by the new rules which many (most?) of us (me, certainly) still do not quite understand.  We must outfight the enemy on the new, non-traditional battlefields and in the trendy cafés and the pages of the popular press and on the TV talk shows, too.  Lies are an ancient weapon - used for millennia, but truth works better.  To the extent that Western leaders are, intentionally misleading their peoples then they are aiding and abetting the enemy.  We need to tell ourselves the truth:

"¢ About what and who has declared war on us;

"¢ About what is at stake - why we must win this war;

"¢ About what we need to do to fight and win; and

"¢ About how well, or poorly, we are doing.

 

[54/102 CEF]

For the benefit of Sacha Trudeau, Linda McQuaig, Naomi Klein, Avi Lewis, Heather Mallick et al, I repeat:

" We, the American led West, including Canada, are at war with the Taliban and al Qaeda .â ?

A suggestion if I may

Read Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman. He gave a talk last fall - winter in Kingston which I attended

We are not at war with them - and he doubts there will be any more conventional battlefields. They are targetting the west when it suits them to draw attention away from thier prime target which is the modern day Islamic world.

The goal is separate them from the west.

Now on with your grand strategy as to how you would solve that problem! 

 

[48Highlander]

But I suppose if you've made it this far, no amount of futher debate or revelation is going to change your mind. The next plane to demolish a building and kill a few thousand people probably will be piloted by Iraqis, and then Bush will claim he was right all along.

Yeah, just like those pesky Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Bosnians, Kosovars, And Granadeans who keep launching attacks against the US.  It's obvious from past history that fighting a war always causes terrorists to increase their attacks on you.

You need to rethink that line of argument Britney.

 

[squealiox]

All this cheast-beating about "liberals" and "bleeding hearts", etc. undermining the War on Terror is a bit rich, considering that they weren't the ones behind the brilliant decision to divert US forces away from the War on Terror and invade Iraq. The WWII analogies that i see trotted out, equating bush to churchill, would be a lot less fatuous if churchill had decided to respond to hitler by shipping half his available forces off to topple some unrelated tyrant in south america.
Of course that's just the kind of mission creep you can expect when the objective is so vaguely defined.
Believe it or not, there is no magic correlation between the nastiness of one's enemy and the competence of one's civilan political leadership.

 

[48Highlander]

All this cheast-beating about "liberals" and "bleeding hearts", etc. undermining the War on Terror is a bit rich, considering that they weren't the ones behind the brilliant decision to divert US forces away from the War on Terror and invade Iraq. The WWII analogies that i see trotted out, equating bush to churchill, would be a lot less fatuous if churchill had decided to respond to hitler by shipping half his available forces off to topple some unrelated tyrant in south america.
Of course that's just the kind of mission creep you can expect when the objective is so vaguely defined.
Believe it or not, there is no magic correlation between the nastiness of one's enemy and the competence of one's civilan political leadership.

Ofcourse, during WW2, your would have figured that fighting German soldiers in France was "unrelated", and that the only legitemate way to fight would be inside Germany.

Once again, I direct you to this article:  http://denbeste.nu/essays/strategic_overview.shtml

Read and learn.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A suggestion if I may

Read Understanding Terror Networks by Marc Sageman. He gave a talk last fall - winter in Kingston which I attended

We are not at war with them - and he doubts there will be any more conventional battlefields. They are targetting the west when it suits them to draw attention away from thier prime target which is the modern day Islamic world.

The goal is separate them from the west.

Now on with your grand strategy as to how you would solve that problem! 

I'm just familiar with Sageman but I think I understand his basic idea and I agree that it explains some, many of the movements, perhaps even Bin Laden, himself, but I am not persuaded that the argument explains them all.  See e.g. Jessica Stern in Foreign Affairs, July/August 2003, for some thoughts on the diversity of the Arab-extremist-fundamentalist-Islamic groups.

I don't have a grand strategy, as I said up above I'm not even sure I understand the new rules of the game.  The only thing I have going for me is that I'm pretty sure not many others understand them, either.

 

[a_majoor]

All this chest-beating about "liberals" and "bleeding hearts", etc. undermining the War on Terror is a bit rich, considering that they weren't the ones behind the brilliant decision to divert US forces away from the War on Terror and invade Iraq. The WWII analogies that I see trotted out, equating bush to churchill, would be a lot less fatuous if churchill had decided to respond to Hitler by shipping half his available forces off to topple some unrelated tyrant in south America.
Of course that's just the kind of mission creep you can expect when the objective is so vaguely defined.
Believe it or not, there is no magic correlation between the nastiness of one's enemy and the competence of one's civilian political leadership.

Actually, invading Iraq was a brilliant stroke; toppling one of the great supporters of terrorist organizations, and occupying the strategic middle ground; American forces are now right on top of other terror supporting states like Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The mere presence of 150,000 coalition troops has empowered the Lebanese to throw off their Syrian overlords and regimes throughout the Middle East are  "suddenly" converts to holding democratic elections, allowing free speech and dissent and so on.

Churchill was a big proponent of the "indirect approach", attempting to fight National Socialist Germany through actions in Norway, Africa, the Middle East, the Balkens and Italy, as well as small scale commando raids across Europe, even though an "economy of force" calculation might suggest the British Empire husband its strength and make a single mighty strike in 1943 instead.

I suppose you could argue that the best place to operate against terrorist organizations might have been invading one of the other nations in the Middle East, or perhaps an indirect strategy of working up the east coast of Africa and rolliong up terrorist training camps in Somalia and the Sudan; there is certainly room for debate there; but the "Grand Strategy" of occupying the Middle Eastern "heartland" and exposing the weakness of the other terror supporting regimes is equally promising, and is showing results.

 

[54/102 CEF]

I'm just familiar with Sageman but I think I understand his basic idea and I agree that it explains some, many of the movements, perhaps even Bin Laden, himself, but I am not persuaded that the argument explains them all.  

I agree - the west has to evolve and adapt a strategy and its long term.

If you ever read Lawrence of Arabia - he had the same opinion - that there is no onesize fits all solution.

For all you young uns! Get the movie at the DVD Store and then read the book online http://www.wesjones.com/lawrence1.htm

 

[Infanteer]

I'm reposting my take on this because I like to hear myself talk.   I think attacking Iraq was important, just as taking down Afghanistan was.   My take (you can take it for what it is worth) is taht we are not fighting Arabs, nor Iraqis, nor Islam, but an certain pan-Islamic faction within Islam that believes that we in the West are bent on the destruction of Islam and the subjugation of Muslims.

War on Terrorism is a silly phrase - it is like saying War on Operatonal Envelopment or War on Carpet Bombing.

As well, I'm not so sure it is a conflict with an "extreme fringe" of Islamic (Arab?   Middle Eastern?) culture.

Having just finished Through Our Enemies' Eyes by "Anonymous", the author makes a point that I think is very important in that the conflict we are engaged in is a fight against a guerrilla insurgency rather then a terrorist campaign.   This is supported by the fact that violence that occurs in the Middle East against the West is not monopolized by Al Qaeda, but that it almost always is supported by its mission, goals, and statements.

"Anonymous" argues that we are foolhardy to view Al Qaeda as a traditional terrorist organization.   In pigeonholing it with Hizballah, Abu Nidal, and the slew of other Cold War groups who were basically extentions of surrogate state policies, we lose sight of the fact that Al Qaeda is a much more an insurgent organization that is as much a "facilitator/inciter" as a "doer".   Anonymous lists off pages of attacks against Western and Western-backed (or perceived to be Western-backed) targets both inside and outside of the Middle East in the last decade or so and despite the fact that Al Qaeda was not directly responsible for them, they were committed to goals that were within the Islamic insurgent context that Osama bin Laden has become the figurehead for.   There is no difference between Al Qaeda operatives blowing something up or the message of Al Qaeda convincing some Filipino/Indonesian/Pakistani/Egyptian group or individual to do the same.

The message of this insurgency is clearly anti-Western and grounded upon traditional Islamist thought.   Why is it appealing to many?   I think "Anonymous is onto something when he states that:

"There is a perception in the Muslim world - which bin Laden has fed - that the Christian West is always ready to use economic coercion and military force if proselytizing does not work, or does not work quickly.   The latter is an intense irritant in the Islamic world and is, as Professor Samuel Huntington noted, grounded in fact: from 1980 to 1995 "the United States engaged in seventeen military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed at Muslims.   No comparable pattern of U.S. military operations occurred against the people of any other civilization."   Tough economic sanctions have been simultaneously enforced by the West against several Muslim states.   As noted, bin Laden has been outspoken in condemning the Crusaders' eagerness to put sanctions on Sudan, Iraq, and Libya; to tolerate prolonged military aggression against Muslim Bosnians, Somalis, Kashmiris, and Kosovars; and to conspire to divide Muslim states such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia.   In voicing these views, bin Laden is more virulent than most Muslims, but he is not the lone voice."

Anonymous, Through Our Enemies' Eyes; pg 244.

What does the previous stuff say (to me, at least):

1)   That the enemy is a varied one that is driven to fight us for both Who we Are and/or What we Do.   Fundamentalists (both Shia and Sunni) abhor Western secularism and see it as an immoral evil (Religious).   Many Palestinians will fight because of the ongoing dispute with Israel (ethnic).   Pashtun Taliban forces will fight us because they see us as Allied with their traditional Tajik foes who occupy the Karzai government in Kabul (tribal).   Egyptians will bomb Americans as a way to fight against a Mubarak government they oppose (civil war).   Ba'athist or other organizations in Iraq will attack Westerners because they oppose Western presence in their homeland (nationalists).   All of these motives exist and they can often be combined and mixed.   The Insurgency that Bin Laden spearheads is focusing this animosity on the West by pointing to it as the root of the problem.

2)   Further to this, not all our enemies are rabid, Koran-toting fundmentalists.   This is where the definition "War on Terror" falls short, as it puts all the possible enemies we may fight into a single box that does not do their motivations or their outlook justice.   Don't paint the insurgent opponent with a broad brush.

3)   As pointed out above, opposing forces have wide and disparate interests.   They are tied togeather in their actions by the message that bin Laden has constantly preached of Pan-Islamic Defence of the Faith.   However, this does not distract them from settling differences with eachother.   Dar al Islam is a large and vibrant part of the world, and there is a gamut of interests (old and new) clashing - Matt Fisher pointed out to me that while in Iraq, he noticed that Muslim on Muslim violence was as common as attacks on Americans.   Expect to see various intercine Islamic conflict based on ethnic (Kurd/Arab/Turkish, etc), Tribal (Pashtun/Tajik/Hazara, etc), Political (Pakistan, Egypt), and Religious (Shia/Sunni) lines.

4)   If this is an insurgency being driven by the notion that the West is a crusading boogey-man, then "grab them by the balls and hearts and minds will follow" is the absolute worst approach to take as it will only serve to further the belief that we are marauding Crusaders bent on destroying Islam.   This is very much a war of perception.

5)   Finally, as this is a war of perception, we must consider how we are to fight it.   There will always be the 10% who hate us for who we are; the only solution for them is a JDAM or a Hellfire.   However, the main effort should lie with those Muslims who are angry at us for what we do.   This is why I am generally supportive of going into Afghanistan and especially Iraq, which is at the center of Dar al Islam.   From these places, if we play our cards right, we can do much to attack the Insurgent message that we are marauding extentions of the Crusades.   Much of the situation today has come about due to the unintended consequences of Cold War policies - oh well, no point lamenting them, now we must address them and the West is now strategically engaged in the Middle East in a manner that should facilitate this.

 

[squealiox]

Ofcourse, during WW2, your would have figured that fighting German soldiers in France was "unrelated", and that the only legitemate way to fight would be inside Germany.

We were at war with the German state, wherever it happened to be. I have said nothing in this forum to contradict this fact. Might i suggest you actually read posts before you quote them? Given your magical ability to attribute arguments to people before they have even made them, i would guess you have no need for Internet.

 

[54/102 CEF]

Check out this link at the ALEXANDER THE AVERAGE  BLOG  

http://alexandertheaverage.blogspot.com/2005/06/are-we-there-yet-creating-roadmap-to.html

- the guy planning the new Iraq - give him some ideas you big thinkers!  

 

[48Highlander]

We were at war with the German state, wherever it happened to be. I have said nothing in this forum to contradict this fact.

And we are currently engaged in hostilities against terroist organizations.   Yes, it's different in that you cannot declare war against an organization which is not officialy supported by any government.   That's a limitation which is unfortiunate because it clouds the issues.   So, since it's common knowledge that Sadam supported terrrism both by paying off the families of Palestinian bombers (who regularily target a US ally), as well as by providing protection for members of Al Qaeda, how is attacking Iraq detracting from "the war on terror"?  Did attacking Italy in WW2 detract from defeating the Germans?  I'm not understanding your logic here.

Have you read that article yet or what?   All of these things are quite clearly explained within it.   It even breaks everything down into small, easy to follow points which progress logicaly towards the inevitable conclusion.   Give it a shot.   Or provide a similar analysis showing how the "war on terror" should be fought.   If you don't like the way the US is doing it, tell us how it should be done.

 

[mdh]

I don't have much to add to this debate since, as usual, a-majoor has already said if for me.   Just two points:

The WWII analogies that i see trotted out, equating bush to churchill, would be a lot less fatuous if churchill had decided to respond to hitler by shipping half his available forces off to topple some unrelated tyrant in south america.

Actually Churchill responded to Hitler by doing just that - deciding to fight in North Africa and spreading the war to another front - anything to help broaden the war effort and weaken the enemy. Some critics at the time accused him of being fatuous. He won.

Where is Thomas Jefferson when you need him, eh?

As a footnote it was Jefferson who ordered the US Navy to bombard the Barbary pirate bases in the Med which had been engaged in a thriving slave trade and demanding ransom - a kind of late 18th century terrorism.   The French and the English paid the ransoms in hopes their commerce would be unmolested and preferred appeasement.   Jefferson refused to follow a similar policy and destroyed the Barbary threat. Even then, standing up to international extortion paid dividends.

cheers, mdh