Thank You Ralph Nader!

[Dubya]

Surplus.....

I think we agree on more than it may seem. I think you are right on when you speak of military action with no identified purpose. I am not offended by your insinuation that my comments about "those people" were absurd. I may not have presented it eloquently or convicingly. I am referring to the extreme faction of the religion. Religious fanatics. They will not respond to moral persuasions. Only force. It is not a coincidence that Libya and Iran are falling in line after the US displayed that it meant business when Iraq was invaded.

I didn't intentionally avoid the question of where to take the fight. Currrently we are in Iraq and Afganistan...publicly. I'm sure that we are in others covertly...and justifiably so. Preemption is the reason for invading Iraq and Afganistan. The world is not full of evil dictators...there are a select few.

Charles Krauthammer:

"In a world of terrorists, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction, the option of preemption is especially necessary. In the bipolar world of the Cold War, with a stable nonsuicidal adversary, deterrence could work. Deterrence does not work against people who ache for heaven. It does not work against undeterrables. And it does not work against undetectables: nonsuicidal enemy regimes that might attack through clandestine means--a suitcase nuke or anonymously delivered anthrax. Against both undeterrables and undetectables, preemption is the only possible strategy.

Moreover, the doctrine of preemption against openly hostile states pursuing weapons of mass destruction is an improvement on classical deterrence. Traditionally, we deterred the use of WMDs by the threat of retaliation after we’d been attacked--and that’s too late; the point of preemption is to deter the very acquisition of WMDs in the first place.

Whether or not Iraq had large stockpiles of WMDs, the very fact that the United States overthrew a hostile regime that repeatedly refused to come clean on its weapons has had precisely this deterrent effect. We are safer today not just because Saddam is gone, but because Libya and any others contemplating trafficking with WMDs, have--for the first time--seen that it carries a cost, a very high cost."

My references to Clinton's actions..or lack of appropriate actions...was simply to point out that an engaged response to these terrorists was absolutely necessary. GWB sees that and is pursuing a foreign policy that will promote democracy and nation building. We absolutely have to be where we are...and where we are going in this fight to preempt furthur attacks.

I have an INCREDIBLE speech from Charles Krauthammer on foreign policy and the different schools of thought on it....truly an amazing speech from last month. It is a long read...but well worth it.

If you are interested......or anyone else for that matter...it is a MUST READ for anyone who follows the issues. I'll be glad to PM it, or maybe start a post with it....it is great.

W

 

[surplus1]

Yes, I would like to see that speech. If you do not think it would have enough interest for a thread, then go ahead an PM it.

The concept of preemptive war is not one that I currently agree with but that doesn't mean that I couldn't change my mind. Such a distinguished writer as CK is certainly worth reading.

One of the reasons that I believe preemptive war is a flawed policy is because I see its application as extremely limited. There are many other reasons as well.

As an example, let us presume that instead of Iraq, it was Indonesia that we believed possessed WMD that could either be used directly against us or funneled to the terrorist factions. How would we launch a premptive war against a nation of 200 million people?

It is thousands of miles away and much too large to be successfully occupied if its population does not particularly want to be "liberated" by he United States, which I can reasonably assure you it does not. Would that not narrow our only premptive option to a nuclear strike?

Considering that terrorists presumably amount to a relatively small percentage of a total population, would a nuclear strike that kills millions of innocent people not itself make our nation the greatest terrorist of all?

It is one thing for a nation with the military power of the United States to invade and occupy a small and relatively defensless nation like Iraq, the picture changes somewhat when we decide to preemptively invade a Pakistan which already has nuclear capability, though not at all like our own. What do you suppose we will do when the Pakistanis build a long range ICBM (which the have the science to do) and target the United States? Do you think we will launch a preemptive ICBM at them?

Although we choose today to call Pakistan an "ally" of the USA, the truth is it has an unstable government run by a dictator who could be asassinated or overthrown at any time, and I would venture a guess that there are far more fanatically militant and anti-American Islamics in that counry than the entire population of Iraq. Pakistan's schools are run by religious fanatics and it is no secret what they teach or how they teach it. They are not sowing the seeds of tolerance and love for America, they are teaching hatred and indoctrinating the young into blind fanaticism. Deterrence would appear to be the only viable option in dealing with them as a country, but that certainly will not change how they think or what they teach the young.

I could site several other references of countries where preemptive invasions appear to be less than prudent. Certainly we could bomb them, but we could not invade and occupy them as we have Iraq. Bombardment does not stop terrorism.

We have won the battle in Iraq, but we have yet to win the war. The terrorist attacks are continuing against our military every day. Granted they aren't killing 3000 people at a wack, but it certainly isn't over. The British occupied that country for a great many years. They even used posion gas (on WMD) against the Iraqi's killing thousands of innocent people, much as Hussein did to the Kurds. It did not quell the revolts and eventually they gave up and left.

If we were to remove the invading force tomorrow or a year from now, the Sunni, Shiites and Kurds will be at each others throats overnight. That may keep them occupied and reduce any threat to us for a while, but since we never found any of the supposed WMD they possessed, what will prevent if from going to the terrorists that we fear? Perhaps it has already done just that (if it ever existed), If that is the case, what did we accomplish? How did we reduce the threat of terrorists gaining access to the WMD that we have yet to uncover?

As for nation building, Iraq is not Bosnia. The people may have the same religion, but they have a decidedly different culture. If the Iraqi people wanted our style of democracy they would have adopted it themselves. Hussein wouldn't be the first dictator overthrown by his own people. Note also that while Donald Rumsfeld plays well to Americans and Dick Cheney is a brilliant man, I have yet to see the video of streets lined with Iraqis throwing flowers before the "liberators". The likelyhood that we will establish an American style democratic republic in Iraq is, in my opinion, about as remote as regular snow in Miami. What we are far more likely to get, when we leave, will probably be much closer to the Islamic Republic of Iran run by extremist Ayatullahs and harboring more terrorists than before.

Sadamm was a brutal and evil man, but he also ran a secular State and as long as he was there the religious fanatics were not about to take over the country. He would never have allowed an Usama bin Laden in his midst and risk the same fate for himself that the Taliban imposed on Afghanistan. He may very well prove, as time goes by, to have been the lesser of two evils.

Of course we do have the option of perpetual military occupation. If we think that stops terrorism, we might do well to take a second look at the Israelis who, despite their own use of constant military terror have been unable to quell or stop the relatively unarmed Palestinians for 50 years. Will that be our future in Iraq? If so, I wonder again how many countries we think we can occupy at the same time.

I look forward to reading the CK speech, but for now I am not convinced that this premptive strategy is the answer. War does kill many of the terrorists, but it does not eliminate or stop terrorism. As you yourself point out, those who embrace the weapon of terror are fanatics and they have no fear at all of sacrificing their lives for their cause. We should know that by now.

For the present I think we must do our best to protect ourselves, but we had better also seek to identify the root cause of their motivation and remove that cause. Otherwise, this will be a war without end whether or not the preemptive concept prevails.

 

[Dubya]

I'll start a post

I really think it's worth a post....hell compared to some of the other posts I see here....this is a billion more times informative. Oooooh...i sound like Carl Sagan.

I look forward to the responses. It is an amazing speech.

W