 |
|
 |
My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) Andrew Sullivan Tim Blair* James Lileks Bleats Virginia Postrel Punditwatch (Will Vehrs)* Kausfiles Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste) Samizdata Michael Barone Space/Science
Alan Boyle (MSNBC) Charles Murtaugh* Lagniappe (Derek Lowe)* Geek Press (Paul Hsieh) Gene Expression* Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge) A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)* Mars Blog Cowlix (Wes Cowley) Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)* Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin)* Saturn Follies JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell) Quark Soup (Dave Appell) Economics/Finance
Econoblog* Live from the WTC (Megan McArdle) More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer) Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil)* Regular Reading
Quasipundit (Andragna & Vehrs)* Joanne Jacobs England's Sword (Iain Murray)* Daily Pundit (Bill Quick) Pejman Pundit* Daimnation! (Damian Penny)* Aspara Girl Flit Unremitting Verse (Will Warren)* World View (Brink Lindsay) Matt Welch Ken Layne The Kolkata Libertarian Midwest Conservative Journal* Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al) Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman) Vodka Pundit Richard Bennett Random Jottings (John Weidner)* Natalie Solent* On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman) Patrick Ruffini Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen) Jerry Pournelle Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse) Airstrip One* A libertarian reads the papers* Andrew Olmsted Anna Franco Review* Ben Kepple's Daily Rant* Bjorn Staerk Bitter Girl Catallaxy Files* Dawson.com* Dodgeblog* Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher)* End the War on Freedom* Fevered Rants* Fredrik Norman Heretical Ideas* Ideas etc Insolvent Republic of Blogistan* James Reuben Haney Libertarian Rant Matthew Edgar* Mind over what matters* Muslimpundit Page Fault Interrupt* Photodude Privacy Digest Quare* Rantburg Recovering Liberal* Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief) Sgt. Stryker The Blogs of War* The Fly Bottle The Illuminated Donkey* Unqualified Offerings What she really thinks Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet* Ye Olde Blogge (Andrea Harris) Zem : blog 
Powered by Movable Type |
|
|
Two Years On, A Weary Nation Takes Stock Sunday, December 5, 1943 NEW YORK (Routers) Concerned about inflaming passions that might further widen the war unnecessarily and result in more hate crimes against Asians, both here and abroad, most papers and radio stations will maintain regular formats and programming this coming Tuesday, the second anniversary of that unfortunate incident at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. "We may do some special reports on the victims, and how they feel today," said one CBS radio broadcast executive. "We'll be interviewing survivors, and the families of those killed. How has this affected the women, and the children, and the minorities? Is the government providing enough support to them, and grief counseling? After two years, are they finally ready to forgive the people who did this?" NBC, however, doesn't plan to focus on the direct victims of Pearl Harbor, so much as the current and future victims, with hard-hitting exposés of the civil-liberties violations in which the Roosevelt administration has indulged itself since the alleged attack by Japanese militants. They'll be taking radio listeners into the concentration camp at Manzanar, California, to hear the stories of those interned for the past year and a half. The network's plans have been lauded by human rights organizations. In a release, the Committee on Shinto-American Relations (CSAR) noted that: "Since December 7, 1941, the country has witnessed a persistent, deliberate, and unwarranted erosion of basic rights against abusive governmental power that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and international human rights law. Shinto is a religion of peace, and we urge all Americans to remember that most Japanese in this country had nothing to do with what happened on that date." They point out that on this second anniversary, it's time to reflect and ask ourselves why the Japanese, and much of the rest of the world, hate us. The New York Times will reportedly be focusing on an untold story of that day--the unparalleled environmental disaster. The fires in the harbor and at the airfields burned for days, filling Honolulu's air and water with a mixture of toxic substances that included mercury, benzene, lead, chlorinated hydrocarbons, dioxins, PCBs and asbestos--quite possibly the largest urban environmental disaster in U.S. history. Yet authorities downplayed the risks, failed to warn rescue workers to take basic health precautions, and encouraged people to return to contaminated neighborhoods. Many rescue workers and residents now suffer from serious respiratory problems. Amazingly, mainstream media have aggressively ignored the story, giving politicians and public health officials a free pass to keep quiet about it as well. The full extent of the environmental damage and its long-term health impact remain uncertain. Many in Washington, particularly among the opposition on Capitol Hill, believe that we should be using this anniversary to ask tough questions of the administration. One Senate staffer said, in apparent frustration, "...the administration doesn't seem to have a focused plan and, as many of us feared at the time, it continues to divert valuable resources from the war on Shinto bombers. We were attacked by the Japanese in Hawaii. What in the world were we doing landing in Italy three months ago? And we still don't know what happened to Yamamoto. The Japanese claim that he was killed in battle, but how can we be sure without his body?" Even for those few who believe that the invasion of southern Europe was justified, and that General Patton did a good job of quickly taking Sicily, there are fears that we are losing the peace there. "It's been almost six months since Messina fell, and much of the island remains without electricity," said one Republican congressman, off the record, at a peace rally on the Mall. As we talked, shouting protestors, with large paper-maché heads depicting the president and Secretary of War Stimson, marched past with signs saying "NO BLOOD FOR OLIVE OIL," "AT LEAST MUSSOLINI MADE THE TRAINS RUN ON TIME," and, in response to the meeting in Tehran a few days ago, "BREAK UP THE AXIS OF EVIL," with a picture of Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin. "How much is this going to ultimately cost us?," he asked. "On this second anniversary of the beginning of this misbegotten war, the president has to be straight with the American people." (Copyright 2003 by Rand Simberg) Posted by Rand Simberg at September 10, 2003 02:37 PM
Comments
Please update your "Regular Reading" links. That's very, very good. Posted by Michael at September 10, 2003 06:10 PMExcellent piece. I am looking forward to tomorrow. Will stand under the flag at 8:46 AM EDT and remember those who died two years ago. Then say a prayer for all the troops. Let's (continue to) roll! Thanks for your post. Posted by Rummy Fan at September 10, 2003 06:42 PMWere women and children the most severely affected? And what about the homeless, did vast new numbers appear? Posted by RLM at September 10, 2003 06:51 PMI was only about seven months old on 12/05/43 so I can't really say that I have much in the way of real memories of WWII, but the cultural aftermath of the war was still around during my childhood, copies of Life and Colliers and Saturday Evening Post in the basement, the post-war flood of books set in the war, adults talking, etc. -- so in a sense I do know something of what life was like then. There were certainly political squabbles, etc. but nothing like today's endless droning whine from the crowd of unreasoning Bush-haters who insist that everything must be America's fault. Very nice piece; I enjoyed reading it. Thanks. Posted by Jim at September 10, 2003 07:09 PMI am appalled that our vile, capitalist expansion would encroach in upon the peaceful (see Nanking) Japanese culture. How can we take responsibility-it's clearly our fault- and who can we give money to? Jimmy Carter, come to our rescue!!!!!!! Posted by Hutch at September 10, 2003 08:22 PMSir You poor naïf. We, the PC Police, hereby notify you that the only analogy that can be made to the present War against Terrorism is to Viet Nam & QUAGMIRE! TomCom PS You forgot about the interviews with the disgruntled US troops like Willie & Joe. You think that they can't be found? How about an interview with Tokyo Rose? I understand that the late Bomber O'Hare gave KP to one of his EMs & they named that airport after him; and who knows what civilians he bombed? And that Movie "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" Exaggerations up the wazoo. No real damage done; just strengthened the enemy's resolve, for gosh sakes. What about an interview with the Japanese Street? And what about the root causes of the Japanese hatred for us! TomCom Excellent job! Posted by Jay Solo at September 10, 2003 09:09 PMNot even Tokyo Rose went that far. Posted by BobD at September 10, 2003 11:40 PM> NBC, however, doesn't plan to focus on the
I note that the most extreme anti-war protesters (=the human shields) already have risked THEIR lives. As misguided as these folks are, it still takes a lot of personal courage to do it. More than simply attending a "Support our Troops!" parade in Houston while wearing a "Fuck France" TV shirt anyway, or posting stuff on a weblog.
Oh boy that nutty fin is back. "So why don't you go there and find out what this war really is like? " I believe thats just it, this time we didn't need to go somewhere to experience what this war is like. The whole reason this started remember is because the war came to our shores, the terrorist attacked our buildings and killed our people. Two years ago we all witnessed the destruction of 9/11, we all took it personally, and we all felt scared and threatened. People that worked in high rise buildings in every major city feared for there lives that day. I know cause I worked in a high rise that day in downtown Dallas and many people were scared running. That day I was talking to a lady on the phone who was working in the Virginia Square building right down the road from the Pentagon. When it was attacked you could hear the terror in her voice when she screamed she saw smoke and flames rising. It made the hair stand up on my neck, still does thinking about it. "I note that the most extreme anti-war protesters (=the human shields) already have risked THEIR lives. As misguided as these folks are, it still takes a lot of personal courage to do it. More than simply attending a "Support our Troops!" parade in Houston while wearing a "Fuck France" TV shirt anyway, or posting stuff on a weblog." Jeez the last part definently comes off as a pot calling the kettle black statement. Its wrong for those that support the war to waste everyones time by posting comments about it. But all you anti-war folks can just go right ahead and post away, feel free to just rake America and the President over the coals, yea sure we just can't get enough of that (hint the irony which I believe is what Rand is exhibiting). From what I understand most of the human shields were either turned away, left when they discovered that they were asked to sit on actual military targets instead of negligible hospitals, or turned around when reality suddenly struck them. So, you wish to hold these handful of human shield individuals up on a noble pedestal. Yet completely disregard the fact there are a number of ways in which one can support their country and their troops without having to suit up in BDU's and strap on a weapon. My parents and I did our best effort to support our airline industry and New York by taking a flight there not long after 9/11. My girlfriend has a cousin who was fighting in Iraq from the beginning and was lucky enough to recently make it back home. While he was there, we had sent care packages for him and his mates and letters of encouragement as well. Apparently baby wipes were a hot commodity being as it was impossible to take a shower. As Wolf Blitzer commented about his recent tour through a number of places where troops are stationed is that all our troops, republican/democratic/independents alike have high morale and give off a sense that they really believe in what they are doing. Its not a political issue to our soldiers, so why should it be one to us? Don't discount the many soldiers currently serving in Iraq who joined the military immediately after 9/11 to help do their part. Definently, don't discount how much courage it took for a great many Americans just to go about their normal lives after 9/11. Not with such weak notions that we are represented by a few people wearing cotton t-shirts that display negative advertising of the French. Posted by Hefty at September 11, 2003 02:47 AMExcellent! Posted by Spartacus at September 11, 2003 04:03 AMThat's brilliant! Posted by Sean at September 11, 2003 05:17 AM> Don't discount the many soldiers currently
The size of the Army is fixed by Congress. Until Congress increases the size of the Army, there isn't any room for a flood of new recruits, let alone draftees. So far, the Pentagon has not requested such an increase, though many of us think one is needed (I'd feel better if we had at least 2 or 3 more divisions, and a lot more MP and other support type units). I would have joined (again), if I weren't past the cut-off age. Posted by Mike at September 11, 2003 06:08 AMRand, you have a real talent. The different responses point out just how well the war on terror is going - two years later a large segment of the population doesn't feel threatened by islamicist terrorists and so can continue business as usual. I think if the NYT the nine dwarfs et al were even slightly terrorized by these guys, their criticisms wouldn't be quite so predictable but more honest and helpful. Posted by Kevin Murphy at September 11, 2003 06:19 AMMarcus said: "I note that the most extreme anti-war protesters (=the human shields) already have risked THEIR lives." Wrong! They admitted they were sure the Americans and Brits wouldn't bomb them. They even objected when Saddam's people tried to put them somewhere that might get bombed, like a power plant. And they left Iraq before the war began. If they're really interested in shielding Iraqis from harm, why aren't they there now protecting the Iraqi people from all the bombings perpetrated by leftover Baathists and the Saudis, Syrians, etc., who are coming into the country to commit terrorists acts against the Iraqis? Human shields, my ass; more like panty shields. Posted by Barbara Skolaut at September 11, 2003 06:44 AMGreat piece, Rand. Wish you would get it published in a widely circulated paper or magazine - everyone needs to read this (including some in the Administration, and all the 9 dwarves). Posted by Barbara Skolaut at September 11, 2003 06:46 AMRE: Marcus. I did my time in uniform and am a little old anyway. But how about having all those who oppose the war on terror and Iraq live in a special country just for them; and we tell the terrorists we will not fight to protect them or fight to avenge them. Then the Marcuses can understand the terrorists all they want without putting us at risk. I think that is a much better suggestion than once again refloating the ridiculous chickenhawk charge. Brian J. Dunn (The Dignified Rant) Posted by Brian J. Dunn at September 11, 2003 07:10 AMWhoever: >The link between 9/11 and Iraq is not obvious to LOTS of people, however. Thank you for stating this openly. No, it is not obvious. The connections between 9/11 and Iraq are like a series of bank-shots in billiards; as obvious as the oxidation of sugers in the Krebs cycle; as obvious as a double-spiral of nucleic acids... Effects which, in their turn, become causes of more effects... hence one of the most apt analogies to-date: "Going into Iraq is like draining a swamp, to reduce its ability to fester, stink and produce pestilent, pathogenic micro-organisms and their vectors!" But as you seem to understand without stating, more and more people are COMING to understand the not-so-obvious but very-real connections between 9/11 and Iraq... without America needing to conquer Iraq or demean Iraq... Just continue draining the swamp, and fostering the growth of beneficial new concepts like: Self-government; unity in diversity; personal responsibility; compassion; truth, justice and the freedom-loving way... Posted by Sharpshooter at September 11, 2003 07:17 AM> I did my time in uniform
No problem. There are no US troops "protecting freedom and liberty" in Finland and I see now reason why they are needed in Germany etc. either. We Europeans are grateful for your assistance (and somewhat embarrassed by Yugoslavia...it's time for the EU nations to increase their military capabilities to such a level we can take care of similar crises on our own continent from now on). MARCU$ Posted by Marcus Lindroos at September 11, 2003 07:24 AMSo Marcus, You are going to invite the islamoterrorists to join the gov't. >shrug I assume you are referring to Sinn Fein and the IRA, as last I looked ETA wasn't a part of anything. In some respects its an apt comparison - a peace keeping exercise to remove the threat of sectarian violence and ethnic cleansing from a population by a quasi-government backed body turned into a 30 year low grade war with on-going terror attacks. 3000 people dead over that period, mostly in small scale random terror attacks which, regardless of some spells of a virtual police state seemed to be impossible to prevent. Things improved when the government of the day accepted that there were some issues which needed addressing. Obviously, I'm over simplifying, but I've been close to enough IRA bombs to have a pretty good handle on what living through an ongoing terror campaign is like in a way that no Americans I know can imagine. Posted by Dave at September 11, 2003 08:17 AM"How about restoring the draft?" No thanks, we'd rather win the war, and aren't interested in "spreading the sacrifice" if it interferes with that goal. The armed services have maintained for years that a draft would degrade their combat effectiveness. I'm inclined to believe them. Posted by Ken at September 11, 2003 08:17 AMRand, it's funny how you can be so discriminating about the difference between the orgnized military of a nation-state and a small group of individuals when someone uses the term "Israeli militants" to describe the IDF, and yet be utterly blind to this distinction in your continuing series of essays comparing the war in Iraq to WW2. Sharpshooter: > more and more people are COMING to understand the not-so-obvious but very-real connections between 9/11 and Iraq Maybe you can explain those connections to me then because I don't get it at all. In particular, I don't get why Iraq in particular merits military action when Saudi Arabia and North Korea don't. > without America needing to conquer Iraq or demean Iraq... I believe that ship already sailed some time ago. Hi Marcus, The analogy on the IRA and ETA (I assume the Basque separists?) is well-meaning but flawed: (1) The nests of the IRA and ETA are in the same country they are targeting (N. Ireland/Spain), where the government (UK,Spain) who is targeted is actually in control of law, military, etc. in same regions. Contrast that to where the nests of the islamic terrorists come from. Put another way, the IRA comes from Ireland not Germany, the ETA from Basque Spain not Poland. (2) To deal the same way with islamic terrorists as vice IRA/ETA, well, in some ways that is what we are doing in Iraq ;-), at least from the military engagement side. Posted by J Mike at September 11, 2003 09:00 AMHi Marcus, The analogy on the IRA and ETA (I assume the Basque separists?) is well-meaning but flawed: (1) The nests of the IRA and ETA are in the same country they are targeting (N. Ireland/Spain), where the government (UK,Spain) who is targeted is actually in control of law, military, etc. in same regions. Contrast that to where the nests of the islamic terrorists come from. Put another way, the IRA comes from Ireland not Germany, the ETA from Basque Spain not Poland. (2) To deal the same way with islamic terrorists as vice IRA/ETA, well, in some ways that is what we are doing in Iraq ;-), at least from the military engagement side. Posted by J Mike at September 11, 2003 09:00 AMAlthough I have tried to carefully read Marcus' comments, his point escapes me. Is he making the "chickenhawk" argument, that only those who have served in the military have a right to express an opinion on matters of national security? Although I disagree with Marcus' apparent premise, I guess by his standards I have the bona fides to have an opinion (voluteered, served for four years in the early 70's, have many friends and shipmates who fought in Viet Nam, some returning physically unscathed, some wounded, some not at all, and am the father of two sons presently on active duty) and believe Pres. Bush is doing the right thing in Iraq, and in the war on terror generally. As long as we finish what we have started (freeing a brutalized people and establishing the foundation for a stabilized democratic society, denying a base for terrorists and their supporters), history will undoubtedly remember Pres. Bush for having done the right thing, and the chatterers, hand-wavers and bloviators (think Democratic presidential primary candidates)who get so much attention today, will be forgotten. Marcus also seems to think the US is too militaristic, but he speaks favorably of the huge armies raised 65 years ago which, incidentally, were needed to stop one of the many European-born-and-bred genocides of the last century. This is like social drinkers being lectured on the evils of alcohol by the town drunk while he is suffering through a rare moment of sobriety. I find it both humourous and aggravating to hear all the criticism of the lack of progress in Iraq. Let's face it, most of these critics couldn't plan and execute a multi-family picnic in the country without forgetting something ("Honey, I thought you were packing the sun screen"), missing someone ("Your brother said his family would be bringing the beer. Where are they?"), incurring delays ("I had no idea how slow traffic could be out in the sticks, with all that damn construction.")and getting lost ("This map is not agreeing with the on-line directions, what do I do?"), but feel qualified to criticize the President for not rebuilding a country in the wink of an eye. The truth is that our country, the Iraqi people and the cause for peace have been brilliantly served by the coalition's efforts in Iraq. Now that much of the "heavy lifting" has been so heroically completed, those on the sidelines should do the right thing and work for a stabilized, democratic Middle East. Posted by jmurphy at September 11, 2003 09:04 AMNow that much of the "heavy lifting" has been so heroically completed, I think the problem I have with this line of thinking is that the "heavy lifting" hasn't really started yet. The military campaign was, short of Saddam actually having WMD he could use, going to be pretty straight forward - short of using nukes no armed force on Earth could stop the US miltiary in its current state. Controlling and stabalising the country was always the problem, and will continue to be so. Posted by Dave at September 11, 2003 09:23 AMAs a side note, I was discussing this very issue (advance planning and preparation) with a US Marine Lieutenant Colonel in an airport recently and he was pretty livid from a military perpsective at the situation he and his colleagues had been put in. As he is a current, serving officer, I tend to place a lot of weight on what he says in comparison to people I read on blogs. Posted by dave at September 11, 2003 09:26 AM"If you bloggers like the war in Iraq so much, what are you doing to actually SUPPORT it?" Gee, "Starship Troopers" fans show up in the funniest places. Well, all right. How do I support the war? Here's exactly how: I will personally pay approximately $13,000 in Federal taxes alone this year. My household will pay over $25,000 -- again, that's just to Washington, DC. I used to resent this. I don't anymore. For the first time in my life, I feel like I'm getting my money's worth. Of course, if the antiwar folks have their way, this won't last, and I'll be back to watching five-figure sums get deducted from my pay and poured down the drain again on useless, futile endeavors. (Other chunks of money are headed for Topeka, Jefferson City, Kansas City, Jackson County, and a county and school district in Texas, where we own some land. Plus, of course, sales taxes wherever we might travel.) So I've got a better idea. Only people who support Federal operations by sending, say, $10,000 or more each year to the US treasury should be able to discuss the war. Something tells me we'd be hearing from relatively few opponents ... Posted by Jay Manifold at September 11, 2003 10:01 AMRand, it's funny how you can be so discriminating about the difference between the orgnized military of a nation-state and a small group of individuals when someone uses the term "Israeli militants" to describe the IDF, and yet be utterly blind to this distinction in your continuing series of essays comparing the war in Iraq to WW2. Ron, you seem to be utterly blind to irony... I don't get why Iraq in particular merits military action when Saudi Arabia and North Korea don't. It's pretty simple, really. Because at this point in time the costs of military action against those countries are perceived to be greater than the benefits. Once we've got Iraq pumping adequate oil, that situation will certainly change with respect to the House of Saud. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 11, 2003 10:46 AMRon said "Maybe you can explain those connections to me then because I don't get it at all. In particular, I don't get why Iraq in particular merits military action when Saudi Arabia and North Korea don't." I doubt you will be happy if and when we do militarily intervene in those countries. Perhaps Saudia Arabia, and North Korea are distinguishable from Iraq. The Saudis make noises of trying to cooperate agaisnt terrorism ratehr than just say "fuck off", and North Korea is a powder keg a short explosion, or artillery roudn from a long time ally. Maybe that does not count much to you - if so .... Posted by ceb at September 11, 2003 11:14 AMDave with the Atomic Razor... Obviously, I'm over simplifying, but I've been close to enough IRA bombs to have a pretty good handle on what living through an ongoing terror campaign is like in a way that no Americans I know can imagine. Make it as simple as you like but understand the import of your comment. Perhaps Americans can imagine the 'ongoing terror'... You need to understand, that's the reason we have our military strength. We're not interested in your nightmares. We know how we want to live and we're prepared to do what we have to do to preserve our way of life. You can live in your cesspools if you choose to do so. But don't require us to live your choices. Posted by bill at September 11, 2003 11:31 AMDave-- Just a few months ago, while our troops were massing, the UN diddled and Saddam's sycophants assured him Bush was like Clinton, the media were filled with predictions of horror upon horror. Remember -- tens or hundreds of thousands of casualties, widespread unrest by the "arab street", environmental armageddon, bloody urban warfare, ala Stalingrad? Instead, our coalition forces were by and large greeted as the liberators that they are. A large and very dangerous Army was methodically, quickly and brillantly, dismantled. By the way, it is only arm chair generals who believe that because our forces made it look easy, that it WAS easy. The embedded reporters gave a limited insight in how difficult, dangerous and complicated the prosecution of the war was. How many of us can say that we put in 12 to 16 hour(or more) days in harsh conditions, risking our health, or lives for low pay? This is typical for our military. It seems to me it is only in hindsight that this was supposed to be a low-casualty cakewalk. A civilan world comparison would be when you work hard on a project for the office, and the guy down the hall, who did not witness all the hard work, assumes because things went smoothly, that the task must have been easy. Haven't we all experienced something like this? So, when I said the "heavy lifting" was behind us, I was referring to the large invasion ground and air forces, and the heavy combat. There is no doubt rebuilding a neglected (or sabotaged) infrastructure, and establishing a political system which respects the individual will take time, lots of time. Perhaps a better comparison is that through heroic efforts of uniquely talented, trained and equipped surgeons, the patient's life has been saved. But before the patient can fully return to health, there is a long road with the general practioner, physical therapists, etc. I am glad you had a chance meeting in an airport to give you some first-hand knowledge. Many of my friends' children are on active duty, and I am also blessed with first-hand (or second) reports. I don't doubt that many things could have been done better. Fortunately the military, believe it or not, is one of our more adaptable institutions, and are in a never-ending cycle of identifying lessons-learned. There is no doubt our military could use more resources, and the military is constantly required to do more with less. (The active duty military was cut by about 40% between the two Gulf Wars.) While this needs to be addressed, it has nothing to do with issue of if the coalition did the right thing in Iraq. Posted by jmurphy at September 11, 2003 11:34 AM Great piece. You left out the part of the Japanese people never accepting another government much less one imposed by those evil American bully conquerors. It's a good thing we pulled out of Japan soon after the war and left them to their own devices. I'm sure they would have flourished as a peaceful global power without us! ;) Posted by Clark Ghitis at September 11, 2003 12:09 PM> Ron, you seem to be utterly blind to irony... I don't think so. You're trying to leverage the consensus that we did the Right Thing in WWII to make the implicit argument that we are doing the right thing today by highlighting how inappropriate the left's response to 9/11 sounds when recast in the context of Pearl Harbor. Is that right? If so, then I stand by my comment: there is a difference between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor: one was an attack by the professional military of a nation-state, and the other was an attack by a small (albeit well organized and extraordinarily destructive) group of individuals. Osama bin Laden is more like Al Capone writ large than he is like Yamamoto. Either this difference is significant, or it is not. It would be fine with me if your position was that this distinction is not significant; that's a defensible position. But it is hypocritical to take that position after joining the the criticism of Fox for calling the IDF "Israeli Militants" on the grounds that the term "militant" should not be applied to professional military. If you consider the distinction between profesisonal military and terrorists significant enough to justify objection just because someone refers to one of them using the wrong word, then you are not justified in criticising people who would distinguish the two for the purpose of deciding national policy. > I doubt you will be happy if and when we do militarily intervene in [Saudi Arabia and North Korea]. Indeed I will not. I doubt many people will. Fortunately, I think it is very unlikely that George Bush would get Congressional approval for such an adventure today. If so, then I stand by my comment: there is a difference between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor: one was an attack by the professional military of a nation-state, and the other was an attack by a small (albeit well organized and extraordinarily destructive) group of individuals. Osama bin Laden is more like Al Capone writ large than he is like Yamamoto. This is an extremely naive viewpoint. Osama is a surrogate for states (specifically Saudi Arabia, and possibly Iraq--certainly Saddam had no objections to his actions, with sympathy from Iran, Syria and other supporters of radical Islam and Arab nationalism). These states are smart enough to know that they cannot defeat us by conventional military means, and that to make formal declarations of war with formal armed forces would amount to national suicide. Instead, they arm and fund terrorists against us, and their more local enemy, Israel. Either this difference is significant, or it is not. It is significant. I wasn't calling the Japanese air forces militants--I was making an exaggerated point about what an organization that refuses to call terrorists "terrorists" might call them. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 11, 2003 02:03 PM> Osama is a surrogate for states And your evidence for this is... what? The word of the United States' intelligence organizations has proven less than reliable on these matters. > (specifically Saudi Arabia Yes, I believe that. But we didn't attack Saudi Arabia, did we? We didn't even attack an ally of Saudi Arabia (as we would have had to do to make the Japan-Italy parallel work). We attacked Iraq, an enemy of Saudi Arabia. The WWII equivalent of that would have been attacking, say, China. (Hm, now there's some potential for irony.) > and possibly Iraq-- Possibly? Your unalloyed support for the war in Iraq is based on Osama possibly being a surrogate for Saddam? To say nothing of... >certainly Saddam had no objections to his actions That's it? Your evidence for Osama being a surrogate for Saddam is that Saddam didn't object to the WTC attacks? Damn, I'm glad you're not running the country. (Oh, wait, someone who thinks like that is running the country. Oh shit.) > with sympathy from Iran, Syria and other supporters of radical Islam and Arab nationalism). Yes, and if we were actually going after any of those countries we would not be having this conversation. > Osama is a surrogate for states And your evidence for this is... what? The word of the United States' intelligence organizations has proven less than reliable on these matters. There's abundant evidence from a number of independent scholars. Go out and do a little reading. > (specifically Saudi Arabia Yes, I believe that. But we didn't attack Saudi Arabia, did we? No, and I've already explained why. We weren't ready for the disruption to the world oil markets. We didn't even attack an ally of Saudi Arabia (as we would have had to do to make the Japan-Italy parallel work). The parallel is not perfect. Iraq is an ally of Saudi Arabia in the Arab sense that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." More importantly, Iraq has oil that can replace the Saudi oil, it was the most odious regime in the region, it will provide a good base for further expansion of western values, and by taking out the Saud's "enemy," we are able to pull out of Saudi Arabia militarily, which we've no essentially done, and finally, we did it because we could. Would that other monstrous regimes could be removed as easily. > and possibly Iraq-- Possibly? Your unalloyed support for the war in Iraq is based on Osama possibly being a surrogate for Saddam? No, not at all. You've been paying no attention. We aren't at war exclusively with Al Qaeda, or Osama bin Laden. This is the mistake that war opponents continue to make. Their only role was to make us aware, two years ago, that we were indeed at war. It's much broader than that. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 11, 2003 04:40 PMSomeone here suggested that all those anti-war people should go and live in some other peaceful country. Yesterday, swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh was brutally killed in public. Posted by at September 12, 2003 01:31 AMjmurphy, To be honest I did read your comment that way, its just experience where I live has shown that the serious military stuff is expensive but straight forward. The scaary worrying stuff is still to come. Bill, We know how we want to live and we're prepared to do what we have to do to preserve our way of life. This is the part I am concerned about. I really don't think you do.
The Swedes have also had a Prime Minister killed in the last 20 years, they still didn't go down the route of body guards for politicians. I quite like that myself. Posted by Dave at September 12, 2003 02:16 AMMisc. comments -- > And they [human shields] left Iraq before the war began.
> Iraq is an ally of Saudi Arabia Ah, well, this is certainly news to me. Maybe somebody should tell the Saudis and the Iraqis. I don't think they know either. > in the Arab sense that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." So our attack on Iraq was justified because Iraq sympathized with (but did not in any way aid or abet) the Saudis? > More importantly, Iraq has oil Yes, that's what the people whose positions you impugn with your WWII pieces have been saying all the time that this war has been about, or haven't you noticed? (And you say I'm the one who's not paying attention? Bah!) ...he certainly doesn't have a high opinion of the House of Saud and the feeling is mutual. Regardless, he received abundant financial support from at least some members of it, partly as payoff to confine his terrorism outside of Saudi Arabia. It was a pact not just with the devil, but between multiple devils. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 12, 2003 08:58 AMSo our attack on Iraq was justified because Iraq sympathized with (but did not in any way aid or abet) the Saudis? No, our attack on Iraq was justified because Saddam was in continual violation of UN Security Council resolutions requiring him to disarm, because he provided succor to terrorists (and was in many senses a terrorist himself), because he was a continued threat to the region, because he had a brutal regime, because we couldn't remove our troops from Saudi Arabia until he was gone, because building a free Iraq is the first vital step toward building a free Middle East, which is the only way to win the war that we're in, because allowing Iraq to utilize its oil resources for the good of the Iraqi people, rather than to build weapons and palaces was critical to taking away the Saud's oil weapon. As I said, you weren't paying attention. If you don't like that, fine. Vote for the candidate in the next election that will continue to appease these monsters, and delude himself that all we need to win the war is "help" from the UN, and support from our "allies," like France. > More importantly, Iraq has oil Yes, that's what the people whose positions you impugn with your WWII pieces have been saying all the time that this war has been about, or haven't you noticed? (And you say I'm the one who's not paying attention? Bah!) No one has ever denied that oil is a strategic factor. It obviously is, for many reasons, some of which are described above. What we deny is the mind-numbingly stupid assertion that the sole purpose of the war was merely to enrich Cheney and Bush's buddies in the oil industry. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 12, 2003 10:25 AM> Saddam was in continual violation of UN Security Council resolutions requiring him to disarm You must have seen a news story that I missed (seeing as how I'm not paying attention). Last time I checked, no banned weapons have been found in Iraq despite six months of intensive and unencumbered searching. (They may yet turn up, of course, but as of now all indications are that Saddam had in fact disarmed.) >No one has ever denied that oil is a strategic factor. A simple Google search yields dozens of quotes from Bush and Blair administration officials doing exactly that. I personally recall hearing Donald Rumsfeld say, "“It has nothing to do with oil, literally nothing to do with it.” You must have seen a news story that I missed (seeing as how I'm not paying attention). Last time I checked, no banned weapons have been found in Iraq despite six months of intensive and unencumbered searching. (They may yet turn up, of course, but as of now all indications are that Saddam had in fact disarmed.) All the while acting like he remained armed, and most of the world's intelligence agencies believing it. And what they were denying was that the purpose of the Iraq war was to provide oil for their oil buddies, not that Iraq had oil, or that that was a major problem (and potential solution). To the degree that they didn't want to emphasize the latter, why tip off the Saudis to the plan? Posted by Rand Simberg at September 12, 2003 02:36 PM
That's not true, as this link shows. Not to mention the Le Monde editorials saying the US had no moral standing to go after the Taliban, as Fuaod Ajami wrote. Posted by Jim Burdo at September 12, 2003 10:43 PMAll the while acting like he remained armed, and most of the world's intelligence agencies believing it Frankly, this raises more questions about the abilities of our intelligence agencies than the Iraqi's. If they are that incompetant we ought to be dealing with that issue before we risk more lives on the basis of their information. Posted by Dave at September 13, 2003 09:37 AM>> ...he certainly doesn't have a high opinion of > Regardless, he received abundant financial
Hilarious. Excellent satire, I will be back. The indignant responses from the appeasers are almost as funny as the original piece. Ryan A small clarification to my previous lengthy posting. I believe additional "homeland" security measures will be required in the short term, regardless of whatever Middle East foreign policy are pursued. These precautionary measures will cost money and result in lost civil liberties at home. The main difference is those policies will have to remain in effect for a significantly longer period of time (decades, as opposed to years), if a confrontational "War on Terror" strategy is pursued.
Please do point out why a "mind your own business" policy with the Arabs wouldn't work. Would the "mind your own business policy" include no longer restraining Israel from utterly defeating their long-sworn enemies? Besides this, the main reason it won't work is that the Saudis will continue to fund terror and madrassas throughout the world with their oil money. We ignored Hitler for a while, and look how well that worked out. If the bin Ladenites hadn't been so stupid that they tipped their hand two years ago, they might have eventually gotten control of Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal. Then our first warning in New York might have been a mushroom cloud. Disengagement is not an option when dealing with a totalitarian ideology. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 13, 2003 12:49 PMOh, and by the way: I would bet Osama is absolutely delighted that Saddam has been removed from power. You'd lose. For one reason, because Osama is almost certainly dead. But while he had no love for Saddam, he'd be furious that the true infidels have taken over Iraq. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 13, 2003 12:51 PM> Would the "mind your own business policy"
Forget those stupid WW II analogies already! These guys are far weaker, relatively speaking, than Hitler or Stalin were. And they are not growing stronger in relation to the U.S., economically speaking. Irrelevant. They can grow stronger in the only way it matters to them (or for now, to us)--by getting their hands on true WMD. Another far-fetched scenario. So how would the Pakis have delivered a nuke to New York City, then? In any case, if you insist on stirring up the hornets nest, don't be surprised if you get stung. Very simple---by getting it into the hands of terrorists and smuggling it in on a boat. If you want to use a hornet's nest analogy, there's one way of effectively dealing with it, which is not to "stir it up," but to burn it. For now, our humanitarian impulses are to try to stir it up, and reform it (which is, of course, where you're silly racist analogy falls apart--those in the Middle East are people, not hornets, and they deserve freedom as much as we in the west). But to think that the Islamofascists would forever leave us alone if we ignored them is delusional. They want, just as much as did Hitler and Stalin, to eventually rule the world, and they'll do absolutely anything within their power to achieve that goal. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 13, 2003 04:05 PMThey want, just as much as did Hitler and Stalin, to eventually rule the world, and they'll do absolutely anything within their power to achieve that goal. You really do believe this don't you? Posted by Dave at September 14, 2003 04:44 AM>They want, just as much as did Hitler and Stalin, You really do believe this don't you? Only because they say it, repeatedly. Do you think they lie? If so, you're living in a fool's paradise. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 14, 2003 07:41 AM"I note that the most extreme anti-war protesters (=the human shields) already have risked THEIR lives." Yeah right. Before the bombs fell they all high tailed it back home. COWARDS !!! Posted by Brennen at September 14, 2003 09:48 AMOnly because they say it, repeatedly. Do you think they lie? If so, you're living in a fool's paradise Hardly, I've said on a few occasions that I think I've a better handle on living with terrorists than you do. However, just because they say something doesn't mean they have the means to achieve it, nor will ever achieve the ends to acheive it. We can defang them over time, but the approach we are talking is going to be, I suspect, the hard way around. Posted by Dave at September 15, 2003 02:09 AMThe only reason why there is so much bebate about the war in Iraq is simply because the president is a republican. When clinton was in charge and he said saddam must be disarmed just about every world leader was on board. Now Bush is doing what clinton said needed to be done and all you hear is "disent". Just a bunch of republican haters. If they were against a war with Iraq so much then why was there silence during Operation Desert Fox ? That was clinton's baby so the press gave him a pass. Wake up people and smell the bias ! Posted by Brennen at September 15, 2003 08:00 AMHey, "Marcu$" with a dollar sign, that's neat! Let me try..."appea$ement". Wow, it seems to work great there, as well. Thanks again, Rand, good work! Posted by Tasty Manatees at September 15, 2003 09:12 AM>Hardly, I've said on a few occasions that I think I've a better handle on living with terrorists than you do. Perhaps that's really the difference. Others have to learn to "live with" terrorism in their own countries. We stretch our power around the globe and crush the SOBs who struck us and who would kill even more if they could. I like our way. Posted by Brian J. Dunn (The Dignified Rant) at September 15, 2003 10:36 AMDave, At what point would you believe that one of the most cultured peoples, with massive contributions to the global bank of knowledge, might act in a manner inimical to civilized behavior? At what point would you believe that a charismatic leader might be able to persuade folks to do more than simply parrot beliefs, but actually act on them? In short, at what point would you have tried to get your family out of Germany? Posted by Dean at September 15, 2003 02:59 PMDean, I think you are over playing analogies. Posted by Dave at September 16, 2003 05:03 AMDean, I think you are over playing analogies. Yes, we know you think that, but we can never get an explanation why you think that. My guess is that if you didn't think that, you'd have to rethink your entire world view. Posted by Rand Simberg at September 16, 2003 09:28 AMwe can never get an explanation why you think that. Rubbish Rand, I've explained my position to you dozens of times. Ignoring me doesn't change that. My guess is that if you didn't think that, you'd have to rethink your entire world view. Interestingly, a decade or so ago I'd have probably seen things more from your perspective, but I've had to grow up a lot and I'm now a lot more critical about the things I beleive in. Posted by Dave at September 16, 2003 09:38 AMBut if you missed it before with respect to the current situation my view is thus: 1) If you are going to invade somewhere, have a plan about your exit and support stategy before you go in. If you can't do it alone, then build the international support first. Don't go it alone and then expect people to help you deal with things later. Thererfore, exhaust all diplomatic options and build as wide support as possible (e.g. Afganistan). If that means waiting, then wait. 2) Build a strategy that deals with the root causes of the problems not just the symptoms. Dictators who kill their people are endemic in this - build a strategy which deals with all of them in a structured and widely understood way. Build a global strategy for dealing with the poverty which allows situations like the Madrasses in the first place. (yes, that might include writing off some debt, paying for some schools and DON'T what ever you do then forget to pay the money you promised like we have in Afganistan) 3. If you start something, finish it. q.v. Afganistan 4. Helping people is not necessarily appeasement. 5. Terrrorists aren't armies or normal criminals. Unless you are prepared to kill everybody and lock up everybody potentially suspicious you're going to have problems. Sadly, you have to be lucky all the time, they only have to be lucky once. That's the problem with terrorists. 6. Thinking that terrorists work to an expected timetable is silly - just because you've managed a year or more without attacks, don't assume that means your security is working. How many years were there between 9-11 and the previous WTC attacks? 7. There is no pre-defined point in a battle with terrorists where you can declare the "war" over, the nature of the problem means that new cells can spring up. Posted by Dave at September 16, 2003 09:56 AM> Terrrorists aren't armies or normal criminals.
1) Detect, isolate and arrest potential suspects among United States residents. This includes several unpleasant things such as ethnic profiling and measures that reduce personal freedom of all Americans, but it seems to be working. Note that this has to be done regardless of how successful the military "war on terrorism" in the Middle East is, since each invasion of another Muslim country increases the amount of anti-American hostility at least in the near term. This, in turn, makes it more likely that determined individuals and terrorist groups will mount a suicide attack on American targets. 2) Use a combination of carrot and stick to dissuade individuals, organizations and foreign governments from giving financial aid and other forms of support to Islamic terrorists. This is mainly an international endeavor, since many nations have huge Arabic/Islamic immigrant communities. These communities are not exactly becoming more pro-American as a result of the Iraq invasion. 3) Attack the terrorists themselves (and their alleged supporters and infrastructure) using military means. WASHINGTON TIMES columnist David Horowitz claims the Administration's campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq are the main reason why there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11. Utter rubbish! At best, the U.S. has been destroying some organizational and other infrastructure (e.g. training camps) that would have been used to train and finance future Mohammed Attas. But it's clear points (1) and (2) above are far more important, as far as the security of ordinary Americans is concerned.
|
|
