Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Right emotions; wrong strategies. He fails to acknowledge radical Islam's most powerful weapon: high birth rates and terror schools in Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

And George W. Bush does not share his values, or yours, Rand. Neither does Kerry but Kerry won't run us off a cliff. He will just go in circles.

= = =

In Casablanca, a Gary Cooper/John Wayne type will cause more harm than good. Humphrey Bogart prevailed because he worked with the corrupt French police captain.

Posted by Bill White at October 21, 2004 08:33 AM

George Bush shares the only values of mine that count right now. Kerry doesn't.

And no, I don't take my foreign policy guidance from WW II movies, but thanks for asking.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 21, 2004 08:37 AM

Bill must have seen a different version of Casablanca than the rest of us. As I recall, Rick offered to shoot the corrupt French Police Captain and did shoot the vicious German Nazi Colonel to allow Victor and Ilsa to get on the plane to Lisbon.

The Frog, typically, surrendered to the side with the superior will and joined the allies.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at October 21, 2004 08:43 AM

Mark, if I recall correctly, the Frenchie had been playing both sides. Just like Chirac.

Bogart chose not to hold that against him and began a "beautiful friendship" after the corrupt captain lied to protect Bogart.

"Round up the usual suspects. . ."

Bogart also made sure the captain won at the gambling tables. Why? Because the petty corruption of the French was "relatively" harmless compared to the vile Nazis.

Fast forward to Iraq reconstruction. We could have bribed the French with oil contracts and cell phone contracts and thus enlisted their aid with the reconstruction of a stable and secular Iraq.

But no, Bush took the moral high road, and look where we are now.

"Gambling? Gambling in Casablanca? I am shocked!"

U.N. oil corruption? Gosh, I am shocked again.

Posted by Bill White at October 21, 2004 09:28 AM

To get back on topic (Bill . . ), I only hope that more non-Americans share Nelson's perspective. If you weren't HERE (USA) that day, or had a friend/loved one in those buildings or planes, then you just can NOT ever completely understand how Americans (real ones, not the Hollywood ones) feel about terrorism and our nation's reaction.

I would expect reasonable people to be able to empathize, which is what Nelson does. I empathize with our Jewish friends over the hatred and attacks they have lived with all these years, even though I don't have a clue about what being Jewish is like. I'd have sympathy for Palestinians, if they'd quit sending their sons and daughters to theie deaths.

Good find, Rand. Thanks!

Posted by Dave G at October 21, 2004 10:04 AM

Put as simnply as possible:

I believe the Bush strategy for fighting terror will result in more future 9/11s not fewer future 9/11s.

I have one vote and one voice and if 5 years from now or 10 years from now or 50 years from now I am proven wrong, I will rejoice.

But my opinion is just that, my opinion. I admire and respect the emotions behind the linked blog and I admire and respect Rand Simberg's values.

I simply disagree on the strategy.

Posted by Bill White at October 21, 2004 10:24 AM

> Bogart also made sure the captain won at the gambling tables.

Yes, and the CIA pays shady informants, too. Would you like me to quote what the Left said about that?

What Bogart's character did not do was succomb to the "strategy" that not killing the Nazis would cause the Nazi Party to disappear.

> We could have bribed the French with oil contracts and cell phone contracts
> and thus enlisted their aid with the reconstruction of a stable and
> secular Iraq.

We could have rewarded France for selling arms to Saddam by giving contracts to France instead of American firms?

Yes. Why would any sane person want to?

Posted by Edward Wright at October 21, 2004 11:56 AM

I believe the Bush strategy for fighting terror will result in more future 9/11s not fewer future 9/11s.

It's been three years, mate. Zero new 9/11s so far.

So I'll take your theory and raise you one measurable fact.

Posted by Carl Pham at October 21, 2004 01:28 PM

> We could have bribed the French with oil contracts and cell phone contracts and thus enlisted their aid with the reconstruction of a stable and secular Iraq.

While we could bribe France, why would anyone think that the French could meaningfully contribute to a stable and secular Iraq?

The French and Germans can't make a significant military contribution. Their commercial side is better, but leaving them out doesn't cause any shortage.

Posted by Andy Freeman at October 21, 2004 07:23 PM

......but leave me alone with my Spanish “jamon de jabugo” or “pata negra”. You dislike spirits? OK. Even so I’ll drink my cognac.

Liberal elitist alert!!! This guy would vote for Kerry and Ter-AY-za, very simply, because they are the same type Eurocentric snobs.

Posted by Steve at October 21, 2004 07:59 PM

Our military is so overstretched, we NEED to move 850 Brits to allow a potential new assault on Fallajuh.

Once Saddam was already whacked, Chirac could no longer do deals with him.

Therefore, if we gave business deals to France then French business leaders would tell Chirac to send tens of thousands of French troops to Iraq to maintain order so those business-men could make profits on their deals.

Right now, the world benefits from our fighting in Iraq while they "ride for free" while we pay for nearly all of it.

Posted by Bill White at October 21, 2004 10:01 PM

PS - - and so long as the chaos continues and American civilians are being assasinated, our private sector won't be making much profit either.

Do the French deserve business deals in Iraq? ABSOLUTELY NO!!!

But it would be prudent to give the French, Russians, Germans etc. . . a profit incentive arising from a stable and prosperous Iraq.

Indeed, I read somewhere that the Polish president was angry that his country got so few lucrative post-Saddam contracts. Thats just not smart.

Posted by Bill White at October 21, 2004 10:04 PM

It's been three years, mate. Zero new 9/11s so far.
So I'll take your theory and raise you one measurable fact.

Carl,
Some more measurable facts.
Bali.
Madrid.
Belsen.
Iraq's civilian population is suffering the equivalent of 9-11 every two weeks.
And the direct financial cost of 9-11 - between $33 and $36 billion. The Iraq war will at minimum cost over $100 billion without directly making America any safer (in addition to over Americans 5, 000 dead and seriously wounded).

Posted by Duncan Young at October 22, 2004 05:44 AM

And of course we have done absolutely no damage whatsoever to the terrorists have we Duncan?

[dr_evil]Yeah....Riiigghht!!!![/dr_evil]

Posted by at October 22, 2004 09:00 AM

We have killed many terrorists, true, yet more have joined than have been killed.

Net effect?

More terrorists now than before.

By the way, the Iraq terrorist-insurgency is being well funded by SAUDI donors and Saudi foreign fighters.

The focal point of terrorist power and finance is in Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. That is where the Wahabi are from. Our true enemy is Wah-habi.

But then to the wing-nut Right, all Aa-raabs look alike.

Posted by Bill White at October 22, 2004 09:21 AM

We have killed many terrorists, true, yet more have joined than have been killed.

How do you know?

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 22, 2004 09:44 AM

I keep hearing this mindless 'recruiting for BinLaden' meme repeated endlessly. I wonder if anyone is really thinking much about it.

Let us assume for a moment (I don't, but let's do so, just for argument's sake) that the various terrorist enterprises are enjoying higher recruiting rates as a result of American responses to 9-11 and the Iraq war (WOT in general). What does this really mean? Thousands of angry teen-agers? More cannon-fodder or just some angry crowds for CNN? Bitter family members who can shout at cameras? Are we looking at soldiers or rioters? If the latter, then who really cares? I won't dispute that it would be nicer if we were universally loved, but if the price for our own self-defense is that slackers in arab dictatorships decide to hate us (like this wasn't going to happen anyway?) a little bit more...that is a price I can live with.

The troops in Iraq are killing militants with at least some military training and weapons...if they are replaced by even more poorly trained and armed eurabian trash, bring'em on.

Posted by Scott at October 22, 2004 10:07 AM

When a recruiting line is blow up, and the _next_ _day_ the recruiting line is twice as long, how many people decided to join up with Al Queda?

The "Kill one, make two" insanity works in REVERSE also.

Moving 1000 guys is a _tactical_ shortage. 500,000 troops would have guaranteed we wouldn't have any of those - this is probably true. But you're pushing farther and farther towards 'oppressive occupation'. Which does create resentment. Which would have prolonged everything - because you still wouldn't be able to step down the numbers of troops. "They're running away!" And "You're here in overwhelming force, _you're_ responsible for security!"

The recent raids where the boots taking the ground are Iraqi... priceless.

Posted by Al at October 22, 2004 10:45 AM

We have killed many terrorists, true, yet more have joined than have been killed.

How do you know?

= = =

Chart the number of US casualties on a weekly or monthly graph. If more Ameicans are dying this month than six month ago or a year ago, what does that tell you?

Posted by Bill White at October 22, 2004 10:55 AM

Chart the number of US casualties on a weekly or monthly graph. If more Ameicans are dying this month than six month ago or a year ago, what does that tell you?

It tells me absolutely nothing that's responsive to my question.

You imply that you know a) how many terrorists we're killing and b) how many are being "recruited" via our policies. I contend that you have no knowledge of either number.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 22, 2004 10:58 AM

When a recruiting line is blow up, and the _next_ _day_ the recruiting line is twice as long, how many people decided to join up with Al Queda?

The "Kill one, make two" insanity works in REVERSE also.

I agree. But that only leads to escalation.

I had thought the idea was to deploy overwhelming force to minimize casualties and end armed resistance quickly.

If we had the manpower (we do not) I would be screaming my head off to deploy 100,000 additional US troops and smash the insurgency once and for all.

Posted by Bill White at October 22, 2004 11:01 AM

I agree. But that only leads to escalation.

I had thought the idea was to deploy overwhelming force to minimize casualties and end armed resistance quickly.

The idea is to win. By the terrorists' actions, Iraqis are being recruited to eliminate them. Just because there's a period in which violence may increase doesn't mean that we will lose in the end.

You would have said that we were losing the war in December of 1944, because the Germans put on an offensive. You probably also would have said that we were losing in Vietnam, because of Tet. In the first case, no one listened to people like you. in the second case, they did, and so we did lose.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 22, 2004 11:08 AM

> Therefore, if we gave business deals to France then French business leaders would tell Chirac to send tens of thousands of French troops to Iraq to maintain order so those business-men could make profits on their deals.

France+Germany don't have tens of thousands of troops that they could send to Iraq. Any plan that requires otherwise....

The Brits have far more military resources and can barely manage 8-10k.

China and maybe Russia could send a significant fraction of what the 125k that the US has in Iraq, but they're the only ones who can make a big committment.

Note that the US has lots of folks who could be sent. Many are in SoK and Europe.

Posted by Andy Freeman at October 22, 2004 12:45 PM

"Chart the number of US casualties on a weekly or monthly graph. If more Ameicans are dying this month than six month ago or a year ago, what does that tell you?"

Bill, that analysis is so laughlably simplistic it is just plain retarded. I expect better of you than that. One dataset is not proof of a trend. It could easily be just as much evidence of an act of desparation on the part of the Terrorists I.E. a last stand.

It is simply not possible to draw any conclusions from that data at this time. It is way too soon.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 22, 2004 01:20 PM

Post a comment