Gerard Baker says that it's counterproductive to blame ourselves:

Events such as yesterday’s near-miss should remind us that September 11, 2001, gave birth to a radical and dangerous new world. It required the US — an imperfect country to be sure, but the only one with the power and the will to defend the basic freedoms we too easily take for granted — with its allies to remake the international system. It provided a terrifying harbinger of much larger atrocities to come, when terrorists and their state supporters get hold of weapons with which they can kill millions, not thousands. This new enemy is not like old enemies. It is fundamentalist and suicidal and apocalyptic. The old system, rooted in a liberal philosophy that relied on patient diplomacy and made a virtue of being slow to respond to attacks, was unequal to this new challenge. The new system required rapid action to open up the Middle East, the festering root of all these threats to modernity.

I will grant you that the Iraq war has been characterised, in conception and execution, by blunder after blunder. And it is certainly possible that, in their failures there, the US and Britain have made the world more unstable, not less. But we should not, in our frustration, confuse the real enemies here. We should not mistake the unlooked-for dangers caused by blunders and arrogance in Washington for the targeted threats posed by nihilism and hatred in much of the Middle East, and in some of our own cities.

"Five years after 9-11, it is clear that our misguided policies are making America more hated in the world and making the war on terrorism harder to win," Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts said. This comment was made just after the bust of this latest terrorist threat.

Today, I read this from the Boston Globe:
Foiled plan resembles 1995 scheme to blow up 12 commercial jets

Besides 1995, the article reminds us that the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993. In eight years, we withdrew from Somalia and lobbed a few tomahawk missiles into "reported terrorist training camps". We didn't invade a country, Israel worked with Arafat on a peace deal, a Democrat was President, and Senator Kennedy was in his office. Yet, terrorism grew into what we saw on 9/11.

It appearts the only thing that prevented thousands of US deaths to terrorism (not that there wasn't several hundred) was the incompetence of the terrorist. Unfortunately, they were on a learning curve, while we slept.

I have been reading that the Brits foiled the plot using tips from Pakistani intelligence sources. Tips gathered concerning British citizens (of Pakistani origin) travelling to Pakistan for terror training. Seems that Pakistan is simultaneously a haven for terrorists and a source of good intel to fight them.

Hmmm. . . A complicated and nuanced situation.

After 9/11 Syria was quite helpful with offering intelligence concerning people involved with al Qaeda for the simple reason that Assad the Lesser's rule is/was also threatened by the more extreme versions of Islamic fanaticism.

Good foreign intelligence seems to be the key and that requires working with Muslims as well as against them.

= = =

The current mess in Lebanon arose from our failure to support the Cedar Revolution after Syria's influence was lessened. So long as Assad was a dominant player in Lebanon he had incentive to restrain Hezbollah.

Syrian influence was reduced while we failed to support the government installed after the Cedar Revolution. That created a vacuum Hezbollah filled.

Now the IDF needs to complete is Okinawa style operation to root out Hezbollah, a necessary operation Olmert is being amazingly timid about.

Bigger picture, I agree we cannot blame ourselves and must remain focused on how to defeat fundie Islam. But remember, George W. Bush will be gone by January 2009 and will be a lame duck before then regardless of what happens in November 2006.

The GOP also needs new leadership to espouse a plan to defeat nut-job Islam. Who might that be?

Bill Frist?
John McCain?

We do have real enemies.

Thus, when the time comes to choose a new quaterback we need to remember the errors committed by the current QB. I quote from Rand's quote:

I will grant you that the Iraq war has been characterised, in conception and execution, by blunder after blunder. And it is certainly possible that, in their failures there, the US and Britain have made the world more unstable, not less.

I will grant you that the Iraq war has been characterised, in conception and execution, by blunder after blunder. And it is certainly possible that, in their failures there, the US and Britain have made the world more unstable, not less.

That is exactly correct: After three years, $300 billion, and 2500 lives just on the American side, the war in Iraq has made the world more unstable, not less. It is a colossal error that makes American security worse, not better. What Gerard Baker is missing is that if we don't blame ourselves, the errors will keep getting worse.

Leland finds it intolerable that the government did too little about terrorism rather than too much in the eight years before 9/11. Let us set aside the fact that the missile strike on Afghanistan was derided by those now in charge as "Monica missiles", not applauded as a step in the right direction. What Leland is missing is that even if the government did too little — I would agree that it should have done more — doing too much can be far worse than doing nothing.

To take a case in point, Rand yesterday found it hard to believe that the United States is substantially ignoring Pakistan. I didn't mean to say that it ignores Pakistan 100%. What I meant was that for every three hours that the Bush Administration spends on Iraq, it devotes a couple of minutes to Pakistan. Since after all, Pakistan only has five times as many people as Iraq and also has nuclear weapons. That is the sad truth of the matter.

It is true that the Pakistanis contacted Britain about this terrorist attack. That doesn't much work to disprove American inattention to Pakistan. British foreign policy isn't quite as FUBAR as American foreign policy. In any case, what ought to worry people here is that Pakistan is amazingly talented at finding terrorism leads, when it wants to. Despite all of the high-fives about Pakistani "cooperation", it's actually an ominous sign.

But hey, since Rush Limbaugh et al insist that Iraq "is where the fight is", I'm sure that some here will file away that clue about Pakistan in the cabinat of minor details.

What I meant was that for every three hours that the Bush Administration spends on Iraq, it devotes a couple of minutes to Pakistan.

Say, Mike, how do you know that? Does the Secretary of State brief you every morning or what?

Or are you going to say it's "obvious" because...uh...let's see, there was a story in the New York Times recently that said so, or a retired Clintonista deputy undersecretary of this or that said so in an interview with a CNN talking head, or you read it in a breathless digg.com storylet (that made it all the way to the front page so it must be true)...?

Anyway, if you're as in the loop as all that, I sure wish you'd said something earlier about the extensive recent discussions and cooperation between Pakistan, Great Britain and the US that led to the recent arrests et cetera. I've got to fly home in a few days and the new travel restrictions are going to be a pain. I could have used the warning.

Carl, didn't you know? Mike knows everything. I wish I was as smart as he is.

That is exactly correct: After three years, $300 billion, and 2500 lives just on the American side, the war in Iraq has made the world more unstable, not less. It is a colossal error that makes American security worse, not better. What Gerard Baker is missing is that if we don't blame ourselves, the errors will keep getting worse.

*****************

More daily Kos koolaid.

In 2002 the U.N. Security council was going to lift all sanctions against Saddam, forcing the end of the no fly zones and other impediments put on Saddam after the first Gulf War. This, as we now know, was the result of billions in bribes to the Russians and our friends the French.

What would have happened should Saddam have been given free rein?

He was already supporting the suicide bombers by giving $25k rewards to their families.

The documents that we do have indicate that Saddam would have gladly reconstituted his Chem warfare capability, and probably used it agains the Kurds first (after all our airpower would not have been there to protect them or the Shias) and then the Shias.

Oh yea the world would be a much better place. How about a conduit for massive support for Hezbollah? He had been cooperating with the Iranians (who he admittedly hated more than the U.S.) in allowing transshipments of Arms to Syria.

Yep, much better place.

Dennis

Say, Mike, how do you know that?

(1) Follow the money. They ask for about $90 billion per year for Iraq, by contrast about $1 billion for Paksitan.

(2) Follow the links. The Google search "pakistan site:whitehouse.gov" has 16,000 hits; the search "iraq site:whitehouse.gov" has 249,000 hits.

(3) Follow the troop deployments.

(4) Follow the news.

(5) Follow the numerous pro-Administration pundits who insist that we can't withdraw from Iraq because "that's where the fight is".

(6) Follow anything other than your own faith in big government.

How about a conduit for massive support for Hezbollah?

How about it, Dennis? That is exactly what the government of Iraq now wants to be. If you want to accuse Saddam Hussein of secretly cooperating with Iran, the new government is openly and deeply pro-Iranian, and far more pro-Hezbollah as well.

On that note, Rand's source Grim correctly pointed out the danger that Muqtada Sadr poses to Western interests. (Did anyone catch his "Death to America, we are Hezbollah!" demonstrations?) I was going to say, if they want to take out Sadr's men, they should start by raiding the Iraqi parliament.

Mike all your arguments always lead back to the false notion that we are only capable of focusing on one hot spot at a time and that in focusing like a laser we will somehow be successful in wiping out the terrorists. I see the problem differently. Focusing on any one part of the terrorist threat would be exactly what the terrorists need to survive. Playing global “wack a mole” is their game. I think you also greatly underestimate the power of the free market and the military. The combination has and will continue to create ever more lethal and precise weapons systems. The longer we feel threatened the more lethal these systems will become. It is only a matter of time before we are able to select a single individual out of a crowd or even inside of a building and strike just that person. Concentrating our efforts of our intelligence has been our weakest part of this system. In many ways Iraq has been a proving ground for improving that system as well. I believe the terrorists know this all too well. They have first hand knowledge of how quickly their own enemies can bring the present weapon system to bear on them. So to all the pols that advocate redeployment I say “Redeploy This”. Or as a famous military man once said “Nuts” jjs

Mike all your arguments always lead back to the false notion that we are only capable of focusing on one hot spot at a time

No, JJS, you have it backwards. Of course we are capable of focussing on more than one hot spot at a time. My point is, "we", or rather they in Washington, aren't doing that. As I keep saying, they are fighting 80% of this "world war" in Iraq. They are pouring an ocean of resources into one small country in order to save face. Pakistan has five times as many people as Iraq, and it has nuclear weapons, and it has dangerous political instabilities, but it is a tiny footnote of American foreign policy compared to Iraq.

Why is it so hard to understand that the government can screw things up this badly?

Mike, where do you come up with these things:
Leland finds it intolerable that the government did too little about terrorism rather than too much in the eight years before 9/11.

That's not true. But then, I'm fully versed in your ability to handle logic and analogies, so I'm not surprised.