Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Who are we at war against?

Islam?

Arabs?

The Middle East?

Iraq?

Al Qaeda?

Islamic Radicals?

If we are at War, who exactly are we at war against?

Posted by anonymous at March 11, 2007 09:32 PM

Every single flipping person that says "We're at war with the United States!"

I like the term 'Jihadists' myself. But all _I_ mean when I use the term is exactly what I said: Anyone who considers themselves at war with the United States. A lot of the other terms are either overly broad, overly narrow, or include the term 'Islam' and give morons a chink at which to falsely play the 'race card', or the similar 'religion card'.

Posted by Al at March 11, 2007 09:51 PM

"Jihadist" or "Jihad" is good; it rightly suggests we are at war with those who are at war with us. I’m not in a Psychological profession but there should be a term for someone who worries over the semantics while our enemies kill us. Whether it was Leon Klinghoffer or Richard Pearl, the underlying truth is that they are and have been at war with us since the 1970s, at least. As the bumper sticker would say: “Just because you are not interested in Jihad, doesn’t mean that Jihad is not interested in you.”

Posted by Z-Man at March 12, 2007 02:49 AM

"I've never been a big Ted Koppel or Nightline fan"

Or a fan of journalism in general, no doubt. Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

"he understands that we are at war"

America is not at war. Young men and women are not lining up to join the military, there is no serious likelihood of a draft, very little chance the people would tolerate a draft even if it were passed, and no political leader dares to suggest large-scale tax increases to pay for "the effort." The Bush regime alone is at war, engaged in private imperial conquest with looted military resources and American soldiers held hostage.

"it may help that he's Jewish"

A gargantuan non sequitur if ever there was one, if not outright Newspeak.

"and have been for a quarter century"

No, Rand. War is not a synonym for any and all struggle or conflict, and people who insist on seeing everything through that prism are just looking to evade moral restraint.

"even if many of us didn't figure it out until five years ago."

I don't see that you've figured anything out. Before 9/11, the very same people were fixated on China, quoted Chris Cox's book, portrayed Dana Rohrabacher as Winston Churchill, posted all over the place about Chinese missiles and submarines, fantasized about a "twilight conflict" between the Middle Kingdom and the US, and lambasted liberals as Sinophilic traitors.

Then an enormously emotional event shatters their bigoted assumptions, the twilight conflict was suddenly with Islam, terrorists they dismissed as insignificant the day before were suddenly the Thousand Year Enemy, and all laws, all morality, all reason was suddenly out the window just because they couldn't handle new information without descending into paranoid psychosis.

All your romanticized fantasies of a typhoon struggle between civilizations are delusional garbage--we were attacked by a pack of bigots living in caves, and they managed to do that much damage only because our security was flimsy, period.

"Unfortunately, many remain in denial."

The next step is admitting you're one of them.

Al: "Every single flipping person that says "We're at war with the United States!""

Unless that person represents a sovereign power or is directly supported by one, what you're describing is a law enforcement matter. Military police actions are still possible, but describing that as "war" is just an excuse to seize greater power and crush opposition--i.e., morally and legally without merit.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 12, 2007 03:46 AM

It can't be because he's Jewish. Contrary to what many people think, the ethnic group with greatest disdain for the war in Iraq are Jewish Americans. Recent polls affirm this; I believe it is on the order of 77% Jewish Americans opposing the war.

On the other hand there are small but very vocal and well financed Jewish groups that do support the war. Since money has a way of speaking it is the latter that gets the attention.

Posted by Offside at March 12, 2007 03:56 AM

Here's a reference to my comment above:

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20070225/26006_Jewish_Americans_Most_Strongly_Oppose_Iraq_War.htm

Posted by Offside at March 12, 2007 03:59 AM

Brian,

Nice was to construct those easy to knock down strawmen. Woot!

Your 'law enforcement matter' was the strategy that was used all the way up to 9/11/01. That got us two destroyed Skyscrapers, a hole in the Pentagon, an extra crashed plane, and several thousand killed in the worst attack on this countries soil by a foreign power.

You are a fool.

Posted by John at March 12, 2007 04:05 AM

Young men and women are not lining up to join the military...

Brian, I'm not sure what plane of existence you live on, but yeah, they are. Currently we have enough kids attempting to join that we have the best educated military in the history of our country. It's not, as most anti-war people would have us believe, just kids without any other options.

If you mean, lined up like December 8th, 1941, no they are not. But other than that specific time, when the hell else did that ever happen?

Posted by Steve at March 12, 2007 04:27 AM

According to Brian, if there isn't a draft, then there wasn't a war.

So, lessee:

The American Revolution? No draft, not nearly enough people volunteered to be troops. NOT A WAR.

The War of 1812? Better change that term. Lots of militia, many of whom refused to fight, no draft. NOT A WAR.

The Civil War? One of our odder wars. Plenty of volunteers for the first 90 days, then recruitment fell off, until eventually, you HAD to introduce a draft. Guess we'd best call it half a war. (1861, 1864-1865)

You get the drift.

And all those men and women who've volunteered for the military since 2003, when we invaded Iraq? Fools and idjits, they, b/c they volunteered to be "hostages," according to Brian Swiderski.

Which means: If you AREN'T fighting in Iraq, you're a chickenhawk. If you ARE fighting in Iraq, you're a braindead moron who asked to be a hostage.

But I'm sure he "supports the troops."

Posted by Lurking Observer at March 12, 2007 05:12 AM

It's true that this is not a nice, neat war with battle fronts, state actors, a draft, and (perhaps most importantly) historical perspective. Even if it fit all those criteria, I get the impression that many of the people who opine against this one still would.

It is a war. I can't define it completely (nor would I try in this forum) but that doesn't change the concept.

Posted by Tom at March 12, 2007 05:26 AM

A jihadist is a Holy Warrior. That's exactly how they see themselves. Calling those who want to attack America in the name of Islam jihidists just plays into their own propaganda. Perhaps more accurate terms would be "islamic extremists" or "islamic terrorists" as a means to differentiate those people from the rest of Muslims.

Anyone who thinks police action is sufficient to stop terrorism must have slept in late on 9/11. The Clinton Administration tried that tactic for years. All we got were more attacks.

Posted by Larry J at March 12, 2007 05:53 AM

Tom

If you can't define the enemy, how do you even begin to define
a strategy?

Al says it's "Everyone who says they are at war with us".
Okay, so how do you execute this strategy?

Posted by anonymous at March 12, 2007 05:54 AM

Actually, we are at war with hirabis.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 12, 2007 06:10 AM

"Who are we at war against?

Islam?"

Yes.

"Arabs?"

Nope, not a racial issue. But thanks for bringing that up.

"The Middle East?"

Nope, but thanks for opening another drafty window into your simple mind.

"Iraq?"

Not anymore. We are focused on driving out mainly foreign troublemakers while we rebuild the place. This is standard fare since at least WWII.

"Al Qaeda?"

Yes.

"Islamic Radicals?"

Yes, and that is font of all the campaigns.

"If we are at War, who exactly are we at war against?"

Militant Islam and the Anonymous Coward footsoldiers like yourself.

Posted by J. Craig Beasley at March 12, 2007 07:46 AM

Anonymous-

I don't argue with people who don't share their names.

Posted by Tom at March 12, 2007 08:18 AM

Al says it's "Everyone who says they are at war with us".
Okay, so how do you execute this strategy?

Well, so far, we haven't had a lack of people who are willing to stand up and say that on TV. I don't think we need to do any additional research to figure out that AQ does indeed count. Iraq was firing on US planes operating under UN mandate -> act of war -> they count too.

I set _my_ goalposts before we went in, and I based them off of historic norms. Well, _improving_ on historical norms. We haven't hit 20,000 US military casualties, nor is it 10 years from the day of invasion - so while I am still withholding judgement on the battle in Iraq, I'm not particularly concerned.

As far as 'strategy', what more do you want?
1) Use law enforcement inside our borders as much as possible.
2) Use spying outside our borders to learn about plots.
3) Use diplomatic efforts (combined with 1&2, duh) to derail as many plots as possible.
4) Actively convert the military from 'tank divisions' to 'light cavalry brigades'. Because Russia just isn't up to invading Germany any time soon.
5) Push armed and unarmed drones on the fast track.
6) Push countries to denounce WMD (Think: Libya)
7) Push 'black ops' as far as the host countries will allow. Think Somalia/Ethiopia.

Are there huge areas for improvement? Hell yes.

But...

Anything WHATSOEVER would be better than sacking 90% of our HUMINT guys, RIFing 50% of the deployable military personnel, and running requests by foreign governments desiring to extradite people _already_ on your most wanted list by a battery of lawyers.

Posted by Al at March 12, 2007 12:15 PM

Interesting point from a good article Rand.

"If we are calling them ‘people who strive in the path of God,’ in other words — if we are calling them meritorious Muslims — then we are implying that we are fighting Islam, even if we’re not.”"

While we talk about and their admittedly are, moderate muslims... Islam at it's core is at war with all others.

The so called 'radicals' are performing the tenants of their religion. So fundamentally, Islam is the enemy (though moderates are not.)

Hard distinctions to make in the political reality.

Posted by ken anthony at March 12, 2007 12:45 PM

Re - being "at war" with "everyone who thinks that
they are at war with US" - I think in many cases
we ought to simply choose not to share their
delusion. (As for the genuine threats, such as
they may be, despite the "war-fighting vs. law-
enforcement" rhetoric one encounters from some
quarters, it seems like the project of "Security
Against Terrorism" is much less a task of "Armed
Conquest" than "Counter-Espionage" - or, more
accurately, "Counter-Sabotage"...

Too many people are trying to browbeat each other
with the "but it's a War" line, often with deeply
unstated assumptions about what "it's a War" is
"supposed to mean", and it obscures genuine
analysis of whatever actual threats exist.

-dw

Posted by dave w at March 12, 2007 02:44 PM

John: "Your 'law enforcement matter' was the strategy that was used all the way up to 9/11/01."

No, it was US policy until the invasion of Iraq. Our operations in Afghanistan were a police action originally planned after the Cole bombing, shelved due to nonexistent support from Congress, and then "forgotten" by the Bushists prior to 9/11 while they obsessed on Big Business handouts and social conservatism.

"That got us two destroyed Skyscrapers, a hole in the Pentagon, an extra crashed plane, and several thousand killed in the worst attack on this countries soil by a foreign power."

Poor immigration enforcement, intelligence priorities, airport security, and a policy of obeying hijacker commands under the assumption they intend to survive is what got us 9/11, and neither al Qaeda nor the taliban were ever a "foreign power."

Steve: "Brian, I'm not sure what plane of existence you live on, but yeah, they are."

It's called Earth, and on this planet the US military is resorting to illegal immigrants and juvenile delinquents because average Americans see no reason to put themselves at risk. The military's recruiting strategies reflect this fact, emphasizing money and belonging with virtually no mention of specific threats to America. That's not a "nation at war," that's a government at war without the support of its people.

Steve: "Currently we have enough kids attempting to join that we have the best educated military in the history of our country."

I've heard this claim before, and I still haven't seen a basis for it. What I have seen is that military recruiting has become concentrated in ghettos, barrios, and around failing high schools, basically anywhere their cynical promises of money and escape will resonate. Watching these predators stalk America's youth, an old classic comes to mind:

"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes--and ships--and sealing-wax--
Of cabbages--and kings--
And why the sea is boiling hot--
And whether pigs have wings."

--The Walrus and the Carpenter

"If you mean, lined up like December 8th, 1941, no they are not. But other than that specific time, when the hell else did that ever happen?"

When has America been at war since 1945? War is not a policy decision, it is a formal declaration passed by Congress involving at least the word "war," and directing the mobilization of all national resources toward a clearly defined (and physically possible) victory.

Vowing to exterminate the concept of terrorism is not war, it is rhetoric; vowing to capture or kill specific individuals is not war, it is police action; vowing to "disrupt" some form of activity on a continuous basis is not war, it is policy; and vowing to destroy a group of people with no fixed membership, leadership, or support structure is not war, it is a non sequitur.

Lurker: "The American Revolution? No draft, not nearly enough people volunteered to be troops. NOT A WAR."

The question is whether America is fighting any given war, not whether it is a war. But I will address this first example because the answer is amusing: America fought a war in the Revolution because Americans were *defined* as the people who fought and supported it--everyone else was a British subject.

Lurker: "And all those men and women who've volunteered for the military since 2003, when we invaded Iraq? Fools and idjits, they, b/c they volunteered to be "hostages," according to Brian Swiderski."

Only those who enlisted before the invasion are hostages, the rest are primarily mercenaries. BTW, "mercenaries" isn't just figurative--the military has been increasingly farming out its less hairy wetwork to "private security" firms.

Lurker: "If you AREN'T fighting in Iraq, you're a chickenhawk. If you ARE fighting in Iraq, you're a braindead moron who asked to be a hostage."

I wouldn't speculate on the motives of any specific individual, but the military's recruiting strategies speak for themselves: Money, money, money! Adventure! Excitement! Feel like a Big Man! Get a good job! Not one of their ads resembles an appeal to defend the country.

Secondly, I do certainly have far less contempt for fascists who live their madness than those who merely inflict it on others through policy, but that just means their insanity is more pure. A person who enlists in the military specifically to fight in Iraq isn't even an American soldier in my book, they're an imperial legionary serving interests that have nothing to do with this country and often at odds with it. As for the cannon fodder who enlist to escape poverty, I have a lot of sympathy for them--suffering both the economic and physical consequences of fascism.

Lurker: "But I'm sure he "supports the troops.""

Excuse me, it's the job of troops to support this country, not the other way around. My tax money goes to the military under the promise of defending the Constitution, and my support is conditional on how well they uphold that pledge. Right now they're doing the exact opposite, and I am hopping mad like ever real American is.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 12, 2007 07:44 PM

We're at war, we don't have time for threat analysis!

Posted by Adrasteia at March 13, 2007 02:28 AM

"If you AREN'T fighting in Iraq, you're a chickenhawk. If you ARE fighting in Iraq, you're a braindead moron who asked to be a hostage."
"As for the cannon fodder who enlist to escape poverty, I have a lot of sympathy for them--suffering both the economic and physical consequences of fascism."
"Right now they're doing the exact opposite, and I am hopping mad like ever real American is."

When I read statements like this I think the author must know absolutely nothing about the military except what they get from someone else who knows nothing about the military. Todays soldier is better trained, better educated and better conditioned than at any time in our history. Yet, you trot out the cannon fodder canard and the mercenary canard. Take you ANSWER talking points and put them where the sun don't shine and then look at the recruitment statisics and listen to what soldiers have to say. You will find little in common with the pablum you've been sucking down from your communist and socialist friends at ANSWER.

Posted by at March 13, 2007 06:11 AM

Squidward,

I do not watch Nickelodian. I did not coin you Squidward but your subnormal IQ prohibits you from remembering that simple fact.

I think Fool, Moron, Idiot or Traitor to Reason are much more descriptive titles for stains such as yourself.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 13, 2007 06:28 AM

An ignorant ass wrote the following:
Excuse me, it's the job of troops to support this country, not the other way around. My tax money goes to the military under the promise of defending the Constitution, and my support is conditional on how well they uphold that pledge. Right now they're doing the exact opposite, and I am hopping mad like ever real American is.

I hope no one who reads any of Brian's comments in the future forgets the words he wrote here.

Posted by Leland at March 13, 2007 11:23 AM

Blank Space: "the author must know absolutely nothing about the military except what they get from someone else who knows nothing about the military."

Obedience and groupthink are not mysterious, Einstein.

Blank Space: "Todays soldier is better trained, better educated and better conditioned than at any time in our history."

Right.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,78111,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/us/14military.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=06c953182b1c51bb&ex=1329109200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/26/military_considers_recruiting_foreigners/

Blank Space: "Yet, you trot out the cannon fodder canard and the mercenary canard."

When the purpose of a war is war itself, the people sent to die for it are cannon fodder. And when the military can only meet its recruiting goals by flooding arcades and PG-13 movie previews with promises of college money and career advancement, that's called mercenary. I'm sorry if you're the type who deals with unfortunate facts by denying them, but quite enough people have died for your denial.

Blank Space: "and then look at the recruitment statisics and listen to what soldiers have to say."

I have and do. Maybe you find it more comforting to imagine I just make this stuff up, or am imitating someone else who does, but the anger I hear from discharged soldiers is a lot more intense than any I could feel from my own impersonal moral and civic grievances. Even with a chest full of medals and plastic contraptions where their legs were before Bush "liberated" them, speaking out in any way, shape, or form subjects these people to organized retaliation bordering on terrorism.

Meanwhile, people like yourself will insist the war is supported by those still on deployment, who have no way of defending their good names against those who use them as ideological human shields. Only those who do in fact support the war are permitted to speak their minds, and only they can do so without fear of prosecution or worse, so save the applause of your hostage claque for the North Korean People's Congress.

Blank Space: "You will find little in common with the pablum you've been sucking down from your communist and socialist friends at ANSWER."

Just try not to use White House stationary next time you folks mail out fake letters in the names of soldiers who never even heard of them.

Rancid Cheeseball: "I do not watch Nickelodian."

Save it for your My Space site, Junior. Plenty of Republican Congressmen will appreciate reading it.

Rancid Cheeseball: "I did not coin you Squidward"

Oh, then you parroted some other retard who watches Nickelodeon? You're getting more impressive by the minute.

Rancid Cheeseball: "but your subnormal IQ prohibits you from remembering that simple fact."

Having a functioning cerebral cortex prohibits me from remembering what you say. The organ evolved precisely to filter out random animal noises with no relevance to human affairs.

Rancid Cheeseball: "I think Fool, Moron, Idiot or Traitor to Reason are much more descriptive titles for stains such as yourself."

Your Teddy Ruxpin must have found that line brilliant when you bounced it off him. I hope you copyrighted it.

Leland: "An ignorant ass wrote the following"

Then I can expect your vote for president. Welcome to the grownup world, folks: Putting on a uniform and doing whatever you're told does not entitle someone to say they served America, capice? An outlaw regime is in control of the Executive branch and engaged in an illegal war, and being part of that is a violation of the oath every soldier takes.

If a soldier doesn't take their oath seriously, then I don't take them seriously, and I will not walk on PC eggshells pretending to respect and admire someone who's done nothing to earn it. The few, the proud, the brave are those refusing illegal orders, and facing the terrorism leveled against them in order to uphold their oath and defend the honor and freedom of this country. Even in chains, those men walk taller and prouder than any duped cannon fodder or fascist quisling. Be grateful for men like Lt. Watada--this country would never have existed without their honor, courage, and intelligence.

Leland: "I hope no one who reads any of Brian's comments in the future forgets the words he wrote here."

I hope that myself, but what exactly do you expect to happen? Is a secret vault going to be uncovered beneath the Sphinx containing magic that will make lies truth, crimes just, betrayal of the Constitution patriotic, and unqualified obedience to power a service to freedom? Will I, chagrined and embarrassed, wish I had never spoken the simple truth or stood up for decency, because Goebbles will rise from the grave and prove that what Bush's people say is the real truth, and power the real morality?

I only wish those who were beaming with joy at the invasion of Iraq, insisting the troops would be met with roses and marriage proposals, and expecting to see rock concerts and McDonalds franchises within six months had been better documented so I could hound them like the Ghost of Credulous Nazi Imbeciles Past.

I'd almost pay money to see what some of the Kaiser-helmeted lunatic asylum aristocracy around here were saying at the time, because it damn sure wasn't to urge caution or express reservations, let alone note the fact that it was completely insane. Could I get 50/50 odds that one of you guys thought Iraq would adopt America's national anthem?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 14, 2007 06:29 AM

Forgot your meds today? Sheesh. But you invoked Godwin's law, you lose. QED.

Posted by Al at March 14, 2007 08:42 AM

Al: "Forgot your meds today?"

No, but I appreciate your concern. We need more caring, compassionate people like you in America.

Al: "But you invoked Godwin's law, you lose."

I'm engaging in civil disobedience against Godwin's Law. The principle may originally have had some purpose, but no longer: Now it's just a tool of spineless centrists trying to limit confrontation at the expense of the truth, and I have no intention of self-censoring historical parallels just to avoid terrifying a bunch of human-rabbit hybrids who make Adlai Stevenson look like Julius Caesar.

Yes, I know--they're still shocked every time they hear extreme language like "irresponsible" and "poorly conceived" used in Democratic statements, and would crumple into little balls of catatonia after reading this post, but they need to grow up. And folks on the right need to figure out that supporting a messianic regime that makes up excuses to kill large numbers of people and conquer another country will result in VALID comparisons to Nazism. I guess it's just easier for them to rely on Godwin's law than to negate the issue by not being maniacs.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at March 14, 2007 09:25 AM

Squiddy,

You are a self-absorbed little fascist turd chomping tard and your posting is of the same quality and relevance as the by products of amoebic dysentery.

"We need more caring, compassionate people like you in America."

If hypocracy causes cancer, your better check yourself into the Mayo clinic ASAP. If retardness causes it, you might as well call the undertaker now.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 14, 2007 05:48 PM

Two possibilities here; either a particular group of people is at war with the US (and the rest of the West) or they are not.

If they are not? Then the perpetrators are mass-murderers and ought to be executed after a trial and conviction. Geneva Convention does not apply to common criminals.

If they are? Then nearly all of them are enemy belligerents out of uniform, definable as spies and/or saboteurs and subject to summary execution when caught. Geneva Convention does not apply to enemy belligerents out of uniform.

Either way, they ought to be executed. It ought to be made clear that if we catch anyone committing an act of war on the US (or something that in a war would be defined as one) then unless they are wearing a uniform belonging to a country that has declared war on the USA (or vice versa) they will be executed by any convenient and expedient method.

Since it doesn't mean anything in particular to us, in my opinion the execution ought to be followed by cremation while wrapped in pigskin, and disposal of the remains on the nearest garbage dump.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at March 14, 2007 07:24 PM

I see - if the "enemy belligerents" would only
have the common courtesy to wear -uniforms-,
then if we captured them we could actually give
them the proper decent treatment of a captured
opponent (which may mean that we need to hang
onto them to keep them from continuing to act
against us, but we really should treat them no
worse than necessary consistent with not letting
them escape), but since they don't wear uniforms,
they can only expect to be treated as fair
game for the third degree and the oubliette?

What -marvelous- sense it all makes now!

-dw

Posted by dave w at March 15, 2007 09:21 PM

Post a comment