Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

As mentioned before, while this nebulous conflict is global in scope, it's not a conflict on the scale of any of the world wars.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at June 26, 2007 06:59 PM

Yes, because one side doesn't own tanks, or fight with massed uniformed infantry formations, etc.

However, the first nuke to go off may punt it past everything since WWII in casualty counts. And it is most definitely a global war.

The incredibly frustrating thing is, our leaders are being too timid... but their only potential replacements are calling for our outright surrender. Where do we go to find political leaders willing to fight back?

Posted by Big D at June 26, 2007 07:03 PM

Heh! This time I read the article. This is interesting:

These defeats are not a function of the courage and will of the American people. In a June poll sponsored by American Solutions, 85 percent of the American people said it was important to defend America and its allies. Only 10 percent were opposed. On an even stronger question, 75 percent said it was important to defeat America's enemies. Only 16 percent disagreed.
So the hard left in America is only 16 percent. It is outnumbered almost 5-1 by those who would defeat our enemies.

The source of failure is not to be found in the American people but in the inarticulate and unimaginative leaders all across government who now preside instead of lead.

Newt DOES NOT blame a supine West, he blames morons in the current Administration.

Hmmmm . . .

Does that make Newt a moonbat?

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 07:43 PM

Newt DOES NOT blame a supine West, he blames morons in the current Administration.

Are you really so clueless as to think that he's not including the leadership of the Congress, Bill?

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2007 07:50 PM

More Newt:

First, terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah will have to be rooted out and destroyed. We do not today have the strategy, the doctrine or the techniques for defeating these kinds of organizations. In Iraq, after more than four years of effort, our current doctrine for population control and for effective local policing and intelligence is pathetic. To defeat ferocious committed and enthusiastically violent organizations like al Qaeda and the Taliban will take new energy, new drive and new determination on our part.

Air power will NOT suffice. Infantry will be needed to dig out Hamas and Hezbollah. And that means Americans and IDF soldiers will die in hand-to-hand combat. MORE of the bad guys will die, as at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, but we cannot win from 35,000 feet.

Step 1 for rallying the American people? Declare clearly and loudly that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have FUBAR-ed the war on terror.

A few weeks ago, I predicted Newt would do exactly this as the opening salvo in his Presidential bid.

Looks like I may have been correct.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 07:51 PM

Rand, less than seven months ago Dennis Hastert was Speaker and Bill Frist was Senate majority leader.

Besides, POTUS is commander in chief as we are so often told.

I predict Newt Gingrich will run against President Bush, hard, as he seeks to become POTUS #44.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 07:53 PM

More Newt:

The first reactions to this defeat have been pathetic. The beleaguered American and Israeli governments have met to wring their hands and pledge funding for the old terrorists in the West Bank. This will surely prove to be a losing strategy. Hamas will consolidate its hold on Gaza and begin to extend its reach more decisively into the West Bank.

Tel Aviv is not spared the "pathetic" label either.

Newt will be no friend to Democrats but he will be no friend to the current Administration, either.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 07:55 PM

More Newt:

The first reactions to this defeat have been pathetic. The beleaguered American and Israeli governments have met to wring their hands and pledge funding for the old terrorists in the West Bank. This will surely prove to be a losing strategy. Hamas will consolidate its hold on Gaza and begin to extend its reach more decisively into the West Bank.

Tel Aviv is not spared the "pathetic" label either.

Newt will be no friend to Democrats but he will be no friend to the current Administration, either.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 07:56 PM

Newt will be no friend to Democrats but he will be no friend to the current Administration, either.

Who said he would? Or should?

But he's too late. Thompson is going to run away with the nomination. And he'll run away from faux Republicans and faux conservatives like Bush as well. And give the appeasers on the other side of the aisle hell.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 26, 2007 07:58 PM

Fred Thompson? Heh! Bring him on. As a Democrat I would fear Newt Gingrich far more.

Rand, are you really a Fred Thompson supporter?

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 08:07 PM

PS - A Republican candidate willing to launch withering attacks on Dubya in public will win over many so-called independents who dislike liberals but who consider Bush 43 incompetent.

Dubya's 30% approval rating came from somewhere and Fred Thompson saying "More of the same" is a recipe for GOP electoral disaster.

Newt would be far better at sticking the knife in Dubya while claiming to be the "true" heir to Reagan. Thus, a very dangerous and wily opponent for the Democrats.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 08:18 PM

Losing the war? This is how Thomas Barnett (not a moonbat, right?) says we will win. The quote is from Esquire and its a report from Kenya:

He tells the story of a primary school deep in the Muslim village of Bargoni where all the girls would drop out once they hit puberty. In Africa, the impulse would be to think: AIDS, birth control, clerics bearing down. But it was something far more prosaic. When I had first arrived inside the wire at Camp Lemonier, I'd seen a portable toilet labeled "Muslim female." The girls at the school were forced to quit at puberty because strict Islamic practice says that males and females can't share the same bathroom once girls come of age. McKnight and his crew offered a simple fix: HOA would build the school a bathroom just for girls.
The impact was immediate. For the first time, girls stayed in school, parents were happy, mullahs were satisfied, local leaders immensely gratified. Word got around: "The Americans did this!" McKnight's eyes well up as he remembers.

Kinetics is what the military does. Iraq is a quagmire because kinetics is all we planned for. But in this new time, on this continent, the military also builds latrines for girls. That simple act might someday keep trigger pullers out of this village.

I agree with this sentence:

Kinetics (killing people) is what the military does. Iraq is a quagmire because kinetics is all we planned for.

And Thomas Barnett wrote it.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 08:53 PM

OK Bill, Bush is inept at running the war. He's timid, feckless, blundering. He is afraid of taking the fight to the enemy. He has screwed the pooch on numerous occasions with respect to prosecuting the war.

Do you really think President H. Clinton, Pres. Obama, Pres. Edwards, Pres. Gore or Pres. (insert any Democrat even thinking of running) would be better on ANY of those counts????

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 26, 2007 09:04 PM

Hand-to-hand combat???

Bill, do you really think there are no options between dropping bombs from 35,000 feet and going "Walker Texas Ranger"?

Couldn't US military aircraft fly lower 35,000 feet?

And if we used infantry, why wouldn't they carry guns to shoot Hamas and Hezbolla, instead of trying to fight them hand to hand?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 26, 2007 09:16 PM

Cecil, what you typed is the only argument Newt Gingrich has if he wants to become POTUS. And his best argument.

I doubt Fred Thompson will ever say what you just typed while Newt Gingrich has pretty much already made that exact argument in the Washington Times. And Thompson could never deliver that message as eloquently or as brutally as Gingrich.

Cecil, you admit our current leadership (Bush Administration) is FUBAR-ing a war we must win and you say the Democrats are worse. This strikes me as being the Gingrich piece in a nutshell.

Posted by Bill White at June 26, 2007 09:33 PM

Bill,

Since we have you claiming the 35,000 ft meme (and not blaming some neocon for making you say it); can you explain why you think military fighter/bombers are dropping bombs from this height? Are you suggesting the Air Force/Navy/Marines are worried about Iraqi SAMs?

Posted by Leland at June 26, 2007 10:31 PM

Yes, because one side doesn't own tanks, or fight with massed uniformed infantry formations, etc.

Or because one side doesn't actually exist. I find that most of the conflicts that are lumped into this "world war" don't have anything significant in common. For example, the Algerian civil war, old terrorist groups (like Abu Nidal or the PLO), Chechnya war, or the old Israeli wars don't have a lot in common with current conflicts. I think it's intellectually sloppy to group uncooperating enemies together into one category of enemies. Genuine world wars had well defined enemies and clearly defined strategic goals.

Also, I don't consider it a genuine world war because there's just not that much going on.

However, the first nuke to go off may punt it past everything since WWII in casualty counts. And it is most definitely a global war.

We can then consider calling it a world war. Now is premature, inaccurate, and inappropriate. The problem here is scale. The only thing it has in its favor is geography. Ie, it is a global conflict. But it's a low grade one. I see no point in calling every minor global conflict a "world war" merely because there is a theoretical escalation to nuclear weapons present.

Also, keep in mind that the Second Congo War (which has run from 1998 to the present) has apparently killed at least three million people. My understanding is that fision bombs, the type that terrorists are most likely to acquire couldn't kill three million people even if detonated in the heart of Mexico City (or a similar megacity). We need to keep in mind that conventional wars can be extraordinarily bloody even in the absence of nuclear weapons.

Finally, what's the point of labeling this a "world war"? We aren't mobilizing like we did in either the First or Second World Wars. We aren't in danger like we were in any of these wars. The possibility that someone uses nuclear or biological weapons is not the same as these parties having these weapons.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at June 26, 2007 11:43 PM

Newt will not be the Republican nominee for president, nor is he likely to even run for president. Newt is damaged goods and carries too much baggage to succeed.

Posted by Brad at June 26, 2007 11:52 PM

Bill White says

Step 1 for rallying the American people? Declare clearly and loudly that George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have FUBAR-ed the war on terror.

Which illustrates why it is difficult to take the democrat party seriously on the war on terror.

The first step is not education on the threat we face, or the nature of the enemy, or a forward plan on how we can limit the threat before eliminating it or how we can stengthen the military to fight the threat, or how we might harden civilian areas to defend against the threat.

No, instead of something practical the first step is to repeat something every citizen has heard on the news media dozens of times.

Giving priority to bitching about how the bush, cheney, and rumsfield has done things might be entertaining for the democrats but it illustrates their lack of competence and shows just how unserious they are about the task at hand.

Posted by TJIT at June 27, 2007 01:34 AM

Bill:

You're probably right - the war can't be won from 35,000 feet.

But it can be won from 500,000 feet and several thousand miles range - quickly and permanently.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 27, 2007 03:00 AM

Bush is inept at running the war. He's timid, feckless, blundering. He is afraid of taking the fight to the enemy. He has screwed the pooch on numerous occasions with respect to prosecuting the war.

Absolutely right; unfortunately, given most of the front-runners now, I have to quote another military genius - "I can not spare this man; he fights."

Point being; no matter how much I and/others think Bush has lengthened or screwed up the war, given the rhetoric of most of the other candidates, he's the best we've got. Being America, we only lose this war when we give up. The outcomes of individual battles--like local weather phenomenon after an Al Gore visit--do not represent the entire geopolitical climate.

It sucks - I'd rather be Trinidad/Tobago at this time, but we're not. There's evil in this world; its been allowed to fester. Someone needs to take care of it.

I'd rather be an isolationist, but I've seen where that road takes us.

Posted by JAFAC at June 27, 2007 03:01 AM

But it can be won from 500,000 feet and several thousand miles range - quickly and permanently.

Got to have good intelligence, if you want to hit a target in that way (I assume kinetic bombardment or something similar, not nuclear weapons). IMHO good intelligence is far better than good weapons.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at June 27, 2007 03:50 AM

Bill :"Cecil, you admit our current leadership.... "

Actually I was only repeating what you have said, for arguments sake. Trying to find out if you think the dems are any better, but of course you avoided answering the question.

See JAFAC's post, he answered. "I can not spare this man; he fights."

Can anyone say that about any democrat? The last one was Joe Lieberman, and he got kicked to the curb by the dems for being a fighter.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 27, 2007 04:20 AM

TJIT: "Giving priority to bitching about how the bush, cheney, and rumsfield has done things might be entertaining for the democrats but it illustrates their lack of competence and shows just how unserious they are about the task at hand."

THANK YOU. That is the absolute truth about todays democrat party in a nutshell.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at June 27, 2007 04:26 AM

Karl:

No, the good guys won't use nuclear weapons first - the bad guys will, even knowing or suspecting the likely consequences.

One thing is for sure, though - the West will be the last to use nukes in this war. Because the other side won't be around to retaliate.

Actually, the facility to use really large kinetic weapons, such as small asteroids, is one of the better reasons to get into space in a big way - to be able to do stuff like that to the enemy with no inconveniences such as fallout.

Give them another rock to pray to, right on top of the existing one - 1000 tons at escape velocity, straight down. It's time. In fact it's way past time - 500 years past at least.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 27, 2007 04:36 AM

Fletcher, you are really bloodthirsty aren't you? Kill everybody and let God sort them out? Turn the middle east into a glowing glass parking lot?

Civilians live there and all they want is to live their lives. Most of them want to be free too. Turning them all to ash accomplishes less than wanting to kill them all for a point. Add thought and debate, not passion for death. Passion for death and destruction is AQ's stock in trade, not ours.

Posted by Mac at June 27, 2007 05:30 AM

35,000 feet is hyperbole and is not to be taken literally.

= = =

And I deny George Bush actually is fighting the jihadis in any serious manner. He is making a kabuki show of fighting but taking casualties doing it while kicking the can down the road.

Kinda like the VSE --> "Hey NASA, lets fly orbiter until 2010 THEN we can start a REAL space program after I leave office."

We defeated Hitler and Tojo is less time that we have spent going in circles in Iraq.

Posted by Bill White at June 27, 2007 06:27 AM

Mac:

Actually, no. Three targets would probably be enough; Mecca, Medina and Qom. With Tehran and Riyadh (and probably Islamabad) held in reserve if they don't get the message.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 27, 2007 06:35 AM

We defeated Hitler and Tojo is less time that we have spent going in circles in Iraq.

So, Bill, are you sanctioning the kinds of things we had to do in order to do that? I'm sure we could win quite quickly if we were willing to go to total war the way we did then. It would be pretty rough on the populations of the Middle East, though.

The biggest problem we face in this war is that we're attempting to win it in such a way as to allow us to look in the mirror afterward. Unfortunately, the enemy is doing everything they can to not allow that to happen. They don't just seem to have a death wish--they loudly proclaim it, and will apparently be happy to take millions with them.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 27, 2007 06:44 AM

Yeah, it seems that we're faced with a choice between a bunch of folks who want our outright surrender, vichy-style, and a guy who wants to fight but messes it up by trying to appease the first bunch. You can't let active participants in a war hide behind their borders and kill your people with no consequences, and yet, we are.

And from this, we're supposed to conclude that we need to vote *for* the cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

Give me a friggin' Truman Democrat, and I'll seriously consider voting for them. But I see no Trumans running for office, only McClellans.

Posted by Big D at June 27, 2007 07:25 AM

Rand, a better reason not to go "scorched Earth" is that most Muslims do not want their fingers cut off for using cigarettes.

In other words, most Muslims are not jihadis.

Thus, the military "solution" is not really a solution. Nation building is. And as Thomas Barnett wrote we are really good at the kinetic stuff but the nation building stuff requires a very different mindset.

Anyway, to return to your linked piece, what Newt Gingrich wrote includes this:

The West will sooner or later have to confront several hard realities if it is to defeat its enemies.
First, terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah will have to be rooted out and destroyed. We do not today have the strategy, the doctrine or the techniques for defeating these kinds of organizations. In Iraq, after more than four years of effort, our current doctrine for population control and for effective local policing and intelligence is pathetic. To defeat ferocious committed and enthusiastically violent organizations like al Qaeda and the Taliban will take new energy, new drive and new determination on our part.

Second, the indirect strategies of propping up corrupt dictatorships have to give way to direct people-to-people help, securing private-property rights and direct financial assistance so we can improve their families' lives and they can be empowered to defend their neighborhoods from evil men. Hernando de Soto will be vastly more effective in designing this than all the bureaucrats at AID and the United Nations combined.

I agree with Newt, at least here.

I have read Hernando de Soto and he rejects the Old Left AND he rejects crony capitalism. And to do Step One without Step Two is ineffectual.

Operation Arrowhead Ripper only became necessary because of OUR prior failures in Dihayla province.

We removed Saddam four years ago. How the bleep did AQ set up Islamic courts and begin routinely chopping off the fingers of smokers (a tiny tip of AQ depravity) inside a country (Iraq) we nominally control?

The fact that Arrowhead Ripper was needed PROVES this point made by Newt:

In Iraq, after more than four years of effort, our current doctrine for population control and for effective local policing and intelligence is pathetic.

AQ's presence was itself a HUGE sign of our prior failures to implement the strategy Newt advocates: "direct people-to-people help, securing private-property rights and direct financial assistance so we can improve their families' lives and they can be empowered to defend their neighborhoods from evil men."

George W. Bush ran in 2000 saying American military should not be in the nation building business. Okay, 9/11 changed that.

But now, why should we believe that he and his team are any good at nation building?

And unless and until we become good at nation building we will merely kick the can down the road until we become annoyed enough to try Fletcher's nuclear option.

= ==

I astonish myself being in agreement with Newt Gingrich, but he is right concerning how to win the war on terror.

One: Pull the weeds; AND

Two: Plant good grass

And if we fail at Two, One is meaningless.

Posted by Billl Whuite at June 27, 2007 07:37 AM

In other words, your comment about Hitler and Tojo was simply pointless whining.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 27, 2007 07:41 AM

And from this, we're supposed to conclude that we need to vote *for* the cheese-eating surrender monkeys?

I am convinced Hillary Clinton would not withdraw from Iraq. She would make symbolic troop rotations to placate the far left but in substance, we will remain, in force for a long time.

Also, an inconvenient truth I sometimes post at Daily Kos is that it is not logistically feasible to withdraw from Iraq. I saw a report that even if we used thousands of trucks running convoys 24/7 it would take ten months to withdraw from Iraq, Dunkirk-style.

THAT will never happen.

= = =

Long term, BOTH the Cindy Sheehan "cut and run" strategy AND the George W. Bush "stay the course, everything is fine" strategy end up in the same place. Disaster.

We the people need to demand that BOTH political parties choose new strategies for Iraq. And on that point I agree wholeheartedly with Newy\t Gingrich.

Posted by Bill White at June 27, 2007 07:46 AM

Rand, I will accept that my Hitler and Tojo point was pointless whining IF you will agree to stop posting "satire" comparing our "War on Fundie Islam" with World War Two.

Deal?

Posted by Bill White at June 27, 2007 07:48 AM

Rand, I will accept that my Hitler and Tojo point was pointless whining

You can accept it or not--the rest of us will recognize it for what it was, unless you're willing to win the war the way we won that one.

I don't compare the "War on Fundie Islam" to World War Two. I simply point out how today's media would have reported the latter.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 27, 2007 07:53 AM

More of my thoughts, here.

The forvm was formed by refugees from Josh Trevino's tacitus, after he pulled the plug, and we have forged an exceedingly civil place for "Wingnut versus Moonbat" verbal warfare.

Posted by Bill White at June 27, 2007 08:25 AM

But now, why should we believe that he and his team are any good at nation building?

Why shouldn't we? Nation building takes time. Anyone suggesting we could build a free elected nation in a month is an idiot. Bush has stated that mistakes were made. We are taking steps to correct that. I understand that YOU would never make any mistakes though, which is why you're such an authority. That's also why Newt will pay a price for the rhetoric. The substance of what we're doing in Iraq is the milk, Newt's just whipping up froth on top, which will eventually pop and go away.

Mistakes were made. That's obvious. But, complaing about it and what we should've done accomplishes nothing. Arrowhead Ripper was needed and is commencing. Let's go complete the now and correct the now. Stop complaining about the past and we can all learn from it.

Posted by Mac at June 27, 2007 08:40 AM

Yes, Saint Hillary will campaign on "ending" the war, vote for "ending" the war, reassure the most vocal segments of her base that demand an immediate "end" (surrender) to the war, and then, once elected, will immediately turn around and tell everybody that we have to stay in Iraq for the same reasons that those of us who think that Bush should be doing *more* about Iraq have been saying all along.

Yeah, right.

Posted by Big D at June 27, 2007 08:55 AM

I agree completely with TJIT's comment.

I would also like it if at least critics realized that hindsight isn't 20/20, at best it's something like 20/40. History isn't modular, it's complex and chaotic so even if you could go back and tweak it you would end up with cascades of unintended consequences that might well be counterproductive. It ought to be obvious but seems largely ignored for the simplistic "criticism" du jour.

As for Gingrich I think he's failing to realize that a lot of people simply don't care and will remain uncaring right up until they're in front of a camera with a blade to their neck. Even then many of them will simply be confused.

I've been thinking about those 16% and either way I twist and turn it it just doesn't make sense to attribute it all to the "hard left". Just as an illustration if all of them are voters and vote Democratic that would make for about 64% of Democratic votes i.e. Gravel or Kucinich would become the Democratic presidential candidate. Ron Paul actually represents a more isolationist stance than those two and he is down below 3% somewhere isn't he? I find it more likely that those 16% represents quite a diversity ranging from beliefs in US supremacy being completely unchallenged to isolationism to wishing the US would cease existing to simple ignorance or disinterest.

I don't agree with Fletcher but I think there's a point to be made that is largely ignored. With the pace of technology accelerating and making a joke of most "containment" the ultimate outcome will tend towards Fletcher's glass deserts or much worse unless the free world succeeds by other means.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at June 27, 2007 09:30 AM

the ultimate outcome will tend towards Fletcher's glass deserts or much worse unless the free world succeeds by other means.

We're smarter than that. Even if the fanatics get their grubby paws on a nuke and even use it, our retaliation would not be the same. Even with all the mistakes that have been made, it is very evident that those that would use a nuke are not the local population. I hold a belief in the morality of the West to not use a nuclear response to a single incident.

Posted by Mac at June 27, 2007 09:56 AM

Oh? How many does it take, then?

How many million Americans have to die before we say, "Forget this," and kill a few hundred million people?

And why do so many people have such a hard time understanding that that outcome is *exactly* what we're trying to prevent by spreading democracy and freedom?

This *is* Plan B. Plan A was pragmatism/ignoring it. Plan C is a last resort, almost unthinkable. And I haven't heard any kind of Plan D that didn't look like "Defeat"--which, eventually, leads back to Plan C anyways.

Posted by Big D at June 27, 2007 10:16 AM

How many does it take before our government takes a reactionary approach and uses a nuclear weapon? I believe more than one incident from a fanatical group that manages to get their hands on a nuke. We would never sanction killing millions of innocents, ever.

Posted by Mac at June 27, 2007 10:44 AM

"Dubya's 30% approval rating came from somewhere and Fred Thompson saying "More of the same" is a recipe for GOP electoral disaster."

If you think that is what Fred Thompson is going to be about, you clearly don't get it. Unfortunately for your side, it is going to be about sealing the border and operating agressively against terrorists. The foggy bottom crowd will get purged in Fred's Administration.

Posted by Mike Puckett at June 27, 2007 12:42 PM

Mind explaining that to the residents of Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

Also, mind explaining that to the millions of Americans you're writing off first?

Posted by Big D at June 27, 2007 12:42 PM

35,000 feet is hyperbole and is not to be taken literally.

Not to be taken literally???

Bill, that was the crux of your argument. Now you're saying it was deliberate mistatement (hyperbole)?

I assume you were being hyperbolic when you said infantrymen should fight terrorists hand to hand, as well?

Rhetoric and hyperbole are no substitute for facts and logic. If we can't take the one fact you hang your argument on seriously, how can we take any of it seriously? Why should we replace the current tactics, chosen by commanders in the field, with the tactics you recommend when you can't (or won't) even state accurately what the current tactics are?

And I deny George Bush actually is fighting the jihadis in any serious manner. He is making a kabuki show of fighting

"Kabuki show." US soldiers are not kabuki actors. More hyperbolic namecalling. argument. Is that the best you can do, Bill?

George Bush is at least using real military tactics. What "serious" tactics would you recommend? So far, your only suggestion is hand-to-hand fisticuffs.

Kinda like the VSE --> "Hey NASA, lets fly orbiter until 2010 THEN we can start a REAL space program after I leave office."

I'm not sure I see your point here. Are you saying that your support of VSE was hyperbole, too? That we shouldn't take your comments about that seriously, either?

We defeated Hitler and Tojo is less time that we have spent going in circles in Iraq.

Again, what is your point? Do you think World War II was the longest war in history? That no war should be allowed to go on longer? That we won World War II quickly because we fought the Nazis and the Japanese hand to hand, instead of using guns, bombs, artillery, and airplanes?

What are you trying to say here?

Posted by Edward Wright at June 27, 2007 01:00 PM

If you think that is what Fred Thompson is going to be about, you clearly don't get it.

I doubt Bill actually believes that. More likely, he's beta testing a bit of rhetoric for the Hillary/Obama camp.

Unfortunately for your side, it is going to be about sealing the border and operating agressively against terrorists. The foggy bottom crowd will get purged in Fred's Administration.

Um, what does one have to do with the other? "Hyperbole" aside, we aren't sealing the border against terrorists; we're sealing the border against lettuce pickers and latte makers. Every dollar we spend on "wars" against immigration, drugs, poverty, etc. is one less dollar the government has to fight terrorism.

Posted by Edward Wright at June 27, 2007 01:09 PM

Mind explaining that to the residents of Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki?

Mind explaining we were in a world war at the time and found a way to end it? The resulting depression of those that used the bomb show that they regretted it. We know now what it can do, we won't use it except as a last resort.

Also, mind explaining that to the millions of Americans you're writing off first?

SO, nuke em all now and let the chips fall? We can drop a nuke on them because they're not Americans? That's dumber than trollspeak.

Posted by Mac at June 27, 2007 01:48 PM

What part of cause and effect don't you understand?

Look, I'll spell it out. I'll use little words for you.

1. We don't want to nuke anybody.
2. We really don't want to get nuked.
3. We really really don't want to get nuked a bunch of times.
4. If we get nuked once or twice, we'll do whatever it takes--including nukes--to keep it from happening again.
5. See 1.

How can you sit there and say that we would only use nukes as a last resort... and then also say that being nuked multiple times ourselves is not a last resort?

Then, we go back to the original point... that the premise of spreading democracy and freedom is intended to keep us from losing millions--and killing hundreds of millions--neither of which we want to happen.

Got any alternatives? Ones that *don't* simply claim that if we cut and run, they'll leave us alone (that worked really well in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, didn't it?)?

Posted by Big D at June 27, 2007 02:19 PM

Folks,

Asserting "Bush did ...; Bush didn't ..." is counterproductive.

I propose that it would be more productive to regard the Executive Branch as a (somewhat) election-based parallel to the monarchial courts of Europe. Intrigue, social climbing, status seeking, etc. are all an intricate dance occurring below the level of the President. And the President has limited means with which to stop it.

Disagree? Read the Civil Service regs sometimes, and then ask, "From what level of government service have the recent CIA shenanigans initiated?"

The sad reality is that entrenched bureaucratic systems are not REALLY answerable to elective officials. They do their own thing, and sabotage elective / Senior Executive Service officials when their prerogatives are threatened. We are no longer REALLY a nation of government of, by, and for the people -- entrenched bureaucracies are inimical to it.

Good? Bad?

Yes.

PS: "Bureaucratic system" is shorthand for: bureaucrats (i.e. people); the regulatory system that forms them; the informal, internal systems that sustain them; and the interest groups that live in symbiosis with them.

Posted by MG at June 27, 2007 04:24 PM

Mac, you're a decent man.

Fletcher, you are nuts. Really.

Faith in Saint Fred is Rising. His large hands will shelter every young blonde. Even the atheists on this blog are praying. Rand too!

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at June 27, 2007 04:48 PM

Got any alternatives? Ones that *don't* simply claim that if we cut and run, they'll leave us alone (that worked really well in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, didn't it?)?

Isolation works. Cut off the problem areas like Iran or North Korea. Ie, what we already do.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at June 27, 2007 07:42 PM

Yeah, isolating Iran really stopped them from killing our people for the last 30 years. Just like isolating North Korea kept them from getting nukes.

Also, if you're going to go isolationist, you have to close down the borders and stop global trade.

Posted by Big D at June 27, 2007 08:57 PM

Isolation worked great in Afghanistan, too.

Posted by Rand Simberg at June 28, 2007 05:07 AM

What part of cause and effect don't you understand?

I think the misunderstanding is on your side.

Look, I'll spell it out. I'll use little words for you.

1.) correct
2.) correct
3.) correct
4.) incorrect
5.) correct

The reason 4 is incorrect is because we believe in people. If a fanatic nukes us, we will not nuke them back if it involves taking millions of innocent lives. We've evolved beyond that. There is a great group of people that think conservatives are bloodthirsty murderers. I'm not in that group. I think we as Americans have a moral high ground that we won't sacrifice unless all could be lost. We won't lose America to one nuke, though we will lose ourselves if we retaliate with nukes over a single incident.

How can you sit there and say that we would only use nukes as a last resort... and then also say that being nuked multiple times ourselves is not a last resort?

I don't believe I said that. One nuke in our country would be a horrendous incident, but retaliating against a small group of fanatics with our own nuke and killing who knows how many innocents is not an appropriate response. Here's an interesting article on responses that I think holds some truths, though I don't agree with ALL of it.

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/07/incentives.html

I don't get you wanted to toss nukes around as a response to a small group of fanatics. That makes no sense, either pratically, or morally.

Posted by Mac at June 28, 2007 05:39 AM

Mac:

So you think that destroying the most unholy cities of a religion that's the enemy of all that's decent is killing innocents for no purpose, do you? Those cities are incidentally quite small.

In the proposed scenario, the purest proponents (purest because they embrace most fully the central tenets of their religion) of the said religion have already killed millions of people who surely are innocent. What are we supposed to do then?

Islamists have publicly and repeatedly stated that they won't stop until every human worships their god in precisely their way. So then the alternative is to give in (eventually), grow a long beard, get circumcised, stop drinking and start bowing to a rock in Saudi Arabia five times per day - or fight back, with the same weapons they've already used. Only better.

Or to invade in force by conventional means, losing many troops to do it, and kill millions by conventional means. Because that is the only way a war for survival has ever been won - kill and destroy until the enemy gives up.

The American Revolution and the Vietnam war were not decided in this way, because in the final analysis it didn't matter enough - the UK was not going to be destroyed if it lost America, and America was not going to be destroyed if it lost Vietnam.

The other side has already declared war. They started it - we should finish it, and without losing any of our own civilians, or a few hundred thousand troops, in the process.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 28, 2007 07:08 AM

Mac:

You don't know my wife. She's a "Don't Tread on Me" libertarian. As far as she's concerned, the snake has already been stepped on (multiple times)and she has loudly and often expressed her astonishment that the fangs have not yet been bared, much less sunk into Islamism's fleshy vitals. Nuke 'em all. --Simon

Posted by Simon Jester at June 28, 2007 10:17 AM

So you think that destroying the most unholy cities of a religion that's the enemy of all that's decent is killing innocents for no purpose, do you? Those cities are incidentally quite small.

The fanatics do not follow their religion. They follow the call to power. They follow the religion of greed. To destroy a religious holy city is unthinkable to punish those that don't even follow the religion.

The fanatics are not follow the central tenets. They are quoting the tenets and trying to make you believe they are following it. They are provoking you into rash action, so they can defeat you. Why give them what they want? Know thine enemy.

Islamists have publicly and repeatedly stated that they won't stop until every human worships their god in precisely their way.

Strangely enough the Christian religion recognizes other religions, but knows that ONLY the Christian religion worships correctly. So, they convert others. Same thing. But, once again, the fanatics are not following any religion, they quote it to make you think so.

The other side has already declared war.

Yes they have, but did the civilians who have no power declare war?

They started it - we should finish it, and without losing any of our own civilians, or a few hundred thousand troops, in the process.

Absolutely! But why nuke someone? Why destroy a huge population to kill a few hundred enemy? That's why we have our armed forces, so we don't HAVE to nuke anyone.

As far as she's concerned, the snake has already been stepped on (multiple times)and she has loudly and often expressed her astonishment that the fangs have not yet been bared, much less sunk into Islamism's fleshy vitals. Nuke 'em all.

The snake has a foot squarely on its neck and its writhing around. Given time, it will be slain. Islam however, is NOT the problem. Its fanatics desiring power. If democracy takes hold in the Middle East, the fanatics will have nothing. That's why they fight. The last thing they want is for the people to have power and wealth. We are offering freedom and personal growth to a huge sector of the world, but you want to nuke them all and waste the lives of millions, simply because you don't like them. Absolutely pathetic reasoning. Know your enemy. It is not the populace that follows Islam. Why should peaceful people suffer because you don't like them?

Posted by Mac at June 28, 2007 10:53 AM

Exactly right!

Islam however, is NOT the problem.

A global caliphate is not a genuine threat since the vast majority of Muslims wish to smoke and keep their fingers.

Give them a 21st century standard of living and global telecommunications and they will reject a 13th century political system.

Bomb the bleep out of their infrastructure and make 'em eat dirt in the dark (just like the 13th century) and the AQ nut-jobs will gain traction with their calls for revenge.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 11:08 AM

Mr. White:

Make what's left of them glow in the dark and there won't be any AQ nutjobs to make the call, or anyone to answer it. Do it before they get nukes and a few million Americans won't have to die first to make the rest of America feel better about it.

However, it doesn't matter what any of us here say. Iran will eventually get nukes (by themselves or after Talibanesque nutters have taken over Pakistan, which won't be long), they will use them, and the response will be instant, massive and final.

One of the central ideas of Jewish culture now is "Never again."

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 28, 2007 11:17 AM

Insanity, thy name is Fletcher

So, a few fanatics bomb us and we go kill them all. Sort of, if they run off a cliff, we follow. America will never feel 'good' about using a nuke.

Iran will eventually get nukes

That's not yet a foregone conclusion. They're way overextended in their government finances and they could crumble at any time. The mullahs can't run a country, they're proving that.

Posted by Mac at June 28, 2007 01:05 PM

One of the central ideas of Jewish culture now is "Never again."

Scholar Thomas Cahill argues that the Jews invented irony. If we murder a billion Muslims on behalf of Israel that would be the "Mother of all Ironies"and that would be ironic.

Posted by Bill White at June 28, 2007 01:14 PM

Bill, as I already said; the Islamist nutcases started this war, which they are going to lose. Nobody can possibly blame any country for finishing a war someone else started, or for minimising its own casualties. There is only one way to do that.

Of course, if Islam grows up in ten years or so in the same way that Christianity has in eight centuries, then the holocaust can be avoided.

I see very little chance - and once they use their first nuke that chance will be zero. They will have blown their chance to live - and won't deserve another - and won't get one.

I thought the motto, long ago, of the nascent America was "Don't tread on me"? When are you going to do something about the size 12 hobnailed boot that is standing on you, and the rest of the civilised world, now?

"Murder" is entirely the wrong word. "Justifiable homicide in self-defense" is the correct phrase.

By the way, in one respect you are dead right. If we let the situation get to the point where the only thing left to do is to kill a billion people, then the ideals of Western civilisation will die with them. America will not be recognisable, a decade or two after such an event. Three small cities, all of them enemy ones, is a small price to pay to avoid that.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 28, 2007 04:34 PM

mac and bill need to spend some time reading the archives over at jihadwatch.org

Islam IS the problem! Bin Laden is not the antithesis of Islam, he is the distallation. That is the problem.

If hundreds of thousands of Americans are killed by a jihadist nuclear attack, then the gloves will come off and the weapons of total war will follow. Islam will have run out of time.

Posted by Brad at June 28, 2007 07:23 PM

Um, maybe my metaphor was too subtle. The "snake" mentioned above is the snake of the Gadsden Flag, i.e. the U.S.A., not the viper of Islamism. So when the better half says the snake has already been stepped on (multiple times) she means US, and when she has loudly and often expressed her astonishment that the fangs have not yet been bared, much less sunk into Islamism's fleshy vitals, she's disappointed at the feckless prosecution of this war and the lack of kick-ass-and-break-things up to and including nukes that's supposed to make this event something to be avoided (i.e., don't provoke us (tread on me). Get it?

Posted by Simon Jester at June 28, 2007 09:26 PM

Yes, Simon, I got it - see my latest post (other than this one of course :) )

The thing to do with a real snake that's attacking, or a rabid wolf, or a psychotic mass-murderer, is to kill it. The thing to do with a cancer is to cut, poison or burn it. The thing to do with an infection is to apply antibiotics or disinfectant.

And the thing to do with Islam is to say, one last time, and to mean it, that the next time the US or any other civilised country loses a building they will lose a city, and if we lose a city, anywhere in the civilised world, they will lose all theirs. We'll probably have to follow through on the first part of that at least, because of past appeasement. Guess which city I think should be elected?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at June 29, 2007 12:28 AM

Post a comment