Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Yes, soft in the head.

Posted by Bill Maron at July 11, 2007 08:25 AM

Dan Phillips makes several excellent points, here:

I am a veteran of many internet battles defending the conservative credentials of a policy of non-intervention, so I am very familiar with the arguments of the war supporters. I frequently see pro-Iraq War arguments that use words like “victory” and “winning” to support the pro-War side. We can’t leave until we achieve “victory.” Conversely, supporters of the War use words and phrases like “surrender” and “cutting-and-running” to describe opponents of the War and advocates for withdrawal.
But this line of argument raises a very significant question. “What exactly would ‘victory’ entail?” This is a serious question. It is not raised just to be argumentative. When I raise it, people often act as if the answer is self-evident so I must be just making trouble. But the answer is not self-evident. It is especially not obvious when addressing the larger War on Terror and not just the Iraq War. Austin Bramwell addressed this “What is victory” issue brilliantly in his American Conservative piece “Good-bye to All That.” (I don’t agree with the whole article because part of it is a not so veiled slap at paleoconservatives, but the first half of the essay is devastating.)

Does victory mean toppling Saddam? Done. Does victory mean ensuring Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction? Done. Does it mean a stable and Western style democracy in Iraq? Good luck with that. Does it just mean a stable but perhaps not democratic Iraq? Good luck with that as well. Does it mean modernizing and westernizing all of the Middle East? Does it mean stamping out all vestiges of “Shari’a-observant Islam” or more crudely put, wiping out “Islamo-fascism.” Most War on Terror supporters I have talked to cannot give a coherent answer. Instead they resort to talking points and boiler-plate accompanied by foot-stomping and eye-rolling.

“I would rather fight them over there than fight them over here.” “If we leave Iraq unfinished they will follow us home.” This latter jewel has been repeatedly spouted by Senator McCain, who aspires to the highest office in the land. Work that out for me, Senator McCain. If they could come here then, why can’t they come here now? In fact, it might even be easier since we are distracted with the War.

The more sweeping the goal, such as stamping out Shari’a Islam, obviously the more time, treasure and lives it will cost to achieve. Some uber-hawks who have attempted to define victory say we must eliminate the motivation and the capability of the “enemy” to resist. (See here and here for two admirable attempts at specificity.) I admit this is at least a strategy and an aim, although a rather vague one, but it is only slightly less sweeping and unattainable than Frum and Perle’s silly little notion that we should have as a war aim the end of evil. Sorry guys, but since the Fall we have evil ever with us.

Yup. A war to end evil. Good idea.

As a liberal fantasy, that trumps the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" hands down.

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2007 08:39 AM

Oh, I forgot to emphasize this point:

If they could come here then, why can’t they come here now?

In other words, why does our being in Iraq make it harder for nut-job Saudis or Egyptians to come here to do terror?

Unlike Phillips, I am a liberal and not a paleo-con and I agree there are MANY good solid liberal reasons to remain in Iraq and nation-build.

That said, if the neo-cons and PNAC-ers (and Glenn Reynolds) desire to persuade liberals to support nation-building in Iraq and to give COIN and Petreaus a chance after years of the the Bush-ian FUBAR then trashing liberals with blog posts seems like poor strategery.

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2007 08:45 AM

...trashing liberals with blog posts seems like poor strategery.

I said nothing about liberals in my blog post, Bill. I don't even think that most people who call themselves liberals really are. Is Pete Domeneci a "liberal" now?

Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Though you're no lady.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2007 09:11 AM

White previously told us that Clinton and Obama will stay in Iraq despite their having said otherwise. The conflict means that they're either lying or wrong.

I'm still waiting for White to tell us which and what that answer tells us about their competence to manage Iraq.

Remember - "Bush is bad" isn't enough, the Dems have to do better, and that's more than "we'll do better".

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 11, 2007 09:25 AM

Nice highlight job there BW. Of course that's not a patch on the Bush lied, people died and Bushitler and No war for oil schtick we get everyday from Dims.

You write there reasons to stay but you seem to want us to leave. Answer me this. If you want us out, are you willing to admit you are okay with a Camobdia level killing spree. Because if we leave before we are sure that won't happen, then those that insisted we leave will hear about it every chance I get. Of course that won't help the perhaps millions of Iraqis that will die.

That's the event no one seems to talk about. How many will die after we leave? Give me a number that's acceptable to you.

I don't know him but after reading his post, Phillips sounds like an arrogant ass.

Posted by Bill Maron at July 11, 2007 11:03 AM

Mr. White,

1. How is this for a clear criterion for victory?

"Two peaceful election-based handovers of political power from one political party coalition to another."

2. I am completely unclear about what restrains your support for thwarting Al Qaeda's goals in Iraq, and accomplishing the US goals.
Is it that some people badmouth opponents?
Is your support for American interests and security truly based on nobody badmouthing you for disagreeing with them?
If so, do you really consider your position a mature one?

Please, please, PLEASE clarify.

Posted by MG at July 11, 2007 12:02 PM

Goal #1 is an excellent objective. Write it up in language Congress can enact as legislation and I will support it. But, if the Iraqi government does collapse, we will need much more than military power to achieve that result.

We will need genuine nation-building resources.

As for al Qaeda -- given Michael Yon's reports which confirm my continuing instinct that the Sunni of Iraq have never been a receptive audience for the call to establish a global caliphate, nor the Kurds, nor the Shia (who are hated by the Wahabi & who return the feeling) -- they have never been nor ever will be a significant presence in Iraq.

But yes, US airmobile infantry (and airpower, etc. . .) should remain on call for the indefinite future to assist Iraqi forces in eradicating al Qaeda cells.

My other continuing instinct is that it may soon be obvious that AQ calls of Iraq as the central front have been a feint and Pakistan shall soon become the central front in our war on nut-job Islam.

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2007 01:42 PM

"Write it up in language Congress can enact as legislation and I will support it. "

WTF?

The goal I articulated is not something Congress can enact. It is something the Iraqis have to do for themselves. This particular criterion formally links our success to that of the Iraqis. Is that a problem?

Do you still support that goal, even though it isn't, and won't be, a Congressional act?

Why hide behind Congress' skirts, anyway? Can't you decide to support (or not support) such a measure based on your own judgment?

Posted by MG at July 11, 2007 04:00 PM

MG, I support the objective of a stable and violence free Iraq with freedom and equal rights under law for ALL citizens. Ditto for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

I also support the idea that our President and armed forces must act within the Constitution and that the political objectives of any war are well within the purview of Congress.

The threat from radical Islam is far too feeble to warrant changing that well established aspect of our constitutional structure, as much as the Executive power hounds wish it otherwise.

Posted by Bill White at July 11, 2007 05:29 PM

Yeah, al Qaeda is on the run. Five years into this war and things are finally going well.

Al-Qaida Has Rebuilt, U.S. Intel Warns
By KATHERINE SHRADER and MATTHEW LEE (Associated Press Writers)
From Associated Press
July 11, 2007 7:15 PM EDT

WASHINGTON - U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, The Associated Press has learned.

The conclusion suggests that the network that launched the most devastating terror attack on the United States has been able to regroup along the Afghan-Pakistani border despite nearly six years of bombings, war and other tactics aimed at crippling it.

Still, numerous government officials say they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.

A counterterrorism official familiar with a five-page summary of the new government threat assessment called it a stark appraisal to be discussed at the White House on Thursday as part of a broader meeting on an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate.

The official and others spoke on condition of anonymity because the secret report remains classified.

Counterterrorism analysts produced the document, titled "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West." The document focuses on the terror group's safe haven in Pakistan and makes a range of observations about the threat posed to the United States and its allies, officials said.

Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.

At the same time, this official said, the report speaks of "significant gaps in intelligence" so U.S. authorities may be ignorant of potential or planned attacks.

John Kringen, who heads the CIA's analysis directorate, echoed the concerns about al-Qaida's resurgence during testimony and conversations with reporters at a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Wednesday.

"They seem to be fairly well settled into the safe haven and the ungoverned spaces of Pakistan," Kringen testified. "We see more training. We see more money. We see more communications. We see that activity rising."

The threat assessment comes as the 16 U.S. intelligence agencies prepare a National Intelligence Estimate focusing on threats to the United States. A senior intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity while the high-level analysis was being finalized, said the document has been in the works for roughly two years.

Kringen and aides to National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell would not comment on the details of that analysis. "Preparation of the estimate is not a response to any specific threat," McConnell's spokesman Ross Feinstein said, adding that it would probably be ready for distribution this summer.

Counterterrorism officials have been increasingly concerned about al-Qaida's recent operations. This week, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said he had a "gut feeling" that the United States faced a heightened risk of attack this summer.

Kringen said he wouldn't attach a summer time frame to the concern. In studying the threat, he said he begins with the premise that al-Qaida would consider attacking the U.S. a "home run hit" and that the easiest way to get into the United States would be through Europe.

The new threat assessment puts particular focus on Pakistan, as did Kringen.

"Sooner or later you have to quit permitting them to have a safe haven" along the Afghan-Pakistani border, he told the House committee. "At the end of the day, when we have had success, it is when you've been able to get them worried about who was informing on them, get them worried about who was coming after them."

Several European countries - among them Britain, Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands - are also highlighted in the threat assessment partly because they have arrangements with the Pakistani government that allow their citizens easier access to Pakistan than others, according to the counterterrorism official.

This is more troubling because all four are part of the U.S. visa waiver program, and their citizens can enter the United States without additional security scrutiny, the official said.

The report also notes that al-Qaida has increased its public statements, although analysts stressed that those video and audio messages aren't reliable indicators of the actions the group may take.

The Bush administration has repeatedly cited al-Qaida as a key justification for continuing the fight in Iraq.

"The No. 1 enemy in Iraq is al-Qaida," White House press secretary Tony Snow said Wednesday. "Al-Qaida continues to be the chief organizer of mayhem within Iraq, the chief organization for killing innocent Iraqis."

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq. A progress report that the White House is releasing to Congress this week is expected to indicate scant progress on the political and military benchmarks set for Iraq.

The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

"Being No. 3 in al-Qaida is a bad job. We regularly get to the No. 3 person," Tom Fingar, the top U.S. intelligence analyst, told the House panel.

The counterterror official said the report does not focus on al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, his whereabouts or his role in the terrorist network. Officials say al-Qaida has become more like a "family-oriented" mob organization with leadership roles in cells and other groups being handed from father to son, or cousin to uncle.

Yet bin Laden's whereabouts are still of great interest to intelligence agencies. Although he has not been heard from for some time, Kringen said officials believe he is still alive and living under the protection of tribal leaders in the border area.

Armed Services Committee members expressed frustration that more was not being done to get bin Laden and tamp down activity in the tribal areas. The senior intelligence analysts tried to portray the difficulty of operating in the area despite a $25 million bounty on the head of bin Laden and his top deputy.

"They are in an environment that is more hostile to us than it is to al-Qaida," Fingar said.

Posted by Kevin Shaw at July 11, 2007 06:23 PM

"I also support the idea that our President and armed forces must act within the Constitution and that the political objectives of any war are well within the purview of Congress."

Are you suggesting that the President and armed forces are NOT acting within the Constitution? Can you give specific, verifiable examples?

Frankly, I still don't understand about what you are complaining.

Is it that some people say rude things about war opponents?
Is it that there is no clear objective?
Or that Congress hasn't articulated war aims?
Or that the executive branch is violating the Constitution?
Or...?

It is difficult to understand your concerns, when I am unclear what it is that you see, that you dislike.

Mr. Shaw,

Do you have any comparably insightful comment about Zawahiri's most recent response to the combat at Pakistan's Red Mosque? He doesn't appear to think that he is in a winning position.

Is it possible he is being deceptive?

Is it possible the anonymous leakers are being deceptive?

Just wondering, because, you know, Al Qaeda is sandwiched between two states, and it seems unlikely they are in better shape than five years ago.

But I am convincable otherwise. Care to offer a cogent argument to convince me?

Posted by MG at July 11, 2007 09:11 PM

MG,

Congress is the institution that bridges changes in executive administrations.

If our Iraqi policy begins with George Bush and belongs to George Bush, we had better win by January 2009 because he will be gone thereafter.

However I believe our counter insurgency against radical Islam shall continue long after 2009 both in Iraq and elsewhere.

For us to continue with the Petreaus doctrines long after Bush goes back to Crawford requires that ownership of the strategy be spread aross as much of the government as possible and therefore Bush cannot be given the credit.

Same as with the Vision for Space Exploration.

This is why Congress needs to explicitly authorize our long term strategy against radical Islam.

= = =

Shakespeare's play "Henry V" read in context with Richard II & the two parts of Henry IV and with Henry VI (1,2,3) and Richard II explains this essential point.

Republics MUST NOT rely upon their Executives to be their Great Leaders.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2007 07:18 AM

Republics MUST NOT rely upon their Executives to be their Great Leaders.

If your executive is a great leader, can we then rely on them? Ronald Reagan...

And really...quoting Shakespeare for government? Talk about cross-class skills.

Posted by Mac at July 12, 2007 10:26 AM

> MG, I support the objective of a stable and violence free Iraq with freedom and equal rights under law for ALL citizens. Ditto for Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

Fair enough, but what are you willing to do to achieve those objectives and who is most likely to do those things? The current choices are between Bush and the congressional dems.

It's an simple question, but one that White continues to duck.

> I also support the idea that our President and armed forces must act within the Constitution and that the political objectives of any war are well within the purview of Congress.

Fair enough, but who has the "better" objectives and plan to achieve them?

White likes to criticise Bush, but is somewhat silent on what his alternatives would actually do.

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 12, 2007 10:27 AM

Mac, Shakespeare's history plays if read in order as a single body of work:

Richard II
Henry IV pt -1
Henry IV pt-2
Henry V

Henry VI pt-1
Henry VI pt-2
Henry VI pt-3
Richard III

provide a marvelous framework and background for understanding the objectives of our Founders in 1776 and 1787.

As for the lessons of Henry V -- a great King is indeed great if a people are lucky enough to find one but every great King will someday pass on and leave us with a Henry VI, a feeble nullity as the successor leader. Translated into the present today, the "War on Terror" or the "War on Wahabi Islam" is going to be a long, long war. A global counter-insurgency that may take many decades to finally and completely win.

Therefore, we need a strategy that is not dependent on any one Leader, since that Leader cannot stay around long enough to finish the job.

Whether or not Bush is a great leader (opinions vary) UNLESS in January 2009 he leaves behind a strategy and a organization that can continue the strategy without his personal involvement, he will be a FAILURE as a leader against radical Islam.

As far as what we should do now, I will answer Andy by quoting Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) whom seems to grasp this issue:

"The only difference of opinion at the moment is, the president wants to deal with the Baker-Hamilton recommendations in September," said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., one of the first GOP co-sponsors.
"I think he should do that today because it develops a long-term strategy for what happens in the surge," added Alexander, who also is up for re-election. "It would put him and Congress on the same path, which is what we definitely need."

As of today, the ISG Report is the only mechanism on the table (other than shut up and obey Bush) for forging a bi-partisan consensus on a strategy that hopefully Congress and all major POTUS candidates can agree upon.

By refusing to help create a genuine bi-partisan consensus on our long term strategy versus radical Islam (Cold War is an analogy, here) President Bush actually undermines our long term ability to prevail against radical Islam.

And, Democrats and Republicans need to be co-equal partners in shaping and adopting this long term strategy because NEITHER party shall remain exclusively in power for several of the upcoming decades.

Of note: I am not entirely happy with ISG but it is a starting point for discussion towards building bi-partisan consensus on a long term strategy.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2007 12:17 PM

Mac, as for Ronald Reagan, did he leave behind a party capable of carrying out his policies in his absence?

If yes, then he was indeed a great leader.

Henry V was a great leader but after he died, most of what he had won was lost under Henry VI and it all ended with the calamity of Richard III, with that disaster mitigated by the rise of the House of Stuart.

A great Republic's strength MUST be in its legislature otherwise the Republic will either cease to be a Republic or it will cease to be great.

Witness the transition of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire.

Posted by Bill White at July 12, 2007 12:24 PM

Mac, as for Ronald Reagan, did he leave behind a party capable of carrying out his policies in his absence?

Yes he did, however, those party folks were not leaders and could not continue in the footsteps he put them on.

Well, there I have a different view in that Petreus (sp?) said he would report his observations and recommendations in Aug-Sept. Perhaps Bush, recognizing that mistakes were made, is going to use what his general says as a platform to build that consensus you want. I think bashing Bush right now might be premature. Since we have had visible success under the new general, we should weigh his recommendations carefully.

Translated into the present today, the "War on Terror" or the "War on Wahabi Islam" is going to be a long, long war. A global counter-insurgency that may take many decades to finally and completely win.

The first sentence is wrong because you have no idea how long its going to be, so assuming long, even on the basis of history, is building a conclusion on hypothetical data. The second sentence is partially correct, because you said "may." I don't think it will take decades.

Posted by Mac at July 12, 2007 02:23 PM

Saying that White likes some of the ISG's recommendations is a weak answer to my "what should we do?" question.

However, he's still ducking "are they lying or wrong?" and "what does the answer tell us about what they'll actually do?" He's also still ducking "which is closer to what we should do?" The choices are feckless fighting and surrender.

> As of today, the ISG Report is the only mechanism on the table (other than shut up and obey Bush)

Wrong. The dems demonstrated a different one today.

Besides, isn't the relevant question policy, not mechanism?

> By refusing to help create a genuine bi-partisan consensus on our long term strategy versus radical Islam

A single party can not create a consensus.

Since Bush is wrong for not compromising with the Dems, why aren't they wrong for not compromising with him?

Two possible answers are (1) they're correct and (2) they're dems.

Which one is White's answer?

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 12, 2007 06:04 PM

"For us to continue with the Petreaus doctrines long after Bush goes back to Crawford requires that ownership of the strategy be spread aross as much of the government as possible and therefore Bush cannot be given the credit."

???

What "doctrines" belong to General Petraeus?

And would you care to account for the credit that Truman receives for the doctrine of "containment"?

Why CAN'T President Bush receive credit? He certainly isn't trying to gather credit to himself. I have yet to be acquainted with any comparable performance to the President Clinton's, "I never fought for anything so hard in my life."

Is the reason that President Bush can't receive credit because Democrats are so afflicted with BDS? If it IS due to BDS, what does that say about the Democrats? Why should ANYONE compromise with such bigotry?

Can you propose some other reason why the President can't receive credit?

Mind you, I agree with you that sustaining policy requires the Congress to be on board, and that the citizens of the Republic need to be on board in sufficient numbers to counter the muck inside the Beltway.

President Bush's greatest failure has been in domestic strategic communications. Were he eloquent, the Dems would be compelled to sustain public support for the policy. He isn't, and the Dems don't -- much to the detriment of the rest of us.

It falls to each of us, as self-governing citizens of a Republic, to judge policies separate from the personalities, and to be humble enough to recognize that specialized work (like warfare) requires a degree of trust that doesn't exist.

Posted by MG at July 12, 2007 07:28 PM

I agree with you Rand. I think it's about time we started encouraging the state to censor the media.

Posted by Adrasteia at July 12, 2007 11:33 PM

I agree with you Rand. I think it's about time we started encouraging the state to censor the media.

If that's what you think, you're agreeing with someone else, not me. Not that there isn't a precedent for it in war time.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 15, 2007 01:17 PM

Post a comment