As the Bush adminsitration winds down to its last weeks it may be worthwhile to examine what mistakes it made regarding the “war on terror.”
Naming it “The War on Terror.” Beyond simple semantics, it is necessary to know two things in every war: why we fight for and who we fight against. It has been said FDR did not decalre war “on sneak attacks” nor did America or GB declare war “on Kamikaze pilots.” On 9/11 it was clear to any thinking person that an act of war had been carried out against the United Sates. By whom? By Islamists, defined as people who want to impose Islam on the rest of us whether we want it or not. But even then another thing was clear: no one country attacked America, not even a state agency of one country had attacked America. therefore the “war” would be waged against terrorist groups.
Bush did correctly state America would make, as a matter of policy, no distinction between terrorists and those who harbor them, thereby clearing the way for an invasion and attacks on Afghanistan, where Al Qaida operated from. That was the right decision amde for the right reasons.
But Bush erred in not carrying on with that principle to its conclusion, which is there is no difference between terrorists and those who support them. meaning any country that supports the activities of terrorist groups is fair game. Specifically this meant, at the time of 9/11, Afghanistan and Iran, with Syria and Iraq in secondary roles.
Invading Iraq. At the time I supported Bush’s decision. I think it’s germane to explain why: if Iraq still kept chemical and biological weapons, it could channel them to terrorist groups (not necessarily Al Qaida), who’d then might use them on america, Europe or Israel. At the time Saddam paid off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and his intelligence services had wide contacts with various terror groups.
Well, I was mistaken. And no stockpiles of WMDs were found (aside from those left over from the 1991 war). Beyond that it’s unclear what Saddam wanted to do concerning terrorist groups beyond his control. What sank him was his bluff that he had indeed stockpiles of WMDs.
Whom the Bush admisnitration should have invaded is Iran. Even at the time of president Khatami, who allegedly was a reformer, Iran did sponsor and support numerous terrorist groups. Not necessarily Al Qaida, again, but others who had been involved in attacks agains America and her allies over the years.
But that’s where the first mistake comes back to haunt us. By not identifying the enemy most people believed we should only attack those who had anything to do with 9/11, as if that were all that mattered (to carry on the WWII metaphor, then we didn’t go only after those who perpetrated the Pearl Harbor attack). Instead of identifyin the enemy as a loose alliance of terrorist groups, terrorist supporting groups (like several Islamic charities) and states that directly or indirectly fund and support such groups, and naming each one (such as Iran and Syria), we were left with an amorphous enemy we couldn’t even point to. In that case invading any country isn’t justified, or it may not even seem rational.
Rebuilding Iraq. In truth I don’t see what else Bush could ahve chosen to do at the time. If he had merely toppled Saddam, declared victory and left, the country would ahve been taken over by Islamists just as Afghanistan had, and as they nearly did anyway with US and allied troops on the scene. But the admisnitration should have said “We’re rebuilding Iraq so as to assure it won’t be a threat to us and our allies any more.” Not out of selfless devotion to whatever ideal was held up at the time.
War, after all, is what free countries resort to either in retaliation or prevention of the use fo force by other countries (be it directly used or not). For example, Israel had every right to preemptively strike at the various armies arraying against her in 1967, even if they hadn’t yet used force.
I don’t have any sources handy, but I thought I remember reading that there was strong evidence that any materials for manufacturing WMDs in Iraq were moved to Syria prior to U.S. invasion. Maybe someone can back me up on that.
Also, to add to your list, the etiquette of Western modern warfare is severely disconnected from the style of the terrorists. Terrorists target civilians almost explicitly; while Western armies tip-toe and carefully plan strikes to minimize civilian casualties on the opposite side.
I’m an advocate of Total War. Some might call me a heartless prick for that, but I think that if a war is going to be fought, you should fight it to win.
I don’t have any sources handy, but I thought I remember reading that there was strong evidence that any materials for manufacturing WMDs in Iraq were moved to Syria prior to U.S. invasion. Maybe someone can back me up on that.
I recall hearing that also, but not sure if it was rumor or fact. I’m sure Saddam had something at sometime since #1 he gassed the Kurds and #2 he was refusing UN weapons inspections. :unsure:
At any rate, rather than fighting a relatively harmless weasel like Saddam in Iraq, we should be/should’ve been fighting radical Islam at its origins…Saudi Arabia and Iran. (Instead, we have state dinners with the Saudi royal family and call them our friends, and wait for Iran to nuke us and Israel. Make me barf!)
I’m an advocate of Total War. Some might call me a heartless prick for that…
I’ve been called much worse (some false*, some true**) names for advocating that. But I definitely agree with you on that, and I think a good supporting example is what’s going on in Gaza. If Israel were to make a half-hearted attempt with negotiations every three days, it’s not going to solve anything, is it?
Total War is the complete and utter destruction of the enemy, his infrastructure and his means of production. It does not mean firebombing residential neighborhoods.
I agree that Western Armies often take the idea behind collateral damage out of the realm of what is tactically sound and practically accomplished but to swing the pendulum all the way over to the other side of the scale is just as, if not more reprehensible.
The strategic and tactical need of the military forces are the only consideration for what action must be taken. Once a firefight is done you don’t empty your magazine into the nearest group of civilians.
Total War is the complete and utter destruction of the enemy, his infrastructure and his means of production. It does not mean firebombing residential neighborhoods.
What about the firebombing of Tokyo during WWII? Illegitimate on your view? What about the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
What about the firebombing of Tokyo during WWII? Illegitimate on your view? What about the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
I think Zip is saying it’s not Total War, not that it’s illegitimate. Fire-bombing might be a small part of a Total War, but done alone, or only with a few, minor attacks, it doesn’t constitute Total War.
What about the firebombing of Tokyo during WWII? Illegitimate on your view? What about the use of atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Both strategic and rational decisions as was the leveling of Dresden.
My point is that there has to be a valid tactical or strategic reason behind any attack on civilians.
It is far too easy to be all hard core and say “Nuke the fuckers till they glow in the dark” but unless you can justify any such action you are going to do 1 of two things.
You will turn your country into a pariah and destroy it as the rest of the world ostracizes you for your actions. I know the typical answer is “so what” but that kind bravado is what makes states like Iran, Iraq (formerly), Burma and North Korea.
You will end up fighting a much larger war with every nation that should happen to sympathize (however little it may be initially) with the opposing forces, which will probably end, badly, with your nation much worse off than it should have been after a limited engagement with a single defined enemy.
In the case of Israel today the Jewish state is enjoying a level of support by regional players that is unprecedented. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others have laid the blame for this war squarely on Hamas. Should Israel begin to indiscriminately level the Gaza Strip that benevolence will disappear along with their western diplomatic support and the possibility of a lasting peace.
Please understand I’m not talking from some wishy-washy altruistic view of warfare. I believe Israel is perfectly justified in its actions and in any engagement where the choice is between a dead Palestinian civilian and a dead IDF soldier, then sadly the Pal gets it. But there has to be a reason for that death or the Israelis are guilty of launching terror attacks of their own.
And the fact that they don’t, and have not, is what enables the world to differentiate the good from the evil, and that is an important distinction, even if you don’t agree with the method the rest of the world arrives at that conclusion.
Invading Iraq. At the time I supported Bush’s decision. I think it’s germane to explain why: if Iraq still kept chemical and biological weapons, it could channel them to terrorist groups (not necessarily Al Qaida), who’d then might use them on america, Europe or Israel. At the time Saddam paid off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, and his intelligence services had wide contacts with various terror groups.
Well, I was mistaken. And no stockpiles of WMDs were found (aside from those left over from the 1991 war). Beyond that it’s unclear what Saddam wanted to do concerning terrorist groups beyond his control. What sank him was his bluff that he had indeed stockpiles of WMDs.
Whom the Bush admisnitration should have invaded is Iran. Even at the time of president Khatami, who allegedly was a reformer, Iran did sponsor and support numerous terrorist groups. Not necessarily Al Qaida, again, but others who had been involved in attacks agains America and her allies over the years.
But that’s where the first mistake comes back to haunt us. By not identifying the enemy most people believed we should only attack those who had anything to do with 9/11, as if that were all that mattered (to carry on the WWII metaphor, then we didn’t go only after those who perpetrated the Pearl Harbor attack). Instead of identifyin the enemy as a loose alliance of terrorist groups, terrorist supporting groups (like several Islamic charities) and states that directly or indirectly fund and support such groups, and naming each one (such as Iran and Syria), we were left with an amorphous enemy we couldn’t even point to. In that case invading any country isn’t justified, or it may not even seem rational.
Rebuilding Iraq. In truth I don’t see what else Bush could ahve chosen to do at the time.
Personally, I think Iraq was pretty rational.
The threat of WMD’s had always been recognized as real. This is based in many things from the previous (Clinton) adminstration and the UN. There have been reports that WMD’s might have been used in the first conflict with GHW Bush. I do know that a good friend of mine that was in the US Air Force was tested in a few years after the first conflict for his “exposure”.
If the overall goal of the “war on terror” is to crush the terrorist programs, one of those ways is to offer freedom, period. Iraq was much more secular than some of the other countries that surround them. Poland was the first to taste and breath freedom behind the Iron Curtain. And countries around them fell to capitalism, or at least the form of communism was changed to a more socialist European ideal. That’s changed the lives of people there in that they have freedom.
So, actions should be done only in the interest of not being ostracized? Is this rational in your point of view?
No, it’s not in the interest of not being ostracised it’s in the interest of a nation that must operate within a community of nations. Self-interest on a political scale.
I know that the charge that will be leveled here by some is that of pragmatism but hold off for a moment.
In 1992 when Yugoslavia began to disintegrate it could be argued that the Serbs in Bosnia (and later in Kosovo) carried out a total war against all comers, in which every person not a Serb was deemed to be an enemy, a legitimate target. So they began their pogrom to rid BiH of all non Serbs and create a greater Serbia free of any possibility of sedition or rebellion from within.
Torture, rapes and the like aside the average Serb soldier had no hand in that but almost all of them believed that all the Bosniaks and Croats were “enemy” and therefore were legitimate targets.
Well we all know what happened there. We all saw the world (or at least 90% of it) rise up against the Serbs, even their long time allies and ideological friends the Russians would not help them.
Later when ethnic Albanians in Kosovo even suggested that the Serbs were up to their old “total war” tricks (which I would say, having been there, they were not) the world stepped in to rip sovereign Serbian territory out of that nations control.*
So I would ask you do you believe that “Total War” served the interests of the state of Serbia?
It is interesting to note that Kosivo Pole, just outside of Pristina holds a place in the national psyche of Serbia the equivalent of Gettysburg or Ground Zero, and it was taken/stolen because Serbia decided that it would forgo the need to justify attacks on civilians as either tactically or strategically necessary.
No, it’s not in the interest of not being ostracised it’s in the interest of a nation that must operate within a community of nations. Self-interest on a political scale.
I believe that was covered in the many UN Security Council Resolutions on the topic of Iraq.
I believe that was covered in the many UN Security Council Resolutions on the topic of Iraq.
I don’t know where you got the idea I was against the invasion of Iraq. I’ve said time and again, although perhaps not on this board that Saddam got exactly what he deserved, except I’d have made the hanging public.
The US and the UK had enough reason to invade after the ceasefire of GW1 had been broken for the first time, not to mention the hundreds of times after that.
But I guess your point is that some states in the UN didn’t approve, well again you have missed the point. The US had sufficient backing to go into Iraq, and the fact that they didn’t nuke them into submission and turn the place into one giant glass parking lot is what has kept those coalition partners and the rest of the worlds nations from making GW Bush share space with Kim Jong Il, Slobodan Milosevic and the Junta of Burma at the dictators and tyrants table.
Aside from what a lot of people here seem to think you can not ignore the international ramifications of actions taken, that is why Israel is working so hard to win the propaganda war (and they are). And that is also why “kill them all” is not only lowering morality to the level of detestable murderers and scumbags it is counter to the interests of any nation that employs such tactics.
Israel. Are they winning the propaganda war? Well, I guess I don’t know. There seem to be many that think otherwise. Maybe it’s my age, but there seem to be more that waver on the idea of Israel being able to protect itself. Or that Hamas and Hezbola are somehow social programs rather than organizations that are really there to wage war against Israel and its citizens.
I’m not sure if one “wins” a war of proaganda. It’s a matter of being “in” that game. Bad news is still news, and it gets one in front of the public, locally or world wide.
On edit…yeah, one can certainly loose a war of propaganda. McCain would be a great example. But, then again, one would have to argue that he was, again, “in” the game.
So, actions should be done only in the interest of not being ostracized? Is this rational in your point of view?
A country needs allies in order to conduct an effective foreign policy.
While America these days dwarfs any other country as far as militray power goes, she still needs bases from which to operate, safe passage through territorial waters and airspaces, and most especially aid in conducting intelligence gathering operations and/or sharing intelligence.
So for those reasons it’s useful and in one’s self itnerest for one’s country not to be an international pariah.
Israel. Are they winning the propaganda war? Well, I guess I don’t know. There seem to be many that think otherwise. Maybe it’s my age, but there seem to be more that waver on the idea of Israel being able to protect itself. Or that Hamas and Hezbola are somehow social programs rather than organizations that are really there to wage war against Israel and its citizens.
Israel is not winning the propaganda war, no. I don’t think it can win it for a long time to come. remember Israel used to be much further to the Left than it is now, therefore Liberals no longer like it anymore.
But the regional powers like Egypt and Jordan are not jumping too hard against Israel, with Mubarak going as far as to blame Hammas for the current war. the reason is that Egypt knows it has nothing to fear from Israel, and that it has a lot to fear from iran. Since Iran is the power behind Hammas and Hizbullah, Egypt naturally sides, as little as it does, against them.
I don’t know where you got the idea I was against the invasion of Iraq. I’ve said time and again, although perhaps not on this board that Saddam got exactly what he deserved, except I’d have made the hanging public.