A USA Today op-ed by Peter Schweizer entitled "Strategies Or Diversions?" draws a parallel between Roosevelt's refusal to chase after Japan immediately following the attack on Pearl Harbor (after all, it was Japan that attacked us, not Germany) and GW's refusal to focus all of his energy in taking down the Taliban and chasing after Osama bin Laden (after all, it was Al Qaeda that attacked us, not Iraq).
In both cases, Schweizer avers, each man saw the issues he faced as part of a picture that was much larger than any one particular incident. Fascism was a world-wide threat and, although it would have been good military strategy to tie up Japan as soon as possible to prevent its military expansion and entrenchment across the Western Pacific (including Korea, China and South-East Asia) Roosevelt knew that Europe might well fall to the German-Italian axis without our immediate intervention. Even if Germany failed, Western Europe would have been so weakened that the Soviet Union, battered as it was, would have had little or no resistance in marching across the continent and taking whatever it chose.
So Roosevelt let Japan off the hook for a while until the European threat was contained. At that point, the entire United States military force could be brought to bear on Japan, along with Australian and British troops who otherwise would not have been available at all because they would have been tied up in Europe.
In the short term, Roosevelt's decisions seemed to fly against political and military reality: "Go hit back at the one who hit you first!"
In the long term, Roosevelt's decisions proved to be the correct ones after all. Europe was left strong enough to rise from its ashes and keep the Soviets at bay with less territory than they would certainly have claimed otherwise (including Austria and Finland and more of Scandinavia for starters).
For Bush, the large-picture issue was Islamic terrorism. Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were merely symptoms of a much larger, geopolitical crisis that was creating chaos from Algeria to Libya to Sudan, to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Kosovo, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia, Albania, Greece, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, Afghanistan, Khazakistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Chechnya, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, East Timor, and the Philippines. Growing pockets of Islamic radicals were systematically being planted in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Britain and Australia as well as Canada and the United States itself.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dave Nalle
Really excellent. I had been planning to write something like this, but I don't think I could do it any better. Thanks fro presenting such a clear explanation of why the war in Iraq isn't necessarily a mistake or a diversion, but actually serves a vital strategic purpose.
Dave
2 - Marc
I concur with Dace an excellent post.
Question: any guesses how many comments will appear here before the first one blathers on about "it's a war for oil?"
My guess: Some misguided fool will appear around comment #6. (And yes that fool will now wait for a later number comment)
3 - Marc
oops, sorry that should be "Dave."
4 - JB
The one main error in that analysis - if you are fighting Islamic fundamental terrorism, why attack a mostly secular country (Iraq). If you wanted fundamentalism, you would have hit Iran first. Iran had more terror ties and fits into that paradigm better. I think history will show this was a huge error in judgement and showed little aprreciation for the politics and religion of the region.
Now we are stuck in Iraq, Bin Laden is out and about, and the "free Iraq" we have created will be a strong Iranian ally. Nice.
5 - Victor Lana
Being against the war in Iraq, I still appreciated some of the things in the article for clarity. My father, a WWII vet, has mentioned that acts of "terrorism" (he says they didn't call it that back then) happened well after we had "won" in Germany- bombings, killings of GI's, etc. So I guess that's part of any occupation.
The question is whether Bush's "vision" is sound. Iran and North Korea are certainly the most dangerous states around; neither is an Arab state. Yes, Iran is Islamic, but dealing with it is different.
I remember a picture of the big three allied leaders taken in Tehran during WWII; isn't it odd that WWIII just migth start there?
6 - The Kid
JB, did you miss this part of the article?
"Iraq was chosen for three reasons: 1. It was a known supporter and tolerator of terrorism; 2. It was in flagrant violation of an internationally-sanctioned cease-fire agreement, and; 3. It was perfectly placed geographically to isolate Iran from Syria and Saudi Arabia on the West and, with Afghanistan broken, from Pakistan, India and Southeast Asia to the East."
You may not agree with those reasons but they were quite clearly laid out in the article.
7 - Nancy
It would be nice to be able to believe this, but I just don't think Bush is in Roosevelt's league, or any of his administration; however, if it makes you feel better....
8 - JR
If Roosevelt had refused to impose rationing at home and sent about one-third as many troops to Normandy on D-day, the comparison might be a bit more realistic.
9 - JB
Kid,
1. Iran was a far greater supporter of terrorism.
2. Violating a cease fire?? Since WHEN has the US felt itself to be the big UN defender?? Why didn't they go back to the UN...because they knew the UN would not support such an invasion
3. Attacking a sovereign country because of its geographical positioning towards another country is like saying we will invade Russia in order to surround China! Ridiculous tactical strategy.
This article is trying to rationalize a HUGE strategic error.
10 - billy
the logic of this is absurd. just admit this was a colossal error and lets move on to some real leaders in this country.
11 - Dean
I don't entirely agree with the list you've compiled, namely with points 1 and 3.
1). Iraq as a known supporter of terrorism - hell yes Iraq is definitely a known supporter of terrorism but it has been neither the most active, nor the most flagrent. In scope and scale, compared to others, Iraq was a piker...
It's efforts fell mainly under providing arms and financing (aimed mostly at suicide bombers and jihadist in Israel). It was, despite the many efforts of the current administration to claim it, not actively involved with Al Quada in a significant manner. However....the biggest single supporter and exporter of terrorism in the region is Iran, followed by Saudi Arabia. Invading Saudi would trigger a major regional war and fuel Islamic fundamentalism beyond anything we see today. Invading Iran would be an extremely tough nut to crack, mainly due to the population and the geography (mountainous).
Iraq was probably the least painful and easiest target (as well as being unrepentantly guilty of numerous offenses and violations of international law). Terrorism was an excuse and a justification for the war rather then a legitimate reason for the war. It was the public relations excuse...
Point 3). Iraq's geographic location - You have a solid point with how it impacts on the neighborhood. Iraq is a very good geographical position as a regional pressure point. However Marc's point about "misguided fools" who blather about oil is simple idiocy.
Wars begin and end with economics and logistics and the war on terror is no exception. Oil enters into the equation, whether the administration denies it or not. They would be fools of an exceptional degree if they didn't look at the oil, as either a threat or an opportunity. The harsh reality is that you don't spend billions of dollars taking down a country for the "good of democracy" or because of WMD capabilities that were entirely regional in their threat potential...you do it because you have a valid strategic gain.
In this case Saudi Arabia has been under increasing internal political pressure in recent years which they have (unsuccessfully) tried to export. If Saudi goes belly-up and a fundamentalist government comes into power, how does that impact on the oil industry and the economies of the world?
It is a strategic threat to a critical region upon which we have a strong dependency.
Turning Iraq into a US regional ally and removing Saddam offers the chance to (as was cited in the post) put pressure on a number of major regional players and, if push ever comes to shove, lets the US have a nice pre-positioned base to roll south and take the Saudi oilfields...
The key question is whether you could have achieved those strategic results through other methods....and is the result worth the cost? My sense is that the current adminstration, right or wrong, did not sit down and do a valid accounting of the cost at any serious level before they launched themselves on this venture.
12 - bruv
Firstly the person that wrote this article is a sound in his perceptions therfore has the right to suggest his views. However for the people that dont know nothing about the war such as the guy that mentioned his granddad being in the war just shut up. Bush is a friek because his dad is one, Iraq, because he has so called enemity with iraq as did his dad, the guy is choosing the easiest muslim countries to invade, not roosavelt the chimp is a hitler in the modern era. terrorism is not something muslims choose it is something that the americans have created. If you attack a country and obtain a backlash by the locals you dnt call them terrorists or so called insurgents, terrorists are people that bombed london.
13 - gonzo marx
ummmm...point of Logic, your Honor!
Japan and Germany were Allies
Iraq and al Qaeda were NOT...and no one was even suggesting such pre-Invasion
since this is a prime Postulate for the logic of the Analogy, it crumbles from this point forward
this is more akin to Germany's mistake in launching a second front against England before dealing with Russia...ultimately costing them their gains in europe and losing the war
your mileage may vary
Excelsior!
14 - Dave Nalle
>>You may not agree with those reasons but they were quite clearly laid out in the article.<<
It ought to be impossible not to agree with the reasoning for why Iraq was chosen, since the three examples given in the article are just facts, nothing more or less.
>>It would be nice to be able to believe this, but I just don't think Bush is in Roosevelt's league, or any of his administration; however, if it makes you feel better....<<
He doesn't have to be in Roosevelt's league overall to follow the same strategy. The strategy stands apart from the man in many ways. Plus presidents don't work in a vacuum - Bush has people to advise him and he has the example of what Roosevelt did to learn from as well.
>>If Roosevelt had refused to impose rationing at home and sent about one-third as many troops to Normandy on D-day, the comparison might be a bit more realistic.<<
It might also be more realistic if Roosevelt had been fighting opponents a fraction as powerful as he was, since that would make them more like Iraq relative to the modern US. The point being that we don't need rationing or 3 million troops to fight Iraq effectively.
>>1. Iran was a far greater supporter of terrorism.<<
Iran is also a far more powerful country, would have been much harder to conquer and would have had a stronger resistence after the fact. So you'd prefer that we had 50,000 US casualties and a million Iranian civilians dead instead of less than 2,000 US casualties and 20,000 Iraqis dead?
>>2. Violating a cease fire?? Since WHEN has the US felt itself to be the big UN defender?? Why didn't they go back to the UN...because they knew the UN would not support such an invasion<<
The determination was made that we needed to invade somewhere, and unlike Iran, Iraq was in violation of UN sanctions which gave us a justification for invading, however contrived it migh thave been.
>>3. Attacking a sovereign country because of its geographical positioning towards another country is like saying we will invade Russia in order to surround China! Ridiculous tactical strategy. <<
This isn't tactics, it's strategy. You'r not thinking of the situation the right way in any case. Think of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq and Iran as a network which works together. In the middle of that network is Iraq. Communications and supplies travel through that middle country. Take it out and put a big fleet in the Persian Gulf and you break the logistical connection between the other countries, weakening them as a whole.
Dave
15 - Peter
This article is a commentary on another article (�Strategies or Diversions?�, Peter Schweizer, USA Today, 8/16/2005), as mentioned by the author, �Bird of Paradise�.
Discerning its intentions may not be difficult. Fortunately enough it is through rudimentary consideration of these intentions that one can become aware of its misleading nature, and the misleading nature of the article upon which it was based and in fact further, can regard the article, as it deserves to be regarded. That is, certainly not as a representation of historical facts and a solid analogy based on those facts, but as a vague and erroneous attempt to endorse a baseless analogy. The analogy itself attempts to parallel modern events with historical and in doing so present the US administrative policy in a positive light.
The admission of the author that Schweizer�s analogy is �inexact� is the most poignant statement therein: however instead of focusing on the formless nature of the comparison, he focuses on its merits and attempts to add his own specifics as to why, specifics which are at least fallacious and at worst fabricated.
The nature of the article is unmistakably opinionated, as criticisms (especially of �opinion� articles) in all cases are. There is no inherent danger to the truth in an opinion piece, even one written to glorify another opinion piece. However when the authors opinions, having already been formed - whether before his consideration of Schweizer�s article or after - begin to affect his presentation (or more accurately, deviation) of the facts, we see the real parallel here is not between Roosevelt and Bush, but between the propaganda tactics of the latter's administration, and the writings of those who support him.
The distinction obviously must be made between �Bird of Paradise� and Peter Schweizer, the fundamental analogy having been conceived by the latter but promoted here by the former.
This discussion will regard �Bird of Paradise�s� commentary on Schweizer�s analogy, and attempt to articulate the reasons as to why this article, entitled �Bush Strategy On Terror Compared to Roosevelt's War Against Fascism� is as deceptive as that upon which commentates.
The nature of the author�s core argument is in itself fallacious. The article�s critical value is further deflated in that many of the 'facts' he presents are little more than appeals to probability, and therefore the basis on which the analogy lies is erroneous.
Obviously supporting this form of analogy in a medium such as this (and the method of conveyance) is generally accepted as being a matter of opinion - however again, when opinion affects the facts on which the basis of the analogy lie, then the parallel becomes little more than an assumption based on what little contextual knowledge �Bird of Paradise� presents to the reader: it is evident in this and other writings by the author that he is more informed in the context of political and foreign affairs than this article would have the reader believe.
The point must be stressed again that a great many of the facts which �Bird of Paradise� presents are not facts at all, they are assumptions based on limited evidence, and in many cases assumptions that are widely disputed. The article is so riddled with these prevarications that it is not hard to see that instead of letting evidence dictate his opinion; he lets his opinion dictate the supposed 'evidence'. In doing so he undermines among other things the credibility of the article. To treat the reader with such disrespect invites this, and again the parallel between the Bush administration's tactics in this regard, and those of its apparent supporters, has a clarity that the parallel the author presents via Schweizer�s article very simply does not.
In order to reflect on the articles flawed nature with some degree of clarity one must regard the fundamental errors with some semblance of system. While as discussed above, the article is fraught with fallacious logic and opinion-affected staging of facts, those that are more obvious reflect on those that are not.
Firstly, the attempt at relating Fascism with Islamic radicalism is a method common among many conservative writers, especially those who use the Internet as their first course of communication. Terms such as �islamo-nazi� and �islamo-fascist� attempt to present a correlation in the readers mind (as they perhaps do in the authors) between Fascism and Islam. The absurdity of any serious correlation between the two is obvious to most, however the (rightful) association of Fascism with Nazi Germany in many peoples minds seems to in some cases cause a denial of logical consideration, and therefore these people begin to correlate Fascism with Islam. By presenting the facts it will become obvious that the connection is purely manufactured.
Attempting to associate such a defined ideologue as Fascism with so indistinct a concept as �Islamic radicalism� is ineffective, especially when considered by those who know the differences, but this doesn�t prevent a number of people from attempting it, including the author.
�Islamic radicalism� is indistinct in that it is a phrase that can refer to any number of ideas or schools of thought. Attempting to associate modern terrorism with so broad a concept as �Islamic radicalism� typically reflects poorly on the religion itself and in some cases more poorly on the author who attempts to draw the association.
The distinction between �Islamic radicalism� and �Islamism� as descriptors is one that the author does not appear to grasp. However it is certainly more difficult to attack the implied correlation between Islamism and Fascism within the context of this article.
This is quite simply because Islamism as a political ideologue shares many of the commonly accepted and interpreted traits of Fascism. A still more accurate parallel between Islamism and a western school of thought would be to the Christian fundamentalist or evangelical movement known as �dominionism�.
However, the flawed pattern of thought within the article manifests itself most obviously when �Bird of Paradise� begins talking about Iraq.
The intentions of the author, discussed earlier, become evident here: it is obvious that drawing an analogy between Bush and Roosevelt in this context is an attempt at glorifying the foreign policy of the Bush administration.
Roosevelt�s strategies are contemporarily regarded as successful for palpable reasons, and his actions are commonly reflected in a positive light.
However, drawing a parallel between the two administrations is more than a blatant attempt at associating one President�s successes with another�s attempts. It is more than a shot at glorification by association.
More insidiously, it is an attempt at glorifying Bush�s military policy, distinct (to some) from the administrations foreign policy. Indeed, Roosevelt�s military actions are as the article (and Schweizer�s) depict, now regarded as successful and by some instances necessary.
But this is not the case with the Bush administration. Indeed, many saw military action as a necessity, in direct response to the attacks of 9/11. But more still realise that engaging �terrorism� need not occur solely or primarily in a military capacity. The situation fifty years ago has little bearing on the situation now, and it is ignorant of the facts to attempt to simplify either circumstance for the sake of understanding or indeed veneration.
However veneration is the mood that seems to pervade this article, and the author�s tone reflects not on any serious, complex or accurate consideration of the world situation but more on a simplified one in which Bush�s policies are to be associated with Roosevelt�s for purposes of praise instead of understanding.
Certainly �big picture thinking� is not something that is typically associated with Bush in the public mind except for ardent supporters. However again more reflective of the author�s simple comparisons are expressions such as ��if the battle is to be won�, �the enemy has been engaged�, �the battle is hot and serious�, expressions that sound less like collected and well-informed considerations of a complex situation, and more like bellicose ramblings or battlefield cries.
The most disconcerting point in the entire article, the point which reveals the author�s apparent thinking and the applied flaws in logic, is towards the end. After having stated earlier that the effectiveness of Bush�s foreign policy in the anti-terrorist context �has already been proven�, the author mentions a point which is immensely disconcerting regardless of political or social affiliation.
�Neither is it self-apparent that Bush's War on Terrorism will be victorious in the end.� He states. �It is conceivable that we could lose...and that bombings and terror would become a daily reality in the United States, Canada, Western Europe and elsewhere just as they have become tragically routine in Iraq.�
The simplification is again evident in the assumption that terrorism is a singular ideologue, but more a matter of semantics. The appeal to probability again, as with nearly everywhere else. But what�s truly disconcerting is the admission that if �we� lose the �War on Terrorism�, bombings will become a daily reality in western cities as they are, right now, in Iraq.
If Iraq is the current and most obvious manifestation of the Bush administration anti-terrorist policy, by the author�s own admission, and �losing� the war on terrorism would mean that western cities would become like Iraq, then does that say about Bush�s �effective� foreign policy?
16 - Dave Nalle
Very clever Peter. Your writing style is so stilted and pompous that no one is likely to wade through it to see the factless opinionating which is at its core.
If you just boiled it down to 'I hate Bush for no reason', it would be a lot clearer for everyone.
BTW � to you too.
Dave
17 - Jude
The powder-keg of Islamic radicalism was set to go off whether Bush attacked Iraq or not.
..and there is now an infestation of terrorism never before seen in Iraq - -allowed to bloom right under our noses. On top of that, civil war looms, if it has not already begun.
The invasion was a bold, strategic move and the stakes were and still are very high.
It was done on the cheap, with neocon-prodding and dependence upon lying unAmerican advice from double-agents like Ahmad Chalabi (while poo-pooing our own CIA's advice) and it was done with the poorest plan I've ever seen in American history for its post-war phase.
Saddest of all, in a political sense, it was done with gross misleading of the American people.
If any of what you are giving as reasons for this war were true, why didn't the President of the United States tell the nation?
His administration told us that there were weapons of mass destruction that were posing an imminent threat. VP Cheney said, time and time again, that there were Iraq government-9/11 connections. Both were found to be dead wrong....after the war had already begun.
Then came shifting rationales.
The "stakes" are higher than ever now - because we've lost so much credibility in the eyes of the international community.
the potential pay-off would be a dislodging of nearly a century of geo-political stalemate in the Middle East, a stalemate that had allowed the foundations of terrorism to ferment, organize and spread without serious opposition from either outside or inside the Muslim world.
There's certainly nothing "stale" about the level of terrorism being employed in Iraq today.
If we are 'dislodging' this stalemate which you say had allowed the foundations of terrorism to ferment, organize and spread --- then why is terrorism fermenting and organizing in Iraq.... and why is bin Ladenism spreading all over the world?
The enemy has been engaged and the battle is hot and serious and hopeful and tragic and heroic and discouraging and much, much more all at the same time.
It sounds poetic, but I think we should be honest.
Iraqis have been occupied and their own resistance to it has been surprising to our President, it has been violent, it has been totally contrary to what Americans were told to expect as they were led to war, it has been utterly stupid in its lack of post-war planning for success, it is causing a lot of confusion within the President's own administration, and frankly, it frightens me to see the cracks showing like this.
I feel that you are attempting to glorify and gloss over a lot of failure. How can anyone ever expect that the glaring errors that have been made can possibly be rectified and turned around unless we admit to ourselves that we have taken a lot of wrong turns?
When Roosevelt declared war on Japan and Germany in December of 1942, he knew that the power of the United States would most likely prevail
George W Bush cannot seem to rally this nation, even after the horror of 9/11. Even Henry Kissinger has recently admitted this.
Bush assumed the US would prevail - while he told Americans things that turned out to be dead wrong about the people we were about to make a pre-emptive attack upon.
we need to turn the world against those who would destroy the world in the name of their god
Most people in the US can be credited with the knowlege that murdering innocent people for political reasons is wrong.
If we plan to convince the world that what we are doing is right, we'd best GET it right - NOW.
SHOW the world we know how to get it right.
This will take humility on our President's part - which is a mark of a strong and wise man.
Iraq has never been guilty of the terror that reared its head in America on 9/11. And now we have turned her into an infested swampland for civil war and murder of innocent people. We heard our President DARE anyone who desired employing terror to be "brought on" into a land and a people that never deserved it.
Lebanon's people were inspired by the anger they felt over the murder of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri - not by the failing nature of our war in Iraq.
Libya posed a good prospective source for rapidly increasing oil futures - so we forgave a murdering dictator (see "Pan Am 103" - and ask some of the families of Syracuse University students who were murdered as their plane crashed in Lockerbie, Scotland what THEY think of the 'kiss-and-make-up' with Gadaffi.)
geopolitical crisis that was creating chaos from Algeria to Libya to Sudan, to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Kosovo, Macedonia, Croatia, Serbia, Albania, Greece, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iran, Afghanistan, Khazakistan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, Chechnya, Pakistan, India, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, East Timor, and the Philippines (to name just a few).
And you claim it's all about folks murdering other folks for God. I think that's unsophisticated oversimplification.
The truly sorry part is this: You admit that we into Iraq because it would have been the most convenient geopolitical spot in the Middle East to separate certain countires from others. That would lead any logical person to ask:
Where's the next geopolitically convenient place to conquer with "freedom" --and how many lies will our President tell about THEM in order to to convince the American public they need to make the next pre-emptive strike?
And will this be done before or after the twelve years of violent Iraqi insurgency which Iraqi troops will not be able to defend on their own?
18 - Jude
The Weekly Standard predicts, in the next year:
(a) The democratic transition in Iraq will or will not work.
(b) The United States will or will not take decisive steps to stop enemy infiltration from Syria.
(c) King Abdullah will or will not attempt serious reforms in Saudi Arabia, which will greatly affect the issue of whether...
(d) Saudi Wahhabist money will or will not continue funding Sunni radicalism in every form, from the madrassas to bin Laden and Zarqawi.
(e) Democratic forces in the Palestinian Authority, assuming they exist, will or will not seize on Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as an opportunity to defeat Palestinian Islamists and win the peace.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They go on to say, in their usual tiring partisan way:
Meanwhile, Democrats are tempted to treat Iraq as a stand-alone Bush blunder rather than the intense pressure point of a far larger conflict that in fact it is. What if the Democrats succumb to their antiwar temptation at precisely the time when the worldwide nature of the conflict again becomes clear?
First, we should realize we are ONE America in this war. Iraq IS a standalone Bush blunder - and to say it isn't is to say that the President accepts no personal accountability or responsibility as Commander-in-Chief.
Most people can see a difference between a glaring blunder and doing what is a necessity for our security. Iraq was not a necessity - every post-war investigation made to date has proven that it wasn't. No WMD, no 9/11 connection.
And what if a democratic transition in Iraq does NOT work?
The Weekly Standard suggests that Bush gets his attention back on Iraq - because the insurgents psywar is winning.
If I had anything to say to President Bush today, I would beg him to change his direction and strategy on this war, which really is a global struggle. We know it was never just to bring a war on terror upon a secular nation whose government had no connection to 9/11, even if Iraq had the most evil dictator in the world. There were alternative ways to depose the powerful gangster that ran Iraq.
I'd ask the President to talk to America with his heart - not with those Gawd-awful slogans. They may work at the polls on election day, but they cannot cover up a disaster that every eye can see and every keen mind can analyze. We need the support of every world leader or Iraq is going to fall into civil war. You began this war, President Bush. You unleashed the terror and even dared for it to be brought on. Staying the course, as you have laid it out to us in your slogan-speak, will mean supporting Iraq throughout the entirety of its civil war. It's obvious they will not have the capacity to do it by themselves. Is that what we are going to do?
Talk to us, President Bush.
19 - Peter
Interesting that you'd cynically refer to my post as clever when instead of actually conceiving a response you would rather settle for petty insults. I'm hurt by this because I put alot of effort into my post and I enjoy discussion of this kind. I perhaps should have been less verbose in the methods in which I conveyed my point, but that's the way I am and for that I'm sorry.
As for your excuses with regard to my 'writing style', I'm sure that you're not too ignorant to understand it, and I'm sure that you're not too lazy to formulate a response because I've seen your other comments here and was impressed by them. Unfortunately that leaves me at a loss as to why you'd, instead of attempting to engage me on the points I made, outright insult me.
I think it reflects on one's character to respond in such a way to a post that was obviously well conceived and at the very least, however you regard it, well thought out, or perhaps just thoroughly.
Maybe we can commune in such a style that's easier for you to understand or consider factually, I can certainly grasp that the amount of writing was in fact fairly large for an Internet post. However I object to you referring to my writing as pompous - perhaps that's your interpretation of such but I certainly didn't intend it to be.
I hope that you haven't simply disregarded my post because you see that it differs from your point of view, and in doing so consider that it's not worth your time to actually respond intelligently.
Because instead of relying on insults and degenerative personal attacks as is too common on the Internet, the post actually puts forward an opinion on the article, and then proceeds to offer evidence as to why that opinion had been formulated.
What's most interesting is your use of assumption and appeal to probability, the very fallacies that I accuse the article of conveying - again suggesting to me the much clearer parallel between the writing style of weblog conservatives and the narrow-minded rhetoric spouted by government spokespeople.
As I said, I put alot of effort into trying to disect the article and offer an opinion on it, without turning to outright insult. I read both articles in order to do so. And yet because you disagree with my 'writing style', you disregard my entire post.
I enjoy an argument and I enjoy even more a good political discussion, because I don't consider myself to be on the 'left' or the 'right' of the spectrum. I may be a critic of Bush's foreign policy at this point in time, but I'm always open to intelligent discussion. I think one of the reasons why the political arena in many countries and indeed apparently (as I read your succinct and quite insulting post), on the Internet, has stagnated is because of the lack of such discussion.
Arguments and discussion can induce a greater sense of empathy and understanding of one's fellow, not only their political points of view but also the reasons as to why they formulate these. Intelligent, well-thought out and passionate discussion, the kind of which I try to apply to everything I post on the Internet - and admittedly sometimes fail to achieve one or all - can not only be highly enjoyable but highly beneficial to one's understanding of whatever is being discussed.
I think that if you look at one's writing 'style', realise that the post is opposed to your own point of view, and then disregard it simply because it is such, is opposed to that idea of collective understanding and engagement through discussion.
As I said, I'm hurt that you assume my commentary is 'factless opinionating' without bothering to see that in fact that is the very subject to which the commentary is opposed. I'm hurt that you would assume my post or my political point of view is as simple as 'I hate Bush', because it's not, and I'm sad that all you derived from my commentary was this.
I may be verbose but I try and apply effort to the discussions in which I engage - however the futility of such is disconcerting when instead of well-thought out and well articulated debate in response, I get insulted by someone who hasn't bothered to actually consider the post with any amount of seriousness.
As I said, I'm sorry for being too wordy and I'm sorry if I came across as pompous, however those are my views and I'd appreciate some debate on them, and I'm sure that we got off on the wrong foot.
But if you can't do that, I'd feel alot better without being insulted on something to which I tried to apply some effort and intelligence - whether you care or not is a different matter.
Thanks.
Pete
20 - G. Oren
Well, here we go again. Was our attack on Iraq justified? Certainly the WMD reason, on which the war was originally founded, prooved to be a red-herring. Certainly most of our European allies did not think it was justified. As we learned from Richard Clark and Anonymous (CIA analyst whose name escapes me)the Shrub administration - led by its neocon mandarins - wanted to go after Saddam long before 9/11. Saddam happened to be a target standing still, one on which we could utilize the power of our conventional forces without any of the hard stuff of spying and infiltration necessary to break Al Queda. In short, we wanted to blow up something more than taliban hovels and Afghani hillsides.
Bird's clever analogy of Roosevelt and Churchill's strategy of Germany first to preferring an Iraqi attack to hunting Al Queda is flawed on its face. The geostrategic necessity of the choices made in WWII have no parallel in this situation. The proof is in the result. Bird sites the Syrian pullback from Lebanon and Ghadaffi's rapproachemnt with the west as evidence that our "strategy" worked or is working. Perhaps, but can we be certain that these accomplishments could not have been attained with other incentives and pressures, and at what cost? Iraq is now a balkanized mishmash of warring interests with no end in sight(I do not now advocate a pullback, we must try to see this thing through and hope that an Iraqi state can emerge that will be able to maintain order and make the trains run on time). Ironically, our stated aim of spreading globaloney democracy may end up installing a Shia led theocracy tilting toward Iran (if it hasn't already). While the Kurds seem intent on maintaining a state within a state. Democracy requires a certain level humility and patience from its citizens for long term success, otherwise the situation degenerates into a search for a strongman to provide order - another Saddam. Also, meanwhile we have handed the Islamic radicals a great gift by proving their claims that we are intent on Crusading in the middle-east, thereby energizing another generation of radicals, in Europe, America and the Middle-East.
That we are engaged in an idealogical struggle to change Muslim interpretations of what it means to be Muslim cannot be denied. That this struggle has been going on for some time also cannot be denied. All of this would be nothing more than an interesting illustration of the backwardness of certain cultures (like Africa) were it not for the geopolitical and economic necessity of maintaining the flow of oil from the Middle-East.
Rather than choose WWII as a model, we should have applied a containemnt model similar to that employed against the Soviets (also an idealogical war). This would have required engagement and covert ops without the necessity of using our big stick. Since we have already seen the limits of using our big stick, and the cost (does anyone believe we will try to invade Iran or Syria). And since we have never had the stomach for overt Empire building, it seems the time is ripe for recasting our strategy. If we have to live by the pottery barn rule in Iraq, so be it, but we don't have to make that mistake again.
In his ode to Shrub's strategy (really a presumptious exercise in wishful thinking), Bird does not address how we are to tackle the terrorist groups themselves. If state sponsored terrorism is no longer the main issue then we are back to the hard work of human intelligence gathering and infiltration. We need allies to pull that off, not slogans about democracy and posturing about how the radical Islamists hate us for our freedom.
Will Islamic radicalism fall from its own inner contradictions as Communism did? It is in our interests to encourage nationalism in these states, not religous fervor. That can only be done by engagement with respect. A slow process, but one that will eventually lead to better results. Though we may not like all the forms it takes. Iran is intent on obtaining nuclear power and nuclear weapons - both the Mullahs and the secularists within Iran agree on this. That they do indicates the power of nationalism within Iran (similar to Pakistan and India). Such a prospect should not cause us to draw too many lines in the sand and bloviate about the unacceptability etc... The Persians take our words seriously, even if we sometimes don't, we don't want to have to eat those words or back them up with ill-advised attacks.
21 - Dave Nalle
Re: the weekly standard information. Those are supposed to be predictions? Aren't predictions supposed to be at least a tad more definite than that?
Dave
22 - Bird of Paradise
Wow! What a wonderful discussion and dialogue in repsonse to my post. Thank you all for your thoughtful contributions.
First of all, I did not create the analogy between Bush & Roosevelt. It came from Schweizer's article. I just simply expanded on it to see where it would go. My caveat at the end should have tipped you all off that I would not have made the comparison on my own.
One of you asked why Bush did not explain the strategic geographical significance of Iraq to the American people. Good question. I've wondered about it myself, especially since the point is so obvious. My guess is that it would not have been a good dipolmatic move to declare that Egypt and Saudi Arabia were part of the problem. By playing down this matter there is some potential for the political "moderates" in those countries (and by moderates I mean less far right than the far right) to regain some measure of influence.
The United States, even if supported by every democratic nation in the free world, cannot stop the spread of Al Qaeda-style Islamic terrorism/jihad (and yes, I do know the subtleties of fascism, Wahhabism, Islamicism, Muslim fundamentalism, Talibanism, and radicalism as well as the Iranian vision of revolutionary Islam. While distinct, each continues to provide theological, historical and cultural justification for militant and terrorist jihad against both the infidel and decadent West and secular, democratized, or despotic Muslim leadership. By this rubric, any Muslim who does not agree with this approach to Islam is also considered to be an infidel).
If this violent approach to the spread of radical Islam is to be contained, it must come, first and foremost, from within the Muslim world itself.
We must do a much better job of convincing countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria and Pakistan that it is in their own best national interests to take a stand against this growing Islamic movement.
As so many of you have said, the United States cannot invade every Muslim country that contains terorist elements or advocates and supporters of terrorism. In the end, this battle must be strategically fought within the Muslim world itself. And to a large degree America's hands are tied, since any assistance or support we give to a Muslim country to fight terrorism only serves to discredit that fight in the eyes of the Muslim people themselves (the "crusader" accusation again).
There are actually a great many indications that this counter-terrorism movement within Islam will, over time, be successfull. Iran is the one major exception to this otherwise optimistic appraisal.
The current leadership in Iran would most likely rather see Israel become a nuclear wasteland than to see it continue as a Jewish state. Their policy of confrotation is designed to goad the United States into a response. If we do not respond to their nuclear threat, we will be seen as weak. This will serve to encourage their plans for exporting the Islamic revolution (Shiite, of course, but not neceassarily unaccommodating to Sunni Wahhabism, either. Politics does make strange bedfellows).
On the other hand, if the United States DOES respond to Iran's nuclear intransigence militarily, Iran will feel free to set loose a flood of international terrorism that will make Iraq's troubles look llike the good old days.
For both religious and political reasons, the coming conflict must not be characterized as the U.S. vs Iran. It must be seen as the Entire World (including the Muslim world) vs. Iran.
How this can be achieved, especially with the European penchant for "head buried in the sand" appeasment, is still a mystery.
The U.S. is following a similar strategy with North Korea. If the matter is viewed as the U.S. vs North Korea, the matter is already lost. This is the formulation that North Korea so desparately desires. The U.S., however, continues to insist that Russia, China, Japan & South Korea be in solidarity with the United States on this matter so that it will be clear to North Korea and the world of public opinion, that it is not the U.S. vs N.Korea, but Everybody within missle-shot vs. N. Korea.
In the meanwhile, Iraq is an unfortunate mess that will, in the end, only be resolved when the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are strong and confident enough to purge the country of the terrorist/insurgents themselves. This, I fear, will either take a very long time unless some dramatic event galvinizes the Iraqi people in solidarity against a common enemy within.
I join with every one of you who expressed the desire for Bush to find some way to generate both heat and light in the area of public opinion. One only has to listen to Tony Blair for five minutes to realize the power of the spoken word to clarify a complex issue and to stir up both emotional and intellectual support for a great cause.
Why Bush as so completely failed in this is one of the great mysteries of our time. He has good, even great speechwriters who (as we saw in his speech at Normandy) can be both eloquent and persuasive. For some reason, Bush himself has disciplined himself against oratorical brilliance. Why? I wish I knew. The tide of public opinion is ebbing away from the President and his foreign policy. This, I believe, is due not so much to the foreign policy itself as it is to Bush's failure to defend it or even explain it clearly.
There is a growing sense that he is no longer leading....but merely following himself and not really knowing why.
I will continue to pray for him and for our country and for our military and for the people of Iraq and for the future of freedom for all people who "yearn to breathe free."
It is an irony that, with all the anti-American sentiment reported in Europe these days, a recent poll revealed that, if they could find a way to do it, 30% of Germans said that they would like to immigrate to the United States (this compares to 40% of Mexican adults!). Go figure.
23 - Jude
Re: the weekly standard information. Those are supposed to be predictions? Aren't predictions supposed to be at least a tad more definite than that?
Dave,
Given the realistic picture of facts on the ground today, I wouldn't be so proud to sit in critical judgement of the predictions of Weekly Standard journalists - look at the predictions of the people who planned the war which you so steadfastly support. (Some of whom were Weekly Standard journalists, so I can't believe I'm sitting here defending them).
Before you judge others, look at the Bush administration's predictions before war, as communicated to the public:
-The populace of Baghdad and of Iraq would turn out en masse to greet U.S. troops as liberators.
-There's an imminent threat. Using chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, terrorists will pursue their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country.
-With this war, we will tear down the apparatus of terror .. In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against neighbors....
-The American people will know that every measure had been taken to avoid war, and every measure had been taken to win it.
-The war will increase the security of the world, once Saddam Hussein is disarmed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Note - I agree with Peter's comments. I was disappointed to see your
anti-intellectual response to the thoughts he so carefully laid out. I think you can do better than that.
24 - Jude
One of you asked why Bush did not explain the strategic geographical significance of Iraq to the American people. Good question. I've wondered about it myself, especially since the point is so obvious. My guess is that it would not have been a good diplomatic move to declare that Egypt and Saudi Arabia were part of the problem.
When you mislead the people and the war which you based on a totally different rationale than what you officially issued to the people - and the war turns out badly - the people lose their spirit and the stomach for the war.
An American war is only as potent as the public support for it.
Somebody really screwed up.
This week, Henry Kissinger said he has a “very uneasy feeling” that some of the same factors that damaged support for Vietnam are re-emerging in Iraq. Kissinger says the U.S. should remove any troops that aren’t needed to stabilize the country.
25 - Jude
He has good, even great speechwriters who (as we saw in his speech at Normandy) can be both eloquent and persuasive. For some reason, Bush himself has disciplined himself against oratorical brilliance.
"Disciplined himself against oratorical brilliance?" That's a very interesting way of explaining Bush's style.
I have to disagree with you on the Bush speechwriters. They implement far too much advertising/marketing and not nearly enough clarity or realistic reflection. You cannot write a speech based upon fantasy or Utopia and expect it to work for very long. It's good for the short-term, such as election season - it's very, very bad for beating the drums of war, because people will look back on those speeches and compare the rote nature of the drumbeating to the actual facts on the ground.
The sloganspeak of the Bush speechwriting team, when it comes to the Iraq war, is no longer a viable marketing scheme. We know too much about the reality.
A speechwriter's job is to communicate the President's truth and make it sound as if it comes from as deep a place inside himself as they are able. The American people are starving for the truth. After so many of these Bush speeches, many feel that they are in a wasteland of lies, falsehood, and sham. They need inspiration, not rote speeches, infantile squabbles, and canned messages that have no heart and soul.