"Bush's" War On Terror

[Thunder]

Wasteful, counter-productive, dangerous for America.

This according not to a left wing newspaper, or right wing conspiracy theorist, but from the main stream media, Yahoo News.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070329/ts_nm/security_usa_dc;_ylt=Aheoox9bUSQAqb5eOwwGH9dZ.3QA

 

[Ziggurat]

This according not to a left wing newspaper, or right wing conspiracy theorist, but from the main stream media, Yahoo News.

Wrong on two counts. First off, it's Reuters, not Yahoo. Yahoo is just republishing a Reuters piece - I don't think Yahoo does any reporting of its own. And secondly, the opinion of the journalist is nominally not even present in the reporting. What you reference is the opinion of "experts", only two of whom are named: Carter's national security advisor (who has a remarkable record of failure regarding Islamic radicalism) and some Ohio professor. Since two qualifies as plural, I suspect there were no other sources used by the journalist to establish that "expert" opinion. The third named source who criticises the war on terror (the AEI guy) is pointing out the haphazard nature of congressional spending but does not actually indicate any agreement with the counterproductive and dangerous part of the headline. Color me unimpressed, both with the sources and with your ability to (mis)convey the contents of the article.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Wrong on two counts. First off, it's Reuters, not Yahoo. Yahoo is just republishing a Reuters piece - I don't think Yahoo does any reporting of its own. And secondly, the opinion of the journalist is nominally not even present in the reporting. What you reference is the opinion of "experts", only two of whom are named: Carter's national security advisor (who has a remarkable record of failure regarding Islamic radicalism) and some Ohio professor. Since two qualifies as plural, I suspect there were no other sources used by the journalist to establish that "expert" opinion. The third named source who criticises the war on terror (the AEI guy) is pointing out the haphazard nature of congressional spending but does not actually indicate any agreement with the counterproductive and dangerous part of the headline. Color me unimpressed, both with the sources and with your ability to (mis)convey the contents of the article.

Do you actually disagree with the premise that the war on terror is "Wasteful, counter-productive, dangerous for America." or are you just being bitchy and nit picky?

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you actually disagree with the premise that the war on terror is "Wasteful, counter-productive, dangerous for America." or are you just being bitchy and nit picky?

It's been run wastefully, I certainly agree about that. "Dangerous" is not a useful label, unless compared to some other course of action (which in this case it isn't). And no, I disagree about it being counterproductive.

And my post wasn't nitpicking either. The original post not only made a claim about the war on terror, it supported that claim with an appeal to authority (Yahoo news). That attribution was spectacularly wrong. But he's the one who made the source of the claim a significant issue, not me.

 

[Mephisto]

S'cuse me parky, but I think Borat had it right. Shouldn't that be Bush's war OF terror.

 

[rikzilla]

Do you actually disagree with the premise that the war on terror is "Wasteful, counter-productive, dangerous for America." or are you just being bitchy and nit picky?

War is always wasteful, counter productive, and dangerous for whomever fights. But without our forefathers taking the chance and going to war we wouldn't even have a country. In fact every major historical breakthrough leading to the creation of democracy and rule of law has been won through war or through threat of war. If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain to us how King John signed the Magna Carta out of the deep well of human kindness that existed in his heart?

-z

 

[Darth Rotor]

War is always wasteful, counter productive, and dangerous for whomever fights. But without our forefathers taking the chance and going to war we wouldn't even have a country. In fact every major historical breakthrough leading to the creation of democracy and rule of law has been won through war or through threat of war. If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain to us how King John signed the Magna Carta out of the deep well of human kindness that existed in his heart?

-z

He was taking Prozac, washed down with Runny Meade.

DR

 

[rikzilla]

He was taking Prozac, washed down with Runny Meade.

DR

humorous history for 1000 alex!

I now must try and clean up the Pepsi I just blew through my nose! Thanks man!

-z

 

[Tony]

Wrong on two counts. First off, it's Reuters, not Yahoo. Yahoo is just republishing a Reuters piece - I don't think Yahoo does any reporting of its own. And secondly, the opinion of the journalist is nominally not even present in the reporting. What you reference is the opinion of "experts", only two of whom are named: Carter's national security advisor (who has a remarkable record of failure regarding Islamic radicalism) and some Ohio professor.

That was an ad hom. And while we're talking about failures regarding islamic radicalism (IR), no administration has been as much of a failure at dealing with IR as this administration.

 

[Tony]

It's been run wastefully, I certainly agree about that. "Dangerous" is not a useful label, unless compared to some other course of action (which in this case it isn't). And no, I disagree about it being counterproductive.

Can you provide evidence that the WOT has been productive in reducing the the threat of islamic terrorism? Can you provide evidence the WOT course of action was safer than another course of action (you're not being specific)? Thanks.

 

[dsm]

Can you provide evidence that the WOT has been productive in reducing the the threat of islamic terrorism? Can you provide evidence the WOT course of action was safer than another course of action (you're not being specific)? Thanks.

How do you prove a negative? The other course of action might have been to do nothing. Do you think it would've been safe to get on a plane if Bush and company had *NOT* gone after Al Quaida after 9/11? How many suicide bombers does it take to bring down a plane?

 

[Tony]

How do you prove a negative?

I'm not asking him to prove a negative. I'm asking him to provide evidence for his assertions.

The other course of action might have been to do nothing. Do you think it would've been safe to get on a plane if Bush and company had *NOT* gone after Al Quaida after 9/11? How many suicide bombers does it take to bring down a plane?

False dichotomy. The choices weren't between the US doing nothing and under taking the WOT as it's being executed. And since I never advocated doing nothing, your line of questioning is irrelevant.

 

[Ziggurat]

Can you provide evidence that the WOT has been productive in reducing the the threat of islamic terrorism?

Not the kind of evidence that I think you want. It would have been hard to produce evidence that American deployments to North Africa at the beginning of our involvement in WW2 were productive, too. I expect this war to last a long time, I expect many successes to go unnoticed by the general public (sometimes on purpose due to the clandestine nature of much of the conflict), and I expect many of the payoffs to take a long time to manifest themselves. If you expected those general statements to be true as well, how would you prove that it was not being fought productively? You couldn't really, for basically the same reasons that I can't really prove it is being fought productively.

 

[Tony]

Not the kind of evidence that I think you want. It would have been hard to produce evidence that American deployments to North Africa at the beginning of our involvement in WW2 were productive, too. I expect this war to last a long time, I expect many successes to go unnoticed by the general public (sometimes on purpose due to the clandestine nature of much of the conflict), and I expect many of the payoffs to take a long time to manifest themselves. If you expected those general statements to be true as well, how would you prove that it was not being fought productively? You couldn't really, for basically the same reasons that I can't really prove it is being fought productively.

(There's that tired and debunked analogy to WWII again)

Then you concede your opinion that the WOT is a productive undertaking is without evidence?

 

[Ziggurat]

Then you concede your opinion that the WOT is a productive undertaking is without evidence?

Nothing of the sort. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious given our past history of debate on the topic: there are things which I consider evidence of success that you do not consider evidence of success, and things which you consider evidence of failure which I do not. Is your goal merely to rehash all our old arguments in the hope that they'll turn out differently this time?

 

[fishbob]

Nothing of the sort. I'm just pointing out what should be obvious given our past history of debate on the topic: there are things which I consider evidence of success that you do not consider evidence of success, and things which you consider evidence of failure which I do not. Is your goal merely to rehash all our old arguments in the hope that they'll turn out differently this time?

For a success/failure discussion, we should break the WOT down into the specific campaigns and initiatives.

Iraq
Afghanistan
Gitmo
Patriot Act
Domestic Spying
Rendition Programs
others??

Each of these need to be evaluated individually for any kind of valid conclusions.

 

[Tricky]

In fact every major historical breakthrough leading to the creation of democracy and rule of law has been won through war or through threat of war. If you disagree, then perhaps you can explain to us how King John signed the Magna Carta out of the deep well of human kindness that existed in his heart?

I think that's a gross oversimplification. I don't think Japan fought a war of independence to get out from under the emperor. I don't think India had a successful war. They gained independence from England through purely political methods. Sure, you can say "yes, but there was the threat of war", but heck there is always a threat of war. How much of a threat varies widely.

I think you can point to a number of democracies which appeared without a serious threat of war.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Then you concede your opinion that the WOT is a productive undertaking is without evidence?

We will never know if WOT would have been productive. Bush and his team chose to pursue the war in Iraq.

DR

 

[davefoc]

For a success/failure discussion, we should break the WOT down into the specific campaigns and initiatives.

Iraq
Afghanistan
Gitmo
Patriot Act
Domestic Spying
Rendition Programs
others??

Each of these need to be evaluated individually for any kind of valid conclusions.

domestic security might be another area. How well are our ports being protected? How well are the borders being enforced? How successful have programs to protect drinking water or other major potential terrorist targets been.

OK, and my wild guess at an assessment:
Iraq
disaster - corruption, and ineptitude have contributed to overall mess which has weakened US enormously and encouraged US enemies and in the end is likely to provide terrorist recruiting areas. Overall large negative in WOT.

Afghanistan
bad situation - probably though modest positive in WOT given the disruption of al-qaida and the capture of various operatives. Offset significantly by bad situation in Afghanistan that might generate terrorist actions against US or its partners.

Gitmo
What to do with prisoners from Afghanistan looked to be tough for anybody to deal with. Human rights abuses have lost friends. Personally, I am opposed to mistreatment of prisoners to the degree that it seems to have been practiced here. None the less probably in net Gitmo positive in WOT.

Patriot Act
Not sure. Just don't know enough to even hazard a WAG.

Domestic Spying
Doubt much has been gained here. The rumors about the big scanning programs looking for people saying bomb or something is that they generate way too many leads to be useful. Still I'm inclined to believe some positive benefit to the WOT from this. Albeit coming with the risky expansion of federal powers, especially in the hands of this administration.

Rendition Programs
Obviously, a very disgusting business. Clearly innocent people have been caught up in this for which no apologies have been offered. I just don't know what the balance is here but I'm going to hazard a guess that program has had very little benefit. And that benefit may be mitigated or eliminated by loss of US prestige and increased reluctance of foreign countries to cooperate with US as a result of these programs.

domestic security
A lot has been done. Who knows how much has been helpful. Probably an enormous amount of wasteful spending has been tacked on and to some degree when the country is weakened by profligate spending the WOT suffers. Politics has worked to prevent some port security improvements and this is an area where the US seems to be vulnerable. If you throw improved airport security into this subsection, then overall domestic security has been improved substantially, but how much of that improvement came from the simple expedient of securing aircraft flight deck doors? Probably in terms of bang for the buck no single security expenditure was remotely as beneficial as that. So my guess on this subsection is that there has been a substantial improvement in the WOT, although apparent corruption and incompetence in homeland security plus very slow progress in developing communication systems to allow all aid agencies to communicate in an emergency and almost complete failure to control borders for years after 9/11 are problems.

 

[Tony]

We will never know if WOT would have been productive. Bush and his team chose to pursue the war in Iraq.

DR

Good point.

 

[Mephisto]

That was an ad hom. And while we're talking about failures regarding islamic radicalism (IR), no administration has been as much of a failure at dealing with IR as this administration.

Hey! You're fooling yourself, we haven't been attacked since 9/11!

 

[Tony]

Hey! You're fooling yourself, we haven't been attacked since 9/11!

Lets just not talk about the anthrax attack after 9/11. That would make Bush look bad.

 

[rikzilla]

I think that's a gross oversimplification. I don't think Japan fought a war of independence to get out from under the emperor. I don't think India had a successful war. They gained independence from England through purely political methods. Sure, you can say "yes, but there was the threat of war", but heck there is always a threat of war. How much of a threat varies widely.

I think you can point to a number of democracies which appeared without a serious threat of war.

There could simply have not been an Indian democracy without Magna Carta and without the American Revolution. Parliamentary Democracy is not existential. It did not suddenly pop into existence out of the blue.

-z

 

[Upchurch]

There could simply have not been an Indian democracy without Magna Carta and without the American Revolution. Parliamentary Democracy is not existential. It did not suddenly pop into existence out of the blue.

But that isn't what you said and what Tricky was illustrating.

In fact every major historical breakthrough leading to the creation of democracy and rule of law has been won through war or through threat of war.

I think what Tricky was pointing out is not that war was involved in the ultimate creation of democracy, but that it is not true that every major historical breakthrough was won through war or threat of war.

 

[rikzilla]

But that isn't what you said and what Tricky was illustrating.


I think what Tricky was pointing out is not that war was involved in the ultimate creation of democracy, but that it is not true that every major historical breakthrough was won through war or threat of war.

Give me some examples....I'm ready and willing to learn.

-z

 

[Upchurch]

Give me some examples....I'm ready and willing to learn.

What about Tricky's India example?


eta: I know very little about the world history of democracy. I have no dog in that fight. I was just pointing out the goal post shifting from "every major breakthrough" to "ultimate origins".

 

[rikzilla]

What about Tricky's India example?

It's a good example, but like I said, there'd have been no democratic model for India to adopt had it not itself evolved through war or threat of war. As you know, if it had not been for the abuses of power back in the dark ages and the backlash against such abuses we'd still be living in a lovely non-Globally-warmed land of Barons and serfs.

Now I'm not saying that all wars are worthwhile, clearly there have been many, many wars which did nothing more than fertilize battlefields with blood. But all those lovely rights we cherish today were bought with blood in wars down through the ages.

My original comment (which was in turn commented on by Tricky) was in response to a poster who claimed that war was; "Wasteful, counter-productive, dangerous for America." ...but war is always thus...yet it tends to also deliver the long term benefits we all take for granted these days. My point is that it is good to remember that our democracy was born in war and was based upon the (then) unrealized potential of English law to uphold individual rights and freedoms.

But first we had to free ourselves from the King. We sent him a nice letter signed by lots of upstanding citizens, but it seems that was not enough.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

What about Tricky's India example?


eta: I know very little about the world history of democracy. I have no dog in that fight. I was just pointing out the goal post shifting from "every major breakthrough" to "ultimate origins".

Okay, I see that and perhaps I'm guilty of such. But ultimately one can't divorce a thing from its origins. Democracy was conceived in conflict and born in war. India did adopt democracy in peace...yet democracy itself would not exist but for war.

-z

 

[Upchurch]

India did adopt democracy in peace...yet democracy itself would not exist but for war.

Well.... shouldn't that indicate that it is possible to obtain democracy through peaceful means? Can we all agree that using peaceful means to obtain something is preferable to using violent means to accomplish the same end?

I've lost track of what breakthrough for which democracy we may or may not have been referring to, but in regards to the WOT, I think any resulting democracy has been artificial and most likely temporary. Artificial in that it has come from the outside rather than from the people in question. Temporary because any of the people in question have not accepted democracy, to my eye, and will most likely abandon it once the external support for it has been removed. (And perhaps some have already abandoned it before the external support for it has been removed.)


As for the War on Terror and it's step-child, the Iraqi War, I agreed with Bush on precisely one decision: invading Afghanistan with the intent of capturing Bin Laden. Since then, every decision made seems to have put us in a worse and more crippling position placing us further from being able to both protect ourselves in the long term and progress forward as a strong and just nation.

 

[Tricky]

Democracy was conceived in conflict and born in war. India did adopt democracy in peace...yet democracy itself would not exist but for war.

I'm not sure that is true. Didn't democracy (and many other forms of government) originate in Greece? Yeah, the city states were often at war with each other, but I'm not sure it was just because they wanted to have their form of government be the boss. I have to plead ignorance of this. Perhaps some world history scholar can supply some details. But it is pretty certain that the idea of democracy did not originate with the Magna Carta.

But my point was that you cannot claim that just because somewhere in history a war was fought for democracy, that we have war to thank for democracy. Wars are fought for lots of reasons. Sometimes war is the only answer. Sometimes it is not.

There is no doubt that wars have changed the course of history, but maybe not as much as people think. Would the US be a country today if they had not fought the Revolutionary war? I strongly suspect they would, simply because they would have become to big to be governed from overseas. Could India have won its independance by going to war? Probably so. Thankfully, it was unneccessary.

 

[rikzilla]

You guys make very good points, but I must disagree. We may as well count how many angels can dance on the head of a pin as opine on alternate, peaceful histories. Also one need not go so far back as ancient Greece, although it is interesting to research the history of democratic thought through the ages. Our modern democracy (the world's oldest) was brought about through the actions of King and Baron in Dark ages England. The Magna Carta brought forth the rule of law to which even the King was bound by. That was a first. Magna Carta brought about the "Great Council" which was the very beginning of Parliament. You can't claim that our democracy has nothing to do with Magna Carta. The MC was the very foundation of the idea of representative government! Until that time the King's whim held the force of law. Without the MC's influence the US Constitution could simply not have been written.

...and yes....the English Barons allied with Prince Llewellyn of Wales brought King John to Runnymeade through force of arms...threat of war...whatever you wish to call it. King John didn't just do it out of the goodness of his heart. He wasn't known for his generosity you know.

-z

 

[rikzilla]

NOTE: thanks guys, this has got to be one of the more interesting thread derails I've ever seen. Wikipedia says this on Magna Carta:

The influence of Magna Carta can be clearly seen in the U.S. Bill of Rights, which enumerates various rights of the people and restrictions on government power, such as:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Article 21 from the Declaration of Rights in the Maryland Constitution of 1776 reads:

That no freeman ought to be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

Wiki also has a very extensive entry entitled: "The History of Democracy" which does indeed go back to the very beginning (ancient Sumeria...2000 years before the Greeks) I'm reading it now and it's interesting stuff.

-pz