War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'
January 12, 2004 9:52 AM   Subscribe

Bounding the Global War on Terrorism

Of particular concern, has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action. The result has been an unnecessary preventive war a against a deterred Iraq that has created a new front in the Middle East for Islamic terrorism and diverted attention and resources away from securing the American homeland against further assault from an undeterrable al-Qaeda. The war against Iraq was not integral to the Global War On Terrorism but rather a detour from it.
Full text: HTML or PDF See also War College Study Calls Iraq a 'Detour'
posted by y2karl (74 comments total)
 
Study Published by Army Criticizes War on Terror's Scope

A scathing new report published by the Army War College broadly criticizes the Bush administration's handling of the war on terrorism, accusing it of taking a detour into an "unnecessary" war in Iraq and pursuing an "unrealistic" quest against terrorism that may lead to U.S. wars with states that pose no serious threat.

The report, by Jeffrey Record, a visiting professor at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama, warns that as a result of those mistakes, the Army is "near the breaking point."

...His essay, published by the Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, carries the standard disclaimer that its views are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Army, the Pentagon or the U.S. government.

But retired Army Col. Douglas C. Lovelace Jr., director of the Strategic Studies Institute, whose Web site carries Record's 56-page monograph, hardly distanced himself from it. "I think that the substance that Jeff brings out in the article really, really needs to be considered," he said.

posted by y2karl at 10:14 AM on January 12, 2004


I do not dispute the over all thesis of this post but it ought to be noted that it is a visiting professor and not "the army" that is saying this.
posted by Postroad at 10:48 AM on January 12, 2004


According to the scholars over at freerepublic, this guy is a communist!
posted by 2sheets at 11:02 AM on January 12, 2004


First paragraph of the linked report:

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.
posted by moonbiter at 11:02 AM on January 12, 2004


I hope this isn't too major a derail, but if you want evidence that the army might be "broken," here's somebody who's not exactly a communist academic who chronicles many of the symptoms of this problem.
posted by alumshubby at 11:13 AM on January 12, 2004


'Record, a veteran defense specialist and author of six books on military strategy and related issues, was an aide to then-Sen. Sam Nunn when the Georgia Democrat was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee'.


Enemies don't attack you where you're strong; they target you where you're weak. Enemies of the United States are not eager to engage us militarily; they saw what happened in Desert Storm. They will attack us where they believe we are vulnerable. Today, we are vulnerable to a biological weapons attack. And it is crucial that we prepare with all possible speed, because if an attack comes, and succeeds, there will be others. Preparing is deterring.

ok so that was then is this now and Record is not Sam Nunn

wait....
"It is absolutely necessary to have multinational cooperation," Nunn says. "No matter how strong America is — and we are the strongest in the world — we cannot protect ourselves against international terrorism without cooperation from other countries in the world."

Sam says we need freinds....

Presidents Bush and Vladimir Putin will be meeting soon in Texas. They could use the occasion to commit each nation to a course of action ensuring that our nuclear weapons and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons materials are safe, secure and accounted for with reciprocal monitoring. Making sure that weapons of mass destruction and materials don't fall into the hands of rogue nations and terrorists is either a priority or an afterthought. If it's an afterthought, after what? What comes before it? If it is a priority, is that reflected in our effort and investment? Are our friends in Asia and Europe doing their share? If not, why not?

why not.....
"Russia has got to be a partner," said Lugar, who 12 years ago was co-author along with then-Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., of the law that authorized the start of the U.S. assistance program on nuclear materials".
posted by clavdivs at 11:22 AM on January 12, 2004


moonbiter: you did read the third paragraph of the first comment? This is why I post text from links--people usually never bother to click on them before spouting off. But not even stopping to read the comments before spouting off? C'mon.
posted by y2karl at 11:23 AM on January 12, 2004


Can you all actually argue some real points against the guy, rather than attacking his credentials, which in any usual time in our history would be considered impeccable by almost everyone here?
posted by raysmj at 11:37 AM on January 12, 2004


y2karl: I did read your comment in the original post. I am also reading the report. I was just pointing something out in response to Postroad's comment. So I wasn't intentionally "spouting off." Especially since the conclusions of the posted essay reiterate the reasons I was opposed to the idiotic "Gulf War 2: The Revenge" in the first place.
posted by moonbiter at 11:45 AM on January 12, 2004


i have been wondering if serious people think that Mr. Bush's policies have made the possibility of a dirty bomb or worse a nuclear device being set off in manhattan or washington dc - more or less likely in the next 10 years? - and are his defenders ready to accept some of the responsibility for it, when it happens? when there are other alternatives to unilateralism and violence?
posted by specialk420 at 11:51 AM on January 12, 2004


more or less likely in the next 10 years?

More.

and are his defenders ready to accept some of the responsibility for it, when it happens?

No. They'll probably blame it on Dean.

when there are other alternatives to unilateralism and violence?

If we can't derive entertainment and profit from violence, then the terrorists have won.
posted by homunculus at 12:04 PM on January 12, 2004


Of particular concern, has been the conflation of al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a single, undifferentiated threat. This was a strategic error of the first order because it ignored critical differences between the two in character, threat level and susceptibility to U.S. deterrence and military action.

This would be important if it were accurate, I guess, but given that there's reason to believe that this administration was seeking war with Iraq before 9-11, I would argue that there has been no real conflation within the administration. Of course, there's the little matter of the administration's deceit on the subject.

That said, I think there's something to the PNAC argument. I disagree with how it was sold to the American public and to the rest of the world and I oppose the unilateral "preemptive" policy of the current administration, but I don't think that any significant change in the Middle East would have occurred without the US taking some drastic measures. It remains to be seen whether this significant change will be good or bad, I think - it's just too soon to tell.

i have been wondering if serious people think that Mr. Bush's policies have made the possibility of a dirty bomb or worse a nuclear device being set off in manhattan or washington dc - more or less likely in the next 10 years?

I don't know that the invasion of Iraq makes this more likely or less likely. Reasonable arguments can be made for both sides.

when there are other alternatives to unilateralism and violence?

Unfortunately, I don't think that there are always other alternatives to violence. I think that the US would remain an Al-Qaida target whether we'd invaded Iraq or not, simply because it suits their long-term goals to demonize the West. I found this article on the subject interesting. (I think I first saw the link to this article on Metafilter, actually.)
posted by me & my monkey at 12:24 PM on January 12, 2004


No. They'll probably blame it on Dean.

Be fair, they'll only blame Dean if he wins the election. If he loses, then they'll fall back to blaming Clinton.
posted by elwoodwiles at 12:37 PM on January 12, 2004


I don't know that the invasion of Iraq makes this more likely or less likely.

really?

despite some of the positives of having saddam gone, don't you think iraq has been a recruiting boon for al queda?

and make the possibility of some lightly guarded uranium from the former soviet union/pakistan etc... falling into the hands of those who wish the US ill.

i hope something of this sort doesn't happen on our shores

- I'm convinced that the policies of mr. bush have made them much more likely - without even going into discussions of whether the bush teams policies exacerbating nuclear proliferation and the control of legacy weapons grade nuclear material on the back burner (or forgotten completely).
posted by specialk420 at 12:49 PM on January 12, 2004


I don't know that the invasion of Iraq makes [a dirty nuke in Manhatten] more likely or less likely. Reasonable arguments can be made for both sides.

I'd like to hear the reasonable argument for "more safe." As far as I know, Iraq hasn't been filled with anti-American terrorists these past ten years or so. Indeed, the entire country didn't have a pot to piss in, much less a dirty nuke and a suicide movement to carry out such a dastardly plan.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:01 PM on January 12, 2004


well there are probably at 8,000 plus extended iraqi families that would like to get a little payback - someday
posted by specialk420 at 1:08 PM on January 12, 2004


I'd like to hear the reasonable argument for "more safe." As far as I know, Iraq hasn't been filled with anti-American terrorists these past ten years or so. Indeed, the entire country didn't have a pot to piss in, much less a dirty nuke and a suicide movement to carry out such a dastardly plan.

If all those anti-American terrorists are in Iraq, they're not in Manhattan. Think Khobar Towers vs WTC. They can be engaged as enemy combatants, by soldiers instead of police.

well there are probably at 8,000 plus extended iraqi families that would like to get a little payback - someday

Maybe so, but 9-11 demonstrated there need be no correlation between personal loss and terrorist action. There is a sizable group of people in the world who hate America (and the West in general) simply because of what we represent. Many of these Western values are the ones most dearly held by the left-leaning MeFi populace - equality, human rights, secularism. No amount of multilateralism or nonviolence on our part will prevent that, I suspect.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:20 PM on January 12, 2004


me & my monkey: Then we should all just give up, and bomb the shit of everything? Drop the big one and see what happens, what? I think the author was trying to say that the fundamentals of international relations have not changed due to Sept. 11 - just as, say, the Internet did not create a "new economy" in which a failure to make real money didn't matter. That was then and this is now, but restraint and focus still matter. Sept. 11 required a creative response, but not a bull-in-a-China-shop one.
posted by raysmj at 1:30 PM on January 12, 2004


Then we should all just give up, and bomb the shit of everything? Drop the big one and see what happens, what?

What kind of response do you want to that? No one's "bomb[ing] the shit of everything." There are lots of useful and potentially valid arguments against the invasion of Iraq, but that's not one of them. It's worth remembering that many people thought we'd be able to build an international coalition in support of that very goal!

I think the author was trying to say that the fundamentals of international relations have not changed due to Sept. 11

I thought the author was simply making the case that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a useful step in fighting al-Qaeda.

Sept. 11 required a creative response, but not a bull-in-a-China-shop one.

What would you have done? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but since you offered the need for a "creative response" I figured you might have had something in mind.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:41 PM on January 12, 2004


me and monkey: Thomas Friedman makes exactly that case today at Slate. (As for the rest, I've read a least a couple of interviews with IR specialists who recommended a more focused limited military action in Afghanistan, but it would take me a while to find them. The author also addresses how he thinks Homeland Security should've been approached, etc.)

The real reason for this war—which was never stated—was to burst what I would call the "terrorism bubble," which had built up during the 1990s.

This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as "martyrs," and donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something—to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society. Yes, I know, it's not very diplomatic—it's not in the rule book—but everyone in the neighborhood got the message: Henceforth, you will be held accountable. Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could—period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them.

posted by raysmj at 1:55 PM on January 12, 2004


Dr. Record is the author of numerous books including The Wrong War, Why We Lost in Vietnam (Annapolis, MD: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1998); Serbia and Vietnam, A Preliminary Comparison of US Decisions to Use Force (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College, 1999); Perils of Reasoning by Historical Analogy: Munich, Vietnam, and American Use of Force Since 1945 (Maxwell Air Force Base, AL: Center for Strategy and Technology, Air War College 1998); co-author of NATO Enlargement: Two Views (Atlanta, GA: Center for International Strategy, Technology mad Policy, 1997); and Ready for What and Modernized Against Whom?

Apparently, according to this guy the Army never gets it right.
posted by techgnollogic at 2:06 PM on January 12, 2004


What would you have done? I don't mean to put you on the spot, but since you offered the need for a "creative response" I figured you might have had something in mind.


... well, for starters - i wouldn't have done something that INCREASES the likelyhood of another catastrophic attack on US soil or it's allies - which it's hard to imagine anyone with a straight face not believing is the case currently.

the multi-lateral, UN backed approach in afganistan - had (perhaps has) a chance to be a success which included a minimal amount of further flaming the fans of terrorism - our unilateral (unless you include bulgaria and the other rag-tag coalition members) attack on iraq on the other hand has done just the opposite - we didn't need to rush into iraq.
posted by specialk420 at 2:27 PM on January 12, 2004


arghh, moonbiter--my apologies.

Apparently, according to this guy the Army never gets it right.

Viet Nam, Iraq II and NATO's defensive posture after the collapse of the Soviet Union are not everything not gotten right, techgnollogic but rather three things very arguably not gotten right. And perhaps consider not attacking the messenger if you can't respond to the message on points. Record's opinions are a lot more substantiated than yours.

Jeffrey Record was an aide to Senator Sam Nunn, the former Senate Armed Sevices Committee chairman--you know, the guy who, along with Richard Lugar, has been beating the We Have To Secure Those Loose Russian Nukes drum for the last few years? So, Iraq or a black market suitcase nuke--which did and does pose the greater terrorist threat to the United States, hmm?

If a purloined tactical warhead is ever detonated within our borders, do remember this comment. And don't try to blame it on Clinton if it happens, OK? It's been on Republican dime for the last three years.
posted by y2karl at 2:30 PM on January 12, 2004


More like 15 of the last 23 years.
posted by squirrel at 3:09 PM on January 12, 2004


... well, for starters - i wouldn't have done something that INCREASES the likelyhood of another catastrophic attack on US soil or it's allies - which it's hard to imagine anyone with a straight face not believing is the case currently.

Well, for starters, saying what you wouldn't do isn't the same as saying what you would do. Personally, I don't believe that invading Iraq has made one whit of difference, positive or negative, in how secure the US homeland is. It may affect homeland security in the future, but I really don't think it has so far.

I guess it's hard for you to accept that someone might not see things as you do, with a straight face. But there you go - it happens all the time!

If a purloined tactical warhead is ever detonated within our borders, do remember this comment. And don't try to blame it on Clinton if it happens, OK? It's been on Republican dime for the last three years.

Yes, I'm sure to remember that. When DC or NYC is a smoking ruin, I'll know who to blame.

Seriously though, do you really think things are as simple as that? Dealing with Russian nukes has NEVER had the priority Lugar thinks it deserves, for various reasons, since the fall of the Soviet Union. Is this Bush's fault? Is it Clinton's fault? Is it the shared fault of the executive and legislative branches since 1992? There's plenty of blame to go around, I suspect.
posted by me & my monkey at 4:11 PM on January 12, 2004


And perhaps consider not attacking the messenger if you can't respond to the message on points.

you got it karl. I have had some browser problems with the HTML and the PDF is 404.

So, Record mentions Callwells 'Small Wars' as an example that to win against guerilla/terrorist forces, one must not hobble the army by chasing a few 'solders'. Also, the government, who is fighting these insurgents, must have a good plan on defeating them if it be by arms or other means. Sound about right cause i'm not going to reload those natty fucking link that crashed me browser. (boo-hoo)

Record feels we have no if any plan, extending our arms to far and pissing away the good will of our friends.

So, does Record detail what Callwell recommends to fight these insurgents?

Callwell gives the example of Abd el Kader to formulate a plan to defeat these insurgents. To sum up, Kader was raiding the french for years, no one could catch him, the french coffers where draining until the French brought in Gen Bugeaud. (VIV!)

"He perceived that he had to deal not with a hostile army but with a hostile population, that this population consisted largely of clans and tribes of fixed abode, and that to bring them to reason he must reach them through their crops, their flocks, and their property."

-Callwell, 'Small Wars', pg 128-129.

also he mentions the French revolution as a starting point for modern state terrorism (i say it was vlad dracul) but again the bug-a-boo of what is terror rears its head. the french, for the most reveled in terror, and those who did not did what was ordered, be terrified. Robespierre thought it was a virtue. So he had to delude the people (he and others) to think that terror would save them, purify them to defeat the enemy home and abroad.

what makes this more insidious was the actions(or lack of) of Danton. He created the committees and saw that they became worse then anything the king did. he tried to stop the terror but could not, it was beyond his control.

so karl do you see any comparison between Arafat and Danton?
posted by clavdivs at 5:31 PM on January 12, 2004


I see another argument for keeping downer cows out of the food chain.
posted by y2karl at 6:22 PM on January 12, 2004


She has the Sight, and due to an acute presentiment of evil, she can never be deceived or caught off guard. You want her watching your back.

-Pigdog Journal
posted by clavdivs at 6:28 PM on January 12, 2004


And perhaps consider not attacking the messenger if you can't respond to the message on points. >

-YrUahypocrite

posted by clavdivs at 6:30 PM on January 12, 2004


So this is the latest in a string of criticism coming from unexpected sources (i.e: military, and republican)...Is it having any effect? Are people still believing that we had to go to Iraq, and the Osama/Saddam connection bs, etc?
posted by amberglow at 6:40 PM on January 12, 2004


clavdivs--you can't read the post and you provide the usual incomprehensible commentary. How to respond...

A. Download Adobe Acrobat. If you have and can't access the PDF, I am someone reading this will cut-and-paste the article to a Word document and email it to you--that is, if you really want to read it. Mind you, though, that most members don't have the automatic English to ancient Sumerian to Heian Japanese to Finnish to English machine translation feature you seem to favor.

B. Jeffrey Record was interviewed on the PRI radio program To The Point today. Now if that doesn't work for you--and that's the RA file for the program, which works for me in preview--here is the the To The Point website. Perhaps it will be re-broadcast in your area.
posted by y2karl at 7:51 PM on January 12, 2004


"If all those anti-American terrorists are in Iraq, they're not in Manhattan. Think Khobar Towers vs WTC. They can be engaged as enemy combatants, by soldiers instead of police." - As far as I can tell, this talking point was first generated by either Karl Rove, David Frum, or Richard Perle. I have heard GW Bush use it within the last 24 hours. He had it well memorized.

Logic is not the point of this particular meme. In fact, it shrivels under the light of scrutiny.

Think about it : hatred of the US fuels the recruitment of terrorists to attack American and pro-western interests. But the actions of the US, under the GW Bush Administration, have led to a dramatic upwelling of this hatred, especially among Muslims. Unfortunately, the supply of new terrorist recruits is not especially limited. I suspect that there are more than enough, now being recruited, to both engage the US troops in Iraq and also plot attacks against US interests elsewhere.

Furthermore, the "better confronted in Iraq" claim is itself absurd - if the situation in Iraq degenerates, the consequent blowback will most likely be far worse than that blowback which resulted from the US support of the anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980's. If substantial foreign elements augment the native anti-US insurgents in Iraq, the result will probably be a hell-hole for all concerned.

And the Iraqis, all 30 million, will blame the Americans - as will most of the 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe.

Perhaps this is what Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their minions desire - a festering Iraq which could provoke, eventually, greater terrorism or even some wider regional war which would serve to justify the Manichean wet dream rhetoric of the Neocons, of needing to fight World War 3 to bring about an "end to Evil".

If Bush is re-elected in '04 and these neocon crusaders (fighting to purge the world of their own, and everyone's instinctual human nature) prevail in their course......

A hard rain's gonna fall....

Then again, GW Bush and his pals never were much for Dylan. Judging by their religious rhetoric though, they at least should have read Revelations. So :

A hard rain's gonna fall....
posted by troutfishing at 7:56 PM on January 12, 2004


frankly, I just wanna see how much rationalizing, justification and weaseling the "opposition" actually can do, so far 'they' have done far better then I thought..

I thought the smoking gun would be Iraq and Al Quiada not having relations, Then no WDMs (other than Texas) then I thought for sure the Perle (or was or Wolfowitz) Neo-Con jizz-fest Takeover Iraq, Iran, France?!?! Fantasy. (Forgetting France HAS F**KING NUKES)

......But NO!!!! they dashed All current records and we find "classified" docs stating Bush Wanted a War at all costs and for ANY reason.. YET STILL we have doubters and or loyal worshippers.. Good God, start building the camps, (OH we already have them!) and next the ovens...

Jesus, maybe I can get land on that Island off on NZ... seems it might be safer there...
posted by Elim at 8:24 PM on January 12, 2004


and are his defenders ready to accept some of the responsibility for it, when it happens?

No. They'll probably blame it on Dean

-----------
If a purloined tactical warhead is ever detonated within our borders, do remember this comment. And don't try to blame it on Clinton if it happens, OK? It's been on Republican dime for the last three years.
-----------

I've always found comments such as these to be peculiar. I'm somewhat of a conservative ... and have seen several acts of terrorism against the US over the past decade or so, both abroad (the Cole bombing, the US Embassy bombing & etc.) and here in the US (the WTC bombing in 93 and on 9/11). In all of those instances, when it came to "blaming" some party or parties, the first thing that always came to mind has been, er, - the fucking terrorists.

That's who's to blame folks. I've seen article after article, discussion after discussion talking about the failures of the intelligence community, of this policy or that policy, this administration or that administration, of this preventative measure versus that one ... and every single one of those somehow studiously avoids assigning the blame for terrorist acts to those that commit them.

Clinton was not to "blame" for the 1993 WTC bombing. Bush is not to "blame" for 9/11. If a dirty bomb or a chemical weapon is detonated in the US, it will not be "conservatives" that are to blame, nor "liberals" (if they are the majority party at the time). It will be the fucking terrorists.

The core issue is one that strikes at the root of the beliefs of western society (liberal or conservative). We are faced with people who want only destruction. Fanatacism at levels utterly cold, calculating, and brutal. They would kill all of us on this discussion board without a second thought. In fact, they would believe that the very concept of this MeFi discussion board - with its open and perfectly free exchange of ideas between men and women of diverse perspectives - is itself enough to justify our status as "infidels".

It is much easier to avoid even looking at that dark corridor of the human heart, much easier to "blame" some policy, or western leader, and avoid even talking about the central issue. But there IS only one central issue:

There is small core of people in the Muslim world that want to bring our entire civilization down, would kill or destroy anything they need to in order to do so, and none of the fine academic theories or nuanced discussions mean anything to them. They do not want to take over New York (and certainly do not want to run elections there), they just want to destroy it. The niceties of standard diplomacy mean nothing. Gandhian non-violence tactics wouldn't even appear on their radar screens. Total capitulation might temporarily stop plans (i.e., the Saudis and other governments even mildly favoring the US would need to step down. Israel would need to be left defenseless, and allowed to be destroyed, and all western influence would need to leave the middle east). Even then, it would simply mean permitting a much more extensive power base to be built.

Clinton tried a number of approaches (including most of those Bush is accused of not trying ... multilateralism, appeasement, and diplomacy). They did not work. Bush is trying another approach. It very well may not work. But neither Bush nor Clinton are to blame.

They aren't having think tank discussions at Army Colleges over the correct emphasis for the military, nor have passionate debates prior to the caucuses for free elections, nor spending hours debating on discussion boards. They are sitting in houses and caves, right now, figuring out how to kill you.

You want to blame someone for terrorism? Blame the fucking terrorists.
posted by MidasMulligan at 8:36 PM on January 12, 2004


How about blaming someone for devoting money, resources, and lives in invading and occupying a country that isn't a breeder of terrorists, and withdrawing those resources from a country that is? And then there's Saudi Arabia....
posted by amberglow at 8:46 PM on January 12, 2004


If we suffer another terrorist attack and--how are we doing on protecting our nuclear and chemical plants? How on top of inspecting those container ships coming into our ports are we again?--Americans die because we focused the bulk of our military and intelligence assets on an elective war against a deterred threat, there is blame to be found on the part of the officials who initiated this needless war.
posted by y2karl at 8:50 PM on January 12, 2004


Logic is not the point of this particular meme. In fact, it shrivels under the light of scrutiny.

So you say, but all I see from you (or me, for that matter) is speculation. The difference between us seems to be that I recognize the speculatory nature of this discussion.

Think about it : hatred of the US fuels the recruitment of terrorists to attack American and pro-western interests. But the actions of the US, under the GW Bush Administration, have led to a dramatic upwelling of this hatred, especially among Muslims. Unfortunately, the supply of new terrorist recruits is not especially limited. I suspect that there are more than enough, now being recruited, to both engage the US troops in Iraq and also plot attacks against US interests elsewhere.

Really? Got any numbers to back this up? No? Well then, it's no better than my guess.

Think about it: modern warfare (even asymmetric warfare like terrorism and guerrilla warfare) is highly dependent on logistics. Al-Qaeda is subject to limitations just like we are, and I suspect that Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan are keeping them quite occupied. They need training, money, and all the other resources involved in fighting a war. It's worth noting that there are certain logistical limitations inherent in suicide attacks. The US obviously has a tremendous edge when it comes to logistics.

Furthermore, the "better confronted in Iraq" claim is itself absurd - if the situation in Iraq degenerates, the consequent blowback will most likely be far worse than that blowback which resulted from the US support of the anti-Soviet rebels in Afghanistan in the 1980's. If substantial foreign elements augment the native anti-US insurgents in Iraq, the result will probably be a hell-hole for all concerned.

You most likely are either right or wrong. Beyond that, though, I can't tell, and neither can you, since we don't have a time machine handy. Of course, we actually have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting these people, which is a little different than the results of the CIA supporting Afghan mujahedeen. And for all I know, substantial foreign elements have already augmented the native insurgents.

And the Iraqis, all 30 million, will blame the Americans

Except for the Kurds, of course, who love us to death, and a significant number of Shiites.

as will most of the 1.5 billion Muslims around the globe.

Yeah, those Muslims are one big homogenous undifferentiated group, I guess.
posted by me & my monkey at 8:52 PM on January 12, 2004


If we suffer another terrorist attack and--how are we doing on protecting our nuclear and chemical plants? How on top of inspecting those container ships coming into our ports are we again?--Americans die because we focused the bulk of our military and intelligence assets on an elective war against a deterred threat, there is blame to be found on the part of the officials who initiated this needless war.

In general, I agree with you on this. However, we're almost certainly focusing more military and intelligence assets on terrorist threats than we were before 9-11.

Personally, though, I think that attempting to prevent attacks through defensive measures - protecting plants and container ships - is a near-hopeless cause in a relatively free country.
posted by me & my monkey at 8:57 PM on January 12, 2004


Hey M&M Monkey, the sky is usually freaking bleue...."Really? Got any numbers to back this up? No? Well then, it's no better than my guess."

Gee Wally I guess you win...

you can lead a mule to water but you can't make him understand its water..
How many other Savants we got in here?
God this gets old..
posted by Elim at 9:02 PM on January 12, 2004


Hey M&M Monkey, the sky is usually freaking bleue....How many other Savants we got in here? God this gets old..

Well, that's a convincing argument. It must be nice to have such complete and perfect knowledge of world affairs. I bow to your superior intellect.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:18 PM on January 12, 2004




Personally, though, I think that attempting to prevent attacks through defensive measures - protecting plants and container ships - is a near-hopeless cause in a relatively free country.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Doesn't mean we should distract ourselves fighting a conventional war against a disarmed and deterred country just because we don't like them. Doesn't mean we should be pissing all over our allies when we need them more than ever.

Instead of spending $4 billion a month in Iraq, we should be spending $4 billion a month figuring out how to better fight the distributed threat that is 4th generation war. We should spending that money on retraining, repurposing, and rearming our troops to fight this new fight. We should spending that money on improving our intelligence and law enforcement techniques. We should be spending that money cultivating international friendships and partnerships.
posted by moonbiter at 9:32 PM on January 12, 2004


Sidney Blumenthal:

Richard Clarke was Director of Counter-Terrorism in the National Security Council. He has since left. Clark urgently tried to draw the attention of the Bush administration to the threat of al Qaeda. Right at the present, the Bush administration is trying to withhold documents from the 9/11 bipartisan commission. I believe one of the things that they do not want to be known is what happened on August 6, 2001. It was on that day that George W. Bush received his last, and one of the few, briefings on terrorism. I believe he told Richard Clarke that he didn't want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible.

The public has a right to know what happened on August 6, what Bush did, what Condi Rice did, what all the rest of them did, and what Richard Clarke's memos and statements were. Then the public will be able to judge exactly what this presidency has done.


I thought I read that Richard Clarke has a book about his experiences in the Bush administration coming out soon, too. Now there's where the shit will really hit the fan.
posted by y2karl at 9:37 PM on January 12, 2004


Here's the original question we've been discussing:

"i have been wondering if serious people think that Mr. Bush's policies have made the possibility of a dirty bomb or worse a nuclear device being set off in manhattan or washington dc - more or less likely in the next 10 years?"

Now, this is from your second link:

"U.S. officials are warning that large-scale terrorist attacks on coalition forces and other targets in Iraq could increase in the wake of the car bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad last week."

Read that carefully. None of the links you posted had anything to do with terrorist attacks on US soil, except for the one which talked about what Saddam Hussein might do. Here's a clue: "United States" is not spelled "I-R-A-Q". Remember, Reading Is Fundamental!
posted by me & my monkey at 9:41 PM on January 12, 2004


me & my monkey - how do you reckon the Iraqis feel about being human shields?
posted by mcsweetie at 9:48 PM on January 12, 2004


If we suffer another terrorist attack and--how are we doing on protecting our nuclear and chemical plants? How on top of inspecting those container ships coming into our ports are we again?--Americans die because we focused the bulk of our military and intelligence assets on an elective war against a deterred threat, there is blame to be found on the part of the officials who initiated this needless war.

Ok ... then blame Clinton. He knew about, and had several opportunities to either capture or kill Bin Laden. He didn't (though he now blames Bush for not taking his administration's briefings about it seriously enough). So are Clinton officials "responsible" for 9/11?

Clinton also thought Hussain was a threat - and in fact thought (and quite publicly stated) that Hussain had WMD.

Furthermore, the skills you're talking about are not transferrable, and the trade-off you are trying to imply is simply bogus. The Army units sweeping Tikrit for Baath party members are not those that would be responsible for securing a nuclear power plant. (And actually, protection at nuclear and chemical facilities is considerably better than it was prior to 9/11). Simply because 9/11 happened does not mean we take our entire military and focus it on Al Qaeda for goodness sake.

Furthermore, you could quadruple the size of our military, put even man and woman in it on the inspection of container ships, and still only search a small fraction of the cargo coming into the US. What you are talking about is one of the issues discussed (and argued about) pretty seriously in military circles right now. Your solutions amount to using the logic of conventional warfare (for instance, equating the manpower in one place to a shortage of manpower in another).

What our military planners are faced with, however, is "asynchronous" warfare, and it is not enough to take the same approaches that were common during the cold war between nations with large militaries. These people do not want to take cities over, or occupy them. They simply want to destroy them, and kill as many people as possible. If every man, woman and child in the US were put on the task, we still could not guard every bit of cargo, every aquifer and power plant, subway and airplane.

It is more likely to be the tactical and intelligent use of the right skills in the right places (not numbers of people, but a few of the right kinds of people in each circumstance), changes in tactics and procedures, joint public/private sector cooperation, better means of evaluating and linking intelligence information, and other such methods that can somewhat defend against asynchronous warfare.

But the thing is, while we do already know of a number of things that don't work, NO ONE yet knows what does. Clinton did honestly try a number of things. But they didn't work. Bush and Ashcroft are trying a number of different things. They may or may not work. Seems like a few folks here want to make certain (beforehand) that Bush gets blamed for (the inevitable) future attacks on the US.

I believe this is wrong. Bush will not be to blame. I don't think Clinton is to blame either. And won't think Clark or Gephardt or Dean will be to blame if they are in office. Everyone that holds the presidency does try to do the best (according to their own perspectives) for this country. But Clinton, Bush, and future Presidents were, and will be faced with a particularly rough issue: Asynchronous warfare is something no one has yet figured out how to defend against.

There will be future terrorist acts on our soil - regardless of who is in office. The nature, mentality, and tactics of the people that want to destroy our civilization cannot be defended against with 100% certainty, given the nature of the western world's open societies.

The problem, however, is not "liberal" or "conservative" governments in free democratic societies. It is terrorism (that is rooted in societies that are most definitely not free and democratic). And when the next attack happens, it will not be because of officials in the administration of whomever is in power at the time. It will be because of the fucking terrorists.
posted by MidasMulligan at 9:52 PM on January 12, 2004


Good, at least your starting to listen to reason...

Yes My comment was Snarky and rather snippy, but it illustrate perfectly how some need more and more and more from one side and still will not make a true point.
speculation with some Info is a good bet in most cases, !00% certain never being possible a good general guess is the best any have, Attacking someone for speculating with good evidence is pointless and can seem weak

About Muslims, no not all are one homogenous group, BUT that doesn't stop some (not pointing at you) from trying to make it seem so.. That being said, I tend to agree Attacking Muslims ain't gonna make a lot of muslim friends and is more likely to do just the opposite, (Occam's Razor applies here)

You want numbers, find the freaking numbers yourself, we both have the internet, and Papers but please don't think we wanna do your job of info finding if your either are to lazy or embarrassed or just plain don't care enough to find out for your self BUT make noises at others who actually do read the freaking news, I believe you did not intend it to come off that way, but I needed to get this off my chest.
No this atleast You have not so much upset me as a lot of folks here and the Meatspace lately, so much ask for me more and more numbers, info, whatever, and when that is done, still not enough. weak...

-/rant-
posted by Elim at 9:52 PM on January 12, 2004


Maybe, maybe not. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

I agree that we should take defensive measures. I simply don't think that by themselves, they'll be enough.

Doesn't mean we should distract ourselves fighting a conventional war against a disarmed and deterred country just because we don't like them.

Whether you support the administration or not, it's naive to think that we invaded Iraq because "we don't like them."

y2karl: you're quoting Sidney Blumenthal about what he thinks happened in Bush's Oval Office?

"I believe he told Richard Clarke that he didn't want to be briefed on this again, even though Clarke was panicked about the alarms he was hearing regarding potential attacks. Bush was blithe, indifferent, ultimately irresponsible."

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that he'd say anything negative about Bush! But I am impressed by his ability to discuss Bush's attitude about the briefing without having even been there himself.
posted by me & my monkey at 9:58 PM on January 12, 2004


again you miss the point, you asked for info on if terrorism gre after Iraq and or if we knew it I provivded that, then you argue that wasn't to point? why ask the question?

See:
I suspect that there are more than enough, now being recruited, to both engage the US troops in Iraq and also plot attacks against US interests elsewhere.

Really? Got any numbers to back this up? No? Well then, it's no better than my guess.


Unfortunatly I had some info to support it...

or did you not want to see it?
as for your point if outside terrorism is not a threat to the US mainland, (Good Luck) then either of the wars is really unwarrented, isn't it?

if it is a threat to the US then mostlikely (according to the even USGov under bush) then at least the Iraq war is stupid as a move to curb terrorism., in fact it seems according to then self defeating.. so certainly a quandry isnt it? Logic fails to explain...

M7M Monkey: Honest question; Why was this war fought in your opinion. Not the results no numbers no icriminations, not how you or I feel, but why do YOU think it was fought?
posted by Elim at 10:04 PM on January 12, 2004


ArgH I though I spell checked,, My fickle fingers
posted by Elim at 10:05 PM on January 12, 2004


me & my monkey - how do you reckon the Iraqis feel about being human shields?

Oh, I have no idea. I doubt that most of them see it that way, anyway. But in any case, it's irrelevant to the argument that I was making, which is simply that we don't know whether invading Iraq increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks on US soil.

Good, at least your starting to listen to reason..

That's funny, as my position hasn't changed one whit.

Attacking someone for speculating with good evidence is pointless and can seem weak

But you don't have ANY EVIDENCE! Don't you get that? You just THINK it's more likely? Why do you think this?

That being said, I tend to agree Attacking Muslims ain't gonna make a lot of muslim friends and is more likely to do just the opposite, (Occam's Razor applies here)

I'd venture that attacking Sunnis may make Shiite friends, actually. So much for Occam's razor.

You want numbers, find the freaking numbers yourself, we both have the internet, and Papers but please don't think we wanna do your job of info finding if your either are to lazy or embarrassed or just plain don't care enough to find out for your self BUT make noises at others who actually do read the freaking news, I believe you did not intend it to come off that way, but I needed to get this off my chest.

Well, I'm glad you feel better. But you're still missing my point.

My point is that THERE ARE NO NUMBERS that you can look at to determine this. We may never know whether the US was more or less safe than before invading Iraq. You're clearly stating that we're less safe, but you can't demonstrate that beyond saying that you have a hunch, basically. I'm saying that things aren't that simple and demonstrable.

As for the rest of your questions, I would simply recommend that you read the thread slowly and carefully, from top to bottom. If you do this, you will find most of your questions answered, I think. (Hint: I am not a supporter of the war or the administration.) Good night!
posted by me & my monkey at 10:16 PM on January 12, 2004


Well, Thought I'd try, no point to this, I guess sheer Stubborness wins out, So where is that mule again?

I too need sleep, will we agree on this.
posted by Elim at 10:22 PM on January 12, 2004


Whether you support the administration or not, it's naive to think that we invaded Iraq because "we don't like them."

This is undoubtably true, although that would probably have been just as good a reason as the stated ones we were given as justification for the war.

Who knows? Maybe, when this is all said and done we will have:
  • Secured the natural resources we wanted,
  • pacifed the Muslims and made the region more America- and Israel-friendly,
  • drawn all the terrorists in the world to Iraq so our soldiers can kill them,
  • imposed capitalism, free enterprise, and democracy upon the entire region through force of arms.
But for some reason I don't think it will turn out that way.
posted by moonbiter at 10:42 PM on January 12, 2004


1.Record mentions Callwells 'Small Wars' as an example that to win against guerilla/terrorist forces, one must not hobble the army by chasing a few 'solders'. Also, the government, who is fighting these insurgents, must have a good plan on defeating them if it be by arms or other means

is this true karl, answer the question, do not wait for a translation.

2.So, does Record detail what Callwell recommends to fight these insurgents?

I did read the article karl, did you? Do you understand Records use of Callwell? or will you just flummox this question with "I do not understand". Because i do not think you understand Callwell.

3.Callwell gives the example of Abd el Kader to formulate a plan to defeat these insurgents. To sum up, Kader was raiding the french for years, no one could catch him, the french coffers where draining until the French brought in Gen. Bugeaud

sorry, forgot the period. Do you understand that karl.

4.
"He perceived that he had to deal not with a hostile army but with a hostile population, that this population consisted largely of clans and tribes of fixed abode, and that to bring them to reason he must reach them through their crops, their flocks, and their property."

-Callwell, 'Small Wars', pg 128-129.

i did not write that karl, i quoted, it is the example Callwell gives (just one) on how the west fought insurgents/terrorists.

forget the french stuff, i could have written it better but my point is made.


my argument is that
Record is wrong...follow me karl...wrong to use Callwell as an example of conducting irregular warfare without giving historical examples to bolster his claim.

Americans die because we focused the bulk of our military and intelligence assets on an elective war against a deterred threat

? do you mean americans died because we diverted solders to iraq or they will die.... do you have any names or instances of this occurrence. Oh you mean the solders who WENT to iraq to fight the dictator who killed his people?

is there any part of this you do not understand karl.
if so, you need the help, not I.
posted by clavdivs at 9:31 AM on January 13, 2004


There is small core of people in the Muslim world that want to bring our entire civilization down, would kill or destroy anything they need to in order to do so, and none of the fine academic theories or nuanced discussions mean anything to them.

Spoken like true texan.

What are the real causes of terrorism - if that loose nuke or that dirty bomb goes off in a great place like New York City ... some of us with half a brain will again ask ourselves why? It's far to simple to march in lock step with the idiotic mantra that "the evildoers hate our freedoms".

The real reasons are much more complex and require a much more complex approach to prevent the unthinkable from happening here and elsewhere.


"Those I interviewed cite many reasons for choosing a life of holy war, and I came to despair of identifying a single root cause of terrorism. But the variable that came up most frequently was not poverty or human-rights abuses, but perceived humiliation. Humiliation emerged at every level of the terrorist groups I studied — leaders and followers."

This, as the initial post notes, is not being dealt with by the administration, and in fact as I and others have noted - is in fact being made worse by this administrations aggressive, invade, kill and convert policies - perceived or otherwise.
posted by specialk420 at 9:39 AM on January 13, 2004


But the variable that came up most frequently was not poverty or human-rights abuses, but perceived humiliation. Humiliation emerged at every level of the terrorist groups I studied — leaders and followers.

Violence is a way to strengthen support for the organization and the movement it represents.

perhaps both sides can turn humiliation into humility.
posted by clavdivs at 9:58 AM on January 13, 2004


I thought this war was about the Iraqi people, the much-loved Iraqi people. Isn't it kind of mean to turn their country into a giant terrorist mousetrap?

There is small core of people in the Muslim world that want to bring our entire civilization down, would kill or destroy anything they need to in order to do so, and none of the fine academic theories or nuanced discussions mean anything to them.

I agree completely. I also think there is a small core of people in the Western World who want to destroy the 3rd world in order to enrich themselves by plundering natural resources. These greedy, murderous men would kill or destroy anything they need in order to do so, and none of the fine academic theories or nuanced discussions mean nothing to them.

The best solution would be to get rid of both of these groups, because neither serves the interests of their people or the world. But there seems to be something inside a lot of people all over the world that only respects force, and admires those who take what they want (or at least try).
posted by cell divide at 10:18 AM on January 13, 2004


Linking to the Ann Coulter editorial is way way over the top, SpecialK420 but the Jessica Stern link is on target. I did a typically multi-link post about her as well. Terrorism is her field of expertise.

We are faced with people who want only destruction. Fanatacism at levels utterly cold, calculating, and brutal. They would kill all of us on this discussion board without a second thought.

At least, we were spared the all CAPS this time.

You know, there are people who actually study terrorism, like Jessica Stern, linked in SpecialK420's comment and myself in the paragraph above--people who think about terrorism with some rigor--and they don't spout yards of empty rhetoric laden with Hate-evil-utterly cold and all those comic book villain pejoratives in talking about the phenomenom.

They actually have something intelligent, concrete and detailed to offer in the way of insight and suggestions.
posted by y2karl at 11:08 AM on January 13, 2004


They actually have something intelligent, concrete and detailed to offer in the way of insight and suggestions.

people actually study terrorism
really, they study it. wow.

who think about terrorism with some rigor--and they don't spout yards of empty rhetoric laden

unlike yourself.

comic book villain pejoratives in talking about the phenomenon.

what is a comic book villain.
what phenomenon

At least, we were spared the all CAPS this time.

CAPS spared? what do you mean karl.

you can't answer because you do not know anything worthy of discussion beyond what you link and hardly anything concerning that.

I'm your new partner in cogency karl.
posted by clavdivs at 12:54 PM on January 13, 2004


We are faced with people who want only destruction. Fanatacism at levels utterly cold, calculating, and brutal. They would kill all of us on this discussion board without a second thought.

At least, we were spared the all CAPS this time.

You know, there are people who actually study terrorism, like Jessica Stern, linked in SpecialK420's comment and myself in the paragraph above--people who think about terrorism with some rigor--and they don't spout yards of empty rhetoric laden with Hate-evil-utterly cold and all those comic book villain pejoratives in talking about the phenomenom.

They actually have something intelligent, concrete and detailed to offer in the way of insight and suggestions.


I suggest that you acknowledge the quite large germ of truth in the "rhetoric-laden" statement above - it doesn't take a scholar of terrorism to see it. The 9-11 attackers weren't disenfranchised Palestinians, they were sons of privilege from Saudi Arabia. Yet they executed a very demanding plan, requiring a great degree of coordination, training and discipline - knowing they would certainly die in its execution. The goal of their plan was to destroy buildings and kill noncombatants in large numbers, and I doubt they had any compunction about slitting a stewardess' throat or two along the way. I'm sorry, but if you don't think that requires cold, brutal fanaticism, I'd hate to see what bloodthirsty act does.

My suggestion, which I at least deem intelligent and concrete, if not detailed, is that we should not assume that everyone can be peacefully coaxed into coexistence with Western civilization. We will face opponents who can't be swayed by reason as we perceive it.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:57 PM on January 13, 2004




We can, however, drain the lake in which they swim, rather than repeat slogans. Providing secular educational opportunities to the madrassahs in the Muslim world would be a concrete step in the long term. Ensuring a just solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict would be another. Ill considered invasions to set up pipe dream puppet "democracies" are not.

There are plenty of slogans being thrown from all directions here.

I would agree with your first two suggestions, although I'm not sure what a just solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict would be, exactly - I suspect that there would still be plenty of pissed folks on both sides of that line, no matter what the solution.

As for whether changing the government in Iraq will make any difference, the jury's still out on that, I think. It's premature to call it a "pipe dream."
posted by me & my monkey at 5:36 PM on January 13, 2004


We can, however, drain the lake in which they swim, rather than repeat slogans.

is that a percise military term...is it a military action? You want to take action, force schools to teach secularism...who is going to enforce that karl. That sounds like cia/military/neocon thinking.

Ill considered invasions to set up pipe dream puppet "democracies" are not.

We need to undermine that message.
posted by clavdivs at 6:36 PM on January 13, 2004


''In five minutes we start bombing clavdivs.''
posted by y2karl at 9:33 PM on January 13, 2004


Sudden thought:

Imagine stavrosthewonderchicken scrolling on to that.

Priceless...
posted by y2karl at 9:36 PM on January 13, 2004


ya, funny. name drop stavs. thats good and reasoned. (sorry stavs)

We can, however, drain the lake in which they swim, rather than repeat slogans.

drain the lake
by karl.
posted by clavdivs at 9:27 AM on January 14, 2004


It's not so much draining the lake, as it is to give them a whole bunch of lakes, I think...giving them options -- which is not a military thing, but a social and diplomatic and funding thing.
posted by amberglow at 10:48 AM on January 14, 2004






is that a percise military term...is it a military action? You want to take action, force schools to teach secularism...who is going to enforce that karl. That sounds like cia/military/neocon thinking.

Re: draining the lake

From Talking To Terrorists:

reason: How important is it to understand the motivations and dynamics of these groups?

Stern: It is important because we want to understand the potential appeal of this ideology. I don’t think we’re ever going to persuade hardened terrorists to change their minds by changing our policies -- not that I’m recommending changing our policies in response to terrorist complaints. But we can have a very significant impact on those who would become sympathizers.

If you look at the popularity of the U.S. in the Arab world, it’s frightening how low it’s gotten. For terrorist groups to succeed in Morocco and Indonesia and Saudi Arabia, they need support. You can’t have the terrorists themselves and nobody else; there is a [necessary] support base. We need to understand the message they’re trying to sell. We need to undermine that message.


From How America Created a Terrorist Haven:

While there is no single root cause of terrorism, my interviews with terrorists over the past five years suggest that alienation, perceived humiliation and lack of political and economic opportunities make young men susceptible to extremism. It can evolve easily into violence when government institutions are weak and there is money available to pay for a holy war. America is unlikely to win the hearts and minds of committed terrorists. After some time on the job, it is hard for them to imagine another life. Several described jihad to me as being "addictive."

Thus the best way to fight them is to ensure that they are rejected by the broader population. Terrorists and guerrillas rely on getting at least some popular support. America's task will be to restore public safety in Iraq and put in place effective governing institutions that are run by Iraqis. It would also help if we involved more troops from other countries, to make clear that the war wasn't an American plot to steal Iraq's oil and denigrate Islam, as the extremists argue.



So, no, the phrase draining the lake was most definitely not a percise military term. As to the madrassahs:


From Pakistan's Jihad Culture:

The most important contribution the United States can make, then, is to help strengthen Pakistan's secular education system. Because so much international aid to Pakistan has been diverted through corruption, both public and private assistance should come in the form of relatively nonfungible goods and services: books, buildings, teachers, and training, rather than money. Urdu-speaking teachers from around the world should be sent to Pakistan to help. And educational exchanges among students, scholars, journalists, and military officials should be encouraged and facilitated. Helping Pakistan educate its youth will not only cut off the culture of violence by reducing ignorance and poverty, it will also promote long-term economic development.

Moreover, assisting Pakistan will make the world a safer place. As observers frequently note, conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir is one of the most likely routes to nuclear war in the world today. The Pakistani militants' continued incursions into Indian-held Kashmir escalate the conflict, greatly increasing the risk of nuclear war between the two countries.

Although the United States can help, Pakistan must make its own changes. It must stamp out corruption, strengthen democratic institutions, and make education a much higher priority. But none of this can happen if Pakistan continues to devote an estimated 30 percent of its national budget to defense.


I have, of course, provided these same links here several times. As to your intent in your question quoted above, at least, as I perceive it, if may I share the following:

In the sense used here, a "Straw Man Argument" is a misrepresentation of the opposing view, set up in such a way that it is easy to demolish. This "set-up" is meant to bring the opponent's position into disrepute, in the hope of avoiding having to address the real arguments.

Now you could be followed from thread to thread and words put in your mouth at your every comment but even assuming had I an inclination to match your efforts, there is a lack of the perquisite hair up the ass--not to mention a lack of a matching fluency in Gibberish--on my part.
posted by y2karl at 4:15 PM on January 14, 2004


o.k. then
posted by clavdivs at 4:41 PM on January 14, 2004


Imagine stavrosthewonderchicken scrolling on to that.

Oh dear, I just soiled myself. After I return from the bathroom, I'll have to come back and read the thread.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:21 AM on January 26, 2004


Just for the record--no pun intended--here's The Idiots Guide to Bounding The Global War On Terrorism--or The Cliff Notes For...--via Back To Iraq 3.0 A sample quote:

Record notes that Americans seem to have forgotten Clausewitz’s dictum that war is an extension of politics and instead seem to substitute war for politics. The American vision of war posits the enemy as target sets; if one destroys enough of the target set, the enemy will surrender and American goals will be achieved. He quotes Frederick A. Kagan as saying that this vision ignores the importance of how, exactly, one defeats the enemy and what the enemy’s country looks like at the moment the bullets stop flying. Troops must do more than break things and kill people. They must secure population centers and infrastructure, keep the civilian populace safe and prevent humanitarian disasters. And that takes a lot of boots on the ground. It also takes a realization by the U.S. military that regime change is inextricably tied to nation-building and peacekeeping, and that those must be factored into initial planning for war.
posted by y2karl at 12:40 AM on January 31, 2004


really?



huh
posted by clavdivs at 3:50 PM on January 31, 2004


« Older Here's one for Languagehat!   |   WeeklyDV Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments