Re Op-Ed Columnist: The Case for Illegal Mingling by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:
The government of Saudi Arabia "affirmed the sentence of 200 lashes for a 19-year-old Shiite girl who was sitting in a car with a male acquaintance last year when they were attacked by seven men who gang-raped both of them.
"The Saudi Justice Ministry said the young woman deserved 200 lashes and six months in prison, even though she had been raped, because she was guilty of “illegal mingling” — sitting in a car with a man who was not related to her."
What is the ideology which drives such barbarism? It has a name - Islam!
Now, Tom Friedman is Mr. Politically Correct, so what really galls him about this barbarism? "Two hundred lashes for a woman who was raped, under any circumstances in even the most traditional country, is barbaric — period." So far, so good. "But what also keeps tripping off my tongue is this phrase “illegal mingling.” It seems to me that if the Middle East could use more of anything these days it is more mingling — if not between the sexes then at least between the sects." So, he spends the rest of his column arguing for more "mingling". Too bad he doesn't have the courage to write what he no doubt is thinking: Islam is a barbaric ideology.
Tom quotes a report from Agence France-Presse: "“The Mahdi Army murdered and tortured and kidnapped people under Sharia law,” the police statement said. “They are the cause of the deaths of hundreds of people.”" Now, what the heck is Sharia? Islamic law! Yet, Tom is still focused on the sectarian strife.
The rationale behind Tom's thinking is then made plain: "The reason these events are important is that Iraq has become center stage for the struggle between a more moderate, modernizing Islamic outlook, advanced by the United States and some of its Iraqi allies, and another outlook, advanced by the Mahdi Army and Al Qaeda, that wants to “purify” the Muslim world of “the other.”
"The jihadists know that if they can defeat America — in the heart of their world — it would influence the whole region."
In other words, Tom is still trying to justify our insane invasion of Iraq, which he advocated. Still, he has learned a bit: "Attention: These pro-minglers are not Jeffersonian Democrats. But they do represent relatively more moderate strands of Sunnism and Shiism." Oh, I guess supporting the "moderate" Muslims is the reason why we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq.
Finally, Tom ends with "Most Americans would still like to see us salvage something decent in Iraq — if it can be done at a reasonable cost."
Tom, nothing that can happen in Iraq will ever be worth the steep cost in blood and money that we have paid and have yet to pay. Those of us who have read your column for years have only one request of you: admit you were catastrophically wrong about Iraq, and stop pandering to the foreign Muslims. Until they turn Osama bin Laden over to us, they remain our mortal enemy.
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Why Our Military Cannot Manage An Exit From Iraq
Our military is trained in fighting wars and countering insurgencies. It is really not trained in nation-building, and it is definitely neither trained nor suited for making foreign policy.
Recent news reports indicate, at a minimum, a temporary reduction in hostilities in Iraq. An optimist would even go so far as to say that the corner has turned, and the American engagement in Iraq is now in the end stage.
In an excellent article in today's NY Times by Michael R. Gordon, Plan Increases Role of G.I.'s in Iraq Training , we are told the specific operational tactics by our military to expedite the reduction of the American military role in Iraq. It is a slow process, and still very costly in blood and treasure. Despite the costs, it appears that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
But this report still infuriates many of us. The criticism of the American invasion of Iraq was never that it was an impossible task, but always a too costly project in terms of blood and treasure, and, most importantly, the wrong project.
After we were attacked on 9/11, the objective should have been the complete destruction of our enemy, al Qaeda. Invading Iraq was never the means to accomplish that goal. Bush's war in Iraq has actually helped our enemy, because it has weakened us, aided the recruitment of troops by our enemy, and taken our eyes off the real target of our revenge.
Every day that Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and the rest of al Qaeda are left breathing and free to attack us again, marks another day of failure for the United States, and we are now more than six years after the 9/11 attack. When I consider all that FDR and his generation did in less than four years after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it sickens me that we are still being led by the most incompetent President in American history.
Recent news reports indicate, at a minimum, a temporary reduction in hostilities in Iraq. An optimist would even go so far as to say that the corner has turned, and the American engagement in Iraq is now in the end stage.
In an excellent article in today's NY Times by Michael R. Gordon, Plan Increases Role of G.I.'s in Iraq Training , we are told the specific operational tactics by our military to expedite the reduction of the American military role in Iraq. It is a slow process, and still very costly in blood and treasure. Despite the costs, it appears that there is light at the end of this tunnel.
But this report still infuriates many of us. The criticism of the American invasion of Iraq was never that it was an impossible task, but always a too costly project in terms of blood and treasure, and, most importantly, the wrong project.
After we were attacked on 9/11, the objective should have been the complete destruction of our enemy, al Qaeda. Invading Iraq was never the means to accomplish that goal. Bush's war in Iraq has actually helped our enemy, because it has weakened us, aided the recruitment of troops by our enemy, and taken our eyes off the real target of our revenge.
Every day that Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants, and the rest of al Qaeda are left breathing and free to attack us again, marks another day of failure for the United States, and we are now more than six years after the 9/11 attack. When I consider all that FDR and his generation did in less than four years after we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it sickens me that we are still being led by the most incompetent President in American history.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Wars, Global Warming, and Tom Friedman
Re Op-Ed Columnist: Did We Do That? by Thomas L. Friedman in today's NY Times:
There he goes again, trying to hype a problem that he may be more responsible for than the average American.
Let me stipulate (just for the sake of argument) that there is a global warming phenomenon, that it is bad, and that it is caused mainly by human behavior. That is really what Tom's column is about.
Well, I wish someone could tell us what percent of human-produced greenhouse gases, notably CO2, are produced by wars, and then break that down to show the contribution of our War on Iraq. After all, militaries burn a lot of fossil fuels during wartime, besides the gases released during explosions.
What does this have to do with Friedman? Well, he was an early and ardent advocate for invading Iraq. As his colleague Maureen Dowd would say, Q.E.D.
There he goes again, trying to hype a problem that he may be more responsible for than the average American.
Let me stipulate (just for the sake of argument) that there is a global warming phenomenon, that it is bad, and that it is caused mainly by human behavior. That is really what Tom's column is about.
Well, I wish someone could tell us what percent of human-produced greenhouse gases, notably CO2, are produced by wars, and then break that down to show the contribution of our War on Iraq. After all, militaries burn a lot of fossil fuels during wartime, besides the gases released during explosions.
What does this have to do with Friedman? Well, he was an early and ardent advocate for invading Iraq. As his colleague Maureen Dowd would say, Q.E.D.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Turkey Invades Iraq
This is an easy prediction, coming after the Turkish parliament approved in advance the use of Turkish troops to cross into Iraq.
Of course, the United States has no dog in the fight between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey, but the expansion of the war in Iraq will only complicate our involvement there.
So, we have yet another reason to get out of Iraq ASAP.
A typical article about this growing crisis can be found in Iraq Plan to Add U.S. Troops at Kurdish Border Is Rejected by Turkey by Sebnem Arsu and Andrew E. Kramer in today's NY Times.
Of course, the United States has no dog in the fight between Iraqi Kurds and Turkey, but the expansion of the war in Iraq will only complicate our involvement there.
So, we have yet another reason to get out of Iraq ASAP.
A typical article about this growing crisis can be found in Iraq Plan to Add U.S. Troops at Kurdish Border Is Rejected by Turkey by Sebnem Arsu and Andrew E. Kramer in today's NY Times.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Friedman Still Confused About Iraq
This post refers to Thomas Friedman's column Op-Ed Columnist: Remember Iraq in today's NY Times.
Tom has a strain of the "Blame America First" infection. Today's symptom is the variation known as "Credit America Last". So even though we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq, Tom is forced to write "To the extent that the surge has worked militarily, it is largely because of what Iraqis have done by themselves for themselves".
This is outrageous. Friedman was screaming for us to invade Iraq, then, after many years of agony there, he can't even credit our troops for doing the near impossible under the worst of circumstances.
We need to get our troops out of Iraq now, not when the likes of Friedman say it is OK. Then, we will all see what the Iraqis can do "by themselves for themselves". No doubt, if the Iraqis fail, Friedman will revert to the original strain: blame America first.
Tom has a strain of the "Blame America First" infection. Today's symptom is the variation known as "Credit America Last". So even though we are pouring blood and treasure into Iraq, Tom is forced to write "To the extent that the surge has worked militarily, it is largely because of what Iraqis have done by themselves for themselves".
This is outrageous. Friedman was screaming for us to invade Iraq, then, after many years of agony there, he can't even credit our troops for doing the near impossible under the worst of circumstances.
We need to get our troops out of Iraq now, not when the likes of Friedman say it is OK. Then, we will all see what the Iraqis can do "by themselves for themselves". No doubt, if the Iraqis fail, Friedman will revert to the original strain: blame America first.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
A Quick Way to End the War in Iraq
The fastest road out of Iraq would be for Congress to simply not pay for the war. At some point, Bush would blink and then the troops would come home.
Not quite so fast, but still quick, would be for Congress to impose an income tax surcharge to pay for the war. For example, after all the computations to arrive at the final tax, add one more: multiply the tax amount by 1.3 (a thirty percent surcharge).
If this war is really necessary, then it ought to be worth actually paying for. After all, Congress, in effect, has been asking young people to die for the benefit of Iraqis. So Congress should ask other (generally older) Americans to pay for the war with higher taxes. Otherwise, we are asking our young to pay for the war twice: first with their blood, and later, when the money borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia has to be paid back, with higher taxes.
This means that we should pay for the war now, as opposed to borrowing the money (as the Republicans prefer to do).
OK. So what does this have to do with ending the war? The very people who got us into Iraq and don't want to "cut and run" are the ones who would mostly have to pay higher taxes. This puts them in a bind: they hate taxes, but they want us to stay in Iraq.
I am guessing that their fiscal ideology of "borrow and spend" (i.e., "no new taxes") would outweigh their neocon ideology of nation-building. In other words, when faced with the prospect of higher taxes, the Republicans would vote in favor of ending our war in Iraq.
Not quite so fast, but still quick, would be for Congress to impose an income tax surcharge to pay for the war. For example, after all the computations to arrive at the final tax, add one more: multiply the tax amount by 1.3 (a thirty percent surcharge).
If this war is really necessary, then it ought to be worth actually paying for. After all, Congress, in effect, has been asking young people to die for the benefit of Iraqis. So Congress should ask other (generally older) Americans to pay for the war with higher taxes. Otherwise, we are asking our young to pay for the war twice: first with their blood, and later, when the money borrowed from China and Saudi Arabia has to be paid back, with higher taxes.
This means that we should pay for the war now, as opposed to borrowing the money (as the Republicans prefer to do).
OK. So what does this have to do with ending the war? The very people who got us into Iraq and don't want to "cut and run" are the ones who would mostly have to pay higher taxes. This puts them in a bind: they hate taxes, but they want us to stay in Iraq.
I am guessing that their fiscal ideology of "borrow and spend" (i.e., "no new taxes") would outweigh their neocon ideology of nation-building. In other words, when faced with the prospect of higher taxes, the Republicans would vote in favor of ending our war in Iraq.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Bush Wants More Money For Wars
Here we go again. In the NY Times article Bush Requests $46 Billion for Wars by David Stout it is reported that Bush is asking for an additional $46 billion, bringing the total amount Bush wants to spend in Iraq this fiscal year to $196 billion. Keep this figure in mind when you read about bills he has vetoed that he says cost too much.
Congress should not grant him this money. Then, Bush will say that Congress is endangering our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that won't be true. If Bush were to bring home the troops which he sent to Iraq, and changed the mission in Afghanistan from nation-building to finding Osama bin Laden, then Congress could turn the money spigot back on. But if Bush refused to come to his senses (since our Constitution explicitly gives Congress, not the President, the authority to fund wars) then he should immediately be impeached for recklessly endangering our troops.
Congress should not grant him this money. Then, Bush will say that Congress is endangering our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that won't be true. If Bush were to bring home the troops which he sent to Iraq, and changed the mission in Afghanistan from nation-building to finding Osama bin Laden, then Congress could turn the money spigot back on. But if Bush refused to come to his senses (since our Constitution explicitly gives Congress, not the President, the authority to fund wars) then he should immediately be impeached for recklessly endangering our troops.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Iraqi Exiles
I just read Syria Shuts Main Exit From War for Iraqis By Thanassis Cambanis in today's NY Times. It is, on net, a good idea that Syria is closing its border with Iraq, and it would be, on net, good for Iraq if Syria (along with Jordan) were to deport Iraqis back to Iraq.
Why? Because Iraq needs all the talented people who left, to fight the insurgents and to rebuild their nation. These people want Americans to do their dirty work, and then they would go back home to Iraq and largely be ungrateful for our loss of blood and treasure on their behalf.
So I hope Syria deports them, and all Iraqis finally take responsibility for their own country.
Why? Because Iraq needs all the talented people who left, to fight the insurgents and to rebuild their nation. These people want Americans to do their dirty work, and then they would go back home to Iraq and largely be ungrateful for our loss of blood and treasure on their behalf.
So I hope Syria deports them, and all Iraqis finally take responsibility for their own country.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Op-Ed: Party Here, Sacrifice Over There
I just read the NY Times OP-Ed Op-Ed Contributor: Party Here, Sacrifice Over There By Will Bardenwerper (he was an Army infantry officer from 2003 to 2007, and was stationed for 13 months in Nineveh and Anbar Provinces in Iraq). I thank him and all the men and women in our military for their valor and service.
The last three paragraphs make his main point:
"A draft would have one of two consequences. The first is that it might actually relieve the strain on today’s soldiers and end the “backdoor draft” of volunteers who have already served while their civilian peers remain comfortably undisturbed. I am aware that Army leaders fear that a draft would hurt the professionalism of today’s force. However, the lowering of recruiting requirements, as well as the offering of big signing bonuses to impressionable high school students, is already diminishing standards.
The other possible consequence is that serious consideration of a draft could set off such a violent reaction from the American public that the pressure on politicians to abandon their cliché-ridden rhetoric and begin a well-considered withdrawal would be overpowering.
Either situation would accelerate movement toward a decisive point — a commitment to victory, or the realization that Americans simply do not believe the threats cited are really worthy of the sacrifices required to vanquish them. Many years and many lives later, the very least we can do for my friends fighting a world away is to try to decide."
Basically, he wants to bring back the draft. But this is putting the cart in front of the horse. You have a draft when you are fighting a declared war and need more manpower than is available in a volunteer force. But we never declared war on Iraq.
There were good reasons why our founding fathers gave this authority to the Congress. Presidents like George W. Bush have abused their executive authority by involving us in undeclared wars: Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Presidents are not kings. They should abide by our Constitution.
The last three paragraphs make his main point:
"A draft would have one of two consequences. The first is that it might actually relieve the strain on today’s soldiers and end the “backdoor draft” of volunteers who have already served while their civilian peers remain comfortably undisturbed. I am aware that Army leaders fear that a draft would hurt the professionalism of today’s force. However, the lowering of recruiting requirements, as well as the offering of big signing bonuses to impressionable high school students, is already diminishing standards.
The other possible consequence is that serious consideration of a draft could set off such a violent reaction from the American public that the pressure on politicians to abandon their cliché-ridden rhetoric and begin a well-considered withdrawal would be overpowering.
Either situation would accelerate movement toward a decisive point — a commitment to victory, or the realization that Americans simply do not believe the threats cited are really worthy of the sacrifices required to vanquish them. Many years and many lives later, the very least we can do for my friends fighting a world away is to try to decide."
Basically, he wants to bring back the draft. But this is putting the cart in front of the horse. You have a draft when you are fighting a declared war and need more manpower than is available in a volunteer force. But we never declared war on Iraq.
There were good reasons why our founding fathers gave this authority to the Congress. Presidents like George W. Bush have abused their executive authority by involving us in undeclared wars: Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq. Presidents are not kings. They should abide by our Constitution.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Hubris, Iraq and Afghanistan
When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging. First, do no harm.
I know there is an adage for every point of view, but these two keep coming to mind in the debate about the Iraq Wars and the War on Terror.
But first, a word about hubris. We all have it. But it is relative, that is, a matter of degree. Also, if a president does something catastrophically stupid because of his hubris, then this must be pointed out. Anything we ordinary citizens can say that might prevent future catastrophic mistakes by our leaders is a good thing.
It was hubris which led President George H. W. Bush to attack the Muslim country Iraq in 1991. Who elected him to be Policeman of the World? Answer: no one. We don't have "World Government", and that is good. Maybe it would be nice in a thousand years, but not in the foreseeable future. Even then, I bet the rest of the world would have to pay the Policeman big bucks to take on this thankless role.
But Pappa Bush suffered immensely from hubris. He just couldn't mind his own business. He forgot that when he fought bravely in WW2, it was a declared war against enemies which had attacked us. Iraq never attacked us. And since we are and were much more powerful than Iraq, then if they were crazy enough to attack us, they would have been quickly and utterly destroyed, with lots of collateral damage (as often happened in WW2).
But hubris eats at you. Why just be President when you can be a War President? We outlasted the USSR, so why not take on Iraq and show the world who is boss?
One of my favorite authors, Nassim Taleb, writes about risk. One of the really big risks is war, since you never know how it will turn out.
So, lets see what happened after Pappa Bush fed his hubris. We ended up in a second war with Iraq, the one in the 1990s when we kept them in a box. We also had an organization most Americans never heard of, Al Qaeda, and its leader, Osama bin Laden, declare war on us. Oops! Then, AQ and OBL carried out a series of attacks against us (the first WTC bombing, the embassy attacks in Africa, the barracks attack in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, and finally 9/11. Then we started nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would have been quite happy if Pappa Bush had simply scolded Saddam Hussein for being a bad boy. That would not have cost us much. Instead, we have suffered thousands of casualties and spent over a trillion dollars fighting stupid wars and rebuilding after 9/11. If only Pappa Bush had remembered "first, do no harm". (My corollary for what to do after another nation or group attacks the US is: first, destroy them totally.)
Unfortunately, "W" made things worse because he forgot "When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging". He made a mistake when he invaded Iraq for developing WMDs. (Oops!) He compounded that mistake (dug deeper) when he came up with false reason after false reason for the invasion. Finally, he dug really deep when he decided to occupy and nation-build Iraq.
Now, you can't blame "W" for not knowing the inscrutable mind of a Muslim nation. After all, as he freely admits, he was a C student. But the sad truth is that the reaction of the Iraqis to our occupation has little to do with religion. It is more basic: nationalism and human nature. No one wants another country to invade your homeland and then install their kind of government. I know I would not like it if (say) Advanced Martians invaded the US and tried to install Martian-style government. For this mistake, "W" does deserve blame. All of it. Don't blame the neo-cons, don't blame the military. It is all on the shoulders of the worst president in American history.
By the way, I really don't care if Saddam and OBL had contact, whether directly or via subordinates. OBL and SH had contacts with a lot of bad actors. We need to be a wee bit more discriminating before we go to war. Otherwise, we would soon be at war with every other nation!
We need to get out of Iraq ASAP. No one knows if there will then be a bloodbath, since no one has a crystal ball. But if a regional war erupted between the Sunni nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) and the Shiite nations (Iran and most of Iraq), that is not our business. We are not the Policeman of the world. We had nothing to do with the centuries-long (and crazy) feud between these two groups.
We should also stop nation-building in Afghanistan. They, too, didn't ask for our help. They mostly hate us. But we should carpet-bomb those parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where OBL might be hiding, and not worry about collateral damage. You can't win a war if you worry about collateral damage. If we had perfect weapons, there wouldn't be any collateral damage, but we don't have perfect weapons, and we should minimize American casualties and maximize enemy pain.
By the way, it really angered me that Kuwaitis were cheering on 9/11. Most of the South Koreans do not like us, even though we paid dearly in blood and treasure in the Korean War. There is no point in sacrificing American lives for the sake of other countries. Alliances are too temporal. (I would make a few exceptions: Great Britain and Canada are examples.) Vietnam was a complete waste.
We should never fight wars for oil. The act of war itself wastes an incredible amount of oil.
But now we are in a War on Terror (a war with Al Qaeda). We need to use our brains, and fight wisely. Use soft power. Build up our strength. Don't worry about collateral damage when going after AQ.
I know there is an adage for every point of view, but these two keep coming to mind in the debate about the Iraq Wars and the War on Terror.
But first, a word about hubris. We all have it. But it is relative, that is, a matter of degree. Also, if a president does something catastrophically stupid because of his hubris, then this must be pointed out. Anything we ordinary citizens can say that might prevent future catastrophic mistakes by our leaders is a good thing.
It was hubris which led President George H. W. Bush to attack the Muslim country Iraq in 1991. Who elected him to be Policeman of the World? Answer: no one. We don't have "World Government", and that is good. Maybe it would be nice in a thousand years, but not in the foreseeable future. Even then, I bet the rest of the world would have to pay the Policeman big bucks to take on this thankless role.
But Pappa Bush suffered immensely from hubris. He just couldn't mind his own business. He forgot that when he fought bravely in WW2, it was a declared war against enemies which had attacked us. Iraq never attacked us. And since we are and were much more powerful than Iraq, then if they were crazy enough to attack us, they would have been quickly and utterly destroyed, with lots of collateral damage (as often happened in WW2).
But hubris eats at you. Why just be President when you can be a War President? We outlasted the USSR, so why not take on Iraq and show the world who is boss?
One of my favorite authors, Nassim Taleb, writes about risk. One of the really big risks is war, since you never know how it will turn out.
So, lets see what happened after Pappa Bush fed his hubris. We ended up in a second war with Iraq, the one in the 1990s when we kept them in a box. We also had an organization most Americans never heard of, Al Qaeda, and its leader, Osama bin Laden, declare war on us. Oops! Then, AQ and OBL carried out a series of attacks against us (the first WTC bombing, the embassy attacks in Africa, the barracks attack in Saudi Arabia, the attack on the USS Cole, and finally 9/11. Then we started nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I would have been quite happy if Pappa Bush had simply scolded Saddam Hussein for being a bad boy. That would not have cost us much. Instead, we have suffered thousands of casualties and spent over a trillion dollars fighting stupid wars and rebuilding after 9/11. If only Pappa Bush had remembered "first, do no harm". (My corollary for what to do after another nation or group attacks the US is: first, destroy them totally.)
Unfortunately, "W" made things worse because he forgot "When stuck in a hole, you should stop digging". He made a mistake when he invaded Iraq for developing WMDs. (Oops!) He compounded that mistake (dug deeper) when he came up with false reason after false reason for the invasion. Finally, he dug really deep when he decided to occupy and nation-build Iraq.
Now, you can't blame "W" for not knowing the inscrutable mind of a Muslim nation. After all, as he freely admits, he was a C student. But the sad truth is that the reaction of the Iraqis to our occupation has little to do with religion. It is more basic: nationalism and human nature. No one wants another country to invade your homeland and then install their kind of government. I know I would not like it if (say) Advanced Martians invaded the US and tried to install Martian-style government. For this mistake, "W" does deserve blame. All of it. Don't blame the neo-cons, don't blame the military. It is all on the shoulders of the worst president in American history.
By the way, I really don't care if Saddam and OBL had contact, whether directly or via subordinates. OBL and SH had contacts with a lot of bad actors. We need to be a wee bit more discriminating before we go to war. Otherwise, we would soon be at war with every other nation!
We need to get out of Iraq ASAP. No one knows if there will then be a bloodbath, since no one has a crystal ball. But if a regional war erupted between the Sunni nations (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.) and the Shiite nations (Iran and most of Iraq), that is not our business. We are not the Policeman of the world. We had nothing to do with the centuries-long (and crazy) feud between these two groups.
We should also stop nation-building in Afghanistan. They, too, didn't ask for our help. They mostly hate us. But we should carpet-bomb those parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan where OBL might be hiding, and not worry about collateral damage. You can't win a war if you worry about collateral damage. If we had perfect weapons, there wouldn't be any collateral damage, but we don't have perfect weapons, and we should minimize American casualties and maximize enemy pain.
By the way, it really angered me that Kuwaitis were cheering on 9/11. Most of the South Koreans do not like us, even though we paid dearly in blood and treasure in the Korean War. There is no point in sacrificing American lives for the sake of other countries. Alliances are too temporal. (I would make a few exceptions: Great Britain and Canada are examples.) Vietnam was a complete waste.
We should never fight wars for oil. The act of war itself wastes an incredible amount of oil.
But now we are in a War on Terror (a war with Al Qaeda). We need to use our brains, and fight wisely. Use soft power. Build up our strength. Don't worry about collateral damage when going after AQ.
Was Getting Rid of Saddam Worth It?
I often hear from people who suggest that, in spite of the great costs involved in our invasion of Iraq, it was all worth it because ridding Iraq of Saddam Hussein, a mass murderer, was a good thing to do.
I could not disagree more with this position. First of all, even if the premise is true (that it was good for Iraq), we must consider the cost to America of this action in relation to alternatives with the same or smaller costs. For example, we could have spared many thousands of American lives and saved TRILLIONS of present and future dollars by developing fusion power.
But even that premise was wrong. Saddam was indeed a mass murderer, but he was also an enemy of the same terrorists that we are at war with. Even for the Iraqi people, he was a better alternative than the bloodbath which is ongoing and which he prevented for decades with his tyrannical system.
We should have made plans in the 1990s for responding to terrorist attacks with massive bombing of their camps in Afghanistan. But, in fact, our military was never asked to develop such plans, because the media and some liberal organizations have trained us to worry about collateral damage. But carpet bombing of terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s would have spared us of 9/11 and given us the upper hand in the war with Islamic terrorism.
The lesson is clear. We are not the Policeman of the world. We need to put American interests first, and crush any organization which is at war with us, wherever they are. Instead of worrying about collateral damage, we should be worrying about the security of our children.
I could not disagree more with this position. First of all, even if the premise is true (that it was good for Iraq), we must consider the cost to America of this action in relation to alternatives with the same or smaller costs. For example, we could have spared many thousands of American lives and saved TRILLIONS of present and future dollars by developing fusion power.
But even that premise was wrong. Saddam was indeed a mass murderer, but he was also an enemy of the same terrorists that we are at war with. Even for the Iraqi people, he was a better alternative than the bloodbath which is ongoing and which he prevented for decades with his tyrannical system.
We should have made plans in the 1990s for responding to terrorist attacks with massive bombing of their camps in Afghanistan. But, in fact, our military was never asked to develop such plans, because the media and some liberal organizations have trained us to worry about collateral damage. But carpet bombing of terrorist camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s would have spared us of 9/11 and given us the upper hand in the war with Islamic terrorism.
The lesson is clear. We are not the Policeman of the world. We need to put American interests first, and crush any organization which is at war with us, wherever they are. Instead of worrying about collateral damage, we should be worrying about the security of our children.
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Another Stupid Friedman Idea
I know I should stop reading Thomas Friedman's column in the NY Times, but I am incorrigible and, besides, his column is often a convenient example of the muddled thinking which leads to stupid policies. That said, see The Green-Collar Solution in today's paper.
The basic premise (from activist Van Jones) is to use boatloads of taxpayer money to train and hire disadvantaged youth in "weatherizing millions of buildings, putting up solar panels, constructing wind farms". In other words, spend a lot of dough on "do nothing" jobs.
We don't need all that "green" stuff. We should design and build more efficient products, but mostly we need to design and build thermonuclear reactors. We should spend taxpayer dollars on R&D for fusion power, not on training youth to do construction work. Besides, a large part of the construction industry labor comes from illegal aliens, which implies that disadvantaged youth don't want to do that kind of work anyway.
(The best advice today for helping "disadvantaged youth" can be found in "Come on, people : on the path from victims to victors" by Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint.)
Recall that Friedman was one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's War on Iraq. We have already spent about $400-$600 billion on Iraq, and will probably spend double that in Iraq before we come to our senses. What a waste. Our military should have had plans to crush Al Qaida after their first series of attacks on us in the 1990's, and we should have had a president on 9/11 who was prepared to execute such plans. Instead, we invade Iraq!
The same mindset was at play in the 1960's and 70's when we invaded Vietnam. Had we instead invested the money in R&D, we would already have had decades of cheap energy, saved a trillion dollars from going to Arab countries for buying oil and funding terrorism, and there would never have been a "Gulf War" in 1991, nor a 9/11 attack on the US, nor an invasion and occupation of Iraq in the 2000's.
But at least we were able to feed the egos of our "war presidents".
Thanks, Tom. I feel better now.
The basic premise (from activist Van Jones) is to use boatloads of taxpayer money to train and hire disadvantaged youth in "weatherizing millions of buildings, putting up solar panels, constructing wind farms". In other words, spend a lot of dough on "do nothing" jobs.
We don't need all that "green" stuff. We should design and build more efficient products, but mostly we need to design and build thermonuclear reactors. We should spend taxpayer dollars on R&D for fusion power, not on training youth to do construction work. Besides, a large part of the construction industry labor comes from illegal aliens, which implies that disadvantaged youth don't want to do that kind of work anyway.
(The best advice today for helping "disadvantaged youth" can be found in "Come on, people : on the path from victims to victors" by Bill Cosby and Alvin F. Poussaint.)
Recall that Friedman was one of the biggest cheerleaders for Bush's War on Iraq. We have already spent about $400-$600 billion on Iraq, and will probably spend double that in Iraq before we come to our senses. What a waste. Our military should have had plans to crush Al Qaida after their first series of attacks on us in the 1990's, and we should have had a president on 9/11 who was prepared to execute such plans. Instead, we invade Iraq!
The same mindset was at play in the 1960's and 70's when we invaded Vietnam. Had we instead invested the money in R&D, we would already have had decades of cheap energy, saved a trillion dollars from going to Arab countries for buying oil and funding terrorism, and there would never have been a "Gulf War" in 1991, nor a 9/11 attack on the US, nor an invasion and occupation of Iraq in the 2000's.
But at least we were able to feed the egos of our "war presidents".
Thanks, Tom. I feel better now.
Monday, October 15, 2007
How to Defeat Al Qaeda
I have felt for a long time that the best way to defeat Al Qaeda (AQ) is by America using its most powerful weapon: the amalgamation of all its soft power. This means, but is not limited to, "Hollywood" movies, network TV shows, all forms of music (rock, rap, folk, etc.), art, philosophy, print journalism, books, satellite broadcasting, cable TV shows, and old-fashioned propaganda.
The messages we send should also run the gamut, and include, but not be limited to, images of Americans defeating jihadists, wholesome American life, freedom, liberty, and anti-AQ ideas and propaganda.
I am not a religious person, but I favor governments which respect the religious or atheistic beliefs of its citizens, since these are deeply personal matters. However, when someone's religious ideology threatens me or my family or my nation, then it is time to fight that ideology. We can begin by pointing out the absurdity of AQ's core beliefs, the insanity of its founder(s), the lack of morals in its adherents. Jihadists want to terrorize us, so their ideology is "fair game" in the War on Terror. After all, it is their ideology which inspires them. Defeating their ideology is analogous to cutting off the head of the snake.
The great irony today is that, whereas "soft power" is our greatest weapon, the jihadists are using it with seemingly more effect than we are. (See today's NY Times article An Internet Jihad Sells Extremism to Viewers in the U.S. By MICHAEL MOSS and SOUAD MEKHENNET.)
It is past time that we get out of Iraq and start fighting the War on Terror the smart way, using our most powerful weapons (soft power) and enlisting as many nations as we can to join us in this new quest.
The messages we send should also run the gamut, and include, but not be limited to, images of Americans defeating jihadists, wholesome American life, freedom, liberty, and anti-AQ ideas and propaganda.
I am not a religious person, but I favor governments which respect the religious or atheistic beliefs of its citizens, since these are deeply personal matters. However, when someone's religious ideology threatens me or my family or my nation, then it is time to fight that ideology. We can begin by pointing out the absurdity of AQ's core beliefs, the insanity of its founder(s), the lack of morals in its adherents. Jihadists want to terrorize us, so their ideology is "fair game" in the War on Terror. After all, it is their ideology which inspires them. Defeating their ideology is analogous to cutting off the head of the snake.
The great irony today is that, whereas "soft power" is our greatest weapon, the jihadists are using it with seemingly more effect than we are. (See today's NY Times article An Internet Jihad Sells Extremism to Viewers in the U.S. By MICHAEL MOSS and SOUAD MEKHENNET.)
It is past time that we get out of Iraq and start fighting the War on Terror the smart way, using our most powerful weapons (soft power) and enlisting as many nations as we can to join us in this new quest.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
The Iraq Mistake
There have been many mistakes concerning Iraq, starting with it being carved out of the Ottoman Empire by the French and British around 1920.
Today, we constantly read about mistakes made during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. Colin Powell does not get enough blame for his famous statement about Iraq to George W. Bush before the invasion: "If you break it, you own it".
The latest blame game is centered on whether the military gave its civilian masters (Bush and Rumsfeld in particular) good advice regarding how many troops would be needed.
This is nonsense. There was and is only one primary mistake, and that was made by President Bush: the decision to invade Iraq, a nation which was no threat to the United States.
While Bush was partying and avoiding service in Vietnam, others saw the folly of the War in Vietnam (which followed the folly of the Korean Conflict). In all three cases, we were never attacked by the other nation, and the other nation was not an historical enemy of the United States. We should never have fought these wars.
Imagine if we had not fought those wars. Imagine the happy and productive lives of the men and women who might not have been casualties of those stupid wars. Imagine what we could have done with the trillions of dollars (direct and indirect costs) we spent on those wars. Imagine other peoples loving Americans today instead of hating us.
No one can say for sure what might have happened had we not fought those stupid wars. But it is easy to imagine what America might have spent that treasure on.
Just two examples: nuclear fusion power development and thousands of nuclear fission power plants. This could have been achieved at least 30 years ago, and instead of importing oil (and thereby funding terrorism) we would have been exporting our own oil, since it would no longer be needed to fuel cars (which would all be electric) or heat homes.
Of course, the politicians and media pundits will argue for years who "lost" Iraq, but history will be quite clear who made the biggest mistake in foreign policy in modern time: George W. Bush. It was his idea to invade Iraq, and his hubris has kept us in that godforsaken country, because Bush will never admit he was wrong. His ideology will not permit it.
Today, we constantly read about mistakes made during the initial invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the subsequent occupation. Colin Powell does not get enough blame for his famous statement about Iraq to George W. Bush before the invasion: "If you break it, you own it".
The latest blame game is centered on whether the military gave its civilian masters (Bush and Rumsfeld in particular) good advice regarding how many troops would be needed.
This is nonsense. There was and is only one primary mistake, and that was made by President Bush: the decision to invade Iraq, a nation which was no threat to the United States.
While Bush was partying and avoiding service in Vietnam, others saw the folly of the War in Vietnam (which followed the folly of the Korean Conflict). In all three cases, we were never attacked by the other nation, and the other nation was not an historical enemy of the United States. We should never have fought these wars.
Imagine if we had not fought those wars. Imagine the happy and productive lives of the men and women who might not have been casualties of those stupid wars. Imagine what we could have done with the trillions of dollars (direct and indirect costs) we spent on those wars. Imagine other peoples loving Americans today instead of hating us.
No one can say for sure what might have happened had we not fought those stupid wars. But it is easy to imagine what America might have spent that treasure on.
Just two examples: nuclear fusion power development and thousands of nuclear fission power plants. This could have been achieved at least 30 years ago, and instead of importing oil (and thereby funding terrorism) we would have been exporting our own oil, since it would no longer be needed to fuel cars (which would all be electric) or heat homes.
Of course, the politicians and media pundits will argue for years who "lost" Iraq, but history will be quite clear who made the biggest mistake in foreign policy in modern time: George W. Bush. It was his idea to invade Iraq, and his hubris has kept us in that godforsaken country, because Bush will never admit he was wrong. His ideology will not permit it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)