Over at Light of Reason, Arthur Silber found (via another weblog, of course) this exceptionally good essay by John R. Searle. Written, apparently, before our successes in Afghanistan, it remains as penetrating and frightening today as when first written.
I confess to a growing frustration with the Bush administration.
Anyone who reads this weblog knows I'm usually highly supportive of George W. and the current crop of Republicans. On just about any issue, from the war to the economy to North Korea to whatever else you name, I think things have been handled about as well as they could be handled.
But the delay on action in Iraq is beginning to fray even my normally thick nerves. Short of an all-out war that we simply do not have the resources for, taking down Iraq is, I believe, the only way we can ever expect victory in the War on Terror. North Korea has been handled as well as can be expected. Pretext for invading Iran or Saudi Arabia or Syria or anyone else is limited and will invite all-out global war we don't have the resources to fight alone--and we would be. Trying to fix the situation by having everyone drive electric cars is laughable.
Iraq is simply vital, both for liberating the Iraqis themselves and for the sake of the West's future. I have believed this for well over a year. I have also believed since last Spring that that it would have to wait until the winter of 2003.
We're at midwinter now, and too much uncertainty still dogs us. If we don't go, I expect to vote Democratic in 2004, unless they nominate a lunatic. Because if we don't go soon, the negative repercussions will be incalculably bad, in too many ways to count.
Dean, I found Mr. Searle's letter both alarmist and ill-informed. He obviously had a poor grasp of the Bush administrations' strategy, not to mention his ludicrous projections of bio-warfare (millions of deaths) and the simultaneous detonation of five nuclear weapons on US soil. I think he forgot the giant orbiting laser that THRUSH put up back in the '60s... Yikes.
He seems to make some points, such as #1, but saying that "We need to give up on the fantasy that we are going to find Bin Laden hiding in a cave" both begs the question (who said we would?) and is terribly condecending. #2 has the same problem: no one who held half a clue ever said shooting terrorists or (alternatively) kissing their butts would do much good.
I could go on, but this goober (IMHO) has barely half a clue. I'm surprised you mentioned him. You have displayed an excellent grasp (much stronger and more subtle than Mr. Searle) of the dynamics of the problem.
Ok, here's one example: he claims that the conflict has gone on for over 30 years, and that the lack> of a "strong" response for the Iran hostages, the Lockerbie [sic] bombing, the USS Cole, etc., etc. have encouraged islamofascists to attack the US.
I don't suppose the idiotic and unprovoked attacks on an ASPIRIN FACTORY and an Afghanistani doctors resort had anything to do with it? BTW, please don't lump me with the "we provoked this", or "we deserved this" crew, but your letter writer did raise the issue of the impetus of events the past 2 years. It's not my fault the best reason he could come up with was that (apparently) we didn't shoot enough Muslims to prevent 9/11.
Hell, he didn't even bring up the basic conflict within the Mid-East wherein the Muslim community has to face the conundrum of just why the nations of Islam are so far behind the West in all areas, when a millenium ago they were showing us how to use toilet paper (figuratively speaking)!
Then there's his contention that "our adversaries are members of a death cult." Now is that a gross misrepresentation, or what? Surely you will agree there is a great difference between people who are eager to become a martyr for a great cause, and a "death cult"?
I'm sorry, but this guy makes my stomach ache. I really don't think he has much of a clue (like when: first he obviously wasn't sure of our goals in Afghanistan, and second expressed doubt that we would succeed there), engages in alarmist speculation about possible threats to the American mainland, and (again, IMHO) completely misinterprets the motivation for the 9/11 attacks, as if Al Qaeda were a dog that would cringe if you kicked it hard enough.
But as Dennis Miller likes to say: "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong..." :)
I have a question: what exactly did you mean by "an all-out war that we simply do not have the resources for"? To defeat Iraq? North Korea? Islamofascism?
Dean, if you are getting too discouraged: get out a calendar, and recall that "the war" has lasted SIXTEEN MONTHS. That's it. Now, go chart the first sixteen months of (say) the American War of Independance, the Penninsular War, the Civil War, WW1, and WW2. I know it's aggravating, but these things do take time.
I still say Dubya is milking the international community for all it's worth, just to spell out, in very big letters and very little words, just how legal the US likes to be. So once he drops the hammer the twinkies won't have as much to complain about.
Not to mention getting logistics ramped up; that stuff takes time.
If nothing else Operation Anaconda (irony: this was the same name given to General Winfield Scott's plan to defeat the South in 1861!) used up a lot of muntions that we'd need for Iraq, and we just can't flick a switch, or crank up the volume. We have to get the money, get with the manufacturers, establish concrete production goals, develop plans on how to achieve those goals, ramp up production, etc., etc... And that's just for JDAMs.
I've found that most folks really don't appreciate logistics. Politics and hardware (e.g. tanks, planes, etc.) are much sexier.
But the Clinton administration allowed things to slip in terms of un-sexy stuff like spare parts, maintenance, and new equipment to replace old (a large part of our tanker fleet are ancient C-135 Boeings). [An aside: this is not unique to the Clintons; it is a frequent response to peacetime conditions for any government)
So now we have to work twice as hard, and spend a lot more than we need to to catch up. It hurts to say it, but Anaconda used up a lot of our logistic margin, and that needs to be rebuilt.