You should read Armed Liberal's It's Not a 'Schtick,' Kevin article, which is part of a larger debate, mostly between people on the left, about the nature of the war we're in.
I'm not going to participate in the debate, since I no longer consider myself a man of the left. I will make a few points though: We aren't in a war of civilizations, we're in a war for civilization. A quite long-term war. I'm mostly on Armed Liberal's side, because I don't want it to turn into a war between civilizations. But if we don't do this right that's what it'll become. Indeed, I'd say one or two more September 11 size attacks, or a suitcase nuke detonated within the U.S., might well prompt an immediate return to the draft, a likely clampdown on the 1st amendment, a mass ejection of Arabs from U.S. soil, and a nationwide roundup of Muslims, that would make the ACLU pine for the good old days of the Patriot Act--and would quite possibly result in millions of dead people in the Middle East.
I don't particularly want to see a millions of dead Muslims (with assorted Christians, Jews, and others joining them in the smoking craters). But let's get real: Americans, and the current administration, have been highly restrained since September 11. Furthermore, we are not and never have been the kind of people who launch indiscriminate nuclear attacks. But one or two more major attacks on American soil and the gloves will come off.
What would taking the gloves off look like? We might well, within the space of six months, withdraw from the UN, call up a few million men aged 18 to 35, nuke Tehran and North Korea, and take Mecca, Medina, and Damascus by force, using whatever MOABs and battlefield tactical nukes are necessary to pacify any resistance. Anyone who thinks we as a people are incapable of that is a fool. Anyone who thinks one or two more September 11ths (or, shudder to think, worse) would not result in something much like that is even more a fool. The Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns have been trivial by comparison to what we, as a people, have done in the past.
I don't really want that. I'd rather expend far less blood and treasure, and kill far fewer people, than all that would entail. But it's what I see coming if we don't head it off now. How to head it off? Afghanistan and Iraq are part of the answer. Not only have we taught the people in that part of the world that we are more powerful than they thought, and much to be feared, but we have also begun to spread the seeds of modernity, human rights, and democracy. If we are successful, that can spread to other regimes in the area, like a virus. If it fails, we have a base of power in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in a few of the smaller Arab nations like Kuwait who are on our side. From those bases of operation, we have the ability to pressure the other thug-regimes in the area, to make them feel seriously threatened when we say crack down on the terrorist radicals, or we'll do it for you.
We aren't in a war of civilizations. We're in a war for civilization.
That's about all I have to say on the subject for now. Go start reading the debate if you want more.
Well said.
Well put my friend. Expect the hate mail to follow.
Let's hope people are listening.
Let's hope Bush's policy of controlled burning prevents the massive wildfire that might otherwise result....
"Indeed, I'd say one or two more September 11 size attacks, or a suitcase nuke detonated within the U.S., might well prompt an immediate return to the draft"
Waste of time and resources. People will be lined up out the door at every recruiting station in the land.
Besides, if we're breaking out the nukes, then "a few million men age 18 to 35" would mostly get in the way.
I'ver tried to put this to my friends on the Left (and I have many) and there are those who simply don't want to listen. It's as if they've read no history at all and totally don't understand the problems with war waged by democracies when the population is aroused.
I have several past and present Muslim students and colleagues, and all but a few are also in denial. Many seem to believe that they can get away with saying that Islam is a religion of peace (which it may be construed, much of the time), that the jihadists are a small fraction of Islam (probably true), that Muslims have legitimate grievances (which is at least arguable and sometimes true), that sending money to front groups in no way advances the jihadists (demonstrably false), and that our response is inappropriate (why do they get to decide?). Somehow, it is all our fault.
They seem totally unaware of the danger of arousing the Average American by increasing violence and danger. The response to 9/11 was unbelievably mild, considering the tenor of the country and our belief as to who had caused it.
I'm with Dean: one or two more largish, maybe even mostly unsuccessful, attacks on American soil, and the gloves will, regrettably, be off. We should shudder, and some of us do, but evidently not the right ones.
Perhaps those such as Armed Liberal and Roger Simon (who I increasingly find apropos) can help, but it's looking increasingly unlikely.
It's sad that perhaps the best we can hope for is a continutation of the present situation.
Well put Dean, scary as Hell, but I think it is a cold and realistic assessment of the situation.
Yeah, that's about it, Dean. I was surprised we didn't react that way this time. But I'm OK with this "controlled burn" as Sam put it. If it works, great. If not, the gloves come off.
The Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns have been trivial by comparison to what we, as a people, have done in the past.
We have the tools and technology to wreak any kind of havoc we choose, from nukes to plague to ovens.
Giving us the will and desire to use those tools is literally suicidal.
As I posted on Armed Liberal's thread, I don't think this is something that we can lose. But at the same time, I don't like what victory looks like either.
And Sam, controlled burning is a good analogy.
"Not only have we taught the people in that part of the world that we are more powerful than they thought, and much to be feared, but we have also begun to spread the seeds of modernity, human rights, and democracy. If we are successful, that can spread to other regimes in the area, like a virus. If it fails, we have a base of power in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in a few of the smaller Arab nations like Kuwait who are on our side. From those bases of operation, we have the ability to pressure the other thug-regimes in the area, to make them feel seriously threatened when we say crack down on the terrorist radicals, or we'll do it for you."
OK, glad we got that out of the way. NOT because of WMDs and NOT to liberate the Iraqi people. That's finally honest, though. I sincerely hope yours and Kristol's brightest dreams, and not everyone's worst nightmare, come true.
It IS about human rights. It IS about WMDs. If you can't see that it's about ALL OF THE ABOVE, you're just a blinkered fool, Shep.
By the way, if I've read more than three Bill Kristol essays in my entire 37 years, you can remove my left testicle, okay? Do you think it makes you sound smarter, just because you've named some pundit who's said something that sounds vaguely what I'm saying?
Jesus, you blinkered partisans really are annoying.
Pundit!? He wrote the plan, which sounds remarkably like the paragraph above (it must be you who's the smart one)! Read a few more "essays" (hint: look under "The Project for a New American Century"). And, please, what happens to your scrotum is your business.
I also always appreciated the "all of the above" answer when I didn't really have the correct one.
Shep has figured out the evil plan of us neocons. Quick, Dean. We've been exposed ;)
I agree that if / when we bet serious, the draft may be required. Nukes are appropriate in many cases - however not all. To quote a remark I read a long time ago, "You can fly over a land, bomb a land, make that land glow in the dark. However, if you want to take that land, protect that land and save it for civilization - it must be done the way the Roman Legions did. By putting your young men in the mud." I can't remember the author (sigh).
Regards
Mike,
Right, but that's the idea. Our current strategy is to "take that land, protect that land and save it for civilization," and that is, as you point out by implication, expensive and time-consuming. The fear is that this strategy may not work fast enough, and we may find ourselves forced to obliterate our enemies utterly, along with everyone else unfortunate enough to be in the blast radius. In the latter situation, I don't think a draft would be necessary.
I think we will be successful in our current strategy, and we will not need to resort to the quick and dirty "war of civilizations" under discussion. However, our goals are being undermined by those who do not wish America to succeed, and I don't think they realize that the alternative to success is not our failure, but the instant obliteration of our enemies. That is the "wildfire" that we must avert.
shep:
I sincerely hope yours and Kristol's brightest dreams, and not everyone's worst nightmare, come true.
At least we have an alternative to the nightmare.
Great alternative, Jeff. You sure know how to pick 'em.
I love the idea that if somehow, someone named Kristol wrote a plan, this means that anyone who comes up with the same basic strategy must have gotten it from him somehow. It being impossible for reasoning persons to have come to the same conclusions, it must be that some evil Neocons slipped into our bedrooms at night and played a recording of "the master plan" into our ears>
What's notable about the "neocon/Kristol/rightwingagenda" master plan that I've supposedly signed onto is that it makes perfect sense to me, and, more importantly, I haven't heard what the alternative plans are. Just, apparently, Bill Kristol wrote it up and so, well, you know, it's bad or something.
"I agree that if / when we bet serious, the draft may be required. "
I don't.
If we as a people "get serious", people will fight. People will line up out the door and down the street to fight.
If we aren't lining up to fight, all the draft will do is boost opposition to the whole war effort the way it did in Vietnam.
Well, they did use the draft during WWII. In fact it was kinda funny, guys who wanted to join up were sometimes turned away and told to wait for the draft board to contact them.
We had a different mentality back then.
Dean,
I'm not sure that we "taught the people in that part of the world that we are more powerful than they thought."
Isn't it possible for exactly the opposite lesson to be drawn from Iraq?
We have shown "that part of the world" and, indeed, the whole world, exactly the limits of our power. We might argue as to whether the US has enough troops to properly occupy and pacify Iraq, but it seems abundantly clear that we could not manage two simultaneous occupations of similar scale -- and now our potential enemies know it.
As to our abiltiy to destroy, rather than occupy -- was there really any doubt as to what the nuclear bomb can do and which country in the world has the most of them?
"I love the idea that if somehow, someone named Kristol wrote a plan, this means that anyone who comes up with the same basic strategy must have gotten it from him somehow. It being impossible for reasoning persons to have come to the same conclusions, it must be that some evil Neocons slipped into our bedrooms at night and played a recording of "the master plan" into our ears"
Why be coy, Dean? I'm dead sure you know the origin and authors of the neocon movement and philosophy (which you otherwise so earnestly propagate), William Kristol and his father, Irving, and the disciples who populate the current administration. Are you afraid to talk about the founders and authors of the philosophy you seem so proud of? Why do you deny that you know that the Iraq policy was written by these people (how can you, it’s in print for all to read)? Don’t you have the courage of their convictions? Is that why neocons a re-branding as “brights”? What gives?
Nothing "gives", shep.
There are people in this world able to think for themselves. Unlike the liberal world which you inhabit, people on the right are encouraged to have independent thought.
I'm certainly not a Bright (actually, I'm a Brilliant...), and I'm probably not a Neo-con. I've never read anything by Kristal, but I agree with Dean that it is a reasonable plan.
So. One of the major techniques of arguing without substance is to paste labels on things so you can dismiss them without actually having to explain why the opposite view is wrong. If you can demonize, you can claim the moral high ground. You are demonstrating this technique with unusually skilled facility. But it still bores me.
Yeah, you don't give a crap about amusing me. But someday you'll have to convince someone who didn't already agree with you, and boring people isn't a great way to start...
“There are people in this world able to think for themselves.”
I know that, Nathan. I’ve read some of them here, including Dean, at times. At other times, it’s the same, pedantic neoconservative rhetoric I’ve been hearing since Reagan: taxes and government bad, lower classes undeserving, free-market good, American might great. Those who disagree are “liberal, socialist, unpatriotic, unthinking, envious, mean-spirited, America-hating, etc., etc. ad nauseum. – talk about dismissive labels. You won’t find me using labels like that, Nathan, because I too find them boring and uninformative and they show that the name-caller believes his substantive argument is weak.
I’m making only the neocon point because it’s so absolutely relevant to Iraq policy, and this administration, and Dean refuses to be honest about it – he knows damned well this strategy was written by Kristol, et al. I’d love to talk about the ideas but all I’m getting is a dodge.
shep,
I don't see anyone here preventing you from talking about anything.
OK, Bernard, then I'll ask a question. What do you think of "The Project for The New American Century" idea; using our military might to "wage a war for civilization", wherever our strategic interests may lie?
Well, shep, I'm not familiar enough with this so-called "Project" to comment intelligently on it. But if, in fact, we are engaged in a war for civilization, it seems apparent to me that it is a fight we were provoked into joining, not one that we went looking to start. The first duty of government is to ensure the safety and security of the citizenry. To that end, I think it is an imperative that our leaders use whatever means necessary to defeat those who would bring death and destruction to our shores. In some cases this may mean--in fact, it may require--that we depose unfriendly regimes harboring, funding, supplying, or otherwise abetting those who would wish to attack us. In other cases, it may simply mean entering a room in the middle of the night and quietly dispatching someone with a single bullet to the back of the head.
But the sober truth is: We can never, nor should we aspire to, kill everyone who might conceivably wish us harm. What we can and should do is speak frankly to our erstwhile allies (the Saudis, the French...) in a way as to impress upon them a new standard of behaviour, which, to be sure, whether they realize it or not, is in their own best long-term interest as well. Just as importantly, we need to cultivate and encourage a higher standard of thought and behaviour from the wider, supposedly peaceful, Muslim world. If Islam is indeed a religion of peace, then surely it is a clerical duty of those ministering to the masses to impart this message with more force. Closing maddrasahs that teach hate should not be an unreasonable expectation. Neither should be an outright condemnation of bin Laden and his ilk.
Our 'strategic interests', as it were, are many and varied. Inarguably, we have military and economic interests in the mid-east, as we do the world over. We also have an interest in educating, so as to persuade, those who might otherwise hate us to not do so.
But failing that, we have a duty to ourselves and our children to instill enough fear, use enough force--whatever it takes--to insure the survival of our country, our civilization.
That sounds good to me, Bernard. Too bad there's no bright line to say when and how our use of force will actually advance our long-term strategic interests and when will turn out to be be counter-productive.