A shorthand has developed recently suggesting that going after the terrorists on our terms is the “right” way to fight them. That to “ignore” or “appease” or “satisfy their grievances” is the “wrong” way.
Hidden in that assessment as it’s unfolding in the US Presidential campaign is also the implication that to “ignore” or “appease” or “satisfy their grievances” is the “left’s” way, as well. It’s perhaps pointless to note that our strongest ally in all this is a country where the “left” is currently in power or that other than completing military operations that our troops would certainly have been ready and able to accomplish regardless of whether a Republican or Democratic was in the White House (had they chosen to enact them), there’s nothing the current Adminstration has done in the fight that hasn’t been fought for by the left over the right’s initial objections (Homeland Security Department) or overwhelmingly supported by the left (Afghanistan). In fact the only difference of any note is the grand experiment we’re calling “Operation Iraqi Freedom,” which remains to demonstrate that it will indeed help stop terrorism in the end. Current good results are neck-and-neck with bad results there at the moment.
Therefore, the editorial from the Jerusalem Post that Andrew Sullivan cites, is treading on thin logical ice when it asserts that
For a while, many here [in Israel] thought the terrorists could be either manipulated by Western negotiators or persuaded by Arab leaders to lay down their arms, provided their grievances were heard and some of their demands heeded….Israel has since learned that terrorism cannot be beaten by satisfying “grievances.”
Implicit in this statement is the suggestion that Israel has actually learned what WILL beat the terrorists. This does not stand up to reason, however. Terrorism in Israel has not lessened since they abandoned any such efforts. Their current efforts are as ineffective as any previous ones.
This is not an argument for inaction, however. But rather a call to keep in mind that there most likley is no one “right” way or “wrong” way to win this fight. There may be times when satisfying “grievances” is a necessary ingredient in the overall effort. Furthermore, to suggest that only someone who supported the invasion of Iraq knows what it takes to defeat the terrorists (as Andrew goes on to do) is to fall clear through the thin logical ice into a pond of pure partisan prattle.
“Hidden in that assessment as it’s unfolding in the US Presidential campaign is also the implication that to “ignore” or “appease” or “satisfy their grievances” is the “left’s” way, as well.”
Maybe I’m just grumpy today, but it seems to me that I have read hundreds of sentences like the above where the left claims that they aren’t for appeasement or ignoring the problem. I see very little from the left about what should actually be done.
Great, you aren’t for appeasement. That is kind of the minimum threshold for intelligent speaking on terrorism.
What were you for again? Multi-lateral talking? Unanimous UN action? Wait let me guess! You are for the direct and positive action of not going into Iraq! That is my favorite one. As if the mere fact of not going into Iraq is an action in the war. Wait, you want to ‘do something’ about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. What ‘something’ is that? Invade the Defenders of Mecca? Utilize the power of international disapproval against Pakistan which caused the Taliban to fold in the late 1990s? Perhaps you want a more prosperous Middle East? Maybe you think that defeating dictators from the inside is a regular occurrence in the Middle East?
The war on terrorism doesn’t begin and end with Afghanistan. There has to be something more. There has to be a lot more. And frankly Homeland Security as defined by the left or the right is a joke without a foreign policy that leads to the actual defeat of Islamist movements around the world.
If you don’t want to be tarred with appeasement, and you bring the topic up yourself, couldn’t you give us some idea what your non-appeasement foreign policy might look like?
What were you for again? Multi-lateral talking? Unanimous UN action? Wait let me guess! You are for the direct and positive action of not going into Iraq! That is my favorite one.
Thanks, Sebastian. That’s the one I came up with. Better to do nothing then cause additional harm.
I dan’t know why the word appeasement is being used in this discussion. Who appeased whom? When? Was it Bush when he moved troops out of Saudi Arabia? When he let the Bin Ladens fly out of the country when no non-military American was allowed to do so?
We used to call your approach the “badger box,” Sebastian. You box in your opponent by eliminating any avenue for rational discussion with pre-emptive dismissals that don’t match your opinions and then challenge your opponent to “rational discussion” anyway…in effect leaving nothing for them to do but stand there and be badgered.
Through all your admitted grouchiness you offer nothing more than the idea that invading Iraq is better than doing nothing. But there is another option you’re not recognizing and that’s that invading Iraq will actually make things worse.
By not focussing all our efforts on bin Laden, we may have directly played a role in this:
Al – Qaida Mutates Into Web of Terrorists
You can argue that invading Iraq did not distract from our efforts to find bin Laden…it’s simply taken this long…but you can’t deny that his longevity is both an embarrassment to the US and a potential recruit device for our enemies. By focussing on the invasion of Iraq we’re sending the message to many people (right or wrong) that we’re more interested in (take your pick) oil, revenge, imperialism, etc. than we are in catching the man who masterminded the murder of 3000 of our people.
This may not be fair, but it’s out there…it’s the perception…and it’s not helping matters.
“If you believe in their ideas, then you are one of them. You are al-Qaida”
Seems simple enough. You defeat the ideas. Same way we defeated Communism, you make totalitarian Islam abhorrent You make Sharia unacceptable. You make dimmi disappear. You turn Iraq into California, and Saudi Arabia into Italy.
Why is this difficult to understand?
Why is this difficult to understand?
What, the turning Iraq in California part or the idea that equating all the people in Saudi Arabia with murderers doesn’t help our cause?
Look, it’s the Mendacious Argument from the other thread (One thread to rule them all, one thread to bind them)
“couldn’t you give us some idea what your non-appeasement foreign policy might look like?”
I’m taking from context that ‘you’ here means ‘the Left’ (never mind that The Left has never, to my knowledge, posted here). I’m going to sound combative here, but I have to wonder why, if you want to know so badly, you haven’t taken the minimum effort to look it up?
I certainly don’t have all the answers, and Edward, despite his Magnificent Wisdom, doesn’t either. But it’s disingenuous and just plain lazy to suggest that opponents of the current plan don’t have a foreign policy.
Better effort is spent disagreeing with it.
“If you believe in their ideas, then you are one of them. You are al-Qaida”
Sorry. I can see nothing wrong in the above statement. As long as the goal of murderering Westerners is popular in the streets of Riyadh or Jenin, there will be no shortage of young men to do the actual killing.
Better effort is spent disagreeing with it.
Next time you’re in NYC sidereal, I owe you a drink.
Ok I guess the implication is that Al-Qaeda and the supporters of al-Qaeda are to treated in exactly the same way. Of course I am not advocating genocide.
But, as an example, one of the first measures in the “Road Map” was to take anti-Israeli propaganda out of Palestinian schools and off Palestinian TV. All the terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza could be rounded up, and until the propaganda ceased, a new generation of terrorists would simply arise to replace them.
I suspect this is one of the leading differences in the “War” vs “Criminal” approaches. The problem is not specific people, or a specific group of people.
I’ll Use More Capital Letters About Your Wisdom if it’ll get me two drinks. I’m shameless that way.
Al-Qaeda mutates into a web of terrorists? Huh? Isn’t that the way they have always worked? I heard stories in October 2001, which I think was before the invasion of Iraq, that Al-Qaeda operated that way. Bush’s invasion of Iraq didn’t make that happen.
I am not a member of the Bush government or a big wig politico. Yet I can quite easily articulate the general thrust of Bush’s War on Terrorism. Why can’t you articulate the general thrust of the non-appeasement “left” way. And please note that I am merely using your terms.
Edward wrote:
What is the evidence that the Homeland Security Department (which was actually passed over the Left’s objection when they were unable to turn it into a jobs program to increase government employee union membership) has demonstrated that it will indeed help stop terrorism in the end?
On the other hand, the Iraqi phase of the War has already proven to have actual benefits – terrorists having to fight our troops on Iraqi soil rather than civilians on ours, putting ending the sanctions and “oil for weapons” program in Iraq, pressure for reform and disarmament on other regimes in the region, and in the long term providing an example of a stable liberalized republican alternative to the dictatorships which are the mainstay in that part of the world.
The whole objection of the left to the war in Iraq starts from the Right’s claim that it is a war on terrorism. It isn’t. The war on terrorism was pretty clear. It was a war on the people who attacked the U.S. in 2001. Bush knocked out the state that protected those attackers, i.e. the Taliban, then simply stopped the job. As for those who claim that Saddam H. was connected in any serious way with Al Qaeda, they have to ask themselves two questions: 1, why Bush himself has said that the U.S. has found no connection; and 2, if serious connection to Al Qaeda is a cause for war, why aren’t we at war with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? Even those who believe that Saddam was connected to Al Qaeda refuse to confront the massive evidence that shows that the Pakistani Intelligence and members of the Saudi elite (which is where Osama bin Laden, the unspoken one — at least unspoken by the feeble American president that has still not succeeded in rolling his network up, much less capturing him dead or alive) were much more connected and vital to Al Q. For that matter, so was a certain segment of Malaysia, which is why the hijackers plotted the attack in Malaysia.
The right can’t answer this question, so they divert us from it. But they shouldn’t be allowed to. They should also be asked what, in God’s name, was the logic behind withdrawing our forward forces from Afghanistan in the quest for Osama in 2002. If the Bushies really believed there was a connection between Osama and Saddam, they would have surely finished the job, since it is incomprehensible to leave your enemy in the throes of a victorious campaign, and let him regroup, while you attack another enemy a year later.
However, if you really believe that terrorism is, after all, best dealt with by criminal procedures and throwing in a little paramilitary support, and if you really believe that Osama or his men had no intention of causing you trouble while you attack Saddam H. because they are enemies — then you just might do something like that.
The Bush administration reeks of bad faith. Let’s hope their conflation of Saddam and Osama works for them, the same way ETA worked for Aznar.
“There may be times when satisfying “grievances” is a necessary ingredient in the overall effort.”
Shorter Edward: I know you’re all grieving and scared and all, and of course there is absolutely no relation, but can we talk about Palestine now?
What is the evidence that the Homeland Security Department (which was actually passed over the Left’s objection when they were unable to turn it into a jobs program to increase government employee union membership) has demonstrated that it will indeed help stop terrorism in the end?
The fight is both offense and defense Thorley. Surely that part is easy to grasp. The left has supported the defensive posture by fighting for the Deparment of Homeland Security. Bush’s “politics” with regards to union issues is shameful. The left has also supported the offensive posture by supporting the President’s actions in Afghanistan where the people who planned the attack against us were being protected.
Iraq is connected to the 9/11 attacks only through the most convoluted logic. You can argue, as you have, that it’s defensive in the long term, but that’s pure speculation at this point. It could easily turn to pure hell, as well. But it doesn’t matter…the innocent Iraqi civilians who died so that Bush could try this experiment were not ours to sacrifice.
Shorter Edward: I know you’re all grieving and scared and all, and of course there is absolutely no relation, but can we talk about Palestine now?
Bob aims…he shoots…he {{{bzzzt}}}….ahhh, he fouls.
Not even close Mr. McManus.
Edward, I think Bob’s going by Mr. Bananahammock now – see this.
Out of context! Unfair!
I knew commenting on multiple blogs was gonna get me into trouble
Rilkefan, so it is a small blogosphere, after all…
Of course it is, remarkably so.
Is there something in that I should be embarrassed about? In context and rhythm, I was hoping it would be funny.
I can hardly keep track of the people I see on multiple blogs. Rilke and praktike get around, Holsclaw, luislegria.
It is actually, interesting enough to generate a post. Since I define trolling as being offensively out-of-step with the tone or interests of a blog, staying consistent across blogs while remaining in comity within a blog is a challenge.
“Iraq is connected to the 9/11 attacks only through the most convoluted logic.”
The 9/11 attacks aren’t the only issue in play here. Limiting the war specifically to Al Qaeda is a great way to lose. Al Qaeda is just one version of the many authoritarian visions which have dangerously gripped the Middle East. Iraq is another. Iran is another. Saudi Arabia is another. All of them combine with the practice of Islam in different ways to breed terrorism in ways that is not typical even in the world of heavily oppressed people.
Much of the problem that the West has with terrorists is their apparent belief that we can be easily frightened off. This belief began with Carter’s pathetic response to the Iranian hostage crisis, continued with Reagan’s hasty retreat from Lebanon, went through Bush I’s decision not to finish off Saddam, and continued with Clinton’s retreat from Somalia and token cruise missiles.
Saddam supported many terrorist groups, and as you conceed above Al Qaeda is more of an informal grouping of other terrorist groups than anything else. Furthermore he has been one of the largest living symbols of an ability to defy the world since 1991. Also he has been in near-constant defiance of his cease-fire terms and had not allowed WMD inspections for years. Even when Blix was forced upon him, he did not cooperate fully (remember the U-2 restrictions? the one day delay at a requested site due to ‘lost keys’? the ridiculous December ‘disclosure’?)
Dealing with him was a necessary part of reshaping the Middle East which is an entirely necessary part of finally winning the war on terrorism. In the long term it will be won by allowing citizens to experience freedom and the wealth that comes with an open society. That wasn’t going to happen with Saddam sitting in the middle of the Middle East.
Oh look, I just gave you a general outline of the right’s strategy. Wish you would do the same for the left.
I expect a difference I would have with Mr. Holsclaw is that if the Bush administration had chosen Lebanon, Syria, or Iran I would not be screaming “What about Saddam”. I wanted the foorprint, show of force, and democracy building in the middle east, and while Iraq was the best choice for a number of reasons, I did not consider Saddam all that dangerous. And the other countries I listed above would have had their own advantages.
“In the long term it will be won by allowing citizens to experience freedom and the wealth that comes with an open society.”
I guess this is better than “turning SA into Italy” but means much the same thing.
Edward wrote:
And the evidence that the Department of Homeland Security (which is pretty much a reorganization of existing agencies) has demonstrated that it has helped to stop terrorism is . .. ? Or are we just supposed to assume that once you create a new federal bureaucracy to handle a problem it automatically makes it better?
Whereas the Left’s politics with regards to our national security – such as trying to burden the Department of Homeland Security (the value of which I for one find questionable to begin with) by trying to impair the commander in chief’s ability to have the maximum flexibility possible – is deplorable and dangerous. Something which even the left-of-center Brookings Institute had to acknowledge:
Just the sort of system you want with a new bureaucracy which is supposed to protect homeland security, ehh?
Actually that should be the “reactive posture” in which we let the enemy set the time table and pick the battleground. Me, I prefer a proactive policy where we are sending our best soldiers to fight the enemy on their own soil instead of in our airspace.
Since the alternative was to either (a) lift the sanctions and let Saddam Hussein have free reign or (b) continue trying to keep the sanctions and “oil for weapons and palaces” program in place, I’d say that the Iraqi civilians are getting a better deal with the third alternative (c) remove Saddam Hussein and give the people there a chance to build a stable republican form of government.
Sebastian, the left has called for a real effort in Afghanistan, both at Tora Bora and in continued reconstruction efforts; a less political Patriot act and a real Dept of Homeland Security; the same intelligence/special ops/interdiction; better coordination with our allies; effort towards energy independence; the implementation of the Clinton plan in Palestine; leaving Saddam alone for a few years of muscular inspections; more energy/money towards corralling Russian nukes/expertise, ditto for AQ Khan&Co; and an actual uniter-not-divider in the WH in place of Cheney/Rove/Bush and their wedge issues.
I subscribe to the above modulo the DHS.
BobThe Lebannon has little to do with these events. Syria has been helping us with intelligence and the occasional outsourced bit of torture. Iran is a big problem but we’re not invading a semi-modern country of 70 million except as a last resort.
Why is Iran a big problem? If the Dems hadn’t been bullied into continuing the stupid double sanction thing, Saddam H. might have been forced out well before 2003. Detente with Iran in the nineties was logical, it was in America’s interest, and it would have strengthened the forces of Democracy there in the long run. The right’s policy is bankrupt. Right before our eyes, we see a resurgency of the theocrats. Duh! But every defeat for them is a moral victory — hey, look how bad Iran is, man! Right. What happened to the opening that was going to be forced by putting US troops on the line in Iraq?
These people have no standard of success, no metric. They can’t even successfully lead a tough policy, since they are unable to disentangle it from short term partisan advantage. Luckily, the reality principle is catching up with them. There’s a lot of anxiety on the left about an October surprise, when Bush parades a newly captured Osama. But it looks like his criminal neglect of Osama has seeded others, and that is more and more difficult to explain.
As for the general plan in the Middle East, that’s a laughable pseudo-colonial effort run by bureaucrats who haven’t the foggiest idea of the cultures they are dealing with. It’s rather hilarious that conservatives have adopted a foreign policy that essentially prolongs all the flaws of central planning that conservative economists have pointed to for years.
As the Iraqis take control of their own destiny, the missed chance to have any sort of connection to Iran is going to hurt more and more. Iraq has no interest in being hostile to Iran, and every interest in forming a Shi’ite block. And self interest is going to trump self righteous U.S. blather every time.