"Conservatives think the idea of democratizing the mideast is going to work."

Not just conservatives, and in fact one could argue that it is neo-conservatives who feel it will work, while "normal" conservatives are much more pessimistic. Whether or not this optimism is misplaced is something that doesn't matter to those who believe it. They recognize that they morally have to try anyway, no matter the difficulty. Their choices if it fails eat at their souls, and no one, no sane person at least, wants to see a world where Wretchards "2nd conjecture" is proven correct.

If democratizing the mideast doesn't work:

Then we need to hand pieces of the mideast over to the Shi'a. Some of the Wahib sect of the Sunni hate the Shi'a more than they hate us. If we can't make the mideast better then we have to confound our worst enemy, the source of the funds that the 9/11 crew used; the Wahib of the Sunni. This stands a chance of making the Wahib hesitate to attack us again. How big a chance? I don't know.

I wish it were true that democratization reduces terrorism, but where is the historical evidence?

Even thriving democracies can produce terrorists
( e.g.Western Europe in the 60's and 70's)

The democratization which followed World War I produced a highly combustible mix.

Latin America's history of democracy alternating with dictatorship provides no comfort either.

It seems to me that democratization in the Middle East is not likely to eliminate terrorism for at least a generation -- 30 years. In the meantime, we need to focus on intelligence, policing, and military solutions.

Conservatives don't think the idea of democratizing the Middle East will work.

Conservatives think we must, for our own moral good, try to democratize the Middle East, and not a mere "try" either. An honest to God decades-long commitment of a third of a million troops and scores of billions of dollars a year for 10-15 years try.

The alternative is glassifying the Middle East. Which we can do.

IMO we'll democratize some, glassify some and the rest of the Middle East will move elsewhere or be killed by others, notably the ones who live there right now, though also by the good old standbys of famine, disease and exposure.

We didn't RE-build them, we (and they) built something entirely new on top of the ashes and rubble.

Incorrect on a couple of levels. In Japan, damage to infrastructure was inconsistent; several industries were systematically demolished but many, such as shipping, I believe, were largely unscathed. And though Douglas MacArthur used every ounce of his indomitable will to mold Japan into a capitalist, pluralist democracy, great pains were taken to graft or carve the new way of life onto/into the old one. The Diet concept was preserved. Chapter I of a constitution SCAP made sure appeared written by Japanese protected the emperor and preserved the seat's role as figurehead. Though more a cause of the latter-years' "Reverse Course," in which previously sought reforms were diluted or dropped altogether, the general structure of the zaibatsu companies remained.

Unfortunately, the examples of Germany and Japan have been misunderstood as perfect models or as guarantees that Iraq's democratization will proceed accordingly. Their general benefit to understanding Iraq is too often dismissed on the basis of differing minutiae. But what good is commentary on assertive democratization primarily led by Americans if we ignore historical examples of it? Many, many basic principles can be explored and applied to better analyze Iraq. The panic factor is certainly lowered.

As to Rick's comments:

Even thriving democracies can produce terrorists

Any society can and will produce anything in small quantities; no culture is immune to isolated extremism. But the difference between a despotism and a democracy is a democracy's near-universal condemnation of the acts and, in the case of the Near East, tolerance or embrace. Public condemnation does little good, as an often complete lack of open dialogue prevents a common good from establishing alternatives to terrorism's seduction to angry young men. Moreover, European examples like Irish or Basque terrorism trace both their circumstantial origins and contemporary resources to authoritarianism. You can't make a conclusion on the ineffectiveness of democracy when the dictatorship elephant is still in the room.

The democratization which followed World War I produced a highly combustible mix.

Rather, the diffident and unsupported attempts at democracy brought about Europe's post-WWI totalitarian regimes. A poorly built suspension shouldn't detract from the utility of bridges. In fact, the vulnerability of nascent democracy - and its potential to bring about terrible political consequences - is quite a good argument against what you're advocating. No half-measures, no benevolent autocrats. You've either got an operationally free country or a geopolitical incision waiting to go septic. Law enforcement or "surgical" military action is exactly what the Western world tried for the last half of the last century, to our own endangerment. Picking away at cells while leaving an oppressed society in place is like weeding by snipping the petals off of dandelions.

But, alas, name calling is all the vogue. We seem to have fallen back on that as our principal means of communications.

I'm reminding of a scene from the movie 2001 where two groups of apes, each anxious to use a watering hole, confront each other from opposite sides. Their gestures and actions aren't relevant: they're hurling insults at the other group at the most basic level. And so we see our presidential candidates doing the same thing, individuals who support or oppose the war, also doing the same thing.

I'm sitting here listening to AX radio, digital satellite, a reply of some program today on MSNBC, FOX, or CNN. I don't know which channel it's on and quite frankly there's no real clue that differentiates them. They're arguing about whether Kerry throwing ribbons, not "whole medals" over the White House fence in 1971 are one and the same.

What about the outsourcing of American jobs? What are we going to do with the fanatics holed up in Fallujah?

Guess the next big topic is whether there will be live network coverage of the funeral of Pat Tillman and we'll hear for the thousandt time how many millions he left behind, but no one will remember to mention he was a bright young man with a 3.8 G.P.A., not merely some patriotic jock.

Maybe we've always needed heroes and little substance in our presidential elections. (Oops, must be FOX I have on at present. Someone just bashed Kerry. Hard telling about the three mentioned, however, as they all blather about the same nonsense, repeat the latest rumor about Michael Jackson, do their "interview for the day" of some Marine or G.I. in Iraq. Haven't heard Afghanistan mentioned since the sad death of Tillman.)

Think I'll switch to CNN and see if I can find some more interesting name calling....anyone have a three sided coin?

I left a relevant comment on the earlier thread. Short summary: A.L. set an unnecessary dichotomy. Start thinking outside the bounds of nation states.

Even thriving democracies can produce terrorists
( e.g.Western Europe in the 60's and 70's)
*************************************************
That is not exactly the whole picture. Western Eurpope did not create terrrorists all by itself it had quite a bit of help from the Soviet Bloc.
Now exactly what happened to those cadres when their Nation State Support collapsed?
**************************************************
The democratization which followed World War I produced a highly combustible mix.
************************************************
I am not certain it was the "democratization" which produced the combustible mix.

The Entente Cordiale created several Nation States out of the remnants of their defeated enemies that were preordained to fail.

Yugoslavia? A Nation created from provinces of three Empires, one Catholic, one Orthodox and one Islamic? Iraq? 60% Shi'ia, and 40% Sunni the Sunni portion split equally between Arabic and Kurd, with the Arabic Sunnis put in control?
You know there are as many ethnic Kurds as there are Iraqis? It would have made more sense to reconstitute the Anciet State of Kurdistan.

Odd isn't it Euorpean Diplomacy created such a disaster in that region and THEY are the ones we should be getting advise from?
*************************************************
Latin America's history of democracy alternating with dictatorship provides no comfort either.
**************************************************
Maybe we should have been helping there?
**************************************************
It seems to me that democratization in the Middle East is not likely to eliminate terrorism for at least a generation -- 30 years. In the meantime, we need to focus on intelligence, policing, and military solutions.
**************************************************
30 years, or 100 years it will take what it takes.
We either Democratise the region and the rest of the world or submit to dhimmitude.
One of us is going to win and one will become Dust with History and join the Carthaginians or the extinct Hindu Culture of what is now called Afghanistan.

BTW Afghanistan has another name, Hindu Kush, which means basicly Hindu Slaughter to put things in perspective.
Posted by: Rick (Centrist Coalition) on April 27, 2004 04:23 AM

Rick, sorry but you are wrong. The European terrorists groups were created, supported and directed by the Soviet Union. While they have the same basic characteristics as any other group seeking to force political change by the use of terror, they are NOT part and parcel of a democracy. You would be closer to the mark to compare the Islamic terrorists to the Drug cartels of S. America. Fear, violence and treachery have always been part of Islam, just as they have always been part of the Drug scene. While there are major differences between Drug Cartels and Islamic terrorists, they are closer then the various 'red Brigades' of Europe. Both sets( I think that you were thinking mainly of the 70's. The terrorist groups of the post WW1 period in Germany were much worse then their more modern counterparts). All societies will have some members that just do not belong and don't want to belong. The KGB would seek out these types in the West and direct their violent efforts. A war by Proxy. The IRA would be an even closer match to the Islamic terrorists. Plus there is one really glaring difference;
"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
-Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah,

This is an interesting formulation of the issue; it seems to be a valid formulation, as well. I have always suspected that much of the "liberal" opposition to the war is actually opposition to George Bush by another name. Liberal support for having the problem "solved" by the FBI and CIA (while railing against the Patriot Act, etc.) lends credence to my thesis.

Ben wrote:

This is an interesting formulation of the issue; it seems to be a valid formulation, as well. I have always suspected that much of the "liberal" opposition to the war is actually opposition to George Bush by another name. Liberal support for having the problem "solved" by the FBI and CIA (while railing against the Patriot Act, etc.) lends credence to my thesis.

I tend to agree, this does seem to be the only logical explanation given also that those who claim “Bush lied” about WMD’s had not made the same claims about the plethora of Democrats – including the former President and their presumptive nominee – who had also gone on the record as saying that they believed the former dictator of Iraq still had WMDs and was planning on reconstituting his program.

What sort of standard is the liberal program being held to? Now, I'm more than willing to entertain the possibility that the CIA and FBI performed badly in their responsibility to thwart terrorism by the much-derided law enforcement response. But then, they haven't done much about drugs either. By the proferred logic, we should be invading Colombia and Mexico, as a new approach. Put this way, the test applied to the FBI/CIA solution seems a little odd, nu?

So far, the benefits of trying to democratize the Middle East (on the cheap, I might add, in case Tom Holsinger hasn't noticed a discrepancy between his program and what's on the ground) seem small, compared with the expense in blood and treasure, and the large, perhaps overwhelming, probability that the new remedy will fail even worse. Of course, for those paranoid nuts who think that our invasion of Iraq is the only thing between us and dhimmitude, there's not much I can say.

[Aside to Thorley Winston: We don't say "The Democrats lied" because we have abundant evidence that Bush and especially Cheney went out of their way to prefer totally uncorroborated reports from the Chalabi fiction factory over the assessments of all other intel professionals, and they threw the weapons inspectors out of Iraq and made no attempt to re-evaluate their hypotheses based on new data. The Democrats and the Bush Administration were both mistaken, but in the latter case, that appears to have been a conscious choice.]

I'm extremely skeptical about democratizing the Middle East. Democracy evolved, first in ancient Greece, where people were pretty civil to begin with, and then again in early America, following hundreds of years of slow, patient progress toward that ideal.

The Middle East has been rooted firmly in the 12th Century - if not earlier - for hundreds of years. They simply do not grasp the concept of free thought separated from the influence of the mullahs and imams.

The only thing that's going to work in Iraq is a republic, headed by a strong leader (sounds vaguely like Saddam's time), but a leader who wants to see his people and his country prosper (sounds very much unlike Saddam).

Maybe what they need is a combo "Martin Attatürk"?

Okay, between this thread and the previous thread I'm a little clearer on some things and a lot more confused about others.

Apparently, the "liberal/dove" contingent has defined "intelligence" (or is it "law enforcement")--which they support--as including military action carried out on foreign soil covertly. Aside from this being more sporting--since it neutralizes somewhat our overwhelming advantages in conventional military force--I don't see why this is morally or pragmatically superior to conventional military force. Civilians still get killed. Property still gets damaged. I would sincerely be interested in an answer to this question. praktike? IdahoEv? Andrew Lazarus? It's also unclear to me what the recourse would be when terrorists adopt Mecca, Medina, Najaf or other sacred sites as their headquarters. Wouldn't assassinations carried out in these places by the U. S. be seen as cause for jihad?

While I understand and even have sympathy for the position articulated by Tom Holsinger the response from Andrew Lazarus was spot on--it's not what we're doing.

And, worst of all, the time required for any plan to work in is passing rapidly.

Pardon for asking, but aren't Matt's two approaches just the Sensing Swamp Alligators solutions from Joe's Amy's Answer thread?

"Bush lied" is a wonderful demonstration of wishful thinking combined with expert predictions of the past. "Wishful thinking" because Democrats are looking for a way to demonstrate that George Bush is as evil as they think he is, and "predicting the past" because the only people who say they knew all along that Saddam didn't have WMD's are people who formed that opinion after the US invasion. Prior to the invasion, nearly everybody believed there were stockpiles of WMD's in Iraq. Current intelligence suggests that those stockpiles may have existed but that they were moved just prior to the invasion. In short, the jury is out as to whether there were WMD's. That said, on what basis can the Left legitimately say "Bush lied?" What evidence do that have that he knew they did not while deliberately saying they did to justify an invasion? What motive would he have had for invading for no reason? The answer, of course, is that George Bus did not lie. At worst, he was incorrect. There is a difference.

I supported the war from the beginning and still do. I have a lot of reasons for this support, and a lack of WMD's (assuming none are found) does not affect my support. In addition to WMD's, my reasons included (1) Saddam was a tyrant who deserved to be removed from power; (2) Saddam ignored us for years and we were losing "face" in the Arab world; I believe that we had to do something about him in order to avoid more terrorism in the future; (3) Saddam supported terrorism and our enemies; and (4) this would be the first step in attempting to transform the Middle East.

I was not absolutely convinced that I was right about number 4, and was willing to listen to counter arguments. The problem is that the Left has refused to make arguments. They claim that "Bush lied" and therefore the war was bad. How could we have addressed the problems in Iraq short of war? What other means could have been used to stop terrorism? How else could the Iraqis have gained freedom from oppression? Not only has the Left not provided an adequate answer to these questions, it has ignored the questions completely.

Ben:

Not only has the Left not provided an adequate answer to these questions, it has ignored the questions completely.

While I cannot by any stretch be considered to represent the Left, I don't think you've got a hold of the real issue here. The Left appears to be absolutely, positively convinced that:

1. Insofar as terrorism is an immediate problem it can be dealt with by means of law enforcement and intelligence activities (variously construed). Round up the bad guys and the problem will be over.
2. The long-term problems of terrorism can be dealt with by massive infusions of economic aid and education, preferably delivered through the U. N.

These positions are such an article of faith that those who disagree must be lying, warmongers, racially biased against Arabs, profiteers, or so combination of the above.

We don't hear much from the extreme Right on this blog. Basically, the extreme Right doesn't understand why we haven't already converted the Middle East to a radioactive rollerskating rink.

We also don't hear much here from the extreme Left but I think you know the drill: it's the U. S. fault, etc.

The rational Right believes just as fervently in the neocon plan: remove the corrupt and evil regimes and liberal democracy will naturally spring forth from the ashes and reform the entire region virtually overnight. They absolutely positively believe that law enforcement defined as warrants issued by judges, arrest by cops on the beat, trials, and imprisonment and intelligence defined as information-gathering is not sufficient to defeat terrorism.

It's an impasse. Neither side will persuade the other. And from where I sit, it looks like we're marching inexorably toward the extreme Right plan.

We need to remember that "glassifying the middle east" won't be even remotely sufficient. The millions of Muslims who live among us as ordinary, peaceful citizens would likely take a . . . dim view of the USG killing one billion of their fellow worshipers.

Now suddenly the US would be filled with enemies within where few existed before. A Muslim Final Solution would be necessary, both here and in Europe, to ensure our safety.

Would the people here stand idly by as the Muslims were hauled away for extermination? I don't know. Consider that if even 1% of the US Muslim population became terrorists after the mass nuking our civilization would come to a grinding halt.

Ugly all around. People assume that the mass nuking would be "the end" but no, it can get much, much worse after that.

Well said, Ben.

The rational Right believes just as fervently in the neocon plan: remove the corrupt and evil regimes and liberal democracy will naturally spring forth from the ashes and reform the entire region virtually overnight.

Really and who said that exactly? I have heard numerous administration officials talking about a slog and staying to finish the job with no one promising an exit date, but have yet to hear anyone suggest that the nations of the Middle East would transform into a (classical) liberal republican society overnight or spring up naturally. The fact that we helped both the Afghanis and Iraqis to raft a constitution and are gradually transferring power to civilian governments to me indicates that this is a straw man argument.

They absolutely positively believe that law enforcement defined as warrants issued by judges, arrest by cops on the beat, trials, and imprisonment and intelligence defined as information-gathering is not sufficient to defeat terrorism.

It is a vital part of it (which makes the knee-jerk criticism by some rather than qualified criticism of the Patriot Act rather puzzling) but not the entirety. Some decent border control rather than varying plans for amnesty for illegal aliens would seem to be a necessary step. Reforming Nunn-Luger (rather than throwing more money at the program) to better secure the former Soviet Union’s nuclear materials rather than feed the kleptocracy’s corruption is another step. So is engaging North Korea in multi-lateral talks (as opposed to bilateral ones) with the threat of cutting off their energy supply is another important step to stop their proliferation of WMDs. I think that we also need to look at reforming some international institutions (e.g. the UN Oil for Palaces Program) to deal with corruption as well as take a long hard look the trade policies of the United States and other nations (e.g. France, Germany, Russia, etc.) when it comes to selling dual-use technology to the wrong people.

Thorley Winston:

Really and who said that exactly? I have heard numerous administration officials talking about a slog and staying to finish the job with no one promising an exit date, but have yet to hear anyone suggest that the nations of the Middle East would transform into a (classical) liberal republican society overnight or spring up naturally.

Actually, it's implicit in the strategy. It is my considered belief that any U. S. president will respond to an attack with a nuclear device on a U. S. city by terrorists by using nuclear weapons. I think it would be politically impossible to do otherwise. The likely first targets would be either Tehran or Pyong-Yang or both. Therefore, unless the neocon plan can work quickly it can't work at all. We don't have decades. We have a few years, tops.

Additionally, whether you agree or disagree with the Administration their efforts to sell their plans to the American people have been inadequate. Steven Den Beste on a bad day has done more persuasive writing on this subject than the Adminstration members have done in aggregate since September 11, 2001. They appear to be relying on the American people's native good sense.

This won't be sufficient with a protracted conflict.

Finally, a fractional solution cannot produce the desired results. A benign autocracy won't spread contagiously through the region, foster moderate reform movements, or put appreciable pressure on repressive regimes in the region.

It is a vital part of it

I agree.

Some decent border control rather than varying plans for amnesty for illegal aliens would seem to be a necessary step.

Once again I agree. Although this might have been politically possible in October or November 2001, it's politically impossible now. Neither party's leadership can muster the will. And GWB's position hasn't helped at all.

I agree that a reform of Nunn-Luger is a great idea. However, unless we can convince China to put the hammer down on the North Koreans there is no solution to that particular problem. A bi-lateral agreement is necessary but between China and the U. S.. I don't think we have the guts.

And IMO the U. N.'s flaws are fundamental.

Dave,

I wrote this 18 months ago:

"The greatest danger is that further major terrorist attacks in America might cause its people to erupt in Jacksonian fury, as opposed to repeated minor attacks which would result only in expulsion of all non-citizen Muslims. Genocide would require identifiable targets, though, so prior elimination of regimes giving terrorists geographic sanctuaries would do much to avoid the possibility."

http://www.strategypage.com/strategypolitics/articles/20021128.asp

Tom Holsinger:

I agree.

Check out the results of the earthquake at Bam. If the low construction standards, poor infrastructure, and lack of emergency services there are characteristic of the entire region, the direct damage, indirect damage, and civil disorder likely to happen as a consequence of a really major attack could result in casualties orders of magnitude greater than such an attack would produce here.

Dave,

I'm talking about something else - that the U.S. govt. is in a race to take out terrorist-supporting governments before terrorists get off a mass fatality WMD attack here.

Right now the governments of Iran, Syria and Pakistan are officially supporting terrorists. Saudi Arabia is supporting them unofficially with much greater effect than Pakistan's official support.

North Korea is going down without our help (IMO that will happen in 9-12 months). We'll go into Iran sometime next year, probably in the fall of 2005. If Syria's kleptocracy doesn't go down for other reasons sooner (such as loss of Iranian financial support), we'll invade when the Iranian occupation winds down.

By then the Saudi regime will probably be visibly crumbling. God only knows what will be happening in Pakistan more than three years out.

Why should Liberals believe democratizing the ME will work, espec since as a class they are essentially demanding Bush turn over the handling of Iraq and Afghanistan to the UNO, NOW, before the current IGC/IGA even has a chance of achieving credibility with the people. Kofi Annan demanded or required that the US set up "progressive", ie SOCIALIST, governments in these rogue states, with Communist, Der ReichFrau Amerikaner Nein-Amerikaner, Hillary "Waaaaa,I'm Just a Girl like Martha Stewart" Clinton, aka Darth[ia] ClintWart, demanding the US put in for the long haul and contribute more $$$$$$$$$$$$ to these nations; while the rest of America's ordinary/mainstream DemLibs demand the US get out now or set up an "exit strategy" and while Dubya apologizes for 9-11. THE OBJECTIVES OF THE UNO AND HILLARY AND ANTI-WAR LEFTIES IS ONE AND THE SAME - ACHIEVE OR MODERNIZE FAILED [COMMUNIST]SOCIALISM, IN THE ME AND AROUND THE WORLD, ESPEC IN RUSSIA AND CHINA, AT AMERICAN, OR TO THE LESSOR EXTENT WESTERN EXPENSE, THE SAME OBJECTIVES UNDER PUTIN AS UNDER PRE-1989 GORBACHEVISM. BUSH, THE GOP-RIGHT, & AMERICA ARE BEING HIT FROM BOTH THE FRONT AND REAR, DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY, PC-CORRECT AND PC-INCORRECTLY, INTERNALLY, EXTERNALLY, PARALLELLY, AND COMPLEMENTARY,...ETC.! IOW, TO KILL OR DESTROY AMERICA WHILE LAWFULLY OR PC TAKING AWAY ITS WEALTH AND SOVEREIGNTY! Sun Tzu teaches that all warfare is DECEPTION - right now the Failed Left is in de facto "KILL OR BE KILLED", "US vs THEM" mode against successful America, Americanism, Westernism, Rightism, and Capitalism, and whether the Right knows it or not, believes it or not, likes it or not! 2004-2015/2020 = period of GLOBAL LIMITED WARS for Socialism, espec Socialism in America; after 2015/202, iff America is still NOT under domestic and International Socialist control, = ALL OUT, MUTUALLY DESTRUCTIVE, GLOBAL THERMONUCLEAR WAR very possible or likely, the one your father, older uncles-cousins, or great-gramps DIDN'T FIGHT DURING THE COLD WAR! Naturally its just a weird, weird, WEIRD and PC coincidence that America's new friend the Russians by 2017-2020 expect to have new blue-water aircrat carriers capable of challenging the US Navy anywhere, as well as new missles capable of overwhelming Bush's proposed GMD system - all together, men, like Britney Spears, "OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPS"!
Like Bill Clinton the Lawyer and former State Attorney General, the weirdly pro-NK, pro-Cuba, ...Communist-controlled Fascist Russians didn't know what they were doing when they lied to you, thanks to that dastardly of dastardly afflictive/contagious medical conditions, GEOPOLITICAL ANTI-AMERICAN ALZHEIMER'S - Its UN&US-ITIS, NOT ANUSITIS!? Just because we 're trying to kill and conquer America doesn't mean America has to get meanie about it, just as working to subjugate America under the UNO - you know, Bill's now unworkable "global integrated confederation" but now with some sort of new "some kind of overarching [higher-than-confederate]authority or higher level of governance" - "WHERE THE US IS NO LONGER THE BIG BOY ON THE BLOCK", IS "NOT TREASON"! It isn't per se "treason" in the Left's view because as Clintonian Right-leaning [alleged] Centrists, and fake [Unitarian] versions of the GOP-Right, like Bill C. the Left at least aesthetically supps Bush decisons and policies on the WOT, ie THEY WANT WAR, BUT ONLY RIGHTIST-LED ERGO ONLY RIGHTIST-BLAMED - WHAT THEY DON'T WANT ORDINARY AMERICANS TO KNOW IS THAT WHAT THEY DESIRE AND PLAN in PARALLEL AND FOR AFTER THE END OF THE WOT IS INDEED DE FACTO, ANTI-AMERICAN "TREASON"!

I confess to being both honored and overwhelmed by actually making the main page of WoC, but I've had a smoke and some air, and I've read through these excellent comments and found myself... with the same question.

Pardon me Mr. Lazarus, I'm going to quote you, although your statement is going to be rapidly abstracted so you may find yourself quickly absolved of any responsability to respond:

"What sort of standard is the liberal program being held to? Now, I'm more than willing to entertain the possibility that the CIA and FBI performed badly in their responsibility to thwart terrorism by the much-derided law enforcement response. But then, they haven't done much about drugs either. By the proferred logic, we should be invading Colombia and Mexico, as a new approach. Put this way, the test applied to the FBI/CIA solution seems a little odd, nu?"

I think this quote is representative of many such interesting and debatable questions derived from the quandry at hand. We can ask many questions about the legitimacy or credibility or value of this perspective or that - without moving an inch towards answering the question that all of us are most interested in and which was posed by Armed Liberal in detail and by myself in short. I'll reitterate:

What should we do instead?

In an effort to lead by example, I'll take a stab at answering my own question - not so my answer can be outright critiqued, since that will prove fairly easy, but rather to inspire the rest to follow suit with their own recommendations. We have ample supplies of nimble and powerful minds here - I would be heartened to see them work together instead of grinding points off each other.

I'll begin with some disclosure that I'm a native New Yorker, although I live in Berkeley, CA now. I admit my response to 9/11 was apocalyptic in nature, even if short-lived. I was aware of the Cole attack, and I lived in NYC for the first WTC bombing, so I was dimly aware of some kind of problem before 9/11, but utterly unaware of its scope - as I imagine most of you were.

Since 9/11, I have watched the world I knew twist and contort itself, while shrinking, into a sort of global adolescence where almost no one can even define the words they're using. liberal might mean leftist, or it might mean Libertarian, or it might mean leace-loving hippie, or some other definition depending on it's users perspective; Same for conservative. So we find ourselves involved in "the global War on Terror" - yet I think the smart money understands that it's not a war on terror, but rather a war on militant Islamic fundamentalism or "Islamo-fascists". I want to define that even further by saying that 'we' are liberal democracic (give or take) Nations and 'they' are non-national and simultaneously multi-national militant fundamentalist Islamic organizations, currently spearheaded by Al Quaida which is led by OBL. Not IRA, not Falun Gong, not ETA or FARC.

Much of this has been excellently detailed in DenBestes Strategic Overview which I believe many of you have read. If not, I would strongly reccomend it.

In the course of the strategic actions the Bush administration has taken to get to the roots of MFIO (again, militant fundamentalist Islamic Organizations), we have gone to war with the broken country of Afghanistan and annihilated the Taliban and some great degree of the Al-Quaida structure there. As a precursor to that war, we put the diplomatic screws to Pakistan, a country ruled by a leader who was once an enemy but is now absolutely critical to our success in the region. We invaded Iraq, and deposed and captured Saddam Hussien.

At each of these events and many inbetween, there has been vitriolic debate arguing for or against these actions. We've expanded our range in moral debates, economic debates, political debates, religious debates, and so on. Our debating muscles have been damaged and built up so much that we have found ourselves in the state we're currently in, debating about the debate.

Well, here is my alternative.

I would like to see Bush read DenBeste's strategic overview on a State of the Union address. I am tired of explaining the particulars of the UN resolutions, the history of MFIO actions against the country, and basic US history. To be clear, I do not mean that understanding these things makes the Bush administrations actions right or better or honest, but I should not be the one explaining these things. I would like to see the BA publish a comprehensive report, with documents from MEMRI and the full texts of cited UN resolutions along with corresponding speeches, explaining what it is that only a handful of bloggers have sweated and dug to find out.

I want to have video cameras on our equipment in Iraq and Afghanistan, so we can show the efforts we're taking to avoid civilian death - and the efforts the enemy is taking to cause them. We don't need to broadcast them, but next time Al-jazeera broadcasts how we killed hundreds of children hiding in a holy mosque - we can show their broadcast translated HERE along with video of what actually happened. It's inconcievable to me that I can know Paris Hilton's oral techniques more easily than I can disprove allegations of war crimes by my own military.

I want Bush to pretend to listen to France and Germany and so on. He has to pretend to listen to lots of special interest groups here in the USA - what's so hard about publicly saying, "I'm certain our good friends will appreciate our concerns and support us as best they will" and then ignoring them? I know many of the people who love Bush love his narrow-focus. I do too, for some things, but in this case as in many appearances do count, doubly so in a war of ideals like this one, and it's not an either-or situation.

I want Bush to tell all the "out of Iraq" folks on the Western Democracy side of the world to put up or shut up - publicly. I am all for a multinational security force to maintain Iraq for the many years it will take to find it's footing - but not at the cost of failure. I want Bush to actually bring up Rwanda and Bosnia and Somalia and tell the world that these are the reasons why he does not want to turn it over to the UN.

In short (I suppose if you've made it this far, that's a laugh), I want our president to not just be who he is right now, but be more than he is. I want him to add shame and candor to his arsenal of tools. Shame those who talk big and deliver nothing. Explain the facts as you know them. I and the small number of bloggers like me are too small to project these things, they should be coming from the top, and it's not too late to start.

Matt,

Your wish for Bush to be a better president is my wish, and probably many other moderates', too. Bush has good policies, but he is just so bad at selling these policies.

And Kerry would not make a good president, either. This election is going to suck! I wish Lieberman had made the Dem. nomination.

Jimmy

Democritizing Iraq, and the middle east, is less important than merely modernizing it. And that we can do. I think South Korea is a better example here than Germany or Japan. South Korea wasn't a Democratic country when we entered the Korean war, nor was it after the truce. But our influence and our presence made it a more modern country. Through hard work, strong trade links, and a long period of struggle South Korea eventually became more modern and eventually became Democratic, peaceful, and wealthy. In 1950 South Korea was unquestionably a poor, backward, 3rd world nation. Today it is unquestionably a rich, modern, first world nation.

On S. Korea as an example of democratization I want to point out that US has had 40,000 plus military stationed there for 50 years, at what billions of cost. I wonder if US had not stayed there after the Korean War whether the whole penninsula would be democratic now?

Are you neocons, wayout Rightist or moderate Rightists crazy or something? You are pushing for the destruction of a religion believed in by one billion people, as they will no doubt see it, not just political reform to democracy. Is that the way and purpose our country was formed? No, the founders had a respect for religions, but not undue belief that one religion had all the proper and benevolent answers and policies. Now you yahoos are planning to wipe out a religion? Did you get that idea from Bush and his cabal of war-mongers or did your brains malfunction. BTW, I am not a Muslim or, as someone else put it, a "dark-skinned" fellow.

Enditem, I'm not sure how to address the "neocon" or "rightist" descriptions (see above) but in any case, I don't think anyone serious is advocating the total destruction of Islam. I recommend reading a bit more carefully, or simply reading my post. The aim is to fight militant Islamic fundamentalists, largely Wahabbis as far as I can tell - but I'm certain others here have much more detail. Where's Dan Darling when you need 'im?

"On S. Korea as an example of democratization I want to point out that US has had 40,000 plus military stationed there for 50 years, at what billions of cost. I wonder if US had not stayed there after the Korean War whether the whole penninsula would be democratic now?"

Probably not. Why? Because the NorKs would have invaded South Korea and turned it into a hellhole like the North.

Ok, I'll buy the left's let the CIA/FBI handle it, while we use embargoes and aid moneys to push long range change plan (i.e. the soft power method) when they agree to at least most of the following methods and consequences (* indicates one the can't be avoided).

Domestic powers

1. Racial and religious profiling.

Not all terrorists will be Mid-eastern ethnicity, but most will, and likely nearly all if not all will be Islamic.

2. Deliberate infiltration of US muslim groups and agencies by the FBI. *

3. Deportation of all illegal immigrants. *

4. Limit/Tightly control immigration of Muslims and related ethnicities.

5. Observation/Tracking of #4's that are allowed in. Student Visa's etc. *

6. Wiretapping communications to/from isolated countries, even between US citizens.

7. Cutting off funding to groups sponsoring/supporting terrorist activities. Actual enforcement of on the book sedition laws, something no one is currently doing.

On Foreign Assasinations:

Given the inevitable muddy intelligence, and keeping in mind that since they will be operating on hostile territory, spec ops teams will not have the luxury the Israelis have had of picking their shots, and will likely only get one shot at the target...

8. Mistaken Assasination of Innocents. *

9. Collateral damage (target's family, wives, children etc., random bypassers). *

10. Assasination of government officials.

11. Assasination of Clerics. * (The cannon fodder will quite literally breed faster than we could ever assasinate them...so you have to target the leaders, and guess who they are?)

12. Assasination of corrupt officials. (How else are we going to ensure aid funds reach intended targets instead of swiss bank accounts)

13. Assasination of UN related officials. (See #13)

14. Assasination of journalists/propagandists. (Al Jazeera?)

On Other Foreign policy:

15. Development of domestic and non-hostile oil sources (ANWR and Russian Siberian oil fields are big enough to run the world, if developed. *

No alternative supplies won't cut it. Even if a magical new energy source fell from heaven tomorrow, it would still take years to convert the economy off of oil.

16. Moral price of embargoes. Infant mortality, disease, starvation, etc. *

17. Serious UN reform. *

18. Embargoes on democratic 'allies' who don't go along with the isolation plan. Won't work unless everyone does it. *

19. Development of tactical nuclear, burrowing bunker busters for taking out hardened WMD facilites (Iran anyone?). *

20. Use of #19. *

21. Lots of aid funding to nations which reform (Libya?).

22. Aid (Military?) to dissident and resistance factions in rogue nations (Iran student groups?).

23. Serious psy-ops with the cooperation of major media. (They're not going to go for how great Liberal Secular Democracy is if the world media continues to demonize the US at every turn.) *

I can't seriously believe the left is willing to do even half the things required to make their 'solution' work. Putting pressure on the media to encourage Muslims to stop terrorism and encourage modernity, when most of the media won't even label them terrorists (militants?)? Assasination of Islamic clerics (who do you think is running most of the terrorist groups). Israel got pasted for assasinating the 'spiritual leader' of HAMAS for crying out loud. Do you really think any International Coalition ™ is going to stick with us taking out various clerical figures? Particularly more obscure ones where the connections to terror are deliberately reduced to cut-outs and our evidence is fuzzy intel?

I pray regularly we can avoid having our options reduced to a binary us/them choice, but if Democratization doesn't work, what other choices do we have?

I find it hilarious in the extreme that the Left puts forward the KGB solution to Islam as a serious alternative...Make no mistake, in order for that to actually work, KGB is what we'll end up with.

TreeFrog

Matt
I appreciate your gracious response. Of course, I was trying to take a 2×4 to some numbskulls.

In any case, even proposing to try to take out a branch of Islam is a very risky endeavor. Look at the unintended consequences of the assassination of the Austrian Prince in Sarajevo. Can the proponents of this war of religions state realistically there will be no unintended consequences and the war-mongers will win without the destruction of the US. itself? Probably not, unless they are like Bush, Blair, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Do any of you know why in ancient times and not so ancient when a usurper overthrew the king in some cultures, he would put to death or banish the deposed and his family? In China they would do that to collateral relatives. To prevent revenge and a come back try. It seems to me that revenge is part and parcel of Middle East cultures and it will their constant companion until some satisfaction is achieved against the destroyers of any significant part of Islam. So be ready to kill them all or be ready for never ending chaos.

enditem:
As somebody generally in favour of the approach you are against, I think you may be miscategorising at least some of those you criticise.

For instance, I wouldn't place myself as a 'con' of any description, 'neo' or otherwise.
A pragmatic, rather cold-blooded, liberal, I'd say.

As for "undue belief that one religion had all the proper and benevolent answers and policies".
Eh? As an agnostic I'm neither an advocate of any particular religion, nor do I condemn Islam absolutely.

I would observe, though, that empirical evidence indicates Islamic societies have, for a variety of reasons, problems adapting to modernity.

This would be a problem for them, BUT some of these maladaptations have pernicious results: quasi-fascistic conspiratorial worldviews, grievances and ambitions, mythologies of martyrdom and fanaticism, and a willingness to embrace terrorism and pursue weapons of mass destruction.

Left unchecked these trends pose a that has a high probability of resulting in WMD use against Western targets, and a resulting major war, conventional or nuclear.

I do not wish to wipe out either a religion, or nations. I wish to avoid such outcomes by encouraging, or if necessary compelling, their reform.

"Can the proponents of this war ... state realistically there will be no unintended consequences"
No.
('Prediction is difficult, especially about the future.')
There almost certainly will be. And I suspect we have not seen the worst of it yet.
Even in Iraq, I would predict a major increase in violence around the handover time.
Elsewhwere there will be further terrorist attacks that get past the security operations, and will cause casualties in the 100's to 1000's range.

Then there are potential crises: Iran, if it continues along it's present course; N.Korea; Saudi Arabia; Pakistan? None are inevitable; all are possible. The 'war' policy at present likely reduces the odds of disaster in these cases.

All I can say is that the probabilities look less bad along the route of intervention and change than the alternatives on offer. I can see little to no hope that a "multilateral policing" policy (the main alternative on offer) can forestall disaster in the medium to long run.

It is exactly your worst case of an all out war of religions (I would say cultures) that I want to avoid, because I fear that "kill them all or ... never ending chaos" would be the end of that road.
And I fear what our likely choice would be.

I do not want to walk that road.

Our founding was one based on liberty and tolerance or religion and our founders would shudder at the thought of destroying an branch of a major religion as well as a billion people.

But if that branch of religion has advocated the complete destruction of the civilization they found upon these shores, I would expect them to be the first up in the Senate decrying our efforts, allowing political correctness to put in dager a country founded in liberty. They payed in blood and treasure to bring the constitution and the bill of rights to fruition and we have paid in blood many times in the past to protect and perfect our union.

Instead we have an elite mainstream press who have acted like scared schoolchildren at a fire drill, running around in circles, the democratic political leadership has offered nothing to the debate (only poor Joe Lieberman).

In the end, I feel pity for the Islamic Fascists, for they are going to die and go to the hell they have waiting for them. For while Bush is not perfect, he at least understands that we will kick ass when pushed, that we do not level thier cities is a sign of our basic goodness, either the Islamic Arabs begin to make progress (and it may well take stationing troops in the Sand Box for 60 years + - but we have done that once in Germany, we can do it again) towards the modern world, rule of law and consensual gov't, or we will hammer them. And it will not be pretty, but they will not threaten us.

And our founding fathers would approve.

Enditem:

"In any case, even proposing to try to take out a branch of Islam is a very risky endeavor."

I don't think there is any dispute that the direction we are taking is a terribly hazardous one. I believe the point of this thread is to ask the question, "what is the alternative?"

If anything has become apparent in this thread, it's that there are more things, perhaps better things, we can do in addition to what we are doing - at least for the time being. I often think that the reason more isn't being done is because the Bush administration is fighting a war on two fronts, one outside the US and one inside it. Every decision, all of them, are second-guessed and scrutinized and nay-sayed as fast as can be.

Before Afghanistan, for instance, the papers and pundits painted a picture of Vietnam 2, citing the bloody colonial failures that had occurred there previously. During the war, the question of civilian casualties was the next grit used to gain traction against movement. After we had won the war, and I don't want to quibble here, against the Taliban, all we hear is how it's the "forgotten disaster" where we don't control anything but Kabul.

I can only imagine what the response would have been if Bush had announced outright plans to reform the middle east through deposing hostile regimes, although his "axis of evil" speech certainly came close. We also know how well that speech was recieved.

I am far from certain that Bush's plan is the best plan, or the right one, but I don't have much of a better one and I'm not in any sort of position to make a difference short of voting this November. I despair at watching the people who do have the power to make a difference rallying under a banner of "not-Bush", which in my mind reads as, "no-plan."

enditem,

> Of course, I was trying to take a 2×4 to some numbskulls.

Thanks for the compliment--it really enhances the discussion. (Love you too, man!)

> Look at the unintended consequences of the assassination of the Austrian Prince in Sarajevo

And what would those be? Surely you aren't saying the the assassination of the Archduke caused World War I, are you?

In reality, WWI was an avalanche waiting to happen. If it hadn't been triggered by events in Sarejevo, something else would have come along fairly soon to serve as a trigger (or pretext.) In somewhat analagous fashion, Bin Laden and his ilk have been quite frank about their intended war against the West. How anybody can think we don't need to literally fight back (in addition to other responses) is beyond me.

I actually don't mind using both Germany and Japan as an example of what can be acomplished.... provided that we are willing to do the same things, in the same order, that we did there:

1. We commit overwhelming violence against the military AND civilian populations. It is no mistake that the Germans and Japanese have been good little boys and girls: 2 years of Dresdens, Tokyo fire raids, and ultimately atomic bombs in the case of Japan drive home the fundamental lesson pretty thoroughly: ATTACK US AND DIE!

2. After the spur, corn: we gave generously of treasure to reestablish a civil society. We did not allow them to reestablish a military presence until later. And, of course, we were still wearing the spurs right into their front parlors.

Do we still have the national will to repeat that program? Good question.

One (medium term, but it shows resolve and preparation) thing we should do is work rapidly to expand the army. This can be paid for with star wars, F22 etc. 100,000 or so.

Recruits could be encouraged by requiring all universities recieving fed research funds to set aside a quarter of their slots for veterans (with extra big chunks going to land forces.) This would bring in a rush of high IQ people looking for a chance at Stanford, wind up diversifying both the military and the schools. It's also going to say we are at war, this is important. Focus the people.

In terms of what specific actions are necessary, it's hard to strategize, very different approaches could work with different leaders. Removal of Rummy, Cheney etc. punishing the incompetence and also with new leaders getting somewhat of a fresh start. There are competent people.

The reality right now is we have gotten into a very dangerous situation.

One (medium term, but it shows resolve and preparation) thing we should do is work rapidly to expand the army. This can be paid for with star wars, F22 etc. 100,000 or so.

Recruits could be encouraged by requiring all universities recieving fed research funds to set aside a quarter of their slots for veterans (with extra big chunks going to land forces.) This would bring in a rush of high IQ people looking for a chance at Stanford, wind up diversifying both the military and the schools. It's also going to say we are at war, this is important. Focus the people.

In terms of what specific actions are necessary, it's hard to strategize, very different approaches could work with different leaders. Removal of Rummy, Cheney etc. punishing the incompetence and also with new leaders getting somewhat of a fresh start. There are competent people.

The reality right now is we have gotten into a very dangerous situation.

Jen: More or less dangerous than it was before?