Be nice!
Hi KM, Interesting article about John Kerry at Fox News. Over at Detroit News, they story of what Kerry said is quite different:
"This is about American security and Bush has failed. He has made it so much worse because of his lack of reality in going into Iraq.…We have to destroy Hezbollah"
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs...PDATE/
607230360
As I understand it, Kerry's position (like everyone else's) is that Saddam had to go; the only difference is that he would have done it better. So the "lack of reality" doesn't mean Kerry wouldn't have done it, it just means that he knew how to do it properly.
KM, do you know of anyone who felt Saddam should have stayed in power? I don't. But I do know of lots of people who wish the US would have waited till more of the old, powerful, rich allies like France and Germany were alongside; who wish they had used enough soldiers; who wish there had been the leadership necessary to avoid torture issues blackening the West's reputation.
I even wish there could have been enough weapons inspectors and associated soldiers and force that Iraq would have been effectively taken over, and the regime emasculated. It would have sent a signal to extremists that the West is in control, the West is civilised, the West is enforcing its will.
Everyone knows it could never have been done without the US. It would be like a carriage without a horse. Unfortunately fewer people realise that the US needs all the friends and allies it can get, especially its oldest and best friends. I'd say what happened since Bush took the helm, is that the horse ran away from the carriage, and few people are better off for it.
The difference between Kerry and Bush regarding the Middle East is not in the broad strokes, but in the nuances. And when dealing with foreign countries, especially ones led by crazy people, nuance is everything. You can have the biggest and best army, but without nuance, it just won't be enough.
Oh my goodness... where to start? This is laughably tired and old.
Kerry's "position" may have been that Saddam had to go, but saying he woulda, coulda, mighta in the face of a vote that said emphatically, "we do not believe you" is laughably pitiful. On plenty of other occasions he said the precise opposite. The only thing John Kerry wanted to happen was to get himself elected.
When your "longtime allies" are selling oil and arms to your enemies behind your back at a massive profit in contravention to UN sanctions - and then lying about it - they are not your allies. Not even a little bit. What the Volcker report made clear was that no amount of waiting or persuading would have made a bit of difference. I have never once gotten a liberal to answer the question how long we should have waited or what we should have given up in order for France, Germany et al to come on board. A year? Two years? Five? How long would you have continued to let the Middle East fester?
Re. weapons' inspectors: I've personally met and spoken to some of them. Have you? They gathered plenty of evidence. There were indeed WMD. Nobody cared to listen, and nobody had a game plan to do anything other than continuing to play Saddam's sucker's shell game.
"Torture issues": Abu Ghraib is much improved since February, 2003.
Re. nuance: next time you're in Tehran or Damascus (or Riyadh for that matter), try walking down the street with a yarmulke and offer to tell them all about "nuance". I'm sure you'll meet some fascinating people.
KM,
I'm so glad the Middle East has stopped festering!
Seriously, glad to hear Abu Ghraib has simmered down. I don't think the West's reputation will be restored as quickly though.
How many years should the US have waited? Very good question. Two or three more years in my opinion. After five years, I think the issue would have become embarassing enough that something would have to be done. It would have been great if that discussion had been had at the time, it's a very good question. At any rate, there was only going to be more and more international control over Iraq's weapons and other operations.
I've never met any weapons inspectors. I've never heard any stories of WMD being found either, except the one Colin Powell regrets telling. I think for you KM, the issue is who to believe; Powell and Hans Blix or your friend. I don't think that's an issue we'll get anywhere discussing.
I haven't read the Volcker report but I do understand that France and Germany had interests in Iraq, and they were jockeying to keep them. Unfortunately, the issue of security in the Middle East is too important to let that distract you. It's like I was writing in my earlier post, you have to have your order of priorities, and not let your "being right" make you do the wrong thing.
If you feel that an "old and tired" line of argument is just coming up yet again, don't you think it might be because it holds some truth?
Thanks for having this discussion with me,
Erik Sandblom
Thank you for that answer, Erik: you would have waited 2-3 years to do something about Iraq. (I don't actually believe you or John Kerry or anyone else on the left would have done anything in that timeframe but it's a nice round number that delays responsibility.) That means roughly an extra 20,000 to 30,000 killed, maimed and tortured under Saddam: more than what has been incurred in the war.
And the "benefit" you balance that against is... France and Germany perhaps getting on board with a couple of hundred troops in ceremonial roles with equipment and training 20-30 years out of date? Please...
You fall into the same old trap that catches many on the left: mistaking open conflict for lack of fundamental strategic progress (e.g., why are Saudi and Egypt and Jordan finally denouncing the Iran-Syria axis?) and mistaking lack of open conflict (e.g., the 1993 Oslo/Nobel sham) for lasting peace, security and the spread of Western values (aka, democracy, liberty, womens' rights). How quickly the left seems willing to sell out those values when the question is about what cost to incur to give them those people over there. Forty years ago the left used to stand for much more.
Actually, according to www.iraqbodycount.net, it's been almost 40 000 dead in Iraq. I don't know how accurate that is, and it doesn't matter. It's still right to wait another few years if it means doing things properly:
no torture
no looting
no waterfall of terrorists
no losing control
We can't let the terrorists point to any of this when they do their recruiting.
The need for getting France, Germany and Russia onboard has very little to do with their firepower. As I wrote earlier, everyone knows the US would be doing the heavy lifting. That's not the reason you need allies.
You need allies to be able to point to a consensus: Don't try to fight the West, because the West is united. You need to be able to point to every country putting money and soldiers into the effort. You need the moral authority.
The terrorists are recruiting. You need to be able to tell the recruits, look: the West doesn't use torture; the West doesn't lose control; the West can keep you safe and run your country temporarily. Right now, none of those are true. There is a power vaccum. Progress is being made, but we could have been in so much better shape.
I'm not mistaking lack of open conflict for lasting peace. I am not, and nobody is, advocating the status quo; nobody thinks the bad people can be removed without a fight.
What I am saying, is that we need nuance and civility. We need to be respected among those the terrorists want to recruit. We were talking about nuance and crazy people; well, the more crazy the people you deal with, the more nuanced and civilised you need to be yourself.
I'm not saying we don't need bombs. I think we do, lots of them, more than the bad guys. What I'm saying is, the bombs are not enough. We need a spotless track record, which we can use to win hearts and minds.
BTW I looked up the Volcker Report, and found that there seems to be enough mistakes to go around
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Oil...d_UK_complicity
What part of the Volcker Report shows that France and Germany were never going to sign on?
George Bush's speech in January had a lot of criticism of his critics. He said criticism is not the same thing as a better plan. True. I take it he realises his critics were right in much of what they warned. Well, it seems things are roughly falling into place after all. Saddam is on trial. Hezbollah is losing some of their support. Iraq has a government and a constitution.
We can hope that Iraq will not fall into civil war. We can hope that the young Iraqis will want to continue building their country instead of becoming terrorists. It's my belief that both these things would have been easier if the West had taken the time to be united, to plan, and to devote the huge amount of military, but also civil effort to not only disable Saddams forces and rebuild infrastructure, but also ensure the rule of law in Iraq.
When you bring your dog into the Pottery Barn,
Human nature doesn't change, Erik. Waiting a year or two or three or ten does not lead to any more good will by those bent on corruption. Nor does it lead to better outcomes in what is inherently a chaotic and uncertain exercise (i.e., war).
You won't read this in the NY Times, but if you had to guess, would you say that there were more or fewer nations allied in the 2003 invasion of Iraq than in WWII after 1941?
Check it out if you don't believe me: there were significantly more in 2003.
You may have wished that it be 50 or 60 or 80 or 180 nations, but then it's not clear what your standard is for a Swedish blogger to veto a president except that France and Germany must be included... as if being a sometimes ally makes one a permanent brother. Nations have interests. They do not have friends. When you sell oil to our enemies, you are not an ally.
That yours and your neighbors' countries were not among the allies this time may be a bitter pill when you consider the casualties of inaction (and they are hardly contained in Iraq; note Libya's sudden change in behavior, for example). Or this all may simply be an opportunity for you and John Kerry and others to talk about an ideal you'll never have to prove in the real world because such fantasies are easy for those who deal in the hypothetical.
Whatever your motivation, it's time to acknowledge that a great deal of good has come from this president's taking action when and how he did. Until you do that, you will win few converts by speaking about unrealizable and internally inconsistent fantasies of what might have been. Bear two things in mind: we did not start this and it will not be finished in two or five or even ten years. Expect 20-50... if Europe doesn't collapse first.
> KM, do you know of anyone who felt Saddam should have stayed in power? I don't.
LOL, what planet are you living on that you aren't at least aware of the mass of lefties who openly supported Saddam -- you remember, like Sean Penn, Jeanine Garafolo, and many others?
Perhaps on your planet, you've never heard Kerry's mass of speeches a mere two years ago which referred to the war as a "mistake" -- not "mistimed" -- "THE WRONG WAR".
> But I do know of lots of people who wish the US would have waited till more of the old, powerful, rich allies like France and Germany were alongside;
Yes, THAT was certainly gonna happen with Saddam paying off France, Germany, AND Russia -- as well as key people at the U.N. -- to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars -- using funds which were supposed to be used for food and aid to the poor and dispossessed in Iraq, making the thieves at Enron look like two-bit pikers.
Oh, wait, on your planet, that info wasn't being broadcast, right?
> who wish they had used enough soldiers;
Yes, more soldiers, to make it look like a full-scale takeover. More soldiers, exactly what's needed for an occupation. Oh, yassss! More soldiers, by all means.
> who wish there had been the leadership necessary to avoid torture issues blackening the West's reputation.
No, the liberals who harp on every claimed incident, regardless of evidence in support of it, THEY have nothing to do with that. The Dems who pick up on any allegation and run with it as though it were established fact -- THEY have nothing to do with sullying the "reputation" of the west. The media who wail like newly widowed housefraus, anytime anyone says "Lookit", but NEVER ONCE calling attention to the relentless atrocities of those in opposition...
Naw, none of them have ANYTHING to do with anything like THAT.
That The West -- and particularly the USA -- make EVERY EFFORT to find and punish anyone in the military who has committed any sort of crime -- not important.
That The West takes easily avoided danger UPON ITS OWN MILITARY in order to reduce civilian casualties to a fraction of what almost any non-Western nation would inflict -- not important
That The West keeps its prisoners in air-conditioning -- gives them 4000 calories a day to eat -- full, private toilet facilities -- allows them access to their religious materials -- all in contrast to the unavoidable barbarities of their opponents -- not important.
Excuse me while I don't give a shit about whining BS like that.
> I even wish there could have been enough weapons inspectors and associated soldiers and force that Iraq would have been effectively taken over, and the regime emasculated. It would have sent a signal to extremists that the West is in control, the West is civilised, the West is enforcing its will.
Yes, well, we can thank your precious UN, esp. France, Russia, and Germany -- for not acting forcefully enough that Sad
> Forty years ago the left used to stand for much more.
Forty years ago The Left is where most of The Right now is.
There was a time when Ralph Nader was far out on the "loony left" -- nowadays, he's well-right of their center... and he hasn't budged an inch.
===
> The need for getting France, Germany and Russia onboard has very little to do with their firepower. As I wrote earlier, everyone knows the US would be doing the heavy lifting. That's not the reason you need allies.
Really, Erik: What IS the reason we need allies in this? And you, conveniently ignore that we HAD lots of allies -- the ones who Saddam WASN'T PAYING OFF to look the other way. You know -- the U.K., Australia, Japan, Spain, Italy, many of the old "Soviet Bloc"....
Oh, wait, they weren't "Big" enough to help much.
Strangely, though, despite the fact that there was clearly enough displeasure in those nations that the leaders of several had to fear for their jobs -- those politicians took a hard stance on the matter
Now, ASK YOURSELF WHY.
Why did Blair RISK HIS JOB? Why did Howard? Why did the leaders of Spain and now Italy risk (and lose) their jobs over this matter?
What information did they have which we "plebes" don't, which led them to believe that it was more important than their jobs???
What the heck is more important to a politician than political power?
Hmmmm?
I'm not familiar with Sean Penn's position on the war. Never heard of the other guy. Can't say I think they matter a lot. It just confirms my view that nobody of importance seriously wanted Saddam to stay in power. Classic straw man.
I don't think the US had a spotless record regarding Oil for food. Read the Wikipedia link I gave you.
Anyway, let's flip it around. With hindsight, how do you think the war could have been better executed? There must be something to be learned from the experience.
One more thing, it's laughable to compare a country like Sweden to Russia or France. While Russia and France are immensely valuable allies in a military operation in the Middle East, Sweden would just be a bonus.
In the same way, that Poland joined the alliance is nice, but just not at all in the same class as France, Germany or Russia.
It's the symbolism of soldiers from prestigious nations joining the effort which is very important (strange that neither KM nor OBH acknowledge that), but it's also the diplomatic effort -- if Russia politely tells other countries they are putting soldiers on the ground, they listen and act accordingly. I just don't think Poland is accorded the same respect. That's something I'm sure you both, OBH & KM, can agree with me on.
> I'm not familiar with Sean Penn's position on the war. Never heard of the other guy.
Yeah, Erik. Again, what planet are you on?
a) Penn VISITED IRAQ AS A GUEST OF SADDAM. Was given a warm welcome at the palace by Saddam himself. Wrote about it in widely published venues. Where were YOU in the months leading up to this war that you are utterly ignorant -- and what makes you thereby think yourself still competent to express an opinion on the matter?
b) The "other guy"? Are you mentally competent? Or have you just been unable to pass the TOEFL? "Jeanine" is a *woman's* name -- and she's well known across the liberal mediasphere as someone ready to whine against the war at the drop of a penny.
> One more thing, it's laughable to compare a country like Sweden to Russia or France. While Russia and France are immensely valuable allies in a military operation in the Middle East, Sweden would just be a bonus.
STOP TAP DANCING.
You just said the military "heavy lifting" wasn't important, I list off a HOST of nations whose composite population is greater than that of France and Germany several times over, and representing a wide diversity of cultures and viewpoints --- and THEN YOU PULL "SWEDEN" out of your hat -- a MINOR nation I NEVER NOTED -- as though they were the only one listed.
The UK+Australia easily balances either France or Germany, take your pick. Japan easily balances Germany. Adn the USA balances Russia -- so, when you add in the populations of, oh, Spain, Italy, the other Eastern Euros... I think we had a damned hell of a lot more support than a long-hasbeen nation like France would ever represent.
The only people who give a damned about French opinions are, well, "The French"... or those descended from them, like the Quebecois or the Democratic leaders.
As for the Germans, when they can make a succession of movies that actually makes any sense outside their own nation, THEN I'll think I might care about their opinions. As it stands, they've made exactly *two*. Even their T&A films make no sense whatsoever: "Why are they doing that?" "Who the hell knows, they're friggin' Germans..."
[continued]
Face it, Erik. You're a troll. You're not here to discuss anything, you're here to fling poo.
The simple fact is that the three nations you pick to be the be-all-end-all of world opinion are EXACTLY the ones which would have been impossible to gain the acceptance of because they were totally in Saddam's pocket.
Ignore ALL the others -- "they don't matter".
> It's the symbolism of soldiers from prestigious nations joining the effort (strange that neither KM nor OBH acknowledge that)
Not expressly, but gee.... UK, Australia, Japan -- insignificance extraordinaire?
Funny, I would not classify those three as remotely "insignificant"... esp. when compared to France. The French are so insecure about their own culture that they won't let others in to compete with it... and then get huffy when said same culture gets out into the real world and tanks because it can only appeal to "The French".
Australia, the U.K., Japan -- each of them competes every day on the world stage... and holds their own. If the French didn't have themselves to sell to, the only things they'd get any substantial credit for is stuff that is centuries old. Hell, even the French "New Wave" is FORTY YEARS OLD.
I suppose I could have mentioned India, too, but, let's face it -- ONLY the ones which demonstrated NO interest due to their own corrupt and unprincipled leaders are to be accepted as "OK" in your ridiculously ignorant scheme of things?
Pardom me while I snicker openly in front of your face at the sheer idiocy of that notion.
Now, do me a favor -- answer ANY question I've asked, Erik. You tap danced, sidestepped, and pretty much ignored everything I've noted while propping up your Swedo-Polish strawman.
The determination of the politicians of the US, the UK, Australia, Spain, Italy. Why?
What about the MAJOR NATIONS mentioned, here? Not "Sweden" (NEVER mentioned), not POLAND (not directly, but only collectively with the other E-Euros) -- but one of those nations with a long history in Western European politics (although why that should be a criteria seems rather odd), or with one of the equivalent *economies* (Japan, Australia, the UK). Why are THEY "utterly insignificant", if the actual effort isn't needed to derive from there?
> While Russia and France are immensely valuable allies in a military operation in the Middle East
Really? France couldn't even take on the Vietnamese without screaming for our help. What makes you think those pansy-ass bedwetters could do anything in Iraq besides hold up the newly yellowed bedsheets in full surrender mode?
And Russia? Last I noticed, they couldn't even beat Afghanistan given 10 years to do it in. What did it take us, four weeks?
This was US, it was always US and no one else had any chance of being significant in any way. Any other nation WOULD get their asses handed to them in short order.
We've got the lowest casualty figures of any country in any largesc
We've got the lowest casualty figures of any country in any largescale widespread military action in history, and certain Frenchified pansy-ass bedwetters are whining because "it's just not good enough"...
Sorry, I'm breaking out laughing again...
Commenting by HaloScan
