The President's "An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure" speech
"Five years into this struggle, it's important to take stock of what's been accomplished -- and the difficult work that remains."
By AcademicElephant Posted in War — Comments (65) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
President Bush addressed the Military Officers Association of America this afternoon in the second of a series of speeches designed to communicate his policy on the global war on terror as we approach the 9/11 anniversary, and of course the looming mid-term elections. A note on this: the Democrats have taken it upon themselves to issue a critique of the President's policy before he gave his speech, which they archly call "Neo-'Con.'" Now I'm as big of a fan of a good pun as anyone, but there is a time and a place for such things. Even if you are awed by the cleverness of the genius who crafted this rapier word play on "conservative" and "confidence trick," you should probably resist the temptation to make a pun the title of your counter-terrorism policy, which you are issuing in an attempt to make voters believe you have a serious alternative to Mr. Bush's strategy to propose. Of course, the Democrats have no such thing. The President, on the other hand, appears to be hitting his stride and I must say I think today's effort was his most effective address on this topic for some time. The speech was wide-ranging; Mr. Bush painted a detailed verbal portrait of the evil and deadly enemy we face, which is wounded but not decimated, and then went on to describe the evolving strategy we have been using, and which Mr. Bush strongly believes we should continue to use, against them.
Read on...
The President began with a long discussion of what al Qaeda and related terrorist groups and their sponsors have achieved, and what they themselves have said they want to achieve. One thing I found particularly interesting was a passage in a letter from Usama bin Laden to Mullah Omar of Taliban fame, which was found in 2002:
In it, bin Laden says that al Qaeda intends to "launch," in his words, "a media campaign to create a wedge between the American people and their government." This media campaign, bin Laden says, will send the American people a number of messages, including "that their government will bring them more losses in finances and casualties." And he goes on to say that "they are being sacrificed to serve the big investors, especially the Jews." Bin Laden says that by delivering these messages, al Qaeda "aims at creating pressure from the American people on the American government to stop their campaign against Afghanistan." Bin Laden and his allies are absolutely convinced they can succeed in forcing America to retreat and causing our economic collapse. They believe our nation is weak and decadent, and lacking in patience and resolve. And they're wrong.
And lest you think Mr. Bush was somehow running away from Iraq and reverting to the UBL bogeyman here, he immediately turned to that topic, noting that while the terrorists would dearly love to regain their stronghold in Afghanistan, "they made clear that the most important front in their struggle against America is Iraq:"
Here is what al Qaeda says they will do if they succeed in driving us out of Iraq: The terrorist Zawahiri has said that al Qaeda will proceed with "several incremental goals. The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of caliphate. The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. And the fourth stage: The clash with Israel." These evil men know that a fundamental threat to their aspirations is a democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself. They know that given a choice, the Iraqi people will never choose to live in the totalitarian state the extremists hope to establish. And that is why we must not, and we will not, give the enemy victory in Iraq by deserting the Iraqi people.
Given how accurate bin Laden's description of the proposed media war turned out to be, it seems to President Bush that we owe al Qaeda the courtesy of believing what they say now: "History teaches us that underestimating the words of evil and ambitious men is a terrible mistake." Apparently undeterred by the wide-spread outrage that greeted Secretary Rumsfeld's invocation of history, particularly of the precedents of the Cold War and World War II, in his speech to the American Legion last week (more on this topic at the end), Mr. Bush named Lenin and Hitler as bin Laden's ideological forefathers, and noted that they too had provided clear indicators of their plans before they put them into action. Bin Laden has done the same:
Bin Laden and his terrorist allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them. The question is: Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say? America and our coalition partners have made our choice. We're taking the words of the enemy seriously. We're on the offensive, and we will not rest, we will not retreat, and we will not withdraw from the fight, until this threat to civilization has been removed.
Mr. Bush then turned to the new strategy the White House released today. "New" probably isn't the right word, as the President pointed out, this is an extension of the policy first declassified in 2003. Unlike his Democrat critics, the President has no crystal ball, and has found it necessary to develop and modify his strategy in response to the very real and changing enemy he faces. In this section, Mr. Bush discussed the danger posed by Hezbollah, and made what is beginning to sound like the case for war against Iran:
Iran's leaders, who back Hezbollah, have also declared their absolute hostility to America. Last October, Iran's President declared in a speech that some people ask -- in his words -- "whether a world without the United States and Zionism can be achieved. I say that this goal is achievable." Less than three months ago, Iran's President declared to America and other Western powers: "open your eyes and see the fate of pharaoh. If you do not abandon the path of falsehood, your doomed destiny will be annihilation." Less than two months ago, he warned: "The anger of Muslims may reach an explosion point soon. If such a day comes, America and the West should know that the waves of the blast will not remain within the boundaries of our region." He also delivered this message to the American people: "If you would like to have good relations with the Iranian nation in the future, bow down before the greatness of the Iranian nation and surrender. If you don't accept to do this, the Iranian nation will force you to surrender and bow down." America will not bow down to tyrants. The Iranian regime and its terrorist proxies have demonstrated their willingness to kill Americans -- and now the Iranian regime is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Some might consider it chutzpah on Mr. Bush's part to be arguing for yet another war based on the threat of WMD. I mean, hasn't the man learned his lesson? It seems not. It seems that Mr. Bush considers the Iraq war worth the cost to prevent a cataclysmic attack on the US, and the establishment of a stable democracy in that country a vital element in his larger strategy. What's more, he has the gall to suggest that history may judge him favorably for this approach. In his discussion of the threat posed by both Sunni and Shi'ia extremists in the region, he said,
Imagine a world in which they [Islamic extremists] were able to control governments, a world awash with oil and they would use oil resources to punish industrialized nations. And they would use those resources to fuel their radical agenda, and pursue and purchase weapons of mass murder. And armed with nuclear weapons, they would blackmail the free world, and spread their ideologies of hate, and raise a mortal threat to the American people. If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act. I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either. America did not seek this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence and a clear strategy.
Mr. Bush is right, all Americans should read "The National Strategy for Combatting Terrorism" (such a better title than "Neo-'Con'"), but in anticipation of that, he provided a five point outline of the strategy:
-First, we're determined to prevent terrorist attacks before they occur.
-Second, we're determined to deny weapons of mass destruction to outlaw regimes and terrorists who would use them without hesitation.
-Third, we're determined to deny terrorists the support of outlaw regimes.
-Fourth, we're determined to deny terrorist networks control of any nation, or territory within a nation.
-Fifth, we're working to deny terrorists new recruits, by defeating their hateful ideology and spreading the hope of freedom -- by spreading the hope of freedom across the Middle East.
I defy the Democrats to come up with anything so clear and coherent--not to mention rational and effective. Within the body of the section, I thought this was the money quote:
Thanks to our efforts, there are now three fewer state sponsors of terror in the world than there were on September the 11th, 2001. Afghanistan and Iraq have been transformed from terrorist states into allies in the war on terror. And the nation of Libya has renounced terrorism, and given up its weapons of mass destruction programs, and its nuclear materials and equipment. Over the past five years, we've acted to disrupt the flow of weapons and support from terrorist states to terrorist networks. And we have made clear that any government that chooses to be an ally of terror has also chosen to be an enemy of civilization.
Actually, that's the defining quote of the speech. Our strategy is working. We have results to show. It's hard and it's long, but we're making progress and we have not been hit again since 9/11. Some consider that the wrong metric to use--but I ask you, what metric would you propose? Or perhaps it would be more salient to ask what metric have you concocted that is more favorable to your political prospects?
In conclusion, Mr. Bush returned to the historical analogy that puts this struggle into perspective:
And now, freedom is once again contending with the forces of darkness and tyranny. This time, the battle is unfolding in a new region -- the broader Middle East. This time, we're not waiting for our enemies to gather in strength. This time, we're confronting them before they gain the capacity to inflict unspeakable damage on the world, and we're confronting their hateful ideology before it fully takes root.
Mr. Bush did not come right out and say it--I hope he does at some point this week--but in this quote he implied that the price we have paid in Iraq in terms of blood and treasure is dwarfed by what we paid to defeat a similar threat to civilization in both the Cold War and WWII. Eager opponents of the Iraq war argue that we've been in Iraq longer than we fought WWII or Korea, which is of course utter nonsense. By that barometer, it's not even close--we're not fighting major combat in Iraq three years into the mission, and we still have troops stationed in Germany and Japan. Korea was what you might call the "major combat" phase of the Cold War, but to my knowledge that struggle lasted until 1989. Oh, and nonetheless we still have troops there, too. But what Mr. Bush is really tapping into here is the sense of "if only" that is shared by so many. If only we had listened to Winston Churchill and confronted Hitler before his plans were fully laid. If only we had stood up to Stalin, that evil successor to Lenin's vision, before he could murder tens of millions of his country men and drag us into decades of conflict. If only. I think the President's speech today was a call to take the action that would pre-empt such regrets. If you review his bullet points, they're all about prevention, in the spirit perhaps that an ounce of this is worth a pound of cure.
A final observation on what Mr. Bush did not say today: he did not mention the "loyal opposition." He didn't have to, the clever man--he could leave them to their impotent rantings and ravings and march straight to the high ground. After all, one of his top surrogates had gone out and savaged them a week ago, and completely drawn their fire. Mr. Rumsfeld played a classic bad cop on this one. He's eminently suited for the role--he's always good for a headline, he isn't running for anything this fall, and as White House Press Secretary Tony Snow made abundantly clear today, his job is secure. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, needs to campaign hard for his party over the next two months, and were Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to propose censoring the President, instead of offering up a meaningless no-confidence vote on the Secretary of Defense, on Wednesday, it could be quite uncomfortable for a lot of people.
But of course that's not what Mr. Reid will do tomorrow.
Would it be mean to say that said "loyal opposition" just got their political posteriori handed to them by a supposed lame-duck idiot and an old guy who (literally) had one arm tied behind his back? Yes it would be--that is to Mr. Bush and Mr. Rusmfeld--so I won't say it. I will, however, say this: whatever they're paying Don Rumsfeld, it isn't enough. He does good work. But then again, so do you, Mr. President.
Nice speech.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | CAIR Makeover — Comments (33) »
The President's "An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure" speech 65 Comments (0 topical, 65 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Call me an old Cold Warrior but I love naming Lenin rather than Stalin as the source of the Soviet threat.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
You say, "today's effort was his most effective address on this topic for some time."
I wish this speech had been in prime time. It expressed exactly what every American needs to grasp about this existential conflict. It was convincing. It resonated with truth. It was boldly but appropriately polarizing. And it put the present situation in Iraq in the correct context, quite in contrast to the prevalent context created by the opportunists who are abusing the context for political gain.
On the Lehrer report I heard for the first time something by the author of 'The Looming Towers' that made me question the decision to go into Iraq. But that is irrelevant to the present situation in which we must win.
John E.
1. The democrats do have a strategy. Their strategy is to relentlessly attack anything the Bush administration does. Also at every opportunity block programs which might bring credit to the Bush administration.
2. Bin Laden may be right about us lacking resolve. It is painfully obvious that some people would gleefully throw in the towel and give the enemy whatever they wanted as long as two conditions could be met. A. There is plausible deniability about what they are doing. B. It will allow them to return to power even if it is in a weekend or hurt united states.
3. I really wish the president had of started this right from the point the dems were completely obvious about hamstringing him. Reagan managed to deal with a democratic party no less rabid or stupid than the current one and it had control of congress. He did this by going over their heads straight to the people and making certain that the people knew what he was about.
4. Iran contra is just a poor foreshadowing of what the dems will do if they come back into power. Currently they have no shame. The attacks on Rumsfeld are the true proof of this. He has presided over defense while it has achieved two of the most magnificent victories in human history. Did the republicans attack and attempt to destroy Macnamara when he orchestrate our countries one and only defeat ?
I particularly liked what the President said about the terrorist "media campaign" to "create a wedge between the American people and their government".
Indeed...they blow up mosques and innocent Iraqi civilians, and blame the American soldiers, and send stringers to the Green Zone to tell the leftist MSM how cruel American soldiers are, and our MSM duly reports this, "if it bleeds, it leads". I hope the President will repeat this many times before the midterm elections. The American people need to know how badly they are being misled by "their" media!
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
was just words/rhetoric. Was there really anything substantive?
If this is the greatest struggle of our generation according to many how can the overall size of the military drop while men have to serve 4 (soon to be infinite) tours of duty?
If this is the greatest struggle of our generation, how can someone look at the continued failures in Iraq and then ignore one of the main solutions which is tripling or quadrupling the number of troops there to get the job done?
If this is the greatest struggle of our time, how can one discount the meaning of the leader of the other side and say his capture is unimportant?
If this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime and is bound to last awhile, shouldn't we shore up our debt and actually fully fund the war instead of borrowing for it?
If this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime and is bound to last awhile, shouldn't we try to squeeze every penny we can out of our military budget by actually having oversight, instead of billions of dollars lost?
If this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime shouldn't we be making sure our men and women in uniform get up to date equipment and not leftovers?
If this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime wouldn't you expect to see some major corporations step up to the plate and support "at cost" delivery of items for the war machine?
(A president in the greatest struggle of our lifetime did
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/nationalsecurity/2004-09-17truma...)
Do you fight the greatest struggle of our lifetime with National Guard troops whose original purpose really isn't fighting foreign wars?
So in the end does he really believe what he just said and if he does then why aren't they putting things into action that say to everyone, "wow, they really mean business".
In the greatest struggle of our lifetime we sent our men into battle and told some of them to purchase their own armor. Still others were charged for their "destroyed" body armor after being shot.
And finally, in the greatest struggle of our lifetime, the man who could hold accountable those who make mistakes, has only given out praise and medals of freedom.
This speech meant nothing to me. We need a military at least half the size of WWII if we are going to say this is anything like that war. It's fricken nonsense.
part really gets my goat.
"Imagine a world in which they [Islamic extremists] were able to control governments, a world awash with oil and they would use oil resources to punish industrialized nations. And they would use those resources to fuel their radical agenda, and pursue and purchase weapons of mass murder. And armed with nuclear weapons, they would blackmail the free world, and spread their ideologies of hate, and raise a mortal threat to the American people. If we allow them to do this, if we retreat from Iraq, if we don't uphold our duty to support those who are desirous to live in liberty, 50 years from now history will look back on our time with unforgiving clarity, and demand to know why we did not act. I'm not going to allow this to happen -- and no future American President can allow it either. America did not seek this global struggle, but we're answering history's call with confidence and a clear strategy."
Shouldn't we at least have a dual pronged approach at reducing their ability to blackmail us with "OIL". If we are going to spend billions of dollars trying to prevent extremists from controlling oil by using force, shouldn't we spend an equal amount funding ways to get off oil completely? You can't be for one and not the other.
President Bush and congress could have pushed through a fricken hard core alternative energy mandate and everyone would have ate it up (except for big business). For example he could have come out and said "Because this is the greatest struggle of our lifetimes, and because patriots are sometimes required to sacrifice during times of war, we are going to spend 50 Billion dollars over the next five years developing alternative sources of energy." Oil drops hard on that and we move towards stopping the cash flow back to all the F'ers that hate us.
Talk like that is likely to get you banned from redstate.
When Bush and Rummy compare their critics to Nazi sympathizers, you’re supposed to forget about the fact that in 1983 Rummy shook Saddam Hussein’s hand just one month after Saddam gassed the Kurds with the WMD’s we sent over. I guess that “wasn’t” appeasement.
You’re supposed to forget the August 10th, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”. You know, the one Bush ignored while he was on vacation.
You’re supposed to forget just how badly Bush and Co. have utterly bungled the so called “war on terror”.
You’re supposed to forget all that because Bush reminds us daily just how afraid we’re all supposed to be and how the terrorists hate our freedoms.
You see, you’re not supposed to question our leaders in a time of war, because that’s appeasing the enemy. We’re not supposed to demand they do a better job, because we’re at war. How long will the war last, you may wonder? Nobody knows. But for heaven’s sake, don’t ask questions as to why our leadership is so unbelievable incompetent.
...and at redstate when you raise a valid point as to why the Republicans, who are in control of every branch of our government I might add, aren't doing an effective job. You are merely reciting Democratic Talking Points. You see, you're also supposed to forget the fact that Republicans never use Talking Points. At redstate, it's absolute moral truth when right wingers make an argument, but anything else is a Democratic talking point and will get you banned!
1st you need to change your style a bit more if you want to seem to post as two different people.
1. Its a volunteer millitary. Its doing exceptionally well. So well russia is about to begin emulating it by dropping conscription. If you wan't day to day advice on this try "work smarter not harder"
2. Please explain your use of the word failure. I hear you use the word but I don't think it means what you think it does. Please explain what you hope to accomplish by quadrupling the number of troops there. Do you hope to quadruple the opportunities to get americans killed ?
3. Sometimes its better to leave pieces on the board if they are a liability to your opponent. Think about this who is bin laden more usefull to at the moment ?
4. Sure why don't we shore up our debt by increasing taxes pay everything down. Oops that would kill our economy and reduce revenue. Hmm maybe we could do something that increases the growth of the economy and provides us with more resources to fight the enemy.
5. Weren't you complaining about shrinking our millitary a second ago ? Ah well lets add another layer of beuracracy that doesn't fight.
6. Your'e kidding on the up to date equipment ? Can you name a millitary with more up to date equipment or doing a better job supplying their troops ?
7. I can't even begin to fathom what your point is. The best I can come up with is that corporate entities aren't doing enough and its bushes fault. Your solution is to force corporations to do things for free ?
8. Why not the millitia has done pretty well in every war it was called up for since the revolution.
9. Not familliar with the incidents could you provide backup ?
10. For people that favor a more nuanced insightful approach, the opposition always seems quick to judge people whose entire business is secrets they know nothing about.
11. This is our generations struggle not our fathers. Theirs was different than their fathers ours is different from theirs. I am sure we would be hearing from you if we fought afghanistan the way we did WWII. It worked so well for the russians.
1st you need to change your style a bit more if you want to seem to post as two different people.
1. Its a volunteer millitary. Its doing exceptionally well. So well russia is about to begin emulating it by dropping conscription. If you wan't day to day advice on this try "work smarter not harder"
Exceptionally well? What reports have you been reading? Using stop losses and sending 30-50 year old reservists and National Guard to fight foreign wars on multiple fronts with sometimes inferior equipment is not in my opinion a strategy befitting "the greatest struggle of our times".
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/25/military.studies/
Of course Rumsfeld disputes that the op tempo is severely hindering our military readiness.
2. Please explain your use of the word failure. I hear you use the word but I don't think it means what you think it does. Please explain what you hope to accomplish by quadrupling the number of troops there. Do you hope to quadruple the opportunities to get americans killed ?
Any military that continually has to retake or reinvade territory to establish security again and again because of a lack of numbers is bound to lose in the long run. In order to establish security you must use overwhelming force. The Powell Doctrine. My point is that every technocrat in places of power planning the invasion of Iraq dismissed the Powell doctrine and not one has been held accountable. See later point regarding medals of freedom. Regarding the numbers of killed and casualties. I think they were fairly realistic and in order to actually win we would have to be willing to accept them.
3. Sometimes its better to leave pieces on the board if they are a liability to your opponent. Think about this who is bin laden more usefull to at the moment ?
This is the most asinine statement I have ever heard.
4. Sure why don't we shore up our debt by increasing taxes pay everything down. Oops that would kill our economy and reduce revenue. Hmm maybe we could do something that increases the growth of the economy and provides us with more resources to fight the enemy.
The GAO has many different reports out stating that even the most outrageously optimistic estimates for future growth rates of our economy only provides 1/3 of the needed revenues to pay down the debt. At some point something has to happen. Either do some major cutting, or we pay for the war through higher taxes.
5. Weren't you complaining about shrinking our millitary a second ago ? Ah well lets add another layer of beuracracy that doesn't fight.
My point was this. In WWII we went from less than 500,000 soldiers to over 10 Million in less than 5 years and the war was completed. If we are in WWIII or the greatest struggle how can we allow men to get stop lossed and extended for 18 month tours with undefined/shifting objectives. In WWII it was take that town and kill all the german enemies. In this war it is take the town. Search some houses. Get some men killed. Paint some schools. Pull out to take another hot spot. Come back three months later to take the same town. Rebuild the school blown up by terrorists. Leave the town.
6. Your'e kidding on the up to date equipment ? Can you name a millitary with more up to date equipment or doing a better job supplying their troops ?
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=HOME%20DefenseWat...
7. I can't even begin to fathom what your point is. The best I can come up with is that corporate entities aren't doing enough and its bushes fault. Your solution is to force corporations to do things for free ?
No, but if U.S. corporations are run by U.S. citizens and we are in the "greatest struggle of our lifetimes" then you might expect some at the top to be extremely patriotic and refuse to profit off of our war spending or cap their gross margins. Instead we see some with large contracts selling the U.S. government gasoline in Iraq for 200 to 300 percent profit margins.
8. Why not the millitia has done pretty well in every war it was called up for since the revolution.
What?
Article I, Section 8; Clause 15
Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=1
From the Army National Guard Web site.
9. Not familliar with the incidents could you provide backup ?
What? Don't know which part you were referring to.
10. For people that favor a more nuanced insightful approach, the opposition always seems quick to judge people whose entire business is secrets they know nothing about.
11. This is our generations struggle not our fathers. Theirs was different than their fathers ours is different from theirs. I am sure we would be hearing from you if we fought afghanistan the way we did WWII. It worked so well for the russians.
Great. Then why the hell does this admin keep bringing up Nazi's and fascism and WWII and the Civil War and all other kinds of b.s. If this is supposed to be a different kind of war where you try to win in the longest amount possible while spending the most amount of money possible then why didn't they just say so.
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/GuardHistory.asp?type=1
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/
When you take a sliver of the truth that is fundamentally misleading and in opposition to the overall picture its called propaganda not debate. This is what the national guard point is. This is what the bulk of your points are. I could go on about how we have a rather good economy when given the circumstances we might very well be in a depression. I can cite historical comparisons of our current millitary operations to the past. But whats the point ? You are running on propaganda and your mind isn't open to the arguments. Its sad and orwellian in an animal farm kind of way.
What?
Article I, Section 8; Clause 15Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia -- "to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions." All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States.
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=1
From the Army National Guard Web site.
Title X USC defines the militia of the US, it isn't the National Guard
If this is the greatest struggle of our generation according to many how can the overall size of the military drop while men have to serve 4 (soon to be infinite) tours of duty?
So what is the purpose of the military? Fighting wars is what I thought. How many tours of duty should they serve? Seems to me that the services have made their enlistment goals for at least 13 months and, more importantly, they are running at about 120% of their reenlisment rates. So it would seem the people on the sharp end of the spear aren't quite a concerned as you.
If this is the greatest struggle of our generation, how can someone look at the continued failures in Iraq and then ignore one of the main solutions which is tripling or quadrupling the number of troops there to get the job done?
And you arrived at that number how? Never mind, I know the answer. But isn't it curious that no one else is saying that? In fact, the consensus is that the last thing needed is more Coalition troops.
If this is the greatest struggle of our time, how can one discount the meaning of the leader of the other side and say his capture is unimportant?
Saddam Hussein is in jail. And we never captured Hitler either, and really had no firm evidence until 1993 of what happened to him. For that matter we never captured Gorbachev either. But I'll ask the question, why is the capture of Osama bin Laden important? If we get him what does that do to to forward our cause?
If this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime and is bound to last awhile, shouldn't we shore up our debt and actually fully fund the war instead of borrowing for it?
Great idea. That's how I bought my house: cash.
If this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime and is bound to last awhile, shouldn't we try to squeeze every penny we can out of our military budget by actually having oversight, instead of billions of dollars lost?
Good point. Explain that to the guys who get killed because the pennys that get squeezed are the ones they need.
If this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime shouldn't we be making sure our men and women in uniform get up to date equipment and not leftovers?
Just bullhockey.
If this is the greatest struggle of our lifetime wouldn't you expect to see some major corporations step up to the plate and support "at cost" delivery of items for the war machine?
(A president in the greatest struggle of our lifetime did
http://www.taxpayer.net/TCS/wastebasket/nationalsecurity/2004-09-17truma...)
Another great idea. I guess they don't need to replace equipment, engage in research, or build new plants.
Do you fight the greatest struggle of our lifetime with National Guard troops whose original purpose really isn't fighting foreign wars?
Fundamental misunderstanding of defense policy for the last 50 years. National Guard divisions served in combat in the Korean war. They stopped being state militias in the 1930s. This apparently escaped your attention, but that is why they have artillery, attack helicopters, tanks, and personnel carriers.
So in the end does he really believe what he just said and if he does then why aren't they putting things into action that say to everyone, "wow, they really mean business".
I give up, why?
In the greatest struggle of our lifetime we sent our men into battle and told some of them to purchase their own armor. Still others were charged for their "destroyed" body armor after being shot.
No one has ever told troops to buy their own body armor. Until this war doctrine did not call for body armor to be issued to any but frontline troops. As the Pentagon's magic wand was temporarily out of service they couldn't wave it and suddenly equip everyone with body armor. As to the latter question, I don't think it means anything other than it is a convenient snivel. The operative word would seem to be "some" so unless you're saying that the Defense Department singled out a few soldiers to charge for missing body armor then I fail to see what it means other than every organization screws things up.
And finally, in the greatest struggle of our lifetime, the man who could hold accountable those who make mistakes, has only given out praise and medals of freedom.
Maybe because he knows more about what they accomplished than you do? That would be my guess.
This speech meant nothing to me. We need a military at least half the size of WWII if we are going to say this is anything like that war. It's fricken nonsense.
Fricken nonsense, indeed.
I think your use of language and Dem TPs may seriously limit your future here at Redstate. Could you please try to dial down the use of both?
if this was the greatest struggle of our lifetimes I might have gotten just one response to my post that Pakistan signed a peace deal with the Taleban/Al Qaida today or someone else might have posted and talked about it.
im shocked that they ignored it...this pakistan thing is going to make every bush-lovers brain explode.
they havent repied yet, because Rove has yet to come up with the talking points on osama getting amnesty from musharef.
we must wait for Roves talking points before the bloggers at red state respond.
That you've been banned for being an idiot troll previously. But we did. And we will when you demonstrate yet again that your life has no positive meaning by wasting this excessive time trolling blogs, and sign up here again. When that happens, we'll just blackhole your IP address. Fair warning.
that your more interested in banning people. than responding to a news story which basically disproves every single republican talking point.
That it's lack of interest which prevents me from engaging in this entirely futile activity, rather than lack of ability.
P.S. I have come by this lack of interest honestly, through literally thousands of interactions with drooling automatons who think it's the height of wit and logic to believe that "every single Republican talking point" is somehow tied in to the President of Pakistan being a swell guy. In other words, to state your case is to refute it; thus, I don't bother. I do, however, keep on the lookout for violations of the Terms of Service.
So far, drivel isn't one of those violations. I'm lobbying to have that changed.
I didnt violate the terms of service. Well hopefully this post will put me over the threshold enough to get me banned. Let me restate my earlier post.
Leon you lack the ability to respond to the point that Bush has repeatedly claimed Pakistan was helping us in the war on terror.
The fact the Pakistan does not care one bit about the war on terror shows that George Bush does not care about the war on terror either.
And the reason you lack the ability to respond to this post, is because there is no response. This story is going to blow up in the face of every republican. When you sit back and think about it... you will realize that the republican party has just been revealed to be a giant fraud, not really caring one iota about the war on terror.
I didnt violate the terms of service.
A person with fifth-grade reading comprehension skills would realize that I expressly stated this already.
Well hopefully this post will put me over the threshold enough to get me banned.
If you want to stop posting at RedState, please feel free. I don't encourage martyrdom, however.
Leon you lack the ability to respond to the point that Bush has repeatedly claimed Pakistan was helping us in the war on terror.
There's no "point" to respond to, here. Of course everyone knows that Bush has said that, and Pakistan has done a great many things to help us catch Al Qaeda leaders. Nevertheless, if this story is true, I'll grant you that Musharraf has failed us miserably. What are we then logically to conclude from all that? Apparently, in your mind, the only logical conclusion is that the War on Terror is a farce and that Bush does not now care, nor has he ever cared. Not to intrude, but several other possibilites may just be escaping the steel trap of your mind, namely:
1. That Musharraf was being duplicitous, and Bush's mind-reading powers have not been up to snuff.
2. That Musharraf was at some point in the past a genuine friend, but is no longer.
3. That Musharraf is engaged in some sort of ploy to draw Bin Laden out into the open.
4. That Bush knew all along that Musharraf was not great, but accepted him as the best possible option in a very bad area of the world.
Of course, none of those could possibly be true, could they? And furthermore, because you've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Bush has gotten us all snookered and that everything we've worked for has been a lie (a lie, I tell you!!!!@#$$~), you have somehow disproven "every single Republican talking point" - yea, verily, we have been smitten by the hand of God, and shall commence to sackcloth and ashes for our penance.
Redstate is not interested in any point of view that differs from it's own. Whether I was snarky, or respectful I would be banned. You've done so in the past, and you've just threatened fistfulofdollars he'll be banned - and he made a clear and rational argument.
Why does redstate hate America and freedom of speech?
Please, block my IP and ban my user id. But you'll be wasting your time.
Better yet, why don't you put your time to good use and explain to all of us just how great a job Dear Leader is doing and we'll all be in lock step right behind you as we march over the cliff together like lemmings.
where we pretend that you're a rational person interested in anything but his preconceived notion of a site that already kicked him to the curb. Let's also not pretend that you are capble of reading, since I've not said a single word to fistfullofdollars (who actually did make an effort at cogent argument). The rather obvious disparate treatment afforded the two of you might give a rational person pause before reeling off a ridiculous comment like yours. You, on the other hand, have seen in it confirmation of your worst fears.
The men in black shirts will be there for you shortly.
But I'm my own poster.
And don't count on the fact that Fistfull and Physics are necessarily liberal, either. Perhaps they’re just fed up with all the Republican talking point crap and want a little accountability from our gov'ment!
"Please, block my IP and ban my user id. But you'll be wasting your time."
First true statement you've made all day...
I appreciate the stated five point outline. I keep wondering when we are going to deal with the lawless tribal regions in Pakistan, if this is indeed where Bin Laden and his freaks are living. We've been hearing about Waziristan, now the Islamic state of Waziristan for some time,but with little action.
Dizney Osama Bin Laden was not just given amnesty by Bush's buddy Musharef. Any facts which contradict that Bush is great and fighting the war on terror are a figment of your liberal imagination.
I thought you were outraged at Pakistan for "giving amnesty" to Bin Laden. Don't you agree that military action is called for?
perhaps I do agree with that.
too bad we do not have the troops available for the military action.
i mean we bust out all the talking points about Iran, but Pakistan actually has nukes and if I had to guess I'd say 50% of the people probably have pictures of Bin Laden in their homes. Musharaff came to power through a military coup and his subsequent relection is kind of suspect. What happens if a truly democratic election takes place in Pakistan that brings to power a more radical government? Musharraf's term is supposedly up in 2007. That's way before Iran could ever get nukes. Today's peace deal between parts of the Pak government and the Taleban tells you all you need to know.
Is your guess that "50% of the people probably have pictures of Bin Laden in their homes" based on some interesting survey by Ideal Home (Pakistan) or just on general ignorance of the country?
Pakistan is huge and diverse. It's history with democracy has been patchy, but good enough for us to make some estimates as to the strength of Islamic fundamentalism in the country, which is not that high.
The only fundamentalist government that Pakistan has ever had was that of Zia-ul-Haq, a general who came to power in a coup. At the last election a party expressly supporting his policies (though not, of course, the man himself, who is dead) won 0.3% of the vote and one seat in Parliament.
A coalition of Islamist parties won 11.3% of the vote, coming third.
What may be slightly confusing you is that the party which came first in the election is called the Pakistan Muslim League, as is the party that came fourth (a splinter group). The fact that the word 'Muslim' is in the name of the party is not, however, much guide to its policies. The Chancellor of Germany is the leader of the CDU, or Christian Democrats. She is not, however in favour of invading all Muslim countries or sponsoring anti-Muslim terrorism. That's just what they call conservatives in Germany.
In general, the PML and its various splinters are fairly secular and pro-western. The second largest party at the last election, the Pakistan People's Party, has generally been the most popular. It is a left leaning secular party, similar to India's Congress. (Ducks while supporters of both parties throw bricks).
India has actually given more support to fundamentalist parties than Pakistan has, despite the expressly religious founding principles of Pakistan. (Granted, India also has much stronger traditions of holding elections than Pakistan has, so its people have had more opportunities to vote).
Another source of confusion for you may have been the massive coverage in the western media for the 'breakthrough' that Islamist parties made in Pakistan at its last election. This was, sorta kinda, true. After all, their previous best showing was 3%. I guess if the Greens or Libertarians were to score 11.3% in the 2008 Presidential election, they would be extremely pleased with the result, and it would be big news, but it would still mean getting whopped.
On the wider question of how helpful Musharraf has been in the GWOT so far, it is difficult to tell. He has been treading a fairly careful line. Only a small minority of Pakistanis are Islamists, but a lot of them are in the army, and the intelligence services (ISI) in particular were well and truly infiltrated by Islamists promoted while General Zia ruled the country.
We know that Musharraf has done a lot to orient his country more generally to the West. He wants it to develop economically and open it to trade. That's what most Pakistanis want. We know that he has provided a great deal of intelligence support in the GWOT, including helping to foil the London terror plot. But most of what he has been doing - for good or ill - has been below the radar and not reported in the media.
I suspect a great many of the Islamists in the ISI and senior ranks of the military have met sudden and unexplained deaths in the last five years, and that the CIA and SAS have been very active in assisting Musharraf with this campaign. But the thing about secret wars is that you really don't know how well they are going.
Is this latest move in making a deal with the Taleban a change of policy? A feint designed to draw out UBL? A massive betrayal of the West? A brilliant diplomatic stroke that separates the Taleban from al Qaeda? A compromise forced on him by his inability to control his own military? I have absolutely no idea. I just hope that the CIA and State Department do have an idea.
Your wider point about the difficulty of a war against Pakistan is valid. Fundamentalists may be only 11% of the population, but that is still over 15 million people. The country has six times as many people as Iraq and the terrain is much tougher too. If the government there is now against us, it is a government with much deeper roots of support than Saddam ever had. And yes, it does have nuclear weapons.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
definition of a fundamentalist?
"In the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed, anger toward the United States remains pervasive, although the level of hatred has eased somewhat and support for the war on terrorism has inched up. Osama bin Laden, however, is viewed favorably by large percentages in Pakistan (65%), Jordan (55%) and Morocco (45%). Even in Turkey, where bin Laden is highly unpopular, as many as 31% say that suicide attacks against Americans and other Westerners in Iraq are justifiable. Majorities in all four Muslim nations surveyed doubt the sincerity of the war on terrorism. Instead, most say it is an effort to control Mideast oil and to dominate the world."
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206
That survey was done in 2004. I wonder what Osama's favorability rating is in Pakistan today?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/2000/02/20/wb...
Apparently you are an expert on Pakistan?
And I love how every time someone is confronted with facts that don't jive well for the WOT, they immediately go to the well there are a bunch of secret offensives going on behind the scenes that just can't be talked about so everything is o.k.
I am talking to the sort of idiot who thinks that polls are the only real source of information and that actual election results can be discounted any time they contradict your version of 'reality'.
>>And I love how every time someone is confronted with facts that don't jive well for the WOT, they immediately go to the well there are a bunch of secret offensives going on behind the scenes that just can't be talked about so everything is o.k.
You do? It is not an experience I have encountered, but I will take your word for it that it is fun. Are you under the impression that all intelligence operations are carried out publicly? Sorry. The New York Times just doesn't get to hear about all of them. Sometimes we only hear the results - such as foiling the London terror plots, using information that couldn't have been from Pakistan, and certainly couldn't have been from US wiretaps. All evidence that suggests either Pakistan or wiretaps were useful in that investigation must be disposed of as dangerous to the interests of the people!
I have never heard anyone say that everything in the GWOT is okay. But the Iraqi government is winning its war against al Qaeda and the baathists. I am sure you follow this closely, so you will be aware that the violence in Iraq peaked two years ago.
Three steps forward, two steps back. This is slow progress, of course. But that is all you were ever promised. Condi estimated in 2002 (I think) at least ten years. Could easily be twenty. Say, don't you think your party should develop a policy on this subject? I mean, they might not be out of power for the whole of the next 20 years.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
Judging by what has got to be one of the longest, uninterrupted strings of unsubstantiated DemocratTalkingPoints™ I've ever witnessed here at Redstate, I am thoroughly convinced that one of the prime objectives of the president's speech was a complete success.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I was wondering what it was that had brought the crazies desperate to post their "I was banned at Redstate" stories out of the woodwork in such numbers--because, you know, even if they are multiple personalities they count themselves as individuals and I'm sure they have their own blogs and anyway, we don't discriminate on such grounds--for what's really a pretty innocuous post. I mean, they didn't care so much about the Rumsfeld speech last week--at least they didn't until they read the AP account of it and at that point the news cycle moment had rather passed. But this, this outrage the brave tellers-of-truth-to-power could not let pass. They're getting awfully touchy and sensitive, seems to me. Maybe a little nervous?
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
I'm thinking you are actually a road hazard for liberals. Seems like lately, and I have no well researched hard numbers to back me up, every time you post a story a bunch of people end up getting banned.
You're so clever...
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
President Bush has begun to speak once again with the same moral clarity that was evident in all of his speeches immediately following 9/11, but has been sorely missing from the public discourse as of late.
Sec Def Rumsfeld, confronting his detractors direclty, unmistakenly defined the nature of the enemy, foreign and domestic, in black-and-white terms.
Within the limited timeframe of this series of speeches, President Bush has had remarkable success in framing the national security debate thus far, and it's obvious, these are not the terms the dems were hoping for when they decided to make Iraq an election issue.
If the American people begin to share the same view as the president, that this truly is the defining struggle of the 21rst century, with serious implications for our national security and for the direction of Western Civilization, this series of speeches will be a strategic victory, electorally and in the GWOT.
***
"The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
I would make one modification to this--the President spoke extremely well in a series of speeches last December focused on the Iraqi election. Unfortunately, they were quickly forgotten in the ever-changing newscycle.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
was one of his prime objectives? I would like to think that the leader of the free world has loftier goals than that...
No, I don't think that crossed his mind. What we're commenting on here is a phenomenon that becomes apparent after years of watching various victims of BDS. The derangement part flames up when they realize they've been had--yet again--by an individual they persist in believing is an idiot. You can see how this would be frustrating.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
you to respond to my points i posted. Joliphant was kind enough to. If every time someone taps into your cognitive disonance, you just post that they have BDS instead of actually refuting their points then you have basically lost and aren't really taking "the greatest struggle of our lifetime" very seriously.
Oh, you got me. You're right. I've lost (I have to wonder what exactly? But I digress...) and I'm unserious. Or perhaps I don't find your (talking) points particularly interesting or original--or for that matter relevant to the speech under discussion--and don't think they're worth dignifying with a response?
Food for thought.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
why my 450 Nitro Express shot some logic straight to your AcademicElephant brain that dropped you like a rock. Look, i'm for winning and that's why i get extremely pissed every time I hear another speech and no consistent actions. All I hear is big bad evil struggle that is going to last for 50 years, and then the next day I hear about a Stryker brigade getting extended for 6 more months or marines having to ride buses for 20 hours to get back home because we are too cheap to fly them. If we are going to fight a fifty year struggle against radical extremist muslims you can't do it without shared national sacrifice. You can't do it with coffins coming home in secret. You can't do it without having oversight on contracts and no bid contracts. In a fifty year war you can't just lolly along like every thing is going dandy and hire PR firms to spruce up the news out of the battlefield. The rhetoric consistently does not match the actions.
And Finally, Is Article 1, Section 8; Clause 15 a Democratic talking point?
http://www.arng.army.mil/history/Constitution/default.asp?ID=1
Sometimes I can't believe I am conversing with people who purport themselves to be conservatives and are against holding government accountable to get the job done.
Have you joined the fight and served in the Armed Forces or the intelligence services? Or do you limit your 'contribution' to childish screeds on various blogs? The reality (view of the war from inside the military/CIA/DOD, the folks actually fighting) is quite different from the nonsense published daily by the MSM and those who sympathize with Al Quaeda in the Democrat party.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
this logic has been thrown at College Republicans and others ad nauseum. I haven't really checked, but I assume that my age, my replaced anterior cruciate in one knee, and problems in the other, plus various other surgeries for broken bones, and my penchant for drinking excessively would disqualify me but I think they raised the age limit to 42 so who knows. I'd be curious to see an age survey of all the posters on Redstate. Are there a lot of 20-30 year olds here that aren't in the fight?
That the President vetoes Murtha's plans to conscript you.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
I am doing MY part. You know what that is? I try to vote in the primaries for Republicans who are concerned about spending and oversight. Other than that, What can we do? Yell at people on a blog site like you?
I was always only a luke warm Bush supporter, Certainly no one can say the administration has done a great job. HOWEVER,
they HAVE correctly named the problem and began on the solution.
Bush did not get us into this long struggle, our enemies did. After buildings, embassies, and ships blowing up for a decade we finally figured out we are at war.
I am not saying your criticisms are not valid, I am saying your tone is a defeatist one. Sure we have problems, lets work on them together.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
... and it was very good, I think this latest set of speeches have tried to patch a crack, but have instead exposed it a little more. I think those of us who understand the Islamist threat understand that these are very serious speeches, but they lose some resonance when they tie the overall situation so definitively to the situation in Iraq.
Cheney and Rumsfeld implied that those who don't support the war in Iraq are appeasers who don't think we are at war at all. All a smart opponent of the Iraq War has to say is "Hey! I'm insulted! I believe there's a war on terror! I just think Iraq is a mistake!" Previously, these folks have sounded like appeasers to me, but with the uptick in the rhetoric lately, I think this line of rebuttal will resonate more. Iraq is very unpopular, but most people think the war on terror is both real an important. And Iraq was just one way to fight this war. There were many other serious approaches that could have been taken.
I guess I just I think that position leaves a lot of room for intelligent, thoughtful counter attacks.
All of that said, this speech comes very close to backing up the "Iraq is the key to everything" assertion by reminding us of how the Jihadis feel about Iraq. It will be interesting to see how the politics play out.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
I think you're right and it is a delicate balance--but sadly, there's very little thoughtful or intelligent about the response of the loyal opposition.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
A serious critic can look at Iraq and say "that's not what I would have done." They can also look at Iraq and say "it hasn't gone as expected, and that's due in part to a naive optimism by this administration."
The problem arises when they go way past this, and basically question the legitimacy of the administration to wage a war at all. For my money, the positions the current Democratic leadership take start with the assumption by them, for a variety of reasons, that George W. Bush is not a legitimate president.
As a moderate, I'm going to try very hard not to retaliate against the next Democrat who wins the presidency. This "Stop Bush at All Costs!!" mentality has been very harmful to the nation.
--
"It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race." - Chief Justice John Roberts
You wrote:
why my 450 Nitro Express shot some logic straight to your AcademicElephant brain that dropped you like a rock.
I'm not entirely sure what this means, but if you are suggesting that I was lulled into a coma by your "logic" you are on the right track.
It's nice that you're so full of the will to win, but you display an unfortunate lack of understanding of what we're up against here. You criticize that we're hiring PR firms to spruce up the news from the battlefield, which seems to me to miss the point entirely--did you actually read the post, notably the part in which UBL talks about launching a media war in 2002? Do we just cede this battlefield to the enemy because you don't understand what it is? Great winning strategy.
Just a word of advice--if you're trying to start a "conversation," isulting the people whom your trying to force to respond is also probably not a winning strategy. You may think that you're a brave maverick, but unfortunately we've heard it all before and no one is impressed.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
own one but if i had to drop an elephant that'd be my choice.
And your logic is impeccable. It must have been the BDS that everyone was suffering from who responded to your thread (according to your insightful post above). At least the ones that didn't think the speech was the greatest thing ever. If you practice what you preach, then maybe you'll get an audience on this site.
Re: Audience---that is not currently one of my problems, my friend. Got your attention without making much effort, didn't I?
You, on the other hand, seem a little desperate to be noticed.
"I'm kind of old-fashioned. I like to engage my brain before my mouth." Donald Rumsfeld
is that the Whitehouse should have been this proactive in delivering their message starting some 4 years ago or so. I only hope that it is not too late.