Redstate

If you want to talk about being serious about foreign policy, perhaps you'd indulge me by answering a few questions.

1) Do you think the threat of terrorism can be defeated by the US alone?

Bush has made it clear that he will act - that his goal is to kill terrorists before they kill us - and do so outside of the UN if necessary.

2. Do you believe we're dealing with a finite number of terrorists?  If so, why do you think this?
   
3. If not, what is Bush's approach to preventing potential terrorists from becoming actual terrorists?  And given the potentially infinite number of enemies we have, how does setting a goal of "killing them" get us any closer to winning the War on Terror?

France and Germany, for example, opposed action in Iraq because they stood to gain financially from Saddam's continued rule and because they were unwilling to commit blood and treasure to a cause when they knew that the US would shoulder the burden and pay the cost. They cynically avoid risk and undermine action while at the same time benefiting from conflict.

4) Which is it?  Did they want to benefit from Saddam's rule, or his overthrow?

What about the UN Oil for Food Scandal?

5) What about it, indeed?  Has there yet been any evidence given for this other than the allegations by Ahmed Chalabi?

....  is, as you point out, devoid of any determinate content.  It is an irrational impulse, a spasm of the mind akin to the involuntary motions of those afflicted by neurological disorders.  Either this, or an unclever concealment of their true position, that our foreign policy ought to be subordinated to some sort of transnational authority.

I'm not the author of this piece, but here's my two dinars:

1) Do you think the threat of terrorism can be defeated by the US alone?

We're not alone. We have the full support of the UK and Australia, plus dozens of other states from the Baltics to Japan. The whole concept that the US is "going it alone" and being "unilateral" is, to be frank, horsesh-t. Neither France nor Germany could provide a significant number of troops without us further straining our logistical support system. There is no UN force or other foreign military who could provide enough troops to be of great benefit, and any troops they send would have to feed off our supply lines.

Do you believe we're dealing with a finite number of terrorists?  If so, why do you think this?

If not, what is Bush's approach to preventing potential terrorists from becoming actual terrorists?  And given the potentially infinite number of enemies we have, how does setting a goal of "killing them" get us any closer to winning the War on Terror?

Yes. It takes time to train an effective terrorist. There are only a finite number of people who are willing to join al-Qaeda. The canard that military action creates more terrorists is another shoddy argument. Did World War II create more Nazis? Did the nuclear bombing of Japan create more kamikazes. Does the death penalty create more murderers?

The answer clearly is no, which is why the best policy is a policy that leads to victory. There is simply no substitute for taking these ideologies and utterly defeating them. Anything less shows that the US is weak, and provides a tacit justification for more acts of terrorism. Appeasement of terrorism is a slow form of suicide.

4) Which is it?  Did they want to benefit from Saddam's rule, or his overthrow?

I believe the author was referring to conflict in the terms of continued sanctions and low-level attacks against Saddam. The sanctions did not stop the French and the Chinese from getting rich of Saddam's regime, and if they stopped that trade would have dramatically increased.

5) What about it, indeed?  Has there yet been any evidence given for this other than the allegations by Ahmed Chalabi?

Yes, from the US Senate and US General Accounting Office. I know the left would like to ignore or explain away the UN's profiteering from Iraqi oppression, but the fact is that this scandal is very much real, even if the media and the left would love to pretend it doesn't exist.

1-- as noted above we are not alone. The only army on the planet capable of holding its place in line of battle with the US Army is with us. It ain't the French Army.

2-- As the number of people on the planet is finite it follows that the number of terrorists is finite.

3-- Historically wars have been won through killing the enemy. I see no reason why it won't work here.

4-- You are demanding an either/or proposition when the facts show clearly it was a both/and situation. France, Germany, and Russia benefited from a cozy relationship with Saddam. They are now turning lemons into lemonade by demanding that the new government honor existing debts (France, Germany, Russia), contracts (Russia), and access to reconstruction contracts (France, Germany, Russia).

5-- Paul Volcker is leading an investigation under a Security Council mandate. Are you saying Kofi is in Chalabli's pocket?

...what is Bush's approach to preventing potential terrorists from becoming actual terrorists?  And given the potentially infinite number of enemies we have, how does setting a goal of "killing them" get us any closer to winning the War on Terror?

Killing them is perfectly effective as a short-term plan, and supporting democracies in the middle east is an excellent long-term plan.  Bush is doing both.

A pipe bursts.  One person goes to the kitchen, and sops up as much water as he can, while another goes to the basement and turns off the water supply.  (Someone else complains that they should call a plumber, but he is ignored.  He also refuses to help.)  Now, one could point out that the broken pipe is probably in the bathroom, not the kitchen, but the man with the mop is standing in a puddle, so he doesn't think it matters either way.

I didn't ask if we were going it alone.  I was asking if he thought we could.

There are only a finite number of people who are willing to join al-Qaeda.

OK, this raises more questions.  Have a large percentage of people who are willing to join al Qaeda actually joined?  How do we distinguish between those willing to join vs. the ones who aren't?  Accordingly, how will we know when our enemy is defeated?

Re: the oil-for-food scandal, from the article you linked to: "The documents behind the list have yet to be authenticated, however."  I asked for evidence, not allegations, and I take it that none has been forthcoming in the three months since that article was published.

Killing them is perfectly effective as a short-term plan, and supporting democracies in the middle east is an excellent long-term plan.

Is it an effective short-term plan?  We've killed an awful lot of people, but we're still living in near-constant threats of terror attacks.  And our troops are still dying.  And as far as democracies go, the new (appointed) Iraqi government is closer to martial law than it is to free elections.

OK, this raises more questions.  Have a large percentage of people who are willing to join al Qaeda actually joined?  How do we distinguish between those willing to join vs. the ones who aren't?  Accordingly, how will we know when our enemy is defeated?

We'll know we've won when the Middle East embraces democracy and peaceful relations with the rest of the world. We'll know when Arab state TV networks stop broadcasting anti-Semitic blood libel. We'll know when the threat of terrorism subsides.

Unfortunately, that could take decades - but the alternative (years of low-level terrorism and attacks on the magnitude of 9/11 ever few years) is untenable.

Re: the oil-for-food scandal, from the article you linked to: "The documents behind the list have yet to be authenticated, however."  I asked for evidence, not allegations, and I take it that none has been forthcoming in the three months since that article was published.

The documents are the ones found by al-Mada. The GAO report indicating $10 billion stolen from the oil-for-food program. Their report can be found here.

OK, this raises more questions.  Have a large percentage of people who are willing to join al Qaeda actually joined?

Unknown and unknowable. But probably not relevant. My guess would be there are fewer members today that 3 years ago and a lot more talking trash than joining. If that isn't the case today it will be in the forseeable future.

How do we distinguish between those willing to join vs. the ones who aren't?

Why would we care? I would hope that in the course of killing those who have joined that we also kill a lot of those thinking about joining.

Accordingly, how will we know when our enemy is defeated?

When the last organized group decides the cost of doing business is too high.

attacks, not so far.  My belief is that the amount of attacks we will experience over the next ten years will be lower than what we would have faced otherwise.

As far as Iraq goes, I consider long-term to be closer to twenty years than one. Also, the entire middle east will have to change, not just Iraq.

1. Yes.

What most people don't understand is the quantitive and qualitive differences in the world's various militaries.  An example is the Russian Army and Grozny, which is the model that everyone expected would happen in Bahgdad.  In that battle the Russian Army just about completely flattened the city and inflicted about 80,000 civilian casualties.

Additionally I'll point out that there are 1.45 million soldiers in NATO.  Of that number 1.4 million are American.  Without American naval and air transport assets NATO would be incapable of movement or deployment.  Without American precision bombing technology and fighter / fighter-bomber/ bomber aircraft NATO would largely incapable of either air superiority or significant ground attack ability.

Then look at how many non-American soldiers are in Iraq and Afghanistan now.  The total is perhaps around 10k-15k.  We've got more in garrison in South Korea than that.

2. Yes.  Because, as was shown in Iraq, you really have to be willing to die to be a terrorist.  So there are quite a few now, but they're very much hardcore.  In addition to those are a very large number of people "playing" at being a terrorist who gave it up very quickly when they were either betrayed by Iraqi's or shot by Americans.  Read up on the personal stories of would be "freedom fighters" who finally escaped from Iraq.
   
3. Freedom, Democracy.  Without it every new generation will create more terrorists.  Which we would then have to track down and kill.
   
4. I'd suggest re-reading your statement.  It's not an either or situation.  Logically a country could be against fighting and still profit from it.

But to answer your implied question: Both.

France, Germany, Russia and China all stood to gain greatly from Saddam's bribes.  They also hope to gain in the post-war period from the new Iraqi government.

5. The oil for food scandal is very real.  If it isn't then you should tell Congress that and the New York State Attorney General.  They're all investigating this scandal.  If you're basing your belief on the lack of news coverage, that's simple to explain.  The major media is largely left-wing.  And the leftist rely heavily on the existence of the UN.

Read up on the UN.  The amount of corruption in that entity is beyond insane and there will be an accounting for it.  The American people have been funding that monstrosity for decades now.  It's time the books were opened, and the con artist punished.

Yes. It takes time to train an effective terrorist. There are only a finite number of people who are willing to join al-Qaeda. The canard that military action creates more terrorists is another shoddy argument.

I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, since it's taking away from the point of the original post. However there is no basis for your assertion that there are only a finite number of people who are willing to join al-Qaida. First of all, al-Qaida as it was on September 11 no longer exists. In explaining this I may be far from succint..I apologize in advance.

Al-Qaida is particularly dangerous because of its ability to adapt. Al-Qaida's capacity for reinvention and adaptability has been reflected by the organization's activities in Iraq, with reports of hundreds or thousands of possibly AQ-supported fighters pouring in to fight what they consider the next "battlefield of jihad".  The destruction of its sanctuary in Afghanistan may have degraded its ability to carry out large-scale attacks, but it continues to be a significant threat. Why? According to terrorism scholar Jessica Stern, al-Qaida has invigorated its organization by turning to younger recruits, new converts, and women.  Al-Qaida, according to Stern, holds the following characteristics: flexibility of mission, willingness to form broad and unlikely alliances, a virtual network, alliances with crime networks, and use of modern weapons such as surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), and an interest in acquiring or using chemical, biological, radiological, or even nuclear, weapons.   Because of its adaptable nature, Stern refers to al-Qaida as the "protean enemy".

Such an allusion is apt. Al-Qaida can be considered to be like a volvox, a microscopic organism that consists of loose colonies of cells. Each globule is considered a colony of many individuals, and no cell is fully specialized. Thus, knocking out the hub of the volvox does not eliminate it; other cells take over and little groups of colonies slip off to reproduce and create more volvox.

What exactly one means when saying "al-Qaida" is somewhat unclear; it can be the small group run by bin Laden - the "hub" in our analogy - the larger movement - the volvox - or a network of networks - the multiple colonies of volvox, continuously reproducing. The latter arguably is what is happening to al-Qaida today.   Before 9/11, the structure of al-Qaida could be thought of as consisting of "The Base" - the core unit with UBL and Zawahiri at the center along with those who had sworn loyalty to UBL.   Outside of the core were UBLs broad associates that were recruited for specific operations.  The links to these associates range from the very weak to the almost-merged.  Most of those affiliate groups had some national affiliation: IMU to Uzbekistan, JI to Indonesia, and AI to Iraq.

With these groups, one sees individuals with a foot in both the national and transnational camps, such as detained JI/AQ facilitator Hambali  and arguably Zarqawi for AI.  The existence of these facilitators of course does not mean that every AI or JI operation is at the direction of UBL.  However, the facilitation of these groups holds new implications as the AQ hub has been decimated. Key AQ leadership have fled to these regional/national groups and further influenced their operations.  The volvox has reproduced and created multiple new organisms in regional hotbeds. These organisms may at this time still be primarily national, but they are prototypes of the larger al-Qaida and therefore have the potential to evolve into transnational terror organizations.

So here we have a complex soup of individual "freedom fighters" so to speak, "weekend jihadists", former AQ members, members of other regional groups...it is not finite.  Your analogy to WWII ..just doesn't work, although to try and tap into why it doesn't exactly work is another complex undertaking..I'll be interested if anyone can differentiate between to the two better than I can.

The GAO report indicating $10 billion stolen from the oil-for-food program. Their report can be found here.

That's not what it says.  First of all, it simply indicates that Iraq made an illegal $10 billion in illegal oil revenues, not that it was "stolen".  And second, only $4.4 billion was through the Oil for Food program.  This was not "stolen" either, but was attained through "surcharges on oil sales and illicit charges from suppliers exporting goods to Iraq".

I'm not sure what this report is supposed to prove to me.  I don't like the idea of Saddam profiting from this anymore than you, but I don't really see the big deal.  This isn't some kind of malignant fraud by the UN.  It's just a case of, as the newly Bush-appointed ambassador to Iraq says, watching more for illegal weapons than Saddam skimming a few bucks off of food suppliers.  The horrors!

You start skimming 10-20% of all the money you handle at work and then go to the boss and explain how that isn't "stealing".

The rhetorical and mental gymnastics necessary to justify such a prima facie dumb argument must be incredibly taxing.

Furthermore, the UN knew about the fraud, and UN officials (including none other than Kojo Annan) were also recieving kickbacks from Saddam. Benon Savon was also complicit in the scandal and has not been cooperating with investigators.

At the end of the day, putting stock in the UN after the UNSCAM, Srebrenica, and the hundreds of other scandals involving the UN is simply foolish. The UN is the worst arbiter of international justice that could possibly exist, and Kerry's argument that the UN should have a de facto veto on US power is foolish.

I think I've heard our President say enough times that the War on Terror is different from any other conflict that I don't see how the WWII analogy is relevant anyway.  We're fighting a different enemy, remember?

The idea that's there some fixed number of would-be terrorists out there is true only in a way that's so abstract it's hardly worth dealing with - like another poster here said, since there's a finite number of people, there's a finite number of terrorists.  Technically true, but wholly unhelpful.

I wasn't aware that Iraq was an employee of the UN.  If a car salesman charges me 10% more than a car is worth, is that stealing?

At any rate, the only fraud in the GAO report is by Iraq, and we've long established that Saddam wasn't a good dude.  The worst the UN can be accused of in this instance (i.e., the GAO report) is inadequate oversight.  Not good, I grant, but hardly worth getting too worked up over.  It's not like we consider Wall Street to be inherently evil just because Enron screwed everyone over.  There are bad actors on any stage.

As for the allegations in the FOX article, I hope they're investigated thoroughly.  But allegations and evidence are just not the same thing.

Kerry's argument that the UN should have a de facto veto on US power is foolish

cites for Kerry making or implying that argument please, but don't work too hard cause it doesn't really matter.

strange how many passionate patriots don't bother to read the supreme law of the land.  the UN does indeed, and quite explicitly, have a de facto veto on pre-emptive (not defensive) military action by the US outside its own boundaries...  remember all that nonsense about whether or not the threat from Iraq was "imminent?"  there was a reason for all that nonsense, and at the end of the day, GW Bush broke US law to go to war.  and don't bother getting lathered up about how international law doesn't exist, I'm talking about US law here.  

oh, I forgot, the President is above the law during undeclared wars.  carry on...

P.S. are you sure you want to get your news from an organizataion that literally defended in court its right to publish and broadcast as news things that it knew to be false?  look up the Akre case if you dare...

France and Germany, for example, opposed action in Iraq because they stood to gain financially from Saddam's continued rule

This ridiculous notion is still being parroted about?  Sheesh.  That's as silly as saying Bush invaded for oil.

I would say they stayed out of it because they were too wary of the chaos that war brings, which for those two countries is no suprise.  War must be handled very carefully, because when violence unfolds anything can happen and it's very difficult to control regardless of how much force you put into it -- look at WWI.  WWII, for that matter, certainly made Germany wary about what good war was.

I'm not saying I agree with them, but take a serious look at what you're saying: the oil profits they got from Saddam were, first of all, not going to French or German governments, and, second of all, were a drop of spit in the oceans of their respective economies: they had a lot more to fear from the stoking of Islamist fires than they did in losing the measly amount of money they (like the US) were making off the trikle of oil coming out of Iraq.  Certainly they both (like the US) expected the fall of Saddam and the ultimate freeing up of Iraq's oil to bring them greater wealth in the long run than they were getting while sanctions were in place; more oil in the world pertrol market is good for everybody, France and Germany included.

It sounds like you're just propping up straw men here, in other words.

What to do about an unknown number of terrorists bent on our destruction?

Pre-9/11 types seem to be answering --- "More of what we did in the 1980's and 1990's." Which, I would say, is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Post-9/11 types answer --- "Hunt them down, destroy their bases, disrupt their funding, punish states that are providing safe haven. Kill as many of them as quickly as we can. Keep killing them as long as it takes."

Pre-9/11 types respond that this approach is simple-minded, unsophisticated and un-nuanced (and besides, it will never appeal to the French.)

Well, then, what is your alternative?

Are we to retreat to our gated communities and spend more money training our "first responders", so they can provide better medical care after the truck bombs go off, or the airliners are flown into our city centers, or the dread diseases are spread across the land?

Are we simply to accept our fate and calmly watch our women raped, our children butchered and our culture destroyed?

This is in now way a strawman argument. The French had clear and significant economic investment in Iraq and wished for those ecnomic investments to continue to produce regardless of whether Saddam was a brutal dictator. They were in fact pushing to remove the sanctions so they could reap even more benifits. If you think these ties weren't involved in their diplomacy I think you are being naive. Just look at their actions in Africa.

On the flip side, yes I do believe that France will benifit from a stable and democratic Iraq. Their cynical hypocrisy, however, led them to oppose the US action knowing that if the US failed that would take their rival down a peg and if the US suceeded they would step forward and demand rewards via their buddies at the UN.

I don't blame France for acting in what they perceive as their interests but I do blame Kerry for pretending that we can all just kiss and make up if he is in the White House. There are no strategic or historic reasons to believe this is true.

I know you're grasping at ways to make France look bad, but I challenge you to find any quotes by the French saying that they wanted to remove sanctions to make more money.  The fact is, they weren't making hardly anything from Saddam.  Neither was the U.S.  Both had more to gain by removing either Saddam or the sanctions; to accuse France of craven motives in their stance on the war is just as pessimistic as accusing the U.S. of the same.  Certainly neither country would come right out and say it was all about money, so any attempt at making it look that way just sounds paranoid.

Face it: France caved in because they're simply afraid of war.

If that car dealer takes 10% off the top and pockets it, that's fraud, which is a crime.

Iraq took money that was supposed to go for aid to the Iraqi people and spend it on palaces and weapons. Trying to parse your way out of a prima facie case is a fool's errand. Theft is theft, and what Iraq did was theft, pure and simple.

Of course no one in France is going to say they want to remove sanctions because of money! I never said they made that case publicly. But here are some facts [source]:

* France controls over 22.5 percent of Iraq's imports.[1] French total trade with Iraq under the oil-for-food program is the third largest, totaling $3.1 billion since 1996, according to the United Nations.

* In 2001 France became Iraq's largest European trading partner. Roughly 60 French companies did an estimated $1.5 billion in trade with Baghdad in 2001 under the U.N. oil-for-food program.

* France's largest oil company, Total Fina Elf, has negotiated extensive oil contracts to develop the Majnoon and Nahr Umar oil fields in southern Iraq. Both the Majnoon and Nahr Umar fields are estimated to contain as much as 25 percent of the country's oil reserves. The two fields purportedly contain an estimated 26 billion barrels of oil. In 2002, the non-war price per barrel of oil was $25. Based on that average these two fields have the potential to provide a gross return near $650 billion.
France's Alcatel company, a major telecom firm, is negotiating a $76 million contract to rehabilitate Iraq's telephone system.

* In 2001 French carmaker Renault SA sold $75 million worth of farming equipment to Iraq.
More objections have been lodged against French export contracts with Iraq than any other exporting country under the oil-for-food program, according to a report published by the London Times. In addition French companies have signed contracts with Iraq worth more than $150 million that are suspected of being linked to its military operations. Some of the goods offered by French companies to Iraq, detailed by UN documents, include refrigerated trucks that can be used as storage facilities and mobile laboratories for biological weapons.

* Iraq owes France an estimated $6 billion in foreign debt accrued from arms sales in the 1970s and `80s.

* From 1981 to 2001, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), France was responsible for over 13 percent of Iraq's arms imports.

I think that a strong argument can be made that France, Germany, and Russia were reluctant to act in Iraq because, amongst other reasons, it went against their ecnomic interests.

The point is not to prove without a doubt this point, but rather to point out that Kerry completely ignores the fact that these issues might be driving the conflict with those opposed to action in Iraq and that his rhetoric means little without a explanation of how and why his diplomacy might succeed where others have failed.

Hmmm.

I notice that "Jason Bergman" hasn't responded to the above response.

What an amusing blog!