Redstate

First, this is my first post here, so hello everyone.

 If the war in Iraq is still going on, same intensity, same ground game, same everything, at this time in 2007 (the start of primary season).  What will you want to hear from the various Presidental hopefulls on this topic then?

I do think this is one huge failing of the administration.  They don't seem to be articulating themselves well in this regard.

A part of me does think that the vision of introducing real democracy into the region is the best way to stabilize it.

There is a really interesting historical study that looks at history and at governments that kill their own people and to some degree kill other people.  The one thing the study found is that the governments least likely to murder their own citizens or engage in genocide are democracies (and they don't mean the pretend democracy like you have with Iran, or in Iraq before the war).  It is long, but worth the read.

Link:  http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html  

part of the problem for Kerry is he mostly just said "Bush is wrong, I can do it better I have a plan" but his plan wasn't really anything different from Bush's plan, he just said he could do it better, but didn't really make a case for how.

I think people voting on the war, thought they would rather stick with the devil they knew than take on the one they didn't.

But if the war is the exact same as it is right now in 2007, I think both candidates are going to have to have clear plans and a vision, and they will have to articulate it beyond attacks on the other guy.

I completely agree that this is a major problem with this war.

However I think the problem really boils down to the fact that this ISN'T a war to spread democracy in the Middle East.  It is a war to spread Western culture to the Middle East.

The Middle East already has democracies.  The flaws of those democracies has more to do with the inherent cultural problems that region suffers from.  Their battle between religion and secularism is still raging and imposing democracy on a country really isn't likely to change that.

Note these are generic points and vary in application with each nation.  

although she would argue it a good thing.

unlike Ann Coulter, I don't believe that we should try to convert them at gunpoint.

I also don't view the Crusades in nostalgic terms.

about the GWOT hit on this issue exactly; that (paraphrasing) "this would be a war like no other, with no front lines and no fixed goals".

I agree that makes this a very hard war to sell to the American people.  And I don't think that the Bush Administration undertook this struggle with eyes closed to that fact.

However, looking at Iraq in particular, I think there is a double problem.  Not only does the Admin have to sell this vague, amorphous 'War on Terror', but they also have to sell that the now vague and amorphous war in Iraq has anything to do with the original GWOT.

My personal opinion is that the falling polls reflect on the fact that this second sales effort is not going so good.

However I think the problem really boils down to the fact that this ISN'T a war to spread democracy in the Middle East.  It is a war to spread Western culture to the Middle East.

Then it is an imperial war? But how can we possibly spread a culture that we no longer have confidence in ourselves, one that we are no longer even willing to "spread" (or impose, if you prefer) on those living within our midst?

We aren't looking to take control of the region politically.  I would say that we are looking to assimilate their culture into ours.  At least that is the general concept.

I'm not sure what your second point is supposed to mean.  You think that most Americans don't believe that our culture, or Western culture in general, is superior to all other cultures?

Just because you may find fault in that culture DOESN'T mean you wish to abandon it.

maybe it is just that I have thought about it in my own mind, that I don't need the case made to me.

But back to the link I gave above, democracies are the least likely form of government to murder their own citizens of others.  Spreading democracy to Iraq, will hopefully reach this goal.

By having a thriving democracy in the region, it will hopefully spur others for the same (and to some extent we have seen this, I am not sure you wold see the things happening in Lebanon right now, had it not been for the vote in Iraq), and as democracy grows, those who support murder and jihad will become marginalized, and the murders will be condemned for what they are.

The problem is that this proccess may not be fast enough to declare any kind of victory soon.  It may take a whole generation for the mindset to change, and Americans may not (and probably don't) have the patience for that.

Turkey has been a functioning democracy for 20 years.  

does the Middle East have (other than Israel)?

Turkey is not considered an Arab state - it's considered an Asian state.

But you would be correct to believe that democracy is a viable option for the Middle East.

I don't think we have a very good track record when it comes to setting up democracies, not to mention the fact that our motives are often less than pure. But more generally, I think democracies usually fail when people aren't ready for them. If North Korea became completely free today, I doubt it could become a successful democracy anytime soon. As for Iraq, now we'll just have to hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

I made no reference to Arab.  Iranians aren't Arabs either.  Neither are Afghanis.  What's your point?

But it is certainly part of the Middle East, as in Middle East Asia.  

Democracy without education is mob rule, which could be pretty dangerous with the mobs of the M.E.

 is that if he has to state it in terms like that, then you have to admit that we will be having US troops in Iraq for generations.

 Democracy is more than voting - it's having stable institutions in place and a basic respect for all your fellow citizens. Even in America, which was a generally homogenous set of states with a common background, it took us having a system of state governments working PLUS a 'first draft' in the Articles of Confederation PLUS another 10 years after that and a Constitution that even THEN some states refused to ratify.

 And now Bush has to sell a country originally held together on nothing but fear composed of three different groups, and not admit that it's going to take a generational effort by us to make it stable? It's not going to happen. And the longer the occupation keeps up, the worse it's going to look. Once again, the American people as a whole would not have signed up for nation building - they signed up to remove the 'threat' from Saddam Hussein. Especially not if the actual costs and duration had been outlined by the President.

there were "no fixed goals," but otherwise your summary is OK.

IMO, the falling poll numbers are a natural result of what marketing experts call "buyers" remorse."  The public re-elected Bush fully aware of the fact that he would continue to prosecute the war in Iraq for as long as it takes, and regardless of cost, to install a stable and democratic government there.  Having made that purchase some of the "buyers" in the body politic are having second thoughts, which is quite normal after any major purchase.  However, there is no money-back guarantee on a presidency, and I seriously doubt if Bush is overly worried about a modest dip in the polls.

BTW, Rasmussen Reports, the only polling firm that called every state correctly last election, give Bush slightly higher marks than most of the other major polls (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm).  

Not that it matters now.

Let's see what happens next week.

In the early days after 9/11, the Administration did a pretty good job of describing the threat, but they have since fallen down on the job.

To my mind, they have been too timid and too vague in defining war aims. I also don't think clarification needs to be that difficult.

No doubt, terrorism, per se, is amorphous. So let's give it a face--we are fighting islamofascism. Let's give it a name, Al qaeda, Hamas, et al. Let's give it a country--any nation state that actively harbors or succors these groups, or that doesn't actively work to destroy them within their borders. Name names--Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia. Lets set conditions and timelines for these nation states, failure to meet which would result in war with the United States of America.

 That's why half our troops are tied up in rotation into Iraq.

This topic draws lots of comments, and as usual, getting home from work (where I have no internet access) at 4pm EST, I am late for the party.

I have to say that Paul J. Cella's criticism is just about right on.  I am a supporter of the WOT, and I supported the idea of war in Iraq since it became the official policy of the Clinton administration in 1998(?).  While I may understand the motivations for intervention in Iraq, and what the vision is for victory, it certainly isn't clear to a great deal of Americans.

The one quibble I have with Cella's argument is that I think President Bush, along with the Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and others, have articulated what their vision is fairly concisely.  The reason I believe it is not fully comprehended is that their vision is not tied to results and information.  Americans do indeed still have "Jacksonian blood", but the war in Iraq lacks the simplicity we desire because we don't feel like we really know what's going on there.  Of course the first finger of blame could be pointed at the media, but I think the administration has failed to connect the rare tidbits of positive news and military successes on an aggressive and consistent basis.

This is just a perception I have, but as my old battalion commander used to say, "perception is reality," and if people are not perceiving success where it exists, you must change your approach.  I don't know what the answer is...I'm not even sure how much clearer the President can possibly be.  And granted, there are a great many people who just don't care to listen.

And South Korea was basically an authoritarian regime for 40 years before becoming a generally democratic government.  Heck the same is true of Taiwan.

However, read the link; it's a pretty even-handed treatment of the issue. (also, Taiwan and South Korea are mentioned)

"Democracy without education is mob rule, which could be pretty dangerous with the mobs of the M.E."

I'm not sure you recognize the bigotry of that statement.

You certainly underestimate their intelligence.

Pulling out the "Why do you not trust the  voters card"?

It's bad enough when it is used here it is completely misplaced in this context.

Thanks for the accusation of racism but MY comment had to do with the EDUCATIONAL system and nothing to do with any inherent shortcomings of the peoples of the Middle East.

The MOBS of the Middle East tend to be comprised of the poorest and least educated people of the region.  So please tell me how my comment was bigoted.  I'm fairly certain that this place has rules on accusations of racism.

...US troops in Iraq for generations

Or Germany, or Italy, or Japan, or ... There is nothing new, or negative, about having US troops somewhere for generations.

I personally think we should work on long term basing rights in Iraq (NB my comment is my own and does not represent the opinion of RedState, the Republican Party, the administration, yada yada yada) My guess is that if someone in 1946 had said that 60 years after the end of Adolph Hitler we would have forces in Germany they'd have been laughed out of town. I for one do not see US troops as a negative for the country.

I would add that I think for a substantial portion of the population part of the disenchantment of the war has come about because of the adminstration repeatedly saying that we're turning the corner in Iraq.

They have 'cried wolf' on this too many times.  I believe Americans are determined and resilient and much braver and hardier than our politicians assume.  We can take setbacks and failures.  We can step up to the challenge of long, hard slogs.  But to here our leaders say we are 'turning the corner in Iraq' or 'the insurgency is in its last throes' or ongoing predictions by administration officials that by x point in the future we'll be able to draw down our forces, and then for those predictions to be wrong again and again, is to cause disenchantment with the American people.  Despite what Karl Rove might say, the vast majority of Americans want to win both the War on Terror and the War on Iraq (whether you choose to link those to together I leave to the reader).  We want to win.  We have the will to win.  But don't insult us, repeatedly, by saying that the fight is almost won.  Don't pretend.  We get it.  Schools are being painted.  We get it.  Iraqis are voting.  We get it.  Democracy is a good thing, a humanitarian thing to bring to a country.  We get it.  Removing Saddam is a good thing.  We get it.  Now stop pretending that the insurgency is on the ropes.  Stop pretending that if you had a wayback machine that you wouldn't do anything different.  Stop pretending that no one could have predicted this level of an insurgency.  Stop pretending.

Stop.

We are ready to fight.  Tell us what we need to do to win.  Just tell us the truth.  We can take it.  We want to face the challenge.  For once, trust us to be what we are.  Good people who are ready to take on our responsibilities.  Our leaders need to rise up to the level of the electorate.  Trust us.  Give us the opportunity to trust you.  For God's sake, let's get serious about this thing.

 Germans have not been blowing up US soldiers for 60 years.

 Even at that, however, you still have to be straight up with the American people at some time. If you want to use Iraq as a forward base to democratize the Middle East, that means troops will have to be there (and therefore be targets) for generations.

 Will Bush tell people that? No.

That's exactly what I was talking about when I wrote about "results and information."  Tell us what is a problem, and what has been successful.  Don't tell us it's over, or that it's almost over.  Tell us what's going on and what it will take to finish successfully.

You're right, that the problem may be that they're telling us too much of the wrong (or inaccurate) thing, and not enough reality.

Flyerhawk is right.  I've said before that representative democracy does not always mean liberal democracy.  It's possible we could set up a representative democracy in Iraq that ends up being completely abhorrent with respect to minority rights, civil liberties, etc. that are a cornerstone to an LD.  Personally I don't think it's very probable but it is a possibility.

:)

I don't know what is probable and what is not.  Far too many variables at play at this point.  

While there is a government of sorts currently it has very little ACTUAL authority.  Hopefully when they finally write a Constitution that will help.  

I think the big problem is going to be the creation of an effective secular judiciary.  I honestly question whether most Iraqis can even understand the need for this much less accept it.  Without it everything else is largely meaningless.

military over a secular judiciary if I could only get one.  Changing the former is much more difficult than changing the latter.

Hard to believe that the Iraqi military would ever be apolitical, although secular is doable.  

High international poll ratings for how countries feel about Americans, especially middle-eastern and specifically arab countries.  Its that 'simple'.

If the vast majority of middle-easterners had a favorable view of americans, I think the terrorism problem would effectively solve itself.

Where are we now?

Here's results by Zogby (more at the link):

http://www.aaiusa.org/wwatch/041502.htm

7. Incredibly low marks are given everywhere for United States policy toward the Arab nations and toward the Palestinians. The United States is only given single-digit favorable ratings on its dealings with the Arab nations by every Arab nation (except UAE where it is 15%, driven mostly by the large numbers of non-U.A.E. citizens included in the poll). In all countries, more than nine out of ten are unfavorable.

8. On U.S. policy toward the Palestinians, the numbers are even lower. Notably, the negative ratings are at least nine out of ten in every Arab nation.
   
9. In every country, the "Palestinian issue" is viewed as "the most" or "a very important" issue facing the Arab world today. The range on this is from two in three in Saudi Arabia up to four in five in Lebanon and Egypt.
   
10. Those polled in every country indicate that they would overwhelmingly react more favorably toward the U.S. if it "were to apply pressure to ensure the creation of an independent Palestinian state". This includes 69% in Egypt, 79% in Saudi Arabia, 87% in Kuwait (91% of Kuwaiti nationals), 59% in Lebanon, and 67% in UAE (76% of Emiratis).
    
11. Almost every Kuwaiti national (98%) says that they supported the "American-led effort to free Kuwait". But the consensus ends there. It drops to 69% among non-citizens living in Kuwait.
    
12. If the U.S. is looking for support in the war against terrorism, it will find it hard to come by in the Arab street. There is no majority support in any of the Arab countries.
    

To me, you don't make a favorable impression by going in with guns a'blazin.  Kuwait was an exception, since Bush Sr did an excellent job of building international support especially among arab nations before acting militarily.

The current Iraq war wasn't looked at nearly as favorably in the middle-east.  In some sense, I think the arab world thought of Saddam as "yes he's a bast__, but he's our bast__".  (is that word allowed here? - its part of a standard saying).  In the long run, perhaps bush's strategy might work, to spread democracy, which will make average middle easterners feel better about the US.  What's going on in Lebanon is the kind of thing we should be pushing for.  But if we're seen as an occupier (in the case of Iraq), with our military presence always needed in their midst, then we WON'T achieve that goal.   Programs like the peace-corps, programs to build real schools (not Madrassas), programs to bring students to the US for education and exchange is how to achieve the goal.  Pressuring governments to encourage elections and freedom of the press and human rights would be another helpful strategy.

If we were to look like we're very interested and trying very hard to resolve the Palestinian issue would go a VERY long way in the arab and broader muslim world.  The muslim world knows we're not about to shut-down support for Israel.  What they'd like to see, is genuine recognition by the US of the problems that the palestinians face, along with a sincere effort to resolve the problems.

In reality, I think many arab nation's governments (and therefore citizens) blame their problems (unfairly) on the US.  That means we just have to try that much harder to succeed.  I'm doubtful that our reputation will be improved through continued use of heavy military power in the region.

The problem as I see it, is the way we're treating guantanamo prisoners and the abu ghraib disaster as well as our continued military presence long after Saddam was captured are merely making us look worse in the eyes of the average middle-easterner.   And that isn't going to turn their opinions around barring a miracle (like the insurgency suddenly surrenduring).

is all part of sales.  I'm in the game and believe me, I spend quite a bit of time selling people on the purchases they have already made.

Of course, I'm in a business that depends upon repeat customers.  If you living off of one-off purchasers, your motivations are different.

I believe that the smart political strategist would realize that one of the above strategies applies to parties, and another applies to individual candidates who have reached the end of term limits.

They lost all credibility with me (and many othes) a long time ago. They play to their base, they ignore or attack criticism, they never apologize, they only appear to care about public perception, and they consistently use strong-arm tactics to get their way. Is it any wonder that this would end up alienating people in the long run...

of victory in the Cold War?

I agree that the Administration hasn't done a good job of communicating, but then again, the thing to be communicated doesn't lend itself to simple explanations.

I suppose the absolute simplest formulation might be "When Islamic fascism is destroyed or discredited."  I see that as being analogous to "When Communism is destroyed or discredited."

From that standpoint, I honestly would feel better about our future if more opponents of the Iraq war felt as strongly as I do that Islamic fascism poses an existential threat, even if they think Iraq is a mistake.  You could theoretically think that Korean War or Vietnam War or any of the other "hot wars" that were but battles in the Cold War were mistakes while still believing wholeheartedly that the whole struggle against Communism was necessary and vital.

-TS

And neither have Iraqis!!!

If I want to use Iraq as a forward base means nothing. But keeping troops there for generations does not automatically mean that they will come under attack for generations. There were attacks on allied forces in Germany for several years after the occupation began. It is true that they were not as frequent as the attacks in Iraq but they occured and then after a while they stopped.

Will Bush tell the American people what you postulate as "the truth?" Frankly I doubt that he will say stick with it even though 'Anderson Democrat', seer or seer, all knowing prognosticator, thinks this is a mistake. But I submit that your crystal ball is no d*mned better than anyone elses.

I agree Sophist.

As has been commented on many times, our inability to name the enemy has hurt the mission.  It was political correctness--by not stopping islamic radicals taking flight lessons--that contributed to 911, and now the administration, and congresspeople, only rarely name the enemy.  We have been over this ground so many times.  Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy.

Enemy=Islamofascism or Radical Islam.

The 911 attacks, and all the other attacks, were Jihadi attacks carried out by Islamokazis.

Iraq is but one battle in the on-going war.

One of the little Arab countries (Yemen maybe-I can't remember is a fledgling one) Kuwait is working on becoming a democracy-think in that country they mayhave just agreed to let the women vote.

But there aren't hardly any, and you could probably argue that none of them is a strong one.

what we gage our foreign policy by.

My opinion is if you believe you are doing the just and right thing, then you do it, and if somebody doesn't like you for it, then so what, do what you believe is right.

I am sick of this wishy washy the world has got to love us crap.  Frankly, I really don't care if France likes us or not, what exactly has France done lately to bring anything close to peace in the world?  

The reasons for Americans' disenchantment with Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and their desire to withdraw might have nothing to do with marketing or defeatism.  It could have nothing to do with a desire to make Iraq stable and democratic.  It could be because a positive outcome is really hard to find realistically.

George W. Bush will not change strategy in the Iraq war.  For that matter, some strategic options (such as significantly increasing troop strength) are no longer possible.  Americans are left with the question of whether the existing strategy will work, and if the cost would be worth the benefit.  Given that the insurgency is maintaining its strength and getting more efficient at killing people, how will the current strategy quell the insurgency?  Public support isn't just about how the war is being marketed; it is about how the war is being run.  It is not being run well, and there is no sign that it will ever be run any differently than right now.  

think by Victor Davis Hanson at NRO (could be wrong on the author) a year or so ago that pretty made the argument that we need to stop calling this a war on a tactic and name the enemy for who it is-and that is Islamic fundamentalism/Islamofascists.  

But it sounds like you're making a lot of the same assumptions that many people, both liberal and conservative, make.

Things like "the insurgency is maintaining its strength" (how do we know?  or does it just appear that way?) and is "getting more efficient" (more efficient, or are the same old attacks just more frequent in one month relative to another?).  "The war is not being run well, and there is no sign that it will ever be run any differently than it is now." (maybe, but how do we know how it's actually being run?  and no different?  I am relieved to hear attention is FINALLY being paid to the Syrian border, much as I was pleasantly surprised that we found the will to deal with Fallujah back in November/December...something I had doubts would happen).

This goes back to my primary complaint, which is the lack of straightforward, un-editorialized information--which is why we can't rely on our own assumptions, howeve rmuch we believe them to be fact.  This doesn't mean the media reporting more good news; it means officials telling us exactly what's going on...and that's a fair criticism from both ends of the political spectrum.

I do think this is one huge failing of the administration.  They don't seem to be articulating themselves well in this regard.

Is this a failing of communication, or a lack of plan to communicate?  I find in my business that when one of my employees fails to communicate what they are trying to do it mostly has to do with the fact that they haven't thought out what needs to be done, rather than a lack of mastery of communications skills.

What's the end goal?  Is it to establish democracy to protect our interests?  If so, they when are we done?  After Iraq?, after Iran? Syria? Egypt? Most of Africa? China?  My problem with that path is that we will never be done.. Democracy cannot be foisted upon a soceity, the society must take it from the tyrants themselves - otherwise there will never be an understanding of the costs of democracy upon those that must be entrusted to preserve it going forward - the governed.  A plan that protects us by installing democracies everywhere there are threats today doesn't seem like a very realistic plan.

I agree that democracies make better neighbors, but I am just not certain we can parachute in plant democracies and have them grow.

The US commander in Iraq just said that the insurgents are just as powerful now as they were 6 months ago.  It was also just reported that the insurgents are better trained now than a year ago.  

So those questions AREN'T assumptions right now.

Here is a report with a chart of Iraqi civilian deaths resulting from acts of war.  Note the strong upward trend line.  No doubt people are noticing on their evening news that Iraqis are getting killed in groups of 30 now instead of a few at a time.

Absolutely right.  So the question is (not addressed to your or me):  why are they better trained?  and what is being done about it?

Picture the US as a person, and the average middle-eastern country as another person.  These 2 people live in the same house.  The middle-eastern country largely detests and hates the US, part of him wants to KILL the US (but only a very small part of the person is that extreme).

There's two ways to deal with someone who wishes you harm, and which you share the same house with.

One way is to keep a gun trained on them at all times, barely sleeping, and never trusting them even when they go to scratch their nose.  Maybe you could slap them around a bit just so they know who's boss.  Do you think that will make you safer?  Do you think the part that hates you will grow with time, or shrink with time using this method?

(whether or not that's a fair example of our true actions, thats often the PERCEPTION of the US in the middle east).

The other way is to do favors for them, have them do favors for you, work with them, talk with them, play games with them, show them that there's no reason for them to distrust you, and guess what?  That tiny part of them that wants to kill you will disappear and they'll gradually become positively friendly to you.

If you recall, there was a big dispute with Canada over our northern boundary.  54'40" or fight.  Our solution long ago wasn't to invade Canada because they disagreed with us or that some of their citizens wished to attack us.  In the long run canada is probably the closest ally that the US has.  We certainly don't base troops up there fearing an attack by canadians.   Friendly relations, trade, and common interests really do work.

Obviously we need to deal with people who are already terrorists by using force.  But using force among those who are not terrorists merely adds to the problem by converting some of them into future terrorists.  One of the key military strategies that everyone knows is 'cut off the supply'.   In our case, what's the best way to cut off the supply of potential terrorist recruits?  With guns?  Somehow, I don't see that as being very effective.

conservatives fear strangers, liberals are curious about them

I find this term dubious at best. Sure, Islamic radicals have drawn on modern sources of radicalism in recent decades, but it might just be that the "radicals" are the orthodox Muslims and the "moderates" the appostates. I don't know that this is the case, but we cannot pretend that it is impossible. What Islam is is not a question America can answer; and it could be that the answer Muslims will give will be unpalatable to most of us.

just read an article somewhere (here or mabye at another blog) that the Arab press is starting to cover the insurgency as what it is-terrorists trying to reek havoc in a fledgling government, rather than as the "freedom fighter."

I will see if I can find the link, but one thing is for certain, if the Arab press starts to turn against the insurgency, and the Iraqi populace turns against them, they will at some point fail.

Your point is taken, as promised.

Now back to my point, the question addressed to our talking heads, not you or me:

What is being done about this?  That is the missing link.

(and incidentally, why are so many people suddenly concerned with the well-being of Iraqi citizens, at least two or three years after I became concerned with it?  I guess it wasn't a problem when their suffering was a closely-guarded state secret...you see, a shortage of information can go both ways).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4123882.stm

where the radical muslims get to blow people up that they don't like?  Or is it just that you think these guys are the real face of Islam?  If they are how do you think they are best dealt with?

I honestly don't care who the apostates or the fundamentalists are, if they are the guy who thinks they can blow me or mine up, because they don't like me, then I am more than happy to respond in kind with a little extra to boot.

I do think in regards to Islam itself, that they are in the midst of their own reformation, and in the end the muslims themselves are going to have to figure out what face the real Islam is to have.

Abizaid also did not say all was lost and we can't win as "some" like to portray it. Just as the left accuses the right of repeating only the 'starry eyed' parts, the left chooses to only see the bad. Seeing only bad in everything, one can only wonder how liberals get through the day without medication. If you are going to  refer to Abizaid then we need to at least try to give lip service to his entire remarks.

We do not know if there will be a reformation in Islam.  This is just an idea we in the non-muslim world came up with, because Christianity had a reformation, ergo every religion can (and should) have one.  Why?

Also the reformation in Christianity took centuries--many generations.  In an age of WMDs it's not like we can wait around for an Islamic Reformation which may or may not ever take place.

By identifying the enemy as radical islam, then one policy we could implement would be to deport anyone who is a radical islamist--whether or not they have committed a crime--broken a law--because they are clearly enemy sympathizers.  This has been yet another harmful effect of not naming the enemy--we allow them to continue to live in our country.

How can we ask our soldiers to fight Islamofascists in Afghanastan and Iraq and elsewhere and then continue to allow Islamofascists to live in the USA? I think this is one of the things Paul is trying to get at in his writing.  If it was not so serious, it would be comic.  We have expanded tolerance of others to the point where we allow radical islamist who want to kill or convert us all to continue to live in the USA.

I think most Americans aren't able to grasp the "clear objective" of the war on terror because they're still struggling with the "clear objective" of Iraq.  I agree with others that the Administration bears responsibility for sticking to vague terms like "victory" without articulating what victory really means.

Every conservative I know can explain very clearly why we're in Iraq, but the thing is, they often give completely different reasons.  Some say it's about spreading democracy to the Middle East and the world.  Some say it's because Saddam was a brutal dictator.  Some say it's for strategic reasons and we need long-term bases in Iraq.  And some say it's about WMDs, and that even though we didn't find what we honestly expected, we still have an opportunity to do good.

Of course, all of these things are true, in the sense that the Administration cited them all (well, not long-term bases) during the run-up to war.  But it's clear to most Americans that the war was primarily sold based on the WMD/nuclear threat, even if many people personally believed that other objectives were more important.

If the neocon case had been made more strenuously during the preparations for war, I think people in general would be a lot more inclined to accept that as our "clear objective" today.  But it would have been harder to garner broad-based support for that particular justification.  It wouldn't even be fair to say that everyone in the Administration bought into it; if you asked all the players what the most important justification for war was, in their heart of hearts, you'd probably get several different answers.

This is not an accusation of hypocrisy; it's a complicated world, and there can obviously be more than one reason for doing something.  But in terms of focusing on one primary justification, the President picked the one that most clearly supports the case for war, but also turned out to be largely incorrect.  And now that the primary justification has switched to promoting democracy and self-determination, the electorate in general doesn't quite buy it because it seems like a change in plans, and because there's the nagging sense that we're not being entirely consistent when it comes to our attitude towards places like Saudi Arabia.

Finally, I think the reluctance to define a "clear objective" comes from the difficulties we've encountered with the insurgency.  Now, I don't particularly wish to tip off the "last throes" argument, but I do think that if the Administration was confident that we would achieve a particular, concrete objective in the next 6 months or so, they would love nothing more than to announce that goal and subsequently meet it.  So I'm left with the conclusion that they're less than confident in predicting any particular outcome (other than ultimate "victory"), which makes it awfully hard to define your objective with clarity.

But it hasn't changed the minds of the Muslims of the region.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L23195523.htm

I find this very troubling.

is that there are some people that will only take advantage of your generosity, they won't like you any better, and they will seek future ways to take advantage of you, and may end up killing you anyway.

See that's the problem with human nature, sometimes you can be really nice to the bully, but the bully isn't any nicer to you, and at some point, you just got to punch the bully in the nose.

Honestly, in your analogy, I would just move out of the house, but kind of hard to move out of the world.

Not once did the term 'racist' appear in my original comment.

Democracy is a political term, as well as an ideology.  It exists where the desire for freedom and self-rule is greater than the required sacrifice.  I think you underestimate the comprehension, commitment and willingness to sacrifice of the Iraqi people.

The lack of an academic degree or formal education is not the absence of intelligence.  A better indicator would be the ability to solve problems through common sense and rational thought.

"I think the big problem is going to be the creation of an effective secular judiciary.  I honestly question whether most Iraqis can even understand the need for this much less accept it."

Again, a rather broad brush is used to depict the "understanding" of the Iraqi people.

I must admit that I have more faith in the Iraqi people, and I'm much more optimistic of the outcome.

About deportation.

How do you identify them, what if they are citizens, where do you send them, and would it really make things better (would it keep the radicals from hating us, and from trying to kill us)?

Is this the only solution, is it a safer solution for the country than taking the war to them?  Or is it multipronged effort (deport while taking the war to them).  OR do you think any military action is wrong?

See while I don't know that I would be opposed to deportation, I don't know that it does a whole lot to make us safer-and all those people around the world that hate us wouldn't like this policy any better either.

I am not so sure.

Plus the minds that matter at the moment are those of the Iraqi's, and from the link I gave many of them aren't happy.  They are not referring to them as insurgents, freedom fighters etc, they are calling them terrorists.  The ARab press is starting to call them terrorists.

And just what exactly are the insurgents fighting for, because they aren't fighting for peace?

So when you said my comment was bigoted you were using the non-racist definition of bigot?

I don't believe I am underestimating the Iraqi people.  I think they are JUST LIKE EVERYONE else.     But they have very little experience with the concept of Democracy and all its trappings.  

You tell me that I am underestimating the Iraqi people's desire for democracy.  What exactly makes you believe that most Iraqis WANT to make the necessary sacrifices?  What makes you think that they even know what those sacrifices are?  Most Iraqis have at best rudimentary educations.  What makes you believe that they have an understanding of complex philosophical concepts such as Western democracy?  And before you accuse me of being a bigot about the Iraqis again this is an matter of upbringing and education, not intelligence.

Faith and optimism are subjective standards.   I prefer empirical standards.  Many Iraqis know of two kinds of judges.  Corrupt Baathists and religous judges.  

The thing is is that people are just tired of Iraq.  All they hear about is Iraq, and car/suicide bombings.  And the news stations aren't showing any of the progressions in Iraq.  Unfortunatelly, i think the problem is that people just don't really care about Iraq any more.  It almost seems a waste to them.  They don't really know why we went there and it seems as if we're not getting anything done.  Americans are just plain tired of Iraq.  Those who actually pay attention to politics see that the effort in Iraq is not very successful because reports have come out saying there are more or the same amount of terrorists as there were before we were there.  The whole point is, the news isn't showing the good coming from Iraq because people just don't want to hear that.  For some reason they want to see stories of kidnapped children and other stories of that sort.

were present at the signing of our own constitution, and history has recorded a pretty rocky road in our development.

The empirical standards you seek are evident in the daily lives of the Iraqi's.  They have rejected the insurgency and have gone forward with building their economy, training their defensive and security forces and writing their constitution.

The Iraqi people have brought forth actionable intelligence, and the Iraqi security forces are conducting successful raids on insurgent safe-houses.  

The commitment and willingness to sacrifice is evident in the Iraqi that is killed by a suicide bomber while standing in line to sign up and serve his/her country.

The whole point is, the news isn't showing the good coming from Iraq because people just don't want to hear that.

As the journalist like to keep telling us it isn't their role to tell us the things we want to hear. Of course that doesn't stop them from telling us the things they want us to hear.

People are probably "fed up" with the war based on what we hear in the news. But this is the same game that the press played in Iraq. If they tell us enough bad news they can convince us that we failed. As Nick Danger said recently, "It's Deja Nam all over again."

But this is the same game that the press played in Iraq

Should obviously be But this is the same game that the press played in Vietnam

Apes and even lower animals have the sense to stop cooperating with free-riders.  That's part of the reason why animals (and humans) have such a good ability of recognizing other individuals.

Ones who repeatedly take advantage of the altruistic nature of others are then shunned by the society at large.

My point?  Simply that the free-rider problem is one that takes place on an individual level and not necessarily on a societal level.  There is an innate sense of what is fair and proper, and transgressors are dealt with sharply.  

If a nation is in the hands of an antisocial totalitarian dictator, then obviously their personalities can take over the natural social behavior of that country.  That is part of the reason why we find it so beneficial to deal with democratic nations.

But if you are the country that everyone feels is transgressing what is right and wrong, don't be expecting a whole lot of good feelings and cooperation.

to stress the importance of working together, not giving handouts and freebies.  Someone who does that is stupid and the other person a mooch.  True friends work together in a mutual arrangement.  

Its not always easy, some people are harder to reach under the surface than others.  But I know which kind of world I'd rather live in, given the choice between militarism where everyone fears each other versus a situation where everyone helps each other.   Of course, I'm not totally naiive, it never hurts to wear a flack jacket underneath your clothing too.  ;)  But you don't have to point guns at everyone all the time to survive and prosper in this world.

That was one of the great successes of Nixon, and if watergate hadn't happened, Nixon's success at improving our relations with china would by far have outstripped his role in the vietnam war.  He would have been seen as a very successful and fairly popular president.

Look at us now.  There's very little fear that China is going to attack us, because we depend on them for inexpensive products (cheap labor) and in return they buy lots of our best goods (like airplanes).  Even though we have very different types of governnment, we get along quite well because we're economically dependent on each other.   Sure, there are nervous moments (like when our military airplanes bump into theirs), but given the billions of people our two countries represent, those incidents are very rare and infrequent.

I believe in our well meaning desire to take out Saddam and offer the Iraqi's the chance to democratically govern themselves, we forgot to factor in a glaring difference in how America won its freedom. During America's war for independence from British tyranny, we did not rely on a foreign power to oust the English. It was Americans fighting and dying to make America free. Colonial Americans decided they had had enough and decided to send the British packing.

We removed Saddam in what can only be considered one of the most successful campaigns in military history. However, positive stories notwithstanding, I don't believe the Iraqis have really stepped up to the plate in defending their country. This becomes obvious when you contrast the American fight for freedom versus the Iraqi fight for freedom. In both instances it is Americans doing the fighting and therein lies a real problem. You can kill insurgents all day long but until you get the Iraqis truly vested in the future of their country, real victory will never come.

difference that WE CHOSE that course of action.  We did not have some other nation impose that upon us.  As a matter of fact Americans fought WITH the British in French and Indian War.  They would have rejected a any forced changed that turned them against England at that time, and that was a mere baker's dozen number of years before the Revolution.

You seem to think that the Iraqi people operate a monolithic entity.  Far from the truth.  Some groups have rejected the insurgents and some have not.  Certainly the Kurds have since they have what they want already.  The Shia on the other hand most certainly have NO rejected the insurgents.

The insurgents could not operate without pervasive local support.

that the "radicals" are in fact the majority/orthodoxy in Islam.

In that case, I'll settle for de-fanging the lot of 'em.  If they can espouse their views in various political forums, pound the podium at the U.N. (which is what that organization is good for), and threaten economic sanctions, instead of strapping bombs on teenagers to blow up other teenagers or driving trucks full of TNT into restaurants, that would be acceptable.

At a minimum, I'd settle for Islamist governments NOT funding and supporting those activities.

If, as you say, "radical" Islam is actually the mainstream, and their answers are unpalatable to most of us, then at the very least, we need to make them put those answers in writing and speeches, instead of in guns and bombs.

-TS

It's fine to say Iraqis must take greater responsibility, but then you do have to take the full picture into consideration.

For instance, Syria and Iranian support of the "insurgency".  Hard to tell Iraqis to just handle it, if handling it properly involves cross-border military action.

Problems in Baghdad have roots in Tehran and Damascus.  I would have no problems supporting taking down those countries, but I suspect that most of the war opponents would.  The alternative is, as most war opponents acknowledge, to cut and run.

You have to consider where that path leads, though.

-TS

before it starts.

I wouldn't live with somebody who wanted to harm me-even a little piece of them, and I sure enough don't think I would develop much of a friendship with them.

our system of government and get our constitution in place.  Why do we think it should take the Iraqi's 6 months?

Although I do agree that unless the Iraqi's get fully on board and take control, it isn't going to work in the long run.

I just think that Americans are too into instant everything they are unwilling to wait for anything.  I would rather Iraq take time and get it right, then rush it and get it wrong.  

to MSM's misinformation campaign.

You wrote: "Some groups have rejected the insurgents and some have not.  Certainly the Kurds have since they have what they want already.  The Shia on the other hand most certainly have NO rejected the insurgents".

The majority Shia population has rejected the insurgency.  There are 'elements' within the Sunni population that are supportive of the Syrian and Iranian backed terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilians and coaltion forces (which includes the Iraqi security forces).  The Sunni's are a minority within Iraq, and Saddam's Baath Party were also Sunni.

Complete 'autonomy' has always been the goal of the Kurds.  That said, they realize that any attempt to create an independent Kurdish state will be met with severe opposition from Turkey, and may even lead to civil war within Iraq.  Iraq's largest proven oil reserves are in Kurdish territory.  They are willing, for now, to give democracy a chance.

If, as you say, "radical" Islam is actually the mainstream, and their answers are unpalatable to most of us, then at the very least, we need to make them put those answers in writing and speeches, instead of in guns and bombs.

And how does one "make" someone do something they are not inclined to do?

In the civilized world we have the force of law; but the law works because we have all agreed to follow it even if it works against us on occasion. The great falacy of the left is that we can use "the law" to deal with these issues. But even in the West, we have police and prison as tools to deal with those among us who are reluctant to accept the rule of law.

In the international arena we also have these tools; they are called use of military force. The dismal performance of the UN and the 'eleven-teen' resolutions on Iraq are more than adequate proof that, in the absence of a coercive ability, "international law" simply means nothing.

---------------------

props to the French I have to disagree with the following:

we did not rely on a foreign power to oust the English

As I'm sure von Stueben, and Kosiuzsku would do as well.

Not going to argue how large a role they played in the war though.

I support the miltary action in Afghanastan and Iraq, however we need to also act on the homefront.

As to how to identify islamofascists, we try. For example one criteria could be if an individual believes in violent jihad attacks in Iraq, Israel, Kashmir, Chechnya, etc., or they think the 911 attacks were OK, then we say that they are an islamofascist, and take them into custody and deport them back to their country of origin. This is just one example.

As to people hating us around the world, radical islamists will hate us regardless of what we do.   Deporting islamofascists will also bolster morale in the western countries--that we are not just sitting here hoping that our resident Radical Islamists won't just decide to go blow themselves up in a public place.  Our message would be that Radical Islam is incompatible with our tolerant Western Societies and we just don't want it around. Period.

its kind of hard to leave the planet.  We're in a situation where we have to live with them.  Since the middle east holds a key resource, we're forced to deal with them (as opposed to the horrors that take place in African countries which we tend to ignore).

  Which points out very well the flaws in the whole "advance US interests by spreading Democracy through the Middle East" concept...

I'm of the feeling that the biggest issue with the Iraq support falling is the feeling that it's not moving forward.  

The american people would be much more supportive if the military was in constant battle killing terrorists, however becuase it's a long protratcted policing issue, they don't see the movement.  

We are a notoriously impatient people,

Iran? A democracy? Did you just arrive from Mars or something? Iran is as much of a democracy as Red China.

The people of Iran have no say in anything. Sure they can vote for anyone they want --- as long as the candidate is on the ruling council's list of approved candidates. The parliament can pass any law the mullahs want, subject of course to the fact that the ruling council can override any and all acts of the parliament. The people are free do do anything and say anything as long as it doesn't come to the attention of the thought police.

If you think that Iran is a democracy you have a peculiar idea of democracy. Iranian democracy is in oxymoron.

You are advocating that we deport people for their beliefs.  

Just a few 1st Amendment problems with that.

Flyerhawk,

Yes, there are 1st amendment problems with the above.

Question to you:  Do you have any problem allowing radical islamists to continue living in the USA? Do you think it a risk we can continue to take?

 was another homogenous state that had good relations with the US until the rise of the Nazis. They also had a looming threat on the border in the Warsaw Pact.

 Iraq's only 'threat' is one the majority of Iraqis do not see as a threat. Iraq is a land of three different religious/ethnic sects. Lastly, Iraq is a place (as Abazaid tells us) where foreign fighters are flocking to specifically to attack US troops. It is MUCH more unstable in Iraq now than Germany was in 1947. All the snark in the world on your part won't dismiss these facts.

I should clarify. Yes we received help from other countries during the revolution. However, France did not come over here, tell us we were being oppressed by the British and initiate the attack to overthrow them to create democracy in America.

of course sales execs rely on repeat business, but presidents don't, or at least not after re-election.  The problem with metaphors is that they don't always work in every situation.  But it was my metaphor, so my bad.

I asked people not place blame, but tell me what is next?  No one can do that?

Advocating violence against the United States is illegal so any radical Muslim that does that can be tried and convicted and, if they are not citizens, deported to their home country.

But simply approving of past violence is another matter entirely.

It's the obvious answer, and frankly, it's the only one.

If words won't do, then it is action that must speak.

Even the law is toothless without men with guns to enforce them; the idea that we all have agreed to follow the law is a Rawlsian construct.  In reality, we follow the law because if we do not, the state will use force.  Agreement ain't got nothin' to do with obeying the law.

In short, I agree with you.

On a somewhat tangential but related note, this requirement that military action be reserved as coercive ability international affairs is the primary reason why we can never allow an Islamic state inimical to our interests to acquire a nuclear weapon.  Nukes remove the military option from the table, and without it, all is precarious.

-TS