About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Tuesday, September 13, 2005 - 9:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

I found this article compelling. I guess there really are at least 2 ways to view the, often counterintuitive, Bush-Saudi square-dance.

It shames me somewhat to admit this, but previously, I was only working off of one view of this Heads-of-States shuffle -- the one lending itself to 'outlandish' notions of a Bush-Saudi conspiracy against the US public; where Dick was really a dick, hiding behind a Bush, while our Homeland was to be the heartland for a Halliburton hell ... so to speak.

You've made me think more -- and that's a good thing.
Ed

Post 1

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 4:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have some questions, regarding these remarks:

1. The United States has not been attacked in four years.

Yes, but this might be due to a strategy change. They attacked US satellite states and allies like Great Britain and Spain, also the terror against Israel didn't stop. Also, you could say they changed the approach and constantly attacked US troops in Iraq.

2. No Muslim government has fallen to supporters of al Qaeda.

What is Al Quaeda support? The question is what defines as a success for the Al-Quaeda. If the imposition of Sharia is a criteria, if the freedom in Iran is a criteria, then we still haven't made much progress.

3. The United States won in neither Iraq or Afghanistan.

Only time will tell, whether these wars were of any result and especially a success.

4. Bin Laden is still free and ready to go extra rounds.

Yes, and I am alerted that the Bush administration doesn't mention him any more, instead we have Zaqawi and other Iraq located terrorists..


Post 2

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is the sanitized rationalized version of events, nothing new.  Does it make any difference that Zarkawi was welcomed by Saddam with open arms  fresh from the battlefields in Afganistan and provided with the financial support to recreate his training camps there?  I think it does.  This is just one of the facts this version of the story finds inconvenient to mention.  I haven't the time or energy to rehash this senario.

Post 3

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert  - I think the fact that shortly before we invaded Iraq, Bin-Laden declared a fatwa on Saddam and called for his assassination, rather well argues that they weren't affiliated.

That's the fact that tends to be forgotten by people who argue an Iraq-Al Queda link.  Maybe Saddam explored some options with Zaraqui, in an "enemy of my enemy" sort of way, but in the end, OBL and Al-Queda hated Saddam at least as much as we did.


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Anyway, my problem with this article is that it represents "moving the goalposts" yet again.  Maybe that was the reason for the invasion, maybe it wasn't - but how convenient they've retroactively found something we DID accomplish.

It doesn't make the war any better.  Is this article suggesting that attacking, in essence, the friend of my enemy is OK?  That we SHOULD invade sovereign countries, not even for the sake of taking them over, but just to "hit" someone we dislike more?  That's not the behavior of a civilized country, at least not as I define it.

Worse, it seems to imply that we are no better than our enemies.  The article talks about A-Q changing strategies; attacking our partner countries rather than us directly.  Are we to sink to their level and counterattack in exactly the same way?  What sort of moral high ground in this conflict could we possibly hold?

(Although I question even that suggestion on the part of the article.  A-Q's stated mission is to attack those western countries who are involved in the middle-east, and to not attack those not involved or who pull out.  So far their actions have been completely consistant with this stated policy.  Logic suggests that inventing new motivations for them could lead us to incorrect conclusions on how to conduct this war we've gotten ourselves into.)

But that's beside the point.  What this article seems to really underscore is how badly we've handled the post-911 conflict.  We've created a complete mess out of two countries who were only barely affiliated (if at all) with our actual foe, and in the end, the only "proof" that the author offers that we're "winning" the war is just his own unsupported assertion.  That's hardly compelling.  And in the meantime, he has an excuse for the war that gives us even less of a moral foundation than we even had before.

This is supposed to make me feel better about our foreign wars?

(Edited by Jason Blalock on 9/14, 11:59am)


Post 5

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 2:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

When I said I didn't want to rehash this, I meant it.  I will say only that if you are an Objectivist, you know what is moral and what isn't; and suggest you read these links which will give a greater understanding of Islam's plan for the world.

http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton051805.html

 

Arab-Turned Zionist Vividly Explains the Violent World of Islam (mp3 file)

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14159

 

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=18595

 


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, I know what is moral and what isn't. 

And wasting thousands of lives and spending billions of dollars to take over entire soveriegn countries just to kill a handful of religious extremists?

That ain't moral.  Not by any definition of the word I could possibly think of.  Objectivist, Liberal, Conservative, Religious, or any other.  Take your pick.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 5:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,
"A-Q's stated mission is to attack those western countries who are involved in the middle-east, and to not attack those not involved or who pull out.  So far their actions have been completely consistant with this stated policy."

Are you suggesting therefore that the US Government should order out all US troops, companies, etc from the Middle East because that is what AQ wants?  I should think we should, if it is an error, err on the other side.  If there's a country that they want us NOT to attack we should probably be warming up the tanks.

There may be compelling reasons not to be in Iraq, though I've heard none yet, but following Bin Laden's wishes certainly isn't one of them.

Jeff


Post 8

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Again I'm with Peikoff on this one, should've went after Iran from the start and Iraq has just been a painful little detour from the real threats.

---Landon


Post 9

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jeff

Actually, I was just suggesting that the article author was, at this point, inventing new reasons to justify us being in Iraq.

"Oh, well, uh, Al-Queda was totally attacking OUR friends! So it's OK for us to attack THEIRS! Yeah!"

I'm a rather firm believer in Sun-Tzu's advice in these situations. Know your enemy. If you know what your enemy wants, then you can move to stop him more effectively. If, however, you are making up reasons based on political expediency, with no real concern for the truth, then you're probably going to end up making bad decisions.

Like, oh, invading a country you're in no way equipped to fully subdue or rebuild.

Post 10

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason-

however, you are making up reasons based on political expediency, with no real concern for the truth, then you're probably going to end up making bad decisions.


Could you please explain this in logical detail.  We'll go from there. 

(Edited by Jody Allen Gomez on 9/14, 6:23pm)


Post 11

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,
Your position is well put, and I'll give it more thought.

My initial reaction is to believe that, forced to live in a real world where options are not always what I would prefer, if G. Bush has to resort to expedient excuses, (because among other things the major news outlets --apart from The Wall Street Journal and Fox News --  will lambast him no matter what reasons he gives) in order to, say, invade Venezuela I would be inclined to give him a pass.

But there's much danger of advocating pragmatism there, so I'll give it more thought.

Of course, apart from that, there's a difference between approving the initial decision and actions and being happy with the way its been carried out.  There again, public relations is clearly having a huge impact by tying the military's hands.
There's no question they had the resources to do what needed to be done.  (Though I disagree that rebuilding is something morally required.)  The commanders have not been allowed to use those resources.

All that said, I would prefer that G. Bush and the rest of the administration, stick CBS, et al in the eye and say -- "You know, not only is it a good thing to do, but we're going to do it a lot more in the near future, so sit down and shut up."  It's a tired question by now, but can you imagine them reporting on the Pacific Theatre in WWII this way?

In other words, I would prefer they tell the truth.

Jeff

P.S. Landon, I agree about Iran. (I'm reminded of Red Heat with Ahnold.  "Shoot dem first.") Particularly disgusted today since the head cretin is probably eating at a Four Star restaurant in New York.

(Edited by Jeff Perren on 9/14, 7:55pm)


Post 12

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 7:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, Max, Robert & Jason,

Thanks for your feedback on the Stratfor briefing.  I'd like to address each of your comments:

1. Ed,

I'm glad this article gave you something to chew on.  Despite the fact that controlling Iraq gives certain leverage to the United States in its dealings with Saudis, methinks it's still fair to question the Bush family ties to the Saudi monarchy and how it's lead us to where we're at today.

2. Max, let me address each of your questions:

1. The United States has not been attacked in four years.

Yes, but this might be due to a strategy change. They attacked US satellite states and allies like Great Britain and Spain, also the terror against Israel didn't stop. Also, you could say they changed the approach and constantly attacked US troops in Iraq.
It is significant that the al Quaeda has not carried out a major operation inside the United States.  There is tremendous pressure on them to do so if they want to show the fence-sitters in the Islamic world that they can challenge American power.  I personally don't know what the reasons are behind the lack of attacks inside the United States

2. No Muslim government has fallen to supporters of al Qaeda.

What is Al Quaeda support? The question is what defines as a success for the Al-Quaeda. If the imposition of Sharia is a criteria, if the freedom in Iran is a criteria, then we still haven't made much progress.
Al Qaeda has explicit goals of dethroning the monarchies of the Middle East that it views as American/Western collaborators.  Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Jordan rank highest on such a list, and those regimes have been able to maintain power. 

3. The United States won in neither Iraq or Afghanistan.

Only time will tell, whether these wars were of any result and especially a success.
I agree.
4. Bin Laden is still free and ready to go extra rounds.

Yes, and I am alerted that the Bush administration doesn't mention him any more, instead we have Zaqawi and other Iraq located terrorists..
It seems to me that the Bush administration has all but given up in the hunt for bin Laden.  In order to remove the Taliban without taking on a massive occupation afterwards, America had to make backroom deals with Afghani warlords who control most of the country outside of Kabul.  Between these thugs and the Pakistani government (who has helped us at least somewhat - enough to keep them off our "shit list"), bin Laden has plenty of area to wander freely in.  Every report I've ever read speculates that he's hiding somewhere between those two countries, but who really knows - there are a lot of Muslim countries out there...

3. Robert asks: 
Does it make any difference that Zarkawi was welcomed by Saddam with open arms  fresh from the battlefields in Afganistan and provided with the financial support to recreate his training camps there? This is just one of the facts this version of the story finds inconvenient to mention. 
You are stating that it's a 'fact' that Saddam welcomed Zarqawi with open arms.  Based on the evidence available to me, I think that suggestion is questionable at best.  It appears to be the case that Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq proper prior to the US invasion, however --- according even to the Bush administration --- he was situated in Kurdistan holed up with ansar al Islam (AAI), a Kurdish Islamist group.  Kurdistan was for the most part out of Saddam's control, and was ironically protected by the US under the no-fly-zone.  How Saddam could give someone a warm welcome to an area he has little to no control over is a little beyond me.  What the adminstration will say in response to this is that Saddam had a high level operative in AAI whom he used to collaborate and coordinate with AAI (and by association Zarqawi and al Qaeda) - a claim that to my knowledge has not been independently verified, even in the several years since the fall of Saddam.

There is also the claim that Zarqawi was treated in Bagdhad for wounds sustained in battle, with Saddam's presumed knowledge and consent.  No evidence has yet come forward to support this claim, and in fact a leaked CIA report indicates that the claim (along with any other Saddam-bin Laden claim) is likely to be completely false. 

There is even the question of whether or not Zarqawi was linked to bin Laden to begin with, at least while the Bush adminstration was saying so to make a case for regime change.  If this Fox News report is to be believed, it wasn't until October of 2004 that Zarqawi publicly declared his loyalty to bin Laden and al Qaeda.   

The most thorough and extensive case put forward by the Bush adminstration for the war was made by Colin Powell in his UN address - the Zarqawi claims were a prominent part of this speech.  In a recent ABC interview, however, Powell regrets being a conduit for the misinformation he propagated in that speech, saying he feels "terrible" about it, and that it will always be a "blot" on his record.  "It was painful. It's painful now," as he's quoted. 

So, it is for the above reasons that I feel George Friedman was in fact prudent for omitting the Zarqawi-Hussein connection in the Stratfor briefing I posted.  However, if you can provide solid evidence to the contrary, I am willing to revise my stance - likewise if there any other facts that you feel Friedman 'conveniently' omitted in his article. 

Pete

 


 


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason, I sanctioned the original article and both of your replies.  The problem is complicated by the contexts that can be used to subsume the facts.  How this can be resolved depends on the rules you apply. 

By analogy, how would one rationally analyze the America-British War of 1812?  New England almost seceded because they did not want to fight.  British piracy was bad, but war was worse for business.  Now we sing about conquering we must when our cause it is just.

How would we analyze World War I? On the surface it looks like a conflict between democracies and monarchies, but that had nothing to do with the origin of the war.  Was either side moral?  I think not.

If we get down to the roots and apply a radical analysis, one of the factors that gets isolated is your use of the word "our."  Surely, you do not mean that you and I and some Objectivists invaded Iraq.  I know that you meant "the United States of America" or "the government in Washington."  That it was so easy to say "we" and "our" only underscores how challenging it is to dissect the problem and identify the parts.

In a rational world, most of the corporations that were hit in 9/11 would have taken the loss and moved on -- which they did.  After all, it was a suicide attack: the perpetrators are dead.  Some would have had more resources, and more exposure elsewhere.  In order to prevent another incident, their security force rangers would have killed the organizers, seized whatever assets they could to defray the costs and taken a one-time write off for the loss.  Something like that is what happened with EDS and Iran, as described in Ken Follett's On the Wings of Eagles.


Post 14

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 8:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael M.,

I agree with your post except for the last paragraph: in rational world, there would be no suicide bombers...

(edited for proper spelling)

(Edited by Pete on 9/14, 8:53pm)


Post 15

Wednesday, September 14, 2005 - 9:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

In response to your post #4, the author is not writing a political editorial.  He is attempting to provide a detached analysis.  His company, Stratfor, is the leading private intelligence firm in the world, and is hired by multi-national corporations (and even governments) to tell it like it is, not to moralize or support a particular ideology.  His basic MO is to identify the players in a given situation, state what their short and long term goals are, and evaluate them accordingly.  If a shorthand version of this is applied to the US vs Bin Laden & Co.  conflict, it would be something like the following:

Players:  United States and al Qaeda

United States goal -  end or significantly reduce the threat from radical Islamic groups, maintain its status as chief power broker in the region

al Qaeda goal - drive the US out of the region, topple an Arab regime, create Islamist domino effect in the Middle East, restore Islam to its previous glory and make it a global force to be reckoned with

If you accept my crude reduction, then I think it's reasonable for someone to conclude that we are winning at the moment, as Friedman does.  al Qaeda has yet to accomplish any of the above feats, and America has far from shown that it plans to leave the region.  However, we are only one catastrophic terrorist attack away from the scales potentially tipping in the other direction, IMHO.          


Post 16

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 6:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Michael -

Interesting point. You're right. I shouldn't have to say "we" or "our," but given our geo-political distinctions, I'm sort of forced into it. And besides, one could make an argument that in a democracy, we're ALL the captain of the ship and that just saying "I voted for the other guy" is a cop-out.

But as far as morality, the author of the original article touched on that, in a backwards way, when he was talking about support for wars. He cites the Mexican-American war as proof that Americans can be "fractious," which I find to be a very strange argument to make, considering that everyone today knows that was a manufactured war.

My theory on the matter is a lot more simple: If the war is justified, then the people will be behind it. If you have to "sell" a war, we shouldn't be in it.

WWII featured an absolutely incredible level of propaganda, but I believe, fundamentally, the American people would have STILL been completely behind the war without it. The propaganda was more about making sure they accept the wartime conditions. Rations and shortages and such. You didn't have to "sell" the idea that Hitler and Hirohito were evil and had to be stopped. That was self-evidently true then, and still is today. (have you noticed that even with 50 years of analysis of Hitler's life and motivations, even the most liberal and forgiving can't argue he was anything but a truly evil man?)

But most of the other wars America has been in, especially in the last century? They've been manufactured. The government has had to make up reasons to get the American people to accept their sons getting killed, even outright lying to achieve their ends.

The American people aren't stupid. I doubt there is anyone out there who thinks Bin Laden ISN'T a major threat and shouldn't be captured. If they're against the "War on Terror," they're against the METHODS being used. Not the ends. At least not THAT end. By the same coin, most people recognized that Saddam was fundamentally a naughty boy and "deserved" to be punished... but didn't think we had any particular reason to be the punisher. The government had to invent a whole load of reasons to make the public accept the war in the first place.

I disagree, though, about the businesses just moving on. I think at this point OBL has made himself into enough of a threat that the rational decision is to take him out. *HIM*. Bin-Laden. And his lieutenants. NOT entire countries. If 9/11 had been an isolated incident, then perhaps it would have been enough to rebuild and keep going. But not when OBL has engineered these sorts of attacks many times in the past and almost certainly will again in the future.

But this all boils down why I think it's wrong to conceptualize the "war on terror" as ANY kind of war. When Tim McVeigh blew up that federal building in Colorado, we didn't decare some sort of war on scary white rednecks. We treated him as a criminal - captured him, put him on trial, found him guilty in a public forum, and executed him. Why, then, is it now necessary to blow up entire countries to get to Bin Laden? He and Al-Queda are *criminals* and need to be treated as such.

I could post more proofs of this, but this post is already getting long and, quite frankly, I consider the last four years of American foreign intervention to be a far more convincing negative proof than anything I could produce.

Post 17

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 8:06amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jason,

Yes, I know what is moral and what isn't. 

And wasting thousands of lives and spending billions of dollars to take over entire soveriegn countries just to kill a handful of religious extremists?

That ain't moral.  Not by any definition of the word I could possibly think of.  Objectivist, Liberal, Conservative, Religious, or any other.  Take your pick.


 

Framed in that way, you are correct.

(Edited by Robert Davison on 9/15, 8:23am)


Post 18

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 8:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Landon,

Perhaps you are both missing something.  Iran is the goal.


Post 19

Thursday, September 15, 2005 - 8:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete,

I am willing to revise my stance
No you're not.  I don't want to play. Sophistry boors me.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.