Rumsfeld and winning the war on terrorism

[Malone LaVeigh]

Even if you believe this, it is obvious that the only way to stop the terrorists is to capture or kill them. Allowing your comment that the radical leaders cannot recruit as fast, they still recruit with no end in sight. If you sit on your hands so as not to PO any potential terrorists, terrorism prospers and continues forever.

So how does going after the wrong target solve anything?

And - I really wish the banner waving about "stopping the unjust war" would stop until we finish the job - Yes, Virginia, it actually DOES encourage our enemies.

See my sig line. I agree we have to finish the job, but have less faith every day that we can do it. At this point, I'll settle for getting Saddam.

BTW, how many of you have actually served...??? And...YES, I really do feel that unless you have served this country in some capacity, your ability to impact policy should be remote. Call me Heinlen all you want...

I assume you mean served in the military. I doubt if Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin would have agreed.

Again, opinions may differ. Just give it a chance to work before you join the "cut and run", "US ouit of North America" crowd.

The problem is that the definition of making "it" work keeps changing. At this point, the best we can hope for is a friendly, market economy government in Baghdad. Lasting more than a week. But that has nothing to do with any threat of terrorism we may have been under before the war.

Of course it does. You see Nazis around every corner and conspiracies in every story.

Would it have made you feel any better if I had said "KGB"?

"and some odd combination of Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans in Iraq."
************************************************************

These very folks are the ones who must be dealt with (killed or discouraged) to win in Iraq.

That's the best example of circular reasoning I've seen in a long time.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

So how does going after the wrong target solve anything?

The wrong target in your opinion.

 

[fallingblock]

Aw, Malone......

"and some odd combination of Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans in Iraq."

These very folks are the ones who must be dealt with (killed or discouraged) to win in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"That's the best example of circular reasoning I've seen in a long time."
***********************************************************

How so? It appears to be a very logical conclusion to me
The thread is about the war on terrorism, and winning in Afghanistan and Iraq,and Rumsfeld's ideas, and he has some very valid thoughts to offer.
For example:

"Rumsfeld also suggested the United States may need to do more to "stop the next generation of terrorists."

"The U.S. is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists," Rumsfeld wrote. "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."

************************************************************
"The wrong target in your opinion."
************************************************************

Hkmp5sd beat me to this observation

We differ on evaluating the relative significance of available targets.
Your sig line is commendable, you just gotta 'keep the faith'.......
(and kill enough "Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans")

 

[Glock Glockler]

It would make sense to arrest Baathists just like it would make sense to arrest Nazis, I think de-Baathicizing Iraq would be a good idea but killing folks because they're anti-American or Nationalist is psychotic.

How would you feel if a foreign country with a very different culture and a reputation for being a global bully stormed in and occupied your homeland? Many of us here have very little love for the US govt, but I'd be damned if some group of foreigners decided to invade, occupy the country to save us from ourselves. I'd fight tooth and nail, what would you do?

What do you think is going to happen if we kill folks because they hate us? Makes about as much sense as the old school management attitude of "The beatings will continue until morale improves".

To make the best out of this Iraq mess we should be

- establishing an infrastructure that will allow commerce and investment. If the Iraqis can be kept busy they will be less likely to become terrorists or support them. Iddle hands are the Devil's playthings. Being busy making money will also not want to rock the boat, and it will also make them far less likely to give aid and shelter to those that are rocking the boat.

- Get the Iraqis to do the dirty work. It's very easy to an Iraqi to kill and American but far less likely to kill one of his own people, and it's also easier for an Iraqi to gather intelligence than it is for us. Having American soldiers on the ground acting as a police force is an invitation to disaster, both in our domestic political situation and in the practical situation there.

The best case scenario would for us to be the puppetmaster pulling the strings but not being in the spotlight at all, we'd also be well served by not killing people simply because they don't like us.

 

[fallingblock]

Agreed, Glock Glocker....

"if some group of foreigners decided to invade, occupy the country to save us from ourselves. I'd fight tooth and nail, what would you do?************************************************************

If they were freeing me from a tyrant who had persecuted and murdered my family and friends for a quarter of a century, I believe I'd welcome them, as the majority of Iraqis have welcomed the U.S. removal of Saddam.


************************************************************

"What do you think is going to happen if we kill folks because they hate us? "
************************************************************

Only if they are trying to kill us, of course. There is a significant distinction between 'activists' and 'fence-sitters'. The more of the former killed, the better for our cause.


************************************************************
"The best case scenario would for us to be the puppetmaster pulling the strings but not being in the spotlight at all, we'd also be well served by not killing people simply because they don't like us."
************************************************************

Certainly true, but in order to reach this stage, the situation in Iraq must be stabilized by killing or 'removing' those who for whatever reason want the new Iraqi government to fail.

I believe this is the plan we are pursuing, however confused the situation may be (or is being portrayed by a hostile media in an election run-up ).

The enemy must be defeated to establish the replacement to Saddam's dictatorship. It will take time and a lot of effort to do it right. This is Rumsfeld's message, and I believe he is correct.
I also appreciate his analysis.

 

[rapaz]

"and some odd combination of Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans in Iraq."
************************************************************

These very folks are the ones who must be dealt with (killed or discouraged) to win in Iraq.

The solutions posed by Rumsfeld's question are in the direction of prevailing in Iraq, and by extention against Al quaeda.

Fighting ideas with ideas is a good thing. What's necessary is to hurt the other side enough to get their attention....like with Harry Truman's Missouri mule.

Of course the tricky part is to do so without alienating the entire civilian population.

I think we basically agree, except for one fundamental point. If you want to "hurt the other side," I assume you mean al quaeda, right? If so, what the hell are we doing in Iraq????? Al Quaeda is in saudi, kenya, yemen, malasia, all sorts of places... but never had a home in Iraq. There are all sorts of reasons to bomb Saadam, but al quaeda/9-11/terrorism has nothing to do with it. Bush et al have been shameless about conflating the two, and should be held accountable for that deceit. Now that we are in Iraq, we need to do the right thing (and then leave)--the 101st Airborn has been getting rave reviews for how they are handling things in their area; pity the rest is being handled so poorly. But don't mistake doing well in Iraq with "defeating al quaeda".

About my freedoms--I'll vote for anyone who promises to never hire Ashcroft. (Although he does get a few points for his 2nd ammendment stance, mind you.) I like my bill of rights, dammit, and I don't appreciate it being trampled on by the left or right. This administration has been going after the 1st, 4th, etc, without shame--how better could the terrorists win than for us to throw our freedom out the window? I'll vote for the easter bunny if he promises to pay attention to the constitution!

 

[Marko Kloos]

If they were freeing me from a tyrant who had persecuted and murdered my family and friends for a quarter of a century, I believe I'd welcome them...

Then you do not comprehend the mindset of the average Muslim in the Middle East. We are the Great Satan. Saddam was a bad dude, and even other Arabic countries conceded the fact, but if they have to take a side, they'll always take the one of the fellow Muslim and Arab over the infidel Westerner. It's like a domestic disturbance call, when the wife with the bloody nose and the black eye fights the cops tooth and nail when they slap the cuffs on her husband.

 

[fallingblock]

I agree, rapaz......

"If you want to "hurt the other side," I assume you mean al quaeda, right? If so, what the hell are we doing in Iraq????? Al Quaeda is in saudi, kenya, yemen, malasia, all sorts of places... but never had a home in Iraq."
************************************************************

But it seems to me that the decision to take out Saddam was intended to give the U.S. a foothold in the area of maximum terrorist activity, without the complications of knocking off the Saudis or embarrassing Egypt.

************************************************************
"But don't mistake doing well in Iraq with "defeating al quaeda".
************************************************************

The two are linked, I believe. If a stable pro-western or even neutral mildly democratic nation emerges from the ashes of Saddam's Iraq, the region will be 'de-terrorized' to a degree. Add the advantages of a forward operational base within the area between potential hotspots of support for al quaeda, and you have a fine strategic victory.
Can the U.S. pull it off? Not without whacking the folks resisting them in Iraq, and the quicker the better.

************************************************************
"I'll vote for the easter bunny if he promises to pay attention to the constitution!"
************************************************************


I share your pain, brother rapaz. !


I do believe that Bush has been far better than Gore would have been under the same circumstances (both Second Amendment-wise and WoT- wise), and after all, that was what we had to choose from at the time .


Markos Kloos:
************************************************************
"Then you do not comprehend the mindset of the average Muslim in the Middle East. We are the Great Satan. Saddam was a bad dude, and even other Arabic countries conceded the fact, but if they have to take a side, they'll always take the one of the fellow Muslim and Arab over the infidel Westerner."
************************************************************

I know that seems to be 'conventional wisdom' these days, but I think this assumption does a great disservice to educted Muslims everywhere. I have known several Palestinian and Saudi friends from my university days, and they are certainly not blindly devoted to other muslim governments. There is a wide range of aspiration and opinion across the Middle East today, and I think you may be misleading yourself with such generalizations.

 

[bountyhunter]

This tends to disadvantage the enemy by demoralizing them as well as depleting them

I guess we really have them on the run now. The frequency of attacks has been mutiplying exponentially and the ones in the last three days showed a level of sophistication and co-ordination not previously seen. The rocket attack on the "safe" house used to hold US generals and politicians did a lot more than rattle windows..... It sent the mesage that the real war has just started and they are going to strike any targets, civilian or military. The slaughter of the Iraqi police says that anybody who collaborates with the US dies first.

God protect our troops. I hope they get out soon and leave that dust bowl forever.

BTW: on meet the press they explained the "hang up" with getting the civilain government enstated. We have told the current governing party to get a "constitutional congress" together to draft their constitution. The problem is, the Iraqi people are demanding those attending the congress be elected, not selected by the US. Our position is elections would "take too long", which is being perceived as a reply: we won't allow it because then we can't pick who will be in the puppet government we want to fill with US-friendly officials. This is a mess. We are claiming to be installing a democracy but are actually blocking free elections because they would almost certainly lead to a government that was mostly Islamic in makeup. I guess we are going to give them freedom to choose as long as they choose the right one(?)

 

[bountyhunter]

"If you want to "hurt the other side," I assume you mean al quaeda, right? If so, what the hell are we doing in Iraq????? Al Quaeda is in saudi, kenya, yemen, malasia, all sorts of places... but never had a home in Iraq."

Funny thing is, even though it only takes about one brain cell to figure that out, some days I can't find anybody else who knows it.

Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other and have for years. OBL stated publicly that Hussein is not a true Islamic, he's a liar who uses Islam as an excuse to get people to follow him. OBL also said he would overthrow Hussein and install an Islamic government in Iraq. BTW, he said exactly the same thing about the Saudi ruling government.

So, I have to laugh when I hear the fairy tales of how Hussein has been supporting Al Qaeda, giving them bases, money, etc. Hussein is many things, but would anybody be stupid enough to support the group that has sworn to destroy him?

Truth is, Hussein always hated OBL and Islamic fundamentalists because of the threat they posed to him. There is about as much "connection" between Hussein and OBL as there was between Reagan and communism..... and just about as much love.

 

[rapaz]

But it seems to me that the decision to take out Saddam was intended to give the U.S. a foothold in the area of maximum terrorist activity, without the complications of knocking off the Saudis or embarrassing Egypt.

Is that what it's about this week? But really, the US already had "force projection" footholds in the middle east--we had bases in Saudi and other countries. From this link :

The U.S. also maintains a military presence in other Gulf states, such as Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait

Now, of course, we have been forced to accede to one of Bin Ladin's top demands, and get out of Saudi Arabia. Man, progress every day, huh?

The really controversial part of Rumsfeld's memo, if I understand things correctly, is that it presented a far more pessimistic view than his public pronouncements. Either things are going great, or it is a "long hard slog." Can't be both. Rumors abound that Rummy is on the way out, but I'm not buying it yet.

A lot of criticism is due to rumsfeld and the pentagon for poor post-invasion planning. The intel was there (see, for example, comprehensive report provided by the state dept. before the war) but they, I guess believing Cheney's claim that we would be met with open arms, ignored it. I'd say that the blood of every US soldier and UN worker killed since Bush made that shameful carrier landing (and worse, said "bring it on") is on their hands.

But that is all Iraq. About the 'war on terrorism' (different thing)--Rumsfeld is right; very little good attention has been paid to this. Mostly lip service, and certainly not adequate resources, nor the attention to good international relations that are needed. Earth to White House: fully funding things like port security might be more important than tax cuts for your buddies.

Gore vs Bush? Well, I wasn't in love with Gore. On the other hand, unlike Bush he didn't spend the Vietnam war AWOL. He certainly had the political connections to avoid the war the same way Bush did, and he didn't do so. So... I think he would have a clue about the costs of war, and the reasons for it. Would the Gore white house have been as bad about ignoring pre-9/11 intelligence as Bush's? Probably, but there's no way to know that for sure. Would the US be this alienated from the rest of the world at this point under Gore? I doubt it. Would we be facing the largest deficit in history? Probably not.

It's an interesting question about how bad would things have to be in the US before you would welcome a, say, Nigerian, or French, occupation force. How about if they said "we aren't leaving for a few years." Feel different? How about if they said, "oh, to be more sensitive we'll invite Mexican peacekeeping troops to help"? (Like we have with Turkey.) Myself, I'm not sure, but things would have to be pretty impressively bad before I'd be liking that idea. Don't forget the widespread belief (true or not) that bad conditions in Iraq were more the fault of US-led sanctions than the fault of Sadaam himself....

 

[fallingblock]

Are we 'pushing the panic button now?

************************************************************
"I guess we really have them on the run now. The frequency of attacks has been mutiplying exponentially and the ones in the last three days showed a level of sophistication and co-ordination not previously seen."
************************************************************


Yup, looks like we've got their attention now....time to start whackin' 'em!



************************************************************
The rocket attack on the "safe" house used to hold US generals and politicians did a lot more than rattle windows..... It sent the mesage that the real war has just started and they are going to strike any targets, civilian or military. The slaughter of the Iraqi police says that anybody who collaborates with the US dies first.
************************************************************


Real dumb move by the other side....I don't imagine the vast majority of Iraqis are silly enough to welcome as heroes those who are killing the Red Cross and Iraqi police.


************************************************************
"This is a mess. We are claiming to be installing a democracy but are actually blocking free elections because they would almost certainly lead to a government that was mostly Islamic in makeup. I guess we are going to give them freedom to choose as long as they choose the right one(?)"
************************************************************


A mess?? It looks like we are getting it sorted out to provide some sort of balance between the Muslims and secular government. Sounds like a good plan to me.



************************************************************
"Hussein is many things, but would anybody be stupid enough to support the group that has sworn to destroy him?"
************************************************************


Saddam was smart enough to support the enemies of his enemy....He was
happy with anyone who would fight his fight.



************************************************************
"Now, of course, we have been forced to accede to one of Bin Ladin's top demands, and get out of Saudi Arabia. Man, progress every day, huh?"
************************************************************


That's why we've got Iraq. Or rather, hope to have Iraq.....


************************************************************
" I'd say that the blood of every US soldier and UN worker killed since Bush made that shameful carrier landing (and worse, said "bring it on") is on their hands."
************************************************************


Someone with an unreasoning hatred of Bush might say that....but they'd be missing the point that those who fired the rockets and detonated the bombs are the ones responsible for the deaths....gun control or politics....it's the same old game-blame the object of your phobia.

I rather liked the spirit manifested by the "Bring it on" remark....it beats cowering in your corner waiting to see what the islamofanatics will do to you next.



************************************************************
"But that is all Iraq. About the 'war on terrorism' (different thing)--"
************************************************************


An interesting opinion, but only another opinion, of course



************************************************************
"I wasn't in love with Gore. On the other hand, unlike Bush he didn't spend the Vietnam war AWOL. He certainly had the political connections to avoid the war the same way Bush did, and he didn't do so. So... I think he would have a clue about the costs of war, and the reasons for it."
************************************************************



Ho-ho-ho. You are kidding, right? Gore went to Vietnam to help his Dad's re-election campaign (the 'patriotic son' and all that.) Old Albert insisted that Al Jr. never be placed in harm's way (a behind-the-lines journalist) and little Al was home again inside of seven months....it didn't help get big Al re-elected, by the way.

As far as what 'clues' Al would have picked up in Vietnam, it would more likely have involved where the coldest beer was in Saigon.

Geez, at least "Dubya" learned how to fly a 'dart' while he was there in the Texas Air National Guard.



************************************************************
"How about if they said "we aren't leaving for a few years." Feel different? How about if they said, "oh, to be more sensitive we'll invite Mexican peacekeeping troops to help"? (Like we have with Turkey.) Myself, I'm not sure, but things would have to be pretty impressively bad before I'd be liking that idea. Don't forget the widespread belief (true or not) that bad conditions in Iraq were more the fault of US-led sanctions than the fault of Sadaam himself...."
************************************************************



"If I'd seen my entire family whacked by Saddam's boys, or had a Kurd's perspective, I'd say "Bring it On" for sure.

Bad conditions a result of sanctions? Aw, gee...poor Saddam signs on to an agreement to save his posterior, and then chooses to violate the conditions almost daily. Whose fault is that, indeed? And what about the billions gentle old Saddam was gathering from the illicit sale of oil during all those years? Why didn't it find its way down to the non-Sunnis in Iraq? Could it be that Saddam really was a despicable tyrant and needed the boot?

Markos Kloos is right about "flagellating the deceased Equus" !
:banghead:

 

[rapaz]

You're right--Bush makes me see red. Interestingly, it's the same for an awful lot of people I know, many of whom are VERY conservative and feel betrayed by that man. You know, deficit spending, standing in the world, etc. I actually believe (tax cuts for the rich aside) that Bush has honest and good intentions, but just isn't smart enough to figure out the consequences and interpretations of his actions.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion now; I think I've made my views on how we should respond to terrorism as clear (or murky) as they will ever be. I'll sit back and read, and maybe even learn something.

And people--let's be careful with the "bring it on" sentiments, 'cause US soldiers are dying at a fairly fast rate, and the people doing the shooting aren't getting caught, much less killed. Bad mojo, you know.

 

[fallingblock]

Agreed, rapaz.......

"I actually believe (tax cuts for the rich aside) that Bush has honest and good intentions, but just isn't smart enough to figure out the consequences and interpretations of his actions."
************************************************************

I believe this could be the case .

And I speak from experience about unreasoning hatred of a president....
Bill Clinton's name is enough to give me the fantods .



************************************************************
"US soldiers are dying at a fairly fast rate, and the people doing the shooting aren't getting caught, much less killed. Bad mojo, you know."
************************************************************


I got into this thread by making the statement that Rumsfeld seemed to have the idea of what was necessary by posing his question:

"Rumsfeld wrote. "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

Now that the 'exploding enemy' is blowing up random targets of opportunity, some if not most of the bombers from outside Iraq, it would seem like a good time to do some culling of the opposition's ranks throughout the area. A plan seems to be lacking, however.

I'll also do more reading than posting on this subject....it's too easy to generate lots of heat but no light where several 'hot button' issues coincide.

Let's hope the folks at the command end are learning their lessons sooner rather than later on how to deal with fulminating fanatics.