Winds of Change.NET: A Question of Targets - A Reply to Tony and Nick Foresta

November 13, 2003

A Question of Targets - A Reply to Tony and Nick Foresta

by Dan Darling at November 13, 2003 2:03 AM

(JK: This post was originally composed on Oct. 3rd, 2003, and mistakenly left as a Draft. Though late, I believe that recent events have given it new relevance.)

Like many regulars here at Winds of Change, I read Tony Foresta's column and reacted rather strongly to it, as can be evidenced from the comments thread. My basic argument against Tony was that it was necessary to attack Iraq rather than Saudi Arabia in order to remove the greater threat to the United States.

One of the things I have noticed during my travels through blogosphere is that there seem to be a number of differing opinions as to which state must be removed in order for al-Qaeda to be either decapitated or sufficiently injured to the point where the finishing the remnants of the network off will be peanuts by comparison. For many people the answer was evidently Iraq, while for Michael Ledeen it is Iran, while noted readers of such websites as Rediff will no doubt come back with the opinion that all roads lead to Islamabad. In each case, the perception is that there is a central pivot around which the survival of al-Qaeda as a global terror network depends. For Tony and Nick Foresta, that pivot is Saudi Arabia.

My own opinion is that this judgement is erroneous.

A Global War For the Future

Al-Qaeda is a global phenomenon, and its bases range from Venezuela to Liberia and Burkina Faso to Mindanao to Sulawesi to even the Pashtun areas of Afghanistan. I am not attempting to downplay the role that Saudi funding plays in maintaining the network and propagating the Wahhabism that its members adhere to, but as a result of the US waiting until after the events of September 11 to engage the network, in the short-term I have little doubt that the organization has enough cash available to fund whatever it needs to do. One of the principle problems with terrorism is that it was also a pretty cheap thing to do to begin with.

Obviously, the United States in of itself is incapable of fighting al-Qaeda on such a wide variety of fronts so we try to exercise other options whenever possible. If claims of CIA involvement in the Venezuelan coup are credible, this is one means of dealing with the problem. Similarly, US diplomatic and token military presence has resulted in the fall of Charles Taylor in Liberia. However, in the case of determined state sponsors, these methods are insufficient and military force must be brought to bear in order to ensure that al-Qaeda is not allowed a safe haven to regroup, reform, and come back at us again for another attack on par with or even superior to 9/11.

I don't consider this to be a right-wing position or part of the "never-ending war" that Not In Our Name likes to complain so much about. One of the real tragedies of the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks is that most Americans and certainly most Europeans possess only anecdotal evidence as to what al-Qaeda intends.

According to the group's propaganda and ideological tracts available online, they seek to force a complete Western withdrawl from the Middle East in order to overthrow the region's governments and create a theocratic super-state spanning the entire region. Jemaah Islamiyyah holds much the same goals for Southeast Asia. They seek to destroy every facet of our culture and society and build in its place a totalitarian society rather akin to what the Taliban ruled over in Afghanistan and what the Muttahida Majilis-e-Amal is now striving to create in northern Pakistan.

If the Cold War was the ideological struggle to determine the future fate of Western civilization then the war on terror is the battle for survival of Western civilization. That is al-Qaeda's stated goal and I think we would do quite well to take them at their word on this one.

Perhaps I'm alone in all of this, but I don't view a desire to do what is necessary for survival as our society now stands as being a right-wing position.

As I noted at the beginning, however, al-Qaeda is a world-wide phenomenon and we can only tackle one head of the hydra at a time. In Afghanistan, we destroyed the organization's base of operations, captured or killed many of its key commanders, and threw the global network into disarray. But the battle neither began nor ended in Afghanistan and the question soon arose over who to deal with next. There is certainly no shortage of possible candidates here, depending on which pivot you view as the key to the global network.

Fortunately, I think that the administration has recognized that there is no key pivot - bin Laden was intelligent enough to set up his organization in such a way that there was no Achilles Heel. The decentralization of the network is such that it appears to formalized into key nodes in different countries, some state sponsors, some not, any one of whom is more than capable of overseeing operations in their specific geographic region. One such man was Hanbali, and what he was able accomplish is quite frankly chilling.

The administration certainly desires to deal with as many of these nodes as possible, but is constrained from doing so for reasons of realistic limitations of US power and delicate geopolitical alliances.

Where Does Iraq Fit In?

Over the last several months since I joined the Winds of Change team, I have documented the substantial dangers posed by Iraq and its alliance with al-Qaeda:

In Abu Musab Zarqawi I detailed why administration's portrait of him as a key al-Qaeda leader was the accurate one, thereby answering why it is so concerning for him to have been in Baghdad.

In the Imminent Threat I documented why the Iraqi relationship with al-Qaeda posed an unacceptable threat to international security entirely apart from any WMDs.

In Distorted Intelligence ... From Europe I noted how claims that the administration "hyped" intelligence on Zarqawi and the threat posed by him can be seen as being patently inaccurate, as their originators in Germany now fully acknowledge.

I agree that diplomacy is the preferable course action for settling these kinds of issues. If you can't kill all of your enemies, you should at least try to have as many friends as possible.

However, in February 2003, Collin Powell went before the UN and basically laid out the entire al-Qaeda connection (and according to Newsweek, while he disagreed with much of the information that he was initially intended to present he agreed wholeheartedly with the final product) for the world to see. If Saddam had any sense in hell he would have immediately conducted an internal probe, tossed the 1993 WTC suspect to the dogs, and had the streets run red with the blood of every al-Qaeda operative in Baghdad, including folks like Shakir. Whether he was involved with al-Qaeda prior to that or not, he should have almost certainly conducted an internal probe to see whether or not these people who were supposedly vehemently opposed to his regime were operating freely in Iraq.

Instead, we get warnings from the CIA published in the NY Times, that al-Qaeda has cells set up in Baghdad, Mosul, and Irbil - the first two cities under tight Baathist control. Shakir and Abdul Rahman Yassin continued to live and operate freely, as did the Zarqawi deputy who was arrested by the US in Baghdad in mid-April 2003.

This leads to one of my core judgements, namely that the only thing that could convince Saddam Hussein not to associate with and assist al-Qaeda was the downfall of his regime and removal of his power base. CIA and Special Forces attacks, airstrikes, and the like are all ultimately irrelevant so long as Iraq was able to continue providing support to people who would do the United States irreversible harm if they had only the means to do so. They had tried to kill hundreds (thousands?) of people in Europe between November and January.

Those plots were thwarted, thank God, just like Oplan Bojinka was during the mid-1990s. But just because Bojinka was thwarted didn't make it go away - witness 9/11. We cannot allow ourselves to make that kind of a mistake again ever and I think that there's an imminent threat if you should desire one, entirely apart for the question of Iraqi WMDs.

It's a Long War

For me as an individual, I would not consider the war in Iraq a moral one under Just War doctrine if not for the issue of al-Qaeda. If anyone is truly interested at a more in-depth look at my opinion on this, you can find my theological moral opinions on the subject here and here - but be forewarned, it's a lot of Catholic theology.

One of the things that I have long believed is that most Westerners, even most American right-wingers whom I generally think have a better hold on reality than most here, possess only vague and largely anecdotal evidence for what al-Qaeda and its ilk intend for us apart from 9/11. You go to Dagestan or Algeria or the Maluccas or Mindanao or Somalia and you'll see very clearly what this war is really all about. This is why ~~bitching~~ complaining about progress in the war on terrorism is such an asinine thing.

Quite simply, this going to be a long war. There is no magic solution or single battle that will bring al-Qaeda down.

Saudi Arabia is a major pillar for holding up the organization, but so is Iran, so is Sudan (which is reportedly slated to be taken off the terrorist list out of US fears that Khartoum and its oil will fall into the Chinese sphere of influence), ect. All of these states and the governments behind them have to be dealt with in some fashion: political, military, or whatever. Nor are all these countries necessarily Muslim - Charles Taylor was happy to carry bin Laden's water and he's a nominal Christian despot.

Mr. Foresta says that if he were in Bush's position and received legitimate intelligence that Iraq was in cahoots with al-Qaeda that he would make diplomatic efforts to settle the situation before using military force and even then carry out percision strikes against the targets in question.

Which was pretty much Clinton's solution in 1998 following the embassy bombings.

The Current Situation, And What's Next

Our recent removal of the Iraqi regime, combined with the loss of key commanders like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Tawfiq Attash Khallad, put the organization very much on the defensive. Because the intended counter-attack to the Iraq war (the chemical plots in Europe and bombings in SE Asia) died on the table, the organization was forced to devise an improvised counter-offensive in Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and Chechnya. These attacks have very much compromised the infrastructure in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The Salafi Jihad has been thoroughly dismantled and over 600 operatives are now in Moroccan custody - they'll never be able to harm anyone ever again. The consequences of the Riyadh bombings have been even more costly - over 200 operatives lost and key commanders like Ali Abd al-Ghamdi and al-Ayyeri captured or dead. More to the point, the issue of the Iran-based leadership has now been brought to the forefront and the Iranians are working themselves overtime in their doubletalk until they have their own version of the bomb. The most recent loss of Hanbali has further weakened their operations in SE Asia, as has the capture of the students intended to serve as Jemaah Islamiyyah's next generation of leaders.

What is my point to all of this? The events of the Iraq war have sent the global terror network into disarray. The Saudi threat is still there, as is the Iranian one - but my point is that al-Qaeda is losing far more of its foot soldiers fighting in Iraq (and yes, the war there did assist the group in its recruiting efforts, but there are still only so many would-be jihadis and only so many places to train them).

My basic opinion is that the best way to neutralize the al-Qaeda network is to start focusing more on where the organization has been endeavoring to regroup.

Knocking out the training camps is every bit as important as knocking out the leadership and those camps are still open in Somalia, Sudan, Georgia, and the southern Philippines. That fact needs to change. So does the Saudi funding and the Pakistani tolerance of all the folks who don't give a rat's ass about Kashmir but think that India would make a nice piece of the global caliphate, etc., etc.

The problem is that you can't accomplish all of this at once.

If we could, US forces would have attacked Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Somalia, the Ferghana Valley, Chechnya, Mindanao, Georgia, Liberia, Burkina Faso, Margarita Island, Ein al-Hilweh, Sulawesi, the Triple Border, the Allied Democratic Forces enclave in the Congo, Saudi Arabia, and at least three provinces in northern Yemen simultaneously. All at the same time that we started bombing the Taliban. You want to deliver a coup de grace to the network, that would pretty much do it.

The problem is that we can't for a number of reasons, so you take things step by step to accomplish the same eventual goal. This is what I see Bush as having done since 9/11. You remove those threats and you make sure that civilization wins this fight, so that all of us right-wingers and left-wingers to squabble over the planet. I also don't think of this as a partisan issue - Bayh, Biden, and Lieberman at least seem to understand what we're up against.

Al-Qaeda can still fight strike back, as the recent bombings in Iraq, Chechnya, and Bombay all demonstrate. I'm not at all surprised by this, that's simply the nature of the beast. It was specifically set up in a decentralized manner in order to negate the disadvantages associated with more pyramidal organizations. However, we've done more cumulative damage to the terror network in about two years than was done in the last twelve, and that is certainly something to be extremely proud about.

My Own Views on the War

I don't really care for an empire because I very much doubt that our political culture or general populace can sustain it (see Niall Ferguson's "The Empire Slinks Back" editorial for more on why this is) in the immediate to near future. I care even less about the benefit of corporate America except in the general sense that I desire for the economy to stay within a certain level so that I can enjoy the lifestyle to which I am currently attuned.

But above all else, I want to keep myself and my country safe. There is right now an exceptionally beautiful woman attending Vanderbilt University's music school in Tennessee whom I love. I don't want either myself or her to have to live in world where a non-state entity has access to the most hideous weapons ever conceived by humanity and to put it shortly - I don't want an American version of Halabja in Nashville because some jihadi with a crop duster decided to make Senate Majority Leader Frist pay for supporting US action in the war on terror.

And at the end of the day, that's why I support the US war against Iraq even prior to any action against Saudi Arabia.

Printer-friendly Version

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.windsofchange.net/windsopcentre-cms/trackback.cgi/1848

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference
"A Question of Targets - A Reply to Tony and Nick Foresta"

Tracked: November 14, 2003 3:39 PM

Linkfest from Cold Fury

Excerpt: So much good stuff at Winds of Change this week I hardly even know where to begin linking it all....

Tracked: November 20, 2003 9:36 PM

In-Depth Analysis from JimSpot

Excerpt: Dan Darling is doing an in-depth analysis (in 6 parts) of the memo vs. news reports and what HAS come...

Comments

#1 from FH at 6:45 am on Nov 13, 2003

Sometimes this makes me wish we hadn't scrapped the military after the Cold War. Maybe we could have pulled off a "Godfather" moment, like Michael at then. Hit all of our enemies at once, just like that. Don't give 'em a chance to respond or prepare.

Oh well, if wished were fished we would all be swimming...

#2 from Joe Katzman at 7:59 am on Nov 13, 2003

A quick note: I have temporarily restored Tony Foresta's commenting privileges, in order to allow him to reply to this article if he wishes to do so. It did not strike me as fair to have Dan publish an article in reply to Tony, but give Tony no way to respond here.

I have asked Tony to confine his comments to this article, and have every confidence that he will do so.

#3 from praktike at 1:13 pm on Nov 13, 2003

they seek to force a complete Western withdrawal from the Middle East in order to overthrow the region's governments and create a theocratic super-state spanning the entire region

They seek to destroy every facet of our culture and society

These seem to be different, no? Are you saying that their goal is the destruction of American culture, or merely the withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East? Or both?

#4 from Dan Darling at 2:34 pm on Nov 13, 2003

The withdrawl of the US forces from the Middle East will facilitate the formation of a theocratic super-state that they can then use to destroy Western culture and society from al-Qaeda's perspective. They see the former as being a prerequsite to the latter.

#5 from praktike at 4:43 pm on Nov 13, 2003

so does it then follow that al qaeda is a "civilization?"

#6 from Joe Katzman at 5:21 pm on Nov 13, 2003

It's not necessary to be a civilization in order to destroy one. Rome didn't fall to another civilization, it fell to barbarians. Al-Qaeda may be barbarian pretenders to civilization, but if they have WMD or are given enough time and space, they can certainly find the means to destroy that which they could never, ever build. Which is definitely their intent, for those paying attention.

Now, al-Qaeda would see a theocratic "super-Taliban" Khalifa as emblematic of Islamic civilization, but the obvious danger is simpler and more basic. Simply put, such a state or alliance of states or regimes would give them the space and time to organize, and the successes necessary to achieve this objective would leave the USA in a poor position to check that growth or interfere much with its activities.

If successful, this plan would also improve their ability to penetrate Western societies, human nature being what it is. Osama spoke an ancient truth in that "stronger horse" speech, and the appeal of a divinely ordained religious movement whose prove of same lies in its tem,poral/[political success is an old and proven recipe that reaches back to Islam's earliest days (and so has even more resonance than usual, dovetailing nicely with al-Qaeda's view of itself as agents of the Mahdi and his end-times).

Then we put that rising appeal/terrorism curve together with the dropping technology curve for WMD, and the likely crumbling of checks and safeguards that currently safeguard such weapons within the Islamic world (vid. Pakistan)... and no, the picture is not pretty.

Dan is right. Al-Qaeda is not just a nuisance. If they get what they want and achieve their goals, they could in fact end our civilization, or another civilization (India's comes to mind) or convert us to a police state and create a genocidal war using the world's worst weapons.

A war that seeks to be certain of averting any of those possibilities is a very proper and healthy response. Certainly healthier than trying to ignore the problem or deal with it as a low-level side issue, as Clinton did. Look where that got us.

#7 from Margaret Holt at 5:56 pm on Nov 13, 2003

Unfortunately I must agree with your assement.This is really a Toynbee moment of challenge and response. It is not so much as clash of civilizations as a necessary response to an attack on modern civilization and cultures that have adapted to western civilization.I am sorry that so many don't see this yet, but I fear that even they will. By 1941 even Lady Astor knew Hitler was a threat.

#8 from praktike at 6:04 pm on Nov 13, 2003

interesting. thanks.

#9 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 6:06 pm on Nov 13, 2003

The November Washington Monthly has a very skeptical look at the alleged connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Unfortunately, it isn't one of the articles placed online.

Accoring to the Monthly, so far, all of the senior members of Al Qaeda whom we have captured and who have started to sing insist Osama despised Saddam and didn't cooperate with him in any way.

Perhaps we should have settled for finishing the job in Afghanistan, where we know Al Qaeda flourished, instead of stabbing in the dark.

#10 from Joe Katzman at 8:08 pm on Nov 13, 2003

Finish the job in Afghanistan. OK. How? Without provoking a response similar to the one the Soviets faced, that is.

I'd love to do that, actually. I just don't see a viable way forward other than the limited approach being used now, even if the troops were available.

#11 from Dan Darling at 8:45 pm on Nov 13, 2003

I'm familiar with the account that Andrew has cited, at least if it's the same one that refers to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah being the ones that denied any connection. The problem is that Abu Zubaydah has by all accounts not been too terribly trustworthy and accounts of Khalid's interrogation range from him spilling the beans to only mumbling verses from the Qur'an.

Additionally, the presence of Zarqawi at an exclusive clinic in Baghdad combined with the testimony of at least one al-Qaeda terrorist training camp commander, numerous reports of al-Qaeda (or at the very least a multi-national force of Islamist militants) being trained in Iraq, Abu Wael in Ansar al-Islam, ect, would seem to substantiate such a connection. Then there are those poison plots in Europe that led right back to Zarqawi, ect.

As far as Afghanistan goes, I think there's a lot more that could be done there, both on the Pakistani side as well as with the coalition forces there to crush at least the Taliban and Hekmatyar once and for all. There's room for improvement on all fronts right now.

#12 from Tony Foresta at 9:23 pm on Nov 13, 2003

Thanks Joe for allowing me to respond.

First - this statement is patently false!

"Mr. Foresta says that if he were in Bush's position and received legitimate intelligence that Iraq was in cahoots with al-Qaeda that he would make diplomatic efforts to settle the situation before using military force and even then carry out percision strikes against the targets in question."

I never said or wrote - nor would I ever say or write anything like this regarding Iraq. I�ll speak for myself thank you.

The basis of your argument Dan Darling conveniently assumes and is lynchpinned on the �stovepiped� "not credible" "cherry picked" and hyped al Queda / Iraq connection Bush pimped to mass market and sell the preemptive unilateral unjust and illegal war and woefully misguided, exceedingly costly and bloody, (though obscenely lucrative to Bush cronies in the oil, energy, and private military cartels) nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq against the wrong Muslims - which of course is simply false.

No credible al Queda / Iraq connection exists.

link

�Al Qaeda operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was captured shortly before the war began, told his interrogators that al Qaeda did not work with Iraq.�

link

In addition you can refer to the excellent 11/02/03 NYT David Reiff �Blueprint for a Mess� article or many others for more debunking of the myth and purposeful deception of a pre-war al Queda / Iraq connect pimped by the extra-governmental OSP.

Al Answar is a pro-Palestinian murder gang with al Queda affiliations who were based in northern Iraq well within the Northern Fly Zones and American striking power.

We agree however that al Queda is in Iraq NOW along with representatives of every other jihadist mass murder gang in the world � thanks in large part to Bush�s exceedingly costly and bloody, (though obscenely lucrative to Bush cronies in the oil, energy, and private military cartels) nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq against the wrong Muslims.

Valuable resources money blood and focus were redirected or misdirected from fighting al Queda to Iraq so Bush could maraud the oil.

The war is illegal unjust and unnecessary and innocent Iraqi's and Americans will burden and hazard the enormous costs in blood and money for decades - and we still are no closer to defeating our jihadist enemies.

Defeating al Queda and the jihadist will require forceful redress and a radical alteration of dynamics with Bush's "good friends in Riyadh Mecca and Medina.

As put forth in my original article � the key and critical first step toward defeating the jihadist mass murderers is cutting off the abundant funds flowing out of the House of Saud. This step is necessary precisely because of the point you make above � that al Queda and the jihadists are loosely associated mass murder gangs with operations all over the world and no real centralized head. There are many other necessary efforts to pursue - but cutting off Saudi funds is critical.

The Hydra analogy is perfect � and exactly why cutting off heads alone is ultimately fruitless since new more hideous heads replace the old.

The article also makes the critical point that invasion and occupation constructs are a disproportionate misallocation of American military resources - political oxygen - money - and blood � and should be THE LAST RESORT OPTION.
America must neutralize threats and hunt capture or kill every single jihadist mass murderer and those that aid and abet them on the planet - but forget about the delusional insanity of the rightwingideologue religious crusade and Pax Americana neverendingwar agenda.

Lastly - framing this conflict as a battle against Islam is dangerously misguided and will falsely and unjustly expand the conflict beyond a few thousand psychotic sexually repressed perverted jihadist mass murderers and those that aid and abet them to more than a billion Muslims all over the world.

Our enemies are jihadist mass murderers - not all Islam.

#13 from Tony Foresta at 10:20 pm on Nov 13, 2003

A couple of other points: The meme that "...events of the Iraq war have sent the global terror network into disarray" is also patently false!

Bush's stupid war is strengthening - not weakening our real enemies who are flocking to Iraq to slaughter Americans anyone helping Americans and innocent Iraqi's.

Yeah - we get a few jihadists - Allah be praised - but at what cost to Americans and innocent Iraqi's?

Bush must now beg the world for the help the entire world was willing to give AS A MULTILATERAL COALITION - and many people loudly warned would be NECESSARY - prior to the war.

Of course that would have conflicted with the delusional predatory insanity and narcissism of the rightwingideologue crusade and profiteering of the Pax Americana neverendingwar agenda - hence the devolving quagmire in Iraq.

All that said - unfortunately for all of us - we're in Iraq now and there is no turning back. We (Iraqi�s - America - peaceful Islam - and the rest of the world) MUST SUCCEED in Iraq.

The alternatives are unthinkable.

America either continues as an increasingly unwelcome and boggeddown occupying force in Iraq � and endures all the resulting exceedingly costly and bloody contingences (of course we will prevail � but at what cost in blood and money?) - or we relinquish Bush�s TOTAL economic and political stangle hold on Iraq and form a broader coalition - a truly multilateral coalition - an internationalized coalition - that will work with Iraqi�s, America, peaceful Islam, and the rest of the world to advance a more democratic Iraq.

Then we can return to combatting our jihadist sworn enemies and the only real threats to American security and prosperity.

All and any options are exceedingly more difficult complex and challenging NOW because of Bush's brutish hubris - deceptions and disinformation - crony capitalist book cooking profiteering - reckless or cloaked accounting -neartotal solitude in prosecuting the Iraq war and woefully misguided exceeding costly and bloody nationbuilding enterprise in Iraq

The war is a grievous abuse of power and a costly mistake America and will hazard and burden for decades.

#14 from Dan Darling at 10:52 pm on Nov 13, 2003

That vast bulk of this whole piece was to codify the long debate we had during your other thread:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/004070.html

In which you said:

"We hold many common opinions Dan Darling, but in answer to your inquiry, if Iraq was actually dealing with al Queda in terms of arms, intelligence, or WMD, this would weigh heavily on my decision making. I would strike at specific targets and any imminent threat."

I read out of that that you favored percision strikes against imminent threats and diplomacy otherwise. If that was not what you meant, then I thank you for clarifying your position, as I was not trying to put words in my mouth. By the same token, it was most assuredly not my intention to suggest that we have to destroy Islam or anything remotely resembling that. I vehemently oppose any attempt to imply even for a moment that the war on terror is a war on Islam.

As to the distorted intelligence issue, I originally had a piece in this essay to address the question but it didn't flow well with the rest of the essay so it was taken out. I am actually working over an idea to do a special analysis on the subject as to why I feel that intelligence wasn't politicized in regards to the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection for much the same reasons that I explained in our original debate.

At the very least we both seem to be able to agree on the subject that we must now win against al-Qaeda in Iraq and I think that that is a reassuring thought.

#15 from Tony Foresta at 1:30 am on Nov 14, 2003

Agreed Dan. I look forward to your "...special analysis on the subject as to why I feel that intelligence wasn't politicized in regards to the Iraq/al-Qaeda connection for much the same reasons that I explained in our original debate."

I would strike at specific targets and any imminent threat.

Defeating the jihadist will require brilliant leadership and nuanced statecraft (which precludes any involvement with the Bush oligarchy) and be a multifaceted multipronged internationalized effort - requiring the assistance support and cooperation of the entire world and most particularly - "progressive" or "moderate" or "peaceful" Islam.

Bush is a DIVIDER - not a uniter.

Unfortunately for us all - this grave moment and the world calls for exactly the opposite.

The time is ripe for an advancement of Islam beyond the primative depravity and malignant perversions the jihadists proselytize.

We must help "progressive" or "moderate" or "peaceful" Muslims with this transformation and here's the rub - a transformation Islam must execute on their own - internally and intramurally by their own volition.

Contrary to the delusional insanity of the rightwingideologues and marauding pirates in the Bush fundamentalist republican oligarchy - America cannot impose democracy on any nation and certainly not in the wild savage and volital Middle East militarily through force.

This predatory and brutish approach creates only more enemies.

#16 from M. Simon at 9:47 pm on Nov 15, 2003

On the Weekly Standard there is a 50 point list detailing contacts between So Damn and Al Q.

Does this change anything?

Or is Denial still the largest river in Merica?

#17 from M. Simon at 9:55 pm on Nov 15, 2003

Ah Tony,

We should have waited for the Germans to change their culture. Defending British convoys in the Atlantic only infuriated them. And the oil and steel embargo on the Japanese? It is no wonder they bombed Pearl.

Look at the enemies we made. There were peaceful Germans and Japanese who could have changed things for the better had we waited and not fought.

I mean we ought to take the same tack with the gang problem in America. There are peaceful gang members. We ought to stop fighting the gangs and wait for the peaceful transformation. Jailing gang members only strengthens the violent ones and reduces the power of those willing to live under the law. It is a shame more people don't see the obvious like you do Tony. Think of how much more peaceful the country would be if all the police with their guns just left people alone.

#18 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 1:05 am on Nov 16, 2003

On the Weekly Standard there is a 50 point list detailing contacts between So Damn and Al Q.

A laundry list of uncorroborated (or in some cases discorroborated) claims compiled by the very same Boys who cried "Wolf" on the Niger uranium and the WMD that we can't find. That's not a conclusive disproof, but it's a good reason to be damn skeptical. Fifty times zero is still zero.

(Still waiting for the Bushies to apologize about that WMD stuff. How about you, M. Simon? How long chasing these unicorns until you admit it doesn't exist?)

#19 from Oscar Jr. at 1:37 am on Nov 16, 2003

A laundry list of uncorroborated (or in some cases discorroborated) claims...

Would you be convinced if Janet Reno's Justice Department retroactively corroborated it?

#20 from Andrew J. Lazarus at 4:26 am on Nov 16, 2003

The Weekly Standard article seems to have enjoyed a shelf life of three hours, even less than I expected. The Pentagon says:

News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al-Qaida and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
A letter was sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee on October 27, 2003 from Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, in response to follow-up questions from his July 10 testimony. One of the questions posed by the committee asked the Department to provide the reports from the Intelligence Community to which he referred in his testimony before the Committee. These reports dealt with the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.
The letter to the committee included a classified annex containing a list and description of the requested reports, so that the Committee could obtain the reports from the relevant members of the Intelligence Community.
The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the NSA, or, in one case, the DIA. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the Intelligence Community. The selection of the documents was made by DOD to respond to the Committee?s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaida, and it drew no conclusions.
Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

How would one compare the Weekly Standard's "deplorable" conduct to that Democratic memo on politicized intelligence? And what sort of judgment does the Standard's wildly inaccurate "Case Closed" headline tell you?

Both the Clinton and Bush Administrations were duped with much intel on Iraq that's seen to be worthless (that is the exact word with which the DIA labelled all that defector intel we paid cash money for, isn't it?). At least Clinton didn't find it reliable enough to wage a war on.

#21 from Oscar Jr. at 5:12 am on Nov 16, 2003

Andrew:

Right, the Clinton administration was duped, the Bush administration was duped, the Weekly Standard was duped and, much more likely, I was duped.

Aren't we lucky that you, Atrios and Adam from MA saw through the duplicity? But why hasn't the Department of Defense disavowed the whole al Qaeda/Iraq collaboration thing instead of just noting that the memo it "drew no conclusions"?

At least Clinton didn't find it reliable enough to wage a war on.

Who said this?

Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors; he will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. Because we are acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future. Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down. But once more, the United States has proven that, although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.

And then what?