Islam is constructed on fear and hate of the infidel. Intrinsic in Islam is the need to subdue (and destroy) the other. Xenophobia could not create a more fitting monument to itself than Islam.

Nice post. Oppenheimer misquoted The Bhagavad Gita and unfortunately it has stuck in the public mind. Oppenheimer's quote encourages the opposite conclusion of what Krishna is explaining in his most terrible form. The correct translation is:

"Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. "
or more artistically:
"Behold, I am time grown old, set out to destroy the worlds."

His point is that no weapon of man is ultimately of any account, because time itself is the great destroyer, and it is only what one does before they are devoured that is of any consequence.

It is part and parcel of the post-modern critique of democratic capitalism, however, that everything is about the critic. And I don't mean this in a snarky or insulting way. Just read Feyerabend or any of the post-moderns who bought into his reality-as-quicksand philosophical justifications to see the root of this belief (or go to WildMonk.net!). Cultural relativism and 'group reality' is now so deeply intertwined in modern thought that you'd be considered a hopeless naif in modern progressive circles for buying into the soldiers' perspective - regardless of the death and destruction wrought by these murderous thugs in Iraq.

Great post, Joe!

Cultural relativism and 'group reality' is now so deeply intertwined in modern thought that you'd be considered a hopeless naif in modern progressive circles for buying into the soldiers' perspective - regardless of the death and destruction wrought by these murderous thugs in Iraq.

..and they still believe this after 9/11 and the bombings in London, Bali and the assasination of Theo Van Gogh.

The fact that events in the outside world continue whether we acknowledge them or not is a simple concept that babies understand - that's what peek-a-boo is all about; proving that post-modernist critics aren't even functioning at a two-year old's level.

A very interesting article: "In Bin Laden's Words" by Bruce B. Lawrence, professor of Islamic studies at Duke University, that confirms your point:

... Bin Laden never examines the different structural features of the various Muslim societies in which jihad is to be waged: ... Morally, he denounces a host of evils. ... But no alternative conception of the ideal society is ever offered. The absence of any social program separates Al Qaeda not just from the Red Army Faction or the Red Brigades, with which it has sometimes mistakenly been compared, but — more significantly — from the earlier wave of radical Islamism in the mid-20th century. ... In place of social objectives, bin Laden accentuates the need for personal sacrifice. He is far more concerned with the glories of martyrdom than with the spoils of victory. Rewards belong essentially to the hereafter.

Bin Laden's is a creed of great purity and intensity, capable of inspiring its followers with a degree of passion and principled conviction that no secular movement in the Arab world has yet matched. At the same time, it is obviously also a narrow and self-limiting one: It can have little appeal for the great mass of Muslims. Like their Jewish and Christian counterparts, contemporary Muslims need more than scriptural dictates, poetic transports, or apodictic slogans to chart their everyday life, whether as individuals or as collective members of a community, local or national.

The future evoked by bin Laden does not portend a return to the past, either the distant glories of 7th-century Arab caliphs or the 20th-century pan-Islamism of the beleaguered Ottoman caliphate. Despite references to the glories of the Ottoman Empire, bin Laden does not clamor to restore a caliphate today. He seems at some level to recognize the futility of a quest for restitution. He sets no positive political horizon for his struggle. Instead, he vows that jihad will continue until "we meet God and get his blessing!" ...

In what might have been his own epitaph, bin Laden wrote the following poem in February 2003:

Let me be a martyr,
dwelling in a high mountain pass
among a band of knights who,
united in devotion to God,
descend to face armies.

Schachtman's title is a reference to Joe Haldeman's novel The Forever War.

In the novel a soldier who is drafted into the United Nations Expeditionary Force (UNEF) is sent into space to fight an alien menace. Because their ships travel at relativistic speeds, time dilation causes them to "miss" several centuries of earth history, which they experience as only a few years. Eventually they return home to a world that has forgotten they even existed.

Interesting because some people consider The Forever War to be a rebuttal to that other science fiction analogy of the WoT, Starship Troopers.

I don't share Nic's view re: the base of Islam. As Tarek Heggy has pointed out here, however, there is a certain level of xenophobia in a desert tribe mindset, and this has certainly influenced doctrines like Wahabbism.

Mark, thanks for setting that straight. Learned something today.

Wildmonk and Robert Schwartz are describing a mirror image phenomenon/mindset in two very different socieities. Winds covered the confluence from a Western perspective in Activism's Onanist Fantasy Ideology - which of course links to Lee Harris' piece about al-Qaeda's fantasy ideology, whose nature is nicely represented by Robert here.

As fantasies often do, they feed on and enable each other. To the possible ruin of the world.

This is crazy.America has destroyed Iraq, turned it into a failed state.We have killed and maimed and brutalized tens of thousands of Iraqi citizens but we think the Muslims have the problem.We are the invaders and occupiers. The insurgents are not from Texas or New York but from their country and their region.Muslims didn't slaughter the Vietnamese,host the Holocaust, kill 50 million in WW2,use nuclear weapons in Japan, but we the Christians in the West have.Black GI's and Iraqi insurgents have something in common living with the lies hypocrisy, destructiveness and violence of Europeans and white Americans.The invasion, occupation,attempted pacification of a foreign country to exploit it strategically, exploit its oil resources or to weaken it for Israel is not democracy , freedom or anything else positive.The real enemy of American troops is not a couple of thousand,loosely and badly organized terrorists with box cutters and flight lessons but the political elites who send them to kill and die and then buy them with reenlistment bonuses.As a social worker I have worked with the VA with mentally ill homeless veterans who once had high morale, hated the enemy and thought the cause just and who had been broken by the experience of their delusions.

Kevin must have been on one of those UN intergalatic missions Glen mentioned.

Kevin,

We are fighting a death cult that has infected a whole culture.

That makes this war both uglier and far more noble than you can ever comprehend.

Glen;
Starship Troopers is an analogy to the Cold War. The bugs are communists. It was written in 1956.

You know, sometimes I feel almost alone here. I was in Desert Storm, and am delighted Saddam is deposed and in prison. Should have happened earlier in my view.
I also am disgusted by Bush, foremost on the issue of torture. I can't believe an American president could sink so fast as to setting up torture centers around the world. An American president!
We are not going to start winning the WoT until we embrace principle and justice. The first step is to impeach Bush, and put him and all the torturers on trial. I'd give him up in heartbeat to the Int'l Court of Justice.

Kevin - Black GI's and Iraqi insurgents have something in common living with the lies hypocrisy, destructiveness and violence of Europeans and white Americans.

What about Hispanic GI's? What about Central Asian, Japanese, Chinese, and Pacific Islander GI's? Don't you care about their feelings and their needs? Are you even thinking about them at all?

Muslims didn't slaughter the Vietnamese,host the Holocaust, kill 50 million in WW2,use nuclear weapons in Japan, but we the Christians in the West have.

Muslims have slaughtered, raped, branded and enslaved millions in the Sudan, Mauritania and Nigeria. They are currently slaughtering hundreds in Thailand, beheading schoolgirls in Indonesia, bombing Hindus in India for the crime of being Hindus, killing blacks for the crime of being black in Africa, and carrying out a campaign of ethnic cleansing in the Middle East. They're not going to stop doing this until we make them stop. Their goal is to force the Middle East, Africa, and in their wildest dreams the rest of the world to live under their apartheid, genocidal version of Islamic Sharia law.

Attitudes like yours will help their dreams come true.

Ah, mary. So nice to see you and rest of the intelligentsia out in force...

I think Kevin does have a point buried there, but it's buried under alot of rhetoric.

It is always easier to see the evil in a foe than in a friend. I am not defending any terrorist, but agreeing that we also have a black past, and many have accused Americans (and in some instances have been correct) of making the same accusations we make about the terrorists. And Bush is responsible for changes in policy that condoned torture and have continued to push the muslim world against us.

I do understand that american troops feel compelled to continue fighting 'evil' in Iraq, it makes sense that to see the enemy so close and to see them fall everyday would be empowering. However it can also be misleading.
Last week, Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who helps oversee the training of Iraqi troops, told the Philadelphia Inquirer's Tom Lasseter that the insurgency was most definitely not running out of recruits: "We can't kill them all. When I kill one, I create three."

So what good does fighting evil directly serve if it only creates more evil?
'He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he therby become a monster'

"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that ... this insurgency is not going to be settled... through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week "It’s going to be settled in the political process."

Good post.

But one thing I find odd.

The insurgents are what's maintaining morale among the troops in Iraq. Motivating them to fight on despite the fact that they seriously question whether or not the Iraqi people can pull off a democracy.

If there were no insurgents in Iraq, would we still have 150,000 troops there? And if so what would be our justification? Preventing civil war among the 3 major groups?

I may not be making myself clear so I apologize in advance.

Bush is responsible for changes in policy that condoned torture and have continued to push the muslim world against us.

Yes, Bush's actions are obviously the cause of Islamist anger against us; Abu Gharib obviously caused 9/11, the bombing of the American embassy in Kenya, the Khobar tower bombings...

But what causes Islamist anger towards every other ethnic/religious group on the planet? Why are they beheading Buddhist monks in Thailand? How did Bush create the decades-long war between the Muslims and Hindus in Kashmir? What about the Sudanese civil war that was prompted by the Islamist government's imposition of Shariah law? What about Saudi/Wahhabi acts of genocide and grave desecration against Shi'ites, a campaign that has been going on for centuries? Is this all a result of Abu Gharib?

So what good does fighting evil directly serve if it only creates more evil?
'He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he therby become a monster'

Of course. The best way to get rid of the scary monsters is to close your eyes. If you can't see them, they go away.

Visualize political process. Political process worked so well before 9/11. I'll work again, but only if we really, really believe.

"The first step is to impeach Bush, and put him and all the torturers on trial. I'd give him up in heartbeat to the Int'l Court of Justice. "

Ok, people are running fast and loose with the torture meme here. Is Sullivan no vacation? Anyway, i think its crazy that we are so busy searching for ash and sack cloth for ourselves over playing loud music at terrorists and keeping them awake for long periods of time. These are the exact people that are cutting off innocent peoples' heads, targetting children seeking candy, coercing the mentally retarded into becoming human bombs, seeking to turn the world into a Taliban inspired nightmare. Yes, we let dogs bark at them to try figuring out who supplies their nitroglycerin. I understand the horror of that. But just maybe that isnt our primary concern at this point. Dick Durbin not withstanding.

Davebo- you bring up an interesting point, but its academic. And lets not forget, that was one soldier laughing at democracy. There are far more who believe the Iraqis arent just capable, but in fact already have embraced it. The numbers of voters and the progress made thus far seem indicitive. So, as I've said, the terrorists are helping us more than themselves, but that doesnt mean we wouldnt be trying to do the right thing anyway. Luck is where preparation meets opportunity.

Mary
First state elites directed us to hate the commies to carry out their imperial program, then it was the narco terrorists, now we are dutifully directed to hate the Muslims because these same elites want to control their oil.

States, and America, is no exception, are not moral agents, they are vehicles of the internal power structures of their societies.Bush and Cheney represent energy corporations and their needs, these chicken hawks don't give a damn about muslims or U.S. soldiers . To Bush and Cheney , Khalizad and Condi, all with ties to big energy,the muslim menace, green peril , war on terror are lies you tell the boy scouts to manufacture consent for war and domination. We have 700 military bases around the world not Osama or any other Muslim entity.World wide protests, and opinion show the world fears American power and violence not the couple thousand Muslim fanatics we think poised for a thousand year Reich .

My experience with soldiers was that many enlisted for a job, housing, a college education, job training, citizenship, a salary, opportunity to support a family .Bush and the radical right have systematically destroyed the partial welfare state that could have provided them their citizenship right to these elements of a decent life. To state elites these poor blacks, hispanics, white working class men and women are nothing , they funtion to do their bidding for the dominate corporate interests.The havenots in our country used to kill the havenots in the third world.

We waste a lot of time studying the latest enemy our government gives us to hate.Yet we don't want to understand why people hate us.Could it be our alliance with antidemocratic corrupt Middle Eastern regimes,our alliance with Israel as they destroy the Palestinians,America as the latest crusaders to kill muslims in order to save them?

If there were no insurgents in Iraq, would we still have 150,000 troops there? And if so what would be our justification? Preventing civil war among the 3 major groups?

1. The insurgents don't believe we plan to withdraw.
2. The purpose of the insurgency is not to promote Coalition withdrawal.

First state elites directed us to hate the commies to carry out their imperial program, then it was the narco terrorists, now we are dutifully directed to hate the Muslims because these same elites want to control their oil.

So, Kevin, what do you think we should do to stop what you believe are the worldwide horrors inflicted on the world by the eeevvviill USA?

Do you have any ideas of your own or are you a fan of Chomsky's solution?

oz: Glen;
Starship Troopers is an analogy to the Cold War.

Right, but I was talking about the recent "Chickenhawk" or "Starship Troopers" argument, which has nothing to do with Heinlein's intentions.

Kevin, I fear you are simply too deluded for us to know where to start. I suppose some simply discrepencies in the facts might give you food for thought:

-how are we contolling Iraq's oil? Is there a secret pipeline to Bush's pool in Crawford next to the secret Afghani natural gas pipeline?

We do have many military bases. When the host countries ask us to leave, we go (not very imperial wouldnt you say?) But by and large, the countries go into a tizzy if we threaten to leave like Germany and South Korea.

-Your experience with soldiers seems very limited. If it is as you say, why does the military vote overwhelmingly Republican? Your idea on socioeconomics (aside from being weird) is not held up by the facts. Combat soldiers and officers in particular come from backgrounds higher economically and educationally than the general population, and there are statistics to prove it.
http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/demographics/FY03ArmyProfileWebVs.pdf
I suggest you get to know a few more soldiers or read their blogs and such before claiming to know what they are thinking. Most would be deeply insulted by what you are claiming about their motivations. Obviously the ideas of honor and service and extending freedom never occurred to you. It does to them.

One of the reasons people hate us is ignorance. The worst kind of ignorance is the willful brand. The things you believe may fuel your peculiar and angry view of the world, but they dont jive with the facts.

Mary(#16),

Obviously our plan pre-9/11 failed miserably, doing nothing is not an option. We need to increase our intelligence, increase homeland security, and we need to take the fight to the top echilons of al queda. I beleive in Iraq we let them dictate the terms for combat(like in Vietnam). They can choose to fight, or choose to run, and we have little ability to corner them into a live or die conflict. Our army is many times stronger, but strength does not always win wars.

Look, we can argue wether Iraq will be a major battle against the war on terror. I would answer that with a question: If we win in Iraq will terrorism stop? The optimistic side says a peaceful Iraq would start democratic 'domino effect' in the middle east. I think that's wishful thinking. While it's possible in Lebanon; Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia, Egypt etc. will continue their ties to terrorists to maintain control of their nations, irregardless of the condition of Iraq.

I believe Iraq will eventually form an Islamic republic (assuming no civil war). If it forms an Islamic republic friendly to the west, that's not too bad. However if it's a nation with pollitical ties to Iran, it probably will not help our cause.

Dave,

I don't think you can say "the insurgents want X" because the insurgency isn't united in it's goals, at least not in the long term.

A good case could be made I suppose that the insurgents don't want a US withdrawal because the US is the only thing standing between the Shiite's and revenge of thirty years of tyranny.

But then there are the Al Qaida insurgents who have a totally different goal. IMO mainly recruiting and of course, causing whatever problems they can for the "Imperialist Occupiers".

But I don't think the puzzle you've pointed out is the only one, or even the primary one. There are tons of puzzles to this thing.

But back to your puzzle, I agree that the leadership, what there is of it, of the insurgency would be dealt a really horrible blow by a US withdrawal. Similar to what the GOP here would face if Roe V Wade were overturned. After that, what's the point? They need the occupation as a rallying call to others IMO.

Which in some ways supports the proposition that whatever keeps the troops motivated is good, but not really something to consider when evaluating future policy.

Alchemist

I think it's a little silly to think that two countries with a common border and common religioius majorities in political power wouldn't have political ties despite their past conflicts.

Saddam is what prevented these ties in the past, and we've resolved that issue for both parties.

Going forward though, political ties between Iraq and Iran are not only not suprising, but also not necessarily a bad thing.

"I would answer that with a question: If we win in Iraq will terrorism stop?"

That's an odd question. Did anyone arguing that by invading Afghanistan terrorism would stop? Does that make it pointless to go there? Would killing Bin Ladin stop terrorism? Is there anything that has ever been on the table that would achieve that end?

Really, folks, I'm not paying Kevin to say this stuff and back up my points.

My comment, #7:

"Wildmonk and Robert Schwartz are describing a mirror image phenomenon/mindset in two very different socieities. Winds covered the confluence from a Western perspective in Activism's Onanist Fantasy Ideology - which of course links to Lee Harris' piece about al-Qaeda's fantasy ideology, whose nature is nicely represented by Robert here.

As fantasies often do, they feed on and enable each other. To the possible ruin of the world."

Then we look at Kevin's comments in #8:

"Muslims didn't slaughter the Vietnamese,host the Holocaust, kill 50 million in WW2,use nuclear weapons in Japan, but we the Christians in the West have.Black GI's and Iraqi insurgents have something in common living with the lies hypocrisy, destructiveness and violence of Europeans and white Americans.The invasion, occupation,attempted pacification of a foreign country to exploit it strategically, exploit its oil resources or to weaken it for Israel is not democracy , freedom or anything else positive."

...where of course, it is all about us, and it's clear that he thinks the REAL enemy is America, and openly states that the al-Qaeda terrorists and activists SHOULD be on the same side. The hate comes through clearly, and the enemy is common. And of course, modern idiotarianism wouldn't be complete without a bit of the old "Jewish conspiracy running the world" bigotry thrown in. Something else in common with the jihadis, it seems.

Then comment #18:

"First state elites directed us to hate the commies to carry out their imperial program, then it was the narco terrorists, now we are dutifully directed to hate the Muslims because these same elites want to control their oil."

Because you know, it just HAS to be all about us. Like I said, I'm not paying this guy to demonstrate my points. But if I were, I'd be getting my money's worth.

The concept that the Marxist religion of 170 million skulls might actually BE evil? Unthinkable. That unstable narco terrorist mafiosi who exploit the poor of their countries while spreading misery and accumulating state-level resources might be a problem? Naaah. The organized Islamist hate and ideology of murder, colonialism and ethnic cleansing that continues to murder people around the globe? We should be on THEIR side.

As the saying goes: "They're not anti-war, just on the other side."

My heart does go out to some of the folks Kevin claims to be helping, though. War is a difficult business at all times, and what he describes is an inevitable consequence of sending people to fight. Of course, as those of us who watched the complete mental collapse on Gen. Dallaire (a good man, the Canadian General sent to Rwanda and directly prevented from acting by Kofi Annan himself) know, NOT fighting has costs of its own, too.

Kevin, if you really do want to help the veterans you're working with, here's a couple books that will do wonders helping you to step into their world a bit more, and understand what's going on inside some of them a little better:

• Dave Grossman, On Killing - The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society

• Dave Grossman, On Combat

You can buy them as a linked, discounted pair at Amazon. A former army Ranger, paratrooper, West Point Professor of Military Science and author of the classic book, ON KILLING, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman is one of the world's foremost experts in the field of human aggression and the psychology and psychological consequences of combat.

Good luck.

#25:
fair enough, I guess I was thinking more in terms of an Iraq pollitically controlled by Iran.

#26: I had always thought the point of Afghanistan was to strike back at the Al queda terrorist organization; to destroy it before it caused more damage? To destroy the worldwide organization that caused 9/11 in the first place? Didn't Bush say that our mission will not end until we have Osama, dead or alive?

What I meant is that will succeding in Iraq stop the worldwide jihadist system which is now linking together to incite destruction around the world? I would argue no; Iraq is more akin to killing ants as they come in the front door. Sure, you can kill alot of ants that way, but they'll keep coming until you attack the nest.

to #27: Grossman is going on my author list.

In contrast have you read "Ordinary men: Reserve police battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland" by Christopher Browning.

He analyzes letters and interviews with men who learned to kill jews at gunpoint. An intereasting thing happened; either they became totally repulsed by it, or they grew numb to the killing.

"#26: I had always thought the point of Afghanistan was to strike back at the Al queda terrorist organization; to destroy it before it caused more damage? To destroy the worldwide organization that caused 9/11 in the first place?"

Yes, and to a large degree we did that. But even had we somehow been 100% successful no-one would argue that terrorism was 'stopped'. Its clearly a global problem that can never entirely be stopped. I was just pointing out that I think you were presenting a false metric. No-one claimed Iraq was going to be the end of our worries. Its a stepping stone.

"What I meant is that will succeding in Iraq stop the worldwide jihadist system which is now linking together to incite destruction around the world? I would argue no"

Agreed, but again, no-one was making that claim. There simply is no silver bullet. The question is will we be better off at the end of the day having gone in. Thats clearly up in the air, but I think yes, most definately. You call it killing the ants, I would call it draining the swamp. I have never bought the premise that there are these thousands of poor Arab souls that have suddenly just snapped and gone jihadi to Iraq. Theyve been programmed for years, trained often as not, and they are going to be a problem that must be dealt with. Whether its now by us on ground we can succeed on, or in allied nations, or here at home they are going to have to be put down. The psychological impact of the US freeing Iraq and helping her succeed cant be overstated, these arent robots we are dealing with, they are people. We have given them a clear view of who we are and AQ has given them a clear view of who they are. Now they can choose instead of relying on the hate and rhetoric they have been steeped in. In short, winning in Iraq may mean we dont even have to fight in Syria or Lebanon or Jordan or maybe even Iran.

Sure, you can kill alot of ants that way, but they'll keep coming until you attack the nest

How would you plan to destroy the worldwide organization (that al Qaeda is a small part of)

Unsuprisingly, I would disagree. I would say that most of Al Queda slipped out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan. Afghanistan today is still largely run by warlords and/or druglords. Most civilians far from Kabul have seen little change in the last 5 years.

In fact there seems to be signs that the Taliban are reemerging, which is not quite the same as Al Queda, but not a sign of victory either.

We don't need torture to beat the terrorists. In fact is makes our job harder. Note how quickly we have moved from torturing high value Al Queda suspects to letting 82nd Airborne troopers work out their aggressions on Iraqi men picked up in mass sweeps and later released.
How many of those guys are now aiding or abetting the terrorists?
Each blow against a suspect: a pound of plastique in a IED.
We don't measure ourselves vs the terrorists to determine how harsh we can be against captives. We use our own principles, which are to act decently and humanely.
Dogs, waterboarding, renditoning, these are torture and are real.
Yes, our frightened and numbed populace is far from demanding what is needed, impeachment and war crimes trials. But we'll get there.

our alliance with Israel as they destroy the Palestinians

Ah yes, mighty [ZIONIST ENTITY]. America's boot on the Arab throat, the most powerful military in the region, GENOCIDE IN PALESTINE!!!!11, etc, etc.

And yet the palestinian population is growing pretty rapidly.

That's pretty frickin' weird.

According to Richard Miniter author of Shadow War (and oft times critic of this administration), we have killed or captured over 3000 known active AQ members since 911 in 102 countries including 75% of the leadership. Thats seperate from those we've battled in Iraq. Those are confirmed members from Al Qaeda captured documents, and apparently that is approximately half of the organization (again, according to captured intelligence, not our estimates). Thats pretty amazing considering what we are dealing with. If you kill or capture half of a conventional army you have rendered it hors de combat. That obviously doesnt apply to terrorists, but we certainly have badly interfered with their ability to attack us here.

Whether Afghanistan is better off under us or the Taliban, well im not there but i suspect it is a massive change for the better considering how terrible the Taliban was. The simple act of self-determination has been badly undervalued by a great many people of late. And, of cours,e the Taliban have been on the cusp of 'reemerging' since the day they scampered off the field. Yet it never seems to happen.

The bottom line is you can view the glass half full or half empty. Not to denigrate you Alchemist, but you are kind of playing both sides of the field here. If we cant win by fighting a stand up fight, and we cant win by using smart special forces kinds of tactics as in Afghanistan, what do you suggest? Had we sent the big army to Afghanistan and the little to Iraq wouldnt the reverse arguments simply be true (except that we probably would be in terrible trouble in both places with none of the gains we have been discussing)? What exactly should we be doing if we have been abysmally failing thus far? And would you accept the incredibly high standards of success you seem to hold for your plan?

DaveBo (#24): You misunderstand your opponents' psychology, and that misunderstanding is transferable. It seems to be a misunderstanding of human psychology more generally.

Overturning Roe v. Wade would give a huge boost of energy and morale to part of the GOP. Dispirit them? QUITE the reverse. It would give them a huge success, and clear a path to the next battlefield in the state legislatures etc. You'd be wondering "where the #@$%! did all these right-to-life GOP activists come from, and why are they so $#@&%! jumped-up?" in no time flat (quite a few moderate Republicans would be wondering the exact same thing, BTW, as they found themselves facing a very strongly funded juggernaut that wouldn't be taking many prisoners).

The net effect would be to provoke a full-on, multi-year political war. Would that war be good for the GOP, on balance? Probably not, but that isn't the point here. The point is that your diagnosis of the psychological effect isn't just wrong - it's 180 degrees wrong.

Likewise, take a look at past surrender/withdrawals, either against Islamists (Lebanon, Somalia, Fallujah, to some extent Iran under Carter) or during the Cold War (multiple). Not what you'd like to happen, but what did and does happen.

Again, not about what you think, and what you want. Is about what/how they think, and what they want, and you have to make the effort to see that clearly and face the reality of it.

The GIs in Iraq seem to get that.

"We don't need torture to beat the terrorists. In fact is makes our job harder."

Tell that to the Captain that fired a bullet past a guys head to find out if his squad was walking into a trap. Your statement is so general and unsubstantiated it is extremely suspect. Under what circumstances? Are we just interrogating these guys for fun or do we suspect they have critical actionable intelligence that can save lives?

"Dogs, waterboarding, renditoning, these are torture and are real. "

Bamboo shoots, tiger cages, car batteries, butcher knives- those are real. Ask your average American if letting a dog bark at an Al Qaeda member is comparable to any of these, particulary if it has the chance to directly save American lives. I want somebody to look into John McCain's face and tell him the things that go on at Guantanimo are torture.

MB;
There is a particular fantasy that torture can be justified.
It can be called the Tom Clancy fantasy. You know the one, terrorist captured who has just planted a WMD somewhere and he KNOWS how to stop it. All it takes is for the hero to grit his teeth and do what has to be done.
Read the reports from 82nd Airborne Troopers.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2005/us0905/index.htm

They'll answer your question about fun vs intel.

Here is Lawrence Wilkerson on the issue;
"And I'll finish just by bringing it down screechingly to the ground and tell you that the detainee abuse issue is just such a concrete example of what I've just described to you, that 10 years from now or so when it's really, really put to the acid test, ironed out and people have looked at it from every angle, we are going to be ashamed of what we allowed to happen. I don't know how many people saw the "Frontline" documentary last night - very well done, I thought, but didn't get anywhere near the specifics that need to be shown, that need to come out, that need to say to the American people, this is not us, this is not the way we do business in the world. Of course we have criminals, of course we have people who violate the law of war, of course we had My Lai, of course we had problems in the Korean War and in World War II. My father-in-law was involved in the Malme?dy massacre and the retaliation of U.S. troops in Belgium. He told me some stories before he died that made my blood curdle about American troops killing Germans.

But these are not -- I won't say isolated incidents; these are incidents that are understandable and that ultimately, at one time or another, we came to deal with. I don't think, in our history, we've ever had a presidential involvement, a secretarial involvement, a vice-presidential involvement, an attorney general involvement in telling our troops essentially carte blanche is the way you should feel. You should not have any qualms because this is a different kind of conflict. Well, I'll admit that. I'll admit that. I don't want to see any of these people ever released from prison if they're truly terrorists. I don't want to see them released because I know what they'll do. I'm a former military man, 31 years in the Army. They will go out and they will try to kill me and my buddies, again and again, and some of you people, too.

So I understand the radical change in the nature of our enemy, but that doesn't mean we make a radical change in the nature of America. But that's what we did, and we did it in private. We did it in such privacy that the secretary of State had to open the door into my office one day - we had adjoining offices and he liked to do that, and I never objected - he came through the door and he said, Larry, Larry, get everything, get all the paperwork, get the ICRC reports, get everything; I think this is going to be a real mess. And Will Taft, his lawyer, got the same instruction from a legal point of view. And Will and I worked together for almost a year as the ICRC reports began to build and come in, and Kellenberger even came in and visited with the secretary of State. And we knew that things weren't the way they should be, and as former soldiers, we knew that you don't have this kind of pervasive attitude out there unless you've condoned it - unless you've condoned it. And whether you did it explicitly or not is irrelevant. If you did it at all, indirectly, implicitly, tacitly - you pick the word - you're in trouble because that slippery slope is truly slippery, and it will take years to reverse the situation, and we'll probably have to grow a new military."

I ignore the laughable, high-falutin' "democracy" rhetoric of the pro-war peoople. They refuse to ignore one basic fact--this war has created more terrorists, not fewer of them. It has been one of the most embarassing backfires in American history.

How would I deal with Muslims? Leave them alone, unless they attack the U.S. or our allies. Remove our troops from their countries. To them, foreign prescence on their holy lands is sacrilige, so they should leave. We wouldn't appreciate Muslim/Arab interference in our culture, so don't expect it to me any different for them.

oz - you said Yes, our frightened and numbed populace is far from demanding what is needed, impeachment and war crimes trials. But we'll get there

So, who is your enemy?

and Each blow against a suspect: a pound of plastique in a IED

I see.

One Year Today, Lest We Forget
Theo van Gogh July 23, 1957 – November 2, 2004

richard - How would I deal with Muslims? Leave them alone, unless they attack the U.S. or our allies. Remove our troops from their countries. To them, foreign prescence on their holy lands is sacrilige, so they should leave. We wouldn't appreciate Muslim/Arab interference in our culture, so don't expect it to me any different for them.

Well, in my mind 9/11 sure as the devil is an attack on the U.S. So by your statement we no longer leave them alone. So what exactly is the response strategy you recommend?

Oz, the problem with your argument is that the things we are talking about arent torture. What we are talking about it closer on the spectrum to standard incarceration than what most reasonable people classify as torture.
We are coming dangerously close to classifying any type of penal system as torture. What do you call locking a person up in a very small room for years at a time if not psychological abuse? Regimenting a persons every move and threatening to extend their stay indefinately if they do not obey a rigid set of instructions? Forcing communal bathroom and showering? A strict unchanging diet, lack of exposure to the elements, inability to communicate with loved ones for long periods of time. Oz, if you read the complaints leveled at Guantanimo compared to your standard ACLU filings against any prison in America, you'd have a hard time saying which is worse. Do we really have a right to hold Khalid Sheikh Mohammed indefinately in a tiny room? Knowing full well being held in a tiny room indefinately causes mental and physical distress that is probably permanent in some respects? Is that torture?

Then is this article off base: Abandoning the Myth

... this war has created more terrorists, not fewer of them.

Substitute "cretins" for "terrorists" and they'd have a point, wouldn't they?

"It would not be the first time that the inner contradictions of a civilization, taken to their limit, have killed it. Something in the expansionist and militant hubris of 19th century Europe led the continent to the mindless mud and trenches of the Great War."

Sounds a lot like USA today.

This war on terror is breeding more and more terrorists.... and within a year, we will have had more Americans killed fighting terror than where killed by terrorists in our own country. And the expense of the war on terror will far, far outstrip the economic effects of 9/11.

In short, we would have done better, MUCH better, if we had just stayed home.

(It wouldn't hurt to actually have some border security either. This is truly lousy, right here, right now, in 2005)

Glen,

Looking at German SS recruitment (and foreign - a goodly number of Arabs joined, as I recall) over the course of WW2, one could as easily say that fighting Hitler was "breeding more Nazis."

This would be true, and irrelevant - and would only used as a reason not to fight by people like the German-US Bund. OK, and maybe Joe Kennedy. For most normal people, the logical response was the sensible "fight harder, then, because people like that had better not win". And of course (as we discovered in the aftermath of Fallujah too) we end up finding out later exactly what "people like that" means in practice, and just how right that impulse was.

Just for fun, I'll add that overall US war casualties outstripped those inflicted at Pearl Harbour pretty quickly, too. Better to stay home? Again, it's the kind of point only an idiot (or Tokyo Rose) would make.

No, The Forever War Isn't About Us. Global Islamism, with its hate and drive to conflict, will continue its murders, its ethnic cleansings, and its imperialist designs. All regardless of whether or not people like Susan prefer to close their eyes in an act of narcissistic solipsism, and deny the existence of the obvious.

It IS nice to see the "antiwar"/other side movement showing its true colours, though. The subtext of "the USA doesn't deserve to defend itself" is crystal clear here.

Glenn -- if you look at the response to the Muslim riots in France and Denmark, you'll see the same dynamic from the usual multi-culti folks. For people like that, it's a religion.

Look at Susan's #46 comment. Belief that just staying at home is cost-free; and that the enemy is not really the enemy (just misunderstood or something like that). I'm sure she's got an explanation of how the beheading of three Christian teenage girls in Indonesia by Muslim fanatics is our fault (for being Americans).

Part of this is driven IMHO from the Cold War legacy, where survival depended on NOT escalating the conflict and having some degree of empathy/identification with the enemy to prevent nuclear armageddon.

Well to quote Emilio Estevez, that was then, this is now.

To me the dynamic is that the anti-war folks prevent reasonable and necessary escalation where it does good. Such as Iran. I've yet to see/hear/read a Lefty not defend Iran's nuke program and sympathize with "wiping Israel off the map" etc. Iran is likely to see and does see I argue in light of A's latest moves to crush dissent even further, a green light to attack the US and Israel to force the wider war that Iran feels will allow it to create it's own Persian Empire 2.0 stretching from Greece and Egypt to India. By first "erasing" Israel and the US from existence. It's a monumentally stupid move but one that is about THEM and has nothing to do with US. But the Anti-War folks just to me, guarantee escalation will rapidly increase to a strategic nuclear conflict instead of allowing US the ability to choose time and place and measures to forestall that awful eventuality.

The larger point being that the Anti-War folks feel they are fighting some new Cuban Missile crisis or nuclear freeze, instead of insuring the nuking of LA or some other US city along with most of Israel, and the resulting world-wide War that will make the death toll in WWII look like a hangnail in the horrors. When I start contemplating death tolls in the hundreds of millions ANYTHING else looks good. Even Iraq.

Oh, and torture WORKS, apart from moral concerns. Ask any Soviet interrogator from the Great Patriotic War. The intel they got from torture was always accurate; the reward was simply execution to make the horrific pain go away. But yes, REAL torture such as practiced on the Eastern Front by both sides does indeed work. I oppose such measures. Instead we should simply shoot Al Qaeda once they have stopped talking. Publicly. In front of the other prisoners.

I think most of you guys should be more careful about where you attach your labels and perhaps take an elementary class in logic. The logic that I am seeing here is:
1) The people that flew the planes into WTC were muslims
2) These people were evil

From this you conclude that muslims are evil.

Using the same logic we could say:
1) The Nazis were christians
2) The Nazis were evil

Therefore christians are evil.

"From this you conclude that muslims are evil."

I think you should be careful about making things up out of whole cloth. Who said that?

#35) In the next 5-10 years, Afghanistan will become one of the most predominanat narco states in the world. If that problems is not solved, any hope at democracy will be undermined by drug money.

The greatest problem I see with American involvement so far is that we have prefered to use large forces and 'shock&awe' against smaller, mobile targets. The problem: our enemy can more quickly and quietly, while we move slow and loud. By the time our troops are moved into position, they terrorists have melted into the population or the wilderness. If Al queda felt the need to hold or defend their positions, maybe our strategy would work. But they don't, and it doesn't.

We do have units designed for these kinds of problems: primarily special operations groups such as delta force. Unfortunately, they're currently tied down by the military beaurcracy system which prevents their quickness. We need to let these groups loose to hunt terrorist leaders. They are mobile, can react quickly, can find intelligence and then act on immediately. They are the best chance we have of capturing terrorist leaders.

But yes, the continuing problem will be that groups like Al Queda have experience in replacing leaders quickly (something they learned against the russians). Our best hope and destroying the actual organizations is to remove the highest leaders (osama, zawarhi, zarqawi) which have been strong symbols for the struggle against the US. And then to remove those that follow them. And those that follow them. If you remove the centrist symbol and the centrist organization and prevent the next symbol from taking their place

Our best hope and destroying the actual organizations is to remove the highest leaders (osama, zawarhi, zarqawi) which have been strong symbols for the struggle against the US. And then to remove those that follow them. And those that follow them. If you remove the centrist symbol and the centrist organization and prevent the next symbol from taking their place

The symbol that unifies these groups isn't their leader. It's their dream of a caliphate under Sharia law.

The extreme form of Sharia, based on Saudi/Wahhabi "jursiprudence", allows any leader to form an apartheid, genocidal, imperialist system of perpetual jihad. Under Shariah, slavery is allowed, misogyny is required and the people in charge rule in a totalitarian system.

Like Marxism, it guarantees that the people in charge will have unlimited power and wealth. The hope that they can install these laws is what motivates the violent and "peaceful" Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Killing only the leaders might temporarily disrupt the paramilitary branch of the Islamist movement, but the goal of Sharia is what inspires them. If Human Rights groups had any sense, they would be fighting apartheid Sharia around the world. But they don't.

But as far as fighting the paramilitary branch goes, small groups of highly mobile troops would be most effective.

"We do have units designed for these kinds of problems: primarily special operations groups such as delta force. Unfortunately, they're currently tied down by the military beaurcracy system which prevents their quickness. We need to let these groups loose to hunt terrorist leaders. They are mobile, can react quickly, can find intelligence and then act on immediately. They are the best chance we have of capturing terrorist leaders."

Yes! Does anyone see the parallel with our submarine service in WW II? It started out slowly. But when the peacetime captains were fired or promoted and the young hungry guys took over, like Delaney and Morton, Japan was strangled.
We have a huge bureaucracy sitting on Spec Ops, layers of command and places for careerist officers to get their stars, and things are plodding.
Let's;
1. Impeach Bush and imprison the torturers.
2. Put some hot shot generals in charge of Spec Ops and hunt the enemy down.

A side note there's been a steady reply in this thread saying either torture is not taking place or that it's aimed at the right targets or it's really not any worse than our present judicial system.
You're all wrong.
Torture is happening, it's being aimed at poor slobs who did nothing more than get picked up in mass sweeps, and it is making things worse for us. On every level, and foremost morally and on the fiber of our military and populace.

Alchemist, in #29 you write;

"In contrast have you read "Ordinary men: Reserve police battalion 101 and the final solution in Poland" by Christopher Browning.

He analyzes letters and interviews with men who learned to kill jews at gunpoint. An intereasting thing happened; either they became totally repulsed by it, or they grew numb to the killing."

This misreads slightly the book. It is about reserve military policemen who are assigned to carry out the final solution behind the lines. They are not forced at gunpoint to kill Jews. They for the most part carry out their orders with verve, despite being middle aged reservists and not Nazi ideologues or SS materieal. That fact is the point of the book.

Apparently simply declaring things makes them so in this thread. Oz, Alchemist, you guys intend to provide any evidence for what you keep saying or do we just take you at your word.

For the record our special forces and intelligence 'specials' have been unleashed since 911 and have accounted for a large number of AQ members, certainly including many we cant hear about. Afghanistan was done exactly as you guys are suggesting. Much of the criticism of not closing the noose at Tora Bora stems from reliance on small special forces without the numbers to control a wide area. You got to take the good with the bad. I happen to know for a fact that there are special forces units with theater wide authority to come and go seeking high priority targets as they please, in Iraq and Aghfanistan. The small unit that was almost wiped out in the Afghan mountains this summer is an example. You guys are demanding things that are already happening.

We should set a couple of factual error straight here.

Fridz (#49): The Nazis were pagan. The analogy is still made up of whole cloth, but it's also factually wrong.

Speaking of factually wrong, not only is Special Operations Command (SOCOM) a fully independent command like the Army, Air Force, etc., it has been designated as the lead command for the Global War on Terror.

The main issue with Special Forces is that it takes a lot of time to train such people, and very few even in the military are cut out for it. Now add to that the demand around the world for private security experts with this kind of experience. The Marines recently joined SOCOM, however, and plan to add about 2,500 more soldiers.

You got to take the good with the bad.

No, we learn from the bad so it doesn't happen again.

I happen to know for a fact that there are special forces units with theater wide authority to come and go seeking high priority targets as they please, in Iraq and Aghfanistan. The small unit that was almost wiped out in the Afghan mountains this summer is an example. You guys are demanding things that are already happening.

Great, if it is happening that well. I have heard, from Spec Ops who are there, however, that they are not being used to their maximum potential, due to bureaucratic delays.
SF used to be organized in five groups directly under the Sec of the Army.
Now their are layers of command structure.
US Army SF Command
US Army Spec Ops Command
SOCOM (over all the services)
Do things work more slowly and ponderously than the old days of MACV-SOG? Or better? It's an interesting discussion whether or not all these layers are improving our Spec Ops. Certainly the bureaucratic minded will say yes. We have more accountability and control.
But is it better for the operators?

Tora Bora was not an example of a fast moving and flexible operation. Block the escape routes! Damn.

Dude, we conquered a nation that no-one had successfully conquered since Alexander the Great in less than 2 months. Thats a nation of 30 million people the size of Texas in the most rugged terrain on earth. We did it your way, blindingly fast, killing thousands of terrorists, capturing reams of intelligence, and leaving a friendly government and people in its place. Believe it or not, there is not such thing as perfection in war. If you want to move fast by definition you cant by big. If you want to cut escape routes in the middle of an unfamiliar mountain range while trying to hold down the rest of a nation, not to mention being on the border of another volatile country, light and fast doesnt work very well. Unfortunately we didnt have the option of materializing another division in the critical hours and spreading them across a mountain range. If you dont believe me listen to Tommy Franks who engineered the campaign:

"First, take Mr. Kerry's contention that we "had an opportunity to capture or kill Osama bin Laden" and that "we had him surrounded." We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001. Some intelligence sources said he was; others indicated he was in Pakistan at the time; still others suggested he was in Kashmir. Tora Bora was teeming with Taliban and Qaeda operatives, many of whom were killed or captured, but Mr. bin Laden was never within our grasp.

Second, we did not "outsource" military action. We did rely heavily on Afghans because they knew Tora Bora, a mountainous, geographically difficult region on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. It is where Afghan mujahedeen holed up for years, keeping alive their resistance to the Soviet Union. Killing and capturing Taliban and Qaeda fighters was best done by the Afghan fighters who already knew the caves and tunnels.

Third, the Afghans weren't left to do the job alone. Special forces from the United States and several other countries were there, providing tactical leadership and calling in air strikes. Pakistani troops also provided significant help - as many as 100,000 sealed the border and rounded up hundreds of Qaeda and Taliban fighters."

Link

You are demanding a level of perfection that is totally impossible to achieve.

Joe Katzman (#54): I would just like to point out that the Nazi's did not consider them pagan in any sense. The German army had (christian) chaplains in their rank, their uniform even had the phrase "Got mit uns" (God is with us) on their buckle belts. The German people that voted Hitler into office overwhelmingly considered themselves christians. Their anti-semitism was also rooted in (obviously misguided interpretion of) christianity.

It is interesting to note that a christian, democratic system can put a dictator like Hitler into power. Could that happen again today or have we become more civilized?

German society in the 30's looked upon jews as second class citizens, that were enemies of god-fearing ordinary members of society. They also viewed jews as a cult that had no place in their community. Ordinary people wrote very simular things

Hmmm, I wonder where Hitler would look for enemies of the people today...