Actually, this essay is encouraging. How many more folks have changed but remain silent due to social pressure? There may be more than you think.

You don't "get" your friend, cicero.

"All problems emanate from the United States. The only thing we have to fear is ourselves, apparently. His denial of any kind of existential threat from the Islamic world is complete.

This distorts his position substantially. At some level, I think you must recognize this. Perhaps, if you were in NYC at the time, you have not fully recovered from the shock of the 9/11 attacks and are not thinking rationally....I'm trying to be generous here.

Look, 9/11 was scary, epecially for New Yorkers (I had loved ones very close by who witnessed Tower 1 collapsing). But there are greater existential threats to Americans than terrorism, even though it is worth paying attention to OF COURSE.

The problem that your friend, and I, and most Americans at this point are having with the current Administration isn't that they care about fighting terrorism and we don't, it's just that we recognize that they're only fighting it in the media, and not on the ground, where instead they're making the situation worse.

Our view is that if we really want to fight terrorism, we must first point out that our current leaders are using it for political purposes and so have an interest in perpetuating the threat, not diminishing it. They're actually an impediment to the successful prosecution of counter-terrorism. If you choose to continue to portray Republican efforts as the only viable ones, you're being biased and close-minded. Which might work fine for an artist, but certainly not for a public policy advocate.

So I'm not impressed at all with this exhibition of Demagoguery.

And I certainly don't think it is odd that an artist feels alienated from those around him/her. In fact, I would think that the norm. But perhaps it's part of the territory to play the mis-understood victim.

Finally, I would also caution you against thinking that your views are in the minority only among the liberal art elite of NY. Most of the country now recognize the validity of your friend's speculation and share his cynicism and concern with the Republican leadership.

I know exactly how you feel. I do alot of community theatre in my area and have many dear friends who are just like your friend. I just keep my mouth shut when Bush or the war come up. I try to ignore thier comments because I know it would just cause a falling out. It saddens me, but I don't want to create ill feelings. It's funny really, because I am solidly behind bush and the war effort. I have often thought about sharing my point of view, but it feels like a waste of time. I sometimes think it's odd that I don't stand up for myself, and yet I don't worry about it much. I think my worldview will be vindicated and don't think I need to prove myself to anyone.

Good luck to you and all our friends.

I had a very similar experience today with a good friend.

He actually admitted he buys into the "massive conspiracy" theory, where everything is being made up by the US government, for some reason or other.

I just don't see how a view like that can be grounded in reality. If it's such a massive conspiracy, why hasn't someone talked? (Other than the conspiracy theorists themselves, of course).

It's depressing, because I simply don't know what to say to someone whose reality is mind-bendingly different to my own.

In my world. most Americans are regular people, just like British or Iraqis or French or Russians or Chinese. There are some trouble makers, and some cowards, and some twisted people. But most of us are just plain folks trying to go about our business. How you can decide that Americans are just plain evil and out to destroy everyone and do everything they do out of hate... I don't get it. How do you become like that?

I think it must be a type of brain-washing. The media feeds you so many lies, your views just don't have any basis in reality any more.

What to do?

It seems like a looking-glass world, where the people who DON'T believe there is a conspiracy are the odd men out.

It's a brave new world out there, I guess.

There are three things I would like to bring out and discuss.

1. Andy L, I am curious as to how you think the war against terrorism should be fought. You say that your objection is not to fighting, but to how the current administration is fighting. Fair enough. How would you like to see it fought?

2. Also for Andy L, what threats to the US existence do you see as greater in magnitude than terrorism, given 9/11, the embassy bombings, the Cole attack, the first WTC attack, Beslan, the various plots to blow up airliners from 1995 until yesterday, Bali, Madrid, and the two attacks on London? If you take it as a given that the jihadis are serious when they say that they want to destroy us (and given the evidence, I take them seriously), and that they have demonstrated capability to attack us causing massive casualties, then does it not follow that the jihadis are a vast threat to any way of life other than fundamentalist Islam coupled with jihadi Islamism? I'm having a hard time seeing a larger threat at this point.

3. What frightens me (and I use that word carefully) about the elements of the far Left and, to a lesser degree, the far Right is that they are descending into a common conspiracy theory. The basis of this conspiracy theory is that the US government is the prime motivator in the world - nothing happens without the US causing it. Further, within the US, the prime motivator is either the Jews or the Republicans (often both, in the spectre of the neocons) - nothing happens in the US without the Jews or Republicans causing it.

This frightens me for two reasons: first, that such unreasoning people tend, when they get very scared, to go beyond fantasy conspiracy theories and straight into violent action; second, that such a world view implies that a large part of our population has begun to abandon the very concept of logic, reason, science, and liberalism. We seem to be heading into a new dark age of our own making; as Rome succumbed to the barbarians only after she had first abandoned all but the trappings of civilization, are we now vulnerable to the barbarians because we have abandoned all but the trappings of civilization? And if we have done so, can we regain the core of civilization, or are we doomed to a slow slide into unreason, despair, tyranny and poverty? Are there enough left in the West to ensure the survival of civilization as an idea worth fighting for?

I don't see how Cicero has distorted his friends position in any way. Even your attempt to explain it doesn't contridict Cicero's essay, but in fact would seem to reinforce his conclusions.

"But there are greater existential threats to Americans than terrorism, even though it is worth paying attention to OF COURSE."

But then, what are those threats? That 'of course' seems like a lot of hand waving to me.

"The problem that your friend, and I, and most Americans at this point are having with the current Administration isn't that they care about fighting terrorism and we don't, it's just that we recognize that they're only fighting it in the media, and not on the ground, where instead they're making the situation worse."

Which would be all fine and good and we could have a rational debate over that if in fact I had any evidence that you actually wanted to have a rational debate over that, but - critically - this is not the friend's position. The friend's position was that the terrorist threat was not in fact a threat but part of a conspiracy against American's on the part of the current administration. The friend outlined his belief that the whole thing was largely a hoax. That's not something we can have much of a rational debate on. And this position is echoed by you when you say:

"Our view is that if we really want to fight terrorism, we must first point out that our current leaders are using it for political purposes and so have an interest in perpetuating the threat, not diminishing it."

You don't claim that the administration is merely mistaken or even incompetant, which I think is wrong but which is a position which I could understand why someone would have. Rather you are claiming that they are in on it, and indeed that they are behind the threat and actively using it for thier purposes.

"If you choose to continue to portray Republican efforts as the only viable ones, you're being biased and close-minded."

Sometime I should let you in on the secret about the phrase 'close-minded'. As a hint, do you think a truly open minded person would ever believe someone else is close-minded?

But in any event, I do not assume - nor did Cicero - that 'Republican efforts' (I might remind you that most of the Democrats have voted for these efforts as well) are the only ones that are viable or even that they are the most viable. The problem that I have is that they seem to be the only efforts. But, in the interest of actually have a discussion, please tell me what you think should be done. I must warn you that I'll pretty much discount all you say if you tell me what should have been done. I'm not interested in that, because that isn't a plan and its all hindsight. Tell me what to do now. That will be a plan and that could potentially impress me with your insight and intelligence.

"So I'm not impressed at all with this exhibition of Demagoguery."

How am I supposed to have a reasoned debate with someone who holds that position? Before we can have a reasoned debate you have to drop the assumption that I'm only making the argument for devious and ulterior reasons, such as...

"At some level, I think you must recognize this...Perhaps, if you were in NYC at the time, you have not fully recovered from the shock of the 9/11 attacks and are not thinking rationally....I'm trying to be generous here."

This is no way to have a reasoned debate. I don't see any intellectual couriousity. I don't see any self-reflection. I could easily turn your entire argument around against you and it would work just as effectively, which implies to me that your argument is pretty much meaningless. It's an argument that is equally true and valid no matter who you apply it to, and it's unfalsifiable. And I'm not going to pretend to be 'generous' here. I'm telling you my real opinion. Lord only knows what your real opinion is, but I suspect it would be interesting.

That was really well said. I too am amazed that my �liberal� friends can have their heads so far up, well you know, about the world today. I�ve had to look at myself and re-evaluate my opinion because I have friends and family who are very similar. However, I quick discussion and time I find them short on logic every time. This is frustrating, for I thought liberals had an edge on that one, at least over conservatives. What happened? My theory, heavily summarized, is that there is a fine line between a �Leftist� and a liberal. True liberals are a dieing breed, at least as a group. This mirrors the opposite polarity of conservative versus a reactionary. We have many in the world taking up reactionary causes (e.g. like most of Islam over there and evangelism over here). The world is becoming more bi-polar. Now, what�s behind this is a question that we�ll probably never know, but it is happening. This whole rise of religious fundamentalism is a unique thing and not normal development we've seen in history for a long time. Then there is this enchantment of the Leftist with extremist and dictators. Fascinating yet revolting at the same time.

Just realize we all create our own worlds. Some, compared to others, just work harder to limit any reality from entering their world. It�s just a human thing to do and some do it more than others. It will take several more brutal attacks to get these people to finally wake up. My only hope is that it is they who suffer these attacks and not the rest of us who already get it. I add this for shame on them in not acting as brothers and sisters in a time of threat. Instead of uniting, even under a lame president, they choose to take an almost treasonous approach.

There are a lot of us who believe (a) that the US faces a serious threat from dangerous and determined enemies, and (b) that the Bush administration's policies have made the situation a great deal worse for the US.

Nicholas' point, that a massive conspiracy would necessarily have been blown, is certainly correct. But there are ways for national leaders to manipulate public opinion through events that don't require massive conspiracies. (Enough said.)

It is very reasonable for people to want to look at our own contribution to a major problem, and change that. Jesus said, First take the beam out of your own eye ...

Ideally, this doesn't mean being blind to the faults of others, but that's clearly a slippery slope some people slide down. On both sides, of course: on the left by saying all the world's evils are our own fault, and on the right by saying that all evils are the fault of the left! The fact that some people take an argument too far and say dumb things doesn't mean that there are no important truths there.

Jeff Medcalf [#6] asks how the GWoT should have been fought. That's a reasonable question, and worthy of extensive discussion by a group of smart people. However, this question is often used to shut off discussion, because of course it's extremely difficult, and initial proposals will need to be debugged. This question should start the discussion.

I've certainly noticed that if someone like Andy L attempts to take up the challenge and propose an answer, a few people respond seriously, but many just snipe from the sidelines, picking enough holes to let them disregard other options entirely.

Our uninformed use of massive firepower has clearly dug us farther into holes, especially in Iraq, increasingly in Afghanistan, and it's doing the same to Israel in Lebanon. Perhaps it is time to think, from a national security standpoint, about how we can leverage the power of ordinary people's desire to live in peace, to get them to turn on their domestic terrorists and defeat them themselves, rather than using our firepower to earn the terrorists more loyal supporters.

Have you read that the initial tip that revealed the London plane-bombing conspiracy came over a year ago from the Muslim community, just after the subway bombings? That's how the GWoT gets won, through trust and sympathy. Do you think anyone in Lebanon is going to help Israel against Hezbollah these days? Think bombing Lebanon harder will help? I don't think so.

As the man says, when you're deep in a hole, the first step is to stop digging.

Andy L, your arguments would make more sense if the anti-Republicans would actually support measures that do address the pointy end of the terrorism stick.

For instance, the covert SWIFT monitoring program, which may have helped identify the British bombers.

Or the data mining of incoming international calling patterns from identified terrorist contacts.

These are programs explicitly meant to address terrorism at the scale of the individual terrorist; and yet, they were exposed by and for anti-Republicans who gleefully pointed to them as signs of creeping fascism in America.

You really can't have it both ways. You can't be against terror networks and against spying on them. At least, you can't if your point is to actually disrupt terrorist networks.

And that goes back to the subtext of Cicero's post; certain demographics have no trouble believing Western governments are evil, but can't face the implications of distribted Islamic terrorism. It's the visceral difference between watching a scary movie (where the ideas are thrilling and chilling without actually putting the viewer in danger) and stumbling on an armed robery in progress. The first is intellectually stimulating; the second stimulates the bowels to involuntary movement.

(And of course, the idea that only Republicans are "playing politics" with the threat is ludicrous. Every time some Democratic politician asks "why haven't we captured Osama" you can bet the political damage to the Administration is the point. Osama at this point is at most a figurehead, worth more to both sides as a shadowy living figure than as organic paste in the rubble of a bombed-out cave in Afghanistan. You want a conspiracy? The continued existence of OBL is the perfect one. No one truly benefits from him being dead, so he isn't.)

I think Cicero gets his friend, he just can't get through to him. Nor, I think, does he want to; if convincing his friend to accept the reality of a terrorist threat would be debilitating, then altering the friend's perspective would either destroy the friendship or destroy the friend. No one wants to do that to a friend.

The immediate knee-jerk response when I say something like this to my lefty friends is for them to accuse me of wanting to cede carte blanche powers to the governmenr, or worse, Bush. That's simply not true. What I do want is reasoned debate about what we should do to address the threats (overt and implied) from radical militant Islam, and I'm just not hearing any. It's so much safer to speculate on what we should do about Bush.

Here's a thought experiment. I will concede that you have now pointed out that "our current leaders are using it for political purposes and so have an interest in perpetuating the threat, not diminishing it." You have succeeded in taking what you have described as the necessary first step. What's the next step?

Until you can answer that question, I will continue to believe your position isn't constructive, but merely avoidant. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Celebrim [#7] says:

But, in the interest of actually have a discussion, please tell me what you think should be done. I must warn you that I'll pretty much discount all you say if you tell me what should have been done. I'm not interested in that, because that isn't a plan and its all hindsight. Tell me what to do now. That will be a plan and that could potentially impress me with your insight and intelligence.

By this logic, you should tell cancer researchers that everything they've learned about how cancer starts and grows is irrelevant. If they haven't gotten a treatment yet, they can just shut up.

It turns out that some problems are hard. I wouldn't expect disagreement that this one is hard. It's going to take serious effort to understand the mechanisms behind the problem: why it starts, what it feeds on, what is different about places where it doesn't grow, and so on. We also learn a lot from the failures of (presumably) well-intentioned strategies. To say that all of that is irrelevant really is "closed-minded".

I've read your comments before and you are a sensible guy. You know better than that.

Beard,
The essential problem with your criticism is that you claim that the Bush administration's policies are making the problem of terrorism worse without any concrete alternative proposals, as you admit:

"However, this question is often used to shut off discussion, because of course it's extremely difficult, and initial proposals will need to be debugged. This question should start the discussion."

But without credible alternatives to propose, these sort of criticisms simply are not serious and will be ridiculed.

In general, the military force versus law enforcement dichotomy is a false one. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages and each has a sphere where it is most effective. But given that critics of the Bush administration's law enforcement approaches seem to also want to have their cake and eat it too, in both pretending that the Bush administration isn't working extensively in the arena when it is ( the Bush administration's efforts in controlling international money flows are literally unprecedented ) and working actively to undermine surveillance measures.

"By this logic, you should tell cancer researchers that everything they've learned about how cancer starts and grows is irrelevant."

I don't see how that follows. There is more that is different in the analogy than there is that is similar. I think your analogy is a bad one, and I think it obfuscates more than it clarifies.

In fact, I've come to see analogies as a sign of sloppy and unclear thinking. I used to use analogies alot, but I learned after a while that I was often just about the only one who say the 'clear connections' between the analogy and the thing I was comparing it to. I also learned that most of the time when an analogy was introduced, you ended up arguing about the analogy as if proving one thing or another about the analogy really proved a thing about the question at hand.

"It turns out that some problems are hard."

Indeed, they are. In fact most problems are probably harder than the problem of learning how a particular cancer starts and grows, which is in fact not a 'wicked problem'. I'd classify winning this war as a wicked problem.

I hate giving your analogy any credence at all, because its a ludicrous one, but because finding out how a cancer starts and grows is not a wicked problem, if I asked an expert in the field of biology how they would go about solving this problem I can and should expect them to have some idea how to proceed - even if they don't know the full details of what they need to do just as yet. Because the 'War on Terror' constitutes a wicked problem, I'd accept a far less detailed and specific answer than I'd expect from the cancer researcher.

"It's going to take serious effort to understand the mechanisms behind the problem: why it starts, what it feeds on, what is different about places where it doesn't grow, and so on. We also learn a lot from the failures of (presumably) well-intentioned strategies."

So what? That's all true but I don't see how it impacts my request or the validity of my request whatsoever. For one thing, when I make that request it's because the person in question has claimed sufficient knowledge of how to go about solving the wicked problem to take critique the effectiveness of a particular solution. If you think you have enough knowledge to criticize a solution, then it is perfectly fair and reasonable request that you offer an alternative approach. Although this hardly the only problem with your analogy since it seems to have some meaning to you, your analogy would be more relevant if it was a three way conversation in which I had a grant of money to offfer (analogous to my political support), someone offered a theory on how to go about discovering how to cure cancer (analogous to the Hawk/'conservative' platform on security), a second person (in this case analogous to Andy L) said, 'That's not an effective approach', and I questioned the second person, "Well, then tell me what you would do?" If the second person can't tell me what they would do, why in the world would I give them my grant? Again, its a bad analogy (and you made it), but if all the second person can do is offer criticism from the vantage of hindsight - I have no evidence that they actually know anything at all.

And to extend the analogy well past its breaking point, its not like the 'cancer researcher' in this analogy has claimed that the overall 'war on cancer' would not be fraught with difficulty or would be short. Quite the contrary, they've claimed that it would take generations to solve the problem and would require work on all sorts of fronts. As a researcher myself (really, not merely in analogy) as well as a coder, my assumption is that estimates of time and material required will be sometimes wildly off, that some problems which at first appear hard will turn out to be easy, and some problems which seem simple will turn out upon closer examination to be hard.

"I've read your comments before and you are a sensible guy."

Thank you. But your praise would be more flattering if I thought your opinion of me was strong enough that it encouraged you to do a little reflection before claiming I was being unreasonable.

It's all just performance art by our leaders, I see.

"Sir, I'm going to have to take this bottle of water away from you since it might be a liquid explosive, and I'm going to have to mix it with all of these other bottles of possibly liquid explosive, and I'm going to have to dump them all in this trash can... together. Nevermind that the plot specifically mentions mixing chemicals and/or nitroglycerin... which explodes if handled too roughly."

Thanks for point that out, cicero.

Guess what? We're sick of being part of the show.

I present the comments in #14 as another exhibit of exactly what I find wrong with the criticism coming from the left.

"Perhaps it is time to think, from a national security standpoint, about how we can leverage the power of ordinary people's desire to live in peace, to get them to turn on their domestic terrorists and defeat them themselves, rather than using our firepower to earn the terrorists more loyal supporters."

All well and good, but how do you "leverage the power of ordinary people" in a place like Iraq when the ordinary people there had Saddam's boot firmly on the back of their neck?

We tried to address that. Our solution may or may not work in the long run. It will largely depend on whether "ordinary people" in Iraq prefer the tranquility enforced by the boot to actually facing down the thugs who would wear it.

I will gladly admit at this point that the answer to that question is much less self-evident than I thought three years ago. But the previous strategy of sanctions to "starve" the Iraqi regime manifestly did not work. And say what you will about whether Saddam was an immediate threat to us and our allies, it was clear that he wanted to be, and would be as soon as he became able. And considering how much "Oil for Food" money he was throwing at various Security Council members, eventually he would have been able.

I don't mean to be snarky, but any time I hear arguments that boil down to "give peace a chance" my eyes glaze over. Peace always has a chance, and that chance (historically speaking) almost always comes a cropper. And I have yet to hear anyone explain why, in the age of cheap nukes, cheaper bioweapons, and untold thousands of heavy lifting, continent hopping aircraft in service, waiting until a threat is immanent should be considered a good idea.

As to the effect of our "firepower" earning terrorists more loyal supporters, how does that explain the existence of the British bomb plotters? As far as I know, none of them were under any kind of individual threat from Western firepower. Those "ordinary people" had every opportunity for peace and comfort within British society (even in British Muslim society) and turned against it.

When Iraqis start trying to blow themselves up on planes, I'll take your argument that we're inciting Western terror attacks more seriously. Right now, it makes more sense to see OIF as simply the latest justification for a phenomenon that reaches back to the U.S. Embassy Crisis in Iran, if not earlier.

At this point, if someone wants to suggest Plan C for ensuring safety for Western Civilization in the face of millennial militant Islam, I for one am all ears.

Regarding Israel and Hizballah, very similar dynamics are in play. I have no doubt that ordinary Israeli and Lebanese citizens want nothing more than to live in peace. But again, history shows that simply wishing for peace doesn't ensure it. Peace is something "ordinary people" impose on their societies, and defend from incoming threats, or not. For a complex set of reasons, Hizballah's violent behavior toward Israel was not constrained by the "ordinary people" of Lebanon. You may say that the State of Israel did not want peace, but that's really immaterial; whether the state wanted it or not, Hizballah was not going to give it to them.

Israel is looking for a way to ensure peace for its citizens. Israel can rely on Hizballah to work violence on Israeli citizens. Israel can't rely on Lebanon to help. Israel has found that it can rely on the UN to sit and watch as Hizballah launches missles into Israeli territory.

Again, you can argue Israeli tactics and strategy, but what is hard to argue is that they had any kind of obligation to keep absorbing the violence delivered by Hizballah. "Give peace a chance" only works if neighbors (at every scale) think it's a good idea.

Serious question: What should Israel do to instill peace on the Lebanese border?

Well, like I said above celebrim, the interest in your show is rapidly decreasing among the electorate. I don't think it will be held over past November.

Beard,

I was not attempting to cut off discussion, but to start it. And I was not attempting to ask how it should have been fought in the past, but how it should be fought in the future. The past is relevant as example and as evidence, but there is not much point in saying how we could have done it better than, except as that applies to the future.

OK. Concrete proposals you want?

(1) Don't think of groups as homogeneous. They are made up of a wide variety of different individuals and subgroups, with very different world-views and motivations. Terrorists like to mix with a population we can't discriminate, so we retaliate for their actions against others who are completely innocent, turning them against us. Understand the population.

(2) Empower peace-loving individuals to protect themselves. On flight 93 and with the shoe-bomber, it was individuals, acting and organizing spontaneously, that defeated the terrorists. Educate air passengers on what to watch for, and what to do when they see it. Don't try to turn everyone into shopping sheep.

(3) Win the trust of the indigenous population, so they feel that they can turn in terrorists to the authorities as an act of law and order, rather than an act of treason against their own people. Doing this requires restraint in the face of provocation from the terrorists, who want us injure or kill innocent people.

(4) Understand that there is no single silver bullet that will solve the whole problem instantly. No one sensible expects a single act of military force to win a war. Neither will a single approach like the ones I am advocating.

There are lots more, just like there are lots of weapons for different purposes.

I agree with SPQR [#12] that law-enforcement vs military force is not a dichotomy. It's a spectrum, or more multi-dimensional than that. But against terrorism, standard military force is useless, or worse. It's like arguing against forts on the Maginot line versus tanks, and saying that both have their place. Sure, but the place for the forts was fighting the wars of the 19th century.

With us in Iraq, and Israel in Lebanon, you're seeing the failure of excellent 20th century military technology, when confronted by sophisticated 21st century asymmetric warfare. Our cause may be right, but if we refuse to understand the nature of warfare, and if we insist on using the old-fashioned methods, we will lose, and we will have no idea how or why.

Don't just explain why you don't want to listen to me. Do what professionals at warfare do: study what works and what doesn't, learn who the enemies are, and what their strengths are. If you're being blind-sided, figure out how to look in the direction the attack came from. (Duh!)

Or if you'd rather, just "stay the course". Welcome to the Maginot Line.

Your friend has an America obsession, needs to read more specially what islamists write. I think he is a little bit an neo-xenophobe/racist: In the past africans/asians(put here the racial/country you want) couldnt be smart, inteligent, bright. Now they cant be evil, bad, or make bad decisions.

Andy L, if your point in linking to that picture is that beaurocracies often do incredibly stupid things, I'm with you 100%.

If your point was to imply that the British Bombers plot was a hoax, you'll need to present a wee bit more evidence than that. (Never automatically attribute to malice something that can be equally well explained by stupidity.)

If your point was to avoid serious discussion (and I believe that was mostly it), well, you're definitely not part of the solution.

Go ahead. Be more afraid of Bush than of bombs. I fly about 200,000 miles a year though, and I'll gladly pour out anything they want me to (even if I won't be so happy if I have to stand near the bucket).

Beard,
Those simply are not serious proposals for alternative strategies in the war on terror. They are just vague criticisms disguised as positive assertions.

Only military fire-power works? That's because you only look for those examples.

(1) The "People's Revolution" in the Philippines succeed only because it was non-violent. If they had turned violent, they would have been crushed.

(2) The fall of apartheid in South Africa was accomplished with remarkably little bloodshed. Think a little about how that could have played out.

(3) The fact that the Soviet Union fell without a world-altering war is one of the miracles of the 20th century.

Non-violence doesn't mean pretty girls putting flowers in gun barrels and singing Kumbaya. It often means making powerful, violent people realize that the best option they have available to them is something they didn't want to do. But then they do it anyway.

Reagan put economic pressure on the Soviet Union over a period of years, and they crumbled. A similar strategy applied to Iraq didn't work. So? Not every military tactic works either. (This was because Gorbachev and Yeltsin were more rational actors than Saddam, but so it goes.)

Imagine how you'd react if everyone caricatured military action as a two-man shootout on Main Street in Dodge City. Clearly, it's more complex than that, with different methods required in different settings.

Don't try to construct a similar straw man for non-violent methods of confronting dangerous enemies.

"Well, like I said above celebrim, the interest in your show is rapidly decreasing among the electorate. I don't think it will be held over past November."

Oh lord. Do you think Richard Reid cared who was President, or which party controled Congress, when he decided to try to detonate a shoe on a plane?

Do you really believe OBL would have given the WTC a pass if Florida's electoral votes had gone to Gore?

Do you truly believe the British Bombers gave a rats ass about the horror's of Bush's Amerikkka? (Oh, that's right, that was a hoax....)

Mark Poling: Overall, excellent comments. In the interest of perfect accuracy, I have a few quibbles.

"I have no doubt that ordinary Israeli and Lebanese citizens want nothing more than to live in peace."

Like any language, our language (English), is at times guilty of innaccuracy and that inaccuracy can lead us to wrong conclusions if we don't question it. In this case, the phrase "want...to live in peace" is very misleading. What does it mean? What does 'peace' mean? The problem is that there are more kinds of peace than there are kinds of war, and it would behoove us to recognize that. Just because our language deplores pluralizing 'peace', or using the non-specific article 'a' rather than the specific 'the', does not mean that it is right to do so.

It is certainly true that the ordinary citizens of Israel want to live in a non-war state, and it is certainly true that the ordinary citizens of Lebanon want to live in a non-war state. But it doesn't immediately follow that they both want the same thing. Is it true that both sides 'want peace'? That really depends on what you mean by it, and it this case its demonstrably true that both sides do not want peace. To the extent that they both say that they want peace, the problem is that the signifier (or if you are a coder 'the pointer') may be the same but it is in fact addressing two different things.

You've made the argument easier by saying both sides, "want nothing more than to live in peace". That's clearly not the case. There are somethings that they clearly do want more than to live in peace. If there was nothing either side wanted more than to live in a state of non-violence, then the violence would long have been over. What both sides want is to compell the other side to live in thier notion of what a state of peace is, and the ordinary citizens of both sides support the violence required to impose that state of peace on the other. Wars are fought by and large by ordinary citizens, and it would be a mistake to imagine that by and large they do so and yet do not want to do so. They may regret the necessity and the outcome of this choice, but that doesn't mean that they would actually prefer any of the other available choices.

"But again, history shows that simply wishing for peace doesn't ensure it."

Agreed. And the reason I've outlined is one of the two main reasons why not. The other reason is that no one can actually 'choose peace'. You can always choose war, but you don't have the option of 'choosing peace'. You can agree to peace, but you can never choose it. That's because 'a peace', any of the many 'peaces', requires the mutual agreement of all parties involved, but war never requires a concensus. The Israeli-Lebanon war is ample evidence of this, as not only did it begin without the concensus of one side, it began without the concensus of either side. Neither side choose war by agreement, and neither side is able to choose peace by agreement.

This is why all the diplomacy going on is so much empty words.

It seems to me the problem with a rational debate on this subject is that we are facing an enemy that is immune to reason. When you're faced with a rabid animal, you can rationally debate what to do about rabies in general, but if you don't destroy the animal, are you really being rational? My personal opinion FWIW is that our attempts to fight Islamic fascism are hobbled by a well-intentioned but ultimately self-defeating restraint and by the lunatic notion that people in that part of the world are capable of democracy. Give them democracy (a la Iraq and Gaza) and they elect theocratic fascists. We should have smashed Saddam (and to hell with collateral damage), set up Saddam Lite, sent a few JDAMS down Bashar Assad's throat, done at least a few flyovers of Tehran, just to let them know we can, then got the hell out of dodge and left the barbarians to their unspeakable folkways. Unfortunately, that's the hindsight Cerebrim rightly derides. What to do now? Honestly, I haven't a clue. But here's another thought FWIW: If the insurgents in Iraq really wanted us to leave, all they really have to do is nothing. Just quit blowing stuff up for about a month or two. The political pressure to bring our troops home would then become unbearable for any administration. Then once we're gone, simply resume the insurgency. So why are they still blowing people up? It would seem someone wants us to stay there. My guess is, it's the entity that has been the real enemy all along, Iran. They are deliberately keeping the Iraqi insurgency and the Hezbollah guerilla war going to keep us and the Israelis tied down long enough for them to develop nukes. And I think it's working. All because we are too squeamish to do what needs to be done.

Beard, what, specifically does that mean? The ideas you suggest work when popular due to popular uprisings inside the nations in question... in a vacuum essentially. When Soviet tanks rolled over the Hungerians or the Czecks all that nonviolence accounted for little. But more importantly is there any evidence that the populations that harbor and support terror have the will to even philosophically oppose terror, much less stand up to it publically? How much money do Saudis still funnel to terrorist organizations, etc?

How exactly do we harness the power of non-violence to prevent Iran from sending anti-tank missiles to Hezbollah and Sadrites? And how has pursuing your course insulated the British from their very own Muslim population?

"Well, like I said above celebrim, the interest in your show is rapidly decreasing among the electorate. I don't think it will be held over past November."

I really don't care, and its not 'my show'. I don't think I have any representatives in Washington because my own opinions are so far from the mainstream and so ecclectic that neither party is going to represent me well.

What I do care about is much more complex than who ends up in government, which, by and large in my experience doesn't make a really big net difference. I'm far more interested in the attitudes of the electorate than I am in who gets elected.

The reason I dislike your post #14 is complex, and complex enough that I may have to blog about an aspect of it, but for the purposes of not hijacking this thread let me point out its major flaw.

What would you have them do? Everyone in the picture almost certainly realizes that everything going into the barrel is harmless. But, isn't that part of the point? And, even if it wasn't harmless, don't you think you'd trade it blowing up at the gates in a vat of toothpaste with it blowing up over the Atlantic at 30,000 feet?

Beard: Thanks for rising to the challenge. Based on the general thrust of your argument, I'd be less than honest if I didn't admit that I've (somewhat famously) had this discussion at considerable length with someone (no offence) smarter than you are (and quite possibly smarter than I am) and so I going to - somewhat unfairly I admit - not respond as fully as you probably deserve. It's just that I've had this argument before. Check the archives here at winds.

"(1) Don't think of groups as homogeneous...
(2) Empower peace-loving individuals to protect themselves.
(3) Win the trust of the indigenous population, so they feel that they can turn in terrorists to the authorities as an act of law and order...
(4) Understand that there is no single silver bullet that will solve the whole problem instantly."

I've seen that basic 'plan' before. #3 in particular is really familiar.

First, I agree with SPQR that for the most part these are negative criticisms disguised as positive assertions. In particular, I don't think you can show that the current administration is unmindful of any of those considerations. What you are actually doing is not proposing a counter-plan, but asserting axiomaticly that the administration is not mindful of any of the above. We certainly don't percieve groups as homogenous. (For example, if we did, we'd not be careful to avoid saying 'a war on Islam'.) In other words, what you are asserting presents just as false of a dichotomy as the assertion that the current administration is not pursuing law enforcement as a means of facing terrorism.

But there are other general problems with your 'plan'. All of your assertions are really vague. In fact, I see you as describing the desired end state of the conflict, with no actual assertions about how to reach that end state.

Let me give at least one example, although I could give many. You advocate restraint in the face of provocation, with the implication being that we aren't in fact being restrained in the face of provocation (or at least that we aren't being nearly restrained enough). The problem with this is that its equally easy to argue that the terrorist 'wants' us to be restrained using very similar sorts of logic. Hense, the outcome of the sort of thinking that focuses on the restraint or lack of restaint is the mindset that terrorists are undefeatable. If you resist them, they only grow more powerful. If you don't resist them, they only grow more powerful. It is well, pretty darn defeatist. The truth of the matter is whether to be restrained or unrestrained in your responce, and the degree of violence to use, is a wicked problem. There is no single answer because, as is the problem with wicked problems, each situation is unique. To offer the 'plan', 'We should excercise more restraint' without giving a specific case, is to not offer any sort of serious plan at all.

"Don't try to construct a similar straw man for non-violent methods of confronting dangerous enemies."

I could say the same to you.

The problem with non-violent means of confronting dangerous enemies is that it only works in a rather narrow circumstances.

Ghandi's non-violent revolution worked mainly because it was the British in charge of India. Had it been someone else, it likely would not have worked. In fact, if you read Ghandi you'll soon realize that he didn't really care whether it worked, that he advocated it as the right thing to do whether it worked or not. He fully recognized that it might not work, and yet most people who advocate 'non-violent' approaches to problems seem convinced that they will always work if only they are given a chance.

Fortunately, you don't seem to be one of those.

It would however be helpful if you could point to one case were pursuing a more nonviolent approach than what has been pursued would be likely to produce good results.

This is getting very boring, celebrim, and I really don't have time to waste on replying to you, but this will only take a second so why not.

"What would you have them do? Everyone in the picture almost certainly realizes that everything going into the barrel is harmless. "

I would have them place their containers, unopened, with their contents unmixed with others, on a table to be removed to a secure location (say, a warehouse?) away from concentrated populations of women and children.

Even if they're not explosives, it's idiotic to randomly mix chemicals together in a large bin in public. They are probably creating more harm than good. But perhaps that's the point, no?

"But, isn't that part of the point? And, even if it wasn't harmless, don't you think you'd trade it blowing up at the gates in a vat of toothpaste with it blowing up over the Atlantic at 30,000 feet?"

So here are the flaws in your argument.

Why is it verboten to bring these liquids aboard in carry-ons, while most or all of the contents of the luggage compartment go unchecked?

Why was this done only yesterday, even though the Administration had knowledge of the plot for days beforehand?

Why are the restrictions likely to abate in the next few weeks? Will the threat disappear suddenly?

Performance art, I tell you, and in the eye of this beholder, very very poorly done at that.

Cicero, et al:

Conspiracy theories are the refuge for "messy realities". The facts of 9/11 don't fit very well together, the facts of our tenure in Iraq aren't fitting well together, the world by its nature is not a well oiled machine, and from that ... come conspiracy theories.

If I were the type to wish for a liberal, peaceful, smoke-a-doob, marriage-what-for? kind of world, I too would look muzzily upon the barrage of messy, contentuous, flighty, reasonless fact being proffered by the Media, and I would probably find solace in simpler conspiracy theories. Ask any construction industry veteran: Black American construction workers are wed to The Man conspiracy as surely as religion itself. The Man is the root of their problems, The Man lusts for wealth and gets it by putting them Down. The Man is unjust, is greedy, is pretentious but just as stupid as anyone else. Conspiracy theories are like a pretty jeweled box in the midst of a garbage dump: they catch the eye, they've been polished and refined and interlocked to near-perfection. They're simple, and their denial of reality augements their 'power' in the future.

From my angle, it depresses me most when I hae had the kind of discussions with friends that you avoid with this one, seemingly getting them to at least see the error of their ways, only to find that they become more entrenched with their conspiracy theories in the weeks that follow.

Just go to http://video.google.com and search for "WTC". Of the top 20 clips that are listed, most promote the conspiracy theory of intentional building demolition by dark gub'mint forces. See how much more interesting, simple and falacious the theories are? "The gub'mint did it." Wasn't that easy? No need to get all wrapped up in Sayyed Qutb's Moslem Brotherhood, in Wahhabism, in the geopolitical grand mal dementia of the critically overpopulated, underemployed, profoundly ignorant, fanatically inspired, anonymous, hateful, irrational and downright evil Middle Eastern underworld. Nope. The Gub'mint did it, so that The Man could oppress us further.

I suppose it lets a lot of people sleep easier. Those black helicopters, UN guerillas, those bleeping UFOs and secret service operatives, those police with their big guns and heavy tactics, messing with your sister and beating on your cousin, your neighbor. The Gub'mint is out to protect itself, and the elections are rigged, and Bush holds all the chips and The Man is happy, since we needed a war, and the Twin Towers were empty of Jews, and, and, and...

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

I always have to ask the same question though: why bother to vote? Why bother to go to work? Why bother to stand in a line to get tickets to the Superbowl when The Man has it all rigged anyway?

See, that's the problem with the conspiracy theories: taken at their full strength, they might sooth as an opiate to reason, but ultimately they inevitably lead to depression. Why bother, if all you do is in vain anyway?

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

I might tell your friend this: "That's nice, but I would rather believe that our government is intrinsically good by American standards, that it doesn't have all the answers, that it is trying to preempt a greater offense in the future, messily and somewhat inexplicably, than to believe that they're in cahoots with the Jews to undermine the world's economy so that they can collect it all for themselves, allowing the barest trickle-down to appease all of us regular Joe citizens. I'd rather believe that than your theory, because at least I can wake up knowing that we are trying to accomplish something as self-serving as it is noble, whereas your view has us mired in futility and exponential decay until the end of time."

... If I could remeber all the words, in the order presented ...

GoatGuy

Beard (#19), I thought somebody asked for concrete examples. What you offered is more along the lines of platitudes.

In case you don't understand the difference, here's a simple test: does the proposal tell us what we should do? In this light, your #3 ("Win the trust of the indigenous population") is clearly just a platitude: it gives not the slightest bit of direction as to what actions we should take or avoid.

And in #23, you go even further off the mark. The fall of the Soviet Union wasn't accomplished without military firepower, not at all. In addition to all the proxy wars that occurred, did you not ever hear of MAD? Or the IRBM's in Europe? They weren't used, but that's not to say that if we didn't have them, and stand ready to use them, the outcome would have been remotely similar.

Andy L:
I'll address your questions:

Why is it verboten to bring these liquids aboard in carry-ons, while most or all of the contents of the luggage compartment go unchecked?

Because the items became an explosive when combined, which was to be done in flight. This required the jihadists to have physical access to the various components.

Why was this done only yesterday, even though the Administration had knowledge of the plot for days beforehand?

Because the investigation was still ongoing so changing the security precdures would have caused the jihadists to scatter.

Why are the restrictions likely to abate in the next few weeks? Will the threat disappear suddenly?

Because (hopefully) security procedures are constantly being reviewed and revised through some form of cost-benefit analysis.

To some extent, it is performance art. But the intent of the "artist" is not the one you imply. The government doesn't know how to keep their citizenry safe from jihadis, but the public wants the government to "do something" so they "do something". A big, publically visible something. Not because it frightens the public, but because it comforts the public.

Because the "art" isn't perfomed by an artist, it's done by somebody in a beauracracy who's trying to make sure that they're not blamed if (when) something bad happens. It's CYA writ large. But it's all been instigated by a legitimate threat.

Eine wirklich super Seite!

"I really don't have time to waste on replying to you"

If I thought I was wasting my time, I wouldn't reply. At the very least I hope you think you are convincing other readers that my seemingly reasonable arguments are in fact not reasonable.

"I would have them place their containers, unopened, with their contents unmixed with others, on a table to be removed to a secure location (say, a warehouse?) away from concentrated populations of women and children."

I've seen pictures of them doing that as well. Your plan runs into difficulties the minute someone comes to the gate with a $40 thermos or travel mug filled with something. Now all the sudden you've got this angry individual in the line holding up the process because your confiscating his thermos and not the relatively unvaluable liquid inside.

"Even if they're not explosives, it's idiotic to randomly mix chemicals together in a large bin in public. They are probably creating more harm than good."

Quite possibly. But that isn't my point.

"But perhaps that's the point, no?"

There, now that is my point. You are asserting that not only is all this activity being coordinated at a very high level, but that it is the result of some sort of nefarious calculation.

That's absurd. If you don't think that it is absurd, you've not worked in enough bureacracies. In addition to being absurd though, its also a very dangerous habit of thought.

"So here are the flaws in your argument.

Why is it verboten to bring these liquids aboard in carry-ons, while most or all of the contents of the luggage compartment go unchecked?"

Because in this particular case the threat was from unmixed explosives to be brought aboard in carry ons and then detonated by hand mixing. Presumably, mixed explosives would be caught (or not caught, because no system is perfect) by any of the existing methods including for example dogs. Clearly these are ad hoc methods designed to deal with an 'out of the box' threat.

"Why was this done only yesterday, even though the Administration had knowledge of the plot for days beforehand?"

Because instituting the practices the day before yesterday would have tipped of the terrorists and more of them might have escaped or done desparate acts? Because these measures are being taken incase some terrorists escaped the dragnet and would likely be willing to take desparate acts?

"Why are the restrictions likely to abate in the next few weeks?"

Because they are ad hoc? Because short term draconian measures are helpful against short term threats, but unreasonable in the long term?

"Will the threat disappear suddenly?"

No, but this threat from these people will dissipate as time goes by. Longer term measures will need to be implemented after more thought goes into figuring out what to do for the long term. Much of what you are seeing is probably decisions made by individual managers and security agents trying to do thier best to fulfil directives. As the bureaucrats get thier heads together, expect more coordinated activies.

"Performance art, I tell you, and in the eye of this beholder, very very poorly done at that."

Even if it was deliberate performance art, you aren't the intended audience. Most security depends on a certain ammount of performance art. You start patting down people, not necessarily to find the weapon, but to deter people from carrying the weapon. You wear a gun in part to display that you have a gun. You surround the President with a bunch of highly visible bodygaurds, not so much to protect him physically (because they don't help against most realistic threats) but to protect him with a psychological barrier that keeps stupid people from endangering themselves. You put a barrier up at the edge of the tomb of the unknown soldier, not because that in itself keeps people from walking on it, but because it tells people 'If I cross this line, I'll get in trouble.'

But there is nothing in the picture you showed which looks calculated at all, much less nefarious.

We're going around in circles, it seems, as these discussions often do. Let me try again.

Here is what I perceive to have been the President's plan:

1. Remove immediately the sanctuary from which the most immediate enemy (al Qaeda) funded, planned and launched the 9/11 raid. This is both punishment and prevention.

2. Hunt down anyone who, past or present, plans, executes, funds or supports terrorist attacks against the West, or those who shelter people who do those things.

3. Remove as soon as practicable a state sponsor of terrorism not directly connected to 9/11. This both removes a potential enemy, and acts as deterrent: go the Libya route or go the Iraq route; it's up to you.

4. Ensure that no nations that support jihadi terrorism also get access to nuclear weapons, and that no jihadi groups get access to nuclear weapons. (This was the genesis of the "Axis of Evil" remarks.)

5. Establish an Arab democracy, preferably a liberal Arab democracy, to incite fundamental societal change in the Arab/Muslim world, with the goal of pulling the intellectual and cultural rug out from under the jihadis.

As far as I can tell, that was and remains the Bush administration's grand strategic plan. It is actionable, it fits the facts of what has happened to date, and it explains why other things that might have happened (attack on Iran, for example) have not happened.

Now, from what I can tell, Beard and AndyL take issue with some or all elements of the plan, for various reasons sometimes logistical, utilitarian, or philosophical, but more often than not merely because they do not trust the President as a person or ideologically.

What I would really like to understand is what their alternative is. Beard's attempt was, as celebrim pointed out, a collection of platitudes: it's not actionable; it's a critique. OK, fine, but we've all seen those critiques, for years, and what I at least want is the alternate plan.

And let me be clear: I think that it is possible that the President's plan is failing. Indeed, it may already have failed. (I also think that this is in large part due to propaganda from people who hold beliefs similar to Alan L's and Beard's. But that is incidental to my point.) If it is true that the President's plan has failed or is failing, and if as I assume we all (with the exception of fools like Galloway) support the end state of no more Islamist terrorism, then how do we go forward to achieve the goal? What are the practical steps that can be taken to improve our chances of victory?

My concern is that the Left are great as critics, but a bad plan is infinitely preferable to no plan. If I cannot see a plan from the Left, there is no way to debate alternatives. And that means that I will remain where I am: forced to vote for people who will implement a plan I see as failing or possibly failing, because at least they have a plan.

So I will renew my quesions: how should we be figthing this war; and if the jihadis are not the big threat to worry about, what is?

Another (minor) point about the buckets: the vast majority of what's going in is going to be water. (Orange juice, for instance, is at least 80% water. Milk is about 95% water.) In addition to the coffee, sodas, juices, and milk-based drinks, a lot of plain old water water will be going in too.

In other words, the contents of the bucket aren't going to be pretty (and probably won't smell very nice after a few hours) but they will be, from a chemical standpoint, mostly inert H2O.

I have no idea what the composition of the liquid bombs would have been, but chances are pouring whatever those liquids were into a couple of gallons of water would radically reduce the explosive potential.

Any real chemists in the house to comment on this idea?

Here is what you wanted to say, Beard:

"Start talks with Iran to offer them something in return for not developing nuclear weapons" Here is what you wanted to say, Beard:

"Start talks with Iran to offer them something in return for not developing nuclear weapons"

Jeff:

Here's the Progressive plan to end terrorism:

1. Bring the troops home.
2. ?????
3. No more terrorism!

They are particularly excited by steps 1 and 3.

"Win the trust of the indigenous population" is not a platitude. It's a strategic directive. It requires tactics to be implemented. Figuring out appropriate tactics is not trivial, but it's not rocket science either.

To pick a historical example, if our commanders had said, "As soon as Baghdad falls, employ everyone in the Iraqi army below the rank of colonel, and assign them the task of ensuring law and order in the streets of Iraq", things would have been very different there. Those commanders would not have had to specify precisely how to ensure law and order, and exactly what sort of supervision to provide, and how to make sure that the Iraqis followed orders, and so on. Those are tactical decisions that lower-level commanders make to implement higher-level strategic orders.

(There's another long discussion to be had about why it was impossible for our commanders on the ground in Iraq to give those orders, thanks to the situation that had been created by the Pentagon, but we'll leave that for now.)

Of course I'm describing what to do at a high level. The specifics have to be decided on the ground, by people who understand the local situation.

Someone who thinks that failing to "tell them what to do" refutes my argument sounds like a private who is never going to make it to corporal.

I'm tired of taking this issue seriously.

"I would have them place their containers, unopened, with their contents unmixed with others, on a table to be removed to a secure location (say, a warehouse?) away from concentrated populations of women and children."

I've already pointed out on big flaw in the plan (containers which are valuable), let me point out another - containers which are not sturdy.

If you'll look that the picture Andy L offers as proof that this is a centrally controlled nefarious plot, you'll see that what the picture really shows is a woman pouring a drink from what looks like a paper cup into a trash can.

Now the question becomes, why not place the paper cup 'unopened' somewhere. Well, for one thing, there probably would not be a table big enough to put all the paper cups on. Those paper cups would have to be placed in a bin of some sort eventually, and because they are paper cups they'd collapse, spill, or otherwise mix thier contents anyway.

In fact, we've seen plenty of examples of containers sitting in bins. That in fact seems to be the usual approach. In general, you aren't going to make everyone empty viscous slow moving fluids into a vat. What if someone gets into line with a bottle of Heinz ketchup? We might as well shut the airport down while we wait for the ketchup to pour. (Much like the 'vat of toothpaste', I hope you realize that I'm kidding when you say this.) There are lots of pictures of bins filled with containers of various sorts, but notably not paper cups.

Why is that? Probably, its just to avoid the mess it would make. Special receptacles for paper cups do not have to be brought into airports. Amazing, these receptacles were available even before the terror threat was revealed. I guess that proves that this conspiracy goes back a long ways. I suspect that based on this, the next terror plot to be revealed will be a plot to blow up fast food resturants. Afterall, they mysteriously also contain receptacles for paper cups in what can only be explained as readying fast food restuarants for terror inducing performance theater centrally directed at the highest levels of government.

There is something about this photo that only struck me the second time I looked at it. The photo has no context whatsoever. Who is directing the woman to pour the soft drink, water, coffee or whatever was in the paper cup into the trash can? Is this a reutine occurance? Is everyone doing it? Why bother separating the cup from its liquid? Why doesn't the woman throw the cup into the trash can liquid and all, as most people reflexively do in such circumstances?

At the risk of being too speculative, allow me to offer a theory. Because if she threw the cup into the bin, it wouldn't make a very good photo. Only by a prolonged pouring does the woman become photogenic. The action of tossing something into a bin isn't easy to capture on camera, and so doesn't illustrate or narrate a story. There are no gaurds in the frame directing her to do this, because noone in security is directing this action. Assuming that this is in fact a paper cup or similar container, and not something valuable (like a travel mug) she's trying preserve (see above), then the most likely reason she's pouring and not tossing is that the person holding the camera asked her to do it.

Thus, in a certain since, this may well be performance theater, but not at all the kind that Andy L thinks it is.

But all that said, just think - we are arguing about a nefarious plot to control the most powerful nation on the planet, which is uncovered by a picture that shows how a beverage is disposed of. If that isn't telling evidence, I don't know what your definition of telling evidence is.

Beard and Andy are being disingenuous at best. Dems ask where is Osama but don't like the answer (protected in Pakistan, it would require WAR with that nation to get him). I'm fine with War to get him. But even Joe Biden shied away from that; his backers did not want to deal with the reality (that Osama is protected in Pakistan and War is required to get him).

Thus they suggest appeasement and groveling, removing Israel as a nation by force (as suggested on Kos); etc.

We tried the Law Enforcement PC-idiocy way and it failed. It failed on 9/11 spectacularly.

GWB to his credit has attempted to stave off what writers, thinkers, and various security people have predicted since the 1970's ... a nuke in an American City; followed by massive strategic retaliation at well known enemy nations such as Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. Mixed with vigilantism on a continental scale.

This is the real threat against which even 9/11 pales. Losing several million US citizens in a nuclear attack and around 140 Million enemy Muslim civilians in the inevitable strategic nuclear response (if you don't wipe out a nation responsible you'll get hit again; the awful consequence of nuclear weapons).

To this Leftists, Liberals, and the rest of the art crowd have nothing but pretending real hard. Pretending that nuclear weapons exist in some sort of magic box that prevents Ahmadinejad for example from giving it to Hezbollah to strike the Great Satan as well as the little one (no question the Left would celebrate say the nuking of Tel Aviv with great satisfaction since Kos diarists on the home page view it as the source of the world's misery ).

There are alternatives, to GWB's mission of "democratic transformation" with some but not all increased state anti-terrorism powers, but Dems don't propose them: isolationism and exclusion of all Muslims from entry into the nation, surveillance of every Mosque particularly those linked to hate speech and terrorist fundraising which is most of them, religious profiling, greatly expanded police powers, permanent detention ala Gitmo for all terrorists caught abroad or at home (for that matter). And plenty of drugs and other methods to extract information about terror plots.

This is ugly (which is why Libs/Leftists don't like it) but it has the prospect of working; and not engaging the US in wars abroad nor the loss of our soldiers. It's been proven to work for say Leftist hero Fidel Castro. Unleashing the Secret Police on terrorists works, but then you have the Secret Police.

The other alternative is simply "rubble doesn't make trouble" ala Derbyshire and simply conventional bomb any threatening society into Japan or Germany 1945. That also avoids ground wars and has the prospect of working. It's also ugly but it's a genuine alternative to GWB (and likely a winner politically).

What Libs are proposing is apologizing for "making Muslims mad" and groveling, and endless series of appeasements ending up with handing over every nation in the world (as Muslims demand) to Sharia law. Spain, England, the US etc. It's not a serious approach but head in the sand.

The danger in this approach is that when governments cede any responsibility for public safety people create voluntary associations (otherwise known as vigilantes) and solve the problem on their own. Muslim assaults on Sydney beach-goers including the iconic Lifeguards resulted in "surfie" mobs arranging a show-down with the Muslim sharia gangs and generalized tribal warfare; and the total loss of confidence in the PC-driven regional government to suppress the Muslim sharia mobs which caused the problem in the first place.

[Nothing Beard says speaks to the danger of Ahmadinejad's desire to bring about the 12th Imam's return by nuking America and/or Israel. It reeks of "we can do business with Mr. Hitler."]

#9 Beard says,

Jeff Medcalf [#6] asks how the GWoT should have been fought. That's a reasonable question, and worthy of extensive discussion by a group of smart people. However, this question is often used to shut off discussion, because of course it's extremely difficult, and initial proposals will need to be debugged. This question should start the discussion.

Well righties have been asking lefties this question for a number of years. (here comes the snark) Beard admits he is not smart enough to figure this out and since the opposition has had a few years to come up with an answer and they still have none, we must conclude that the ooposition is dumber than Bush. Because at least, however faulty, he has a plan. And it appears to be getting some results. i.e. Taking down Saddam convinced Libya to change sides.

The Left, Dumber than Bush. It has a ring.

It would seem the Rs are already running under that slogan and getting traction.

I might note when the figure 65% dissatisfied with the war is bandied about that doesn't mean 65% support for cut and run. Some (maybe a lot) want more battles and more progress. The "faster please" crowd.

Remember when the Ds went cut and run in '68 and the repellant Nixon won in a landslide.

And by a bigger margin in '72.

#9 Beard says,

Jeff Medcalf [#6] asks how the GWoT should have been fought. That's a reasonable question, and worthy of extensive discussion by a group of smart people. However, this question is often used to shut off discussion, because of course it's extremely difficult, and initial proposals will need to be debugged. This question should start the discussion.

Well righties have been asking lefties this question for a number of years. (here comes the snark) Beard admits he is not smart enough to figure this out and since the opposition has had a few years to come up with an answer and they still have none, we must conclude that the ooposition is dumber than Bush. Because at least, however faulty, he has a plan. And it appears to be getting some results. i.e. Taking down Saddam convinced Libya to change sides.

The Left, Dumber than Bush. It has a ring.

It would seem the Rs are already running under that slogan and getting traction.

I might note when the figure 65% dissatisfied with the war is bandied about that doesn't mean 65% support for cut and run. Some (maybe a lot) want more battles and more progress. The "faster please" crowd.

Remember when the Ds went cut and run in '68 and the repellant Nixon won in a landslide?

And by a bigger margin in '72.

Beard:

"To pick a historical example, if our commanders had said, "As soon as Baghdad falls, employ everyone in the Iraqi army below the rank of colonel, and assign them the task of ensuring law and order in the streets of Iraq", things would have been very different there. Those commanders would not have had to specify precisely how to ensure law and order, and exactly what sort of supervision to provide, and how to make sure that the Iraqis followed orders, and so on. Those are tactical decisions that lower-level commanders make to implement higher-level strategic orders."

Once again, this is not a plan - its criticism. Moreover, it is criticism based on profound ignorance.

How many valid reasons why this plan would not work would I have to list before you'd change your mind? Five? Ten? Twenty? Give me a target. What standard of proof do you require to change your mind?

Look, 9/11 was scary, epecially for New Yorkers (I had loved ones very close by who witnessed Tower 1 collapsing). But there are greater existential threats to Americans than terrorism, even though it is worth paying attention to OF COURSE.

I don't understand a statement like this in anything other than a psychoanalytic sense. I don't, for instance, understand how one can jump from an acknowledgment that Jihadist Terrorism is an existencial threat, to the acknowledgment that it's OK to "pay attention" to it. It seems to imply that paying attention to an existential threat might be as far as we need to go to address it, like road maintenance or something. It's like acknowledging that one might need to pay attention to that guy holding a gun to your temple, but that nodding "Hi" to the fellow, might be the maximum response required... after which one can just finish one's Big Mac.

Is there a coherent response to this state of mind? It's not that it's such an unforgivable or unpardonable offense. Instead, it's like repeatedly attempting to slam the gear shifter home when you know the clutch is gone. A better idea might be to pull off the road for a few repairs.

Welcome to the looking-glass, gentlemen, where up is and down and left is right... wrong is right and right is wrong...

There are no absolutes and all is relative, except what becomes absolute in a relative situation...

If one and one is three, and two and one is three, then one equals two. So if the pope and I are two, the pope and I are also one. I'm the pope!

Do you know what the secret is? I'll tell you. Pay me 500 bucks and I'll tell you the secret. Ah heck, I'm tired of waiting, so I'll just give it to you for free. The secret is, There is no secret.

Yep, no secret. Some stuff is harder to find than others, but the secret is that nothing is really secret. There's no special knowledge. Expertise and mastery account for a lot, but they're not secret knowledge. They're collected knowledge that is freely available.

So look, you can be fine with your conspiracies and theories about the evils of the Man, whilst I enjoy the cookout I'm about to go to with old college friends.

I might get a parking ticket, (probably will) but I know that in advance. So, I guess I could do something about it. Or I could run over there in a hurry, get the ticket, and shout about how the college parking department only wants our money. Conspiracy!

Well, they do want our money. But its no conspiracy. Who doesn't want your money? Geez.

---

The overarching point is, conspiracies are childish ways to avoid coming up with real solutions that might challenge your worldview. Conspiracies in fact have mostly no place in a mature discussion at all. I don't want to be insulting, I instead intend to make a point with my pointed words.

Take it as you will-- I know that all people are capable of understanding.

Later dawgs.

"I have no idea what the composition of the liquid bombs would have been, but chances are pouring whatever those liquids were into a couple of gallons of water would radically reduce the explosive potential."

I'm not a real chemist, but I do know that nitroglycerin stablizes when diluted to 75% strength by the addition of an inert substance. In for example, heart medication, I believe the inert substance of choice is sugar water. Since the sugar is often lactose, milk would probably work just fine.

Nitroglycerin would separate from water over time (though I'm not sure about sugar water, which I suspect would keep it in suspension), but as long as the container relative to the ammount of fluid is big you are more to have a fire than a dangerous explosion.

Celebrin #46

I debated debated this very issue before, and the person who held Beard's position found this document that convinced him that there was no Iraqi Army organization that remained to be utilized or demobilized.

(The only instance I have ever seen of someone actually changing their mind in an internet debate...)

In any case, since the post-bellum operational status of the Iraqi Army played no part in the 9/11 attacks, I am doubtful that it played a major role in reducing or enhancing the threat seen by John Q. Public due to jihad, but I'd consider an argument linking the two.

SG: The 'we shouldn't have disbanded the Iraqi' army meme is my 'you've swallowed the koolaid' touchstone, because it is an argument which is absurd on the face of it and absurd in detail. Better yet, the more you know, the more absurd that it gets. I wasn't kidding about being able to come up with twenty reasons why it would have been unworkable and/or fraught with difficulty.

#38 Mark Poling asks what explosive they were planning to use. Reports are it was triacetone triperoxide ((TATP) which is manufactured by mixing acetone (fingernail polish remover) with hydrogen peroxide (oxygen bleach) in the presence of a strong acid. (And no, I am not telling any terrorists something they don't know- the recipe for what is called "Mother of Satan" is all over the internet). I thought it had to be dried before it was explosive, but perhaps the terrorists know more about it than I. One reason they like TATP is that it is not nitrogen-based and therefore can be missed by some explosives detectors.

Of course it would be illegal to take any significant quanitity of these chemicals on an aircraft even by current rules covering corrosives and flammables, but whatever.

Iraqi army disbanded itself. Read Cobra II. The real mistake, if you are looking for something to rail on, is that the Rummy and his people planned on an intact police and bureaucratic structure to run the country, but they disbanded as well. That would be forgiveable but they never came up with a Plan B, handed responsibility to Bremer who promptly short-circuted everything Garner and the military on the ground had cooking, and centralized all the decisions into his own hands, decisions he simply ignored. Garner was on his way to a rather pragmatic solution, simply working with whoever had a clue what they were doing. Bremer put an end to all that with his debaathification obsession and decided the only thing he was worried about was writing a constitution, infastructure be hanged. That critical period was lost and Rumsfeld and Bush are ultimately responsible for not providing any oversite of a flawed policy. Bremer was a disaster but the people that left him there are the culprits.

The only thing we have to fear is ourselves

It's worked well for us for many years.

And I certainly hope no one would argue with this.

But I'm guessing most will.

#41 Beard,

Sure the Iraqi police and Army knew how to keep law and order in Saddam's Iraq.

And that was the problem with using them.

We did not wish to recreate Saddam's Iraq.

Next.

But I do get Beard's point. We ought to know in advance the consequences of every decision and thus never make any mistakes.

That is not policy.

It is fantasy.

Good. The Rs will need all the help they can get in Nov. I must say the Ds are doing a very good job of giving them that help.

celebrim;

I think you're operating under the false assumption that you can win this argument by attacking the credibility or meaning of the photo I linked to above.

If this single instance were the only evidence of the futility of the Bush Administrations approach to national security, you would certainly be winning this argument.

But since that is clearly not the case, perhaps its time to flip ahead to Chapter 2 in the Republican Party Official Propoganda Manual.

Can you see how it might make some (or perhaps most now) American's angry that their leaders 1) do little or nothing of substance to actually try to keep the populace safe from terrorist attacks and/or better prepare for responding when they do occur (e.g., how're the Repubs doing on implementing the 9/11 Commission's improvements? How's FEMA these days? Hope those Amish popcorn factories are safe.), and 2) take every opportunity to politicize terrorist threats to gain an advantage over Democrats by falsely portraying any opponents of their doomed policies as "pro-terrorist"?

If not then our conversation is over.

Bremer was brought in because of the media driven myth of Rumsfeld and Central Command's supposed incompetence. Bremer was State's representative.

Now people blame Rumsfeld and the DoD for much of State's conduct. This was always Colin Powell's chief skill - laying off his errors onto others.

Just how anonymous do you think you are after having published your friend's letter? Hm... what if he reads it here? Your cover will be blown -- that's one. And also, publishing private letters, not so nice, huh.

So, honestly now: did you compose this 'letter from a friend' yourself as a pretext for your commentary ?

Whatever the case may be, that's what everyone will think, you can be sure of that.

Bremer was brought in because of the media driven myth of Rumsfeld and Central Command's supposed incompetence. Bremer was State's representative.

Appointed by the president and reporting directly to Donald Rumsfeld.

Yeah, it's obviously all Powell's fault.

Andy L:

Do the SWIFT tracking and NSA overseas taps (both of which were reportedly used in uncovering the current plot) count as something of substance meant to prevent terrorist attacks?

I just can't get worked up over politicians being political. It definitional. Dems do it, Reps do it. It's the way the system works.

Clearly your're emotionally invested in the thesis that everything the Bush administration does is either incompetent or machiavellian (or somehow both simultaneously - I wish someone could explain that one to me), and you're not going to be convinced otherwise.

Look, there's lots of good faith reasons to criticize the Bush administration. But that they've responded to a near-operational plan to smuggle liquid explosives on numerous planes by not letting liquids onto planes is not one of them.

I'm sure; absolutely, positively, beyond a shadow of a doubt positive that if liquids were being allowed on planes and a plane was brought down with it you (and Keith Olbermann) would be shouting from the rooftops about how incompetent the adminstration is in allowing passengers to bring liquids on a plane when we know that jihadis are using liquids as a vector for explosives.

And in that case, you know what? You'd be right. Until there's a mechanism for closing this threat, the safe thing is to disallow it.

So let me ask you, given the current facts, how would a good administration have responded?

So Andy L, I ask again: what's your position on the SWIFT monitoring program? Incoming international call log analysis?

Take measures to protect flights, it's political theater fear mongering. Try to use covert programs to detect terror networks, it's creation of a police state. Attempt to change or subvert terrorist-sponsoring governments, and it's war-mongering.

You've created a perfect system. But I'm wondering how long you can keep eating your own tail before something starts to crack.

So, honestly now: did you compose this 'letter from a friend' yourself as a pretext for your commentary?
Whatever the case may be, that's what everyone will think, you can be sure of that.

For the record, I believe Cicero and I doubt that I�m the only one.

"I think you're operating under the false assumption that you can win this argument by attacking the credibility or meaning of the photo I linked to above."

LOL.

No, I am operating under the belief that assertions do or do not have merit irrespective of whatever else is true. You are here apply an argument that even though the photo in question and the assertion you make about it may be wrong, that its nevertheless justified in light of other things. This argued is called 'fake but accurate'. This methodology is applied by people like Michael Moore when they are convinced thier thesis is correct, but they don't have any facts to support but feel - on the basis of their defence of 'truth' - that they are free to make up the evidence in support of it.

What I see is you 'cutting and running' from the subject at hand, which is the ideas in post #14, to segue into a different topic where you hope you won't be made to look quite so much the fool. I take the fact that you've decided to change topics that not only am I winning the argument, but that I have won the argument.

Why in the world would I want to chasing you from one topic to the next, while you keeping bobbing, weaving, and evading? Why would I want to continue a debate with an individual who begins with his rather ludicrous assumptions, and then procedes to try to hammer and twist the facts to fit his thesis? If this conversation is over, what loss is that to me?

"If this single instance were the only evidence of the futility of the Bush Administrations approach to national security, you would certainly be winning this argument."

It's a freaking paper cup. Yeah, I think so. The reason I would continue to win this argument even if I was willing to chase you in circles, is that this single instance of the 'paper cup conspiracy' (or plastic or styrofoam or whatever that drink cup is) is pretty darn typical of the seriousness of your thinking.

In Olbermann's case, his whole line of argument falls apart when he reveals that the event which triggered all this was the terrorists in question buying airline tickets, and that the explosive could be produced from ordinary ingredients, and that the plan was technically feasible. And its not like they needed a sophisticated plan. Simple and stupid works, as we found out on 9/11. It would then seem now is a reasonable time to drop the shoe. What do you want? Jack Bauer to save the day in the last 24 hours?

Here's a typical example of Olbermann style 'proof' and 'evidence':

"The president had the details from London no later than Sunday, so when Republican Committee Chair Ken Mehlman and Vice President Dick Cheney eviscerated Connecticut Democrats for choosing Ned Lamont over Senator Joe Lieberman and brought al Qaeda into the equation they, at minimum, knew a terror act would be breaking shortly."

First, this is total speculation presented without a shred of evidence. It's just naked innuendo. It's not the evidence which is intended to be compelling, but rather the seriousness of the charge. Where have we heard that before? Secondly, would Cheney and Mehlman have 'eviscerated' Connecticut Democrats for ousting Joe Lieberman even if they didn't know a terror act would be breaking shortly? Of course they would have. As far as Olbermann is concerned, no matter what happens, it is evidence of the same thing.

Davebo,
Again, I see you are putting words is others' mouth.

"Bremer's office was a division of the United States Department of Defense, and as Administrator he reported directly to the United States Secretary of Defense and the President of the United States."

wiki

As to Cicero's friend and anonymity, I'm Cicero has reason to believe his friend isn't addicted to blog reading/commenting/trolling (unlike some of us).

Another nice attempt to change the subject though....

SPQR

I get the feeling you see that in your dreams too!

But forget all about it when you wake up apparantly since you never attempt to provide an example.

But I don't blame you for ignoring the link. It's pretty scary eh? If you'd join the others here in ignoring it silently that would be fine.

At some point shooting fish in their self-imposed barrel will get boring. Until then...

I hereby assert that Davebo is an idiot. Given the comments on this thread, I certainly hope that no one would argue with this. But I'm guessing some will.

Now that we've all had our fun with arguments by assertion, can we move on to some more interesting logical fallacies?

"But I don't blame you for ignoring the link. It's pretty scary eh?"

Huh? I got to admit the logic of that escapes me.

Are you sure we are talking about the same link?

For years, I've been arguing with liberals that most Americans aren't in fact 'frightened' by terrorism, that most people aren't acting out of 'fear', and that the administration is not in fact trying to 'scare' anyone.

Now you present a link in which someone admits that he isn't scared, and this is supposed to be evidence of what? This is supposed to be scary, how?

I don't get it. The best stab I can make at it is that you've been swallowing your own propaganda about how the 'right' is being motivated by fear, and the only reason that the left loses elections is the 'tactics of fear'. But no one on the right has ever argued that. You seem to be patting yourself on the back for convincing yourself of something, and then patting yourself on the back for 'not being taken in', or something, despite the fact that all the talk of fear seemed to come from the left...so maybe they were the only ones afraid to begin with?!?!?

Like I said, I don't get it.

"If you'd join the others here in ignoring it silently that would be fine."

I wasn't ignoring it, I just didn't find it all that interesting. The guys not afraid. Great. Join the rest of us.

I don't get it. The best stab I can make at it is that you've been swallowing your own propaganda about how the 'right' is being motivated by fear, and the only reason that the left loses elections is the 'tactics of fear'. But no one on the right has ever argued that.

I'm not saying that anyone on the right is arguing that, I'm saying that major players on the right are using fear for political purposes. And it's not just major players either, bloggers on the right love it (are you listening Trent and Joe?).

If you'd care for some examples I'd be happy to oblige.

Unbeliever, I have no idea what comment you are referring to, and like SPQR you don't seem capable of providing the evidence, so what was that about logical fallacies again?

So Andy L.'s arguments are reduced to liquids in a barrel.

And that is, you know, big picture policy?

Where I come from that would be refered to as pissing in the soup.

At least Beard, how ever inadequately, is discussing the big picture. Andy is reduced to deciding where to direct the fire hose.

News flash. You win elections on how to prevent the next fire not where to direct the fire hose on the last one.

In engineering we have a plan. We carry out the plan until unforseen problems become so severe that it becomes obvious that soon there will be no forward progress.

Then it is time for the recovery plan.

Rinse, repeat.

There is usually a good possibility that the original plan is inadequate. The good engineering teams are good at recovery.

In fact recovery plans were my specialty. I got paid the big bucks and was given a LOT of slack because I could do recovery plans that saved the company millions. And my recovery plans usually came in much faster than required (without me working up a sweat) and under or way under budget.

So the question is not how Iraq was screwed up. That was inevitable with human factors and opposition. The question is: is the recovery plan working? Does it need tweeks or a clear sheet of paper?

So far I think (given the history of other wars) things are not doing too badly.

Compared to perfection things really suck. But that is true of all wars. That is why they are not called festivals.

Sure Davebo,

We have nothing to fear. I'm sure the Ds will get lots of votes with that story.

Psychologically humans are driven more by fear than hope.

You don't win elections by telling them their fears are imaginary. You tell them your plan for reducing the risks.

Davebo,
You attempted to put into my mouth that I was claiming that it was "all" Powell's fault. I did not say that.

The fact that Bremer's office as Iraq administrator reported to the DoD does not refute my statement that he was represen