Redstate

of today's situation and the havoc the left is perhaps unwittingly trying to wreak.

The failing of the right has been to allow the President to face attacks without high profile protection.  Although the President himself may have been lax in his own defense, his advisors should have helped him to see the necessity for self defense.  They should have hired a Lannie Davis, a Susan Estrich, a James Carvell to appear nightly on TV to eloquently explain why our present course is the only possible one to follow.  Bill Clinton never had to personally defend himself; we should have been smart enough to follow his example.

Meanwhile, on the leftist front, Democrat activists have decided that the enemy is not the Islamist fanatics, but the Republicans, and their willing accomplices in the MSM are doing their best to convince the non-aligned public that the Democrats are right.

you said

I tremble to think what our response will be when we are attacked in a manner that will draw forth the full wrath of America's military power.

well, better that than the proverbial lobster placed in luke warm water and gradually boiled to death

given our weakened state as a people

although I do think we the people are stronger than the spineless senate

a massive attack may be all that will arouse us

to do what it takes to win

This is really a great diary. I feel exactly the same way.  How much will we have to suffer before we wake up and realize that even now we have no choice but to fight for our lives?  What we're having to go through in Iraq may end up looking minor compared to what we may eventually have to endure.  Your words are words of wisdom.  

I wrote this a month or so back when Sheehan was still in the limelight, it just seemed more relevant now with the recent comments from the leader of Iran and the continuous racket of Democratic flipflopping.

Re: We have been attacked, thousands have died upon our own shores, and yet we lack the ability to comprehend the threat.

I have seen no evidence of this. In the aftermath of the 9-11 atrocity we immediately sought to bring those responsible to account and when the Taliban government of Aghanistan refused to render them up to us, we invaded that country, overthrew its rulers and brought ruin to our enemies. Yes, their leader is still at large, but by and large Al Qaida has been smashed and is on the run.

As for our larger efforts, are you seriously suggesting that the political leadership of this country ought be immune from criticism, especially if they are mismanaging this struggle? That is not how I understand the relationship between the citizens and their elected leaders.

Your analysis made me think of JFK's undergrad thesis, "Why England Slept." Not because the arguments are similar, but because the question needs to be asked at all.

A great deal has changed in America's culture in the 64 years since Pearl Harbor. That event galvanized our grandparents into war, and silenced overnight the many principled antiwar voices on both the Left and the Right. The images of the surprise attack, which was both desperate and well-planned, became iconic and are so to this day, memorialized in innumerable movies, filmstrips, books and magazines. It was obvious to all what America's response should be.

But the images of 9/11 have been flushed down the memory hole. As a New Yorker, I personally watched the towers burn and fall and I can never forget. But the people who create our media and cultural artifacts are determined that our children and grandchildren will not ever know what it was all about. And yet 9/11 was a desperate, well-planned attack on innocent noncombatants, and resulting in nearly three times the loss of life as Pearl Harbor. There has obviously been a great change in what Americans think is worth fighting for, if indeed anything at all is.

I love to read old magazines and books that were printed in the Thirties and Forties. Even the advertising is full of talk of freedom, and of protecting with our lives the unique blessings of being Americans. This I think is the nexus of what has changed. To speak of freedom and economic blessings in our day sounds quaint; to speak of patriotism now sounds jingoistic and embarrasses many well-educated people.

BooBooKitty, I venture to suggest that this indifference to our blessings, secured with blood by generations of our forbears, is what you are arguing we need to change. And I further suggest that the chances of this are not good. What can we do to improve the odds?

Now a somewhat different point: Many have suggested that America does have enough anger and resolve way down deep to defeat any foe, but it just takes an awful lot of goading to bring it out. I think this is part of what gamecock is saying. So what will it take? Even if someone manages to hit the mother of all grand-slam homeruns and, for example, detonates a nuclear weapon that kills 100,000 Americans and wipes out much of a city like Washington or midtown Manhattan, then what will we do? I still doubt we will mount an energetic response, for at least two reasons: first, we will still have the problem of not having an identifiable nation-state responsible for the attack that we can go annihilate. It won't be possible to solve the problem that way. And second, President Clinton or whoever is in office at that time will encourage to turn inward and heal our own wounds rather than lash out at some enemy, whose legitimate grievances we instead will want to understand and sympathize with.

I know part of your argument is that a state sponsor will emerge to publicly mount the next stage of the war against us, and that our situation does resemble the mid-Thirties. I don't quite accept this because in a nuclear age, war really is very different. One of the most interesting lessons of the American Civil War was that democracies, far from being loath to fight with trading partners, in fact fight the most bitter and protracted wars. And this is quite particularly because the leaders of democracies need to engage the hearts and minds of the people in the war effort. Defeat is a national nightmare and is utterly unthinkable. As a result, wars involving large democracies tend to be fought to the death. In the absence of nuclear weapons, this means long, senseless and monumentally bloody engagements. There is historical evidence that these insights were known to the Europe's leaders in August 1914, but were ignored (to them after all, America was semicivilized bandit country on the other side of the world).

I don't think any American leadership of the imaginable future will have the ability to rally this kind of effort. Our coming confrontation with China in particular will be waged by them with blackmail rather than with weapons. We will lose this future war and consider ourselves to have won it.

As for our larger efforts, are you seriously suggesting that the political leadership of this country ought be immune from criticism, especially if they are mismanaging this struggle? That is not how I understand the relationship between the citizens and their elected leaders.

Nowhere did I suggest seriously or in jest that the leadership of this country be immune from criticism.  I suggested that the protestors and political opportunists should hope they dont get what they are clamoring for because of the potential dire consequences.  

lobsters can't climb out of the pot anyway.  But other than that, good point. ;-)

Re: But the images of 9/11 have been flushed down the memory hole.

All the handwringing here ignores the simple fact that we went to war with those responsible for 9-11. And quite successfully for the most part. Yes, bin Laden is still at large, and some of his henchmen continue to plot and scheme, but on the whole we've done about 4/5 of what was needed. And something that no one seems to notuce, neither the critics nor the apologists: there have been no terror attacks on US soil in over three years. Why aren't we acknowledging this success?

We did go to war against those responsible for 9/11, but if we had had different people in power, I for one strongly doubt that we would have done so. Just ask yourself what a President Gore would have done.

It didn't become clear to most people until three months or so after 9/11 that we actually had mounted a large military operation in Afghanistan. There were stories and rumors of course, and the Administration kept promising a response. Many of the news stories in those first weeks, as I vividly recall, were about the tepidness of our response. But the Administration and our military kept their discipline and avoided leaking information. They were smart enough to know what would happen if they publicized all their activity until it bore fruit!

If you think I'm unjustly accusing Gore for not properly responding to a crisis he never had the chance to respond to, all I will say is this: three months after 9/11, when it finally became clear that our military was fully engaged in Afghanistan, I saw this graffiti on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, of all places:

Bush baby-killer, withdraw from Afghanistan NOW!

That tells me that a great many Americans have lost a healthy sense of what is worth fighting for and what is not. And that's why our future is at risk.

I see no reason to think that a President Gore wouldn't have attacked Afghanistan.  He voted for the first Gulf War and was part of an administration that wasn't shy about exercising at least limited military action.  I don't think he'd have invaded Iraq, though. Here's a speech of his from 2002 that essentially says so, despite its otherwise hawkish tone.

One ninny scrawling on a wall does not a movement make, and the clear link between Afghanistan and 9/11 has meant that that war, responsive rather than preemptive, has produced far less protest than that in Iraq.  

illegal arab-muslim illegals in the us many on expired visas

dems are too pc

and that ashcroft heroic act after Bush told him not to let anoither 911 happen again is one of THE main reasons we have not been attacked again

that and the arrests of cells over the last 4 yrs many with intell from afghan and iraq and even degrading and cruel treatment at gitmo

the war in iraq prevents attcaks yrs from now

we may not be able to stop attcaks in the works by cell we havent gotten

i doubt gore would have taken out the taliban

and without rummy, whose ideas have shown to be the way and not the way the ussr did it

although the cia guy was a major planner as well

Our crisis isn't in the Middle East. Our crisis is the narrow-minded culture right here in the US, and this crisis left unchecked will prove to be far more deadly than any terrorist act that can be imagined. We have been attacked, thousands have died upon our own shores, and yet we lack the ability to comprehend the threat. We are much more willing to attack our own government instead of the immediate threat that faces us.

Nargin, I submit that your attitude is part of what BooBooKitty is talking about. I obviously don't mean that as an ad hominem, because  the attitude is widely shared.  Clinton would certainly have taken action in Afghanistan: I can easily envision a significant number of cruise missiles fired from a far-off warship over the course of many minutes, followed by a press conference,  an overnight public-opinion poll, and a Security Council resolution condemning the Taliban for their unconstructive attitudes. No one knows what a CinC Gore would have done, but my guess would be: all of the above, minus the polling and the UN activity. But this is all counterfactual history. Clinton was indeed perfectly ready to commit our military around the globe, but never in a million years would he commit us to anything remotely challenging or painful (or for that matter, really worth doing in terms of America's key interests).

The OP, and my long response to it upthread, are perfect examples of what in peacetime is often called warmongering. Dark mutterings replete with profanity and the word "Cassandra" are also common responses. You've responded to my points by simple denial rather than refutation. I think many people, reasonable and continent like yourself, would agree with you. As in Vietnam, we are winning the war on the ground but may lose it  in the hearts and minds of Americans. All of this gives me still more reason to fear that the pacification of Iraq will be America's last major military victory.

I do think that many of our actions around the world since 9/11 have had a significant impact on reducing the threat to America from terrorism. Put me on the record there, nolo contendre. Our efforts to shut down financing, patrol pockets of anarchy, work with foreign intelligence services, and keep Al Qaeda and its minions on the run have been very effective, and I have no doubt that they've likely spared us from further devastating attacks.

That said...I don't include the war in Iraq with those efforts. I'm very concerned that the longer this war festers, the greater the diaspora of trained, battle-hardened jihadi will be that subsequently goes forth around the world to continue their fight. This happened after the Soviet debacle and led to the establishment of Al Qaeda. The longer you fight an enemy without killing him, the more you simply train him. So I think it's quite possible that the result of the Iraq invasion could be a net increase in world terrorist attacks.

The longer you fight an enemy without killing him...

We are killing them. Zarqawi (and his friends) will keep sending us more to kill until something convinces him that we won't stop killing them. He knows he can't win on the battlefield, but he does know he can win if we lose heart. If only the Americans who want us to give up the fight would just shut their mouths, Zarqawi would realize he doesn't have a chance, and the insurgency would deflate overnight.

pre-911 book on Bin Laden as well as Bernard lewis's pre-911 "what went wrong?"

would you have thought on 9-10 that we faced a risk of a 911 due to somalia retreat, leaving saddam in power after 1st war and even after defiance for 9 years and tepid responses to bin ladens 90s attcaks?

I have just listed all the factors that led to bin ladens paper tiger verdict on the us that made him think he could beat us with the already substantial diaspora trained fighters in afghanistan where we had not fired one bullet

weakness invites agaggression

like the weakness of allowing saddam to defy us

you make good points but I think you discount the results of inacation and the deterant value of the war

we are not the ussr

the afghans and most iraqis love us for removing the despots

I may send you some links to some writers that make these points better than i and i would commend lewis and bodansky to you

good discussion bro

I don't disagree with the OP out of ignorance. I think I understand the threat reasonably well. I disagree with it because, like many of the President's comments on the war in Iraq, it conflates the battle there with the lives lost in 9/11.

You can make a credible argument that now that we've attacked Iraq and produced swathes of anarchy in which Al Qaeda-affiliated terrorists are operating, the battle with that enemy is now joined in Iraq. If that's the point of the OP, then I'll entertain that notion, though it'd be easier to take with frank admission of how we've gotten to this point.

Millions of Americans have objected to the Iraq war and its conduct not simply out of ignorance of the threat or knee-jerk pacifism, but out of a better understanding of that threat than the President has displayed. Iraq as a threat was below that of lots of other places. Let's review the short list:

• Iran, which was/is developing nukes, seeks to export violent theocracy, and explicitly seeks the destruction of America and Israel
• Pakistan, which hosts Al Qaedi and Taliban forces in its anarchic frontier region, consorts with them through its military and intelligence agencies, and has demonstrated and proliferated nuclear capability
• Syria, which is a well-documented host to terrorists, fellow traveller with Iran, and has its own WMD arsenal
• Saudi Arabia, home of bin Laden and many of the 9/11 hijackers and financial hub of Wahhabi extremism

And none of these are democracies, either. Heck, even our NATO ally Turkey had more terrorists on its soil in 2003 than Iraq, in the form of the PKK Kurdish terrorists operating in the southeast of the country.  And yet with this sort of rogue's gallery to pick from, the President chose Iraq as the greatest threat, stretching the supporting intel well past the point of crediblity to elevate its position on the list. It defies rational thought and passionate objection is inevitable, especially when being embroiled in Iraq leaves us far less capable of dealing with these other ticking bombs.

As for Clinton and a hypothetical CinC Gore...as you said, it's only speculation, but I have trouble believing that Clinton wouldn't have put boots on the ground in Afghanistan after a 9/11-scale attack. And from all my reading of Gore's positions on military and foreign policy matters, I've little doubt he'd have done the same.

You and everyone who agrees with you keep your mouth shut and stop encouraging the enemy so we can win this war quickly and cheaply.

In return, I'll thoughtfully and considerately engage your arguments that we should have never started the war in the first place (I'll probably agree with most of them). But not till after we win.

order?

and Iraq harbours terrorists and, unlike Iran was in defiance opf a ceasefire, was shooting at us and had used wmd in the past and in 1995 was discovered to be 6 months from a nuke

Iraqs PUBLIC behavior justified the war

for the good of our freedom and security

as do classic liberals that care about oppressed people of the world that but for us would be under tyranny

all such libs seem to be conservatives now

you understand the danger of a US loss

god bless you patriot

keep on talkin'!

Millions of Americans have objected to the Iraq war and its conduct not simply out of ignorance of the threat or knee-jerk pacifism, but out of a better understanding of that threat than the President has displayed.

Well established by the above quote, it is this comfortable, insulated little world (sometimes referred to as a white tower) that Americans live in all the while being fed the MSM's version of a threat assessment that my OP is about.

Are we to assume that the majority of Americans understand the threat of enemy states and terrorism better than the President because Dan Rather, Chris Matthews, and others from the MSM have kept them informed of the real problems we face?  Are we also to blithely assume that unlike politicians, the protestors, and the MSM are unbiased and not working on their own agenda?

We have been attacked.  We have identified the enemy as terrorism and the culture of hate and death being fostered in the Middle East, yet we would rather fight among ourselves rather than face the real problems.  Our crisis will arrive when the terrorists strike again while we are bickering between ourselves, and they strike with such devastion that we will be forced to reply in kind.

We are fortunate to have a President that is more concerned about what is right for the country, instead of worrying about poll numbers or whether or not his actions will give ammunition to the political opposition.  I think George Bush and his admninistration understand that if we don't lend a hand to the Middle East by trying to spread the seed of democracy, hope, and freedom, that the region will eventually spawn an organization powerful enough to threaten the entire world.  Iraq is a starting point in this effort, it will by no means be the endpoint.  Have they tackled this problem without making mistakes?  Absolutely not.  Will they make more mistakes?  Absolutely.  

Will millions die if the terrorist or a rogue state led by Islamic fundamentalists are allowed to acquire WMD?

Absolutely.

Have the courage to face a difficulty lest it kick you harder than you bargain for.  Stanislaus

great post

you should hear my Yogi Bear impression

But the Germans sitting on it were.

I doubt he cares in the slightest how many we kill. He'll find more and keep spending them as cheaply as he pleases. And I'm unconvinced that American public opinion is his only target...not to mention that he's but one of many players in the insurgency.

I'll continue the free exercise of my rights, the whole point of this country existing. Our leadership has said that the larger war will likely last our whole lifetimes...are we then to remain forever silent, even if we object to its conduct?

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq... This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic. It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."  --President G. W. Bush.

The first thing he'd like to do is evict us from Iraq, if we can believe his words. The only known way to deal America a military defeat is to co-opt the American Left so that we defeat ourselves. Worked for Giap and Ho Chi Minh.

Now if were somehow magically to deny him that kind of a cheap victory, then he's going to face a big problem: the Shiites and Kurds in Iraq are starting to get awful tired of taking civilian casualties from him and all the other clowns like him. We're helping the Iraqi people to stand up to the bullies.

Well established by the above quote, it is this comfortable, insulated little world (sometimes referred to as a white tower) that Americans live in all the while being fed the MSM's version of a threat assessment that my OP is about.

Why do you presume that only out of ignorance would someone object to the war and its conduct?

We have been attacked.  We have identified the enemy as terrorism and the culture of hate and death being fostered in the Middle East, yet we would rather fight among ourselves rather than face the real problems.

That's because we don't seem to be able to agree on what the real problems are. I think our unsecured southern border with Mexico is a greater threat to our national security and potential conduit for terrorism than that of Iraq and Syria, yet we have our troops patrolling the latter and not the former. It's inevitable that we'll keep bickering until our government makes rational valuations to drive its risk management.

We may well face a nuclear attack in an American city one day.  And if it happens, I have every confidence that it'll likely be due to the efforts of Pakistan's A. Q. Khan, one of many targets from whom this war distracts us.

Guess what, folks: Islamic fundamentalists have nuclear weapons, and they're not in Iraq, and never were.

The diary and rejoinder downthread. I hope Blackhedd is being too pessimistic, but I share some of his concerns. Too many people, mostly in the West, have become used to instant gratification. I doubt that we could ever approach the determination and resolve demonstrated after Pearl Harbor.

Our only chance would come in the unlikely event of simultaneous attacks on the NY times building, Starbuck's Coffee houses and Ben & Jerry's ice cream shops. Only then would liberals come to realize that  their entire way of life was at stake. 3000 dead in N.Y. and 300,000 unmarked graves in Iraq have not made a lasting impression.

America is a place of infinite blessings, starting with our freedoms. Now it seems that everyone has their own way of prioritizing what is most important to them about America. You just showed me what is most important to you: your freedom of speech. That's a popular choice.

Here's what most important to me: I want America to remain forever strong and free, and never to fight another war, ever again, not in my lifetime, my children's lifetime, or my grandchildren's lifetime.

Now I know how you can exercise what is most important to you about America: just keep running your mouth. But there's a lot of debate about how to get what I want for America. You may differ, but according to history, the way to avoid fighting wars in a dangerous competitive world is to be ready, able, and willing to fight and win any confrontation that comes along. We're in a fight now for better or worse, and we have to win it, or else I guarantee you we'll have more war later. And that's what I want to prevent.

resulted in a firestorm of criticism, what makes you think that we would have been able to anything substantive as to Iran, A.Q. Khan or the Southern border. We have the means to deal with problems on the border, but there is simply no political will to deal with the problem.

The war in Iraq was justifiable on humanitarian concerns alone. On the Mexican border, there are calls for the creation of watering holes so the illegal aliens won't become dehydrated. Iraq is only a distraction from whistling past the graveyard. Activities in Iraq have had no adverse impact on anything that needed doing here. It will take a disaster bred from a lack of border security before anything is done about border security. Preemption is not permitted.

This is a war on terrorists, Islamic Fundamentalist, and the culture of hate and death they espouse... not a war on Iraq.  If we do not stop them where they flourish, we will never be able to fully insulate ourselves from attack.  The overall strategy of the US is to encourage the spread of democracy throughout the Mideast.  

In my opinion, we picked Iraq because his neighbors and the world were so scared of Sadaam that we knew we could get away with the invasion.  Did he still have WMD, who cares, because eventually the same people who are promising genocide will get them and use them.  Kudo's to the Bush administration if they actually knew Sadaam didn't possess WMD and they still had the fortitude to act in the region.

You are right about Khan and his proliferation of weapons technology, and there has been enough super power meddling in the region to make it an absolute that WMD will be attained or produced.  Hopefully our strategy will work and the entire region will become more interested in political infighting, making money, and what the Jones are up to instead of killing the infidels.  

The government has implemented a rational risk management policy, because if the isolated use of troops in the region and the spread of democracy doesn't work, fencing ourselves off from Mexico and Canada or tactful diplomacy will certainly not shield us from a devastating attack.  

So do we build super fences around our borders and concentrate on what party is in power while countries like Iran and Syria prepare to annihilate Israel and export terrorism?  Or do we at least attempt to take the path of least resistance before we have to fight a war with casualty rates figured in the millions instead of the thousands?

The threat is Islamo facism (not just al qaeda) and Iraq is one of the fields of battle.

The criticism is for the Americans who fail to conceive the threat and/or have not the will to fight to preserve the values we so take for granted.

Nobody is immune from criticism, not even the American people at large.

against all terrorists orgs and their nation state sponsors.  Iraq was named in the FIRST resolution passed by congress even before the separate Iraq war resolution.

And the answer to all the arguments now being made and which have been made against Bush for over 2 yrs now, were answered when Bush was re-elected.

As I say to the kids in the back seat every 3 miles on the way to the beach:

No, were not there yet.

We'd have preferred they hadn't been there. We'd have lost fewer people on the beach. It would have been nicer to have gotten a foothold without having to go through that.

The war in Iraq was justifiable on humanitarian concerns alone.

If that's sufficient reason, then my previous list just got longer by several dozen countries. We'd have to add Sudan, Zimbabwe, Myanmar, and...well, plenty more.

Was our intervention in Somalia good policy? It was justified solely on humanitarian concerns at the time. I don't ask out of any desire to be a smart aleck; I haven't decided for myself what's an appropriate threshold for such intervention. If it's our national responsiblity to do so, we certainly dropped the ball in Sudan in '04, Rwanda in '98, Bosnia in '95, Iraq in '91, and...well, that's another long, sad list.

Terrorism is and has been a broader concern than just Islamic fundamentalists. We've expended considerable efforts combating terrorism in places like Bogota and Belfast with no Islamic connection. Oklahoma City showed us that one of our own is quite content commit mass murder of Americans.

Kudo's to the Bush administration if they actually knew Sadaam didn't possess WMD and they still had the fortitude to act in the region.

Categorically no. More like quick impeachment and long prison sentences. If it ever emerges that such grand deceit occurred, our foreign relations will be virtually destroyed for a generation. Not to mention the Republican Party, which would be a shame.

I'll have to disagree with you based on the facts as perceived at the time.

Iraq was run by a ruthless tyrant and family with a manifesto against the USA. All the major intelligence agencies believed he had and wanted WMD. There was never going to be security as long as he or his ilk controlled Iraq. There was a definite possibility and some "dots" that suggested he might provide WMD capabilities to Islamo facists. We were a common enemy. He was in vilolation of UN sanctions. He was shooting at us in the no-fly zone. He was a mass murderer. Torturer. War monger. His operations in Iraq were beyond our ability to sufficeintly monitor.  THe risk was too great to leave him be. The opportunity to build democracy in Iraq could provide a major strike against Islamism and transform the Middle East. Our victory there will be a major blow against the Islamists...else why do they fight us so hard.  

So I disagree with nargin and agree with booboo. Its is hard now and opinion is against us. If and when we succeed, it will be a great gift we have given the world. The greatest threat to our success is loss of will.

But nargin, I am just repeating what President Bush has said, so I guess you have already rejected this version of the facts, because they do suggest to me that Iraq was a greater threat.

Iran at the time seemed to be reforming. Pakistan's leadership supporting, the Saudi's are subject to our political pressure. Syria was a problem, but really, worse than Iraq was? And we continue to deal with all threats, many of which don't require military intervention.

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/jonahgoldberg/2005/11/18/176196.htm
l

We pre-empt post 911.

Amen?

Not to spoil your announcement of my convictions, but I'd actually put The Rule of Law at the very top of the list. It renders possible all else on the long list of things I cherish about my country.

What you want for America is what America wants for America. But there will be more wars ahead, and it'll take more than guns to prevail. We also have to cultivate our friends, stay engaged in delivering our viewpoint to every corner of the world, strive to be a role model that others will admire and seek to emulate, pay our debts, and be number one in technology.

America's influence in the world doesn't just stem from our military might. It's founded primarily on our "soft power": our commerce, our laws, our pop culture, our technology, our faith, our universities, our literature...all the things that others admire, desire, and consume. America has brand equity, built over generations, like Coca-Cola or Sony. That equity is a pearl of great price, and we squander it at our peril.

payback from a world that loved us.

Weakness invites aggresion.\

Before we talk about all those other good things, let's finish the first point.

You started off stressing your own right to free speech. Now you've changed your focus to the Rule of Law. Unless I'm missing something, I surmise that you're stressing the importance of laws that prevent anyone else from curtailing your own right to dissent.

We've had this conversation many times before. I'm making a very, very narrow point: It's not a good thing for America when open dissent in wartime has the effect of encouraging our enemies. It directly causes the deaths of American servicemen and women, and it weakens us in the eyes of potential aggressors.

If you disagree with that, then you're doing one of two things: either you're elevating your own right to speak freely to a higher position than the lives and liberties of other Americans, or else you reject the clear lessons of history as they relate to geopolitics.

Either position would be worth a discussion. Which is it?

You may so disagree with the policies of the US in Iraq that you consider dissent in support of a change in our mission objectives to be a moral imperative. This would be equivalent to the anti-Vietnam position. In this case, you're willing to sacrifice the lives, liberty and economic benefits of other Americans and accept the consequences of military defeat, in favor of your moral objectives. This is a principled position which would earn you the respect of many and the opprobrium of many others. If this is how you feel, than I'd like to hear you say it in so many words.

Abject apologies to all for the double post. I realized this should have gone to nargin rather than to myself.

Nargin, you may so disagree with the policies of the US in Iraq that you consider dissent in support of a change in our mission objectives to be a moral imperative. This would be equivalent to the anti-Vietnam position. In this case, you're willing to sacrifice the lives, liberty and economic benefits of other Americans and accept the consequences of military defeat, in favor of your moral objectives. This is a principled position which would earn you the respect of many and the opprobrium of many others. If this is how you feel, than I'd like to hear you say it in so many words.

If we impeached any pol who violated a campaign promise, we'd quickly empty Washington and all fifty state capitols. Now, if FDR had gone on one of his fireside chats to tell America that the Japanese most certainly had a stockpile of kryptonite, and told our allies, and told someone who'd actually joined the League of Nations to tell them, and then attacked the Japanese first...then, yes, I'd say he should have been impeached. Though the country would have been preoccupied with riots in the streets given the division over isolation and the likely reaction to a preemptive attack.

The Japanese decided that we were an inevitable threat, however, and that preemption was their only sound choice. History doesn't judge the decision very charitably.

Nixon impeachment? Absoutely. Clinton? Yes...he lied to us, danced around it coyly, and needed a decisive rebuke. But not FDR.

You had the presumption to state, incorrectly, my convictions for me, so I paused to set the record straight.

And your narrow point is so narrow that it stuffs a lot more presumption into a box of false dichotomy and garnishes it with a red herring. I dispute the assumption that debating the conduct of the war inevitably leads to American lives lost. For example, I think it's plausible that press coverage and popular anger over the lack of availability of armor plating and armored humvees helped alert the brass to the problem and motivated them to correct it.

If it's based on sober examination of the fundamental indicators rather than what Zarqawi blew up on any given Tuesday, I see tremendous value in an open discussion of whether we're or not we're doing more harm than good there and what's the best way forward to a functioning, self-sufficient Iraqi democracy. I dare say I've no desire at all to see the Caliphate established in Baghdad. If we need to depart, so be it. If we're doing good work, making solid progress, and need to stay, again, so be it, though I'm skeptical that this is happening and intensely skeptical that we have enough troops to do the job effectively.

...what your convictions were. Do you want to retract or revise your statements about freedom of speech and the rule of law?

But fair enough. From this response, I'd say you basically agree with our mission in Iraq, but think we're screwing up the execution. (That seems at variance with your past statements, but what the heck.)

I can see a certain amount of good, and not a whole lot of harm, from public discussions about tactics and execution. Of course, if you are a senior Administration decisionmaker or a high-level military officer, then I'd say you have some good reasons to restrict your comments to nonpublic fora.

The real problem with open dissent that is simply aimed at a wholesale change in mission objectives is this: our enemies, both by their own statements and by common sense, are watching for signs of this dissent, and take it as encouragement that they can beat us by simply waiting for us to get tired of the fight. This isn't a lesson we want to be teaching them or anyone else. But I think you agree with me on that.

I would love to see a functioning democracy in Iraq. And I'd be ecstatic if it were to actually inspire the same in other countries. Whether it'll happen or it's been worth the cost...well, I certainly hope so, but have my doubts.

I initially supported the war and its conduct, with some reluctance, partly because Saddam's documented weapons stockpiles weren't accounted for, partly because my government told me that he intended to nuke us in short order, and partly because he was an absolute wretch who brutalized his people. I was very nervous about attacking preemptively and puzzled that Iraq was a greater threat than other countries, but crossed my fingers and hoped for the best. I feel my trust was betrayed.

What soured my opinion significantly was, first, that no WMD were in fact found as promised, and second, that post-conflict reconstruction seemed to involve a series of profound miscalculations and debacles indicating horrible planning.

The fact that no one in the administration and the CIA has been held accountable for the intelligence failures leading to the war infuriates me, and I (and millions of others) won't get past the issue and move on until someone is held accountable. I'd be at peace if either the President had the grace, like Johnson, not to seek a second term after a failure of this magnitude, or, failing that, both Cheney and Tenet accepted responsibility and resigned. One told us with a double helping of hyperbole and staggeringly little evidence that Saddam was about to possess nukes, and the other that the WMD case was a "slam dunk".

Then we disbanded the Iraqi army, failed to occupy and establish order in much of the country, comitted too few troops to the mission, and failed to anticipate a determined insurgency amongst an occupied people.

I am convinced in my heart that the administration, Cheney in particular, pushed for intel to support the invasion rather than based the invasion on balanced assessment of the intel.  The CIA didn't speak truth to power; rather, I believe power demanded its own truth, and they cravenly complied. Can I prove this analytically? Probably not...but it's my heartfelt impression, and I've seen nothing to dissuade me.

I am also convinced that too few troops were committed, costing us dearly in blood and treasure, and no correction was made because doing so would be admission of a mistake. We need more troops to hold the ground we take, we need more linguists, and most of all we need more explosives specialists. Heaven help our brass if they skimped on troops because that was the party line and they were minding their OPR's.

And I really don't think that the insurgency would quickly fizzle if we all put these issues aside and united in our determination to stay the course as is. Yes, I'm sure the Al Qaeda crew there has one eye on CNN to see how their atrocities play. But the larger insurgency, which is composed mostly of Iraqis, will keep fighting so long as we occupy their country for that very reason: we occupy their country. Much of the carnage is also not directed at us, but part of battles for control between Sunnis and Shia and Sunnis and Kurds in a smoldering civil war. Much more is general intimidation of Iraqis and sabotage of the political process. None of these other issues are resolved by the state of American public opinion; they're internal to Iraq and can only be settled by the Iraqis themselves.

I hope that if the whole effort does tragically "go south", we won't create a new mythos that places blame for failure on wavering public will and exempts the planners and executors of the war from culpability. We're to the point where both Left and Right are making comparisons to the circumstances of Vietnam, and that distresses me.

You've obviously got a lot of hurt feelings, but nowhere in that long recital did you address this question: what should we do? If you were in favor of the war aims but are distressed at the execution, then I would suppose you think we've already lost, and it would be reasonable to wind down our commitment and pull out over some decent amount of time. It would be just as reasonable, however, for you to believe we should finish the job even in light of what you believe has been poor execution to date. If you feel this way, then please say so in so many words. The enemy is very interested in your answer.

My situation is different. I was not in favor of the war at the start. To me the aims were laudable but the circumstances unfavorable. However, now that we're in it, I want to see the job finished with no hesitation and no second-guessing, and I want an unambiguous, resounding victory.

but that seems to be a mantra of the blame someone for everything society we have created by not instilling a sense of committment regardless how difficult a situation becomes.  

I was dem until 6/2001 but cannot say that I have been against any military action taken in my lifetime or even last century that I can think of, so I cant really match your story. I can say that I have wanted us to take military action when we did not, or take stronger action than we did, as in Iran 1979, Iraq 1991, and Iraq 1993-2001.

I guess I have been for it so universally because of our history of liberating people and know the goodness of our motives.

In the 80's, I was a young college and young lawyer and a rabid democrat, and was chairman of the county party in SC where I lived. I was not a fan of Reagan, but overtime, even when I wouldnt admit it, respected him in my heart and saw his policies work. I now think he is the greatest president and man the post century along with FDR.

But i was appalled at the time when dems ridiculed his evil empire and berlin wall speeches and his actions in Grenada and Libya.

The freedom of the world depends on us and we cannot be seen as a loser lest evil men act on our weakness. As did bin laden and as did saddam defy us.

I know a lot of patriots down here that are still DINOS that think the same way.

For me, I could not be in that party and dont see how Lieberman stays.

I've told this story before, but I was sitting in a cafe in Ann Arbor (where I was in grad school) on a Saturday in early 1985. And I realized in a flash that global nuclear war was never going to happen. And for the many younger people here at RS, this thought was hugely surprising back in 1985. I realized that Reagan was winning the Cold War for us, and bringing peace to the world in the process. Since that day I've voted Republican.

If that's an anti-climax, then I'm sorry, but I've not sufficient information to decide and not sure I can come by it with the polarizing filters applied to coverage of the war both pro and con. Hence my longing expressed umpteen posts ago that that coverage be devoted to objective discussion of how things are going and how and if our goals can be achieved, rather than public mud slinging at anyone expressing an opinion of consequence.

I'm afraid we either leave or escalate as our options for potentially pacifying the country. I find neither option palatable, but not having any firm idea of what would happen upon our departure besides a vague suspicion of chaos and greater bloodshed, I have to say greater commitment if the job's to get done. I guess that's your answer.

The Cold War ended because Communism collapsed. It began dying in the 60's when the industrial world switched from extensive to intensive growth, which it was incapable of sustaining. Reagan certainly helped, but it was Gorbachev who let the horses out of the barn and the people of Eastern Europe who fought for their freedom and finished off the beast.

And I realized in a flash that global nuclear war was never going to happen.

That wasn't a given then, and it's still not a given now, so long as nations possess nuclear arsenals and the technology proliferates. Around the time you had your "flash", it's now come out that a Soviet officer had to make the judgement call that another flash, sun glint detected by their warning satellites that triggered an attack alert, was a malfunction of the system rather than an American salvo. We live because he chose wisely.

Chinese generals let slip pointed remarks from time-to-time that LA is within missile range and that they'd happily give up much of their eastern population centers to make the point of taking Taiwan. We're not out of the woods yet, and a future nuclear conflict remains a very real possibility.

For anyone interested, the Wiki page on Stanislav Petrov contains a good account of the incident I mentioned above.

I guess at the end of the day your position doesn't do anything to help the bad guys. It sure took you a while to get there, though.  I prefer a much faster decision-making style (I'm a businessman), but that's no knock against your style.

the Soviet Union wouldn't have collapsed. Corrupt, decayed systems can operate for decades unless they get pushed over the edge. We'd still be watching idiotic movies like "The Day After," and John Kerry would still be agitating for a unilateral nuclear freeze. Correction: Clinton would have already implemented it.

As far as China is concerned, now you're on my turf. That war will not be fought with nuclear weapons but with blackmail. And that's because the Chinese know how to win wars without fighting, especially against half-hearted opponents like us.

I'm an engineer, and not only need a good statistical sample to reach my decisions, but also have to show precisely how I got there. It's a living, and it actually helps in some cases...

read the book

Reagans War and pay special attention to the citations of statements of the men that worked with Gorby in the Kremlin and statements in soviet documents from the time.

The evil empire speech shook them up and also was the catalyst for many in the east europ movement and in the ussr to go public

your point about the 60s is true to a point as this book shows. And reagan knew it back then!!! but hardly anyone else. His strategy that beat them was formed in the 50s and 60s!

We subsidized the ussr with cheap grain. reagan stoped that.

Moreover, when reagan took office the soviets were dangerously ahead of us and actually discussed a first strike due to the icbm advantage

reagan knew that only their icbm advantage allowed them to intimidate the us

and he saw all the detente as limiting us

his arms race is why they chose gorby

he was an econ reformer

but withoput the reagan pressure he would not have been chosen

read the book

the enemy admits reagan forced them to fall

...the decaying empire might have teetered on a while longer, but he made a conscious decision for change, and more than anyone else was a catalyst for ending the Cold War. Personally, I rank Pope John Paul II number two.

Gorbachev was highly influenced by a trip to Canada in which he toured a private farm and saw what he thought was an amazing array of agricultural equipment. He asked the farmer what it all cost, and he responded C$100,000. Gorbachev was astonished when he asked why the farmer was allowed the use of such valuable equipment and received the truthful answer from the farmer that he owned it all.

It took no great genius for him to extrapolate circumstances to the demise of the Soviet economy, but considerable boldness to act on the insights he'd gained from contact with the West. His error was in underestimating the impact of the pent-up forces he was unleashing in embracing perestroika and signalling to the Eastern Europeans that for the first time the Soviet Union wouldn't intervene if they changed their governments. As for the rest, theirs was the struggle and thus theirs the credit.

and I stay out of their way. They're wonderful at what they do, and they don't let very many mistakes get past them. But I don't let them decide strategy or tactics. ;-)

Eastern Europeans fought and died in the streets for freedom time and again before Reagan made any of his speeches. And their efforts would have remained futile if Gorbachev hadn't stated in 1988 that Soviet reprisals wouldn't be forthcoming. Perhaps the judgement call is where in the chain of events you place credit, if you consider his actions simply reactive to Reagan's policies. I choose to give him more credit.

But if the book you mention has insights from his aides, it'd be an interesting read, and I'll keep an eye out for it. Thanks for the tip.

Gorbachev made the moves he made because Reagan's muscular engagement left him no choice. He was reacting, not leading. Remember the Reykjavik summit in 1985? Gorbachev was mad as a wet hen because he knew right then that the game was up. He stated many times that perestroika and glasnost were moves designed to preserve the Soviet Union against the greatest threats it ever faced. Instead the game blew up in his face.

Reagan, on the other hand, had the knowledge of history and human nature, and the sheer boldness to set all the events in motion. He also had the leadership to do so in the face of absolutely universal disapproval and opposition.

Everyone, from the Nobel Committee on down, gives Gorbachev credit for ending the Soviet Union and the Cold War. It's disgusting.

On the other hand, you're right about John Paul the Great (soon to be Saint John Paul).

even gorby share credit

and certainly, the underlying system

but had we not challenged the soviets in arms, morally, economically and in nations they were seeking to dominate

poland would have had their chezch-hungary moment

Gorbachev was reacting to a whole variety of circumstances, of which we and our President were just a portion. At the summit, I don't think he reacted that way because the "game was up", but rather because Reagan came ready to deal to a degree that ambushed Gorbachev and even surprised Reagan's own aides.

What I give Reagan credit for was changing the tone of Cold War dialogue. He not only demanded that the world not take the status quo as a given but reinvigorated the moral call for just governance in Eastern Europe. That's one reason I've never been that impressed by Kissinger's essays on foreign policy; for all his erudition, he didn't have the imagination that Reagan did to see that world could and would fundamentally change.

That said, it was Gorbachev who was faced with the decision of whether or not to use force to maintain Warsaw Pact regimes, and he chose not to do so. He didn't have to make this choice and could have responded true to Soviet form with tanks; the Chinese dramatically demonstrated the contrasting approach shortly afterwards. The Lithuanians would point out that he still had some blood on his hands, but his restraint and decision to take a different course saved the lives of thousands and changed the lives of millions. I think there are few cases in history where one person at a turning point has been able to so dramatically change the world to come.

And credit also to Lech Walesa, Solidarity, Vaclav Havel, and Hungarian "Goulash Communism".  Heck, honorable mention to Matthias Rust, the crazed West Geman teenager whose flight to Red Square so embarrassed the Soviets that Gorbachev had the leverage to sack conservative commanders. Plus Günter Schabowski, whose profound ineptitude was technically the final cause of the Berlin Wall's fall...not everyone need be a hero to have made a difference.

Reagan's speeches were just one of many sources of encouragement, along with the Pope, the VOA, the BBC, National Geographic, the Beatles, and a host of courageous dissident movements. The real heroes in the whole saga are the Eastern Europeans themselves. They earned their freedom by having the courage to fight for it.

had been in violation of a treaty after a war and then Pearl Harbour was attacked by the Empire of Japan.

Then we impeach FDR?

It was only the combination of terrorist sponsorship, defiance of the U.N., shooting at allied aircraft in the no-fly zone, the attempt to assassinate a U.S. President, 300,000 unmarked graves and yes, oil, that allowed Bush to to muster enough support to take action. There was something on the menu to please vitually everyone. How much support national, and international, do you think you could get for any of the projects you mentioned?

Whatever you thought about the initial invasion, I think you will agree if Zarqawi ends up running the place, we will be in WWIV. Logically, there should be more support now for the Iraq war than ever before. As to Somalia, many believe that Bin Laden took our abrupt departure as a signal that he could strike America with relative impunity.

post UN sanctions would be even worse than zarqawi running Iraq.

clinton said so in a spasm of honesty and wisdom in 1998 and 1999