Here is the solution for the Spanish PM-elect regarding Spanish troops in Iraq.
O...@oak-invalid.com
terrorism today on c-span. He relayed the solution to the Spanish
problem from a listener who phoned it in to him on an earlier c-span
program. Here it is. Spain simply transfers their troops from Iraq
to Afghanistan. Voila! Afghanistan is under UN mandate and therefore
there is no conflict with his position. Present troops in Afghanistan
can be transferred to Iraq. Even if no troops come to Iraq from
Afghanistan, there still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the
overall war on terrorism.
Simon Serfaty
http://www.csis.org/experts/4serfaty.htm
Oak<keep those calls coming in>
"@goldmark.org > <${news}$"@goldmark.org>
> Spain simply transfers their troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Voila!
> Afghanistan is under UN mandate and therefore there is no conflict
> with his position. Present troops in Afghanistan can be transferred
> to Iraq. Even if no troops come to Iraq from Afghanistan, there
> still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the overall war on
> terrorism.
That is a way out of the box that the Spanish incoming Spanish
government it is. But I would like you to elaborate on the last sentence.
> there still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the overall war on
> terrorism.
I see it as a net gain, since I consider the operations in and around
Afganistan part of the war on Al-Qaeda. Unlike my President, I do not
see (and have never seen) Iraq as another front on the War on Terror.
Oak, do you feel otherwise? If so why?
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism: the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
Hate spam? Boycott MCI! http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/anti-spam/mci/
argos
>I heard this solution from Simon Serfaty during a panel discussion on
>terrorism today on c-span. He relayed the solution to the Spanish
>problem from a listener who phoned it in to him on an earlier c-span
>program. Here it is. Spain simply transfers their troops from Iraq
>to Afghanistan. Voila! Afghanistan is under UN mandate and therefore
>there is no conflict with his position. Present troops in Afghanistan
>can be transferred to Iraq. Even if no troops come to Iraq from
>Afghanistan, there still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the
>overall war on terrorism.
Oak, I think we can manage with or without the Spanish. The greater
concern here is the message that Spain's proposed retreat sends to the
terrorists who struck them hard in the mouth last week.
argos
argos
>O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>> Spain simply transfers their troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Voila!
>> Afghanistan is under UN mandate and therefore there is no conflict
>> with his position. Present troops in Afghanistan can be transferred
>> to Iraq. Even if no troops come to Iraq from Afghanistan, there
>> still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the overall war on
>> terrorism.
>
>That is a way out of the box that the Spanish incoming Spanish
>government it is. But I would like you to elaborate on the last sentence.
>
>> there still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the overall war on
>> terrorism.
>
>I see it as a net gain, since I consider the operations in and around
>Afganistan part of the war on Al-Qaeda. Unlike my President, I do not
>see (and have never seen) Iraq as another front on the War on Terror.
>
>Oak, do you feel otherwise? If so why?
Because Saddam:
1 ran a blatantly terroristic regime -- one that preyed on its own
civilians (to the tune of 300,000 to 400,000 dead -- to say nothing of
the countless beatings, rapes, and mutiliations) and those of other
nations (Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel)
2 provided major funding to Palestinian terror groups
3 provided training to foreign terrorists
4 provided refuge to wanted terrorists, such as Abu Nidal
(Such assistance -- funding, training, and refuge -- provided grounds
enough to remove Saddam from power, IMO, because, following the
destruction of the Taliban, it represented the clearest defiance of
America's declared aim to take the offensive against terrorists and
the states who support them -- Saddam, to his ruin, failed to take us
seriously on that, and his downfall sent a salubrious message to other
autocratic regimes in the area -- stay tuned.)
5 made repeated contacts with al Qaeda operatives -- even though the
substance and outcome of those meetings remains unclear
6 attempted to assassinate a retired US president (for which, along
with his ubiquitous crimes against humanity and the environment,
Saddam has been needing to pay for quite some time now)
7 consistently refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
(UNMOVIC *as well* as UNSCOM)
8 consistently refused to abide by UN Security Council terms (re
access to scientists, complete & truthful WMD declaration reports,
etc.) that he had formally pledged to follow
9 never did abandon his WMD ambitions or *programs* (regardless of
what may have become of his stockpiles) -- as the Iraq Survey Group
has firmly established
10 continued to develop banned WMD delivery systems (missles &
unmanned aircraft)
11 made ubiquitous use of terrorist tactics in his attempt to repulse
OIF (indeed, the lion's share of Iraq's resistence came from not from
its army, but from Fedayeen-Saddam terror brigades)
12 appealed to foreign jihadists to join with him in defeating the
American-led coalition -- which they have earnestly answered, as
*they* understand quite well -- even if the passionately self-doubting
liberal elite does not -- that Saddam's Iraq is indeed the frontline
in the war between secular democracy and religious terrorism
That would be my list.
But beyond that, and more importantly, Bush understands (and stated
publicly several months prior to OIF) that the best long-term solution
to Islamic terrorism is for the world's leading free nations to take
an active role in facitlitating (by various direct and indirect means)
the emergence of democratic governance in the Middle East -- and what
better place to have begun that daunting task than with the biggest
autocratic dog on the block: Saddam's Iraq?
argos
O...@oak-invalid.com
>O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>> Spain simply transfers their troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. Voila!
>> Afghanistan is under UN mandate and therefore there is no conflict
>> with his position. Present troops in Afghanistan can be transferred
>> to Iraq. Even if no troops come to Iraq from Afghanistan, there
>> still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the overall war on
>> terrorism.
>
>That is a way out of the box that the Spanish incoming Spanish
>government it is. But I would like you to elaborate on the last sentence.
>
>> there still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the overall war on
>> terrorism.
>
>I see it as a net gain, since I consider the operations in and around
>Afganistan part of the war on Al-Qaeda. Unlike my President, I do not
>see (and have never seen) Iraq as another front on the War on Terror.
If the Spanish troops are transferred to Afghanistan, then there is a
loss of troops in Iraq. Overall, there would be no change in the
total number of troops in the war on terror. The hope may be that the
Spanish troops transferred to Afghanistan might free up some other
non-US troops there to take their place in Iraq, so there is no loss
of troops in Iraq. A gain in troops overall might be had if troops
from Afghanistan replacing Spanish troops in Iraq might be filled by
others, thus equaling a net gain.
>
>Oak, do you feel otherwise? If so why?
Yes I most definitely feel that the invasion of Iraq was the correct
move for a variety of reasons. It is a big topic and I probably will
forget some of my reasons, but here is at least a partial list that I
am going to just contain to reasons related to fighting terrorism.
1. We know that by and large most terrorism was spawned in the ME.
If we go back to the days when Saddam was still in power, we cannot
find a bigger threat to peace or a greater supporter of terrorism than
he was. This I believe is true however you factor in the WMD.
2. Some Mid East leaders have shown their willingness to cooperate
actively and pro-actively with the fight on terrorism with Saudi
Arabia and LIbya perhaps being the two most outstanding examples at
the moment. I am leaving Afhanistan and Pakistan out as they are not
in the ME.
3. If one considers one of the root causes of terrorism to be a
rather restricted government rule -- so common in the ME, then the
initiation of a freer form of government might perhaps lessen the
impetus toward terrorism by some citizens. Setting up a truly
representative government in Iraq is perhaps the fastest way to make
these inroads into the region.
4. A free and representative government in Iraq would set an example
of how a Muslim country in the ME might work for others and create
hope in place of despair. With such a representative government comes
modernity that too will be a basis arguing against terrorism for many,
i.e. many will be happy with their new freedoms and more willing to
resist those who violently oppose modernity as freer people would have
a more vested interest in the future of their country and their own
personal freedom and life enhancement. People with such freedoms
would not take too kindly to local clerics preaching death and
destruction to the West.
5. As Tony Blair and others have said so well, freedom is not a
Western value, it is a universal value and letting folks achieve this
freedom may be one of the strongest arguments/defenses against
terrorism -- whose aim in the ME seems to be to turn back the clock to
who knows when.
6. The above is the bit related to terrorism. One could list a
number of other good reasons for dethroning Saddam on humanitarian
grounds.
I would also like to hear your analysis of the situation, Jeff, and
what course of action you think would lead to the best results as I
believe the sharing of different points of view get us to the right
solution in the fastest possible way.
Oak
O...@oak-invalid.com
wrote:
As I said in another earlier post today (Easynews is having its
troubles), the most AQ did to influence the election in Spain was
increase the voter turn out. They certainly didnt write the platform
on terrorism for the Socialists who were gung ho to leave Iraq if they
won, months before any of this happened in Madrid. The terrorists can
read it any way they want, but the facts are well documented.
Now I agree with you that the Spanish are not essential in winning the
governance of Iraq, but they represent some of the widespread feelings
in Europe and are important for that as well as just being Spanish
people who are allied with us in many ways outside the spectrum of
war. For these reasons I think it is worthwhile to see how things pan
out in Spain.
Oak<AKA King Fern-in-hand>
argos
>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 15:26:01 -0600, argos <no...@volcanomail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 17:10:57 GMT, O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>>
>>>I heard this solution from Simon Serfaty during a panel discussion on
>>>terrorism today on c-span. He relayed the solution to the Spanish
>>>problem from a listener who phoned it in to him on an earlier c-span
>>>program. Here it is. Spain simply transfers their troops from Iraq
>>>to Afghanistan. Voila! Afghanistan is under UN mandate and therefore
>>>there is no conflict with his position. Present troops in Afghanistan
>>>can be transferred to Iraq. Even if no troops come to Iraq from
>>>Afghanistan, there still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the
>>>overall war on terrorism.
>>
>>Oak, I think we can manage with or without the Spanish. The greater
>>concern here is the message that Spain's proposed retreat sends to the
>>terrorists who struck them hard in the mouth last week.
>>
>>argos
>
>As I said in another earlier post today (Easynews is having its
>troubles), the most AQ did to influence the election in Spain was
>increase the voter turn out. They certainly didnt write the platform
>on terrorism for the Socialists who were gung ho to leave Iraq if they
>won, months before any of this happened in Madrid. The terrorists can
>read it any way they want, but the facts are well documented.
Socialist victory rhetoric was stridently appeasing. The message that
the terrorists will take from it is predictable enough. And your
statement that the terrorists can "read it any way they want" is
accurate, but it misses the essential point that they WILL read it as
moral and physical weakness on the part of the Spanish people and
government.
>Now I agree with you that the Spanish are not essential in winning the
>governance of Iraq, but they represent some of the widespread feelings
>in Europe and are important for that as well as just being Spanish
>people who are allied with us in many ways outside the spectrum of
>war. For these reasons I think it is worthwhile to see how things pan
>out in Spain.
I truly wish them the best. The terror attack on Spanish civilians
was wantonly barbaric & intolerable.
They had done NOTHING to deserve it.
And while the new Socialist government has alreadly clearly signalled
its intent to oppose the Bush administration on various fronts, I have
no doubt that our democratic nations will continue to work together on
a tactical defensive basis (if not a strategically offensive one) to
track terrorist movements and break up terrorist attack plans.
argos
Shaun
>I heard this solution from Simon Serfaty during a panel discussion on
>terrorism today on c-span. He relayed the solution to the Spanish
>problem from a listener who phoned it in to him on an earlier c-span
>program. Here it is. Spain simply transfers their troops from Iraq
>to Afghanistan. Voila! Afghanistan is under UN mandate and therefore
>there is no conflict with his position. Present troops in Afghanistan
>can be transferred to Iraq. Even if no troops come to Iraq from
>Afghanistan, there still is no loss of the Spanish troops in the
>overall war on terrorism.
>
There is no loss of the Spanish troops in the
overall war on terrorism if they go home
Jeffrey Goldberg
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:05:36 -0800, "@goldmark.org>"
> <${news}$\"@goldmark.org>"> wrote:
>> Unlike my President, I do not see (and have never seen) Iraq as
>> another front on the War on Terror. [...] Oak, do you feel
>> otherwise? If so why?
> Yes I most definitely feel that the invasion of Iraq was the correct
> move for a variety of reasons.
My questions wasn't whether it was the right choice, but whether it was
"another front on the War on Terror". I had my reasons for supporting
(as well as opposing) the invasion. None of my reasons in favor of the
war depended on terrorism or al-Q.
> but here is at least a partial list that I
> am going to just contain to reasons related to fighting terrorism.
That's fine. I wasn't expecting anyone to write a thesis on the matter.
I just wanted a list of terrorism connections.
> 1. We know that by and large most terrorism was spawned in the ME.
> If we go back to the days when Saddam was still in power, we cannot
> find a bigger threat to peace or a greater supporter of terrorism than
> he was. This I believe is true however you factor in the WMD.
Saddam was a threat to peace for some time. But all analysis said that
his military capability was nothing compared to what it was in 1991.
The sanctions, inspections, etc while far from achiving all their goals,
did succeed in containing Iraq. Iraq was not a military threat to
anyone at the time (no matter how you factor in WMD).
> 2. Some Mid East leaders have shown their willingness to cooperate
> actively and pro-actively with the fight on terrorism with Saudi
> Arabia and LIbya perhaps being the two most outstanding examples at
> the moment.
Yes, but by all accounts Saudi Arabia's elite were far more complicit in
terrorism then was Saddam.
> 3. If one considers one of the root causes of terrorism to be a
> rather restricted government rule -- so common in the ME, then the
> initiation of a freer form of government might perhaps lessen the
> impetus toward terrorism by some citizens. Setting up a truly
> representative government in Iraq is perhaps the fastest way to make
> these inroads into the region.
The connection to terrorism here is pretty vague. Surely applying more
pressure on our friends such as Saudi Arabia would be effective and far
less violant. I agree that a positive outcome in Iraq may well have
these regional benefits (which is why I think we need to keep trying),
but I find this a real stretch at making the Iraq war about terrorism.
> 4. A free and representative government in Iraq would set an example
> of how a Muslim country in the ME might work for others and create
> hope in place of despair.
My same point as above.
> 5. As Tony Blair and others have said so well, freedom is not a
> Western value, it is a universal value and letting folks achieve this
> freedom may be one of the strongest arguments/defenses against
> terrorism -- whose aim in the ME seems to be to turn back the clock to
> who knows when.
Again, my response is the same as to point 3. The connection is vague
at best.
> 6. The above is the bit related to terrorism. One could list a
> number of other good reasons for dethroning Saddam on humanitarian
> grounds.
Yes. There certainly were reasons unrelated to terrormism. Indeed, I
thought that the non-terrorism reasons were sufficient. I only
considered them insufficient when the the damage the war would do to our
relationships with our allies became clear along with how the war would
be misperceived by most of the world. (Argos, before you jump in here
and accuss me of something stupid; there certainly are cases in which
the need for war is so compelling that world public opinion should play
no role. I just don't think that this was one of those cases).
> I would also like to hear your analysis of the situation, Jeff, and
> what course of action you think would lead to the best results as I
> believe the sharing of different points of view get us to the right
> solution in the fastest possible way.
The technical problems of bringing civil society to Iraq is something
that I think that Bremmer and crew are well suited to address. Their
difficult task should have, if not diplomatic support, at least not
diplomatic undermining.
So, given where we are, I would try to repair some of the diplomatic
situation. I think the US should be very accomodating on the little
things (eg, control of the bidding process, etc). I think that the US
should acknowledge that we might have bitten off more than we can chew.
We can't go around implying that anyone who isn't with us, somehow is a
Saddam supporter or anti-American. Basically, the best that can be done
now is a change of tone.
I'm sorry I can't be more specific. There are things that I would have
done differently, but the question is what to do from here. And that
doesn't involve a substantial change in policy.
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
Relativism is the triumph of authority over truth, convention over justice
argos
Starting in a wee bit early, aren't we, Paddy?
argos
O...@oak-invalid.com
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>O...@Oak-invalid.com wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:05:36 -0800, "@goldmark.org>"
>> <${news}$\"@goldmark.org>"> wrote:
>
>>> Unlike my President, I do not see (and have never seen) Iraq as
>>> another front on the War on Terror. [...] Oak, do you feel
>>> otherwise? If so why?
>
>> Yes I most definitely feel that the invasion of Iraq was the correct
>> move for a variety of reasons.
>
>My questions wasn't whether it was the right choice, but whether it was
>"another front on the War on Terror". I had my reasons for supporting
>(as well as opposing) the invasion. None of my reasons in favor of the
>war depended on terrorism or al-Q.
I may have misread your intent in the question you asked judging from
the comments below. It seems you want a case where there is a direct
link to terrorism and Saddam. There certainly are links as argos has
laid out. I addressed some of the conditions that Saddam provided
that were conducive to terrorism, or conducive to a great deal more
and deadlier terrorism. We were at the point that we could not afford
to wait for the direct link or the smoking gun as they say.
Here are some other factors:
1. Saddam was the most recalcitrant leader in the ME, with the
possible exception of Arafat -- who btw, ought to also be taken out.
Saddam was not going to change his ways. He was bound and determined
to do harm to the US and US allies.
2. In terms of WMD, if the US misread their existence, then so did
nearly everyone else in the world as our intelligence reports did not
differ that significantly from those of other European allies such as
Germany.
3. Saddam had a propensity for the worst kinds of violence and
demonstrated his utter lack of humanitarian restraints on his
behavior.
4. Saddam wanted WMD come hell or high water and if he had given in to
the weapons inspectors in a true cooperative spirit, he might have
been left alone to develop them all over again.
5. There are other elements to why Saddam was such a threat and
perhaps an analogy will help. One doesn't leave gasoline soaked rags
around, nor open cans of flammables and then check back every so often
to see if a fire has started yet. No, one does preventative measures.
Now if this sounds cold hearted, remember that Saddam was given
umpteen chances to capitulate over the years and several prior to the
invasion and he stubbornly refused all of them. He got what he
deserved and the world is a safer place due to the cancellation of his
threat. Now some might say, 'Safer my ass. Look at all the terrorism
that has struck up in Iraq since the invasion.' To that I say, it is
a different issue. Terrorists are going to gather wherever they feel
threatened.
>
>> but here is at least a partial list that I
>> am going to just contain to reasons related to fighting terrorism.
>
>That's fine. I wasn't expecting anyone to write a thesis on the matter.
> I just wanted a list of terrorism connections.
>
>> 1. We know that by and large most terrorism was spawned in the ME.
>> If we go back to the days when Saddam was still in power, we cannot
>> find a bigger threat to peace or a greater supporter of terrorism than
>> he was. This I believe is true however you factor in the WMD.
>
>Saddam was a threat to peace for some time. But all analysis said that
>his military capability was nothing compared to what it was in 1991.
>The sanctions, inspections, etc while far from achiving all their goals,
>did succeed in containing Iraq. Iraq was not a military threat to
>anyone at the time (no matter how you factor in WMD).
I disagree. If Saddam had chemical or biological weapons he could
dispense them to terrorist proxies to carry on the fight for him. One
does not have to have a large military to cause havoc and al-Qaeda is
a good example of that. If AQ wanted CW or BW where in the world do
you think they would go to look for that stuff? Saddam was said to
have it stockpiled and still may. Now some say that AQ and Saddam
were bitter enemies, but others dispute this saying they had moments
of cooperation. I dont think for a minute that if AQ wanted WMD, that
they couldnt somehow broker a deal with Saddam.
>
>> 2. Some Mid East leaders have shown their willingness to cooperate
>> actively and pro-actively with the fight on terrorism with Saudi
>> Arabia and LIbya perhaps being the two most outstanding examples at
>> the moment.
>
>Yes, but by all accounts Saudi Arabia's elite were far more complicit in
>terrorism then was Saddam.
That is an open question with different opinions on the matter. I
think Saudi clerics were much to blame, but if we look now, we see
that the Saudis are doing a great deal to fight AQ and its
financing/support. The Saudis were no where near as recalcitrant as
Saddam was.
>
>
>> 3. If one considers one of the root causes of terrorism to be a
>> rather restricted government rule -- so common in the ME, then the
>> initiation of a freer form of government might perhaps lessen the
>> impetus toward terrorism by some citizens. Setting up a truly
>> representative government in Iraq is perhaps the fastest way to make
>> these inroads into the region.
>
>The connection to terrorism here is pretty vague. Surely applying more
>pressure on our friends such as Saudi Arabia would be effective and far
>less violant. I agree that a positive outcome in Iraq may well have
>these regional benefits (which is why I think we need to keep trying),
>but I find this a real stretch at making the Iraq war about terrorism.
It is all part of the picture in my mind. Look at Iran. Here is a
nation that has long supported terrorist groups and seems to have
ambitions for nuclear weapons. It also has a population that is
pro-West. A little nudge by an Iraqi free state next door might be
just the impetus it needs to make the transition and stop the support
for terrorism that its fundamental religious sect favors.
>
>
>> 4. A free and representative government in Iraq would set an example
>> of how a Muslim country in the ME might work for others and create
>> hope in place of despair.
>
>My same point as above.
>
>> 5. As Tony Blair and others have said so well, freedom is not a
>> Western value, it is a universal value and letting folks achieve this
>> freedom may be one of the strongest arguments/defenses against
>> terrorism -- whose aim in the ME seems to be to turn back the clock to
>> who knows when.
>
>Again, my response is the same as to point 3. The connection is vague
>at best.
>
>
>> 6. The above is the bit related to terrorism. One could list a
>> number of other good reasons for dethroning Saddam on humanitarian
>> grounds.
>
>Yes. There certainly were reasons unrelated to terrormism. Indeed, I
>thought that the non-terrorism reasons were sufficient. I only
>considered them insufficient when the the damage the war would do to our
>relationships with our allies became clear along with how the war would
>be misperceived by most of the world. (Argos, before you jump in here
>and accuss me of something stupid; there certainly are cases in which
>the need for war is so compelling that world public opinion should play
>no role. I just don't think that this was one of those cases).
Bill Clinton said something last October that I thought was sage
advice. He said when people begin to develop their political
alliances, they should stop and first develop a world view and then
select the politics that best represents that view. In other words, I
dont think we should change our policies just because some in Europe
or other parts of the world lower our favorability ratings. We should
listen to the rest of the world for good ideas, but not to increase
our ratings or need to be loved. And this is pretty much what we have
done and found that there are many leaders who agree with us. I can
list them for you if you would like, but I am sure the readers here
are up on their feet now saying, No Jeff, dont make him list them --
think of the bandwidth!! :-)
>
>> I would also like to hear your analysis of the situation, Jeff, and
>> what course of action you think would lead to the best results as I
>> believe the sharing of different points of view get us to the right
>> solution in the fastest possible way.
>
>The technical problems of bringing civil society to Iraq is something
>that I think that Bremmer and crew are well suited to address. Their
>difficult task should have, if not diplomatic support, at least not
>diplomatic undermining.
I assume you are largely referring to Europe here.
>
>So, given where we are, I would try to repair some of the diplomatic
>situation. I think the US should be very accomodating on the little
>things (eg, control of the bidding process, etc). I think that the US
>should acknowledge that we might have bitten off more than we can chew.
>We can't go around implying that anyone who isn't with us, somehow is a
>Saddam supporter or anti-American. Basically, the best that can be done
>now is a change of tone.
I think the best that can be done is to continue a truthful world wide
debate on the matter based on facts and sound policy.
>
>I'm sorry I can't be more specific. There are things that I would have
>done differently, but the question is what to do from here. And that
>doesn't involve a substantial change in policy.
>
>
>-j
We are on the right track. We will win. Iraq will be immensely
better off for it as well as the ME. Terrorism will continue but its
days are numbered as far as being any real organized opponent.
Oak
Jeffrey Goldberg
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:05:36 -0800, "@goldmark.org>"
> <${news}$\"@goldmark.org>"> wrote:
>> Unlike my President, I do not see (and have never seen) Iraq as
>> another front on the War on Terror.
>> Oak, do you feel otherwise? If so why?
> Because Saddam:
>
> 1 ran a blatantly terroristic regime -- one that preyed on its own
> civilians (to the tune of 300,000 to 400,000 dead -- to say nothing of
> the countless beatings, rapes, and mutiliations) and those of other
> nations (Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel)
All true. And are among the reasons on the "plus" side for going to
war. But I don't consider that part of the War on Terror.
> 2 provided major funding to Palestinian terror groups
By comparison to most of its neighbors, it was a relatively small player
in that area.
> 3 provided training to foreign terrorists
Was it actively and substantially engaged in that. I support going to
war in Afghanistan for largely that reason.
> 4 provided refuge to wanted terrorists, such as Abu Nidal
Again, Iraq was a relatively minor player in that game.
> (Such assistance -- funding, training, and refuge -- provided grounds
> enough to remove Saddam from power, IMO, because, following the
> destruction of the Taliban, it represented the clearest defiance of
> America's declared aim to take the offensive against terrorists and
> the states who support them -- Saddam, to his ruin, failed to take us
> seriously on that, and his downfall sent a salubrious message to other
> autocratic regimes in the area -- stay tuned.)
I acknowledge that these are reasons on the pro-war side, but I find the
claim of it being about "terrorism" unsupported by that.
> 5 made repeated contacts with al Qaeda operatives -- even though the
> substance and outcome of those meetings remains unclear
Again, less than most of its neighbors.
> 6 attempted to assassinate a retired US president (for which, along
> with his ubiquitous crimes against humanity and the environment,
> Saddam has been needing to pay for quite some time now)
Indeed. But again not about terrorism.
> 7 consistently refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
> (UNMOVIC *as well* as UNSCOM)
> 8 consistently refused to abide by UN Security Council terms (re
> access to scientists, complete & truthful WMD declaration reports,
> etc.) that he had formally pledged to follow
This was one of my most major reasons. Making a mockary of the
cease-fire agreement from 1991 was my primary concern. I attribute much
of what happened in Yugoslavia to the example Saddam set his prolonged
success at defying and stringing along the international community.
However, again, I don't see this as part of the war on terror.
> 9 never did abandon his WMD ambitions or *programs* (regardless of
> what may have become of his stockpiles) -- as the Iraq Survey Group
> has firmly established
>
> 10 continued to develop banned WMD delivery systems (missles &
> unmanned aircraft)
Again, I see this as I do points 7 and 8. Valid reaons, but not part of
the war on terror.
> 11 made ubiquitous use of terrorist tactics in his attempt to repulse
> OIF (indeed, the lion's share of Iraq's resistence came from not from
> its army, but from Fedayeen-Saddam terror brigades)
In this respect the situation in Iraq has become part of terrorism, but
these are the consequences of the invasion, not reasons for invading.
> 12 appealed to foreign jihadists to join with him in defeating the
> American-led coalition -- which they have earnestly answered, as
> *they* understand quite well -- even if the passionately self-doubting
> liberal elite does not -- that Saddam's Iraq is indeed the frontline
> in the war between secular democracy and religious terrorism
Again that allience between Saddam and the terrorists was a consequence
of the invasion. Hardly a justification for it.
> That would be my list.
That is a fine list. And I share much of it (although we may disagree
about whether they are sufficient). But the connection is tenuous in
many respects. It would be like saying, "terrorism thrives on
instability, therefore any war we engage in to promote stability would
be part of the war on terror." Such broad notion of "another front in
the War on Terror" makes the phrase meaningless.
> But beyond that, and more importantly, Bush understands (and stated
> publicly several months prior to OIF) that the best long-term solution
> to Islamic terrorism is for the world's leading free nations to take
> an active role in facitlitating (by various direct and indirect means)
> the emergence of democratic governance in the Middle East -- and what
> better place to have begun that daunting task than with the biggest
> autocratic dog on the block: Saddam's Iraq?
Again, this was one of the things that were on the plus side for me. I
saw (and still hope for) this long term beneficial potential. I also
thought (and continue to think) that this goal is hard to achive, and
would require broad international support. I am far from confident that
this goal can be met once we've alienated the populations of most of our
democratic allies.
This is why January and February 2003 was the turning point for me. I
thought that the US was absolutely right to make a strong case to the
world for going to war. But the fact that we failed (for whatever
reason) to make that case successfully, led me to feel that the damage
we would do to democracy (by the damage to the image of the US
throughout the world), adds to the long term "cost". And that it would
make this goal we both share much much harder to achive.
-j
argos
<nob...@goldmark.org> wrote:
>argos wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 13:05:36 -0800, "@goldmark.org>"
>> <${news}$\"@goldmark.org>"> wrote:
>
>
>>> Unlike my President, I do not see (and have never seen) Iraq as
>>> another front on the War on Terror.
>
>>> Oak, do you feel otherwise? If so why?
>
>> Because Saddam:
>>
>> 1 ran a blatantly terroristic regime -- one that preyed on its own
>> civilians (to the tune of 300,000 to 400,000 dead -- to say nothing of
>> the countless beatings, rapes, and mutiliations) and those of other
>> nations (Kuwait, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel)
>
>All true. And are among the reasons on the "plus" side for going to
>war. But I don't consider that part of the War on Terror.
Why? Because he (apparently) confined his terrorist attacks to
non-Americans?
>> 2 provided major funding to Palestinian terror groups
>
>By comparison to most of its neighbors, it was a relatively small player
>in that area.
Iran and Syria were (are) bigger funders. And they need to be taken
to task for that because the groups they support, besides being
murderous criminals of the lowest order, are on our international
terror list.
But Saddam was removed for a HOST of reasons, of which this was but
one. Even *after* 9-11, Saddam was out there demonstrating his
contempt for America's anti-terror offensive by announcing his own
financial and ideological support for Palestinian suicide-murder. You
can pooh-pooh that away if you wish, but it was an enormous crime and
provocation on his part, and one that contributed to his undoing.
>> 3 provided training to foreign terrorists
>
>Was it actively and substantially engaged in that. I support going to
>war in Afghanistan for largely that reason.
Well, I don't know if the activities at Salman Pak were "active" and
"substantial" enough to meet *your* stringent requirements for action,
but they were a serious concern to Director Tenet & the intelligence
community. And, as above, they were one of the important factors that
weighed against Saddam.
>> 4 provided refuge to wanted terrorists, such as Abu Nidal
>
>Again, Iraq was a relatively minor player in that game.
And how would you know that? But regardless of degree (whatever that
might have been), Saddam's Iraq had a proven track record of harboring
key terrorists.
>> (Such assistance -- funding, training, and refuge -- provided grounds
>> enough to remove Saddam from power, IMO, because, following the
>> destruction of the Taliban, it represented the clearest defiance of
>> America's declared aim to take the offensive against terrorists and
>> the states who support them -- Saddam, to his ruin, failed to take us
>> seriously on that, and his downfall sent a salubrious message to other
>> autocratic regimes in the area -- stay tuned.)
>
>I acknowledge that these are reasons on the pro-war side, but I find the
>claim of it being about "terrorism" unsupported by that.
Fine. (Whatever that means.)
>> 5 made repeated contacts with al Qaeda operatives -- even though the
>> substance and outcome of those meetings remains unclear
>
>Again, less than most of its neighbors.
Again, how the hell do you know that? Do you have access to
classified intelligence? Saddam was reasonably presumed to have
possessed WMD stockpiles (and we now know for certain that his banned
WMD programs remained intact). The fact that his agents were linking
up with al Qaedans was therefore enormous concern to us (do recall
that we had just experienced the shock & horrendous financial cost of
the 9-11 anthrax attacks), and was ONE of the factors that led us to
conclude that Saddam's clock had run out.
>> 6 attempted to assassinate a retired US president (for which, along
>> with his ubiquitous crimes against humanity and the environment,
>> Saddam has been needing to pay for quite some time now)
>
>Indeed. But again not about terrorism.
Quite the contrary. The crimes were terroristic. They define the
evil & unstable character of the man, and what he was capable of.
If he had had no terroristic side to his personal makeup, the grounds
for concern over his known consortings with terrorists would have been
less pronounced.
The case to remove Saddam was based on an amalgam of crimes,
provocations, and defiances.
>> 7 consistently refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
>> (UNMOVIC *as well* as UNSCOM)
Consistently. To the bitter end.
>> 8 consistently refused to abide by UN Security Council terms (re
>> access to scientists, complete & truthful WMD declaration reports,
>> etc.) that he had formally pledged to follow
>
>This was one of my most major reasons. Making a mockary of the
>cease-fire agreement from 1991 was my primary concern. I attribute much
>of what happened in Yugoslavia to the example Saddam set his prolonged
>success at defying and stringing along the international community.
>However, again, I don't see this as part of the war on terror.
You do realize that the terrorists have a special interest in WMD
weapons, no? They already have chemical capabilities (albeit
presumably limited), and one suspects -- at least to some extent --
biological as well.
>> 9 never did abandon his WMD ambitions or *programs* (regardless of
>> what may have become of his stockpiles) -- as the Iraq Survey Group
>> has firmly established
Firmly established. The banned programs were never abandoned.
Saddam's Iraq did not need to have aging stockpiles of WMDs to be a
major threat. Iraq had the knowhow, structures, and technologies in
place to commence production of WMDs the moment France & Co. finally
succeeded in closing the UN book on him.
>> 10 continued to develop banned WMD delivery systems (missles &
>> unmanned aircraft)
>
>Again, I see this as I do points 7 and 8. Valid reaons, but not part of
>the war on terror.
I concede that it was unlikely Saddam would provide anything so
readily traceable as a missle or drone to one of the terrorist groups.
But the fact remains that he was in clear violation of resolution 1441
re his missle program.
Saddam was a rogue leader of immeasureable ego who refused, right up
to the end, to abandon his banned programs, and who would NEVER have
done so. His time had run out.
>> 11 made ubiquitous use of terrorist tactics in his attempt to repulse
>> OIF (indeed, the lion's share of Iraq's resistence came from not from
>> its army, but from Fedayeen-Saddam terror brigades)
>
>In this respect the situation in Iraq has become part of terrorism, but
>these are the consequences of the invasion, not reasons for invading.
His ubiquitous use of terror tactics during the combat phase of OIF
(besides reiterating his terroristic impulse) indicates that he had
developed some considerable ties with terrorist organizations in the
region.
>> 12 appealed to foreign jihadists to join with him in defeating the
>> American-led coalition -- which they have earnestly answered, as
>> *they* understand quite well -- even if the passionately self-doubting
>> liberal elite does not -- that Saddam's Iraq is indeed the frontline
>> in the war between secular democracy and religious terrorism
>
>Again that allience between Saddam and the terrorists was a consequence
>of the invasion. Hardly a justification for it.
Point 11 and 12 confirm that we were right to take him down. He was
(is) a terrorist with many terrorist "friends" and contacts.
>> That would be my list.
>
>That is a fine list. And I share much of it (although we may disagree
>about whether they are sufficient). But the connection is tenuous in
>many respects. It would be like saying, "terrorism thrives on
>instability, therefore any war we engage in to promote stability would
>be part of the war on terror." Such broad notion of "another front in
>the War on Terror" makes the phrase meaningless.
That's fine, but I don't consider this vague dismissal on your part to
be much of an argument.
>> But beyond that, and more importantly, Bush understands (and stated
>> publicly several months prior to OIF) that the best long-term solution
>> to Islamic terrorism is for the world's leading free nations to take
>> an active role in facitlitating (by various direct and indirect means)
>> the emergence of democratic governance in the Middle East -- and what
>> better place to have begun that daunting task than with the biggest
>> autocratic dog on the block: Saddam's Iraq?
>
>Again, this was one of the things that were on the plus side for me.
Neat!
>I
>saw (and still hope for) this long term beneficial potential. I also
>thought (and continue to think) that this goal is hard to achive, and
>would require broad international support. I am far from confident that
>this goal can be met once we've alienated the populations of most of our
>democratic allies.
There is no broad international support for America's war on terror.
And I don't see that there is anything we can do now, or could have
done then, to change that. All we can do is carry on and try to
persuade by success (of which we have had several) and example.
Right now things are looking a little dark (not to me, actually, but
by a lot of folks who back the war and are beginning to succumb to the
relentlessly negative reporting our fine efforts have received), but
don't touch that dial!
Even the Afghanistan portion was weakly and reluctantly supported,
regardless of the fact that the case for going to war with the Taliban
was about as complete as we have ever had in our nation's history.
>This is why January and February 2003 was the turning point for me. I
>thought that the US was absolutely right to make a strong case to the
>world for going to war. But the fact that we failed (for whatever
>reason) to make that case successfully, led me to feel that the damage
>we would do to democracy (by the damage to the image of the US
>throughout the world), adds to the long term "cost". And that it would
>make this goal we both share much much harder to achive.
I agree that we could have made the case better. Much better.
Somehow the whole thing got derailed into a WMD bug hunt (probably
because of Britain's greater "legalistic" needs). We did not NEED to
prove the existence of WMD stockpiles to justify taking Saddam down --
we had sufficient grounds without them.
Saddam's own titantic terror record, his ties to outside terrorist
organizations, his refusal to abandon his WMD programs, his
contemptuous 12-year treatment of the UN Security Council (mosts
particularly with regard to 1441) ... Saddam was the perfect tyrant
to go after to demonstrate America's announced intention to confront
autocratic regimes that we KNOW are involved in supporting terrorist
networks.
Like it or not, and for whatever reason (your side thinks it was
self-constructed, I think it evolved quite naturally) Iraq *is* the
front line in the war on terrorism -- which is why the terrorists are
investing so much in it -- and which is why we must (and will) stick
this endeavor through on *our* terms, not France's. If America
succeeds in defeating tyranny in Iraq, the terrorist cause will
receive a major -- and perhaps, for all practical purposes, crushing
-- blow.
And then we can all sing and dance.
argos