> "Robert J. Chassell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snippage throughout> > For the United States, the goal in its war against > terrorism was > victory. That is to say, the goal was to enable > Americans again to feel safe.
"Feeling safe" is in itself an interesting concept; if Americans _feel_ safer, yet are not _actually_ safer, will that be enough of a 'victory?' This ties into the defining of terrorists, domestic vs. foreign, which was not determined (at least here on the List): if gang members are prosecuted as terrorists, but gang activity does not lessen, then many inner city residents will feel (and be) no safer than before the Iraq campaign. Would it change our outlook to call gangs 'domestic terrorists' and realize that they take thousands of lives annually?** > If Americans do not feel safer...the war was lost. > Since 2041 is so far from the > present, the immediate question becomes whether you > judge US strategy > as implemented as reaching towards victory or not... > ...As far as I can see, the United States government > and its military had > a strategy for this war. The strategy involved > different goals for the short run and the long run: > > * In the short run, the US planned to win by > intimidating various dictatorships so their secret > police would hunt for US enemies. > > This action made sense to those who thought > that the US policy of the previous half century had >failed and that US secret agencies were incompetent... > ...The short run meant the next decade or so. The >goal was to prevent any more attacks against the US > or US interests. Note that Al Qaeda has undertaken >major attacks every two or three years. I do not >know whether it considers the attack in Spain as its >prime effort for this time period... > ...* In the long run, the US planned to win by > persuading the unconvinced. The latter task involves > changing the economic and > political culture of the Moslem countries > which harbor those who oppose the United States... > ...As a practical matter, such a desire means > danger to Americans > since the United States government has sided > with dictators such as the rulers of Saudi Arabia... Who have conveniently promised to increase oil production beginning in June, although we won't likely see a drop in gasoline prices until...the fall. > The Bush Administration never said these long and > short term > strategies were its methods. It made other claims. > > The Bush Administration argued for the invasion of > Iraq on three grounds: > > 1. To support UN Chapter 7 resolutions. > The justification for supporting the UN is > that international laws and resolutions are a > liberal, democratic, and contemporary > European ideal; they provide a mechanism for > restraining the actions of a super power. > > 2. To help the people of Iraq free themselves > from a cruel dictatorship. > Salman Rushdie made this argument. He spoke > before the US government did. Since the Bush > Administration picked up the argument so late, many >think it was simply another set of lies. > > 3. To find and destroy chemical, biological, > nuclear, and radiological weapons. > Without a doubt, this was the major public > justification for the invasion. > > The Bush Administration convinced its > political supporters and some others that not only > was the Iraqi government funding > development projects but that it possessed > such weapons. Both actions were in contradiction to >mandatory UN resolutions... > ...In any event, the Bush Administration did not > command the US army to > investigate the 700 known and feared sites in Iraq > in the six weeks > following the US capture of Baghdad in April 2003, > even though a > cursory examination would have required fewer than > 10% of the troops > in the region. Thus, it did not undertake actions > that might have > enabled it to find and destroy chemical, biological, > nuclear, and radiological weapons. > > Moreover, the Administration did not provide enough > occupation troops > to ensure security for Iraqis in all parts of Iraq. > This means it > could not promote law, which enables predictability, > and is the basis > for everything else. (I wrote a Web page on order, > law, justice, and democracy: > http://www.rattlesnake.com/notions/order-law-justice-democracy.html > which are required in that sequence.) > Tonight, President Bush is going to speak to the > public on his policy. > I do not know what to expect.....Will the President >lay out a strategic plan that not only looks like > it will succeed in the near future but also appeals > to enough Americans that the country can follow it > for 40 or 60 years? I do not recall Bush calling for such a Marshall-style plan before the war; I think that the impression of a relatively easy military victory, followed by a grateful Iraqi public happily embracing American-style democracy, was deliberately fostered by his administration. What that says about their estimation of the 'average American' is not flattering. Certainly my private conversations with a former military advisor of Vietnam war experience/era bolstered my gut feeling that the admin's public projection was so much horse hockey. (Although in the first weeks following the statue's toppling, skillful handling _might_ have made that projection nearly true; I was certainly surprised by the lack of early resistance.) > Or will the President lay out a strategic plan that > many think is wrong or that will fail? > > For Americans, and for the rest of the world, key > questions still remain: > Do you think United States policy will lead to > victory for the US? > Will United States strategy lead to Americans > feeling safer a generation and two from now? Unless things are changed from the current course, so that Iraqis feel safe and Americans feel they are doing good in being there, no. Debbi who probably should have made at least two posts out of this, but didn't **I couldn't find a direct gang-caused death rate, but here are some sobering numbers: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ Approximately one and a half million [Americans] are victims of violent crime [annually]. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/bulletins/gun_7_2001/NCJ186155.txt According to death certificate data compiled by the National Center for Health Statistics, a part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a total of 32,436 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States in 1997. The majority of these deaths--54.2 percent--were suicides, 41.7 percent were homicides, and the remaining 4.1 percent were unintentional shootings or deaths of an undetermined nature... ...Approximately 52 percent of gun homicide victims are African-American, even though they represent less than 13 percent of the total population. African-American males between the ages of 15 and 24 have the highest firearm homicide rate of any demographic group. Their firearm homicide rate of 103.4 deaths per 100,000 is 10 times higher than the rate for white males in the same age group (10.5 deaths per 100,000)... ...For every firearm death, there are approximately three nonfatal firearm injuries that show up in hospital emergency rooms. http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/172852.txt ...There are an estimated 23,388 youth gangs with 664,906 members in all 50 States. (1998 paper) http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvmurd.html ...Although still unacceptably high, the U.S. homicide rate reached a 30 year low of 5.6 per 100,000 in 2001. [This site has definite bias; I'm trying to present various views. Ditto below.] http://www.billstclair.com/blog/stories/deadoa.html ...The Department of Justice notes that in 1998, drugs directly claimed the lives of 15,973 children. And the number of drug gang involved young people killed, together with their innocent victims, is perhaps equal to that figure. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
