On Mon, 24 May 2004 17:01:03 -0700 (PDT), Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "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?**
War on terrorism is expanded enough already. How do we declare victory, over who? Have been articles that the Patriot Act is now being used more for non-terrorist activities than to prosecute terrorists. > > > 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. Didn't need intimidation. before Bush lost it the world stood with America on 9/11. > > > > 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. As promised from House of Saud to their friends the House of Bush. > > > 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. The claim to be supporting the UN by way of breaking the founding constitution of the organization the US created was the most ludicrious "Big Lie" of this administration. "We will enforce the UN mandates we have no right to enforce." > > > > 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. That has always been the fallback position. "Saddam bad, whatever we do is less bad." Talk about low goal setting. > > 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... Both assertions were debated in the foreign press, with most saying they were exagerations of limited intelligence. US press kissed their savior's whatever. > > > ...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. David Kay, a major proponent of the war, was put in charge of this search and shocked everyone by admitting the obvious - Saddam had no major WMD programs. > > > > 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 <snip> We will win the war against terrorism when we win the battle of the sexes and the war on drugs and for much the same reasons. Too much fraternization with the enemy. terrorism n : the systematic use of violence as a means to intimidate or coerce societies or governments The US government has too many links to governments that intimidate and coerce and too many new members thinking we could use more of that here. Is this an Atwater legacy to have grandiose never-ending wars of good vs. evil? Don't give patriotic speeches, tell me what actions you will take to make people safer and how we or others will have to pay for it. ... I see Shrub didn't follow that advise. The Bush speech oultine Five Steps to Peace In Iraq: 1 Handing over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government. 2 Establishing security. 3 Continuing to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. 4 Encouraging more international support. 5 Moving toward a national election in Iraq that "will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people." Except for 3, the support for Halliburton, isn't this Kerry's plan? Notes from listening, Bush can't pronounce Abu Ghraib. Was that "A Boo Gay Rape"? Three times, three diferent tries. A political speech with US Army officers as a living backdrop. They aren't applauding much, except intro. He is still trying to sell the war - those pesky WMDs. Seems he still has no clue who the new Iraqi leader will be June 30. I don't see this speech boosting his support, might drop it some. Must be why Rove didn't ask networks to carry it. Did I mention here that tough guy GOP writers Tom Clancy and Ralph Peters have turned against Rumsfeld and Bush? Checking around the web - The death toll for US military in Iraq stands at 801. There have been 911 coalition casualties. Where I check is agreement on a poor speech. They were right last time. Gary "seems to be a couple posts in here" #1 on Google for liberal news
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
