Obama’s New Strategery (Update)
John on July 15, 2008 at 9:09 am
I’ve just listened to a portion of one of the most dishonest and dishonorable speeches I can recall. Obama, having gotten himself into a bind last week with his flip-flopping on an Iraq timetable, decided he needed to solve it with a “major foreign policy address.”
His address was framed with a look back on what might have been, a favorite game of liberals. And it turns out of course that if we’d simply not invaded Iraq we’d now be living in an earthly paradise where all of our energy and security problems would have been solved. If it weren’t for the “distraction” (his favorite word) of Iraq, we’d still be loved universally around the world.
Obama also managed to raise the ghost of General Marshall and his plan to rebuild Europe while simultaneously decrying the money being spent in Iraq, as if much of that money isn’t for rebuilding and establishing the security to allow rebuilding. In Obama’s mind, rebuilding former enemy Germany is an example of great American leadership in the world while rebuilding former enemy Iraq is a fatal distraction and failure.
Then we come to the most political and most strikingly dishonest portion of his talk. He emphasized his “judgment to lead” by pointing out that he was against the war in Iraq while McCain was for it. He then went on to gloss over the current success by saying that McCain only wants to “talk about tactics”, while he (Obama) is thinking about “strategy.” Tactics in this case is code for the surge. It’s not clear what his “strategy” is but it seems to have something to do with winning over Europe again. Of course the surge by all accounts (but those of the most ardent Bush-haters) has succeeded. So another way of putting this, a more honest way, would be to say that McCain only wants to talk about winning while Obama wants to talk about getting out to international applause.
Obama actually wants the rubes out there to believe that his call to evacuate Iraq in January 2007 is perfectly consistent and harmonious with his call to evacuate Iraq now. Of course the difference is that then we were on the ropes and losing to Iran and Al Quaeda. Now, Iran and Al Quaeda are on the ropes. The difference between what Obama said then and what he’s saying now is the difference between quitting a marathon at the halfway point and running to the end. It’s true that both involve stopping at a fixed point but the circumstances and the results are vastly different.
The bottom line, once again, is that Obama’s judgment was that we should abandon Iraq and leave it to terrorists, handing them not just a military but a massive PR victory. McCain supported the surge at a time when it was very decidedly unpopular. And the result is that McCain was right and Obama was wrong. This is very inconvenient for a man who is running his campaign on the “judgment to lead.” So now Obama wants us to see the last 18 months and the turn around in Iraq as an insignificant micro-management of events that are really beneath consideration. Just tactics. Well, Obama can claim that he’s too much of a big picture guy to worry about things like “tactics” but in this case tactics were the difference between defeat and success.
Update: Just saw this at Hot Air. Obama has now erased criticism of the surge on his website:
“The surge is not working,” Obama’s old plan stated, citing a lack of Iraqi political cooperation but crediting Sunni sheiks – not U.S. military muscle – for quelling violence in Anbar Province.
The News reported Sunday that insurgent attacks have fallen to the fewest since March 2004.
Obama’s campaign posted a new Iraq plan Sunday night, which cites an “improved security situation” paid for with the blood of U.S. troops since the surge began in February 2007. It praises G.I.s’ “hard work, improved counterinsurgency tactics and enormous sacrifice.”
There’s that T-word again. Obama is now spinning like a top. Forget about his opposition to the most important foreign policy move of the last two years. Down the memory hole. It never happened, America.
Category: Politics |
Re: the update
I hope someone’s already made a copy of every page on Obama’s website. Actually, it’d be funny if someone “corrected” their corrections.
July 15, 2008 @ 10:41 amThe surge would work in Las Vegas as well. Place ten thousand more police there = crime goes down. Simple math.
We have 150,000 policemen in Iraq now. We now have a choice:
Pull out and leave 5000 trainers. (chaos for a while)
Stay forever.
It’s a good thing we went in, Sadaam would have nuked us by now! :)
8 boxcutters leads to war. McCain is a monolithic idealogue and Obama is a nuanced liberal. Some choice.
July 15, 2008 @ 11:34 amObama is a flipflopper, yes absolutely and so is McCain. I think many people will feel disillusioned with Obama because they had high hopes of him. Unfortunately the political battlefield demands that Obama move to the centre field so as not to lose out on a majority of independent votes.
Examining Obama and McCain’s ‘flip-flops’ it is clear that Obama is moving away from the left to the center whereas McCain is moving further to the right! I find it ironic that most Republicans seem to prefer bashing Obama as a flipflopper rather than welcoming him for moving closer to their own political ideology.
I’ve often wondered how someone with such poor verbal communication skills like George Bush could persuade so many people to vote for him. I think the major reason G.W. Bush could become president is because of his appeal to the number one emotive sentiment in the US, patriotism. This peculiar trait tends to blind people that political instruments other than military threats and campaigns could be efficient as well.
After getting flak for announcing ‘tough diplomacy’ with Iran, Obama’s statement about bombing Pakistan and this week executing Bin Laden are inevitable moves that are required as not to seem ‘weak’.
McCain has made several statements during his campaign trail that are so repulsive that I wonder how he (and war-loving politicians in general) time and time again manage to win over large groups of Christians/Evangelicals to back them. Back in January in his infamous interview with Tim Russert, McCain said:
In itself that is a neutral remark, but within the context of the interview it is clear that McCain sees this as a ‘carte blanche’ to stay in Iraq as long as American casualties can be brought down. Given that the US planned to stay in Iraq for a long time from the outset a major effort to prevent uneasiness about the war is for the media to focus on other news rather. Recently a female journalist complained about how she felt the situation in Iraq is now completely off the radar. An embedded journalist was sacked for putting photos on his blog taken immediately after a suicide attack. A poster for the documentary ‘Taxi to the dark side’ (compulsory viewing for anyone with an interest in Iraq) was rejected simply because it revealed a hooded detainee. All examples of an inconvenient truth that the viewer (voter!) at home should not be thinking about.
Then McCain also said:
A clearer example of self-centred thinking is hard to think of. From the interview it’s crystal clear that McCain is not bothered about whether it was right to go into Iraq, only whether the right approach was followed. This mentality comes in handy as a firefighter but from a world leader other qualities should be expected.
I’m really not sure where I stand with Obama, but when given the choice between two ‘evils’ he definitely is the lesser of the two.
July 15, 2008 @ 11:42 amTico,
I agree with some of your analysis here. Obama is moving to the middle and McCain to the right.
I’m not sure what you mean about the press focusing on other things. The press has gone on endlessly about Abu Ghraib and the group of marines accused of murder. It was doing constant stories on Iraq a year ago when the situation was dire. Now that it has improved the press coverage has dropped off considerably. Even the left of center Washington Post noticed.
The reason seems obvious to me. The Democrats are heavily invested in defeat. John Murtha and Harry Reid have led the way and are having a difficult time backing down from their comments a year ago. The press is reluctant to drag their man into the mess, hence you won’t hear about the very significant changes to Obama’s website on the nightly news.
What’s really “off radar” is that we’re winning in Iraq because of the strategy Obama said couldn’t work.
July 15, 2008 @ 11:59 amJohn – Winning? Winning what? Less violence? So what, as soon as we leave back to normal.
We are policemen, there is no war. It took America a six year civil war to preserve democracy – 1/2 million lives.
If the UN troops pulled out of the Balkins there would still be massive bloodshed. We are in for an ounce, in for a pound. We broke it – we bought it. There is no winning here, only loosing for everyone involved (reference Vietnam)
July 15, 2008 @ 12:06 pmJohn, the point of the news black-out is sending out an implicit message that no news is good news and that it is okay to stay in Iraq. Even under the neo-conservative view that the US is in Iraq to bring democracy it should be noted that the one thing that Americans do NOT worry about when considering leaving is what the Iraqi people themselves (no not the al Maliki government) want. Poll after poll has shown a clear desire to be without US occupation. The building of US permanent bases is evidence of a complete disregard of Iraqi sovereignty. The only threat to the plans of the US in Iraq does not come from Obama it comes from the Iraqi Parliament that tries to challenge the Iraqi (puppet) Government into setting a time-table for withdrawal. Anyone interested should read Raed Jarrar’s articles on various websites on this issue.
July 15, 2008 @ 12:41 pmRick
It’s just no true. We have been engaged in a proxy war with Iran and with Al Quaeda. Obama made a big deal today about Iraq having nothing to do with 9/11. That was true six years ago but it hasn’t been true for the last 4+ years. We have been directly engaged with Al Quaeda in Iraq. And we’ve essentially won that conflict to the extent it could ever have been won.
Tico,
I agree that the Iraqis want us out, though the numbers haven’t always been overwhelming on that score. The fact remains that the responsible leaders don’t want a precipitous pull out. I wrote about Obama’s phone call with the Iraqi foreign minister here. There is concern about Obama in Iraq.
July 15, 2008 @ 1:13 pmAl Quaeda is limited to small bombs, IEDs or suicide bombers. Bin Laden’s money has been depleted, and we have and continue to show a breathtaking ignorance of ethnic, tribal, and religious sect entrenchments.
If we withdraw and use the money to continue to upgrade our borders and seaports we will be well protected. The terrorist threat is way overblown and is mostly perpetrated on fear. They are clumsy and unsophisticated and have great difficulty coming into America anymore.
There will always be Islamic terrorism for many reasons, and if we are committed to stay indefinitely we will see American soldiers killed, if we withdraw the violence will increase. Tens of thousands are being murdered in Africa and we haven’t sent one soldier. Why? Americans care about American interests not human lives. If the two come together, fine. If not we will just speak about Angola, Uganda, Sudan, and other places.
There is no answer among fallen men, our call is the gospel. But horizontally we will never find a military answer to a multi-faceted problem.
July 15, 2008 @ 1:52 pm“I’ve just listened to a portion of one of the most dishonest and dishonorable speeches I can recall.”
I am declaring all of them a tie in that cataegory.
McCain said today he knows how to win wars. Which war did he win? He does present an unsophisticated view of military action in addressing global problems. I wish his commitment would be as deep in invading Zimbabwe and oust Robert Mugabe to save many thousands.
July 15, 2008 @ 2:23 pmI have a T shirt that reads:
Obama in 08
Osama in 09
LOL.
July 15, 2008 @ 10:16 pmApart from the ‘gospel bit’ in the end I fully agree with what you said in 8 Rick. My hat off to you.
Here’s my US-Iraq analogy:
The US Environmental Protection Agency is suspecting a farmer in Iowa has been using too much pesticides in his crops. They order a local team to visit the farm and search the place extensively. Unfortunately in the process they kill the farmer’s wife and dismantle the agricultural machinery. The farmer flees away and without a job the laborers start to quarrel amongst themselves. As with any farm getting in disarray, it soon becomes infested by vermin. EPA didn’t find any evidence for the pesticide allegation but soon issues the statement:
Actually, what EPA carefully avoided any reference to was the fact that other than farming crops, the farmer was actually more a large-scale successful beekeeper. And the guys over at the EPA headquarters happened to love honey, lots of honey. The vermin… well they were a nuisance, and indeed low ranking EPA members sometimes got bitten by a rabid fox and died. Over at EPA headquarters they realised that, to continue to be provided with honey they had to strike a careful balance: prevent the vermin from getting too rampant but not exterminate it before the official contract securing continuous supply of honey to EPA headquarters got signed by the bribed farmers stepson.
July 16, 2008 @ 1:08 amYes, but how can you just dismiss the “that was true six years ago” like that? The invasion of Iraq was always paraded as some kind of ‘revenge’ for 9/11, but, far from driving Al-qaeda out of Iraq, the American led invasion directly led to Al-qaeda coming in. George W. Bush is single handedly responsible for the presence of all Al-qaeda forces in Iraq.
Evidence has been produced for an Iraqi WMD program, but it’s far from conclusive evidence, and those boys must have been looking real hard. There was nothing to speak of and no link with 9/11. America was conned into this war by a handful of men with a personal grudge to solve. “Saddam was a baddie” simply doesn’t justify it, nor is it legal under international law as a grounds for going to war.
The one thing everyone seems to agree on is that Iraq would be a mess if America pulled out. Whoop-de-doo, what a worthwhile exercise.
July 16, 2008 @ 8:35 amHow can anyone reconcile Obama’s current view with his past views. He consistently wanted us out immediately, voted several times in the Senate to de fund the war, and along with Pelosi, Murtha, Reid and other liberal democrats essentially gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Now, he admits the “surge worked” and we should leave because the leader of the country wants a timetable. He admits it is a tactical victory but maintains it is not strategically in our best interests. He also has stated he would have all of the troops out in 16 mos. regardless of whether the leadership requested we leave a token force behind. He states all of this before he even meets with our own military leaders there, including the General who devised the plan. The terrorists bet the democrats would force the administration to leave Iraq precipitously. The administration refused. Now, the neo marxist democrats admit the tactic worked but they still are not interested in winning the war, notwithstanding this decisive victory. It is a good thing Roosevelt didn’t say a month after D day (which was also decisive) ‘well, we need to get out now’.
In addition to the “abandon ship” foreign policy, this candidate is for open borders, immediate citizenship for illegals, statehood for D.C., higher taxes, hate crimes so that we can kiss the double jeopardy clause goodbye (with all of the civil rights laws it is almost dead anyway) and he is against drilling for oil where most of the oil is located along with nuclear power.
On the secular/religious front he is opposed to vouchers for schools under any circumstances, abortion on demand and the public will pay for it, and while in the ill. senate was opposed to a bill that if the baby survived the abortion a physician’s care was required. In addition, he will appoint judges who emasculate the constitution under the guise of it being a “living document”. Let’s welcome the Oligarchy where 5 people in robes tell us what we have to do as opposed to democratically elected legislatures and written constitutions which are contracts between the people and their government.
On a personal level, he was introduced to politics at the home of William Avery, former weatherman, former terrorist, current marxist, and admits to a “warm relationship” between the two. That is in addition to sitting in a pew for 20 odd years while his mentor pastor spewed anti white and anti U.S. hate speech.
Someone here mentioned “evil” as it pertains to the candidates. The only person I see as evil is Obama.
July 16, 2008 @ 9:49 amWhat your doing Ralph is very dangerous. You’re telling the truth about America’s new Messiah. Obama is from Chicago, and take it from a former Chicagoan, all politics in Chicago is dirty politics. The guys a political hack who’ll do anything to get elected. Unfortunatley, McCain isn’t much better. “None of the above” would definitely win this election.
July 16, 2008 @ 9:52 pmRalph, I take much of your quite well argued point. That’s as convincing indictment of Obama as I’ve heard. But (you knew that was coming, didn’t you?) you keep on using terms like neo-marxist in a way that I consider wholly inaccurate. Nobody who came close to Marxism would last a day in American politics. The far left of American politics is some way short of the far left of even British politics, and that is still noot close to Marxism.
I’m not sure about “evil” for Obama – I certainly hope not, because he’s in with a good shot at being the most powerful man on earth before the year is out. I marginally prefer McCain, but let’s hope, whoever you get, we all turn out to be pleasantly surprised!
July 17, 2008 @ 12:17 amI agree with Keith on the point of Marxism and I would like to make an additional point. Most would now agree Obama is a flipflopper. There is a consequence to that: as long as he doesn’t define his policies calling him a neo-marxist, a liberal, a protectionist (vs a free market guy) or fill in your desired political insult doesn’t make any sense other than revealing the author probably takes the opposite point of view.
July 17, 2008 @ 1:48 amTico,
July 17, 2008 @ 8:15 amYour analogy using honey was spot-on.
Well said.
Rick,
Did you read about the fingerprinting of militants which found many of them had US criminal records?
First of all, because the Chinese and Russians vetoed any kind of UN force. Second, because in the current climate with a lame duck President who roughly 1/4 of Americans think was somehow behind 9/11, the opportunity for dealing with scum like Mugabe is extremely limited.
There are any number of Democrats already talking about trying Bush for war crimes. That’s the real reason why Mugabe is left to murder his opponents (and their families).
Keith,
No it wasn’t. Not ever. The justifications for invading Iraq included the fact that Saddam was a bad guy with links to terror (he was), that he had WMD’s and had sought out nuclear materials (he did and had).
The fact is, we had already fought a war with Iraq and that war had ended with certain UN mandated conditions, conditions which Saddam continued to flout. He shot at our overflying jets on a weekly basis.
In the end, the US Congress voted to authorize the invasion on the above grounds. Nearly everyone, including Hillary and many others on the left voted for it. The fact that we found no WMD was a surprise to us all, not part of a plot. Since then the Democrats have cynically rewritten history to advance their electoral chances with bogus ideas like the one that Iraq was originally justified as a response to 9/11. It was not.
Yes, that’s true. Several years ago, this was called the “flypaper theory.” Bush repeatedly said that we would rather fight them over there then allow them the opportunity and freedom to bring the fight over here. The flypaper theory was derided as “simplistic” by all sorts of liberal press outlets who claimed that we would only add to Al Quada’s numbers, that Iraq would turn into recruitment headquarters for Al Quaeda. Now, however, the situation looks quite different. Because we stuck it out in Iraq, Al Quaeda is losing in Iraq and is losing its appeal worldwide. Even some of the Imams are reconsidering that approach. And suddenly we don’t hear anymore derisive comments about the “flypaper theory.” Why? Because to do so one would be forced to concede Bush was right.
July 17, 2008 @ 9:35 amNathanael, cheers ;-) I like making up new analogies. Sometimes it is successful in that people re-evaluate a given point of view because of a new way of looking at it. Most often, however, people try to dismiss the analogy based on irrelevant inconsistencies with the real situation.
July 17, 2008 @ 11:21 amI had a student who drove the Humvee to empty buildings, and then went inside to secure them before troops arrived.
When he came home after his first tour, he came by my school, and we talked for hours. He told me that he had personally found WMD’s (this was in 2004). He said that he had entered buildings/storage units where enormous vats held chemical compounds, and with the miscellaneous parts to build the outer casing of the bombs as well. Once the buildings were secured, he was ordered to leave them for the chemical team to take care of.
My son is reading this book; A Table in the Presence where the author also recounts such findings.
Why then are we saying that they did not exist? Are we saying that no complete weapons, ready to fire, were found? That I can see. But the parts were there, ready to be assembled. I see that as a minor technicality. Shouldn’t we be saying that invasion stopped the completing of those chemical weapons?
Believe me, I am the first to wish there were no war. I would have fit well into the “why can’t we all just love each other and all get along” camp. But, after hearing first-hand about these findings, I can’t help but be thankful that the military stopped what it did…
July 17, 2008 @ 12:25 pmJohn,
Since you addressed Keith I will leave it to him to respond in proper, if he desires to do so, but it is too tempting to let this go altogether. Of several flaws I will pick out the ‘flypaper theory’ (btw.. thanks for this term, had not come across it).
Contrary to what you may think a logical thinking person still has plenty of reason to dismiss the ‘flypaper theory’ as a red herring and see it for what it is, ludicrous PR. To suggest the ‘flypaper theory’ has any credibility is based on the implicit assumption that a causal effect exists between the presence and strategy of the US in Iraq and the reduced activity of Al Qaeda world-wide.
You may have noticed my fondness of analogies. Well, there’s one coming your way right now.
Suggesting Al Quaeda members behave like flies attracted to dung is testimony of misplaced arrogance and underestimation of their tactics. In fact, it is completely missing the point. If you didn’t make sure to deny the neighbour’s dog access to your garden then it may well be that while you were killing the flies in your neighbours garden, the rest of the dung-fly population, completely ignorant of the manure in the neighboring garden, got attracted by the freshly deposited dog turds on your lawn. The US (and to a lesser extent each Western country) has taken draconian measures domestically to prevent further attacks and this is more likely in preventing further attacks than the alleged ‘placing of a turd’ in Iraq.
Unlike flies, Al Quaeda members are well aware of ‘a distant turd’. However, the fact that they are aware of it doesn’t automatically imply their willingness to travel to and fight in Iraq. In addition, the cohesion and hierarchy of Al Quaeda is being hugely overestimated / overhyped. I believe it would be more correct to speak of an ideological movement with sympathisants worldwide. It is certainly true that foreign Jihadists are being drawn to Iraq to fight the US, but the bulk of the insurgents are Iraqis. In other words, the turds in Iraq are covered for 90% with local dung-beetles rather than cosmopolitan dung flies.
More specifically the implicit assumption I stated at the outset implies that Al Quaeda members ‘smell a turd at the other side of the world’ and will leave the close turds alone to travel all the way for a distant turd. The attacks that have been carried out (mainly in the UK and one major attack in Spain) and plans for attacks that are being uncovered, until today, suggests this assumption is false.
As a last part of my argument I ask you to step in the shoes of an ambitious wannabe Jihad-martyr. Would you rather fight a superiorly armed enemy in Iraq, or, would you prefer to blow up a tower / airplane / train / bus full of innocent infidels? I’m quite sure that the 9/11 guys were well aware of the huge impact it would have. Compare that to the impact of placing roadside bombs or committing suicide in Iraq, certainly given the fact that the Western media in general have lost interest in Iraq. Jihadists have embraced the term coined by environmentalist David Brower, Think globally, act locally and that is the reason why the ‘fly-paper theory’ doesn’t work.
July 17, 2008 @ 2:35 pmTico,
The problem with analogies is that they don’t always correspond with reality.
First off, your suggestion that the US in Iraq represents “a distant turd” doesn’t make sense. Iraq is in the center of the middle east, close to all the countries where Al Quaeda thrives. By contrast, the US is very far away and separated by an ocean. I think you have it backwards.
Beyond this, it’s clear that Al Quaeda was drawn to Iraq almost immediately. Since at least Feb. 2003, Osama himself was encouraging resistance to America in Iraq.
As early as Feb., 2004, Al Qaeda was found to be actively fomenting a civil war in Iraq to the detriment of the US. They are believed to be responsible for the bombing of an ancient mosque which raised the level of violence in Iraq exponentially.
In Jan. 2006, Al Quaeda’s #2 issued a video demanding that Bush admit he had been defeated in Iraq by Al Quaeda.
As for the reduced viability of Al Quaeda today, that has been suggested by many sources, including recently byIraq’s own PM.
No less a liberal source than the NY Times eventually conceded that the flypaper theory had “most likely” worked to divert terrorists to Iraq.
I don’t think your analogy holds up to reality.
July 17, 2008 @ 4:11 pmI encourage resistance to America in America! :lol: :cool:
July 17, 2008 @ 6:11 pmJohn,
You are right but you use my quote out of context. The premise of the fly-paper theory is that by fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq, domestic terror plots can be prevented. For (US) civilians, whether these terror plots are committed by home-grown or foreign terrorist is of course irrelevant. Since the invasion in Iraq, in the UK one major attack was committed and several others prevented. In the US a few have been foiled as well. The attacks in London were committed by British nationals whereas those in Madrid were committed by men of Moroccan nationality. Not coincidentally at the time of the attacks both Spain and the UK were operative in Iraq. The flypaper theory did not prevent these attacks from happening. I used the ‘distant turd’ in the context of these terrorists that target ‘locally’ (Spain is still closer to Morocco than Iraq) rather than ‘globally’.
I think I 100% agree with the 4 arguments in the central section of your comment but I don’t see how it would invalidate my analogy.
Journalists often have more knowledge available to them than I do but so if a journalist at the NY Times (or any newspaper) comes to a different conclusion, I will read his article and then decide whether I should change my opinion. Just like I read your blogs and comment when I disagree. I just read the NY Times article and I actually think it largely confirms my argument. You appear to have hastily referred to this piece from memory, without actually reading it again and evaluating it against my comment. The story starts with Raed al-Banna who, after failing to enter the United States, travels to Iraq where he dies in a suicide attack. The implication of this story is that after he could not fulfill his jihadic mission in the US he went to Iraq, where his mission was easier, though having less impact. In fact it could also be true that he became so spiteful of being denied entrance, that the plan to commit terrorism arose as a consequence of it. But assuming he planned to enter the US with the plan to commit a terror plot, does the fact that he committed suicide in Iraq validate the ‘fly-paper theory’? Not at all! With exactly the same domestic anti-terrorist measures in place but without the US army in Iraq, al-Banna would still have been unable to enter the US. It’s the draconian measures that I referred to that are effective. When the NY Times says
what the three of us actually agree on is that the US presence in Iraq works (or has worked) as a fly-trap for foreign fighters, but that in itself is not the issue at stake here. The premise of the flypaper theory (argued by General Ricardo Sanchez) is that the strategy itself is preventing jihadists from committing terrorist acts on US soil. Again, it’s measures like stringent border control, illegal wiretapping and attacking Al Qaeda training camps that have prevented attacks. The fly-paper theory in the end really is nothing but a poorly argued justification for an imperialistically motivated war.
July 17, 2008 @ 7:02 pmTico,
Well there’s no doubt that Al Quaeda’s leaders wanted to engage in Iraq. There’s also no doubt that we have been fighting them there since at least early 2004, but likely earlier on a large scale. So unless you have some evidence that all those fighters who went to Iraq on Osama’s orders had first tried to get in here, I don’t think you can deny that our guys were a magnet to Al Quaeda fighters.
When the Times story says fighters were “diverted” I think it means diverted from the US. Don’t you agree? So they went there instead of here. That’s the point.
July 17, 2008 @ 8:58 pmJohn, with respect but you sound like a poor loser. You brought up the ‘flypaper theory’ yourself but now you are trying to redefine what ‘the point’ of it is, in order to maintain your ground. It’s difficult to continue this argument without sounding like a broken record but he.. here’s my last attempt:
Examine first of all the ‘definition’ of the flypaper theory:
then how General Sanchez put it in his interview on CNN in July 2003
and how President Bush addressed the American people on the 9th of July 2005 after the London bombings
It is unequivocally clear that General Sanchez and President Bush pretend that it is the magnet-effect of fighting the war in Iraq alone that is preventing terror attacks on home soil. That is actually congruent with the flypaper theory that contends that the magnet draws them “far from one’s own vulnerabilities”. I contest the validity of this argument for the following reasons on which I will not elaborate in great detail since I already did that previously:
a) In all likelihood other measures have been more successful in preventing terrorist attacks
b) Terrorist attacks are still planned until today within the UK and the US, the two countries with military in Iraq.
c) The magnet in Iraq is drawing in ‘local’ terrorists (Saudi Arabia, Syria etc.) that are motivated explicitly by US presence on Muslim / Arab soil. It is unlikely that the majority of these fighters would have otherwise committed to, let alone be successful in planning terrorist attacks on US or UK soil. Planning terrorist attacks requires local knowledge and preparation and stringent entrance regulation would simply keep them outside.
As a last note, how proud are you to have a supposedly Christian President who justifies fighting a war on terror in another country based on a flawed argument, all at the sacrifice of countless (let’s leave it at that) Iraqi civilians? Is that the correct interpretation of ‘What Would Jesus Do’? If you accept the ‘flypaper theory’ as a reasonable strategy to prevent the cost of lives in America, then your moral attitude is equal to if not worse than that of many Christians (as well as seculars) living in the ethical desert of the 1800′s, who made no bones about importing slaves from Africa under the implicit assumption that slaves were worth less than them.
July 18, 2008 @ 3:35 amTico,
I’m sorry if I’m not succumbing to the overwhelming logic of your position…It just doesn’t seem that strong to me. It’s based on assumptions which don’t seem to accord with reality. So, for instance, we know that Al Quaeda attacked the US in Iraq and has for years. We do not know that most of these fighters chose this as a back up plan because of the US no-fly list, as your argument (a) suggests. It’s certainly possible that some of them did, but this isn’t an either or situation.
The majority of these fighters probably would never have made it to the US for various reasons, however they could still do significant damage to the US without flying here. Prior to 9/11 most of Al Quaeda’s attacks were on US embassies and ships abroad. Having these fighters engaged with our best soldiers in Iraq is preferable to leaving them time and safe haven to plot further destruction of soft targets around the globe.
There’s nothing that says the flypaper theory needs to work 100% of the time to be credible. If the goal is to “fight them there” then it makes sense to make it easier to get there than here. So “draconian” restrictions at home actually aid that goal.
Finally, the argument is not flawed in the sense that (again, according to the NY Times) it most likely diverted fighters from here to Iraq. As for the loss of civilians in Iraq it is a terrible loss. Choosing to fight overseas rather than at home certainly raises questions. Still, the vast majority of civilian casualties have been caused by the actions of Al Quaeda and Iraqi militias, in particular by the civil war between the sects which Al Quaeda initiated. I don’t think these groups should be given a pass on their behavior because the US invaded Iraq. Ultimately the leaders and individuals who did the intentional killings bear responsible for their own mayhem.
July 18, 2008 @ 9:57 amRight John!
It almost feels like playing chess. This is my next move… in fact I’ll make it the last move regardless of your response because this addiction of mine is eating up too much time. That said I appreciated our exchange of ideas.
Suppose event A. It is an undesirable event and needs to be prevented.
Three action packages ALPHA, BETA or GAMMA are thought to be effective towards preventing A from happening. Hence, to try and prevent A from happening, either one OR a combination of the action packages have to be implemented.
There are 7 possible scenarios in which event A may be prevented from happening.
ALPHA
BETA
GAMMA
ALPHA+BETA
ALPHA+GAMMA
BETA+GAMMA
ALPHA+BETA+GAMMA
None of the 7 scenarios provides 100% security against event A but if none of the 7 scenarios are implemented then the probability of event A happening within a year is 25%.
A year after being acknowledged of this situation, ‘A’ has not occurred. We can now speculate whether one of the 7 scenarios was put into action. Someone then postulates the following hypothesis:
The question is, what evidence is required to reject this hypothesis? It is not required to have knowledge of or make assumptions about the efficacy of each of the packages on it’s own. Nor is it dependent on the probability of the attack happening (assumed 25% here) if no single scenarios was implemented. In fact, the only action that has to be taken is finding out which of the action packages ALPHA, BETA GAMMA have been implemented. If the result is that either ALPHA or GAMMA or both were operative apart from BETA, then the hypothesis should be rejected.
From Bush and General Sanchez comments it is clear that they claim terrorist attacks on US home territory is being prevented by ‘bringing the war to Iraq’. In other words, they single out one ‘action package’ and present that as the magic solution.
My argument is purely logical, based on one conceptual assumption only: each of the action packages ALPHA, BETA or GAMMA can be represented by a real-life strategy that the US has put into place, for example:
ALPHA = domestic surveillance
BETA = positioning the US military in Iraq
GAMMA = stringent border control
If you agree that each of these ‘action packages’ contributes towards prevention of event ‘A’ then you have to reject the ‘flypaper theory’ as expressed by General Sanchez and George W. Bush, since it’s a fact and not an assumption that each of these three ‘action packages’ has been implemented.
July 18, 2008 @ 3:15 pmA Marine I spoke with a few weeks ago said that it was unmistakable who we were fighting against in Iraq during his tour of duty – Al Quaeda. Osama’s plea for his fighters to go to Iraq to engage our troops has brought attacks to our embassies and other military targets outside of Iraq to a standstill. Increased security in the US has helped as well, however, the commerical cargo on our domestic flights is not screened with any great scrutiny. Perhaps our crippling of Al Quaeda in Iraq is paying dividends here at home.
Incidentally, Al Quaeda can take a backseat to the problems we will face with a nuclear Iran.
July 18, 2008 @ 6:03 pmTico,
Okay, my last post on this as well since I’m sure we both have better things to do.
First let me say, I completely understand your argument. It’s sound as far as I can see, meaning that if your premises were correct, I would accept your conclusion. Here’s the problem. Sanchez (or I or the NY Times) never said said that the flypaper theory (and the flypaper theory alone!) had prevented further terror attacks. Here’s what Sanchez said:
He’s saying the “magnet” is efficacious. I think you’re reading too much into it to say he’s arguing that it’s the only thing that works. To go back to your analogy, he’s saying:
He’s not saying:
So if the CNN reporter had asked General Sanchez during that interview “Do you think we should control the border?” his answer would assuredly have been “Yes.”
Similarly, Bush said:
He did not say:
And the NY Times:
Translation: Plan beta works. It’s not the only thing that made a difference but the real answer (back to your analogy) is a combination that has to include beta.
Anyway, that’s how I always took it and all I was really arguing.
July 19, 2008 @ 10:12 amto the left, there were never any of the claimed items in Iraq. . . news reports of 550 metric tons(1,212,542 pounds)of Algerian Yellowcake means nothing…Just words…equipment crossing the border to Syria?? no…they wouldn’t do that….Saddam never hid a thing from anyone Like the Black Knight in Monty Python “I’ve had worse”.
My favorite portion of Obama’s insane speech…College would be more affordable if we had not “diverted Our Attention” in Iraq. Wiskey Tango Foxtrot?!?!
No political progress is in Iraq either. . .although the Iraqi gov’t has passed more resolutions and met far more goals than, oh, The US Congress.
Civil War?
I’ll give you an “Almost” (I disagree with Micheal Yon’s prognosis in some of the finer points):
Chief of the Anbar Salvation council sheik Hameed Hayis announced the formation of “The Democratic Bloc of Anbar” that will enter the upcoming provincial elections in November and later general elections in 2009.
Hayis said the salvation council will work to expose plots by the Islamic Party that is trying to sideline technocrats and intellectuals, manipulate election results and establish a one-party reign “this we shall not allow”.
Hayis affirmed that “the Islamic Party lost its voter base in Anbar because it [the party] was not here for the people of Anbar and was busy minding its partisan interests…the Islamic Party has gone bankrupt”
Hayis expressed concerns that “provincial elections in Anbar will see a lot of fraud by the Islamic Party…we in the Salvation council believe that the Islamic Party has no other means than fraud to save face and occupy some seats in Anbar’s province council. [they can do that] because the elections commission in Anbar is completely taken over by the Islamic Party and most commission officials are members of the [Islamic] Party”
And This:
In televised interviews, tribal chiefs said they will join forces with technocrats and enter the upcoming provincial elections in slates independent from existing religious parties.
The sheiks voiced their frustration with the outcome of previous elections in which religious parties prevailed. They also criticized the current political class for “ripping apart” the fabric of Iraq’s society, pushing the country to the brink of civil war and failure to provide services to the people.
“pushing the country to the brink of civil war and failure to provide services to the people.”
Even those who suffered the most…The Iraqi People, say “Almost”
If we had listened to the left, these people would either be still suffering under Saddam, Dead in real civil fighting, and certainly not doing silly things like VOTING in elections (although the left likes dead voters).
July 19, 2008 @ 8:13 pmSaddam’s centrifuges would be running (Iran’s would give him reason enough, His last words were warning his people to “beware the Persians”) his chemical units still in research, and the French and Russians giving him tech to do it (funny how Spetsnaz needed to raid a few places just before we crossed the border), the Germans would be glad to add to the underground bunkers for it as well.
The other thing the left doesn’t like now, except for Russia, those things have changed for the better towards us. . The French elected Le’American, and the Germans also have come closer to the right in their election of rather proAmerican leaders. The World Hate Us, is loosing it’s base. Those that really hate us (Oh, like AQ and other Fundy Islamics) hate us more for the Values the left hold dear. They hate gays, the hate women being free to live, they hate any religion other than their particular brand of Mohamed’s rantings. They Really hate folks like me who are Atheists.
They hate us for Iraq as well. . .If they could just control it as well as Iran, why then they could jerk the supplies around even more.
they hate we brought freedom and democratic secularism to the Iraqi people.
They hate we brought Girls Schools.
They hate that Pork is now for sale in butcher shops in Baghdad.
So, yeah, some people do hate us more for going to Iraq.
But is like a serial murderer hating the police for making his killing harder to get away with. That is what the left is standing on.
Here is a question that John will agree with. Why do the Dems claim that even if we began drilling now it would not provide oil for 6-10 years? What does that matter if you are against it in principle anyway?
And will there be more or less cars here in 6-10 years? A flawed logic.
July 20, 2008 @ 10:07 am“If it weren’t for the “distraction” (his favorite word) of Iraq, we’d still be loved universally around the world.”
The word “distraction,” when used by Obama, seems to be sometime of code word to designate and area or issue where he has little experience, knowledge, or serious character flaws that he doesn’t want the citizens of this nation to know about.
Also, anyone else find it odd that the supposedly eloquent and quick thinking Barack is afraid to engage that “old guy” McCain in more than three debates and totally rejected his call for a series of townhall meetings?
August 4, 2008 @ 5:35 amI’m not surprised. If Obama is reading off of a teleprompter he’s sounds very convincing and charismatic. If he has to debate without the help of prepared sound bites, he sounds a bit like the current president – not very good at speaking extemporaneously.
August 4, 2008 @ 11:58 amDebates
Frueh’s Dictionary of Terms
A forum for cleaver oratory designed to dodge, shade, and out and out lie.
By the way, John, do you notice that almost all the talk shows speak about the strategy of the candidates and not their actual stands? It’s like listening to the racing form in audio!
August 4, 2008 @ 12:54 pmAm I alone in finding the “flypaper theory” reprehensible? Why is it acceptable to draw all the terror to another country, where most people have a different faith and darker skin and don’t pay US taxes? Everyone seems to agree there’s been a lot more terror, alot more death and injury, in Iraq since 9/11 than there would have been in the US if the Iraq war had never happened. That’s like saying the US president evaluated Iraqi lives as being less worthwhile, more expendable, than American lives. As a non-American, but mostly as a Christian, I find that prospect nauseatingly offensive.
August 4, 2008 @ 2:46 pmKeith – I agree. And if you include African countries it multiplies disproportionately.
August 4, 2008 @ 2:59 pmThe value or lack of value of an Iraqi life had nothing to do with us overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Our reason for the war has been stated so many times on this site, by multiple authors, that’s its painful to have to review them once again for those who don’t get it. If you’re in the Michael Moore camp of “Bush lied and people died” there’s not much to discuss.
August 4, 2008 @ 3:25 pmI agree.. flypaper is evil.
Instead we should have let these people dissolve into the civilian populations around the world and them wreck havoc with local muslim population and eventually the greater society.
Their right to work towards the undermining of our way of life has been crushed by the evil Americans.
August 4, 2008 @ 3:49 pm