WAR ON TERROR - ARE WE LOSING ? - THE SUNDAY COMMENTARY
Are we, The United States of America, losing the War on Terror ? I believe in a very real sense and from a certain perspective the answer is yes. First let me clarify my answer. From a strict military stand point in the battlefields of the world fighting Islamic terrorism we are winning!
Our brave and heroic men and women who wear the uniform of America's Armed Forces are waging a fight, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq of other battlefields in this war, against a ruthless and merciless enemy who use any and all means conventional and especially non-conventional to terrorize the world. They kill without thought of who. They murder women and children in the same manner as soldiers. The fight in the streets as civilians. They use chemicals like chlorine to kill or mame as readily as a bullet or RPG.
Yet in spite of the ruthlessness of this enemy our finest are displaying a determination, resolve and willingness to fight this enemy of America because they believe in what they do and understand the consequences of defeat. Their determination to stand firm against this enemy is defeating the enemy in the field of battle.
In like manner the President, whether one agrees with strategy or location, is just as determined and resolved to see this fight for America through to a victorious end.
He stated on September 20, 2001, just nine days after the brutal attacks against our country on September 11, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen."
" And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism........... From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. "
To this the Congress and the vast majority of the nation rose as one in applause and resolve to fight the radical Islamic enemy on any and all battlefields where they are found. Whether Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups and the nations that harbored, trained and financed such groups.
Today that resolve here at home is gone. The main strategy of terrorism is though actions that terrorize instill fear, chaos or discord as a weapon to defeat their enemies. In a very real sense Islamic fanatics who use terrorism as a weapon have achieved this goal here at home.
We are a nation in turmoil. Congress is fighting the President to fund the very men and women who fight and die daily defending this nation against our enemy. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey has declared in a memo to all staffers of House members that Congress will no longer use the wording, "War on Terror, " or "Global War on Terror, " as it may offend. Congressional members are seeking negotiations and dialogues with this enemy on their turf.
Anti - war activists refuse to allow former terrorists to speak at colleges expressing the true nature of this radical Islamic enemy. Even in other public forums speakers who seek to tell the truth about this enemy are booed off the stage sometimes with violent actions from audience members. They are beginning to vilify the very men and women who fight this enemy and defend our freedom.
The Main Stream Media only reports body counts and bombing rather than success in the field or the stories of heroes fighting for their country. With the expressed idea of continually stirring public opinion against the war and the defeat of this enemy.
The enemy uses this to its advantage for whenever they wish to shape American opinion against the war they send a homicide bomber or kill Americans with an RPG. After the recent attack in the, "Green Zone, " Senator John McCain spoke of this enemy strategy to which most of the media ignored or gave a momentary sound bite then followed with a body count report.
Because of fear of offending Muslims and in many cases fear of possibly offending the terrorists into further attacks, political correctness is running amok as schools are using, "Christian Terrorists, " in a mock drill designed to test readiness in case of a local terrorist attack.
It is no longer acceptable to refer to terrorist as Islamic, radicals, fascists or extremists. Many on the left from television personalities to College Professors actually defend Muslim terrorists in their actions and blame the United States for the murder they commit.
Endless , "documentaries, " websites and books have surfaced claiming that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were destroyed by our own government. These conspiracy nuts are actually gaining public forum and following daily.
In this country it is no longer acceptable to fight and believe in the ideals and principles that this nation was founded upon and in whose very existence and adherence to have made our nation strong and the envy of all who seek freedom. Those who still believe and express these ideals are labeled, "neo -cons, fascists, radicals, fanatics and warmongers."
So have Islamic Terrorists succeeded here at home in creating chaos, discord and discontent among the American people ? In a very real sense, yes! Is America and the ideals and principles in which this nation founded upon still worth fighting for ? To many I believe the answer would be no. We have lost our resolve to fight. We have lost our resolve to stand for what we believe in unless it is anti - America. The voice of the many who still believe in this nation is being silenced in many ways by those who think we are the cause of all trouble and world problems.
It would seem that the only thing between us and defeat by Islamic radicals who wish our destruction and the death of every American is the determined resolve of the President and the brave soldiers who meet them daily on the worlds battlefields.
Can we as a nation survive this fight ? Do we still understand who we are and why we even exist as a nation ? Deep down I believe that we do. We can survive and we can be victorious. Our troops will see to this, if they are allowed to finish the fight. If Congress succeeds in bringing them home prematurely whether by unconstitutional time lines or stopping funding we may find that America and our ideals become another in a long line of societies who just fade into history.
We are more than a foot note in history. We are worth fighting for and believing in. Our nation is great and is still the hope of freedom for those who seek its liberties. We must as a nation stand firm against this enemy who seeks our destruction. Islamic Fanaticism must be defeated in the battlefields, the Halls of Congress, our cities and streets, our living rooms and in the hearts, souls and minds of every American!
Ken Taylor
Our brave and heroic men and women who wear the uniform of America's Armed Forces are waging a fight, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq of other battlefields in this war, against a ruthless and merciless enemy who use any and all means conventional and especially non-conventional to terrorize the world. They kill without thought of who. They murder women and children in the same manner as soldiers. The fight in the streets as civilians. They use chemicals like chlorine to kill or mame as readily as a bullet or RPG.
Yet in spite of the ruthlessness of this enemy our finest are displaying a determination, resolve and willingness to fight this enemy of America because they believe in what they do and understand the consequences of defeat. Their determination to stand firm against this enemy is defeating the enemy in the field of battle.
In like manner the President, whether one agrees with strategy or location, is just as determined and resolved to see this fight for America through to a victorious end.
He stated on September 20, 2001, just nine days after the brutal attacks against our country on September 11, "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
"This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat. Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen."
" And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism........... From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. "
To this the Congress and the vast majority of the nation rose as one in applause and resolve to fight the radical Islamic enemy on any and all battlefields where they are found. Whether Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups and the nations that harbored, trained and financed such groups.
Today that resolve here at home is gone. The main strategy of terrorism is though actions that terrorize instill fear, chaos or discord as a weapon to defeat their enemies. In a very real sense Islamic fanatics who use terrorism as a weapon have achieved this goal here at home.
We are a nation in turmoil. Congress is fighting the President to fund the very men and women who fight and die daily defending this nation against our enemy. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey has declared in a memo to all staffers of House members that Congress will no longer use the wording, "War on Terror, " or "Global War on Terror, " as it may offend. Congressional members are seeking negotiations and dialogues with this enemy on their turf.
Anti - war activists refuse to allow former terrorists to speak at colleges expressing the true nature of this radical Islamic enemy. Even in other public forums speakers who seek to tell the truth about this enemy are booed off the stage sometimes with violent actions from audience members. They are beginning to vilify the very men and women who fight this enemy and defend our freedom.
The Main Stream Media only reports body counts and bombing rather than success in the field or the stories of heroes fighting for their country. With the expressed idea of continually stirring public opinion against the war and the defeat of this enemy.
The enemy uses this to its advantage for whenever they wish to shape American opinion against the war they send a homicide bomber or kill Americans with an RPG. After the recent attack in the, "Green Zone, " Senator John McCain spoke of this enemy strategy to which most of the media ignored or gave a momentary sound bite then followed with a body count report.
Because of fear of offending Muslims and in many cases fear of possibly offending the terrorists into further attacks, political correctness is running amok as schools are using, "Christian Terrorists, " in a mock drill designed to test readiness in case of a local terrorist attack.
It is no longer acceptable to refer to terrorist as Islamic, radicals, fascists or extremists. Many on the left from television personalities to College Professors actually defend Muslim terrorists in their actions and blame the United States for the murder they commit.
Endless , "documentaries, " websites and books have surfaced claiming that the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were destroyed by our own government. These conspiracy nuts are actually gaining public forum and following daily.
In this country it is no longer acceptable to fight and believe in the ideals and principles that this nation was founded upon and in whose very existence and adherence to have made our nation strong and the envy of all who seek freedom. Those who still believe and express these ideals are labeled, "neo -cons, fascists, radicals, fanatics and warmongers."
So have Islamic Terrorists succeeded here at home in creating chaos, discord and discontent among the American people ? In a very real sense, yes! Is America and the ideals and principles in which this nation founded upon still worth fighting for ? To many I believe the answer would be no. We have lost our resolve to fight. We have lost our resolve to stand for what we believe in unless it is anti - America. The voice of the many who still believe in this nation is being silenced in many ways by those who think we are the cause of all trouble and world problems.
It would seem that the only thing between us and defeat by Islamic radicals who wish our destruction and the death of every American is the determined resolve of the President and the brave soldiers who meet them daily on the worlds battlefields.
Can we as a nation survive this fight ? Do we still understand who we are and why we even exist as a nation ? Deep down I believe that we do. We can survive and we can be victorious. Our troops will see to this, if they are allowed to finish the fight. If Congress succeeds in bringing them home prematurely whether by unconstitutional time lines or stopping funding we may find that America and our ideals become another in a long line of societies who just fade into history.
We are more than a foot note in history. We are worth fighting for and believing in. Our nation is great and is still the hope of freedom for those who seek its liberties. We must as a nation stand firm against this enemy who seeks our destruction. Islamic Fanaticism must be defeated in the battlefields, the Halls of Congress, our cities and streets, our living rooms and in the hearts, souls and minds of every American!
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 11:11 AM
35 Comments:
Since terror is an emotion, you can't win a war on an emotion.
Terrorism is a tactic, and tactics will always be employed. So the metaphor is false and hollow.
Ken,
Great Post. The comment from Catfish on the previous post below must have been the inspiration for this post.
Catfish,
I cant figure out sometimes if you are on medication and have forgotten to take it or are in need of it and havent gotten it.
My guess is, the latter one.
Ken, excellent post! A lot of good questions and great perspective on your answers. We will not give in, we will not leave without completing the mission! If we do, we have disgraced every warrior who gave the greatest sacrifice, as well as their families.
The question recieves different answers, depending on your perspective of "winning". This is the heart of the entire debate.
If your sole perspective is that Americans are dying, then we will never reach a point of winning.
If your perspective is the long view, that peace is a state of security and not one of absence of conflict, then we are winning.
I don't rememeber any bombs going off in the U.S. during the last five years, and since 2,000 insurgents died in Fallujah alone in 2004, then I think we have the upper hand.
The administration, whether this one or the ones to follow, must be tough in their diplomatic efforts. Talks with Syria and Iran accomplish nothing. We must, however, force the entire region to adopt new philosophies.
A victory probably won't be had in my lifetime, but that is no reason to surrender.
Ken (or anyone else), please explain to me when we will ever get to a point (EVER), when "every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."
Three terrorists with a bit of money and Internet access have a global reach. Just how will all of the splinter cells around the world EVER be stopped? Or are you just accepting that the GWOT will be the never-ending war that it was intended to be?
Robert, I'm thankful that folks like you weren't in charge during the Cold War. "Talks with Syria and Iran accomplish nothing." The reason the Cold War ended was because of "talks." We kept an open dialogue with our mortal (and far more dangerous) enemy for decades and eventually it paid off. We didn't attack them preemtively to change their philosophies.
"We must, however, force the entire region to adopt new philosophies." I'm not exactly sure how you expect we will do this, because it cannot be done militarily. However, at a higher level, the arrogance of that statement is breathtaking. It demonstrates little to no understanding of the realities of the Middle East. It also represents the misguided and flawed neo-con philosophy that has so spectacularly failed in Iraq.
Robert, you have piqued my interest. What new philosophies are you arguing for? And just how do you think we should "force" the folks of the Middle East to accept those new philosophies?
By the point of a gun or edge of a sword...what else? War mongers swing both ways.
Hey, Rob,
What "misguided and flawed neo-con philosophy that has so spectacularly failed in Iraq" are you talking about.
Are you referring to the official policy of the United States of America to support the removal of a brutal dictator and the establishment of a democratic government in Iraq? Are you saying that that is a "misguided and flawed neo-con philosophy that has so spectacularly failed in Iraq?"
No the official policy was fine.
Invasion certainly was not the only means of implementing the policy.
The pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation that posed no immediate threat to the U.S. and which has unleashed a civil war in the heart of the Middle East is the one I am referring to. You know, the one that is resulting in the largest and most expensive nation-building exercise in our nation's history.
I like the "democratic government" reference. Hilarious.
I am assuming you know who the neo-cons are and what the neo-con agenda was. Those individuals had the power in the Bush administration to implement their theories and philospophy and that has resulted in the disasterous war.
Rob, I appreciate your comments because they do present some reasonable discussion. Of course I don't agree too foten, but if I did, why would we need blogs? lol
I do not agree that "talks" ended the Cold War. The Cold War ended because of a multi-pronged approach of military strength, diplomacy, intelligence agencies, and economic "warfare" if you will. It was a form of Maneuver warfare that took advantage of the weakness of the opponent and capitalized on that weakness by concentrating our stengths against it. (I recommend the book "The Marine Corps Way: Using Maneuver Warfare to Lead a Winning Organization". This is a book that applies the principles of maneuver warfare to business and organizational management)
Anyway, the cold war and the current war against terrorism have many differences. The Soviets were trying to export a political and economic system. Islamic extremists are doing the same thing, but in their mission statements it includes genocide, mass murder, and the rewards for doing both. The aims of these people is the destruction of Isael and the emergence of a worldwife islamic caliphate that kills anyone who isn't Muslim. The history of the regional conlicts have shown that talks achieve nothing. Talking to terrorist states simply gives them credibility, and the last thing we want to do is validate them and their methods.
Don't try to place me in a box about the use of the word "force". I am aware that military force will not create democracy, any more than force ever created a single world religion. I had in mind a multi-pronged approach of the things lsited above. Countries act in their best interests, and we have to forge a diplomatic and military and economic change. The new philosophies include respect for other religions and forms of government.
Talk alone did not end the Cold War but to deny that they are important would be foolish. I am not implying that you are implying that, I am making a broader argument that Bush's ridiculous position that we should not talk to our enemies flies in the face of the realities of geopolitics in the 20th and now 21st Century.
Sounds like an interesting book. Clearly Bush and his neo-con overlords didn't read it. If they had, they wouldn't have invaded with no real understanding of the Shia/Sunni factions and without a plan for the post-war occupation.
I don't understand the clear contradictions in your last 2 paragraphs. In your last paragraph you are for diplomacy, but in your prior paragraph you are against talking to our enemies in the Middle East.
Maybe I am missing something in your argument, but if you believe that we should only negotiate with friends or neutral parties, then the only thing left for enemies is military attack. Fortunately, we had folks who understood that talking with our enemies was as important as talking with friends when it came to the Cold War.
Sorry to disappoint you Rob but the establishment of a democratic government was not a 'neo-con' agenda.
It may be a failed and flawed one, but it was not a conservative agenda. It was actually a liberal one, as was the regime change, the nation building, the removal of Saddam and his regime, even to the point of using force.
Oh and to quote a great liberal hero about the differences between Shia/Sunni differences, "The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq's history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else. The United States looks forward to a democratically supported regime that would permit us to enter into a dialogue leading to the reintegration of Iraq into normal international life." I guess that means your socialist overlord Clinton didn't get it as well.
This administration only added to that agenda with the use of pre-emptive tactics to initiate the transition.
The previous administration wanted every bit as much to remove him, thought he was an enormous threat to the security of the United States, had congressional members begging President Clinton to take military action to remove him and swore to anyone who asked that he had a very real and very dangerous weapons program. All this occurred before any of your dangerous neo-cons took office, most of it before President Bush even began running for office.
This was not a partisan issue until things start going poorly in Iraq.
No one - liberal or conservative - has ever been against a democratic Iraq. But the practical realities about invasion, occupation, and nation-building that made it foolish.
Clinton had enough sense not to topple Saddam and create the mess that we now have in Iraq. For that matter, Bush Sr. had sense also. Bush Sr. has been criticized in some circles for "not finishing the job." But the fact is that he chose not to take down Saddam in the first Gulf War because there was no U.N. mandate to do so and he did not want to create the power vacuum that has given rise to the sectarian violence that we now see. Bush Sr. based his decision on his decades of international experience. Unfortunately, George W. didn't draw on the expertise of his father.
The neo-cons were largely an ultra-right fringe group that found their man in George W. They have been writing about using U.S. military might to force democracy in the Middle East for decades. In particular, they targeted Iraq because he was a tin pot dictator that they felt they could topple easily.
Your response suggests to me that you know very little about the neo-cons or their agenda. You should read some of the reports and white papers issued by members of the New American Century - Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowicz, Feith, Kristol, etc. Their explicitly stated objective was to use American military force to remake the Middle East.
They tried to implement their theories and it has resulted in an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions that the world will be dealing with for decades.
You seem to be discounting the plethora of Democrats who urged Clinton to take military actions to topple Saddam.
You overlook the statements that Clinton made about Saddam's failure to compy with the UN having only one ultimate result, his removal from power by force. You forget his statements that a democratic regime could not exist under the current Iraqi leadership and that it should be America's goal to assist in or cause regime change at all costs, including directl military force if necessary.
Some of those circles who critized Bush Sr the loudest for not finishing the job he started were Democrats. I understand why he did what he did back then. Our UN Mandate only allowed for the removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait and the liberation of the Kuwaiti people, not the destruction of the Iraqi government or the Removal of Hussein from power.
Do you deny the statements of predominate Democrats charging Iraq as the gravest threat to American security, demanding the destruction of his weapons program and urging the removal of Saddam for the safety and security of the region and the world itself? Do you deny the calls from Congress for President Clinton to act to re-establish weapons inspectors access or remove Hussein from power? Clinto pre-emptively struck Iraq several times, passed an official Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 and warned that further inaction by our nation to remove Hussein if he failed to comply with the UN was a grave threat to our security.
Do you deny any of this?
It doesn't matter. When they were each CIC, Clinton and Bush Sr. didn't attempt to topple Saddam. They had more sense than to create a disasterous power vacuum which unleased a civil war. They also chose not to create the largest nation-building exercise in this country's history.
So what if some Dems were hawkish? What difference does it make? Many Republicans - and all of the neo-cons wanted Saddam's head on a platter so they test their theories of using American military force to create democracies. They found their patsy in George W., and unfortunately their theories have proven spectacularly wrong.
Rob, sometimes off the cuff I forget to be as specific as I should be. By talks, I don't mean high profile talks like Pelosi did last week. I am referring to more discrete diplomacy.
Of course, we cannot begin to make official overtures until Syria, for example, meets some criteria that has been specified such as renouncing terrorism and recognizing Israel.
The use of military force is just an extension of democracy. We must be prepared to use it when necessary.
Robert, Israel is willing to meet with Syria. If they are willing to meet then why in the world should we not meet with the Syrians? Please explain to me how we are in more danger from Syrian terrorism than Israel is.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,263200,00.html
As for military force, we both agree we must be prepared to use it when necessary. The part we seem to disagree on is when it is necessary.
My first point w/respect to Ken's post is that we will NEVER, EVER get to a point when "every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." Yet, that is the mission and the objective that George W. laid out. Basically, it set up an unending war that can never be won.
So instead of hunting down bin Laden and bringing him to justice for 9/11, Bush feels a better use for the U.S. military is to referee a civil war, rebuild schools, re-build roads, guard oil pipelines, and dig wells in Iraq. He is overseeing the single largest and most expensive nation building exercise in this country's history - one that is not going particularly well.
Israel has no option but to meet with Syria, but it won't amount to much. There are decades of broken promises and deceit on the part of the Arabs, and that isn't going to change soon.
I realize that terrorism will never be eradicated. It was first used thousands of years ago. As long as we value life, others will use that against us. Just as in the Va. Tech massacre, we cannot stop small groups of determined, suicidal elements no matter what we do.
I think the assertion that the President believes we can and has set out to do so is too strict an interpretation of the matter. For too long we as a country have ignored the terrorism that has been aimed against us. I think the focus is confronting the large, hghly structured terror groups that can mount large operations such as 9/11. We also have to confront an entire region of the world that views terrorism as a valuable tactic, and states that sponsor and support them must change.
Iraq is not going as we wished. I wouldn't dare to argue that. However, it isn't a failure that should be abandoned.
Notice that CC never named even a single member of the plethora of Democrats who urged Clinton to "take action against Saddam." And also note that CCC only infers, but never states, what that "action" would be.
Robert, it seems to me that you are suggesting that Israel is wasting their time and shouldn't bother. That said, it seems to me that you take the position that we shouldn't bother. We will just have to disagree, but as I have stated in earlier posts, your position runs counter to our methods of dealing with the Soviets.
The Commander-in-Chief has set the conditions and objectives for the War on Terror. He has foolishly committed the U.S. military to a war that, by his own definition and the only one the American people have been told, has no end. You clearly agree this to be true.
Iraq is long past the point of any hope for success. There is no way that it will result in anything other than an utter failure for American interests. It has destabilized the entire region.
The civil war has erupted, the Iraqi government is corrupt and closely tied to Iran, oil production is lower now than before our invasion, basic services such as electricity, water, security, and waste removal are spotty (at best) which has worsened the lives of most Iraqis. Short of committing about $1 trillion, adding 250,000 combat soldiers (at a minimum), and another 50,000 Army Corps of Engineering folks to rebuild the country), our presence there is over. The only question is when.
Note that mudkitty never responds to any of the challenges for her to back up a single solitary statement that she makes, but I will respond to her challenge.
Names of Democrats:
Harold Ford
Tom Lantos
Bob Graham
Joseph Lieberman
John Kerry
Jesse Helms
Carl Levin
Dianne Feinstein
Nancy Pelosi
Ted (Hiccup) Kennedy
Joseph Biden
(etc...)
Types of actions ranged from request for air and missile strikes to the immediate removal of Saddam Hussein from power by force.
You can do the research yourself and find many, many more. However, I am sure you will just ignore it and pretend that you were right all along.
CCC - all you did was provide a list of names - that doesn't prove what you said was true...about them urging Clinton to do something about Saddam. That's just a list that you made up.
I challenged you to come up with proof of your statement, and you typed up a list of names...that's not proof.
Look - in case your not familiar with the science of logic, it is up to the person making the assertion to provide evidence. Not the challenger to the assertion. You made the assertion, now back it up with proof, and if you can't come up with proof, which you can't, at least provide some evidence.
What? You pretend to lecture me on supporting my statements? That is pathetic. But, just to endulge you I will provide one example.
Dear Mr. President:
... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Sincerely,
Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.
Letter to President Clinton
Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others
October 9, 1998
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html
There are many more. You are as capable of looking up the others as I am.
Catfish,
I will even do some of your homework for you, try this link: Iraq Liberation Act
Signed into law by President Clinton in 1998!
Yep President Bill (I didnt screw that woman) Clinton!
It was law for regime change in Iraq then and it was when we responded to the "Global War On Terror".
I must have missed the day Clinton invaded Iraq.
CC, what is your point? Some Senators asked Clinton to discuss Iraq with them and take appropriate action in 1998. He must have taken appropriate action because they didn't try to legislate a response.
Marie, if you read the full Iraq Liberation Act, it does not call for a military invasion. It discusses providing $8 million to Iraqi opposition leaders. That is what we are doing in Iran ($85 million - look it up at the State Department) and probably a dozen other countries right now. Funding opposition leaders in foreign countries is a long way from invasion.
It amazes me the lengths to which some folks will go to make excuses for Bush's horrible blunders. Bush has made it clear that he is THE DECIDER. He is the neo-con patsy who led the foolish invasion of Iraq. Clinton clearly was not fool enough to invade. Suggesting that Bush was somehow duped by Clinton, is simply ridiculous. You must really think Bush is an idiot.
The point is Rob, that Clinton was moving toward that end as well. He even stated so in his address to the nation after ordering the strikes. He stated several times that Hussein's continued failure to comply to UN resolutions would result in further action on the part of America, including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.
My main point is that this was never a partisan issue at the begining. We were of primarily one mind on the issue of Iraq and that mindset crossed party lines. Clinton was urged for action, just as Bush was urged for action, by Democrats and Republicans alike. There was a concensus on the level of threat that Iraq posed and it was thought to be the greatest threat to our security in the region. There was a sound belief by most involved in a renewed Iraqi weapons program. Finally, there was an official policy to support or enact regime change in favor of a Democratic government, championed by a bi-partisan group, passed by a Republican congress and signed by a Democratic President.
You are correct, Clinton did not invade and Bush did. Things changed on 9/11 and I beleive that had Clinton still been sitting in the chair after those fateful days, Iraq would have been a prime target for him and his administration as well. I will also say that I would have supported his decision to remove Saddam, much as I supported his decision to enter Kosovo against the will of the UN. At the time, it was the right thing to do based on what we knew, or thought we knew.
I think the biggest fear before 9/11 is that Hussein would develope a weapon to use on his neighbors or his own people. The biggest fear after 9/11 was that he would deliver it into the hands of a terrorist organization capable of deploying it on US soil. I believe this is the number one reason that the administration and congress felt he was to grave of a threat to leave in power.
Your peddling enormous hypotheticals and theories. The fact remains that Bush invaded and Clinton did not. Saddam also did not have serious WMD programs.
Regime change does not mean invasion. It is the policy of the United States to support regime change in Iran right now. We are spending $85 million this year in Iran to do just that. But as I have stated in other posts on this blog, there is no way that we are going to invade Iran.
I can just as easily say that Clinton wouldn't have invaded Iraq because he knew Saddam was not responsible. He also would have brought bin Laden to justice because he knew bin Laden was responsible.
If you were to be intellectually honest and actually deal in facts, you would know that Bush has been incompetent in his prosecution of the war. He has decimated our military and its readiness. He has destabilized the Middle East and opened up a civil war which will go on for years, if not decades.
Blaming Clinton, or saying "Clinton would have done the same thing" is just plain silly. If Clinton had done the same thing, then we could have had a different conversation - but he didn't.
You are missing the point and being intentionally obtuse.
I conceded that Bush invaded Iraq, with the overwehlming support o Congress, based on intelligence that lead everyone involved to believe Hussein possessed a major weapons program. I also conceded that the intelligence estimate was wrong, but not falsified or fabricated by anyone. Most of the intelligence we used was Clinton era assesments. So no one lied, misled, coerced, blah, blah, blah.
I have never said that there were not mistakes in planning or execution. There are always such in war and there always will be.
Also, Bush has NEVER said that Iraq or Saddam was responsible for 9/11 and that was also not my point.
You cannot seriously make the claim that Clinton would have brought bin Laden to justice because he knew he was responsible. Clinton knew he was responsible for the first WTC bombing and for the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and failed to act when the opportunity to grab him occured.
I never blamed Clinton for the situation in Iraq. I was simply illustrating that we were moving toward forced removal of Hussein even under Clinton. He had threatened to remove him by force several times during his administration.
However, all of this was irrelevant to my central point. My point to all of this was very simple. This did not become a partisan issue until things got dificult in Iraq and it became politically expedient to make it so.
We are engaged in military operations in Iraq and have soldiers deployed in theater. This is not the time for partisan battles that threaten the safety of those men and women. This is not the time for our Senators to be publicly stating that this war is lost and that we cannot win. Our enemies listen to what happens in this country as much as we do. When half of our government can do nothing but speak publicly of our defeat and doom, play dangerous political games with the funding for our troops and openly meet with enemies of this country, do you not think our enemies take comfort in our division?
What happened to the age old idea that politics end at the water's edge? While we have our differences here at home, we should remain a united front overseas and in the face of our enemy. These people feed on our division and on all of this partisan bickering. They play our internal struggles to their own benifit.
Just to be clear, the majority of Dems in the House (61%) voted against the Iraq War resolution and in the Senate, 45% of Dems voted against it - so it looks like the Dems were right after all.
It is not partisan to say that Bush has been utterly incompetent, destabilized the Middle East with his failed prosecution of Iraq war, and has broken our military. Those are objective facts.
Being united does not mean blindly following a CIC who has been wrong on virtually everything for 4 years. In fact, the majority of Americans now believe invading Iraq was a mistake, are against the war escalation Bush is implementing, and want a timetable out. You and the President are in the ever shrinking minority. You are more than welcome to unite with the us in the majority any time you like.
It doesn't matter what you or I say. It doesn't matter what Bush says. It doesn't matter what members of Congress say. The corruption within the Iraqi government and the civil war Bush has unleashed with his incompetence have made it impossible for Iraq's "leaders" to come to a political solution. Without that, Iraq is doomed to remain a failed state.
It may take you another 6 months for you to come to that conclusion. During that time, 700 soldiers will lose their lives, we will spend another $60 billion, and Iraq will be in even worse shape.
By the way, my point about Clinton catching bin Laden in my last post is just as plausible as your silly hypotheticals and theories that Clinton would have eventually invaded Iraq. I was playing your game of make believe. If you can make stuff up based on your assumptions and beliefs, then I can too. Either way, trying to project what Clinton would or would not have done really doesn't matter. Bush - and Bush alone - is responsible for the invasion of Iraq and the failure to bring bin Laden to justice. He is THE DECIDER and is a WAR PRESIDENT as he likes to remind us from time to time. He just hasn't been up to the task. That is why he wants to hire a "War Czar" - so he can outsource the job of CIC to someone who actually knows what he/she is doing.
It is obvious that you dispise for this President will not allow you to accept that this was an agreed upon action by a 69% of the House and 77% of the Senate and championed by the very people who condemn the actions now.
That is my problem. This was not just a Bush war. There were calls for this from both sides of the aisle and predominate Democratic leader stated that with absolute assurance that this was the right thing to do.
Could we have found a better solution? Maybe.
Would we have been better off not going into Iraq? Possibly.
But the decision to do so cannot be laid soley on one man. It took an entire congressional body to decide this and there are 111 Democrats who are as responsible as any Republican.
I don't typically argue the right or wrong of the invasion in the context of what to do now. I can show as many example of justification to invade as you can of justification to stay out. The point is that we are there now and what we do will set the stage for our future.
Remember, it was bin Laden himself who stated that Mogadishu taught him that America does not have the will to fight in the face of difficulties and casualties. Our actions now will determine how and where we fight this enemy in the future.
Bush was THE DECIDER. He has told us.
We don't have to debate whether invading was a good idea or not - that decision was made. However, we can examine Bush's leadership in prosecuting the war. First, there was no real plan for the post-Saddam era. That has resulted in horrible mistakes such as not having any security plan once basic civil services broke down (police, water, electricity, sanitation, education, etc.). Disbanding the Iraqi army and de-Baathification compounded the problems.
The weapons caches were never secured, which allowed the insurgency free access to weapons.
The billions in pilfered reconstruction dollars did not allow for reconstruction and much of it was likely used to fund insurgent attacks.
I could go on, but what is the point. Setting aside the horrible decision to invade, Bush has been nothing short of incompetent in his leadership as CIC.
By the way, what do you think we should have done in Somalia? Bush Sr. sent American troops on a humanitarian mission for the U.N. (Clinton inherited the mission - he did not send them). Are you suggesting that Clinton should have sent more troops to a barren land to fight people that have no government and which offers no strategic benefit to the U.S.?
After the military failure in Somalia, Clinton fired his defense secretary. He held him responsible for poor judgement and planning - unlike Bush who says that Rumsfeld was great.
Actually, Bush sent the troops to Somalia at the request of the United Nations as part of a UN Peacekeeping Force in December of 1992. Clinton sent them into Mogadishu to arrest Aidid after the deaths of 24 Pakistani peacekeepers without notification of the UN (not that I am saying he needed it, but that has been a point of contention). When it fell to pieces he immediately yanked them out and subsequently end US support of the entire mission weeks later.
I tend to agree with the Clinton's intent to remove Aidid from power and bring him to justice for his war crimes as a response to the slaughter of the UN Peacekeepers.
What bin Laden (and these are his words not anyone elses) said was that his immediate withdrawl after taking US casualities proved to him that the US did not have the stomach to fight. Do we send that message to them again in Iraq? Do we dare to embolden them anymore?
What is any different from Somalia than Dafur? Several Congressmen are demanding that the US take action to end the suffering and genocidal bloodshed in Dafur. Shall we then go in? If we do, do we stay until it is over or do we pull out the minute we start taking casualties?
We shouldn't go into Darfur. There is no national interest reason to go and we don't have the troops to spare anyway. Besides, refereeing civil wars and nation building are not our strong suit.
We should never have been in Somalia and killing off a bunch of Somalis after we killed 1000 in Black Hawk Down really would not have accomplished anything.
I tend to agree that our best intrest would not be served going into Dafur.
I also tend to think that we have a tendency to see the refereeing of situations like that as a sort of manifest destiny for the United States. Not that that is a particularly good thing. I just think that has arisen because of our role as a primary source for troops for the UN Peacekeeping missions over the past twenty years. Which is the only reason we ended up in Somalia in the first place. I do think though that we should never enter such a situation unless we are prepared to see it through. Going after such things half-heartedly is dangerous, sends a very damaging message to our enemies and is a waste of resources and human life.
Looking at the record of the UN and their very select enforcement of their human rights charter, I think it best that we let others police the world for a while.
While I am not opposed to us preventing genocide and I do not think it can go unchecked, I agree with you that we should focus on what serves to secure or protect the United States first.
Post a Comment
<< Home