Asymmetrical Information

I would strongly disagree that the war on terror is "vanishingly unlikely to inflict on us the kinds of casualties that those battles inflicated on America in the 20th century." One WMD (ignore Iraq, terrorist could plausibly get one from Iran, NK, Pakistan, former USSR, ...) in a major city and we are talking about WWII type casualties. Any stray smallpox virus and a few willing suicide - terrorists could cause death on a scale of WWI to Europe. Do I think these will happen, no. But they are *very* plausible.

The battle against terrorists is not a conventional war, to be strategized about in conventional ways. The existence of terrorism depends on people being pushed over a line of anger and desperation. Thus, one could argue that the Iraq invasion has made the battle against terror tougher: many more in the Middle East and elsewhere have probably been pushed over the line to extremism by the perceived bullying. This means the world will be facing a longer, harder battle against terrorism than it would have without the Iraq invasion. This also affects domestic policy: defense and homeland security expenditures will in the future be very high, and are high currently for Iraq -- this takes money away from domestic programs, no matter how it is allocated.

The rise of terrorism _within_ Iraq suggests that current reconstruction efforts may not be working well; Kerry suggests a change in tack. Of course the results of a change cannot be predicted, but how bad do things have to get before it becomes reasonable to try something different?

Well, at a minimum, it just got a lot easier for every other country in the world to justify a nuclear program, and having such a program seems a lot smarter than it used to. Have nukes - US negotiates. Don't have nukes - US invades. We've lost any ability we might have had to argue that, b/c of our special nature, we're well situated to determine who else gets to have nukes.

While I agree that Bush probably has screwed up in Iraq, there is a moral argument for our intervention. Saddam is estimated to have killed over a million people. The number of people being killed in Iraq today is miniscule compared to the number Saddam murdered each year. Our intervention has saved lives.

I could give you a better argument if I knew exactly what spending proposals from Kerry that well, sickens you. I would guess it to be the health care proposal, because thats the only significant spending proposal unique to Kerry Ive heard of. In a sentence, I think its much better policy to have close to Universal health coverage since Kerry will pay for it by rolling back the tax cut(s). I know there are vastly different evaluations of the cost of this health care program, but imo even if they have to roll back the Bush tax cuts for anyone who earned over $100,000, its money well spent.

Iraq is a disaster. We are creating a huge number of muslim fanatics from middle of the road muslims. The families of every Iraqi that dies by ANY hand in Iraq, hate and blame America. Everytime a car bomb blows up in Bahgdad, the "eyewitnesses" always say it was an Apache rocket. The middle of the road muslims in every Arab state that observes the 5 pillars of Islam, now have proof every day on Al Jazeera of Americans occupying Iraq and killing Iraquis, and turn to jihad as the Koran prescribes. The US believes every single suicide bomber in Iraq to be a foreign fighter, because Saddam was so fearful of a powerful cleric unseating him he demanded a very secular state. We have completely changed Iraq from a stable, contained nation, into a hot bed of terrorist recruitment, training, and export. The most recent terrorist bombing in SA is believed to be done by terrorists trained in Iraq. There is no chance of democracy in Iraq. Iraq has to be stablized and turned over to whichever group of Iraqis that can maintain stability and order.

The downsizing of the military post cold war, was done with the thought that the "new" world would require a smaller, more rapidly deployed military. That sort of quick responding military is exactly what our military should be to best fight terror. Part of the failure to fully equip our soldiers, and having many soldiers do jobs that they are untrained for, like say Abu Grahib, is because the post cold war military spending wasn't done to be a huge occupying force, in fact the spending was to accomplish just the opposite.

1) George Bush's policies-in-general (invading Iraq and then bungling it into Yugoslavia) and tactics (Gitmo, Abu Ghirab - have a hard time believing a Kerry administration would do either of these) inflame the muslim world.
2) An inflamed muslim world is more likely to be radicalized, and overthrow the moderate dictator governments of the region.
3) What do you think will happen if crazies either a) take over or b) turn anarchic Saudi Arabia or Pakistan?

Heres why having been in Vietnam matters. Kerry would have never allow for this disgusting lack of an occupation plan-

Lack Of Armor Claims Troops
United Press International
April 27, 2004

WASHINGTON - Twenty percent of the U.S. troops killed in Iraq might have lived had there been more armored, heavier vehicles available to them, Newsweek reports Monday.

A top Army general is recommending the Army send more Stryker medium-weight fighting vehicles to Iraq, which are lighter than tanks but heavier than Humvees, according to the magazine.

Newsweek reports that an unofficial study by a defense consultant now circulating through the Army says 142 Americans were killed by land mines or improvised roadside bombs and 48 others by rocket-propelled grenades.

"Almost all those soldiers were killed while in unprotected vehicles, which means that perhaps one in four of those killed in combat in Iraq might be alive if they had had stronger armor around them," according to Newsweek's account.

The Army is racing to send "up-armored" Humvees to Iraq, but remains almost 1,800 vehicles short for its needs.

The Bush Administration's failure to adequately prepare for the Iraq war and its aftermath left thousands of our troops exposed to enemy fire without sufficient body armor and heavily armored Humvees. Tens of thousands of soldiers deployed to Iraq were outfitted with Vietnam-era flak jackets incapable of stopping an AK-47 round instead of the Army's best body armor because the Bush Administration had failed to procure and provide them with the needed armor kits prior to their deployment. As of December 2003, nine months after the invasion and more than a year after U.S. forces were deployed to the region, 40,000 of the 130,000 soldiers in Iraq still lacked the best body armor.

While the Defense Department now claims to finally have distributed body armor in sufficient quantities to protect all troops, the Bush Administration has still failed to provide other equipment that could make our troops more secure. For example, more than 10,000 of the 12,000 Humvees in Iraq are currently without adequate armor. The Bush Administration's Fiscal Year 2005 budget would provide funding for the construction of 818 new armored Humvees, but provides zero funding for upgrading the 10,000 vulnerable vehicles already in Iraq. The Army does not expect a full compliment of heavily armored Humvees to arrive in Iraq for more than a year.

President Bush opposed providing health care to soldiers serving on the front lines in Iraq and the War on Terrorism and their families. Despite his recent rhetoric, President Bush has clearly and repeatedly opposed providing reservists and their families with access to military health care. On July 8, 2003, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated "If the President is presented a bill that...expands TRICARE, then I would join other senior advisors to the President in recommending that he veto the bill."

An October 16, 2003 Statement of Administration Policy asserted that "The Administration strongly opposes...an amendment that was accepted by the Senate to provide for expanded benefits under the TRICARE program." Finally, OMB Director Bolton wrote, on October 21, 2003, that "The Administration strongly opposes...the provision that would expand benefits under the TRICARE program."

President Bush actively opposed combat pay increases. After having failed to request increases in family separation allowance and imminent danger pay for all soldiers serving abroad and facing hostile fire, the White House then opposed congressional efforts to provide these increases. On August 14, 2003, during debate on the Fiscal Year 2003 Supplemental Appropriations bill, Undersecretary of Defense David Chu announced that the Defense Department opposed extending increases past the end of Fiscal Year 2003. One month earlier, the Defense Department sent Congress an interim budget report calling for the expiration of the increases

to somecallmetim,

The accelerated nuclear programs around the world went into high gear right after the FIRST Gulf War. The Chief of Staff of the Indian Army sumed it up best with (I Paraphrase): "You can't face the US without nuclear weapons." Every country in the world got the message. The US and allies can "regime change" ANYONE, its just a cost calculation on our part. Luckily we are a peaceful country.(not looking for an argument-just in general we don't pick fights).

When the little countries have nukes and the ability to deliver them (via SSBM or ICBM) the cost drivers change and these countries leadership might think they can avoid a regime change if we come after them. Think Korea. They come south, get trashed 10 miles south of the DMZ. S. Korea and the US head north to liberate and re-unify Korea under a democratic government. The North Koreans announce that they will deliver a nuke into Seoul, Tokyo, and Peking if we don't stop in place and negotiate a cease-fire (all easy shots, soon you might get to add Seattle or San Francisco). Your the President-what do you do? Trade these cities to get the madman? What will China do? (They may shoot first!) Ballistic Missile Defense, if successful, will allow regime change of nuclear armed opponents (except the Russians and anyone else with hundreds/thousands or warheards) without trading our or allied cities. Thats why we're spending the big bucks on BMD BTW - not to stop the Russians.

Iran is even a tougher nut, luckily its a VERY long shot (which BTW must overfly vic Moscow) to hit the US East coast. Isreal or Europe are more likely targets. The Europeans think they can appease the Mullahs. I think the Isreali's will take them out.

Sorry about the long post but I flew B-52s for 20 years and am intimately familier with these calculations...

Jason - you answered your own question. "Moderate Dictators" (????). The crazies already run the roost. If they are overthrown we WILL intervine - Saudi to takeover the country (secure the oil and the economic lifeblood of the industrialized world), in Pakistan to secure the nukes (with, my bet, Indian help) and then let them rot. Yes Jason its all coming to a head. Better now than in 10-20 years when they have nukes and far more scary bio weapons. Islam is going to have to change, they are not after us becuase of Bush - but becuase we are America. (freedom, democracy, women not used as slaves/chattel, etc). BTW are military is NOT overstretched by wartime standards - just by peacetime standards.

Yes, we live in interesting times...

Kerry proposes spending $700 billion on health care. His tax increases would raise at most half of that amount.

Taking money out of the hands of successful business people and giving it to government bureaucrats would harm the economy. Government has a very bad record when it comes to using money wisely. The hundreds of billions spent in Iraq is but one example.

Buffpilot, maybe its all your expierience piloting bombers that have made you blind to the fact that Iran or NK providing the delivery system for a nuke isnt the real danger. The sale of a nuke to a terror group, and proliferation of nuke technology are the primary concerns related to Iran, Pakistan, and NK. These are the nations with the most prolific support of terror, along with SA.

You destroy your credability with your claims Islam hates us for our freedom. Read "Imperial Hubris", "Against All Enemies", or even UBLs Fatwa. Its our support of leaders like Mushariff and the Saudi Royal Family that makes radical Islam hate us. We prop them up, they gives us a good deal on oil, and that causes alot of dirt poor muslims for terror to recruit. Throw in our military presence in the arabian penninusla that goes against the Koran, and you got yourself a jihad.

How many terrorists target the Swiss, or other countries that mind their own business? American interventionism is the reason we are a target for terrorism and that we need a "War on Terror" in the first place. End American interventionism and go after those who did 9/11 as criminals and call an end to *creating* terrorists by interfering in the mideast and putting us all at greater risk. Stop playing feel good smoke and mirrors games like with airport screening (unless everyone is subjected to intrusive cavity searches or xrays its a joke,
a determined terrorist can sneak something non metallic through in, er, uncomfortable ways (or female terrorist under padded bra, etc). If you want to interfere in the mideast personally, go over there and volunteer in some army. vs. stealing money from the rest of us to interfere over there and putting us at risk.

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
Thomas Jefferson

Hey, Begbee, are we allowed to comment on your blatant lies in these threads?

Granted, you lie whenever you open your mouth, but hey, I'm trying to make a point about your need to interfere in the Bush supporters threads with your benighted opinions.

What Bryan said exactly. The Law of Unintended Consequences is a powerful one. Also, concerning Kerry's health plan-an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Spending more money on preventative medicine and treating diseases early is something that has to be factored into his health plan. Also, a little sacrifice for the common good is not a bad thing.

Jack point out a "blatant lie" and I'll coach you up. Im an independent that when given the choice between Gore and Bush chose not to vote.

A conflict of WHAT scale? What do you think the scale is? What short term and long term goals do you think the jihadists have? I don't think Bush has a clue. How many of the posters here do?

Your numbers are way off. Great Britain lost nowhere near 15% of its population in World War I. The actual percentage was 1.6%. The equivalent percentage for France was 3.4%. The heaviest of any county was Turkey at 3.7%. My source is Niall Ferguson's The Pity of War, p. 299.

Casualties were much heavier in World War II for several countries due to widespread killing of civilians. Heaviest in percentage terms were Poland (17.2%), the USSR (11%), and Yugoslavia (10.9%). The equivalent figure for Great Britain in WWII was 0.8%. Source is Bullock's Hitler and Stalin.

I believe the struggle against totalitarian Islamism (as opposed to the democratic Islamism we see in Turkey) is best understood as an opportunity to nip a problem in the bud.

It is as if we had opportunity to bar the totalitarian Bolsheviks from taking over Russia, instead settling for democratic authoritarian socialists. Or, having overthrown imperial Germany and the Hapsburg empire, we faced an opportunity to intervene in unstable inter-war Central Europe. In either case, we would have profited greatly from an intervention which led to merely 'bad' democratic authoritarian parties (of left or right) triumphing over horrific totalitarian parties.

Totalitarian Islamism has the potential to become a problem almost on the scale that fascism or communism became. Even assuming it would only appeal to Sunni Arabs, it could span from Iraq to Morocco, Sudan to Syria. It could be assumed to destabilize (if not overthrow) governments in areas with non-Arab Sunni populations (Indonesia, Pakistan, Central Asia) or areas with large Sunni Arab populations (France).

Short run US-isolationism would entail possibly facing such a state (likely very aggressive, given OBL's ideology) in concert with its neighbors (abandoning isolationism now for a most costly struggle later) or abandoning its neighbors to its depredations.

The best and surest strategy in the struggle against totalitarian Islamism is to make sure that Islamic Democratic parties (parallel to Christian Democratic parties in Europe) can be democratically elected.

As Marc, I strongly question your premise that the war on terror is vanishingly unlikely to result in significant casualties.

The reason the war on terror is important to me, and to the people I personally know, is that it may well inflict such casualties. (I don't accept your WWII or British % Benchmarks as relevant, btw).

How many people will a suitcase bomb in Penn Station kill? I don't know, but Kerry seems far more serious, and credible, about the mitigating the threat of such a possibility. In the debates Bush didn't dispute Kerry's assertion that he would take 14 years to secure loose nukes. Adding the four years that Bush has already had, that makes about 18 years too many.

Additinally, Kerry seems far more intellectually and psychologically prepared to do the long, hard, and politically unrewarding diplomatic work required to win this war.

If we want to have good actionable intelligence, if we intend to disrupt and dismantle the financial networks that support the terrorists, if we are seriously committed to nuclear non-proliferation, we must not needlessly offend our allies. Indeed, we must seek their favor.

Bush, however, seems to enjoy pissing on the shoes of Chirac and Schroeder, amoung others. To what end? His constituency likes it, national interest be damned.

Second, Kerry is not nearly so committed to the incredibly impractical idea of a democratic Iraq. American interests are best served by a stable, non-fundamentalist Iraq that will not allow Islamic terrorists to operate within its borders -- the antebellum status quo, in other words.

By invading Iraq, Bush created a problem that previously didn't exist. And by his rhetorical flights of fancy regarding the dream of a democratic Iraq, Bush has made a practical solution to the new problem of a Fundamentalist and Anarchic Iraq impossible.

Kerry, however, can solve the problem Bush has created by enabling a friendly dictatorship, or by creating a workable partition, etc.... Furthermore, by proposing a realistic solution, and by sharing authority he can attract new partners to the effort -- partners that Bush has quite deliberately shunted aside.

Then perhaps our troops might not be stretched so thin, and we can send the special ops guys back to hunt Osama Bin Forgotten.

"best understood as an opportunity to nip a problem in the bud"

if you are talking about future country vs. country war, it seems likely that they won't be a match for the US and will know this. If you are talking about terrorism, the current approach seems the best way to breed more terrorists. To
ensure that they of course think that attacking us is the best opportunity to try to nip a problem in the bud or more likely to attempt incite war to stir the rest of the people over there to join with them inhating the US. I'm sure the non-Iraqi terrorists were glad to see the war and increased anti-US sentiment over there, the US gave them what they wanted re: inciting further antipathy between the sides, showing them terrorism worked.

"Kerry seems far more intellectually and psychologically prepared to do the long, hard, and politically unrewarding diplomatic work required to win this war"

hmm. I'd suggest looking at his Senate record to see
how well he did the "long hard work" of diplomacy with the Republicans to get bills passed. (I'm voting LP, I'm anti-Bush also so don't take the comment that way)

"make sure that Islamic Democratic parties get elected"

You are assuming they will elect friendly, peaceful people and that all the factions used to fighting will all of a sudden accept the situation.
The problem is that these people aren't used to democracy or freedom. A sudden forced transition and hey will ilkely retreat to elected authoritarianism like Russia has been, Venezuela, etc. Hitler was elected. Eventually the transition to real freedom/democracy will happen but I'm not sure how easy or how long that'll be.

I don't think you can have real democracy in any Islamic nation, and its going to be difficult to stabalize Iraq with something other than a despot. The amount of oil wealth in Iraq is going to make it difficult to install and maintain any stable government in Iraq. A guy like Alloli(sp) whos basically Saddam light is the only alternitive to an Islamic cleric. But despite Allolis Sunni Baathist past, he had been in exile a long time before being installed as PM, and doesnt look to be effective.

Repercussions of more Bush that might outweigh your problems with Kerry's domestic policies:

1) Engaging in war in Iran without world support. This is probably a 20% chance, which is still high enough to scare the daylights out of me. Invade one Muslim country with insufficient justification (by the lights of most Muslim countries, at least), and its an accident. Twice is jihad, and would escalate beyond imagining.

2) North Korea sells nukes built on Bush's watch to terrorists, U.S. or ally cities blown up or held hostage. We go to war against N. Korea, and a lot of people die. Probability: who knows? Saddam was a sadist and a "bad man" in Cheney parlance, but he was understandable as a thug who had fought, scrabbled, and killed for power.

Kim Jong Il is the weird dictator of doubtful sanity who inherited his post from his father and rules an incredibly isolated country where we have no idea what the military or anyone else thinks about their own capabilities versus ours.

3) Global warming and other environmental catastrophes pile up. Much of the damage may already be done, and there's some evidence of recovery (ozone layer still there, for instance). But Bush doesn't even acknowledge that their may be a serious problem. Kyoto was a bad idea (unattainable, inequitable goals would just breed cynicism and contempt), but we need to start treating this like a real problem and not some leftwing conspiracy theory. Unless you want to be visiting New Orleans underwater fifty years from now (which might even be an improvement, who knows?).

My posting was not in support of any particular means (invasion vs. support of NGOs) of realizing a 'accomodation of moderate Islamists through democratization' grand strategy. It was rather to point to what, IMHO, is the real danger of totalitarian Islam. Not terrorism, but eventual rise to State power.

We've lost less than 5,000 people since 9/11 due to terrorism (including miiltary losses). That's probably less than we'll lose to this year's flu vaccine screw-ups.

Horrible to say, but terrorism, except of the nuclear or epidemic bioweapon varieties (e.g. smallpox or similar, which actually worries me more than nuclear), doesn't kill enough people that we should be that worried about it. Given a choice between losing a few hundred people a year to terroism and having our civil liberties eroded, I'd choose the former.

But a totalitarian Islamic state, unifying the Arab world in say 2025, using the combined oil revenues of the Gulf (to buy the weapons) and the population base of the middle east (lots of angry young men, unlike the U.S., Russia, Europe and Japan by then), scares the bejeezus out of me.

A better analogy than flu vaccines would be what percentage increase in the 'death by homicide' the 5,000 or so deaths represents when spread over the three years. I'd guess about 10%.

Deaths by murder (terrorist or otherwise) are morally equivalent in a way that deaths by flu are not.

Comments are Closed.