The dems convinced themselves, en mass, that Bush was going into Iran a couple months ago (I was even seeing bumper stickers, a great informal gauge of left wing ‘thought’, with the Q digit of Iraq spinning to N). This report was a reaction to that in group meme… not to the real world or the actual Bush admin… For internal consumption / needs if you will… who knows what, if anything, they thought it would actually do in the real world…

Will it make things worse? Maybe. It probably limits Bush’s maneuverability.. It would have been nice to have air strikes on the table (no need for a full invasion)… Now that’s, politically, in doubt as an option.

The solution, if there is one, is a strong Executive Branch - as opposed to the enfeebled, fold the cards at almost every provocation Executive Branch of Pres. Clinton.

Since the people will vote out a President they disapprove of:

1) the media must be taken (through free enterprise) from it’s Eurothink, leftist, passivist masters, in order that the people be fully educated about both sides of issues.

2) the public must refuse to tolerate a massive threat to life and limb. A serious WMD threat should be seen as the equivalent of a man, in a tree, with a sniper rifle aimed at school doors, from which children are about to burst forth. The man aiming the sniper rifle deserves to be neutralized. Even if the man means no harm - and accidentally selected that tree as a location from which to enjoy the view through his rifle-scope, he has sealed his fate just as surely as a man who accidentally falls off a cliff. Both men were careless, and serious injury or death is the natural result. We must, as a nation, believe that a massive WMD threat aimed right at us deserves neutralization. We must, as a nation, have the moral confidence to believe that.

Further, voters must empower the President to clean out the entrenched, Euro-think, leftist passivist core of the Executive Branch Depts such as the State Dept. and the CIA. A President must be allowed to clean out his own Executive Branch - without automatically suffering a loss in his re-election bid. Such a clean-out would occasion a firestorm in the media - and the American people must see through that firestorm to the truth.

A powerful Executive Branch is our saving grace in a world filled with WMDs + end-of-the-world religious terrorists. And a properly functioning State Dept. and CIA must be integral parts of that powerful Executive Branch.

We must not fall for the trick of doom-toned incantations against a “Unitary Executive”! Heaven forbid! An example, from Justice Alito’s confirmation hearings:

Senate Democrats, again and again, referenced Alito’s belief in a “unitary Executive.” This was referenced a dozen times - each time in an ominous tone of voice - before I finally went to the Internet to figure out what the gosh they were talking about. A “unitary Executive” means the President manages and directs the Dept’s - such as State and the CIA - which are part of the Executive Branch.

It turns out many have argued, in recent years, that Dept.’s which were created to be part of the Executive should have autonomous power, and should not be subject to Presidential management and direction. The argument is that there can be Congressional oversight; and Presidential appointment and firing of Department directors; but the Department Directors ought not be managed or directed by the President. The importance is that Dept. goals and direction would not be set by the President. Democratic Senators, whose party has lost 7 of 10 Presidential elections, seem keen on the idea that the President has not had power to manage and direct Executive Branch Departments in years - and a President would have to be a power hungry madman to try to manage Executive dept’s. Alito’s argument (and Bush’s - presumably) is that Executive Branch Dept’s were expressly created for the President to manage, and whatever customs may or may not have been followed in recent years, those alleged customs do not invalidate the President’s proper Constitutional authority.

Jesus Christ was not a pacifist. He believed in self-defense, and at one point encouraged the Apostles to don swords for self-defense purposes.

In the Temple in Jerusalem, Jesus physically overturned the money-changers tables, and physically threw some of them towards(or possibly out of) the door of the Temple. This was not pacifist action. Jesus Christ was not a pacifist.

Related: Jesus lived in a time when the death penalty was frequently enacted. He had opportunity to speak out against it, yet never did. In a series of non-related statements about other matters, Jesus arguably implicitly supported the death penalty at least a dozen times. *

The Sixth Commandment is properly read: “Thou shalt not murder.” To read it: “Thou shalt not kill” is to misinterpret the commandment.

Christianity sanctions self-defense. Christianity is not Ghandi-passivism. Our nation must have the moral confidence to defend ourselves against threats. We must not be cowed by misinterpretations of Christianity.

*Sister Helen Prejean, an anti-death penalty activist, is commendably forthright and confident enough to note the Bible does not condemn the death penalty:

“It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one is hard pressed to find [anything] in either the Hebrew Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this.”

link to more info re: death penalty and the Bible
http://web.telia.com/~u15509119/ny_sida_6.htm

Christ did not articulate principles that covered all aspect of life. He came for a number of reasons and primarily amoungst them was to let people know they have a direct connection to God and do not need proxies.. he stressed a message that was centered on the individual and the indivduals relationship to God, other individuals, and to his government. He didn’t say much about how governments should be .. how nations should be.

So I don’t believe we should run a Christian-based foreign policy when it comes to our enemies.

I know one thing, we certainly aren’t being Christian-based when it comes to how we abuse and betray Israel… which I think is the only International Relation that one can consider to have something said about it in the Bible.

I believe in preemption. I can’t believe we havent’ attacked Iran yet.. I’ve been frustrated all year… our intellegence is so bad that we have absolutely no idea what Iran + North Korea + Syria are up to.. and I think we’ve already waited to long. I think the dirty bombs are made already, I think they’re being positioned all around teh world waiting for the signal and the longer we wait the more deadly the consequences are going to be because the evil that eminates from Iran is not sitting idle while we fool ourselves about how moral and enlightened we are by not defending ourselves.

It seems to me that in this new age, we must implement at least one of these policies, BMD or Preemptive strikes. Which one we choose depends on our moral objections to them, choosing one of two perceived evils. Conversely if we have no moral objections to these two options we could double up on our coverage, and be especially secure…

What remains clear however is that we must choose at least one, BMD or Preemptive strikes, and this is why I am so disillusioned with the democratic party at the moment. If they said, ‘Preemptive strikes are morally unjustifiable because of A, B, and C… And therefore we must come to a BMD understanding with Russia ASAP’, I would respect that opinion as legitimate and would judge it on the validity of their assumptions A, B, and C.

Unfortunately all we hear from democrats is that BMD will start another arms race, and that preemptive strikes are morally unjustifiable, with no concern for what this means to our national security. It takes a mature leader to recognize that we must pick at least one of these two perceived evils, and it is time to start debating the merits of both with this understanding in mind.

I am talking about the moral courage necessary to defend our nation. We ought neither apologize, nor hesitate about the moral righteousness of defending ourselves. Certainly we ought be extremely prudent and careful about our actions - but we need not question whether earnestly defending ourselves is somehow immoral.

I’m also talking about Christianity being miscontrued as Ghandi-esque pacifism.

I’m sorry if I implied you advocated a Christian Foreign Policy… I should have been more clear that your comments were just the inspiration for me to go on a tangent.

I think the last two comments from Mitsu and me details the philosophical difference on the pro-pre-emption and anti-pre-emption side of things.

Link

My disagreement with those that are concerned with blowback, from attacking nations like Iraq and terrorists, is about taking a defensive tactic and using it as a strategy for ultimate victory.

There are also the ethical issues that you, Neo, and Gc brought up. Is it ethically valid to adopt a strategic defense in order to wait to get hit, when you could have attacked first?

It is one thing if it is unintentional. That is just stuff that happens in war. But a choice of first strike or not is a conscious choice, not something that can be latter characterized as unintended.

But because this situation is such a new one, we have not yet developed sensible standards

I think a lot of the Cold War attitudes are still around. You wanted detente or balance of powers, not first strikes against the Russians. The threat of a first strike was really bluff, in that you would do it if the Russians started thinking about it, but they knew that you didn’t want to fight at all. At least not with nukes. If they knew that you wanted a nuclear fight, Russia would start thinking about a first strike option. So first strikes were always bluffs in the Cold War, if they ever existed at all. The key component to MAD deterence was when your cities are in flames and your hidden ICBM subs fire.

So there’s a lot of this Cold War stance that says if you strike first, then you will get blowback. The blowback that you get will invalidate any gains from a first strike.

Classical liberals like first strikes because classical liberalism is designed to destroy those obstructing human progress, whether on purpose or inadvertently. Classical liberals are in alife and death struggle; a struggle that has no option for detente or stability.

Can a slave tolerate stability with his owner? Can women tolerate stability with those that ensure they and their daughters continue to live under female genital mutilation?

Such attitudes coming from the human race breeds first strike mindsets. Precisely because such people care and because they know they cannot live while such practices and people exist.

It has only been recently that the Islamic world has become such a large threat that the United States has been forced to take notice. Now what would have been an individual crusade, such as Ali Hirsi’s, has now become a national struggle. And because the nation in question is the United States, it has now become a global struggle.

Personally, I wouldn’t give a criminal the first shot against me just because I was stronger than him. Tookie got the first shot in, you know. And the second. Course, the first shot was all he needed.

The queens that keep the pawns in check are the ballistic missile submarines — about which, you will note, very little is said.

That being a given, preemptive war is always about 15 to 45 minutes a way. It merely wants the will.

Of course it would seem, in this present climate, that the will depends upon the loss of an American city.

But. The Brits complain we got skunked.
Germany and France don’t like it, the IAEA isn’t this charitable.

Possibly it will blow away–in the breeze, in the breeze–and not be as much a hindrance as the authors hoped.

The Persian Gulf Arab states have the capabilities:

http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/gulf-states-recognize-iranian-threat.html

Now, if they had the will…

It appears that the Iranians have the nuclear weapons in terms of delivery capacity. The neo-fact that they do not have capacity to produce the nuclear payload on their own can be assumed for purposes of this discussion. The remaining question is do they have sufficient quantities of nuclear payload in their inventory right now without having produced it themselves.

I remember watching “60 minutes” several years ago. The documentary was about the huge security lapses regarding weapons grade plutonium in the Soviet Union. At one point key security personnel had gone for months without being paid and no basis to believe that they would be paid. Put this together with Iranian oil money and a flourishing Soviet criminal underworld and its hard to believe that Iran does not have sufficient nuclear material to deliver on its present nuclear threats as of several years ago.

Leave it to the MSM to overlook this possibility for a decade.
Am I the only one in town to have made this bissociative leap?

In 2001, we worried about nukes in Pakistan and nukes in Iraq. We didn’t worry about a bunch of Saudi and UAE funded terrorists hiding out in the hills in Afghanistan. That was a mistake.

The 9/11 attackers were funded and supported by the Gulf states. Those same Gulf states encouraged us to attack Saddam, and when we did, they sent their al Qaeda paramilitaries into Iraq to target our soldiers and Iraqi civilians.

Now those same Gulf state allies are getting the Shi’ites riled up, and then they’re asking us to deal with the problem.

Iran is an enemy and so are our Saudi allies. The two states are, basically, the twin pillars of terrorism in the area. If we hit one, it would only make sense to hit the other. Hitting doesn’t have to mean war and occupation - it could be done economically, or we could weaken those states. It’s just essential that we weaken the infrastructure of all the terrorist states. Well, if we want to win, that is.

Or, we could spend many years and trillions of dollars playing whack a mole with every little dictator who claims to have nukes, continuing to to ally with the supporters of al Qaeda. If we want to lose.

Although your first bit is right, but things here it’s changed as “smaller nations” have com to the party like Iran, there it is very obvious and understandable there are fears in between these “smaller nations” which be approved by NIE report when Iran feared and stopped or Libyan surrendered to US of their ambitions of nuclear power.

These supposedly smaller powers “smaller nations” knew that if they hold it they can not use it against big players specially in the region like Israel, the use such weapons how big they have it’s mean their death and their finish from this life.

As much these “doctrines” likes power and over control their immediate area of power “their nations or people” in same time they are very careful of facing the big guys who they knew very well it will their last day in their life.

There is very interesting view about the story behind NIE report written by Gideon Rachman in FT,
He said:

Being of a western cast of mind, I incline to a mixture of theories one and two. This looks like a declaration of independence by America’s intelligence services, whose full ramifications for US policy may not have been completely understood.
So where does that leave us? Unless Iran does something really stupid, Mr Bush will not be able to bomb. Much tougher sanctions are also out. So that leaves talking.

If Bush has made the decision not to attack, itwon’t be because of the NIE. And if Bush makes the decision that military force is needed, the NIE is not going to prevent him.

The elected politicians set the policy and make the decisions.. not the unaccountable staff. The people who wrote the NIE were acting way beyond their pay grade.

Hopefully our President still has his balls and that they’re not in Condi’s or Nancy Stretch Pelosi’s purse.

Hummm does the shaking US dollar related to this “economically weaken” them?

So that why then some ME investors (unannounced the name) have rush to support the shaky US dollar with bond to US bank to help hold them in recent show, is that planed to suck those billions from high oil prices?

The only conclusion which makes any sense at all is that the Democrats actually want to see an attack on America or Israel. They’re so far gone in their anti-American and antisemitic attitudes and fetishization of victimhood that a new Holocaust in Tel Aviv or Washington is somehow desireable.

They are madmen and traitors. We shouldn’t be talking about their role in government, we should be talking about the most efficient way to get them locked up so they are no longer a danger to the rest of us.

To summarize my argument in the surge topic: the two main justifications for the Iraq war, in my view, were 1) to prevent Saddam from acquiring WMDs, and 2) to remake Iraq in our image to provide a reliable democratic ally in the region. I believe Saddam was deterrable and the fact that he allowed random intrusive unannounced inspections was further evidence, I believe, he was afraid of us — and I think that the second goal was unrealistic given the political environment in Iraq at the time we went in (this is not to say that I think Iraq will never stabilize — it eventually will, but we will still have paid in my view too stiff a price in terms of blowback as well as diverted attention from more pressing security needs).

But Iran is a different situation in a number of ways. First, their movement is far more ideological than Saddam’s Baath Party — Saddam was basically a petty self-interested dictator, deterrable precisely because he wanted his own survival and self-enrichment. Iran, however, is motivated by religion, which can justify suicidal actions, and thus they are at least in theory far more volatile.

President Clinton threatened bombing North Korea’s nuclear facilities if they did not submit to IAEA inspections — as we all know this did not entirely stop their nuclear program but it certainly slowed it considerably. I believe this was an appropriate tactic and a similar threat from the United States towards Iran may be justified if they do not accede to international demands to submit to IAEA inspections.

However — the fact that Iran likely suspended its nuclear program in response to political and military pressure in 2003 does indicate that they may not be quite as suicidal as one might imagine could be possible given their ideological stripe. Despite the fact that they are more ideological than Saddam was, they are still, nonetheless, a state, and a strike from them (if we determined it came from them) on either Israel or the United States would certainly be met by disastrous consequences for them. It does appear that Iran responds to pressure, in other words, and to threats.

I do think that an all-out invasion of Iran would be disastrous for a wide variety of reasons — but it may be that threatening them with focused strikes on their nuclear facilities is not necessarily a mistake, in order to force them to accept IAEA inspections. Even if the NIE is correct it’s fairly clear that we need to keep up the pressure on Iran, and that may include threats and it certainly includes sanctions. I’m not certain we *need* to threaten military strikes (of a limited scope, as we did with North Korea) but it may be justified if Iran remains unwilling to submit to an ongoing inspections program.

Wealthy Saudis remain the chief financiers of worldwide terror networks, extremist Wahhabi clerics provide a stream of recruits to some of the world’s nastiest trouble spots, Saudis make up 55% of foreign fighters in Iraq. They are also among the most uncompromising and militant. Sheikh Saleh al-Luhaidan, the chief justice, who oversees terrorist trials, was recorded on tape in a mosque in 2004, encouraging young men to fight in Iraq.

And they financed 9/11. But we should be pathetically grateful because they backed up their considerable investments in the dollar?

Well, actually, our government is pathetically grateful. After Pearl Harbor, the government demanded that we join together to defeat our enemies. After 9/11, our government told us to shop.

Sorry, but if we’re going to fight a war, we should fight all of our enemies. We should fight the enemies who are causing us and our trusted allies the most damage. Even if they did get nukes, Iran couldn’t cause as much damage to us and to Israel as Saudi Arabia is doing now, with their support of worldwide terrorism, the spread of extremist, pro-Palestinian ideology and Hamas. We can’t win a war if we’re allied with the worst of our enemies.

They are madmen and traitors. We shouldn’t be talking about their role in government, we should be talking about the most efficient way to get them locked up so they are no longer a danger to the rest of us.

I’ve been calling for a coup since Feburary when they started to play games with the emergency war funding.

I wrote: “passivist.” I am embarrassed!

~~~~~~~~~~~~

Back to subject

Vanderluen spurs this thought:

Happiness is a warm ballistic missile submarine - if it represents an actual deterrent - which it currently does, b/c of that accursed Cowboy President and those accursed red states which elected him. If it wasn’t for those bloodthirsty red states, a Mullah wouldn’t have a care in the world.

I have to say, reading comments like these is truly bizarre. While I happen to disagree with both Democrats and Republicans on many issues, it’s beyond hyperbole to suggest that people who view threats differently from you are “madmen” and “traitors” who want the United States to be attacked. The fact is, in my view, as I’ve explained at length, I believe much of the foreign policy of the current Administration has been a huge waste of resources and may have actually increased the probability we will suffer a devastating attack in the future. It certainly hasn’t been by any means the best policy for reducing the chances of an attack.

Those of us who disagree with many of the Bush Administration’s moves may similarly wonder if Bush has the destruction of the United States as his goal … given the fact that I personally think his foreign policy moves have been so generally misguided. However, no matter how wrong I think Bush has been on so many points, I have to believe that he, like you, THINKS he is doing the best he can to protect this country. I just happen to think he is very wrong.

Those of us who disagree with Bush also want the best for the United States. We simply have a different view of what is likely to produce that outcome. I think the results on the ground show at the very least that the predictions of the Bush Administration have not come to pass, except recently with the surge (which I happen to think had a chance of succeeding, in fact I even promoted the idea long before Bush even proposed it).

I personally disagree with both Democrats and Republicans on foreign policy, but I don’t think that you or the Democrats are traitors just because I think you’re both wrong on different aspects of the issues. I just think you have different assumptions, different views of the world, and different models of politics and war. I happen to think MY view is the best, of course, just as you think yours is best, but I don’t think you’re a traitor and believe me, I would be very offended if you came over to me and tried to tell me to my face that I am because I think your policy is harming the nation. That sort of talk is exactly not what this country was founded on, and I have to say it’s speech like that which is truly un-American.

Their declaration that the war is lost is direct aid and comfort to the Jihadis … confirming their idea that the US is a paper tiger.. that we’ll be easier to defeat than the Soviet Union was.

By airing all our dirty laundry and tactics they are transmitting to the enemy our methods against him , this leds to them defeating our measures.

Their playing around with the budget and declaring time-tables creates more stress on our troops which makes them less effective and bolsters the enemy’s confidence.. leading to more attacks.

With every attack the enemy does, the Democrats latch onto it and declare the event is yet another reason why we must leave the battle.. thus by being receptive to manipulation , they create an incentive for the enemy to kill innocent people.

They consume the resources of the Executive Branch in order to conduct useless show trials.

They declare to enemies like Iran that they will restrain the Presidnet from defending the US

So yes they are traitors. I would have no problem with action which forcibly removed them from power.

Well, you are voicing a view in which you would like to violently overthrow the Constitution, the democratic process, and the foundations of the Republic. I happen to vehemently disagree with you pretty much wholeheartedly, and would like to point out that your views are, pretty much by definition, traitorous.

Setting aside that point, however. I’ve argued at great length in the “surge” topic why I believe the Bush Administration has likely harmed our national security, and certainly has done a lot less than it could have to protect our national interests, by focusing our military force on targets that are far removed from the most effective targets from a security perspective. So as I’ve said before — many of us who disagree with Bush see exactly the same thing: a government which seems hell-bent on damaging the security of the United States. Who’s right? Well, obviously I think we are.

I actually don’t happen to agree with the Democrats that withdrawal per se is the main thing to focus on. Yes, I think the Iraq war was a monumental mistake, for security reasons — setting aside moral concerns — but at this point we’re stuck with it so we have to make the best of it. It is true, however, that the war is costing us a HUGE amount of money and lives, so we do need to wrap it up at some point, but I agree with some critics of the Democrats that we have to make sure we don’t leave things worse than before we went in (one of the major reasons the war was a huge mistake: we have, in many respects, made things much worse than they were before, bad as Saddam Hussein was he was a containable threat and the terrorists who have both flooded into Iraq and been recruited because of Iraq are far more of a long-term threat to us than Saddam ever was.)

Currently my favorite Democrat with I believe the most serious take on security is Obama. He is arguing forcefully that we should be spending much more effort on tracking down terrorists in the de facto safe haven of the Pakistan territories. I happen to agree with him. That is a very pro-defense posture which I think will lead to tangible security dividends for the United States. Many of his critics suggest we can’t be so aggressive with an ally (Pakistan) but I happen to think that US national security requires a bit of an aggressive stance when it comes down to it. I just think Bush put that aggressive stance in precisely the wrong place.

Much as I agree that Pakistan is their safe haven, and that I would very much like to go after terrorists there, to do so would be opening up another front in our war on terror.

If Obama is serious in this, just how the hell does he plan to pull this off? We’ve already 2 fronts now. Is he planning bombing runs or troops on the ground? Has he really thought through all the implications of this or is this more meaningless posturing to win the election?
I honestly haven’t heard any decent info as to how he would deal with all the results and consequences of a Pakistan campaign, which is why he’s on my least-likely-to-vote-for list.

Back on Neo’s original topic: A very well thought out piece, Neo. In regards to Iran, we’re in a damned if you do, damed if you don’t situation. I fear it will soon come to a head.
Why do I think if a Democrat has the presidency when it does, the media would find less blame for a first strike?

He proposes to do it primarily by repositioning military forces as we gradually withdraw from Iraq. He would do it by pressuring Pakistan to step up its efforts — or risk us going in ourselves. He would move in with American support for Pakistani efforts. He would toe a hard line with the Pakistani government to force them to accept our involvement in tracking down terrorists in the tribal areas. Sure, all of these moves are risky, but they’re risky moves in defense of American security, and they would have a hell of a lot more positive impact, I believe, than the years we have spent in Iraq.

Of course these moves would be done with a combination of diplomacy and threats. But I think this direction makes far more sense than what we have been doing. These are the people who attacked us on 9/11, and they’re still running free. They’re training new terrorists, with near impunity, in the tribal regions of Pakistan. They’re taking advantage of the fact that the Afghan government is also weak, and reestablishing Taliban influence there. It’s a bad situation and I believe it needs a lot more attention than we’ve been giving it — because we’ve been mired in Iraq.

But I think this direction makes far more sense than what we have been doing.

Yeah it makes a lot of sense to invade one of the three Axis of Jihad countries… the one that is nuclear armed.
/s

Yeah, start discussions with Iran and Syria while bombing one of our allies!

With Obama al-Hussein Barrack, you can never be sure it’s not just a Shi’a vs Sunni thing…..

It’s remarkable how easily you guys support strong military action against an irrelevant sideshow like Saddam Hussein, but shrink back at the prospect of seriously going after the people who actually attacked us.

What’s remarkable is how easily some people think they can armchair-general as complex a situation as this, in the first place, as though they’re really privy to stacks of analyses of conditions within Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, not to mention detailed knowledge of all actions, communications, etc. in and with surrounding states and other parties throughout this extensive region. And then, given all that inside information, how remarkably simple-minded is their “strategy”: Hey, let’s just get the guys that did this! You know, like in the movies!

Now, it’s certainly not the case that this administration hasn’t made mistakes. But this sort of naive, simplistic reflex behavior, which is so characteristic of so many of its critics, makes those mistakes seem small in comparison. Yes, it would be fine to “get the guys that did this (9/11)”, but it’s vitally important to get some kind of handle on the nature and scope of the actual problem here. And in that context, the people who actually attacked us on that particular occasion are a very small, and by now mostly insignificant, part of the problem — many, if not most are already dead or caught, and the rest are holed up and largely out of action. But the real problem of islamist terrorism remains — that problem preceded al Qaeda and Bin Laden, and it will persist after they’re gone. And you won’t begin to be able to come to grips with that problem until you realize that what lies at its heart is the active or passive state support of that terrorism in any of its forms. That, in other words, the various states and terrorist gangs in that region have an effective, though often covert, working arrangement, regardless of doctrinal or other disputes, an operational arrangement that greatly amplifies the power and reach of both state- and non-state-actors. And once you’ve digested that possibility, you can make a start in understanding why forced regime-change in Iraq was a natural, and even necessary, strategic starting point. As for Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, and others — all in good time.

Ha ha ha — this has truly got to be one of the most astounding remarks I’ve heard anyone make about the situation we face today. One of the things that always shocks me about most people who discuss politics (and this applies both to the left and the right, and applies in ample amounts to nearly everyone posting here) is how people like to identify with a team, be it the Republican team or the Democratic team, and feel they need to rationalize or defend nearly every move by “their” team and be critical of nearly every suggestion by the “opposing” team. It’s highly unlikely that, in fact, the optimal strategy happens to be associated with just one of two “sides” — there are a vast array of possible strategies to choose from, yet nearly everyone I read praises their “side” to the sky and denigrates the other “side”.

It’s so rare to come across people who really do think independently, for themselves.

To me, this leads to nearly nonsensical debate — people who cheer on while Rumsfeld drives the Iraq war into the ground, and then cheer on again when Bush appoints a new SecDef and new generals who reverse that ineffectual policy. Yet the new policy is largely a repudiation of the old, but people who have taken Bush’s “side” decide, hell, he was right before, and he’s right now. No — he was wrong before … and, thankfully, he’s at least appointed competent people now.

I, on the other hand have been both critical and supportive of various moves, depending on my own independent analysis of the situation. I thought some sort of surge was probably the best option at this point — though I thought it should be larger, as I’ve said — even though most Democrats opposed the surge. I thought Democratic opposition to the surge was wrongheaded, even though I agree with them that the Iraq war as a whole was a terrible mistake.

I know you’re trying to be reasonable about this Sally, but what you say above is simply laughable. You’re speaking as though the Bush Administration has some amazing track record of dong careful, thorough analyses of foreign situations and they’ve been making careful moves based on deep and thorough review of intelligence reports and a profound understanding of the threat we face. Yet all the objective evidence we have flies in the face of this characterization — in fact I suspect you yourself are far more astute than the vast majority of people who originated the Iraq policy in the first place. Bush himself didn’t even know the difference between Shiite and Sunni (as evidenced by his response to some questions on the subject after the war began). The war’s architects made prediction after prediction which turned out to be ludicrously off base, and clearly they had not done even the most superficial homework regarding the history and politics of Iraq, the internal situation there, nor the likely outcome of an American invasion with insufficient troops and nearly no planning for the post-war aftermath.

Yes, I, like you, am an armchair general. Unlike you, however, my thought process is independent — I’m proud to support the Democrats, overall, but I’m not afraid to disagree with them. If Bush were saying, yes, let’s go after Osama bin Laden I’m certain most of you would be coming up with reasons why this in fact was the totally rational policy to follow. It’s absurd!

Let’s get back to the main subject here: terrorism. The issue is not merely state “sponsorship” of terror — 9/11 was an operation that involved a lot of careful planning but very little in the way of expensive funding. They used box cutters and took some flying lessons. What really helped them was the fact that they could operate training camps for terrorists, they could recruit and train terrorists, they had a base of operations and the ability to organize unimpeded. In other words, they were operating in a region of the world where they were mostly undisturbed. That’s what Afghanistan provided for them.

Right now, they’re operating in the Pakistani tribal areas with impunity for the most part. The Pakistani efforts to track them down have been paltry at best. Musharraf is hampered by domestic resistance to his efforts. So, while they can’t operate quite as freely as they did in Afghanistan, they have a tremendous degree of freedom to plan and operate — and this is a major security risk for us.

We have a tremendous degree of leverage with Pakistan — far more than we have been using. They are afraid of us (just as Saddam was) and we can pressure them to go after Al Qaeda and the Taliban with much greater force. They can even use American pressure as an excuse to mollify their domestic critics. Yes, such a policy has its risks but it’s quite amazing to me how neocons imagined the risks of going into Iraq were for some reason negligible, yet trumpet the risks of pressuring Pakistan which is much more central to the war on terror in my view.

Regarding your general idea of a project to remake the Middle East, one country at a time — as I’ve said before, such a strategy is based on a notion that completely ignores the blowback inherent in moving in that direction. Politically speaking, for change in the Middle East to work in our favor, it has to appear to be their idea, not ours. If we impose it by force, we will simply be seen by a significant number of people there to be violent occupiers, thereby justifying their campaign of violence against us. Overturning the Taliban didn’t have that effect because everyone could see we were attacking directly those who had attacked us — that’s how the Bismarck strategy works. Overthrowing Saddam, bad as he was, backfired and will continue to backfire because the invasion was clearly unwarranted in the eyes of the world, and of the Iraqi people, and of Muslims.

Terrorism is a political weapon. You have to fight it on both political and military terms. I really do respect the fact that you’re trying to argue reasonably, Sally, but it is you who are naive, not me, when it comes to your analysis of the situation there (in my opinion).

The actual problem is OBL, he is the gang leader who looks for fame who have a lot of money he still in large which look very unbelievable case here.

But the real problem of islamist terrorism remains — that problem preceded al Qaeda and Bin Laden,

You need to be very specific her who are those “islamist terrorism ” who create them, who are the handler and support them?

the active or passive state support of that terrorism in any of its forms.

Offcourse you knew which state is and which group/tribe/families who support OBL and the rest of these criminals but what we see they are still VIP to your administration with worm relations and links to them, Isn’t?

If you look one of the cases that US did and doing in Iraq using “collective Punishment” like what’s happen in the city of Fallujah in Iraq when US destroyed complete town because the people who” who actually attacked us “ in Fallujah were “a very small, and by now mostly insignificant”

Thus why US did not used the collective punishment and punishes OBL family/tribe for his criminal act? Can you give use details why that off the table?

But the fanny things here GWB and the rest of US administration continue and support OBL family, even Al-Saudi regime which is responsible for crating as evidenet those “islamist terrorism ” mindset spreading Al-Saudi’s Madrasah in Pakistan in South East Asia even in US as recently there are talk to close one of Al-Saudi support Madrash in Washington DC imagine after six years there are no actions against Al-Saud with their sick mindset of deformd version of Islam which is similar to Iran’s Mullah version of Islam but in different version.

And you know this how?

The Pakistani efforts to track them down have been paltry at best.

You’ve been briefed on this, have you?

Musharraf is hampered by domestic resistance to his efforts. So, while they can’t operate quite as freely as they did in Afghanistan, they have a tremendous degree of freedom to plan and operate

Evidence of this “tremendous freedom”? Those smuggled out Bin Laden tapes, perhaps?

We have a tremendous degree of leverage with Pakistan — far more than we have been using.

He says, taking off his senior intelligence analyst’s hat (which had previously replaced his Pentagon general’s hat), and putting on his State Department one — now, he not only “knows” what “leverage” we have been using, but knows how much we could be using but for some reason — probably just incompetence — aren’t.

Yes, such a policy has its risks

Ah, says the armchair expert, but my risks really are negligible….

…but it’s quite amazing to me how neocons imagined the risks of going into Iraq were for some reason negligible, yet trumpet the risks of pressuring Pakistan which is much more central to the war on terror in my view.

… whereas the risks actually undertaken by those with real-world experience and track records, with immense resources at their disposal, and with real responsibility and public accountability for their decisions — well, those risks are bad ones, and just invite “blowback” (not like mine).

Yeah, right. Look, Mitsu, it’s a good thing to be of an independent mind, but that doesn’t mean that you can invent facts or concoct states of affairs to suit your “independent” theories. All of us are armchair commentators, it’s true, but not all of us pretend we’re privy to information and conclusions that only detailed, expert, and often classified analysis could provide. Instead, we base our views and critiques on our broad assessment of the overall conduct and strategy, not on trying to second-guess every decision and tactic. On that basis, I and most people here would be happy to support any Democratic administration, for example, that gave credible evidence of, first, having an understanding of the nature and scope of the problem, as opposed to a crude whack-a-mole notion of merely running after every ragtag gang of jihadis that pops its head up for a minute, and second, of having the will, courage, and flexibility to pursue its strategy even in the face of fierce opposition and real setbacks.

On the basis of such a broad assessment and understanding, then, your view of Pakistan’s centrality to the (misnamed) “war on terror” is just a version of whack-a-mole — Pakistan, even as a hide-out for one gang of islamists who got in a good punch, is peripheral to the region in focus, but Iraq is at its heart. And “blowback” is just a scarecrow of a term for the simple fact that force is resisted and is destabilizing wherever and whenever it’s used (Pakistan included). For the rest, see previous arguments.

As to the original topic of the post, the real issue is not pre-emptive strikes, but the radical Bush-Cheney idea of preventative military action. Historically preemption has been about being on the brink of a military clash with an adversary and choosing to be the initiator so as to control the time and place of the first battle. This administration articulated a very different notion of using military means to prevent a potential enemy from growing strong enough to become a viable threat. This edges way too close to the historic pattern of an empire expanding through conquest rather than justifiable self defense or aid to allies.

As, for example, these sentences indicate, in distinguishing pre-emptive war from preventative:

This administration articulated a very different notion of using military means to prevent a potential enemy from growing strong enough to become a viable threat. This edges way too close to the historic pattern of an empire expanding through conquest rather than justifiable self defense or aid to allies.

The enemy, of course, was actual not potential. And acting to prevent such an actual enemy from growing stronger is — under any circumstances, let alone in the new and much more uncertain context of asymmetric war and covert action — so obvious and so justifiable a strategy, that comparing it with empire-building is just an offensive absurdity.