Comments on: Hanson and the myths of Iraq http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/ Mon, 07 Jul 2008 15:07:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.1 By: Jimmy J. http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49838 Jimmy J. Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:02:31 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49838 Neo said, "Therefore I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point, or they are uninformed, and/or they are not thinking straight. And they’re not reading Victor Davis Hanson." Indeed! Neo said, “Therefore I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point, or they are uninformed, and/or they are not thinking straight.

And they’re not reading Victor Davis Hanson.”

Indeed!

]]> By: harry9000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49843 harry9000 Sat, 15 Dec 2007 18:43:41 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49843 neo: <i>"I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point, or they are uninformed, and/or they are not thinking straight. "</i> Or they're too invested in BDS to care, which leaves VDH preaching to the chior as usual. neo:
“I can only conclude that the “there is no military solution” crowd is either using a simplistic rhetorical device that even they don’t believe, merely to make a point, or they are uninformed, and/or they are not thinking straight. “

Or they’re too invested in BDS to care, which leaves VDH preaching to the chior as usual.

]]> By: ChiefTestPilot http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49852 ChiefTestPilot Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:34:17 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49852 In the end we will have won all of the battles and conceded defeat as we did in Vietnam. In the end we will have won all of the battles and conceded defeat as we did in Vietnam.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49853 Vince P Sat, 15 Dec 2007 21:58:24 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49853 ChiefTestPilot if that happens it will only be because the Democrat traitors made it happen. ChiefTestPilot if that happens it will only be because the Democrat traitors made it happen.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49855 Mitsu Sat, 15 Dec 2007 22:47:44 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49855 There you go with the "traitors" canard again... like I said, you are advocating the violent overthrow of our government and the replacement of democracy with right wing government imposed by force... hard to find a more traitorous attitude than that. Democracy's chief virtue is that, because multiple viewpoints vie for acceptance, the one-sidedness inherent in most political philosophies can't get too far out of hand. It doesn't produce the best decisions but it tends to prevent bad ones from going on too long. You should be proud of our democratic system even if you sometimes disagree with the outcome. To do otherwise is to long for dictatorship... you're welcome to it but do it in someone else's country and leave ours alone, thank you very much. I happen to agree, again, here, with neoneocon... though I am an avowed opponent of this war, I never understood what "there is no military solution" was really supposed to mean. It seems to be a slogan with no clear meaning. There you go with the “traitors” canard again… like I said, you are advocating the violent overthrow of our government and the replacement of democracy with right wing government imposed by force… hard to find a more traitorous attitude than that.

Democracy’s chief virtue is that, because multiple viewpoints vie for acceptance, the one-sidedness inherent in most political philosophies can’t get too far out of hand. It doesn’t produce the best decisions but it tends to prevent bad ones from going on too long. You should be proud of our democratic system even if you sometimes disagree with the outcome. To do otherwise is to long for dictatorship… you’re welcome to it but do it in someone else’s country and leave ours alone, thank you very much.

I happen to agree, again, here, with neoneocon… though I am an avowed opponent of this war, I never understood what “there is no military solution” was really supposed to mean. It seems to be a slogan with no clear meaning.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49857 Vince P Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:05:49 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49857 I'm only repeating the musing of Thomas Sowell "When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup." Our country has been able to survive the undermining that the Leftists have done to it so far... but it will not survive the Islamic threat while being undermined by the enemies within. The Leftists currently controlling the Democrat party have no clue the threat we're facing, it's not even clear if the Executive does but at least Republicans aren't actively trying to defeat every effort we make... we can't afford to make many more mistakes. I’m only repeating the musing of Thomas Sowell

“When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia, I can’t help wondering if the day may yet come when the only thing that can save this country is a military coup.”

Our country has been able to survive the undermining that the Leftists have done to it so far… but it will not survive the Islamic threat while being undermined by the enemies within.

The Leftists currently controlling the Democrat party have no clue the threat we’re facing, it’s not even clear if the Executive does but at least Republicans aren’t actively trying to defeat every effort we make… we can’t afford to make many more mistakes.

]]> By: Synova http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49858 Synova Sun, 16 Dec 2007 00:57:50 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49858 "You should be proud of our democratic system even if you sometimes disagree with the outcome." To veer off topic a bit... I honestly think that the biggest damage done to our democratic system was, not Bush *winning* in 2000, but in Gore being a poor loser. The mantra that the wrong person winning was a tragedy was not supportive of the democratic system that we have. Recall that 9-11 had not happened and the best thing that could be said about Bush was that he was far more moderate than most Republicans and rather boring. Yet rather than support the system even while unhappy with the outcome it was the end of the world. In 2000 I had no preference between Bush or Gore. I really, sincerely, did not care who won. I think that I was about as close to an uninterested observer as was possible. More damage was done by those choosing to destroy the system because they didn't like the outcome than by the outcome itself. And it's only gotten worse. When people don't like the outcome, suddenly everything the government does is "illegal" even though it's not. There isn't any "disagreeing" there is only scorched earth. “You should be proud of our democratic system even if you sometimes disagree with the outcome.”

To veer off topic a bit… I honestly think that the biggest damage done to our democratic system was, not Bush *winning* in 2000, but in Gore being a poor loser. The mantra that the wrong person winning was a tragedy was not supportive of the democratic system that we have. Recall that 9-11 had not happened and the best thing that could be said about Bush was that he was far more moderate than most Republicans and rather boring. Yet rather than support the system even while unhappy with the outcome it was the end of the world.

In 2000 I had no preference between Bush or Gore. I really, sincerely, did not care who won. I think that I was about as close to an uninterested observer as was possible.

More damage was done by those choosing to destroy the system because they didn’t like the outcome than by the outcome itself. And it’s only gotten worse. When people don’t like the outcome, suddenly everything the government does is “illegal” even though it’s not.

There isn’t any “disagreeing” there is only scorched earth.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49862 Ymarsakar Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:22:14 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49862 <b>In 2000 I had no preference between Bush or Gore. I really, sincerely, did not care who won. I think that I was about as close to an uninterested observer as was possible.</b> I was still a socialist back then. Imbibed too much Hollywood movies and tv shows about military jackbooted thugs, ya know. In 2000 I had no preference between Bush or Gore. I really, sincerely, did not care who won. I think that I was about as close to an uninterested observer as was possible.

I was still a socialist back then. Imbibed too much Hollywood movies and tv shows about military jackbooted thugs, ya know.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49863 Mitsu Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:29:45 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49863 I think it's interesting no one here disavows such violent and extreme ideas. I will simply say two things: one, what you suggest I figure you imagine would lead to an America just like the one we have now, only with Republicans in charge. In reality it would lead to civil war, Nazi tactics, martial law, and the destruction of America as we know it. But what's more, to me, the Republicans have implemented a very weak policy in response to what we both agree is a very serious threat. Not all Dems would do better but I believe many would. We have different views on that. What you don't understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even when and in fact because from time to time your adversaries are in power. Totalitarians never understand that. I think it’s interesting no one here disavows such violent and extreme ideas. I will simply say two things: one, what you suggest I figure you imagine would lead to an America just like the one we have now, only with Republicans in charge. In reality it would lead to civil war, Nazi tactics, martial law, and the destruction of America as we know it.

But what’s more, to me, the Republicans have implemented a very weak policy in response to what we both agree is a very serious threat. Not all Dems would do better but I believe many would. We have different views on that.

What you don’t understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even when and in fact because from time to time your adversaries are in power. Totalitarians never understand that.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49864 Ymarsakar Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:32:39 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49864 <b>More damage was done by those choosing to destroy the system because they didn’t like the outcome than by the outcome itself. And it’s only gotten worse. When people don’t like the outcome, suddenly everything the government does is “illegal” even though it’s not.</b> Hey, if it works, do it. Setting limits on what people can and cannot do is the basis of democracies and republics (given their dependence on government, central or otherwise). Doing it well, is not the basis of democracies and republics though. At least, survival is not guaranteed for such systems. My point is that people can be excused for doing what pays off for them. The role of republics is to make sure that the rights things pay and the wrong things cost. I have some sympathy for the argument that it is not the crimina's fault that they keep doing the crime. That society bears most of the responsibility. After all, if as a member of society I do not support and promote the execution, crucifixion, and obliteration of criminal repeat offenders, then who is more at fault when criminals committ more crimes? Criminals are just that, people who have a low ethics hierarchy and are devoted solely to what benefits themselves. That should be obvious, so it is mostly my fault that such people have not yet been exterminated. For I know better. They can't help themselves, but I can. Society must always expect better of its members than the asocial and anti-social peeps. The greater burden of duty and responsibility goes to the strong, for weakness has always bred disaster and death. So in the end, while I blame the Left for the choices they have made, I blame Bush even more for refusing to crush Valerie Plame and all her friends on the DC social circuit. Bush knows better or at least he should. Compare this with Plame, who will go where the money and benefits goes. You can't expect too much ethical enlightenment from such folks, Synova. I certainly don't. I don't expect them to be loyal, patriotic, or anything else requiring a spine. It would be one thing if Bush was a true victim, a powerless face amongst many faces that just could not help himself. There are many like that, even here in the United States. Bush ain't one of them. He has power, defined as the ability to kill, save, and influence people's lives. He has no excuses. <b>There isn’t any “disagreeing” there is only scorched earth.</b> I liked to say that if you don't use the power you have, then prepare to lose em. There is also the fact that the more you tolerate people acting up, then the more extreme the solution must inevitably be to cure people of <i>acting up</i>. More damage was done by those choosing to destroy the system because they didn’t like the outcome than by the outcome itself. And it’s only gotten worse. When people don’t like the outcome, suddenly everything the government does is “illegal” even though it’s not.

Hey, if it works, do it.

Setting limits on what people can and cannot do is the basis of democracies and republics (given their dependence on government, central or otherwise). Doing it well, is not the basis of democracies and republics though. At least, survival is not guaranteed for such systems.

My point is that people can be excused for doing what pays off for them. The role of republics is to make sure that the rights things pay and the wrong things cost. I have some sympathy for the argument that it is not the crimina’s fault that they keep doing the crime. That society bears most of the responsibility.

After all, if as a member of society I do not support and promote the execution, crucifixion, and obliteration of criminal repeat offenders, then who is more at fault when criminals committ more crimes? Criminals are just that, people who have a low ethics hierarchy and are devoted solely to what benefits themselves. That should be obvious, so it is mostly my fault that such people have not yet been exterminated. For I know better. They can’t help themselves, but I can. Society must always expect better of its members than the asocial and anti-social peeps. The greater burden of duty and responsibility goes to the strong, for weakness has always bred disaster and death.

So in the end, while I blame the Left for the choices they have made, I blame Bush even more for refusing to crush Valerie Plame and all her friends on the DC social circuit. Bush knows better or at least he should. Compare this with Plame, who will go where the money and benefits goes. You can’t expect too much ethical enlightenment from such folks, Synova. I certainly don’t. I don’t expect them to be loyal, patriotic, or anything else requiring a spine.

It would be one thing if Bush was a true victim, a powerless face amongst many faces that just could not help himself. There are many like that, even here in the United States. Bush ain’t one of them. He has power, defined as the ability to kill, save, and influence people’s lives. He has no excuses.

There isn’t any “disagreeing” there is only scorched earth.

I liked to say that if you don’t use the power you have, then prepare to lose em. There is also the fact that the more you tolerate people acting up, then the more extreme the solution must inevitably be to cure people of acting up.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49865 Vince P Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:40:29 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49865 <blockquote>So in the end, while I blame the Left for the choices they have made, I blame Bush even more for refusing to crush Valerie Plame and all her friends on the DC social circuit. </blockquote> Amen to that! Yes. the leftists are traitorious... but that's what they do.. The bigger crime is that Bush allows this to occur with impunity. Sandy Burger (on Hillary's campaign) stole and destroyed original documents from the archives! He gets a handslap. Where are the Congressional Hearings for that? Where is a Special Prosecutor for that? Nancy Pelosi in the spring, went on an indepenent Foreign Policy mission to the middle east in violation of law.. where is the sanction against that? The New York Times publishes the secret tactics we use to hunt the terrorists.. where is the sedition charge? We're in a war and the leadership is recklessly lax.

So in the end, while I blame the Left for the choices they have made, I blame Bush even more for refusing to crush Valerie Plame and all her friends on the DC social circuit.

Amen to that!

Yes. the leftists are traitorious… but that’s what they do..

The bigger crime is that Bush allows this to occur with impunity.

Sandy Burger (on Hillary’s campaign) stole and destroyed original documents from the archives!

He gets a handslap.

Where are the Congressional Hearings for that?

Where is a Special Prosecutor for that?

Nancy Pelosi in the spring, went on an indepenent Foreign Policy mission to the middle east in violation of law.. where is the sanction against that?

The New York Times publishes the secret tactics we use to hunt the terrorists.. where is the sedition charge?

We’re in a war and the leadership is recklessly lax.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49867 Ymarsakar Sun, 16 Dec 2007 01:55:56 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49867 <b>I think it’s interesting no one here disavows such violent and extreme ideas.</b> As you said on another thread, I like to have an open toolbox as well. Why should certain things be discounted just because of a person's beliefs inspite of the actual situation of the US? <b>I figure you imagine would lead to an America just like the one we have now, only with Republicans in charge</b> There was this idea of a Loyal Opposition. The Republicans could have smeared FDR for having an extra-marital affair, which was a big thing back then, but they didn't. They didn't even try to dig up the dirt, seemingly. Some of that was basic decency but it was also due to the fact that they knew it wouldn't pay. The Republicans that is. To sum up the Jackosnian War party's intentions for America. We, or I at least, want a killer for the leader of the United States. A killer of America's enemies. All of America's enemies. Will such things lead to Republicans in power and the destruction of the US Constitution? It depends on the future situation, does it not. <b>In reality it would lead to civil war, Nazi tactics, martial law, and the destruction of America as we know it.</b> That is for the situation to determine, not for you. How can you really tell that such will lead to such and such even before you look at what is going on on the actual ground? You decry Republicans or conservative disinterest in any diplomacy as being ineffective, yet you show the lack of flexibility you accuse others of right here. You would say that your beliefs are sourced from reality or truth. The same for the conservatives. However, unlike in anthropology, both philosophies can't be "true" at the same time, given that they are mutually exclusive. <b>What you don’t understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even when</b> That's like saying a team is stronger than a dictator. It could be because the dictator is weak and the team is full of strong people, as you suggested. Or it could be the dictator is a strong leader of the team up against a loner. It really depends. Teams are only as strong as their members. Which means if one member is 10X stronger than the other team members, you can get a team stronger than an individual police state that is only 5x stronger than a normal individual. A teammate has to pull the weight of the entire team, so obviously this strengthens its members. It may not be fair, but that is just how it is. <b>because from time to time your adversaries are in power.</b> That is a belief that is the same as advocating a passive defense in order to absorb an attack and then launch an attack that would be backed by the international community and local citizens. Why should you openly weaken yourself simply in order to declare, after the fact, that you can do things that you could always have done? From time to time, your adversaries get into power, mess things up, and then you come into power and clean things up. An efficient system, almost as efficient as waiting to be hit and then striking back knowing that you could have struck back before but prefered an easier route. Why is such passivity prefered? I know full well that you don't see your views, Mitsu, as purposefully setting the nation up for a fall or a spike. You see a long term justification for such actions that validates whatever risks you may admit. Yet humans are fallible. They are even more fallible when they believe that there will be other people using other methods to clean up their mistakes. I don't ascribe to the philosophy that you should just let things happen cause there's always a next time for something new. Because there is NOT always a next time. There wasn't for Iran and Cuba. Maybe in another 100 to 500 years, perhaps, but it was one election, one time for them. Or maybe not even one election. I am with Synova on her concerns over long term stability of a democratic and republic system of governance. I do not believe, Mitsu, that every tool in the toolbox can be used safely because there is always a second or third or fourth chance to get things right. There is only one life, and it is the life we have now. <b>What you don’t understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even </b> What's ironic is that you continue to believe that the methods of force necessary for healthy democracies and republics, makes one into a police state. You mirror my belief that there won't be a second chance... but only for actions out of a toolbox that are mutually exclusive with the ones I favor. I believe there likely won't be a second chance if the trend set by Democrats continue. You believe there won't be a second chance for democracy if Americans correct the situation with the Democrats. These are mutually exclusive beliefs. Democracy and republics are based upon compromise. But there can be no compromise between mutually exclusive beliefs. I think it’s interesting no one here disavows such violent and extreme ideas.

As you said on another thread, I like to have an open toolbox as well.

Why should certain things be discounted just because of a person’s beliefs inspite of the actual situation of the US?

I figure you imagine would lead to an America just like the one we have now, only with Republicans in charge

There was this idea of a Loyal Opposition. The Republicans could have smeared FDR for having an extra-marital affair, which was a big thing back then, but they didn’t. They didn’t even try to dig up the dirt, seemingly. Some of that was basic decency but it was also due to the fact that they knew it wouldn’t pay. The Republicans that is.

To sum up the Jackosnian War party’s intentions for America. We, or I at least, want a killer for the leader of the United States. A killer of America’s enemies. All of America’s enemies.

Will such things lead to Republicans in power and the destruction of the US Constitution? It depends on the future situation, does it not.

In reality it would lead to civil war, Nazi tactics, martial law, and the destruction of America as we know it.

That is for the situation to determine, not for you. How can you really tell that such will lead to such and such even before you look at what is going on on the actual ground?

You decry Republicans or conservative disinterest in any diplomacy as being ineffective, yet you show the lack of flexibility you accuse others of right here. You would say that your beliefs are sourced from reality or truth. The same for the conservatives. However, unlike in anthropology, both philosophies can’t be “true” at the same time, given that they are mutually exclusive.

What you don’t understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even when

That’s like saying a team is stronger than a dictator. It could be because the dictator is weak and the team is full of strong people, as you suggested. Or it could be the dictator is a strong leader of the team up against a loner. It really depends.

Teams are only as strong as their members. Which means if one member is 10X stronger than the other team members, you can get a team stronger than an individual police state that is only 5x stronger than a normal individual. A teammate has to pull the weight of the entire team, so obviously this strengthens its members. It may not be fair, but that is just how it is.

because from time to time your adversaries are in power.

That is a belief that is the same as advocating a passive defense in order to absorb an attack and then launch an attack that would be backed by the international community and local citizens.

Why should you openly weaken yourself simply in order to declare, after the fact, that you can do things that you could always have done?

From time to time, your adversaries get into power, mess things up, and then you come into power and clean things up. An efficient system, almost as efficient as waiting to be hit and then striking back knowing that you could have struck back before but prefered an easier route.

Why is such passivity prefered? I know full well that you don’t see your views, Mitsu, as purposefully setting the nation up for a fall or a spike. You see a long term justification for such actions that validates whatever risks you may admit.

Yet humans are fallible. They are even more fallible when they believe that there will be other people using other methods to clean up their mistakes. I don’t ascribe to the philosophy that you should just let things happen cause there’s always a next time for something new.

Because there is NOT always a next time. There wasn’t for Iran and Cuba. Maybe in another 100 to 500 years, perhaps, but it was one election, one time for them. Or maybe not even one election.

I am with Synova on her concerns over long term stability of a democratic and republic system of governance. I do not believe, Mitsu, that every tool in the toolbox can be used safely because there is always a second or third or fourth chance to get things right. There is only one life, and it is the life we have now.

What you don’t understand, though, is democracy is stronger than a police state even

What’s ironic is that you continue to believe that the methods of force necessary for healthy democracies and republics, makes one into a police state. You mirror my belief that there won’t be a second chance… but only for actions out of a toolbox that are mutually exclusive with the ones I favor.

I believe there likely won’t be a second chance if the trend set by Democrats continue. You believe there won’t be a second chance for democracy if Americans correct the situation with the Democrats.

These are mutually exclusive beliefs. Democracy and republics are based upon compromise. But there can be no compromise between mutually exclusive beliefs.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49869 Ymarsakar Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:09:58 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49869 PS. Nazi tactics are called Nazi tactics only because the Republic of Weimar let the Nazi leaders live when they could have offed them. That's how Nazi tactics come about, because the government tries to compromise and give the Nazis more power, instead of killing them. PS. Nazi tactics are called Nazi tactics only because the Republic of Weimar let the Nazi leaders live when they could have offed them. That’s how Nazi tactics come about, because the government tries to compromise and give the Nazis more power, instead of killing them.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49872 Vince P Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:26:40 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49872 <blockquote>I think it’s interesting no one here disavows such violent and extreme ideas. I will simply say two things: one, what you suggest I figure you imagine would lead to an America just like the one we have now, only with Republicans in charge. In reality it would lead to civil war, Nazi tactics, martial law, and the destruction of America as we know it.</blockquote> What you're missing is that the Jihadists have a stragety to take advantage of the Democrat's inclination to politicize everything and use it against the country as a whole in order to defeat us. In other words, the Democrats are the useful idiots of the terrorists... the jihadis use the Democrats to defeat the country. You talk about the destruction of America... well so do I. We can't fight a war when the Democrats put up 40 bills to get us to surrender. Here is a statement about the jihadis view: "The people of jihad need to carry out a media war parallel to the military war ... because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations," signed by Najd al-Rawi of the Global Islamic Media Front, a group associated with al Qaeda.

I think it’s interesting no one here disavows such violent and extreme ideas. I will simply say two things: one, what you suggest I figure you imagine would lead to an America just like the one we have now, only with Republicans in charge. In reality it would lead to civil war, Nazi tactics, martial law, and the destruction of America as we know it.

What you’re missing is that the Jihadists have a stragety to take advantage of the Democrat’s inclination to politicize everything and use it against the country as a whole in order to defeat us.

In other words, the Democrats are the useful idiots of the terrorists… the jihadis use the Democrats to defeat the country.

You talk about the destruction of America… well so do I. We can’t fight a war when the Democrats put up 40 bills to get us to surrender.

Here is a statement about the jihadis view:

“The people of jihad need to carry out a media war parallel to the military war … because we can observe the effect that the media have on nations,” signed by Najd al-Rawi of the Global Islamic Media Front, a group associated with al Qaeda.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49873 Vince P Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:27:16 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49873 -- continued -- Here is what a jihad expert predicted what would happen and has come to pass. What have the Democrats done to fight against any of this? Can you imagine them supporting any action to fight? I can't.. they accomodate the jihadi's goals http://www.futurejihad.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=1 <blockquote> [1] Penetration of the system: Jihadists will be trying to penetrate the U.S. system: Multiple cases have shown that they have attempted to infiltrate the U.S. military, intelligence and other agencies. In the chapter "Mutant Jihad," I predicted the rise of the so-called second generation (homegrown) Jihadists in America and the West. The capture of these cells have shown that most members were citizens, born in the country and speaking the language, etc. [2] That Wahabi funds have been and continue to be used to take the control of Middle East studies in the United States. Emir Talal Bin al Waleed offered 40 million dollars to US universities lately. (Chapter: The Clash of Strategies) [3] That al Qaeda wanted to crumble the US national security in 2001 and to pull American task forces from the region. It still project to do so: documents captured on terrorists (Abu Musaab As Suri) demonstrated this objective. (Chapter: The Road to 9/11) [4] Chapter 13 (the scariest) shows what type of Future Jihad is in the making: establishment of urban Jihadi units within each city, etc. The arrests in UK and the US showed that this trend is now happening. </blockquote> – continued —

Here is what a jihad expert predicted what would happen and has come to pass. What have the Democrats done to fight against any of this? Can you imagine them supporting any action to fight? I can’t.. they accomodate the jihadi’s goals

http://www.futurejihad.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=138&Itemid=1

[1] Penetration of the system: Jihadists will be trying to penetrate the U.S. system: Multiple cases have shown that they have attempted to infiltrate the U.S. military, intelligence and other agencies. In the chapter “Mutant Jihad,” I predicted the rise of the so-called second generation (homegrown) Jihadists in America and the West. The capture of these cells have shown that most members were citizens, born in the country and speaking the language, etc.

[2] That Wahabi funds have been and continue to be used to take the control of Middle East studies in the United States. Emir Talal Bin al Waleed offered 40 million dollars to US universities lately. (Chapter: The Clash of Strategies)

[3] That al Qaeda wanted to crumble the US national security in 2001 and to pull American task forces from the region. It still project to do so: documents captured on terrorists (Abu Musaab As Suri) demonstrated this objective. (Chapter: The Road to 9/11)

[4] Chapter 13 (the scariest) shows what type of Future Jihad is in the making: establishment of urban Jihadi units within each city, etc. The arrests in UK and the US showed that this trend is now happening.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49878 Vince P Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:31:49 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49878 And what the Democrats doing in light of the following... NOTHING. they are irresonsible and we can't afford to induldge in their power addiction <blockquote> If the West and America let down their mobilization, the future 9/11s will exceed the consequences of the 2001 terror attacks in America and the strikes in Madrid and London. This equation is quantitative and statistical in essence: there is little margin of error. The Jihadists who are produced today in the madrassas, are being prepared to bring down Western democracies as we know them. It would be difficult to predict the various tactical moves, but the strategies can be projected. ... The public can only be ready for what the government and establishment ready it for. The war with the Jihadists is not a private enterprise, but a state business. Homeland security for example should not be limited to respond to disasters and to find the Jihadi terrorists, just before they trigger the bombs. A sound Homeland Security must begin by educating the public as to the nature of the enemy, its ideology, its strategies and tactics. This is how you should prepare the nation to face future Jihadism, not by avoiding a national debate on the real issue under the pretext that Jihadism is some sort of theological matter. Precisely, the enemy wants you to believe that Jihadism (the enemy's profound nature) is just a matter of academic and theological debate. It would be the equivalent of having the propagandists of the IIIrd Reich convincing the Allies, that Nazism is a cultural issue. The West cannot avoid future Jihad unless it rises to a level of an advanced understanding of the enemy's ideology and tactics. And unless that new well-prepared international society equips itself with all the necessary tools, including education and outreach to fellow resisters in the East, the clash with future Jihadists is unavoidable and will last longer. </blockquote> And what the Democrats doing in light of the following… NOTHING. they are irresonsible and we can’t afford to induldge in their power addiction

If the West and America let down their mobilization, the future 9/11s will exceed the consequences of the 2001 terror attacks in America and the strikes in Madrid and London. This equation is quantitative and statistical in essence: there is little margin of error.

The Jihadists who are produced today in the madrassas, are being prepared to bring down Western democracies as we know them. It would be difficult to predict the various tactical moves, but the strategies can be projected.

…

The public can only be ready for what the government and establishment ready it for. The war with the Jihadists is not a private enterprise, but a state business. Homeland security for example should not be limited to respond to disasters and to find the Jihadi terrorists, just before they trigger the bombs. A sound Homeland Security must begin by educating the public as to the nature of the enemy, its ideology, its strategies and tactics.

This is how you should prepare the nation to face future Jihadism, not by avoiding a national debate on the real issue under the pretext that Jihadism is some sort of theological matter. Precisely, the enemy wants you to believe that Jihadism (the enemy’s profound nature) is just a matter of academic and theological debate. It would be the equivalent of having the propagandists of the IIIrd Reich convincing the Allies, that Nazism is a cultural issue. The West cannot avoid future Jihad unless it rises to a level of an advanced understanding of the enemy’s ideology and tactics. And unless that new well-prepared international society equips itself with all the necessary tools, including education and outreach to fellow resisters in the East, the clash with future Jihadists is unavoidable and will last longer.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49879 Mitsu Sun, 16 Dec 2007 02:45:20 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49879 Like I said before, I am a pragmatist. I think dictatorships are mistakes because they don't work, not because I think they are a priori evil. The reason I believe the policy you recommend is weak is that you are not taking into account the larger system and the fact that other actors will resist your efforts, and further that you only have so much in the way of resources to fight with. You think Dems are trying to surrender but most of them think Republicans are misallocating our forces and want to allocate our armed forces where they will be more effective. I happen to think the current strategy is far too weak to provide the level of defense we need because we have aimed at the wrong targets, have given our enemies propaganda tools to help them, and have allowed them to regroup and regain strength after an initial success defeating the Taliban. In my view Bush has done nearly everything Osama expected and wanted him to do after 9/11. To my mind Bush is falling for Osama's strategy hook, line, and sinker. He couldn't have asked for a better outcome in many ways for him. We are reviled now by many, he is still at large, and we are bogged down far from his base of operations. I know you disagree but that's America for you. The reason democracy is strong is that we let our divergent views be aired and debate them and come to a better strategy in the end. Dictatorship is weak because there is no incentive for government to self-correct. Power leads to corruption as we saw with the Democrats before and the Republicans later. You want voters to be able to kick you out to keep you honest. That's why democracy is stronger in the long term. It is also far more stable once democratic habits are embedded. You think a violent overthrow of democracy woudln't incite armed resistance? That is even more naive than thinking we would be greeted with flowers after we invaded Iraq. Like I said before, I am a pragmatist. I think dictatorships are mistakes because they don’t work, not because I think they are a priori evil.

The reason I believe the policy you recommend is weak is that you are not taking into account the larger system and the fact that other actors will resist your efforts, and further that you only have so much in the way of resources to fight with. You think Dems are trying to surrender but most of them think Republicans are misallocating our forces and want to allocate our armed forces where they will be more effective. I happen to think the current strategy is far too weak to provide the level of defense we need because we have aimed at the wrong targets, have given our enemies propaganda tools to help them, and have allowed them to regroup and regain strength after an initial success defeating the Taliban.

In my view Bush has done nearly everything Osama expected and wanted him to do after 9/11. To my mind Bush is falling for Osama’s strategy hook, line, and sinker. He couldn’t have asked for a better outcome in many ways for him. We are reviled now by many, he is still at large, and we are bogged down far from his base of operations.

I know you disagree but that’s America for you. The reason democracy is strong is that we let our divergent views be aired and debate them and come to a better strategy in the end.

Dictatorship is weak because there is no incentive for government to self-correct. Power leads to corruption as we saw with the Democrats before and the Republicans later. You want voters to be able to kick you out to keep you honest. That’s why democracy is stronger in the long term.

It is also far more stable once democratic habits are embedded. You think a violent overthrow of democracy woudln’t incite armed resistance? That is even more naive than thinking we would be greeted with flowers after we invaded Iraq.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49880 Vince P Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:16:30 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49880 Look at this.. how timely, I'm not alone: Is Real Threat Al-Qaida Or Congress? By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, December 14, 2007 4:20 PM PT National Security: After getting little done all year because it was too busy playing politics, Congress' year-end priority is to make fighting the global war on terror as difficult as possible. A jihadist couldn't ask for more. President Bush promises to veto legislation not containing immunity from lawsuits for telecom firms who cooperate with the U.S. government in terrorist surveillance. Apparently spoiling for a fight, the House passed a bill without such immunity. It also legislated to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other tough interrogation methods on suspected terrorists. Democrats also want to block 70% percent of the intelligence budget from being spent until the House and Senate intelligence committees get briefed on Israel's September airstrike on an apparent nuclear facility in Syria. And they continue to try to tie war funding to a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq. The pattern is clear: Over and over again, the ever-more disloyal opposition places obstacles in the way of our fighting al-Qaida and other terrorist enemies. Whether it be on the Iraq battlefield, over the fiber-optic pathways of the Internet and voice communications, or in the cells of captured guerrillas, the Democratic Congress is against the most aggressive methods to win the new kind of war Western civilization now wages. Fortunately, it has also, over and over again, run into another pattern: the president's trademark stubbornness. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently displayed her frustration with the commander-in-chief's determination, giving a peak into liberal Democrats' misguided thinking. "They like this war. They want this war to continue," she told reporters, adding that "the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress." Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., concurred. "It's not just Nancy Pelosi," she said. "I made a mistake. I predicted we would stop the war. We thought President Bush and the Republicans would be more compromising on the war." That is not quite the complete and unvarnished truth. What Democrats thought was that U.S. forces could not win, and that Iraq would seriously deteriorate this year. Those wearing the uniform soon proved her wrong after Bush applied the new surge strategy with 30,000 new troops and Marines, and a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus. As House Republican leader John Boehner recently noted, "It's clear that Democratic leaders underestimated the stakes, the consequences of failure and the determination of our troops to defeat al-Qaida on the battlefield." A few years ago it was a different story. In 2002, as we learned last week, none other than Nancy Pelosi, along with other congressional leaders from both parties, were briefed on the waterboarding and other tough practices being employed to extract information about terrorist plots from a limited number of al-Qaida detainees. Somehow, none of them thought it was worth raising a peep back then. So in the wake of 9/11, liberal Democrats were hawks because the polls supported that. Now, with the presidential primary season well under way, they're doves under pressure from the likes of MoveOn.org and others in their political and financial base. The GOP by comparison has held firm, as Boehner could boast last week. "Republicans have stood on principle to protect current and future generations of Americans, whether it polled well or not, and the success our troops are having in Iraq today is proof positive that our stance was the right one," he said. Next year, the American people will have a momentous decision before them in choosing George W. Bush's successor. The same enemy will be there, as determined as ever to commit more 9/11-style atrocities. Whether it's guns or surveillance or interrogation, Congress this year has shown us all that it would take away the tools necessary to protect Americans — if only it had a president who would sign on. Look at this.. how timely, I’m not alone:

Is Real Threat Al-Qaida Or Congress?

By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, December 14, 2007 4:20 PM PT

National Security: After getting little done all year because it was too busy playing politics, Congress’ year-end priority is to make fighting the global war on terror as difficult as possible. A jihadist couldn’t ask for more.

President Bush promises to veto legislation not containing immunity from lawsuits for telecom firms who cooperate with the U.S. government in terrorist surveillance. Apparently spoiling for a fight, the House passed a bill without such immunity. It also legislated to prohibit the CIA from using waterboarding and other tough interrogation methods on suspected terrorists.

Democrats also want to block 70% percent of the intelligence budget from being spent until the House and Senate intelligence committees get briefed on Israel’s September airstrike on an apparent nuclear facility in Syria. And they continue to try to tie war funding to a withdrawal of our forces in Iraq.

The pattern is clear: Over and over again, the ever-more disloyal opposition places obstacles in the way of our fighting al-Qaida and other terrorist enemies.

Whether it be on the Iraq battlefield, over the fiber-optic pathways of the Internet and voice communications, or in the cells of captured guerrillas, the Democratic Congress is against the most aggressive methods to win the new kind of war Western civilization now wages.

Fortunately, it has also, over and over again, run into another pattern: the president’s trademark stubbornness. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently displayed her frustration with the commander-in-chief’s determination, giving a peak into liberal Democrats’ misguided thinking.

“They like this war. They want this war to continue,” she told reporters, adding that “the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush’s war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., concurred. “It’s not just Nancy Pelosi,” she said. “I made a mistake. I predicted we would stop the war. We thought President Bush and the Republicans would be more compromising on the war.”

That is not quite the complete and unvarnished truth. What Democrats thought was that U.S. forces could not win, and that Iraq would seriously deteriorate this year. Those wearing the uniform soon proved her wrong after Bush applied the new surge strategy with 30,000 new troops and Marines, and a new commander in Gen. David Petraeus.

As House Republican leader John Boehner recently noted, “It’s clear that Democratic leaders underestimated the stakes, the consequences of failure and the determination of our troops to defeat al-Qaida on the battlefield.”

A few years ago it was a different story. In 2002, as we learned last week, none other than Nancy Pelosi, along with other congressional leaders from both parties, were briefed on the waterboarding and other tough practices being employed to extract information about terrorist plots from a limited number of al-Qaida detainees. Somehow, none of them thought it was worth raising a peep back then.

So in the wake of 9/11, liberal Democrats were hawks because the polls supported that. Now, with the presidential primary season well under way, they’re doves under pressure from the likes of MoveOn.org and others in their political and financial base.

The GOP by comparison has held firm, as Boehner could boast last week. “Republicans have stood on principle to protect current and future generations of Americans, whether it polled well or not, and the success our troops are having in Iraq today is proof positive that our stance was the right one,” he said.

Next year, the American people will have a momentous decision before them in choosing George W. Bush’s successor. The same enemy will be there, as determined as ever to commit more 9/11-style atrocities.

Whether it’s guns or surveillance or interrogation, Congress this year has shown us all that it would take away the tools necessary to protect Americans — if only it had a president who would sign on.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49883 Mitsu Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:54:22 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49883 I happen to agree, Vince P, that Democrats are pushing withdrawal too soon. As I've said before, I think the Iraq war is a strategic mistake which we should try to extricate ourselves from as soon as we safely can: so we can focus on other threats. But, we can't leave Iraq too quickly or we will risk leaving things worse than they were before we invaded (a very likely outcome no matter what we do, but we should at least do everything possible to avoid this outcome). However, as I've argued above, I believe Bush has played right into Osama's hands time and again (with the exception of the initial Afghan campaign) --- as in fact, I am sorry to say, I think you are, by supporting his ineffectual (in my opinion) strategies. The Democrats are making a mistake, I believe, in not stressing that the issue is putting up a more effective defense and offense against Al Qaeda and the jihadists --- except I think those like Barack Obama are making that case, which is why I keep saying I am supporting him. I would support a Republican who made a similar case, but none of them are --- they all, except for Ron Paul, and to some extent McCain, support the Bush plan which I think is ineffectual for the reasons I noted above. I happen to agree, Vince P, that Democrats are pushing withdrawal too soon. As I’ve said before, I think the Iraq war is a strategic mistake which we should try to extricate ourselves from as soon as we safely can: so we can focus on other threats. But, we can’t leave Iraq too quickly or we will risk leaving things worse than they were before we invaded (a very likely outcome no matter what we do, but we should at least do everything possible to avoid this outcome). However, as I’ve argued above, I believe Bush has played right into Osama’s hands time and again (with the exception of the initial Afghan campaign) — as in fact, I am sorry to say, I think you are, by supporting his ineffectual (in my opinion) strategies. The Democrats are making a mistake, I believe, in not stressing that the issue is putting up a more effective defense and offense against Al Qaeda and the jihadists — except I think those like Barack Obama are making that case, which is why I keep saying I am supporting him. I would support a Republican who made a similar case, but none of them are — they all, except for Ron Paul, and to some extent McCain, support the Bush plan which I think is ineffectual for the reasons I noted above.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49884 Mitsu Sun, 16 Dec 2007 03:56:11 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49884 Regarding surveillance, however --- obviously the Democrats don't care about legitimate surveillance of terrorists. The problem is they want to make sure the government doesn't misuse its power to intrude on the privacy of Americans for reasons that do not have to do with security. There are many, many very good reasons for that -- not the least of which is to avoid America moving in the direction of the sort of police state which, as I argued above, I believe is weaker in the long run in the face of external threats. Regarding surveillance, however — obviously the Democrats don’t care about legitimate surveillance of terrorists. The problem is they want to make sure the government doesn’t misuse its power to intrude on the privacy of Americans for reasons that do not have to do with security. There are many, many very good reasons for that — not the least of which is to avoid America moving in the direction of the sort of police state which, as I argued above, I believe is weaker in the long run in the face of external threats.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49886 Vince P Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:13:02 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49886 <blockquote>The problem is they want to make sure the government doesn’t misuse its power to intrude on the privacy of Americans for reasons that do not have to do with security</blockquote> Really? These are the same Democrats who wanted to put the Clipper chip into every communication device? The same party that said nothing when HUNDREDS of FBI files of republicans were found in Clinton's White House. Hillary Clinton listening to illegally recorded audio of republicans? Democrats illegally taping GOP leadership in the 1990s? Seems to me they have no problem listening or looking at things they shouldnt

The problem is they want to make sure the government doesn’t misuse its power to intrude on the privacy of Americans for reasons that do not have to do with security

Really? These are the same Democrats who wanted to put the Clipper chip into every communication device? The same party that said nothing when HUNDREDS of FBI files of republicans were found in Clinton’s White House.

Hillary Clinton listening to illegally recorded audio of republicans? Democrats illegally taping GOP leadership in the 1990s?

Seems to me they have no problem listening or looking at things they shouldnt

]]> By: Donald Wolberg http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49887 Donald Wolberg Sun, 16 Dec 2007 04:41:53 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49887 The Hanson analysis is on target. Whether the Iraq war was an error and leaving the thugs incharge the better alternative is ike looking for water after the house has burnt down. We are beyond blame and need to focus on reasoable solutions. A power vacum that surely would follow an abrupt withdrawal of out forces is not a viable option. We are in it just as we have been "stuck" in Korea after repelling the invasion from the North and from China, or the Yugoslavian mess that seems to go on forever although at no loss of life for us (so far). The uncontrolled influence of the Iranian religious thugs is not a viable option either, and our presence to check them is simply not negotiable for now. Unless a Democrat win with a "run away" agenda wins in 2008, a long term presence of American force is required and will be maintained. Hanso is completley correct that "military solutions" were required and did result in democratic states amongst the Axis of World War ll. The very notion of democratic government in Tojo's Japan, Hitler's Germany, even Vichy France or fascist Italy in 1941, must have seemed far fetched and impossible. Military power made the resulting democratic nations possible. The Hanson analysis is on target. Whether the Iraq war was an error and leaving the thugs incharge the better alternative is ike looking for water after the house has burnt down. We are beyond blame and need to focus on reasoable solutions. A power vacum that surely would follow an abrupt withdrawal of out forces is not a viable option. We are in it just as we have been “stuck” in Korea after repelling the invasion from the North and from China, or the Yugoslavian mess that seems to go on forever although at no loss of life for us (so far). The uncontrolled influence of the Iranian religious thugs is not a viable option either, and our presence to check them is simply not negotiable for now.

Unless a Democrat win with a “run away” agenda wins in 2008, a long term presence of American force is required and will be maintained. Hanso is completley correct that “military solutions” were required and did result in democratic states amongst the Axis of World War ll. The very notion of democratic government in Tojo’s Japan, Hitler’s Germany, even Vichy France or fascist Italy in 1941, must have seemed far fetched and impossible. Military power made the resulting democratic nations possible.

]]> By: Doom http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49891 Doom Sun, 16 Dec 2007 05:40:27 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49891 Hanson is so spot on. I have some belief that it will be his writings which will, ultimately, be our voice to some future age. Like artists, historians are separated in time, the wheat and the chaff. Even when I do disagree with him, it is eminently debatable, with the odds dubiously ill-favored. And yet, on occasion, I climb that hill. Not only does he see the layout in military, political, and social aspects, he is able to compare and contrast with history (real history), define strategic events before they are mainstream understood as such (if they ever are mainstreamed), but more, he points well to the future. I would almost classify him a history scientist. (if science wasn't earning such a poor name for itself of late) Oh, and Merry Christmas. If need be, translate that to your flavor of choice, minus one. Those can go bugger a goat for all I care. *sigh* I try. Hanson is so spot on. I have some belief that it will be his writings which will, ultimately, be our voice to some future age. Like artists, historians are separated in time, the wheat and the chaff. Even when I do disagree with him, it is eminently debatable, with the odds dubiously ill-favored. And yet, on occasion, I climb that hill.

Not only does he see the layout in military, political, and social aspects, he is able to compare and contrast with history (real history), define strategic events before they are mainstream understood as such (if they ever are mainstreamed), but more, he points well to the future. I would almost classify him a history scientist. (if science wasn’t earning such a poor name for itself of late)

Oh, and Merry Christmas. If need be, translate that to your flavor of choice, minus one. Those can go bugger a goat for all I care. *sigh* I try.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49926 Ymarsakar Sun, 16 Dec 2007 17:20:49 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49926 <b>Like I said before, I am a pragmatist. I think dictatorships are mistakes because they don’t work, not because I think they are a priori evil.</b>-Mitsu You're not addressing the imporant subject, which is why you believe that correcting the weaknesses in America will create a dictatorship or something like it. Do you not believe there is a weakness to correct? Do you believe there are other ways to solve the problem? Or do you believe those advocating the solutions are the problem? These are the important subjects to discuss. <b>I would almost classify him a history scientist.</b>-Doom Classify him as a classical liberal, for it is from that which all else flows. <b>obviously the Democrats don’t care about legitimate surveillance of terrorists.</b>-Mitsu The Democrats never cared about surveillance in the first place. Their overwhelming priority was winning, at any cost. You speak as if the Democrats truly wanted to get something productive done concerning surveillance on Americans or terrorists. That is an erroneous assumption. Maybe not all Democrats are this way, but certainly enough to organize and lead the Democrat party to the way it currently is. <b>The problem is they want to make sure the government doesn’t misuse its power to intrude on the privacy of Americans for reasons that do not have to do with security.</b>-Mitsu I don't expect you to have the same beliefs as I do about the Democrats, but I find it interesting that you would discount a large majority of the available toolbox solutions simply because you wish to believe that the Democrats believe in what you say they believe. I don't ascribe to your philosophy so I have no problems with betting things on a pre-emptive belief that the Democrats are corrupt and unwise. I am simply surprised that you would bet just as much that the Democrats are not or will not be corrupt and unwise. <b>The reason I believe the policy you recommend is weak is that you are not taking into account the larger system and the fact that other actors will resist your efforts</b> Considering what other factors or Murphy esque situations may come into play are indeed valid consideration. This is even regardless of which person's policy you are refering to. Vince's, mine, or others. <b>You think Dems are trying to surrender but most of them think Republicans are misallocating our forces</b> However, the problems you predict or expect will always be problems, regardless of what we do or don't do. Democrats will always believe that their political opponents are wrong or misallocating resources; that is simply how democracy, republics, and politics work. If they agreed, they would be <b>on the same side</b>, but they are not on the same side. Not anymore. Not perhaps since the US Civil War and WWII. <b>because we have aimed at the wrong targets</b>-M Come on, you believe a lot more than that the invasion and pre-emptive strategy should have been aimed at Iran or Pakistan. You believe the methods of attack are wrong, not just the target. Which is a different case altogether than believing in the wrong target while approving of Petraeus' COIN strategy against all terrorists. <b>have given our enemies propaganda tools to help them</b> Propaganda is only as effective so long as a person's head is attached to his body. No amount of propaganda can re-attach a man or a woman's head and make other people believe this man/woman is alive and functional. Propaganda is powerful, I agree, but not as powerful as the death dealt to Saddam and terrorism in Iraq. Propaganda is in the business of taking any and every action you do and paint them as being good for them and bad for us. It has no bearing on reality, except when it is necessary to conduct propaganda and psychological warfare operations. That is not the same as saying truth is the best propaganda though, since propaganda includes more then just telling the truth. The enemy's propaganda is of course based upon the fundamentals I have just described; instead of telling the truth, for the truth would destroy the basis for the Islamic Jihad while it would not harm us. The Islamic Jihad must make every action we do into a false narrative. Which is of course why your sentiments regarding enemy propaganda tools are non-critical to US security. <b>and have allowed them to regroup and regain strength after an initial success defeating the Taliban.</b> Terrorism can never be effective against the United States unless they create organized crime and terrorist organizations here in the States. Recent and previous captures of terrorists and their cells by the FBI shows that Al Qaeda is not in a condition to properly finance the creation of effective criminal syndicate organizations here in the States. AQ doesn't even seem to have devoted much if any resources to allying with the criminal cartels in Mexico, the southern Border, and in the illegal drug/human trafficking business at all. You may see such a situation concerning terrorism, whether AQ or Islamic Revolution, as meaning they are "regrouping and regaining strength". I see it as a testament to their weakness and strategic incompetence. Weaknesses and incompetence fostered by American victories in Iraq, not to mention the invaluable experience and intelligence gained from fighting terrorists instead of waiting in American cities for terrorists to attack. <b>In my view Bush has done nearly everything Osama expected and wanted him to do after 9/11.</b> That of course would mean that Osama pre-empted Bush. Which would validate the doctrine of pre-emption if carried out competently. Yet you don't believe pre-emption can be carried out competently, or at least you have always given reasons why pre-emption have crashed and burned before. Osama didn't wait until Bush attacked him and then launched 9/11, which is a strategy that you recommended when we were discussing Iraq, Mitsu. So I don't see why your view on what Bush did has anything consistent your real beliefs. <b>We are reviled now by many</b> Of course we are. America has always had many enemies envious of our power, wisdom, prestige, and military/economic endurance. Do you somehow believe those enemies just didn't exist until Bush's actions? Or do you believe as I do that those enemies came out of the woodworks only because they now saw a chance to loot American prestige for their own benefit? <b>he is still at large, and we are bogged down far from his base of operations.</b> Which raises the obvious question of how you expect your own policies or Obama's policies to <b>not bog</b> down in Pakistan. Do you believe you and Obama are more competent than Bush's vacillation with the UN and religious compassion? I doubt it. Pakistan (where we perhaps can agree that Osama is based in) has about half the population of America. If, as you say, Bush is bogged down in Iraq far from Osama Bin Laden, how do you think you will be able to go through 150 million people, compared to the 60 million or so in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush had to deal with? Do you somehow believe that the amount of lives and treasury spent in Iraq will somehow reduce when you are trying to fight 150 million Pakistanis in order to get at Osama amongst their cities and tribes? Such things are not logical, Mitsu. <b>I know you disagree but that’s America for you. The reason democracy is strong is that we let our divergent views be aired and debate them and come to a better strategy in the end.</b> Yet that has no relation to what the Democrats did when they aired all their arguments against WMDs, for sanctions, and for Saddam's sovereignty, and then were overruled by the President. They didn't contribute to a better strategy in the end. They didn't even try. Why such a problem should be tolerated in a republic is a reason you have never provided, Mitsu. <b>Dictatorship is weak because there is no incentive for government to self-correct.</b> You have also never provided any reason or evidence for why solving the problem of the Democrats will create dictatorship. You wish to argue as if dictatorship will already happen as you predict. Yet why should I or any other here be obligated to accept your erroneous and false philosophical assumptions without challenge? That is not and has never been the way to a better strategy. <b>You think a violent overthrow of democracy woudln’t incite armed resistance?</b> You mistake the Jacksonian war party position as being revolutionary in nature, when it is purely reformist in nature. Reformists know that if the system does not reform, then you truly will get a revolution sooner or later. Truly the KKK were revolutionary, but the only KKK member I know of is Robert Byrd, who is a Democrat, not a Republican or a Jacksonian. People like Vince don't seem to want to wait until then, when they will be fighting from a position of weakness with their system of government already destroyed beyond recognition. The situation Europe is now in with the EU. America is still strong and can still purge the parasites and acidic corrosion effects now, without sacrificing a limb or a life. But that is only true for now, it won't be true in the future. Like I said before, I am a pragmatist. I think dictatorships are mistakes because they don’t work, not because I think they are a priori evil.-Mitsu

You’re not addressing the imporant subject, which is why you believe that correcting the weaknesses in America will create a dictatorship or something like it. Do you not believe there is a weakness to correct? Do you believe there are other ways to solve the problem? Or do you believe those advocating the solutions are the problem?

These are the important subjects to discuss.

I would almost classify him a history scientist.-Doom

Classify him as a classical liberal, for it is from that which all else flows.

obviously the Democrats don’t care about legitimate surveillance of terrorists.-Mitsu

The Democrats never cared about surveillance in the first place. Their overwhelming priority was winning, at any cost. You speak as if the Democrats truly wanted to get something productive done concerning surveillance on Americans or terrorists. That is an erroneous assumption. Maybe not all Democrats are this way, but certainly enough to organize and lead the Democrat party to the way it currently is.

The problem is they want to make sure the government doesn’t misuse its power to intrude on the privacy of Americans for reasons that do not have to do with security.-Mitsu

I don’t expect you to have the same beliefs as I do about the Democrats, but I find it interesting that you would discount a large majority of the available toolbox solutions simply because you wish to believe that the Democrats believe in what you say they believe. I don’t ascribe to your philosophy so I have no problems with betting things on a pre-emptive belief that the Democrats are corrupt and unwise. I am simply surprised that you would bet just as much that the Democrats are not or will not be corrupt and unwise.

The reason I believe the policy you recommend is weak is that you are not taking into account the larger system and the fact that other actors will resist your efforts

Considering what other factors or Murphy esque situations may come into play are indeed valid consideration.

This is even regardless of which person’s policy you are refering to. Vince’s, mine, or others.

You think Dems are trying to surrender but most of them think Republicans are misallocating our forces

However, the problems you predict or expect will always be problems, regardless of what we do or don’t do. Democrats will always believe that their political opponents are wrong or misallocating resources; that is simply how democracy, republics, and politics work. If they agreed, they would be on the same side, but they are not on the same side. Not anymore. Not perhaps since the US Civil War and WWII.

because we have aimed at the wrong targets-M

Come on, you believe a lot more than that the invasion and pre-emptive strategy should have been aimed at Iran or Pakistan. You believe the methods of attack are wrong, not just the target. Which is a different case altogether than believing in the wrong target while approving of Petraeus’ COIN strategy against all terrorists.

have given our enemies propaganda tools to help them

Propaganda is only as effective so long as a person’s head is attached to his body. No amount of propaganda can re-attach a man or a woman’s head and make other people believe this man/woman is alive and functional. Propaganda is powerful, I agree, but not as powerful as the death dealt to Saddam and terrorism in Iraq.

Propaganda is in the business of taking any and every action you do and paint them as being good for them and bad for us. It has no bearing on reality, except when it is necessary to conduct propaganda and psychological warfare operations. That is not the same as saying truth is the best propaganda though, since propaganda includes more then just telling the truth. The enemy’s propaganda is of course based upon the fundamentals I have just described; instead of telling the truth, for the truth would destroy the basis for the Islamic Jihad while it would not harm us. The Islamic Jihad must make every action we do into a false narrative.

Which is of course why your sentiments regarding enemy propaganda tools are non-critical to US security.

and have allowed them to regroup and regain strength after an initial success defeating the Taliban.

Terrorism can never be effective against the United States unless they create organized crime and terrorist organizations here in the States. Recent and previous captures of terrorists and their cells by the FBI shows that Al Qaeda is not in a condition to properly finance the creation of effective criminal syndicate organizations here in the States. AQ doesn’t even seem to have devoted much if any resources to allying with the criminal cartels in Mexico, the southern Border, and in the illegal drug/human trafficking business at all.

You may see such a situation concerning terrorism, whether AQ or Islamic Revolution, as meaning they are “regrouping and regaining strength”. I see it as a testament to their weakness and strategic incompetence. Weaknesses and incompetence fostered by American victories in Iraq, not to mention the invaluable experience and intelligence gained from fighting terrorists instead of waiting in American cities for terrorists to attack.

In my view Bush has done nearly everything Osama expected and wanted him to do after 9/11.

That of course would mean that Osama pre-empted Bush. Which would validate the doctrine of pre-emption if carried out competently. Yet you don’t believe pre-emption can be carried out competently, or at least you have always given reasons why pre-emption have crashed and burned before. Osama didn’t wait until Bush attacked him and then launched 9/11, which is a strategy that you recommended when we were discussing Iraq, Mitsu. So I don’t see why your view on what Bush did has anything consistent your real beliefs.

We are reviled now by many

Of course we are. America has always had many enemies envious of our power, wisdom, prestige, and military/economic endurance.

Do you somehow believe those enemies just didn’t exist until Bush’s actions? Or do you believe as I do that those enemies came out of the woodworks only because they now saw a chance to loot American prestige for their own benefit?

he is still at large, and we are bogged down far from his base of operations.

Which raises the obvious question of how you expect your own policies or Obama’s policies to not bog down in Pakistan. Do you believe you and Obama are more competent than Bush’s vacillation with the UN and religious compassion? I doubt it.

Pakistan (where we perhaps can agree that Osama is based in) has about half the population of America. If, as you say, Bush is bogged down in Iraq far from Osama Bin Laden, how do you think you will be able to go through 150 million people, compared to the 60 million or so in Afghanistan and Iraq Bush had to deal with?

Do you somehow believe that the amount of lives and treasury spent in Iraq will somehow reduce when you are trying to fight 150 million Pakistanis in order to get at Osama amongst their cities and tribes?

Such things are not logical, Mitsu.

I know you disagree but that’s America for you. The reason democracy is strong is that we let our divergent views be aired and debate them and come to a better strategy in the end.

Yet that has no relation to what the Democrats did when they aired all their arguments against WMDs, for sanctions, and for Saddam’s sovereignty, and then were overruled by the President. They didn’t contribute to a better strategy in the end. They didn’t even try. Why such a problem should be tolerated in a republic is a reason you have never provided, Mitsu.

Dictatorship is weak because there is no incentive for government to self-correct.

You have also never provided any reason or evidence for why solving the problem of the Democrats will create dictatorship. You wish to argue as if dictatorship will already happen as you predict. Yet why should I or any other here be obligated to accept your erroneous and false philosophical assumptions without challenge?

That is not and has never been the way to a better strategy.

You think a violent overthrow of democracy woudln’t incite armed resistance?

You mistake the Jacksonian war party position as being revolutionary in nature, when it is purely reformist in nature. Reformists know that if the system does not reform, then you truly will get a revolution sooner or later. Truly the KKK were revolutionary, but the only KKK member I know of is Robert Byrd, who is a Democrat, not a Republican or a Jacksonian.

People like Vince don’t seem to want to wait until then, when they will be fighting from a position of weakness with their system of government already destroyed beyond recognition. The situation Europe is now in with the EU.

America is still strong and can still purge the parasites and acidic corrosion effects now, without sacrificing a limb or a life. But that is only true for now, it won’t be true in the future.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49943 Mitsu Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:00:49 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49943 >Pakistan First of all, I don't believe attacking Osama in the tribal areas of Pakistan will require invading Pakistan and taking it over the way we did Iraq. Instead, what will likely occur is we pressure the current Pakistani government to accept joint operations in the region or force them to accept a limited incursion in the tribal areas only. There's no reason whatsoever that we would have to take over Islamabad, and in fact it's highly unlikely we could do so even if we wanted to. However, the main point here is that trying to attack Osama in the tribal areas is not preventive war at all, it is a response to his attack on us on 9/11. That's the whole point! The reason preventive war is almost always a mistake is that you're attacking someone who has not attacked you first, and therefore you create far more resistance from others. Attacking someone who HAS attacked you, on the other hand, doesn't generate the same counter-reaction. That's the point I raised with Bismarck. >dictatorship The whole idea of overthrowing democracy by force in the United States is so obviously insane that I'm amazed I even have to argue against it here. First of all, it would wipe out the claim that the United States is somehow "more ethical" than other countries --- wasn't the whole idea that we're better than other countries, partly because we're democratic and they're not? In any event, what you propose will never occur, because for one thing our military is loyal to the Constitution and therefore they'd stop an action such as you propose. But, even if you managed to someone organize a force to attempt to overthrow the Constitution, I simply assert that most loyal Americans would be radically opposed to you (since most Americans believe, unlike you, in democracy), and there would be violence (provided you could somehow put together a force large enough to actually defeat loyal members of our own military). The only way one could prevent armed resistance to your coup would be to impose permanent police state: which is, of course, the definition of dictatorship. Naturally, since you believe Democrats are ALWAYS out to destroy the country, you would have to cancel elections, or: if people voted Republicans out, you'd have to simply make elections pro-forma, like the old Soviet Union. This would mean of course voting would become meaningless, like the Soviet Union, and the government would descend into corruption. >America is still strong and can still purge the parasites >and acidic corrsion effects now Since your antidemocratic coup is never going to happen, I do want to address the central issue you raise, which is the notion that Democrats are power-hungry maniacs who simply want to destroy the country and are only interested in power. Yet, from the Democratic side, Republicans appear to be the same. They talk about budget discipline but when they get into power, they get involved in the same pork-barrell politics, accepting money in exchange for votes, etc., the Democrats used to do in the old days. It's corruption on both sides. The reality is, Democrats and Republicans are both motivated by their constituents. You might think Democrats are insane to oppose warrantless wiretapping, but there are many Americans, myself included, who think warrantless wiretapping is one step down the road to the destruction of the Republic. It's not, again, the Democrats want to stop surveillance of our enemy: it's that they want it to be approved by Congress and the courts. The Bush Administration believes they should be able to do it even when it is illegal or when the courts say they can't. That is the beginning of dictatorship and something I believe everyone should oppose. Democrats are not perfect, neither are Republicans, but for the most part the majority are public servants who want to serve the good of the nation. They are corruptible, on both sides. But the fact that they disagree with you doesn't mean they're trying to destroy the country, it means they have different thinking from you. I vote for Democrats because at the moment their thinking is more closely aligned with my views, even though I disagree with them at times. I'm glad there is a Republican Party because otherwise the corruption would mount up again. You should be glad there's a Democratic Party for the same reasons. >Pakistan

First of all, I don’t believe attacking Osama in the tribal areas of Pakistan will require invading Pakistan and taking it over the way we did Iraq. Instead, what will likely occur is we pressure the current Pakistani government to accept joint operations in the region or force them to accept a limited incursion in the tribal areas only. There’s no reason whatsoever that we would have to take over Islamabad, and in fact it’s highly unlikely we could do so even if we wanted to.

However, the main point here is that trying to attack Osama in the tribal areas is not preventive war at all, it is a response to his attack on us on 9/11. That’s the whole point! The reason preventive war is almost always a mistake is that you’re attacking someone who has not attacked you first, and therefore you create far more resistance from others. Attacking someone who HAS attacked you, on the other hand, doesn’t generate the same counter-reaction. That’s the point I raised with Bismarck.

>dictatorship

The whole idea of overthrowing democracy by force in the United States is so obviously insane that I’m amazed I even have to argue against it here. First of all, it would wipe out the claim that the United States is somehow “more ethical” than other countries — wasn’t the whole idea that we’re better than other countries, partly because we’re democratic and they’re not?

In any event, what you propose will never occur, because for one thing our military is loyal to the Constitution and therefore they’d stop an action such as you propose. But, even if you managed to someone organize a force to attempt to overthrow the Constitution, I simply assert that most loyal Americans would be radically opposed to you (since most Americans believe, unlike you, in democracy), and there would be violence (provided you could somehow put together a force large enough to actually defeat loyal members of our own military). The only way one could prevent armed resistance to your coup would be to impose permanent police state: which is, of course, the definition of dictatorship.

Naturally, since you believe Democrats are ALWAYS out to destroy the country, you would have to cancel elections, or: if people voted Republicans out, you’d have to simply make elections pro-forma, like the old Soviet Union. This would mean of course voting would become meaningless, like the Soviet Union, and the government would descend into corruption.

>America is still strong and can still purge the parasites
>and acidic corrsion effects now

Since your antidemocratic coup is never going to happen, I do want to address the central issue you raise, which is the notion that Democrats are power-hungry maniacs who simply want to destroy the country and are only interested in power. Yet, from the Democratic side, Republicans appear to be the same. They talk about budget discipline but when they get into power, they get involved in the same pork-barrell politics, accepting money in exchange for votes, etc., the Democrats used to do in the old days. It’s corruption on both sides.

The reality is, Democrats and Republicans are both motivated by their constituents. You might think Democrats are insane to oppose warrantless wiretapping, but there are many Americans, myself included, who think warrantless wiretapping is one step down the road to the destruction of the Republic. It’s not, again, the Democrats want to stop surveillance of our enemy: it’s that they want it to be approved by Congress and the courts. The Bush Administration believes they should be able to do it even when it is illegal or when the courts say they can’t. That is the beginning of dictatorship and something I believe everyone should oppose.

Democrats are not perfect, neither are Republicans, but for the most part the majority are public servants who want to serve the good of the nation. They are corruptible, on both sides. But the fact that they disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re trying to destroy the country, it means they have different thinking from you. I vote for Democrats because at the moment their thinking is more closely aligned with my views, even though I disagree with them at times. I’m glad there is a Republican Party because otherwise the corruption would mount up again. You should be glad there’s a Democratic Party for the same reasons.

]]> By: Gray http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49956 Gray Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:00:22 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49956 <i>The reason preventive war is almost always a mistake is that you’re attacking someone who has not attacked you first, and therefore you create far more resistance from others.</i> Wow... Just Wow.... How many dead Americans is enough to make our case with the Chinese, French and Russians? No thanks, if it means dying just so we "don't create resistance" among 'others', count me out. That's why you get the charged with 'traitor'--you value 'world opinion' more than the lives of your contrymen. Sick. Treacherous. The reason preventive war is almost always a mistake is that you’re attacking someone who has not attacked you first, and therefore you create far more resistance from others.

Wow… Just Wow….

How many dead Americans is enough to make our case with the Chinese, French and Russians?

No thanks, if it means dying just so we “don’t create resistance” among ‘others’, count me out.

That’s why you get the charged with ‘traitor’–you value ‘world opinion’ more than the lives of your contrymen.

Sick. Treacherous.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49959 Mitsu Sun, 16 Dec 2007 19:50:20 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49959 >you value "world opinion" more than the lives of your countrymen Oh, please. You have no idea what I am talking about, Gray, whoever you are. I am not talking about "world opinion" --- how stupid can you be? Obviously if a move was in our national interest but merely caused "world opinion" to turn against us, that would still be something we ought to do. You obviously haven't read any of the other discussion we've had on this subject. What I am saying is preventive war is usually a *strategic military* mistake because it creates a greater *military threat* than the initial threat you intended to tame via the preventive war. I've already posted this link, but Jack Snyder illustrates the argument very well, here: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99377573.html Of course I am in favor of the strongest, most effective defense against our enemies possible. I simply think the Bush strategy has been *weak*, playing right into the hands of our enemy. The paramount concern for me and for most Americans, Democrat or Republican, is American national security. As I've written above I am in opposition to many Democratic ideas but overall, I am more in agreement with them than disagreement. That's why I vote for them, despite my disagreements. I'm actually glad the surge, for example, happened, despite Democratic opposition. But while I disagree with a precipitous withdrawal I think we do need to refocus our efforts elsewhere as soon as we can safely do so. >you value “world opinion” more than the lives of your countrymen

Oh, please. You have no idea what I am talking about, Gray, whoever you are. I am not talking about “world opinion” — how stupid can you be? Obviously if a move was in our national interest but merely caused “world opinion” to turn against us, that would still be something we ought to do. You obviously haven’t read any of the other discussion we’ve had on this subject.

What I am saying is preventive war is usually a *strategic military* mistake because it creates a greater *military threat* than the initial threat you intended to tame via the preventive war. I’ve already posted this link, but Jack Snyder illustrates the argument very well, here:

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-99377573.html

Of course I am in favor of the strongest, most effective defense against our enemies possible. I simply think the Bush strategy has been *weak*, playing right into the hands of our enemy. The paramount concern for me and for most Americans, Democrat or Republican, is American national security. As I’ve written above I am in opposition to many Democratic ideas but overall, I am more in agreement with them than disagreement. That’s why I vote for them, despite my disagreements. I’m actually glad the surge, for example, happened, despite Democratic opposition. But while I disagree with a precipitous withdrawal I think we do need to refocus our efforts elsewhere as soon as we can safely do so.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49962 Mitsu Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:08:37 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49962 (Although it should be noted --- though this is obvious many fail to realize it --- world opinion DOES matter in one respect: it makes it more difficult to find strategic allies if world opinion is against you --- another reason we're bogged down in Iraq is that we have no substantial allies with us. Had we a large allied force we'd have far more flexibility militarily. But the point is I am concerned with military issues, not just "world opinion" --- but to the extent that world opinion affects military issues, then it is something to be concerned with.) (Although it should be noted — though this is obvious many fail to realize it — world opinion DOES matter in one respect: it makes it more difficult to find strategic allies if world opinion is against you — another reason we’re bogged down in Iraq is that we have no substantial allies with us. Had we a large allied force we’d have far more flexibility militarily. But the point is I am concerned with military issues, not just “world opinion” — but to the extent that world opinion affects military issues, then it is something to be concerned with.)

]]> By: Donald Wolberg http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49967 Donald Wolberg Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:18:33 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49967 Mitsu is perhaps correct in terms of allies and support--more bodies would make completion of the tasks required less a burden on U.S. forces. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen because of the reluctence of European or Asian allies to commit forces and necessary money. The supposed allies have not even lived up to the funds that they agreed to contribute to support the Iraqi government. However, I suggest it no longer matters if there is allied support simply because withdrawal would be a disater, and the substantial gains the the U.S. military has made would be rapidly lost. The only options left are to continue the American presence, certainly well into the next Presidency if not beyond, and attempt to build up the Iraqi military so it can manage more and more on its own. It is likely that a badly needed expansion in the size of our won military will be required. Mitsu is perhaps correct in terms of allies and support–more bodies would make completion of the tasks required less a burden on U.S. forces. Unfortunately that is not likely to happen because of the reluctence of European or Asian allies to commit forces and necessary money. The supposed allies have not even lived up to the funds that they agreed to contribute to support the Iraqi government. However, I suggest it no longer matters if there is allied support simply because withdrawal would be a disater, and the substantial gains the the U.S. military has made would be rapidly lost. The only options left are to continue the American presence, certainly well into the next Presidency if not beyond, and attempt to build up the Iraqi military so it can manage more and more on its own. It is likely that a badly needed expansion in the size of our won military will be required.

]]> By: Occam's Beard http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49969 Occam's Beard Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:34:30 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49969 <b>it makes it more difficult to find strategic allies if world opinion is against you — another reason we’re bogged down in Iraq is that we have no substantial allies with us. Had we a large allied force we’d have far more flexibility militarily. </b> Really? Look at armed force by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces" rel="nofollow">country:</a> Germany 285,000 (130,000 reserves) France 259,000 (100,000) Japan 239,000 ( 47,000) Italy 230,000 ( 65,000) Spain 177,000 (329,000) Canada 125,000 ( 35,000) Netherlands 53,000 ( 32,000) Belgium 41,000 ( -) Countries with troops in Iraq: UK 467,000 ( 57,000) USA 1,426,000 (858,000) I believe we were discussing "substantial allies." Bottom line: countries other than the UK would play only a symbolic role in any case by holding our coats. it makes it more difficult to find strategic allies if world opinion is against you — another reason we’re bogged down in Iraq is that we have no substantial allies with us. Had we a large allied force we’d have far more flexibility militarily.

Really? Look at armed force by country:

Germany 285,000 (130,000 reserves)
France 259,000 (100,000)
Japan 239,000 ( 47,000)
Italy 230,000 ( 65,000)
Spain 177,000 (329,000)
Canada 125,000 ( 35,000)
Netherlands 53,000 ( 32,000)
Belgium 41,000 ( -)

Countries with troops in Iraq:

UK 467,000 ( 57,000)
USA 1,426,000 (858,000)

I believe we were discussing “substantial allies.”

Bottom line: countries other than the UK would play only a symbolic role in any case by holding our coats.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49973 Mitsu Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:19:26 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49973 Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial. Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war. Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial. Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war.

]]> By: Occam's Beard http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49974 Occam's Beard Sun, 16 Dec 2007 23:30:21 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49974 <b>Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial. </b> Please. You're embarrassing yourself. If every Chinese jumped off a chair at the same time, they might move the Earth too. <b>Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war.</b> Cheer up. We might lose yet. Keep a good thought. Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial.

Please. You’re embarrassing yourself.

If every Chinese jumped off a chair at the same time, they might move the Earth too.

Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war.

Cheer up. We might lose yet. Keep a good thought.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49976 Vince P Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:37:17 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49976 >Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial. Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war. They can't even find any helicopters to airlift UN troops to Darfur. >Add up all the EU forces together and it hardly looks as insubstantial. Not to mention the fact that the UK is pulling its troops due in no small measure to their domestic opposition to the war.

They can’t even find any helicopters to airlift UN troops to Darfur.

]]> By: Occam's Beard http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49977 Occam's Beard Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:49:07 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49977 The Royal Canadian Army is smaller than the New York City police department, according to the sainted <a href="http://circ.jmellon.com/docs/html/canadas_armed_forces_atrophied.html" rel="nofollow">Richard Clarke.</a> 'Nuff said. The Royal Canadian Army is smaller than the New York City police department, according to the sainted Richard Clarke.

‘Nuff said.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49980 Mitsu Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:18:43 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49980 Your comments are just dumb. Comparing the US to an individual EU country is like comparing Russia to Massachusetts. NATO as a whole is a substantial military force. The point is, world opinion makes a difference militarily. The UK pulled out partly because the Iraq war lacked sufficient public support. That's why you can't ignore politics in war... war is inherently political. >cheer up, we may lose yet Losing is precisely what worries me. That's why we need a far stronger strategy than we have been employing. Your comments are just dumb. Comparing the US to an individual EU country is like comparing Russia to Massachusetts. NATO as a whole is a substantial military force.

The point is, world opinion makes a difference militarily. The UK pulled out partly because the Iraq war lacked sufficient public support. That’s why you can’t ignore politics in war… war is inherently political.

>cheer up, we may lose yet

Losing is precisely what worries me. That’s why we need a far stronger strategy than we have been employing.

]]> By: Occam's Beard http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49984 Occam's Beard Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:43:30 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49984 I disagree. Your comments are childlike in their simplemindedness. NATO as a whole doesn't exist, except on paper. The whole point of NATO was to bind the US to protect the feckless Europeans from Russia, and secondarily from a resurgent Germany. Name an instance in which NATO actually acted, other than to order another round of drinks. I give you, as a case in point, Kosovo, a problem right in Europe's backyard, where they couldn't/wouldn't do squat until and unless the US did the heavy lifting. Try to keep up. Considering the EU countries individually is the <i>only</i> acceptable course of action, since they act independently. Moreover, most of the countries comprising the EU detest each other at a visceral level, and have been at each others' throats since the fall of the Roman Empire. World opinion doesn't count for a goddamned thing. The relevant politics are internal (internal to the US and to Iraq). What France or Peru or Thailand thinks couldn't matter less. I disagree. Your comments are childlike in their simplemindedness.

NATO as a whole doesn’t exist, except on paper. The whole point of NATO was to bind the US to protect the feckless Europeans from Russia, and secondarily from a resurgent Germany. Name an instance in which NATO actually acted, other than to order another round of drinks. I give you, as a case in point, Kosovo, a problem right in Europe’s backyard, where they couldn’t/wouldn’t do squat until and unless the US did the heavy lifting. Try to keep up.

Considering the EU countries individually is the only acceptable course of action, since they act independently. Moreover, most of the countries comprising the EU detest each other at a visceral level, and have been at each others’ throats since the fall of the Roman Empire.

World opinion doesn’t count for a goddamned thing. The relevant politics are internal (internal to the US and to Iraq). What France or Peru or Thailand thinks couldn’t matter less.

]]> By: Vince P http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49985 Vince P Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:48:21 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49985 <blockquote>I give you, as a case in point, Kosovo, a problem right in Europe’s backyard, where they couldn’t/wouldn’t do squat until and unless the US did the heavy lifting. Try to keep up. </blockquote> Not only that.. but NATO helped the wrong side.

I give you, as a case in point, Kosovo, a problem right in Europe’s backyard, where they couldn’t/wouldn’t do squat until and unless the US did the heavy lifting. Try to keep up.

Not only that.. but NATO helped the wrong side.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49989 Mitsu Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:30:44 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49989 It's true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation. So it's bizarre to suggest that NATO is militarily irrelevant. Furthermore, the Afghan war included substantial support from a large number of NATO countries: the US invoked the mutual defense clause of the NATO charter. At present, the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan, one of the largest forces there, is under NATO command. It is historic in that it's the first NATO operation outside of the European North Atlantic area. It’s true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation. So it’s bizarre to suggest that NATO is militarily irrelevant.

Furthermore, the Afghan war included substantial support from a large number of NATO countries: the US invoked the mutual defense clause of the NATO charter. At present, the ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan, one of the largest forces there, is under NATO command. It is historic in that it’s the first NATO operation outside of the European North Atlantic area.

]]> By: Gray http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49990 Gray Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:35:08 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49990 Mitsu--2:50PM: <i>Oh, please. You have no idea what I am talking about, Gray, whoever you are. I am not talking about “world opinion” — how stupid can you be?</i> Mitsu--8:18PM: <i>Your comments are just dumb. Comparing the US to an individual EU country is like comparing Russia to Massachusetts. NATO as a whole is a substantial military force. The point is, world opinion makes a difference militarily. </i> So, I ask again: How many American civilians should we lose to gain 'world opinion'? I think Massachusetts' GDP is probably the same size as Russia's now--and if you count the illegal aliens, Mass has a higher birthrate! Maybe I'm dumb, but smart enough to bust you out: Really, how many Americans must die to secure 'world opinion' for a war? Mitsu–2:50PM:

Oh, please. You have no idea what I am talking about, Gray, whoever you are. I am not talking about “world opinion” — how stupid can you be?

Mitsu–8:18PM:

Your comments are just dumb. Comparing the US to an individual EU country is like comparing Russia to Massachusetts. NATO as a whole is a substantial military force.

The point is, world opinion makes a difference militarily.

So, I ask again: How many American civilians should we lose to gain ‘world opinion’?

I think Massachusetts’ GDP is probably the same size as Russia’s now–and if you count the illegal aliens, Mass has a higher birthrate!

Maybe I’m dumb, but smart enough to bust you out: Really, how many Americans must die to secure ‘world opinion’ for a war?

]]> By: Gray http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49991 Gray Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:38:11 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49991 <i>It’s true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation.</i> HAHAHAHAHA! NATO had to intervene 'cuz 'World Opinion' in the UN was against a preemptive war against the Serbs. We'll be out of Iraq before we are out of Bosnia.... It’s true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation.

HAHAHAHAHA!

NATO had to intervene ‘cuz ‘World Opinion’ in the UN was against a preemptive war against the Serbs.

We’ll be out of Iraq before we are out of Bosnia….

]]> By: Occam's Beard http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49993 Occam's Beard Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:11:52 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-49993 <b>It’s true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation. So it’s bizarre to suggest that NATO is militarily irrelevant.</b> It's moronic to suggest that NATO had anything to do with it. NATO sat on its hands until the US acted, then "participated" on a purely symbolic basis. Contributing a squad or two and a few cooks and observers doesn't count. It’s true that NATO dragged its feet regarding the Yugolavian situation, but they did eventually intervene and the Kosovo operation was a NATO operation. So it’s bizarre to suggest that NATO is militarily irrelevant.

It’s moronic to suggest that NATO had anything to do with it. NATO sat on its hands until the US acted, then “participated” on a purely symbolic basis. Contributing a squad or two and a few cooks and observers doesn’t count.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-50006 Mitsu Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:15:21 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-50006 Gray ... like I said, if you think preventive war will reduce the chances Americans will be killed, fine. I happen to think it increases the chances Americans will be killed. So, how many Americans must die to satisfy your desire to go to war with the wrong enemy? The NATO operation in Afghanistan is hardly a token few squads... it is massive. Thus you're simply wrong that NATO support means nothing. Gray … like I said, if you think preventive war will reduce the chances Americans will be killed, fine. I happen to think it increases the chances Americans will be killed. So, how many Americans must die to satisfy your desire to go to war with the wrong enemy?

The NATO operation in Afghanistan is hardly a token few squads… it is massive. Thus you’re simply wrong that NATO support means nothing.

]]> By: Mitsu http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-50008 Mitsu Mon, 17 Dec 2007 07:22:15 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-50008 (And again, to be clear... I am not against war against our enemy. I simply believe we should be attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan full on, not halfheartedly, and redeploy from Iraq as soon as we can, without leaving too soon.) (And again, to be clear… I am not against war against our enemy. I simply believe we should be attacking Al Qaeda in Pakistan full on, not halfheartedly, and redeploy from Iraq as soon as we can, without leaving too soon.)

]]> By: McLovin http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-50015 McLovin Mon, 17 Dec 2007 09:18:55 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2007/12/15/hanson-and-the-myths-of-iraq/#comment-50015 Mr. Hanson writes: ``Conventional wisdom about Iraq is rarely questioned.'' Back on earth, there is a raging debate on about Iraq, with Fox News Channel etc. insisting that the war is a patriotic cavalcade of heroic American morality and steely geopolitical will that cannot and has not failed. Columnists at the NY Times etc. insist the war has already failed by showing that the U.S. is deeply divided over the pre-emptive attack doctrine and that the war's most vehement supporters are unwilling to volunteer to fight in it or to accept higher taxes to pay for it. Hanson is certainly correct that conventional wisdom is that the war has fundamentally failed to make America more secure. But it's preposterous to assert that the conventional view is "rarely questioned'' when in fact it is under constant with