Selective Pre-emption

[Zhukov]

And one of the things I would hope that comes out of your commission report is a recommendation for a change in the attitude of government about threats, that we be able to act on threats that we foresee, even if acting requires boldness and requires money and requires changing the way we do business, that we act on threats in the future before they happen.
Richard Clarke before 9/11 Commission

I am strident in my criticism of the president of the United States [for invading Iraq]
Richard Clarke before the 9/11 Commission

This is something I've wondered about.

Why is it possible for this man to fret about the need to pre-emptively act against possible threats, and then sit there and blithely criticize the President for taking care of Iraq?

I realize the man has contradicted himself on occasion recently, but doesn't he even see the logic of broadly pursuing his very own opinions? Or does he believe it is neccessary "to act on threats in the future before they happen" more selectively?

He said invading Iraq undermines the war against terrorists. I don't watch any of the news-magazine programs he's visited, I just watched his testimony on C-SPAN, and I wanted to know if anyone caught his reasoning behind his criticism for the Iraq war as it relates to combatting terrorism?

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by Zhukov
This is something I've wondered about.

Why is it possible for this man to fret about the need to pre-emptively act against possible threats, and then sit there and blithely criticize the President for taking care of Iraq?

I realize the man has contradicted himself on occasion recently, but doesn't he even see the logic of broadly pursuing his very own opinions? Or does he believe it is neccessary "to act on threats in the future before they happen" more selectively?

He said invading Iraq undermines the war against terrorists. I don't watch any of the news-magazine programs he's visited, I just watched his testimony on C-SPAN, and I wanted to know if anyone caught his reasoning behind his criticism for the Iraq war as it relates to combatting terrorism?

Because he’s sold out to the politically rewarding cash drawer of the anti-Bush agenda of the left! That you question his motives indicates a healthy dose of political realism. Hehe, like you said, I can’t disagree with what I agree with already .... Ahww well.

 

[st8_o_mind]

Originally posted by Zhukov
This is something I've wondered about.

Why is it possible for this man to fret about the need to pre-emptively act against possible threats, and then sit there and blithely criticize the President for taking care of Iraq?

The operative word is "threat." We now know that Bush either exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq or was mistaken about the threat due to inaccurate intelligence. Either way, Three things are clear to all now.

One. Iraq did not represent a "real and immediate danger" to the US at the time of the invasion.

Two al Qaeda posed, and continues to pose a real and immediate threat to the security of the US., to our allies, and to US interests overseas.

Three. The Bush Administration has focused on Iraq for the past two years.

The most fundamental responsibility of the President is to "protect and defend" the US. Not bring democracy to Iraq. Bush fought the wrong war against the wrong enemy. Worse, invading Iraq was the best thing that could have happened to al-Qaeda.

Bush is a fool and worse, an incompetent Commander in Chief at a time when our nation needs real leadership not some recycled AWOL drunk rich kid hiding in the Guard because Daddy is a Congressman with some pull moron.

 

[DKSuddeth]

First, I dont recall it being stated that Iraq was a threat to the US as much as its surrounding neighbors! I may be wrong on this one, but how about the surrounding countries of Iraq?

Many times over, Iraq was stated as a grave threat to america, its interests, and its allies.

Two, al Qaeda is being dealt with accordingly this far!

That would be YOUR opinion, but not others. Its certainly not mine. when we invaded afghanistan we should have pressed pakistan and cornered the bastards there. what we have now is a hodgepodge of border jumpers to deal with and thats making security in afghanistan and pakistan worse. To top it all off, we're now experiencing an increase of terrorism in our northern ally, uzbekistan.

Three, how has the war in Iraq become the best thing for al Qaeda? seems to me that quite a few of them idiots are being picked off over there!

Its loaded with american military personnel, aka targets. This is how we lost vietnam, the slow attrition of our soldiers.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Its loaded with american military personnel, aka targets. This is how we lost vietnam, the slow attrition of our soldiers.

Had all of our soldiers been keyed in on Afghanistan, couldn't the same have been said about them there? In fact, more of Al Qaeda is in that area, so wouldn't that make the odds even worse? Couldn't this statement apply to our soldiers wherever they are to go to fight terrorists?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
Many times over, Iraq was stated as a grave threat to america, its interests, and its allies.

BTW - Just wanted to say I agreed with these statements when they were made over a year ago, and I agree with them today.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind

The operative word is "threat." We now know that Bush either exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq or was mistaken about the threat due to inaccurate intelligence. Either way, Three things are clear to all now.

One. Iraq did not represent a "real and immediate danger" to the US at the time of the invasion.

Ah yes, the "imminent threat" canard rears its fool head once again. When you use quotes around a statement it would actually be helpful if the words were actually spoken by Bush. The concept of “pre-emption” itself does not depend upon such clear knowledge of the threat. So why do you choose the liberal myth when you know we will hammer you mercilessly for attempting to propagate that here?

The link to Bush’s public statement on Iraq, once again:


2003 SOTU Speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

‘Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.’


Bush just called you out, St8-O!

Two al Qaeda posed, and continues to pose a real and immediate threat to the security of the US., to our allies, and to US interests overseas.

Absolutely. So what’s your point? That we are failing to pursue Al-Qaeda because we have pursued Saddam Hussein? That we can’t do A. and B. both, or even that doing B.(Iraq) has worked against doing A.(fighting terror)?

Someday I’d like to see Bush-haters get with the program here. It’s undeniable that Spain was bombed by Al-Qaeda based on their military action in Iraq. What’s amazing is that liberals still believe Iraq and Al-Qaeda are separate, unrelated issues.

I mean Jeezus Christ, didn’t Al-Qaeda just say “leave us alone in Iraq or we’ll attack you?” Simplistic explanation but you should start with that one.

Three. The Bush Administration has focused on Iraq for the past two years.

Among other things. Doing B.(Iraq) does not preclude one from doing A(fighting terrorists), and could even help fight A.

When A. bombs you over doing B., that means we pissed them off, and are doing something which hurts them. They want what you want, for the US to stop!

The most fundamental responsibility of the President is to "protect and defend" the US. Not bring democracy to Iraq.

You’re saying that leaving warmongers and cruel dictators to rule the nations world is the better way to “protect and defend” the US? I’m glad your people are not in charge!

Bush fought the wrong war against the wrong enemy. Worse, invading Iraq was the best thing that could have happened to al-Qaeda.

They loved it so much they bombed Spain to show their appreciation!

It’s just Bin-Laden’s way of saying “Thank You!”.

Bush is a fool and worse, an incompetent Commander in Chief at a time when our nation needs real leadership not some recycled AWOL drunk rich kid hiding in the Guard because Daddy is a Congressman with some pull moron. [/B]

We don’t want fools and morons in the White House now, do we?

Libs better think up a new line on the war, and quick!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Had all of our soldiers been keyed in on Afghanistan, couldn't the same have been said about them there? In fact, more of Al Qaeda is in that area, so wouldn't that make the odds even worse? Couldn't this statement apply to our soldiers wherever they are to go to fight terrorists?

not necessarily so, if afghanistan had remained the only theater in the WOT then we would have a huge advantage in NATO support as well as the surrounding countries shoring up our offense. Moving the main theater to IRAQ has put us, as occupiers, in a defensive status where we are responding to attacks, not initiating the offensive.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
BTW - Just wanted to say I agreed with these statements when they were made over a year ago, and I agree with them today.

with the exception of Kay's report theres little evidence to show this to be true.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Someday I’d like to see Bush-haters get with the program here. It’s undeniable that Spain was bombed by Al-Qaeda based on their military action in Iraq. What’s amazing is that liberals still believe Iraq and Al-Qaeda are separate, unrelated issues.

I mean Jeezus Christ, didn’t Al-Qaeda just say “leave us alone in Iraq or we’ll attack you?” Simplistic explanation but you should start with that one.

maybe YOU need to get with the program. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after we got there, not sure of the logic you are trying to use in intimating that the two are connected. care to explain?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
with the exception of Kay's report theres little evidence to show this to be true.

Sure, let's just exclude what the lead investigator had to say!

Most believe Saddam would have loved to inflict some sort of offense agsinst the US and/or our allies. He was suspected by practically the entire world of preparing to build a nuclear weapons program and proof is there that he had begun. He refused to fully comply with inspectors for over 12 years. Nobody knew for sure what he had and what his intentions were. Based on his prior actions, that makes him a serious threat.

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Sure, let's just exclude what the lead investigator had to say!

not unlike was done with any of the investigators before? :

Most believe Saddam would have loved to inflict some sort of offense agsinst the US and/or our allies.

theres plenty of that out there, not just from Iraq.

He was suspected by practically the entire world of preparing to build a nuclear weapons program and proof is there that he had begun. {/quote]

True, but WANTING to build and ALREADY building are two vastly different things. My opinion is that we should have dealt with the threats that already exist like NK and Iran. At least Libya acquiesced though, thats one in the plus column.

He refused to fully comply with inspectors for over 12 years. Nobody knew for sure what he had and what his intentions were. Based on his prior actions, that makes him a serious threat.

And THIS is what the entire basis for invading Iraq SHOULD have been. My guess is that this would have garnered much more support and been less susceptible to backlash from bad intelligence.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
not necessarily so, if afghanistan had remained the only theater in the WOT then we would have a huge advantage in NATO support as well as the surrounding countries shoring up our offense. Moving the main theater to IRAQ has put us, as occupiers, in a defensive status where we are responding to attacks, not initiating the offensive.

But that's just it, what about the Al Qaeda cells elsewhere? What about countries that support and proliferate terrorism? It's reasonable to assume that if you concentrate your entire plan in one area that the terrorists will just appear elsewhere. Both Afghanistan and Iraq were legitimate places to concentrate our efforts. There is no reason why both couldn't take place simultaneously.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
maybe YOU need to get with the program. Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after we got there, not sure of the logic you are trying to use in intimating that the two are connected. care to explain?

Of course they are. Like I said it's not simple, but you can start with the PNAC home page for a complete roadmap of this foreign policy.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

1. Realize the abandonment of the Middle East by the US is not an option which serves our national security.

2. Understand the nature of Saudi Arabia makes our military presence there both unnecessary and counter-productive, and that Iraq serves as a multi-faceted approach to maintaining our military presence while aiming to eventually reduce our need for it.

3. Know full well the aim of particular regimes (Saddam’s Iraq) is to remove all US influence from the region in order to serve their own ambitions.

4. Know the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The same reason Al-Qaeda fights “for Iraq” is the very nature of this prophetic Chinese proverb. And for that same reason Saddam Hussein would have most certainly lent assistance to the terrorsts and had, when able to. Not that we actually need an alliance between enemies before we are "allowed" to fight them. The whole point is to take them apart piecemeal before they could ally.

You also seem to think it wise to have invaded Northern Pakistan in the Afganistan conflict. I’d like to hear your real-politic view of such an act. I expect you know little of the precarious nature of the countries leadership, and the consequences of an Islamic coup of a nation of such power and capability. People actually thought that one through, and even now Musharaff is pushing the limits of stability by attempting to pursue the terrorists in his own nation.

It’s like you want to go nuclear, do ya?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
theres plenty of that out there, not just from Iraq.

Absolutely, and I think they should all be attended to. Afghanistan is a no brainer. Iraq has been in the making for over 12 years. I believe those 2 places posed the most threat and were the best place to start. Anywhere else the terrorists call home should be eliminated eventually. I never believed this war would be something won quickly. It's going to take a huge effort and many years, but it needs to be done.

 

[Comrade]

jimnyc,

I’m still trying to figure out how to say what I want in the same, succinct and dead on manner you always find. You run a great board and if there were some system set up for giving rec’s you’d hog them all!

 

[DKSuddeth]

Originally posted by Comrade
Of course they are. Like I said it's not simple, but you can start with the PNAC home page for a complete roadmap of this foreign policy.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

1. Realize the abandonment of the Middle East by the US is not an option which serves our national security.

where did I say to abandon the middle east?

2. Understand the nature of Saudi Arabia makes our military presence there both unnecessary and counter-productive, and that Iraq serves as a multi-faceted approach to maintaining our military presence while aiming to eventually reduce our need for it.

so to get out of SA, we needed to occupy another country? what was wrong with Afghanistan then?

3. Know full well the aim of particular regimes (Saddam’s Iraq) is to remove all US influence from the region in order to serve their own ambitions.

again, iraq was not on the top of that list.

4. Know the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The same reason Al-Qaeda fights “for Iraq” is the very nature of this prophetic Chinese proverb. And for that same reason Saddam Hussein would have most certainly lent assistance to the terrorsts and had, when able to. Not that we actually need an alliance between enemies before we are "allowed" to fight them. The whole point is to take them apart piecemeal before they could ally.

'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' has burned our collective ass more often than not, you would think we would have learned this by now. I expect that it will take something more disastrous than 9/11 to convince us of that eventually.

You also seem to think it wise to have invaded Northern Pakistan in the Afganistan conflict. I’d like to hear your real-politic view of such an act. I expect you know little of the precarious nature of the countries leadership, and the consequences of an Islamic coup of a nation of such power and capability. People actually thought that one through, and even now Musharaff is pushing the limits of stability by attempting to pursue the terrorists in his own nation.

you presume too much if you think I know so little about pakistan. Yes, Musharaff's leadership is not stable and may well have caused more problems with the US presence, but where isn't this happening right now? As for the Islamic coup, I'm sure that our forces would be adequate enough to stop such a coup.

It’s like you want to go nuclear, do ya?

we're headed for more of that anyway, don't doubt it, but who's going to start it?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Comrade
jimnyc,

I’m still trying to figure out how to say what I want in the same, succinct and dead on manner you always find. You run a great board and if there were some system set up for giving rec’s you’d hog them all!

Thanks for the kind words. I think I'm perhaps the least eloquent writer on this board though. There are quite a few more deserving of these compliments, yourself included.

 

[Comrade]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
where did I say to abandon the middle east?

Then where is the grand strategy based on your own liberal view? Are we back to “invading Pakistan” again? Give us all your plan for alternate use of force in the region, or be faced with the inevitable alternative of being a diplomatically neutered eunuch. You don’t support any alternative PLAN, do you? You got one? Tell us.

2. Understand the nature of Saudi Arabia makes our military presence there both unnecessary and counter-productive, and that Iraq serves as a multi-faceted approach to maintaining our military presence while aiming to eventually reduce our need for it.

so to get out of SA, we needed to occupy another country? what was wrong with Afghanistan then?

No oil. No pipeline. No pipeline to the Caucasus oil. That at least was the initial reason for invading Afganistan, originally, or so the Libs did preach until most gave up the charade. But oil it is my friend. It’s +$2 at the pump and you should either recognize how much this means to America, or go invent cheap fusion power, be useful or just shut up about how oil shouldn’t be so important. You ARE on a computer, after all.

3. Know full well the aim of particular regimes (Saddam’s Iraq) is to remove all US influence from the region in order to serve their own ambitions.

again, iraq was not on the top of that list.

So why were over 100,000 military personnel deployed for 12 years in an ongoing “containment” policy? Isn’t that a problem?

4. Know the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The same reason Al-Qaeda fights “for Iraq” is the very nature of this prophetic Chinese proverb. And for that same reason Saddam Hussein would have most certainly lent assistance to the terrorsts and had, when able to. Not that we actually need an alliance between enemies before we are "allowed" to fight them. The whole point is to take them apart piecemeal before they could ally.

'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' has burned our collective ass more often than not, you would think we would have learned this by now. I expect that it will take something more disastrous than 9/11 to convince us of that eventually.

Just belt that out and expect me to assume you are talking of Iraq or Al-Qeada, right? Specifics matter. The Cold war mattered. The Iranian revolution mattered. But now since such conflicts are no longer a primary US security issue, your second guessing means NOTHING, without context.

You also seem to think it wise to have invaded Northern Pakistan in the Afganistan conflict. I’d like to hear your real-politic view of such an act. I expect you know little of the precarious nature of the countries leadership, and the consequences of an Islamic coup of a nation of such power and capability. People actually thought that one through, and even now Musharaff is pushing the limits of stability by attempting to pursue the terrorists in his own nation.

you presume too much if you think I know so little about pakistan. Yes, Musharaff's leadership is not stable and may well have caused more problems with the US presence, but where isn't this happening right now? As for the Islamic coup, I'm sure that our forces would be adequate enough to stop such a coup.

Two assassination attempts on him since 9/11 and “right now” I would bet third is most certainly in the making. The ISI stands ready to manipulate events, and examples of “national heroes” in the government, abound. Khan was pardoned based on a national sentiment, a man who stood for the supremacy of Arab dictators based on nuclear capability. The country was and still is ripe for a political coup.

Fortunately our “hotheaded” Bush secured in advance the support of Musharaf himself, a diplomatic coup of tremendous advantage, which you will hear nothing of in the coming months. Based on this mutually beneficial arrangement, we now have extensive data on the basing of Pakistan’s nuclear capability, which the US demanded to “secure” in anticipation of such an event. Your original plan called for invasion in pursuit of Al-Qeada long before such details were taken care of.

It’s like you want to go nuclear, do ya?

we're headed for more of that anyway, don't doubt it, but who's going to start it?

Fatalism aside, our policy has been to avoid such brinkmanship, for obvious reasons. You just have a bad attitude about the whole deal, can’t give any alternative approach, and that's what I ask of you. Do you have one?

 

[DKSuddeth]

comrade, you need to get over your obvious anti-liberal bullshit that completely fogs your dead brain over any rational thought other than to slam liberals.

Otherwise your posts just reek of anti-liberal sentiment and are therefore defunct of logic.

come back to me when you have thought that over.