"The Long War"?

So, now, the Bush Administration has given an official name to the war on terrorism. "Long War." Who knows if this term will stick? Last August, Bush reached for his dictionary and decided that GWOT ("The Global War on Terror") should become the "Global Struggle against violent extremism." That term lasted all of two days. This "long war" sounds a like lot like endless war to me. And that got me thinking about the ramifications, the consequences for our freedoms and liberties. After all, there have been other periods in American history when illegal spying has been committed, habeas corpus has been suspended, innocent civilians have been imprisoned, torture condoned, unprecedented secrecy invoked in the name of national security, and when the President has broken the law. But have they ever all happened at the same time? I don't think so. And if they have, they've never come with the promise that this song will remain for the rest of our natural lives. And, most important, other chapters of excess and overreach in our history have been followed by a period of regret, and then reform. But if this administration claims that we are engaged in a war without end (aka "long war"), does that also mean the war on our fundamental rights and liberties knows no end? I say we combat the idea that this is a "long war," (aka: endless war), or even a war at all. Let's come up with a definition that is a true and accurate one for the times we are living in. I welcome submissions.

Comments (175)

1. We use the term "War" too easily in sports or for ongoing campaigns like the "War on Drugs" and the like. The Legal definition of war needs to be spelled out or Katrina is absolutely correct in her assessment. Orwell's 1984 based itself on a society always at war... with others and ultimately its population. I never thought I would see us going down that very road without a fight.

   Posted by terryday at 02/03/2006 @ 2:42pm

2. In order for a war to end, we must have a definable enemy who is able to be defeated and subsequently surrender. When we are dealing with religious zealots from multiple countries, that just isn't going to happen. We have to stop calling it a war. It's really just a continuous police action against illegal activities, similar to what has been carried out against organized crime, but on a global scale. Obviously we can't kill all the terrorists. Bush's philosophy on this reminds me of the Sorceror's Apprentice slashing at broomsticks. We create two for every one we eliminate. The solution is to deal with the fundamental causes. Treat the cause, not the symptom. That's easy to say, and a whole lot more complicated to implement, but it's the only way to end the killing. By the way, a side benefit to not calling it a war is that Bush won't be able to puff himself all up, put on some sort of costume, and call himself a "wartime" president.

   Posted by gizmojo at 02/03/2006 @ 2:42pm

3. This sounds too much like "We have ALWAYS been at war with east asia". Just how long is a Long War?

   Back in the 60s the word was "Never trust authourity."

   The word for 2006 is "Impeach the bastards"

   Posted by reprobate at 02/03/2006 @ 2:48pm

4. I'm shocked that you would even entertain the notion that this is a "war," Katrina. The Europeans generally see it as a matter of police actions against a criminal element--a notion that is a far better description of the true nature of this threat. The "war" notion, as you point out, is used as an excuse to curtial our civil liberties and should therefore be avoided. As many others have stated, the whole idea of a war on a noun--an emotional state no less--is absurd. We tried it with drugs and poverty and look where that got us.

   So what do we call this thing? Is it even really a single thing? We lump Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Aqsa, Al Qaida, the Chechens, Tamil Tigers, Kashmiri Separatists and the IRA into one big gang, even though many of these groups not only aren't connected but are sometimes antagonistic towards each other?

   It seems to me that calling "it" anything feeds into the right wing's fearmongering and helps to distort our priorities. Let's remember that the number of people killed by terrorism is absolutely minscule compared to the toll taken by a myriad of diseases, pollution and accidents.

   How about if, every time someone refers to the GWOT or uses any other term, we simply reject the language (i.e. say "I believe the term GWOT is misleading and is neither an accurate nor useful description of this situation") and then speak only to specific threats or incidents?

   Posted by GentleBen at 02/03/2006 @ 2:50pm

5. W almost got it right. The other George (George O) told us its name was the Forever War.

   Posted by greygeek at 02/03/2006 @ 2:59pm

6. The only parts of this that can be called wars are Afghanistan (The Taliban War) and Iraq (The Second US-Iraq War followed by the occupation). If we separate these from the various Islamist acts with geographic terminology designating what the discrete battlezones actually are, we can then designate the rest as the police matters they are. For example, I don't recall that 19th century Europeans ever referred to efforts to prevent and punish anarchist acts as a war.

   Posted by brunowe at 02/03/2006 @ 3:02pm

7. the question has an obvious answer: "permanent war" is what we are now about in this country.

   Posted by sj163 at 02/03/2006 @ 3:05pm

8. The Long War: Yes it will be a long war, because plople like you, the Democrats, The New York Times, CBS, CNN, ABC The Democratrs and other enemy friends fight against us and hate our president so much you would be willing to see us lose just to see the Liberal Leftist back in power. Bush nor us didn't start it.We were attacked many times before and after 1979 when president Carter let the Iraians hold our people for 444 days. The Muslims all read the Koran which tells them that is Allah's will that they kill all "infidels." That includes you unless you have converted to Islam. You may think that all they need is love and kindness so maybe we should send social workers. Maybe some of you pacifist could take some of them in your home and tame them.

   This war againt us will continue so long as there is one Muslim and one 'infidel' left alive. If, as some people want, we were to pullout of Iraq and surrender to the terrorist the war against us won't end, the front line in the war would be moved to Los Angles, Dallas, Miami, New Yook and Washington, D.C. We would lose a lot of citizens but hey, Mexico will replace them ten for one. Bush didn't start it and he is not the enemy. The Liberal media, Democrats and other friends of terrorist want us to treat this as a police action on the level with prostitution. Do you would want us to do nothing and turn the other cheek? Carter tried that with Iran in 1979. Had he come down hard on them then, 9/11 would not have happened. you terrorist lovers should be glad that we have a man in office than an appeaser like John Kerry. Of course, you won't post this reply as it doesn't fit your agenda but thanks anyway. Dean Johnson, Sebring, Fl.

   Posted by Dean Johnson at 02/03/2006 @ 3:12pm

9. Brunowe:

   I don't even think our current actions in Iraq or Afgahanistan qualify as wars. Occupation, yes. But it's not a war any more.

   Posted by GentleBen at 02/03/2006 @ 3:13pm

10. Gentleben,

    There are guerilla wars going on in both places (I suppose the terminology depends on what your threshhold is for calling something a war).

    Posted by brunowe at 02/03/2006 @ 3:19pm

11. Via Pat, I'd call it the 'Alibi War', (war of alibi, war by alibi, alibi by war, alibi of war,...)

    http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48648

    "If America is angry over what interventionism and free trade have wrought, George Bush cannot credibly blame isolationists or protectionists. These fellows have an alibi. They were nowhere near the scene of the crime.

    It is George W. Bush who is running out of alibis." PJ Buchanan

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 3:26pm

12. I am reading Robert Evans' "The Coming of the Third Reich" because I wanted to see if there were similarities between the USA now and Germany in the 1930s. Indeed, there are, including an impotent legislature; an unstable economy; a network of highly-placed party functionaries able to wait years, if not decades, for the right moment to seize power; and an electorate so terrified of the "other" (then it was Bolshevism and Revolution; today it's terrorism and Islam) that they are willing to believe that giving up civil rights and individual liberties is a good and necessary sacrifice.

    Into this zeitgeist comes "the war," which, of course, is not a war at all, but rather a blatantly illegal invasion and occupation of a sovereign, nonaggressive (towards us) country. That the media continues to repeat the word "war" only empowers the propaganda machine that chose it in the first place. We are not engaged in a "Long War" nor any kind of war. George Bush is systematically destroying the country and civilization that used to be Iraq, and, in backlash, slowly destroying our country as well, not because we are being asked to defend anything noble or prevent anything horrendous, but only, only, so that global conglomerates can control the flow of oil and realize even more obscene profits. And lest we delude ourselves, George W. Bush has never in his life, I daresay, "reached for his dictionary," even metaphorically. His words, his ideas, every nuance of his public persona are crafted by palace wordsmiths and PR gurus who would make Goebbels, Hitler's Minister of Propaganda, most proud. Bush's evil resides in his absolute subservience to the corporate agenda, to the greed of empire, and to the egocentric hubris of personal aggrandizement. To imply that he personally penned the term "The Long War" assumes that the man can actually think. He cannot. He reacts, he accepts coaching (begrudgingly, no doubt), and he plays a role. Do not embue him with attributes he does not possess. He, too, will be judged by history as nothing more than a little man, deluded by circumstance, and dismissed by circumstance. The real question is not what we call this madness, but how do we stop it!

    Posted by choffman at 02/03/2006 @ 3:26pm

13. How about "The War on Freedom"

    Posted by merlinsky at 02/03/2006 @ 3:29pm

14. The "lets not be late for this World War, war"

    Posted by merlinsky at 02/03/2006 @ 3:31pm

15. How about The Faux War?

    Posted by lockerh at 02/03/2006 @ 3:34pm

16. I'd say that Dean's post is an excellent argument for shifting money away from this bogus GWOT and into the education on our citizens. If we all had a better understanding of history and anthropology (not mention grammer and spelling), we might be far less willing to accept the "axis of evil" rhetoric that supports the destructive course we are on.

    Just one example of the foolishness that a poor understanding of the facts creates: Iran and Iraq were enemies before. Our so-called GWOT has greatly strengthened the Iranian hand, while removing a man who was a well-contained threat. Dean clearly doesn't get this.

    Posted by GentleBen at 02/03/2006 @ 3:41pm

17. Why not borrow that non-lethal term from the pre-neocon establishment: "Containment" as in "The Containment or virulent nationalism" - including, of course, ours.

    Posted by mpertschuk at 02/03/2006 @ 3:52pm

18. Posted by CHOFFMAN 02/03/2006 @ 3:26pm

    How true. However one must recognize that there is a relationship of ignorance that allows the evil to continue. One could say that there is an axis of evil but then it would be a mere one-sided monologue. It's not; it's more triangular. Bush is ignorant by choice, which makes him evil. Those that willingly ignore that evil then become part of the problem and create the larger illusion that this is then status quo. Thus one could say that the Bush regime has created a triangle of evil, which sucks us all into their delusion either by choice per needs to appear in the mainstream or kicking and screaming without a mechanism to stop the relational momentum.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 3:57pm

19. A couple of names for what has been sold as GWOT, creep to mind.

    THE WAR OF POSES- as in "Bring it on!"

    THE THONG WAR - marketing image since the reasons given couldn't cover my ass

    Posted by TimS at 02/03/2006 @ 3:59pm

20. Posted by TIMS 02/03/2006 @ 3:59pm

    Good ones.

    How about if one were to start with 'Bush's War', then by fiat, and with a little MJ thrown in for effect, we'd get to the 'Ignorant War'.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 4:09pm

21. In 1935 a leader of the party said in Madison Square Garden that the issue is between democracy and fascism. The old left went on to fight in Spain and Stalingrad. We came pretty close to winning. Today, I can't understand some who call themselves Left ignore the issue of Islamic Fascism. A creed that wants to put women in tents, kill gays, and if you are Jewish, don't ask. I believe if we frame the issue between democracy and Islamic Fascism, we shall obtain greater victories than the old left.

    Jim

    Posted by sheff3045 at 02/03/2006 @ 4:13pm

22. Per below: 'The Pact of Lies War'

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4675724.stm

    Blair 'made secret US Iraq pact'

    The book details a meeting between President Bush and Tony Blair

    Tony Blair and George W Bush decided to invade Iraq weeks earlier than they have admitted, a new book by a human rights lawyer has claimed.

    The book by Philippe Sands says the two leaders discussed going to war regardless of any United Nations view.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 4:20pm

23. FREIHEIT: Could you be more specific? Exactly what "reality" is it that I am blinded to?

    Posted by choffman at 02/03/2006 @ 4:22pm

24. Posted by GentleBen at 02/03/2006 @ 4:29pm

25. "The government has always insisted military action was used as a last resort against Saddam Hussein's regime." And of course we've learned otherwise.

    So what about 'The Last and/or First Resort War'.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 4:30pm

26. SHEFF: And yet Bush's actions in Iraq have brought the Islamists into power. The same thing is happening in other elections throughout the Middle East. Sure it would be nice to wave a magic wand and make this extremism vanish, but in the real world, everything Bush has done has only strengthened their hand. This ISN'T Spain in 1935. You cannot "defeat" this "enemy" in battle. That's why it isn't a war.

    Posted by GentleBen at 02/03/2006 @ 4:33pm

27. Our enemies are at war with all of us -- Left and Right, Republican and Democrat, atheists, Christians, and yes, Muslims. It is unfortunate that the Left will not accept this and become part of the fight, and hence help to bring an intellectual clarity about the struggle against the emotional plague of fascism that has spread throughout much of the world, especially the Islamic world. But absent marching orders from a Stalin (following which many on Left abandoned isolationism and defenses and rationalizations of Nazi conquests to lead the struggle against the Nazis) or an attack by the Islamicists on Venezuela or Hollywood, it looks like the Left will remain in the sway of millionaire heiresses, Hollywood celebrities, and perpetual self-hating adolescents. And yes – it will be a long war, fought long after Bush is gone, and there will be Democratic administrations charged with waging that war, crippled by the propaganda spread by their own party so many years before but which will live on long after Bush is forgotten.

    Posted by RonS at 02/03/2006 @ 4:34pm

28. That's why it isn't a war.

    Posted by GENTLEBEN 02/03/2006 @ 4:33pm

    So what about 'The Not War' war. Or since the BC BS regime is so into magling the language for their sick manipulative facade marketing ploys, why not the 'War of War'.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 4:59pm

29. The War is Over

    Technically we are still at "war", in that we have troops stationed in two foreign countries engaging in military activity. But the slight of hand that the administration has used is to conflate these military actions with the "war on terror" and thus be able to claim a never ending state of war.

    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are over. What we have now is post-war occupation and policing. If the wars weren't over would we be engaged in reconstruction activities? I don't remember the allies rebuilding parts of Germany in 1943.

    Rebuilding starts when the enemy has been subdued and the war is over.

    The other war (on terrorism) is a metaphorical war, like the war on drugs or the war on crime. Groups of people, "terrorists", wish to engage in committing illegal activities which may cause harm to others. The only effective response is some combination of policing and investigation. A traditional military response won't work since there are seldom military targets to attack. Thus, this is not a "war" as such, but an ongoing effort to maintain public order and security. It is what all countries do as a matter of course. Criminal enterprises are never entirely eradicated, that's why every society has a police function.

    So we are not at war, anymore. We are engaged in an ongoing effort to prevent harmful and illegal actions by those who wish to pursue their own objectives. These people can be drug dealers, the mafia, or "terrorists". The techniques for countering their threats are the same and don't require extraordinary federal powers.

    So let's not play into the hands of those making a power play and stop using their slanted terminology. The US is not at war. Let's not let those who wish to abuse their power continue to use this as an excuse for civil liberties abuses.

    Posted by rdf at 02/03/2006 @ 5:03pm

30. From the 'Cold War' to the more stream lined and efficient 'Old War'.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 5:08pm

31. RDF, good points all, I prefer to call it the phony war.

    that's what WW2 was called in the beginning, after Poland had been occupied, Britain and France declared war on germany but did nothing, except that england sent troops to France, the ones they later had to evacuate at Dunkirk, ;eaving all their equipment behind

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 5:21pm

32. I know this kind of stands the BC BS regime's UN bait and switch on it's head, but why not just tell the truth and call it the 'MIC for Oil War'.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 5:21pm

33. "As many others have stated, the whole idea of a war on a noun --an emotional state no less -- is absurd. We tried it with drugs and poverty and look where that got us." - GentleBen

    I generally agree with your post GentleBen; however, I take exception to your (clear) implication that the "war on poverty" was a dismal failure. On the contrary, it was, to a significant extent, a success. (Or, at very least, was a hell of a lot more successful than the so-called "war on drugs" ever has been, or ever will be.) It made sense to try and fight poverty, because (unlike the "war on drugs"), something could actually be done about poverty (and was). Consider the following: between 1964 and 1973, the poverty rate declined from 19 percent to 11.1 percent (Source: the Nation), due to Lyndon Johnson's liberal "Great Society" programs, such as Headstart, Medicare, Medicaid, and foodstamps. The war on poverty was one that (unlike, say, the war on drugs), actually (to some genuine extent) succeeded!

    Just wanted to make that one small point; now, back to Bush and terrorism.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 5:24pm

34. Dean Johnson, another member of the grrr kill, kill club, whatta jerk

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 5:25pm

35. good post Frank Thomas

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 5:29pm

36. How about The Wrong War, The False War or simply The Conflict.

    Posted by rmc2005 at 02/03/2006 @ 5:36pm

37. RDF, I'm a little slow sometimes, so what about if we just call it the 'MIC for Oil-- Occupation'? However you do understand that the current BC BS regime "NEEDS" to have something they can call some kind of a "WAR" going on. If we were to actually convince people with logic that there isn't any WAR going on, the BC BS regime might think that there is not enough "FEAR" necessary for the public to be manipulated and thus this sicko BC BS regime WILL make up some other INTELLIGENCE (lies) to start another WAR somewhere (Iran). So if it makes the old boys happy to think they're pulling one over on us by calling something a WAR that isn't... , Just think about it a little. And if you think they worry about more people dying--please consider that they could care less. It's all about FEAR and MONEY. (imo)

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 5:43pm

38. Because it has always been obvious to me that this is a "war" of choice, I am confounded by those who persist in their belief that Iraq was/is a "war" on terrorism. How can this possibly be? I know, I know..Cheney, Bush and double speak..but how can anyone with a modicum of intelligence (and access to the internet) justify their ignorance? Sometimes, I feel like my head is gonna explode. I agree with RDF.

    Posted by SG at 02/03/2006 @ 5:54pm

39. All I know is, in the next president's inaugural speech (who will be a Democrat), I hope s/he starts with this..."The war on terror is officially over. The regime that has terrorized the world and its own citizens is over. Now that George W. Bush is finished, I will open work with the Congress to expose any and all pieces of evidence available in the Executive files necessary to see that Mr. Bush spends sufficient time in prison! God bless this country!"

    Posted by BlueTexan at 02/03/2006 @ 5:55pm

40. I think that we have all gotten caught up in a semantic argument. Is the effort to defend ourselves from radical anti-western, pre-modern, mass-murdering jihadist terrorists something we are going to have to be engaged in for a long time? Yes. Is it a threat that cannot be easily defeated, let alone significantly defanged? Yes. Is it something that, instead of being fought on the battlefield, should be fought by questioning foreign policies that produce hatred of our country? Yes, to some extent (in part). Is it something that has been hijacked to a signficant extent by Bush and the neocons, who have used it for their own purposes (the prime example being Iraq)? Yes. Has the "war on terror" been mismanaged and bungled and exploited? Yes! Is it fair and accurate to refer to our justifiable and understandable concern for our safety, our effort (though not everything done in the name of it, such as Iraq), our attempt to stop the Islamo-Fascists who are trying to kill us, a "war"? I don't know; but regardless of what you CALL it, the threat is real, and must be addressed. HOW this threat should be addressed is one open for debate. WHETHER it should be addressed seems beyond doubt. Whether we should call it a "war" or not, whether that particular phrase it appropriate or not, seems fairly irrelevant.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 5:58pm

41. Thomas, all of that is true, but as long as Bush uses this rhetoric to justify everything from war in Iraq to warrantless spying we need to confront him and his rhetoric.

    the one who gets to define the debate wins, and Bush has been "winning" for some time, though it seems that his streak may be at an end,

    reality and the facts on the ground triumph even over rhetoric, perhaps you can't fool the people all of the time, maybe not even half, which seems to be where we are at now.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 6:07pm

42. "Whether we should call it a "war"or not, Whether that particular phrase is appropriate or not, seems fairly irrelevant."

    The word "war", and whether or not it is accurate, is especially relevant. It is relevant because it has been hijacked by the bush administration to manipulate the masses, to instill fear and a sense of extreme and continuous urgency. Under the illusion of these relentless conditions, citizens have and will sacrifice their civil rights.

    Posted by SG at 02/03/2006 @ 6:11pm

43. Let's Name the Bad Guys

    A war on terror is too vague. It is impossible to measure our success against it. It suggests indefiniteness in duration. It grants the president excessive discretionary power without accountability. It is time to amend PL107-40 – the authorization to use force against the perpetrators of 9/11 -- by requiring the President to identify by name all nations, organizations, or persons who were responsible for the attack. A "perp list" of nations, people, and organizations could be amended from time to time as new evidence is uncovered or as our successes neutralize one or more of the culprits.

    The current law authorizes the President to use force against those HE DETERMINES (my emphasis) were responsible for the attack on America, but does not specifically require him to identify who they are. It has been 41/2 years since that law was passed. During the interim, we have invaded and occupied a country that was never officially named as a 9/11 perpetrator, we have lost more than 2200 service men and women and the drain on the treasury continues. It is long past time for the President to provide an official and specific bill of indictment.

    Specificity will elevate the visibility of our enemies, punish those responsible, allow the public to objectively measure our success in prosecuting this endeavor, and project a termination point. Put another way, it will take away Mr. Bush's blank check to fight a seemingly endless and nebulous war on terror that officially identifies no bad guy, bad nation, or bad organization by name.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 02/03/2006 @ 6:13pm

44. A very fresh and interesting post Seattlescribe.

    Posted by SG at 02/03/2006 @ 6:15pm

45. I too am tired of all these pronouncements of "War"; "War on Poverty", "War on Drugs", "War on Terrorism". This modern "War" declaration seems to be nothing more than a power play against our own citizenry with the projects themselves doomed to failure (for most, some get very rich). Without this latest declaration of "War on Terrorism" many of the rights and freedoms recently lost could not have been taken, not to mention the way funding has been shifted. We need to get Congress to dump this "War" descriptive, as well as the resolution, and start dealing with the situation more realistically before we lose all of our freedoms and go broke.

    Posted by swhite at 02/03/2006 @ 6:17pm

46. Some of you talk as if "the war on terror" (i.e., addressing the terrorist threat, in any way whatsoever), is, in and of itself, the enemy. (Almost as if there is no real threat.) Yes, Bush has reacted to it all wrong, and exploited it, but in addition to Bush being the enemy in that way, don't forget that Bin Laden and the other Islamo-Fascists are the enemy TOO.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 6:23pm

47. SG, you have a point. Calling it a "war" does have its advantages.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 6:24pm

48. Seattle, I add my name to compliment you on that post

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 6:26pm

49. I think we should call it Armageddon. Not because I believe in Revelations, but because the religious right and their political allies (including our Administration) seem to all believe in the "Rapture". I think it's their intention to bring about this event so that (according to their beliefs) they can carry out "God's work" by beginning the conflict which will (according to their theology) end up with the destruction of all non-believers and let the Rapturists, solely, return to Earth to live for eternity in control, and with no one to disagree with their policies.

    (Without digressing too far off topic, I would like to suggest that someone in some media position somewhere do a piece exploring the possibility that Rapturists may have - at least in their minds and based upon their theology - an incentive to lead us into any and every situation that could potentially lead to their ultimate goal. That ultimate goal IS Armageddon, since, again, according to their theology, it theoretically would be: the final culmination of "God's will" bringing about the "second coming of Jesus", and result in the "final defeat of evil". This may also be why the current Administration ignores the needs of it's people for better health care, better education, control of global warming, a more ecological co-existence with our environment, etc. Since, in this postulation of a Rapturist proactive agenda, the goal would be causing Armageddon, they would perceive there being no need for funds to be left in Social Security, no need for Medicare, no need for anything other than to build a huge military so that there would be a guarantee that once the "final conflict" has begun and they have been wisked away to safety by the Rapture, there will be enough weapons left to guarantee that all humans remaining will eradicate themselves.)

    OK, I do hope you all realize I am kidding in calling it Armageddon. As I recall, Bush called it a Crusade when he first talked about the invasion of Afghanistan. I think that's what this is, a new Crusade. But I wouldn't advocate calling it that either.

    Let's be clear on something else before we give it a name. Bush has been making his case (after his original reasons [regarding: 1) the presence of WMDs in Iraq, 2) the immediate and imminent threat of those WMDs to the US and international community and 3) that an alliance existed between Saddam and Osama] were all disproven) that the action in Iraq is one to bring freedom to the Islamic world. Yet, when the results of the election in Palestine didn't go in the direction Bush wanted and Hamas was legally elected by a free and transparent vote proclaiming the will of the people, Bush and his group have decided to reward the proper functioning of a democratic election by refusing to "have dealings" with the new Hamas led government, and in fact doubled the reward for participation in "Western style democracy" by stopping all foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority. This is a huge indication as to the degree of Bush's commitment to democratic government. None! That should frighten everyone who values their liberty!

    There are additional points I'd like to have considered as we each seek a more appropriate term for the current US actions in the Middle and Near East. Let us remember the warnings from Eisenhower as he left office regarding the dangers of our expanding "Military Industrial Complex." Ike's point was, too much of our economy is wrapped up in that "MIC", and the problem with that is that machinations within government can consequently become more predisposed to perpetuating war as a way of life. We are on the cusp of that now.

    I'd like to make one final comment. I find it fascinating that our current government is suggesting we maintain a frame of consciousness of supporting this "long war" for as long as it will take. This from a "Christian"; someone who allegedly follows the teachings of the Prince of Peace, who taught non-violence, who taught no one of us may throw stones at another since none of us is without sin, who taught that it would have been wrong for the Israelites to rise up in a violent rebellion for independence from Rome, who taught the antithesis of revenge when he said turn the other cheek, and whose religion contains the admonishion, thou shalt not kill. We are going to be killing as a way of life in our culture forever under this new Bush Doctrine.

    As you indicated, the stated of goal for Bush's policy of eradicating terrorism is impossible to achieve. (I'm reminded of Princess Leia's comment to General Tark in Star Wars - "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers..."). Setting up an unattainable goal by which we are to define the success of our conflict, but of which any logical consideration would dictate can never be achieved (even though Bush is somehow able to convince his followers it can be), will create a state of perpetual conflict for as far into the future as one can see. (Not only that, but as a "wartime" President, he is more likely than not to continue expanding Presidential power and authority; and he may permit another 9/11 right here at home so he can suspend elections in '08.) The guarantee of the pre-eminence of the "MIC" in our economy for as far into the future is thereby assured.

    So, my suggested names include: Conflict for Rapturist Agenda Promulgation (CRAP), Endemic Military Proposals for International Repression Eternally (EMPIRE), and Overt Idiotic Lust (OIL).

    Posted by Lennonist at 02/03/2006 @ 6:27pm

50. I see lots of good posts to go around, much concern and engagement. Great. Question: if the people that are supposed to confront the BC BS regime are our elected representatives, both houses, governors, mayors, counselors, etc., then how best to push them to do something? What's the alternative -- to march on DC by the millions and make demands? That could happen too. Fun.

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/03/2006 @ 6:28pm

51. Noone here (I don't think)would disagree with the premise of an Islamist Extremist threat. It is not, by any measure, the worst this nation has ever faced. Unless, that is, incompetence continues to reign over our approach to this threat.

    Posted by SG at 02/03/2006 @ 6:30pm

52. this isnt a long war this is "Daddys war"

    Posted by progolfer61 at 02/03/2006 @ 6:36pm

53. Lennonist (I assume you are a John Lennon fan): I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. There does seem to be a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy" element in much of what the Christian-right influenced Bush Administration does; there may indeed be many who actually WANT armageddon to come about. (After all, as you say, that will just be the fulfillment of what is SUPPOSED to happen!) Bushfools: Bush did win the election, and (I know its hard to believe) much of the country still supports the war. SG: I am curious: what bigger threats has the country faced? I am not being facetious; I genuinely want to know. I am open to the argument that we have faced bigger ones, but offhand, this one (the Islamo-Fascist terrorist threat) is, if not THE biggest, surely one of the biggest....no?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 6:40pm

54. By the way, I believe (as do you presumably), that some of the things Bush has done (primarily the war in Iraq) have actually INCREASED that threat.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 6:42pm

55. it's a war between western and islamo-fascist civilizations, so let's call it the "War of Civilizations".

    Posted by liberal_merde at 02/03/2006 @ 6:47pm

56. Thomas, you bet it has. the main beefs of the islamists are the west bank and Israel's occupation thereof, and the war and occupation in Iraq. Bush's lie is that we weren't in Iraq at 9/11 and they attacked us. it's a lie because we had tight sanctions on Iraq, to the great detriment of that population. also Bin Laden had a different beef then, also connected with Iraq, tens of thousands of US troops based in Saudi, Bush must have agreed with him, as he withdrew those troops after 9/11

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 6:47pm

57. I'd like to make a brief point to all who want to continue talking about this supposed "Islamic extremeist threat". Buying into that phrase is buying into Bush's theory of the present set of circumstances. You know, it was always the position of both conservatives and liberals (prior to the advent of Bush to the Throne) that 1) you don't give in to terrorists and 2) you don't negotiate with terrorists. However, there was another level to which we took that in the past. You ignore terrorists. You don't give them publicity. And you don't allow fear to enter into your consciousness.

    Right after 9/11 (when Cheney ran and hid and Bush was afraid to show his face) we were all cautioned to go on with our lives as normal, not to let fear consume us, and not to let the terrorists take away our way of life. Then what happened? We did the opposite. We elevated al Qaeda to the highest level of concern given anyone or anything since the fall of the Soviet Union. We changed everything about the way we live. We eroded our freedoms. We have spent hundreds of billions of dollars supposedly to fight these terrorists. We have lost over 2200 Americans in Iraq so far. We have killed and/or maimed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the name of avenging some 3000 deaths in the WTC when Iraq wasn't even involved in 9/11. Bush and his Administration have elevated Osama and Saddam to Satan status.

    This flies in the face of everything we have been taught previously. In the past, hostages of terrorists would be sacrificed. Today we seek revenge. I am not saying that al Qaeda has no interest in hitting the US again. What I am saying is the marginal threat that al Qaeda presents has been raised to the level of the previous perceived threat of Communism. There is no way they present a threat to the degree that Bush and his cronies have elevated them.

    All the actions taken by Bush have been to increase our fear, to increase any hatred of Arabic peoples that may exist, and to use all that to gain a tighter grip on government. The so-called Islamic extremists pose less of a threat to our freedom, health, welfare and liberty than does George Bush himself!

    Posted by Lennonist at 02/03/2006 @ 6:50pm

58. it's a war between western and islamo-fascist civilizations, so let's call it the "War of Civilizations".

    Liberal_Merde: please be careful not to inflate those I refer to as "Islamo-Fascists," (Al Queda, etc) with the ENTIRE Islamic civilization, as if those two concepts are coterminous (they cleary are not). On the other hand, to some extent, there IS a "war" going on IN Islamic civilization, AMONG Muslims; that is, between premodern, intolerant, anti-democratic, anti-pluralist, pro theocratic, fanatical, pro terrorist thought and forces WITHIN Islamic civilization, versus the segment of that civilization that are modern, enlightened, etc.

    In short, I agree that there is SOME truth to the assertion that, to some degree, this IS in fact a "clash of civilizations"; however, that is a far stretch from stating that the entire islamic civilization can be characterized as "Islamo-Fascist." That is absurd. Millions and millions of Muslims were totally horrified by 9/11 and condemned it as totally contrary to their beliefs, religions and otherwise. While it is true that Bin laden and his kind have many followers, and that much of the Islamic world (rightly) shares SOME of the beliefs he holds (such as our unconditional support of Israel is unjust and unfair), that does NOT mean that the entire Muslim world can be labled "Islamo-Fascist." That is grossly unfair; the Islamic world is far from monolithic.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 6:59pm

59. According to Dean Johnson's posted comment, all we have to do is love our President and the "long war" will become a short one...now that's a faith-based solution - and one likely to yield the same results as the present one. God bless you Sir.

    Posted by UncleToby at 02/03/2006 @ 7:05pm

60. Lennonist: your point is that the threat posed to us by (insert your phrase here for whatever you want to call it) has been exaggerated. Maybe. I am open to that possibility. However, I think you agree that it DOES exist, to whatever degree.

    "However, there was another level to which we took that in the past. You ignore terrorists. You don't give them publicity. And you don't allow fear to enter into your consciousness."

    Sure, we didn't fear in the past-but then again, we were never struck AT HOME before. 9/11 didn't scare the hell out of you? Listening to some of Bin Laden's words don't frighten you? Captured Al Queda documents showing an interest in acquiring nuclear weapons doesn't scare you? Feeling fear is justified IF it is based on a REAL threat. So what it comes down to is, if the threat is real, then being afraid is the appropriate and rational response. If it is not, then feeling afraid is not justified or rational. So again, what it comes down to is (the $64,000 question if you will): how grave is the threat? I think it is considerably graver than you evidently do.

    P.S. By the way, this is not to say that Bush hasn't exploited the (justified or not) fear, to serve his own ends. (Iraq.)

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 7:12pm

61. Again: I also think that some of Bush's actions (Iraq) have increased recruits for Al Queda, and hence, actually increased the terrorist threat.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 7:16pm

62. fine posts all. it is important to remember as has been pointed out that this is a "war" in muslim countries, between the islamists and their repressive tyranical regimes, and that we are on the side of the dictators, and against revolutions.

    Bin Laden most of all wants to topple the saudis, as he himself is saudi. that bit about the caliphinate stretching from Marocco to india is hyperbole, not different from our religious looms with their rapture or the zionists, by no means all israelis or all jews, their wanting a grab all of the biblical holy lands.

    it is a HUGE mistake to lump them all together as islamofascists, as it is to say you can't negotiate with terrorists. you can and you must, as both Israel's and northern Ireland have proven.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 7:24pm

63. I think it also bears repeating FDR's, we have nothing to fear but fear itself. we managed for 50 to coexist with the soviets, barely, and they were a far greater threat than Bin Laden. they had , and have hundreds of nukes, that was before they were called WMD, see how much it matters what you call something?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 7:26pm

64. I don't think it matters what we call "it", I think it matters how long "it" lasts. Bush and gang are in favour of perpetual conflict for many reasons - personal and national power, the economy,their worldview etc. etc. They are clearly letting us know they will not let up and feel they have the "authority" to continue in an ever-widening fashion("it's for your own good don't you know - we're here to save you and the whole world"). Thus far, no one has stopped them, or at least made an effective challenge to their perceived authority. This is likely to change soon since their perception of the costs of conflict are very different from those having to pay them.

    Posted by UncleToby at 02/03/2006 @ 8:15pm

65. "Whether we should call it a "war"or not, Whether that particular phrase is appropriate or not, seems fairly irrelevant."

    Not so. The title 'war' is what, (in his mind) makes bush the 'war president'. And that is his irrational for claiming extra presidential powers. As in, "sure I can spy, lie, keep secrets and roll back civil liberties. After all, we're at war!"

    Alot of us would disagree with his conclusions about alleged 'war powers'. But they are all meaningless w/o the word war.

    Words are power, and bushes claimed power derives directly from that word.

    -------------------------------------------------------------------

    THE THONG WAR - marketing image since the reasons given couldn't cover my ass

    Posted by TIMS 02/03/2006 @ 3:59pm

    Uh-oh...butt cleavage...shhhhhh!!!...LL might be listening.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 02/03/2006 @ 8:20pm

66. Words are only as powerful as the ideas behind them - propoganda and spin have a habit of making a great "entrance" to the party - only to fade away as their backing is seen to be non-existant. It is a painful process, but hardly a new one. Results and costs tend to speed up the "discovery" process - which is why the Bush gang has to change its song and dance so often. "That slogan didn't work, well let's give'em another"; and so on and so on. The speed with which the Karl Roves are having to change the libretto shows that things are indeed catching up with them.

    Posted by UncleToby at 02/03/2006 @ 8:30pm

67. Posted by UNCLETOBY 02/03/2006 @ 8:30pm

    Toby,

    True, to an extent. But war is a word that resonates with people. Especially those not paying alot of attention.

    Alot of parallels are attempted, between this administrations behavior and past administrations, during times of war.

    All that bullshit is irrelevant w/o the word war. Imagine them comparing and contrasting their rights, as compared to other 'police actions'.

    No, changing the word, in and of itself, does nothing. But, it is a tool used by this administration. We should attempt to take that tool away.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 02/03/2006 @ 8:38pm

68. The title 'war' is what, (in his mind) makes Bush the 'war president'. And that is his irrational for claiming extra presidential powers. As in, "sure I can spy, lie, keep secrets and roll back civil liberties. After all, we're at war!"

    Malcontent: You have a point. Calling it a "war" does serve many purposes.

    Now I'd like to make a few points/raise a few issues: 1) What if it IS in fact a war? That is, we are debating whether it is fair or not to call it a "war"; it is debatable. But if it IS a war, then, by definition, there would be nothing wrong with Bush callng it that. That is, even though Bush may call it a "war" for his own (or the neoncons he represents), nefarious, propagandistic reasons/motivations, that would not necessarily mean/demonstrate that it is NOT a "war." (Maybe a simplistic point, but an important one: just because Bush calls something a "war" for his own reasons, does not mean it is NOT one.) So we are back to square one: is it a "war" or not? (The semantic argument.)

    2) My original point: whether it IS or is NOT a "war" (that is, regardless of what you label it), there IS a real threat against our people and country, and we have to address and face that fact. We have to defned ourselves, to protect ourselves. We have to "fight" (if you will-I know how much words mean around here) against the froces out to attack and kill us. That effort may be labled "war" by some, and labeled something else by others. We can respond to this threat in various ways. We can obey or disobey international law. We can wiretap suspected terrorists with a warrant, or without. We can grab suspects off the streets and not let them see lawyers, or we can try them lawfully and allow them the legal representation they have the right to. We can use torture or not. We can work WITH the world (Afghanistan) or AGAINST the world (Iraq). We have different ways of waging the "war," or "fight" or" "struggle" or "battle" or (insert word or phrase here).

    The point is, no matter what you CALL it, whether it is a "war" or not, what we should be arguing about is how it should be done, NOT so much what it should be CALLED. I appreciate (to some degree) that we need to debate whether it is fair to call it a "war" or not, but since that is largely a semantic argument, I think you might agree that an even MORE important question is, how should this effort (whatever you call it) be conducted? What is the correct response to the 9/11 attacks and the continuing threat posed by the Islamo-Fascist terrorists? THOSE are more important questions that the (largely semantic) question as to whether it is a "war" or not, and should be referred to as such or not.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 8:51pm

69. P.S. Whatever you call or label it ("war" or whatever), and regardless of the Bush lies and the Iraq debacle, there IS a real threat facing this country, and the question is, HOW should it be faced? (Bush has done it all wrong, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a "war" -- or whatever you label it -- worth waging.)

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 8:57pm

70. This is a great comment and discussion. This "War on Terror" thing has been bugging me ever since the neo-cons started calling it that. (Can you not just picture Rove and friends sitting around stratgizing about what to call things to "sell" this crap to the constituents?) What started as an authorization to use militery force to get the 9/11 bad guys quickly morphed into the bungled invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, presented no threat to us; and has now become a hopeless tar pit that's projected to cost us a trillion $!! How to make that all sound OK to the righties? Play to their fears. Call it a War on Terror. And if that term makes no rational sense as a description of what's really going on--screw it--just keep calling it that. Because that let's us say we are a country at war, which means (according to "us") that we can ignore the Constitution and get away with all manner of illegal crap in the name of protecting our citizens. Does anyone else wonder when this "war" will ever be declared to be over? "Terrorism surrenders to US forces; War is over!"

    Posted by mrauch at 02/03/2006 @ 9:03pm

71. Many of you are great at stating everything Bush has done wrong in waging the effort to strike back at and protect ourselves against the Islamo-Fascist terrorists (and I agree with much of your criticism), but you don't seem to have any suggestions as to HOW it SHOULD be waged; that is, instead of endlessly arguing about whether this effort constitutes a "war" or not, we should be discussing HOW to wage it. (WHATEVER you actually call it!)

    P.S. This almost makes me wonder if you think that it -- the effort to protect ourselves -- is ITSELF the problem, rather than HOW it is being done? P.S.S. Which also makes me wonder if it is simply that you dispute that there is any real threat? Surely you don't claim that the threat isn't real, was just invented to justify/rationalize American imperialism or something? (Not to say that is hasn't been USED for such.) Surely 9/11 demonstrates that the threat is real.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 9:06pm

72. Thomas, sure the threat is real, I think many would have no objection to war on alqaeda. it is the very vague and endless war on terror is the problem, something that calling it the long war will not alleviate. it is Bush who is playing semantical games, to keep the people in fear.

    whatever you call it, the first WTC bombing is very instructive here, all perps were tracked down, tried, convicted and are spending the rest of their life in prison, they were not "disappeared", they were not tortured, they had lawyers and went before a judge, what's wrong with that?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 9:27pm

73. Or to put it another way, "The effort to protect ourselves is ITSELF the problem PRECISELY because of HOW it is being done". WTC1 is a stark contrast indeed Johannes - it suggests a focus and desire for results that would be most welcome right now.

    Posted by UncleToby at 02/03/2006 @ 9:47pm

74. I watched in dismay when the Bush administration rushed through the process of going to war making prommises that everyone knew he had no intention of keeping. Using the public outcry for revenge to get Congress to grant him "War Powers"... it was clear that soon after he had no intention of ever releasing those powers.

    Not even after their Victory dance on the Aircraft Carrier did they even hint at releasing the war powers...

    Mr Cheney surrounded the president with the same Neo COns from the Nixon and Ford presidency that wanted and coveted these same war powers.

    We are in such a hurry to impeach Mr Bush, but it is surely the puppet master that must be harnesed and held to count for enacting this Roman tragity that we are witnessing.

    There is nothing going on here that wasn't planned from well before 9/11, it was merely the excuse they needed to push for a War and engage the troops in Iraq and gram control of the reins of government bypassing all review by Congress and Judicial oversite.

    Posted by tadeem at 02/03/2006 @ 10:23pm

75. I wonder whether in the naming of the war "The Long War" tandem with the SOTU address, POTUS has had the glimmer of an epiphany. It may have sunk in that the folly embodied in the Lincoln parable of seeking help in "leav(ing) go of this hog," while being compelled to stay the course out of geopolitical necessity, still doesn't address the underlying security threat to our nationalist dependence on foreign energy sources. I am astounded, as was the president's base, that he gave utterance to the words "addicted to oil." Perhaps a bit of Rovian/Orwellian genius in stealing an issue from the Democrats in 2008 but, I wonder...

    Posted by canaar at 02/03/2006 @ 10:50pm

76. "The Long War", or "The End Of Faith", if we're lucky?

    Posted by seloverb at 02/03/2006 @ 10:53pm

77. I want to thank the amazing accident which spawned the universe and gave rise to this cosmic blog and all of you wonderful, intelligent and insightful people! And which also let me trip over it and find a community of like minded people! I love you all and I love this space!

    Marshall McLuhan said the media is the message. Well, in this instance, sad to say, the media are: 1) an invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation, threat or having been attacked first, 2) curtailment of personal liberties in order to protect Liberty (you never cede the real deal to protect an abstract because you inevitably end up without either as the entire written history of humankind will attest to), 3) the propogation of lies to support the cause, 4) citing the ends justify the means when the original lies become evident, 5) the slaughter of innocent citizens with complete disregard for culpability in the purported "evildoing", 6) systematic kidnapping of individuals without having to prove even a semblance of probable cause as to culpability in anything, 7) widespread torture and inhumane treatment in prisoner camps, 8) once the mistreatment was discovered, the creation of a network of secret prisoner camps, 9) suspension of all Rights guaranteed under the Constitution and it's Amendments to enemies of the state (alleged "terrorists"), 10) purposely fail to get the leader of the alleged enemy (bin Laden) when he was cornered so as to perpetuate the conflict, 11) the President controls a majority in both Houses of Congress, 12) the President has gained control of the Supreme Court, 13) deeclaration by the President that he has extraordinary powers. The message isn't all that hard to extrapolate.

    The most recent events are an increase in tension with Iran, Syria and Palestine, all concurrently. In light of the parallels of Bush with Nixon as were discussed in Gore Vidal's piece, it seems inevitable that Bush will authorize bombings of alleged "terrorist camps" inside Syria along the border with Iraq. I wouldn't be surprised to see raids, either. Meanwhile, Bush is forcing the referral of Iran to the U. N. Security Council, and Iran says if it happens, they'll immediately restart their enrichment program. When we cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority, people are going to suffer. Bush and Israel are going to side together against dealings with Hamas. How else can the entire Arab world see this but as a Crusade by a madman. He'll prove himself to be the infidel only some are willing to believe he is at present.

    Inevitably, al Qaeda is going to hit here again. Yes, to those who asked, I do see al Qaeda as a serious threat. I think we all agree that they wouldn't not have been if Bush had not invaded Iraq, but instead had he simply finished job one: get bin Laden in Tora Bora when he was cornered and bring our boys home as great heroes for getting the bad guy. We could have even given Afghanistan some serious aid to help get them into the 21st century. If creating a role model democracy for the region was so important to Bush, why not just do it in Afghanistan?

    The reason why is fairly clear. The most perfectly strategic staging ground in the region is Iraq. From there, we can attack anwhere in the region. People think the invasion of Iraq (ok, so I see what I am going to call that now, not the Iraq War, nor War to Liberate Iraq, just simply the invasion of Iraq) was over oil. To a degree, yes it was/is, but more in a long term sense. To a greater degree it is about that strategic staging ground to launch future attacks. It has to be, is so obviously perfect for it that it can't be an accident. Besides, it's folly to think we will ever leave Iraq. We are building the hugest Embassy in the world there, and we are also building several military bases. We aren't going to walk away from that. This is Bush's way of obtaining a permanent military presence in the region. That is why Iran wants a nuke so badly.

    The next several weeks are going to be very important. What happens with Hamas and Palestine is critical. If the Arab world perceives that the US and Israel are in league to punish and persecute the Palestinians that will only fuel al Qaeda recruitment. If that happens, it will fuel the "insurgency" (I hate that word, too) in Iraq as well as lead to more suicide bombing in Israel and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Europe and the US. All this will lead to an escalation of LBJ-like proportions in the region. I think we can expect al Qaeda to hit in multiple cities (that was the design last time). Bush will likely use that as an excuse to declare Martial Law here, to protect our Liberty, of course. Elections will be "temporarily" suspended. A draft will be reinstituted. And a Holy Crusade will be brought by Bush to the Holy Land.

    This is why I urge bravery. Bravery is not killing someone. Bravery is being willing to die for a just cause. But that doesn't mean kill. I think we all need to get real here about al Qaeda. They are going to give us another multiple hit, probably this year. We have to just get ready for it, accept it, and try to implement a new strategy, one that can work.

    My strongest recommendation is: keep the aid going to the Palestinians. That is a prerequisite. Be willing to negotiate with Hamas. Hasn't anybody figured out that the only way a real peace will ever be worked out is to get an agreement between Hamas and Israel. The election results are really the best hope for permanent resolution of the Palestinian/Israeli disputes we've ever had. These are the people who actually have to work out their differences. I, personally, have always favored giving the Palestinians back the territories they controlled prior the the War in 1967, but I realize the great sticking point to that is the question of Jerusalem. Everybody wants it. Well, why not make it an international city, like the Vatican. Let there be a government that is equal for Christian, Moslem and Jew and let the city's security be guaranteed by the UN. I dunno, makes sense to me.

    We also need to get the heck out of Iraq. ASAP. We have to stop feeding the al Qaeda recruitment at a faster pace than we can recruit our own! We also have to stop giving al Qaeda a place to prove to potential recruits that they are relevant. The invasion of Iraq did more to make al Qaeda relevant than 9/11, and it's perpetuated everyday, now. Iraq has a government in place now. US troops have to go.

    Another thing that we need to do is realize, this was an unwarranted and illegal attack on Iraq, so the Iraqi people do not have to shoulder the burden of loss of life compounded by loss of revenue so they can rebuild their country. We have a moral obligation to rebuild that country, but our presence isn't welcome, so we just need to pay for it and say we're sorry. Another thing, we need to make sure the Iraqi people get to do the work of rebuilding their country. They need jobs and a viable economy, now! They're the ones who should be doing the work of rebuilding their country, and in whatever way they choose. I cannot fathom why everyone fails to see the inherent bigotry in Bush and his cohorts everytime they condescend in how they speak of and treat the Iraqis. They can't defend themselves. They can't govern themselves. They can't rebuild anything. They can't they can't... Who says? They built it in the first place! We need to stop disempowering people, and start empowering them.

    Isn't it time we found a way to get along with other people? Other cultures? The people of America do not have anything against the people of Iraq. The people of Iraq do not have anything against the people of America. The governments have had disagreements. I'd say, though, in reality, the people of the US do have problems with the American government, and the Iraqi people have had and probably do have now problems with this government. Yet, irony of ironies, the American people and Iraqi people are killing each other. Left to ourselves as mere humans without a government, we would not kill each other. Somehow, nationalism supercedes common sense.

    My point is, if we treat other countries/cultures/religions as we'd wish to be treated, with tolerance and kindness and acceptance and understanding and fairness, we'd be friends with everyone instead of having enemies. So, if we get with that program right away, yeah, true, we might have to have our face slapped again a couple more times. But this is the true meaning of turn the other cheek. If you do nothing to offend anyone, everyone will be your friend and you won't have fights (or wars). This is the world I would prefer to live in.

    Yeah, that means our corporations may find that they aren't welcome in some places or among some people. Isn't that their right? Why is it that just because American corporations want to open new markets, create more cheap labor forces, and eviscerate the regions' natural resources we feel we have the right to force our culture, our way of life everywhere. We don't have that right. But our national insistence on it is what created the mentality of al Qaeda in the first place, and now our leading is essentially standing around jumping up and down, stamping on the floor, and holding his breath til he's blue in the face demanding that those corporations and our way of life be accepted everywhere, willingly or by force.

    Meanwhile, we as a nation, fuel Bush with the feeling he is right in that pursuit. Not at voting booths. We do it everyday when we don't walk to the corner market to buy a six pack, but drive instead; by sitting in drive thru lines with our engines running while we wait for a hamburger; by not carpooling; by not forcing our localities to provide good mass transit; by getting our tans in tanning booths instead of by the sun. Yes, there are countless ways we tell our elected officials everyday that we want this war. So, if we want it stopped, maybe we have to be willing to give up a few things, join the international community in it's fight against global warming, and maybe we have to hear that people, everywhere, want to be treated with dignity, honor, respect and fairness. I think that is what is meant by treating others as you'd have them treat you.

    Posted by Lennonist at 02/03/2006 @ 10:56pm

78. Lennonist -

    I am personally floored by your response. That was amazing, and I was right there with you almost all the way...

    I only say almost because almost everything after "My point is, if we treat other countries/cultures/religions as we'd wish to be treated..." my lady and I looked at each other (I was reading your post to her), we both looked at each other and simultaneously thought of communes and sandals and the real, live John Lennon. You went a little hippie on us and sounded a bit anti-corporatist and anti-car and a bit peace-love-and-happiness-hey-don't-bogart-that...

    (Please, please see the intended humor in that - I, too can imagine there's no heaven, and that above us is only sky)

    Post here anytime, as far as I am concerned. That was really one of the most amazing, insightful pieces I've ever read on a blog.

    Welcome.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/03/2006 @ 11:32pm

79. What you are witnessing in Iraq is not war, but part of the PNAC's overall plan of hegemony throughout the Middle East. If you believe otherwise well, then, your head is in the sand!

    Now the question remains how far into their plan are they? We hear talk about the Iranian Oil Bourse scheduled for this March, which would through a wrench into the dollar. I find it amazing that nobody isn't talking about this? And Iran won't be a cake walk! It'd be insane to strike them.

    http://www.williambowles.info/iran/iran_oil_bourse.html

    If this bellicose administration does decide to strike you can bet that all heck will break loose in the Middle East, especially now with Hamas in the mix. And you know China isn't going to sit idly! Where is it again that they get their oil?

    The sad part about this, the word diplomacy, it isn't apart of this administration's vocabulary. It never was.

    What I do believe is that this administration's battle plans are already drawn for Iran. And it is only a matter of when not if we attack. I hope that I'm wrong. God help us!

    Posted by Munich at 02/03/2006 @ 11:39pm

80. New Dawn:

    Thank you. I'm humbled.

    Some of the irony maybe intended as humor too, you know, John was a wry kind of guy! :)

    Peace,

    Posted by Lennonist at 02/03/2006 @ 11:39pm

81. Posted by LENNONIST 02/03/2006 @ 10:56pm

    That's "The Walk"

    and the people who claim to "Get It"

    just don't get it

    Posted by Will C. at 02/03/2006 @ 11:43pm

82. Lennonist:

    Generally good post. Obviously you put a lot of effort into it, and obviously you are concerned (in a way that goes beyond mere ideology) with the fate and well-being of our species on this little ball of dirt floating in space. You make some good points. I did not agree with everything you said, but your heartfelt sincerity, your genuine hope for a better world, less full of hatred and bloodshed, cannot be denied. As noted, I do disagree with a few things you said/points you made. Here is one:

    10) purposely fail to get the leader of the alleged enemy (bin Laden) when he was cornered so as to perpetuate the conflict

    -This I do not believe; our difference of opinion on it is probably ideologically based. You think the U.S. govt is easily capable of such mendacity and treachery, while I generally do not believe it is. Your believe in governmental conspiracies of a sort that I do NOT believe in; I rather think we didn't get Bin Laden at Tora Bora (and haven't gotten him since) because of 1) incompetence and 2) it is simply very difficult to catch him, because a) he is being sheltered and protected by both elements of the Pakistani govt and quite a few Pakistani civilians and b) the Pakistani govt won't allow us (for political reasons, reasons of national stability, etc) to send special ops and so on inside of Pakistani territory (which is why we have to resort to sending missiles) and c) he is located in a very remote mountainous region that even the Pakistani govt does not really have control of. Those are the reasons I believe we didn't get Bin Laden, and have still have not gotten him.

    Having said that, I liked much of what you said. Particularly about Afghanistan. I was for the war there. I think it was both legal and justified. And you are right when you said that if we had stayed there, not gone to war in Iraq, rebuilt it (Afghanistan), at much the less of the cost than the Iraq war, it might have become an example of American benevolence. It might have actually GAINED us points with the Islamic world. Remember, most of the world was WITH US after September 11th. (That's hard to believe now, I know, as most everyone hates our guts, but if you recall, it was true right after the 9/11 attacks, and as we went to war in Afghanistan to get Al Queda.) We had the sympathy of nearly the whole damn world; the war against the Taliban had wide spread support. It was (unlike Iraq) a genuine coalition, reflective of a vast segment of humanity, supported by UN resolutions. The French fought alongside us there. The world was with us. Well, we all know what happend next. Iraq. We went from being thought of us victims of a ruthless and evil enemy to, in the minds of many, BEING the evil enemy (particularly of course, in the Arab/Muslim world). I agree that the primary reason we went to war in Iraq is because of the (neo-con based) idea that we need to directly control the Middle East; I also agree that while oil is a factor, it is not the only or even primary reason.

    In any case, this has been a good discussion.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 11:43pm

83. On John Lennon: he was a great musician and a great (though flawed) man. His peace message was not new; it's the same one that has been said by Christ and Gandhi and King. Yes, the world would be a much better place if we all gave peace a chance.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 11:46pm

84. Oh, and by the way, I gave up owning and using cars in 2001. I do use buses when necessary, but only longer distances or if time is of the essence. I walk about 2 miles to the store. I spent the first three months of 2005 in Europe, and I gained a different perspective on life, and the hows and whys of others' feelings that Americans are arrogant. Even referring to ourselves as Americans is arrogant given that we exclude all the other people living in the Western Hemisphere who rightfully belong as included in the term Americans. I am also a vegetarian. Maybe I completed the hippie image for you. It's real though. Nonetheless, I don't see how it changes any validity to any of my points of discussion.

    Peace.

    Posted by Lennonist at 02/03/2006 @ 11:47pm

85. In fact, what Lennon was saying was quite simple: if we don't want war, then don't wage them. (The way to not have a war in Iraq is to not start one.) If we want to stop killing people, then stop killing people. Simple? Yes. Naive? Maybe. True...probably. Will it ever happen? Probably not.

    P.S. I still miss John Lennon very much. P.S.S. And the world could definitely use a dose of pacifism.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/03/2006 @ 11:55pm

86. Thomas, the war in afghanistan was a phony, a shuffling of warlords, nothing was settled, the reason for invading, to get alqaeda was abandoned, just as they are ready to abandon Iraq for the next target. that's why they didn't get Bin Laden, and yes he is more valuable to them alive and at large than dead or in prison. it's about power here in the US, and it worked, he was "re-elected".

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 11:55pm

87. P.S. I still miss John Lennon very much. P.S.S. And the world could definitely use a dose of pacifism.

    Posted by FRANK THOMAS 02/03/2006 @ 11:55pm

    He died the year that America's military build up started.

    They extinguished the light...

    and the world was swept by darkness

    Posted by Will C. at 02/03/2006 @ 11:57pm

88. yes, fine post, Lennonist

    permit me one quibble, those who "know" me saw that coming, what McLuhan said was: "the medium is the message"

    what he meant is not as clear, you have to actually read him, which I recommend.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/03/2006 @ 11:58pm

89. Since we are in a pacifist mode:

    Where have all the young men gone? Long time passing. Where have all the young men gone? Long time ago. Where have all the young man gone? Gone to graveyards, everyone. Oh when will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 12:05am

90. Imagine all the people living life in peace..you may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...-John Lennon (acourse)

    If we can't imagine a world where you can live in peace, why even bother to have these conversations? I hope we are dreamers.

    Posted by SG at 02/04/2006 @ 12:12am

91. Lennon -

    Clearly, nobody is bagging on you for idealism or pacifism. Any decent human being has a little of both in them.

    Frank -

    I have a friend with whom I was discussing Richard Marcinko, legendary Navy Seal and Sharkman of the Delta (great books, recommended reading, for sure)...

    Another fellow overheard us discussing special ops and the like and talked with us for a few moments about a friend of his whose guys have indeed "war-gamed" runs into Pakistan (let's leave it at that to avoid an international incident). ;)

    Now, granted, this is a friend-of-a-friend story, but I personally don't doubt for one second that we have special forces bad-ass and capable enough to scoot in and out of Pakistan, and even kill Bin Laden quite quietly, if we could pin him into one place.

    Our Navy Seals and Special Forces boys are hell on wheels, repeat, hell on wheels, and a little international border isn't going to stop them if something's gotta be done and can be done. Been done in the past, will be done again.

    As to your point that pinning the slippery bastard down in one place is a bitch, well, that I can't argue.

    But if they knew where to get him, I believe they could get him.

    Whaddaya think?

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 12:13am

92. The reason I spoke of Bush as purposely allowing bin Laden to survive and thereby perpetuate the war is that at a critical point, we had bin Laden cornered. You mean to tell me with all our spy satelites trained with highly sophisticated equipment, we couldn't keep a good watch and finish the task at hand? That would have been a victory. What Bush did was have the troops relocated. As my least favorite LBJ clone, John Kerry, likes to say, Bush outsourced the task of getting bin Laden to the Pakistanis. What the US troops did was go to the other side of the country to protect the oil pipeline that runs oil down from the Black Sea south through western Afghanistan to the Indian Ocean. Heck, when they were over there, they could have destroyed the poppy fields, but they didn't even do that, making it possible for al Qaeda and the Taliban to keep their source of funding intact. No, those troops just guarded the pipeline.

    As far as whether or not the War in Afghanistan was a noble war, well, I just don't see it that way. But everyone has their own opinions on that. I don't believe in revenge, and that is all that was. Again, mostly perpetrated against local inhabitants and not even primarily against al Qaeda.

    The idea presented, if you don't want war, don't wage any... that's only a fraction of what I was speaking earlier. It's a way of life. It's a mindset of cooperation. It's love. It's being love.

    I really do want to emphasize, people, as individuals, if left to themselves won't wage war because they won't have a reason. Some individuals will fight. Some of those individuals will band together and will fight. But whole nations of people will not wage war. Not unless some perceived leader creates a mass hysteria over something that the people, if not riled up into a tizzie over it, would refuse to go to war over.

    It's governments that wage war. They create the animosities which lead to war because they think they have competing interests. War is counterproductive. We could all be more prosperous in a world that worked together to make each nation's interests mesh with each others rather than compete to gain an edge.

    Why must there by haves and have nots? Why can't we all be haves? The reason is simple. Some people want to have more than others, do have more, want too maintain having more. Why? What is wrong with everyone having as much as everyone else? With everyone having a real equity in the fruits of our mutual efforts?

    Yeah, mutual efforts. Anyone who takes more than a blind look at nature can see that in an ecosystem, everything is interdependent. That's really also the case for everything. The entire universe is interdependent, and small changes affect gravitations that cause greater changes. Imagine what we can achieve if we all support each other, all assist each other, all empower each other. Only greed stands in the way of getting to a better world. Some people feel they are entitled to more.

    We're all in this together is something John used to say. I think it's about time we all started acting like we realize that. :)

    Love.

    Posted by Lennonist at 02/04/2006 @ 12:21am

93. No, the special forces cannot go into Pakistan at will.Pakistan is a powderkeg, with a huge islamist movement that seeks to seize power, and the nukes they have there. Musharaf has escaped numerous assassination attempts his power is shaky in the extreme.remember it's a muslim country.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 02/04/2006 @ 12:28am

94. The idea presented, if you don't want war, don't wage any... that's only a fraction of what I was speaking earlier. It's a way of life. It's a mindset of cooperation. It's love. It's being love.

    Posted by LENNONIST 02/04/2006 @ 12:21am

    The last hate I felt started the morning of September 11, 2001.

    In the months and years that followed, I saw how the Bush administration used my hate.

    I'll never hate again

    Posted by Will C. at 02/04/2006 @ 12:30am

95. New Dawn,

    I am too damn tired to argue at this point. Except to say that, I think our disagreement is to a large extent based upon our basic ideological beliefs (about thwta the U.S. govt is capable of, etc). In short, I think we ARE trying to get Bin Laden, and that we simply cannot do so (for all the reasons I stated in earlier post). Let's agree to disagree for now. (Maybe we can get into it another time.)

    In the meantime (and to close my posts for the evening) how about a song from another great poet/musician/one-time activist? (Fellow by the name of Dylan.)

    How many roads must a man walk down, before they call him a man? How many seas must the white dove sail, before she sleeps in the sand? How many times must the cannon balls fly, before they are forever banned? -The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.

    How many years can a mountain exist, before it is washed to the sea? How many years can a people exist, before they're allowed to be free? How many times can a man turn his head, and pretend that he just doesn't see? -The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.

    How many times can a man look up, before he can see the sky? How many ears must one man have, before he can hear people cry? How many deaths will it take till he knows, that too many people have died? -The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 12:31am

96. I disagree, Johanne. Simply disagree. And not by the terms of "Would it be politicaly correct to do so?" Of course not, and if found out, an international incident would be sure to follow, no doubt.

    I mean in terms of capability. They can do it.

    Not that they would ever discuss it with you, or they'd have to kill you. ;)

    Check out Marcinko's books on creating Seal Team Six and Red Cell. Those guys were VERY capable, and Red Cell infiltrated dozens of our OWN bases and highly secure federal locations just to prove it could be done and point out holes that needed to be fixed in security.

    SCARY capable.

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 12:32am

97. Just now reading your post, Frank, but whoa! I didn't realize you and I were arguing AT ALL...

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 12:32am

98. Frank -

    "I think our disagreement is to a large extent based upon our basic ideological beliefs (about thwta the U.S. govt is capable of, etc). In short, I think we ARE trying to get Bin Laden, and that we simply cannot do so (for all the reasons I stated in earlier post). "

    No disagreement at all, ideological or otherwise. I think we're trying to get Bin Laden, too.

    See my 12:42am.

    As Lennon would put it, peace!

    Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 12:34am

99. I just grabbed this off of Randi Rhodes just a reminder of where we're getting to. I like to dream too, but just in case this wasn't brought up, a reminder:

    Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism By Dr. Lawrence Britt Source Free Inquiry.co 5-28-3

    Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:

    1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

    2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

    3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

    4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

    5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

    6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7

    . Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

    8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

    9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

    10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

    11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

    12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

    13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

    14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. From Liberty Forum http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_constitution? mber=642 109&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1

    http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm

    Posted by Bushfools at 02/04/2006 @ 12:36am

100. Frank -

     12:32. Whoops.

     And I don't think we have any idea where Bin Laden really is, so my point was moot, anyway...

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 12:36am

101. This has really been an excellent thread. I've been thinking all evening about what to "name the war". Knowing the true, core motive for IT would really help..thing is though, this administration seems paranoid-sczophrenic. There have been so many reasons offered/proferred, by bush and countless others, one hardly knows where to begin. Usually the simplest answer is the most honest. Invasion.

     Posted by SG at 02/04/2006 @ 12:38am

102. Bishfools -

     Thanks much.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 12:38am

103. Bushfools.

     I obviously need to go to bed now. Night, all.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 12:46am

104. Me too. Night all, an early morning approaches.

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/04/2006 @ 12:50am

105. Sweet dreams.

     Posted by SG at 02/04/2006 @ 01:26am

106. There's no sense of national sacrifice or involvement with our violent designees. No united front at home. There's no foreign entity desirous of our territory. There is no war.

     Posted by DelGoldfarb at 02/04/2006 @ 01:43am

107. LENNONIST, you state:

     "As far as whether or not the War in Afghanistan was a noble war, well, I just don't see it that way. But everyone has their own opinions on that. I don't believe in revenge, and that is all that was."

     It was never about revenge! Wake up! It was all about the Caspian Sea oil pipeline. It was never about revenge. Bin Laden was merely this feckless administration's ticket into Afghanistan.

     In a 1998 speech to the "Collateral Damage Conference" of the Cato Institute, Cheney said, "the good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is."

     In 1998 Cheney told oil industry executives: "I can't think of a time when we've had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian." $4 trillion by U.S. News and World Report.

     Then there's this:

     Rob Sobhani, president of Washington-based Caspian Energy Consulting stated: Once the Taliban are overthrown and the U.S. installs a pro-Western government, lucrative investment opportunities will arise.

     Why the Taliban?

     The media has been focusing increasingly on the Taliban and less and less on Osama bin Laden and his Al Queda group. We are being barraged with stories about carpet bombing and wonder weapons aimed at routing the Taliban. At the same time, we hear how the U.S. is working with the Northern Alliance against the Taliban and about plans to set up a new post-war government. It certainly is not clear how all of this is supposed to help "get" bin Laden. In what fundamental ways do the disparate factions of the Northern Alliance differ from the Taliban? They were all mujahideen, trained, armed and financed by the Pakistan intelligence service ( ISI), the CIA and Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviets. (See Part II) They have been battling among themselves since that time. Furthermore, Washington and U.S.-based Unocal Oil Corporation, have been maintaining ongoing relations with the Taliban even after it took power in 1996 until very recently. So why go after the Taliban?

     Unocal and Afghanistan

     John J. Maresca, vice president of Unocal, revealed the high stakes in Afghanistan in his testimony before a House of Representatives committee on Feb. 12, 1998:

     ".The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves, much of them located in the Caspian Sea basin itself...The region's total oil reserves may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil... Some estimates are as high as 200 barrels...

     "[An] option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean...The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan which has its own challenges...The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations...

     "[C]onstruction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place... In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles...[The route ] is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil."(7) Yet, a major reason for Washington's support of the Taliban between 1994 and 1997 was the expectation that the Taliban would swiftly conquer the whole country and make it possible for Unocal to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. Pakistan, the U.S., and Saudi Arabia "are responsible for the very existence and maintenance of the Taliban."(8)

     As reported in the San Francisco Chronicle, Central Asian expert Ahmed Rashid, in his book, "Taliban, " said: "Impressed by the ruthlessness and willingness of the then-emerging Taliban to cut a pipeline deal, the State Department and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency agreed to funnel arms and funding to the Taliban in their war against the ethnically Tajik Northern Alliance. As recently as 1999, U.S. taxpayers paid the entire annual salary of every single Taliban government official..."(9)

     In fact, Unocal had secured agreement from the Taliban to build the pipeline, according to Hugh Pope, writing in the Wall Street Journal. (10) Even recently the Taliban newspaper, the Kabul Times, quoted [U.S. Company, Central Asia Oil and Gas Industry] representative, Rafiq Tadgar as saying: "Central Asia Oil and Gas Industry is ready to invest in Afghanistan in the field of oil and gas extraction and meanwhile is willing to build a gas and oil refinery in Afghanistan.'(11)

     Furthermore, the Washington Post on May 25, 2001, reported: "Last week [the U.S.. government] pledged another $43 million in assistance to Afghanistan, [meaning the Taliban] raising total aid this year to $124 million and making the United States the largest humanitarian donor to the country."(12) This was less than four months before the September 11th attacks.

     An article in the British newspaper the Daily Mirror, by John Pilger, points out: "When the Taliban took Kabul in 1996, Washington said nothing. Why? Because Taliban leaders were soon on their way to Houston, Texas, to be entertained by executives of the oil company, Unocal.

     "With secret U.S. government approval, the company offered them a generous cut of the profits of the oil and gas pumped through a pipeline that the Americans wanted to build from the Soviet central Asia through Afghanistan. "A U.S. diplomat said, 'The Taliban will probably develop like the Saudis did.' He explained that Afghanistan would become an American oil colony, there would be huge profits for the West, no democracy and the legal persecution of women. 'We can live with that', he said.

     "Although the deal fell through, it remains an urgent priority of the administration of George W. Bush, which is steeped in the oil industry. Bush's concealed agenda, is to exploit the oil and gas reserves in the Caspian basin... Only if the pipeline runs through Afghanistan can the Americans hope to control it.

     "So, not surprisingly, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell is now referring to 'moderate' Taliban, who will join an American-sponsored 'loose-federation' to run Afghanistan. The "war on terrorism" is a cover for this: a means of achieving American strategic aims..."(13)

     Even if the Northern Alliance were to be able to seize power,"Pakistan's ethnic Pashtun government will never stand the replacement of their Pashtun brothers in the Taliban by Northern Alliance Tajiks," according to Ted Rall writing in the San Francisco Chronicle. (14)

     Given this history, it is baffling that the Bush administration is taking on the Taliban rather than the Northern Alliance in order to bring the requisite "stability" to the region-especially when the Taliban controls a much larger swath of the country.

     One of the probable reasons is that the U.N. has continued to refuse to recognize the Taliban government. Then, of course, the Taliban are more vulnerable now because they "harbor" Osama bin Laden, thus it is much easier to get international support for bombing them. But clearly a more compelling reason may be that the Northern Alliance forces control the northern portion of the country near Turkmenistan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan whose governments help support the Alliance, as do Russia and India. The Northern Alliance consists largely of ethnic Uzbeks and Tajiks, whereas the Taliban is made up of Pashtun tribesmen in addition to many from Arab countries who had come to be trained and to fight in Afghanistan

     http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/caspgrph.html

     Posted by Munich at 02/04/2006 @ 01:46am

108. Thanks, Munich.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 02:35am

109. This may make a better subtitle than headline, but I suggest "Welfare Program for the Military Industrial Complex."

     The Long War will ensure that no defence contractor need worry about poverty.

     Posted by jymetcalf at 02/04/2006 @ 08:39am

110. THE INTERMINABLE ERA OF SLOGATION

     Posted by pat meaney at 02/04/2006 @ 08:41am

111. good stuff Fooly and München, Dawn, I said that politically and strategically they couldn't operate in Pakistan, I agree that they could do so tactically, but as you pointed out, they don't know where Bin Laden is, so it's a moot point

     Posted by johannesrolf at 02/04/2006 @ 08:50am

112. Nice suggestion Seatlescribe! Specificity is key. We're all responsible for being circumspect about our own cognitive/intellectual needs to risk even the small generalization. Never say never. Always never will be. Everybody is nobody and vice versa.

     Since Confucianism holds "the beginning of wisdom is to call a thing by its right name," how about "RAW WAR" because it's obviously NOT well done. Symmetrical letters are nice too. Palindrome?

     Have great Sabados.

     Luis

     Posted by lewwelge at 02/04/2006 @ 09:47am

113. We may be too optimistic about elections in November rectifying inequities or with the name we give fascists' tool for thinning the heard.

     As Alito takes Supreme Court seat, Ohio GOP guts election protection By Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman

     http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_475.shtml

     Called HB3, the law now demands discriminatory voter ID, severely cripples the possibility of statewide recounts and actually ends the process of state-based challenges to federal elections -- most importantly for president -- held within the state.

     In other words, the type of legal challenge mounted to the theft of Ohio's electoral votes in the 2004 election will now be all but impossible in the future.

     Section 35-05.18 of HB3 requires restrictive identification requirements for anyone trying to vote in an Ohio election. Photo ID, a utility bill, a bank statement, a government check or other government document showing the name and current address of the voter will be required.

     *********************************

     Hearne, with the help of Republican attorney Alex Vogel, concocted a story that the problem with the 2004 elections in Ohio was the NAACP paying people with crack cocaine to register voters. Vogel's front group, the Free Enterprise Coalition, even indemnified a local Republican operative, Mark Rubrick, to file an Ohio corrupt practices act suit against the NAACP, the AFL-CIO, ACT-Ohio and ACORN, The suit was later quietly withdrawn after discovery showed that the operatives behind it were linked to the top levels of the Republican Party.

     ***********************************************

     Despite grassroots protests and bitter opposition from Common Cause, the League of Women Voters and other pro-democracy groups, HB3 passed with only one Republican vote against it (all Ohio Democratic senators and representatives voted against).

     ********************************************************************

     Since the Civil War, only one presidential candidate -- John F. Kennedy in 1960 -- has won the White House without carrying Ohio. This and the other repressive legislation passed by the Ohio GOP will make it virtually impossible for anyone but a Republican to carry the Buckeye State in future statewide and federal elections.

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/04/2006 @ 09:56am

114. GOP WAR

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/04/2006 @ 10:02am

115. Borrowing a great Vietnam-era novel title, we could call it: The Forever War

     Our problem however, is not to name this action but to deny that it is, legally, a war.

     As I am not a lawyer, only a longtime history teacher, I had decided some time back to pay most of my attention to what the lawyers had to say on this issue. The least secret of their arguments is a new book by John C. Yoo, one of the Justice Department's original torture memo composers, who is now a professor, no less, at the great law school at U.C. Berkeley. It's called "The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs After 9/11" (published by my own publisher, University of Chicago Press, in 2005). With the ruthlessness typical of my profession, I found it possible to reduce Yoo's book to a formula suitable for high-school students:

     "Power to the presidency. All power to the presidency in wartime. In all times, all power to define, declare, make, and end war to the presidency. War without end. Amen."

     Substitute "dictator," "king," "caudillo," "generalissimo" or Führer" for "presidency" and you have the prerogative demanded by a dismayingly long string of monarchs, from the Caesars, Medicis, Stuarts and Bourbons known to the Framers of our republican Constitution, to Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and Saddam, whose means to power they tried to anticipate and prevent. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what his fellow Framers had designed in 1787, he said, "a republic" but only "if you can keep it."

     -William R. Everdell

     Posted by weverdell at 02/04/2006 @ 10:38am

116. I think we should call it the following: "The real threat against us that was overreacted to, unwisely responded to, bungled and mismanaged, and exploited by neoncons to their own advantage" war.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 10:43am

117. Weverdell,

     Here is another great quote by Ben Franklin that I love (I don't have the exact quote in front of me and am too lazy to look it up, but I think this is it):

     "Those who would trade their liberty for security are worthy of neither."

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 10:48am

118. How about we call this what it should be: a police problem. This is no "war", it's a criminal police problem trumped up to "war" level by an administration intent on transforming the US into a corporate world dominator. So, okay, 3k people more or less died in the destruction of those two towers. It was a horrible crime but it was a crime, not an act of war. Each year 40k people die in automobiles and no one is up in arms calling for war against automobiles. Indeed, we have an adminstration whose intent has nothing to do with war but with total control of the world for profit. Profit, thats what the twin towers are all about. Ugly mammon for those whose bible backgrounds are called on. The root of all evil. Love of money will be the destruction of our country.

     Posted by emald at 02/04/2006 @ 11:54am

119. MIC is the GOP

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/04/2006 @ 12:20pm

120. Bush gave the proper name early on. Crusade. "Christian Holy War". The 1st crusades used a fear or "evil doers" to promote empire building. Bush is doing the same. The fact that there is indeed another side who are trying to do the same is immaterial. The real motivation for this and most wars is the reach for or attempt to hold power. Is semantics really that important? Doesn't it get in the way a bit? War, Long War, Occupation, Global Struggle, Police Action, Crusade. I don't care very much what it is called. I do care about the effect and methods used. Shooting into a crowd in hopes of hitting your enemy is a tactic employed by street gangs, terrorists and despots. This method does not work too well since it has the effect of recruiting more strong supporters to your enemies cause than your own. Even the Mafia usually has more sense than this. This has been King George's methodology since inception of his "war on terror". Clinton was involved in this same war. When the twin towers were hit under his watch his administration built alliances with other nations, found the culprits, incarcerated them with out making them martyrs, supported the rule of law (even international law) and provided the resources needed to fight the danger. He did it without bankrupting the country and remembered to warn his replacement accordingly. The difference between an honor student president and a "C" student president is obvious. In order to win this war we will have to field a leader who understands these points and can undo the damage to our cause done by the reign of President Bush the II. Bush is not so much the "education president" as he is the "should have gotten an education president"

     Posted by Bernalillo at 02/04/2006 @ 1:00pm

121. State Of The Union January 2006

     http://www.reversespeech.com/sou2006.htm

     This is a rather conflicting overview as Bush shows congruency on some issues and incongruency in others. The terrorist issue seems to be an excuse for war. The "This is shit" reversal tells us that as he lays out his reasons to the American people. Also there are problems in Iraq still and he is taking a more aggressive stance. The "Attack, there is a dilemma" reversal tells us that. He is congruent as he says we need to move beyond a petroleum based economy, but strangely shows distain for those suffering as a result of Katrina. However, examine each reversal in its context and draw your own conclusions

     "No-one can deny the success of freedom but some men rage and fight against it." Sit down and ignore it

     "We're the nation that saved liberty in Europe and liberated death camps." Hurry, need to build this

     "If we were to leave these vicious attackers alone they would not leave us alone. They would simply move the battlefield to our own shores." This is shit

     "A hopeful society comes to the aid of fellow citizens in times of suffering and emergency and stays at it until they are back on their feet." Your fuss is madness

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/04/2006 @ 1:06pm

122. the Bull Shit War

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/04/2006 @ 1:09pm

123. Call it "The Reign of Terror" (II) -- http://www.bartleby.com/65/re/ReignTer.html

     Posted by MoomNPapa at 02/04/2006 @ 5:12pm

124. How about "the war to defend ourselves against mass-murdering, premodern, all means are justified in the pursuit of 'just' ends, fanatical, fundamentalist/literalist, pathological, radical, militant, jihadist, out to kill Americans, Islamo-Fascist terrorists"?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 5:17pm

125. If only we could resolve our conflicts by having the combatants place their manhood on the table to see how long they were! But, alas, it seems like we're in for the long haul--a neverending war against a stateless enemy. Our true enemy is ourselves and our leaders.

     Posted by John Earl at 02/04/2006 @ 5:17pm

126. Let's be clear. All war is bullshit. That's just the way it is. As long as there is mankind, there will be wars. Always has been, and always will be.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/04/2006 @ 5:52pm

127. Now see? There you go again Frank Thomas. Your statement is predicated on the idea (mistaken)that the INVASION of Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with terrorism. It did not.

     Posted by SG at 02/04/2006 @ 6:36pm

128. "...there have been other periods in American history when illegal spying has been committed, habeas corpus has been suspended, innocent civilians have been imprisoned, torture condoned, unprecedented secrecy invoked in the name of national security, and when the President has broken the law. But have they ever all happened at the same time?"

     Yes, it's called "the Drug War."

     For people who depend on Cannabis for its phytotherapeutic effect, taking an effective herbal remedy away from someone who is ill is no different than torturing someone who would otherwise feel well. Millions upon millions of people's lives have been ruined in a counter-productive war that will never end, and is being exported all over the world.

     On top of everything else, the war to eradicate the world's most useful and nutritious plant creates a black market, causes corruption, imposes essential resource scarcity of strategic food and fuel resources, cripples organic agriculture, initiates a "forbidden fruit" effect (that makes 'marijuana' more attractive to young people), and throws off the balance of Nature, making sustainable existence unlikely. This is fundamental to the symptoms of imbalance in our environment, economics and social evolution that we're participating in, including the wars for oil and global broiling.

     PvH

     Posted by projectpeace at 02/04/2006 @ 6:44pm

129. Yea, Saddam ain't no terrorist.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/04/2006 @ 7:01pm

130. Frank -

     We weren't really arguing, were we?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 7:06pm

131. In all fairness Frank Thomas, maybe you were refering strictly to the "war" on terrorism, in which case I would refer you to RFDs post, early on page 1. He states in part:

     The other war (on terrorism) is a metaphorical war, like the war on drugs or the war on crime. Groups of people, "terrorists", wish to engage in committing illegal activities which may cause harm to others. The only effective response is some combination of policing and investigation. A traditional military response won't work since there are seldom military targets to attack. Thus, this is not a "war" as such, but an ongoing effort to maintain public order and security. It is what all countries do as a matter of course. Criminal enterprises are never entirely eradicated, that's why every society has a police function.

     Isn't this an ongoing effort, world wide, to uncover and prevent criminal activities? Even calling the criminals "terrorists" feeds into that sense of er, terror and continuous, urgent fear which is then exploited by not only the "terrorist", but also by the bush government, intent on fanning the flames of terror toward its own paraniod-scizophrenic ends.

     Posted by SG at 02/04/2006 @ 7:12pm

132. Conundrum

     If a bunker buster falls in the desert and no one shows you photos of the shadows of little bodies etched on concrete walls, is the wailing of mothers still swallowed by the whirr of rotors?

     -gkm 1/7/06 for FP

     Posted by rockpicker at 02/04/2006 @ 7:54pm

133. Posted by PROJECTPEACE 02/04/2006 @ 6:44pm

     Absolutely. The "war on drugs" was our old war on civil liberties. This "war on terror", is the new war on civil liberties. Neither are that dangerous. But many are misinformed about both and can be scared in to submissively giving up their liberties.

     Ironic, how our govt. uses the sale of illegal drugs to fund their illegal wars. If they really succeeded in the war on drugs, they would partially defund their war on terror.

     Anyway....

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/04/2006 @ 7:55pm

134. Posted by ROCKPICKER 02/04/2006 @ 7:54pm

     That would be funny/clever...if it weren't so true/sad.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/04/2006 @ 7:56pm

135. JOHN EARL: Our true enemy is ourselves and our leaders.

     Response: You left out the "mass-murdering, premodern, all means are justified in the pursuit of 'just' ends, fanatical, fundamentalist/literalist, pathological, radical, militant, jihadist, out to kill Americans, Islamo-Fascist terrorists." (They are our enemy TOO, remember?)

     SG: Now see? There you go again Frank Thomas. Your statement is predicated on the idea (mistaken)that the INVASION of Iraq had anything whatsoever to do with terrorism. It did not.

     Response: "There you go again"....Who are you, Ronald Reagan? Seriously though, I never thought, implied, or inferred that the war in Iraq was part of the "war" I described. I do not think it was. I was against the war in Iraq. I think it was bad and dumb and wrong for a dozen different reasons. I am, however, FOR the LEGITIMATE -- as I see it -- (and now have named it) "war to defend ourselves against mass-murdering, premodern, all means are justified in the pursuit of 'just' ends, fanatical, fundamentalist/literalist, pathological, radical, militant, jihadist, out to kill Americans, Islamo-Fascist terrorists." I am for that "war" 100%!

     What I am attempting to do is something that many of you are refusing to let me do: make an important distinction between, on the one hand, the effort to defend ourselves (which can be fought in a dozen different ways, and which one can believe in 100% while opposing the folly of actions like Iraq), and on the other hand, what Bush has done in the NAME of the (legitimate) effort/concern. That is, one can be for the "war on terror" (or whatever you call it), and simultaneously oppose the WAY it has been executed (and used and exploited). I am making an important distinction between the legitimate effort to defend ourselves against the (see description again) who are trying to kill us, and the idiotic, bumbling, imperialist, often illegal Bushite WAY/MANNER/METHOD of waging that (legitimate) "war." (And many of the things done in the name OF it.) I can make that distinction; many have and do. Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater!

     Other Post: SG, I agree that this war (the just war, not the Iraq garbage), must be fought mostly by non-military means, such as freezing assets, covert operations, sharing of intelligence, technology, spying, etc. However, the military can play a role too, on occasion. For example, it will probably take special ops forces (on the ground) to actually capture or kill Bin Laden. (And I know many of you opposed it, but I favored the recent CIA missile attack against al-Zawahiri.) The point is, the military is one tool that can be PART OF this conflict, this struggle.

     My REAL, ultimate beef with you (many of you) is that you seem to be either down-playing or ignoring the fact that there is a real threat against our nation; that we have to defend ourselves against it; that, in addition to George Bush being "the enemy" -- in that his policies are bad and wrong and dangerous, which of course they are -- (partly because they have probably INCREASED the terrorist threat), there is also ANOTHER enemy out there, called (well, you know what I call it, so I don't have to say it again!). This may come as a shock to you, but -- believe it or not -- you can hate both George Bush AND Osama Bin Laden. (I should know, because I do.) This is what I suspect. PART OF the reason that leftists (I am merely a liberal, as distinct from right-wingers and radicals/leftists) cannot face up to, cannot accept, can at times barely ACKNOWLEGDE the Islamo-Fascist terrorist threat, is because doing so challenges a basic ideological belief; namely, that the United States is always the aggressor, always the villain, always the bad guy, and NEVER the victim. 9/11 happened, which does not jibe with that ideological view of the world, and many floundered.....then Iraq occurred, and the old ideological POV of the U.S. as spawn of Satan was (whew, sigh of relief) vindicated again. However, the fact is, that despite the fact that George Bush is a dangerous moron who is making the world a worse place, the Islamo-Fascist threat STILL does exist. (Yes, Bush has probably made it worse with Iraq.) The left has to stop DENYING that the threat is real. This is no time for ideology trumping reality.

     I think denying it is real serves a deeper purpose. If it is NOT real, then that means that Bush and Co. (the American govt) has ENTIRELY and COMPLETELY concocted something out of thin air, making the war in Iraq look even MORE evil. In other words, believing that there is no real threat, that they cooked it up, fits in nicely with the ideological need/belief to always think the absolute worst about the American govt (in a general sense, regardless of who is President, or any other factors).

     You see, there really isn't even any "threat" at all! It's not just that Bush EXPLOITED 9/11 and the continuing terrorist threat, but (even worse) there actually is NO "threat." That definitely makes what Bush (and America in general) has done look worse, so -- just perhaps -- that is (part of the reason) why so many leftists cannot face the fact that the threat is real. To do so would require changing the basic way they view this country and its government; it would mean having to see America as victim and as defending itself (in terms of the just and legitimate cause I refer to, not Bush's agenda). However, as we know, America is NEVER the victim.

     -Except it is in this case (as far as 9/11 is concerned and the continuing threat.)

     For those of us not bound by such ideology, we can see that while the war in Iraq proves George Bush and his cronies are evil and dangerous, incompetent, exploiters of a national tragedy and a continuing threat, the "war" (the good one I refer to), was and is justified.

     Go ahead, let me have it.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 8:32pm

136. Frank -

     Nothing to let you have. That was great.

     I don't believe at all "that the United States is always the aggressor, always the villain, always the bad guy, and NEVER the victim." It's those words "always"and "never" -- they always -- whoops -- they regularly -- cause problems.

     If we continue to let things stand as they are (or worse, fail to learn from our mistakes and make better future decisions), the terrorist threat will only worsen.

     It sure isn't going to just dry up and blow away. Another poster put it quite succinctly when he said, and I'm liberally paraphrasing, "As long as there is one "insurgent" (hate that word) or terrorist and one soldier (or regular American willing to fight back), this will not end".

     Oh, and One Last Time, we weren't really arguing earlier, were we?

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 9:02pm

137. Anybody - left, right, middle; whatever.

     CUT AND PASTE IS LAME. WE ARE ALL HERE TO DEBATE WHAT IS IN YOUR HEARTS AND MINDS, (Right here, right now... VH.

     If you don't have the ability to express your mind's eye in real time, you are not understanding the concept of honesty.

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/04/2006 @ 9:05pm

138. New Dawn,

     No, we were NOT arguing earlier! Lol. I mistook or misread something you said; I misunderstood your position on something about Afghanistan. (I can't even remember what it was anymore.) Thank you for reading and appreciating my last post. It does take a lot of work to write one that lengthy, make it cogent and logical and keep it interesting, all at the same time. However, I still expect to catch some flak from some of the hardcore lefties in here.

     P.S. It isn't easy being a liberal; you get grief from both the right AND the left.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 9:25pm

139. New Dawn: It sure isn't going to just dry up and blow away. "As long as there is one "insurgent" (hate that word) or terrorist and one soldier (or regular American willing to fight back), this will not end".

     Are you suggesting that, in effect, we and the Islamo-Fascist terrorists broker a "truce" of some kind? That was sugested recently by Bin Laden and/or al-Zawahiri. I might consider such an idea.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 9:31pm

140. USA -

     Curious, and not going to scroll back through the blogs - what was cut-and-pasted?

     Cut-and-pasting an entire article is a waste of space and bandwidth. Now, clipping a short paragraph to illustrate a point and then posting the link...? Priceless.

     Let folks read the article at their leisure and reflect on it in its entirety, but don't post the whole thing here.

     People will think you're Rese!

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/04/2006 @ 9:33pm

141. Or, it could be argued that there is nothing to "discuss" with the Islamo-Fascist terrorists, and therefore, the only answer is to continue the struggle to either kill or capture as many of them as we can, as an act of self-defense.

     Of course, this does not preclude other components in solving or alleviating this crisis, such as changing certain policies that anger Muslims (rightly so, in many cases), which can result in greater recruitment for Al Queda type groups and hence, more terrorism.

     The point is, IF it is true that such fanatics cannot be reasoned with (that is, nothing will stop them from their attempt to kill us), well, in that case, we may be forced to keep fighting them. I am not against the idea of a truce per se; but it must be consider in that light.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/04/2006 @ 10:08pm

142. What is victory? Normally when one side wins the other side says ‘oh well', shit (!), and starts over. And both sides for the most part go to their neutral corners. We don't per se completely sanitize the place like kill ‘everyone' in the losing country. We all together even sometimes, usually, help rebuild it. (I recall there was a movie made about a little country wanting to go to war with the USA just so they'd get aid.) What if we just say to the terrorists, you've killed thousands of us, we've killed thousands of you already-- hey lets skip the middle part that may take way too ‘long' and just get to the end part and figure out how to rebuild whatever it was that was broken and messed up and start over like we would if one of us were to win and lose eventually? Is that like way too easy? Ok like I know, the idiots we theoretically elected to power are ‘too smart' for that and may even see themselves as being chicken if they don't kill more of our and their kids first before getting to the part where we, the pawns, serfs, peons, have to clean it all up and start over. Sure, both sides with a few thousand less family members and few hundred thousand with fewer limbs or minds--is that the point here? Maybe it will take millions marching on DC to demand that they do their job and fix what's broke and to stop breaking stuff they themselves can't fix. Maybe that's what needs to happen to set a standard--the whole BC BS regime of chicken hawks, tarred and feathered on a rail all the way to Iraq to learn what it's like to get some of that ‘reap what you sow' going on. Perhaps that's the only way the next set of leaders will get the message--don't fuck with the masses or we'll fuck you! I say we call it FUCK WAR. A few million people with signs like that all around the capital--what do you think? I say the sooner the better.

     Man I need to get some exercise.

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/04/2006 @ 10:15pm

143. How many (???) does it take to screw in a light bulb?

     Is this offensive. Why. I have nothing against light bulbs - do you? they give us light, which is a good thing.

     How many republicans does it take? Who knows, they have never seen the light - GET IT!

     And so it does...

     Posted by USAPRIDE at 02/04/2006 @ 10:18pm

144. Posted by FRANK THOMAS 02/04/2006 @ 8:32pm

     Well stated.

     I think part of the lefts problem (ok, my problem) is that as long as our govts. actions (and a certain portion of our populations blind support of those actions), continues to make us less safe, it seems preferable to take the risk of no action vs. what we are doing. To start again, from scratch.

     Perhaps, not a prudent view. But, not always motivated by a need to be right. It's just as much a need to pull us back from the precipice...even if we go to far back.

     Not disagreeing with you. Just pointing out, that not all are motivated by their ego.

     I live in a rural area. I am more concerned about our domestic/enviromental policies, than terrorism. I have always found it odd, that out here, in 'no target' land, there seem to be more worried about terrorists, than in actual danger zones...like NYC.

     Otherwise, enjoyed your post.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/04/2006 @ 11:04pm

145. Bushfools,

     I agree that the war in Iraq did virtually nothing other than incite (to varying degrees) the entire Islamic civilization (moderates and extremists, and everyone in between) against us (some to the point of joining or at least having greater sympathy with, anti-Western terrorist groups/movements such as Al Queda).

     But a point about something else, if I might: you talked about what the "losing country" in a war usually does. That is the crux of the problem; it's what makes this "war" different than others. THERE IS NO COUNTRY WE ARE FIGHTING AGAINST. If there was, we could (presumably) do our usual ass-kicking, and then the situation would be at that point you (and I and everyone else) long for. But we are not at war with a country; rather, with a movement, an organization, a loose, shadowy criminal group with connections and ties and sympathizers and resources in many many many nations, that hides everywhere, not coming out to fight fair (with conventional armies, on battlefields, etc), which to some extent has the support (or segments thereof) of an entire civilization (the Islamic).

     There is therefore no capital city to march on, at which point we can say that the war is over, help rebuild, etc. There is no Berlin for us and the Russians to encircle and take, no Tokyo for General MacArthur to command, no Saigon as for the Vietnamese, no Madrid as for Franco, no Moscow as for Lenin. That is the very nature of this conflict, this struggle.

     Further, this enemy will literally use any means to win. Additionally, they are religious fanatics who believe that their evil actions are blessed by God almighty. This is an entirely different "war" (conflict, struggle, etc) then any other we have EVER fought.

     What does this all mean? The following things:

     Winning this "war" will be extremely difficult, if not impossible; perhaps the most we can hope for is, in fact, a "never-ending" struggle, a stalemate. (Maybe George Bush is right in that sense?) Maybe it could be compared to the struggle with other international criminal organizations such as the Mafia; can the Mafia ever be truly "defeated"? To the point that it literally does not EXIST anymore? No, unfortunately. Or the struggle against crime in general; inroads can be made against it, but no sane person believes that crime can ever be "ended." (Maybe if they are some pie in the sky utopian socialist; but even then -- in their mind only, as of course utopian socialism is a pipe dream -- there would still be at least a BIT of crime, as crime is not ENTIRELY produced by socio-economic conditions. In any society, there are going to be bad apples.) So, as crime can never be defeated, Islamo-Fascist anti-Western terrorism can never be defeated; rather, it can only be held at bay. If true, we can never actually "win" this war.

     In any case, it is clear that we cannot define "winning" as we have defined it in other wars. (Capturing Berlin, etc.) BUT, it may be as deadly a threat as any we have EVER faced. Therefore, how we deal with this threat, what we do, how we respond, is incredibly important. I know everyone in this room agrees that what Bush and Co. have done has been pretty much wrong in most ways. (Some say in ALL ways; personally, I was for the war in Afghanistan-I would say that was the one right thing he did.)

     Obviously, this threat cannot be faced, cannot be defeated, by military power alone; we must consider alternatives. But no matter what we do, it is going to be with us a long long time. (Partly thanks to George Bush, of course, in that, if not for Iraq and other actions, if the struggle had been handled in a different way, at very least, the threat would not have GROWN as it has.)

     I suggest the following (in conjunction with occasional use of military power, such as killing Bin Laden if we get the chance): change some of the policies that help produce hatred (and hence terrorism) against us. Especially because some of those Muslim grievances (our virtually unconditional support for Israel, which continues to deny the Palestinians their just rights as a people, unnecessary wars such as Iraq, support for dictatorial regimes -- sometimes installed with our support by overthrowing democratically elected governments in the past, hypocrisy such as supporting Saddam in the 1980s, then calling him "Hitler" in the 1990s, etc) are in fact legitimate grievances.

     This is not to EXCUSE terrorist crimes such as the 9/11 attacks. There is no excuse; rather, it is to EXPLAIN the (somewhat legitimate) anger of the Islamic civilization that in part PRODUCED them.

     Another long-term project must be to modify/modernize the Islamic civilization. (Not to say it is entirely pre-modern; rather, it is in a sort of "civil war" between modern and premodern thought, a battle for its heart and soul.) There is a segment of that civilization that thinks terrorism is OK; that if you are wronged, it is ok to do ANYTHING in the name of rectifying it. (Just ends justify literally ALL means.) That if a newspaper in Denmark prints cartoons that depict the prophet Muhammad in less than a flattering light, that it is ok to go and KILL its editor. (Or remember Khomeni's "fatwa" against Salmon Rushdie?) THAT type of thinking is what produces acts like 9/11.

     So you take a civilization that MAY be prone to intolerant, religious fused violence, and then commit various crimes against it over centuries; the resultant anger such actions will produce may manifest themselves in terrorism, suicide bombings, etc. This is partly connected with their religion; that is, not that Islam is necessarily inherently or innately more prone to violence or terrorism than other religion, but rather (I believe), as a civilization they may be "stuck" at a stage of premodernity, developmentally speaking, (it isn't black and white; the Islamic world is not monolithic, but on average is less developed), in which "killing infidels" and believing that God rewards you with 72 virgins if you murder 3000 civilians is par for the course to some extent. The point is, the Middle East is pretty screwed up; it clearly needs fixing: irrational hatreds, premodern thought, fanaticism, literal interpretations of their holy book, etc. Changing policies that "result" in terrorism, killing Al Queda leaders and followers can not "win" this war, perhaps can not significantly redcue the threat (due to the increased numbers of terrorists trying to kill them results in).

     Therefore, PART of the solution to the "terrorist problem" has to be some liberalization of certain entrenched, premodern notions and ideas existent among the people of the Islamic civilization. That is, PART of the problem lies WITHIN Islamic civilization ITSELF. And changing that civilization, the way its members think about their holy book, and in several other ways (that partly flows out of how they interprate their holy book), must be part of any long-term solution. In short, solving terrorism (even reducing it) is a HUGELY GIGANTIC and complex project/problem, that defies easy or quick solutions.

     To sum up: 1) With our current policy(s), we cannot not only not "win the war"/solve the problem, we are probably making it worse. 2) Even if we fought the war/struggle the way we should be doing (changing policies, not being so heavy handed with military, not doing Iraq, etc), that also would not entirely "solve" the problem or "win the war." 3) The only thing that has any remote chance of winning this war, of actually solving this problem that humanity (or much of it) is currently in, is (in addition to changing policies and continuing to kill or capture top Al Queda leaders in a way that hopefully doesn't incite Muslims TOO much, in that we have no choice but to try to do so in the short-run as they are beyond reform, are hell-bent on killing us), is a massive, complex, long-term project to help change and modernize the Muslim world itself, which (as I have argued) is part of the problem. (Addressing other entrenched socio-economic problems such as vast poverty within a sea of oil-rich shieks would be part of the project too; in part, economic deprivation breeds the hopelessness that leads to terrorism.)

     No matter what, this "war" (or whatever the hell you want to call it; this clash, this imbroglio), is going to be around for a very very very long time. In part thanks to George Bush (in that he has foolishly added fuel to the fire), but in part thanks to problems within Islamic civilization itself, which Im not sure they or we or the world can fix anyway.

     -I look forward to (intelligent and fair) responses to this post tomorrow.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 12:26am

146. Ok, tomorrow then. Exercise, rest, new day, and more fodder for the elite will continue to be killed. The problem I think about is that the Muslim children are being just as manipulated as our children here are into killing each other for the rich MIC GOP supported scum. As long as our government uses us to fight for the rich elite, the actual ‘us and them', will be based on illusive, arbitrary and opportunistic lies. Go around kicking enough hornet nests, one gets the people around you stung. Not too complex.

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/05/2006 @ 01:37am

147. Oh darn Frank Thomas, going to quit when I was just getting restarted?

     Posted by SG at 02/05/2006 @ 02:31am

148. I think we have established that we agree on the Iraqi invasion. I understand why you are so concerned that we not write off a legitimate threat from religious (Islamic) extremists. As I said before, I really do not think anyone here would deny that there are those factions. But Frank, they are not superhuman. In fact, if george hadn't invaded Iraq, they would have been set back many years in their ability to reorganize and attack, IMHO. If only we had been able to reap the full benefits of world wide support following 9/11. Think of what all that goodwill and cooperation might have accomplished. Yet for some ungodly reason, we have this President that wants to dominate whenever he can get away with it,(which is often). I digress. I dunno Frank Thomas, will the millitary have to get involved somethimes? If you are concerned about security, well, you should be..multiple reports state that we are not much safer now than we were 3-4 years ago. And many, much more articulate than I, have written volumes on the subject. We need to be smart, instead of terrified. Smart now, or terrified later. Democrat, Liberal, Progressive, Moderate, Conservative *whatever*.

     Posted by SG at 02/05/2006 @ 03:14am

149. Response to: Posted by FRANK THOMAS 02/04/2006 @ 8:32pm | ignore this person

     You claim to be "merely a liberal" and then type an echo chamber of Bush apologia. A sample follows:

     *My REAL, ultimate beef with you (many of you) is that you seem to be either down-playing or ignoring the fact that there is a real threat against our nation – Our nation faces many threats both foreign and domestic. Which are you referring to?

     *there is also ANOTHER enemy out there, called (well, you know what I call it, so I don't have to say it again!) – I assume you mean this: mass-murdering, premodern, all means are justified in the pursuit of 'just' ends, fanatical, fundamentalist/literalist, pathological, radical, militant, jihadist, out to kill Americans, Islamo-Fascist terrorists. – Exactly who are these people? Where do they live? Who is their leader? What makes them our enemy?

     *PART OF the reason that leftists (I am merely a liberal, as distinct from right-wingers and radicals/leftists) cannot face up to, cannot accept, can at times barely ACKNOWLEGDE the Islamo-Fascist terrorist threat, is because doing so challenges a basic ideological belief; namely, that the United States is always the aggressor, always the villain, always the bad guy, and NEVER the victim. – To what "ideology" are you referring when you write its novitiates believe the US is "always the villain, always the bad guy, and NEVER the victim"? Who teaches this and who believes such nonsense?

     *9/11 happened, which does not jibe with that ideological view of the world, and many floundered.....then Iraq occurred, and the old ideological POV of the U.S. as spawn of Satan was (whew, sigh of relief) vindicated again. – Again with the ideology! A more obtuse analysis of modern political discourse doesn't exist. Exactly who "floundered" when 9/11 happened? Exactly who felt "vindicated" when Bush invaded Iraq?

     Bush and his cadre employ obfuscation as a tactic. Your remonstrating aside (the war in Iraq proves George Bush and his cronies are evil and dangerous), your sweeping generalizations, and your scurrilous Bush/Limbaugh interpretation of liberal philosophy demonstrates this ploy still works on the uncritical among us.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/05/2006 @ 03:18am

150. Great discussion, but I think the elephant in the living room must be somehow invisible. This is not a war, it is a coup, and it came and went while we were jousting the windmills that the administration put up for us. Katrina asks when have all these elements occurred at the same time? They have not. We never had a coup before. Long post follows- I apologise in advance.

     The quiet Coup

     Democracy is so damned chaotic. It seems to take forever just to decide where to build a bridge, let alone how to cope with terrorists. It's so, so ---filled with - inconvenient little people. And if you KNOW what to do, if you KNOW who the bad guys are and how to find them, it must be totally frustrating. What's it like to KNOW? We could ask John Boulton. He knows. Dick Cheny and Donald Rumsfeld know too, along with their host of Neocon allys. Thanks to Leo Strauss, and to their own right-wing musings, they know, and have known what needed to be done for five presidential administrations. Administrations filled with failure and frustration, because they just never had quite the right tools. Well, they do now. Today, after 30 years of frustration and honing their skills, they finally have this:

     -- A nearly helpless, deeply conservative republican congress, easily bypassed or manipulated.

     -- The Democratic party on life support, with brain function rivaling Arial Sharon.

     -- A federal judiciary pretty well stuffed with conservative Republican appointees.

     -- An already very conservative supreme court about to get a lot more power-friendly and conservative.

     -- A sycophantic mainstream media about as aggressive in its' investigative function as a road kill.

     -- A new horse to ride – a president who agrees with them, and is bright enough to memorize his lines, schmooze well, and call on a tame journalist when someone asks a question that is off-script. But free of that damned independent streak his father had.

     --A dumbed-down population, thanks to educational collapse and the flight of good jobs, who have lost the ability to ask good questions, let alone seek real answers.

     -- A religious right embodying (and spreading with missionary zeal) their powerfully authoritarian and deductive world. A world in which "Doctrine" is unquestioned. A world in which dictators and tyrants thrive.

     -- A republican and corporate constituency that bought its' right to wallow in the trough of public money, and is too busy gorging itself to look around.

     -- And now, wonder of wonders, 9/11. The perpetual war to focus support, that miraculous gift of fate that will legitimize their worst excesses and disasters and create an endless holiday with the voters- for, with Diebold on their side, and the terrorist nightmare, how can they lose?

     It seems that the only way they could miss is if Larry Wilkerson's Cabal just doesn't want the power. Think that's likely? Me neither. So, what do we do? Learn some history first, for those who don't know it yet.

     For Rumsfeld and Cheny, Nixon was a failure. Rummy rode his presidential horse as far as he could, with Dick in the cart- and then, even though Nixon never saw an institution he couldn't pervert, his presidency just dropped dead. Ah, rats. Ford turned out to be a weakie, --but Dick and Don learned a lot in his administration. Then along came Reagan, and things looked up. Neither Cheny or Rumsfeld were Straussians early on, but they seem to have taken happily to the theology when the machiavellian brilliance of some of Leo's disciples showed itself. The Dick and Don show invited a lot of the old neocon talent to do guest appearances, and they stayed on- and soon it was hard to tell who was directing the show. But problems began to interfere with "right action" once again. Reagan saw an opening with the soviets. He believed that if he and Gorbachev could just talk it out, he could convince him-could bring him to reason. To Rumsfeld/Cheny this was total folly. A dedicated and evil adversary was what was needed, to stiffen the presidential (and national) backbone. Enter Leo's boys-the Neocons-, and Team "B" was born. It was a backstage team of idealouges who were tasked with reevaluating wholesale the CIA's views on the Soviet threat, reestablish it as the bogeyman du jour and scuttle detente and the SALT II agreement. A parallel spin team whose job was to-- well, "Bend the intelligence around the policy". Sound familiar? It should. "Team B" succeeded in some areas- Reagan capitulated, salt II was never ratified- but "Team B"'s greatest utility was that it served as the prototype of what are now numerous "parallel structures" that the Duo have set up to bypass recalcitrant bureaucracies, agencies or individuals. These little cells of supporters are handy to discredit those who disagreed. Colin Powell was one of their first victims. But Reagan was a bit dense, The Soviet Union just refused to play it's part, and thanks to some pretty bright old guys in congress, the Iran-contra bubble burst, taking with it the only remaining decent war in town. Once again the D(squared)Duo was on the outs. But not for long. The first George Bush reinstalled them in places of power in the executive, but refused to support several of the wilder policy suggestions put forward by the Duo, and, after a fine start in the middle east, -damn! Mattg Dillon stepped slowly into the street, and in a flash, put a .45 slug right into the evil Arab, --but it all ground to a halt again. The pattern is obvious. Each effort, each new administration taught them lessons. They assembled like-minded talent, honed skills, made contacts,- and failed. But now, they have had, finally, the break that they have been needing for so long. 9/11 was the seed crystal that dropped into a saturated solution of creeping authoritarianism, educational decay and simplistic analysis. Before the proles knew it, before congress could get off the dime, it was done. Is it really possible that we are talking history here? That the whole thing was so quiet that it came and went? I think so. The Cabal defined by Lawrence Wilkerson may have done it, but if it had not been them, I think it might well have been someone else. . And we, the one-eyed, will slog off to work in the country of the blind, and ask, "how did this happen here?" The line between an executive branch with vastly expanded power--Alita's "Unitary executive"- and a post-coup Junta is hard to define. When did it slip so out of control? We might better ask, today, "How can this be undone?" I believe it can be undone. The first step is to admit that it has happened. The Quiet Coup is best perceived as an empty ecological nitche in a political system made unstable by many elements. A system that can attain temporary stability with a coup. But it is only temporary stability. The neocon theology can be reassuring for a population so bombarded with terror images that it is undone, but it is useless for governing. It has a cartoon-simple view of social space, it is based on assumptions that just do not stand up to a hard look, and every time it has been used as a map for public policy it has failed disastrously. Like all political theologies, truth- an inductive attempt to put together the pieces of the puzzle, to come to understand the truth, results in embarrassing heresies. Iraq is becoming just such a problem, and there will be many, many more. Fascism is defined by it's heresies and the endless nature of them. Fascism falls apart after enough of that old objective reality creeps in and forces people to deal with it. Enough Chinese currency diversification. Enough twin defecits. Enough peak oil at 80 bucks-a-barrel. Enough dead young men. Today the administration rewrites legislation with "signing statements", literally as law comes into existence, a function clearly assigned to the legislative branch by the constitution. Confident, unapologetic for torture, legal travesties, massive surveillance and dubious electoral practices, they no longer even pretend. There will come a time when men and women of courage will have had enough of that. Bush says, in essence, "I did it, I'll do it again, and you can just tough it." A couple years ago, Ron Susskind did a superb piece for the New York Times, in which he quotes a high administration official, whose remarks were made in a meeting in the white house.

     The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

     Dick Cheny has that kind of arrogance, and he is running out of time. His life's work is on the line, and he will not get another chance. I believe any serious threat to his present Junta will be met with all the power at his disposal. He is a ruthless and vindictive man, by all reports. Donald Rumsfeld is equally dangerous. If they see it all slipping away---what will they do? They already tried, as Al Gore pointed out, to have inserted into the Congressional authorization of force language that would have allowed them to use the military in domestic actions, but congress refused. Again, some gutsy old guys in congress, who will probably never be lauded for it, did a very smart thing. But Don and Dick just did an end run, declaring, thanks to Alita, Yoo and their ilk, that congress was unnecessary. Is it possible that my aging heroes- Conyers, Kennedy, et al, can juggle this explosive reality--defuse the grenade without setting it off? Can they do it? Not without our help. Not without our loud noise. Another critical thing to bear in mind is that we must be willing to take some casualties in this, if we really want to remain ourselves. The best thing that ever happened to the Neocon dream was 9/11. Do you think I would be a mad conspiracist if I asked the question, "How bad do you think they want this to work? It is already all falling apart, folks. A majority of Americans support impeachment if Bush lied, and if he tapped without a warrant. He has already admitted to the latter, and the former has been long since proven, even if the Americans in dozy denial have not yet allowed the facts to disturb their sleep. What would be the upside for the Junta of another 9/11 style event? The down side? Read the Wikipedia on the "Reichstag fire", and the "enabling act", and think on it. It is also worth the effort to try to ask why a fascist coup was do-able now, and was unattainable in the past. The answer is complex, but I believe fascism has little appeal for people who have the tools to understand their world, and a lot of appeal for people who are lost and afraid. I was privileged to go to college as a member of the last American generation to believe that one of the central duties of a student was to question all things- to irritate, in a Socratic way, our elders. We had the leisure to think, the thought tools to ask and sometimes to answer hard questions, and the answers we arrived at were not always those of our parents. It was Viet Nam, and our elders were mostly WWII vets, and our questioning got us in a lot of trouble Remember the moratorium? Most people don't. My son had never heard of it, at 18.Yet it was the culmination of years of work and risk, of tear gas and broken heads, of families divided by bitterness. The neoconmen are historically illiterate, for all their brilliance. They thus are unaware that their piece of political theater has been acted out a hundred times throughout history, and therefore is pretty well understood- and pretty predictable. . I am, however, proud of our noise and street theater, our march on Washington.I am proud that we ruined the Don and Dick (and Tricky Dick) show once, and I believe we can do it again.

     Jim Miller

     Posted by wazoo at 02/05/2006 @ 03:37am

151. Disclaimer: This post may be filled with inaccuracies, misrepresentations, and a few outright lies, because I'll be the first to admit, I am only thinking out loud about my own beliefs and opinions (however ill-informed some of them may be - I welcome corrections) and in doing so, typing directly out of my ass. No one will be persecuted, prosecuted, or incarcerated for skipping this post in its entirety.

     ==============================================================

     It's the Extremism, Stupid

     The "War on Terrorism", or, simply put, Terrorism, must be fought by first understanding it in terms of what it is: extremism taken to its most violent levels.

     Throughout history, every day, everywhere in the world, there have been and will continue to be born just-plain-lunatics of every size, shape, stripe, and color. There will be people with warped genes or traumatic upbringings that bend or break their sanity to the point of no return. And subsequently, there will always be those who subscribe to the most extreme views, and commit the most extreme acts, with no regard for logic or reasoning.

     We will never eradicate extremism. Never. It is simply unrealistic and ignorant of the history of the human species to fail to understand this. We have all heard of Ted Bundy, Adolph Hitler, Genghis Khan, Caligula Caesar. And we have all seen photographs of young boys barely old enough to lift their automatic weapons or understand their own motivations, indoctrinated into the extremist faiths of their extremist fathers. Whether by birth or by design, extremists will continue to come to be.

     In this day and age and the foreseeable future, can any of us truly believe that humanity can stop every single suicide bomber in the world from ever being born, or from then growing old enough to push the button on a belt full of explosives on some form of public transportation? This is no more achievable than we can prevent the birth and growth of every murderer, rapist, or other foaming-at-the-mouth animal in desparate need of a lethal dose of something, well, lethal. Such are unfortunate facts about the human animal; sometimes, some of us are just born bad. Some of us are taught to be that way. And extremists continue to come to be.

     Extremism will never go completely away, and is an unfortunately inherent (yet thankfully small) human trait all over the globe. Therefore it cannot be fought as by conventional war, with uniforms and armies and borders on a map to define front lines or boundaries for conflict. The Bush administration is right on this: we are definitely now involved in a global struggle against terrorism.

     The Hijacking of Islam and the Ensuing Extremist Pool

     In recent years, the relatively peaceful modern Islam has been hijacked by an alarming number of extremists. Many Muslims are shocked and outraged at this, at many of the atrocities being committed in the name of their religion. A majority of Muslims live in societies where contrary views are most unwelcome, to say the least, but contrary to many misconceptions, those who do live in societies that allow them to speak out have done so, and in significant numbers. While many around the world recognize this, it remains most unfortunate that the extremists cannot be reached, even by their fellow Muslims. No amount of reasoned pleading by moderate Muslims will eradicate Muslim extremism, since these two sides of the same coin agree on their common religion no more than western nations do. Look at the number of different denominations of Christianity as an example. Keep in mind, however, that violent Christian extremism is almost entirely a thing of the past in our nation.

     These extremists are not interested in "converting" us, or even their fellow Muslims, clearly willing as they are to sacrifice their own people to further their goals. This is unfortunate for modern moderate Muslims in that they are also terrorized, in many ways; by being painted with a broad terrorist brush simply for being Muslim; by being murdered by their own people; and by being caught in the crossfire of western interventions against countries and regions that the west has determined to be supportive of extremism.

     Even semi-moderate Muslims can and should feel obligated to protect their beliefs, their lands, and their way of life if they feel that those treasures are threatened. It requires no stretch of the imagination to imagine even a moderate Muslim holding the broken body of their dead child, killed in a crossfire, wanting to seek righteous vengeance. It may matter not to this hypothetical father which "side" killed his child, Muslim extremist or western soldier, if he believes that the crossfire would not have occurred if the western soldiers and Muslim extremists were not shooting it out in his street. It requires even less imagination to posit that this hypothetical moderate might see extreme retaliatory action as his only possible option. And it requires little imagination to see the father's brother, uncles, and cousins joining him in such an action if they feel they have no other recourse.

     It can be argued that fighting "terrorism" with bombs may add more extremist recruits to the pool than it removes, even drawing from amongst those who didn't agree with the extremists in the beginning.

     Islam is not the enemy. Islamic extremism is.

     What Do They Want?

     The extremists (and even many semi-moderate Muslims and Arabs), expect the west, at the very least, to get out and stay out of their holy lands, the cradle of civilization, lands where their religions were born, that have been in many families for generations, for centuries. There are middle-easterners who can claim almost a thousand years of history in their region. Not one American can do such a thing, because we haven't even existed nearly as long, and we are thus perceived as enormously arrogant in attempting to dictate to the middle east as a whole.

     To those responsible for the current spate of terrorist acts, the west is an abomination. To them, we are infidels, unbelievers, and we spit in the face of their nationalism, their history, and their most deeply treasured beliefs. To them, we trample over their lands and dismiss and disparage them and their faith (however misguided) with the utmost hubris and callousness. The U.S. maintains, and has historically endorsed, varying and rather strange bedfellows, and it hasn't always been clear why we have endorsed one corrupt or violent regime over another. Due in no small part to the region's history of war (both internal and imported from abroad), invasions, occupations, and support provided to factions and governments that they deem hostile to their continued existence, we and other western countries are portrayed as the Great Satan by the Bin Ladens and Sadr's with great success. They are listened to when they call us infidels, warmongers, invaders, occupiers, and bent on their destruction.

     It is not surprising that they are thus bent on ours.

     We Don't Deserve This, But They Sure Think We Do

     Muslim extremists spring from those who are left with the distinct impression (however misguided) that we are trying to eradicate them and their faith in its entirety. We are seen as seeking to control their natural resources, their governments, and even their practice of their faith. They see western domination of the world as a real and legitimate threat, and the destruction of the United States in particular as self-defense. These beliefs will not diminish, and and in fact will only worsen, if we continue to bring our disdain for their beliefs (as they perceive it) to their shores and into their lands in the hamhanded manner of recent years.

     By invading the region repeatedly without a complete set of realistic, strategic, and finite goals, we have played directly into the hands of the extremist leaders who preach to their people from the earliest ages that America is Satan's tool and is hell-bent on destroying the middle east and all Muslims. They will continue to mount an effective recruiting drive unless something changes. (Think young boys who've just passed puberty chanting "Death to America" from their father's shoulders without ever having seen an American out of uniform except in pictures)

     We have vital interests in the region, strategic, political, and financial, that have nothing whatsoever to do with eradicating Islam or even eradicating radical Islam as a whole (which we've already established cannot be done). We have been distracted, however, from securing these interests by spending our time swatting flies with elephants and ignoring the realities of the conflict.

     We cannot continue to play into their hands.

     Then How Do We Fight Them?

     Muslim extremists willing to use any extreme of violence to further (their perceived) goals of their faith, exercising little or no regard for innocents (think indiscriminate roadside or suicide bombs), are clearly willing to kill and die for those goals. It is important to understand that since we do not believe as these people believe and live our entire lives in the way they believe we are commanded to by their interpretation of the supreme being, then we must die, every one of us, to the last man, woman, and child of our ilk. Their faith demands it.

     The point cannot be made strongly enough that those who believe that whatever supreme being they worship sanctions and encourages and backs with unearthly power their actions, no matter how violent, will not be deterred by logic or reasoning. They are blinded to it by their faith, which is defined as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. Logic is to blind faith what oil is to water.

     We cannot win over extremists by appeasement, pacifism, or negotiating, but we must take care not to resort to their methods or descend to their level. Precision-guided munitions, artillery shells, and actions like those in Fallujah will never win enough "hearts and minds" to stem or even slow extremist recruitment.

     We cannot expect to eradicate every extremist in any foreign country, but we can be logical and realize the inherent effectiveness of creating and maintaining alliances with other countries and factions with whom we share the mutual interest of preventing future attacks like the ones on 9/11, as well as those in Madrid and London. In this unprecedented age of nearly instantaneous electronic communication, we must work globally to identify, track, and apprehend those who commit extremist acts as quickly as possible, and to investigate, charge, try, and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law, international or otherwise.

     Further, cries of isolationism be damned, the United States must pull back and begin working to further secure our country from within before another dime is spent abroad. This means abandoning the continuing financial folly of the war in Iraq as quickly as possible and spending those dollars domestically on continuing transportation security, especially airline tranportation, border security, port security, nuclear and chemical and water plant security. We must deeply scrutinize and clean house by getting immigration in order, tracking down and expelling illegals once and for all, as well as implementing whatever methods are necessary to know in the future that those who enter our country are here for legitimate purposes and that they are not allowed to stay here on expired visas. We can return to asking for the world's huddled masses after we are secure.

     It is ridiculous to suggest that we are fighting the terrorists abroad instead of having to fight them here when any extremist can walk across the border into our country from Mexico or Canada.

     Let's Get Real

     No country on the planet can mount a realistic invasion of the United States of America, and no military would stand a chance even if we didn't see them coming across the water or though the air weeks before they got here.

     Short of a nuclear exchange, no country in the world can mount a realistic offensive against us except through terrorism.

     It is time to stop suckling at the teat of this monolithic monstrosity called fear that we've fallen for and are continuing to propogate, time to start implementing realistic strategies.

     We need do less worrying about a war in America (but not America in wars), and more about what we can do to combat as little as nineteen extremists with boxcutters who entered this country legally to commit their extremist atrocities.

     ==============================================================

     Everyone is welcome to take me to task on anything I've written. All I ask is civility and reasoned debate.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/05/2006 @ 06:15am

152. Good Morning!

     I am glad to see that my response of late last night caused such a stir. Before diving into the deep end, I just wanted to state the following: those who mindlessly and unfairly enage in such demagoguery as calling me "Rush Limbaugh" or "a Republican," who engage in such ridiculous (and obviosuly untrue, to anyone with an ounce of integrity who has read any of my posts) name-calling, will be automatically put on ignore. Such drivel is reflective of the mentality (among some rabid and extreme radical leftists) that one is either William Buckley, or Noam Chomsky. (And since I am not Noam Chomsky, I must be William Buckley!) Not going to waste my time on such idiocy. On Ignore.

     Now back to the fun! (Actually I shouldn't spend TOO MUCH time on this today, as I have some "real" work to do.)

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 10:27am

153. Posted by SG 02/05/2006 @ 03:14am

     SG, that post was good. I agreed with everything you said in it.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 10:30am

154. "If only we had been able to reap the full benefits of world wide support following 9/11. Think of what all that goodwill and cooperation might have accomplished."

     Those are a great couple of lines SG. How things have changed! From being seen by most of the world as the victim, to being seen by much of the world as the enemy.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 10:33am

155. Posted by NEW DAWN 02/05/2006 @ 06:15am

     For someone writing at such an early hour, and admittedly writing off the cuff, your post was very good. I agreed with much of what you said. I can't go into it point for point, because that would require an incredible amount of energy and time. But you managed to make me think. Thank you.

     P.S. Arlen Spector is on "Meet the Press" right now, and is bashing Bush's warrantless wiretaping. (Hope that the moderate wing of the Republican Party is not dead?)

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 11:01am

156. 'We Should've Sent a Letter of Protest War', Joint Chiefs

     Posted by Bushfools at 02/05/2006 @ 11:15am

157. On being a good net citizen:

     One of the rules of good behavior on online forums is that one doesn't become a "troll". That is someone who is intrusive, abusive, or keeps repeating points that he made before. From my experience there are several types of trolls.

     There are those who just crave attention.

     There are those who are serious disturbed.

     There are those who are on a "mission" and feel the need to convert others to their beliefs. These can be political (libertarians frequently fall into this class), or religious or moralistic.

     There are those who masquerade as just ordinary folk, but who are part of an organized group bent on getting their point of view across. In other words, shills. With the anonymity provided by blogs this type is hard to detect, except by their immunity to counter arguments.

     The response to trolls is simple. Do not take the bait. Every time someone responds they have "won". So if you find yourself going back and forth with the same person or small group, step back and think if you are doing everyone else a disservice. If a discussion get so overrun with chatter that it swamps everyone else, others will get fed up and leave.

     If you are a recent new blogger you may not realize that excessive commenting is considered bad form, so perhaps those who fit this description will reconsider your actions.

     Posted by rdf at 02/05/2006 @ 12:15pm

158. Good afternoon to all gathered. I see we have an interesting group, some tin foil hats? Frank Thomas, kind words. Just one little thing..I squirm at the use of the word "victim" in your post above. Though there were undoubtedly victims of 9/11, and the worlds hearts poured out to them. The only thing our government is victim of, IMHO, is having been hijacked by the current group of prevaricators, who, even prior to 9/11, had dreams of invading Iraq. They usurped 9/11, rode roughshod over the true victims and this nation, to achieve their own (dark)ends. Have a nice day.

     Posted by SG at 02/05/2006 @ 1:58pm

159. Bush never asked for a declaration of war. Congress never considered a declaration of war. We are not at war.

     The battle for Iraq ended years ago. Bush proclaimed "Mission Accomplished." We are now rebuilding Iraq, regardless the inflammatory rhetoric and ongoing hostilities.

     It's easy to conclude that 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq are the fault of Islam as a religion, and that we're involved in a religious war. And though I agree the problem lies with unquestioning faith in the tenants of Islam, we are not yet involved in a religious war, the solution will not be a military one, and we can still avoid starting such a devastating fanatical worldwide conflict.

     The Christians of the Inquisition, and the concept of papal infallibility, are no longer held in high esteem by rational people in the western world because the we went through an 'Age of Enlightenment.' The concepts formed during the age of enlightenment; separation of church and state, humanism, etc., were enshrined in our Declaration of Independence and federal constitution. They have held religious fundamentalism at bay long enough to allow medical, technological, philosophical, geological, and biological advances, and allow secularist political philosophy to dominate the western world. There has been no such age of enlightenment in the Muslim world. The solution to our struggle against superstition will arrive when Islam has its age of enlightenment.

     We cannot end terrorism with guns and bombs. You can't kill belief. The way to end terrorism is through enlightenment of the sort that ended the terrorism of the Inquisition, and the idiocy of papal infallibility; education based on scientific reasoning. If tens of thousands, or millions, of Muslims blindly follow the dictates of unquestionable fantasy, the war on terrorism will go on forever. They are after all still producing children, and training their children to believe in the infallibility of their fairy tales.

     Bush has defined the conversation with terms like ‘war' and ‘Axis of Evil.' This has allowed him to curtail civil liberties, divide the nation, and transfer our national wealth from domestic efforts into the bottomless pit of eternal war.

     We've got to elect a president with the guts to get us off oil, so we're no longer feeding the machine that's killing us. Without ending our addiction on imported oil we will never have any leverage to force Muslim countries out of the Iron Age. Then we've got to insist that Muslims go to schools that offer more than indoctrination in superstition. One or two generations of secularist education will end terrorism, and I can think of nothing else that will do the job. Bush's efforts have obviously strengthened the terrorists.

     If the people who have so much faith they'll kill themselves in order to kill some of us are allowed to indoctrinate millions of children we will not be able to kill them as fast as they can produce them, and our society will be more and more at risk of attack.

     So here are some suggestions for alternatives to ‘Axis of Evil.'

     Containment of creed.

     Fight against fanaticism

     Combat against creationists

     Struggle against sectarianism

     Battle against belief

     Fight against faith

     And my personal favorite:

     Race against religion

     And in place of war, the terms from the phrases above: containment, fight, combat, struggle, and battle. Take your pick. They're all more accurate and less inflammatory than war.

     Posted by slowmodemjohn at 02/05/2006 @ 2:46pm

160. SLOWMODEMJOHN: generally good post. I agree that the Muslim/Arab world needs, in effect, its own Enlightenment. You are right; you cannot stop terrorism with guns and bombs, because it is a belief, a tacticnot a country or an army. Actually, the Arab/Muslim world is IN (has been, for centuries) a quasi state of cultural/theological/philosophical civil war; that is, there is a struggle going on within it, over its identity, its soul. Which faction will win? Will more and more Muslims embrace the premodern beliefs of fanatics like Bin Laden? Or, will the modern, moderate Muslims win the debate? How can we help the forces of modernity, of secularism, to win that struggle? Have our actions helped foster modernity (Iraq, etc), or, have they retarded it? These are some of the many questions we should be asking.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 3:06pm

161. Frank -

     I wrote what I wrote over the course of several hours, so I understand entirely the reference to an "incredible amount of energy and time" in responding. That's exactly what happened to me, as I was responding to your post to begin with!

     I took special care not to take any side but a logical one, and I took special care not to vilify the current administration, since this problem existed before they got here, and will certainly exist after they are all gone.

     Glad to have sparked thought, all the same. That's a good enough start for me. I do regret that our current administration doesn't always seem, to me anyway, to have invested the appropriate amount of time and energy into creating and maintaining sustainable policies at home and abroad that is warranted by the times.

     Posted by New Dawn at 02/05/2006 @ 3:28pm

162. A question posed in the excellent article which has spawned these comments is, "Should the times we are living in be characterized by claims of a war without end?"

     Posted by SG at 02/05/2006 @ 3:30pm

163. Posted by RDF 02/05/2006 @ 12:15am

     An apt point, made by others (zero comes to mind) before you.

     But wouldn't this just be a boring 'agreementfest' w/o dissenters.

     We'd all start to think there was a secret sane majority, by coming here, w/o the wingnuts to both annoy us AND bring a dose of the ignorance of the real world with them.

     Plus, in an insular enviroment, we'd get no new ideas/info. Upon rare occasion, lefties are mistaken about something.

     Just scroll on by, if the topic is to puerile for you. I find all post here, to be at least entertaining.

     Again, I respect your thoughts. I just agree with most and feel the need to respond to those I disagree with.

     Eric

     Posted by malcontent3 at 02/05/2006 @ 3:42pm

164. A question posed in the excellent article which has spawned these comments is, "Should the times we are living in be characterized by claims of a war without end?" Posted by SG 02/05/2006 @ 3:30pm

     SG, by asking that question, you have truly brought us around full circle. I of course have argued that there are in effect, TWO "wars" going on simultaneously. One is the just war to defend ourselves against (need I say it again, for those who have been following this entire debate/discussion?), and the other, for lack of a better phrase, "Bush's war." Needless to say, I support the former, and oppose the latter.

     Both will be going on for a long time. The "just war" will go on longer than it should, DUE to "Bush's war".

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 3:48pm

165. Insofar as I can tell, we are "Waging War to Glorify Global Terror" and we appear to be winning. We are winning in Iraq, in Madrid, in London, in Denmark, and in Palestine. We are winning the hearts, the minds, and the fury of a million madmen, but there is so much more to win, so much more to gain, I only wish we could fight forever and again.

     Posted by Sal Anthony at 02/05/2006 @ 3:56pm

166. I don't know whether to put Sal on ignore, or ask him to (try) clarifying/restating his "point" (assuming he has one.)

     ???

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 4:04pm

167. My point is only that we are losing this so-called war, and we're losing it big-time. Osama's still free, we've wasted hundreds of billions invading the wrong country, and we've demonstrated our ineptitude. If one must wage war on terrorists, then one should TERRORIZE them. Every time a suicide bomber strikes, his family should be assassinated and that fact should be advertised. Every time an act such as the bombing in Madrid takes place, an F-16 should drop a quasi-nuke on an increasingly larger Muslim population center. And if an empire (which is what we are) is not willing to do this, then it should heed the advice of the isolationists and withdraw to a neutral corner of the world and be still. But to wage the farce we are waging is simply pointless.

     Posted by Sal Anthony at 02/05/2006 @ 4:16pm

168. "then one should TERRORIZE them." -But I thought THEY were the terrorists? Isn't that part of what makes US good, and THEM bad? Wouldn't the moral distinction between us be completely obliterated if we resort to their methods?

     "Every time a suicide bomber strikes, his family should be assassinated and that fact should be advertised." -Does that seem fair and just to you? Is it possible that some of the members of that terrorist's family are opposed to terrorism, and/or didn't know they were terrorists?

     "Every time an act such as the bombing in Madrid takes place, an F-16 should drop a quasi-nuke on an increasingly larger Muslim population center." -You are worse than Bin Laden himself. You are openly advocating terrorism. You are living proof that quasi-genocidal thoughts are not exclusive to premodern radical jihadist fanatics.

     I don't know WHY I am wasting time on you, but there it is.

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 4:37pm

169. Are we losing this "war"? Or is it very deliberately being prolonged? Bush has already used the excuse of criminality (terrorism) to become the criminal. Will we drink deep of the kool-aid and swallow whole the motives, tactics and terminology of the wizard. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain..Wizard of Oz.

     Posted by SG at 02/05/2006 @ 4:54pm

170. Sal, maybe there's a place for you in this administration. Just sayin'.

     Posted by SG at 02/05/2006 @ 5:07pm

171. SG, a few questions/comments, if I might:

     1) Do you buy the distinction I make between the two "wars" that are going on? 2) Your post made me laugh, thanks for that. 3) Can you believe that post by Sal Anthony? How do you deal with that mentality? When someone so unabashedly, so unashamedly, advocates such horrible and massive criminality and evil? When someone reveals that they literally have NO respect for human life whatsoever?

     It reminds me of when, before the war in Iraq started, I was debating it with someone I know. (He was for it.) It was a fairly cogent (though brief) debate, for the most part. But then suddenly, he says to me, with a big smile on his face, "I think we should just nuke em." Then he laughed, ha ha, isn't genocide funny? I have never been able to figure out how to respond to such moral effrontery. Should you ignore them? Should you try to reason with them?

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 5:08pm

172. Apparently I am a bad guy because I called a self-proclaimed liberal out for sounding like a Bush shill. He levels this insulting and ridiculous charge that people with leftist views cannot face terrorists because doing so would violate some unexplained ideological belief that America is always the bad guy. (Tell me that doesn't sound like George Bush and his radio supporters saying the left is weak on defense.)

     Next, we "floundered" on 9/11 only to be "vindicated" when Bush invaded Iraq. What twisted thought process is going on in this fellows head? The very idea that someone would call himself a liberal and regurgitate this pap is insufferable. When I challenged him to identify this strange leftist ideology, I am put on ignore.

     Fine. I can understand why he wouldn't want to defend such nonsense. It is baloney rejecting the meat cutter.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 02/05/2006 @ 5:09pm

173. SG,

     Obviously, Sal is a cretin. However, honestly, to be fair, I don't think anyone is the current administration is advocating the things Sal was in that post!

     Posted by Frank Thomas at 02/05/2006 @ 5:11pm

174. Sal, you may be strategically correct in the context of regional history. I believe what separates your strategic vision from that of Curtis LeMay is both the intimate personalization and the immediacy of the responses. In other words, not state sponsored terror but instead, state exercised terror with all of the resources that the U.S. can bring to bear on the enterprise. Now I realize that the US does not need a permission slip from anyone in order for us to take whatever action we deem appropriate to protect ourselves in this new world order, but do we really have enough time to supplant all of the world's pretenders as the dominant terrorist state before the remainder of the world's nations actively unite against us, if they haven't already? Ah George, you must have had access to H.G.'s time machine.

     Posted by canaar at 02/05/2006 @ 5:24pm

175. Well Frank Thomas, criminal extremists were active long before george and co. "won" office. Iraq was already neutered (militarily) before bush invaded...but, I guess my answer to your question is technically yes..there is a distinction. There were no "terrorists" in Iraq when gw invaded. It is a conflict of choice. Though gw tried and succeeded in convincing people otherwise. Course, Iraq is now a premiere training ground for some very nasty elements of Islam. Not to mention, a great recruiting tool. I am not really satisfied with my answer..maybe someone else can do better. Maybe SeattleScribe will give it a whirl? I'm late for the SBowl party.

     Posted by SG at 02/05/2006 @ 6:55pm