National Insecurity?
[J.D. Henderson,
Tuesday September 19, 2006 at 10:46am ]
Nearly 40 percent of recruits now score in the bottom half of the Army's ASVAB (Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery), according to David Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness. More high school dropouts are now recruited than five years ago. There are fewer "washouts," meaning the Army is holding on to more borderline soldiers, critics say.
Thousands of key Army weapons platforms – such as tanks, Humvees, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles – are sitting in disuse at Army maintenance depots for lack of funding.
The Army reports the vast majority of non-deployed active-duty combat units have the absolute lowest readiness levels. The situation for the Army Guard and Reserves is worse.
There are indications of growing drug and discipline problems among the newest Army recruits, more of whom have criminal records than at any time since the 1970s.
The Army reports that many combat and combat support units scheduled to deploy to Iraq in 2007 will have less than the required one year period for rest and re-training. This is one of the key indicators that lead many Army officials to conclude that current deployment rates cannot be sustained without breaking the force.
Despite calls for over four years to increase the permanent end-strength of the Army by at least 30,000, the latest Quadrennial Defense Review calls for cuts to the Army's end-strength (number of soldiers permanently authorized).
Iraq is now more violent than it was in 2003, 2004, or 2005. The number of attacks on US and Iraqi government forces are at an all-time high. Sectarian violence is prevalent, and most observers, with the notable exception of the Bush Administration, admit that Iraq is fully engaged in an internecine civil war.
North Korea has not only admitted to possessing nuclear weapons, but is conducting missile tests on a frequent basis.
Iran is continuing with its nuclear weapons program.
The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Opium production has reached record levels.
Osama Bin Laden is still free.
The president has recently admitted that Iraq had no ties to Al Queda (something that all national security professionals knew long before we invaded - Al Queda hates all secular regimes in Islamic nations, including Saddam's Iraq). The president has admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq.
The commander of Fort Eustis recently admitted that the Army was ordered not to plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq, and that when Army leaders continued to argue with Secretary Rumsfeld over the critical need for a post-war plan, he threatened to fire the next person that mentioned the subject.
The previous Chief of Staff of the Army was publicly chastised by the administration for his "wildly off the mark" prediction that success in Iraq would take years, hundreds of thousands of troops, and billions and billions of dollars. Gen. Shinseki's replacement was announced a full year before he retired - in violation of tradition - in order to make him a "lame duck." However, his appointed successor REFUSED To accept the Army's highest position, preferring to retire rather than work with Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. Many other generals also refused the Army's highest position, and for the first time in US history an already-retired general had to be recalled to active duty to become chief of staff, an unprecedented show of no confidence in Rumsfeld and the administration by the officer corps of the US Army.
Secretary Rumsfeld will soon become the longest-serving secretary of defense in our nation's history.
The National Security Agency, the nation's largest and most expensive intelligence-collection agency designed to collect information on our enemies, has been ordered by the president to spy upon Americans by warrantless wiretaps in violation of a law passed by Congress and the US Constitution.
The administration is in open conflict with Congress over whether CIA interrogators can torture detainees without legal repercussions, and wants to "clarify" the Geneva Conventions despite every JAG general stating no such "clarification" is needed because the Conventions are clear already.
Iraqi troops are now digging trenches around Baghdad.
The intelligence on Iraq was admittedly wrong, and admittedly based on discredited sources of information. As a result, CIA director Tenant was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The largest reorganization of the federal government in history resulted in the Department of Homeland Security and a massive increase in the federal payroll. The result was the less-than-stellar Hurricane Katrina response by the federal government.
The largest surplus in US history has turned into the largest deficit in US history.
Can someone please explain why this administration is considered by ANYBODY to be stronger on national security than - not just the democratic opposition, not just the republican dissenters such as Sen. McCain, but better than anybody reading this right now? Better than anybody... period? Is all of this what a successful national security program is supposed to be like?
Forgive my confusion, but I just don't see it. Can anybody explain how this administration is effective, productive, and making America safer than other options we had, and have? In short, is this the "course" that we must "stay on" in order to be secure?
Thousands of key Army weapons platforms – such as tanks, Humvees, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles – are sitting in disuse at Army maintenance depots for lack of funding.
The Army reports the vast majority of non-deployed active-duty combat units have the absolute lowest readiness levels. The situation for the Army Guard and Reserves is worse.
There are indications of growing drug and discipline problems among the newest Army recruits, more of whom have criminal records than at any time since the 1970s.
The Army reports that many combat and combat support units scheduled to deploy to Iraq in 2007 will have less than the required one year period for rest and re-training. This is one of the key indicators that lead many Army officials to conclude that current deployment rates cannot be sustained without breaking the force.
Despite calls for over four years to increase the permanent end-strength of the Army by at least 30,000, the latest Quadrennial Defense Review calls for cuts to the Army's end-strength (number of soldiers permanently authorized).
Iraq is now more violent than it was in 2003, 2004, or 2005. The number of attacks on US and Iraqi government forces are at an all-time high. Sectarian violence is prevalent, and most observers, with the notable exception of the Bush Administration, admit that Iraq is fully engaged in an internecine civil war.
North Korea has not only admitted to possessing nuclear weapons, but is conducting missile tests on a frequent basis.
Iran is continuing with its nuclear weapons program.
The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan. Opium production has reached record levels.
Osama Bin Laden is still free.
The president has recently admitted that Iraq had no ties to Al Queda (something that all national security professionals knew long before we invaded - Al Queda hates all secular regimes in Islamic nations, including Saddam's Iraq). The president has admitted there were no WMDs in Iraq.
The commander of Fort Eustis recently admitted that the Army was ordered not to plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq, and that when Army leaders continued to argue with Secretary Rumsfeld over the critical need for a post-war plan, he threatened to fire the next person that mentioned the subject.
The previous Chief of Staff of the Army was publicly chastised by the administration for his "wildly off the mark" prediction that success in Iraq would take years, hundreds of thousands of troops, and billions and billions of dollars. Gen. Shinseki's replacement was announced a full year before he retired - in violation of tradition - in order to make him a "lame duck." However, his appointed successor REFUSED To accept the Army's highest position, preferring to retire rather than work with Rumsfeld and the Bush administration. Many other generals also refused the Army's highest position, and for the first time in US history an already-retired general had to be recalled to active duty to become chief of staff, an unprecedented show of no confidence in Rumsfeld and the administration by the officer corps of the US Army.
Secretary Rumsfeld will soon become the longest-serving secretary of defense in our nation's history.
The National Security Agency, the nation's largest and most expensive intelligence-collection agency designed to collect information on our enemies, has been ordered by the president to spy upon Americans by warrantless wiretaps in violation of a law passed by Congress and the US Constitution.
The administration is in open conflict with Congress over whether CIA interrogators can torture detainees without legal repercussions, and wants to "clarify" the Geneva Conventions despite every JAG general stating no such "clarification" is needed because the Conventions are clear already.
Iraqi troops are now digging trenches around Baghdad.
The intelligence on Iraq was admittedly wrong, and admittedly based on discredited sources of information. As a result, CIA director Tenant was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
The largest reorganization of the federal government in history resulted in the Department of Homeland Security and a massive increase in the federal payroll. The result was the less-than-stellar Hurricane Katrina response by the federal government.
The largest surplus in US history has turned into the largest deficit in US history.
Can someone please explain why this administration is considered by ANYBODY to be stronger on national security than - not just the democratic opposition, not just the republican dissenters such as Sen. McCain, but better than anybody reading this right now? Better than anybody... period? Is all of this what a successful national security program is supposed to be like?
Forgive my confusion, but I just don't see it. Can anybody explain how this administration is effective, productive, and making America safer than other options we had, and have? In short, is this the "course" that we must "stay on" in order to be secure?
0 Trackbacks /
Can someone tell me if Intel Dump is supposed to be an objective source of non-biased analysis on intelligence matters, or a subsidiary of Moveon.org??
Geezus JD.. At least make a miniscule attempt at being impartial and objective.
Or if you're going to take on the task of representing the Democratic side of this issue, make an attempt at explaining how they are going to deal with terrorism.
It one thing for participants like us to make biased commentary to your posts. But you're the man who is supposed to set the tone for this website and I'm disappointed that you can't leave your anti-bush bias at the door.
Diogenes
I don't care what party the president belongs to - I really, really don't. I foolishly thought back in 2000 that it really didn't make much of a difference. I served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, and I didn't really see much difference and didn't really care.
Am I biased against republicans? No, absolutely not. Am I biased against the president? Yes, but not because of his political party, but because of the FACTS that I recounted. Facts should not be partisan, they are FACTS. And the fact is that we are still in Iraq years after we invaded, most of us did not expect to be, and there were no WMDs. That isn't partisan spin.
Politics should stop at the water's edge. Our enemies don't give a fig about which party an American supports. They don't know or care about the difference between red and blue states. They hate America - including right-wingers, left-wingers, Willie Nelson, Sean Penn, Bill O'Reilly, and Lindsay Lohan. We are at war, not the Republican party.
As many here know, I disagreed with the decision to invade Iraq, but I think success in Iraq is possible and would be a better outcome than failure in Iraq. I am not for a timetable or a pullout, I think we need more troops there. I am thus not "representing the Democratic side" of any issue.
Amazingly, after quoting several very real but very UNDISPUTED facts, I am accused of an anti-Bush bias. I am asked to be impartial and objective.
Ok. The Army reports on its readiness were not partisan, but factual and objective. That it makes the Bush adminstration look bad is not because the Army was partisan or a subsidiary of Moveon.org.
The frequency of attacks in Iraq and the growing civil war is not due to the insurgency secretly being a subsidiary of Moveon.org and is, it appears to me, not due to an anti-Bush bias on the part of our enemies. Maybe I am wrong and Iraqis are killing Iraqis in record numbers and in horrific ways in order to express their disdain for Mr. Bush, but somehow I doubt it.
North Korea and Iran surely do not like Mr. Bush very much, but they didn't like Bill Clinton either. They don't seem to qualify their references to "the Great Satan" or the "American Imperialist Running Dogs" with any language suggesting their insults apply only to the Republican party or Mr. Bush in particular. I think I am on pretty firm ground when I say the threat is to all of us, not just the Bush administration. And the fact of North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs is a fact, not partisan spin.
Likewise, I would bet you a dollar to a donut that most Taliban insurgents do not know the difference between the democratic and republican parties, and don't care even if they did. I somehow doubt the resurgence of the Taliban is an effort to express displeasure with Mr. Bush, and the FACT of the increased violence in Afghanistan is not a partisan fact, but simply a fact. I don't think the Taliban inquire whether US soldiers are registered democrat or republican before opening fire, and I doubt that their attacks on NATO troops are motivated by any partisan desire to help moveon.org or to harm Bush politically. Perhaps I am wrong.
The fact that the current chief of staff of the Army had to be recalled from retirement is damning and indicative of the problems between the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the US Army officer corps, but it is a fact nonetheless. Perhaps the entire officer corps of the US Army are left-wing liberals eager to help moveon.org and help the democratic party win elections, but having served for over a decade I find this, to say the least, improbable.
The existence of the NSA warrantless wiretapping program might be partisan spin. I think not, and would oppose any president of any party that ordered such a clearly unlawful program, but I have no way to prove that to you.
The conflict over "clarifying" common article III of the Geneva Conventions is not a left/right conflict but an internal conflict between the Republican-controlled Congress and the President. Many Republicans oppose the president on this issue, and I doubt they are doing so in order to further the goals of moveon.org or the democratic party in general.
Iraqi troops are not digging ditches in Baghdad in order to make the president look bad.
The elimination of the record budget surplus and the creation of the largest deficit in history is disturbing to many patriotic Americans of all political ideologies and affiliations. Math is not partisan. If you had $100, and I took it and left you with a bill for $100, if you questioned where the money went and why you went from being up $100 to down $200, I somehow think you would not be motivated to ask that question because of partisan politics. The Republican party has traditionally been fiscally conservative, and many Americans worry about our nation's staggering debt. When the bill comes due it will not be handed out only to republicans, nor only to democrats. It will be all of us that will have to pay - including our children. That is not partisan spin - unless, somehow, you can explain to me how it is actually a good thing for our entire nation (both red and blue states) to have such a deficit.
I doubt that the president's admissions regarding WMDs and Iraqi-Al Queda connections were motivated by a desire to further the goals of Moveon.org or the democratic party.
Few of any political persuasion, including Mr. Bush, are claiming that the federal emergency relief effort in New Orleans was competent and well-managed. I doubt that is because almost all Americans, including the president, are biased in favor of the democratic party.
I listed several non-partisan, undisputed, established facts, and then asked the question "is this administration is effective, productive, and making America safer?" To automatically assume that I am not being impartial and objective suggests that ANY questioning of the president is based on "representing the Democratic side of this issue."
I think I am impartial and objective when it comes to our national security, and I think this adminstration has harmed, not helped, our national security. I think an impartial and objective assesment of this administration's national security policy would come to the conclusion that it is a disaster. But if I am wrong, please point out how we are better off because of the decisions and actions this administration has taken. And when doing so, please "At least make a miniscule attempt at being impartial and objective." That means using facts, not rhetoric or spin or subjective analysis. Facts.
When speaking the truth is considered "partisan" we are truly living in dangerous times.
You could just take JD's question at face value and try to
answer it.
That's what I'll do with your question.
Now personally I'm somewhat left of the Democratic leadership, but I'll try to give a moderate-Dem view
even though it isn't quite my own.
There are two main threads to dealing with terrorism:
1) Make it hard for terrorists to attack you. Provide
substantial funding for port security (inspect *all*
containers for nuclear materials); enforce security
standards for private-sector targets such as chemical
plants and oil refineries; upgrade the FBI's computer
systems.
2) Get good intelligence about terrorist activities from
whoever will help you. Most especially, this requires
*talking* to moderate Muslims, and to nations such as
Syria and Egypt, which may not be our favorite regimes
but which share our interest in fighting Islamist
terrorism (it threatens them more than us) and have good
sources of information.
Find out who the terrorists are, and what they're planning.
Then catch them, quietly, one at a time. "Turn" them when
possible to catch more.
Who are the best sources of information about likely terrorists ? Obviously other Muslims who go to the same
mosques, hear the same sermons, and may see suspicious
activities. But to get those non-terrorist Muslims to
report what they see, you need to make it superabundantly
clear that you're *not* attacking Islam or Islamic
nations in general, but *only* violent individuals. So as
a matter of strategy as well as military necessity, we
need to set a timetable to get out of Iraq. The first
step is a clear statement that we are *not* building
permanent bases and that we have no desire or intention
to stay. We should negotiate with the Iraqi government,
representatives of the Sunni insurgency, neighboring
countries - especially Iran - and the UN to plan a
peaceful transition to an Iraq free of coalition forces.
This points the way on Iran policy: we need Iran's help
to stabilize Iraq, so we have to talk to them. And we
should also talk to them about their nuclear weapons:
a starting point might be to offer a non-aggression
guarantee in return for a halt to Iran's nuclear enrichment
program. Another sweetener you could offer would be
construction of Canadian CANDU reactors which can operate
with unenriched fuel.
Obviously, as we take forces out of Iraq we can increase
our commitment of men and money to Afghanistan and engage
in some serious reconstruction there. We've missed the
boat on catching bin Laden, unfortunately. But we should
keep a substantial number of special forces in reserve
in Afghanistan ready to go after him if we get any
intelligence.
Over the next few years, it's clear that our Afghanistan
commitment will need more light infantry and special
forces, rather than heavy armor. Throw away the Quadrennial
Defense Review and start again on that basis: more men,
more low-tech armor, helicopters, armored humvees. Fewer
nuclear submarines and F22 fighters. More MPs and
civil-affairs officers, a *lot* more language training.
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. We need friends in this fight:
both Muslim countries and our traditional European allies.
And they hate what we're trying to do with torture,
secret prisons, and rewriting the Geneva Conventions.
Just stop it already: close the secret prisons, give the
Red Cross access to all detainees, stop *all* the
"alternative methods". Let the FBI call the shots on
interrogation policy. Make damn sure that we're not keeping
anyone in GTMO who might be innocent: if we still are,
send them back home with a full apology and a wad of cash,
or the alternative of permanent residence in the USA.
Now the Palestinian issue still resonates with disaffected
Muslims. So we need to tackle that, hard as it is.
Bribe Hamas and Fatah with aid money; threaten Israel with
the loss of aid money. Get them talking. Everyone knows
what the two-state solution has to look like, give or
take a few miles here and there on the borders. It's going
to be painful but talking will be better than fighting.
Some of this will cost money. So we're going to have to
raise some taxes. But since the very wealthy got most
of the benefit of the Bush tax cuts, they can also suffer
most of the pain.
Now these security proposals will reduce our influence in
the Middle East to some extent, and the global supply of
oil is a worry. So we should aim to reduce our oil
consumption: a good way to do that is by introducing a
carbon tax, phased in over several years. One recent
proposal is that the carbon tax should replace payroll
taxes - that would make the overall change mildly
progressive. A carbon tax is probably the most efficient
way to encourage new conservation technologies and
alternative energy sources: but Detroit hasn't been getting
the message that people don't want gas-guzzlers any more,
so we may need to increase the CAFE standards as well.
How's that ?
The GWOT was lost as soon as it was declared.
As for Dio's moribund imagination I would suggest treating the whole "terrorism" thing the same way the Europeans treated their long running terrorist problems from the 60's, and 70's...treat it for what it is...a criminal justice issue.
Ouch, that's gotta hurt, but I do understand that the criminal investigation involving evidence collection is not as sexy as sending in the troops in massive drop ships with Hollywood music and staging to make it all seem flashy and successful.
But hey, what are we fighting for if not for the sheer entertainment value of doing something for something sakes while looking really smart and Rambo'ish.
Which makes me wonder what Bush would look like in a Rambo costume with that uber knife at the UN.
Oh yeah, there we go, put Bush in the Rambo costume, and Cheney in the Colonel's costume. Everytime a nation disagrees with Bush, Cheney can growl, "Well, then, you better get some body bags together cause you'll need em."
Of course, we could sex up the criminal investigation of terrorism so the Republicans and Bush can look good too. Call it, "CSI: Gobal." Oh yeah, spot some sexy gals and guys as the investigators, and the Bush White House can make guest appearances to lend it that "real-world" look to it.
In fact I don't really care how they transfer over the whole GWOT to a criminal investigation, but I'm willing to bet it would be a hell of a lot more successful than what is being done now.
Publius pointed out that in a scant sixty years since Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" speech we have gone well down the road to becoming the Romans of the 21st Century only without the cunning and barefaced savagery of the civis Romanus. Our foreign policy seems designed to do global domination on the cheap, except the cheeseparing results aren't mirrored by the Nordstrom's Rack budget. All those cool Cold War weapons...to bomb a bunch of raggedy-assed Islamic neocons back into their mountains?
Puh-leeze.
So I'd take Diogenes' point and stand it on its head: show me ANYone who has been willing to stand up and publicly state the points that JD has made. They're just not there. The reason Diogenes has to get upset is that as a loyal Bushovik he can't escape the fact that all of this clusterfuckery has occurred while his party has controlled the entire mechanism of government, lock, stock and subcommittee. Who cares what the Dems would have done? They've been locked out of the building since 2000. The point is that the Repubs have the comm and they appear to have used it to run the damn ship further aground.
Our republic is drifting, occasionally rubbing against the rocks of bad ideas like torture, secret prisons and calling Muslims "Islamofascists" (just to piss them off, apparently) without anyone I can see willing to shout at the helmsmen to get their heads out of their collective asses.
Sometimes you're just screwed. Perhaps in a hundred years (providing that somehow the American people produces the heretofore-unnoticed gumption to rid their political system of the greedy tax-fattened "consultants" and "lobbyists" that have hollowed it, the partisanly blind true believers that have chosen to cravenly follow their own advantage rather than to speak the truth to power, and the petty hacks that have perverted our national character to divide us in order to win elections) our descendants will look back at these days and grimly shake their heads at the "Wilderness Years" of American politics, wondering how a once great nation could be so blind, so clueless and so mean.
BTW, Tom, QFT.
We will not recover until we figure out a better way to elect our leaders. The largest problem we have is the rise of the job of politician. It would be mice to have people who were more concerned with the fate of their country rather than whether they will be re-elected.
great post, JD.
And Diogenes, you don't have to be a Bush-hater to call a spade a spade and to see factually what's happening in this country. It's a cop-out to start the name calling just because you have no real defense for the shambles this administration has made of this country and of our standing in the world today. What is tragic is the unqualified support that so many Americans have given a man who has done nothing, absolutely nothing, to deserve it except pose as a wanna-be tough guy.
JD is right about this administration. As a Republican I will say that it is the worst ever presidential administration in the 200 plus years of our nation.
I was 18 in 1960 and was too young to vote at that time. But after that I voted for Goldwater (R), Nixon (R) to my shame, Ford (R), Reagan (R), Bush the Elder (R), and Dole (R).
By the year 2000 the former Democrats from Dixie had completely taken over the party of Lincoln. As far as the so-called Neo-Conservatives go: you will find that the older ones were formerly known as Democrats, and the younger ones follow a Neo-Con doctrine that is imppregnated with uber-left-wing liberal dogma.
I never could stomach Bush Junior so in 2000 I still voted the straight GOP ticket at the local level but not at the national level, especially for the guy in the WH. By 2006 my aversion to Junior has turned into what you and yours call Bush-hatred. You are right, I hate the man for what he has done to the Grand Old Party and to our country.
We need a change in Washington. I will be voting for combat veterans up and down the ticket, regardless of Richard's concerns in the previous post. And I will vote for them regardless of their political party as long as they do not support Junior's policies.
Mike
I think they have said that, but its pretty clear it isn't true. We have been building permanent bases in Iraq. I think there has always been a belief that eventually we will get a government willing to give us basing rights.
I see the discussion of muslims as if the defining characteristic of terrorists was their religion. Was Timoty McVeight a Christian terrorist. Would attending your local Episcopal church make it likely you would hear about his plans.
The truth is that Muslim "moderates" are no more likely than we are to be brought into the confidence of the extremists who engage in suicide bombing. In fact, they are the real targets of those extremists as much as we are. The extremists, afterall, are fighting to control Muslim society, not the United States.
We need Muslim moderates to take the lead on fighting our common enemy. That is something that is impossible while we continue to kill them in large numbers both in Iraq and in Lebanon. Its also impossible so long as we assume that they need to be told how to help us, instead of asking them how we can help them.
I must point out something about combat: it does not make you a better representative, senator, or president. Abraham Lincoln was not a combat veteran, but was a pretty effective wartime president in facing the greatest threat to our national existence we have ever encountered (and hopefully, will ever encounter). President Grant was... a GREAT general, not an effective president. Washington? Combat veteran, great president. Jefferson? Not a veteran, great president.
Representative Randy "Duke" Cunningham is a genuine war hero. He is also currently incarcerated and shamed himself and his office by being a crook.
Surviving infantry combat proves one thing: you know how to take cover. It does not mean you suddenly gain greater understanding of foreign policy, economics, Constitutional law, legislative procedure, or diplomacy.
In short, I understand the sentiment about voting for combat veterans, and the Democratic Party is pushing several veterans right now, but I would consider their service as only one factor among many before deciding to cast my vote for them. I would never cast my vote for a combat veteran based solely on that - I have known some really stupid combat veterans in my day.
A lot of us once believed in Mr. Bush. Shows you what judges of character we are, eh? Shame on us. But, as I've learned in life: "Hurt me once, shame on you; hurt me twice, shame on me." At my age, and given the direction in which they've taken my country, Bush's party will likely never again get my vote. This applies to presidential as well as congressional elections. Hell, it even applies to elections for county dog catcher.
I'll put it in very simple words that friend Diogenes can understand: I. do. not. trust. the. Republican. Party. I do not believe the Republican Party is concerned with the best interests of the nation and I further do not believe that actions taken in the so-called "war on terror" are taken without prior calculation as to how best to enrich certain segments of the populace. Period. I should also note that I am joined in my beliefs by the majority of the American people.
Diogenes, quite frankly, the Democrats don't have to do a damned thing to get my vote. I don't like them all that much, but they haven't grievously wounded my nation. I don't care about the Democrats; I want a change.
Diogenes, you may believe whatever you wish. It is rather disappointing, however, to see that someone who appears to have a modicum of intelligence has seemingly slept through the past several years and is still stuck in October 2001. Oh well. You may recall that sometime ago, I suggested a new screen name for you. I really do think "Dionysius" works better.
The majority of democrats voted for war in Iraq. I am not letting them off the hook either. Yes I want change, but it must be positive change. Sen. Lindsay Graham of SC is a right--wing conservative republican in the reddest of red states. He also has publicly challenged the Bush administration since he has been in office. Should you vote for his democratic opponent based only on the fact he is a republican? What if he were running for president against Joe Lieberman - which candidate would result in a change from the current administration's policies? What if Ron Dellums ran for president on a pacifist platform, pledging to eliminate a standing army (he is a pacifist) versus Lincoln Chaffee?
I hate party labels because they reduce everything to a digital world - that is, yes no, on off, right left, right wrong, for against, Hitler Stalin, and smart dumb. But the world we live in is not digital, it is analogue - it is nuanced, filled with shades of grey.
I don't have to choose between Hitler or Stalin. I do not need to choose between right and left. I do not need to choose between democrats and republicans. I need to choose the candidate I think best supports my positions on what is best for this country - and I need to assess which candidate is better based on their positions and their track record, not their party affiliation. Yes, the republicans have a pretty dismal track record, and the incumbents should be held accountable. Yes, I think we would be better off (MUCH better off) if the democrats take control, but not because they are democrats, simply because our survival requires a check on this imperial executive. So I understand and even agree with Publius, but ONLY for this election. The next election should depend on what party has the best ideas at that time.
In short, we should never say never. I can see myself voting for a Republican if I thought it was best for the nation, and Abraham Lincoln was a republican too.
In the particular circumstances of this election, there's
one issue which matters above all else: Congressional
oversight. If Republicans keep control of the House and
Senate, there'll be no oversight, and nothing will change.
Because, let's face it, Bush changes when he absolutely
has to, but never before. Harsh words from McCain and
Hagel won't get rid of Rumsfeld: congressional hearings
and subpoenas from Democrats will. So yes, vote for a
chimpanzee if he'll caucus with Dems and has a chance of winning.
This election is about slamming on the brakes before we
go over the cliff - it isn't a time to worry about nuances.
Even the best of the Republicans have turned out to be enablers for actions that are abhorrent to me. You mention Graham. Sure, he's being a standup guy right now. But what's he been doing for the past five years? McCain is in the same boat. The unfortunate reality is that if you track 'em back, every one of them has actively thrown fuel on the fire that's consuming the nation. Ever wonder why so many of these guys are discovering their cojones and their consciences at the very time the president is at a low in the polls? Coincidence? Ever studied the behavior of predators in packs?
I hold no brief for the Democrats. I'm fully aware of their history. It's just that I don't think they can screw matters up any more. I am with Richard. The need for some sort of oversight is so pressing that all else pales in comparison.
I agree - but only for THIS election.
As I said in my post, The reason I want the democrats to pick up the House is because without a check on this president we may not have another election. Picking up the Senate as well would do more than merely check and balance presidential power, it would force a change to failed policies that are clearly NOT WORKING.
So I can, strangely enough, say that every voter should vote for the Democrats in November and yet NOT be partisan. This is not about R v D or red v blue or right v left. It is about the rule of law and the need to check an out-of-control and dangerous executive. The Republicans have had six years to gain control of this out-of-control president and have not even attempted to do so. Thus we must have a change in Congress or we may never have another opportunity.
But the election after that? Hold democrats accountable just like we should have held the republicans accountable in the past. And recognize that the fact somebody is a republican does not make then unfit for office or a knee-jerk Bush supporter. There are good and bad in both parties. The president is not a typical Republican and has gone against traditional Republican values time and again. Smaller government, states rights, individual freedom, a stronger military, fiscal discipline - all are issues dear to the Republican party, but not Bush. He has expanded government, trampled on states rights, reduced individual freedom, weakened our military, and his spending (and that of this Republican Congress) is simply out-of-control crazy.
So vote for the Dems in November even if the democratic candidate is a retarded monkey - but in 2008 vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation.
Question authority and hold elected officials accountable. That is what the damn Revolution was all about!
Not sure what to replace it with though - maybe something a bit more Westminster'ish.
That being said, if democracy is after all viable, that viability will depend on equal competing forces working towards a consensus that will effectively reveal to the polity the flaws and virtues of each side. Hard to do in best of times, a complete no go right now. Easy to point a finger at Republicans here since the part they have played in killing off intelligent [?] public discourse is obvious - but to me the Democrats are just as much to blame and have failed just as miserably to hold up their end of the democracy bargain.
In keeping with Hobbes, security trumps everything, and Democrats have entirely failed to understand how that dynamic plays out deep in the belly of the beast. And so you have the Republicans, no matter how abysmal their record, still in a position to hold onto congress.
Democracy is not progressive and not rational, it's just less regressive and irrational than the alternatives, and even that modicum of virtue may be in the process of being shown to be untrue. Either way, Republicans understand this, Democrats do not.
The polls the last few months have consistently been showing
Dems with about a 10-point lead in the generic congressional
ballot question. So it isn't that the Dem strategy is
unpopular: the pundits think Republicans can maintain
control only due to the technical obstacles - the power of
incumbency, the shortage of competitive districts due to
redistricting, greater funds for advertising, and a slick
GOTV organization.
Now I will agree with you that the Dems could and should
do better in presenting a coherent alternative. We've
essentially transitioned to a parliamentary system where
the administration and the majority party call all the
shots; but in the Westminster system the opposition party
explicitly presents an alternative, complete with a
"shadow cabinet". The press have to play their part as
well by giving appropriate coverage to the opposition.
The fact that the PM can be forced out at any time - as
very nearly happened to Blair a couple of weeks ago -
makes the game more interesting.
More high school dropouts are now recruited than five years ago. There are fewer "washouts," meaning the Army is holding on to more borderline soldiers, critics say.
Have you noticed the nationwide unemployment rate lately? It's currently BELOW 5%, which has normally been considered the rate of full employment. Considering that military wages in no way compare to the salaries available in the rest of the economy, it's not a surprise that the resource pool of recruits that fall within "desirable levels" has fallen.
Yet.. somehow you've twisted this into some kind of screw-up on Bush's part, instead of placing the blame where it normally resides, economic conditions and employment options. Were unemployment at 6-7%, then I'd grant your comment some credibility, but not when unemployment is at 4.7%.
Thousands of key Army weapons platforms – such as tanks, Humvees, and Bradley Fighting Vehicles – are sitting in disuse at Army maintenance depots for lack of funding.
Yes.. Schoomaker recently asked for additional monies for reconditioning equipment for FY2007. There's no doubt the equipment has been "ridden hard" and requires refurbishment/replacement and it's likely he's going to get the money he needs. I'd like to presume that the majority of this equipment "wear and tear" has reached peak levels after 3 years of use, rather than wondering whether Schoomaker should have been asking for this money last year. Either way.. that a DOD responsibility and it would also seem that Congress cut funding to maintenance programs and that the stated maintenance backlogs could be readily cleared, were the monies made available. But there seems to be a question of what is most fiscally efficient (massive overtime and additional hirings, versus gradual clearing over one to two years).
I read Murtha's comments from the other day, and if you notice they acknowledged that the Army's supply system is running at high efficiency.
But let me make another point here.. You folks are saying that readiness is suffering, and that our soldiers are missing out on training..
HELLLLOOO???!!!!! They are in a combat environment!!! There is no better training for combat than actually BEING INVOLVED IN IT!!
When our soldiers in Iraq go on missions, it isn't a trip to the NTC, or JRTC to play laser tag or interface with role players, they are doing it FOR REAL..
Thus, in terms of actually having a ready force of combat-hardened veterans, both active and reserve, we're at a readiness level we haven't been since Vietnam.
As for increasing the number of Army slots, that's a congressional issue. I'm all for it, but the Navy and Air Force seem to be fighting it.. In fact, the Navy is forming their own Naval "Expeditionary Combat Battallions" (ECB), to compete with the Marines and get their chunk of land warfare mission (and budget). Give me a break!!
As for violence in Iraq, or how did you put it, "internecine civil war"??.. You seem to suggest violence in Iraq is a new thing. Have you forgotten the number of Shi'a and Kurds who were summarily executed by Saddam's regime, and driven from their land? How does this kind of violence differ from what we're seeing today?
In fact, some could cite that the of overall societal violence IS LESS than it was prior to the overthrow of Saddam.
And as I've previously mentioned, the level of violent deaths in Iraq, even if more "spectacular" is not much greater than has been the case in countries such as Colombia and Venezuela, yet neither of those country's governments have fallen. Colombia, with its ongoing battle with FARC has been in an "internecine civil war" for over 3 decades now.
But on the other hand.. 11 million Iraqis dipped their fingers in that ink pot, and cast their ballots for a LEGITIMATELY ELECTED government, for the first time in their lives. And given the history of the Middle East, this is NO SMALL FEAT!!
And democracy in Iraq, or the rest of the mid-east will never resemble that of the west. There will always be a political battle between religious and secular interests, but IMO, the key is that NOW we're seeing the opportunity for the "arab street" to now have an institutionalized voice in their government. And I'll be the first to admit that the jury is still out as to whether democractic reforms have a snowball's chance in hell of taking root in the region. But I'm betting that Arabs, being notoriously independent (at least outside of their tribes/clans) will not readily relinquish their new-found grass-roots political power.
Now.. North Korea.. What exactly would you have Mr. Bush do about this? Y'all savaged him for supposedly acting unilaterally against Saddam and "defying" those countries who wanted to perpetuate fruitless inspections and negotiations.. Ye when he refuses to hold bi-lateral negotiations with the "dear son", but rather adher to acting within a multi-national committee involving all countries neighboring NK, y'all b*tch and moan again...
Face it. your complaints aren't really about the strategy in dealing with despots, it's about opposing anything Bush pursues. No matter what Bush does, it's the wrong thing. And I understand.. that's how the political game is played. But, at least, be man enough to admit that you're playing a political game..
I still wonder exactly what we should do about NK that we haven't done already.. We can continue to isolate the regime, but if China is not going to hold up their end of the bargain, any sanctions regime is going to be inherently "leaky". And the repercussions of a nuclear armed NK (and increasingly irrational and unstable regime) may lead other countries in the region to opt for nuclear deterrence. So what would you all have the US do? Invade NK? Attempt to assassinate Kim Jong Il??
Taliban.. The recent "peace treaty" (loya jirga) in Pakistan may have place pressure upon the Afghani Taliban to return to Afghanistan. This may be what is accounting for the increasing presence of Taliban forces. If that is the case, then it might just mean that Pakistan's tribes have agreed to no longer offer sanctuary to the Taliban forces. We'll have to wait and see.. Winter is coming up soon and these people are going to be looking for a place to live.. If they can't force Karzai out of power, they may be forced to come to terms and peacefully enter the government as a "loyal" political party.
Loya Jirga in Pakistan
Opium.. what can we say.. this is nothing new and even the Taliban were involved in warehousing opium. They may have cut the production of it, but they certainly didn't destroy it.. they basically reduced supply and cornered the market. And don't forget that the Taliban had just outlawed the production of opium a year prior to our overthrowing them, largely due to the increase in the power of the Northern Alliance, who gained control over much of the opium production in the north. Prior to this, the Taliban had been quite content to tax opium production. And production had been so "good" that the price of Opium had fallen to $44/kilo prior to the ban. Just prior to 9/11 opium was selling for up to $700/kilo:
Drugs in Afghanistan
UBL.. Yes.. UBL is still on the run.. as is Ayman Zawahiri. But over 2/3rds of Al Qai'da's command structure prior to 9/11 has been captured/killed and this country has NOT suffered another major terrorist incident since (knock on wood).
And it's funny.. you're worried about "internecine civil war" in Iraq, but you're apparently willing to risk ALL-OUT civil war in nuclear armed Pakistan in order to capture UBL?? Well, I'm not..
I'd love to have the bastard in Gitmo just as much as anyone else, but this is going to have to be a decision of the Pakistani tribal leaders and Musharraf as to what his eventual disposition will be. I have a sense that he will be permitted to remain in Pakistan, but only under the condition that he keeps his mouth shut and no longer speaks for Al Qai'da. But admittedly, I have little basis for that belief. But isn't it slightly odd that Ayman Zawahiri has taken on a much more public face as a leader of Al Qai'da??
The president has recently admitted that Iraq had no ties to Al Queda
Guess I missed that.. could you please document..
I know the Senate intelligence committee had such a report, but I don't believe Bush has concurred with it.
And I KNOW that I DON'T CONCUR.. I saw too much documentation ESTABLISHING such a relationship (although Saddam wanted that relationship to remain highly secret) to believe otherwise.
And you would have us believe that all of this Jihadist Islamic militancy that arrose in Iraq after Saddam's overthrow was spontaneous and not suggestive of previous ties to Jihadist groups during Saddam's regime..
And you'd have us believe that the observed presence Ba'thist IIS officers in the Jihadist insurgency is just a spontaneous reaction.. You'd have us believe that, presumably secular Ba'thist IIS and SSO officers, being vetted for their party loyalty, would suddenly change their political spots, toss aside all of their Ba'thist ideology, and hop on the Jihad bandwagon?? I find that rather hard to believe.. Thus, it's pretty apparent to me that Jihadists/Islamic militants had infiltrated and gained control over the IIS/SSO, presumably with the consent of Saddam as a "quid pro quo" for their support and non-interference with his right to rule.
I mean JD.. Explain to me why Umar Hadid, (lion of Fallujah, or "snaggle-tooth" as we referred to him), BEING A FORMER BODYGUARD OF SADDAM HUSSEIN suddenly becomes the right hand man to Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi?? Are you trying to tell us that Saddam didn't know about the zealous religious militancy of his own bodyguard?
And Hadid is just ONE, of many, former Ba'thist apparatchiks who are (were) Al Qai'da/Ansar Al-Sunna cell leaders.
Al Queda hates all secular regimes in Islamic nations, including Saddam's Iraq
I'm sorry.. that dog just don't hunt.. I showed you the documents linking Saddam DIRECTLY to Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad group as early as 1993, where he ordered the IIS to support the hunt for Americans in Somalia.
If he's involved with EIJ, he's involved with one of the co-founders of Al Qai'da.. HELLOOOO??? Can you say SMOKING GUN??!! No.. I guess you can't because you don't want to acknowledge the facts.
The commander of Fort Eustis recently admitted that the Army was ordered not to plan for the post-war occupation of Iraq, and that when Army leaders continued to argue with Secretary Rumsfeld over the critical need for a post-war plan, he threatened to fire the next person that mentioned the subject.
Then get this guy to testify before congress, substantiate his assertions and let's get rid of Rumsfeld. Sounds pretty simple to me..
NSA wire-taps and CIA interrogations.. We'll we've been over all that issue.
Iraqi troops are now digging trenches around Baghdad.
Whatever it takes to secure and control that city, IMO.
In fact, one of our best successes in the early part of the war was encircling some unruly Iraqi villages with concertina wire and forcing all residents to enter/exit via checkpoints. We were able to ascertain very quickly who was coming and going.. If that is what it's going to take to get a handle on this insurgency, then so be it.
The largest reorganization of the federal government in history resulted in the Department of Homeland Security and a massive increase in the federal payroll.
As I recall, the Democrats were the ones pushing for DHS, as well as consolidation of airport screeners on the Federal payroll. There's the explanation for your increase. Do you feel safer now??
The largest surplus in US history has turned into the largest deficit in US history.
Oh yeah? Then why did the US nation debt increase during the period of that "surplus". Take a look at the far right column (total national debt) from 1996 to today:
National Debt
The only surplus was in SS Trust Fund revenues. But the Democrats would have you believe that they were going to put that surplus into a "lock box" (remember that?) when in fact, the only place SSTF revenues can be invested is in US Government Debt. Which means that when you run a surplus in SS/FICA tax revenues, you're increasing the national debt.
Btw, the US government just had a historical quarter for tax revenue:
US Treasury Sets New 1-Day Tax Receipt Record Of $85.8 Billion
Record one day tax revenue for US government
Forgive my confusion, but I just don't see it. Can anybody explain how this administration is effective, productive, and making America safer than other options we had, and have? In short, is this the "course" that we must "stay on" in order to be secure?
I'm always open to viable alternatives.. Please feel free to provide as many you can..
Btw, please note that not once did I allude to any information provided in a Bush speech, such as the one he made before the UN yesterday.
But I will say that FINALLY he made the smart move of taking that opportunity to speak directly to the Iranian people and essentially speaking past the current regime in that country.
Diogenes
Look, JD's post presented a number of facts, and it asked
a question. If you're unahppy with it, you could try
making this thread more "informative and reasoned" by
either disputing some of the facts - e.g. do the "readiness"
statistics mean as much as JD thinks ? Are we in as bad a
security position as he suggests ? - or else you could try
to answer his question - if you think the administration has
been doing a good job, explain it to us. I loathe this
administration, but even I canmake a stab at it: firstly,
there aven't been any more terrorist attacks onS soil;
secondly, a large proportion of Al Qaida's majoe leaders
have been detained and its ability to carry out major
operations is greatly reduced; thirdly, the Taliban is out
of power and Afghanistan has a somewhat democratic
government supported by an international force. Go on,
make an *effort* here we can't have a debate if one
side won't even show up.
I'll even suggest the outlines of an approach Bush could
take which I believe would be both substantively and
politically (for Republicans) wise:. Here's the speech.
"My fellow Americans. As I have told you, we are engaged
in a long and difficult struggle with violent Islamists.
In some aspects of this struggle we have made great
progress; but in others we are encountering difficulties.
This will be a long and hard road; it will require
sacrifices from all of us; and I realize now that it will
require the best efforts not just of those in my own
party, but also of Americans of all parties and our
friends in other nations. Accordingly I have asked
Secretary Rumsfeld and Secretary Rice to resign. They
have labored mightily in tis struggle, but in this new
phase of the conflict we need new ideas. I have asked
Senator Hagel to accept the position of Secretary of
Defense, and former President Bill Clinton to serve as
my Secretary of State: with his wide experience and
knwledge of the Mddle East and his long-standing personal
relationship with many leaders there, I am confident
that he will help bring together all nations of the region
to find agreements which can satisfy our shared desires
for peace, prosperity, and security for that troubled
region. Furthermore, I have asked Senator Kerry, with his
valuable military and prosecutorial experience, to take
charge of the intelligence-gathering, legal, and military
operations involved in hunting down the remaining members
of Al Qaida wherever they might be, and bringing them to
public trial where the world can be shown the enormity
of ther guilt.
This is a time for us to come together as Americans and
put the past behind us. I am roud to be the leader of
ths great nation and ill do my utmost to fulfill the
trust which you, the American people, have placed in me.
God Bless America"
What do you reckon ? How could Clinton or Kerry refuse ?
But then if they succeed, Bush looks smart for putting
country above party and choosing the best men for the job;
and if they fail - well, ten Iraq is no longer a
Republican war, but a fully bipartisan disaster. It also
instantly makes Clinton and Kerry the most visible
Democrats, while also taking Kerry out of the running for
the 2008 nomination, and thus leaves all other Dem
aspirants looking like pygmies who are out of the loop.
If you want to put the icing on the cake, you also co-opt
Gore to run an effort for energy conservation and
alternative energy sources - his favorite wonkish issue.
Bush's ego would never allow him to do this, but it's
nice to dream. Call it "Bush-goes-FDR".
The fact that the current chief of staff of the Army had to be recalled from retirement is damning and indicative of the problems between the Rumsfeld Pentagon and the US Army officer corps
The thought at the time, as I understand it, was Schoomaker's career as a "snake-eater" and his being much more "tuned in" to what is required to wage a asymmetric war, as opposed to the "big-ticket" generals who believe every problem requires an expensive sledgehammer.
The conflict over "clarifying" common article III of the Geneva Conventions is not a left/right conflict but an internal conflict between the Republican-controlled Congress and the President. Many Republicans oppose the president on this issue, and I doubt they are doing so in order to further the goals of moveon.org or the democratic party in general.
I would concur, to a certain extent.. Even I acknowledge it's an uncomfortable issue to discuss. But I think it's forcing the American people to review their perceptions about using harsh interrogation methods against terrorists in the interest of PRESERVING AND SAFEGUARDING lives.. Ask the average person if they would justify the use of "surf-boarding" if it might successfully obtain information about a terrorist plot and you're not going to find many that would oppose it.
If we'd captured Muhammad Atta prior to 9/11 when he abandoned that aircraft on the runway and matched that with other information we had about plots to terrorists being trained as pilots, do you think the average American would have opposed shipping him home to the tender mercies of the Egytian interrogators??
Hardly..
I don't like the idea of harsh interrogation techniques anymore than the average person.. I find it personally demeaning to our human spirit. But were I an interrogator who's failure to extract the information needed to prevent an terrorist resulted in the loss of thousands of lives, I think I'd probably never be able to forgive myself for that failure.
Stop feeling so sorry for the terrorists JD.. They know the game they are involved in. And they know the repercussions of being guilty of violating every tenet of the Geneva Conventions via their terrorist acts.
Think more about how they treat THEIR prisoners.. Think about the beheadings, the mutilations.. the gratuitous torture, the forced religious conversions..
Think about how all this could change were they only to sign, and abide by, the Geneva Conventions and deny us any reason to use harsh interrogation methods against them. Because abiding by the GC would deny them the right to conduct terrorist attacks against innocent civilians..
are claiming that the federal emergency relief effort in New Orleans was competent and well-managed.
I guess you'd have to ask Mr. "Make New Orleans Chocolate Again" Nagin about that.. He, and the Governor of Louisiana, are the ones who need to identify and facilitate relief efforts being offered by FEMA. It's not the place of the Federal Government to overthrow the authority of the state and local officials.
I think I am impartial and objective when it comes to our national security, and I think this adminstration has harmed, not helped, our national security.
Yet.. no one can provide viable alternatives!! It's all just "b*tch and moan", but no one is willing to but their political bollocks on the chopping block by telling the American people how they would do things differently...
Let's face some facts here.. Saddam Hussein should have been ovethrown in 1991 when there was the clear, moral jusitification to do so. But we, in the interest of "peace" and foolishly thinking he would be overthrown internally, we permitted him to remain in power, thereby setting a very dangerous precedent related to state on state aggression. And finally that required us to do what we should have done 13 years earlier.
The truth, JD, has many facets depending upon from which angle you're perceiving it. For me, the truth is that by invading Iraq and making it a battlefield between moderates and Jihadist forces, we've clearly placed Al Qai'da in the position of having to kill fellow muslims in order to advance their political/religious agenda.
And every muslim death at the hands of an Islamo-Fascist Jihadist is one more abomination against the muslim umma. Maybe it's a machiavellian strategy, but I think it's one that's going to work over time. At the very least, it's likely to stiffen the spine of moderate muslims who will, over the long term, begin to perceive that Islamo-Fascism is as much of a threat their security and prosperity, as is is to the west.
And ultimately, the "GWOT" is going to be won by Moderate Muslims, not the US.
Hawk
Damn right he was.. And so was Eric Rudolph.. And I'd be happy to see them "water-boarded" if it meant preventing another terrorist plot from victimizing more innocent people.
And I'm like Bush to stand up and tell the world the same thing. He took a small step yesterday at the UN to make such a statement but I think he could have re-emphasized the point. In fact, he should have amplified on the point in order to clearly state that our war is against militant Islamists who believe they have the right to use violence to spread their religious beliefs.
We need Muslim moderates to take the lead on fighting our common enemy. That is something that is impossible while we continue to kill them in large numbers both in Iraq and in Lebanon. Its also impossible so long as we assume that they need to be told how to help us, instead of asking them how we can help them.
Gotta disagree with you there on the latter part (although I definitely agree we need moderate muslims to step up to the plate)... the majority of muslims being killed in Iraq are the victims of other muslims.
It's pretty clear to me that the only way to get moderate muslims to take the lead in confronting Islamic militants is to make them have a vested interest in doing so. They would never be motivated to take such a stance were there very lives not on the line.
As for Lebanon, well.. Israel has essentially drawn a line in the sand and is now holding the Lebanese government directly responsible for any future attacks upon Israel by ANY group, including Hizbullah.
Diogenes
Think more about how they treat THEIR prisoners.. Think about the beheadings, the mutilations.. the gratuitous torture, the forced religious conversions.."
This is not about "feeling sorry for the terrorists" and it's
not about what the terrorists deserve. Here's what it's
about:
1) What kind of people are we ? Are we torturers, or not ?
If we torture, then we're torturers, period. And we
lose all moral standing to criticize other contries
such as China for their own human rights abuses.
2) Does the USA adhere to its Constitution and its
international treaties ? Because we signed the
Geneva Conventions, we can't wriggle out of it in the
middle of a conflict, and Common Article 3 applies to
all detainees. If we aren't going to honor that, why
would anyone ever trust the USA to honor any other
treaty ?
3) Torture doesn't work. Experienced interrogators say
over and over again that the use of "harsh" techniques
gets people to say whatever they think you want to
hear. And then you waste effort chasing your own
tail as the victims confirm all your own worst fears
and wildest speculations.
4) Once you've got a team of experienced torturers and
all their equipment, wouldn't it be tempting to use
them for other stuff ? I mean, those drug smugglers
are bad guys, right ? And the Mafia ? And child
abusers. And murderers. And muggers. And man, those
jaywalkers need to be taught a lesson. And IRS audits,
now those would go so much smoother with just a little
coercion.
So I'll tell you where we draw the line: No cruel or
unusual puinishment. No cruel, inhumane, or degrading
treatment of detainees. Stick to the spirit of Article 3,
not just a contorted interpretation of the letter.
Yes, but we can still be killing "a large number" even if
it isn't "the majority".
I'd like to think we were the kind of people who were more concerned about preventing innocent people from being murdered by terrorists, than we were in safe-guarding the rights of their prospective (or actual) murderers.
If that involves harsh interrogation techniques, wrapping them in bacon, or handing them a Snickers Bar and a Cigarette.. I really don't care.
All of your moral values will mean nothing if they fail to obtain the information necessary to tear down these terrorist networks and their financial and logistical support.
And yeah.. we're going to agree to disagree.. But I'm not running for political office here. And just as there is no greater love than someone willing to die so that other's may live, I think that can be principle can be applied to those who are willing to die inside (or risk going to hell) so that others might never have to suffer from a terrorist act.
Btw, I do caveat that if the detainee is a US citizen, then that's a wholely different matter. However, if he's a big-wig in the terrorist network and clearly possesses operational information, then so be it if he gets water boarded.. Innocent lives are at stake..
Diogenes
Case in point, Diogenes.
So I took will be voting Democratic down the bloc, cause I want the investigations to be done. My hope, and it seems to be founded well in the Dem's party discussion, that they seek full and unvarnished discoveries of the Bush administrations behaviors, decisions, and actions.
For Diogenes rabid fanaticism, that would be called "accountability."
Accountability, the result of an individual be called to account for decisions, good or bad, that were made. Bush has never been held accountable, and thus has never held his subordinates accountable.
Well, with this election, I hope it will be called "The day the American electorate held the President of the United States Accountable."
I don't want Mr. Bush impeached, no, that would be...so Nixonian, and somehow I feel it a disservice to Mr. Nixon to be lumped with Mr. Bush.
Rather, I want the whole thing mess of Bush and Cheney's decisions to be uncovered. I want Cheney to howl...alright, growl his indignation at being held accountable. I want him to see his precious vision of a unfettered President, unaccountable to anyone, being shackled by the Constitution, and the Congress which he so despises.
I want Rumsfeld's political head on a pike, and paraded through Washington DC. Enough said about him.
But once we, and that we, Diogenes, would be the We The American People, have regained control of our Government, we should abolish the political party system. Too much has occured with these two piles of crap and I hold strongly to the idea that we might want to think about selecting a group of individuals for "appointment," ie. lottery, and then the nation votes for those they deem acceptable enough to represent them.
I think this would have the benefit of relieving us of career politicians, and bring us back full round to having a government that isn't beholdened to corporate interests or k street interests.
Really ? Al Qaida hit the US in 1993 and killed what, 6
people. They hit again 8 years later and killed 3000. If
they hit us again in another year or two and kill 100
people or even 10000 people, that's a small price to pay
for staying true to our word. Besides which, even for
people like yourself who are prepared to torture if it
works, face the goddam facts and admit that it doesn't work.
It doesn't work! IT DOESN'T WORK!! Information obtained through torture is garbage. And regimes that torture
don't do it as an effective investigative technique: they
do it to scare and terrorize people into submission.
Military wages for HS graduates outpace civilian wages, and there are massive recruiting bonuses to boot ($40,000 is a lot of money). I will leave it to readers to decide if the lowered recruiting standards for the all-volunteer military - in its fourth decade - is due to the "great" economy.
Combat readiness actually decreases in a combat environment. The best training for combat is not combat, it is hard and realistic peacetime training where mistakes are not fatal. Most combat veterans will tell you that. Doing it the first time for REAL is not the best way to learn, and is usually fatal. We don't send troops to the NTC to "play laser tag," they go there for an intense and realistic training event - and they are more ready for combat after the rotation than before. If your premise - that combat is the best training environment - were true, then the Afghan militias would be the most effective force on any battlefield. I hope you are not suggesting that we reduce training before a combat deployment even more than we already have. It is a myth that units become better in combat - they don't. That is why military history is full of "fresh troops" being rushed to the battlefield - because the troops already fighting were worn out. Like our Army today. Worn the hell out.
I agree. The year 1973 seems an apt comparison - we seem to be heading toward that level of readiness. FYI - that wasn't very ready.
Are we blaming this rubber-stamp Congress now? Fine, but please explain why the Quadrennial Defense Review (prepared by the Executive branch) requests a cut in Army end-strength. Also please point out a single defense appropriations bill that the president has requested that Congress has turned down in the last four years. Please. Then we can shift blame from our "wartime president."
You are staggeringly ill-informed. Please read a newspaper - any paper - or watch a news program - even Fox news - before making such a suggestion again. FYI: the violence is worse than ever before, and more Iraqis have died in the last three years than were killed by Saddam in the preceding fifteen or more. Saddam was a bastard, but Iraqis are well aware they are not better off today then they were under Saddam. They are now more likely to suffer violent death and torture than under Saddam, and meanwhile the economy has ground to a halt.
How does this make the United States more secure? I am all for democracy, but I doubt it can be imposed at the point of a bayonet very easily, and I thought national security was about OUR security and well-bieng, not that of Iraq.
I would have him do what is neccesary to prevent North Korea obtaining a nuclear weapon, even including the use of force. We invaded Iraq on the specter of phantom weapons that the administration knew were unlikely to exist. Yes, "we" (the American people) have "issues" with that. North Korea presented a real, actual threat, and nothing has been done at all. Yes, we are "b*itching" and "moaning" about that as well. We expect the president of the United States to improve, not harm, our national security. North Korea now has the bomb, and it did not have to happen. We are much, much less secure under the Bush administration than we were before. Clinton prevented North Korea getting the bomb, Bush did not. He should have, and I say that without caring a fig about which party Mr. Bush heads.
That is an easy thing to say, and hard to refute since it makes the speaker the issue rather than the issue itself. It doesn't matter, however, because I didn't attack Bush, I listed undisputed, verifiable facts, and then asked if we are better off in terms of national security. Your response, again, is to tell me I am merely engaging in politics. Fine, but you didn't answer the question. If you believe we are better off, make your case. You seem to be trying, but I don't see you succeeding. That is because the truth is not partisan, and the truth is that we are less secure and more vulnerable, and the situation is getting worse, not better.
Sadly, for six years that seems to be correct. We can certainly agree on that.
Yes, I am worried about our troops in Iraq and about the Iraqi people. You got me there. Yes, I am willing to risk war with Pakistan in order to track down all involved in 9/11. You got me there again. Yep.
WRONG ANSWER. I don't care what Musharraf or some tribal leader thinks at all, Osama should be hunted down wherever he is and captured and THEN killed. Your respect for sovereignty and democracy seems very selective. Remember Iraq? That nation that didn't have anything to do with 9/11, the one we invaded? Geez. Pakistan is not a democracy, and I don't care if Osama is in Canada, we should send troops and get him.
Yes sir. Here is the link. Does this change any opinions you have? My guess is no.
Your claims that Saddam helped "found" al Qaeda, etc. are, to say the least, unsubstantiated. I won't discuss fringe conspiracy theories that even the White House won't attempt to push.
Much like your assertion that there was no surplus and, incredibly, your seeming claim that our government finances are better off today, or your assertion that the democratic party is somehow to blame for the poor FEMA response in New Orleans. Again, read a paper. man.
There were loyal Nazis that believed Hitler had a secret plan and was sucking the allies in so that he could destroy them - even as late as March of 1945. There were confederates that believed the confederacy should hold out, even if it had to move to Cuba or central America. Some people refuse to face reality. I think you are one of those people. If facts challenge your preconceived notions and opinions, well, you simply ignore the facts. When challenged by facts, you assume the speaker is merely trying to attack your positions for partisan purposes, rather than pointing out that your positions are flawed. Hope is not a method, and you can really, really, really believe in Santa Claus, but he isn't coming down that chimney. We are worse off, Virginia, because there is no Santa Claus, or WMDs in Iraq, or any viable plan to improve our national security. We are worse off than we were the day after 9/11, and it is getting worse.
Oh, and "surf-boarding" is not torture. It is also not water-boarding, which sure as hell is.
Right. If they do bad things, well, then we can do bad things, just not quite as bad.
Hitler put 12 million people to death in extermination camps. If we put 2 million to death in extermination camps, I guess that would be ok with you? I never thought our ethics were based on what our sworn enemies were doing. You seem to. You are wrong. There is no discussion here, and no other legitimate point of view. Torture is wrong (even if, yes, that bomb is ticking) and only Nazis, Stalinists, Imperial Japanese, Saddam, and other assorted baddies thought it was acceptable. We, as a nation, do not accept torture as legitimate, and if you do, please leave. I hope and pray those Americans foolish enough to think torture is ok in this war are held accountable for their actions in a court of law. Our nation spoke when we ratified the convention on torture and the Geneva Conventions. It is US law, and it is not fit to even discuss any exceptions. Period. We are not Nazis. We do not torture - and those who do so in our name should be placed in a small cell in Leavenworth for an extended period of time.
But then again, I am feeling sorry for Osama, remember?
So Dio thinks we HAD to invade Iraq, and even suggests that it will help us win the war on terror by "stiffen[ing] the spine of moderate muslims who will, over the long term, begin to perceive that Islamo-Fascism is as much of a threat their security and prosperity, as is is to the west."
Dio, please call when the shuttle lands.
Actually, Lincoln was a militiaman called up during the Blackhawk War, if I recall. He didn't see any action, but he was in uniform.
LBJ was something of a self-styled combat hero, and he proved an abject failure as Commander in Chief.
Teddy Roosevelt, on the other hand, was a bonafide combat hero (later awarded the MOH) and a brilliant wartime strategist who greatly increased American power globally.
See also Churchill, Winston, on another continent, and Truman on ours.
Roosevelt's kin, FDR, turned out to be a very fine CIC, albeit with no previous military service (but a spin as undersecretary of the Navy during war).
Nixon was a veteran of the South Pacific, so too Kennedy, and they had mixed foreign policy ventures. Nixon succeeded with his Chinese diplomacy and set the groundwork for Carter's Middle East strategy. Kennedy gave us the Bay of Pigs and escalation in Vietnam, but on the whole was a far, far, far better leader than the Quaker-turned-warrior Nixon.
What is unique to 21st Century politics is that there are so few combat vets in political life, making policy. It would've been considered absurd 30 years ago for a major political candidate to not have fought in WWII.
Carter broke that mold as a younger, Cold Warrior engineer from the submarine fleet.
Smaller, murkier wars produced far fewer potential candidates for future political office. Kerry is an outlier not because he served in the Senate, but because he served in Vietnam, where the Venns don't exactly merge into a fat sphere, do they? Tragically, he based much of his campaign solely on that salient fact, and opened himself up to some Swifting.
Nice guy, though. I'll always like the fellow.
Al Gore, Jr., is a hilarious (but tragic) case of what happens when you're drafted, don't avoid service, and have an anti-Nixon father who loses election. You get your ass sent to 'Nam!
If your war hero father, instead, rises through the ranks of Texas oil barons to become a highly effective politician, neither you nor your siblings will fight in 'Nam.
Enter W. I don't fault him for his decision to join the Guard. I tend not to judge people for forgoing life-endangering combat, most certainly for wars of which I wasn't old enough to experience.
That doesn't mean, however, his policies (or, those of his generals) aren't open for debate. They are.
I'd just like to see more honest "solutions" advanced by lawmakers on all sides to the current state of affairs in Mesopotamia.
2) I would ask Digoenes what level of depravity is too high a price to pay for information? Because he is right again. The logic of torture, once adopted, can be applied to all sorts of situations, including domestic political opponents, if you think the benefits are great enough.
3) As for the innocent lives that might be saved, I don't accept that as the definitive argument. None of our lives will be saved, we are all going to die. And there are things that are worth dying for and there are things worth letting other people die for. Not using torture is one of them.
If I drop a dozen eggs on the floor is it your responsibility to clean up the mess? If you offer possible ways to help should I stand there and tell you, "Shut your piehole traitor! No one could've anticipated the kind of splatter we now have on the floor. Since it's there now we have no choice but to stay the course and watch it get progessively more rotten." And by this I mean, what is the Republican's plan? Stay the course? Adapt to win? They have plenty of slogans and soundbites but precious few actual engageable plans.
This is not an endorsement, just an item for consideration:
Democrat's Plan
For example, here is the plan for Iraq:
Ok, I like the part about holding the Bush Administration accountable, but what kind of plan is "ensur[ing] 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for securing and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces"? First, 2006 is nearly over, so don't they mean 2007 - or do they expect to make a change in policy in 2006 when, if the Democrats do take back the House, they won't actually take over until 2007? And what does this soundbite really say? It says "stand down as the Iraqis stand up." That sounds eerily similar to some other party's plan in Iraq... wait, it will come to me, right on the tip of my tongue.... Then, after this "bold" plan that says the same thing as Bush, it also says US troops should redeploy. Ok, great, it is always assumed that when we fight the troops should come home afterwards - but this does not say we will win before coming home. It doesn't say what "win" means. It does not define victory or change strategy at all. It is a double-talk plan simply to get the hell out. Fine, if that is what the American people want we can always abandon Iraq and pretend we aren't responsible for the Srebenica-style ethnic cleansing that ensues, so terrible that it makes present-day Iraq with all of its death and destruction look positively peaceful. But have the balls to say what you mean if you want to proclaim a "bold" plan and call it a "s