What Went Wrong? |
2007-02-27 |
This is not an essay about Bernard Lewis, or his ideas. I bring him up because the same question keeps spinning around in my head these days, only now with a different subtitle: "What Went Wrong? Islamist Impact And Western Response". When I look around me at the world we got, the world we created after 2001, that's the question I keep coming back to: What went wrong? The question nags me all the more because I was part of it, swept along with all the currents that took us from the ruins of the World Trace center through the shameful years that followed. Iraq, the war on terror, the new European culture war.
This mirror of "What Went Wrong" wouldn't be a story on the same scale, but it has the main theme in common. It would be about Westerners who had their reality bubble pricked by people from an alien culture, and spent the next couple of years stumbling about like idiots, unable to deal rationally with this new reality that had forced itself on them. Egging each other on, they predicted, interpreted, and labelled - and legislated and invaded. They saw clearly, through beautiful ideas. And they were wrong.
Who were these people? They were us. "Us"? This seemed a lot clearer at the time. Us were the people who acknowledged the threat of Islamist terrorism, who had the common sense to see through the multicultural fog of words, and the moral courage to want to change the world by force. It included politicians like George W. Bush and Tony Blair, it included the new European right, it included brave and honest pundits, straight-talking intellectuals in the enlightenment tradition.
And then there were people like me, who labelled ourselves "warbloggers", and called our friends "anti-idiotarians". Phew, all those labels! Now, anyone who knows me knows that I've been drifting away from where I started for years. They're going to laugh if I pretend that I've ever been an Islamophobe, or that I was among the most eager of the Bush supporters, and use that to claim special insights into these people. Some of the ideas I criticize I believed for a long time, some for a short time, and some I never liked at all.
And by "us" I don't mean that everyone thought alike, I mean that there was an identity based on an unspoken agreement about who were "ok" and who weren't. And - God help me - I was ok. I haven't been for a while now, but it's only recently I've realized just how little there's left of what I believed five years ago. Our worldview had three major focus points - Iraq, terrorism and Islam - and we were wrong about all of them.
Iraq
There aren't many people left who believe that it was a good idea for the US, Britain and their coalition to invade Iraq in 2003. At least fifty thousand Iraqis dead, (or a hundred, or several hundred), maybe two million refugees, and who knows how many more when the Americans finally give up and leave. Supporters of the war have dropped off one by one, for different reasons. Some neo-conservative intellectuals believe that the plan was good, but that George W. Bush screwed it up. There might be something to this. With smarter people in charge, the odds might have been better. But this assumes that a smarter administration would have embraced their plan to invade Iraq in the first place. I don't think it would, and I think the blame belongs with the thinkers who pushed for war, as much as the officials who carried it out.
Every war must have a war party, a group that actively tries to sell war to the government and to the public. For Iraq, that war party was us - neo-conservative intellectuals, and pundits and bloggers who were sympathetic to them. Without all these people arguing for war, legitimizing it, begging for it, an invasion would have been difficult.
Anyone who argues for war plays with dangerous forces, so they must do it responsibly or not at all. Foolish wars have led countries to disaster. They have caused the deaths of millions. History and psychology tells us that war parties tend to be over-confident, paranoid and emotional. So the minimum you should expect from a responsible war supporter is that they are aware of this bias, and do their best to counterbalance it.
It's not enough to believe that you are right. You have to be actively open-minded, you have to listen to your critics, and encourage devil's advocates. You have to set up a robust information structure that makes it as difficult as possible for you to ignore reality. This is the only good way to prevent self-deception. It works. And we did not do it.
What we did was the opposite. At every level, from the lowliest blogger to the highest official, war supporters set up filters that protected them from facts they did not want to hear. We saw what we wanted to see, and if anyone saw differently, we called them left-wing moonbats who were rooting for the other side. We defined the entire mainstream media establishment as irrelevant, leaving more biased, less experienced "new" media as our primary source of facts. We ignored reasonable critics, and focused on the crazy ones, so that we could tell ourselves how incredibly smart we were.
Among the bloggers there was a sense that there were all these brilliant people, who knew so much about history, war and society, who had previously been without the tools to express themselves. Thanks to the wonders of amateur media, we could now finally exploit this huge reservoir of expert knowledge. And when you contrasted the lazy neutrality of the old media with the energy of the new, it certainly could seem that way. Here were people who regularly would write thousands of words about the historical context of Islamist terrorism, who could write brilliantly about freedom and democracy, who commented boldly on the long trends of history. How could such people be wrong?
But what we saw was not expert knowledge, but the well-written, arrogantly presented ideas of half-educated amateurs. This, too, went all the way from the bottom to the top. It often struck us how well the writing of the best of the bloggers measured up to that of pro-war pundits and intellectuals. We thought this showed how professional the amateurs were, when what it really told us was how amateurish the professionals were.
And so we came to believe that we could invade Iraq and plant the seeds of a new, democratic Middle East. Yes yes there were also the nukes, but we saw beyond that, towards a spring of freedom that would delegitimize terrorism and fanaticism all over the region. Some people will tell you that they never pretended this would be easy, that they always knew it might not work. There are no certain outcomes, and if you have a good chance of success, that chance is worth taking, even if it doesn't end well. Also many argued - and I think I may have been one of them - that instability would be a good thing for the Middle East. The stability of these authoritarian and extremist regimes was precisely the problem. A little chaos would only do the region good.
When I think of this chaos argument today I am struck with horror at the stupidity of it. There's no secret about what happens when a state collapses. It might go well, but when it doesn't, there is no upper limit to how badly it can go. Millions of people may die. Fanatics and sadists fight their way to the top, trampling the weak down beneath them. In our vision of a liberated Baghdad, we saw the beginning of a new Eastern Europe. Now, I have nightmares of Congo, Rwanda, Angola, Uganda, Algeria, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Lebanon, Afghanistan.
As for the chance of success, what gave us the idea that we could estimate this? There are some now who say that even if the war supporters got a lot of things wrong, so did the opponents, so there you go, that's uncertainty for you. Everyone was wrong, but at least we were on the side of freedom, and they were on Saddam's. But that's just not true. The opponents were right. They said this was extremely risky, they said it might result in countless deaths and instability. They got a lot of details wrong, but that's just the point. For the Iraq invasion to go right, war supporters had to get many predictions right. Opponents knew that if any of those predictions were wrong, the whole thing could fail. So the smart choice was to be cautious.
War opponents said a lot of things that were stupid, cynical and deluded. Some war supporters find comfort in this, I don't. The opponents were, on the whole, right. We were wrong, and people in Iraq will pay for this mistake for a long time.
Terrorism
The war on terrorism has not been a disaster, but there too we went wrong. And not just Iraq war supporters. This mistake crossed party lines and infected mainstream thought through most of Europe and North America. We got the threat wrong, and we got the response to it wrong.
Right after September 11, civil liberties activists warned us not to overreact. Attacks like these, they said, were a classic threat to individual freedom. We had to make sure that we didn't fall into xenophobic hysteria and authoritarian solutions. We listened to this, we nodded, and then we all went ahead and ignored it.
There were of course no anti-Muslim riots, no massacres, no overt authoritarian measures. But everyone agreed that terrorism was such a large threat that we had to give the state new powers to fight it. The most extreme examples were the cases of torture by proxy and imprisonment without trial by the US, but all over the West there has been a new wind of authority. Some argued that freedom of speech should be restricted for Muslim extremists, others that the police needed more powers of surveillance.
The British CCTV system, built partly in response to IRA attacks, shows how eagerly people may trade freedom for security. All it takes is a permanent climate of fear, and the calm, soothing voice of authority telling you it knows how to make you safe. I'm not saying that we've become unfree, or are about to. But I think the path towards it is open. The only response to terrorism we can imagine is to give more power to the state, and once given, that power will be hard to take back.
I'm pessimistic about this, because the underlying mechanism of trading freedom for security so strong. The security is often illusory, giving us little more than a temporary reduction of anxiety. The anxiety soon returns, and more freedom must be traded away. Just as a war frenzy can spin out of control, so can a panic for law and order in the face of terrorism. Especially so since the alternative is so depressing and counterintuitive.
As I wrote earlier (Living With Terrorism), the right way to fight terrorism is to be stronger than our fear of it. There are many things we can and should do to prevent terrorist attacks, but we have to treat fear as the single most damaging weapon terrorists have. Compared to a panicked public, a bomb is relatively harmless. With weapons, terrorists can only do as much damage as a weapon can do. Through fear, they have the full powers of state and society to play with.
When terrorists attack, we should resist the immediate impulse to "do something". We should not be "swept off [our] feet by the vividness of the impression, but say, 'Impression, wait for me a little. Let me see what you are and what you represent. Let me try you.'" I don't believe this is realistic. I believe that our civil rights are in the hands of terrorists. The more bombs, the less patience people will have with personal freedom. We'll hear all the old arguments, presented as new, about suicidal liberalism, the chaos of freedom, and the importance of moral unity. We already are. And that's why I'm a pessimist. We were wrong about terrorism, we still are, and I suspect we always will be. At best we can hope for long periods of calm where personal freedom is allowed to reassert itself.
Islam and the culture war
The last major mistake we made was about Islam, and especially the role it got to play in what we might call a European culture war. The European culture war is a war in defense of secular, but Christian-based, enlightenment values against Muslim extremists, multiculturalists and naive leftists. It is a war for the "soul" of Europe, as Pat Buchanan said about the American counterpart.
Europe's culture warriors often come from the right, like me, but many also from the left. What they have in common is frustration with what they see as a deadening centre-left consensus among the elites - politicians, academics, journalists. There's a sense that there is this great fog of dishonesty that we must chase away with reasoned and courageous thinking. The elites believe in little, they tolerate anything as long as it is foreign, and despise everything that is solid and proud in European culture. That's why they aimed so much hatred against Christian pseudo-fanatics, while letting genuine Muslim extremists in through the back door. They told us that Europe's worst enemy was itself, when of course the real threats come from the outside.
The culture warriors want to restore Europe's sense of purpose, and restore some of its old values - including our Christian heritage. Not necessarily Christianity itself, but they admire its moral firmness. The elites believe nothing, and that makes us vulnerable to Muslim extremists, who are blessed with a complete lack of uncertainty and a total committment to their religion.
Islam is the key to the European culture war. There is a sense that we have been infiltrated and betrayed, that Europe is slowly falling apart from the inside, and it is all because of Muslim immigration. Millions of unintegrated muslims, most of whom are at odds with basic European values, and many of whom actually despise our culture and want to make it more Islamic - and a few of whom are willing to kill us to accomplish this. Most culture warriors don't believe that Islam is inherently evil, they believe it can be secularized - Westernized, but they all believe it is the key to everything that is happening, not least for what it reveals about our own elites.
Here's why I'm frustrated: I'm not sure where all this went wrong. I can look back at what I believed some five years ago, and what motivated me to hope for exactly the kind of thing we now have - a grassroots reaction to the centre-left multicultural consensus, edging steadily in on the mainstream - and I'm not so sure that I was wrong. This idea that it should be ok to discuss Muslim extremism, and make demands of immigrants, and not meet cruel traditions with a tolerant smile, I certainly still believe that. And this rebellious reaction I had to the media consensus, there was nothing wrong with that. And we really do need to revive some liberal and rational strands of thought that somewhat inaccurately go by the name of enlightenment values.
But there must have been something wrong with that starting point, nevertheless, because why else would so many people who adopted it gradually turn it into something distasteful and frigthening? Or maybe it was like that from the beginning, and it just took me a while to notice. However it was, their lack of doubt bothers me now, their self-righteousness and anger, their clear labelling of people as either corrupt enemies or enlightened friends.
I'm bothered by their humorless sarcasm and gotcha-approach to cultural criticism. I worry that their defense of European culture has become rationalized chauvinism. I'm dumbstruck by their choices of intellectual heroes. And I fear that their constant indignation and certainty will inspire a popular revival of xenophobia.
I realize that it is precisely in reaction to such behavior that the "multicultural" worldview makes sense. We do need to doubt ourselves. We do need to worry at least as much about our own potential for evil as that of the foreigners. We do need to meet other cultures with some humility and respect. We do need to have mixed feelings about our own culture, admiration tempered by wariness, as with a wild animal. We do need to listen to people who believe differently, instead of just lecturing them. Not because there is no right or wrong, true or false, and not because every culture is equal, but because the alternative is so dangerous. The road of the righteous champion of the Army of Light.
So it appears that I believe all of these things, both the essential ideas of the culture warriors and those of their multicultural enemies. This might be a contradiction - I'm not sure. It would seem that I'm both anti-elitist and elitist, that I understand both those who want to confront and those who want to talk. And maybe that's not such a bad place to be.
I know how the culture warriors feel about such doubt, they see it as weakness, a fear of moral clarity. But I see something cold and inhuman in their clarity. Give me conflicting ideas, isolated incidents, and individuals. Keep your angry visions, I'll do just fine with doubt and curiosity.
And now..?
Now I try not to do it all over again. I think I'll begin by writing down, in big letters, somewhere I can't help but notice it: "Warning! Objects in blogs are smaller than they appear."
Glad to see you posting again.
If the Western reaction to these three focus points was wrong, what should we have done instead? After 9/11 we could either aggressively defend our nations and culture (the neo-conservative choice), or put on a hair shirt, apologize, apologize, apologize, and be passive.
Is the question moot since we have already chosen a path and now must deal with the consequences?
I would say we do need "skepticism" instead of doubt and curiosity.
If you have ever played Diplomacy, you know that indecision and inaction, especially at the center of the board, is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately it is often true that in times of crisis, any action, even if it leads to bad things, is better than no action.
I actually don't like aggressively defending myself, but sometimes it is the best and most effective action. We have to walk a delicate balance (we surely have made mistakes), and be wary of potential tyrrany, but if I had to do it over again, I would make the same choices.
In response to the Iraq section, it's my understanding that Iraq became the battleground for the "War On Terror" because of Saudi Arabia. The "War On Terror" is an intelligence war and the Saudi's had good inteligence. However, they couldn't be seen supplying the US with intelligence while US bases were on Saudi soil. As a result, the US had to get out of Saudi Arabia if they wanted Saudi cooperation on intelligence. As for the Jihad in general, 9/11 was perhaps "premature" on the part of the Jihadists because they would have been able to build a much stronger position in Afghanistan, and elsewhere, if there were no "War On Terror".
There's a lot of fluff here with very little substance. Could you explain to me all of these freedoms that I've supposedly lost. I've been reading people say that since 9/11 and I can't think of one time where I have lost any of the freedoms I had before hand.
Andrew: "I can't think" is all you needed to say. You can't.
"Unfortunately it is often true that in times of crisis, any action, even if it leads to bad things, is better than no action."
No, it isn't.
>> we should resist the immediate impulse to "do something". And that is the only moral of this sad story. Every thing else in this essay is a feeble attempt to feel proud of claiming "mea culpa". The "west" should refrain from trying to continue its historical duties of proselytization, which is not only Christian in its roots but decidedly Protestant. There are people and then, there are people. There is nothing inherently wrong about an Islamic Caliphate from Iberia to Karachi. Just that, it is not us. Which raises the question, who does "us" inlclude and more importantly who gets to define "us". Another point to be admitted by a whole lot of "us" is that injustice sometimes happens. And sometimes the best thing to do would be to wring one's hands in despair.
Andrew, freedoms are like insurance - you pay for them throughout your lifetime and hope you never need to use them.
You say the culture war went wrong, but you don't know where. Allow me to suggest a possibility:
"The elites believe in little, they tolerate anything as long as it is foreign, and despise everything that is solid and proud in European culture."
The stereotyping, the arrogance in deciding that you know better than the "elites" how they feel and what they think -- this is where it went wrong.
I personally come from the left, and proudly so, but I want to see a strong, vigorous right wing. Partly because sometimes they are correct, and in any case, they represent a significant point of view which should be part of the debate. But the debate has to be conducted with respect. Too many today believe that according respect to someone you disagree with is a sign of weakness. And that, too, is where it went wrong.
On Christian moral firmness: I am an American today because my ancestors were persecuted, murdered and driven out of Europe by Christian moral firmness. The right wing of its day: sounds good in theory but it all went wrong in practice.
andrew: if you are an American, you have lost the right of habeas corpus, the right to an attorney and to attorney-client privilege, and the right to a speedy and public trial. If Jose Padilla doesn't have those rights, then neither do any of us. If you as a citizen enjoy these things anyway, it is because the government has granted them to you as a privilege, perhaps because you are not Moslem-looking enough, or they haven't made a mistake with you that they need to cover up. It's not a matter of right unless it applies to everyone.
"The culture warriors want to restore Europe's sense of purpose, and restore some of its old values - including our Christian heritage. Not necessarily Christianity itself, but they admire its moral firmness." What is there to admire? Blind faith and religious dogma is devastating to a civilized society. The God delusion must be cured. Now. We do not need values based on religion. We need values based on rational thought. "Most culture warriors don't believe that Islam is inherently evil" Islam, like Christianity is inherently evil. We have laws against hate speech, and yet these religions contain buckedloads of it. And we accept it. Why?!
Wow. Terrific post, Mr. Staerk, particularly the remarks about self-imposed information filtering among war advocates. I saw lots of that during the run-up to our glorious Mesopotamian adventure, so much that I never expected to see anyone in the pro-war camp exhibit the kind of introspection and honest reconsideration that runs throughout the essay. Up to now all I've seen from repentant hawks is blame-shifting, special pleading and ass-covering. This article is a very welcome and commendable exception. It reads like something written by an intelligent adult -- if only there were just a few of the breed among what passes for the American "leadership" caste!
Lee Cockrell writes:
"After 9/11 we could either aggressively defend our nations and culture (the neo-conservative choice), or put on a hair shirt, apologize, apologize, apologize, and be passive."
False dichotomy, excluded middle. Apologies do not exclude action--far from it: they point us in the right direction. You can't find the right road until you admit you took the wrong one.
Rather than just posing false binaries to justify a continued spiral of violence, how about actively and responsibly addressing the systemic injustice that helped create the kind of movements that perpetrate atrocities like 9/11? Even a cursory reading of the history of the Middle East will leave one somewhat surprised at how long it took for the backlash against the colonial powers to build to a point where it could inflict even a fraction of the damage those powers have done in that part of the world.
Such a realization does not entail condoning 9/11, nor prevent working in rational and effective ways against its perpetrators. But we cannot "win" this conflict by becoming the mirror image of what we oppose.
Generally thoughtful piece. My one criticism regards your remarks about the mainstream media in the runup to the war in Iraq. I think you are referring to the European media, which was more critical and did more reporting of some of the potential problems and questions. In the US, the mainstream left media, e.g. New York Times and Washington Post, were fully in the pro-war camp both editorially and in their reporting. Judith Miller wrote for the New York Times, where she funneled all kinds of total disinformation about WMDs and so forth, and similar kinds of stuff was going on in other papers. Among the regular columnists at WaPo, most of the so-called liberals, people like Richard Cohen, were strongly in the pro-war camp. In the US, one did not need to go to the blogosphere to find the pro-war arguments, one neeeded to go there to get the anti-war arguments.
A very good post, sir. I have been waiting with disappointment and disenchantment for Thomas Friedman (New York Times), a chief liberal member of the war party, to admit his grave mistake. Evidently he is a smaller man than you.
The best way to fight evil, is to do good. I wrote this after 9-11. but before the Iraq War -- and, of course, before the Bush administration banned the guy for bogus reasons:
The Theology’s the Thing Why we’re at war.
By Paul Donnelly, writes about immigration and citizenship. February 20, 2002 8:15 a.m.
n Samuel B. Griffith's Cold War translation of the Art of War in 1960, he approvingly quotes Xundze that the first fundamental factor in war is "moral influence." To win the Cold War, the United States led the free world not only by opposing Communism as an ideology but also by constantly promoting an alternative way for those beyond the Iron Curtain to live, as free Russians and Poles, etc .
But we don't talk thus to Muslims. Blandly mumbling of a "religion of peace," the Bush administration shows no clue that we face a theological struggle as much as a military one, that what we mean by "Islam" will be as decisive as what we meant by Communism. (Just this yesterday, in fact, Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a speech: "We're not fighting a religious war. We're fighting a freedom war.") Defense Department think tanks are actually prohibited from studying the national-security implications of religion, which "takes off the table just the topic that militant Islam finds most compelling," says Jack Miles, who won the Pulitzer Prize for God: A Biography. "One can no more discuss (Islam and terrorism) without discussing theology than one can discuss communism without discussing ideology."
Thus, the flaw in the speechwriter's phrase, "axis of evil." The only ideology Iraq, Iran, and North Korea have in common is that they wish us harm — but Hamas and Hezbollah, al Qaeda and the ayatollahs share much theology.
Is radical Islam's theology definitely Islam at the root? Attorney General Ashcroft thinks so: "Islam is a religion in which God requires you to send your son to die for him," he said to columnist Cal Thomas last fall, as one Christian to another. "Christianity is a faith in which God sends his son to die for you."
This theological dimension of the Bush administration's war on terrorism shows we are in deeper trouble than even the Saudi alliance suggests. Ashcroft is an example of a "Muslim fundamentalist without being a Muslim," in the phrase of UCLA law professor Khaled Abou al-Fadl. For America's leadership to agree with bin Laden and Hamas on the meaning of Islam, is as if Truman, Eisenhower, and Reagan had accepted the class struggle theory of history. But where is the alternative to the suicidal theology that is the only Islam our attorney general sees?
Switzerland.
Tariq Ramadan teaches Islam at two prestigious European universities, in Geneva and Friboug. Forty years old, his many books focus on the growing Muslim communities in the West, particularly Europe. To Be a European Muslim, his first in English, boldly asks what the Bush administration won't: "Early in Islamic history …(jurists ruled that) it was not possible for Muslims to live (outside of Muslim-ruled states) except under some mitigating circumstances. What bearing does this have on those Muslims who came to work and are now living in the West with their families? What about their children and their nationality? Can they… be true, genuine, and complete citizens, giving allegiance — through the national constitution — to a non-Islamic country?"
Ramadan is important for many reasons — including that his grandfather, Hassan al-Banna, founded the Muslim Brotherhood. But the Swiss Islamicist is sharply critical of reactionary Islam, especially Wahhabi influence from Saudi Arabia — a "catastrophe." He might be the Muslim Martin Luther — but he is not medieval.
Ramadan draws graphs: This thoroughly modern thinker illustrates the dynamics of faith in a matrix with one axis "to be a Muslim," and the other "how to act" like one. Without a clergy (particularly for Sunnis, the vast majority), Muslims individually choose what is, and is not Islamic.
Ramadan's matrix has depth and nuance, which many Islamicists lack: What is most Muslim is simply what is least Western. (One scholar refused to eat with a fork, another to try watermelon, since there is no evidence the Prophet did either.) Islamic experts acknowledge Ramadan is a wholly orthodox thinker with innovative, even revolutionary conclusions. (He uses forks.)
Perhaps the most important of Ramadan's innovations (reviving a neglected tradition) is his attack on the concept of Dar al-Islam, the House of Submission that has come to replace Islam itself, perpetually confronted by Dar al-Harb, the House of War, the unbelievers: us. "The concept of Dar al-Islam is a hindrance today," he explains, supposedly the Islamic world "where the rules of Islam are implemented, which is not the reality for the majority of the people who are speaking about Dar al-Islam."
Ramadan courageously answers the fundamentally theological question how it is possible to be a Muslim and remain a citizen of any nation.
Citizenship is an American invention. In 1776 all nations had subjects, most with a religious character. If the attorney general's concept of religion does not allow Muslims to be citizens, he ought to say so. But if he recognizes that Muslims can be patriotic U.S. citizens, he apparently unconsciously, and certainly inarticulately believes in the Dar al-Islam that Ramadan is proclaiming publicly. "Dar al-Islam is the space where we are at peace, where we are safe," says Ramadan. "Am I not in a safer place, in the West, than in the majority of the so-called Islamic countries experiencing dictatorship?"
Thus politically transcending the us vs. them ideology-crippling Islam, Ramadan proposes replacing Dar al-Islam with a "House of Witness," for Muslims everywhere. He cites the Koran requiring Muslims "to compete with the unbelievers in doing good works," bearing witness to Islam's moral force that Ashcroft finds so alien.
If that moral force is not with us, as the president said, it will be against us, as Ashcroft believes. The Art of War urges reminding Muslims that Allah is on our side, and Ramadan shows us how.
-30-
I'm not exactly where you are but I've sure changed my thinking about a variety of things. Judging by the comments your getting, I would say from experience that you better get used to it. For the true believers (and there are still many)you have been cast into the outer darkness.
But don't worry - you've got company...
Thank you Mr Staerk, it takes a big man to admit he was wrong. It's a shame that the majority of the other warbloggers continue with the same smear tactics. Nate, despite how the New York Times markets him Thomas Friedman is not and never has been a liberal.
Nicely written; it's a relief to hear someone who supported the war re-assessing their beliefs on the basis of what actually happened. It's very striking there isn't more of this. Before the invasion of Iraq, I was scared of what the outcome would be. I believed that the claims of wmd were completely overblown if not dishonest, and that we would be mired for years to come, where either staying or leaving could be disastrous, and that our reputation in the world would take a huge hit. I also worried about how this would distract us from rebuilding Kuwait and responding to North Korea. Now if I had been as wrong as the war bloggers have been wrong, if we now had a stable democratic government in Iraq friendly to the United States and could bring our soldiers home, right now I would be seriously reconsidering my beliefs. I would have to admit that my world view must have been horifically distorted, and I would have a lot less confidence in my opinions regarding the world. But now that it is the warbloggers who've been discredited, now that everything they said about what would happen has turned out to be wrong, now that the claims of wmd have been completely discredited, now that the invasion has led not to a stable democrazy in Iraq, a beacon of change to the mideast, but rather a hell and a haven for terroists, with the real danger of bringing its neighbors into the conflict, with extemely few honorable exceptions, the warbloggers are just as arrogant as ever, just as willing to impugn those who disagree with them of cowardice or treason. I'm beginning to think if anything that happens could even slightly humble them. Thank you very much for your article. --Rick Taylor
One other thing that your article made me think about is the lack of respect for expertise, for educated opinion. By and large the people who drove the discussion of war had no special background in Mideastern studies, they did not for example speak arabic. In the United States in particular, there's a disrespect for expertise. There's the sense that in a democracy, everybody's opinion is as good as everybody else's. But this isn't true. The opinion of a physicist who writes peer reviewed articles for a journal on the merits of string theory is certainly to be taken more seriously than mine, for example. The trouble is that academics who really did have knowledge about the mideast with few exceptions aren't the loudest voices; they don't pontificate arrogantly on blogs (again, with a few exceptions). I remember reading that people who actually knew something about Iraq were usually terribly concerned about the conflicts between the various ethnic groups and the potential for chaos if things weren't handled extremely delicately. But they didn't have much effect on the debate. This is a really huge problem, and not limited to the debate on Iraq. In particular, the same thing is happening regarding global climate change, where you have a strong consensus opinion among people who actually do research in related areas that this is a big issue and we need to respond to it right away, but it overall opinion is very divided, and conservatives feel free to arrogantly make fun of such people, just as they made fun of people who warned that invading Iraq was a really bad idea. --Rick Taylor
What went wrong?? Since the advent of domesticated meat and grains and the decline of hunting and gathering, we humans have fallen head over heels for this one concept that I am suggesting is the true Pandora's Box for humankind: Specialization. Hunter/gatherers by nature are egalitarian, if you survive, don't starve and procreate, then you are a member of the Human race, no better, nor worse than the others. Specialization allows for, well, specialists. With domestication, not all of us have to expend energy scrounging for food. Hierarchies develop meaning that we evolve into leaders and followers, rich elite and peasants, Commanders in chief and cannon fodder, Popes and the faithful, white folk and black folk, long ears and short ears, Hutu and Tutsi, etc. With Domestication and specialization, city-states develop, material and idealogical wealth is created and gathered. Ultimately it has to be guarded from theft. Here in America, you join the military, you take the oath..to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic". You don't think about that at the time. what you think about is killing and dying. What went wrong is what has always gone wrong. Those individuals who are in power, misuses that power, thoughtlessly destroying the lives of those beneath them on the hierarchical ladder for self serving purposes and they think they have the right to because, well, their special! What went wrong is the lesson that never is learned. We just keep allowing these greedy, selfish bastards to take charge and take us to war. A population with poor educational facilities (that's us)producing stupid but obedient citizens is a nation that's going to fall for it every time. And the nation now is a war nation. We specialize in it. A trillion taxpayer dollars disappeared into the greedy maw of the military/industrial/ congressional complex and it's unabated greed is accelerating. Those of you who fell into line as pro war, were and are suckers, stupid suckers.
"When I think of this chaos argument today I am struck with horror at the stupidity of it."
I appreciate the insightful essay. It can be difficult (though restorative) for us to acknowledge where we've gone wrong. Having said that, I wonder whether the "chaos" argument was not just wrong and stupid but, additionally, immoral. I do not think I've ever heard a more debased reason to INFLICT WAR ON AN ENTIRE REGION OF THE GLOBE. The effects of chaos are, definitionally, unpredictable.
This is not to say that war is, necessarily, immoral. It is to say that this specific argument for war is immoral because the outcome of such action would not be clear or even predictable, despite knowing human misery would likely be caused. Misery and pain and loss of life are concepts considered in war-planning. If one is going to impose them on a populace, ONE BETTER DAMN WELL KNOW WITH SOME PREDICTABILITY WHAT KIND OF FORCES WOULD BE UNLEASHED BY SUCH A MOVE. In the situation described in the essay, no one could know for sure what chaos would bring. As such, the advocacy of such an argument slides quickly away from stupidity and down the slope to immorality.
Stærkt, Bjørn. Vel talt.
I came over from Political Animal. Very impressive self examination. This is what I saw in the U.S.:
"What we did was the opposite. At every level, from the lowliest blogger to the highest official, war supporters set up filters that protected them from facts they did not want to hear. We saw what we wanted to see, and if anyone saw differently, we called them left-wing moonbats who were rooting for the other side."
I am not a reader of history and can't write thousands of words on the history of Islam. So I went to the people supporting the war and I said "explain this to me. Why won't this be another Vietnam, another Palestine for Israel, another Afghanistan for Russia. Why won't this turn into a three-way civil war between Kurds, Shia, and Sunni? How will this work?"
And the only answer I got, the *only* answer, was an attack. I was unpatriotic. I had Bush Derangement Syndrome. I was a Saddam lover.
What I still don't see is how to prevent this same dynamic in the future. The next time a group of people want to invade and occupy another country, is there any guarantee that they will consider and engage?
andrew: There's a lot of fluff here with very little substance. Could you explain to me all of these freedoms that I've supposedly lost.
I guess that depends on who you are and where you live. The majority of Europeans and Americans have only been inconvenienced by the war on terror - such as not being allowed to carry liquids on plane trips. Muslims have more to fear. Some have been arrested and prosecuted based on pretty flimsy evidence. Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen, was sent to Syria to be interrogated with torture, and he's not alone. We have no idea how many of the people in Guantanamo Bay are guilty of anything, because they haven't had proper trials.
So no, you personally probably haven't lost much freedom at all. Congratulations and enjoy.
Amos Newcombe: Too many today believe that according respect to someone you disagree with is a sign of weakness. And that, too, is where it went wrong.
Absolutely. All that arrogance and indignation is at the heart of the problem. Words like "elites" and "leftists" are pretty much without meaning, they're more like mantras than clearly defined words. Once you brush them away it becomes easier to see your opponents as people like yourself, who probably think they're doing the right thing, and might even have thought of some things you haven't. Then you can have a proper debate. What we usually get isn't debate, it's just shouting and posturing.
Barkley Rosser: My one criticism regards your remarks about the mainstream media in the runup to the war in Iraq. I think you are referring to the European media, which was more critical and did more reporting of some of the potential problems and questions. In the US, the mainstream left media, e.g. New York Times and Washington Post, were fully in the pro-war camp both editorially and in their reporting.
Yeah, but the perception was - and still is, among many - that the New York Times and Washington Post were anti-Bush and anti-American propaganda machines, always eager to undermine their own government and society. The reality was that on the one hand they had some pretty lousy journalists who unthinkingly repeated the spin of their anonymous sources, and on the other hand a centrist-liberal orientation and something of an old media stuffiness about them. So everyone out on the wings saw them as an ideological enemy, when they were probably just lazy and incompetent.
You're right though that this description fitted the European press much better. And actually much of that criticism was justified. There are a lot of prejudices about American politics and society in Europe, we tend to project our own dark side across the Atlantic, and this was put on full display after 9/11. The European press often wasn't any less lazy than the American one, it just had a different bias.
Rich Moran: For the true believers (and there are still many)you have been cast into the outer darkness.
I know, and I've had time to get used to it. This isn't a sudden conversion on my part, I've been writing about this for a while. Probably the angriest reactions I got was to Living with terrorism, which was held up in the islamophobic blogosphere as final proof that Europe is full of self-hating dhimmified cowards.
But of course, writing these things make me correspondingly more popular among the kind of blogs that have linked to this post - Crooked Timber etc. That's a bit dangerous too. Praise puts me on edge, but unfortunately not as much as it ought to.
Rick Taylor: There's the sense that in a democracy, everybody's opinion is as good as everybody else's. But this isn't true. The opinion of a physicist who writes peer reviewed articles for a journal on the merits of string theory is certainly to be taken more seriously than mine, for example.
Yes - and that's easy to forget when you have all these brilliant and exciting lay writers in newspapers and blogs, while the real experts are hidden away in specialist publications. They don't write very well, and their opinions are not very entertaining. At best they can hope for a sensationalist misquote on a tabloid frontpage. It's a real tragedy. "Those who know don't speak, those who speak don't know."
"I appreciate the insightful essay. It can be difficult (though restorative) for us to acknowledge where we've gone wrong. Having said that, I wonder whether the "chaos" argument was not just wrong and stupid but, additionally, immoral. I do not think I've ever heard a more debased reason to INFLICT WAR ON AN ENTIRE REGION OF THE GLOBE. The effects of chaos are, definitionally, unpredictable."
Tell that to self-proclaimed visionary and "grand strategist" Thomas Barnett. His oh-so-whimsical euphemism for inflicting chaos and anarchy is "the Big Bang", and I've yet to see any inkling of doubt on his part about the wisdom -- let alone the ethics -- of the formulation. I guess that as long as the speaking fees roll in, those other issues are secondary.
Probably the angriest reactions I got was to Living with terrorism, which was held up in the islamophobic blogosphere as final proof that Europe is full of self-hating dhimmified cowards.
If BS is thinking about this, then he is (as usual, when he throws around with this diagnosis) wrong in categorizing it as the Islamophobic blogosphere - there is nothing Islamophobic about that site and sites similar to that one.
[i]If you have ever played Diplomacy, you know that indecision and inaction, especially at the center of the board, is a recipe for disaster. Unfortunately it is often true that in times of crisis, any action, even if it leads to bad things, is better than no action.[/i]
Life is not a board game.
This assertion is ungrounded in reality. It was true of Chinese culture for a long time and Japanese, but Islam in the Middle East was from its inception involved with the West. The first conquerors out of Arabia defeated the Roman legions, later fought and ultimately defeated Crusaders, conquered Spain, and laterly been involved with the West by becoming colonies post WWI. Since the 40's the Middle East has been subjugated by Western countries who have installed anti-Democratic West-friendly totalitarian regimes and by the invasion and occupation of Palestine. Bernard Lewis and his ideas are completely in error. That is a complete crock. WMD WMD was the great rallying cry for war. Not anything else and anyone doubting the existence or effectiveness of WMD was smeared and smeared again by the McCarthyites of the right. You didn't give a damn about democracy; Chalibi was your man, until Sistani insisted on a vote. I can only assume that the rest of your commentary is a misguided and erroneous as these two claims, so that's enough for me.
To our host: you still haven't actually answered the real question, I don't think.
We ARE in Iraq -- so what do we do now?
My god you are so wrong on every particular. A more telling example of over-wrought moralism and emotionalism based on Elitist rejection of America's interests in favor of moralizing could not be found. It's like an echo of the medieval priesthood's hatred of the nation in favor of the Church.
1. Iraq. Saddam had passed his one set of usefulness, which was a counterbalance to Iran. More and more he was collaborating with the Iranians and spending too much effort in hostile alliances with Al Qaeda and other terrorist actors.
More to the point, and example HAD TO BE MADE. 9/11 happened because Pakistan and Iran and Saudi and Iraq were not afraid of the consequences of their assistance to the plot which was considerable. This had been the case since 1972 when Arafat ordered the murder of US diplomats in the Sudan and the US State Dept and President after President covered that act up to preserve "a partner for peace."
The ME is a dangerous place and "love" gets you contempt. 9/11 acts can only be deterred by FEAR. The biggest one being removed from office and pulled out of a spider-hole, hung in disgrace after your sons bullet riddled bodies are displayed on TV. Raw and naked use of force to induce fear is the only rational means to make non-state Actors lose the crucial but often "deniable" support of states. Increase the pain level and make examples like Saddam and you deter future support for Al Qaeda.
2. Terrorism. Here you exhibit the same rhetoric as Larry Johnson did in July 2001 "The Declining Terrorist Threat." Modern technology including nuclear weapons (more than 60 years old) along with jet travel allow a man to be in Kabul one day, Islamabad the next, and NYC the day after. What started as relatively bloodless airline takeovers soon escalated in mass killings in the hundreds (such as the Lod Massacre) or high-visibility Munich style murders of Leftist approved targets (Jews, Americans, US military personnel). Escalating still further to 9/11 where only good "luck" prevented a death toll as high as 20,000.
Terrorism is NOT a few 19th Century Anarchists throwing bombs and assassinating the odd Archduke Ferdinand (recall how that one turned out).
It is a WAR OF THE PEOPLES. Muslims object to the existence and intrusion of the modern world, viewing it as an existential threat. As Lewis points out, a Cairene can get up in the morning and go to bed at night and the only thing produced in the House of Peace (Islam) is the prayers. Even the Water company and coffee will be Western. The internet, satellite TV, and jet travel only make this worse. Rising prosperity actually increases contact with the modern world (really poor places like Mauritania provide relatively few jihadis) so you have your Attas (Engineering students), bin Ladens (billionaires) and Zawaharis (Medical Doctors). Every Muslim terrorist would if he could nuke a US city or three.
Given that Pakistan is falling into Al Qaeda / Taliban control slow-motion, Iran will soon have nukes if it doesn't already, and Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and the UAE have all announced nuclear programs this threat is not idle. Sam Nunn and others believe a Western city will be nuked within ten years by terrorists.
No one should be shocked by this. Islam cannot co-exist with the modern world: it has produced no world-class medical center, scientific research facility, technology or technology company, or even arms manufacturer. "There is No God but Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet" cannot co-exist with the modern world's insistent whisper that God does not exist.
Europeans know this, and have for decades before 9/11 instituted: warrantless wiretaps, preventive detention without charges, waterboarding, noise, and sleep deprivation, summary deportation, and other measures. Baltasar Garzon, the Spanish Judge who indicted Pinochet, has held Madrid 3/11 bombing suspects in investigative detention for three years without bringing charges.
Meanwhile Muslim terrorists behead the teachers of girls in Afghanistan, or Catholic Schoolgirls in Indonesia.
You object to the reality that a war of the peoples is ugly, dirty, disgusting, and requires ugly dirty and disgusting work for one people to survive over another. Welcome to reality. Calculate the loss of NYC or DC or Chicago to a potential "loss of civil liberties" ... and note the alternative is simply to seal the borders and toss out all Muslims. No Muslims in the US, no Muslim terrorism. No need for police action either.
Culture: you can't have Muslims in your nation in significant numbers and not have Sharia. That's it. Choose your poison. Either climb into a burka, accept honor killing, female genital mutiliation, forced cousin marriages, killing of gays, second class citizenship for non-Muslims, anti-Semitism, and all the other dark ages savagery of Islam, or fight back and expel non-Citizen Muslims and make clear that Muslims must (essentially abandon Islam) and live according to Western values. Otherwise they are free to return to Islamic nations such as Saudi where they can behead each other to their hearts content.
The Thais have tried everything, selective military brutality to concession after concession, even making a Muslim their military head, and still get nothing but more violence including their capital Bangkok bombed.
What you call the Culture War is merely the desire for Rich Euro and American elites to replace a middle class that wants it's own say with a compliant servant class of subservient Third Worlders, about whom rich and unpatriotic priesthoods can feel morally good about "uplifting" and tut-tutting when half of Paris goes up in flames in a Sharia-demanding Car-b-que.
Your main objections: the world is filled with ugly brutality and hard men with guns. Make it STOP! Let me go back to my pretty dreamland. "Welcome to the party, pal."
It takes a lot of courage to look at the world one believed in wholeheartedly and see it's wrong. It takes more courage to admit that knowledge. It takes even more courage to say so publicly, knowing what the response will be from one's former comrades. Yes, we of the left posting here do admire you for that. I personally admire the fact that you have come to see the difference between a real "Conservative"
- which you are - and a right winger, which most of your former fellows are. 70 years ago, a lot of other European conservatives missed it when a certain somebody proclaimed himself and his movement "conservative" when the truth was they were radical revolutionaries, and when the conservatives finally realized their mistake it was too late to prevent a cataclysm. Hopefully you and the other real conservatives will admit the truth that your beliefs have been hijacked by people who will destroy everything you believe in, and will do so in time to "cancel their ticket" before they cancel everyone else's. Please keep it up. And "Living With Terrorism" is also great thinking and courageous writing.
As I see it, one part of what went wrong with our reaction to 9/11 is summed up in the first post, above:
"If the Western reaction to these three focus points was wrong, what should we have done instead? After 9/11 we could either aggressively defend our nations and culture (the neo-conservative choice), or put on a hair shirt, apologize, apologize, apologize, and be passive."
Americans, especially, tend to think we need to do something. Afghanistan was necessary. And what else?
Mostly, nothing. The correct response was to sit tight, put resources into intelligence work, and accept two propositions: 1) we're not actually in much danger from terrorists, who on average kill a couple of hundred people a year (I'm not including Iraq in that, because I see it as a civil war). 2) We will never be completely secure. We should protect vulnerable points, such as chemical plants, but accept that we will have losses no matter what we do and not judge a policy on its prospects for completely eliminating terrorism.
A subsidiary point is that we should quit wasting resources on what Bruce Schneier calls "Security Theater." For instance, almost everything about airport security falls into this category. Schneier is a wonderful source of information and analysis about security; some of his writing is here:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/
He also makes the point that terrorists win when we fear; so, we should stop making policy based on fear. In my view fear is also the source of false hopes, such as believing that we could spread democracy in the Middle East.
I would also like to make an observation about who is listened to. To become someone who is heard above the noise a pundit needs to make simple, startling statements. Anything simple and startling can almost be guarenteed to be wrong, but that rarely comes back to haunt anyone. Alas, those who need to be heard are (as noted above) almost certain to be inaudible.
It is also depressing how little expert knowledge helps to forecast the outcome of something like the Iraq invasion.
The points in the last two paragraphs were taken from Philip Tetlock's book "Expert Political Judgement: How Good Is It? How Can We Know." He has data from a prospective study of political judgement that's been going on for a couple of decades now. I commend it to the attention of those who wish to understand what went wrong with our judgements.
Well, I applaud you're willingness to look with clear eyes upon your own mistakes. It saddens me that anybody ever thought it was acceptable to invade another country and kill their people for some vision of democracy. That was never right, or moral. We were only ever justified to invade where we faced an imminent threat that demanded a response like invasion and conquest, and we never faced such a threat from Iraq, even if one believed everything that the Bush administration tried to tell us. The invasion was never justified. Certainly not to make "an example", as Jim above believes it is appropriate to do. A war between two countries is not a fight between a school-yard bully and the target of his aggression, and Jim Rockford's statement only betrays that he has the same failure of understanding that you rightly reject. Amongst those who can still manage to support this war, naivete is applauded as being clear-sighted, and repudiation of common knowledge and understanding is some form of "new" wisdom. What people like Jim cannot argue with is that we are losing, and we are less safe because of this war. Jim may continue to vigorously deny reality and conflate the war in Iraq with some over-broad clash of civilizations, but our nation has no such luxury.
Mike from Santa Monica:
Jeez, chill out. Bjorn here has rendered a compelling mea culpa and all you can do is try to continue to flay him, not only without mercy, but without sense?
Do you really think you know better than Bjorn what HE believed at the time? Sure, Bush, Cheney, et. al. made their case around WMD, but "101st Fighting Keyboarders" were making exactly the case Bjorn describes here. I heard them on more than one occasion. They really DID think this was a holy crusade to "democratize" the region. Of course, their definition of democracy was laughable. Of course, they were tragically misguided, but people like this did serve as enablers for Bush and Cheney, as Bjorn now admits, and you don't need to come down like a ton of bricks on the one who has the guts to admit he was wrong. Save your venom for those who still spew this crap.
Best wishes to you. I admire your courage to admit you were wrong, but much greater I admire your intellectual curiousity that allowed you to open your mind to the possibility that you were wrong. However some comments clearly indicate that many still don't get it. And ridiculous polarisations were part of the whole psychological weaponry. "Either you fight with us in Iraq or you're a cheese eating surrender monkey." I wait in vain for the ridiculous right wing journalists of my country to publicly admit their error, and the fact that the vast majority of issues raised by the middle left have come to be the disasters foreseen. I still can't believe that a nation that was so deeply affected by the vietnam war would trudge of to another indefensible and stupid within a generation. But I'm not feeling too smug, our Prime Minister followed lack the loyal lapdog he is.
In response to Lee J. Cockrell (first comment) I would say, as one who has in the past been involved in design of wargames and strategy games, that it is a grave mistake to think that Diplomacy is a transferable model of the real world.
This is one of the most moving and memorable posts I've read in a long time. Major congratulations to Bjoern for having the strength and the courage and the fortitude to do it with such eloquence and power.
Björn du har min respekt för den moraliska integritet du visade här. Kudos! Sedan kan jag som vänster tycka att ditt problem med var det gick fel beror på att du utgick från högeråsikter men det är bara jag... :)
Its not often fun feeling uncertain about almost everything. But when you realise that politics, culture and society are not like the laws of physics, where answers can be known to three decimal places, you also realise that its irrational to be certain about anything.
This a piece of writing I don't think I will forget for a very long time. I hope that when I am faced with a similar challenge to something I believe in I can face it as well as you have.
Good points up to the end where it got into the culture wars with Islam.
What 90% of people have yet to grasp is that Islam as a religion is intensely 'anti-Islamic Culture'
What we actually have are people trying to force Arab and middle eastern cultural traditions through in the name of Islam in same way 'Christianity' was associated with British and French Imperialism.
Jim Rockford:
1. Turkey is an overwhelmingly Muslim country. 2. There is no Sharia in Turkey. At least, I can remember being in Konya (the most conservative Muslim city in a very Muslim country) and drinking beer. My head still rests atop my head.
"In response to Lee J. Cockrell (first comment) I would say, as one who has in the past been involved in design of wargames and strategy games, that it is a grave mistake to think that Diplomacy is a transferable model of the real world."
I would've agreed with this seven or eight years ago, but now I think it needs a slight modification. It seems plausible that many of the strategic geniuses who inhabit the Cheney administration learned everything they know about foreign policy from boyhood sessions of Risk and Diplomacy. So maybe those games have more predictive value than any sane adult would want to believe.
Jim Rockford, USA, 2007-03-02 "My god you are so wrong on every particular. A more telling example of over-wrought moralism and emotionalism based on Elitist rejection of America's interests in favor of moralizing could not be found. It's like an echo of the medieval priesthood's hatred of the nation in favor of the Church. 1. Iraq. Saddam had passed his one set of usefulness, which was a counterbalance to Iran. More and more he was collaborating with the Iranians and spending too much effort in hostile alliances with Al Qaeda and other terrorist actors. More to the point, and example HAD TO BE MADE. 9/11 happened because Pakistan and Iran and Saudi and Iraq were not afraid of the consequences of their assistance to the plot which was considerable. This had been the case since 1972 when Arafat ordered the murder of US diplomats in the Sudan and the US State Dept and President after President covered that act up to preserve "a partner for peace." " I'll hit the first two points only; the full post has enough BS to devote a career to. Point 1 - Only people like Cheney are continuing to allege Saddam-Al Qaida ties anymore; please get with the current propaganda. 'collaborating with the Iranians'? Jeez, I never heard that, even from the most devoted pro-war propagandists. Point 2 - making an example. If Joe hits me, and I go beat up on Larry, because he's weaker and I can beat him, I've certainly set an example - that Joe can hit me with impunity, but Larry can't. We've shown that world that killing 3,000 Americans isn't something which will necessarily get you in trouble, but that being vulnerable to the US (and possessing something that that the US wants) will definitely get you in trouble. No matter what the court said, Saddam Hussein was hung by the neck for two crimes: insubordination to US interests (see Kuwait, invasion of - but no Iran, invasion of) and failure to possess vast stockpiles of WMD's.
Get out of Iraq...a couple terror attacks in USA and it will be interesting to see the reactions... To know what was right or wrong depends what we think Saddam would do without control and with all Iraq state resources and what Al-qaeda would do without spending resources in Iraq. If Bjorn thinks that casualities are high he just should wait for Islamics taking control over Arab dictatorships...Because that is the strategic shift that is happening: The failure of socialist ideas to mobilise Arabs and other peoples of Middle East anymore .They'll go full Islamic if there is not anyone to stop it. Wars against colonialism was also a strategic shift and just go to the list of deaths...
Get out of Iraq...a couple terror attacks in USA and it will be interesting to see the reactions... To know what was right or wrong depends what we think Saddam would do without control and with all Iraq state resources and what Al-qaeda would ahieve without spending resources in Iraq and spending them elsewhere. If Bjorn thinks that casualities are high he just should wait for Islamics taking control over Arab dictatorships...Because that is the strategic shift that is happening: The failure of socialist ideas to mobilise Arabs and other peoples of Middle East anymore .They'll go full Islamic if there is not anyone to stop it. Wars against colonialism was also a strategic shift and just go to the list of deaths...strangely everyone agrees more or less with them dispite what happened to Africa. What strikes me has most strange is that Bjorn seems to not know what is War in first place. For me i was expecting 10000 US casualities just for invasion combat...
You may want to contact John Cole http://www.balloon-juice.com/ since he has suffered through similar recognitions, made similar confessions, and suffered similar penalties. I hope that more people learn from you.
There's an old adage: "Never tear down a fence without knowing why it was built in the first place."
In this case, Saddam and his regime were the fence. No one thought him a good man, but there were some of us who thought that maybe that "fence" was there for a reason. He was an evil, but the consequences of removing him might be worse. If you're gonna try to fix a bad situation, recall the physician's credo: First Do No Harm.
When I tried to voice these opinions before the invasion, I was ridiculed, called "anti-American," told to leave the country, derided, and generally demonized. Because of this experience, I am no longer proud to be an American, as I once was. Or rather, let me put it another way: I don't wish to be associated with the Americans who were complicit in all this.
Hundreds of thousands of poor, powerless lives destroyed or lost because of some grand idealism (or greed?) of the powerful. If there is a greater tragedy in my lifetime that I am remotely or directly associated with, I don't want to know what it is.
At least I recognize bullshit when I see it, now.
And here I thought everyone on the right was a dolt. Thank you for correcting my misguided assumption. Very insightful post, something we can all learn from it.
Thanks for a thoughtful analysis. I do take issue with one point, which is your characterization of the blogs versus the major media, which I think gets close to "doing it all over again". Were warbloggers amateurish and prone to bias and simplistic analysis? Sure. But that doesn't mean the mainstream media was right all along, or that they are now. The particular criticisms of "old media" (not the 'leftist' smear, but the lazy practices, failure to do basic research or fact-checking, and often-blatant bias and denial of same) do hold up under the microscope. New media could not have made the gains it did absent the poor quality of old media.
Interesting essay. I read your "warblog" frequently in the months after 9/11 and generally was in full agreement with your thinking at the time. But I jumped off the bandwagon when it turned and headed for Baghdad, while you apparently rode on. What has always amazed me about the way the Bush administration ran the Afghanistan and Iraq wars was that they seemed to have learned the lesson of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and therefore limited the presence of US ground troops, made pragmatic deals with local warlords, and successfully put a moderate muslim face out front. If they had just stopped there, and used their 2002 success as the first step in a PR War (not a shooting war) against radical Islam worldwide, we may really have Islamic terrorism on the run today. But they didn't seem capable of considering the non-violent means to obtain their ends. And just as bad, they apparently thought the Soviet experience with a radical Islamic insurgency in Afghanistan had to do with the topogrophy of that country, rather than from the presence of an army of perceived infidels occuppying an Islamic nation.
Kudos to you Mr Staerk, as others have observed it takes a big man to admit error, particularly major error such as we see here.
As one who was against the Iraq invasion from the first moment I heard of the idea I must say that it gives me little pleasure to say "I told you so". The consequences of this ill fated adventure will reverberate through the mists of time for a long time and will probably bring evil fortune to many.
I was posting on an astronomy blog at the time of the runup to the Iraq invasion and I was utterly amazed at the level of vituperation and scorn which I received from otherwise calm, thoughtful and well educated fellow Americans when I dared to express my opposition to invading Iraq. Astronomers I had thought would be the ones most likely to take the long view and try to assess the evidence from a position of a disinterested observer. Boy, was I ever wrong. It was an eye opening experience for me and I learned a valuable lesson that I will never forget.
We in the West have experienced the ravages of two virulently evil political philosophies, fascism and communism. What virtually all of us are completely unaware of is that for much of the rest of the world there have been three virulently evil political philosophies, fascism, communism and colonialism. Colonialism has caused at least as much suffering and grief as has either of the two other philosophies of which I speak, it's just that from our own perspective we cannot see the truth of the matter since colonialism was either invisible or even a positive from our point of view.
As far as the causes of the pro war blindness, I have been reading an excellent online book by Dr Bob Altemeyer called "The Authoritarians" which documents his multi decade career of research into what he calls "authoritarian followers" or "right wing authoritarians". According to Dr Altemeyer there is about twenty five percent of the human race that are particularly vulnerable to blindly following a leader who tells them what they want to hear. We all have this tendency to a greater or lesser extent but for authoritarian followers the tendency is extremely strong and indeed usually overpowers most of their rational thought processes. In the USA, authoritarian followers are almost entirely on the political right, often on the far right. In the former Soviet Union the authoritarian followers were communist party members or strong supporters of the communist party. Authoritarian followers wish to be told what to think and will listen with very little critical engagement to anyone who reinforces their already strong prejudices.
I would strongly urge anyone who has any interest in the reasons why the war bloggers and other war supporters so strongly excluded the viewpoints of anyone who disagreed with them to read Dr Altemeyer's book. The book is remarkably accessible and an easy read for an academic tome. Dr. Altemeyer is available on the web to answer any questions you might have and to further elaborate on his research. "The Authoritarians" is freely available to read online in PDF format at the URL below:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/
There is a Google discussion group on the concepts laid forth in the book online at:
http://groups.google.com/group/theauthoritarians
Anyone is free to join the discussion on the Google group and I would urge anyone interested to come and at least take a look.
Good night and good luck,
Jonathan
Fantastic and clear-eyed reassessment. Except in part regarding Muslims. Over time the xenophobic reaction to Muslims in Europe will be seen for what it is: another dehumanising and essentialising dynamic that strips all of us of our ability to treat a human being as a human being. I hope we in the West see this before we plunge into another witchhunt.
I think I'm going to hurl at this sickening display. I'm not referring to Bjorn's epiphany but the backslappers who are congratulating him for it.
This is how I look at it.
An analogy: Bjorn got stinking drunk, climbed into his car and ran down some pedestrians. And now everyone is slapping him on the back for doing nothing more than sobering up.
F**k that shit. I don't give a damn about Bjorn's awakening or that of any other warmonger.
The only thing I want to hear from him is how he plans to atone for his complicity in helping bring about the destruction that has been done around the world.
This essay is exceptionally inciteful. We are not yet at the point of a post mortem on the war, but what you have begun is a step in the right direction and I thank you. If no other lesson has been clear it is that constructive criticisms and sincere reservations are not to be confused with treason and/or cowardice. Incidentally, I have never liked or used the term "warblogger," and also regard neologisms like Islamofascist as the New Antisemitism. Part of the challenge is that our vocabulary is rife with spin. We learn a lot about the universe of reference that a person uses simply by the language being used. This is helpful when avoiding ignorant people, but counterproductive when trying to resolve a disagreement.
Bjørn, I don't know if you're going to have the patience to keep reading this far into the comments. We've e-mailed each other a few times over the years. Maybe not enough for you to remember me... (I taught you how to translate "smørøje" into Danish.) I agree that those of us who supported the war were too gung ho in the beginning. That has led me to a certain modesty in making foreign policy statements in general. But I still think it's too early to say that Iraq will have been a success or a failure. Five or ten years from now, you may find yourself having to say that you were wrong to say that you were wrong. (And I may have to say that I was wrong to write this post.) Anyway, even if most of the pro-war people who respond to this post turn out to be angry loudmouths, I wanted you to get at least one message from a pro-war individual who tries to be civil. I have thoroughly enjoyed reading your blog over the years, even the posts I disagree with. Keep posting when the spirit moves you. If I'm ever in Norway, I hope you won't mind if I try to look you up. --James
Good mea culpa all around but wrong! Certainly those who supported the war early on (like myself) have to ask themselves whether this support was warranted. But an important question you do not ask is "what was the alternative and was the status quo desirable?" In my opinion, there were 2 assumptions made about invading Iraq which were fundamentaly flawed (and which explain the current situation). [By the way, these do not include the WMD connendrum..I believe that the WMDs existed and that they currently are in Syria and Lebanon). The first incorrect assumption is that Iraq would welcome democracy. Wrong. Like many Muslim counties, the fundamental political structure is tribal and as a result, the very concept of democracy is unpallatable. So we are effectively trying to build a structure which most Iraqis fundamentally reject. The second assumption is that the "moderates" among Islam would prevail over the extremists. Wrong again. The extremists are now so ingrained in the very fabric of so many Muslim communities that the moderates have been permanently silenced into implied acceptance through utter fear of death. This realization is also what explains why in the US and other Western countries, people ask "why are the moderate Muslims not speaking out agaisnt extremism?" I believe that many of these Muslim communities have passed the point of no return and that the extremists among Muslim have wrestled control of these communities. With Saudi money flowing into most mosques in order to ensure that only fundamentalist Imams have staying power, it will take less than a generation to turn most mainstream Islam away from "moderation". It is time we wake up to the fact that Islam, which has never been reformed the way Christianity has been, is an evangelical religion whose only purpose is the submission of all of Mankind by any mean, including death. Neither Christianity nor Judaism have anything akin to this very principle as their guiding principle. Ignoring this fact is why the war on terror is not making the progress that it should. We are burying our head in the sand pretenting that we are fighting a few bands of terrorists around the world. Wrong. We are fighting the vangard of militant Islam, which for the very first time has the money to purchase the weapons it needs to take on Western Civilization. We have made mistkes, unquestionably. But the mistakes we made were not the ones you identify. We have consistently underestimated the depth of penetration of extremism into mainstream Islam. And we have always refused to admit that we are at the begining of a clash of civilization which can only end with one civilization defeating the other. This very concept is just so foreign to the multicutural pabulum we have been fed over the last 50 years that we have simply refused to see what is now staring us in the eyes.
James Haney: We've e-mailed each other a few times over the years. Maybe not enough for you to remember me...
Yeah, I think do.
But I still think it's too early to say that Iraq will have been a success or a failure. Five or ten years from now, you may find yourself having to say that you were wrong to say that you were wrong.
That's not how it works. In the long run, I think we can hope that the Middle East will become stable and democratic, and when it does, perhaps someone will conclude that the American invasion was the starting point of that development. People grow used to their history, and eventually even the bad events seem so formative that we don't like to imagine history without them. For instance, today Europe is peaceful and stable in a way it has never been before - and this is in large part because of the world wars. But does that mean that these wars were "good" or "right" at the time that they happened? To put it another way, how long do we wait? In the long run everything happens. In the long run we're all dead. You can't act now on the belief that things will eventually turn out okay. You have to think about the here and now.
The situation here and now is that the US has taken a huge gamble with the lives of everyone in Iraq, maybe the entire region, based on some rather amateurish theories about the nature of democracy. That's not just foolish, it's wrong. The gamble seems to have failed, but even if it doesn't, even if somehow Iraq finds a way out of this within the next year or two, it's still wrong to take that kind of gamble with people's lives.
If I'm ever in Norway, I hope you won't mind if I try to look you up.
Not at all.
Andre: But an important question you do not ask is "what was the alternative and was the status quo desirable?" In my opinion, there were 2 assumptions made about invading Iraq which were fundamentaly flawed (and which explain the current situation). [By the way, these do not include the WMD connendrum..I believe that the WMDs existed and that they currently are in Syria and Lebanon).
And this is precisely the kind of armchair speculation that, while it might be fun, and with luck correct, is not something we should risk the lives of millions of people on. The default mode in foreign policy should be caution and humility. There are always things you don't know, and your instincts, especially aggressive and conflict-oriented ones, can't be trusted. Peaceful instincts can't really be trusted either, but at least fewer people get hurt when you err in that direction. I know, I know, the whole world hangs in the balance, and if we don't do something drastic right this minute it will all fall apart. But what if you're wrong? You're not the first to think this, these sort of theories are common everywhere, and they're very rarely true.
Thoughtful and well-written mea culpa. I still think you should have won that Gullblogg award.
Bjørn Stærk:Praise puts me on edge
Oops, sorry. Seriously, though, your call for humility is both timeless and well-timed. This is particularly true for foreign interventionism, since the stakes are so high both ways. As a general principle, inaction is less dangerous than action, but I'm not sure this is always the case. However, the Iraq war was ill-conceived from the start. Shunning "Old Europe" when getting them aboard would have just taken a little bit of tact and leadership seemed and seems like pure arrogance.
I long for the old "good cop, bad cop" dynamism of the U.S. and EU - I almost cheered for Bush when he threatened Iraq with invasion unless they started making meaningful concessions, because he acted like he was crazy enough to actually go through with it, and Iraq seemed to be cowed into cooperating with the weapons inspectors. Of course, that may just be my pinko optimism. Could Saddam have been threatened into improving the civil rights of his people without actually going to war? Probably not. But the cost of trying it is just some presidential pride.
Thank you for your thoughtful essay on these very important historical developments. I read with great interest the description of your views on the Sept. 2001 attack, and related subjects. I opposed the war from the beginning, but, I hasten to add, not because I foresaw the horrible consequences that have subsequently ensued. I opposed the war primarily for ex-ante reasons, e.g. international law, just war theory, catholic church teachings. Many who opposed the war expressed concern about possible specific and relatively immediate adverse outcomes, which are similar, in varying degrees, to what has occurred. At the time, I did not think such things would happen. I wasn’t indifferent to the consequences. The deaths and injuries that would occur under the best of circumstances were bad enough. Also, the prohibitions against war put in place by the states that defeated fascism would be undermined, and while it was impossible to predict what might then occur, it could only be bad. But again, I had no idea it would be so bad, so fast. So I am reluctant to impute to war supporters actual knowledge of the consequences of the project they “begged for” or a specific intention to produce such consequences. Robert McClelland, 2007-03-03 I think I'm going to hurl at this sickening display. I'm not referring to Bjorn's epiphany but the backslappers who are congratulating him for it. This is how I look at it. An analogy: Bjorn got stinking drunk, climbed into his car and ran down some pedestrians. And now everyone is slapping him on the back for doing nothing more than sobering up. Oddly enough, that’s how 12 step recovery works, at least in the beginning. Eventually the recovering alcoholic will be slapping the back newer arrivals. F**k that shit. I don't give a damn about Bjorn's awakening or that of any other warmonger. The only thing I want to hear from him is how he plans to atone for his complicity in helping bring about the destruction that has been done around the world. I congratulate Bjorn for his awakening. The destruction that Bjorn concedes he helped bring about is still ongoing, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and in G-d knows how secret many torture sites, around the world. I don’t know if you’re from the US or not, but Bush government is the major force behind it, and Bush says he’s going to keep doing what he’s been doing. There had been some hope that legal action could stop the at least torture, but recent decisions make this very unlikely. Those who have opposed this from the beginning, or have come to oppose it, somehow have to bring it to an end. I think Bjorn should be working toward that end, especially since he worked so hard to get it stated. I got the impression he was on board for that, but I could be wrong?
A courageous step, sir, and I thank you for it. I may still disagree with you on some points, but I applaud your return to civility.
Yes, it is painful to be a Pandora like I was. I knew the reaction to the terrorist attacks was overblown, overemphasising Islam and forgetting that a radical American named Tim McViegh had also killed hundreds. Terrorism is a tactic, not a philosophy.
It will be especially painful for people to accept that the USA wasn't defeated in Iraq, but that it failed. The pain comes from having to accept that one has no one to blame but one's self. But the terrorists didn't defeat anybody, we simply fucked ourselves over and killed tens--nay, hundreds of thousands in the destruction of their country.
So what to do now?
I think the answer is pretty clear: we need to stop treating the fringe radicals in Islam as representative of Islam, and return to the concept of treating terrorism as a crime, not as some monolithic Enemy with a set structure and anarchy. Terrorism is nothing more than mass murder wrapped in a flag.
I think I need to expound this further, but here is not the place. I guess it's time to reactivate my old blog, and give it new purpose...
What is killing Europe from within is not secularism but multiculturalism and moral relativism. Islamists are taking advantage of these things and turning Europe into a battleground just as was when the Islamics horders were turned back at the gates of Vienna.
Its a pity to see that Bjorn has lost his nerve. I am not surprised, of couse, considering the vicious bile supporters of the war, the war on terrorism and anti-Islamists get from all sides. It is most dispirating. Then again its nothing more than those who worried about Hitler had to go through, after all look at the vile treatment Churchill got for warning about Nazism.
"I think the answer is pretty clear: we need to stop treating the fringe radicals in Islam as representative of Islam"
Except that makes no sense, as those "fringe radicals" are practitioners of true Islam, and therefore more representative of Islam than other Muslims. Why should they not be treated as representative of Islam?
Perhaps "Saint Fnordius" says this because he is ignorant of Islam. One can only hope that it is not because he is an Islam apologist like Bjorn and his twin brother Oyvind.
Islamist terrorism is not, at least currently, an existential threat to western democracy. It needs to be taken very seriously, but this drive to see some sort of titantic struggle between western enlightenment and fundamentalist Islam is surely misguided.
What perplexes me though, is that even if one were to accept this world view, the invasion of Iraq still makes no sense. Saddam was a brutal dictator, but he was a brutal secular dictator, hostile to the forces we say we oppose. The most likely result of removing him from power was to increase the influence of Iran and of Islamic fundamentalist groups in general. This wasn't hard to forsee, and it's not surprising that's what happened.
I've never been sure what the basis for going to war actually was. In this country, we received so many reasons, one replacing another as it was discredited, but always underlying it was the sense that of course we had to go to war, and a sense of contempt for those of us asking why. There was the threat of chemical weapons, of nuclear weapons, that Saddam was a cruel tyrant who murdered his own people, that oceans didn't protect us after September 11, that if we don't fight them there, we'll have to fight them here, that he had mobile biological weapons labs, that we couldn't allow Saddam to flout a United Nations resolution, that he threw the inspectors out (he didn't, but that hasn't stop our President from using that as a justification on multiple occasions). It doesn't matter how many justifications get demolished: no, even our own inspectors eventually concluded there were no chemical weapons, no nuclear weapons programs, no significant ties to Al Queda or 9/11 (certainly no more than some of our allies in the region), and yes, Saddam was a brutal dictator, but we have the dubious distinction of having brought about more death and destruction through anarchy than existed when Saddam was in power, together with millions of refugees and the flight of Iraq's educated classes from the country, and the potential prospect of a widening conflict with Iran, Turkey, and Saudi Arabai (a potential I hope remains unrealized). Yet none of this matters; no matter how many reasons are demolished, the decision to go to war was still the right thing, and people who ask why are looked at as though they're asking a silly question; that the answer is obvious. It disturbs me that I still honestly don't know why we went to war. I don't think the problem is me either. War is one of the most serious enterprises a country should take, and it should only be undertaken when all other options are exhausted. The fact that we went to war, and it's not even clear why, is very disturbing.
The most straightforward reason I ever got to this question was talking to some relatives of mine who are much more conservative than me. The discussion was about continuing to fight in Iraq rather than invading Iraq. Their attitude, to a person, was that we can't withdraw, because these people only understand force, and if we back down, they'll attack us here. Islamists are different from you and me. They only understand force. We can't back down. They'll take that as weakness and attack us. I'm not making this up, they really said this, and offered it up as though it were common sense. These were all Christians by the way, and they saw this as a conflict between Christian and Islamic sensibility. There was absolutely no appreciation for the immense complexity of the world, no sense that Islam is not a unified force, but that there is more conflict within it than between 'them' and 'us', that some of the people we're allied with are friendly with Iran and fundamentalists while some we're fighting our hostile to it, no sense that the reason most of these people are fighting us has to do with what's going on in Iraq and with a few exceptions they have no interest in "fighting us here," no sense of how we've destabalized the region, and that our attention might better be focussed on how the heck we can keep the instability from spreading rather than beating up the bully to show him we can't be pushed around.
I asked one of them afterwards if this was all so, if this was fundamentally a conflict between Christianity and Islam, then why did we overthrow Saddam when he was a secular dictator, and hostile to the forces he was so concerned about? His response was confusion. Was Saddam a secular dictator? Yes he was. Yes I was certain of that. He had to admit he hadn't even thought of that question, and he found it quite interesting. I was flabberghasted.
As I understand it, and I'd appreciate it if you could confirm if this is true, the reason we invaded was we thought if Saddam was overthrown, we could put in place a democratic government that would be so enlightened, and the lot of the Iraqi people would be so improved, that fundamentalists and the terrorists would be undermined as everyone in the region would see first hand how good democracy was, and what good people we really were. Terrorist groups would loose their power, and despotic governments would be overthrown, as the people clamored for the benefits we had brought to Iraq. This wasn't the reason the president gave to the American people for the war (with us he used threats of wmd and mushroom clouds). But among the conservative pundits, the educated elite, as I understand it, this was the ultimate justication.
Now I'm honestly not trying to put up a straw man here; I'm trying to represent the ideas of advocates of the war as best I understand them. And if I've gotten it wrong, I'd very much appreciate it if you'd tell me. I do honestly want to understand why we did this.
The reason I question if I've gotten it right is the above explanation is so counter to common sense, so much based on wishful thinking, I have trouble believing it was really what people thought and think. Democracy isn't something you impose on a people; you don't just vote and bang you have a democracy (unless of course you just define a democracy to be where people vote). It took us hundreds of years, evolving our institutions, developing ideas, to come to where we are today. Why on earth would something like that spring up over night after a country had been invaded and it's government overthrown? It wasn't a secret that Iraq was filled with multiple ethnic groups, including religious fundamentalists, whose conflict was held in check by Saddam's brutal dictatorship. Maybe theoretically an democracy complete with respect for human rights, diversity, freedom of expression and religion, groups fighting by having elections not with guns, could spontaneously spring up after Saddam was overthown, but it surely wouldn't be what one would expect. It seems like spinning a fantasy, and basing our foreign policy on it.
So do I actually have things right here? Was this what people who supported the war, not the man on the street, but the conservative intelligentsia, actually believed would happen? Again, I'm not trying to set up a caricature, or a straw man; I'm trying to convey my understanding of the arguments involved, and if I've gotten it wrong, or even distorted things, I'd like to know. I'm writing this to you, because as someone who initially was sympathic to some of these ideas, and who now finds them wanting, I'm hoping you're in a better position than anyone to answer this question.
Thank you so much for you article.
--Rick Taylor
Hindsight is always correct -- "I told you you'd never be a footballer, son" -- because once the results are in, the chain of events all fit together in a perfect way. But that doesn't necessarily mean that dear ol' dad is a wise, wise man.
Imagine a hypothetical case where some guy is holed up in a building with ten hostages, and begins executing one every twelve hours; the police toss a percussion device through the window in an attempt to momentarily disable the hostage-taker so that they can storm the room and free the hostages, but the device ignites some flammable material and causes the building to burn down, killing all the people in it.
In one sense, the smouldering ruins are final, inarguable proof that the tactic was a mistake, a tragic, fatal error. But suppose the tactic worked, and the surviving hostages were freed: would anyone criticize the SWAT team for their approach?
The point I'm trying to make -- and it's a real narrow one -- is that the correlation between the appropriateness of an action and its outcome is not absolute.
Suppose the decision undertaken by Canada and the US to cross the Atlantic to fight the Nazis had resulted in failure -- that Hitler had achieved total victory, and millions of allies died in vain. Would the decision to fight have been wrong? Would the arguments of the anti-war unionistas of the time have been perfectly vindicated by the defeat of their own nation's forces?
The broad left attempts to use the failure of the Iraq mission as proof of the correctness of any and all points they have made against the mission, but its success or failure was never really the issue for them. I mean, as things went badly south for Iraqi civilians, did you ever hear the mission's opponents argue for, say, a much larger multinational force who might have brought peace and stability to Iraqis?
Bjorn: the actions that you and many others supported have failed. But you should flense yourself and concede every unrelated argument coming from your putative one-time opponents only if you would would also have done so had the mission had been a sterling success. Otherwise you're trying to turn 20-20 hindsight into moral wisdom.
It's probably a bit easier to describe the "shameful" years after 9/11 when you're sitting far removed from the epicenter. I'd have thought the anti-american sentiment I read from this website whould be somewhat mitigated by the fact that none of you had your own equivilent of 9/11. So, the "would have, should have, could have" sentiment lacks conviction. But, no, you all feel the rumblings of Nostrodamus in your spirits as you piously pronounce what "should have been done". America is vulnerable because it is America...not because of something we have done to deserve such wrath...just like Britian was once vulnerable to the wrath of "wannabe" countries when they were a world power. Same is true for Germany, Italy, Greece, Persia...on and on. It's the way of the world. As a matter of interest, Norway will probably never fine herself at the tip of the american spear. Whay do you suppose that is? Maybe because you don't bomb our buildings? Howqever, give it a try and see if our NATO loyalties aren't a bit diminished. One thing I've learned about war...after 30 years in the military...is that it is very messy. When you get kicked in the teeth it is very disorienting. Initial responses are more a matter of fear than strategy. Even trying to clear your head is difficult. I once heard the "truth is the first cuasualy of war." The phrase sounds pretty prescient to me. And, if I was President Bush, with a country to defend, I would probably have done some "thrashing around" at first as well. At that point, fear and survival are primary motivators. And then..as the dustis settling...just try to get the ground truth. Ooops...he should have just read this blog. It's all right here. I just want to live til tomorrow...in spite of the folks in this world who'ld like to prevent it. How about you? Or didn't you notice the wolves at your door?
Very thoughtfully written and persuasive. I think that any person who supported the war - as I did, also - would find much to reflect upon in this piece. I have very slowly come to the belief that the Iraq war was a mistake both in hindsight and in foresight. Barbara Tuchman wrote about historical follies and what was needed to constitute one. I have regretfully concluded, for many of the reasons that you cite, that the Iraq war was folly a la Tuchman. You have done a good job of getting to the major issues. I think what you may not fully appreciate is how poisonous domestic US politics became and how this condition thwarted and short-circuited the realization of a wiser alternative. I point out to my friends on the left that, with a few honorable exceptions, the Democratic mainstream opposition, decided to opt out of their responsibility to put their beliefs forward when the time came for a vote and to bravely stand athwart conventional wisdom.... anyway, many lessons to be learned.
I didn't read everything you said, but I was a lot like you at first, too. I did want to tell you that in every war we have ever had, many of our freedoms were temporarily taken from us. This is something the far lefts will never mention. From Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the civil war to Churchill's speech right before WWII talking about how some of their freedom's would have to be temporarily taken from them. It's been that way in every war. Like I said, I didn't read everything you said, but don't ever think we do not have anything to be afraid of as far as the Muslims are concerned. Just read about what is happening in Sweden. Muslims have taken over their 3rd largest city. They are robbing and raping the Swedes constantly and the Swedes are moving out of their country "in droves" as one of their newspapers put it. Google it - "Sweden Muslimes droves third largest city." France will be an Islamic country in the not so far off distance. The last time I read their news, their Muslim population was injuring at least 14 French policemen every day. Same thing with the raping and robbing. Same thing in Denmark. Even the Brits have a whole lot of trouble out of their Muslim population. Muslims are fighting in about 22 out of the 23 armed conflicts in the world. Think about it. They tried to take over the then-known world years ago, and almost did. They haven't changed their doctrine. Europe and some of the Brits want to appease these Muslims just as they did Hitler, but it isn't going to work. I agree we should not have gone into Iraq without a plan and without our allies, but our allies were stabbing us in the back anyway. There is no way we will ever stop terrorism unless we stop the Arab Muslims from raising their children with such hatred in their hearts. We could have never done that without winning in Iraq. Had we won in Iraq, there is no doubt the surrounding Islamic countries would have followed the suit of freedom. And that's all we have really ever done to the Arab Muslims, is try to bring them freedom. But they fought so hard against it, twisted everything we did, plus, we did make some bad decision. But they hate us because we will not allow them to take down their Islamic country dictators so they can replace them with radical Muslims. They are fighting in so many countries because they're trying to build one Islamic country. If they ever take a country like Iraq that has oil, we've had it, because there is no doubt that these people think their god has told them that they are to fight and kill until they rule the world with Islam. That is a very real fear. With the Europeans deserted us, though, we have no choice but to pack up and come back home and just try our best to secure our country. We may have done the wrong thing, but at least we tried to do something about it. Europe's just sitting over there letting these people take their countries over. I'm not sure why no one understands that we have always had to fight people with the insane idea of taking over the world. The longer we try to appease them, the more time it gives them to get stronger and more people will be killed. These terrorists have been growing for over 50 years now. Whoever thinks they are going to stop and aren't just going to keep getting worse, is dreaming. They have the ideology of Hitler with religion thrown on top. If you don't think that's the most dangerous thing we have faced thus far, then think again. Actually, 9/11/01 was a blessing in disguise. I'm not sure what part of many sleeper cells in our countries people do not understand, but sooner or later those sleeper cells would have planned to attack us from inside our countries.
And that's all we have really ever done to the Arab Muslims, is try to bring them freedom.
Wow - are you delusional?
I can't believe someone used the example of the game of Diplomacy to critique this article. Diplomacy is a game. It has no bearing on real life; it's a very flawed simulation. It also brings out the worst in people. Did I mention it was a very flawed simulation? And the statement that it's better to do something (even if it's wrong) rather than do nothing is just so assinine that it's not even worth rebutting; one need only do a brief thought experiment to punch holes into that little "fact".
To: Debbie, i.e. the woman who claims that Swedes are engaged in a mass exodus to flee Islamic immigration. Have you been to Sweden? Have you been to France? It's one thing to read articles (written by reporters who may or may not have an agenda). It's another to actually see for yourself. I know many foreigners. I've been made to look like the fool more times than I care to acknowledge after quoting statements similar to yours.
"Esbern Dresen, Canada, 2007-03-05 Hindsight is always correct --" You do make a valid point; one can't blindly assume that if expects things to go poorly and things do go poorly, one is automatically right about everything. But I feel you take this point to an extreme. When we think things are going to go one way and they don't, and especially when we take actions on our expectations and millions of people are hurt as a result, at the very minimum, I believe we should look at what happened and to reassess our world view in the light of it. Otherwise we'll never learn from our experience. Let me put this way. Suppose things had gone extraordinarily well in Iraq. Suppose the United States was currently withdrawing our troops as a pluralistic democratically elected government friendly to the United States was taking over with very little violence, and with all the ethnic groups working together. Suppose that in the light of this, prominent Muslim intellectuals were denouncing terrorism and citizens everywhere were clamoring for democracy. Suppose all of this happened, and I told you, that doesn't prove a thing! True, things went well, but that doesn't mean you knew what you were talking about going into the war, or that I was wrong. This was a dangerous immoral debacle, and it's only sheer luck it wasn't a disaster. And the next time a chance to intervene in a country under similar circumstances occurs, I'm going to oppose it just as vigorously. Let me ask you, would you take me seriously? I don't think you should. At a minimum, shouldn't I be doing soul searching about something I got so extremely wrong? Isn't it at least likely there's somethign seriously askew in my world view that I was that confident about something I got that wrong? And shouldn't I feel especially obligated, because if I'd had my way, if we hadn't invaded, millions of people would have suffered? Shouldn't I at least be humbled? We have to be willing to test our ideas against reality. Of course it doesn't mean that if we're wrong about something we're wrong about everything, or if we're right about everything. But the alternative of sticking our beliefs ignoring what actually happens is at least as deluded. Now you mention World War II. I hesitate to bring this up because the point is obvious, but Germany under Hitler started that war. They not only inaded Poland, France, and bombed Russia, they even declared war on the United States. So comparing that with our invasion of Iraq is ridiculous. Put it this way, if the hijackers who had destroyed the twin towers had been Iraqis there on Saddam's orders, then of course I would say you're right. If we had invaded then, and if the invasion had gone as badly as it has, I might criticize our tactical decisions, I might be pained by the results, but we had no choice, we were attacked. This was a war of choice. In my opinion, it was a war of aggression. We didn't invade Iraq because it was in the process or on the verge of attacking us, or invading one of its neighbors. Perhaps we invaded because we thought at some time in the future he might be a danger (I'm still not certain), but regardless, it was our choice. We decided that Iraq would be better off if we invaded them by force and overthrough their government, we decided that the benefits would outweight the consequences, that war which is so often a force of chaos and destruction would in this case do more good than harm. And the only conceivable justification for acting, was if we were right. Bjorn Staerk makes this point well and I think you missed it; because this was a war of choice, when we end up causing hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, and destabalizing that part of the country, we can't just throw up our hands and say well, that doesn't prove anything, it could have gone well. How were we to know? --Rick Taylor
Bjorn, we didn't create this world, 9/11 just exposed how it was. Cold War alliances were an anomily, this is how the world really is, it's just we can read about it and talk to the people there about it in real time.
One of the reasons the invasion of Iraq has gone so horribly wrong is that there was never any realistic planning done for the occupation phase of the invasion.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2006_09/009469.php
"The secretary of defense continued to push on us ... that everything we write in our plan has to be the idea that we are going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then we're going to leave," Scheid said. "We won't stay."
Scheid said the planners continued to try "to write what was called Phase 4," or the piece of the plan that included post-invasion operations like occupation.
Even if the troops didn't stay, "at least we have to plan for it," Scheid said.
"I remember the secretary of defense saying that he would fire the next person that said that," Scheid said. "We would not do planning for Phase 4 operations, which would require all those additional troops that people talk about today.
"He said we will not do that because the American public will not back us if they think we are going over there for a long war."
...."In his own mind he thought we could go in and fight and take out the regime and come out. But a lot of us planners were having a real hard time with it because we were also thinking we can't do this. Once you tear up a country you have to stay and rebuild it. It was very challenging."
-Brigadier General Mark Scheid, chief of the Logistics War Plans Division after 9/11
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB214/index.htm
TOP SECRET POLO STEP
Iraq War Plan Assumed Only 5,000 U.S. Troops Still There by December 2006
CentCom PowerPoint Slides Briefed to White House and Rumsfeld in 2002, Obtained by National Security Archive through Freedom of Information Act
PowerPoints Reflect Internal Debates Over Size and Timing of Invasion Force
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 214
Edited by Joyce Battle and Thomas Blanton
Washington D.C., February 14, 2007 - The U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq postulated in August 2002 that the U.S. would have only 5,000 troops left in Iraq as of December 2006, according to the Command's PowerPoint briefing slides, which were obtained through the Freedom of Information Act and are posted on the Web today by the National Security Archive (www.nsarchive.org).
The PowerPoint slides, prepared by CentCom planners for Gen. Tommy Franks under code name POLO STEP, for briefings during 2002 for President Bush, the NSC, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the JCS, and Franks' commanders, refer to the "Phase IV" post-hostilities period as "UNKNOWN" and "months" in duration, but assume that U.S. forces would be almost completely "re-deployed" out of Iraq within 45 months of the invasion (i.e. December 2006).
"Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans," said National Security Archive Executive Director Thomas Blanton. "First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions."
The PowerPoint slides reflect the continuous debate over the size of the invasion force that took place within the Bush administration. In late November 2001, President Bush asked Rumsfeld about the status of plans for war with Iraq. He asked for an updated approach, but did not want to attract attention. Rumsfeld ordered Gen. Franks to prepare a commander's estimate of improvements needed, and Franks convened a planning group that adopted the codeword POLO STEP.
Someone said: >I believe that the WMDs existed and that they currently are in Syria and Lebanon. I believe in Santa Claus. Seriously, do you "believe" things based on evidence or wishful thinking? Or like Rumsfeld, do you believe that "the absence of evidence is evidence?" Anyway, didn't you hear? Rick Santorum found the WMD long ago -- but the liberal media hypnotized Bush and made him say that the WMD didn't exist and were never found.
It's been a while since I've visited bearstrong - reading Bjorn's piece tells me that he's an honest man with a moral compass, which I knew already, however blind he may be. Can't help noting that he mentions '50,000 Iraqi dead', neatly avoiding the million or so who died as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq between GW1 and the present catastrophe. Not to mention the utter and daily destruction of anything resembling ordinary human existence which has directly resulted from the invasion. That's only in Iraq, of course, so it may not count...
What astounds me is the number of 'true believers' in the War on Terror who still seem to believe that this destruction could not be avoided, and is apparently the fault of 'Islamic extremists' who are viscerally opposed to freedom. Who take it as read that the evil terrorist attack on 911 was indeed the work of such fanatics - taking the USA by treachery, plotting an extremely complex plan to murder thousands for no reason whatsoever except hatred of freedom.
Anyone who still claims to believe such rubbish is simply demonstrating the fact that they refuse to let go of the crusty tit of the controlled disinformation machine that is the current main-stream media and the brilliant intellectuals who pontificate from a little higher up on the same tit.
Someone in this thread quoted Ashcroft who said that Islam sends its sons to die for Islam, whereas the Christian God sent his son to die for us. More than three thousand US soldiers already dead in Iraq, not to mention the thousands of crippled - who sent them to fight - and for what?
There is a wealth of information available today to anyone who is interested in or capable of an honest appraisal of the quagmire in which we are now all struggling. Most of the realisations to which Bjorn is beginning timidly to admit were stated quite clearly before the invasion by any number of reasonable people, and their comments have been born out by the tragic years since. No good can come of this, no good has come of it, and no change is visible.
Some of you remind me of the fanatics who orchestrated Galileo's imprisonment because he dared suggest the heliocentric nature of our system. Any lunacy, however genocidal, seems preferable to letting go of the insane junk TV certainty that 'we' are Chuck Norris defending civilization from the barbaric hordes.
Apart from being a lie to start with, the idea that we can go and wreak havoc on another nation in order to impose democracy is just as insane as recruiting a bunch of thugs to take over your neighbour's house because you don't think he should be allowed to eat pork, shout at his wife or tell his children that God's real name is Charlie. And that comment should draw some howling from the pack.
911, demonstrably, was a murderous lie, and so is the war on terror - the whole deal is a power play dependent on our gullibility, the point of which is increased and continuing power - in this scenario, human lives, of whatever nationality, are worth less than spit on a shithouse floor.
It's been a while since I've visited bearstrong - reading Bjorn's piece tells me that he's an honest man with a moral compass, which I knew already, however blind he may be. Can't help noting that he mentions '50,000 Iraqi dead', neatly avoiding the million or so who died as a result of the sanctions imposed on Iraq between GW1 and the present catastrophe. Not to mention the utter and daily destruction of anything resembling ordinary human existence which has directly resulted from the invasion. That's only in Iraq, of course, so it may not count...
What astounds me is the number of 'true believers' in the War on Terror who still seem to believe that this destruction could not be avoided, and is apparently the fault of 'Islamic extremists' who are viscerally opposed to freedom. Who take it as read that the evil terrorist attack on 911 was indeed the work of such fanatics - taking the USA by treachery, plotting an extremely complex plan to murder thousands for no reason whatsoever except hatred of freedom.
Anyone who still claims to believe such rubbish is simply demonstrating the fact that they refuse to let go of the crusty tit of the controlled disinformation machine that is the current main-stream media and the brilliant intellectuals who pontificate from a little higher up on the same tit.
Someone in this thread quoted Ashcroft who said that Islam sends its sons to die for Islam, whereas the Christian God sent his son to die for us. More than three thousand US soldiers already dead in Iraq, not to mention the thousands of crippled - who sent them to fight - and for what?
There is a wealth of information available today to anyone who is interested in or capable of an honest appraisal of the quagmire in which we are now all struggling. Most of the realisations to which Bjorn is beginning timidly to admit were stated quite clearly before the invasion by any number of reasonable people, and their comments have been born out by the tragic years since. No good can come of this, no good has come of it, and no change is visible.
Some of you remind me of the fanatics who orchestrated Galileo's imprisonment because he dared suggest the heliocentric nature of our system. Any lunacy, however genocidal, seems preferable to letting go of the insane junk TV certainty that 'we' are Chuck Norris defending civilization from the barbaric hordes.
Apart from being a lie to start with, the idea that we can go and wreak havoc on another nation in order to impose democracy is just as insane as recruiting a bunch of thugs to take over your neighbour's house because you don't think he should be allowed to eat pork, shout at his wife or tell his children that God's real name is Charlie. And that comment should draw some howling from the pack.
911, demonstrably, was a murderous lie, and so is the war on terror - the whole deal is a power play dependent on our gullibility, the point of which is increased and continuing power - in this scenario, human lives, of whatever nationality, are worth less than spit on a shithouse floor.
Tariq Ramadan and Islam’s Future in Europe From 2003 to 2006 I worked as a civil servant in the Berchem borough of Antwerp, Flanders. Berchem is a multicultural neighbourhood with many immigrants of Turkish and Moroccan origin. My job was to promote the integration of these people and foster good relations between the different ethnic groups living in Berchem. Prior to 2003 I worked in Antwerp North, another neighbourhood with many immigrants. During the past years I noted how radical Islamists groups began to take over the immigrant neighbourhoods. I warned for this danger in my reports to the city authorities. The latter made it clear to me that they did not like my reports. They said my reports read like “Vlaams Belang tracts.” The VB is the local anti-immigration party. When I kept reporting about what I saw happening around me I was fired. After my dismissal I wrote to the Antwerp city council: “You employ workers to improve social cohesion in the city’s neighborhoods. But if you do not want to know what is damaging social cohesion, then you need not bother sending those workers! “It is alarming that not a single politician in Antwerp is interested in the structural radicalization, the absence of women’s rights, the prevalence of domestic violence, the real reasons why Antwerp citizens of Turkish and Moroccan descent lag behind in education and employment. “The notion that there could be a connection between religion and the social and economic situation of your ‘difficult to reach target groups’ is a complete taboo! “You have no interest whatever in ascertaining the causes of street crime, which constitutes an environment where radical Islamist groups recruit followers. Worse, employees who are confronted with this problem and investigate are silently removed, losing their income and their reputation. That is censorship in the fashion of political dictatorships. As a former member of your services I am shocked to find myself in this position and to discover after years of service that you have no policy whatever, either political or with regard to your personnel.” Recently I began to post articles about my experiences on the Dutch-language section of The Brussels Journal. Since then I have received threats from Islamists, warning me to stop. I will not stop because it is important that people know what is going on. I have many Muslims friends who are also opposed to the radicals. They keep me informed about what is going on, but cannot say this in public for fear of reprisals. As Theodore Dalrymple said: “On a micro-level people are now living in a totalitarian climate. In our Western societies. Within our Western societies there is a micro-totalitarian climate.” This is something we should not tolerate. If we do, we, too, will soon be living in a totalitarian society. Europe is being confronted with a new challenge: Islam and its influence on political, social and economic policy. Muslims give different interpretations of what Islam means. Islam as a fixed doctrine does not exist. This makes dialogue with the Islamic community extremely difficult. To be sure, there are a certain number of tendencies which – depending on schools and traditions – claim to be interpretations of an Islamitic doctrine. But the very absence of a well defined doctrine makes Islam a Trojan horse. You have to wait to see what is inside, and the latter could be a big surprise. Unfortunately, a radical version of Islam is becoming dominant in Europe. It is the so-called “European Islam,” promoted by modern Islamic philosophers like Tariq Ramadan. Extremist Muslim groups, such as the Salafists, find in Ramadan a defender of their range of thought. Considering the man’s background this is hardly strange. Ramadan’s maternal grandfather is Hassan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and a source of inspiration for the distribution of Islam as a strict teaching. The Muslim Brotherhood is a worldwide organisation that puts the Quran above the law, with violence if need be. The organisation is forbidden in Egypt – all the more reason for a critical look at Ramadan’s message. Ramadan describes his vision in a book called “Western Muslims and the Future of Islam”. The first sentence in this book is: “One day we shall go back to the source!” That sounds promising, but who are “we”? All Muslims or all humanity? This question is fascinating, because certain Muslims are convinced that this return to the “source,” obviously meaning the Islam, most certainly applies to all humanity and – depending on interpretation – must be achieved with gentle coercion or with straightforward violence. An opinion that is alive worldwide among Muslims says that first there was Judaism, then Christianity and finally Islam. They claim that religion means evolution and that, hence, Islam is the final point, past Judaism and Christianity. Is this the return to the “source” to which Mr Ramadan refers? Like the Salafists, Ramadan sees a link between tradition and science. He claims to start from the Quran and Sunnah to arrive via the methodology of Islamic scientists at an enlightened version of Islam, based on a strict adherence to the sources and values of interpretation. The Quran, however, is not a harmless book for people who are not Muslims. It says that people who do not convert to Islam deserve death and oppression. Does Ramadan’s allegiance to the sources extend to these verses as well? In his book Ramadan explains what Islam will mean for Europe socially, politically and economically. He dissects how Europe can adjust itself to Islam. Indeed, Islam is essentially a doctrine consisting of political, economic and social structures. Europeans think it is a religion, but it claims to be more. I agree with Ramadan that inside Europe we are witnessing to a revolution of youngsters and intellectuals who are looking for the means to live in harmony with their faith, while they also live in our society. In 2004 a new organisation, called Youth for Islam (YfI), established itself in Berchem, the neighbourhood where I worked. YfI is a Salafist organisation. This means that they put Salaf, or the following of the road of Muhammed’s companions, at the centre of their lives. In other words, they return to the source, by letting their lives as much as possible be a reflection of the life of the prophet. In this the literal interpretation of the Quran is essential. Through attending summer camps, where they are instructed in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) and Sharia (Islamic law), youngsters are encouraged not to accept the laws of the Western country where they live, but the Quran. What the Salafists teach cannot be reconciled with European values: the stoning of women, flogging, the repudiation of children whose fathers are not Muslims, etc., is in contradiction with European law. Those who ask young people living in Europe to follow the rules laid down in a 7th century manual are asking for problems and promote conflict. European law or culture is not compatible with Tariq Ramadan’s doctrine about Islam’s future in Europe. Organisations like YfI in Antwerp, and similar groups in other European cities – and they are in the process of being established everywhere – have plenty of money. They are sponsored by billionaires in Jordan and Saudi-Arabia. Because they do not get – nor ask – subsidies from European authorities there is no control on their activities. As the YfI chairman told me, his organization does not ask for subsidies because it does not want to be controlled. In Ramadan’s orthodox Salafist opinion, Europe’s Muslim youths must refuse to come into contact with non-Islamic environments. They have to isolate themselves from Western influences. This is exactly what YfI does. Once they had rented the Berchem conference hall for a lecture and there happened to be a simultaneous exhibition of photography in the entrance hall. I saw how they turned all the “indecent” pictures round and how the great hall where the lecture was held was divided into two sections by curtains: the women had to sit behind the curtains, not visible for the men. Mr. Ramadan will say that this is exactly how it should be because of Quran regulations. Such conduct however, is not correct according to our European principles. Ramadan’s “European Islam” has not in the least been influenced by European values. I am not a philosopher nor a scientist, as Ramadan, who currently lectures at Rotterdam University, pretends to be. I wonder, however, whether the West should allow Islamists the right to undermine our legal system by advocating the primacy of Islamic law and the imposition of the Sharia in Europe. Why do we have to allow separate swimming hours for Muslim women in public swimming pools? Why do we allow it? Why has Ramadan been given a lectureship at Rotterdam university? I know many of the Berchem youths who have been hooked by YfI. I know their parents, their families. Like other youths, these youths are searching for an identity. Caught between the traditions and beliefs of their culture and the expectations of Western society, they have problems integrating and do badly economically as well as socially. Can Mr Ramadan’s vision ameliorate their situation? Or is he isolating them even more? According to the Salafists non-Muslims are lesser people. By saying this they justify the behaviour of young Muslim criminals who target the non-Muslims whilst they never touch fellow Muslims. They told me that drug trafficking is perfectly acceptable as long as one only sells to non-Muslims. They told me that stealing from non-Muslims is allowed as long as one does not harm fellow Muslims. One day our office was burgled and our computers were stolen. All except the two computers belonging to our two Muslim colleagues. You don’t steal from brothers or sisters! The culprits were YfI-members. Many victims of burglaries in houses and cars, of steaming and other forms of violence, can testify that aggression by Muslims is not directed against brothers and sisters, but against whoever is a kafir, a non-believer. Young Muslims justify their behaviour towards women who do not wear the headscarf, whether Muslim or non-Muslim, by referring to the Salafist teaching which says that these women are whores and should be treated as such. They told me this. I wrote it down in my reports, but the authorities refuse to hear it. Of course Mr Ramadan disapproves of the young criminals’ behaviour. Of course the YfI leadership disapproves too. But I am convinced they are double-faced. In public, when talking to Westerners, such as the media and the authorities, they condemn the criminals, but they continue to spread the ideas which the criminals use to justify their acts. Ramadan and the Salafists promote segregation. They tell Muslim women to turn down jobs where they are not allowed to wear the headscarf. They tell young men and women not to go and work in banks, restaurants, hospitals, because the Quran prohibits lending money against interest, forbids alcohol, and instructs people not to touch human beings of the opposite sex. Increasingly the Shariah dictates how a growing number of European citizens lives. It is also beginning to dictate how we have to behave, what cartoons we are allowed to draw, what food we are allowed to eat, what operas we are allowed to see. Muslims radicals object to a play because the head of a Muhammed puppet is cut off, but at the same time they approve the beheading of journalists in Iraq. Organisations like YfI claim the former is a Western provocation, while the latter is in accordance with the divine right of Dar al harb, the “house of war.” Ramadan and the Salafists teach the Muslim youths that they have the right to demand that our society will adjust to them, but they are unwilling to respect us. In my opinion Muslims are welcome to live in Europe, but only if they show respect for our culture and history. Mr Ramadan’s philosophy does not offer us anything of value. Just look at the sorrowful conditions of many Muslims in Islamic states. These people flee their own countries and come to the West, where they demand that their way of life be introduced here. Indeed, Tariq Ramadan’s book “Western Muslims and the future of Islam” would never have been written if Muslims had not en masse left their own countries searching for a better life in Europe than in the countries where Islam dictates the political, economic and social structures. We must be aware that Ramadan’s “European Islam” is a Trojan horse in our midst. If Western authorities remain blind to this, it may soon be too late.
Bjorn, Your article “What Went Wrong”, is a fair assessment of current events, and mirrors the conclusions of many of us who thought we had it right. I too, took a step back about 18 months ago to reflect on my opinions of past five years. Like you, I believed an invasion of Iraq was indeed the right decision. However, I struggled with my conviction as a Christian and challenge to be salt and light. In the interim, I watched in horror at an increasing invasion of undocumented immigrants crossing the southern border into the USA. A situation no other country in the world would tolerate. This is not so much unchecked, at it is encouraged by our leadership, despite a very large majority who wanted our borders secured. We watched GWB dedicate more troops to fighting an increasingly organized resistance in Iraq for the establishment of a democracy in Iraq, without not even acknowledging the breach of security on our own borders. We also totally ignored the concept of democracy (very different from a republic), would stands little chance of success in an Islamic state. We read of extremely well organized funding of terrorism on a global scale, yet the media seemed reluctant to report these connections. We listened to the whaling of environmentalist expound on global warming and calculate the harmful effects of increasing carbon dioxide; the primary ingredient for plant life. No one seemed to recall a time less than two decade ago when we were facing predictions of Global Cooling. We seem to be totally at the mercy of our politicians and lack resolve for a response. My whole position now is to stand back and observe, because there are some interesting, and profoundly news worth events that the media absolutely will not report. I see our troops more as ambassadors for peace then an invading foreign power. This seems due more to the will of our military commanders than our elected representatives, who continue to use this engagement as a political football. Should we stay or should we pull out? Like the Israelites in biblical times our backs are to the Red Sea with no place to turn…or so it seems. Here is an interesting read: http://www.gods-kingdom.org/WebLog/WebPrint.cfm?LogID=531 The State of Israel Regardless of what you think of former President Jimmy Carter, his latest book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," criticized by pro-Israel groups, attacked by Democrats and Republicans, has led to the resignation of many of his supporters, staff, and advisers. However, Carter accurately sums up the CURRENT problems related to the coexistence of the Israeli’s, Palestinian’s, Persians, and their Arab neighbors. Very rarely do we see any expression or concern of the horrible plight of the Palestinians in their own land by Americans. "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," follows the Israeli-Palestinian peace process starting with Carter's 1977-1980 presidency and the peace accord he brokered between Israel and Egypt to the current administration of George W. Bush. Carter gives you much of the background on the UN decision and conditions which granted a portion of Palestinian territories for a Jewish State or homeland in 1948. Americans in particular know very little of the details and have very little patience to know them. Carter doles out blame to the Palestinians, the U.S., and others, but it is most critical of Israeli policy. Much to my surprise I find myself agreeing with Mr. Carter. It’s not the whole story, but the details Carter provides are accurate. History Few historians, including many published biblical scholars, do not fully understand the significance of the biblical account over who owns territories in the Middle East. Even if you understand the past cultures, there have been enough wars between the major players, Israel, Judah, Babylonians, Assyrians, Persians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Ottomans, Britons, and French, there is very little for any one ethnic group to can claim ownership based on past occupation. But, if you really want to straighten out the many misconceptions and poor teaching about the current struggle, history, and purpose of God, you must read “The Struggle for the Birthright” by Dr. Steven E. Jones. It is only available on-line. Barns and Noble, and other major book distributors will never carry this book; at least not yet. However, a Google search will get you to the resource. You will NEVER regret having read this book. Jones describes himself as a teacher, and nothing more. Yes Bjorn, some of us have come a long way, but most of us have much more to learn. I plan on remaining humble during this learning process. Enjoy Geronimo
I have to say that I disagree with the essay and much of the commentary here. For someone who has heard of (and presumably read) Huntington's "What Went Wrong" this is a remarkably unreflective essay. Several hundred years of civilizational decline are to be quickly and easily reversed by the US, how? It is not that the Islamic civilization had its bubble pricked once but again and again and they have fallen further and further behind in a process that started well before 1776 and arguably before 1492 as the Spanish Reconquista was an early harbringer. Either Islam must die or a new Islam must arise. Since they have the nasty habit of killing their reformers, such a change inevitably must be violent and, yes, quite a bit chaotic.
But *why* these are the only two choices before us gets rare coverage. The plain fact is that even in the most disconnected corner of the world, people are becoming more empowered. The rates of growth in power are highly variable but cell phones, access to electricity and other signs of modernity are reaching out across the globe. The power necessary to create a mass casualty event, however, remains flat and will continue to remain flat. Hardening our society to meaningfully raise that threshold is largely beyond us. Thus we face a growing number of entities, first subnational then down to individuals, who have the capacity to do serious harm. Absent their integration into the world system, a significant number, much more than we can tolerate, will turn to terrorist methods and create those mass casualty events. Civilization may be able to shrug off a certain number of mass casualty events a year but past a certain point, the cool will shatter. How many of our dead must we sacrifice until we reach that breaking point? How many until we turn fascist and brutal or simply give in and bend our neck to our new masters?
As well, the multi-century Islamic decline outlined in Huntington's book does not allow for meaningful integration with its root causes unaddressed. Regressive recent trends, like the rebirth of aggressive veiling dating from the 1970s in Egypt are making the situation worse, not better.
In the US Civil War, Bull Run I was a high point of northern delusion. The ladies of Washington, DC came to picnic as "our boys" were going to give the rebels a thrashing. Reality turned out very differently and the results were infinitely worse than Iraq. But this was not a cause to abandon the war but to get serious about it. In the US Civil War it took several years and many changes in leadership before the project of actually getting good enough to win was accomplished. Rivers of blood were shed and entire cities of the dead were created in the meantime. The very real wastes and lost opportunities of the Iraq War and the wider war on Terror pale in comparison (though by no means are they trivial). They were worth the eventual victory in both cases.
Where did we go wrong is a useful question. We've gone very wrong on tactics, on logistics, on any number of small things and we've paid in blood and treasure. But the very large question of fight or not, we got it right. The battlefield of Iraq was also picked well. Both Sunni and Shia *must* pay attention to Iraq in a way that they do not have to in Afghanistan or some hypothetical battlefield in the Maghreb or southern or central Asia.
Today, the stakes are raised on all sides. In this too, the essay is a bit unreflective. When you rouse the troops and plant the flag, the stakes grow. To retreat in Iraq now is to give the green light to all sorts of schemes and plots that we barely perceive exist and certainly have not counted the cost. There are no pleasant choices. The Sudanese, for instance, have made the calculation that the US is too busy, and everybody else is too incapable or spineless to prevent genocide in Darfur. They are not alone in making such calculations, just the most imprudent.
I have to say that I disagree with the essay and much of the commentary here. For someone who has heard of (and presumably read) Huntington's "What Went Wrong" this is a remarkably unreflective essay. Several hundred years of civilizational decline are to be quickly and easily reversed by the US, how? It is not that the Islamic civilization had its bubble pricked once but again and again and they have fallen further and further behind in a process that started well before 1776 and arguably before 1492 as the Spanish Reconquista was an early harbringer. Either Islam must die or a new Islam must arise. Since they have the nasty habit of killing their reformers, such a change inevitably must be violent and, yes, quite a bit chaotic.
But *why* these are the only two choices before us gets rare coverage. The plain fact is that even in the most disconnected corner of the world, people are becoming more empowered. The rates of growth in power are highly variable but cell phones, access to electricity and other signs of modernity are reaching out across the globe. The power necessary to create a mass casualty event, however, remains flat and will continue to remain flat. Hardening our society to meaningfully raise that threshold is largely beyond us. Thus we face a growing number of entities, first subnational then down to individuals, who have the capacity to do serious harm. Absent their integration into the world system, a significant number, much more than we can tolerate, will turn to terrorist methods and create those mass casualty events. Civilization may be able to shrug off a certain number of mass casualty events a year but past a certain point, the cool will shatter. How many of our dead must we sacrifice until we reach that breaking point? How many until we turn fascist and brutal or simply give in and bend our neck to our new masters?
As well, the multi-century Islamic decline outlined in Huntington's book does not allow for meaningful integration with its root causes unaddressed. Regressive recent trends, like the rebirth of aggressive veiling dating from the 1970s in Egypt are making the situation worse, not better.
In the US Civil War, Bull Run I was a high point of northern delusion. The ladies of Washington, DC came to picnic as "our boys" were going to give the rebels a thrashing. Reality turned out very differently and the results were infinitely worse than Iraq. But this was not a cause to abandon the war but to get serious about it. In the US Civil War it took several years and many changes in leadership before the project of actually getting good enough to win was accomplished. Rivers of blood were shed and entire cities of the dead were created in the meantime. The very real wastes and lost opportunities of the Iraq War and the wider war on Terror pale in comparison (though by no means are they trivial). They were worth the eventual victory in both cases.
Where did we go wrong is a useful question. We've gone very wrong on tactics, on logistics, on any number of small things and we've paid in blood and treasure. But the very large question of fight or not, we got it right. The battlefield of Iraq was also picked well. Both Sunni and Shia *must* pay attention to Iraq in a way that they do not have to in Afghanistan or some hypothetical battlefield in the Maghreb or southern or central Asia.
Today, the stakes are raised on all sides. In this too, the essay is a bit unreflective. When you rouse the troops and plant the flag, the stakes grow. To retreat in Iraq now is to give the green light to all sorts of schemes and plots that we barely perceive exist and certainly have not counted the cost. There are no pleasant choices. The Sudanese, for instance, have made the calculation that the US is too busy, and everybody else is too incapable or spineless to prevent genocide in Darfur. They are not alone in making such calculations, just the most imprudent.
Bjorn, wow, you are so wrong, it's hard to pick just one thing. I guess, overall, I see a post completely and totally FULL of unsupported statements. For example, on Iraq, you provide no actual logical support for your contention that Iraq was a mistake. This alleged consensus, even it existed among the people most affected, would mean nothing, since an argument of that type is a logic fallacy. I'm tempted to point out many things that show that Iraq was certainly not a mistake. However, if I did that, I'd be putting words in your mouth, arguing against a straw man. The fact is that the only reason you seem to mention is that "There aren't many people left who believe that it was a good idea". Judging by the facts in evidence (about your reasoning), you, like most non critical thinkers, simply believe it was a mistake, because that's what everyone says. It should not be necessary to tell any thinking person about how many examples there are of ideas that everyone believed, but that are totally false. So, your epistemology is completely falsified, and given that fact, there is no reason to take anything you say as more than mere fluff. The answer to "What went wrong": your reasoning process.
Gunnar: Judging by the facts in evidence (about your reasoning), you, like most non critical thinkers, simply believe it was a mistake, because that's what everyone says.
I don't mind disagreeing with the majority. I've done that often enough, and my personality probably makes me more biased in that direction than towards conformity. But I do mind disagreeing with reality, and what I'm describing in this post is the result of what - from my point of view, though of course not yours - is the collision between my ideas and reality.
I did describe several reasons why I now think the Iraq war was a mistake. One is the damage it has caused, measured in deaths, refugees, material costs - and America and Britain's loss of reputation. Another reason, the main topic of the post, was the insulation between war supporters and reality. A responsible war party simply cannot filter reality as aggressively as pro-war bloggers, pundits and officials have done in this war. The idea that this can all be fixed with a few more soldiers is typical of that filtration.
As for your elevating this from reality to the realm of logical fallacies - I'm not going up there with you. I've watched too much online silliness to have patience with phrases like "your epistemology is completely falsified" in a debate about hard realities. Please come back down here if you want to discuss this.
Hi Bjørn, It certainly takes courage to rethink one's formerly announced positions. You demonstrate an ability for that through this essay which I found to be very interesting. Bjørn writes: "What we saw was not expert knowledge, but the well-written, arrogantly presented ideas of half-educated amateurs" This is an assessment that is fitting for much that is bandied about in blogs....(most actually)...but still blogs are good. It is freedom of expression. It is an opportunity to expose yourselves to counterarguments, or alas, hide from them. It is also interesting to look through your archives from 2003 to see exactly what was debated in this forum at the time. This is part of your topic, how group think, prejudice and tunnel vision short-circuits genuine consideration of the problem at hand. http://blog.bearstrong.net/archive/weblog/000552.html The thread above (can't hyperlink :-)) contained some great throwing of punches. Finally, thanks for an interesting read. AGR
>> I did describe several reasons why I now think the Iraq war was a mistake. One is the damage it has caused, measured in deaths, refugees, material costs -
That hardly qualifies as a valid reason. By that logic, fighting the Nazis in WW2 was a mistake, fighting slave owners in the confederacy was wrong, fighting japanese warlords was wrong.
>> and America and Britain's loss of reputation.
Maybe in the crowd that you run with. However, in the minds of everyone who matter, the US now has the reputation of an entity that is powerful, and will use force to protect itself, and will not back down when it gets rough. Vietnam dramatically reduced the US reputation, and emboldened the enemy to attack it. Why? Because the US withdrew, and was therefore defeated.
>> Another reason, the main topic of the post, was the insulation between war supporters and reality.
First of all, this is NOT a reason why freeing Iraq from a brutal dictator was a mistake. It's totally irrelevant. Secondly, you provide no support for this claim either.
>> The idea that this can all be fixed with a few more soldiers is typical of that filtration.
Really, I'm not sure what Ike was thinking with this D-Day thing. Like, he must have thought that it could all be fixed with a few more soldiers.
>> to have patience with phrases like "your epistemology is completely falsified" in a debate about hard realities. Please come back down here if you want to discuss this.
hehe, this response proves my statement, since, apparently, you think one can discuss realities (hard or soft), without using reason.
epistemology [(i-pis-tuh-mol-uh-jee)]: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and origin of knowledge. Epistemology asks the question “How do we know what we know?”
A correct epistemology is based on observation and reason. Logic are the rules of reason.
Gunnar: That hardly qualifies as a valid reason. By that logic, fighting the Nazis in WW2 was a mistake, fighting slave owners in the confederacy was wrong, fighting japanese warlords was wrong.
Only if you think I meant that the cost of war is always too high. Every war is an investment, there are costs and benefits. In this war, I see a lot of costs, and few benefits. That makes it wrong. In other wars the balance might be different - but that's a different discussion.
However, in the minds of everyone who matter, the US now has the reputation of an entity that is powerful, and will use force to protect itself, and will not back down when it gets rough. Vietnam dramatically reduced the US reputation, and emboldened the enemy to attack it. Why? Because the US withdrew, and was therefore defeated.
I'm curious about who you have in mind as people who "matter". To most of the world, I believe the Iraq war has demonstrated that the US is dangerous but foolish, like the clumsy muscle man in a martial arts movie. The kind who can punch through a wall but is easily outwitted. Given the situation it's in right now, I don't see how the US can avoid a disgraceful exit, which, like Vietnam, will reinforce that image.
I don't see how that is good for America's reputation. They have barely 300 million people. New powers are emerging all over the world. The landscape of economy, military power and information is shifting. There are many things that are beyond their power, and their enemies know that - it's not a secret, they see it confirmed on the news every day. This is not the time for another Vietnam-like sunk cost fallacy. They should cut their losses, and start rebuilding their reputation.
First of all, this is NOT a reason why freeing Iraq from a brutal dictator was a mistake. It's totally irrelevant.
No, but it explains why the mistake happened. When you filter reality through ideology, you're going to make serious mistakes.
epistemology [(i-pis-tuh-mol-uh-jee)]: The branch of philosophy concerned with the nature and origin of knowledge. Epistemology asks the question “How do we know what we know?”
I think epistemology is a fascinating topic. It's also a good place to hide from a factual debate. We (probably) don't disagree about the nature of knowledge or observation, or what rational thinking is, but only about whether the Iraq war was smart or dumb. So let's stick to that.
Wow, amazing distorted perpective. Compared to other wars, the casualties have been extremely low. We lost 50,000 people in one battle in WW2. We've lost about the same number of people in Detroit. Illegal aliens kill about 10 americans per day. That far exceeds our losses in Iraq. This liberating action by the US will certainly have the least civilian casualties of any war in history. And it has been clearly shown that Saddam killed far more. And what benefit is there from the crime in Detroit? And what benefit is there from the illegal aliens? Saved a few dollars on the cost to get lettuce picked?
And what benefit is there to liberating Iraq? Huge! 25 million people freed from Tyranny! A dangerous threat removed! Your filtered media probably doesn't report that Iraqis come up to US soldiers continuously and thank them.
Big Geopolitical and WOT strategic advantage: The new Iraq will not be a haven for terror, since freedom and achievement reduces extremism. It's location bordering Iraq & Syria restricts terror resource movement, and places US forces in a good place. Iraq's previous role as the center of terror, and its traditional seat as the Caliphate, causes terrorists from all over to come to Iraq to defend "home turf". This is a brilliant way to fight the War on Terror.
So, where you see high costs and little benefit, the reality is that the costs are extremely low, and the benefits enormous.
Those people, entities and countries that would be inclined to use force to achieve their aims, and who either threaten the free people of the world or whose goals might be blocked by the US.
French and Norwegian public opinion doesn't matter. They too qucikly forget when they were living with Tyranny and that the US paid for their freedom with American lives, blood and treasure. Is it European arrogance that makes them believe that saving Europe from tyranny is a worthy "benefit", but that Iraqi freedom is not a "benefit". I can't believe you said it.
Well, most will believe the propaganda, but back to reality, you provide no support for the claim that the US is foolish and easily outwitted.
The only thing that can cause the US to retreat is the US congress doing exactly what they did in Vietnam. Your argument is circular. IOW, it's people in the US expressing what you just said, over and over again, that causes the defeat. There is no military reason or external cause that would force the US into a disgraceful exit.
Even worse is the fact that for the americans saying this, it's a mild form of treason. For example, when Kennedy said publicly "if it degenerates into a civil war, we'll have to pull out", he broadcast to the enemy what they needed to do. So, they started fomenting civil war by killing both sides.
You have it exactly opposite. The US must avoid another vietnam-like situation by not allowing politics to prevent victory. The losses are minimal, and the benefits of victory enormous. The retreat in VietNam and Somalia is what caused the loss in reputation (bad guys specifically mentioned the VietN fiasco as proof that the US is paper tiger).
Gunnar: Your filtered media probably doesn't report that Iraqis come up to US soldiers continuously and thank them.
You're right, they don't.
This liberating action by the US will certainly have the least civilian casualties of any war in history.
Wow. That's amazing. Truly.
Hm. Maybe we should have followed that epistemological track after all. Or maybe not.
>> This liberating action by the US will certainly have the least civilian casualties of any war in history. Wow. That's amazing. Truly.
Well, I meant that they succeeded in avoiding civilian casualties to a greater extent than in any other war.
Gunnar, only 660.000 dead is a low cost, atleast when its "theirs" and not "ours", right?
Bjørn, yours has been one of the few "prowar" blogs i read with some regularity after 9/11, mostly because even at your worst I didnt see the fuming at the mouth and huffing and puffing I saw at some other "war bloggers". I congratulate you for looking at your own views from back then critically. At the same time, its important to resist the (pathological) anti-US hatetendencies we see in some quarters of the anti-war camp.
I look forward to see more from you on this, and would appreciate it if you could try (even more than you have) to examine your own thoughtprocesses at the time .. I know, always a hard thing to do! The reason why I ask is that I believe atleast some of the prowar camp actually believe most of the lies they built their views on.
Even if this ludicrous number were accurate, it would still be less than the WW2 death rate, as a percentage of the population: 2.6% for Iraq/Lancet study vs 3.7% for WW2. It defies common sense to imagine that Iraq has civilian deaths in the same ballpark as WW2.
The Lancet study is based on interviewing some people, then over extrapolating. However, the horror of your so called "analysis" is that you don't distinguish who killed who. That's like saying that the US was responsible for ALL the casualties of WW2.
That's an amazing and disturbing lack of moral judgement on your part. And unlike WW2, these bad guys are purposely killing civilians, with the sole purpose of supporting the statements of people like you, who hate the US so much, that they blame America for the murderous rampages of bad guys! The reality is that their murders show how bad they really are, and support the case for them to be taken out.
And to make your lack of moral clarity even more obvious: estimates of Saddam's death toll, who you would rather see still in power, range from the absolute minimum of 300,000 to over a million. They now believe that 61,000 people were executed by Saddam in Baghdad alone. And the million people dead in the Iran-Iraq war is on Saddam, since he attacked and invaded Iran.
"Theirs and not ours"??? Wait, let me get this straight, you accuse me of some sort of us/them bigotry? It's you who are implying that Norwegian lives are more worthy to be saved from tyranny than Iraqi lives. To be consistent, you should proclaim Quisling as a hero, and that the US invading Europe was a tragic mistake.
And what did your freedom cost? The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II was roughly 72 million people. The civilian toll was around 46 million, the military toll about 26 million. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties
I wonder if it was worth it?
This is highly unimpressive reading Gunnar. Who is it that "matter so much", and still think the Iraq war was fantastic? (Or got scared off?) Only the people who initiated this war (and you apparently) cling on to the idea that this war was a great idea and turned out nicely. Was Iran and North Korea put off by the war in Iraq? Do they matter? Or is al Qaeda very sorry for the war in Iraq? Nope...they dig it....they want more wars like that, which result in new people in the Middle East hating and shooting at Americans. Read al Qaeda texts and you will find them to be openly strategic about this aspect. The only example that I know of that lends some support to your "scare the hell out of them through shock and awe" strategy is Libya. Would you fill us in with specific "entitites" that fits with your argument? Perhaps Chavez has gotten nicer lately...?? Or Putin?? Why do you routinely argue that people hate America and are ungrateful etc... etc... when the wiews expressed here about Iraq at times are close to what the party that controls congress argues for. Get a grip. Smell the coffee. Do you think showing force e.g. military is justifiable against Democrats too?
BJORN!!!! There's a new B5 DVD coming out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I AM GREY.................. This first DVD, entitled "Voices in the Dark," covers the same 72 hour period of time as Sheridan travels on board a Presidential Cruiser en route to Babylon 5 from Minbar for a celebration marking the 10th anniversary of the founding of the Interstellar Alliance. One part of the story follows Sheridan as he picks up an unexpected visitor on the edge of Centauri space, Prince Regent Dius Vintari, and a warning about what will come afterward delivered by the techno-mage, Galen. The other part of the story is set aboard Babylon 5, as Colonel Lochley summons a priest from Earth space to deal with a problem that may have dark supernatural overtones. The two parts of the greater story intersect at certain key plot and thematic points, so that they overlap and complement each other while telling separate, but simultaneous, stories. Via isnnews.net
Via aintitcool.com: -They'll have a trailer to show at the San Diego Comic-Con. -Release date for TLT is July 27th, i believe. As a final treat, JMS showed rough cuts of the opening title sequence for The Lost Tales, including new music by Christpher Franke. It goes like this: -Begins with the decommisioning of Babylon 5, with the ships moving away from the station as it explodes while the Sleeping in Light theme plays (he subsequently showed a cut lacking the music but containing an almost-finished version of this sequence- it looks gorgeous) and a chunk of B5 flies right into the camera. -We start following debris of B5 through space as a date at the bottom of the screen clocks back from 2281 to 2271 until the debris reforms back into Babylon 5 and the camera goes into the main dcking bay doors ala the end of the Season 3 title sequence. Over the course of this sequence, as a tribute to Andreas, plays the following G'Kar lines: "I believe that when we leave a place, part of it goes with us and part of us remains. Long after we are gone .. our voices will linger in these walls for as long as this place remains." -Then kicks in a series of "faction portraits", for lack of a better term, similar in style to the B5 DVD menus, with a planet in the background, and near-fully body images of various characters representing that world/faction fading in dramaticly in teh foreground. Over all this plays music that's reminiscent of the Legend of the Rangers main theme, to a degree, before it segues into the main Season 5+ Babylon 5 theme. The portraits are: -B5, with Sheridan, Garibaldi and, I think, Lochley. -Centauri Prime, with Londo and Vir (and a shot of the palace off to the side) -Minbar, with Delenn and Lennier -Narn, with G'Kar -Vorlon Homeworld (?! Might have been Z'ha'dum, but it went by fast I couldn't tell), with Kosh (not Ulkesh).
You're a most thoughtful person, Bjorn, but you're choosing a non-position. "Give me conflicting ideas, isolated incidents, and individuals" is a sign that you stand for nothing. One can genuinely be in doubt about certain matters, and one can have greater or lesser doubts about those and many other matters, but at some time one must choose a side. It's as plain as day that the time for debate is passed. The Muslims of Europe have failed to field any kind of an effective opposition to the worst Islamic elements and the latter hold the whip hand over their cowed coreligionists. THEY are not interested in debates and conflicting ideas. THEY
You're a most thoughtful person, Bjorn, but you're choosing a non-position. "Give me conflicting ideas, isolated incidents, and individuals" is a sign that you stand for nothing. One can genuinely be in doubt about certain matters, and one can have greater or lesser doubts about those and many other matters, but at some time one must choose a side. It's as plain as day that the time for debate is passed. The Muslims of Europe have failed to field any kind of an effective opposition to the worst Islamic elements and the latter hold the whip hand over their cowed coreligionists. THEY are not interested in debates and conflicting ideas. THEY
You're a most thoughtful person, Bjorn, but you're choosing a non-position. "Give me conflicting ideas, isolated incidents, and individuals" is a sign that you stand for nothing. One can genuinely be in doubt about certain matters, and one can have greater or lesser doubts about those and many other matters, but at some time one must choose a side. It's as plain as day that the time for debate is passed. The Muslims of Europe have failed to field any kind of an effective opposition to the worst Islamic elements and the latter hold the whip hand over their cowed coreligionists. THEY are not interested in debates and conflicting ideas. THEY
You're a most thoughtful person, Bjorn, but you're choosing a non-position. "Give me conflicting ideas, isolated incidents, and individuals" is a sign that you stand for nothing. One can genuinely be in doubt about certain matters, and one can have greater or lesser doubts about those and many other matters, but at some time one must choose a side. It's as plain as day that the time for debate is passed. The Muslims of Europe have failed to field any kind of an effective opposition to the worst Islamic elements and the latter hold the whip hand over their cowed coreligionists. THEY are not interested in debates and conflicting ideas. THEY
Sorry . . . THEY want to extinguish your ideas.
Sorry . . . THEY want to extinguish your ideas.
Back when the Iraq invasion was getting started, I was one of millions of bloggers who tried to point out that it was a disastrous and insane course of action that could only lead to terrible destruction and inconceivable suffering for us all. At that time, there was, of course, a lot of argument about 911, the event upon which the whole deal was hung - in fact, all we need to know about that is that the US government has been systematically lying about it. Public opinion in the US and the UK is now massively against continuing this evil aggression, thus demonstrating that the much-vaunted 'Democracy' which the invaders would have us believe they are trying to impose on Iraq is no more than an empty concept. This is in no way a judgement on the American and British people, who are mostly, like human beings anywhere on the planet, decent working people who want no more than a peaceful existence. Instead, their hard-earned taxes are being siphoned directly to the coffers of the war industry, rather than being used to improve the conditions of their lives. Far beyond being a scandal, this is evil at work, and blatantly so. A few years ago, I used to think bloggers like Gunnar were honestly misguided and simply unable to decipher the signs. Reading through this latest thread, however, I have to conclude that the problem is not so much ignorance as idiocy, perhaps even mental illness, as demonstrated by certain other prowar freaks who log on mostly to air their TV culture. We said years ago that no good could possibly come of this invasion - as anyone can see, no good has come of it, and it will only get worse. The US government is applying the same principle to the Middle East as was applied to the 'red Indian problem' in the 19th century. Greed enforced by lies and genocide. These days, however, citizens have the possibility of verifying the stories told by our rulers, and as long as we accept the responsibility of thinking for ourselves, we may be able to influence events for the better. If we can't, we're all bound for catastrophe.
from laurence auster site Conservative Swede, who's been on a roll lately, writes:
Bjorn Staerk, the Bushite Norwegian blogger, was tough on fighting terrorists in his "war blog" in the years after 9/11, thereby gaining much popularity among American blog readers. But when people such as Fjordman suggested that Islam was the problem rather than Islamism, it displeased Bjorn Staerk's universalist creed. And last year he wrote:
"Brave is sitting down calmly on a plane behind a row of suspicious-looking Arabs, ignoring your own fears, because you know those fears are irrational, and because even if there's a chance that they are terrorists, it is more important to you to preserve an open and tolerant society than to survive this trip. Brave is insisting that Arabs not be searched more carefully in airport security than anyone else, because you believe that it is more important not to discriminate against people based on their race than to keep the occasional terrorist from getting on a plane." [Emphasis added.]
laurence auster: Now how have I defined modern liberalism? As the belief that non-discrimination is the highest and ruling value of society. And here is that belief wrought to its uttermost. For Bjorn Staerk, non-discrimination is higher than life, it is higher than the duty to stop murder, it is higher than the duty to protect the innocent, it is higher than right and wrong, it is higher than the survival of society itself. Non-discrimination is God, a god who allows no other values to co-exist with himself, a god who is absolutely supreme and alone.
read the entire article: http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007680.html
Anders, like most useful idiots, you ignore the obvious beneficiaries: The people of Iraq are FREE! They are free to worship as they please, free to trade, to learn, to grow. They have defied mass-murder and mayhem, terror and torture, to vote. They held three nationwide elections. They got back their sovereignty far sooner than postwar Japan or Germany. Nazis and Japanese hold outs also blew things up for years after the war.
Charles Duelfer and David Kay have concluded that the American people are indeed safer now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in control of a regime with the proven capacity to build and deploy WMDs—and a clear intention to rebuild and redeploy those weapons as soon as the world lost interest. A nazi-like regime that clearly was determined to exact its revenge on the US. Actually, Iran is quite wary of US forces so close to its borders. The US and Iran have basically been at war since 1979. What would norwegians think if someone took 52 norwegians hostages and held them for 444 days? Why did they give the hostages back within minutes of Reagan taking office? Why did they take British hostages this time? Why is Iran trying to ensure US defeat in Iraq? Certainly because there is peace and safety through Strength. Of course, evil people want war and conflict. That cannot be a rational argument for not engaging them. Hitler wanted war too.
U.S. forces took down Saddam’s nazi regime in 21 days and replaced it with a pro-Western, popularly-supported government. You don't think that sends a message? Advisors of dictators would point out that the US can take military action for 90 days without a congressional declaration of war. As Iraqi President Jalal Talabani has observed, U.S. troops are preventing “a renewed civil war—renewed because there has already been a civil war in Iraq. For 35 years, Saddam and his Baath Party made war on the Iraqi people. The liberation of Iraq ended that civil war.” But you think that a nazi like dictator is ok. I guess as long you don't get constant news stories about all the people that Saddam had tortured, raped and killed, these people and events don't exist. Ignorance is bliss. Al Qaeda’s Musab Zarqawi conceded: “Our field of movement is shrinking and the grip around the Mujahidin has begun to tighten…Our enemy is growing stronger by the day…This is suffocation.” The reality is that jihadists of all stripes are being drawn to Iraq like moths to a light. This is a brilliant US strategy. The enemy is neither omnipotent nor omnipresent. They must pick their battles, and taking control of the seat of the Caliphate forces them into a defensive position.
As historian Paul Johnson has observed, “America obliged the leaders of international terrorism to concentrate all their efforts on preventing democracy from emerging in Iraq.” Maybe they know something you don't? Fresh from Iraq, Gen. Barry McCaffrey reports that the U.S. has killed 20,000 armed fighters in Iraq and arrested 120,000. In other words, the enemy is fighting and dying over there rather than over here, as the U.S. continues what American troops call their “away game.”
Zarqawi was once the most dangerous man in Iraq. He is now dead. Al-Sadr fled to Iran ahead of the U.S.-Iraqi surge. You completely misunderstand what's going on here. The US is not trying to "scare the hell out of" anyone, in order to get bad guys to behave. The US is trying (and succeeding) in defeating the bad guys through any means available, including diplomatic, economic, strategic, and at last resort military means.
JFK summarized the US position best: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty." You really ought to read the whole thing: http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres56.html As I said in my original post: Those people, entities and countries that would be inclined to use force to violate human rights, and who threaten the free people of the world Actually, the fact that Putin is the leader of a much diminished country, rather than the fearsome USSR is proof that "Peace through Strength" is an absolutely correct policy. It's your philosophy (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement), that is most responsible for evil in the world. At one point, France had 60 divisions to only 5 Nazi divisions. But they did nothing to oppose evil. The US in 1945 was the most dominant military force ever, producing more in that year than the combined efforts of all nations for all time up to that point. That was the moment to destroy the soviet union, preventing the oppression of millions of people. And now we have Saddams Nazi regime (same philosophy, historical ties to Nazi Germany), and you argue that it was a mistake to oppose and remove them? You make Chamberlin seem wise in comparison. In the best case, you are a person who seems unable to learn from history. In the worst case, you are supportive of tyrants and terrorists, and don't want to see them deposed and defeated. You assume a contradiction where there is none. Yes, there is a strong anti-american sentiment in the current extreme leftist wing of the democratic party. They are the remnants of 60s movement. However, hope for the party itself is not lost. FDR was a strong war time democrat. Truman was great, and Kennedy was both wise and strong. Recent democrats like Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman hold the flame. Actually, Hillary herself and the entire democratic community was in favor of deposing Saddam when they held the presidency. Since the democrats aren't a physical threat to human rights, your statement is non-sensical.
Gunnar, Do you read newspapers at all? Do you follow the debate on the war in Iraq at all? If not you should lay off some World War II books for a while and try to update yourself on what's happening in the real world, also in America. I don't recognize the weird place you seem to be informing us all about. Could be another planet. You talk of the Left-wing of the Democratic party....you are aware of the nature of the bills they are sending for Bush to veto? Left-wing????...No it's more like the left wing of the Republican party voting with the entire democratic party. (Smith of Oregon and Hagel of Nebraska)Has this passed you by my wise and updated friend? Oh... you were probably in the middle of the dismantling of the Weimar Republic. In a short text, supposedly about the war going on in Iraq, you use the word 'nazi' seven times. Hello! Hitler is dead Gunnar, it's true. I ain't feeding you liberal propaganda. You can't kill him twice. To compare Hitler and Saddam is something even not so useful idiots should understand is ridiculous. Well I'm looking forward to seeing more scenes of happy Iraqis cheering in the streets because things are going so great in their country. It's important to learn from history. It is equally important not to get lost in history. Now is now.
>> Do you follow the debate on the war in Iraq at all?
Yes, I follow all current events quite closely. However, I look beyond the surface. For my news about Iraq, I listen closest to those who would know, bloggers in Iraq, US servicemen fresh from Iraq. I thought it was funny one day when the new Iraqi UN guy interrupted the french guy and said something like "hey, what do you know about the current situation in Iraq, you're making things up. Where were you when we needed you?" It must be discomforting for you to be presented with an analysis that is so different than the conventional wisdom. And yet, it's coherent enough that you can't figure out where to poke holes, so you write a response that boils down to: "that's not what everybody else says".
>> If not you should lay off some World War II books
And you should try to learn from history. The problem is that for most people, history started the day they were born. Everything before that doesn't exist. In reality, WW2 is not ancient history, but just happened a few short years ago. And so recent is WW2, that it provides the context for not only the middle east conflicts, but most post WW2 wars. This middle east history in partcular is one continuous sequence of events leading from WW2, a tapestry. It's like you are trying to understand the 2nd half of a movie, without having seen the 1st half.
Let me give you a brief synopsys: The Mufti el-huseini was a muslim nazi (Reference, Reference, Reference). After nazi germany was destroyed, many nazis escaped to Egypt, and converted or took muslim names. The mufti is the father of all modern muslim extremist movements. The Mufti instigated a nazi coup with a man in Baghdad. That man was the uncle of Saddam Hussein. One of the Mufti's disciples was Yassar Arafat. The Mufti was instrumental in starting the Baathist (nazi) parties in Syria and Iraq. The connection between Islamics and Nazis has always been there. It was the Mufti who orchestrated the 1948 attack on Israel, 3 years after WW2, and directly after the founding of Israel. The Mufti started the muslim brotherhood.
>> I don't recognize the weird place you seem to be informing us all about. Could be another planet.
You must be getting your "view" from the american main stream media (MSM). Reality is quite a bit different, and opinions in america vary quite a bit from the "talking points".
>> You talk of the Left-wing of the Democratic party....
Yes, you are quite naive if you think the democratic party is all left wing. The party of Zell Miller, Joe Lieberman, John F Kennedy and Harry Truman is not quite gone yet. It has been somewhat taken over by a very rich man named George Soros. Perhaps deeper, there is significant evidence that rich arabs are using their money to buy a party. You see, perhaps more than anywhere else, money is the mothers milk of politics. Of course, in the past, arab sheik money has found its way into republican hands. It's just that right now, apparently, the ROI is really low with the republicans.
>> you are aware of the nature of the bills they are sending for Bush to veto? Left-wing????... No it's more like the left wing of the Republican party voting with the entire democratic party. (Smith of Oregon and Hagel of Nebraska) Has this passed you by my wise and updated friend?
The next weeks are crucial. The democratic leadership, if they fund the troops without a timeline, are calling MoveOn's bluff. The MoveOn folks have threatened in no uncertain terms that if they do that, they will declare the democratic party the enemy. We could see a complete split in the democratic party. It would seem foolish of MoveOn from a chess game point of view, but they have set up the idealogical purity play so strongly, that they may have no choice but to proceed. Now, what were you saying about me missing something....
>> In a short text, supposedly about the war going on in Iraq, you use the word 'nazi' seven times. Hello! Hitler is dead Gunnar, it's true.
Yes, but Nazism didn't die with Hitler. Everyone in the whole world acts like the threat of fascism died with Hitler. If only that were so. Let's define "Nazi", shall we? The essential elements of Nazism are Nationalism, Socialism, Dictatorship, with a unifying theme of Jew Hatred. Note, that living in the 1930s is not a requirement. We have neo nazis everywhere. Note, that being german is not a requirement, Quisling was a nazi. I find it amazing that so many people can write so many words, and fail to see the undeniable fact that nazism is alive and well. I guess it's that anti-conceptual mentality that Ayn Rand talked about. It turns out that Communism, while it appeared so all consuming at the time, was actually a short lived threat.
>> To compare Hitler and Saddam is something even not so useful idiots should understand is ridiculous.
Let's check with Saddam Hussein, shall we? Nationalist, Check! Socialist, Check! Dictatorship, Check! Jew Hatred, Check! So, my naive friend from Oslo, he's a nazi.
It's funny to see people ponder over the reasons for the intense islamic/arab hatred of the USA. It is not difficult to understand in context. They are nazis at heart, who sided with Hitler in WW2, and they saw the US enter WW2 and in a few short years, destroy Nazi germany, create Israel in their midst, and then proceed to kick their butts over and over again. Now, the US took over the seat of the Caliph, which forces all good nazi islamics to return to defend the home base. The only way the good guys can lose now, is if the internal US political situation forces a withdrawal. Unfortunately for the bad guys, it's impossible. The let's-surrender-now folks simply don't have enough votes to override a veto. Hence, the intense hatred of the man from Texas, who will be in office for all of 2007, and all of 2008.
I really don't see what's so controversial about fighting nazis. So, you have to ask yourself, which side are you on?
Gunnar: I will be short. A virtue you do not cherish. In this last piece you hav brilliantly demonstrated what Bjørn originally warned about in this thread. Clinging to an alternative truth generated by amateur bloggers. And through it you manage to come up with what appears to you as a logical conclusion...ehrmm...that Saddam was a Nazi...and you also hint towards me being one in the last sentence. You also stumble straight into a pitfall obvious to most people who read much about Nazi history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolchstosslegende We would have won if only we had support back home? Who said that I wonder?? It was also said after Vietnam. It's an extremely dangerous path you are walking down there.... I must admit I think you would have flunked high school history class on your argument leading up to Saddam being a nazi. You should incorporate the concept of race, and see where that leads you. Furthermore you present us with factual errors. The Muslim brotherhood was established in 1928 by Hassan al Banna. I enjoy difference of opinion. But I find little interest in debating whether Saddam was a Nazi at length. Those who want to block funding for the war number 51. It is not impossible that more GOP senators will "defect" if Iraq continues to be in complete havoc. That debate is followed by islamists, and probably (and regrettably) inspires them. The alternative though, is called censorship. A virtue of...again yes...the Nazis. Name-calling and chicanery aside. We simply have a fundamentally different view of what's going on in this world. We'll just have to respect that.
>> Clinging to an alternative truth generated by amateur bloggers.
You simply make statements without support, since I don't base anything on what some bloggers say.
>> ehrmm...that Saddam was a Nazi...
I think the difference is that I consider "Nazi" to be a concept. You seem to consider it a dirty name or a specific organization. My working definition is someone who believes in Nationalism, Socialism, Dictatorship and Jew Hatred. You have offered nothing to indicate that either the definition is wrong, or that Saddam didn't believe in these 4 things.
>> and you also hint towards me being one in the last sentence. I apologize for that implication, that thought never entered my mind. It was more of an attempt at a wake up call, since bad things happen, when good people do nothing.
>> We would have won if only we had support back home?
It's illogical to claim that since some people claim A, when A is not true, therefore, A can never be true.
>> It was also said after Vietnam.
And it is certainly true. This fact is so universally accepted (at least here in the US), that I can't believe anyone doubts it.
>> You should incorporate the concept of race, and see where that leads you.
It's true that German Nazis of the 1930s were racists. However, it doesn't seem to be an essential part to me, as their treatment of blacks is so similar to white people who were simply "not german" (eg, poles). This is quite different from the real racism, exemplified by southern slave owners and their enablers. Nazi racism seems completely consistent with Saddam's love and concern for the Kurds.
>> The Muslim brotherhood was established in 1928 by Hassan al Banna.
You're right, I got that one wrong. Here is an interesting article: http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=4932
>> I find little interest in debating whether Saddam was a Nazi at length.
It's probably best to stick to battles you can win.
>> Those who want to block funding for the war number 51. It is not impossible that more GOP senators will "defect" if Iraq continues to be in complete havoc.
It really is impossible. 1) it would take 66 votes to override a veto! 2) you are confusing a media/politician frenzy with public clamor. I'm here, there is no public clamor, not even significant discussion about withdrawing from Iraq. Absent that, there is nothing that would force 15 senators to change their vote. 3) Even if there were 66 votes, the president could challenge that in court. The legislature doesn't really have the constitutional authority to micro-manage. 4) the president could shut down all the military bases in democratic states, and use that money for Iraq. 5) "continues in complete havoc"?? ehrmm, that's an alternate reality created by the MSM. The violence is now at the level of detroit. Is detroit in complete havoc? 6) AlQ new enemy 7) Bush as Truman 8) betting against US foolish
One for Gunnar to chew on - Operation Paperclip.
Don't waste time. Join the Marines - go to Iraq - fight the good fight. If the Marines won't have you, there's always Blackwater. If you're 4F, drive a truck. Run a washing machine for the troops. Do something.
Detroit? Holy shit Gunnar! When was the last time car bombs killed dozens of people in Detroit? IED's every day? No public clamor? HSG! Oaking's right. Join up.
Jeff, You are the victim of selective reporting. Granted the methods of death are different. However, the number of murdered people is very similar. And when you consider that Iraq is a country of 25 million, while Detroit only has about 1 million in population, it's amazing that we tolerate the situation in Detroit.
Imagine if we made front page news of every single murder that takes place in our most dangerous cities. Iraq would fade into the background. Your sense of "havoc" is being manipulated by this kind of reporting.
When you've been murdered, it doesn't really matter if you were murdered by a thug, or by a bomb. You're dead. Illegal aliens kill about 10 people per day in the US. That's like 20,000 killed since 2001. If you were really worried about murdered people, then you would be "clamoring" to seal the border.
It's your sense of "havoc" that is seriously distorted, since the situation in Iraq compares favorably to other wars. Yes, it's a war, but one that the US military is supremely qualified for, and one they are extremely unlikely to lose. Mop up operations after WW2 took years as well. Most people don't realize that german Nazis were blowing things up for about 5 years after WW2. However, in this case, Iran and Al Queda are continuing to engage US forces. No one has suggested any rational reason to disengage from the enemy. Can you suggest any reason, other than "we're taking casualties", which is so cowardly, it's laughable.
for those ignorant people out there: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=185
I am indeed very ignorant to your version of reality. When Saddam becomes a Nazi and Iraq is about as pleasant a place as Detroit..The race issue which is a bedrock of nazism is disregarded....then it's time to ignore. To rephrase the heading of this article: What went wrong, Gunnar? Dolchstosslegend here we go. Never question the legitimacy and prudence of a war your nation is engaged in. Just support it....sounds great...eyh??
>> When Saddam becomes a Nazi and
He didn't "become" a nazi, since it's not an organization. He believes in the Nazi idealogy, ie socialism, nationalism, dictatorship and jew hatred.
>> Iraq is about as pleasant a place as Detroit..
The facts are the facts. Sorry they don't fit your agenda.
>> The race issue which is a bedrock of nazism is disregarded....
Racism, as the term is used in the US, relates to black/white/yellow. While nazis can certainly be racist, it doesn't seem to me like racism is central to the nazi mind set. For example, hitler made allies out of imperial Japan. He made enemies out of many groups of people who are of the same race, eg german jews, poles, catholics, etc. Even so, Saddam still fits into this mode. His view towards non muslims, non arabs, and kurds are analagous to hitlers' poles, jews and gypsies.
In fact, reading the wikipedia article on Nazism, it seems clear that for hitler, the term "race" is synonomous or similar to "nation". As such, Saddam was just as "racist". The purpose of any real racism in Hitler's version of Nazism seems more related to supporting the nationalism. I think the key to understanding these variants of totalitarian statism is to separate the marketing pitch from the real product.
>> then it's time to ignore.
Please do, since you are so weak in critical thinking, that you barely make an argument. You merely make unsupported statements.
>> Never question the legitimacy and prudence of a war your nation is engaged in
I question everything. It is you who are unable or unwilling to question the view of the biased main stream media. There was no such MSM consensus when the Clintons and US democratic leaders all argued for Iraq regime change. Folks, to get some perspective, read towards the bottom of this article.
The introduction to an Arabic translation of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf, which is a current best seller in the mideast.
Now, doesn't it sound like Nazism is alive and well in the arab world?Gunnar
Well what other books are selling in the Middle East this year which might inform us about the psychology and political inclinations of their readers? And if we should worry about sales of Mein Kampf as an indication of the state of mind of Middle Easterners, what should we think about the Western world’s fixation on the entertainment value of serial killers and ultra-violence in general? Or pornography?
Where do you get your figures on murders by illegal aliens in the US? And do you have figures on the number of murders of US citizens perpetrated by other US citizens? There is of course a similarity in that the majority of deaths of Iraqi non-combatants have also been caused by illegal aliens – notably British and American troops who are not fighting a ‘war’, since war was never declared, and who are therefore in Iraq illegally. The figure of 655,000 deaths, from a respected US-piloted study, is widely quoted.
“Of the total 655,000 estimated "excess deaths," 601,000 resulted from violence and the rest from disease and other causes, according to the study. This is about 500 unexpected violent deaths per day throughout the country. The survey was done by Iraqi physicians and overseen by epidemiologists at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health. The findings are being published online today by the British medical journal the Lancet.” – and – “The interviewers asked for death certificates 87 percent of the time; when they did, more than 90 percent of households produced certificates.”
That’s since 2003. Elsewhere, of course, you’ve stated that this figure is ‘preposterous’. Back that up please. And there’s also more than a million who lost their lives to disease and starvation during the decade-long siege of Iraq through the 19990’s.
By MSM, are you talking about newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post, and TV channels like CNN, ABC, and NBC, Time magazine etc? I do read the MSM, but I also exchange regularly with friends and citizens at large, and I read widely elsewhere, notably on the Internet. There’s a wealth of information out there.
More than a million Iraqis lost their lives to disease and starvation during the siege of Iraq in the 1990’s. So when you talk about ‘we’re taking casualties’ as a cowardly excuse, which ‘we’ are you talking about – it sounds to me like you’re counting only Americans, instead of human beings. How about this for a reason for leaving Iraq – our presence there is immoral. It’s wasting inconceivable amounts of money belonging to American taxpayers which need to spent improving the quality of life for American taxpayers.
And finally, since you constantly refer to the 2nd World War, perhaps trying to impose the accepted ideal of a just war of good against evil on this particular conflict, did you look up Operation Paperclip, as mentioned earlier by someone in this thread? I hadn't heard of it, but I Googled it - I recommend it to all Naziphiles.
>> what should we think about the Western world’s fixation on the entertainment value of serial killers and ultra-violence in general? Or pornography?
Clever misdirection, but irrelevant. My point is that the ideology of nazism is alive and well. Western perversion doesn't change that. When people with these ideas are also close to getting WMD, a rational person takes note.
>> And do you have figures on the number of murders of US citizens perpetrated by other US citizens?
Clever misdirection, but irrelevant. The point is that the sense of "havoc" is caused by distorted reporting. If 10 times each day, the news reported the murder by an illegal, the illegal alien problem would be quickly solved. You are correctly trying to put the problem of murders by illegal aliens "into context", which is all I was doing by pointing out that the deaths of US servicemen is not large, compared to either previous wars, or compared to illegal alien murders. However, your reference to murders by US citizens is especially pointless, since we can easily do something about murders by illegals.
>> the majority of deaths of Iraqi non-combatants have also been caused by illegal aliens – notably British and American troops
This is completely false. The bad guys are clearly killing almost all the folks dying. Why? Because folks like YOU have been saying that the US would pull out if the death is too much.
>> who are not fighting a ‘war’, since war was never declared, and who are therefore in Iraq illegally
Completely non-sensical. War was declared. The consitution does not require that the words "declare war" be used. As wars go, this one probably has more good reasons than most. Congress listed 23 reasons.
>> Lancet study
I've posted a lot on this and can't go back over that ground. The biggest point is that you are deliberately mixing up who is killing who.
>> ‘we’re taking casualties’ as a cowardly excuse
By your logic, good guys should retreat whenever bad guys kill people. In fact, by your logic, the US military should withdraw from its illegal occupation of New Jersey. Certainly, the Ft Dix terrorists are reacting to this occupation. We should not only withdraw from Ft Dix, but the police should withdraw from the big cities. There is too much killing going on, and the bad guys will stop being bad guys when the good guys leave.
>> How about this for a reason for leaving Iraq – our presence there is immoral
By what moral system? The baathist nazis and al queda terrorists are initiating the use of force against innocent civilians, and the US is trying to stop them.
>> It’s wasting inconceivable amounts of money belonging to American taxpayers
What is the value of 25 million free human beings? I realize that you don't care about these humans, but they are now free to think, free to trade, free to worship, and free to dream about the future. At about 160 billion, that's about what the 9/11 terrorist attack cost New York.
>> impose the accepted ideal of a just war of good against evil on this particular conflict
Certainly, you have presented nothing to indicate that the baathist regime was any less evil, or that the citizens of Iraq any less deserving of being saved. Not to mention that with WMD close to their finger tips, they are far more dangerous than hitler and japan ever dreamed of being.
>> Operation Paperclip
Looked it up. Didn't know the name, but am familiar with it. I like this operation. No idea of what your point is. I guess you don't either.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070517/ap_on_re_us/lockdown_zones_1 To be consistent, Jeff would have to support pulling out of Baltimore as well. Bad guys a killin, so Jeff goes a runnin
If the American people want out of Iraq, why'd the Senate reject a bill to cut off funding 29-67? It's because they know what the poll results would be if they asked "Do you want to withdraw from Iraq in defeat?". Any situation where the enemy can claim victory is a situation where you have lost. So much for the "havoc" idea. Clearly, someone is living in the imaginary world created by the MSM.
It was me that mentioned Operation Paperclip in answer to Gunnar's rant about Nazis and Islam. As Gunnar knows, but pretends not to understand, Operation Paperclip was the code name for the importation into the USA of a large number of high-ranking Nazi scientists right after the end of WW2. They immediately set to work for the US government. Raving about the Nazi foundations of radical Islam, Gunnar once again saddles up his Shetland pony, believing it's a high horse, but then says he likes Operation Paperclip. He will no doubt explain - logically of course - that this is no contradiction. He could no doubt explain - logically - that Jesus invented the crack trade, if he was told that it was the patriotic thing to do.
Whoever's paying him is wasting their money, because he's crap at his job.
That's right, there is no contradiction. In the paperclip, we were using the talents of scientists to help in the fight against the soviets. That is nothing at all like the Mufti and other Nazis retreating to the mideast to continue the fight, influence millions and to continue to try to implement the "final solution".
True, some very nasty nazis were brought into the US. Clearly, the president should have made the call, but underlings decided for him. In hindsight though, it turned out ok, since they never posed a threat to the US, and they did help considerably.
You see, I agree with General Patton that as germany was collapsing, the US should have recruited german troops, and continued on to moscow. The soviet union was more vulnerable at that point, than any time later. This could have saved 149 million lives (reference).
So, you see, I have no problem using bad guys to get other bad guys. There is a distinct moral difference between that and folks who believe in nazi ideology.
Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,cheap wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,Power Leveling sell wow gold, ...Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99 ,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy euro gold wow Cheap wow gold,cheapest Power Leveling wow gold store ... buy euro gold wow wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ... We can have your wow gold,buy wow gold,wow gold game,world of warcraft gold, wow Gold Cheap wow, Cheap wow gold,world of warcraft gold deal,Power Leveling Cheap WOW Gold ...Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ... Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy gold wow lightninghoof instock Power Level Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ... wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...Power Level Wow gold- Gold for buy gold wow lightninghoof instock EU-Server: ...wow Gold EU: starting from 84,99?; 3000 WoW Gold EU: starting from 119,99?. wow Gold- Leveling Services: ...We can have your wow Gold,buy wow Gold,wow Gold game,wow gold, Cheap wow Gold, Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,Power Level world of warcraft gold deal,buy cheap wow gold,Cheap WOW Gold ...Here wow Gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow Gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),Cheap wow gold,cheapest World of Warcraft Gold store ...
Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,cheap wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,Power Leveling sell wow gold, ...Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99 ,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy euro gold wow Cheap wow gold,cheapest Power Leveling wow gold store ... buy euro gold wow wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ... We can have your wow gold,buy wow gold,wow gold game,world of warcraft gold, wow Gold Cheap wow, Cheap wow gold,world of warcraft gold deal,Power Leveling Cheap WOW Gold ...Welcome to our website for you World of Warcraft Gold,Wow Gold,Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,wow gold,buy cheap wow gold,real wow gold,sell wow gold, ... Here wow gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),buy gold wow lightninghoof instock Power Level Cheap wow gold,cheapest wow gold store ... wow gold--buy cheap wow gold,sell wow gold.welcome to buy cheap wow gold--cheap, easy, wow gold purchasing.World of Warcraft,wow gold Super ...Power Level Wow gold- Gold for buy gold wow lightninghoof instock EU-Server: ...wow Gold EU: starting from 84,99?; 3000 WoW Gold EU: starting from 119,99?. wow Gold- Leveling Services: ...We can have your wow Gold,buy wow Gold,wow Gold game,wow gold, Cheap wow Gold, Cheap World of Warcraft Gold,Power Level world of warcraft gold deal,buy cheap wow gold,Cheap WOW Gold ...Here wow Gold of 1000 gold at $68.99-$80.99,World Of Warcraft Gold,buy wow Gold,sell world of warcraft gold(wow gold),Cheap wow gold,cheapest World of Warcraft Gold store ...
"Please do, since you are so weak in critical thinking, that you barely make an argument. You merely make unsupported statements." Coming from you I guess this can hardly be taken as an insult, but rather a compliment. It is not me who is spreading false facts about the Muslim brotherhood, and presents Nazism without racism. (It would have flunked you in high school history...sorry...unless you attended a White supremacist school perhaps) Furthermore, backing it up with wikipedia...hardly impressive. Someone here is clearly incapable of understanding the world. I hope it's you Gunnar, and not me. Or even Jeff...
Anders, One incorrect item about the muslim brotherhood doesn't change the substance of my argument. You haven't answered anthing. You just repeat yourself about "racism", which I have already thoroughly answered (see above). It is merely a misunderstanding between how the term is understood in the US vs Europe. In the european usage, racism is just another name for nationalism. As such, my definition stands untouched. And certainly Saddam had that kind of racism in abundance. So, you're point is?
Like everyone else I want to believe we could all just learn to get along, the world over. And I feel too feel some regret that in our fear over 9/11 and what might come next, we acted rashly. But what's talking there is the gentlemen's conscience that our good western, humanistic educations have instilled in most of us. And that conscience may end up being our fatal flaw. It's not shared sociopolitical forces that the West must now compete against, including Fundamentalist Islam. As Jim Rockford suggests, "...the world is filled with ugly brutality and hard men with guns."
Also (I'm surprised nobody has said this yet) the notion that blogs are as yet a powerful influence on the course of events and that Bjorn needs to regret statements he made while standing on his little orange crate... well, it's a bit silly. Somebody needs to get off the computer and get out of the house more.
Gunnar's 'bad guys' seem to be anyone who makes any kind of stand detrimental to the American way of Empire - his twisted use of any argument, however crazy, serves above all his need to appear invincible in defense of his adopted culture. Unfortunately for Gunnar, (not to mention the many millions who have suffered under the US/UK's desperate grip on the world's ressources), the cats have been out of the bag for many years. Family Jewels, Gunnar. Heard of that? It's recent - and a long way from being an isolated case. All of this treason and international mayhem reveals an on-going policy that has been raping the world for decades.
Look at the news - even the MSM versions - how can anyone imagine that the Iraqi and Afghani people are now 'free' by any standard? Their lot is extreme and daily violence and terror resulting directly from the unwarranted invasions of their countries, the purpose of which is simply illegal appropriation of their ressources.
What might Gunnar see if he got out of the house more? I suspect nothing new, since he takes his head with him wherever he goes.
Jeff, You deal with none of the points I made in response to your last posting. Instead, you resort to ad-hominem and just call my logic "twisted". Apparently, you are incapable of pointing out any logic errors. I could respond to your unsupported allegations about Iraqi freedom, unwarranted invasions, and the "war for oil", but it would be pointless, since you are beyond facts and reason.
"Jeff, You deal with none of the points I made in response to your last posting."
Is this the sort of thinking to which you're expecting me to respond?
"True, some very nasty nazis were brought into the US. Clearly, the president should have made the call, but underlings decided for him. In hindsight though, it turned out ok, since they never posed a threat to the US, and they did help considerably."
Or this?
"I could respond to your unsupported allegations about Iraqi freedom, unwarranted invasions, and the "war for oil", but it would be pointless, since you are beyond facts and reason."
I spent some time trying to work out your incredible capacity for denial and convoluted justification which you claim is "logic"
- it all seemed very complex and quite impressive at first, though alien - until I admitted the possibility that you're just dumb.
How about a comment from Bruno Bettelheim - an ex-concentration camp Jew, by the way, so he should be PC for you - he said something to the effect that once a psychoanalyst has struggled his way through the incredible defenses and into the central core of a paranoid personality, he or she will discover that there is nothing there other than the subject's view of the same defenses.
Get off the computer, play with your children more. Bye Gunnar
>> I spent some time trying to work out your incredible capacity for denial and convoluted justification which you claim is "logic" - it all seemed very complex and quite impressive at first, though alien - until I admitted the possibility that you're just dumb. In other words, you accept defeat.
In other words, you accept defeat.
Saddam is dead, that's a good thing. Iraqi Kurds are freer now, that's a good thing. Iranian and Arab jihadis fighting it out in Iraq, that's a good thing. Alternatives to oil are starting to merit serious consideration, that's a good thing. The poisonous leftist MSM monopoly has been exposed for what it is, that's a good thing.
Saddam is dead, that's a good thing. Iraqi Kurds are freer now, that's a good thing. Iranian and Arab jihadis fighting it out in Iraq, that's a good thing. Alternatives to oil are starting to merit serious consideration, that's a good thing. The poisonous leftist MSM monopoly has been exposed for what it is, that's a good thing.
What went wrong for the US in Iraq you ask? They got in! It is really as simple as that.