Wrong-Way Bush

In the war on terror, the worst defense is a bad offense

Published on September 10, 2004 By blogic In Politics

From Slate:

In the Bush-Cheney worldview, all foreign adversaries blur into one: "the enemy." All U.S. options simplify to two: "offense" or "defense." Going on offense shows "strength" and defeats the enemy. If the president starts running with the ball, and you criticize him, you show "weakness" and invite terrorism.

But what if there's more than one enemy? What if the enemy we're "fighting back" at isn't the one that struck or threatened us? What if the president turns away from the team that was trying to score on us, and he starts heading for another team that's sitting in the stands, behind our own end zone? What if his "offense" is losing yards with every stride?

That's the lesson of three years of investigations. The 9/11 commission has found "no evidence" of "a collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaida. Bush's handpicked chief weapons inspector, David Kay, says there "were no large stockpiles of WMD." What has this diversion done for the war on terror? A year ago, U.S. intelligence officials told reporters that "as much as half of the intelligence and special forces assets in Afghanistan and Pakistan were diverted to support the war in Iraq." While we've been bogged down in Iraq, Iran has revved up its own nuclear program, and North Korea has acquired the fuel for as many as eight nukes.

Bush screwed up. He picked the wrong target. He's been running the wrong way.

Comments

Daiwa

on Sep 10, 2004

"The 9/11 commission has found "no evidence" of "a collaborative operational relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaida."

As pointed out in replies to other articles where you've included this assertion, it is technically true but it is totally specious since such a relationship was never claimed. Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission found plenty of evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq & al-Qaeda (just read the report), though not of the "operational" variety. Your use of and emphasis on the word "operational" in that statement, in an effort to dismiss what the Commission actually said and to use that evidence against Bush is what I object object to. Bush had the option to wait and hope that that collaboration wouldn't become "operational" (as Kerry suggests he would have) or to beat Saddam to the punch. I feel better that he exercised the latter option, personally.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Daiwa

on Sep 10, 2004

I actually only object once.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Bungy32

on Sep 10, 2004

Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission found plenty of evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq & al-Qaeda (just read the report), though not of the "operational" variety. Your use of and emphasis on the word "operational" in that statement, in an effort to dismiss what the Commission actually said and to use that evidence against Bush is what I object object to.

But even if we grant that interpretation and the pre-emtive logic of the administration's actions, what do you do with the resources pulled from Afganistan? Bush claims to have crushed the Taliban, but here they are threatening to affect the upcoming elections there. We still haven't captured bin Laden. And if stopping some possible (anything's possible!) alliance and the threat it would pose was the noble goal, where is that doctrine around the threats from Iran and N. Korea? Where is our liberate the oppressed logic in the face what even Powell is now calling genocide in Africa?

Yes, the report shows non-operational links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And Michael Moore has shown stronger links between Bush and the Taliban as well as Bush and the Saudis (remember who the bulk of the 9/11 terrorists were?). But of course, Moore is just a fat slob who is obviously wrong all the time and only misrepresenting the truth for his own personal gain (not!). And Bush-Cheney, in their allegations of an Iraq-Al Queda connection are doing what again, exactly? Oh yeah, building a case for a pre-emptive war that has now claimed over a 1000 US lives and God knows how many Iraqi lives (insurgents and innocents alike) on flimsy and speculative evidence -- of Al Qaeda connections, of WMDs, of mobile chemical weapons facilities, etc.

Thanks for the article, blogic. One could hope the football analogies might help make the point clearer.

ShoZan

on Sep 10, 2004

When he means crushed I don't think he meant all of the Taliban had been eradicated only that the Taliban were no longer in power, as for Iran and Korea, we can only kick one ass at a time in the United States. As for Bin Laden, if you haven't looked further into Al-Qaida and how it operates than your question is half-informed, there simply is not a central leader behind Al-Qaida. Each cell has their very own leader and replacement leaders, so capturing Bin Laden (if he still is alive, and currently there is no proof that he is) will not stop a group like Al-Qaida, because Bin Laden operates one cell that cooperates with other cells, but each cell has their own leader, so taking down a central leaderless terrorist group is not easy task at all, and may never be over despite taking all of the cells down because somebody could always build a new cell.

As for Sudan, I think if I heard that the US is pursuing U.N. intervention (or approval at least) to go into Sudan, because some many people complained about the U.S. going into Iraq without it, so you can have those people pat their selves on the back for changing the current administration’s attack without U.N. approval strategy.

And Bush-Cheney, in their allegations of an Iraq-Al Queda connection are doing what again, exactly? Oh yeah, building a case for a pre-emptive war that has now claimed over a 1000 US lives and God knows how many Iraqi lives (insurgents and innocents alike) on flimsy and speculative evidence -- of Al Qaeda connections, of WMDs, of mobile chemical weapons facilities, etc.

So we are just assuming Iraq did not send funds to Al-Qaida, surely you jest. As for you using those 1,000 soldier's deaths, and Iraq deaths for your argument you must feel no shame, how dare you use their deaths for your argument that is so ghoulish and sick, argh.

Daiwa

on Sep 10, 2004

Bungy -

Look, either you accept the 9/11 Commission Report as credible or you don't - it also said there was no evidence of a link to the Saudi government or any evidence of "footsy" between Bush & the Saudis.

But of course, Moore is just a fat slob who is obviously wrong all the time and only misrepresenting the truth for his own personal gain (not!).

Well, you said it, not me, but I'd like to know how much of the money from F9/11 Mike has donated to the families of fallen soldiers from the Iraq war. Please enlighten me.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Bungy32

on Sep 11, 2004

As for Bin Laden, if you haven't looked further into Al-Qaida and how it operates than your question is half-informed, there simply is not a central leader behind Al-Qaida. Each cell has their very own leader and replacement leaders, so capturing Bin Laden (if he still is alive, and currently there is no proof that he is) will not stop a group like Al-Qaida

Nope, I'm pretty clear on this. I am not holding my breath that catching bin Laden will solve anything. It's what suggests (practically) unilateral military action is not the right strategy for "fighting a war" on terrorism. We forget that the military action in Afganistan was largely supported in the international community. It was supposed to be part of a combined effort of multiple strategies to make that country less of a safe haven for terrorists. But if catching bin Laden is not important, then why did we get all that "smoke him out" rhetoric?

As for Sudan, I think if I heard that the US is pursuing U.N. intervention (or approval at least) to go into Sudan, because some many people complained about the U.S. going into Iraq without it, so you can have those people pat their selves on the back for changing the current administration’s attack without U.N. approval strategy.

Riiight. So what you are saying is that the administration is developing a learning curve about when to deploy the military and how to successfully win the support the UN and why that is important. That inspires such confidence.

No, no shame. These are the harms of war. Look at them. Look at them hard. And then feel some shame yourself for trying to remove this fact from consideration in the debate. I don't shy away from the near 3000 people (not all Americans!) killed in the WTC. I don't shy away from the thousands killed with chemical weapons and the like by Iraq under Hussein. What is ghoulish is to downplay the cost of these actions in human lives.

Look, either you accept the 9/11 Commission Report as credible or you don't - it also said there was no evidence of a link to the Saudi government or any evidence of "footsy" between Bush & the Saudis.

The report dealt specifically with the lack of connection between the Saudi government and the attack. Actually, another investigation into Bush connections with the Saudis (among other issues) will be coming out well past the election. But if the Iraq-Al Quaida connection is an assumed financial one (see ShoZan quote above), then the connection between the Bush family and Saudis seems to have a firmer financial trail (albeit in the twist and turns of corporate finacing). My point, though, is that the Bush-Saudi and Bush-Taliban connections (possibly legal, certainly affected by time and context) are stronger than anything shown between Iraq and Al Quaida.

And no, actually I don't have to accept the commission report as creidible or not. This is a false dilemma. Some claims may be more credible than others. Much like Moores film, one or two claims of little credibility do not invalidate the credibility of all other claims.

Deference

on Sep 11, 2004

Over simplificication by George & Co. ? Surely not...

ShoZan

on Sep 11, 2004

Lee1776

on Sep 11, 2004

I'd like to know how much of the money from F9/11 Mike has donated to the families of fallen soldiers from the Iraq war.

The answer is none. I posted an artical from the Army times and they asked the question:

“Fahrenheit 9/11” so far has grossed more the $100 million and garnered the best picture award at the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. Repeated attempts to reach Moore were unsuccessful. However, associate producer Joanne Doroshow said that the movie has been donated for use at benefits to raise money for organizations such as Veterans Against the War in Iraq and Military Families Speak Out, another antiwar groups.
ARMY TIMES 9 Aug 04
That means they donated the movie so they can show it, not any of the money made.

Daiwa

on Sep 11, 2004

But if the Iraq-Al Quaida connection is an assumed financial one (see ShoZan quote above), then the connection between the Bush family and Saudis seems to have a firmer financial trail (albeit in the twist and turns of corporate finacing). My point, though, is that the Bush-Saudi and Bush-Taliban connections (possibly legal, certainly affected by time and context) are stronger than anything shown between Iraq and Al Quaida.

This suggests the two relationships (Iraq-al Qaeda, Bush-Saudis) can be morally judged by their financial strength. Sorry, Bungy, but that's untenable. The purpose of the relationship matters. To suggest that Bush supported terrorists by virtue of whatever relationship he may have had with whatever Saudis is stretching things to the breaking point. And the suggestion that there is no moral difference between the Saudi government and Saddam's Iraqi government is seriously undermined by the facts. I don't mean to be putting words in your mouth, here, but I see no other logical reason to make a deal out of Bush's relationships to the Saudis.

Cheers,
Daiwa

stevendedalus

on Sep 14, 2004

Yeah, right; what's another 1,000 dead and 7,000 wounded resulting from misinformation and jingoism? No matter how long we continue putting down the insurrection, the unmentionable list will never compare to Vietnam's.

Bungy32

on Sep 14, 2004

The purpose of the relationship matters. To suggest that Bush supported terrorists by virtue of whatever relationship he may have had with whatever Saudis is stretching things to the breaking point.

Yeah, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think or claim that Bush money supported the 9/11 terrorists. My point is about the relative strength of established connections between individuals, governments, and organizations. What is morally untenable (to me) is that Bush/Iraq War-supporters can dismiss pre-9/11 links between Bush/GOP and, say, the Taliban but then take the tenuous, non-operational, mostly speculative connections between Iraq and Al Qaida as sufficient justification for (almost unilateral) military action in Iraq. As you say, though, the purpose of the relationship matters. What is in question is what the purpose of our war/occupying-relationship with Iraq is. Because frankly, I am not buying the explanation du jour proffered up for that.

Also, I really make less of the connection between Bush and the Saudis than I think you suspect. Saudi Arabia is not a democracy. It practices some fairly draconian forms of capital and corporal punishment. It's public schools teach a certain amount of institutionalized hate for infidels (including Christians in the West and, more significanty for the region, Jews in Israel). Something about the Saudi culture sends an incredible number of its young men to Al Qaida and other insurgent groups. In the end, though, Saudi Arabia is an ally and we desperately need allies in the region. But we're in a pretty big mess if the best reasons we can mobilize for our (near unilateral) military actions in a country could apply (even in part) to our allies in the region.

Daiwa

on Sep 14, 2004

stevendedalus -

Here's the problem, at least as I see it:

There is no perfect method of knowing the specifics of when, where and how terrorists will strike us or of knowing who's harboring &/or supporting them. Note I said perfect. The terrorists will make sure that is as difficult as possible, with all their strength and cunning.

9/11 happened.

I don't want to see 9/11 The Sequel.

You are simply wrong to lay all this off to "misinformation and jingoism." Cruel as it is, Baghdad's a better place for bombs to be going off than New York. Face it, it is a cruel world and the terrorists and their apologists have demonstrated over & over again their willingness to dupe us and string us along, to parry & thrust, to attempt to gain sympathy through further violence (don't ask me how that works). And there can be no doubt that, given the opportunity and the means, they will strike again. If it means taking down one safe harbor after another to flush them into the light of day, that may be what is required. Eliminating (or converting through coercion) the regimes that enable and condone such terrorism is probably our only real hope of extinguishing this disease. Talking is nothing but a sign of weakness to them and they will continue to plot to win as long as jaws are flapping.

There was reasonable doubt about Saddam's capabilities and intentions before going to war. He had ample opportunity to cooperate with the UN and civilized nations before being taken down and chose to flip them the bird. Even Kerry & Edwards believed the intelligence prior to the war. Attacking the war is a political strategy, not leadership on their part.

Cheers,
Daiwa

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!