Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Donald Ducks Out
CNN is reporting that Donald Rumsfeld has resigned as Secretary of Defense. More as it comes in.
UPDATE: Here's the story.
President Bush said Wednesday Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is stepping down and former CIA Director Robert Gates will take over at the Pentagon and in prosecuting the war in Iraq.
Rumsfeld, architect of an unpopular war in Iraq, intends to resign after six stormy years at the Pentagon, Republican officials said.
UPDATE: Bad timing award on the day goes to this Reuters story, sent out at 10:50 a.m.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the face of U.S. war policy and a lightning rod for critics worldwide, will not be forced out just because he faces a tougher time from resurgent Democrats.
Franklin Harris|11.8.06 @ 1:01PM|#
He's resigned before. The difference is that this time the president accepted Rumsfeld's offer.
|11.8.06 @ 1:07PM|#
If the Republicans have conceded MT and VA to the Dems, giving them the Senate, then the Rumsfeld resignation was the logical move. Next step is for Bush to appoint Lieberman to SecDef and let the Repub governor of CT appoint a Republican to Joe's seat. That puts the Senate back under GOP control, with Cheney's tie-breaker vote.
|11.8.06 @ 1:08PM|#
Thanks a lot asshole. Couldn't do it two weeks ago, could ya? No, of course not.
|11.8.06 @ 1:08PM|#
you can't front-run your own inevitable firing and expect people to believe you resigned by choice. When will Republicans learn? never.
|11.8.06 @ 1:10PM|#
Woo-motherfucking-hoo!!! Pardon my french.
See? The Dems' victory is good for the
country.
|11.8.06 @ 1:10PM|#
"Why the glum faces?"
George has told two jokes so far in this press conference, and they
both fell flat as a pancake. You'd think there'd be some lessons
learned on joke-telling lately...
Brian|11.8.06 @ 1:16PM|#
That guy has to have set a record for the longest time between a FUBAR and the fall guy falling.
|11.8.06 @ 1:17PM|#
3.5 years and several hundred thousand civilian deaths too
late.
but atleast theres hope....
|11.8.06 @ 1:18PM|#
Good that Rummy's gone, but Cheney's still Vice President and Bush is still a fool.
|11.8.06 @ 1:21PM|#
20 bucks says the President eventually pardons his
melts-in-water ass.
Why?! Because of Abu Gharib, fool!
|11.8.06 @ 1:22PM|#
I don't think I've ever seen a President eat so much
shit-sandwich in such a sort period of time.
Such is the price of unbridled arrogance. But I would love so much
to put my foot up Hugo Chavez's ass, to get that smug grin off his
face (granted, the greaseball is an ex-paratrooper).
Dru|11.8.06 @ 1:25PM|#
This is awesome, but where is the benefit to the GOP? Two weeks ago it might have saved a seat or two, but now it just looks like the Dems are kicking ass right out of the gate. What does the Bush administration get out of this?
|11.8.06 @ 1:28PM|#
Brian,
Doesn't "fall guy" imply that he doesn't shoulder too much blame?
It's unfair to call him the fall guy. Let's say this is the start
of something great.
|11.8.06 @ 1:32PM|#
Dru,
I imagine this gets Bush some allies in the Pentagon who hated
Rummy. With potential hearings on Iraq coming up (run by dems), it
is key to have allies in the pentagon. It also gives Bush a nice
defense when he is criticized by Dems for Iraq policy. "The day you
guys won, I replaced Rummy… we are really turning the corner now.
All of the other crap was Rummy's fault." Etc…
|11.8.06 @ 1:44PM|#
My only regret is that Rumsfeld was not fired. Sooner.
Of course, for all we know, Bush may have turned to Rumsfeld while
watching the results last night and said the Donald Trump line. But
even if he did, it's something he should have said much, much
sooner.
Now we have to content ourselves with Rumsfeld wanting to spend
more time with his family.
|11.8.06 @ 1:49PM|#
Ortega gets elected, and Gates comes out of retirement. With things heating up in Iran, perhaps the Republicans are looking to reach waaay back in their playbook.
|11.8.06 @ 1:50PM|#
Now we have to content ourselves with Rumsfeld wanting to
spend more time with his family.
Huh? I thought he was leaving to begin work on his '08 presidential
run...
|11.8.06 @ 1:56PM|#
Certainly no one in the Petnagon will be crying, although a lot
of the whining from DOD about Rumsfeld had as much to do about
bruised egos than anything else. A lot of the people he abused
deserved what they got and then some.
Rumsfeld was right about how to win in Afghanistan and wrong about
how to win in Iraq. A small force was the right answer in
Afghanistan. He was completly wrong in thinking that wiping out the
top of the govenrment was all that was necessary in Iraq and
completly misunderstood the measures that it takes to beat an
insurgency.
Further, Rumsfeld was completely wrong about detatinee operations.
Him along with Cho and Gonzlalez (the singly most incompetant war
time official in U.S. history) took what should have been a simple
task of taking the simple, efficient and ruthlessly effective
Nuremburg rules off of the shelf and managed to fuck up the entire
operation beyond recognition and hand our enemies endless amounts
of propaganda while not convicting or executing one terrorist. For
all of his good ideas and there were many, these flaws combined
with his bean counting force decisions (trying to kill the Army,
pulling out of Germany) far outweigh them. He should have been
replaced in 2004. Why Bush waited two years is beyond me.
|11.8.06 @ 2:08PM|#
Rumsfeld was right about how to win in Afghanistan...
That's why we're done there, right? All those troops came home and
all the fighting is over. Yeah, great job, Rummy.
|11.8.06 @ 2:11PM|#
John: I have heard that criticism of Rumsfeld's detainee policy from various quarters, most of them JAG's who went public. What is your theory for Rumsfeld's position on this. Arrogance?
|11.8.06 @ 2:15PM|#
High number,
The Army wanted to put in a Corps. Rumsfeld did it Special Forces
and air power. The taking down of the Taliban was nothing short of
brilliant. Are we still fighting there? Of course we are BECAUSE
WARS ARE FUCKING HARD. We could have put a million people into
Afghanistan and still be fighting there today and it wouldn't have
made a dime's worth of difference. We will be fighting those
fanatics for the rest of mine and probably my children's lives. I
really don't see an end to it.
But, you are definitely ahead of the curve. I have no doubt that
once the Democrats have gotten us to cut and run in Iraq, the drum
beat will start about the "unjust aggressive, mistaken war" in
Afghanistan and how we are in a quagmire and can never win.
|11.8.06 @ 2:15PM|#
76,
Yes. Impeachment and conviction. I really, really want the
Democrats to go after Bush. It would be fun for the whole family
and add more "lock" to the impending gridlock. Without a witch
hunt, the possibility of bispendourmoneyship is all too real.
|11.8.06 @ 2:19PM|#
I retract my poor prognostication about Lieberman. I suppose
that was wishful thinking on some peoples' part.
Now that we know that James Baker's best friend is taking over as
SecDef, this really looks to me like a palace coup by George Sr and
his pals to make Junior clean up his mess. As soon as it became
public that Baker was preparing an exit strategy we should have
seen this coming. The question is did they delay announcing the
change before the mid-terms in order to avoid appearing weak, or
did Bush and Rumsfled try to resist but then caved under the
pressure of the disastrous election results? Also I wonder if the
unprecedented spectacle of the Army Times calling for Rummy's
resignation was not greenlighted by Bush I/Baker (implying that
Junior and Rummy were indeed resisting). That editorial alone put a
lot of pressure on Rumsfeld to go. What does Dubya do now? He has
almost no allies - not on the left, not in the middle, not amongst
the paleocons and by selling out Rumsfeld, "the greatest Secretary
of Defense in the history of the United States", he has probably
alienated what was left of his LGF/Freeper/Powerline base. If we
were a parliamentary democracy Bush would have to step down. As it
is I think for the next two years Bush I and Baker will be pulling
the strings.
|11.8.06 @ 2:19PM|#
Ron,
I think it was arrogance and amateurism. That is my best guess.
There was a system for doing things. We did these things at
Nuremburg. If they had taken the Nuremburg rules off of the shelf
(the details of which would have put the media into shock) the U.S.
could have said, these are promulgated by the U.N. and established
international law, which they were. People could have whined and
screamed about it, but in the end could not have said they were
illegal. We could have grabbed these people, tried them by tribunal
and sent a message that if you screw with the U.S. you end up on
the end of a rope. Instead, Rummy and Gonzalez dreamed up their own
system and gave the entire world a knife to stick in our backs and
still haven't tried anyone. I really think it was this idea that
"we are smart people and this is a different kind of war" and we
don't need to pay any attention to the past or anyone who has been
thinking about these issues.
|11.8.06 @ 2:25PM|#
Rumsfeld was right about how to win in Afghanistan and wrong
about how to win in Iraq.
Did we
win in
Afghanistan? I had no idea!
|11.8.06 @ 2:33PM|#
It's interesting to watch people hammer Rumsfeld, the guy who
was willing to stand up to entrenched bureaucratic generals and
force them to begin the painful but necessary process of
transformation. (Something which benefits everyone from the lowest
enlisted ranks on the ground to the President and the taxpayer AND
increases the country's military capability).
Rumsfeld's war plan approach was what toppled the Taliban in Kabul
and the Baathists in Baghdad both faster than anyone else could
have even predicted AND faster and more effectively than any
invasion in modern history.
Abu Ghraib and Gitmo will eventually become minor references in the
guy's biography like My Lai for MacNamara, who is the only other
SecDef to effectively institute sweeping and beneficial change in
the DoD.
The continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan will eventually
come to be seen as the Bush (not Rumsfeld) policy mistake it is,
and we'll pull out with a promise to return if we have to - but
won't when we should.
The enemies we went after during GWOT will learn the wrong lesson -
that they can achieve victory by simply waiting the U.S. out until
its political will diminishes and that the U.S. will uniformly fail
to stand by those who trusted the U.S. to help them.
I hope I'm wrong, but I've got a pretty bad feeling the Kurds are
going to get the short end of this stick as another mass grave
marker.
Could anyone have done a better job than Rumsfeld? Probably not.
But the way these things work is that he's been turned into some
sort of boogey-man by the Dems. Well, I guess after the Repubs did
it to MacNamara they had it coming.
|11.8.06 @ 2:33PM|#
John =
reconcile these points for me
"We will be fighting those fanatics for the rest of mine and
probably my children's lives. I really don't see an end to
it."
AND
"I have no doubt that once the Democrats have gotten us to cut and
run in Iraq, the drum beat will start about the "unjust aggressive,
mistaken war" in Afghanistan and how we are in a quagmire and can
never win."
So... hold on. what is it? 'Wars are Hard'...yeah. i think we are
now clear on that. But what you seem to be saying here is that
Afghanistan WILL and SHOULD require major US troop presence for
next 30 years?
And that anyone who doesnt think this 'solution' is actually 'worth
it' is just a cut-and-run anti-military sissy?
You make the point that we went in Afgnstn with special forces and
air power; clearly, that wasnt a strategy to 'take and hold'; it
was to search and destroy, and get out. You declare this a
brilliant strategy, and I might agree. but clearly it wasnt a
strategy to STAY, and re-establish some kind of actual authority on
the ground.
You seem to be saying that it should be obvious to anyone that
'wars are hard' and therefore they CAN and SHOULD take decades of
committment, with little questioning of objectives and costs?
I think Afghanistan is certainly worth staying to help stabilize
the country as much as poss, but there's always a time when the
cost-benefits run out.
Like some other place i can think of...
|11.8.06 @ 2:34PM|#
I fogot Les, this is 21st Century America, where all wars that don't end in 100 hours or less and result in 12 or fewer casualties are deemed a disaster. Silly me. Perhaps you missed the whole part where some guy named Karazi was elected president of Aghanistan and Bin Ladin and Mullah Omar are hiding out in caves fearing for their lives.
|11.8.06 @ 2:34PM|#
Rumsfeld was right about how to win in Afghanistan and wrong
about how to win in Iraq. A small force was the right answer in
Afghanistan.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the plan for Afghanistan
came from the CIA, not the Pentagon.
|11.8.06 @ 2:36PM|#
Gilmore,
The problem is that if we leave Aghanistan and it is not
stabilized, the Taliban will take back over and they will no doubt
launch more terrorist attacks on us. Sometimes like just sucks. I
am not an optimist about this. I think that is where we are right
now. We have two choices, got to places like Afghanistan and fight
endless insurgencies to keep these fanatics in check, or give up
and wait around for them to inevietably get lucky and inflict a
9-11 or worse on us. I really don't see an alternative.
|11.8.06 @ 2:38PM|#
Zeiner, Rumsfeld made the final decision and deserves credit for thinking out of the box on it. It was the one time the "Revolution in Military Affairs" bullshit actually turned out to have some truth to it.
|11.8.06 @ 2:45PM|#
I fogot Les, this is 21st Century America, where all wars
that don't end in 100 hours or less and result in 12 or fewer
casualties are deemed a disaster.
No John, most Americans are quite willing to sacrifice for a just
war. It is pointless occupations we have a problem with. It may
well be that history will agree with Rob - Rummy knew how to manage
a war and the disastrous mismanagement of the subsequent
occupations are Bush and Cheney's fault. But either way getting
sucked into becoming de facto rulers of Iraq and Afghanistan was
always a stupid idea. We should smash our enemies then turn things
over to the best available locals and leave, immediately. If new
enemies arise we come back, smash them, turn the country over to
new allies and leave again. Rinse and repeat until enemies stop
appearing. This whole neo-colonial farce clearly is not
working.
|11.8.06 @ 2:49PM|#
Sorry about the overuse of italics above. And another thing, when did the Taliban ever launch an attack on us? I seem to remember it was a group of educated Saudis and Egyptians who carried out 9/11. The Taliban basically live in the 14th century and are usually quite consumed with their own local blood feuds and making sure women don't get out line. The idea of the Taliban actually launching a terrorist attack against the US in US territory is ridiculous. If you're concerned about the next 9/11 you should worry a lot more about muslim extremists in Europe
|11.8.06 @ 2:49PM|#
Part of me agrees with you Vanya. I really don't care if Afghanistan is a democracy or a craphole. That is up to the Afghans. The problem is that I am not sure we can smash our enemies and go home like we used to. Unlike the past, those enemies are capable of killing 1000s of American civilians. Terrorism is a different dynamic than just nation states. I don't think smashing our enemies and going home solves the problem because like moles they just reapear whereever there is a failed state. We turn things over the locals and the rats come out of the their holes and take over again and the whole process starts anew. I agree with what you say in principle but I am not sure that works anymore. Like I said above, I am not an optimist. I don't think there are any good sollutions.
|11.8.06 @ 2:50PM|#
"Sorry about the overuse of italics above. And another thing,
when did the Taliban ever launch an attack on us?"
The Taliban were bankrolled by Bin Ladin and provided support and
protection to Al Quada. After 9-11, they refused to turn over Al
Quada or do anything to stop them from conducting attacks. Under
international law, that is the same as actually attacking us.
|11.8.06 @ 2:51PM|#
John,
You're comparing apples and oranges: the INVASTION of Afghanistan
and the OCCUPATION of Iraq. The initial conflict in both nations
was stunningly sucessful, but the followup occupation has been a
quagmire.
rob,
The Kurds are going to come out of all of this fine. They have the
best militia (the Peshmurga) and control the most stable, peaceful
part of the country. Any Arab who pokes his head up in Kurdistan
gets whacked pretty quickly, and I don't see that changing.
|11.8.06 @ 2:53PM|#
John,
The Taliban couldn't turn over bin Laden. By middle eastern custom,
he was their guest, and they were obligated to defend him. It was
bin Laden, by behaving badly while a guest, who screwed over the
Taliban.
|11.8.06 @ 2:53PM|#
APl,
I think the occupation of Afghanistan was handled better than Iraq.
Regardless of what you think of Rumsfeld, we face a determined
enemy who is not going to quit. Fighting insurgencies are long and
nasty processes. Leaving and allowing failed states to arise is
asking for another 9-11 or worse. I don't see any good options.
|11.8.06 @ 2:54PM|#
APL,
Under International Law, allowing rogue groups within your
territory to attack other nations is the same as you attacking
other nations. The war in Afghanistan is and was as legal as any
war can be.
|11.8.06 @ 2:57PM|#
"We should smash our enemies then turn things over to the best
available locals and leave, immediately. If new enemies arise we
come back, smash them, turn the country over to new allies and
leave again. Rinse and repeat until enemies stop appearing. This
whole neo-colonial farce clearly is not working." - vanya
Exactly.
Unfortunately, I think that it will become politically impossible
to go back once we leave Afghanistan and Iraq because support for
the guys we left in charge will be non-existent.
The last time we occupied a country at the levels we've occupied
Iraq and Afghanistan was Vietnam - when "Congress passed the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1974, which cut off all military funding
to the South Vietnamese government and made unenforceable the peace
terms negotiated by Nixon."
Maybe the Kurds will luck out and we'll continue to provide air
power...
|11.8.06 @ 2:58PM|#
Silly me. Perhaps you missed the whole part where some guy
named Karazi was elected president of Aghanistan
And has no power outside of Kabul. He is president of his own
fucking city, but warlords actually run the country. This is
progress, how? Oh yeah, that's right, instead of just handing the
Afgahni government $10 million like we did the Taliban, we are
expending Billions of dollars and thousands of troops to maintain
what grip is there. Sounds like peace is just around the corner.
Good job Rummy!
|11.8.06 @ 3:08PM|#
The decisions Rumsfeld made about how to fight the main force wars in Afghanistan and Iraq - both of which were very successful - established the conditions for the failure of the stabilization/security/mopping up/counterinsurgency phases that followed. It is rhetorical trickery to applaud him for using a quick, light force on the way to Baghdad, and then turn around and criticize him for not providing sufficient security afterwards.
|11.8.06 @ 3:35PM|#
I fogot Les, this is 21st Century America, where all wars
that don't end in 100 hours or less and result in 12 or fewer
casualties are deemed a disaster.
John, exaggerating your opponent's arguments to the point of
ridiculousness is a dishonest (and lame) way to conduct an
argument. Don't be dishonest. Don't be lame.
You said we "won" in Afghanistan. We are still fighting the
Taliban. They are still killing our troops. Five years after we
went to war with Germany and Japan, we had "won." Maybe we're
"winning," but I think it's just silly to say we won when we're
sill fighting and troops are dying.
|11.8.06 @ 3:40PM|#
The enemies we went after during GWOT will learn the wrong
lesson - that they can achieve victory by simply waiting the U.S.
out until its political will diminishes and that the U.S. will
uniformly fail to stand by those who trusted the U.S. to help
them.
Uhm. What?
We've let the terrorists win by getting rid of an incompetant
bureaucrat?
That makes a lot of sense. What did they 'win' exactly? Frequent
flier miles? subscription to Jihad Monthly?
I love how everything politcial is a 'message' to the
'terrorists/our enemies' for some people. It makes Al Quaeda sound
like a Washington Week roundtable discussion.
How about sending a 'message' to the thousands of soldiers who get
shot at and blown up every day because the fucking DoD has no
plan?
No, they dont need a 'message'...
The best support you can give troops is Leadership. Not a lot of BS
patriotism. Give them a direction to move in, keep gas in their
tanks. Rumsfeld failed in providing both direction as well as
logistics and manpower support.
maybe we should appoint Wilford Brimley as secretary of defense and
insist that we can kick their ass with an even MORE senile old
crab. That will be a message. In your face Osama.
I love how people talk about Rumsfeld's wonderful 'transformation'
of the military.
Look at the numbers of major weapons systems projects under bush 1,
clinton, then bush v1.1.
Look at what those projects were, and ask yourself why we're still
doing many of them. Billions upon billions upon billions in things
that have nothing to do with our 'transformed' military. i think
the GAO went
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06368.pdf
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/08/19/major_arms_soar_to_twice_pre_911_cost/
Look at the quality and flexibility provided by subcontracting
logistics and other support services.
Christ, look at what we pay for a gallon of gas in Iraq.
Look at all that, and then repeat the claim that this guy was
anything other than testy jerk who made some mammoth fucking
mistakes that have cost many lives and billions of dollars.
Please
|11.8.06 @ 3:47PM|#
JG,
Don't discount the power of Wilford Brimley. He's got control of
Remo Williams, after all.
|11.8.06 @ 3:52PM|#
One other thing. Rumsfeld needed to go but thank God it was as a result of an election and not a bunch whinny assed media whore retired generals running to the first friendly camera they could find. Generals or retired generals cannot and should not pic their own boss. It would have been nice if people would have remembered that.
gaius marius|11.8.06 @ 4:20PM|#
We could have put a million people into Afghanistan and
still be fighting there today and it wouldn't have made a dime's
worth of difference. We will be fighting those fanatics for the
rest of mine and probably my children's lives. I really don't see
an end to it.
which begs the question, mr john -- what in the world are we doing
there? engaging in a war we cannot win (because we cannot define
victory) and which no one has any plan to win (only to fight) and
which is all but certain, as all interminable wars do, to vacate
the constitution of a republic and replace it with a
militarily-ingratiated dictatorship.
world war two was hard, mr john. but it was not a war without end.
there was a definable non-ideological victory and there was a
realistic plan to win it. afghanistan has neither. nor does iraq.
these are examples of the failure of a morally exhausted american
state, not of any external phenomena at all.
respectfully, sir, i think you must have missed ike's warning, which has
never been more pertinent -- the problems posed by terrorism never
had a military solution, and that we tried to impose one says far
more about us than about our enemies. it is in many respects the
ultimate vindication of bin laden's accusations of moral
weakness.
|11.8.06 @ 4:23PM|#
gaius,
Good to hear from you! How goes fatherhood?
In your honor, let me be the first to suggest that we raze Baghdad,
salt the ground, and leave. That approach has got classical
cachet.
|11.8.06 @ 4:27PM|#
"It is rhetorical trickery to applaud him for using a quick,
light force on the way to Baghdad, and then turn around and
criticize him for not providing sufficient security afterwards." -
joe
Pointing out that the decision to stay was Bush's not Rumsfeld's is
"rhetorical trickery?" Yeah. For my next "rhetorical trick" I'll
discuss how the chain of command works...
GILMORE - I was going to respond to you when I realized that
quoting my post was just an excuse for your desire to go off on an
incomprehensible rant.
|11.8.06 @ 4:30PM|#
Gaius,
If we leave Afghanistan, it will be turned over the to Taliban and
Al Quada will use it as a base to plot our murders. Considering
that fact, how is leaving ever going to be an option? Further, who
says that WW II is the standard for toughness of wars? Some wars
are not that simple. The religous wars of Europe went on for
decades. The French and the English stuggled for a hundred years.
The fact is that the West will be fighting radical Islam somewhere
for the forseable future. There is no way around that except
surrender, but even that is not an option since there is no one to
surrender to.
gaius marius|11.8.06 @ 4:31PM|#
"We should smash our enemies then turn things over to the
best available locals and leave, immediately. If new enemies arise
we come back, smash them, turn the country over to new allies and
leave again. Rinse and repeat until enemies stop appearing. This
whole neo-colonial farce clearly is not working."
spoken like a true old-school imperial manager, mr vanya -- the
19th c british navy hasa job for you. you even credibly divorce
battleship diplomacy from "neo-colonialism" -- good show. but i
wonder if you account for the muliplication of our barbarians that
such a strategy will clearly engender?
our problems with these enemies are a result not of their
irrationality so much as ours -- without enough self-security to
admit our own manifold weaknesses, we will never be able to play to
our strengths. and we have created these enemies -- we have chosen
to interpose ourselves in their homes for the sake of maintaining
an autocratic global hegemony that shapes the lives of billions who
are not represented in our government.
if you want a solution, i'd kindly suggest putting away the club.
this is a hydra, and it will take brains more than brawn to
resolve.
gaius marius|11.8.06 @ 4:32PM|#
How goes fatherhood?
life-fulfilling, mr liberate. :)
let me be the first to suggest that we raze Baghdad, salt the
ground, and leave. That approach has got classical
cachet.
baghdad delenda est!
|11.8.06 @ 4:33PM|#
Where is the evidence that failed states give rise to terrorism? Has Sierra Leone, a ridiculously failed state, produced international terrorists? No, nor has Afghanistan for that matter, or the Congo or any place where anarchy is the rule. Terrorism seems to arise not in the failed states but in the second tier countries - the ones where there is a surfeit of educated young men with inflated views of their own self-importance who are frustrated by corrupt economic systems and their inability to do anything with their lives, and then turn twisted and envious - Russia in the late 19th century, Italy and Ireland in the 1970s, Egypt and Saudi Arabia today. Failed states may provide a safe haven to organized groups of terrorists but they don't produce their own, probably for the simple reason that simply surviving in a country like Afghanistan or Sierra Leone, or now Iraq, requires a significant amount of time and energy, leaving little time or resources for plotting attacks on far away countries.
|11.8.06 @ 4:35PM|#
Just call me the modern-day Cato.
Yeah, kids are great. I may have to have one soon myself. And a
clone, because I want a second chance.
|11.8.06 @ 4:37PM|#
Vanya,
Good point, but even if the terrorists are not from the failed
state but from Saudi or some French ghetto, if they use the failed
state as a base of operations to terrorize us, what is the
difference?
|11.8.06 @ 4:46PM|#
gaius - Congrats on the baby - my wife is due soon as
well.
You raise some interesting theories I think are worth responding
to.
1) The US is "engaging in a war we cannot win (because we cannot
define victory) and which no one has any plan to win (only to
fight) "
How was victory defined in other wars? Frankly, I'd argue the
military victory was achieved in short order in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. The occupation, on the other hand, continues. The U.S.
is fighting an insurgency and those are always bloody and wful. In
historical terms, U.S. casualties aren't so bad - though that
probably doesn't matter to someone who lost his leg to an IED in
Iraq or to the family of someone who has died fighting.
2. "which is all but certain, as all interminable wars do, to
vacate the constitution of a republic and replace it with a
militarily-ingratiated dictatorship."
Time will tell. I don't think the Republic is as doomed as those
who read Gibbons as prophectic for the U.S. seem to think.
3.) "world war two was hard, mr john. but it was not a war without
end. there was a definable non-ideological victory and there was a
realistic plan to win it. afghanistan has neither. nor does iraq.
these are examples of the failure of a morally exhausted american
state, not of any external phenomena at all."
Hmmm... I guess if you pretend that we didn't occupy Germany and
Japan at the end of WW2 and that we still maintain a military
presence there to this day.
3.) "the problems posed by terrorism never had a military solution,
and that we tried to impose one says far more about us than about
our enemies. it is in many respects the ultimate vindication of bin
laden's accusations of moral weakness."
Force can only be replied to with force - you can argue that terror
is best left to the police, but in many countries the military and
the police are essentially the same. Even Britain has far fewer
barriers between federal power and police actions. (Frankly, I'd
rather a military solution than a merger of police and military
powers in the U.S.)
Non-violent protest only works if you're faced with a first-world,
Western nation with a well-developed sense of shame. bin Laden's
claim is not just that we are morally weak (which he'd argue is
because we do not follow Allah) but also that we are too cowardly
to stand and fight and do what it takes. Only time will tell on
that front.
gaius marius|11.8.06 @ 4:52PM|#
If we leave Afghanistan, it will be turned over the to
Taliban and Al Quada will use it as a base to plot our murders.
Considering that fact, how is leaving ever going to be an
option?
There is no way around that except surrender
nonetheless we must leave, mr john, because by staying we are not
solving problems -- predictably enough, we are multiplying them
where we are not merely deferring them. or do you seriously
consider that the mindset of the madrassas has been, what,
moderated by our actions there? any more than it was the the
intercessions of the soviets?
if i may presume (and please correct me) -- you seek repression of
a dangerous outside impulse that you have deemed irrational. and i
suspect you see it as irrational because you have not made a
successful effort to understand it. fair enough.
but that does not preclude it from having rational underpinnings --
even the least rational of our behaviors often do. so it is now
here, imo. these third worlders are rising in insurgency against
the west -- not america, but the west and have been for some two
centuries now -- because of how we have mismanaged their local
affairs. look at the political and military history of western
interventionism in the third world since the age of empires dawned
and it isn't hard to imagine why -- no american would take such
merciless abuse, i should hope.
to attack these attackers, then, we must try to address the root of
their motivation -- what gives them sustenance and credibility
among billions of people worldwide who are similarly disaffected.
the solutions are not military -- i agree with you, this is a war
without end that will destroy us long before it changes any hostile
minds. killing their partisans only reinforces their ire and public
sympathy, as it does ours when the roles are reversed. this is a
hydra -- it requires a solution, not a beating.
leaving would be the first of many steps, but a completely
necessary one. bin laden knows this -- one of the most popular
points of his agenda among his third world supporters is the
expulsion of western military forces from muslim lands -- but he
thinks we are morally incapable of it. he thinks we are too weak to
leave -- this is the missed but all-important subtext underlying
all his taunts of the "paper tiger".
would the taliban reemerge? probably -- people in afghanistan in
the main profess to desire it, from what i've read. but we cannot
be shortsighted enough to allow that setback to deter us from a
longer-term plan for reconciliation that will kill the barbarians
at the root.
you want a hard and courageous route to a real solution? imo, this
is it. battering tents and camels with missiles, engaging in mass
torture and dropping jdams on wedding parties will do nothing (at
best). accepting that the counterparty has legitimate grievances
that require redressment in order for them to join the world
community as functioning and cooperative partners under western
economic and political systems will get the job done.
|11.8.06 @ 5:05PM|#
"accepting that the counterparty has legitimate grievances that
require redressment in order for them to join the world community "
-gaius
Granted, their grievances and motivations are rational. But very
little is every actually done from complete irrationality in any
side of a conflict.
I don't believe there is redressment, like reparations for slavery,
that could ever be considered enough. Redressment them won't make
them less bloddthirsty, and how will it not simply encourage
extortion as well?
"as functioning and cooperative partners under western economic and
political systems will get the job done." - gaius
If your economic and political systems are founded on a culture and
a religion that runs completely counter to western economic and
political systems, how will this occur? Extortionary redressment
that will never be enough can only lead to further conflict.
The bridge from one culture to the other simply doesn't exist
because the foundation for each side has lead it to build in an
entirely different direction.
gaius marius|11.8.06 @ 5:12PM|#
How was victory defined in other wars? Frankly, I'd argue
the military victory was achieved in short order in both Iraq and
Afghanistan. The occupation, on the other hand,
continues.
Hmmm... I guess if you pretend that we didn't occupy Germany
and Japan at the end of WW2 and that we still maintain a military
presence there to this day.
lol -- well, mr rob, i'd counter that victory was easily defined
because european wars of nationalism were fought between the
political apparati of nation-states -- and once one ceased to
function, the war was over and organized resistance ceased by
mutual consensus. we may note the atrocities of the fascists, but
in the end the populations of italy, germany and japan in large
part acquiesced when the end came -- not perfectly, of course, but
let's not pretend that anything like what is happening in baghdad
happened in berlin, rome and tokyo. and that's because the rules of
war between european powers had been well and widely understood and
refined from the age of chivalry forward.
that is not so here -- there is no common cultural and political
understanding. that's why it's right to call them
"barbarians".
moreover, i think we shouldn't limit the scope and therefore
implications of what is going on here. the insurgencies in iraq and
afghanistan are metastates of a continuous historical event of
resistance that goes back to the end of the battle of
vienna. (just because we never learned the history doesn't mean
it ain't important.) there's a reason al-sadr leads somethign
called the mahdi army. and the reason why the resistance
will not end with these military occupation is because what fuels
it vastly transcends these most recent incursions into the muslim
umma -- it is a cultural resistance to designs of western
empire.
you can argue that terror is best left to the police
i'm not. i don't think police work in the end solves this problem
any more than tossing pot users in jail solves drug abuse.
the solution isn't in trying to beat others into compliance (we
can't) or bribe them into submission (merely deferral) or promote
autocracies. the solution is in a measure of power-sharing and real
cooperative redressment of grievances.
without that, all the shooting and jailtime is just window dressing
on the path to the barbarian invasions, imo. it morally weakens us
and morally strengthens them.
gaius marius|11.8.06 @ 5:18PM|#
Non-violent protest only works if you're faced with a
first-world, Western nation with a well-developed sense of
shame.
mr rob -- there is probably no culture on earth today with a more
finely attuned sense of shame than islamic culture. they obviously
love peace and their children too and detest being shamed -- it is
motivating their resistance to what we've done in iraq. remember,
we are the ones rolling tank armies through their streets and
dropping 500-pounders on their homes. truly, would not you and i
resist in kind if the roles were reversed?
bin laden is an opportunist that rides this much broader and more
sensible and tangible angst -- holding him up as though he were
important is rather like holding up david duke as an example of
what every last southerner is. it's not a reasonable way to address
the bigger problems that honest and sensible third worlers have
with western empire.
gaius marius|11.8.06 @ 5:31PM|#
If your economic and political systems are founded on a
culture and a religion that runs completely counter to western
economic and political systems, how will this occur? Extortionary
redressment that will never be enough can only lead to further
conflict.
first, it's not extortionary, mr rob -- if anything, the west is
the party that has dealt extorionary terms to a weakening and
beleaguered third world since the 18th c. as a conservative, that's
merely being historically honest.
secondly, parts of the third world are already integrated into the
systems of western empire -- westenr civilization has tentacles in
every part of the globe. indeed, that in combination with our
mismanagement is what has forced people to resist so! there's every
reason to believe that cooperative integration can and will work --
recent examples of the success of western principles include russia
(late 17th c on), china (18th c on) and turkey (since ataturk).
western economic ideas -- capitalism, socialism, communism -- and
political ideas influence and even dominate social models the world
over.
there's no fundamental barrier here so long as we present
attractive ideas that work without presenting brazen threats or
demanding undue central control as a means of alienation, imo.
|11.8.06 @ 5:50PM|#
"Man overboard!"
Dumsfeld goes over the side less than 24 hours after the polls
close. I'm shocked, I tell you....
|11.8.06 @ 6:14PM|#
John is as laughably predictable as Rush. John, the Taliban
wasis a project/creature of Paki ISI, as thoroly and in detail laid
out endlessly. The resurgent Taliban is tipped/supported (however
sub rosa) by Paki ISI today.
I look forward to your bumper sticker deep exhortations to
bomb/invade/occupy Pakistan, given the irrefutable truth of above
facts.
As far as Gates go. SOME (not John) might remember the salient
hallmark of Gates confirmation hearings as Director, CI. It was the
first time CIA analyists came forward to testify AGAINST givin the
guy the job- some 90 of them, I believe. Why? Because he was widely
known to cook Central American intel to fit the need of Reagans
crackpot handlers, AND he participated in domestic disinformation
campaigns.
In other words, he found out what Reagans handlers wanted to hear,
then told them that. intel to spec, as it were. More of the same.
Hey, its worked great so far......
Hell fit right in- with the WH, John, & crackpot radio.
Yeah, a big improvement......
|11.8.06 @ 6:28PM|#
"i'd counter that victory was easily defined because european
wars of nationalism were fought between the political apparati of
nation-states" - gm
Wasn't that what we fought in Iraq and Afghanistan? The Baathist
regime and the Taliban regime?
"and once one ceased to function, the war was over and organized
resistance ceased by mutual consensus." - gm
I'd argue that the reason that it didn't work like that this time
is because this is a post-Westphalian conflict against an enemy
that (like the Japanese in WW2) have no concept of Geneva
Convention-style post-30 Years War concessions in warfare. (Neither
did the Romans or the Greeks, and look what it got them! Heh!) But
you get around to that on your own... Sigh...
"and that's because the rules of war between european powers had
been well and widely understood and refined from the age of
chivalry forward." - gm
So you can't fight an insurgency because it doesn't have a central
gov't?
"that is not so here -- there is no common cultural and political
understanding. that's why it's right to call them 'barbarians'" -
gm
No argument from me there, I suppose.
"moreover, i think we shouldn't limit the scope and therefore
implications of what is going on here. the insurgencies in iraq and
afghanistan are metastates of a continuous historical event of
resistance that goes back to the end of the battle of vienna...it
is a cultural resistance to designs of western empire." - gm
I'd actually agree with you on the historical roots of the
conflict. I just don't think we agree on whether it can/should be
fought.
"the solution isn't in trying to beat others into compliance (we
can't) or bribe them into submission (merely deferral) or promote
autocracies. the solution is in a measure of power-sharing and real
cooperative redressment of grievances." - gm
In their rational(ized) view, the only redressment is the slaughter
of our citizens. How can "power-sharing" and "cooperative
redressment of grievances" take place in this scenario?
"without that, all the shooting and jailtime is just window
dressing on the path to the barbarian invasions, imo. it morally
weakens us and morally strengthens them." - gm
They'll never invade. But they'll continue to launch attacks unless
we keep a lid on it, IMO.
"there is probably no culture on earth today with a more finely
attuned sense of shame than islamic culture." - gm
But for a Wahabbist, shame is not caused by violent action to an
unresisting victim, it is in not conducting jihad against enemies
of the faith.
"they obviously love peace and their children too and detest being
shamed -- it is motivating their resistance to what we've done in
iraq." - gm
No, I think a twisted, extreme version of their faith inter-mingled
with somewhat irrational politics motivates the resistance.
"remember, we are the ones rolling tank armies through their
streets and dropping 500-pounders on their homes. truly, would not
you and i resist in kind if the roles were reversed?" - gm
Undeniably we'd resist if the attacks continued after we'd reached
a nice, Western-civilized peace agreement and the occupying troops
were acting as an interim police force rather than conducting
running gun battles with insurgents who refuse to surrender.
"bin laden is an opportunist that rides this much broader and more
sensible and tangible angst -- holding him up as though he were
important is rather like holding up david duke as an example of
what every last southerner is." -gm
I tend to think of bin Laden as a true believer of the Jim Jones
sort. I don't think he's a hypocrite, I just thinks he's
dangerously faithful to a twisted creed.
"it's not a reasonable way to address the bigger problems that
honest and sensible third worlers have with western empire." -
gm
I feel bad for any honest and sensible third worlders caught in the
middle as I would for any non-combatant in a war zone. But that
doesn't mean that I'm willing to put their welfare and well-being
above that of my own countrymen.
"first, it's not extortionary, mr rob -- if anything, the west is
the party that has dealt extorionary terms to a weakening and
beleaguered third world since the 18th c. as a conservative, that's
merely being historically honest." - gm
The way of the world in years past is not the burden of the current
generation. The sins of the father cannot be borne by succeeding
generations. That's a fundamental principle of Wetern civilization
that is at odds with the model you advocate.
"secondly, parts of the third world are already integrated into the
systems of western empire -- westenr civilization has tentacles in
every part of the globe. indeed, that in combination with our
mismanagement is what has forced people to resist so!" - gm
Indeed, that's their primary complaint!
"there's every reason to believe that cooperative integration can
and will work" - gm
Maybe at the point of a sword, which is SADLY how this historically
has worked.
"recent examples of the success of western principles include
russia (late 17th c on), china (18th c on) and turkey (since
ataturk)." - gm
I'm not carrying the blame for Communism as a Western Civ concept
(Russia & China). I've had friends travel to Turkey, it's no
garden spot of Western enlightenment.
"western economic ideas -- capitalism, socialism, communism -- and
political ideas influence and even dominate social models the world
over." - gm
Actually, they mostly replace the other social models. That's one
of the biggest complaints of the Wahabbist sect. Neither of us
thinks they attack McDonald's and KFC restaurants because they hate
trans fat?
"there's no fundamental barrier here so long as we present
attractive ideas that work without presenting brazen threats or
demanding undue central control as a means of alienation, imo." -
gm
I can't think of a more attractive idea than being able to look
upon the faces of beautiful women in a crowd, and that hasn't
caught on in places that require the burkha. I think this is a
lovely idea, kind of like putting a flower in a soldier's rifle or
standing in front of a tank at Tianamen Square. Historically,
outside of first-world Western nations this just gets you shot in
the face or squashed under a tank tread.
I'd vastly prefer your model, gaius, but as a student of history
you surely recognize that historically there aren't many precedents
for this. In fact, there are more examples in modern history of
defeating insurgencies than there are of victories achieved by the
means you advocate.
|11.8.06 @ 6:40PM|#
That should have read:
Undeniably we'd resist if the attacks continued after we'd reached
a nice, Western-civilized peace agreement and the occupying troops
were supposed to be acting as an interim police force rather than
conducting running gun battles with insurgents who refuse to
surrender.
My point was that once beaten, a Western nation conducts itself
according to the role of a defeated nation. The problem the U.S.
encounters is that they don't get that they should behave in that
fashion.
Perhaps that's because if they were the winning army they'd make
the Russian army in WW2 East Germany look like the Teletubbies by
comparison.
Or maybe it's because a war between Western style nations doesn't
require a complete re-writing of the conquered nations culture,
making the stakes so high for them that they refuse to accept that
they are beaten under any circumstance...
Either way, the fact of the matter is that prior to the Westphalian
concept of warfare, wars were waged and won and the winners got
what they went to war for and no one attempted to provide
"redressment" and "power-sharing" until Western Civilization tried
to make war less horrible for noncombatants.
|11.8.06 @ 8:53PM|#
I'm more and more becoming a fan of the plan vanya describes.
You know what? 9/11 was terrible and horrible and so forth. But my
chances of dying on the way home from work today are still far
greater than my chances of dying to any plausible terrorist
attack.
It is insane, given that, to continue to spend money and lives, and
continue to abrogate personal liberties in this supposed war. We
can't win the war. We can fight to a stalemate in the war. And we
can do so to prevent... what? 'A future 9/11?' I'm not really
certain that would be worse than the ongoing war.
I'd like to see a policy where we do things like invade Iraq and
Afghanistan, and then get the hell out as soon as those immediately
responsible are dead or deposed. Anything else is not, and should
not be, our problem. The message to would-be terrorism supporters
would be pretty clear: 'Take steps to stop these fuckos or you will
not be head of state for very long.' I'd like to believe that
there's enough simple pragmatism in the world's nutjob dictators to
want to avoid that outcome.
And I'd also like to see some acknowledgement that, as ass-kickings
go, 9/11 was simply not that bad. What it was was a big
hit to our national ego and sense of invulnerability. It wasn't a
knockout punch, it was barely a bloody nose, and it should not be
the ultimate trump card in all future decisions about American
national security and military operations.
|11.8.06 @ 9:57PM|#
I forgot the part where Gates worked w/ Rummy, Cheney et al to
arm & pimp Hussien in the early 80's.....hes even a better fit
that I imagined...
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/110806R.shtml
|11.9.06 @ 9:00AM|#
quoting my post was just an excuse for your desire to go off
on an incomprehensible rant.
yes, you are probably right.
Lets do it again
The enemies we went after during GWOT will learn the wrong
lesson - that they can achieve victory by simply waiting the U.S.
out until its political will diminishes and that the U.S. will
uniformly fail to stand by those who trusted the U.S. to help
them.
Now, rather than offer an incomprehensible rant, i'll simply say
=
You're wrong. "Terrorists" arent sitting around gabbing about which
Sec of Def presents the greater challenge to their nefarious
plans.
JG
|11.9.06 @ 9:03AM|#
John,
Your "Wars are F*ing hard" comment just proves that you are one of
these conservatives who thinks only conservatives are "serious"
about terror. The Bush Administration has dropped the ball in
Afghanistan while dicking around in Iraq. Yup. Wars ARE hard,
especially when our leaders are militarily incompetent. You'd
think, with wars being "hard", that we'd focus on the goal instead
of looking around for regimes to change.
|11.9.06 @ 9:49AM|#
"Now, rather than offer an incomprehensible rant, i'll simply
say =
You're wrong. "Terrorists" arent sitting around gabbing about which
Sec of Def presents the greater challenge to their nefarious
plans."
That's not even remotely close to what I said. Learn to read before
you rant.
Sam Franklin|11.9.06 @ 9:53AM|#
gaius marius rules. [i]HnR[/i] should put him above the fold so that there is more balance on miltary issues here.
|11.10.06 @ 10:50AM|#
I think the situation in Iraq is somwhat blown out of
proportion. Sure theres chaos and we have over 2700 dead soldiers
in almost 3 years of war. 2700? Thats about 900 a year. California
had 2,394 homicides in a single year in 2004***. Is California a
quagmire? Should we pull the civilians out of California?
***Source: Homicide in California 2004. California Department of
Justice. pg.46
http://ag.ca.gov/cjsc/publications/homicide/hm04/Data%20Tables.pdf
|11.10.06 @ 11:57AM|#
population of California is about 34 million
population of Iraq is about 26 Million
US Troops 150,000 ish
Compare your death rates
34 Million/2,394
26 Million/150000 civilian dead*
150000/2700 military dead.
Math is fun.
*ASSOCIATED PRESS
"BAGHDAD - A stunning new death count emerged today, as Iraq's
health minister estimated at least 150,000 civilians have been
killed in the war, about three times previously accepted
estimates."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245