911 Forever

A pragmatic friend wrote in to say that he appreciated Chronicles' February issue on Iraq, which "fairly presents the respectable antiwar case." Nonetheless, he reluctantly concluded,

"Given the belligerence and resentment of the failed Arab culture, Saddam has come to represent a power-challenge that probably has to be taken up if we are to have any hope of breaking the back of Arab terrorism. If surreptitious state-sponsored terrorism is the threat that I think it is, it may be imperative to give the world the lesson that we can and will destroy governments who even flirt with such activities.Our best defense may be to create a situation in which the third world thugocracies decide that such activities are not a useful means of pressuring us, but rather a mortal threat to themselves. Certainly action will lead us into unforeseeable circumstances that it would be best to avoid if we could. It is most uncomfortable to feel oneself lined up with the "national greatness" boys, with their insouciance over unfathomable consequences. While one might hope for a spread of notions of limited government to the Arab world, to anyone who knows anything about Arab culture, there would seem to be little reason to imagine this will ever come to pass. All we can do is hope for the best."

This is precisely the case the Bush administration should be making to the American people and to the world. Unfortunately, their statements are as confused as the policy of the previous Bush administration that left Saddam in power after fighting a costly and futile war. (Who cares which kind of gangster rules Kuwait, so long as they sell us the oil?) All this talk of weapons of mass destruction is, I hope, a pure canard. The thugocracy of Pakistan, which has nuclear weapons, was a staunch supporter of the Taliban and continues to arm and shelter Islamic terrorists. The only state threatened by Iraq"s military establishment is a small state that sometimes claims to have the second or third most effective military in the world. Only a short time ago, a respected Israeli military expert, Martin van Creveld, threatened all of Europe with nuclear holocaust if they got in the way of Israel's quest for survival: "We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that this will happen before Israel goes under." Van Creveld singles out Rome as a potential target, even though the Italian government has supported the U.S. war against Iraq. Van Creveld is widely admired by some American conservatives, but I do hope that the governments of Europe and North America will not allow this advocate of nuclear terrorism to enter their countries.

Van Creveld, in addition to threatening the destruction of the world, also suggested that Ariel Sharon was probably just waiting for the right moment to drive the Palestinians completely out of Palestine. I think we all know what the right moment is—some time in early March, when the bombing starts. Israelis have a perfect right to be alarmed by Saddam Hussein, and if our declared purpose in going to war were to protect an ally and clamp down on expansionist Islamism, they would have a better case to make to the world.

I frankly do not know why we are going to war, though I can discern several recurring motives in the administration's rhetoric. They may have pragmatic objectives, such as my correspondent outlined. I would feel more comfortable about the forthcoming war against Iraq if:

1) The administration were not telling palpable lies every day about their evidence. Powell's latest attempt to link Bin Laden to Iraq was a disgraceful performance for any statesman, and it comes on the heels of earlier lies about Islamic terrorists operating in northern Iraq and the celebrated nonmeeting of Al Qaeda and Iraqi representatives in Prague. Statesmen lie all the time, but diplomatically. It is one thing to lie, it is quite another to do it so brazenly.

2) The administration was willing to deal directly with the Islamic threat and give up the oft-repeated lie that Islam is a religion of peace.

3) The President and his cabinet would come to grips with the reality that we are not the only powerful nation in the world and that our current tactic spells great dangers for the future, namely, an alliance between Russia and the E.U. constructed specifically to push the U.S. out of Europe. Other alliances in the making are India-China-Russia, though that is complicated by old antagonisms and current disputes. Our continued support for the Pakistani dictator and his rogue state that WE KNOW supports Islamic terrorism and WE KNOW has nuclear weapons, gives the lie to any notion that Bush has a pragmatic strategy for dealing with Islamic terrorism.

4) This administration and its predecessors were not continuing to support Islamic terrorism around the world, supporting not only Pakistan but Islamic regimes in Bosnia and Kosovo, pressuring for the admission of Turkey into the E.U., covering up the terrible atrocities committed for decades in places like Indonesia, the Philippines, and Africa. When gentlemen in the intelligence business used to visit me, seeking my advice during and after the U.S. attack on Yugoslavia, I warned them of the dangers of U.S. foreign policy, including the terrible mistake of arming, training, and indoctrinating into radical Islam the "freedom-fighters" in Afghanistan. I pointed out that the Taliban regime was probably the most violently anti-American government in the world and posed a serious terrorist threat. They shrugged their shoulders and said that in retrospect, they would have done it again. What were they saying, I wonder, on September 11?

The main problem with a U.S. war against Iraq was summed up for me in a question put by the news director of a Rockford television station: "If we attack Iraq, does that mean it will be 911 every day for the rest of our lives?"

I am in full agreement with the four points made by the author. My primary angst against the war is that the same people who got us into this mess and whose incompetence allowed 9/11 to occur are still running the show and have not been held accountable. Meanwhile, the people are asked to purchase duct tape and plastic wrap rather than firearms.

Posted for on-going discussion between paleo-cons and paleo-libs. If you think FDR is the father of modern conservatism or MLK is more important than Tailgunner Joe, your posts will probably only serve to strength the belief system of paleo-libs and paleo-cons.

I understand your concerns, but do not see a plausible alternative. If it will be necessary to deal with Islamic Terrorism sooner or later -- and I think it will -- it is better to do it sooner rather than later. Would it be better to have more resolute leaders at all levels? Sure. Are we likely to get more resolute leaders at all levels by waiting now? Without increasing the risks of an attack? No. Therefore, I conclude we have to take the world as we find it, rather than as we might like it to be, and go ahead now and take out Saddam.

"Meanwhile, the people are asked to purchase duct tape and plastic wrap rather than firearms."

I'd be interested to hear how firearms will protect one against a chemical or biological agent released by terrorists. The American people need to take it upon themselves to become better educated and trained in how to respond to NBC attacks. Owning, knowing how to use, and carrying a firearm is one component, but not the only one, in having a robust civil defense.

"Unfortunately, their statements are as confused as the policy of the previous Bush administration that left Saddam in power after fighting a costly and futile war."

The author can't figure out what the Bush administration position is on Iraq? And as for Bush 1, he didn't go into Bagdad to get Saddam because of world opinion. I agree, he should have told the world to shove it.

Re: tape and sheeting - Given any success in an NBC attack, we need means to deal with the dead. As Hollywood might say, "It's a wrap."

A real terrorist tactical success would shatter the image of our local/state/federal government's ability to deal with such a crisis. Putrefaction is quickly a wet mess.

The infected/ious/radiating corpses must be contained ASAP by those at the scene. All other contaminated animals and vegitation must be disposed of without cross contaminations.

I would rather have adequate 6 mil plastic sheeting and plenty of sealing tape to embrace my murdered family and neighbors rather than have flies and beetles reporducing in, and scavenging birds and mammals feasting on what doesn't leak into the furniture, flooring, or yard.

During such mass murder 911 may be as useful as 9/11. This is what fema.gov or the disloyal opposition Democrats won't tell us, but certainly dreams of Pan-Islamists.

The can of beans may be useful in 'farting in their general direction'.

Allah uaaakkkkkkk barf.

I believe the author might suggest that if Bush I compared Saddam to Hitler in 1991 (which he did but retracted because certain groups said he was being unsensitive to Holcaust victims) why did he leave him in power?

Secondly, Bush II is telling us that the issue is full disclosure in regards to WMD at the same time they contend their is 'evidence' of a criminal conspiracy involving Saddam and terrorist organizations. While there is political merit in producing a multi-prong death by a thousand cuts indictment, the author is not intellectually satisfied with blatant contradictions.

In the nanny-state, you logic is reasonable, but I can hardly believe the country of Daniel Boone tolerating such non-sense from their elected leaders.

If airline passengers were allowed to carry firearms onto airplanes as they were well into the 1970s, do you think the 9/11 holocaust would have occured?

If airline passengers were allowed to carry firearms onto airplanes as they were well into the 1970s, do you think the 9/11 holocaust would have occured?

I think it would have still occured. A well armed team of highly trained gun carrying terrorists could have easily taken over those aircraft. I would estimate of those passengers that were on the hijacked aircraft that at most maybe 5 or 6 would be carrying guns and they would have been wasted by the terrorists.

1. I wasn't discussing airline safety, but since you've deflected the issue to that, I do think allowing citizens to carry firearms on board airplanes is a good idea.

2. Back to the point, advising US citizens of appropriate actions to take in the event of a bio-chem attack is a proper role of government in my opinion. The use of duct tape and plastic sheeting to secure a room against bio-chem agents, as well as stockpiling food is not absurd...at least according to the Israeli government, who probably know a thing or twenty about the issue.

From the BBC today, "Later Mr Yaron told Israel Radio that citizens should start to follow instructions in a recently-distributed emergency handbook that explains how to seal rooms against chemical or biological attack.

The handbook also advises them to stock up on food, water, batteries and first aid kits.

"The chance that something will happen here is very low but we have to prepare for all possibilities," he said.

Israel faces possible chemical attack

Hardware shops in Israel have reported heavy demand for plastic wrap and heavy-duty tape to seal rooms, the Reuters news agency said."

Perhaps, then we have had a misunderstanding. I was using the 'duct tape versus firearm' comparison for effect, not making a policy recommendation. No true American household is without duct tape (and WD-40) to begin with.

I wholeheartedly agree that state governments should spend more time on civil defense rather than social engineering. However, lets agree, that creating a false sense of security by defining preparedness with the purchase of batteries, duct tape, plastic wrap, and canned food is worse than being frank with the American people.

That is a ridiculous scenario.

Please explain how it's ridiculous. If anyone were able to carry firearms on board an aircraft it seems reasonable to me that a team of 5 terrorists would have guns. It also seems reasonable to me that out of a passenger number of 50 to 60 (not counting terrorists) that maybe 1 of 10 would carry as well. Sorry to have shot down your cowboy scenario but that's how it is. 5 armed terrorists trained as a team will trump the same or greater number of average civilians with arms everytime.

13 starving Jews with 3 guns between them held the Wehmarcht off for 30 days in Warsaw.

Faulty logic. Warsaw is a big city, an airplane is a thinskinned, confined area.Why would an airline let 5 terrorists on to a plane with guns?

You're the one who said people with guns should be allowed on a plane. If ordinary people are allowed on with guns, what keeps terrorists with guns off the plane?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.