Free Republic

"It's bribery and it's disgusting," said Marwan Kreidie, executive director of the Philadelphia Arab-American Community Development Corp.

"It's what I would think some authoritarian government in the Middle East would do," he said

Yeah, right. Exactly how many immigrants does Iraq have to turn back every year? How many people, longing for a better way of life, have braved the sands of the Sahara to make their way to Libya? How many boat people, desperate for life in a better society, have risked their lives to sail the Indian ocean to Saudi Arabia? Show me the Turks clamoring to make the perilous border crossing into Syria.

As Marwan himself notes, the Middle East is rife with totalitarianism, a form of government that most people loathe. Marwan Kreddie, for example, prefers to enjoy the blessings of liberty in Philadelphia. It is unseemly for him to suggest that we not extend those same blessings to people who assist America in her time of need.

Oh, it made the papers. We just called it something else. World War III was, in my estimation, the Cold War (by another name). It was global, lasted a looooong time, and involved numerous nations.

I suppose the historians will sort out what we call this war. I'll call it WW IV until we all settle on the nomenclature. "The War on Terror" sounds to precious, IMO.

Time's MOTY has always been the person who has had the most impact, for good or ill. Although GWB would be my emotional choice, I have to admit that OBL is probably the correct choice under that definition. As pointed out, past "winners" have included Hitler, Stalin and I believe Khomeni

Hmmm. While OBL would be the obvious choice (he did, after all, kick off World War IV), I still would think GWB is the more appropriate choice.

My reasoning is thus: What's more newsworthy?

1. Inciting 19 thugs to kill thousands of civilians in an effort to provoke the United States to lash out
2. Leading a fractious nation of 280 million people to slowly, methodically uproot and exterminate the international networks of terrorists, while lining up the regimes that sponsor them to knock 'em down, one by one, like the villians in karate movies, thus preserving for future generations the blessings of liberty?

Number 2, for my money, is the more newsworthy of the two.

Not to be picky, India doesn't have a 'relativist religion'. They've got, instead, Hindus, Muslims (over 100 million, IIRC), and plenty of Christians, too. India is a democracy, a pluralistic society, and a logical and natural ally for the US. They bring to the table a large military and experience fighting terrorism (cf. Kashmir). Far better to place some trust in the Indians than in, say, our friends the Saudis.

Not true.

Concealed handguns are dandy for those of us who want to exercise our 2nd amendment rights without unduly alarming the other folks in the office. If some nutcase starts going off at work, in a shopping mall, or elsewhere, I don't want to figure out "how am I gonna get that Armalite outta the trunk of the car?" I want to be able to defend myself on the spot.

While I personally favor the idea of my wife taking the kids shopping with her 870 slung over her shoulder, it would make other shoppers nervous in a way that a Glock under her coat would not.

Finally, concealed carry laws are a force multplier. They create an important element of uncertainty for those who would prey on the citizenry. If 5% of the sheep are armed, but the wolf doesn't know which ones, he will look for another pen to raid.

Journalists have become targets not only because they are defenseless, loaded with expensive equipment, and carrying plenty of cash ...

It certainly does appear that, if nothing else, the journalists in the field are hopelessly out of touch with reality. The description above makes them sound like fabulous targets of opportunity for anyone stronger and more predatory in the war zone.

I don't wish any journalists dead. Getting them out of Afghanistan before the endgame, however, might have certain salutary benefits ...

When I was a soldier, I was an armor soldier (hence my 'nineteen_kilo' handle). Despite my love for armored warfare, I think Hack has it about right: we need to be able to grapple with the enemy swiftly and violently, around the globe. For that, masses of armor just won't cut it. I suspect that we should rely more on attack helicopters for the 'speed and shock' role that was the domain of armor in the wars of the 20th century.

Thank God for the United States Marines.

Personally, I though the first photograph was the best of the lot.

Asked what would happen if Saddam refused, the U.S. president replied: "He'll find out."

Man, oh man, am I glad to have W in charge.

P.E.T.A.

People Eating Tasty Animals

Your post reminds me of this great bit from The Onion.

I'd love to see the following:

Reporter: Mr. President, do you have a response to the recent comments in North Korea's state media calling on the United States to drop North Korea from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism?

W: Yes. The United States fully intends to remove North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. By force, if neccessary.

Next Question?

1. This is not 1991, and a decade of confused policy has left the whole world sympathizing with Iraq. taking them out now could explode the seething mass of arab anti-western hate.

It is abundantly clear that the "sanction and inspect, except when they tell us not to inspect" approach was horribly flawed. In that respect, our foreign policy was indeed misguided. Our media and State Department have done a poor job, too, of pointing out that the 500,000 or 5 million or 50 million dead starved Iraqi babies could well have been fed had Saddam directed his governments' efforts to providing for the needs of the governed, rather than providing shiny palaces for Saddam and his family, and concocting toxins to use on Israel and America.

However, I think that to fret about the "whole world" sympathizing with Iraq is a facile dodge. The whole world does not sympathize with Iraq. The sanctions are United Nations sanctions, for what that's worth. As for fearing that taking out Iraq now might "explode the seething mass of arab anti-western hate", it seems to me that it already exploded on September 11th. Therefore, it is no counter-argument to taking on Iraq's Ba'ath party and deposing them.

2. If Iraq is the source of Anthrax attack, get ready for a terrorist counter attack involving millions of pieces of mail. In short, Iraq has the capacity to destroy the entire American mail and courier service. This will catastrophically cripple the US ecomony.

I respectfully disagree. If they had the capacity to do so, they would have done so already. They are not playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules here, waiting for the ref to count while we stagger back to our feet. If they could have done a one-two punch, they already would have. I respect our enemies, but let's not give them more credit than they deserve. Remember the "battle-hardened" army that Iraq fielded in 1991? We should not be impressed by any Iraqi threats of vengance.

3. Turkey and Iran are not going to happily stand by as we dismember Iraq and open the possibility of a greater Kurdistan. The balance of friend and foe will be completely redrawn if we take down Iraq unilaterally, and there is no planning for how things will look afterwards.

Iran spent most of the 1980's trying to dismember Iraq, as I recall. The Turks would likely welcome a chance to remove a threatening presence to their south, and, as a member state of NATO, have already cast their lot with us. A democratic (swiss canton, british parliament, whatever) Iraq does not pose a threat of 'greater kurdistan' ... and even if it does, that's a question for afterwards, akin to "But what about Austro-Hungary? What about the Ottoman Empire?" and so forth. Planning for things afterwards can wait until afterwards. We didn't shirk from the Cold War just because the State Department had no master plan for what to do in the event the Soviet Union collapsed. I, for one, am not afraid of victory. The victor gets to set the terms. First we attain Iraq's unconditional surrender. Then we can sort out what to do next.

As for "The balance of friend and foe will be completely redrawn if we take down Iraq unilaterally" ... you say that like it's a bad thing. The whole point of the article, it seems to me, is that taking down Iraq will redraw the map, to our advantage. Don't discount the persuasive power of a victorious American army encamped around the Tigris and Euphrates. That would, indeed, cause Iran, Arabia (with or without the House of Saud), and Syria to become far more interested in seeing the American point of view. I, for one, think that's exactly what we want from this war. The example of Iraq, it's nation occupied, it's tyrannical rulers slain or in chains, would cause every tyrant in the neighborhood to re-examine their priorities.

4. The US military simply cannot wage another Gulf war. Clinton cut the machinery in half, the Saudis will not give us the staging ground, and airpower alone will only trigger more waves of fanatical Arab hate. Picture of dead babies and that sort of thing. Plus, the new chinese and czech radar and SAMs have yet to be unsheathed. Remember we lost a F-117 to the Serbs, and they are Saddam's friends.

The US military simply cannot wage another Gulf war ... TODAY. Our martial history has been routine:

1. Get pulled into war, by surprise.
2. Blunder and stumble for a year or two
3. Utterly crush the enemy.

The shameful evisceration of our military has, indeed, left us far short of where we were in 1991. However, America has great flexibility and ingenuity, and phenomenal wealth. I think the world is in for a bit of a refresher course on the miltary prowess of democracies (check out "The Soul of Battle" for excellent examples of such victories)

We will TAKE the Saudi staging grounds, if need be. The House of Saud is in a very precarious position. Fretting about new military hardware seems to miss the point. We've got new weapons, too, and our old one's aren't too shabby.

Honestly, your post (well, responding to it) has if anything moved me even further towards thinking we need to take out Iraq, sooner rather than later. We could come up with many arguments for not taking on Iraq now ... but as time passes, the Iraqis will only become more dangerous to us.

I hear ya.

Mea culpa: in Feb '91, I thought that Bush Sr. did the Right Thing in stopping the war when he did. At the time I thought "A-HA! We've fought a dandy little war: we set an objective, deployed our forces to achieve it, and now we can declare victory and go home."

I, and millions like me, were wrong. I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the only way to achieve victory in modern war is to attain the unconditional surrender of the foe. We made the mistake in WWI of thinking a negotiated surrender would bring peace. Instead, it allowed the Germans to rearm and militarize, under a more toxic regime than that of the Kaiser. In the case of Iraq, we thought (again) that treaties could achieve our objectives. We have now learned, to our horror, what Poland learned in 1939. Contrast those wars with the cold war. In the cold war, our adversary simply disintegrated. Our victory could not have been more complete.

There is no substitute for victory. Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, et al must be either put to the sword, or overthrown from within, and replaced with representative governments that have free markets, the rule of law, civil liberties, and respect for the individual. A tall order ... but so was defeating Japan and Germany simultaneously.

Let's Roll.

Syria and Iran, under the Bush Doctrine, are hostile powers, and therefore fair game for us to carve up at will, IMO. Turkey could not be compelled to surrender territory, but if open borders between our newly-created representative democracies are maintained, there's no reason disgruntled Turkish citizens couldn't relocated to their south and east.

What benefits accrue to using a Swiss-style canton system versus, say, a plain vanilla parliament?

I've just about had it with the Saudi Royal family and their news service. I think, perhaps, we should contemplate the following maneuver:

1. The United States declares that, in honor of the month of Ramadan, we are removing our troops from the 'holy land' of Islam (that is, the Arabian peninsula).
2. The CIA leaks news of this to the Iraqis, who have already started mobilizing their military, so that they will be able to attack as the last C-130 takes off from Dahran.
3. The Iraqis, of course, seize Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and probably take out Jordan, too. Saddam then sits, fat dumb and happy, atop 1/3 of the world's oil.

At this point, we would have NO OPTION but to 'liberate' the Arabian peninsula, Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The ranking Hashemite noble to survive the ground war could be installed as the figurehead of a constitutional monarchy on the British model, with the countr(ies) to be administered under a McArthur-style regency until such time as they show they can behave in civilized fashion.

Yes, it's surely a pipe dream. But it's a good one.

On the heels of war, American public opinion always remains weary of protracted quagmire and seeks to end it quickly by whatever means.

This should be no surprise, nor are Americans ashamed of it: Americans profoundly dislike war. War costs us the lives of our noblest citizens, and exacts a price of blood and treasure that we honestly don't want to pay.

The historical mistake of America's adversaries has been to equate "dislike" of war with lack of martial will. We understand that we are fighting for our lives and liberties, and the lives and liberties of our children and grandchildren. With thousands of our countrymen slain, Americans will not be reluctant to incur more deaths. I'd sooner see us spend 1,000,000 lives lost in battle than see another American city attacked.

However, world opinion would not accept the use of nukes and killing of millions of innocents just so that pracious lives of few off-shore american soldiers can be saved

Another great mistake. America will use her power the way she sees fit, and the American public, based on the very polls cited above, will support such use. It is our penultimate national interest to defend our cities and civilians against attack. Given that our enemy in this conflict has already demonstrated a clear willingness to kill Americans en masse, be assured that we will do whatever we see fit to defend our national interests. We're not going to war to save the "pracious [sic] lives of [a] few off-shore american soldiers. We are going to war to prevent future slaughter of our countrymen, our loved ones, our friends, and possibly our own children. If our Commander in Chief decides that using nuclear weapons will save American lives, then we will damn well use them.

We've done it before.

We're not the only ones wondering "when will the US drop the Bomb?" The excerpt below is lifted from Instapundit (The added emphasis is mine).

A READER WRITES:
My 100% American, dyed red white & blue patriot supervisor, who happens to be Syrian-born&raised, recently flew to Syria for visit. You would think this might be risky, particularly with all the flack about "profiling", "flying while Arab" and all that, but this guy is pretty hard-headed and he would not let minor details keep him from leading his life as he wishes (his motto: "I can't sleep well at night if I haven't taken a risk during the day"). In fact, I'll bet (I'll ask him on Monday) he'd be the first to say middle eastern visit/visitors bear closer scrutiny.

Anyway, after he came back from Syria, with Assad Junior blathering about civilian casualties in afghanistan, I asked him what the Syrians were thinking about us. Now read this closely: He said, "Everyone asked me why we hadn't used nuclear weapons yet."

There is no substitute for victory, swift and ferocious. If we do NOT send in ground troops to Afghanistan, we will find that public opinion in the Middle East will move even moreso to support the terrorists. If, to the contrary, we go in, kick a** and take names, we can then ask "Who's Next?" with impunity.

As a corrollary, if we DO find a weight of evidence implicating the Iraqis, we must go to war with them, and it must be a war for the "unconditional surrender" of Iraq. We must then use nuclear weapons. What we call "tactical" nukes are still truly awesome weapons. If the sniveling appeasers in the State Dept want to 'send a message' to the Arab world, you can be certain that dropping nukes on Saddam's palaces would send two unmistakable messages: 1)if you provoke us, we will kill you and destroy all that you hold dear, and 2) we are willing to go to any lengths to get the job done.

Jordanian newspapers on Sunday warned that US remarks comparing the Palestinian Intifada to terrorism and Washington's expansion of its list of alleged terror groups will fuel more violence in the Middle East.

Ah-HA! They understand! This will, indeed, lead to more violence in the Middle East. Meted out by B-52s, B-2s, F16s, and, when the dust settles, M1A1s and as the capper, M16s. Couldn't happen to a more deserving lot.

“Such a dangerous statement is not a slip of the tongue,” semi-official newspaper Al Rai said.

No, it certainly is not. THIS administration means what it says.

“It does not contribute to optimism reflected by the administration of US President George W. Bush to support the creation of an independent Palestinian state,” the daily said in an editorial.

I like the idea of a fully independent Palestinian state. Let's carve it out of the western flank of Jordan, right after we restore the Hashemites to power in Saudi Arabia, under an American McArthur-style regency. It'll teach 'em all to a bit more careful about what they wish for.