tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post2868408088036735954..comments2023-09-01T09:38:54.262-04:00Comments on Dumb Looks Still Free: Bill O'Reilly drinks Kool Aid, finds it yummyA Jacksonianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-18479813257099358762007-04-29T15:02:00.000-04:002007-04-29T15:02:00.000-04:00DU - I do understand where you are coming from.He...DU - I do understand where you are coming from.<BR/><BR/>Here is the conundrum: if what John Ritter or Hans Blix said was true, then how did they find that out? What makes them reliable sources? INTEL is *not* the science of absolutes, but the art of what is possible and probable. On nearly any INTEL report you can dig and find naysayers, that is not the problem. The problem is deciding where to put your trust.<BR/><BR/>We knew Saddam had WMDs, industry capable of creating sampe, phosphate deposits to make more, refining capability to power it, and, in general, appeared to be keeping that all working. The Clinton Administration put no effort into HUMINT in Iraq and so we are left with IMINT, SIGINT, ELINT and MASINT. Finding someone *right* on anything, ex-post facto, is no assurance that they *will* be right the next time. In particular Ray Robison who was on a number of inspection groups found clear and convincing evidence to him, as an inspector, that Saddam's work went on. Who ya gonna trust? That is what it comes down to. And more importantly, where did that stuff GO? Disposing of toxic chemicals, nerve gas and the such, will leave traces unless done in a thoroughly modern plant which has high levels of safety precautions to it and has a very identifiable footprint to it. Do we take the word of a dictator who claims to have disposed of such? The majority of Saddam's own inner circle actually believed they were *still* making that stuff with only 'Chemical Ali' saying they weren't. Would *you* trust 'Chemical Ali' on anything? A man with no compunctions about killing Kurds by the thousands? Because he is about the only source for that INTEL.<BR/><BR/>That move away from HUMINT had been going on since the Reagan Administration, which looked for technological solutions over human ones. What replaced it has, obviously, not worked as well and yet no one, D or R addresses that point. The 911 Commission looks for the people to 'connect the dots' and yet they are few, far between and have information with varying degrees of certainty to it. If you want to get better and broader synthesis of INTEL then the entire INTEL Community needs to be changed in structure and outlook. My latest on that is <A HREF="http://thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2007/04/taming-turf-wars.html" REL="nofollow">here</A> but I have been saying that both when I was inside the IC and when I first had enough mental wits about me <A HREF="http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/02/reforming-intelligence-community.html" REL="nofollow">to post on it</A>.<BR/><BR/>All of that said I never, not once, believed that this conflict would be: 1) easy, 2) quick, and 3) well done.<BR/><BR/>Those three things have never happened simultaneously on a war of any size having more than 5,000 people involved. NOT EVER.<BR/><BR/>I did and still do see Iraq as necessary to start addressing the long term things this Nation has neglected to do and as the merest downpayment on trying to finally get things done *right*. You want a long history of failure in the Middle East? Well guess what, the US has messed up badly <A HREF="http://thejacksonianparty.blogspot.com/2007/04/10-years-that-changed-path-of-america.html" REL="nofollow">ever since 1917 and we stopped putting the rights of man</A> FIRST over mere trade. We put two ideas down, via President Wilson and BOTH have failed us completely: 1) trade frees people, 2) international institutions can make global order.<BR/><BR/>Neither of these works and we have nearly 90 years of failure to demonstate that fact and what happens when America decides to do something *else* beyond supporting liberty and freedom. If these both *worked* the Middle East would be the most free place on the planet. Doesn't look too good from here, does it? This 'doing something else and looking for a perfect world' has neither made it perfect, nicer or more free.<BR/><BR/>Somewhere in my mass of posts and interlocutions, I put down that I expected the basic fighting to go on for 8-15 years, based on the Philippine and Haiti experiences. You were expecting something else? Mind you, that was the *fighting* part of it, not even trying to get society rebuilt in Iraq on a fast-track timeline. The death toll of that would not be pleasant, but I was prepared for *that*. I look at history as a guide and have yet to see anything in any generation previous to ours that has ever attempted so much in to geographically disparate regions as Afghanistan and Iraq at the *same* time with such a low level of commitment by the Nation to get them done. Frankly I am *amazed* at how well things are going.<BR/><BR/>In other words I did NOT accept the blithe assertions passed along in 2002-3 nor after 9/11. What has shocked me is that we are in one of the deadliest struggles we will ever face as a Nation because it is an existential one, not a physical one, by and large. Which makes it both harder and more intractable to fight, especially when there are scads pointing out problems and very few pointing to the bright areas and showing that a difference can be made. But then I also see that Iraqi society was, basically, <A HREF="http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/01/building-mosaic-of-iraq.html" REL="nofollow">so eroded as to not be there</A> when we got in, which is yet another thing that was missed by all the INTEL and Foreign Services on the planet and almost everyone decrying the place since then. And that is willful blindness by those that want to decry everything so as to not acknowledge the true depth of awfulness of the tyrant that was deposed. If the American people cannot get good information via their mass media and no one indicates such exists then no *wonders* they have lost faith in the idea of universal rights of man. Helps to understand that the foundation of that was worn right out in Iraq *first* before saying how lackluster the people there are.<BR/><BR/>Iraq is a necessary part of the long-term denial of terrorists safe haven and means to have areas to train in *safely*. You cannot get to a long-term place where curbing terrorism is possible if we fail in Iraq. Denying the central geography of the Middle East that has rich petroleum reserves and serves as the main focal point for overland trade and communications between the Middle and Far East ensures that it will always have underlying money in it. And as it is *also* next to the homeland of two of the most fanatical governments around and they have easy access to it, giving up there because of 'poor performance' is suicidal for the United States as a Nation. It is necessary to achieve something relatively workable there, but not sufficient to the long term goals.<BR/><BR/>Those are the *facts* as I see them. Probably very pollyannish of me, huh?<BR/><BR/>That is not buying anyone's line, but looking at the region, its history, and the result of long-term failure of US National and Foreign Policy in a region that we could have actively took a hand in when the cost was far, far cheaper.<BR/><BR/>We didn't.<BR/><BR/>Now we *pay* the interest on the butcher's bill that wants to take us back before Westphalia where religious wars killed large swaths of populations.<BR/><BR/>We have been fighting them the *wrong* way, but it is even more wrong to run in the face of problems as that will not make any of them better and, in point of fact, make them far worse in the long run. And <A HREF="http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/08/answering-tigerhawk-re-what-will-it.html" REL="nofollow">we have forgotten how to properly address the Arts of War</A> to such us these we fight who are no Nation, fly no flag, wear no uniform and wage illegitimate warfare.<BR/><BR/>This Nation has been in less well run, longer and more expensive wars and has pereservered to continue fighting, accept the cost and acknowledge that we cannot make things perfect but we damned well can make them *better*. When this Nation *stops* standing by fighting for those that have been under the reign of tyranny and terror, that will be the day that we do not deserve our liberty for we will then be actively bringing it to an end. I do not expect a 'blooming of democracy in the Middle East', although that would be a nice outcome. What I do expect is to have Nations that understand that they are ACCOUNTABLE to their Treaties and their Actions. I have written about <A HREF="http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2006/07/peace-in-middle-east-checklist.html" REL="nofollow">that as well</A> and that checklist of things to do requires that some of the inane things that have failed us be *stopped*. That, too, is necessary but STILL not sufficient to curbing terrorism on a global scale.<BR/><BR/>We no longer live in a world where two vast oceans may protect the Nation. Our enemies no longer target the Nation but our will to HAVE a Nation. They seek to erode that will in any way possible and when I hear folks decrying problems in warfare then I do present the simple thing of: tell me what will work better. Telling our enemies we have lost the will to fight doesn't get you from here to there... in point of fact that points to their winning and our losing that will to have a Nation in common.<BR/><BR/>You want to help Iraqis to fulfill *any* dreams about being able to keep the rights of man as individual? Yeah, their Constitution isn't great, but it is better than what was there before as it puts in a system of accountable governance. Help them at least stand *that* up so we can then talk with them a bit further on better ways to go about it. You know the old: stick around through some nastiness as while the wolves might scratch us some, they will devour these people whole and it doesn't look too good on *us* if we throw them back to the wolves.<BR/><BR/>Or is not supporting that worth doing?<BR/><BR/>And if we can't do that in a far off land to show that we mean what we say about those rights, then why on Earth should we believe them HERE?<BR/><BR/>Think fast! The feedback loop between Vietnam and bin Laden was about 20 years. This promises to be much, much, much shorter if we fail. We will live to regret failure.<BR/><BR/>You want an easy way out? I don't see one. But I do see the right way to head so that we can, indeed, help to make the world a bit better place and help folks to resist and counter terrorism. But there is going to be quite a bit of blood spilled. The 30 years war knocked out 15-20% of the population of Europe due to just the fighting, not even the plagues and such counted in. I consider that to be a good *minimum* on what will happen if we run this time on just about that same time frame.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, we're fighting on the cheap and not even using the powers that are vested in Congress to actually have the People address this sort of conflict. Look at the number of dead the last few years.<BR/><BR/>Then compare that to 9-12 billion dead over 30-50 years if we fail. And no guarantee that we will have any Nation nor Rights of Man as Individual at the end of it. And not an Islamic Empire. Because that is the goal of our enemies.<BR/><BR/>Best we learn to suck it up and fight in a broader way that involves more of the People and recognizes we will be screwing it up on a long-term basis.<BR/><BR/>Do you know what the call the last standing Nation to screw up? The winner. We just have to make sure our enemies screw up just once more than we do.<BR/><BR/>Because that is War.<BR/><BR/>We have been fighting it on a losing basis since 1917, when we didn't fight.<BR/><BR/>Does that look like I expect this to go on a short term scale, quickly, easily and buy into every lovely thing I am told?<BR/><BR/>And I do wish Americans wouldn't volunteer for death by not taking care of themselves. We need every able body we can get *now*. Take care of yourself and don't run with scissors. So long as you are committed to liberty and freedom and understand that it is worth fighting for to the last free man on Earth. When others wish to bring up excuses and bandy about deaths as statistics, then I am more than willing to parse numbers, chop logic and play twisty pretzel games until they can no longer define the inside nor outside of the pretzel. I prefer not to do that, but to those looking to use statistics and foul-ups as *excuses* to run, then throwing some of those same *excuses* back in their face in potent form can help a few of them wake up and realize them for what they are. If they have a shred of honesty about them, that is.<BR/><BR/>But fighting to that last man is the only statistic that should matter in war. Because nothing else will buy freedom.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20372724.post-86477796378116561082007-04-29T12:34:00.000-04:002007-04-29T12:34:00.000-04:00Wow.This is similar to what I would have written a...Wow.<BR/><BR/>This is similar to what I would have written as early as a year ago.<BR/><BR/>Forgive me, but I have lost faith in the Iraq War and George W. Bush in particular. <BR/><BR/>While you cite that most intelligence services around the world believed Iraq had WMD, there was considerable doubt as to the amount and the capability. Saddam's WMDs were further in doubt once the U.N. inspections were redeployed -- do you recall the hated John Ritter, who became the Cassandra of the Iraq War in explaining that Saddam no longer had WMD?<BR/><BR/>We simply assumed, and lazily went from there.<BR/><BR/>We can also talk about Saddam's tyranny, which no sane person denys. So why can't we point out how miserable many Iraqis are today precisely due to our inaction after the war? As bad as a despot is, people are even worse under complete anarchy, where they have to deal with not one but many tyrants. <BR/><BR/>What we have replaced Saddam with is hardly an improvement, as much as I wish it were. On the right of your blog is a link to the U.S. Constitution -- nothing resembling it controls the Iraq government. Instead, the Iraqi must concern himself with tribal and sectarian divisions and warfare. <BR/><BR/>Worse is your blithe comparisons to automobile deaths in the US. I recall the same numbers being argued to downplay 9/11. Deaths through accident, I assure you, do not have the same affect as deliberately planned deaths, or deaths as the result of a planned blooming of democracy in the middle east.<BR/><BR/>What you have done here, I'm afraid, is merely encapsulate a lot of the more emotional pre-war arguments that I once found so convincing. Today, in the face of every failure, mismanagement, and downright falsehood used to defend, support, and conduct the war, I find it increasingly strange how many people still cling to the same "facts" to bolster an unpopular screw up of a war.<BR/><BR/>DUThe Mechanical Eyehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02306713465374606654noreply@blogger.com