I DARE YOU TO MAKE ME A DEMOCRAT
Okay, Democrats. You have my undivided attention.
Being reasonably open minded about some things, very open minded about others, and downright begging to be convinced that your party is dead serious about fighting the War on Terror, you have an opportunity to go for the gold and effect a real realignment in American politics, the kind that lasts a generation or more, by tearing me and millions of others away from our Republican moorings and depositing us safely in the bosom of your political family.
We’re not asking for much. Just an indication that you view the War on Terror as something other than a simple extension of domestic politics and that you understand the nature of the enemy.
That latter point is most important. You see, in your desire to be politically correct and multiculturally sensitive and all that, it seems to me that you’ve failed to note that the enemy we face - while not a nation state in the traditional sense - is nevertheless bound together by an ideology that has nothing to do with race, little to do with God, but much to do about control. The impulse to dominate combined with powerful religious justifications is what drives this ultimately fascist movement.
These are not international criminals we are fighting. They aren’t dope smugglers or rogue arms dealers. They have guns, bombs, intelligence, expertise, and are highly motivated to kill me. That makes me a little uncomfortable so you will forgive me if I ask a direct question:
Just what is it you intend to do about it?
To date, you have criticized every single effort to go after these brutes and kill them. You have criticized efforts to ferret them out through the international banking system. You have criticized legitimate efforts of the government to ferret them out here in America. We’ve heard - God have we heard - what you wouldn’t do to go after them and kill them. But now its time to step up to the plate and tell us what you plan to do better than the Administration.
Generalities won’t do. Fighting a “smarter” terror war is meaningless, political doubletalk. Increasing port security? Good. Tightening security at nuke and chemical plants? Check. Better international cooperation in promoting non proliferation? Got it. Expanding the armed forces and giving them what they need to fight effectively? We’re waiting. Making airline security less of a joke? Not holding my breath but surprise me.
What? You didn’t think we were paying attention to your legitimate critiques of Administration anti-terror policy? I admit it was a chore trying to separate your partisan political baloney from a good faith attempt at fixing a muddled and confused situation. But whose fault is that? And now that the opportunity has presented itself, let’s cut the mickey mouse bullcrap and get down to the serious business of defending this country from disaster.
You notice we haven’t mentioned Iraq. Well, we know what to expect on Iraq from the Democrats already and will probably oppose it - especially if you really do advocate “redeploying” troops to Okinawa so that they can be rushed back to Iraq on a moment’s notice. Of course, it’s doubtful you have any intent of doing that - rushing the troops back that is. And if you’re serious about Okinawa, you’ve lost us.
No, Iraq will have to remain a bone of contention between us, I’m afraid. There are those of us who still hold out hope for some kind of palatable solution there. Your desire to give up before the job is done, to so cavalierly abandon the Iraqi people, and before all hope is lost reminds us why we left you in the first place.
One thing you can do for me personally; you can start standing up for western civilization. Ultimately, this is the real test of whether or not your deserve my support. The left in Europe has abandoned our inherited values and consigned the continent to her fate. I would hate to see that happen here.
This is what we are fighting for - not for glory or Bush or oil or profits or any other agenda that you have accused us of promoting. Western civilization is under attack and she needs defending. Too many civilizations in history have realized too late the threat they faced only to die wretched and ignoble deaths. The insidiousness of this threat is that it is being realized from both within and without - not only terrorists but a large cadre of sympathizers and well wishers who seek to impose alien (yes alien) values on all of us. For more than two thousands years, the march of progress has meant the spread of freedom. And now we are threatened to lose all of that in a generation or two.
As I said, you have my undivided attention. You have a real chance, a once in a lifetime shot at making the Democratic party a majority party for a very long time.
Don’t blow it.
Western civilization has withstood repeated attacks from armies and terrorists in the past. If you sincerely believe that terrorists can topple the governments of the United States, Great Britan, Japan, Canada or China, then you have no sense of international political and economic realities. If, as I rather expect, you are trying to play the terrorist superboogyman card one more time, then you have no real desire to be a Democrat, especially when you set the parameters so narrowly, that only a conserative response will please you. Nice try, no cigar. Only a fool would take this bait.
Comment by ed — 11/13/2006 @ 5:25 pm
Unassimilated Muslims in Europe are changing the face of the entire continent and any idiot with half a brain knows this. Those with no brains deny it. The effect on fundamental freedoms of Europeans are being slowly undermined by those who have no intention whatsoever of embracing western values.
They are not terrorists. But they sympathize with their goals I’m not talking about opposing the Iraq war I’m talking about opposing bombing and killing and maiming westerners.
Get your head out of your ass Ed. Western Civilization has absorbed many an ethnic and cultural minority and adopted a few others. But when there are those who actively seek to destroy that civilization and depend - actually depend on dupes like you to deny it to the very last - then you either stand up and defend the values that mean something to you or you accuse those of sounding the alarm of being political hacks or worse. You’ve chosen the latter. Very well. That puts you on the wrong side in my opinion.
Comment by Rick Moran — 11/13/2006 @ 5:35 pm
Ed wrote:
“… only a conserative response will please you.”
That strawman evades Rick’s question:
“Just what is it you [democrats ]intend to do about it?”
With all due respect, what is the Dems’ plan to fight and win the current war, as you understand it?
In the interest of bipartisanship (my fellow American?), please “don’t blow it [again ].”
Thanks…
Comment by Nick D. — 11/13/2006 @ 5:54 pm
While we may disagree politically, we can both agree, I think, that the Bears knocked the Giants in the Mouth. Go Bears!
To your point, like ed said, if you only want us to convince you using the same logic you use, than it will never happen.
Domestic Surveillance - No one is saying you can’t do it, just follow the law.
Banking program - See above
And I am guessing it probably was hard for you or anyone to hear what the Dems would have done to catch the terrorists (Not Saddam), while being drowned out by charges of being anti-troops and unpatriotic over the last 4 years or so. And while I, as well as all Dems are pro-West, we also understand that we don’t live on the planet U.S., and that it would be incredibly arrogant of us to rule the world by our wants and needs.
Comment by Magellan — 11/13/2006 @ 5:56 pm
And to Iraq, either double the troops or get out, period!
Comment by Magellan — 11/13/2006 @ 5:59 pm
Rick:
Tangentially:
http://tinyurl.com/yd4bqp
Comment by Nick D. — 11/13/2006 @ 6:08 pm
Regarding Iraq, the lead editorial in of all places Sunday’s New York Times advocated a large infusion of ground troops to pacify Iraq, particularly Baghdad. This could end up being the consensus view. I noticed Larry Kudlow on his CNBC show supporting a similar strategy.
(In my view, this is what was so wrongheaded about the Rumsfeld policy. The Secretary insisted on his ‘modernization’ strategy of the military which would result in a smaller fighting force, even while the military was still in the midst of large nation-building operations in Iraq and Afghanistan which require immense Cold War era size armies.)
Comment by Johnny Tremaine — 11/13/2006 @ 8:56 pm
Magellan & Johnny
I agree whole heartedly. We need many more troops in Iraq. It should have been obvious from early on that more troops were needed. Perhaps Don Rumsfeld would have preferred to lose the war rather than admit more troops were needed. It seems he was either overly arrogant or deranged.
Perhaps the Iraq Study Group will suggest more troops, howeever, it would surprise me, if they did so. If it should be decided that we shold send more troops, then we will need to figure out where we will get them. I think we can do it but it would be very costly.
Comment by B.Poster — 11/13/2006 @ 9:34 pm
Why does this delusion persist that more ground troops = greater pacification in Iraq? At this point, the opposite is actually true. Had more troops been deployed in 2003 then that would have had an effect by preventing or slowing the growth of the insurgency in the first place. But to pacify Iraq now means that we must play referee between two factions intent on killing each other. The question in Iraq each day becomes less and less one of fighting terrorists and more and more resembles tribal, ethnic and sectarian civil warfare. Pacification in this context is a job that no military force can accomplish, particularly a foreign one. The best that can be hoped for is to keep the lid on the kettle until a political solution can be reached, but it seems that few parties are interested in political solutions at this point. As Iraqis more and more come to realize that political solutions have failed them, those that still support the central government will abandon that political construct and return their loyalties to their tribal and religious kin. All this talk of “phased withdrawl” will only accelerate the end of Iraqi support for their government as Iraqis come to realize that the biggest promoter of political solutions - the USA - tacitly acknowledges that politics have failed.
Furthermore, the US has violated most of the major principles of counterinsurgency warfare in our conduct in Iraq and I think things are too far gone to salvage much. At this point the utility of our conventional forces dimish every day since they are not trained or equipped to police sectarian asymetrical warfare. My view is that our only hope for any measure of success is to change over completely to counterinsurgency-based unconventional warfare using indigenous troops led, trained and equipped by US SoF personnel. Though bloody and of questionable morality, our allies won the civil war in El Salvador through the training and organization of less than a couple dozen Americans. The right personnel supported by the right US personnel freed from political meddling may, one day, turn things around.
Once this plan of “phased withdrawl” that has been leaked so extensively is published and accepted, the goal for the US will quickly change to ensuring any allies we can cobble together in Iraq win the coming civil war. There are few other ways to ensure some kind of American influence in Iraq. I say this as an agnostic: God help us.
Comment by Andy — 11/13/2006 @ 9:40 pm
Well, that’s our problem here Andy. Everyone’s a little bit right and wrong. As many are saying, there really are not any good solutions for the problem of Iraq anymore; only a series of bad ones. Inevitably our government will choose the least bad option.
The concept of a unified ‘Iraq’ is apparently disintegrating before our very eyes as the country’s various sects are engaged in an all out shooting war against one another. It is true, an infusion of more troops may not help Iraq, but it’s our last least bad option.
Another thing, watch out for a rising trouble spot in Northern Iraq—Kurdistan. Kirkuk is simmering and the Turks are getting antsy while the PKK finds refuge within Iraq’s Kurdish community. The Kurds may overreach for independence and all hell will then break loose.
Comment by Johnny Tremaine — 11/13/2006 @ 10:12 pm
There’s one problem with adding more troops - we can’t; or at least we can’t without some pretty severe consequences. The Army is now operating at peak capacity and has been sacrificing readiness for three years to keep the maximum number of troops possible in Iraq and Afghanistan. At any one time, almost 50% of the Army’s brigades are deployed. The other 50% just returned and need to refit to replace those that are there. There simply are no more troops to deploy. Even this 50/50 ratio is unsustainable in terms of personnel and equipment readiness, which is why readiness levels have consistently declined since 2003. It may be possible to surge perhaps 50,000-70,000 additional troops for six months, but the cost to readiness would be high, and the Army would then be forced to downsize forces in Iraq considerably after the surge to refit. I know there are Army planners that game such eventualities, and I know it gives them nightmares. We would be woefully unprepared to meet any contingencies that required ground forces for perhaps a year to say nothing of the personnel costs.
Maybe another 50k troops for a short time would be worth the downsides, but I doubt it.
Comment by Andy — 11/13/2006 @ 10:25 pm
The simple fact is this, regardless of which political party you belong to: Bin Laden was right, the United states doesn’t have the will to win.
War was declared in, what, 1989 (I think) by Bin Laden. And we igonred it. We still ignore it.
The fact is that you cannot win if you don’t want it more than your enemies. You cannot win a war if you are not TOUGHER than your enemies.
We have, with this election, lost this war (not in Iraq but with the Muslim radicals), we have lost our position as a world power, we have lost our position as a negotiator, and we have lost our reputation as a country that could be relied upon. The Iraqi’s worried about this in 1991. It is now confirmed that their fears were well founded…….call them democrats
Comment by Marv — 11/13/2006 @ 10:35 pm
You have criticized efforts to ferret them out through the international banking system. If there was criticism I missed it. The primary issue is European privacy law.
You have criticized legitimate efforts of the government to ferret them out here in America. I’ll presume you primarily mean surveillance in violation of the letter of the FISA law. Fix the law. Firewall the targeting of surveillance program from the rest of the executive branch insofar as possible.
Here are a few more to argue about:
(a) Get serious about foreign aid. A small fraction of the $100 billion a year spent on Iraq would go a long way towards increasing goodwill towards America, particularly if spent on non-military aid.
(b) Reduce dependency on foreign oil significantly. I think technology-driven conservation is a no-brainer, but let’s have a real discussion, not the faux discussions we’ve seen over the past several years. Basically this means making the US economy less dependant on oil (less sensitive to oil price changes), period, since oil is basically a fungible commodity.
(c) Off topic but a hot button - reduce the risk of accidental nuclear war between Russia/US by de-alerting. This means taking most weapons (on both sides but Russia is the big risk) off launch-on-warning.
(d) Get serious (more serious) about locking down/destroying all the SNMs (Special Nuclear Materials) scattered about, particularly in the FSU. I mean, really, we are just stupid to not be extremely focused on this.
(e) (I know you covered this) Get serious about non-proliferation. We haven’t ever had a president serious about non-proliferation. (Clinton was a disappointment in this aspect just like the others. He handled NK correctly IMO, but mishandled the Pakistan/India arming.) Figure out how to monitor uranium enrichment programs so that the IAEA (or whoever) is more capable of detecting attempts to produce HEU. Etc.
(f) better, as in smarter, border security. Our current security-through-illusion-of-security, with disgraces like security based on names (??), has to be improved with better technology and information systems. As a civil libertarian I have very mixed feelings about making this sort of thing ubiquitous but application at the borders is a reasonable compromise.
(g) Law enforcement is working well for the British. Let’s not discount/underfund the law-enforcement approach to terrorism. It is complementary to the aggressive interventionist approachs that are the darling of the right, but it works.
Comment by Bill Arnold — 11/13/2006 @ 10:49 pm
Our newly elected leaders in Congress would prefer to see the entire Iraq mission fail than see it through to its only acceptable conclusion.
I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these lousy bastards are cutting deals with Syrians and Iranians on the side, anticipating that we evil Americans will be forced to take a bite of a very big humble pie as our forces are prematurely withdrawn from Iraq.
When did the United States forget how to win wars?
Comment by Sirius Familiaris — 11/13/2006 @ 11:12 pm
This is a good and true post.
People like Johnny who think Rumsfeld is to stuborn to change his strategy should read his speech just given in Kansas. They just fired one of the most visionary members of government.
http://www.defenselink.mil/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=3781
Sirius, I think it was when the State Department became old enough to have such an entrenched bureaucy with outdated views.
Comment by zaq — 11/14/2006 @ 12:57 am
Dean’s posted an amusing little blurb on Rumsfield’s resignation at te Democratic website. I wonder if he meant it to be funny.
Comment by wrymouth — 11/14/2006 @ 1:38 am
“Law enforcement is working well for the British.”
Not so fast there, Bill. The British Anti-Terrorism Laws make the Patriot Act seem like child’s play. Law enforcement works for the British because there is not the same respect for privacy in the British system as there is in ours. They do not play with the same set of rules that we have. Our Constitution, even with the Patriot Act in place, handcuffs our law enforcement agencies. (And as much as the Left complains otherwise, the Constitution is still the law of this land)
Example: Surveillance. The controls for internal surveillance in Britain are not the same as in the US. The contoversial NSA “domestic” surveillance programs have to have a foreign communication source - not so in Britain. Any and all communication sources are fair game and there does not need to be any court allowance in order to do the surveillance, use the information for arrest, or even use the information for trial. Why or How can this be? Becasue the British system trusts the law enforcement agencies of their country in ways we do not.
And in the final analysis, I do not think you would advocate changing our laws to mimic the British system just because it works.
Didn’t think so.
Comment by SShiell — 11/14/2006 @ 2:03 am
Another example of the difference is the British and US laws: In Britain, the authorities can detain and hold a suspect for 28 days without charges being filed. He is not under arrest, he is merely being “detained”. At the end of 28 days, charges must be filed or the suspect must be released. here in the US, a suspect generally can only be held for 48 hours before charges must be filed.
Again, I do not think you would advocate changing our laws to mimic the British system just because it “works”.
Comment by SShiell — 11/14/2006 @ 2:15 am
Okay, that’s great. They’re motivated. You know those guys who went “over the top” in WWI and died by the thousands? They were motivated, too. And yet they got turned into swiss cheese. Shit, I’m sure they hated the other guys just as much as the Muslamonazis hate us, and vice versa - yet those pesky laws of physics wouldn’t bend to stop the bullets from the enemy machine guns from going right through their torsos. Similarly, “They HATE us and want to kill us ALL!” doesn’t leave me quaking in my boots, for reasons similar to the way that OSU isn’t afraid that I really, really, really, really want the Yellow Jackets to be the national champions this year. You ascribe superhuman powers to average psychopaths for no discernible reason.
And that’s what I’ll never understand about modern conservatism. You guys insist that you’re all super patriots and have the utmost confidence in the ability of America, and especially the armed forces thereof, to get the job done. And yet you cower in fear at The Bedouin Threat. Why? For christ’s sake, what do they have, besides guns and knives? You know full well that the only reason they got away with 9/11 was because up until then everyone assumed they’d walk away from a hijacking. That’s it. That’s the only reason. They have no superhuman competence or technological wizardry. Their big moment of glory, turning our own high-energy machines against us, was a complete one-trick pony. I know, I know; the mere fact that they haven’t hit us again yet means they’re planning something so deadly, so devious, so unstoppable blah blah blah.
You give these guys way too much credit. Shit, you act like they’re smarter than we are. What gives?
Comment by scarshapedstar — 11/14/2006 @ 2:25 am
The No Zone
Democrats claim they want energy independence, but their strategy is nonsensical, to say the least. Their so-called strategy? I encourage you to read their position paper because I’m not making this stuff up.
Trackback by Doug Ross @ Journal — 11/14/2006 @ 6:11 am
“You give these guys way too much credit. Shit, you act like they’re smarter than we are. What gives?”
It has nothing to do with how smart one is but it has everything to do with how determined.
A little history lesson: Half of the US Navy’s casualties in World War Two came in the last 12 month of the war in the Pacific and is directly attributable to Japanese Kamikaze attacks. It is the end of the year, 1944. The war in the Pacific is virtually over. The Japanese Navy is but a shell of its former glory. Their merchant fleet has lost over 4 million tons of shipping sunk by the US submarine service. The Japanese mainland is facing starvation from this devastation. In a very short time, Saipan and then Iwo Jima will fall and the B-29s will start the bombing of the Japanese mainland. The Japanese resort to Kamikaze, Divine Wind, attacks and they create horrendous casualties among the US Pacific Fleet.
These suicide attacks were intended to save the Emperor. The Japanese high command felt if they could inflict horrendous casualties on the US, then they might be able to bring us to the Peace Table and end the war before the war brought the total destruction of their society.
And therein lays the basic difference between the same types of actions from World War Two to today. I do not give these guys any credit at all. But they still scare me. Why?
A passage from the Ayatollah Khomeini, quoted in an 11th-grade Iranian schoolbook. “I am decisively announcing to the whole world that if the world-devourers [i.e., the infidel powers] wish to stand against our religion, we will stand against their whole world and will not cease until the annihilation of all them. Either we all become free, or we will go to the greater freedom which is martyrdom. Either we shake one another’s hands in joy at the victory of Islam in the world, or all of us will turn to eternal life and martyrdom. In both cases, victory and success are ours.”
In this context, mutual assured destruction, the deterrent that worked so well during the Cold War, would have no meaning. At the end of time, there will be general destruction anyway. What will matter will be the final destination of the dead–hell for the infidels, and heaven for the believers. For people with this mindset, MAD is not a constraint; it is an inducement.
The previous two paragraphs were taken from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768
Their intent has nothing to do with the salvation of their society or their religion or their way of life. Suicide is their ends to a means. If they die as a suicide in the name of Allah, they go to Paradise. They win. If all die, and I mean ALL, then they still go to Paradise and they still win. If that type of attitude does not scare the crap out of you, then you are blind to it.
Comment by SShiell — 11/14/2006 @ 12:35 pm
SSHiell - Any and all communication sources are fair game and there does not need to be any court allowance in order to do the surveillance, use the information for arrest, or even use the information for trial.
Is it really the case that wiretap evidence is admissible as evidence in UK courts, or are you saying something weaker here? My understanding (however IANAL) is that the UK has a rule against use of wiretap-based evidence in court.
Comment by Bill Arnold — 11/14/2006 @ 5:30 pm
Democratic Headliner November 12
Nov. 12
Chairman Howard Dean issued this statement. Radio implants in his head were able to detect his unspoken thoughts as well! …
Trackback by Wry Mouth — 11/17/2006 @ 3:02 pm