Al Gore, Burden, Responsibility, and Wisdom

I won't bother to dispute the falsehoods or expose the hypocrisy of Al Gore's speech from yesterday. Others have done that already (see the articles from Front Page Magazine and Power Line Blog, as well as the articles they link to). What I want to ask is why he's saying what he's saying. Really. He's saying things which are directly contradicted by the facts, his own personal experience, and his own past statements. Why?

I've often consoled myself with the belief that, if Al Gore were elected in 2000, his policy in this war wouldn't be substantially different from Bush's, despite the criticisms he offers now. The heavy burden of being the one actually responsible for making a decision often causes you to look at an issue in a much more serious, more considerate, and, most importantly, much wiser way.

I was looking recently, as I have several times before, at the logs I saved of conversations I had shortly after 9/11. It was interesting to see my evolution in thinking from effectively an isolationist, to a hawk, advocating a proactive strategy against totalitarianism, proliferation, and state sponsorship of terrorism in the Middle East.

The events of September 11th caused, or at least should have caused, all citizens of the free world to devote their time, energy, and creativity to solving the question of: "how do we stop this from happening again?" Though terrible, the primary source of September 11th's significance was not the death and destruction wrought on that day. Like Hitler's invasion of Poland, its importance is found mainly in the fact that it shattered all illusions about our enemy. No reasonable person could any longer deny the fact that all Americans were possible targets, not for anything they had personally done, but simply for who they are. And further, no reasonable person could deny that this is a problem for which time is not on our side: the decreasing cost of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons means that if we do not solve this problem now, we may not get a second chance before disaster strikes.

Reading my conversation logs, some of my first ideas were "should we stop building tall buildings?", and "should we give pilots guns?" They were baby steps in trying to understand the problem. I had to start somewhere. Until September 11th, I never felt personally in danger. No major war involving the United States has happened in my lifetime, certainly never one where there was any chance of massive American casualties. Up until that day, I had the luxury of having opinions with no practical consequence. Now I had been forced to recognize that I needed to take responsibility for my opinions, because now those opinions were of the highest import.

The biggest telltale sign of a failure to take responsibility for the consequences of one's opinions is the criticism of your opponent unaccompanied by the presentation of a credible solution to the problem at hand. It is easy to criticize. It is also vital, when the criticism is warranted. But criticism must by its nature include an alternative course, or else its target cannot be blamed for choosing the only course available.

What we all need to recognize is that the policies this world implemented to preserve international security simply were not working prior to September 11th. It is not enough to sit back and wait for terrorists to strike, or to passively intercept terrorists and their equipment as they cross borders. Ultimately, victory in a war must involve offensives, to destroy the enemy at its source.

Critics like Al Gore do not recognize that we are truly at war. Even after 9/11, our twenty-first century Pearl Harbor, it is still possible for some to cling to the belief that terrorism is primarily a policing problem, not a geostrategic problem; that the proper response is to wait for individual attacks, and to seek out and imprison those responsible. It is possible only because our Pearl Harbor came in the form of planes flying into buildings. We were lucky that that was the form it came in; it was, relatively speaking, an easy way for us to learn the lesson we so desperately needed to learn. But our luck will run out, unless, ultimately, we do in fact learn that lesson.

So, returning to my original question, why is Al Gore saying these things when he should — and does — know better? Is it because he doesn't care about the truth? Is it because he's so blinded by anger towards President Bush about the 2000 election, that he cannot subjugate his hatred of a foe to wisdom in a matter of urgency? I don't know, and upon reflection, it is unimportant.

The truth is, we need to recognize that the problem of terrorism is not a problem for the Bush Administration, it is a problem for humanity. We are all equally responsible for discovering the solution and implementing it, and, though easy to do, leveling criticism without also recognizing the direness of the problem and presenting an alternative solution, fails to live up to that responsibility. Thus, the most telling passage of Al Gore's speech is when he tells Kerry that he should not "tie his own hands by offering overly specific, detailed proposals" regarding the war we are fighting, specifically in Iraq. Al Gore's advice to John Kerry is that he does not need to take true responsibility for humanity's collective problem.

Simple question: If we're at war on terrorism, why are we in Iraq? Why haven't we caught Osama Bin Laden? And why do we still here about weekly bombings all over the world?

There are roughly three basic reasons why we are in Iraq:
1) Iraq was a known state sponsor of terrorism.
2) Iraq had a known history of developing weapons of mass destruction programs, despite international sanction. These weapons could ultimately end up in the hands of terrorists, if they're managed by a regime with no concern for innocent life.
3) Iraq was a totalitarian state in the heart of the culture which has bred terrorism. Ultimately, the only way to eliminate the "root cause" of terrorism is to eliminate the totalitarianism in Arab culture, and allow the freedom to prosper.

Why haven't we caught Osama bin Laden? I don't know. It seems like a tough job. However, you should recognize that sometimes war is like a game of Chess. If you go directly after the king right away, you will often fail. Sometimes you need to decimate the infrastructure and forces surrounding that king in order to eventually capture the king itself. Now, capturing Osama bin Laden will not win the war. But it is vastly important and should and will be done, when possible. Yet, in war, in order to achieve any objective, you have to fight on multiple fronts.

Finally, we still hear about weekly bombings all over the world because our enemy still exists.

9-11 had the same affect on me. It caused me to reconsider all of my previous beliefs and assumptions. Like many, I realized that I had fallen into the pit of moral equivalence - seeing the world in shades of grey instead of its true nature: shades of grey between black areas and white ones.

In the days after the attack I watched as some wondered what we had done to deserve this - the "abused wife" syndrome. As I considered this, I realized that they didn't send those planes into buildings for what we did, they did it because of what we are. Bin Laden said it himself: "America chooses life; we embrace death. That is the difference between us."

Under such circumstances there could be no coexistence with al-Qaeda. It was either us or them. Call me selfish, but I vote for us.

To see Gore reduced to this is rather sad. I pitied him after he had the election ripped from him in December 2000. Now I can't help but be thankful that he is not the president today.

If I didn't have a coworker ask this kind of stuff in all sincerity last week I woulda thought Adam was trolling.

Well, I'll bite on 2 and 3, just for the heck of it.

AQ is a matrixed transnational organization. You could read Colin Powell's autobiography, written in the Clinton years, to see why pursuing only one person is not necessarily a good idea (using Powell's example of Panama and organizations that stay stable with a change in head). Look, AQ uses franchises, much like McDonald's does, or Subway. When the McDonald's CEO died of a heart attack recently, did McD's fall apart? Of course not.

We still hear about bombings, but you are looking at the wrong thing. For several years now you have not heard about completed attacks in the USA. That is all the difference. It'll still happen--we have to win every engagement, they just have to win one--but it hasn't so far. There's a reason for that.

David,

"Is it because he's so blinded by anger towards President Bush about the 2000 election, that he cannot subjugate his hatred of a foe to wisdom in a matter of urgency? I don't know, and upon reflection, it is unimportant."

Well I believe it is important and there is a reason why Gore et al act the way they do. It has been building slowly since 9/11 and it will increase to election day and then some.

Gore et al have grabbed hold of an issue to leverage themselves politically as if it were welfare, taxes or health care entitlements. But this time they have joined forces with the UN and radical Islamists. Before they did not care if their welfare policies entrapped millions in pathetic lives as long as their policital power was increased. Now they don't care if they lives of men and women in the armed forces die (well not too many) to again further their lust for power.

It is quite that simple

The reason we are at war in Iraq is because Sadam Hussein was an enemy. After invading his neighbors and being defeated by force, he still threatened us, shot at the planes enforcing the ceasefire, and tied up our troops in neighboring countries.

For 10 years he defied us in every way available to him and gave aid and comfort to all of our enemies. After 9/11 we can no longer tolerate open, belligerant enemies. When you declare war on us, we declare war on you. Like a stag being harried by a den of coyotes, we must defeat our enemies before they learn to gang up.

The early American's had the right idea -- Don't tread on Me.

America a great friend -- a dreadful enemy.

David -
You eloquently, elegantly, and concisely outlined many of the same points that I have been arguing since 9/11.

My concern up until recently was this - from those who opposed all facets of the war (Afghanistan & Iraq), there was no credible alternative. There was no emphasis on resolution, no other suggestions - just criticism and "NO!"

If 19 extremists can murder 3,000 in a morning, what can they do if they got together? I saw the lengths they were willing to go to inflict as much suffering as possible. I want that threat ended - the extremists' actions are not a "response" to our policies...they want us to die.

By believing for a moment that we somehow "deserved" 9/11, you treat the horrific events as part of some expected foreign policy. If our actions (e.g., supporting Israel, maintaining bases on Saudi soil) genuinely warranted a response like 9/11, how do you think you could ever deal with individuals like the extremists?

My concern is now much greater and fills me with disgust - how can you not see what they want? They want us all dead. That's it. They would burst with joy if all of the Jews were dead, but they're really gunning for us.

If simultaneous nuclear devices evaporated every major metropolitan area and vaporized 75% of the American populace, the party would last for years. Much of the Arab world would probably die of glee.

And the extremism is growing. The extremists are easy: they want me dead. They want you dead. They don't care about foreign bases or Israeli support or suggestive music or fast food restaurants or skimpily-dressed women. They would just rather us all die. Cut off the heads of your children/wifes/mothers/fathers/friends/family, and dance in the streets.

I have never seen an enemy so clearly defined.

Quite possibly one of the sanest, calmest, most intelligent reads I've come across in a long, long time.

Thank you.

In response to Adam, would one have asked in 1943, "If we're at war with Japan then why are we landing troops in North Africa and Europe, why hasn't Tojo been caught, and why are our ships being sunk throughout the Pacific?"

One could have asked that, but one wouldn't have, because it just wouldn't have made sense. They knew why. We know why. Stop kidding yourself.

Why are we at war in Iraq? Similar reason as to why in World War II after we were attacked by the Japanese, the first major field operations were an invasion of North Africa against the Germans.

You would probably have been one of the anti-war "intellectuals" in 1942 raising hell because we were killing "innocent" Germans who never attacked us instead of immediately attacking Tokyo.

Sometimes I would like to tell these people to step aside and let the grownups handle this.

And I'd like to add that a lot of us think OBL has been a slowly decomposing paste for quite some time now.

"Why are we in Iraq?"

Here's a another way to look at it. After Afganistan (which was the most obvious anti-Al Quaeda target), would the terrorist threat have disappeared? No, there are many nations that actively support terrorists, with money, safe heavens, or both. After 9/11, the U.S. said that any nation which supported terrorism would be considered our enemy, yet several continue to do so.

Some nations continued to support terrorism after Afganistan fell, and refused to stop. I think many would agree that we have the right to "make them" stop supporting international terrorists.

Although Iraq may not have been the largest supporter of terrorists, they were definitely the "low-hanging fruit". We had the violation of UN agreements regarding their various weapon programs to build international support of over 30 nations, we already had aircraft and troops in the area enforcing the UN no-fly zones over Iraq, and we had been forming Iraq war-plans since President Clinton signed a Congressional motion to overthrow Saddam.

Finally, and this is the point that I have not yet heard, if we *had* gone after another state-sponsor of terrorism first (Syria or Libya, for example), many would be asking why we weren't going after Iraq first. If we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait, but left him in power, would we just level a few terrorist training camps in the Bakaa valley and leave? Or would we stay until the regime that sponsored the terrorists was gone?

No one is asking now if Bush is serious when he says that he'll go after state-sponsors of terrorism. Just ask Libya why they suddenly started behaving...

I still think you're missing something (which implies BTW that I agree with where you are now), and that something is sufficient understanding of how wars are fought. Knowing that you'd have seen in a New York minute that terrorists, like more "conventional" military organizations, require geopolitical space from which to launch attacks. They can't do this sitting cross-legged in mid-air. GWB's administration has already said this in multiple ways and at multiple times, all ignored generally by democrats and supporters of the war alike. Saddam was a risk because he had space to offer, whether he "supported" Al-Quaeda or not and whether he had WMDs or not. A terrorist group was already burrowing in areas of Northeast Iraq when "Iraqi Freedom" was launched. Did Saddam agree to their presence? Probably not, simply because his government did not have the capacity to completely control his own geopolitical space.

Al-Quaeda now has cells in practically every country on this planet. Does this mean we attack every country? Of course not. Why Iraq? Because its position in the Middle East offers a more convenient domicile than does, e.g., Uraguay--though don't quote me on that in the next few years.

Intellectuals tend to think that intellectual, philosophical causes predominate among ordinary people. No way.

Put this in another way: the U. S. "possesses WMDs" No! Really? Why isn't the world (discounting France) calling for it to be inspected by UN inspectors? Because the US has a history that tells the rest of the world that this country is very chary of using such things (not since Nagasaki, August, 1945). It's a question of a gestalt combining history and known diplomatic quantities. OTOH, re: Saddam. What does history and diplomatic actions tell us about what we can expect from him? Give me a break.

One finds very little strategic thinking about this war outside of a few serious blogs such as Belmont Club.

One last hint: there's a difference between war and combat, which most do not understand because they equate "war" with "violence," i.e., combat. But historically as well as theoretically you can have combat w/o war ( bar-room brawl), and war w/o combat (the Cold War). This distinction exists everywhere you use your mind to probe how wars are fought. While combat is always waged in the present (ergo it's generally assumed character are being a "tactical" rather a "strategic" action), wars are always waged in the future. Which entails a lot of things, including war is first and foremost a mental exercise way before the shooting start, but a major thing it means is that wars are fought on the basis of expectation and prediction; ergo that otherwise unthinkable item, the "pre-emptive" strike in cases where the expectation is of the use of WMDs where simply a one-time use could devastate this country.

The fundamentals of war remain, but the current applications call for major acts of the imagination. An most people ain't got much.

Thanks for your time!

'Put this in another way: the U. S. "possesses WMDs" No! Really? Why isn't the world (discounting France) calling for it to be inspected by UN inspectors?'

Actually, the U.S is a party to several arms control and limitation treaties that allow international inspectors to not only over-fly U.S. terrority, but also perform short-notice "challenge" inspections of almost any area they want. The first of these treaties were ratified under Reagan.

Although the U.S. asked the other parties not to demand inspections shortly after 9/11, they have since resumed. So far, none of the inspections has found anything that the government had not already publicly admitted and delcared.

As an aside, one of the reasons that the U.S. has not ratifed the Biological Weapons Convention, is that during practice inspections, the proposed inspection protocol has been unable to spot pre-planted "evidence", but has often reported "false positives" on routine administrative errors.

Great post David,

You have summarized my thoughts that go all the way back to Tom Daschles similar attacks prior to the 2002 midterm election. For a few months after 911, the country was united and our politicians (though obviously biting their lips) where at least supportive of the war effort and kept their criticisms somewhat constructive. Unfortunately, to the benefit of nobody but our enemies, they just couldn't help themselves as regaining power was more important than uniting the country. You would have thought they learned their lessons after the worse than expected defeats of 2002 but nooooo they still can't help themselves and are digging a deeper and deeper hole that I believe will be impossible for them to dig out of. Unless they wakeup soon or something really disasterous happens, the outcome of this election will be the most decisive in recent history and may even beat Reagans landslide victory in his second term. Regardless of what the polls say today, pure hatred of Bush does not a party make.

P.S. Why Iraq? Besides the excellent arguments above, remember that Saddam was the only world leader to publically applaude the attacks of Sept. 11th. Not even the Talaban, Arafat or the Mullas of Iran where that stupid.

Cheers.

I respect and appreciate the attitude of the essay and comments here -- a refreshing change from the insults and invective common elsewhere. So in that vein, let me say that I hope a dialog can help shed light on different points of view.

When we were engaged in the national debate about whether to go to war in Iraq, the argument that Hussein was actively developing WMD (especially nukes) was very compelling. I work in Manhattan, so the spectre of an atom bomb is pretty scary.

But now there have been convincing reports that the intelligence used to make the case for the Iraq war was selectively cherry-picked, misleading, inaccurate, and plain wrong. Colin Powell just said so, speaking about the evidence he himself presented. We also know that the usual procedures for vetting intelligence were bypassed. We also know that GWB and his neocon allies planned for and desired an invasion of Iraq before 9/11.

Moreover, the aftermath of the war has been a series of disasters. The looting and damage we did not prevent. The imprisonment and torture of innocent people gathered in mass round-ups. The ineptitude of the transition planning.

Bottom line: In my opinion, the American people were snookered and conned into this war. And the occupation was completely bungled. Because of these points, I feel betrayed. I may not agree with everything Al Gore says, but his emotion and sense of betrayal ring true to me.

You can argue, with some merit, that the war has helped in the fight against terrorism. You can also argue that it has made things worse. But that's not the point. The point is that people are dying in Iraq because the president misled the American people and then was incompetent in following up on his invasion. Sure, Bill Clinton was a jerk, but Bush, in my opinion, is far worse.

Forgive me for being rude, but I just feel so upset and angry.

Cayzle,

How about a few questions to try to show where my views differ--although most people seem to be set in their opinions one way or another.

If you're so upset and angry, why are you not more upset and angry at the right people? You know, the people who blow your town up? And if you *say* you are, what are you doing about that that is much more of an effort than being upset and angry about people on our side who are in the arena and taking action? (One only avoids failure when one refuses to act--but that's a much bigger failure.)

You mentioned arguing 'better' or 'worse' in the war. How do you know it's better or worse? What are your metrics? While I'm at it, where do you derive your standard for success and failure in this war? Is it similar to that of previous wars? Is it artificially high?

How do you make decisions with incomplete information? Do you wait for perfect information? If so, you are as guaranteed to fail in business as you are in war. I read the information coming in real time, and it matches well enough with what I see on the ground--for intelligence. You know, we found uranium enhancement, stocks of bioweapons and portable biological weapon fermenters, sarin shells this week, CONEX boxes full of documents, et cetera. I'm just saying that the frame of what you say doesn't convince me because I see different stuff here.

If you want dialogue, these are the kinds of questions I'd have to ask myself before I consider what you say. And that's why I discount it.

Thankyou Cayzle for the only rational set of remarks on this entire blog. I continue to be absolutely amazed at the paranoic fear that continues to be expressed by so many people, as though they too are likely to be victims of some stupid raghead terrorists. I call it the "Three-Mile-Island" syndrome. Simply because it happened, people assume it will occur again! So with 9-11. If the FBI and the CIA hadn't been asleep at the switch, that wouldn't have happened either. It can't happen again. The Towers are gone and the ragheads are dead. The probability of any one person being the victim of terrorism is less than the probability of their being struck by lightning.

It is the emotional horror of these terrorist events, and the publicity they receive that gets to people.

Think about it. That bunch of ragheads were incredibly lucky. Lucky at our complacency and not being caught, lucky with the airline connections they had to make, lucky with the weather, and lucky that we had just installed an Administration that was focussed on outing Saddam, not combatting terrorism; that only happened abroad.

Incidentally, not one of the 19 hijackers were Iraqis; 15 of them were Saudis, but they get the kid glove treatment from Bush and Co. If we had put as much effort into killing or capturing Bin Laden ( who hated Saddam) and Co as we have into the Iraq fiasco we would be in far better shape today.

Ron Howell

"Finally, we still hear about weekly bombings all over the world because our enemy still exists."

I'll put flesh on this. I would have said we still hear about bombings "because we haven't finished killing our enemies." They aren't singular but plural, inasmuch as they're men, not an abstraction. They "still exist" because they're alive; they're alive because they haven't been killed; they haven't been killed because, for one reason and another, we haven't killed them. It's important to state the particulars correctly, since otherwise we may not be able to bring ourselves to do what we can't even bring ourselves to say.

Chap, thank you for considering my thoughts. Let me try to answer your questions.

"Why are you not more upset and angry at the right people? You know, the people who blow your town up? And if you *say* you are, what are you doing about that that?"

Sure, I am much more upset at terrorists such as those who attacked America and Spain, who killed Berg and Pearl. What am I doing? I contributed to organizations helping victim's families. I continue to live in a high risk area, since doing otherwise would be accepting intimidation. I bought a fuel-efficient car, instead of an SUV, in part to save gas and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I vote and try to be a responsible citizen. Most importantly, I try to be aware of all the issues and understand what is going on. I try to support our leaders while holding them to high standards.

What else is there to do? I wish the president had asked me to do something. I wish he had asked for a 50 cent gas tax to reduce our oil dependence. I wish he had raised taxes to pay for the war -- as I understand it, there have never been tax cuts during wartime before. I would gladly pay higher taxes if the president said it was necessary. But the president has not called on the American people to do anything -- except turn a blind eye to the failures of his administration.

"How do you know it's better or worse?"

Well, based on what I know, in Japan, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam, our military had no policy of arresting civilians and abusing and torturing them. Certainly the guerilla nature of Vietnam corresponds to the situation in Iraq, where the enemy hides among civilians. What we're doing in Iraq seems much worse.

"While I'm at it, where do you derive your standard for success and failure in this war? Is it similar to that of previous wars? Is it artificially high?"

I try to be informed, and to judge events by my knowledge of history and current events. I don't think it is too high.

"How do you make decisions with incomplete information? Do you wait for perfect information?"

Of course, you make the best decision you can with the information you have. I (and many people who now oppose the war) supported the war in Iraq based on the information that the president offered. But now we know that the information was manipulated and deliberately misleading.

Here's the essence of it. The president misled the American people. The intelligence he offered us -- the Chalabi stuff, the so-called centrifuge tubes, and more -- was just wrong. We didn't know it was bad info. But there is strong evidence that the administration knew it was bad info -- or should have known. That means either incompetence or deceit. Either way, that's reason enough for a change of administrations.

Well, I'm not trying to start a flame war or argument. Thanks again for your comments.

Cayzle,
I too fear we have been misled, but I cannot reconcile that fear with the fact that GWB received the same information from the same people as Bill Clinton. Clinton however (and America), had no provocation. After 9/11, we did. So I take into consideration the fact that the people charged with the safety of the nation underwent a major shift in values.

You'll have to forgive me for dismissing one of your arguments because of my experience. As a former federal employee, I know that the people in the care of the public good must have plans for as many contingencies as possible, in order that the huge and diverse federal workforce moves effectively when disaster strikes. In the case of the executive branch (including the military) you should be aware that we have plans for the invasion/containment/whatever of many states hostile to the U.S. We pay a small army of people to look ahead at all kinds of bizarre possibilites. So, the idea of the GWB admin "planning it in advance" won't wash with me. The Prez may put greater or lesser resources into any given plan, based on his ideology and the world situation, but the plans are all there, believe me.

Help me here. How exactly were we snookered? The general media certainly were not supportive to the extent that any of us would be fooled. In fact, they presented many reasons that should have made me oppose this war, but I still support it.

How were you fooled? It sounds to me like 9-11 did not generate any change of values in your worldview. If it didn't, I'm curious as to why not? To me, 9-11 was more than a mass murder. It was an act of war, don't you think?

And I too appreciate the civilty of this thread. I am really curious about your feelings on this.

Nitro Nora

Ron,
Lucky ragheads! Wow, that's pretty incredible. They got lucky in New York, Bali, Madrid, Bagdad, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and over and over and over in Israel. That's pretty darn lucky, wouldn't you say?

Please calm down with the name calling. They're intelligent people. They design our death. Paranoid? You bet.

Stopping them is like stuffing toothpaste back in the tube. Not easy. The war part is where you just smash it out into the sink and wash it down the drain, not saved. We'd like to save Iraq for the regular people.

Nitro Nora

One more thing, gang. How come the federal Deficit disappeared during the late nineties even though we didn't raisde taxes? Answer: Because the economic engine of the US is so powerful that during the economic boom, tax revenues increased anyway---we were ALL making tons of money, including the feds. GWB is trying to do the same thing. If we keep the ecomonic engine firing on all cylinders, we will increase revenues without higher taxes. In fact, we will increase revenues so much that we can indeed go to war and pay for it, without raising taxes. In previous wars, we didn't know that!

Nitro Nora

Also, this is a great thread, David. No trolls!
Nitro Nora

Cayzle:

You write that "in Japan, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam, our military had no policy of arresting civilians and abusing and torturing them." Do you think that the Abu Ghraib abuses were official US policy? I have seen no convincing evidence that this is true, although the media would have us think so, of course. As for Vietnam, do you think that the murder of unarmed civilian women and children in My Lai was "policy?" It wasn't--although Kerry, in his early 70s Congressional testimony, would have us think so. My Lai was an aberration, and the perpetrators were punished. I believe the same is true of Abu Ghraib.

Your statement that what we're doing in Iraq seems much worse than Vietnam is a very odd one, in my opinion. Abu Ghraib is worse than My Lai? In no way, shape, or form can that be true!

In both wars, the vast majority of soldiers has not abused civilians or prisoners. But war is tough. I am puzzled by people such as you who seem to demand an antiseptic war in which soldiers behave perfectly, and no abuses ever happen. Of course, that is a laudable goal, and it's what we all would wish for. But to demand it is utterly unrealistic, and actually dangerous. It would mean that no wars could be fought at all, and therefore it would mean that we could not defend ourselves against what is perhaps the greatest threat to humanity that the world has ever seen.

There is the potential for abuse of power in all power situations. The clergy, therapists, teachers, police, soldiers, parents, babysitters--in ALL of these situations, a certain percentage of people in power will commit abuse. There is no way to make abuse disappear to the vanishing point; people are simply not constructed that way. All we can do is to do our best to make sure it is neither encouraged nor condoned, and to punish the wrongdoers. And then get on with the business of winning the war.

See this for an Iraqi point of view on the matter: http://www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html . Scroll down to the following posts: Tues. May 4, "Old friends, and a conversation to share," and Sat. May 1 "About Abu Gharib."

Cayzle,

A few factual quibbles:

1. What we are doing in Iraq is not one tenth of what we did in Vietnam. Please do not let the obsession of the press with the prisoner abuse mess fool you. That was NOT policy and it is confined to one command and one commander's people. This being the USA, when we discovered the problem, it wasn't covered up and we are holding those who committed the abuse accountable - right up to the ranks of generals.

2. In Japan for some months and in Germany for several years after their defeats, there was violence against occupying forces at levels comparable to what is actually happening in Iraq.

3. Please note that every intelligence service that said anything public about Iraq up through 2000 stated that they believed Saddam had WMD. Add remember he had a history of using them against Iran, the Kurds and others. I don't see any evidence that the administration lied. And with the sarin discovery recently we are seeing more evidence of WMD.

And remember the previous administration thought Iraq was a threat and spent the time on no-fly zones, bombing etc.. That looked like it could have gone on for a long time, to no ones benefit.

Al Gore was on this page too, until he seemingly has gone nuts with the moveon.org crazies.

>>>Simple question: If we're at war on terrorism, why are we in Iraq?

Actually, that's three questions but I'll take a crack at them.

Firstly, why we are in Iraq isn't exactly a simple question, but if you're looking for a simple answer, it is thus: The main reason we are in Iraq is to show other powers in the region that we have been pushed too far and if they continue to churn fanatics out of madrassas and fund them, we may decide to take a swing through Syria, Iran or -- dare I say it -- Saudi Arabia.

Remember, Saddam was the tough guy in the region and he fell in two weeks of ground war. We could run through Syria in about 48 hours. The powers that be know this, and since they like the idea of remaining said powers (to say nothing of their fondness for breathing) they may just wake up every morning wondering what they can do to help stop terrorism.

>>> Why haven't we caught Osama Bin Laden?

Umm, because he's hiding very well in countries we don't have full access to? But you knew this.

>>> And why do we still here about weekly bombings all over the world?

Because we're not done eradicating them from the face of the Earth. If you'll recall, we were hearing about bombings all over the world back in the days when we figured simply ignoring it might make it go away. Since 25 years of that policy really didn't put a stop to it, we have chosen a new, more muscular approach.

blogaddict,
You ask: " Do you think that the Abu Ghraib abuses were official US policy? I have seen no convincing evidence that this is true..."

Check out this article by Mark Danner that makes a fairly
convincing case that the torture was indeed a deliberate
policy directed from a fairly high level:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17190

He compares two sets of torture incidents from two different
units and concludes:

"Different soldiers, different unit, different base; and yet it is
obvious that much of what might be called the "thematic content" of
the abuse is very similar: the hooding, the loud noises, the "stress
positions," the sexual humiliations, the threatened assaults, and the
forced violations...all seem to emerge from the same script, a script
so widely known that apparently even random soldiers the Reuters
staffers encountered in moving about the Volturno base knew their
parts and were able to play them. All of this...suggests a clear
program that had been purposely devised and methodically distributed
with the intention, in the words of General Sanchez's October 12
memorandum, of helping American troops "manipulate an internee's
emotions and weaknesses."
"

As to the nature of treatment at Abu Ghirab, as far as I can tell from the documentation in the media, the abuses were reported back in December and January, and were examined in detail in February and March. By then, these sorts of abuses were halted.
This is not the policy of the US, and it has been stopped. End of story, or at least it should be.

As to the WMD in Iraq, and links to Al Qaida in Iraq, there is plenty of media reporting about both of these being pretty well documented. After all, Sarin was confirmed in the bomb found two weeks ago. And it was a binary weapon which Iraq, under its compliance requirements after Gulf War I DENIED HAVING.
Now, for the Al Qaida links, in the supposedly discredited statement made before the current invasion by Colin Powell, he specifically spent a major portion of the speech describing the terror group led by Al Zarkawi, and mentioned him as their leader by name.
Turns out, Zarkawi was partially financed by Iraq, and was treated as a guest of the Iraqi government when he was treated in Iraqi hospitals.

Those who claim there is "NO WMD" and "NO Iraq-Al Qaida" link are being willfully deceitful.

The Late Bill Hicks: I have still seen no convincing evidence that this is true.

Two units having some similarities in the way they abuse the prisoners is hardly evidence of a general policy. I'm not saying some officer slightly higher up than the guards didn't perhaps do something that indicated the abuse would be OK--I'm just saying it does not appear to be a systematic and widespread policy. There are only so many ways to abuse prisoners, after all. Hoods WERE used for sensory deprivation, so they were readily at hand. And it is clear there was a breakdown in discipline at the prison, and a lack of oversight. There is every indication that this has now been corrected. If it was a systematic US policy to abuse prisoners in this way, why would an internal investigation have been launched early on, and the investigation announced publically?

There was a famous psychology experiment at Stanford in 1971 in which college students were given the role of prison guards, and ended up abusing the pretend captives in very similar ways to Abu Ghraib. Zimbardo, the director of the Stanford study, has written, "The planned two-week study was terminated after only six days because it was out of control. Good boys chosen for their normalcy were having emotional breakdowns as powerless prisoners. Other young men chosen for their mental health and positive values eased into the character of sadistic guards inflicting suffering on their fellow students without moral compunction. And those "good guards" who did not personally debase the prisoners failed to confront the worst of their comrades, allowing evil to ripen without challenge.

"The terrible things my guards [at Stanford] did to their prisoners were comparable to the horrors inflicted on the Iraqi detainees. My guards repeatedly stripped their prisoners naked, hooded them, chained them, denied them food or bedding privileges, put them into solitary confinement, and made them clean toilet bowls with their bare hands. As the boredom of their job increased, they began using the prisoners as their playthings, devising ever more humiliating and degrading games for them to play. Over time, these amusements took a sexual turn, such as having the prisoners simulate sodomy on each other." Source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/09/power_turns_good_soldiers_into_bad_apples/

Unless you think that the Stanford experiment of 1971 is also an example of US policy, I assume you'll agree that there is, as yet, no compelling evidence that Abu Ghraib represented a systematic policy of the US government.

Wow. Too much to respond to everything.

Nitro, thanks for your points. Yes, the government should have plans for all contingencies. But Richard Clarke, GWB's own terrorism czar, said that Bush was overly preoccupied with Iraq and that this preoccupation, in his opinion, distracted the U.S. from courses of action that would have been better in the war on terrorism. You can disagree with that, of course, but it seeems pretty damning to me when your own chief in the war on terror thinks you're doing the wrong things and offers the kinds of evidence Clarke offers.

Also, Nitro, you said it didn't sound to you like 9/11 changed my worldview. Wow! Well, sure it did. I opposed Clinton's bombing of what might have been Al Quaida bases/chemical plants. Given 9/11, I was wrong and he was right. Before 9/11, I would never have advocated the invasion of other countries, but GWB was right to invade Afghanistan. My opinion on the use of force has shifted, well, if not 180 degrees, then at least 160! :-)

Blogaddict and veng on make good points: I was wrong to make comparisons. At My Lai, U.S. soldiers callously killed men, women, and children in a ruthless massacre. That was horrible. In Iraq, U.S. soldiers rounded up civilians in mass arrests and tortured them sexually, mentally, spiritually, and physically -- and killed a handful. That's horrible too. What's more horrible? I think the point is, both are examples of unacceptable, unamerican behaviors by those representing us overseas.

Let me add to blogaddict's points about torture being U.S. policy. No, GWB did not tell the untrained soldiers at Abu Graib to do what they did. But the military intelligence people who were running the place did. Moreover, official policies from the highest levels contributed to an atmosphere in which these abuses could take place. You see, the government has taken a number of steps -- some of them absolutely justifiable, that led to Abu Graib (and now very similar reports are surfacing in other places). Step one: erode personal liberties in the U.S., as with the Patriot Act. Step two: foster a culture of secrecy, from Cheney's refusal to turn over the minutes of his energy policy meetings to removing all kinds of data from gov't Web sites to resisting FOI requests. Step three: provide legal justification for ignoring the Genva Conventions. Step four: Arrest people and hold them without trial or contact with others. Step five: Use torture at Guantanamo and other places against Al Quaida. Step five: Foster a culture of callousness towards human life, as did GWB when he said "Bring it on" and (implying that we had killed and assassinated enemies) "Let's put it this way: They are no longer a problem to the United States and our allies." Step six: Send the interrogators from Gauntanamo who were very effective to Iraq to get results. Step seven: Subvert the chain of command by giving control of Abu Graib to military intelligence. Step eight: Put untrained reservists in charge of breaking down prisoners.

Let me be very clear -- Many, maybe most of these steps were logical and reasonable after 9/11. BUT with every step taken, the government had a correspondingly greater and greater responsibility to understand that abuses became more and more likely, and to act to prevent abuse. Since these steps came from the highest levels of government, the people at those levels were responsible to understand that they had increased the chance of abuses and they were responsible therefore to act to minimize those chances. They did not. That's why a reasonable point of view makes GWB and his administration responsible for Abu Graib. Not criminally culpable, but, to a serious degree, morally responsible. That's another good reason to vote against GWB in November, in my opinion.

Forgive this very long ramble, and apologies to those who I don't have time to answer.

Oh, just one more point. Check out this morning's NY Times front page story: "Cuba base sent its interrogators to Iraqi prison."

Cayzle,

This has been an interesting thread so far.

Sure, I am much more upset at terrorists such as those who attacked America and Spain, who killed Berg and Pearl. What am I doing? I contributed to organizations helping victim's families. I continue to live in a high risk area, since doing otherwise would be accepting intimidation. I bought a fuel-efficient car, instead of an SUV, in part to save gas and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I vote and try to be a responsible citizen. Most importantly, I try to be aware of all the issues and understand what is going on. I try to support our leaders while holding them to high standards.

All this makes sense. I have done similar--except I'm also in the military, so I have something else also going on. My (unclear) point is that the dispassionate way some folks discuss our enemy is not so dispassionate when it comes to our own leadership. Yes, hold to high standards. Yes, have passion. I find, though, that in many cases this passion is reserved for our own leadership--like, "Yes, X is bad but YEEARGH" stuff. It's what's after the "but" that many folks care about.

What else is there to do?

In a peaceful way? One fellow sends cameras to Iraqi bloggers. One group of military folks sent their own money to buy TV station equipment to deliver to Iraq. Some folks went to the Green Zone and work eighteen hour days to help build some kind of better life for others. You could help folks injured in the Bali blasts now that the long term care is set in. For me, this fight is the most important thing we're going to have to deal with for a long time to come. I've changed my life priorities to match. Other people have to figure it out for themselves.


I wish the president had asked me to do something. I wish he had asked for a 50 cent gas tax to reduce our oil dependence. I wish he had raised taxes to pay for the war -- as I understand it, there have never been tax cuts during wartime before. I would gladly pay higher taxes if the president said it was necessary.

This is not a war quite like others. I went to school recently, where we discussed some of this in an international economics class. Oil demand is relatively inelastic, once you get past the news articles on Hummer owners--and the effect of Middle East oil demand on the rest of our global world is as important.

The WTC attack, among other things, was an attack on our economy, since that's where our asymmetries lie. What the administration did was use the power of the Laffer curve and a "bet on the come" to keep us from falling into a long recession--with a nod to the positive national effects in the Reagan years. Domestic spending, though, is a worry that might cause this to be a bigger problem later. I'm not sure raising taxes is the answer--and in any case, it's not the focus. There are people trying, and succeeding in, blowing us up. That's the number one function of a national government, to collectively defend the nation. Everything else is secondary.

But the president has not called on the American people to do anything -- except turn a blind eye to the failures of his administration.

I doubt that. I don't remember that in the latest State of the Union address.

What guys like me complain about is the relentless focus on Our Failures instead of successes, or acknowledgements that in any action there will be failure. We are upset about moved goalposts and attendant calls of failure based on the changed goals. Roosevelt's "man in the arena" speech to the Sorbonne is still germane here.

This is why I challenge: do you hold the enemy to a standard? Do you consider him worse?


"How do you know it's better or worse?"

Well, based on what I know, in Japan, Germany, Korea, and Vietnam, our military had no policy of arresting civilians and abusing and torturing them. Certainly the guerilla nature of Vietnam corresponds to the situation in Iraq, where the enemy hides among civilians. What we're doing in Iraq seems much worse.

My reading of wartime and postwar Japan and Germany is much different. I recommend the book Embracing Defeat, or the on line Army study of postwar occupation.

I'll not agree with your "policy of arresting civilians and abusing and torturing them". My read, and I think I have this right, is that the unacceptable American behavior in not just Abu Ghraib but also the Afghanistan camp is based on the actions of the human beings there. We loudly fired LCOL West for firing a gun near a guy who had knowledge of an attack that would kill his men; that's one hell of a difficult standard to maintain. Here's some more on that on my blog. I also recommend the Marine Corps Small Wars Manual.

"While I'm at it, where do you derive your standard for success and failure in this war? Is it similar to that of previous wars? Is it artificially high?"

I try to be informed, and to judge events by my knowledge of history and current events. I don't think it is too high.

What I was insinuating was that by the standards of the German occupation (see that Army paper), we are leagues ahead. And we don't have the advantages of a friendly press, insurgents are streaming in from Iraq and Syria, we've got several groups that have to work together, and we still are years--YEARS--ahead of the German timetable.

But you only hear of failures and All Abu All The Time.

Thus my skepticism.

"How do you make decisions with incomplete information? Do you wait for perfect information?"

Of course, you make the best decision you can with the information you have. I (and many people who now oppose the war) supported the war in Iraq based on the information that the president offered. But now we know that the information was manipulated and deliberately misleading.

Here's the essence of it. The president misled the American people. The intelligence he offered us -- the Chalabi stuff, the so-called centrifuge tubes, and more -- was just wrong. We didn't know it was bad info. But there is strong evidence that the administration knew it was bad info -- or should have known. That means either incompetence or deceit. Either way, that's reason enough for a change of administrations.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't think it was either; I think it was a decision made with the best information available, corresponding to what other countries and previous administrations thought. (Remember the 9/11 commission's questions about "failure to act"--imagine invading either country before WTC!) I've seen enough already to convince me that mlitary action was necessary, and that this was the right time to strike. (Another book to recommend, from a reporter living in France for twenty years: The French Betrayal Of America. That book details some of the arms deals that went down.) We've already seen from the last Zarqawi letter that this was worth it in terms of stopping Al Qaeda's progress.

As I wrote before the war, the decision depends on your assessment of the threat. My assessment was different from that of some of my European classmates.

Good thinking here. This is an emotional subject, of course.

Cayzle--I like the tone of your answer. It's so rare to be able to disagree without getting down and dirty.

But I still disagree with you on so many fundamental issues. Others (particularly chap) have put it more eloquently than I, but I do want to say one more thing. I think the most basic disagreement between you and me, the one that perhaps underlies all the others, is that (IMHO) I am a realist and you are an idealist. That is, I look at all these mistakes and understand that mistakes are inevitable and perfection impossible, especially in a war situation, and especially against an enemy so ruthless and inhumane. To preserve one's humanity when fighting such an enemy is necessary, but incredibly difficult. Studying history, such as the history of post-WWII Germany and Japan and our actions there, is edifying in this respect.

Yes, we make mistakes, but we are still, when all is said and done, doing an incredible job under the circumstances. I would challenge any nation on earth to do better under those same circumstances, and I don't think I'd lose that challenge. And yes, we need to take action to correct or prevent every single mistake we can, but in a world in which huge and complex decisions must always be made with incomplete information, mistakes will indeed always be made. Bush and company definitely did have a hard-nosed attitude towards the enemy, but this war cannot be fought in a totally PC way. And those who dwell on those mistakes and ignore all the good (I'm talking not about you, but about the mainstream media and my former party, the Democrats) are being destructive to the cause of freedom.

I guess I'm saying more than one more thing, LOL! But I, as a lifelong Democrat (and I'm not a young person) am voting for Bush this year, and doing it, as John F. Kennedy used to say, "with vigor." I would have liked to have found a Democratic candidate to vote for, but the Democratic Party I once knew, the party of Roosevelt and Truman and Kennedy, is long gone. Kerry is one of the most singularly unimpressive candidates I've ever seen in my life--clueless and negative. And his "plan" sounds awful to me. The UN as a solution? And our "allies" in "old Europe?" Give me a break. As a realist, I realize that France is in this for itself, and would sell us down the river in a heartbeat if it suited her interests. With "allies" like that, who needs enemies?

I become saddened when I see a clearly intelligent and well-meaning person such as yourself holding Bush to an impossible standard, and giving Kerry the benefit of all doubts.

I just want to thank all the visitors for an excellent discussion thread, particularly (as some have remarked already) the civil and friendly tone. Keep commenting, guys!

David,

The Instalanche seems to have brought a great conversation to your comments. Thanks--nice to read your site.

Cayzle:

Thanks for being the devil's advocate. keep asking these questions! It makes all of us think about our positions. Because of this thread I do have a greater understanding of positions different than mine.

Nitro Nora

Apropos nothing, David, your photo is gorgeous.

Why thank you.

One point I don't see touched on, David, is another reason why we have over 100,000 of our military guys in Iraq.

If you think of this as a long-term exercise, Iraq is and was the logical place to use this country's military effectively in fighting terrorists. The problem here isn't terrorism, it's the underlying ideology driving it. The two countries having the most direct influence on Wahhabi Islam are Iran and Saudi Arabia - both of which are directly threatened culturally by having an open, peaceful, democratic government in Iraq.

You can't throw the Marines at terrorists - the one single truth of guerilla warfare (and that's exactly what this is) that as long as the enemy is able to blend with the surrounding population, the definition of "enemy" becomes blurred to the point that you don't know who the "enemy" is and who your "friends" are. Conventional warfare loses on that point every time because the center of gravity is political, not based on force.

Iraq is a political war for all of these reasons. Despite the TV and print media's portrayals of events there, Iraq is for the most part a success. Don't take that from me, or from the military, though - read the weblogs being written by Iraqi writers. Without exception, they all say that they hate the necessity of a foreign power intervening in their country (hell, I would too...), but that the coalition has improved live there a thousandfold. That doesn't sound like bad news to me.

I agree with you completely, wg. I wasn't trying to delve too much into the actual justification for the war in this essay, but rather just comment on the fact that critics of it aren't offering alternative courses of action for going on the offensive against terrorists.

I wrote an essay about my rationale for supporting the war last year, here.