I hardly have the energy to wrestle with George W. Bush's public statements on grand strategy anymore, but when he says something like "If we were to fail, they'd come and get us" it's worth asking what, exactly, the causal chain here is supposed to be. US troops in Iraq aren't trying to prevent people currently in Iraq from leaving Iraq. And while various government agencies are trying to stop terrorists people from entering the United States, American troops in Iraq aren't doing this.
« No To Guest Workers | Main | Before There Was Early Rawls... »
Fighting Them Over There
25 May 2007 10:41 am
Comments (48)
Watch out. As soon as we leave, they're heading straight for their rowboats, and they're a-coming. Maybe if we hide the oars first, we'll be ok?
I don't support the war in Iraq. (I don't think we should have been there in the first place.) That being said, this is a ridiculous interpretation of the administration's argument--an interpretation I've now seen from a variety of left-of-center commentators.
There don't need to be any terrorists *in Iraq* who want to "come here and get us" for failure in Iraq to cause the problem Bush is discussing. Failure in Iraq would send a signal of weakness to any terrorists anywhere in the world who do in fact want to attack the United States.
Just consider the history of Al Qaeda. The 9/11 attacks were staged by mainly Saudi terrorists. But they were precipitated by years of weak responses to Al Qaeda attacks in places other than Saudi Arabia (East Africa, Yemen, etc.)
I think the implied mechanism is something like this: as long as US troops are in Iraq, the terrorists may be attacking them with IEDs and things, but the constant threat of disruption by US patrols keeps them on the run and thinking short-term. Whereas if we left, they'd have the breathing room to sit down and plan a major overseas operation.
I still strongly support ending our military involvement in Iraq, even though I think the conservative position isn't a total non sequitur.
Ah, the old, magical "signal of weakness" ploy.
Of course, no one makes any causal connections between signals of weakness and other people's actions. They just state that there is a connection.
Well, I say that the Congress capitulating to the Bush administration sends a signal of weakness that encourages terrorists, so we're even. Wow, what an easy way to win an argument!
Although I strongly oppose the Iraq War and support bringing our troops home, I must admit that "NS" above makes a good point regarding the dangers of any perceived American weakness and softness.
As I've said before, the easiest and most appropriate means of avoiding any such worldwide perception is simply to round up and execute all the neocons.
Now wholesale mass-executions may be reasonably criticized on a wide variety of judicial and philosophical grounds, but they are hardly a typical indicator of national weakness or "failure of will."
I don't recall anyone accusing Stalin during the Great Terror of being a limp-wristed, spineless wimp...
Us being in Iraq didn't seem to stop them from conducting bombings in Britain and Spain among other places. They are no doubt trying even now to do something to us in our homeland. That will be stopped or not by good or bad intelligence and law enforcement operations not by how many troops we have in Iraq. Statements like Matt refers to are pure propaganda. It's silly to try to dissect them logically. They aren't supposed to make sense. They are just supposed to stimulate fear and increase support for Bush's policies.
The causal mechanism connecting weakness to terrorist attacks is the mind of the terrorist. Consider the repeated words of bin Laden himself:
"After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized, more than before, that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows……would run in defeat."
"We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (in 1993)."
http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/papertiger.html
RKU is a genius. I'll add that adminstering Jonestown-style kool-aid to the neocons would add the appropriate symbolic touch.
"Us being in Iraq didn't seem to stop them from conducting bombings in Britain and Spain among other places." Which, somewhat conspicuously, are occupied by people who aren't us.
I don't think the "flypaper" theory is much more than a post hoc rationalization, but concerns about looking weak are scarcely irrational. On the contrary, it's basic deterence theory.
Ignore the previous comment; On brief consideration, it doesn't make much sense.
Blood sugar low... must eat lunch...
as long as US troops are in Iraq, the terrorists may be attacking them with IEDs and things, but the constant threat of disruption by US patrols keeps them on the run and thinking short-term...
of course that assumes that:
1. all of "the terrorists" are in Iraq
2. we aren't creating any new ones outside of Iraq
3. AlQ is singlemindedly focused on attacking our troops and not the US proper
4. our mere presence in Iraq isn't encouraging more AlQ action than there would be otherwise
5. a significant number of the attacks in Iraq are actually AlQ
and it assumes that we can actually beat AlQ while fighting both sides of an Iraqi civil war.
(not arguing with you, of course, just with the theory you described)
Bush is just a demagogue. he's yelling Booo! to keep people afraid of considering alternatives - the same way he's been doing it for the past 5 years.
I see the logic now. Bin Laden, hiding in remote terrain somewhere along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, is so busy fending off ground forces in Baghdad he can't find the time to plot terror attacks against the U.S. mainland. And of course 100% of the entire terrorist population on the planet is also busy fending off U.S. forces in Iraq. There aren't even a couple dozen to spare in an attempt to pull of something similar in nature to the 9/11 attacks. And if Bin Laden did peel away a couple dozen guys in Pakistan he'd find they were so psychologically preoccupied with the fight in Iraq they'd never manage getting trained and dispatched to the U.S. to ply their trade. And if only they could mount such an operation they'd be able to take away our freedom. It's all clear now.
The causal mechanism connecting weakness to terrorist attacks is the mind of the terrorist.
So the whole point of the Iraq War was to make bin Laden have a better opinion of us?
Maybe we should just have sent him a cake and a bible . . .
So the whole point of the Iraq War was to make bin Laden have a better opinion of us?
No. Like I said, I didn't support the Iraq war--just like I didn't support the Somalia operation. The point is that once the operation has started, losing it will add another very significant item to the "paper tiger" roster from which bin Laden draws so much comfort.
Think about it. If bin Laden (and others like him) thought we were weak because of Somalia, which was admittedly a very half-hearted operation, what will they think of our pulling out of Iraq, where so much more has been invested and so much more is at stake?
I'm not saying this means we shouldn't pull out of Iraq. I'm just saying that no one should be suffering from the delusion that if we do pull out, things won't get worse. They will.
Maybe we should just have sent him a cake and a bible . . .
Posted by rea | May 25, 2007 11:58 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nah, send Karen Hughes!! Karen Hughes! Karen Hughes! Karen Hughes! Karen Hughes! Karen Hughes! Karen Hughes! Karen Hughes! Karen Hughes! Yeah, that's the ticket!!
We're dealing with a very stupid kind of terrorist. You'd think they'd notice that with the bulk of US fighting forces bogged down in Iraq that NOW would be an excellent time to attack the US. If they wait until we leave, hell, they're going to have trouble.
"I don't support the war in Iraq. (I don't think we should have been there in the first place.) That being said, this is a ridiculous interpretation of the administration's argument--an interpretation I've now seen from a variety of left-of-center commentators."
For God's sake, haven't you figured out the game yet? Its a four step process.
1) Post three or four aggressive sentences snarking something. Mostly Repubs, but throw in a few slams of Dimmocrats once in a while to keep the appearance of balance.
2) Count the comment-board hits.
3) Tell Atlantic about the number of comment-board hits.
4) Keep job.
Note that the lynchpin is 2). With lots of comment board hits, that's lots of publicity, and 'success' as far as the Atlantic is concerned. Accurate three or four sentence snarks don't increase 2). (Accurate, longer, substantive posts don't either). Provocative three or four sentences (independent of accuracy) do increase 2). Occassional Dimmocrat snarks enhance the 'provocative' jive.
In short; there is no incentive to be thoughtful, consistent, or right. Thus, alas, it isn't.
Sk
p.s. yes, even this post plays into the game. It will be my last.
"Think about it. If bin Laden (and others like him) thought we were weak because of Somalia, which was admittedly a very half-hearted operation, what will they think of our pulling out of Iraq.."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Once we tuck tail and depart from Iraq there'll be no doubt as to why. "Paper tiger" has nothing to do with it and everyone including Bin Laden knows it. If a manual was written detailing how to fail at the operation we embarked on cribbing from Bush's notes would be a good start. Looting, Chalabi, disbanding the army, leaving weapons depots unguarded, staffing the reconstruction and embassy team with twentysomething neophytes more concerned with party loyalty than results, contractor fraud, Abu Ghraib, losing Bin Laden in the mountains, soldiers short of proper personal armor and armored vehicles, ignorance of local customs and sensitivities, farming out security to mercenaries and thugs such as Blackwater and a thousand other errors and crimes. All of them foreseen and avoidable. If we fail and leave these are the reasons for it, not any inherent lack of stomach or patience for the struggle. Everyone sees that, including Bin Laden.
NS,
Why do you assume that "things" will get "worse" if the U.S. military departs Iraq? What things? What is it that you're sure will happen that is not happening now?
Think about it. If bin Laden (and others like him) thought we were weak because of Somalia, which was admittedly a very half-hearted operation, what will they think of our pulling out of Iraq, where so much more has been invested and so much more is at stake?
Yes, but they didn't attack us BECAUSE they thought we were weak. You're confusing propaganda, and a small part of the overall strategy, with the ultimate motivations.
It's generally hard to deter fanatics, who are willing to die for their cause, by threats of reprisals. It's like telling a suicide bomber: if you come here and try to blow yourself up, we'll kill you first. Fear of death: not so potent in this case (the dying part was kind of gonna happen regardless).
As for bin Laden himself, are you really suggesting that if we stayed in Iraq for the next fifty years, he'd be less prone to attack us? Really?
Because then he'd see that our resolve was so strong that he would reluctantly accept our regional hegemony and see no reason to wage jihad against us?
Why wouldn't our continued presence inspire more? If you're going to quote the man, shouldn't you also quote his arguments re: our garrison in Saudi Arabia, military activity in Iraq, etc.?
Just doesn't add up.
The best argument is the distraction/ease of proximity arguments. But cleek does a fine job with those (also, this type of "flypaperism" is not so nice for the Iraqis themselves, you know, the folks who the neocons love so much but the liberals hate because we're racist and love Saddam).
Here is a clever strategy that would prevent the terrorists from coming here should we withdraw from Iraq:
http://www.exile.ru/2007-May-18/editorial.html
Maybe we should just have sent him a cake and a bible
rea wins with Iran-Contra-nostalgia reference.
And RKU's suggestion in genius. If we want to "make a show of strength and resolve," there are plenty of ways to do that without staying in Iraq. Nothin would scare bin Laden more than a public beheading of those who failed to catch him.
Bush's argument makes a lot of sense if you know nothing about history or geography, don't read beyond the first two paragraphs of newspaper articles, and are a bit racist. So I'm surprised the man isn't more popular.
What really makes us look weak is continuing to pour more and more troops into Iraq while failing to secure the country. If terrorists wanted evidence that our military might is overhyped Bush has done more to provide them with it than anyone could ever do.
Leaving doesn't make us look any weaker than we already do. And the more we stay without any real idea of what "victory" will look like the weaker we look. If we wanted to look strong we should have gotten out as soon as we captured Saddam.
Achieving clear goals is what shows strength. Flailing about in a war we have no hopes of winning makes us look weak.
How stupid can people be? If the goal was to show strength Bush blew that a long time ago. All you show-of-strength-ophiles should be railing at Bush for the damage he has done on that front.
"send a signal of weakness":
Deterrence is useful against people who have interests and would prefer, under normal circumstances, not to fight.
It is not useful against people whose entire raison d'etre is to try and kill you. If we don't show weakness, what will Al-Qaeda do -- NOT plan terrorist operations against the US? Maybe open a chain of dry cleaners? This is what Al-Qaeda DOES.
The question isn't whether committed Al-Qaeda members are going to try and attack the US. The question is whether there are going to be vast numbers of people in the Arab world who would normally be stand-up citizens, but who instead will be persuaded to fight against the US. That doesn't happen because the US seems weak. It happens because the US is seen as being in their base, killing their doodz.
Pulling out of Iraq will be an unmistakable signal that we're the kind of country that (1)foolishly starts unnecessary wars, (2) screws them up, but (3)(eventually) comes to its senses and gets the hell out . . .
It's way too late to avoid signalling (1) and (2), and it is not obvious how matters are improved if we signal (1) and (2) but not (3) . . .
The "signal of weakness" argument is also weak because it priorities appearence over fact. Bush logic relies on flat caveman definitions of strength and weakness--bombs strong, talk weak--that have the distinct advantage of not paying any attention to results. In what universe is invading a country, failing to establish order, failing to prevent a civil war and turning your back on your own principles (Enhance Interrogation Techniques) a "signal of strength?"
More to the point, there's too much talk about signals and not enough talk about reality. Kill Bin'Laden, and stop playing footsie and passing notes with terrorists. Destroy Al'Quaeda and come to some real understanding about the roots of terror. Let's stop worrying about what signals we're sending and start killing the alleged recipients.
Does anyone doubt that sooner or later the violence that has been unleashed on Iraq is going to come here? Sooner or later, whether we withdraw in victory or in defeat, someone is going to attempt mass terrorism here in the name of the Iraqi victims of the US war. These comments by Bush are meant to establish a "I told you so" premise. It is their only hope of justification in the long term.
And by the way, when someone carries out mass terrorism in the USA in name of the Iraqi victims, no one in the world is going to say that it was an "unprovoked attack on an innocent people." Most people will shrug and say "Well, what did they expect would happen?"
Before I state my opinion, I know this is a complicated issue which should involve diplomacy, possibly sanctions, aid, several countries and/or the U.N., etc. Well beyond my knowledge and understanding.
But tying withdrawal to weakness seems simplistic to me. Why are we weak if we reach a point where we say "These people obviously are not interested in our help in setting up a 'unified' government, so let's just go"?
Eventually, we have to realize that we did what they wanted us to do -- we got rid of Saddam. Now if Chalabi or whoever wants to be in charge, it's their problem to figure out how to do it.
On the other hand, if the "real" plan is never to leave, we can discuss this until we're blue in the face and it won't matter.
NS writes, "Failure in Iraq would send a signal of weakness to any terrorists anywhere in the world who do in fact want to attack the United States."
Absolutely! And Dear Leader wearing a codpiece and daring the enemy -- "Bring 'Em On!!" -- was a signal of strength to the terrorists, who are doubtlessly still shaking in their boots as their kids, grandkids, wives, neighbors, police, soldiers et al become new recruits and pin pictures of Osama bin Laden on their refridgerators (the ones that used to work with a supply of operating electrical current).
Ron Paul has it right: the "terrorists" hate us because WE are over there. If Chinese aircraft carriers sallied into the Gulf of Mexico, invaded and occupied the south-west United States, bombing our state agencies and churches simply because they felt they were entitled to do so, you can guarantee there'd be more than a few Texan "insurgents" resisting them every step of the way, using whatever tools and means necessary.
It's very simple: the occupation is fueling the insurgency. Not hatred of freedom, apple pie nor Mickey Mouse. It's the occupation, and America is the occupier.
.
I'm constantly amazed that Bush gets to accuse ANYONE of showing weakness in light of what has happened on his watch to weaken America and enbolden the enemy.
Didn't we already show enormous "weakness" to Bin Laden when Bush declared only months after 9/11 that he "didn't think" about him any longer? As in, "I have no intention of killing the goose that laid the golden egg"
We're talking 6 months after the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history, and the man who was in charge on that day gave up within 6 months?!
The capitulation Bush gave to Bin Laden by (a) maintaining a hands-off policy towards him that is as transparent as oil was to the decision to attack Iraq and (b) removing US troops from Saudi Arabia at Bin Laden's demand.
The lack of resolve and unforgiveable cowardice Bush has shown precedes his starting and losing the war in Iraq. Bin Laden had his victory firmly in hand prior to the war.
America is stealing the oil.
No meters on the pumps still.
This is why Bush and Cheney stays...the more chaos, the more oil they steal through Kuwait...
It's all about the oil. Everything else is window dressing. Bush doesn't care if you win, he cares that you stay and steal every last drop of oil. The only thing they secured after the invasion was the Ministry of Oil. The only law they want the Iraqis to pass is the law that hands the oil over to the multinationals.
This is why the Iraqis and most of the world hate America. You are resources thieves, plain and simple, to feed your addiction to oil, 5% of the Earth consuming 25% of the oil - where does that fit into your flypaper equations? How do you ignore this fact?
Tell Big Oil to fuck off once and for all.
Why in the world would the Arab world be remotely bitter at the USA?
Well, there is that 'Deciding we need a battlefield to show off in " and deciding it would be in the middle of peoples homes. And then bringing fire and depleted uranium bullets. And shoot at them for driving too close . And kick their doors off the hinges. And butt-stroking people in the front yard . And Bombing them . And besieging them for killing American Mercenaries .
When I think it over , I really can't come up with a good explanation for their lack of gratitude...
We've already lost the occupation, after winning a one-sided, illegal, immoral, completely unnecessary war. It's about OIL, conservatives. If we hadn't invaded the price of oil would be half what it is now, and we wouldn't be in danger of China deciding to invade us and winning.
Why is our policy built around whatever Osama thinks of us? That is one thing I never got. Why do we care if Osama thinks we are weak? Why do we run scared every time he releases a video with schoolyard taunts?
September 11th happened because too many people, the President included, were asleep at the wheel. We need to be vigilant in our pursuit of terrorists. Is Iraq part of that vigilance? I don't think so. So let's get out and do what we can do to stop terrorist attacks from happening - if they think we are weak they can try and we will stop them. Does anyone seriously believe Osama is sitting in a cave right now saying, "well we got all these great plans to attack America, but goshdarnit, Iraq has proven they are just too damn strong. Put these on ice". It is absurd.
"send a signal of weakness":
So when exactly we did we here in America suddenly become experts on the terrorist mindset? And by what measure do we imagine that "the terrorists" are impressed or not with our efforts?
All Bush has done is get us mired in a losing war, exactly as the Soviets did themselves in Afghanistan. Bush has made America a global laughingstock.
Far from being afraid of us, terrorists around the world are probably rejoicing: Our continued presence in Iraq shows our country to be stupid, stubborn, inflexible, and woefully corrupt. We are shown to have abandoned our core values in favor of totalitarianism and pre-emptive warfare.
I could care less whether a terrorist was "emboldened" or not. That's his problem.
If Chinese aircraft carriers sallied into the Gulf of Mexico, invaded and occupied the south-west United States, bombing our state agencies and churches simply because they felt they were entitled to do so, you can guarantee there'd be more than a few Texan "insurgents" resisting them every step of the way, using whatever tools and means necessary.
YES , yes, yes and yes. And for generations to come , every single one of those Texan Insurgents would detest and despise the Chinese , everything Chinese , and anyone supporting China on TV. And they would be correct in it.
This is the double standard permitted by the whole root doctrine , as patently fantastic in it's generation as any falsehood ever has been , of American Exceptionalism. The Exceptionalist cannot and will not permit the inverse paralleled, considering the right and just response the Texan Insurgent would employ and the correct and vigorous contempt said Texan Insurgent would feel to a person in every town and city for the Chinese Invader . And how many of these Texan Insurgents would join the Glorious Peoples Interior Security Ministry? And wouldn't the Texan call them rat-traitors if they did ?
Again ,the more I think about this , the less sense the insurgency makes . Why can't they all just thank us and give us the oil ?
Arab frogmen in Zodiac boats are spotted daily off America's East Coast!
"Send a signal of weakness"?
What in the world could possibly send a greater signal of weakness than our having spent a trillion dollars and utterly degraded the capability of our military in a failed struggle against a few minor insurgent groups?
The total collapse of Bush's foreign policy of aggression has sent a sign of weakness around the world that no one could possibly augment. Withdrawal at this point may amount to an admission of failure, but regardless of what we choose to admit, Bush has spectacularly failed already. Nothing anyone can do now will change that.
If the goal is to wipe out Al Qaeda in Iraq, then US troops should withdraw. There's no way that Shi'ite-dominated Iraq is going to tolerate the presence of AQ in their country, and they will go all-out to destroy them. And they'll get assistance too, from Iran. And what exactly is wrong with that? Someone else gets to be the hero instead of our shattered US military? Not enough reason for me to oppose it.
I think that "failure" in Iraq does embolden the terrorists. Where I differ with the administration is in the definition of failure.
What we're doing in Iraq now is failure. Having more American soldiers and Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians dying every day is failure. The fact that things have already gone from bad to worse is failure. The fact that every day, every hour, every *minute* more we spend there makes us more hated there, and more loathed in the rest of the world, is FAILURE!
The huge, heaping, stinking pile of FAILURE that is the Iraq occupation (or the War on Iraq, if you prefer) won't stop growing until we get out. We already have failure, and we have no hope of success. The failure has already happened - getting out is the first step in not making it worse.
You know what's worse than sending a signal that you're weak? Actually BEING weak by letting some tool in a cave control what you do. Not that it matters much that this geo-political chess strategy is sub-moronic, since the whole exercise is just a not so elaborate heist of American taxpayer's money anyway.
hey, would y'all 'sensible liberals' like NS please SHUT UP? you know NOTHING. you have no idea what you are talking about. you know nothing about Iraq, or about war. you are just simple-minded tough talking doofuses with no capacity for original thought on the matter. do everyone a favor and just shut up.
"... when he says something like "If we were to fail, they'd come and get us" it's worth asking what, exactly, the causal chain here is supposed to be."
There is no causal chain. It's nothing more than scare-mongering.
If you're old enough to remember the Vietnam War, then you're old enough to remember horse pucky like: If we don't fight the communists in Vietnam, then we'll be fighting them in Texas, California, wherever. It's an argument that doesn't mean anything, except to get people scared.
I'm so tired of crap like this:
Failure in Iraq would send a signal of weakness to any terrorists anywhere in the world who do in fact want to attack the United States.
Signal of weakness? Signal of weakness? How about a signal of stupidity if we continue to tie down our entire military, alienate our allies and bankrupt the country in an unwinnable urban guerrilla war against the wrong enemy?
Talk about an incentive to attack! Knowing you can attack and your enemy is so stupid that it'll react by damaging itself further while letting you get away looks like a pretty good incentive to me.
Bin laden wanted us out of Saudi Arabia(the Holy Land). Bush left for him.
He attacked us when we had deployments in Yemen and Arabia and embassies of several African lands.
While we were over there, he attacked us here.
Thus your entire notion is a lie.
As for things getting worse if we leave, I guess you call two hours of electicity a day and no running water, depleted uranium contamination and crumbling infrastructure better?
You're in some brave new world territory there.
It's true, they hate us for our free dumbs. once of which is you. As for our freedoms, Bush has been a greater threat to those, as the FISA/Attorney friings and attempts to hijack AG power from Ashcroft by then Counsel Gonzales proved.
Comments closed June 08, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Saw Pataki on Tucker's show last night. He says we're over there because Al Qaida wants to take away our freedom. They hate our freedom and therefore want to deprive us of it. So, to echo you Matt, WTF does that mean? The only freedoms I see threatened are those under assault by Bushco. Maybe that's Al Qaida's plan. Pull enough stunts to eventually have the fascists in our midst ruling us under martial law. 7 years ago who'd have thought a Middle Eastern tribesman lurking about in remote caves could personally get habeus corpus and the 4th Amendment repealed? A brilliant plan indeed.
Posted by steve duncan | May 25, 2007 11:03 AM