Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Isn't that more or less the point of asymetric warfare or terrorism? To cause fear and expense disproportionate to the base significance of any event.

They can never win by marching 300 guys into Washington DC to take over the Whitehouse or by killing every US soldier in Iraq, that's not their war. I think they're fighting a different war and they seem to be managing to do this country a whole lot of damage.

This is its way of fighting its war - by seizing attention disproportionate to its actual power.

About 15,000 Americans are murdered every year. Most by other Americans. Most are crimes of passion, or incident to robbery.

But a "political" murder, is a statement designed to draw public attention. And it does. And it probably should.

But what we need to do is not to respond as the murderers intend for us to respond. We need to pay attention to the broader issues, though I'm not suggesting that we lose sight of Mr. Berg's death in those broader issues.

>>Al Qaeda is better at manipulating our media than it is at fighting its war.

Yes - although one could argue that these are the same thing. By manipulating our media they /are/ fighting their war.

This is absolutely ghastly. I agree with Dave Rogers that this is a political murder - not so much in revenge for torture of Iraqi prisoners, as claimed by them, but a terribly opportunistic act of violence.

The Guardian reports this story here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1214773,00.html.

I am intrigued by the parents reaction:

"I think a lot of people are fed up with the lack of civil rights this thing [the war] has caused," Mr Berg added. "I don't think this administration is committed to democracy."

..and puzzled why Berg ended up in gaol, and why his parents needed to instigate proceedings to get him out because they felt he was being "held illegally".

I am not trying to imply anything at all ... it's just that it looks like there is more to the story.

">>Al Qaeda is better at manipulating our media than it is at fighting its war.

Yes - although one could argue that these are the same thing. By manipulating our media they /are/ fighting their war."

If that is their plan I just don't see what they hope to accomplish. All this video does is make those who thought we shouldn't be there think we still shouldn't be there. For the rest of the country it reminds us what sort of animals we're fighting.
So they've managed to squander whatever sympathy their cause might have generated from the prison abuse, with a single act of horrific brutality. Anyone who started to question being in Iraq because of Abu Gharib just received a stark reminder of why we're there. Those bastards didn't kill Nick Berg because of prisoners being made to do naked gymnastics. They killed Nick Berg because he had the gall to be an American Jew. Abu Gharib is just the garnish they served this with.

Seeing this video makes me think that they're lucky America isn't a thing like they think we are. If we were most of that country would be coated in a thin layer of nuclear-made glass.

Of course, Al Qaeda is also hoping to cause reactions along the line of SSG B's: "...it reminds us what sort of animals we're fighting."
Al Qaeda is not "squandering" American sympathy so much as it's trying to destroy it, with the object that Americans will regard anyone who fights them, or who is suspected as fighting them, as "animals," who will be treated as such, causing even more resentment among non-Americans, and thus even more who will fight, etc., etc., in a process that has become cliched.

But as SSG B demonstrates, often enough it is successful.

The Islamic thugs who murdered Berg were simply trying to instill fear into the hearts of weak-willed Americans. By not showing the whole clip, the media are helping with the fear part but not with the very proper rage that ought to be felt toward Nick Berg's murder.

This murder was actually a public relations blunder for it decimated any sort of sympathy that people might have had for the anti-American fighters in Iraq.

I think the fact that his murder was on video makes it a lot more disturbing and that the video is over the internet. Most people's murders if they are recorded aren't posted on the internet for all to see.

When they burned those bodies of Americans and hung them up it was all over the place too.

I think it helps to push the whole War on Terror to the front and make it seem like a really important war- here is this innocent man being brutally murdered- can't you see why we need to fight this war on terror? Can't you see why we need to get rid of those bad Iraqis who are fighting us? I have no idea to be honest whether that's really a great thing but it will be a point that some political can easily use to push why this War on Terror is such a great thing.

I too hope that prison abuse is not forgotten. That's something that needs to be seriosuly investigated. As tragic and awful as Nick's death is, so is the suffering and horrible treatment of those prisoners.

Heather says: As tragic and awful as Nick's death is, so is the suffering and horrible treatment of those prisoners.

I beg to differ. There is a world of difference between putting a pair of panties on a guy's head and cutting his head off. Keeping things in perspective, there's no comparison between these things, and the gulf between them illustrates the nature of our enemy and why this war against them must be successful.

I don't care whether politicals make hay or don't, we should remain focused on the enemy and his barbaric nature.

The War on Terror is a great thing, just as life and freedom and democracy are great things.

"There is a world of difference between putting a pair of panties on a guy's head and cutting his head off. Keeping things in perspective, there's no comparison between these things."

From our "perspective," that's a perfectly rational view. But terrorism, as a form of asymmetric warfare, relies on the fact that perspective varies widely according to the receiver.

The Islamic radicals believe, and wish others of their faith to believe, that America is the "Great Satan." We wish the Iraqi people to believe, and the Muslim world at large, that America is the "Great Liberator." Our success in Iraq relies as much on the Iraqi people adopting our view as it does on Americans at home believing it as well.

This isn't a war that's going to be decided by who can kill the most people, it's going to be won by who can sway the most minds.

It remains to be seen if beheading Nick Berg was a smart play by our opponents, or a stupid one. My sense is, in the long term, it will prove to have been a stupid one. But they accomplished a couple of things: They have demonstrated some capacity to act against American power, which makes them appear powerful. They have called attention to themselves in a compelling way, and all efforts to sway minds require commanding attention. They have exploited the stupidity of the Americans responsible for Abu Ghraib by using those events to promote their view of America as the Great Satan, the Crusaders, the occupiers, and have eroded, at least somewhat, the view that America wishes to promote that we are none of those things, and are, in fact, liberators. The heinous nature of the murder of Nick Berg is disproportionate to the events reported at Abu Ghraib, but recall that there are allegations that prisoners have also been killed while in custody at Abu Ghraib, and who knows what rumors are on the street in Iraq regarding what happened there? So it may not be as disproportionate, at least to Iraqi minds, as we perceive it to be.

Finally, if the murder provokes Americans to respond in a way that appears even more disproportionate, then they succeed in further resolving the oppressor/liberator perception in their favor.

The terrorists have two strategies they seem to be pursuing in parallel. Either one might succeed alone, but together, more modest successes in each might achieve their goal. I believe their goal is an American withdrawal before there is a strong power base in Iraq for some form of government which is not of a fundamentalist form. In a power vacuum, I think they believe they can install a fundamentalist form of government in the model of Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

So the first strategy is to kill enough Americans and impede the appearance of progress sufficiently to weaken American political resolve and force a pull-out from domestic political pressure. The second strategy is to create turmoil in Iraq such that American efforts to control the insurrection end up turning large numbers of Iraqis against the American presence. Attacks against efforts at rebuilding the infrastructure, the police force, and provoking combat at holy sites are parts of that strategy. And inevitably, we provide them with unearned victories through our own stupidity as we did in Abu Ghraib. Mass demonstrations against the American presence might signal that we had lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. They would certainly contribute to domestic political pressure to end the occupation. We're not at that point yet, but that's clearly where our opponents wish to go.

Iraq is a mess. In my opinion, it's a mess that didn't have to happen in just this way, but that's water under the bridge. It's important to see to it that the terrorists do not achieve their goals in Iraq. Achieving even that modest goal is now more uncertain than ever. But that merely points out the immediate requirement for a certain steadiness of nerve. Ordinarily, that might suggest supporting the incumbent president, but these are not ordinary times. The manifest incompetence of a war managed by ideologues has made it abundantly clear that they are incapable of achieving success. We need a change of leadership. There's no guarantee that a new administration will do any better, but it's hard to see how they could do any worse.

Finally, it seems to me that the "War on Terror" is not a great thing. I think that's another bit of ideological thinking that contributes to the perception of American arrogance by others. I think, we would do well to drop the whole "war on terror" metaphor. The battle with the terrorists is for the minds of millions of people. We won't win those minds by focusing on killing terrorists. We will have to kill terrorists in order to protect ourselves and limit acts of terrorism, but the real victory will come from winning the minds the terrorists seek to win. Winning minds, particularly minds from vastly different cultural and economic backgrounds, is not an easy thing, but we have enjoyed some success. The rise of the Islamic fundamentalists was, in part, a response to that success. We need to focus on what works, and refine that so that it's more successful. Trying to install a democracy in Iraq has thus far appeared to be "a bridge too far."

I think success will ultimately come from some form of economic and cultural effort. But it will require a much more nuanced approach than has worked so successfully for us in the past.

But hey, what do I know? I make all this shit up. Do your own thinking.

There is no justification -- ever -- for the cold-blooded premeditated murder of another human being. Doesn't matter if it's an Islamic or Christian or other Fundamentalist or what have you. It's immoral and inhuman.

There's possibly more to this than a gruesome murder; it's definitaly political in nature, but there's too many messy ends. WhatReallyHappened.com may appear to be a wacko site, but the number of links posted to articles asking how Berg came to be where he was is compelling. The inhumanity of this act may not only belong to the hooded thugs in the video...

Rayne, you're suggesting that the Bush Adminstration had Nick Berg killed and then framed Al Qaeda for it, perhaps just as the LAPD had Nicole Simpson killed so they could frame OJ for it. Presumably this theory is credible to you because Al Qaeda has no connection with Saddam and besides they're an all-around fun group of guys.

Once again, we see that you don't have to be crazy to be an anti-liberation leftist, but it helps.

Many say Iraqi is a mess. This is true in some respects and the murder of Nick Berg maybe evidence of this fact but I still have one lingering question. I thought there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraqi according to the media mantra? Nick Berg was abducted in Iraqi and it was an Al Qaeda group that brutally murdered him. The link is clear. This is war and war is by nature a mess.

We can sit here and argue the "intent of Al Qaeda" and their usage of the media to accomplish their goals but that does not change the fact they must be destroyed or they will destroy us. Granted, there are political considerations that come into play with terrorism but we must stay the course as our parents and grandparents did in World War II.

When the U.S liberated Italy in World War II, a second front was established and Germany was forced to stop moving forward on the Russian front. Al Qeada cannot resist fighting the U.S on the Iraqi front and they are currently concentrating what resources they have in that area of the world just as the Germans were forced to do at the Italy invasion. This is not to say civilians in this country are not vulnerable to attack but we are more secure.

During the intense battle for Fallujah, the casualty rate was 40 US to about 700 of the enemy. What were the casualty rates on September 11th? 18 Terrorists to 3,000+ of us. I will never forget the look on the faces of the fireman in a particular documentary as yet another body hit the roof of the lobby in the World Trade Center. If we are said to be a society swayed by images, that is the image I cannot forget. The casualty rates in Iraqi are terrible but preferable to the alternative.

During their formative years, the baby boomer generation adopted several assumptions that they have successfully assimilated into the mindset of many people in this country. They respond to this war as they did to the Vietnam War which is a mistake. We treated every casualty in that war as a defeat and we are doing the same in this war. Granted, every life given in the defense of this country is sacred but it is not in vain. The North Vietnamese and Soviet Union weren't flying planes into our buildings. This war is about killing terrorists so they do not kill us, it is about the numbers and it is that simple.

Many believe the war is being prosecuted by "ideologues" that are incapable of achieving success because every casualty is a failure and every prison abuse incident is perceived as a failure. Who can win any war if those are the qualifications for success? War is by definition a mess and cannot be tied in neat packages. World War II US tank operators were said to adorn their tanks with the skulls of dead German soldiers. Does this mean the outcome of World War II was a failure because these alleged atrocities were committed?

Cluing into the "anti Vietnam War Psyche" so prevalant in this country, opponents to Bush attempt to derail the war for political gain. They support a change in the administration for these reasons. They miss the point that the war on terror is a success if only for the simple fact mentioned above: Al Qeada operatives are killing less unarmed innocent Americans in this country because they have to focus resources on killing US soldiers and civilians in Iraqi.

We as Americans need to make a choice. Do we want to prosecute this war as a war or turn it into a legal, diplomatic, "win the minds of millions" issue? President Bush maybe a lot of things but he does do what he says he will do even if some may not like it. He might have started too late but since September 11th, he has been prosecuting a war. I fear for an adminstration that will treat the war more like a legal and political matter and not have the fortitude or leadership necessary to stay the course.

Most of the baby boomers and those supporting their mind set have already shown they have no fortitude or back bone for the war on terror. War is hell and we must persevere. Can the rest of us, however, be as strong as the World War II generation and have the strength to see this through no matter what the cost?

"Nick Berg was abducted in Iraqi and it was an al Qaeda group that brutally murdered him. The link is clear."

This is blurring the issue. Many supported the invasion of Iraq because they believed Iraq was linked to al Qaeda when in fact no such link has ever been unequivocally established. As a secular leader who oppressed the Shia majority, Saddam Hussein was as much an enemy to bin Laden as the Saudi royal family. In that regard, infrequent contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq intelligence services may be regarded more as keeping track of a potential threat than as working with an ally.

The fact that there are now terrorists more closely associated with al Qaeda operating in Iraq should be no surprise. They are exploiting the present turmoil and chaos to attempt to manufacture fear, uncertainty and doubt in order to promote a power vacuum that they can exploit when the U.S. finally withdraws. Their success is not assured, but their prospects seem to be improving lately.

"We can sit here and argue the "intent of Al Qaeda" and their usage of the media to accomplish their goals but that does not change the fact they must be destroyed or they will destroy us."

Al Qaeda does not possess the capacity to "destroy us." For someone to argue that the Vietnam experience has distorted our capacity to endure casualties in conflict, and in practically the same breath utter that a group of religious fanatics hiding in caves has the capacity to "destroy us," makes me wonder who has the more distorted perception?

We endured the existence of the Soviet Union for more than a generation, and it unequivocally had the capacity to destroy us. More Americans are murdered by other Americans each year than have died in the last 30 years of terrorist acts. More Americans commit suicide each year than have died in the last 30 years of terrorist acts. More Americans die in automobile accidents each year than in the entire modern history of terrorism. But the attacks of 9/11 have distorted the perceptions of some, such that the death of any American civilian by a terrorist act is somehow justification for invasion and war on another country.

Again, whose perceptions are distorted?

"Many believe the war is being prosecuted by "ideologues" that are incapable of achieving success because every casualty is a failure and every prison abuse incident is perceived as a failure."

I wish it were "many," but this has become a nation of ideologues at both ends of the political spectrum. Ideologues are rigid thinkers confined by their closely held beliefs and the political necessity of being "right." They are therefore slower to respond by thinking creatively than less hidebound non-ideologues. Winning wars is not accomplished by adhering to political scripts and "talking points," or by trying to shoehorn inconvenient facts into a cherished illusion. So far, the war in Iraq looks like an exercise in wish fulfillment by some "baby-boomer" ideologues with an incomplete grasp of reality. And winning this war is not going to be accomplished solely by killing terrorists. Even Donald Rumsfeld admits that. (FWIW, I don't believe Rumsfeld is an ideologue, but his deputy is, and the two guys he works for are.) So far, there hasn't been any kind of strategy articulated by this administration for 'winning" the "war on terrorism." This war won't be won by killing bad guys, it'll be won by winning the minds the terrorists seek to either win or intimidate.

"Most of the baby boomers and those supporting their mind set have already shown they have no fortitude or back bone for the war on terror. War is hell and we must persevere. Can the rest of us, however, be as strong as the World War II generation and have the strength to see this through no matter what the cost?"

It's difficult for me to see how you can make this assertion. I spent 22 years in uniform, a commissioned officer in the U.S. Navy, and I'm a baby boomer. I believe I have more than a passing acquaintance with the subject, but I don't claim to be an authority. Certainly not one who cares to make sweeping generalizations about an entire generation. What is the basis for your authority in making such a disparaging assertion? I don't find your opinion credible.

What is "seeing this through?" What is the end state you envision here? What is the "cost" you're prepared to pay to achieve that end state? Feel free to offer a range in lives, dollars and civil liberties you're prepared to surrender to this "war on terrorism."

The fact is, in our world, with the technology at our disposal, it will always be possible for a small number of people to kill a large number of people at any given time. There is no way to prevent that, short of returning to a much less technologically sophisticated, less technologically-dependent, form of civilization. I don't welcome that alternative.

What we can do is treat terrorist acts as we do other natural disasters like earthquakes, hurricanes, floods and disease epidemics. We can build better response mechanisms, and we can build a more robust infrastructure to minimize the loss of life and damage from a given event. We can work to reduce the political and cultural conditions that promote the emergence of terrorist movements. (Presumably, this was one of the principle goals of the invasion of Iraq. We would do well to try not to over-reach in this regard in the future.) Note: That's not the same thing as killing terrorists. And from time to time, as we have the opportunity, we will kill terrorists.

But, in my opinion, this is a "war" that will never be "over," much less "won." We can win this war right now, by discarding old, out-moded beliefs and ways of thinking, and recognizing that we will never have perfect security. We will never have a risk-free existence. This is much more a question of whether or not a free society can tolerate risk than a question of whether or not we have the "backbone" to "persevere" in a war that will never be "won."

Thank you, Dave. Your reply is superb, and your last three paragraphs should be required reading. They state what the real debate ought to be about, IMO.

[last night, edited]

"Most of the baby boomers and those supporting their mind set have already shown they have no fortitude or back bone for the war on terror. War is hell and we must persevere. Can the rest of us, however, be as strong as the World War II generation and have the strength to see this through no matter what the cost?"

Most of what you have said, Mr. Colton (and Mr Bennett, and Dave R as well [oooops, spoke too soon]) is very precisely so. This is still so going on today, as it's misconcocted as a good idea to leave the Teacher OUTSIDE the circle of students, and let the [IGNORANT] students LEAD THE WAY in these things. (Apologize I forget all the bazillion variations of this same theme, I've seen on different blogs and newspapers.)

[It's obvious to me, but probably not to most, that this is not even a conception... This is a concoction invented by those who don't like Teachers.]

However, the babyboomers were also the generation that withstood the knowledge that all human life on Earth could become ashes, in a flash incident. And, besides, it would appear somewhat over-obvious, to me, that we will pay the cost whether we persevere or not, right?

We have paid some no-small cost already.. many nations have paid these costs for some time.. I would observe.

I noticed Ms. Halley Suitt persevering, in her own way, just this afternoon... I call that getting un-plugged from the Self-Matrix for some intervals... ..Deal.. in different ways for a few cycles...

[today]

Al Qaeda does not possess the capacity to "destroy us." For someone to argue that the Vietnam experience has distorted our capacity to endure casualties in conflict, and in practically the same breath utter that a group of religious fanatics hiding in caves has the capacity to "destroy us," makes me wonder who has the more distorted perception?

No, but posts like yours and some of the others on this thread can destroy us, and have, Dave.

The distorted perception would be of those who have said, all along, that there is no unequivocal link between Iraq and al Queda. This would be said by those who missed, or mis-perceived, the NYT? article that said al Zarqiwi was in Bhagdad on 09/09/01.

Yes, I'm sure you and Dr. Weinberger missed this article, or if you saw it are convinced that al Zarqiwi was just sight-seeing... There's no record of the conversations he had there, with whom we probably won't ever know.

So there is as much of a link between Iraq and al Queda as there was between O.J. and Nicole Simpson. Not an unequivocal link, of course, because none (or rather no perfect link) is possible. Some a you lamers wouldn't see the link if you saw the camcorded events played back to you. You haven't started seeing these links from the murder of Nick Berg, yet, "apparently".

...Again, those who've been saying all along, and continue to say, that there's no links in these chains (and there's no chains to begin with, right?)...

Well, they identify themselves as the idealogues, to those with eyes to smell out these various flavors of lies.

You did catch the news in the reputable media, right, that the anonymous CIA analysis indicates it was al Zarqawi himself who butchered Nick Berg with his own hands??

I will say one thing about this al Zarqawi (which I've mis-spelt previously.. bad with names...)-;

..He doesn't just "talk the talk" like some-a you fucktards... Don't much cotton to his walk, but at least he's not as lame as most-a you armchair military commanders and "thought-leaders"...

Yes, I actually believe that in part.

Al Qaeda is better at manipulating our media than it is at fighting its war. -- Yes, except that I don't think it's fighting a "war" (in the political sense) at all.

Our problem is not only that Al Queda is NOT fighting a conventional war (and therefore Dr. Rice's Cold War mentality is way behind the curve), but also that it's not even conducting a conventional terrorist campaign. Political terrorism aims to achieve some rational political end (e.g., UK out of Ireland). Al Queda is like an insane cult: their end seems to be to ignite and expand a civilization-ending conflict.

Al Queda has proven brilliant at manipulating the media to deepen this conflict. 9-11 was, as people kept saying at the time, a made-for-TV event. Isn't it strange fact that, unlike run-of-the-mill political terrorists who want to exchange hostages for prisoners, these guys just wanted to provoke a superpower without any real demands? Likewise, I doubt Berg's killers gave a rat's ass about the prisoners in Abu Ghraib -- they simply used it as an expedient way to further inflame US-Iraq tensions.

Dave Rogers writes: This is much more a question of whether or not a free society can tolerate risk than a question of whether or not we have the "backbone" to "persevere" in a war that will never be "won."

I agree. In that sense, Al Queda is more like a societal virus -- more dangerous but not different in kind than the domestic variety (Timothy McVeigh, Shoko Asahara) -- than a political entity that has rational interests (Sinn Fein, PLO) albeit evil tactics.

Excuse me please, but when you say "Al Queda is like an insane cult: their end seems to be to ignite and expand a civilization-ending conflict."

Well, you just fucknozzled your whole point(s) by the words "seems" and "I doubt", no?

Btw, Shoko Asahara.. was he the cult-leader in Japan that started a lot of this with the cyanide attack...?? He was (finally) just recently sentenced to death, incoherent tho he was, and he STILL HAS A FEW HUNDRED FOLLOWERS... Iow, you can find a group to support ANY AMOUNT OF LUNACY, the Net has grown us so interconnected.

Also btw, there was another "Timothy McVeigh" caught down in Texas, iirc, just recently. Caught by luck, btw, and they found he had his "Church of the Kustomer" filled to the brim, from what I recall...

Also excuse me please, but al Queda fully intends to take civilization down to a level that only they remain. Won't be muchuva civilization, according to most people's definition, but then...

Do any of you recall the first couple weeks after 9-11, specifically the reason WHY bin and the Mullah Omar attacked the WTC and the Pentagon??

It was widely quoted in the press, far and wide, but few seem to recall.

Dave Rogers wants to abandon the war on terror and concentrate on defensive and reactive measures exclusively, more or less. Weiberger goes "hurrah!" and backslapping is had all around for this great piece of insight: "terrorism is just like earthquakes; we can't prevent them from happening, so we just harden our infrastructure and hope for the best."

I'll buy a beer for the first person who can identify the flaw in Dave's theory, and I'll give you a clue: motivation.

Uhhhh... ?

Fer as I can tell, you owe yourself a beer, Mr. Bennett...

Speaking of the alleged non-connection between Saddam and 9/11, the Czech Intelligence Services just won't shut up, the bastards.

The war on terror - and terror's war on the West - is certainly inconvenient, but there are lots of things that won't go away just because we close our eyes and go "I can't see you!"

These are life and death subjects, of course. But couldn't help but laugh at the imagery of some people (intellectually) holding up one of their fingers in front of their face and hiding behind it...;-D

But... Hm. I hadn't heard of a purported connection between Terry Nichols and Yousef (or any Iraqi) before now. Wouldn't surprise me much.

The Czech connection was mentioned in the article I refered to, among other things. Didn't save link, afaik.

I didn't mean to imply the Czech's HAD ANY INVOLVEMENT in this, just that it's where some of these terrorists DID connect. As the Czech's found out... Is what I meant.

Richard, how should the obvious fact that terrorists have motives and earthquakes don't change what Dave Rogers says in his comment?

It's easier to predict earthquakes...

Uhhh... I'm obviously not Richard Bennett, nor is any of this gonna change what Dave Rogers has already written in the past...;-)

May not change anything Dave R. writes in future either, of course...;-D

Richard Bennett reads my words through the narrow prism of his own ideological beliefs.

Addressing the threat posed by terrorist movements will require more than just military responses. I certainly do not oppose military responses where they are appropriate. I supported the war in Afghanistan when many others argued against it.

I've been to Saudi Arabia, Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Morocco and Bahrain. I've had something a professional interest in the region for two decades. I've operated with Omani, Saudi, Moroccan and UAE forces.

When we view the challenge posed by terrorist movements as a "war," we immediately deprecate the full range of national and international resources we can bring to bear to confront this problem. Addressing the economic, political and cultural conditions that are conducive to the rise of terrorist movements requires more than just a military response. A terrorist, unlike the rational actors of the former Soviet Union, cannot be deterred by conventional military force, or even unconventional forces.

Part of the challenge we face in dealing with the economic, political and cultural conditions that are conducive to the rise of terrorist movements is our economic and technological dependence on oil from the region, a dependence that will be unrelieved by no amount of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Any comprehensive effort to address the broader economic, political and cultural issues must include a technological initiative to reduce America's, and the West's dependence on Middle East oil. The half-hearted effort put forward by this administration was not even proffered in the context of being a key element in a broader strategy at "winning" the "war on terrorism."

American consumer culture, imperfect though it may be, is spreading successfully through globalization. So successfully, perhaps, that the rise of fundamentalist movements is, in part, a response to the West's, and America's in particular, perceived cultural imperialism. Rather than abandon that effort, I submit we need to re-tune it, so that it can be exported in a fashion that is less immediately threatening to the cultures it is inexorably changing. We need to refine our product, refine our marketing, in order to continue to achieve the success we've experienced thus far, without raising the fears of traditional, conservative cultural elements in these developing countries, especially those with large Muslim populations. We have heard precisely nothing from this administration, and in the interest of being "fair and balanced," from challenger Kerry, on how this might be made a national priority.

Hardening our infrastructure has more than the immediate practical value of mitigating the effects of a terrorist act or other natural disaster. We've recently seen how the complexity, and marginal "depth" of our power grid in the Northeast can too easily fail us. There are other areas of critical infrastructure that are equally in need of re-capitalization and re-engineering to provide the reliability and fault-tolerance necessary in a complex technological economy. This administration has not made a case for such an effort and it ought to be a national priority.

Mr. Bennet enjoys this debate for the pleasure of scoring cheap rhetorical points and promoting needless confrontation for his own titillation and that of others who are more interested in sensation than in seeking answers. In my opinion, he is not to be taken seriously as a participant in any sort of earnest debate on how we might best confront the issues facing our nation and our civilization.

As for Mr. JayT, as a 22 year veteran of the armed forces of the United States, I submit to you I've walked the walk, and I'll exercise my right to talk the talk. Calling me names does not offend me, it only further discredits you and your pathetically weak argumentation. You would do well sir, to refrain from any further effort at the keyboard.

Crap. That should have been "...unrelieved by any amount of drilling..."

You proof, and you proof, and you proof, and still you screw up. I guess that's why God made editors.

"When we view the challenge posed by terrorist movements as a "war," we immediately deprecate the full range of national and international resources we can bring to bear to confront this problem. Addressing the economic, political and cultural conditions that are conducive to the rise of terrorist movements requires more than just a military response."

I'm not aware of any arguments against this (other than resource limitations). But then...

"A terrorist, unlike the rational actors of the former Soviet Union, cannot be deterred by conventional military force, or even unconventional forces."

That's EXACTLY where you err, Dave. What do you suppose prompted the beheading??

There is little else I disagree with, other than this:

"American consumer culture, imperfect though it may be, is spreading successfully through globalization."

Depends how you define successfully, and 9-11 re-defined that, for me anyway... And there would be little to no "in part" in what followed, and "re-branding", in this case, will do little and probably do more harm than good. You need to understand that much, to understand the state of the world, currently.

(Btw, I don't know Richard Bennett enough to comment, so dunno about all that.)

However, Dave, where did I call you names? ("armchair military commanders".. all of us commenting are.. so...?) If so, sorry, but some of your comments are obviously based on your wanting to elect Kerry over Bush... So some are lame, because of that. Obviously, to me anyhoo.

Also btw, Mr. Kerry has almost certainly cost himself my vote, as I hear talk of him wanting Mr. Rumsfeld to resign and something about a possible "200-day plan" to get outta Iraq. Those memes don't fly, not with me anyway... We'll see what we see.

Also, Dave... You checked out John Robb's links to Hubbert (or someone close)?? Unfortunate reading, I'll say in advance. You know "Ghawar is dying", as "they" say.

Dave, don't pull that "argument from authority" crap with me. I lived in Libya when I was a little kid, and spoke Arabic and English interchangeably; I've lived and worked in India, Singapore, and Malaysia, and spent thirty years discussing the Mideast with a brother-in-law who's one of the leading Mideast scholars in America. How's your Arabic?

If your argument had any substance, you wouldn't be constantly shifting its ground and running off into all these tangents about ANWR and consumerism; these are nothing but red herrings.

The closest you get to a rational perspective is when you touch on cultural conditions in the Mideast, which is a big change from your "forces of nature" argument that I ridiculed. There are obviously too many targets to harden them all, and the news that we were going to give terrorists a free pass would simply embolden them. Unlike forces of nature, terrorists are reactive.

The terrorism that's sprung up in the Muslim world is a result of the collision of the dysfunctional Muslim culture with modernity, the aggravating influence of dysfunctional socialist economics, and the neglect of the region by Western powers who are clueless about the dynamics that drive the deepening spiral of hopelessness and depression that those people live with.

The problem is too large and too complicated to bend to any simplistic solution, so the war has to be fought on several fronts, one of which is military, as annoying as that may be to military lifers who want to collect their pensions without facing any more risk than the rest of us. As Madeline Albright said, "what's the use of having an army if you're afraid to use it?"

We have to put down the most aggressive by force, we have to bring governments that can be coerced to the table and make them act like civilized people as Libya has done, we need to restructure the Mideast economies, and we need to install forms of government that put religion where it belongs, at the fringe of civil society or beyond. President Bush and his neocon advisers are the first administration we've had in the US to recognize that the Cold War strategy of stability over human rights and democratic forms of government is ultimately a loser, and the folks on the left who've been advocating that position for thirty years with no respect would do well to stand up and take notice, and then get in line and help instead of playing partisan games with American lives.

The war on Arab terrorism is probably a thirty year assignment, and we've just started doing the serious things that we need to do to win after fifty years of jerking off.

Only some of us haven't got it.

JayT: Who, precisely, were you calling a "fucktard?"

As for you Mr. Bennett, you again resort to crass and needless provocation with comments like, "as annoying as that may be to military lifers who want to collect their pensions without facing any more risk than the rest of us." You reveal yourself to be a small man of poor character and no honor. Little more than a bully with a vocabulary.

I will have nothing further to do with you, sir; except to note that had you the balls to offer your cowardly and baseless insinuation in my presence, you would learn to your everlasting regret precisely the degree to which I am willing to embrace risk.

Frankly, Dave, you just proved my point.

Sheesh, Dave... Which time?

;-D Actually, I'm calling fucktards "fucktards". I posted elsewhere that's inappropriate language, but some aren't able to hear anything else. (And there's other reasons, besides.) Some just aren't getting what this event signifies... There is some new information, for some, which they can't incorporate easily.

Anybody who has been saying, ALL these years, that there's NO LINK between Iraq and terrorism, and there's NO WMD in Iraq. (That would include JUST about everybody on the planet, afaik, including David Kay.)

Richard, you err on one point (at least):

"The terrorism that's sprung up in the Muslim world is a result of the collision of the dysfunctional Muslim culture with modernity,

You found a culture that IS dealing with all this "modernity shit" all THAT effectively?? Blame it on Toffler and TBL, if ya wanna. I, personally, put a lotta the blame on RMS et al.

Btw, there's one "Rich" posting at John Robb's, from England apparently, that has some issues. It's not just a problem outside-a EU/America, iow.

"the aggravating influence of dysfunctional socialist economics, and the neglect of the region by Western powers who are clueless about the dynamics that drive the deepening spiral of hopelessness and depression that those people live with.

Plenty of that to go 'round, also.

What would you expect when you give people a TV with pictures of John Doerr riding a Segway, while they're killing off their work-horses just to get some food?

As far as "we need to"...

We just need to outlast the terrorists, is all. It's that simple of a "game". Hopefully it won't literally come down to "last 'man' standing wins".

Well, no, that won't work - they're making new terrorists over there at an ever-increasing rate, so the longer we sit and wait, the worse the problem becomes. We have to drag them kicking and screaming into the 19th century at least, or they'll never leave us the hell alone.

They're like a bunch of teenagers with a drug problem, and we're the parents who have to do an intervention, get them into religious de-tox, and then ride their asses to do their chores and their homework until they grow up. And we'll have to whup them a time or two in order to show that we're serious.

Richard Bennett:

"They're like a bunch of teenagers with a drug problem, and we're the parents who have to do an intervention, get them into religious de-tox, and then ride their asses to do their chores and their homework until they grow up. And we'll have to whup them a time or two in order to show that we're serious."

I don't speak Arabic, and I haven't been to Libya, but I grew up in a small town in Washington near the border of Idaho, in an area known for its, how shall we say, interesting and rather violent political views. I used to hear talk like this all the time from the folks back there. Of course, they never stopped with just the A-Rabs or the pinko commies--they felt Jews also needed to be 'whupped' a time or two, to show that the folks were serious.

Bennett, 'they' will never leave us alone. 'They' are a fact of our lives, and invasion of other countries (especially ones that haven't had the connection with 'they') isn't going to change anything. 'They' weren't in Iraq, but they are now, thanks to our intervention. And most of the people being 'whupped' now, have never had anything to do with terrorism in this country.

(You won't be able to rest safer at night no matter how many of 'they' are whupped; because aside from the remotest possibility, or you traveling in that region, you'll still be killed by a heart attack, or hit by a car, or choke to death on your own bile.)

Returning to topic, 'they' are not teenagers, but adults with a rich history and philosophy, and a few extremists who don't have a lot of value of life. But you know, the same can be said of 'we', too, if by 'we' you include Christians, the religion that has suppressed and killed more than all other religions combined.

Hopefully by the end of this year, we'll show the rest of the world that 'we' are not entirely made up of people like 'you'.

Returning to topic, 'they' are not teenagers, but adults with a rich history and philosophy, and a few extremists who don't have a lot of value of life.

Interesting remarks from the sort of aggressive female who would be stoned to death by the Taliban if she were to speak up thusly within their reach.

But you know, the same can be said of 'we', too, if by 'we' you include Christians, the religion that has suppressed and killed more than all other religions combined.

This is only arguably true if you don't count Marxism as a religion.

Perhaps we should start cutting off heads. Unfortunately, we cannot win this war because we agree to rules of war yet they continue to not follow them, the only way to win is to play their game. For more odd thoughts check out this site. http://www.jeremyzuther.com

Here's that link