Friday, October 7, 2011
Criminal, In Less Ways Than One
Al Qaeda didn't knock off a liquor store. They flew two huge commercial jet airliners into the World Trade Center, flew a third one into the Pentagon, and a Fourth one - God only knows where that one was going to strike. If EVER there was a justification for the use of military power, this was it......................................................................................................Now, was it done perfectly? No, of course not. The Bush administration took its eye off the ball (allowing Mr. bin Laden to escape, insufficiently dismantling al Qaeda early on, etc.), first by going into Iraq and then by morphing the mission in Afghanistan into a nation-building one. But, initially, IMO, it was absolutely the right thing, morally and tactically (from the behaviorist perspective, punishment must be immediate and decisive in order to extinguish the targeted behavior) to completely annihilate those al Qaeda terrorist compounds.............................................................................................As for those who think that we should have handed Mr. bin Laden to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (the OIC), need I remind them, Saudi Arabia, in addition to being one of the most corrupt and repressive regimes on the planet (Time Magazine once had the Saudi Royal Family ranked AHEAD of Saddam Hussein) AND the home to 19 of the hijackers, remains one the main bankrollers of Wahabism, the most radical form of Islam in the world. Add to that the fact that this same OIC had additionally amongst its brethren of dictators, Haffez al Assad, Muammar Gaddafi, Yasser Arafat, Saddam Hussein (no, not exactly a pal of Mr. bin Laden but, still, the "enemy of my enemy") and the Iranian mullahs - all of which were sworn enemies (or at least not exactly friends) of the U.S.A..............................................................................................I also evidently have to remind these people that it wasn't JUST Mr. bin Laden that we needed to take out over there. There was an entire network of thugs and miscreants that also needed to be bludgeoned. That, and this whole concept of handing over "evidence" to the Taliban would have been a complete and total nonstarter to pretty much every American save, of course, for Bernie Sanders, Noam Chomsky (a serial prevaricator, if ever there was one) , and Michael Moore.................................................................................................P.S. And who's to say that Mr. bin Laden would have even turned himself over to the Taliban in the first place. The way that I see it, if in fact he did, it would have been with a wink-wink and nod-nod at best.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
39 comments:
War was always an option. Now we will not know, we can only speculate, if there would have been other more successful options.
I don't call a 10+ year war a success.
As I've stated many times, Jerry, I would have the vast number of troops out of there well before the 2003 calender year. AND the mission would have ALWAYS been an anti-terror mission (Mr. Obama absolutely should have listened to his Vice President) and NEVER a nation-building one. If you're looking for some sort of full-throated endorsement of President Bush, you've definitely come to the wrong place.
I support the rule of law. I reject the notion that "might makes right". The United States' attack on Afghanistan was in violation of the UN charter and therefore most certainly not "criminal in LESS ways than one".
And you know what else was a "non-starter"? The "Will Hart plan". I NEVER heard talk of withdraw because the "mission was accomplished" until Barack Obama took office and decided we needed to ramp things up there. THEN the Right-wing came out to attack Obama and defend bush.
btw, "allowing" (you used the right word) bin Laden to escape was part of the plan... because if he had been captured or killed then the American people would have said NO to another invasion. They would have said the mission was accomplished and reject going to war with another country.
Will,
I am will aware that your preference would have been a quick in, kill, destroy, and get out operation in Afghanistan. I am questioning the timing on when we went in. War should be the last option, not one of the first ones. And, given what has happened there, it was a very bad decision.
wd, smart people can disagree on the legality or illegality of the Afghan War (you do consider Mr. Obama to be a smart man, correct?). My sole point here is that we needed to annihilate the terror network and we needed to do it as quickly and decisively as possible.......As to your accusation that Mr. Bush (who I've admitted made some very asinine decisions) purposefully allowed Mr. bin Laden to escape, I will happily allow others to judge the sanity of THAT.......Jerry, I respectfully disagree. This, I believe, was one of those instances that totally called for an immediate and decisive military response (I'm sure that Mr. Gore would have initially done the same thing). Giving al Qaeda more time would have simply allowed them to dissipate into the civilian population and/or the mountainous region. If anything, Mr. Bush wasn't decisive enough.......Oh, and as for the hard-right-wing making political hay over this, a) I don't speak for them and b) screw 'em.
"simply allowed them to dissipate into the civilian population and/or the mountainous region"
Which is what they did anyway. The validity of the decision is based on the results of the decision. What the did, did not work. I am basing my opinion on what happened, not what I wished happened.
...then by morphing the mission in Afghanistan into a nation-building one.
Yeah, nation building Afghanistan was one huge cluster and even if the budget was still balanced from the Clinton years I do not think we would have had the money to accomplish such a mission.
Simply put I am ready to leave Afghanistan as fast as the Air Force fly boys and girls and get us out but my mind goes back to a report on a small school for girls that opened a few years back.
All were around my daughter's age at the time and were running around playing and apparently safe and happy at that moment. It was a given that if the Taliban took over all that would quickly end.
Not exactly true, Jerry. We killed a boat-load of terrorists early one. Where Mr. Bush went wrong (and, yes, I totally agree here with hard-core DEMOCRATS like Paul Begala and James Carville) was when he a) wasn't vigorous enough at Tora Bora and b) inexplicably got us all bogged down in Iraq.............I basically agree, double b. I do think that we should probably leave a small contingent of special ops behind (which I believe is what Mr. Biden suggested) to take care of those some one hundred odd al Qaeda still left in Afghanistan.
Will: smart people can disagree on the legality or illegality of the Afghan War (you do consider Mr. Obama to be a smart man, correct?).
Some intelligent people can (and obviously do) disagree that it was illegal, but they are still wrong. The UN Charter forbids what bush did. How is there any room to disagree regarding what the UN Charter says?
Will: I'm sure that Mr. Gore would have initially done the same thing.
I'm sure he would not have. He would have followed through with Richard Clark's imaginary (according to John Myste) plan to "take the fight to al Qaeda"... and the 9/11 attacks would have been thwarted.
Beach Bum said: "and even if the budget was still balanced from the Clinton years "
The "if" is one big "if". It's alternate reality. Clinton never balanced the budget. According to the Treasury Department, he ran 8 years of constant deficits.
dmarks: According to the Treasury Department, he ran 8 years of constant deficits.
This is a patently false statement. Clinton balanced the budget. The national debt continued to rise because we had to continue borrowing to pay the interest on the debt Ronald Reagan ran up... but Clinton's final budgets? They were balanced.
If not for bush's giveaway to the wealthiest Americans... the national debt could have begun to be paid down as well.
Republicans are totally and 100 percent completely to blame for the current condition of our national debt. Frankly I think they've got some nerve trying to pin the problem on Obama when they refuse to raise taxes.
WD said: "This is a patently false statement. Clinton balanced the budget."
Check the national debt figures. It increased every single one of Clinton's years.
"The national debt continued to rise because we had to continue borrowing to pay the interest on the debt Ronald Reagan ran up."
At least you admit he didn't balance the budget. The "paying the interest" on the debt Reagan, Clinton, and others ran up is part of the budget.
"If not for bush's giveaway to the wealthiest Americans."
The only giveaway was TARP. And guess what, Obama voted for that.
"Republicans are totally and 100 percent completely to blame for the current condition of our national debt."
Fact check. The national debt is $15 trillion. Clinton added $1.6 trillion to it. Obama has added almost $5 trillion.
Looking at the actual Presidents responsible, it's about 60% the fault of Republican presidents. Not 100%
"Frankly I think they've got some nerve trying to pin the problem on Obama when they refuse to raise taxes."
1) They have some nerve only if they blame Obama for more than the 33% he is responsible for.
2) Unnecessary greedy tax hikes will kick the economy in the throat and cause more recession and much less tax revenues. The government must cut the waste spending, and not get greedy and steal more from the people.
dmarks: Unnecessary greedy tax hikes will kick the economy in the throat and cause more recession.
[1] Baloney.
[2] Nobody's talking about "unnecessary" or "greedy" tax hikes. President Obama is proposing closing loopholes and allowing the bush tax cuts to expire. Neither proposal is "greedy" and are actually both very necessary.
One at a time. On Obama's watch, the national debt has gone up 50%. That's reality, not baloney.
And letting the Bush tax cuts on the middle class expire IS greedy. It would mean the ruling elites taking a lot more from the people. It would kick the economy in the teeth.
Obama just wants to raise taxes on the millionaires. But if it makes you happy Dmarks, I'd be more than happy to have my taxes raised back to pre Bush levels to help my Nation pay it's bills. Get out of debt and keep it's promises.
Why don't you want our Nation to keep it's promises Dmarks?
wd, that's the thing, Mr. Obama disagrees with you on just exactly what the UN resolution says. Are you saying that you're smarter than President Obama?......Also, you do realize, don't you, that "taking the fight to al Qaeda" would have necessitated significant violence on our part, a lot of it obviously being perpetrated on various other country's soil? You do realize that, right?......And what about the fact that the drone attacks in Northern Pakistan have nearly quadrupled under President Obama? That has to be against international law, too, no?
And you're assuming that Mr. Gore would have been able to prevent 9/11 - an unknowable, even for somebody as omniscient as you.......And are you really saying here that, had 9/11 happened under a Gore Presidency, he WOULDN'T have responded militarily? That he actually would have taken that idiotic offer from the Taliban? I personally cannot fathom it (a guy who voted for the first Gulf War).
Will,
The choice was not one OR the other. If turning over bin Ladin did not work, war was still an option. However, once you go to war, all other options are off the table.
War wasn't an option at this point. It had already been started on 9/11. There already was war.
And there is the fallacy of your argument, dmarks.
How is that a fallacy? The government of Afghanistan started the war, not George W. Bush.
dmarks: The government of Afghanistan started the war, not George W. Bush.
dmarks, you're confused. Afghanistan was run by the Taliban. The Taliban were the government, not al Qaeda. bin Laden was the head of al Qaeda, he had no position in the Afghan government.
Will: Mr. Obama disagrees with you on just exactly what the UN resolution says.
I don't know what UN resolution you are referring to. My argument has been that bush violated the UN Charter. Does Obama disagree with me about what the UN Charter says? Has he said he agrees with bush that the US didn't "need permission" to defend itself?
I'm not sure, but it's certainly possible. If so, this is a position he's taken for political reasons. He may very well be takeing a different position if he were still a senator. I'm not saying that I'm smarter than President Obama... I'm pointing out what the UN Charter says.
Will: ...had 9/11 happened under a Gore Presidency, he WOULDN'T have responded militarily?
There probably would have been military strikes *if* 9/11 had occurred (which I do not think it would have), but Gore wouldn't have gone to war with Afghanistan. btw, the Clinton administration was negotiating with the Taliban in regards to bin Laden, so (while I don't know what exactly Gore would have done ultimately), I think he would have considered it.
And it wasn't "idiotic". The Taliban wanted the US to stop bombing them. They didn't want to be invaded. They couldn't stand up to our military and they knew it. I think the offer was serious.
I take it that Will is one of those who believes bush did not violate the UN Charter? If so, I'd like to know his reasoning. Please explain it to me.
I've asked dmarks to explain it, but he refuses. He thinks we should accept his circular logic defense, which is that bush is innocent because he hasn't been prosecuted... and how do we know he's innocent? Because he hasn't been prosecuted.
The question of HOW he didn't violate the UN Charter is NEVER answered. Although this is the kind of reasoning you'd expect from a crank.
WD: I did not refuse. I pointed out the fact that there is no evidence of this, and the UN (the authority on this) has not held that Bush is in violation. They ar the adults in the room.
You are playing Model UN here and mistaking it for the real thing.
And yes, Bush is innocent because he has not been proven guilty. That's the way it works. More importantly, the ICC has rejected calls from cranks for war crimes trials. So, it is not a matter of him merely having not been prosecuted. It is a matter of the actual authority, the ICC, not even seeing enough evidence to waste its time for a trial.
Nothing circular here: the claims of Bush being a war criminal are imaginary and rejected by those in the know. By the adults in the room.
"The question of HOW he didn't violate the UN Charter is NEVER answered."
There's simply no evidence that he did violate it.
-------------
"dmarks, you're confused."
No, I am not. The Taliban and Al Qaeda were united at that time. In lockstep.
dmarks: There's simply no evidence that he did violate it.
The evidence of it is the ability to read and comprehend the following...
Article 33 of the UN Charter says, "The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice".
bush rejected the Taliban's offer to turn over bin Laden. He issued an ultimatum and refused to negotiate. This was in clear violation of Article 33.
Article 39 of the UN Charter says, "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
bush acted in violation of Article 39 when he said the US didn't "need permission" to defend itself. The UN never decided "what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42" because bush refused to negotiate and launched an attack. The UN charter clearly says unauthorized action is not permitted. The UN did not authorize the invasion of Afghanistan.
If dmarks did read these articles of the UN Charter he clearly did not comprehend them... but I doubt he read them. This is why he refuses to address the question of HOW bush did not violate the charter. He hasn't read it and has no interest in doing so. He believes (religiously so) that bush is innocent and rejects (without consideration) any evidence that proves otherwise.
Because he's a crank.
dmarks: The Taliban and Al Qaeda were united at that time. In lockstep.
They gave him refuge in their country, that is all. There was no al Qaeda/Taliban plan to attack the US. 9/11 wasn't a joint venture between al Qaeda and the Taliban. Even bush never suggested this. He said the attack on Afghanistan was justified because the Taliban was harboring him. If you're convinced that they did more... then what is your proof?
WD said: "This is why he refuses to address the question of HOW bush did not violate the charter."
There is simply no evidence that he violated anything. Amateur misreadings of UN charter segments are not evidence of any kind.
WD said: "btw, "allowing" (you used the right word) bin Laden to escape was part of the plan..."
There's no evidence of this.
Sorry, things that happen to due military bungling or lack of planning are not evidence of a diabolical plan.
Jerry, what dmarks said but, instead of saying that the Taliban started the war, I would have said that al Qaeda started the war. They flew MULTIPLE manned missiles into 2 of our major cities, killing thousands. You don't negotiate after somebody smacks you like that. You negotiate from a position of strength. Destroy al Qaeda and get the hell out. My position remains.
But Will, don't you understand? Your position is not reality. It doesn't matter what you would have done. It only matters what was done. We did not get in, destroy, and get out.
And, again, I repeat, IT WASN'T JUST BIN LADEN. There was an entire terror network that needed to be annihilated.......And I'd appreciate it, wd, if you'd stop throwing George Bush in my face. I have stated numerous times that I disagree with 90% of how the Bush administration handled 9/11 (which is about 50% more than the Democrats in congress disagreed with him). It sounds to me like your fight is much more with people like David Korn who've constantly criticized Mr. Bush for "not getting the job done in Afghanistan."
Also, wd, what does the U.N, charter have to say about those drone strikes in Pakistan? Why don't you answer MY question?
I understand reality, Jerry. Bush effed up. That doesn't mean that the annihilation of al Qaeda shouldn't have ever occurred. It just means that Bush effed up (according, though, to people like David Korn, Paul Begala, and James Carville, , the effing up was Bush NOT BEING AGGRESSIVE ENOUGH - your argument is significantly more with those guys).
The "annihilation of al Qaeda" is a police action (with possible military assistance like aerial surveillance and strategic drone strikes) , not a war action of one nation against another.
War takes down governments, not terrorist organizations.
You can call it whatever you want, Jerry. Just as long as the organization which demonically perpetrated the deaths of THOUSANDS of innocent civilians gets annihilated, we can frigging call it recess if you'd like.
So the ends justifies the means?
Would be be OK if we just nuked the place and made it unlivable for everyone for a 1000 years? That certainly would have taken out al Qaeda. Hell, if we were lucky, we probably could have taken out Pakistan at the same time.
I'm suggesting no such thing, Jerry (and that is a very cheap shot - nuke 'em, come on). My plan would have been to go in with overwhelming force and a) destroy the terrorist training compounds, b) kill or capture as many of al Qaeda as possible, and c) leave but a bare bones contingent behind to do anti-terrorism (as Vice President Biden advocated and President Obama ignored). No nation-building. No propping up of Karzai. No invasion of Iraq. As I've stated many before, your problem is significantly more with guys like David Corn, Paul Begala, and James Carville who've consistently said that Mr. Bush wasn't aggressive enough in Afghanistan (not to mention Mr. Obama, whose escalated the conflict there).
First of all, your plan is vastly superior to what has actually happened.
Yes, it was a cheap shot, but I couldn't resist. Your comment to just call it whatever you like as long as it gets the job done begs the "ends justifies the means" comment. Maybe "nuke um" was a bit over the top.
The naming thing makes me think of the Patriot Act, and Homeland Security, and some of the names used for various war offensives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Post a Comment