Freelance Jihad & 4 Steps to Terror

[DogOnPorch]

E.g: when France's peacekeepers were attacked in Chad? the response was to destroy the country's entire airforce - by similar, though way more efficient air attack. Simple, efficient, affordable, and teaches the bully a good and timely lesson. Other strategies were also quoted, sorry have no time for reiterations.

The bottom line is, teaching a bully is much more a matter of demonstration, than domination. It may not be possible or feasible to "change" or "reeducate" a dictator; but tools exist to make them obey; at issue, as always, is using the right tools for the job, as well as, of course, the will, and timeliness, of applying them.

Sort of like Osirak? Not sure that taught Saddam anything except to hide things better.

-------------------------------------------

I hope that it will be broadcast live on television.

---Saddam Hussein

[myata]

So you are advocating wholesale bombings and air strikes as appropriate policy, despite the fact that such policies are part of the "grievances" echoed around the world about the USA and/or NATO? I have never understood why death and "war crimes" from the air are acceptable compared to a ground forces deployment and invasion.

Where did I say "wholesale"? Is that how you read "specific and targeted"?

And no, these won't have anywhere as high "grievance" effect as wholesale exports of democracy (aka imposing and supporting friendly regimes) because a) will mostly affect the forces / assets / lifestyles of the supposedly hated government; and in many cases will directly benefit the population by restraining dictators actions (e.g. establishing "safe" non military heavens for refugees), and providing assistance (humanitarian).

[bush_cheney2004]

Where did I say "wholesale"? Is that how you read "specific and targeted"?

You mean like Fat Man and Little Boy?

And no, these won't have anywhere as high "grievance" effect as wholesale exports of democracy (aka imposing and supporting friendly regimes) because a) will mostly affect the forces / assets / lifestyles of the supposedly hated government; and in many cases will directly benefit the population by restraining dictators actions (e.g. establishing "safe" non military heavens for refugees), and providing assistance (humanitarian).

Of course..please explain this to the Serbs!

[myata]

You mean like Fat Man and Little Boy?

No, I didn't mean and never mentioned those. It was a different situation (a massive war) that calls for a different discussion (though I have to mention that I argued that use of nuclear weapons in those circumstances wasn't justified - by anybody claiming any allegiance to morality. Indiscriminate mass killing of civilians is exactly what US's opponents in that war were famous for).

Of course..please explain this to the Serbs!

So what about Serbs? They didn't show much of a militant attitude following Kosovo incident. Maybe because the majority knew and understood that they (i.e their forces) were in the wrong. And nobody tried to set them up with a "democratic" government?

That was of course, before recognition of Kosovo. That's when a local rescue mission started to turn into long term continental planning. A la Brits in Africa. Divide and conquer. That's how we make real enemies - for generations. Compare with Turkish Cyprus. They've been pseudo independent for decades. Had a load of peacekeepers. Had numerous negotiations for peace. Any nobody's in any hurry to recognize their independence.

[bush_cheney2004]

No, I didn't mean and never mentioned those. It was a different situation (a massive war) that calls for a different discussion (though I have to mention that I argued that use of nuclear weapons in those circumstances wasn't justified - by anybody claiming any allegiance to morality. Indiscriminate mass killing of civilians is exactly what US's opponents in that war were famous for).

But you just said we could avoid a "massive war" with brilliant targeting and air strikes. So your theory goes, Fat Man and Little Boy could have spared many millions for the lives of mere thousands. Incendiary bombs are so...low tech! I find it curious that you would not only take advantage of certain aspects of American military technology, but also judge when/how they should use it.

So what about Serbs? They didn't show much of a militant attitude following Kosovo incident. Maybe because the majority knew and understood that they (i.e their forces) were in the wrong. And nobody tried to set them up with a "democratic" government?

Well, 79 days of bombing will have that kind of impact. And if it didn't, ground troops were going to be next. That would be a....gulp....INVASION!

[myata]

Obviously you're missing the point about the right tool for the job. What's good to contain a petty dictator like Saddam, or some african voodoo, may not be enough in an all out war with a matching opponent. Moral criteria still apply in choosing the tools, or we'd end up on the same plain with the opponent we're fighting.

[bush_cheney2004]

Obviously you're missing the point about the right tool for the job. What's good to contain a petty dictator like Saddam, or some african voodoo, may not be enough in an all out war with a matching opponent. Moral criteria still apply in choosing the tools, or we'd end up on the same plain with the opponent we're fighting.

Is that what this is all about....moral superiority? Such sentiment is much valued at the Vatican, but is not very practical for the dogs (or puppies) of war. In the cae of Iraq, containment "tools" proved to be ineffective in achieving stated goals. I have to admit that I have little patience for those who would decide what other nations should do with existing capabilities, all while having little or none of their own.

[myata]

Is that what this is all about....moral superiority? Such sentiment is much valued at the Vatican, but is not very practical for the dogs (or puppies) of war. In the cae of Iraq, containment "tools" proved to be ineffective in achieving stated goals.

How so? Saddam was sitting put and still up to the invasion. To me, that achieves the goal quite nicely.

I have to admit that I have little patience for those who would decide what other nations should do with existing capabilities, all while having little or none of their own.

If "doing" involves unprovoked military invasions, any frinedly nation should point out that it's wrong (and counter productive in the long run) use of "capabilities". Supprting the folly would only prolong the sufferint and multiply negative effect.

[bush_cheney2004]

How so? Saddam was sitting put and still up to the invasion. To me, that achieves the goal quite nicely.

Not really, Saddam's regime was under attack for many years, but in any event you are leaving out the part where attack and invasion made things that way (1991 Gulf War I).

If "doing" involves unprovoked military invasions, any frinedly nation should point out that it's wrong (and counter productive in the long run) use of "capabilities". Supprting the folly would only prolong the sufferint and multiply negative effect.

Of course...that's all they can do...in the long run.

What does "African voodoo" have to do with any of this?

Edited March 30, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

Not really, Saddam's regime was under attack for many years, but in any event you are leaving out the part where attack and invasion made things that way (1991 Gulf War I).

Can't recall any invasions (of allies into Iraq) in the first Gulf War. Enlighten me.

[bush_cheney2004]

Can't recall any invasions (of allies into Iraq) in the first Gulf War. Enlighten me.

You are joking, right? In addition to special forces ops in Iraq, mechanized infantry also "invaded". Few were concerned about "moral superiority" at the time (see Highway of Death aka Great Iraq Turkey Shoot):

...Forces from the United States, the United Kingdom, and France continued to pursue retreating Iraqi forces over the border and back into Iraq, moving to within 150 miles (240 km) of Baghdad before withdrawing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#Coal...rces_enter_Iraq

Edited March 30, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

A special force operation hardly merits term "invasion". Watch your terminology. If foreign troops were in Iraq during the hostilities, they were removed afterwards. Which only proves my point. The dictator was taught a lesson, and / but it's not our business to tell other people who they should be governed by, or what sort of society they want to live in. That's why Gulf War I wasn't a catalyst for any hostilities against West, and hardly mentioned even by Al Quaeda.

The second reincarnation of the war was a complete opposite: there was no compelling reason to go there in the first place (unless you want to believe in warmonger's fantasies, or simply looking for an excuse - a tactic, well familiar from the colonial past, isn't it?), and the objective was exactly to install a friendly government and export our model of life. That's why the result, now five years down, with over a 100,000 foreign troops (i.e 1 super armed foreign soldier per roughly 250 citizens including young, elderly, women and Iraq's own army and police force) is barely short of disastrous, not to mention possible "blowbacks" (whatever shape they may take) in the future.

Edited March 31, 2008 by myata

[jbg]

The second reincarnation of the war was a complete opposite: there was no compelling reason to go there in the first place (unless you want to believe in warmonger's fantasies, or simply looking for an excuse - a tactic, well familiar from the colonial past, isn't it?), and the objective was exactly to install a friendly government and export our model of life. That's why the result, now five years down, with over a 100,000 foreign troops (i.e 1 super armed foreign soldier per roughly 250 citizens including young, elderly, women and Iraq's own army and police force) is barely short of disastrous, not to mention possible "blowbacks" (whatever shape they may take) in the future.

Are you saying that the only penalty for violating a UN resolution is...another UN resolution? Remember, the sanctions were unpalable enough to the world that the scandal-ridden Oil-for-Food was created. Also remember how Saddam repeatedly foiled the weapons' inspectors. The concept that Iraq did not deserve to be invaded is historical revisionism at its worst.

[myata]

I remember, and trust the chief of the inspections commission, Mr Blix, who said not once that there was no need for the invasion. That settles the question, for me, and for all. The rest is Bush's clique schemes grandiouses.

[bush_cheney2004]

A special force operation hardly merits term "invasion". Watch your terminology. If foreign troops were in Iraq during the hostilities, they were removed afterwards. Which only proves my point. The dictator was taught a lesson, and / but it's not our business to tell other people who they should be governed by, or what sort of society they want to live in. That's why Gulf War I wasn't a catalyst for any hostilities against West, and hardly mentioned even by Al Quaeda.

Wrong on both counts....if the US and UK did to Canada what it did to Iraq before 2002, you wouldn't be quibbling about the definition of the word "invasion". Al Qaeda's advertised leader did list coalition forces in Saudi for GWI as one of many grievances (infidels on holy soil).

The second reincarnation of the war was a complete opposite: there was no compelling reason to go there in the first place (unless you want to believe in warmonger's fantasies, or simply looking for an excuse - a tactic, well familiar from the colonial past, isn't it?), and the objective was exactly to install a friendly government and export our model of life. That's why the result, now five years down, with over a 100,000 foreign troops (i.e 1 super armed foreign soldier per roughly 250 citizens including young, elderly, women and Iraq's own army and police force) is barely short of disastrous, not to mention possible "blowbacks" (whatever shape they may take) in the future.

More nonsense....we were already there....patrolling, attacking, and enforcing with military power, including ground forces for the Kurds. You don't get to pick and choose when other nations should use military force. Indeed, why is your own country in Afghanistan if not to do exactly the opposite of what you preach?

Edited April 1, 2008 by bush_cheney2004

[myata]

As many Americans, you seem to be having issues with separating your own individual opinion from that of "your country". The burden of patriotism, I understand. Painful realization of truth comes much later, and again (and necessarily!) in an act of collective revelation.

For the rest, no matter subtle technicalities, the difference between setting constraints on the ruling regime, and replacing it by force is quite obvious. That's the only point I'm making.

[bush_cheney2004]

As many Americans, you seem to be having issues with separating your own individual opinion from that of "your country". The burden of patriotism, I understand. Painful realization of truth comes much later, and again (and necessarily!) in an act of collective revelation.

Errr..yes...I am an American, if that's what you mean.

For the rest, no matter subtle technicalities, the difference between setting constraints on the ruling regime, and replacing it by force is quite obvious. That's the only point I'm making.

I'm sure that the Iraqis killed with force before March 2003 appreciate your distinction. Your analysis and opinion on the matter does not constitute a moral leash on a superpower and allies.

[myata]

Right, the first (and, pretty much, the last) argument of an uninvited perfector (see related thread in Moral issues) is that whatever's being done to the perfected, is done in their own interests. No matter their opinion (on being perfected); or cost thereof (direct and indirect, e.g the latest being Basra fighting). And because it's the perfector themselves who define what's good vs evil, whatever they do is bound to be that (i.e., good). By definition.

One cannot argue with that kind of logic. Only stand by and observe.

[bush_cheney2004]

...One cannot argue with that kind of logic. Only stand by and observe.

Agreed...and that is why I prefer an amoral perspective on such matters. Telling the USA or UK what is right or wrong is fine as opinions go, but completely unrealistic when one considers how these nations came to this juncture of power and purpose (self interest).

[myata]

Except that every such act begins with a lecture on morals, by the would be perfectors, of course. Shouldn't their bluff (or outrageous hypocrisy) be at least, called, in public?

[eyeball]

Agreed...and that is why I prefer an amoral perspective on such matters. Telling the USA or UK what is right or wrong is fine as opinions go, but completely unrealistic when one considers how these nations came to this juncture of power and purpose (self interest).

Did you shed a tear on 9/11, and if so, why? Between this quote and your signature it doesn't sound like you have a single shred of morality in your perspective. I'm just wondering how anything anyone does could ever faze an individual like you.

[myata]

Here's a fine (and the latest in the line of neverending) example of what really contributes to the emergence and resurgence of "Jihad" and "Terror": BBC: Elections in Egypt.

Egypt's regime is a key ally in the "war on terror" and enjoys massive military aid from US (wikipedia).

Compare to the case of Hamas in Palestine, and many others before (Iran; Algeria; ...) and the picture becomes crystal clear; no it's not the "democracy" we want to see and support there; it's the friendly regimes that extend our interests, even against the will of the majority of population. Not hard to predict future side effects of such "enlightment" and "assistance". Not sure if inborn predispostion to "Jihad" or "Terror" has anything to do with (actually and quite obviously, it doesn't).

Edited April 7, 2008 by myata

[AngusThermopyle]

Not sure if inborn predispostion to "Jihad" or "Terror" has anything to do with (actually and quite obviously, it doesn't).

I must have missed that because never once have I seen anyone here say any such thing. Would you be so kind as to show me where that was said?

I'd really appreciate it if you would.