Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Libya, no freakin way. These guys didn't even settle for Lockerbie until this year.

Way. It didn't happen overnight, and it was a long time coming.

Arafat, a lot of Americans have been killed in Israel over the years. American victims of terrorism are down in Israel (I think) since 9/11.
Further, I could care less if renouncing Arafat makes anyone resent us more. There is no purpose in coddling those who tolerate terror, particularly in order to appease other non-democratic nations.

Maybe we're talking about different things when we talk about a war on terror. I don't care as much about terrorists who aren't focused on us. Hamas, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judea -- if they don't see us as the enemy, we shouldn't spend too much time worrying about them. It's taking our eye of the ball. We need to focus on Al Qaeda and the Islamists, and that means not only killing them, but using diplomacy and the other metaphorical weapons in our arsenal to deprive them of support.

Unclear? Unclear that they [Syria] tolerate and provide umbrella coverage for Hizbollah in Lebanon?

No, but Hezbollah is not exactly our biggest enemy.

Syria: Simply not true. See above regarding Hizbollah. Saying they have nothing to do with Islamists is about as true as saying the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11/

Syria is a secular state which has gone after the Islamists within its own borders, hard. As I said, they were helping us before the invasion of Iraq. They support terrorists fighting Israel, which is not good, but also not the same as supporting Al Qaeda against us.

And yes, failed states are a problem for us. The trick is, I think the only people saying Afghanistan is a failed state (haven for terrorists) are occasional leftist mouthpieces. See the LA Times article today for contrary evidence.

I read it. It describes a mixed bag. Things are getting better in some ways, but then there's this:

• Afghanistan has a long way to go. The writ of the central government of interim President Hamid Karzai runs only so far. Opium growing — banned by the Taliban — has resurged, sending vast quantities of heroin to Europe by way of Iran and Central Asia and making an estimated profit of $2.3 billion last year for the country's warlords. The Taliban, in loose alliance with a militia loyal to warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, has reestablished itself and is harassing the U.S. military and Western aid groups working in the south and east of the country.

If the central government doesn't have authority over the provinces, and the Taliban is still out there, we have a problem.

As for our allies, my best guess is that the same people who are with us in Iraq are the ones who provided immediate military support (special ops forces) in Afghanistan in 9/01 and 10/01. Namely, Australia and Britain. The question for me is not who will come in with the UN later. The question is who will go in the first place when justified, with or without the UN, the US NATO or any other outside support. The UN is simply irrelevant when it comes to this war.

Militarily, perhaps, although it would be nice to have (e.g.) Arab faces on the ground in Iraq, not because they shoot better, but politically. Also, intel is an important part of this war, and so we need cooperation from all over. There is a lot more to this than who has special ops forces. And don't forget Poland.

And I have no idea whether there is any basis to the suggestion that Gore or Kerry would have done the same thing post-9/11. THere is no indication in their political histories that either would show any military leadership.

Well, whatever. When you're in the Senate, that's the way it is. You could say the same of John McCain. And you could have said the same of George W. Bush four years ago.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Back to Greedy, you are entirely 100% correct about the Israeli tactics, and I think the even heavier recent use of armor in these cities is partly a reaction to what happened in Jenin 18 months ago or so (infantry lured into a trap where walls were exploded onth them). Those tactics would be pretty much perfect in a place like Fallujah, where you don't really want any exposed troops doing foot patrols.

Now and then I do learn something from folks under fire. It's a question of listening.

In case it wasn't clear, if there ever is a shift in tactics, it most certainly should be a shift as selected and executed by the military.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
W/R/T Fallujah and political interference, I simply find it inconceivable that there is any way Rummy gets a pass on this stuff. The buck stops there.

See, I'm not thinking that someone lower than Rummy made this decision. If so, then, yeah, it's his buck. I'm thinking it was someone either at his level, or higher.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Militarily, perhaps, although it would be nice to have (e.g.) Arab faces on the ground in Iraq, not because they shoot better, but politically. Also, intel is an important part of this war, and so we need cooperation from all over. There is a lot more to this than who has special ops forces.

This point deserves more emphasis. Our overall Arabic language skills are pretty mediocre, and the decision to fight in Iraq as well as the way the Iraqi occupation has been handled leads the Arabic countries to keep their distance. We need strong, fully committed Arab allies in the war on terror - winning it without them is far more difficult. Note that in Afghanistan, we had troops from Central Asia, Pakistan, the Caucasian states, and the Middle East (I don't believe any from the Magrheb).

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Apparently the Poe campaign thinks that bigotry is a value that the good people of Beaumont and the rest of Texas District 2 embrace.)

I've been to Beaumont. This is not an irrational evaluation by Poe's people. Not saying NTTAWWT.

[bilmore]

It strikes me that, when your editors don't even notice that the casual pic you're running three weeks pre-election might have some . . . issues . . . you might want to send the whole department some kind of wake-up memo.



(From http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...scw_photo0&e=5 )

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Note that a problem right now in Iraq is still the Rumsfeld doctrine, which keeps us emphasizing light forces. Light forces are wonderful in their place, and it has long been recognized that they have a place, but they are being overemphasized today and in the wrong place light forces are a disaster (cf. the charge of the light brigade). Fallujah is a classic heavy force location (and if you want to compare military learning, watch the Israeli approach fighting in old Arabic cities, where they use lots of armor).

Part of the political interferance issue is a refusal to learn from mistakes, because, hey, Bush can't have been wrong. So today we are not going to shift tactics.

I concur, sort of. The shift of emphasis was, in theory, a good idea if incomplete. It doesn't work in Iraq, obviously. However, I don't think having more conventionally trained forces would help that much. Our current forces are trained to confront an organized conventional army, not act as an occupying force, which is what is needed. Adding more of them doesn't help them much in accomplishing that (certainly not as much as many people who say "more boots on the ground" seem to think). But neither does sending fewer special forces. See: the British in Basra, who are having much more success. Basra is, admittedly, much less hostile than the areas the US is patroling, but the British also have decades of experience dealing with N. Ireland. Just another example of "fighting the last war" - one is more outdated than the other, but neither is current.

BR(insert "very special forces" joke about armored short buses here in lieu of link to the Onion)C

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
From Ron Suskind's article in today's NYT Magazine -- a must read, BTW:

Jesus Christ, is that a depressing article.

For the DEMs here, I'm sure that this article buttresses the feelings and anxieties already held about Bush.

For the GOPers, I'm curious.

* Do you believe the themes mentioned in the article to be accurate? If not, why?

* If you do, do you consider them unimportant? Of not, why?

* If you do, how do you hope to resolve the situation in the event of a Bush victory? Won't a victory simply tell the Bushies that they were right all along, and embolden them further on their domestic agenda?

If you favor the more moderate, fiscal-conservative wing of the GOP, how do you anticipate them "winning" the intraparty civil war that others are predicting? Accumulating evidence suggests that any appeals to the WH to listen to, or explain, inconvenient facts will be less than successful.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I concur, sort of. The shift of emphasis was, in theory, a good idea if incomplete. It doesn't work in Iraq, obviously. However, I don't think having more conventionally trained forces would help that much. Our current forces are trained to confront an organized conventional army, not act as an occupying force, which is what is needed. Adding more of them doesn't help them much in accomplishing that (certainly not as much as many people who say "more boots on the ground" seem to think). But neither does sending fewer special forces. See: the British in Basra, who are having much more success. Basra is, admittedly, much less hostile than the areas the US is patroling, but the British also have decades of experience dealing with N. Ireland. Just another example of "fighting the last war" - one is more outdated than the other, but neither is current.

BR(insert "very special forces" joke about armored short buses here in lieu of link to the Onion)C

Actually, I'd say our current forces are trained to confront either an organized conventional or an organized unconventional force, and your point is another reason for emphasizing an international approach. I think we are not fully trained for either occupying territory or confronting disorganized unconventional sources (as we see in Fallujah).

So, some help from (I know I'll get grief on this one) the French, Italians, or some less developed countries with more of this training would be useful. Ironically, this includes troops we have trained for this kind of work, using the limited numbers of troops we have trained as teachers.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Jesus Christ, is [Suskind] a depressing article.

For the DEMs here, I'm sure that this article buttresses the feelings and anxieties already held about Bush.

For the GOPers, I'm curious.

* Do you believe the themes mentioned in the article to be accurate? If not, why?

* If you do, do you consider them unimportant? Of not, why?

* If you do, how do you hope to resolve the situation in the event of a Bush victory? Won't a victory simply tell the Bushies that they were right all along, and embolden them further on their domestic agenda?

If you favor the more moderate, fiscal-conservative wing of the GOP, how do you anticipate them "winning" the intraparty civil war that others are predicting? Accumulating evidence suggests that any appeals to the WH to listen to, or explain, inconvenient facts will be less than successful.

From Geraghty:

Blogger Wizbang notes that John Kerry's latest attack on Bush, charging that the President has admitted he would "privatize" Social Security, is based on some shoddy New York Times reporting. (I can hear the jokes now — "is there any other kind?")

Suskind did not attend the event he got the quote from. Further, it was not televised, it was a private event and there were no transcripts available. Yet he reports the quote as fact.
Suskind does not explain how he got the controversial quote so accurate but does say about an earlier quote "According to notes provided to me, and according to several guests at the lunch who agreed to speak..."

So Suskind got "notes provided to him" and that was good enough to run such an important quote. I hope Bill Burkett was not the source. Is this what passes for reporting at the Times today?

The Kerry/Edwards/NYTimes campaign has decided they can't convince voters with ringing endorsements so they'll scare old people to death.

For their part, the Bush campaign is denying the quote and some even claimed Suskind made the quote up from whole cloth. In the end, it is of little use, the media is running wild with the story, facts be damned.

— Oh, and who is Ron Suskind that the New York Times is having write a 10 (web) page story on Bush just days before the election? He is the author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill.''"

What do you think the odds are that the NY Times would let John O'Neill write a piece on John Kerry next Sunday?

Update: Jim Kouri is working this story for Wizbang and he has been in contact with Fox News who has questioned the Kerry camp. So far, Kerry is saying "Hey, it was in the NY Times". (paraphrased of course)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Geraghty:

Blogger Wizbang notes that John Kerry's latest attack on Bush, charging that the President has admitted he would "privatize" Social Security, is based on some shoddy New York Times reporting. (I can hear the jokes now — "is there any other kind?")

Suskind did not attend the event he got the quote from. Further, it was not televised, it was a private event and there were no transcripts available. Yet he reports the quote as fact.
Suskind does not explain how he got the controversial quote so accurate but does say about an earlier quote "According to notes provided to me, and according to several guests at the lunch who agreed to speak..."

So Suskind got "notes provided to him" and that was good enough to run such an important quote. I hope Bill Burkett was not the source. Is this what passes for reporting at the Times today?

The Kerry/Edwards/NYTimes campaign has decided they can't convince voters with ringing endorsements so they'll scare old people to death.

For their part, the Bush campaign is denying the quote and some even claimed Suskind made the quote up from whole cloth. In the end, it is of little use, the media is running wild with the story, facts be damned.

— Oh, and who is Ron Suskind that the New York Times is having write a 10 (web) page story on Bush just days before the election? He is the author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill.''"

What do you think the odds are that the NY Times would let John O'Neill write a piece on John Kerry next Sunday?

Update: Jim Kouri is working this story for Wizbang and he has been in contact with Fox News who has questioned the Kerry camp. So far, Kerry is saying "Hey, it was in the NY Times". (paraphrased of course)

Well, OK, but I'm not really focusing on the SocSec quote. That's a specific policy issue about which, I am sure, there will be vigorous debate before anything is done. (And, frankly, Bush has been quote upfront about his plans for SocSec reform, so I don't understand why this quote is supposedly so revealing).

I'm thinking more about the broader question of how this Administration governs

Suskind makes the point, in a variety of ways, that Bush's inner circle is among the smallest and tightest in recent history, and that it is particularly resistant to any departures from its orthodoxy.

Given that many here have expressed significant misgivings about people populating the inner circle, how would you be encouraged by a Bush re-election? We would get the benefit of Bush scratching his balls every morning and deciding how to kill more terrorists (and some have exclaimed that this is the sole but necessary benefit of a second GWB admin), but what are the prospects for changing ANYTHING else about Bush II redux?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore


— Oh, and who is Ron Suskind that the New York Times is having write a 10 (web) page story on Bush just days before the election? He is the author of "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill.''"

What do you think the odds are that the NY Times would let John O'Neill write a piece on John Kerry next Sunday?

My understanding is that the Bai article, "Kerry's Undeclared War" (11 web pages) from last week's magazine section was a companion piece to the Suskind article. Certainly the GOP (and GOP leaning members of this board) used a lot of quotes from the article as ammunition against Kerry.

ETA:

To wit,

Bush Focuses on Anti-Terror Message

Oct 18, 11:02 AM (ET)

By DEB RIECHMANN

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush focused on the task of protecting the country, signing legislation Monday to fund the Department of Homeland Security and heralding his battle plan for fighting terrorists as better than rival Sen. John Kerry's.
...

The bill signing dovetailed with Bush's New Jersey terrorism speech in which campaign officials said he would again mock Kerry's comments on terrorism in a New York Times Magazine article Oct. 10.

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Actually, ... your point is another reason for emphasizing an international approach.

I'm not sure. I think the Brits are sort of unique in this. There aren't that many of our "allies" (or Atlantic allies, to translate Kerry-speak) who still have troops with significant experience in colonial occupation (which is, let's be frank, what we are talking about, though we may hope it is not as long term as that characterization would imply), though some have decent urban pacification experience from Bosnia, etc. This isn't some peace-keeping bullshit.

Now, if the Russians approve sending troops (as they have been freaking out the French by openly considering), that will be helpful. Until the US is considered responsible for their methods, at least. Turkey would also probably have some relevant experience, but their participation is politically impossible for the obvious reasons.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Jesus Christ, is that a depressing article.

For the DEMs here, I'm sure that this article buttresses the feelings and anxieties already held about Bush.

For the GOPers, I'm curious.

* Do you believe the themes mentioned in the article to be accurate? If not, why?

* If you do, do you consider them unimportant? Of not, why?

* If you do, how do you hope to resolve the situation in the event of a Bush victory? Won't a victory simply tell the Bushies that they were right all along, and embolden them further on their domestic agenda?

If you favor the more moderate, fiscal-conservative wing of the GOP, how do you anticipate them "winning" the intraparty civil war that others are predicting? Accumulating evidence suggests that any appeals to the WH to listen to, or explain, inconvenient facts will be less than successful.

1). I think the themes are probably accurate to a point - W is clearly decisive, brusque, faith-and-gut-driven, secretive - but I suspect that Suskind has spun them far beyond where they stop. I can see a more sympathetic author spinning those same themes in a very appealing way.

2). I consider the bases of W's personality important, of course. As to Suskind's interpretations of those bases, I have to put them into context of who Suskind is, what he's written in the past, who he's quoting (and who he's NOT quoting - he's got an awful lot of unattributed comments in there that we're just supposed to accept, and the information I'm hearing is that some of them, at least, are VERY questionable), and how he's spun what people did say. (Bartlett has come out and said that Suskind has taken, not an interview situation, but three or four months of conversations, and left out all of the moderating things Bartlett said that accompanied the stuff Suskind chose to quote that should have left a much less harsh impression.)

So, I consider Suskind's conclusions to be more than a bit suspect.

3). I see little evidence that the main fears suggested by Suskind would be a problem. I think he simply builds a caricature out of themes and traits that we all know about already. Bush ain't the most introspective, coalition-building guy in the world. Surprise.

[dtb]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Geraghty:

The Kerry/Edwards/NYTimes campaign has decided they can't convince voters with ringing endorsements so they'll scare old people to death.

Well, no. Not "to death"; they want their votes!

Ba-dum-bum.