War against Terror
The war is the War against Terror with Iraq being the current theatre. Let’s not confuse the battle in Iraq with the much broader War against Terror.
Most left wing commentators are confused on this issue, but I am buoyed to note that Tim Dunlop finally accepts pre-emptive strikes on foreign sovereign soil as a valid strategy, albeit his post is couched in anti-US terms.
Having had some experience in war and being an avid reader of history I am possibly more aware than Tim that war is not all black and white and above all no plan survives contact with the enemy.
Sure it would have been great to have captured and killed Bin Laden and Abu Massub al-Zarqawi, the current heavy in Iraq, but the head is not the only part of the body and daily killing of terrorists still serves the purpose and goes part way to meet the aim.
Hitler was never captured and killed but never-the-less his war machine was defeated and so it can be the case in this war.
One of Tim’s links under allowed to escape from Tora Bora does critisize US decisions and it certainly could be seen that they were mistakes. However, I have long held the view that if absent from the planning meetings and thus not aware of all of the considerations, then critics need to need to temper their criticisms with the rider. “It is my opinion only and I am not aware of all of the facts”.
Todays Australian has an article by Scott McConnell: Betrayal of the Right and in the dead wood edition there is a highlighted quote.
Bush’s international policies have been based on the hopelessly naive (and unconservative) belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated by the US armiesWho is it I wonder that is so hopelessly naive? That statement is so radical that I have never heard it put forward before. Scott McConnell must have something going for him as he is the editor of a main stream conservative publication but I feel the only reason he has been quoted is to give a Bush bashing piece a run for balance. Bush’s policies have been based on nothing of the sort. They are based on a threat analysis that points a long finger at the middle East as a recruiting source for sadists who respond to TV recruiting ads run on Al Jazeera. You know, those ads depicting decapitation. The area is the source of insane religious zealots that, in blind and illiterate fury, live to rid the world of infidels. A democratic Iraq will give all but the looney left a warm inner glow and a feeling of increased security but it is not the ultimate aim of the war. It is only a subsidiary aim towards control of the Islamic terrorist hordes. It is clearly not a case of We are doing this for you but we are doing this for the free world and when it comes to fruition, you will be, coincidently, better off Well, at least we now have the anti-war mob insisting that attacking Iraq was the way to go. With that fact established maybe we can get on with defeating the terrorists there and elsewhere. In the absence of any historical evidence of a perfectly run war, I can assure you the winner is the guy who makes less mistakes. Perfect is for armchair warriors and 20:20 hindsight.
Facebook
Twitter
Re pre-emptive strikes: My attitude is summed up by two mottos,
“Twice blessed is he whose cause is just,
but thrice blessed is he who gets his blow in fust”
and,
“Do unto others before the bastards get a chance to do it to you”.
You’re dead right Jim but it amazes me how many people don’t understand that fact.
To paraphase an old quote “war is a long series of calamities and disasters, culminating in victory”.
Look at WW1, WW2, Korea as 3 quick examples, massive stuff ups, huge disasters and we went the distance and won them.
So far there have been a few mistakes in the war on terror, but no disasters – what is all the whinging about?
I’ll believe the term ‘Democratic Iraq’ when it actually happens. I should live so long.
Yes Niall, we all believe that you should live that long. the elections are just over 3 months away.
Niall
Firstly, considering your attitudes toward the Castro-ite regime in Havana and the Bush administration, I doubt you have the slightest concept of what democracy is. Secondly, even if a Jeffersonian democracy emerged in Iraq tomorrow morning where everybody was farting through silk, you’d still be whining and bitching about the creation of the Iraqi democracy being borne out of a violation of International Snore as defined and administered by the unelected United Despotisms.
I notice that it you and your fellow travellers, who were making dire predictions about Afghanistan, have almost completely ignored the recent elections there. It may not be perfect but at least there is the concept of consent and enthusiastic universal participation.
Murph, elections in Afghanistan were partial at best and deadly to the participants in reality. Real elections result when everyone has the opportunity to express their opinion through the ballet box without fear of favour. You cannot convince me that just because an event was held, labelled ‘election’ that all is suddenly beer & skittles in Afghanistan. Reality doesn’t present in that fashion, I’m sorry to relate.
International Snore?? You mean violation of the United Nations Charter, Article VII, which the United States, Poland, the UK and Australia performed in spades. You may consider violating human rights and international conventions to be fine and dandy. You may even consider the ends justifying the means, but you cannot possibly, by any stretch of logic and rationale, consider the current situation in Iraq as anywhere near successful, under control or even likely to be so within the allowable timespan for this so-called free and democratic election process. 50% of a nation being able to vote supposedly free and democratically, while the other 50% being too afraid for their lives to do so, or even being in a position to be able to, is not democracy. It’s anarchy.
If….and it’s an impossible ‘if’ you’d agree, a so-called Jeffersonian democracy or any other form of democracy arose in Iraq tomorrow, I’d be only too grateful that obviously the killing was ended. It’ll never happen in the timespan allowed. That simple fact is pure reality and you know it as well as I do.
If you’re trying to equate the Castro regime in Cuba to the fact that you and I disagree on the most basic philosophical level, you’re grasping at straw(men)s. If you believe that I despise the Bush regime and all that it stands for, you are correct. If you can seperate your intellect from your emotion and you wish to continue this discussion, I’ll gladly oblige you, but please, steer clear of strawmen and ad hominem abuse would you?
Poor Niall, still bullshitting madly.
Read UNSCR 1441 and its precursors (referenced in 1441), Saddam failed to comply, the ceasefire was off. the war was legal. deal with it.
it might be interesting to see where you derive your “50% ready to vote, 50% too scared” figure too, so how about a cite?
Iraq is successful, in 3 months the Iraqis will elect their own rulers, Saddam is to be tried by Iraqis, Libya has given up its WMD programs, heaps of success stories.
Its funny how bitter leftists get, I guess it is a manifestation of what happened to Oskar Schindler after the war, he couldn’t go anywhere in Germany without being abused or attacked – the rest of the Germans had a polite fiction that nothing could be done to help the Jews, poor Oskar was living proof that it only took courage and resolution. no wonder they couldn’t stand him.
Is that why you rage so incoherently Niall, because the accepted fictions of your world view are collapsing around you?
elections in Afghanistan were partial at best and deadly to the participants in reality
Say what? Are you saying that people who voted are destined to die? Are you saying that because they voted for Karzai, Afghan citizens have signed their own death warrant?
Real elections result when everyone has the opportunity to express their opinion through the ballet box without fear of favour
Throw the baby out with the bathwater hey Niall; it’s not perfect, so we may as well give up and return to the Taliban.
So, in your weird universe, if a candidate in the Afghan electorate offers something like peace and security in return for electoral consent, they are corrupting the political process?
Furthermore, I doubt Afghans are into ballet.
As for Iraq – you are an utter hypocrite. Nothing that you have ever done has assisted the plight of Iraqi democracy. Not a single bloody thing. In fact, the constant defeatist preaching coming from your ideological sector does nothing but encourage terrorists who seek to destroy emerging democracy in that country.
Fucking loser.
Harry, I’ve probably read UNSCR’s 1441, 660, 678 and 687 more times than you’ve had hot feeds. There is a vagary with 1441 which was exercised by Bush to his advantage. Knowledgeable legal opinion is that 1441 requires the same UN sanctioning action that 660 and 678 did. Read them and you’ll see what I mean. Iraq is as far from a success story as it’s possible to get with any military action. However, as your kind will incessantly do, it’s possible to find silver linings in any dark storm, eh, Harry? Bitter? Not at all. Justified in my stand, more to the point. Rage incoherently, Harry? What, pray tell, does Oscar Schindler have to do with Bush’s so-called war on terror? Do try to be a little more coherent if you really expect me, or anyone else for that matter, to take you seriously.
Now Murph….or whomever you are.
Did I say that people who voted are destined to die? Did I say that Hamad Karzai was the only candidate? Did you even read what I wrote?
Strawman arguments appear to be your strong point, so let’s address them, shall we? Free and democratic elections in Afghanistan were a promise of the Bush administration. Free and democratic elections weren’t promised by the Taliban. That point aside, which I’ll leave you to mull over, free and democratic elections in a free and democratic system involve all eligible voters, not just those who either aren’t afraid to turn up at a voting booth for fear of their lives, or who can turn up because the US military just so happens to have a strong enough presence to enable them to do so.
Your fifth para makes absolutely no sense and relates to nothing I wrote or inferred. Perhaps you might like to clarify, if indeed you understand what it is you meant.
Your sixth para is demeaning to yourself in terms of any logical debate, but I dare say you never intended anything approaching logic in your reply.
As for your seventh…..how the hell would you know what I have or have not ‘done’ which has, or has not, assisted with the Iraq situation. I’ll tell you what I have done, and that’s speak out against an illegal invasion, a corrupt US administration and the ongoing restriction of civil liberties both in that country and out of it as a direct result of that administration. I also voted against John Howard in every manner possible, October 9. That Howard is back is of no never mind to me. I get plenty of really good blog fodder as a result and time will see the end of Howard anyway. Your protestations of offence make no sense, other than the fact that you appear unable to accurately and succinctly express yourself, other than to stoop to personal abuse. Hardly a valid debating tactic, and demeaning of you personally.
Your final expletive says it all, ‘Murph’. Always remember that when you point a finger at anyone, you will have three more pointing back at you. You have my time, you have my consideration, but my respect I’ll reserve for someone who can offer a proper defence of their positions.
Ok you got me…I’m actually George Bush. Go away you parasite.
“There is a vagary with 1441 which was exercised by Bush to his advantage. ”
or to put it in simple terms, Saddam never complied with the requirements of 1441 and voided the ceasefire agreement. The war NEVER ended, there was just a ceasefire.
I note, Niall that you chose not to give a cite for your figures.
“Iraq is as far from a success story as it’s possible to get with any military action.”
This just illustrates how clueless, bitter and blinkered you are – as a military action it has been a great example of how to do it. a few minor problems, but nothing that is a deal breaker.
“However, as your kind will incessantly do, it’s possible to find silver linings in any dark storm, eh, Harry”
26 million Iraqis freed, Saddam in jail, elections in 2 months, Libya handed over its WMD plans, Terrorists kicking own goals in Iraq rather than planning attacks in the west – plenty of silver lining, but SFA dark storm.
“Bitter? Not at all. Justified in my stand, more to the point. Rage incoherently, Harry? What, pray tell, does Oscar Schindler have to do with Bush’s so-called war on terror? ”
Bitter indeed, Oskar Schindler was living proof that if people acted then lives could be saved. Just like George Bush in Afghanistan and Iraq and sad, whining fools like yourself have spent their lives hiding behind the leftist “we can’t change it” idea.
We can change it, George Bush and his supporters did – and the spineless like yourself hate what that says about you.
Oh and Niall, nobody cares about your opinion. you are a sad joke of a racist, whose opinions are simply a matter for public ridicule.
All this talk about the UN misses one salient point – There doesn’t seem to be any UN plan to handle the terrorist situation. The only plan I’m aware of is US based. They have a plan, they’re implimenting it, it is certainly working better than any UN initiative and there is some promise.
UNSCR’s 1441, 660, 678 and 687 numbers, figures, bureacrats, clerks, words, meaningless. Sadam and the UN have made a mockery of all this.What’s actually happening on the ground is what matters
The terrorist situation in Fallujah is just a part of the war. The Terrorists are doing there level best to frighten and weaken the resolve of the US voters hoping they will vote in Kerry tomorrow.
If that fails then their campaign will pause while they gather strength for their final assault aimed at the Iraq elections due early next year. It’s all a part of the gameplan and to continually support the enemies plan by only accepting negative aspects of the war only lends wings to their aims.
Don’t like Bush? OK. Don’t like the US? OK But why support the terrorists.
I simply don’t understand it.
Harry, I note that you also have no ‘cite’ to your claims either. Sadly you, like most of your kind, choose not to debate issues, merely belittle the opinions of others who don’t conform to your ideology. Your opinion of me personally is of no consequence, as mine of you is likewise.
The issues remain. Iraq is a catastrophic failure, Bush has prostituted American beliefs and sacrificed his country on the alter of his fundamentalist philosophy simply to satisfy a personal vendetta.
If you think I’m bitter, you really should step outside your own opinion and read what you write with as much detachment as you can possibly muster. It’s full of vitriol, acid and attempted personal insult. If that’s not bitter I don’t know what is. What are you afraid of? That I may…..just may, be right?
By all means, support the fundamentalist side of global events. There’s a brick wall at the end of that narrow alleyway and you’ll never be able to scale it. Do enjoy belting your scone on it though. I know you will.
Iraq is only a catastophic failure in the eye of the Left. The rest of the world see a war with a lot of battles won too date.
Where does the ‘catastrophic’ definition fit the facts? Any battle lost is not necessarily catastophic as to fit that definition it would have to be of such a magnitude as to impact on the US’s ability to wage war.
Not there yet.
Now Murph….or whomever you are.
Jimmy Hoffer? Azaria Chamberlain? Ivan Milat? Charles de Gaule? Take your pick.
Did I say that people who voted are destined to die?
Let me see…
Yes.
Did I say that Hamad Karzai was the only candidate?
No. And I did not suggest that you did.
Did you even read what I wrote?
Yes. But strongly evidence suggests that neither did you.
Strawman arguments appear to be your strong point, so let’s address them, shall we?
Yes. Let’s just do that.
Free and democratic elections in Afghanistan were a promise of the Bush administration.
Yep.
Free and democratic elections weren’t promised by the Taliban.
Affiirmative.
That point aside, which I’ll leave you to mull over, free and democratic elections in a free and democratic system involve all eligible voters, not just those who either aren’t afraid to turn up at a voting booth for fear of their lives, or who can turn up because the US military just so happens to have a strong enough presence to enable them to do so.
As I said. Your attitude seems to be to throw the baby out with the bathwater; that we should bin the whole process because it’s not perfect. Democratic participation by some is infinitely better than democratic participation by none.
Claiming that the election is illegitimate because some third party threatens some participants is giving into the threats of that third party. This is why people like you are a terrorist’s wet dream. They can see that they can undermine the democratic process through threats of violence.
Your fifth para makes absolutely no sense and relates to nothing I wrote or inferred. Perhaps you might like to clarify, if indeed you understand what it is you meant.
Real elections result when everyone has the opportunity to express their opinion through the ballet box without fear of favour
Maybe because I was trying to decipher some unintelligible garbage about fearing favour at the ballet.
Your sixth para is demeaning to yourself in terms of any logical debate, but I dare say you never intended anything approaching logic in your reply.
Zzzzz
As for your seventh…..how the hell would you know what I have or have not ‘done’ which has, or has not, assisted with the Iraq situation.
I’ll tell you what you have done.
You give aid and comfort to the enemy:
1. By your constant hysterical and reflexive anti-Americanism.
2. By your obstructionism and oppositionism to every single American policy, for which you offer no viable alternative.
3. By your inability to expect the same values and conduct from the enemy as you do from the USA and Coalition.
4. By your deliberate, selective and deceitful misreading of such institutions as the Geneva conventions and the UN charters.
I’ll tell you what I have done, and that’s speak out against an illegal invasion
Which court of law has decided that? Just because you and Koffin Anus say it’s illegal doesn’t mean it is so.
a corrupt US administration
Evidence (not allegation)?
and the ongoing restriction of civil liberties both in that country and out of it as a direct result of that administration.
This is a war. That happens in war. There is plenty of historical precedent in regards to the treatment of non-citizens and illegal combatants.
I also voted against John Howard in every manner possible, October 9. That Howard is back is of no never mind to me. I get plenty of really good blog fodder as a result and time will see the end of Howard anyway.
So how many times did you vote, Niall? How would getting rid of Howard have made the lives of ordinary Iraqis any better? John Howard has been instrumental in the destruction of two fascist regimes and you want to see the back of him. What does that say about you Mussolini?
Your protestations of offence make no sense, other than the fact that you appear unable to accurately and succinctly express yourself, other than to stoop to personal abuse. Hardly a valid debating tactic, and demeaning of you personally.
See above. Get fucked.
Your final expletive says it all, ‘Murph’. Always remember that when you point a finger at anyone, you will have three more pointing back at you. You have my time, you have my consideration, but my respect I’ll reserve for someone who can offer a proper defence of their positions.
Yeah…and I’ll have…six..yeah…six…no seven…pointing back at you…so there!