Donald Rumsfeld said an interesting thing yesterday while under fire by the media for the situation in Iraq. When asked why the administration had not foreseen many of the things that have happened thus far in the war-torn country he answered: " Intelligence resources are finite, and we don't have the luxury of covering everything." Now this is particularly noteworthy in the wake of intelligence reports in the past few days which ackowledge that we currently have no idea where Bin Laden is, and the State Department's issued warning of a worldwide terror alert based on unspecifified reports that an attack is imminent somewhere...by someone. What is becoming more and more clear is that the overall picture on the terrorists is becoming less and less clear. So the finite resources formerly used for the war on terror are now being largley used for the war in Iraq, as experts have been saying for a while. But on the anniversary of 9-11 it is important to reflect on what that event did mean, and possibly even more tragically, what it could have meant. At the time the enemy was clear: terrorists who target civilians, and for the first time in memory, everyone was on board. That is the single most important thing to remember when examining what has happened since: Following the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, virtually the entire world was on one side, including the vast majority of the Middle East. A World View official on CNN today reflected that, at the time, the common phrase around the globe, including in the largely Islamic Middle East, was " The world has become American." Support for the US, and it's avowed War on Terror, was virtually universal. Anti-terror experts at the time said that this was the single most important development in the campaign on terror, as it struck at the very heart of what allows terrorists to flourish; popular support at various regions around the globe. That, in fact, is the entire point of terrorist attacks; to gain support for their cause with sympathizers while engendering fear in it's enemies. After 9-11 the former was barren ground, and at the time the fear had become global resolve to eliminate the threat. It was a unique opportunity. At the time a terrorist expert on the BBC sais domething of note. He said that the most crucial aspect needed if this war on terror was to succeed was patience on the part of global leadership, particlarly the US. He said that there would be no victories to show on television, no battles to brag about, only a gradual tightening of the net. As 9-11 had limited the possible safe harbours for terrorists, that net would be inexorible if, and only if, the leaders didn't lose sight of the objective, run out of patience, and go for political brownie points by striking at a 'hard target' which shows better on television. We had everyone on board, by and large, and that was what is essential to combat terror. Since that event, in a remarkably short time, the actions of the current administration have reversed that support, to the point where anti-US sentiment is at an all-time high, according to experts. The Middle East expert on CNN today said that the frightening trend evident in that region today is that even the former pro-US voices, and especially the moderates are now swinging more and more against us. After 9-11, support for the US in the Middle East was at an all time high, but soon those supporting us became confused, and eventually angered as the fingers of blame pointed in their direction, and the feeling was that they were being labelled as terrorists simply because of their religion, race, or geographic location. Then the Axis of Terror announcement made it evident that Bush was intending on using the popular support 9-11 garnered him for other objectives, and anger turned to fear and hatred. Since then Bush and co. have gone on to alienate most of the rest of the world. By bullying, ignoring, and threatening other nations, by engaging in an unsupported invasion with tenous at best connections to 9-11, by issuing misleading statements and trumpeting discredited intelligence, the White House has done what most experts would have beleived impossible a couple of years ago; turned an all-time high to an all-time low, in terms of glbal support for the US, and this has been done at a time when that support is most needed if the war on terror had any chance. People who think that the US is all that matters in the world will roll their eyes and dismiss this as a concern over whether or not the French like us, but it goes much deeper than this. Terrorism is not fought on conventional battlefields, but in back alleys and mountain caves. After 9-11 we had an opportunity to cut off the lifelines for those who support the mass murders of cilvilians by eliminating their hold over the hearts and minds of people around the world. We had a chance to be the forefront of a global movement, where terrorists became pariah, where those formerly supporters became wary, those formerly indifferent became opponents, and where terrorists would find their ability to generate support cut off at the source. Instead we used the political currency 9-11 afforded the administration to push through a war against a country having nothing to do with 9-11, while ignoring others which did. We called the UN irrelevent, the Germans traitors, and told everyone that opposed us that is was none of their business. They were with us or against us. And increasingly, they are the latter. Aside from all the other reasons why the war in Iraq was wrong, mishandled, or unwise, the anniversary of 9-11 allows us a glimpse at how far we have come from where we said we were going following that tragic event. We have thrown away the only benefit that horrendous day afforded us, just so we could show the world who's boss. And now that our resources are stretched too thin, our intelligence is too finite, and the costs are too high we are coming to grips with what we should have known before all of this began; when you tell others you're either with us or against us, you might find yourself pretty much alone, and when you need help alone is a tough place to be. But beyond that we need to look at the War on Terror and the War in Iraq, and see that they are incompatible, and have lkead us in opposite directions. The former needed, and briefly had, popular global support. The latter destroyed that support. For all those who try and sugar coat everything going wrong by suggesting that Iraq is to our advantage because it draws the enemy into the open, take a look at what is happening: this is their type of engagement, and they don't need to come into the open to strike at us, as we see every day. The people standing in the open are wearing US combat uniforms. If we had not gone down this road in Iraq...if we had not bullied, threatened, insulted and invaded...if we had kept the support of the world, and the focus on terror....how much better would we have been today than we are? It's a sad thought.
A word of warning MacBeth, you are about to get blasted by the righty clowns for being a partisan profiteer off of the legacy of 9-11 on an inappropriate day.
The fact that many outside the US expressed the sentiment that the US 'got what it deserved' belies your optimistic assessment of where we'd be had we not gone into Iraq.
Probably, but in that I am not partisan, and that my point is that this day itself affords us an opportunity to examine our priorities...and that I am calling for the war on terror, the enemy this day reminds of us of, to be the focus...well that blasting will be evidence of just that kind of action, IMO.
Courage is doing what is right in the face of criticism. The liberals continue to jump on board the critics' bandwagon, knowing that the benefits from this war will take time to manifest themselves. Over time, as the Middle East becomes a more stable region, owing to the new flagship democracy in the area, other countries' populaces will put pressure on their leaders to reform. This will lead to greater democracy, the end of tyrannical rule, and greater education. The net result of all of this will be a more stable world. Sadly, the opponents of this plan attempt to focus on the very short-term and highlight all that is negative. This is not some West Wing storyline that is to be resolved in 60 minutes. This is a major undertaking that will take time to develop and play out. Liberals, such as MacBeth, do not grasp this, and are already making grossly premature conclustions that the effort was flawed. This is tantamount to saying that the Texans lost the game last week against the Dolphins because they were losing at halftime. More shallow analysis from a desperate party.
Define 'many'. At least in terms that can effectively contradict the statemetns of experts, pollsters, and organizations who say the opposite. Yes there were some, and those were the ones the media focused on, as they were the news, but they were a vast minority at the time, according to everything I have read or seen.
That narrow and convenient definition of courage has many flaws, but allow me to point out this: What is 'right" is a matter of opinion...and doing what you think is right in the face of criticism is the hallmark of many tyrants in world history, such as Stalin, Hitler, ect. Of course, if you start your analysis with the assumption that what we did was right, your statement looks noble and makes us out to be heroes...but while I'm sure you'll ignore it, the fact that our actions might not have been right...in fact that most believe they were the oppisite...is sort of the point here. You can paint as many nicely coloured pictures as you want about an idylic Middle East based on our invasion...but that is no more relevent or factual than if I were to suggest that in 5 years the Middle East will be one big war zone. The fact is that almost everyone, even many who formerly supported the war, or such liberals as john McCain, are admitting that we are not handling this correctly. Keep looking at the world through rose , or rather Red White and Blue glasses, T_J, and you'll always be amazed that everyone doesn't see what you do. And, re my point about terror vs Iraq, your analogy would be more accurate if people were complaining that the Texans lost the game to the Dolphins...at half time if you will....because the Texans left the field shortly after the game started to go and beat up on a college team they could handle.
Courage comes in many forms, one of which is the ability and willingness to tell neo-con critics they are full of it when they attempt to use patriotism as a club to beat down their opposition.
Sure, like those that support violence in Islam are a minority. No need to have this same argument in two places. We can continue in the other thread if you wish. However, please don't start with your 'everyone that has ever written on the subject supports my view' crap. Feel free to provide a link before you ask for proof from someone else.
Uh...I quoted and cited a few experts who were on CNN less than an hour ago. There was a thread in here a few months back quoting the global (unbiased) pollster's information. I can cite you more, but unless i can re-play a broadcast which just occured, you are throwing out a red herring here. I quoted Rumsfeld too...that was on a live broadcast yesterday...
Exactly. You quoted 'a few experts.' That's hardly a cite. And your Rumsfeld quote has nothing to do with my contention that you are vastly overstating the 9/11 effect on anti-americanism. I guess we can do this here instead of the other thread since you're such a wonderful person. Let's test the hypothesis that there was widespread support for the War on Terror that was ruined by the intervention in Iraq. In one corner we have 'unnamed experts.' In the other we have a sampling of pre-Iraq sentiment: "International sympathy for the United States, which rose in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, has been replaced by an increasing resentment for the way America is prosecuting the war on terrorism, according to a new global survey conducted by the Pew Research Center based in Washington, D.C. But, one analyst insists the poll's results were driven by ignorance and show that most people around the world develop their view of America from the movies they watch. The Pew Global Attitudes Survey involved more than 38,000 people in 44 nations, most of whom were interviewed face-to-face in their homes between July and October. Using a U.S. State Department poll from 2000 as a benchmark, the Pew Center reported that the favorable rating for America has dropped in 19 of the 27 nations surveyed by the State Department two years ago. Some of America's partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (Germany and Turkey), as well a key ally in the war on terrorism (Pakistan) saw increases in anti-Americanism, the Pew Center found. "In the Muslim world, it's pretty bleak," Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, said. "[In] those nations with predominantly Muslim populations and countries that are key in the war on terrorism - Egypt, Pakistan, Turkey - the U.S. image is pretty bad." Egyptian hostility toward the U.S. wasn't measured by the State Department in 2000, but the Pew Center survey shows that six percent of Egyptians currently have a favorable view of the U.S. Ten percent of Pakistanis maintain a positive image of America and in five other nations, including Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Argentina and Bangladesh, a majority of people have an unfavorable opinion of the U.S., according to the Pew survey.David Thibault, CNSNews.com Friday, Dec. 6, 2002. Notice how our 9/11 dividend had dropped so drastically BEFORE intervention in Iraq? Attributed to what? The War on Terror?
Was anti-Americanism on the rise in the wake of 9/11, but BEFORE the intervention in Iraq? Anti-Americanism on the Rise? PONARS Policy Memo No. 266 Georgi Derluguian Northwestern University October 2002 According to many analysts, anti-Americanism in Russia is on the rise. This is not a unique phenomenon, as anti-Americanism clearly exists across the globe. Although this memo focuses on Russia, many states have witnessed a surge in anti-Americanism, even in the wake of September 11. Much of the worldwide reaction to the September 11 attacks emphasized the sympathy felt toward the human tragedy in the United States. At the same time, however, the undercurrent of unsympathetic opinions from the Palestinian refugee camps, Argentina, Japan, France, and Russia was significantly under-expressed in public statements, underreported by the media, or simply dismissed by authoritative commentators worldwide. There are relatively few expressions of anti-American sentiment on record, in the wake of the terrorist attacks; namely, the controversy in Italy provoked by Orianna Fallaci’s essays, and opinion polls in Finland that found a surprisingly high proportion of respondents (nearly a quarter, which, incidentally, closely resembles Palestinian poll reports) who said that although they did not approve of the killings, they could see why the United States was the target of such attacks. Furthermore, there is anecdotal evidence of growing anti-Americanism in countries like Hungary, the former German Democratic Republic, Poland, and Lithuania, where the relative success of post-Communist transitions makes this surprising. http://www.csis.org/ruseura/ponars/policymemos/pm_0266.pdf
Trader, That was well said. Courage is doing the right thing. Taking out Saddam was the right thing, and contrary to the naysayers, it is going remarkably well in Iraq. Most Iraqis are enjoying freedom, and the streets are more and more stable every day. Sure there are terrorist attacks, and those will happen from time to time, but will diminish as the quality of life improves for ALL Iraqis. The people that should be worried are the theocracies in Iran and Syria........ DD
I'll respond to the rest of your post in a second, but what the hell is this supposed to mean? Now...I can go back and get numbers from the pollsters ( skipped that, huh?) if you want...and the 'few experts...such as the named Word View...were talking about the very subject of world opinion, not reflection of their opinion... If you want, as you say, more support for the extreme support then vs. now....do you have the numbers on international support for the action in Afghanistan vs. that in Iraq? Can you explain the difference otherwise?
Notice how our 9/11 dividend had dropped so drastically BEFORE intervention in Iraq? Attributed to what? The War on Terror? Nice try Hayes attempting to hide behind the official date of the invasion of Iraq. 3/03. The arrogance, bullying and lies of the Bush ADminstration had already done much of the damage to our standing even before the advent of the war. Remember the 10 million who demonstrated world wide on the same day against us? The poll was on 12/02. By then it was obvious that we were lying to and bullying the whole world. We were planning to go to war in Iraq regardless of the UN. We already had the whole Axis of Evil Debacle and the announcement that we were going to attack countries premptively. We had withdraw from nuclear treaties, threatened first strike nukes, talked of develping new nukes, had mistreated Taliban according to international law, spoke of secret trials etc. etc. The whole point is that the whole arroagant approach to the "War on Terror as well as the War in Iraq did the damage.
Uh, no. I don't hide, glynch. You should know that by now. That was the release date. Quote: "The Pew Global Attitudes Survey involved more than 38,000 people in 44 nations, most of whom were interviewed face-to-face in their homes between July and October." Sorry chief, but you don't get to connect Iraq to that. Actually, and maybe this is just my reading of MacBeth's post, but I'm pretty sure he says we wasted the post 9/11 sympathy that we should have used for the War on Terror, because we intervened in Iraq. That is not your argument, which is that everything the US ever does is bad. My point is simply to point out that MacBeths main thesis, that we has a cooperative dividend as a result of 9/11 which we subsequently lost because of Iraq, is wrong. Easily proven as I've shown with polls and research that show anti-americanism was rising BECAUSE of the War on Terror, among other reasons.
