The U.S. Navy faces wave after wave of suicide bombers. 62
years ago. From the classic, Victory At Sea.
This Memorial Day finds the country in an extraordinary situation. Embroiled in a war in Iraq which has lasted longer than World War II, over 70% say America is moving in the wrong direction. Nearly two-thirds say the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. The war itself has become a bloody stalemate. Because of the unprecedented use of the National Guard, which the Bush Administration never anticipated, states such as California find their ability to respond to crises at home sharply diminished, as equipment departs with the units to Iraq, but doesn’t come back with the citizen-soldiers.
It’s ironic, because the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the toppling of Saddam Hussein was actually a great triumph of American arms. Saddam was clearly one of the worst dictators in the world. He looted his country of revenues it earned while being sanctioned for weapons programs violations after the first Gulf War, causing the death of hundreds of thousands of his own citizens while making himself one of the richest men in the world. He used poison gas to put down internal uprisings, freely employing a murderous secret police for which the most grotesque forms of torture were de rigeur.
The US armed forces stormed through Iraq, captured Baghdad, eliminated the regime, and sent Saddam into a pathetic course of hiding in spider holes. But by the time he was captured, it had all gone sour for America in Iraq. And the execution of Saddam a few months ago, seen here, dramatically revealed how little real control or understanding of the situation we have, as the event turned into an impromptu demonstration on behalf of a fundamentalist cleric whose militia kills American soldiers.
Did it have to be this way? Simply looking at the map reveals the significant advantages of having bases in Iraq. From there, the US could readily check the adventurist ambitions of Iran and Syria, strike at terrorist enclaves throughout the region, and backstop Israel. With a multi-national presence, power and oil revenue sharing arrangements, and a decision not to make American soldiers targets, things might have gone better. Or maybe not.
But egged on by con men and charlatans, the US seized on a pretext and a fantasy to embark on a massive project it never understood. A pretext of largely non-existent weapons of mass destruction (to be fair, a fiction engineered at least in part by Saddam, to maintain order and pose a credible threat after his army was exposed in the first Gulf War). And a fantasy about the likely response of the Iraqi people. Having denounced “nation-building” as a presidential candidate, George W. Bush, with the exile Iraqi National Congress exposed for what it was, and with the Iraqi people souring quickly on a US occupying force that couldn’t keep the lights on, ended up engaged in exactly that.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who’d had ample opportunity to think through the Iraq War, having publicly committed to it in the late 1990s, employed his conception of the “revolution in military affairs” — a melding of high tech weaponry with fast-moving, smaller forces — to quickly topple Saddam. But the force was far too small to maintain order and infrastructure in the country, showing that he and his allies had no concept of what they were doing once there. A comedy of errors ensued as the complex ethnic and religious brew of a country created by British imperial fiat and maintained through brute dictatorial strength spiraled into chaos. Which made it an excellent haven and proving ground for Al Qaeda, which previously had had only incidental contact with the Iraqi regime.
As we struggle to come to grips with the situation, those who would replace the shrunken president struggle with their own concepts and statements.
John McCain mused about how safe it is now to move about Baghdad. When accompanied, as it happens, by a company of infantry with helicopter gunships overhead.
Rudy Giuliani torturously struggles to distinguish between torture (which is not nearly so effective as it seems on 24, which actually cut back the torture-for-information scenes on advice of the Army) and “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Which is a clear frontrunner for euphemism of the year.
John Edwards declares the war on terror to be a bumper sticker slogan. Which ignores the fact that America has very real enemies who have attacked us — New York, Washington, 9/11, ring a bell? — and are undoubtedly waiting to do so ago. And that the war is no less real for being botched.
There have been others, but those spring immediately to mind. Sadly so, since each of those men is quite able and quite intelligent.
And so we muddle on on this Memorial Day. Facing a complex set of challenges that become harder rather than easier as misfiring strategists keep moving the target. Oh, we’re having trouble catching Bin Laden, the real problem is Saddam. Oh, surprise, we’re in deep guano in Iraq, the real problem is Iran. And so forth.
America has faced and overcome many excruciating challenges in the past. As the video above shows, suicide bombers are nothing new except to the ahistorical. Challenges can be met, but they should not be treated as dares. With intelligent leadership, blending sophisticated diplomacy with military power, the anti-American wildfire that Islamic jihadist forces seek to ignite around the world will go unlit.
With a policy of aggressive containment, Al Qaeda will be effectively countered around the world. Iran, to the extent that it poses a threat, can be countered and reformist forces within can begin again to flourish. Iraq is a stickier wicket, having been so thoroughly botched through each iteration of policy. US troops will not be withdrawn anywhere near immediately. The country, while rejecting the latest Iraq policy as it has every other, has no consensus on how to end the war. So the Bush Administration slowly but surely moves to the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, seemingly rejected months ago, and meets today in Baghdad with representatives of Iran and floats scenarios of massive troop cutbacks even as it moves to further increase the number of combat troops in the short-term. It’s a mess shot through with irony. But a solution will be found. The lesson of Memorial Day, and the sacrifice of centuries, is that one nearly always is.
Your posts are welcome in the Forum.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
61 Comments
Jonas Blane:I love the video. We forget what Americans have overcome.
May 28, 2007 - 10:03 am Ann:No lol today.
May 28, 2007 - 10:22 am Jonathan Hemlock:The stupidity of the present crew is mind blowing. It makes me too angry to write about as I write about it.
May 28, 2007 - 11:02 am Scott:Haven’t posted in ages but still been loyally reading. An outstanding article today which summarizes what so many feel and equally as many find unable to articulate.
May 28, 2007 - 11:14 am Capitol Boy:Talking of extraordinary, what is the music playing in the video? It’s really something.
May 28, 2007 - 11:30 am Bill Bradley:Thanks, Scott. I appreciate it. Happy Memorial Day!
May 28, 2007 - 11:34 am Bill Bradley:The music is the classic score by Richard Rodgers and Robert Russell Bennett for the NBC series, Victory At Sea. It’s available on Amazon, I’m sure.
May 28, 2007 - 11:36 am Sacramento Solon:Bill,
Great write!
May 28, 2007 - 11:39 am Bill Bradley:Thanks, Solon.
May 28, 2007 - 11:56 am Hap Hazard:Bill this is a great perspective for Memorial Day!
Of course I guess it helps that it is one with which I agree in almost every detail.
For me it is a hopeful look at our past and our future, and I found myself reminiscing to Memorial Days past in the Midwest when I used to play taps as a Boy Scout at the annual services in our little town.
Happy Memorial Day to Bill and to all at this great site, where the commentary and dissent is about being grownup and respectful of others, at the insistence of our host.
May 28, 2007 - 12:08 pm Jack Aubrey:Isn’t Cheney the real one behind all the stupidity?
May 28, 2007 - 12:24 pm Bill Bradley:It would be fascinating to talk with Dick Cheney, who I’ve never met.
May 28, 2007 - 1:08 pm Bill Bradley:Thanks, Hap. It’s a special day. Thinking about the Memorial Day movie, incidentally, which may not happen, has come down to They Were Expendable, In Harm’s Way, Platoon, and Pearl Harbor.
America is a resilient country. It’s survived and thrived in the face of grave challenges and bad leadership before.
May 28, 2007 - 1:13 pm Barbara:Inspiring read Mr. Bradley!
There is report out today that the Pentagon “favors a small number of US military bases in Iraq capable of accommodating up to an overall total of 40,000 troops for, in the words of one official, “decades. The model is post-World War II Germany.”” The report continues that this would be for ongoing training of Iraqi troops, keeping the country unified…and keeping the oil flowing
I agreed at one time on the need for long-term US bases there..But no more…I now believe that would be a big mistake…and we are endangering pro-western regimes in the region with our continued overt presence. there is a need to really think this through and to weigh carefully whether decisions on military operations/planning are compatible with the ability of these operations to achieve realistic military objectives that will realize the US’s strategic goals not just in Iraq but throughout the ME and Central Asia…as while they are separate regions they are not entirely separate issues.
I am not so sure about containing al Qaeda…I see more of a Gaza-ization of the terrorist world…we have radicalized the ME with how we have allowed this war to play out more than ever… in the “martyr” Qutb’s wildest dreams during the late 1940’s and 50’s when he was formulating radical Islam he could not have imagined such an opening to advance it as what Pres. Bush and his neo-con cohorts have provided…I am very afraid we will see more groups like the Islamic Jihad surface and thrive… even Hamas can’t contain them ….these groups will continue terrorist attacks along with a variety of groups that have NO CLEAR ORGANIZATIONAL AND POLITICAL IDENTITY…it is going to be very difficult to combat and contain this… however, we are not their immediate target…they now are looking at bringing down the more pro-western ME regimes for obvious reasons…
There is a new book out on Iraq…”The Occupation Of Iraq” by Ali A. Allawi…it was reviewed yesterday in the NY Times Book Review. He writes: “the process of modernization and urbanization was skin deep in Iraq and that tribal values, born of the experience of surviving in the harsh environment of the desert continue to hold sway for the vast majority of the country’s inhabitants” This is true not just of Iraq but much of the ME .. There was not one Arabist among the neo-con Iraq policy invasion …let’s hope there are some among the exit strategy…Speaking of tribes…My small tribe of loved ones, 4 guys and one girl picked up 3 more pretty girls while eating pizza on the waterfront in Tiburon last night…so we headed into Sacto early this morning as a caravan of sport jeeps and SUV’s ..had a great breakfast together, a walk to the Viet Nam Memorial at the Capitol, heard some morning jazz and then I sent them off to Yosemite…
May 28, 2007 - 1:40 pm len:With so much damage done by the Bush and Cheney policies it will take years to recover a strong position in the world. At least this reminds us that America abides.
May 28, 2007 - 2:33 pm Bill Bradley:Thanks, Barbara.
Of course one major difference between Germany and Iraq that some planners might not be considering is that there was no serious effort to chase us out of Germany after WW II.
That said, it would be a shame if we didn’t end up with some bases in Iraq. A competitent administration should be able to make that deal.
May 28, 2007 - 4:07 pm Bill Bradley:It will take time, Len. But maybe not that much time.
May 28, 2007 - 4:08 pm Bill Bradley:… Incidentally, pizza on the Tiburon waterfront. That takes me back … a few weeks!
May 28, 2007 - 4:10 pm Jonathan Hemlock:If the American bases are in the desert it should not be a problem.
May 28, 2007 - 5:19 pm Bill Bradley:Western Iraq is mostly empty. During the invasion, it was essentially handled by special ops units.
May 28, 2007 - 5:26 pm Ann:We’d probably just screw up having permanent bases in Iraq.
May 28, 2007 - 6:38 pm Barbara:Bases may depend on the goodwill and cooperation of al-Sadr… he is back to lead and solidify an Iraqi nationalist movement …so much his dependent on his skills and ability to rid his militia and political supporters of those leading the violent sectarian attacks…it appears he wants to cooperate now but it also appears that he is doing it simply because he has been promised by Iran that a U.S.-Iranian negotiations will lead to implementing a new government even a new “political order” in Baghdad that will not just “safeguard his interests” but advance them…he is demanding a timeline of us getting out of Iraq…It will be very hard for ANY Iraqi leader and his government to have political legitimacy and be safe with US bases operating there…we are now seen as “occupiers” …that is not a good way to be seen/perceived in the ME…
I am very pessimistic about our ability to build/maintain bases…we cannot impose them …and I do not see any Arab leader allowing them or agreeing with them…not even the Saudi’s at this point …one could argue that they would benefit from such a presence…true…if we had handled post Saddam era differently… but no one has a short memory in the ME …no one! …Arabs of all ages today talk about the crusades, Ottoman Empire, and the French and British like it was yesterday…then they will lump in Israel in the same breath with the other “occupiers/conquerors” and now they have “U.S. invasion” which will become I assure you, a tale of legendary proportions for generations to come… and not just among Arab extremists …I think even the Saudi’s see U.S. bases could work against them in the long run….we have only ourselves to blame for all this…
May 28, 2007 - 8:34 pm Bill Bradley:Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Let’s not overestimate the “Arab street.”
May 28, 2007 - 8:39 pm Barbara:Well that is unfortunate if true…I think it is a mistake.
it would be just like us …we finally have real Arab leadership in the region working for stabilization of the regions, trying to diversify their enconomy, etc, i.e., the Saudis and by our own arrogance we bring them down…
and we think we have troubles now…just wait…
I don’t buy it because I don’t think the Saudi’s will agree to it in the end …the Saudis are going neutral…not more pro-US ..they are also trying to be seen as the the leader of just not the Sunni Arabs but the Muslim world…this would be seen as too cozy and convenient and even make them look weak…something they can not afford to look in their neck of the woods…
Russia also has interests in ME, and will not welcome such a US military presence there permanently…they have leverage also and much more goodwill then us at the moment…a Russian co. will be one of the first invited into Iraq to explore and develop oil once a new gov is formed..US bases will lead to more destabilization…I hope that is not where everyone is going…
The US can influence but no longer impose outcomes in the ME…we will get much further with advancing our own agenda there once we realize that.
May 28, 2007 - 9:20 pm Bill Bradley:Of course, I’m talking about bases in Iraq, not Saudi Arabia.
May 28, 2007 - 10:09 pm Barbara:I understood that …but US bases in Iraq will jeopardize and highly compromise the Saudis…
and it will not assist in sustaining a stable gov in Iraq…
It’s as I said difficult to see the Saudis will never go along with it…and it won’t happen without their agreement…
May 28, 2007 - 10:45 pm Jonathan Hemlock:A Russian oil concession in Iraq? With what Russia is doing in Turkmenistan, Iran is unlikely to allow it. Nor the Europeans.
May 28, 2007 - 11:17 pm Jonathan Hemlock:A Russian oil concession in Iraq? With what Russia is doing in Turkmenistan, Iran is unlikely to allow it. Nor the Europeans.
May 28, 2007 - 11:18 pm Barbara:Well Dr. Hemlock…I think it is very much in the cards…and I don’t think Iran will be an impediment at all…
I assume you are talking about the proposed gas pipe line…well give credit when credit is due …the leaders of Kazakh, Russian and Turkmen have agreed to build a natural gas pipeline to ship Turkmen natural gas to Russia…this will no doubt increase shipments of Turkmen and Kazakh natural gas to Russia…this pipeline which is yet only a proposal will run from Turkmenistan along Kazakhstan’s Caspian Sea coast to Russia. You know we want also to build a Caspian natural gas pipeline from Kazakhstan across the Caspian seabed to Azerbaijan for over a decade …but we can’t get agreement from many of the countries in Central Asia or Iran…I wonder why?
May 29, 2007 - 12:04 am Bill Bradley:With all due respect, Barbara, I think you’re overestimating the “Arab street.”
Most of the predicted anger over the years I’ve followed these predictions from others has not amounted to much.
And don’t forget that the Saudi government still exists because of American support.
And what is the Saudi alternative to US forces playing a blocking military role?
Saudi forces?
Hardly. They have the hardware, but not the strength.
May 29, 2007 - 8:09 am Ann:Isn’t Europe angry with Russia for using its energy muscle?
May 29, 2007 - 8:16 am Bill Bradley:Yes, Europeans are quite concerned about Russian power over energy markets. Especially after they shut down a natural gas pipeline at the end of ‘06.
May 29, 2007 - 8:44 am Barbara:Of course the EU is concerned …that is why they will pick their battles carefully with Russia …I doubt that Russia oil developing in Iraq will be a battle they pick…
In general,I disagree totally with you Saudi Arabia
[BB”And don’t forget that the Saudi government still exists because of American support”]
That is just the kind of thinking that is going to get us deeper in shit…
like I said before the US meets the East and does not even see its nose go up in the air…EVEN when we are looking into a mirror…big mistake…especially with China nd Russia on the prowl…
May 29, 2007 - 9:24 am Barbara:I agree about the Arab street …the regimes are too respressive for it to be an employable tactic by opposition…Sadat was not brought down by the Arab street …but he sure as hell was brought down, wasn’t he?…
May 29, 2007 - 9:33 am Bill Bradley:No …it’s a BIG mistake if the Saudis do this…and lately they have not been making mistakes…
This doesn’t have to end in across the board setbacks for the US.
The Saudis have simply never defended themselves. They rely on the US. They also have been in no hurry to get the US to withdraw from Iraq. Quite the contrary.
May 29, 2007 - 9:49 am Barbara:Let’s just agree to disagree…
the Saudi’s do not want to see us disengage in such a way to bring more chaos …neither does Iran for that matter…that does not mean that the Saudi’s believe permanent US bases in Iraq would be positive step for the region…or for them…
You may be proved right that this happens…and I may be proved right that it s a big mistake…
May 29, 2007 - 10:00 am Bill Bradley:I don’t the Saudis had a problem with it before.
Remember, they were all for our first invasion of Iraq, after Saddam captured Kuwait. And fear no longer having Iraq as a counterweight to Iran.
May 29, 2007 - 11:18 am Barbara:You can belive nothing has changed with how we handled Iraq …I do not
keep in mind …King Abdullah, his FM and his intelligence chief have been back in forth in Morroco in the last 6 weeks…they are discussing militants not Iran..they have great cause for concern…they stopped the al Qaeda plot to attack Saudi Arabia’s Abqaiq oil platform over a year ago but recently they discovered from recent captured militants that it was part of a very ambitious plan to attack oil facilities not just in Saudi Arabia but also Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates…. A militant also told the Saudi’s that the plot was organized to compromise and weaken the Saudi regime, destabilize U.S. oil prices and most importantly “LURE” (the militant’s word) U.S. forces to Saudi Arabia to fight…
They are going to be much more careful in our future relationship…we have to respect that…if we want stability there..
May 29, 2007 - 11:45 am Bill Bradley:Respectful, yes. Kow-towing, no.
Unilateralism isn’t the only other course. And the deeper geostrategic dynamics abide.
May 29, 2007 - 11:52 am Barbara:So now any opposition to permanent bases by PERCEIVED invaders/occupiers/ is “kow-towing?”…okay …right…
May 29, 2007 - 12:03 pm Bill Bradley:I’m simply noting that your scenario envisions a reverse for the US on all fronts.
May 29, 2007 - 12:05 pm Bill Bradley:Do you really think that, say, a President Obama can’t make a bases deal there?
Of course he can.
May 29, 2007 - 12:06 pm Barbara:Correct. we are not in a good place. That’s it. Once we accept that we can move on and work to salvage some lives …some dignity …some status …but this is not going to be a terribly sucessful (by any measure) outcome for us… We have NOT been humiliated….and this is VERY important…especially in the Arab world among out enemies…this is our victory, that we have not been humiliated … we can be thankful that is NOT what the Saudi’s want to see happen to us…and for their own twisted reasons …this is not what Iran wants either…we should not push it…it is not too late for us to be humiliated…we need to provide those timetables that the Saudi’s wanted last Dec from us for leaving Iraq….
May 29, 2007 - 12:28 pm Barbara:Among Dems, I think only Hillary Clinton has actually advocated, i.e., gone on record for the potentially needing for long term US bases Iraq..
I think… at least hope, that president Obama will modify current FP and defense policies that PROVOKE strong negative reactions in the world…he will not rely on military power exclusively, nor see it as the only means of protecting our interests abroad or at home….
May 29, 2007 - 12:53 pm Bill Bradley:Not quite my point.
Of course, military power is not the only way. Nor is diplomacy. The two must be blended to meet a variety of threats.
May 29, 2007 - 1:20 pm Barbara:I understand that ..I have been reading you for over a year…and you have written quite eloquently on it here and in previous posts …the Reagan birthday tribute comes to mind…in saying that …I still hope you are wrong about our requiring long term bases as part of our exit strategy …
May 29, 2007 - 1:48 pm RM 'Auros' Harman:John Edwards declares the war on terror to be a bumper sticker slogan.
Come on, you think it isn’t? It’s just as goofy a concept as the War on Drugs. The treatment of all terrorist groups as analagous, and even the treatment of some of these groups’ political and military sides as completely unitary (there is conflict between, for instance, the members of Hamas who are still resident in the Palestinian lands and trying to fill potholes, and the exile leadership that wants All Jihad, All The Time) is, to put it simply, idiotic. There is not any overarching Islamofascist Conspiracy. We need a president smart enough to see, and exploit, the fissures among these people.
I forget which of the GOP lunkheads it was, the other day — Mitt, maybe? — who was ranting about there being a force against us that included Shia and Sunni, Al Qaeda and Baathists and Sadr-ites… whatever the line was. It was a mishmash, and missed the point that a lot of these groups have very little use for each other, and could potentially be played off one another to our advantage, and some could potentially be co-opted into politics. (I’m starting to think that the best possible outcome in Iraq — better than an all-out conflagration — is for the Baathist and Sadr-ite elements to join with the Kurdish Peshmerga militia in declaring martial law, with each militia running security in its own region, putting down the more nihilistic insurgents and rooting out the foreign al-Qaeda fighters. Have a central strongman, or triumvirate of strongmen, maintain security long enough to develop a real civil-society, capable of returning to democracy in 5-10 years.) Ranting about how Islam is agin’ us is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It provides material for recruitement videos. It helps turn the Islamic equivalent of Joe-Sixpack — random young men who, in a better world, would be too busy making a decent living to take up arms — into radicalized terrorists.
In any case, the US needs a president who divides our enemies and unites our friends, rather than the opposite, which is what we’ve had for the last six years.
May 29, 2007 - 3:52 pm Bill Bradley:I’ve called it the Terror War since right after 9/11. Had nothing to do with Iraq or Iran. It’s not about fighting a religion. It’s about fighting jihadist elements that are fighting us.
Incidentally, Edwards himself called it the War on Terror as the Democratic vice presidential nominee.
This is a rhetorical move to appropriate anti-war atmospherics on the left. His actual speech doesn’t necessarily support it.
It’s politics. He said it because he’s running third behind two superstars.
May 29, 2007 - 4:38 pm Bill Bradley:Incidentally, Fox News wouldn’t say that stuff about the author of the The Ugly American.
May 29, 2007 - 7:42 pm Ann:Liberals!
May 29, 2007 - 10:56 pm RM 'Auros' Harman:It’s about fighting jihadist elements that are fighting us.
It’s long since morphed into something more complicated than that.
At least in Iraq, the people fighting us are also fighting each other. And some of them potentially could be persuaded to quit fighting us. At the very least, their backers could be persuaded to pull the plug on them. Iran has an interest in having the Shiite majority in Iraq see them as friends and benefactors, which on the one hand is served by propping up violent Shiite militias who “protect” Shiites from Sunni militias and provide “vengeance” killings when that fails; but on the other hand that interest is not so well served if this course leads to the entire country dissolving into violence, sending both refugees, and potentially Sunnis seeking yet more vengeance, across the border.
If there is to be a “war on terror”, it will be much more complicated than a straightforward military campaign. And it probably should tone down the “war” talk, because its most important goal (preventing the recruitment of new terrorists, and “inoculating” entire societies against the infectious memes of violent zealotry) is poorly served by that metaphor. Folks in Iran and Pakistan already feel like we’re hostile to them — saying we’re “at war” with some ill-defined entity that is responsible for “terror” invites the misinterpretation that we’re at war with them. (Especially given that we have idiots around like that general who “knew that my God was bigger than his”, and entire chorus of Coulter types who want to “kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity”.)
May 30, 2007 - 5:26 pm Bill Bradley:Complication does not equal peace.
It is still a war, albeit one in which bombing is not the first order of the day.
May 30, 2007 - 5:59 pm Barbara:We are very much at war. bin Laden isued a FATWA in 96 of some 11,500 words from Afghanistan. In months it was relayed around the world by tapes and publications. the title says it all “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” We didn’t get then…even though he describes the need for Muslims everywhere to to undertake a jihad against the US and our supporters…he was clear then and is followers are clear now…they are at war with us..btw John Ewards has a whole other for Israelis and when he is speaking before an AIPAC audience.
May 30, 2007 - 8:30 pm Barbara:I mean : JE has a whole other speech ……sorry….I am grooming my horse and posting at the same time…
May 30, 2007 - 8:36 pm Bill Bradley:Got it.
May 31, 2007 - 5:23 pm RM 'Auros' Harman:War is one way of thinking about it, but I think not all that useful a way — again, see the “War on Drugs”, which unless we untangle its various aspects (reducing poverty, unemployment, and disaffection among our poor population; perhaps legalizing some less-dangerous drugs on a status like alcohol and cigarettes; corruption and paramilitarism in countries like Colombia) is inherently unwinnable.
I found the quote that had me irritated the other day: It was Mitt, saying that a coalition of “Shia and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda” wants to “bring down the West.” This is both ignorant (rolling together groups that compete with each other), and inflammatory (saying that the huge overarching groups of “Shia and Sunni” are part of this alleged coalition).
Again, until the vast majority of Americans treat this kind of ignorance with the contempt it deserves — rather than treating people who talk like this as if they were serious candidates to lead us — most Muslims outside the US, and some Muslims within it, are going to get the idea that we are at war with them.
If it’s not a war with Islam, then either stop calling it a war, or demand that our politicians do a much better job defining whom we’re at war with.
Jun 1, 2007 - 11:46 am Bill Bradley:This is so incredibly unlike the “war on drugs.”
We don’t have to be at war with all of Islam for it to be a war, and in fact are not.
Jun 1, 2007 - 12:55 pm Barbara:exactly…although the US invasion of Iraq has helped that sort of propaganda. the same mentality that salutes bin Laden also assassinated Sadat and wants to destoy the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Jordan and much more Getting rid of this militant radical element is fighting for Islam. and from your quote of Romney …he sounds like he understands the Muslim world as much as the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence DEM Sylvestre Reyes.
Jun 1, 2007 - 2:53 pm RM 'Auros' Harman:Stupidity is not inherently partisan, as Reyes demonstrates, but if you saw the GOP candidates disgusting competition over who would be most enthusiastic about torturing suspected terrorists to protect the homeland, it does seem like the “security first!” GOPers would not be particularly good at ensuring our security. Quite the contraray.
If you were a resident of, say, Turkey, or even a Muslim resident of Britain or Germany, and you saw the leading candidates of one of our two major parties enthusiastically talking about “doubling Guantanamo” — where, it is acknowledged by our government (which has even had to quietly release some people back to their homelands), we have tossed a fair number of innocent people with no charges, there to rot with no trial, no lawyer, no knowledge of the charges against us — what would you think of us?
It’s a major theme in the campaign speeches of both Edwards and Obama — we’re better than this.
Jun 1, 2007 - 4:45 pm Bill Bradley:Remember, it’s not torture. It’s enhanced interrogation techniques.
Or, “severe interrogation,” as a former European power used to call it.
Jun 1, 2007 - 5:02 pm RM 'Auros' Harman:“Vee haff vays of making you talk.”
Jun 2, 2007 - 1:36 pm