The big news I keep seeing and hearing about is the release of the National Intelligence Estimate, a joint report from the United States’ 16 intelligence agencies. According to accounts of that report, they say that the war in Iraq has worsened the terrorist threat, not lessened it.
I haven’t access to the actual report, and probably wouldn’t be able to properly interpret it if I did, but the accounts and excerpts I’ve seen and heard so far leave me with a few questions.
The first is that it seems that all reports like this all have the same general theme: everything we have done or might do will only make things worse. I never see any reports saying that “this will make things better” or “this will have no real effect.” It seems that all roads lead to disaster. If we confront them, we will encourage more to join them. If we ignore them, we will embolden them to strike harder. And if we negotiate or capitulate, we will be seen as week and lead to more demands and threats.
The second is that it (what little is cited) seems to take the position that trends and patterns and actions taken prior to the invasion of Iraq are irrelevant. As I noted above, the preachers of doom and gloom have always said that whatever action is proposed is a recipe for apocalypse. The first President Bush’s confronting Iraq would lead to a wave of terrorism. President Clinton’s cruise missile attacks would only create new martyrs. The invasion of Afghanistan would lead us to a quagmire just like it did to the Soviet Union. And the invasion of Iraq would spark a new wave of anti-Americanism and waste away all the goodwill we had after 9/11.
I’ve been an amateur observer of world events for some time, and I’ve noticed one consistent element: anti-Americanism is always “on the rise.” The only time we seem to have much international support is when we’re on our knees — either knocked there by a sucker punch like 9/11, or groveling and begging for forgiveness and help. It seems that only when we’re strong and resolute do we find out who our true friends are.
So I find myself disagreeing with the accounts of the NIE, as reported by the press so far. In my favor, it’s the accounts of what it says that I disagree, not the report itself — still tightly classified. And considering how many stories about the war on terror that the media has gotten wrong so far, I don’t feel too insecure in critiquing.
Well, Marc, the UN Secretary General himself, Nobel Peace Prize winner Kofi Annan, says that Bush violated international law. Let’s just say he might be a little bit more knowledgeable about the UN Charter than you are.
“Knowledgeable” and “honest” are two different things.
Hague Convention on the Opening of Hostilities
Hostilities were already “open” and had been for over a decade. This was a resumption of hostilities after a long, long series of provocations by Iraq. Even taking the offer/refusal at face value, it doesn’t apply, since Hussein rejected the offer instead of waiting for it to lapse.
I’d hate to think of where we’d be right now if Saddam, a strengthened Saddam, was still in power while we had to confront Iran and Hezzboh….plus its brilliant military strategy to have a base right smack in between Iran and Syria
Right where he was: contained by US air power, no threat.
Unless, or course, you don’t think the Air Force was doing its job.
Right where he was: contained by US air power, no threat.
Not really.
Not very contained, either, due to folks like yourself, who thought the UN sanctions would do something useful. Unfortunately, they did very little, due to the folks at the UN being so easy to bribe.
Once we got over the quaint idea of waiting for sanctions to work, we went back and finished the job that we started in the early 1990s.
astifaga:
The problem was not the Airforce, it was the job (among other things…”scandals”, namely).
Asti: another fact-free post by a Lefty.
What of: Salman Pak terror training camp, the Al Anser group operating in the North, Zarquawi given safe haven in Baghdad, Abu Nidal safe haven in Baghdad, contacts documented between Saddam and Al Quaeda, Dulfur Report noting Saddam’s intent to reconstitute weapons programs, including nuclear, after “gaming” the U.N. a while longer.
This is what you call “contained?” Looks like a threat to me and most everyone pre-March 2003.
But these facts might disturb your fantasies, so I am so sorry about that. You really should pick up the Newspaper (not the NYT because of a little credibility problem they have over there, of course) and see what’s going on in that big, complex world out there!
“…I’m a Pediatrician, a father, a husband , a son and a human being…” busy man and so much time to blog; interesting very interesting.
As you know, Sen Rangel put it this way, “…we may disagree among ourselves (paraphrased)…he’s my President…this is my country…” “Ike” served, JFK Served, “The Gipper” served,Bush(41) served, Kerry served (then threw away other people’s medals, gave himself combat awards etc.),
Bush(43)served (albeit stateside), Clinton dodged…GWB is our current President, it behooves us all to respect his position. Terrorist are vermon that scatter every which direction when they are “smoked out” like roaches & rats that are said to scurry about when the light is turned on; we just need to keep on turning on the light and smokin’ them out; best they are noticeable and active than hiding in the dark; best they are relegated to “caveman” status and spoiled drinking water than be left to relish in their palaces…
Hey “field ni.” sorry I left you off the list. Didn’t mean to slight you. I will keep you in mind next time. (you don’t suppose I hit a nerve there do you?)
muirgeo,
Asking a child to play doctor in the back of your van whilst sticking your finger in their bum does not make one a pediatrician.
jhow666; apology accepted. And for the record, please do not leave me off any list you are opposed to in the future.
If I found myself on the same side as you in any debate, I would probably call Nancy Grace.