Of course, of course. Since it goes without saying that Afghanistan was he crux of whatever the problem was (is) it tends to not be said; Iraq killed Afghanistan.

With the future so cloudy, no good options in Iraq, Afghanistan in a flat spiral, Saudi Arabia and Iran showing signs of a major break, etc., it begins to look like larger-scale war is in the offing. Thanks, George, and all the regime-change enthusiasts.

Steve Kyle

I remember hearing that it was al Sadr who was the main support for Maliki. Is this true? And if so, wouldnt attacking his militia amount to sawing off the branch we are standing on? Who is next in line to be the US's government?

How quickly the November hopes for a return to rational foreign policy have disappeared. Everytime I listen to the comments from President and the White I shake my head in disbelief. Did I miss someting here? Didn't the election mean anything? The Iraq Commission? I try to imagine what they are thinking and I just can't get there. When I get close, all I see is the spectre of a constitutional crisis and fiscal bankruptcy at home and the end of any pretence at moral authority in the conduct of the war against terror. They can't be serious.

And if you were a Sunni, how would that look to you?

Can 160,000 American troops conquer Sadr City without turning it into a new Fallujah? How many of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths are we willing to inflict in the process?

It was clear from the beginning that installing democracy in a Shi'ite dominated population was going to result in a Shi'ia dominated government, that would be the natural effect of having an open vote. And given that the leadership of the Shi'ias are either friendly to Iran or are Shi'ia fundamentalists or with Sistani both, the expected end result would be a fundamentalist Iranian friendly regime.

It's not like nobody thought about this. Cheney early on was asked what we would do if this result occured. His reply: "That is not going to happen".

Magical thinking. It enfuses this Administration. And certainly it is continuing here. Want a jolt of reality? Attacking Sadr will bring Hezbollah into action in Lebanon and elsewhere in ways that will make the remaining neo-cons blanche. And I would not like to be the average GI taking R&R in Dubai or Bahrain post surge or escalation. Or for that matter in Munich

I can hear it know "Who could have predicted that German club bombing?" "Who imagined Hezbollah would launch massive attacks on Westerners in Beirut? Or send hundreds of rockets into Israel?"

Well anyone who thinks a second about what would happen if we take out Sadr. This surge will result in a flipping disaster. And that is if it works. If it doesn't work we may be talking Dien Bien Phu Deux.

. . . [Afghanistan] where . . . the international terror threat started . . . . Vali Nasr

Munich; Entebbe; Iran Hostage Crisis; Marine Barracks; Klinghoefer; Khobar Towers; East African Embassies; USS Cole?

Oh, I forgot. 9/11 changed everything.

If Democrats can interrupt their book tours and View appearances long enough to stare into the abyss, I hope they will at least make the Bush administration go on the record for every cent past, present and 50 years into the VA's future for what this fiasco is going to cost.

It's probably a mistake to assume "the surge" is actually designed to take out al-Sadr or accomplish any other specific objective.  Remember, we've been hearing a lot of loud rumors about the US taking sides with the Shia in the civil war against the Sunni.  You really can't do that and fight al-Sadr at the same time.  We've also been hearing about air strikes against Iran.  The surge could be useful there as well.  My point: who the hell knows?  We certainly shouldn't be taking the Administration at face value when it says the surge is meant to "control the militias."

If I had to guess, the surge is first and foremost a delaying tactic, since the White House has no idea what it will do next, strategically speaking.  With the surge, the Administration is taking advantage of McCain's foolish attempt to distinguish himself from the President's Iraq policy by taking up McCain's call for more troops.  St. John had been hoping to enter the '08 election saying, "all along I wanted more troops, but the Administration refused."  Now...I'm not sure what he'll say.  At any rate, it's a boon for the White House.

So I think it's a mistake to look at the surge the precursor to any specific plan in Iraq.  The surge could do any number of things for the Administration from giving them more troops for teaming up with the Shia to putting troops in place if they bomb Iran.   What do we know is not on the table?   Withdrawal.  Which is why this is an escalation, not a surge.

Vali: First let me thank you for your excellent posts. It's a pleasure to read someone like you, who clearly knows what he's talking about. I hope you will continue to post here regularly.

While I agree that Afghanistan is falling to pieces and that's not something in which anyone should rejoice, I question its importance in the so-called war on terror. 9/11 was conceived mostly in Germany, Spain, Florida, and Afghanistan. Does anyone seriously think that without the Taliban, 9/11 wouldn't have happened? I believe it would have happened anyway. The Taliban harbored al Qaeda but had nothing else to do with terrorism.

London, Madrid, Bali, etc, prove to me that Afghanistant's importance has been greatly exaggerated.

"Over the past year Washington and its Baghdad embassy have alienated the Shia and undermined the authority of the more moderate Ayatollah Sistani"

Hasn't Sadr done more to undermine Sistani than anyone else?

If the grand strategy behind Iraq was to transform the Middle East (what Thomas Barnett calls "the Big Bang") the entire enterprise should be seen not as a pre-emptive war against Saddam, but a pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism and the spread of Sharia Law. If the idea was to stop people like the Taliban from restoring the Caliphate, Sadr is the main target in Iraq.

Sadr is the front man right now in that battle. If we don't try our hardest to stop him from gaining power, the whole idea was a waste of time. Well, except for the Kurds, but the my point is essentially true.

Waziristan and Bajaur are right up there as well, but the "neo-Taliban" have less influence in Kabul than Sadr has in Baghdad. Aweys might be a close third, and we are going to rely on Ethiopia to do the dirty work there.

Letting these people get their way (i.e. appeasement) is how 9/11 happened in the first place. Maybe if we had "pre-emptively" attacked the Taliban we could have prevented much of this brutality.

Does anyone think that the proposed 'surge' in troop levels in Iraq maybe an attempt to build up troops in preparation for an attack on Iran instead?

Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh were on Democracy Now! this morning and seemed convinced that we are on the path to war with Iran.

Building up troop levels in Iraq may be a disguised attempt to deploy a portion of the troops needed for an attack on Iran.

If the grand strategy behind Iraq was to transform the Middle East (what Thomas Barnett calls "the Big Bang") the entire enterprise should be seen not as a pre-emptive war against Saddam, but a pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism and the spread of Sharia Law. If the idea was to stop people like the Taliban from restoring the Caliphate, Sadr is the main target in Iraq.

Indeed, this was the neoconservative theory that underpinned the President's various claims about weapons of mass destruction, Saddam's human rights abuses, and Iraq's connection to 9/11.  And that theory has been thoroughly, comprehensively debunked.  I can't say it clearly enough: the neocon domino theory for the Middle East that you advocate is a total and absolute failure on every level. 

The neocons, supported by like good folks like yourself, mistakenly believed that if they toppled Muslim governments, those governments would magically reform as Western-friendly liberal democracies.  It was magical, dangerously deluded thinking, and hundreds of thousands of people have died as a result of it.  As we see in Iraq, Palestine, and perhaps now Lebanon, nothing could be further from the truth.  You can topple the regime, but your ability to replace it with something you like is damn near impossible.  Insofar as the neocon plan "succeeded" it did so to America's great detriment, by setting the stage for Islamic fundamentalism to thrive throughout the Middle East. 

With this in mind, it's ironic that you say the following:

Sadr is the front man right now in that battle. If we don't try our hardest to stop him from gaining power, the whole idea was a waste of time. Well, except for the Kurds, but the my point is essentially true.

The war in Iraq has been much, much more than a "waste of time," GHaines.  It has been an unmitigated disaster of immeasurable, epic, mind-boggling proportions.  In every way possible.  We will be living with its ugly results for decades. 

Sadr is nothing more than the next fundamentalist to fill the void in Iraq, followed by the next and the next, if you "take him out."  You can't kill his followers because they are the people you came to liberate.  And if you kill him, his followers will turn on you. You see, Iraq is broken.  The only leaders who stand a chance there are men like al-Sadr, who are willing to kill with impugnity.  This is George Bush's fault.

Actions have consequences.  Sometimes dire consequences.  Take al Sadr, just for an example.  I'll assume you're aware that al-Sadr is the primary source of political support for Prime Minister Maliki, who was hand picked by the Bush Administration.  What do you think will happen if US forces target al-Sadr?  Will the Shiite majority in Iraq support such a move?  Or will we suddenly be fighting a two-front war against both the Shia and Sunnis?  It is a foolish, dangerously deluded idea - like so many things neocons suggest.  It is based on magical thinking rather than evidence-based analysis.  And it gets people killed.

As I said in my post, Grcutter, I think it's a mistake to assume the "surge" is attached to any single objective beyond buying the Administration time.  The escalation could be in preparation of bombing Iran.  It could be preparation for taking out al-Sadr.  It could be the first step in teaming with the Shia to crush the Sunnis.  Who knows?  I don't think the Administration does, at least not with any certainty.

It is an escalation.  With more troops, the White House can do more things (most of them foolish or counter-productive).  In addition, it is a delaying action, since it will take time to ramp up the forces and analyze the results.  

It's important to look at all the possibilities.  Bombing Iran is certainly one of them.

Uh, oh! Watch your language. This is what gets GHaines upset:)

What gets me upset is all the deaths in Iraq for nothing... and all the deaths to come for nothing except W's ego.

Tom

The Taliban were engaged in a form of terrorism against their own people. They also gave Al Qaeda a safe haven from which to gather resources and to work out the plot.

Why does London, Madrid and Bali prove Afganistan is less important? Just because the actual perpetrators were native to those countries? Where did they get their resources. I would agree that Afghanistan might over stressed as Pakistan might be the bigger problem when it comes to terrorism. Whether it is attacks in India or shielding Bin Laden.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

My friend Richard, a military historian with friends who are U.S. officers in Iraq thinks that is precisely the point of the Surge. As he said 20,000 troops translates into about 5,000 combat troops not enough to do much in Iraq but enough to support an air campaign against Iran. He fears a Bush in '08 freed of any personal election worries and able to get around the War Powers Act will launch a strike in the Summer of 2008.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

the entire enterprise should be seen not as a pre-emptive war against Saddam, but a pre-emptive war against Islamic Fundamentalism and the spread of Sharia Law.

Sharia law is just Islamic law. Most of the countries in the Middle East have been governed under some system of Islamic law, or combination of Islamic law and secular law, for 1400 years.

Do you really think we should go to war against sharia? Isn't the legal system of their own countries a matter for Muslims to decide? Wouldn't Muslims rightly conclude that a war aginst the spread of sharia is a war against Islam?

If we attack the Sadrists, we will be doing the Saudi's dirty work for them, while they pretend clean hands. That would be madness. The Saudis get what they want, while we make more enemies. Sistani has his own death squads. We should not take sides in that particular contest.

If the House of Saud is genuinely concerned about having to take up for the Sunnis if we leave, we should use that as leverage to get the Saudis to make less mischief and actually play a constructive role. We are getting played.

"Sharia law is just Islamic law. Most of the countries in the Middle East have been governed under some system of Islamic law, or combination of Islamic law and secular law, for 1400 years."

Exactly. Look how well that has worked out. Everywhere Sharia Law goes, it proves to be an anchor. We have had our Constitution and Free market economy for a little over 200 years and look where we are.

"Do you really think we should go to war against Sharia?"

We already are and it wasn't our choice. What do you think bin Laden, Aweys, Sadr, the IMU, Hizb ut Tahrir et al are doing? They are trying to spread Sharia law.

"Isn't the legal system of their own countries a matter for Muslims to decide?"

Muslims with guns, or Muslims without guns? I think we should take the side of the Muslims without guns.

If you don't understand the impact of what you are saying, here is some reading material for you:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-rape24nov24,1,1862913.story?coll=la-news-a_section

http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20050704-115126-3150r.htm

"Wouldn't Muslims rightly conclude that a war against the spread of Sharia is a war against Islam?"

If that is true, then Islam is not worth defending. I don't think it is true, though. There are millions of Muslims who believe women should learn to read, men can shave if they want, etc. They aren't all "chop off your hand" or "mutilate your genitals" types.

I think what we should be talking about on this blog is how do we get those moderate, Muslims to believe in what we offer?

How do we get people in Lebanon to believe in Liberal, free market, Constitutional Democracy instead of Sharia? I think first we have to believe in it. We have to believe in its power to transform people and societies. We have to believe in its empowering abilities. Most of us on this blog certainly do not.
Even if we believed that our system was a gift that we were lucky to have, how to do convince them to believe it? How do we win over the people in southern Iraq?
How do we win over the Somalis?
How do we win over the Uzbeks?

The dictator of Turkmenistan just died, which means those people now have an opportunity to transform their society. Will we help? How do we do that? Can we prevent Islamists from taking the country over?

I would love to hear ideas. I would love to hear creativity. Can we have one positive thread here or does everything have to be negative?

"Most of Saddam's crimes were committed in the course of stamping out Islamic Fundamentalism. Is our position now that he just wasn't moving fast enough?"

No. My position is that Saddam, and people like him fomented Islamic Fundamentalism in the first place. Nasser killed Qutb. Karimov brutally oppresses Muslims. The Saudis kill Islamic Fundamentalists every day.

Iraq was, and is, about getting to the root of the problem that exploded over our heads on 9/11. The status quo of working with dictators has consequences. Toppling Saddam and growing a liberal democracy in Iraq, and stoking the fires so that it spreads around the Middle East is a grand strategy to deflate the tires on the Islamist truck that is barreling at us.

I don't think killing Muslims helps, however we can't establish a safe environment, we can't help them build schools, organize unions, start buisnesses and the like while people are shooting at everyone and blowing up cars near crowds.

In the meantime, a new problem has emerged. People in the Middle East have faith that groups like the Mahdi Army can provide for them, so they can win elections. Hizballah did it, Hamas did it, others can probably as well. The new question is, how do we stop that from happening?
Here is a great paper about the possible strategies and the limitations.
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/pubPDFs/PolicyFocus61.pdf

Aside from the military side to Iraq and Afghanistan, we are running a political campaign. Our candidate is Liberal Democratic western values. Their candidate is Sharia Law.
Sharia Law is backed by Allah. It gives the people something to believe in. It satisfies their hunger to deeper questions. It gives them meaning to life.
Our vision, our values, as you can see from reading many of the posts, is dying. Our vision inspires Americans as much as Joe Lieberman. Patriotism is sneered at. Until we can reverse that problem, we will never be able to compete with Sharia. The sad thing is that our product is so much better, more fulfilling, more empowering, yet we can't, don't and won't sell it because we don't like the product ourselves.

We don't believe that Liberal, free market democracy is good for them, so why should they believe it?

Positive thinking is one thing. Magical thinking is quite another. I don't see any rational basis for thinking that what you and I believe can change objective social realities in Arab countries.

And the power of liberal democracy "to transform people and societies" isn't the issue here. Everybody on both sides knows it can do that. The issues are whether the subjects actually want such a transformation, and whether attempting to bring about such a transformation by force is likely to make the transformation appear more desirable.

We have to believe in its power to transform people and societies. We have to believe in its empowering abilities. Most of us on this blog certainly do not.

Believing in angels or miracles or ghosts is fine in your personal life.  It is no way to build a foreign policy, however.  The magical thinking of neocons has already costs hundreds of thousands of lives.  Why would any rational person continue to believe in it?

Those of us in the reality based community understand that it is possible to influence and even transform authoratarian societies.  One need look no further than Asia, where we have seen communist enemies like China and Vietnam gradually transform into predictable, stable nations through the power of diplomacy and economic incentives.  In the real word, transforming societies takes time, patience, and a willingness to take one step back for every two steps forward.  This process requires experience and knowledge and the professional know-how of people who understand other societies and how the world works.  In other words, it requires grownups, not 23-year old interns from AEI, who (heart) GW. 

(Non-Snark Alert: If you want to see positive, creative ways to influence and transform societies, look at what has worked over the last 30 years.  We won that little thing called the Cold War without ever firing a shot at the Soviet Union.  If you think in terms of decades instead of years, transforming societies becomes a lot more realistic.  If you think in terms of economic engagement and patient-but-hard-nosed dipomacy instead of regime change, your magical thinking becomes realistic.  We now return to our regularly scheduled sarcastic critique of neoconservatism...)

In the magical land of neocons, countries magically transform based on the magic of regime change and democracy.  It is a land where the normal rules of reality don't apply, where wishes are ponies and everyone gets what they wants, without ever having to wait or do any work.  If that's where you want to live, it's fine with me.  But please don't try and sell me on it.  I loved the Lord of the Rings, but in real life, I rely on things like facts and evidence, not magic.

GHaines,

I'm going to respond to your post in a totally non-sarcastic way.

Obviously, both actions and inaction have consequences.  I think we can agree that total inaction in the face of the Taliban or Darfur is a mistake.  So we have some common ground.  Our disagreement stems from the type of action we, as a nation, should take in these circumstances.  We know that regime change in the Middle East is a failure because we've seen it with our own eyes in Iraq.  It is essential that we observe, learn from, and react to reality.  So when we think of about taking action in the Middle East from now on, we need do the following in our minds: regime change.  It simply does not work.

Indeed, Iraq has taught us some harsh lessons about the limits of American's military strength and what can be accomplished through the application of military force in the Middle East.  We can also look to Israel's recent conflict with Hezbollah for a similar lesson - namely that laser guided missiles won't help you against insurgents who embed themselves in local populations with automatic weapons and missile launchers.  Reality has spoken: we cannot win these types of wars.  We must respect reality.

This is not to say that military options never exist, of course.  If a nation is foolish enough to declare war on the United States, they would face the full wrath of the American military and would see their country destroyed.  That's still a pretty strong deterrent, even if guerrilla wars are off the table. 

But if you're talking about a situation like the Sudan or Afganistan in the late-90's, where no threats are being made against the US, but bad things are going on, we must figure out different actions, beyond regime change.  The neocon method is a failure.  That much is clear.

I would argue that a return to the hard-nosed diplomacy of the Cold War and the economic incentives of the post-Cold War period are our best shot.  These tactics need to be reconfigured and adjusted to reflect the new reality, but they are far more proven methods of influencing foreign societies than regime change.  Since 9/11, the president has largely ignored these methods.  (It is no suprise, however, that the President's only success on the North Korea issue came as a result of persuading the Chinese that we share common interests.  This is how diplomacy works.  You locate a country you know has influence on the enemy, and apply diplomatic pressure on that country as a means of influencing the enemy.  It is a tricky mix of persuasion, coercion, and bribery - which is why it must be performed by level-headed professionals, not hot-headed idiots like John Bolten.) 

If the next president picks these methods up and they fail, I will be the first to admit that reality has spoken and that we must find still another way.  For now, however, they represent attractive alternatives to the failed policies of the neoconservatives.

Our vision, our values, as you can see from reading many of the posts, is dying. Our vision inspires Americans as much as Joe Lieberman. Patriotism is sneered at. Until we can reverse that problem, we will never be able to compete with Sharia. The sad thing is that our product is so much better, more fulfilling, more empowering, yet we can't, don't and won't sell it because we don't like the product ourselves.

This is hogwash.  The vast majority of commentors on TPMCafe would love to see the Middle East become a more western-friendly region, with liberal democracies springing up that respect human rights and eschew terrorism for the marketplace of ideas, modernity, and a respect for minority rights.  If we wanted to, GHaines, we too could speak in terms of soring rhetoric about American ideals and the promise of freedom, democracy, and human rights for all.  We don't because reality tells us that something very different is happening in the Middle East.  We see that the actions of the United States are encouraging and enabling Islamic fundamentalism.  We see that for all your soring rhetoric, the policies you advocate achieve the exact opposite of what you urge. 

Here's the reality: Iraq is a blood-soaked, murderous killzone where 50-100 people are found dead, with drill holes in their body, around Baghdad, every single day.  Groups like the Mahdi Army and Hezbollah offer protection from the death and destruction people see around them.  Iraqis and Lebonese and Palestinians are forced to embrace militant groups because they have no hope, or they are so enraged by the actions of the US, or Israel, or their sectarian rivals, that all they can see is revenge. 

How do you expect to "sell" liberal democracy in this environment?  The death and destruction we see on the news in Iraq is a direct consequence of US actions.  You expect Iraqis to response positively to this reality?

I'll try to answer this confusion.

If killing Qutb was counter-productive, why are we encouraging the death penalty for Saddam? Would you apply it to Osama? (It would be nice to have that choice, wouldn't it?)

Our Liberal Democratic values include various human rights, among them the right to sneer at patriotism, although that is one of those straw men you complain about. Note the large number of Iraq vets that ran as Democrats in November. There is no more a war on patriotism than on Christmas.

So the root of the problem was Saddam? News to Osama, that. Wasn't presented that way, either. AQ links were an add-on to the main issue, WMD. Ironically, the only solid link to a terror group is to MEK, who Saddam exploited to harass Iran. He had little control over Ansar-al-Islam, but was content to let them harass the northern Kurds.

The root of 9/11 may have been Qutb, for whom the death penalty was (your point) a mistake, but the development of Al Qaeda found its real flowering in Afghanistan, which is a lesson in failed states. In our zeal to hasten the demise of USSR ( a very mixed blessing) we exacerbated the fragmentation of Afhghanistan, with the observed consequences.

In our zeal to replace Saddam we exacerbated the internal tensions in Iraq, with the observed consequences.

Perhaps we have found a point of agreement, though. You rightfully extol Liberal Democratic values as a contrast to Sharia, which is given by Allah. Our values are chosen by men and women. One thing we have chosen is to argue enthusiastically and resist authoritative Pronouncements.

All should read Jonathan Schell's The Unconquerable World" on this point. These days, if a people decides it is not defeated, it is not (unless dead).

"... doing the Saudi's dirty work for them..." Once again.
Tom

There are plenty of what-if's you can think about.  To even have a chance of "doing it right," however, the Administration would have needed to commit at least twice as many troops from the very start, then fundamentally re-thought every subsequent step along the way.  It's easy to forget that the wheels were already coming off the occupation within two months of the fall of Baghdad.  It's easy to go back now and suggest how things could have been done better.  Yet the facts are the facts: the war was based on an erroneous, dishonest premise (WMD, human rights) and executed in a manner that was so far from adequate that imagining what would have been adequate is just about impossible.

I think an extremely strong argument can be made that even if the post-Saddam plan had been executed perfectly, it was doomed to fail, due to the difficulties inherant in containing a modern urban insurgency.  Moroever, even if it wasn't doomed to fail, it would have taken such a herculean commitment of money, men, and resources that we'd never do it again.

Is your suggestion that things could have gone better "magical"?  Perhaps not.  But it is, at best, an abstract theory, unconnected from the reality we see on the ground in any way, shape, or form.  There is simply is no evidence that suggests that this occupation ever had a chance of succeeding.  Sure we can imagine things that the Administration could have done differently, but it's mere conjecture and theory. 

I find reality much more persuasive.

"I think an extremely strong argument can be made that even if the post-Saddam plan had been executed perfectly, it was doomed to fail"

So then don't waste time criticizing the nation building failures.

Either going in the first place was a bad idea, because we are incapable of effecting change...

OR

We are losing this battle because of poor decision making after we stopped dropping bombs.

I think the latter is closer to the truth. I think the situation is still salvageable even with the mistakes, so it follows that I think without those mistakes, it could have been surprisingly successful and viewed in a much different light.

I think we need to spend a lot more time figuring out how to effectively nation build, and one part of that learning process begins at home.

If we can get into New Orleans and turn it into a place with great schools, low crime, low drug use, low violence, powerful innovative economy, etc., we can apply those lessons to other places. For our sake (as a nation) and the sake of the people in Darfur or Uganda, I think we should focus on this.

Let's examine how we are turning around Harlem. Let's look at the revitalization of Baltimore.
Let's engage the world more, not less. Let's hire more Uzbeks, Arabs, Somalis, etc to work for USAID or the NED. Let's connect people who know how to turn communities around with people who know the local culture in Osh or Baidoa.

Let's learn how to translate our successes into their successes.

Instead of a Department of Homeland Security, how about fixing our international agencies? How about working with NGOs to build a force of Americans that can go somewhere and give people the tools to provide for each other so that they don't have to turn to Hizballah or Hamas for medicine, garbage pick up, hope and a meaning of life?

Can anyone else take my challenge and think about what we can do to have a positive impact on the failed states or transitioning democracies in the world?

With all the bright, educated people on this site, you would think someone can come up with good ideas.

While the West had its role in the in the Middle East you left out the Soviets. Many of the groups including the Taliban, were created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan largely, not not exclusively by the Saudis and the Pakistanis.

The other group you left out are the Arabs. The Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt, in many ways the intellecutal godfathers of all the Sunni radical groups were a response to Nasser's secular military government. Nasser promised glory, getting rid of israel, and a job for every college graduate. He could deliver on none of those promises.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

In re Qtub v. Nasser -- good points. But are Egyptians Arabs? Consider Sadat (Egyptian nationalist) v. Nasser (pan-Arab egotistic opportunist). Your thoughts?

I don't know.  Sulphur content's awfully high.

So a "surge" strategy to attack specific militias must be based on evidence that with less "military" power on the streets their respective political leaders will be more amenable to working together in a national unity government? That is a causal link that I cannot defend, even if in the abstract I assume military success.

But to return to the real world, the probability that that the US surge will substantially reduce the power and motivation of the various fighting forces is infinitesimal.

I keep think of Tom Friedman, on one of the Sunday shows, saying that the primary motivation of each group, Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds, is justice. If he is correct, political and street fighters will only stop when each group achieves justice or decides they don't need to anymore.

The opponents of the surge need to keep demanding that the Administration state clearly mission of the new troops or the new mission of the large number of all troops. What the troops do and what their military success will look like?? The best Congress can do is communicate a clear set of questions and measurements before the surge that will be used as the do oversight during the surge.

So "act of terror" means .... what, exactly. Any method of delivering munitions that we don't use ourselves?

Either going in the first place was a bad idea, because we are incapable of effecting change...

OR

We are losing this battle because of poor decision making after we stopped dropping bombs.

Even if the second case is true -- reasonable people can disagree on this -- it simply does not follow that the Iraq situation is still salvageable now.

You believe that it is, but I don't see a reason why, except that you really, really want to believe.

But you want ideas for how we can do things better. Here's one: stop talking about how we want to transform other cultures. This poisons any efforts we make with traditional and/or nationalistic cultures. By talking about the Iraq invasion as part of a plan to transform the Middle East, we made conflict with the Sadrists inevitable. If that's our objective, then we really are their enemies.

"My vision is alive and well."

What is your vision?
Take a chance, Dan. Put yourself out there and post some ideas, some thoughts you have about how to make the world a better place.

"Either going in the first place was a bad idea, because we are incapable of effecting change... OR We are losing this battle because of poor decision making after we stopped dropping bombs."

No, it's not at all an either/or. Iraq is bad because we launched war, and it's even worse because we did not prepare for the aftermath. In fact, the decision to invade and the poor post-war effort share many factors, and most of these factors lead back to a weak president and the neoconservative mentality that you can bomb people into freedom. They thought that a full blown military campaign would be necessary and sufficient. It was neither.

Also, I wouldn't compare revitalization of US cities with our efforts in other parts of the world that have their own sovereign status and cultural issues. When you start talking about Hezbollah in Lebanon or Muqtada al-Sadr we are dealing with militias that are also political actors and are willing to destabilize a region for political purposes. It's a whole different ball game. So I'm not sure what it means to "get more involved" in an area, especially when 60 percent of the people approve of military attacks on you. It's far more than an economic problem.

"This poisons any efforts we make with traditional and/or nationalistic cultures"

Efforts at what? You just said you didn't want to transform any other cultures. Are you saying we should make efforts to not transform them? Does that take effort?

Are you saying we should make efforts to transform their society, but not thier culture, and if so what distinction are you making?

I do not understand your point.

I have already outlined parts of my vision on numerous occasions, for many, many months. After my most recent brief offering, you said my vision was only a "leftist" vision. That apparently doesn't satisfy you, and that's fine - but it is my vision, and I believe in it. So don't project your perception of moral decline and flagging faith onto me. Your faith is not my faith. You might not like the fact that I am not as much driven by the concerns that drive you, and am absorbed by other concerns, but my own faith remains strong.

I would point out that I have been posting on this site for over a year and a half, and have written from time to time some tediously long comments and discussion posts in which I outlined proposals for, among other things, (i) a global energy compact and treaty, (ii) an international humanitarian and peacekeeping force staffed by direct enlistment instead of soldiers tasked by individual countries, (iii) re-energized nuclear non-proliferation efforts driven from the top by cuts in the nuclear forces of the major NPT signatories, including the US, and (iv) UN security council reform.

My consistent theme has been the need for broad-based global efforts to solve global problems, particularly in the area of the environment, the economy and the conflict over energy resources. I have argued against approaches based on the perpetuation of a supposed US "hegemony" or "unipolarity", and have argued for decreasing the role of the military in the US economy and US national life, and for decreasing the US footprint around the globe. At the same time I have advocated the pursuit of increased security responsibility by other regional powers, and more active cooperation among the major powers - democracies and non-democracies alike - on preventing and ending conflicts. I support the growth of potent instruments of global governance and security, and take a negative view of proposals that would tend to promote division, power blocs and national ascendancy or domination.

I have also opined on many occasions that the current trendy focus in international affairs on terrorism and failed states is misguided and excessive, and that the most important security threats facing the world continue to be rooted in the threat of conflict between large, heavily armed states. I have argued that our (and everybody else's) chief security focus out to be the preservation of global peace, and the prevention of state-on-state conflict. I have opined several times that the world is drifting toward a cataclysmic global conflict, driven by the competition over energy resources, and have expressed much frustration at the inability of centrist liberals either to perceive this drift, or to propose anything serious that might do something about it. I am equally frustrated by their readiness to promote conflict of the sort that will likely intensify and accelerate this drift, especially in the Middle East tinderbox, for the sake of what I view as rather parochial ideological goals that make a sort of religion out of American-style liberalism.

This discussion here at America Abroad about the contrast between what I have called "global internationalism" and "democratic multinationalism" goes far back in time, even before the Princeton Project came out with its Concert of Democracies proposal. Since I have been posting here, I have been arguing against proposals and arguments - made especially by John Ikenberry - trumpeting such things and concepts as the "liberal order", liberal hegemony, NATO expansion, and thematically similar ideas.

The conversational dynamic here has always been a bit frustrating to me, since I have no professional competence in foreign policy, international relations, politics, security or economics; and yet people like me are required to hold up our side of the argument against a professional class of regular posters who almost all adhere to a mainstream Clintonian neoliberal orthodoxy. There has been some sincere movement of late toward opening up the discussion, and so I'm not going to beat that horse again. But since you are new, it may help to explain some of the testiness of the commentators.

Since you have only been here a few days, I can't expect you to be aware of this history of argument.

any effective strategy must result in a sense of accomplishment among the major political players in Iraq. without that, any effort will fail because those who feel they've lost will do what they can to derail the success. for example, what if we succeed in alienating Muqtada al-Sadr? what's gonna happen? he'll just say "oh well, I guess I have no role in the government. I'll just go away now." of course not.

another premise for any effective strategy is that once we leave, no matter when that is, local forces will determine the fate of whatever institutions we've set up, including the Iraqi army. we've already seen what happened with the police, and I see no reason to believe that it won't eventually happen with the military after we disengage, be it in a year or five years.

I would pursue independent "behind-the-scenes" channels with the major Sunni and Shi'a political actors, including those we currently demonize such as Muqtada al-Sadr, and essentially make them a deal: the US will withdraw it's major military forces in a way that allows *both* Sunni and Shiite militias appear as victors, with the understanding that they will concentrate their resources on rebuilding their respective local economies for the people they represent, and the US will provide any consulting or auxillary support they request, but only if they request it.

al Qaeda in Iraq will probably continue to try destabilizing the region and I have no good answer for that. it will probably be necessary to have special ops in the region for many years to come, and perhaps David Kilcullen has the right set of ideas for dealing with that factor. but whatever we do, it can't have the big glaring USA brand name on it. perhaps in January of 2009 the US can work on rebuilding its credibility.

so that's my best shot. its by no means a guarantee that all factions will stop fighting each other, but again, I think the *aim* here should be to take away the incentive they have towards violence, and in my view that incentive is fundamentally political.

"This poisons any efforts we make with traditional and/or nationalistic cultures."

If you against any efforts, why do you care if they are "poisoned”? Why even use the word poisoned if diminishing our efforts is a good thing to you?
I am getting the impression that part of you likes the idea of helping people build a better society, and in that sentence that person slipped through to the outside world and now you are trying to pretend that he didn't.

So take a stand here. Either you are A) in favor of making an effort or B) you think we should not make an effort.
Which is it?

If it is A, I would be very interested in hearing your ideas. What would your plan be? What strategies could we employ to help?

"After my most recent brief offering, you said my vision was only a "leftist" vision."

That wasn't a derisive statement. You held that vision up as a vision that everyone had. I said that we, in the "west" had no unified vision. You held that vision up as one such unified vision. I disagreed saying it was a vision of the American left.
My larger point was that Fundamentalist Islam is doing a better job of spreading its vision for the future than we are because we don't have one vision. They want to project their belief system on us, but we don't want to do that to them. It is a one-sided fight right now.

"an international humanitarian and peacekeeping force staffed by direct enlistment instead of soldiers tasked by individual countries"

This is exactly what I am talking about. If you don't want to post it again because everyone but me has read it before, that's understandable. However I would like to read your ideas about this force. I think talking about this type of force should be our #1 priority right now. Even if you are against military induced regime change at the hands of America, plenty of other places have regime change and plenty of other places have no regime.
Nation Building is a real necessity, but we are not close to good enough at it yet. I think we have some of the brightest, most creative people on earth in this country, so I believe we can figure it out, but not if we don't try.
We should be able to go to Turkmenistan right now and drop off a few thousand people, some of who speak Turkmen, some of who have engineering expertise, some of whom have experience at the NY stock exchange, etc and help them take advantage of this golden opportunity. That is what I mean.

"that make a sort of religion out of American-style liberalism"

I think that is an apt analogy. The problem to me is that it is not enough of a religion. Meaning, it does not inspire people, it does not give them meaning. It does to me, but I am obviously in the minority. For it to be a religion, people would have to believe in it, and people do not.

Why? The Marines were there as peace keepers. What will it do for your if we exclude the the killing of 241 sleeping Marines from an act of terror? As Steve Coll said it was viewed as just one in a series of terrorist acts in the erly to mid-1980s.

The Brits were mostly pro-British and pro-Jordanian post WWII. Thus they aid King Abdullah's grab of the West Bank.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

GHaines,

In that early post, I described the vision as one that "progressives around the world" support, not one that "everyone" had. There is no unified "western vision", and there never has been such a vision. And the roiling diversity of western visions will probably continue: we are not at the "end of history".

For that matter, there is also not a single Islamic vision, Arab vision, or even Islamic fundamentalist vision.

I don't see any evidence that "Fundamentalist Islam is doing a better job of spreading its vision for the future than we are". This sounds like a typical bit of unhinged Islamophobic hysteria. Westerners are very active in promoting their various visions through the media, publication, trade, the internet, word-of mouth etc. Sure, there are plenty of jihadist web sites and pamphlets floating around the world. But these are clearly dwarfed by the massive presence of western cultural and media products permeating the global communications environment. It's not even a close call.

As for the idea of an international humanitarian and peacekeeping force, it has long been my view that the reason the international community has not been as successful as it could be in stopping violence in places like Darfur is that the efforts to do something about these crises get tangled up in the political struggles over the competing national interests of outside powers, and that so long as humanitarian interventions are conducted by the forces of individual member states, whose chief loyalty is to those states, we will have this problem.

Daniel Greenbaum brought up the 1982 peacekeeping force introduced in Lebanon. Why did that intervention fail so miserably? Surely the main reason was that this force was made up of Americans, French, British and Italians. These are hardly neutral parties where Lebanon is concerned, but have clear partisan political and economic interests there, and alliances with particular sides in the conflict. They could not fail to be seen by forces on the ground as participants in the conflict, rather than neutral referees or global police. If people want a global police force, then that is what they should advocate - a global police force, not a posse drawn up from the very gangs who are involved in the turf wars they seek to quell.

What we need is an international peacekeeping force, organized through the UN, whose soldiers enlist directly in the force, rather than loaner soldiers from member states. The primary loyalty of soldiers in the UN force should be to their comrades in that force, and to the UN and the Security Council. It should be a condition of UN membership that a a member state's nationals be permitted to enlist in such a force. We want UN soldiers who are simply UN soldiers - not US or Chinese or British or French or Canadian soldiers working temporarily for the UN. The charge for such a force should be strictly related to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions - not advancing the national or ideological interests of particular groups of member states.

The sort of effort you are interested in, some kind of mobile America Corps with a Wall Street Brigade, is really quite opposite in spirit to what I am proposing. So is the call for a Concert of Democracies to do jobs like this. Both of those lead in a direction away from internationalism, and toward international conflict.

There is at this time no civil war or humanitarian crisis in Turmenistan, and absolutely no reason for a foreign intervention there. What you are proposing for Turkmenistan is not international peacekeeping, but national or multinational aggression on behalf of a partisan agenda.

To me the point of a force you are proposing (which I do not necessarily disagree with, incidentally) is to help give locals the tools they need to start the climb towards liberal, free market, democratic systems.
Some of the interventions would be to stop a slaughter (Sudan, Uganda, etc).
Some would be to prevent a rising internal power that would set the country or region back decades if they gained control (Somalia, Lebanon, Iraq, Waziristan/Bajaur, etc.)
Some would be to help empower the locals to meet their own needs so that groups with dangerous visions do not get traction (Indonesia, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Haiti, etc.)

A group like Hizballah gains popular support because they can provide for the people in southern Lebanon. We should be able to help the Lebanese government compete for the people's loyalty better by helping them provide better.
We should be able to help the Iraqi government out compete the Mahdi army for popular support.

I think we need to be more engaged around the world. We need more peace-corps types, more Red Cross types, Doctors without Borders, a USAID that does more than throw money at a government that may be corrupt, U.N. peace keepers that can shoot back at people who threaten locals trying to do the right thing.

In Burma right now, the Red Cross is getting kicked out by the de facto government. What is the argument for not supporting the Red Cross militarily-- we don't want to impose our values on the Burmese people?

It doesn't matter to me that you suggest that the force be a global one. My only issue is that it can't be completely global and still be a force for good. If we want to provide help to the Burmese people, can we possibly include the de facto Burmese government in the force designed to stop their aggression? Can we enlist the Janjaweed to help stop the genocide in the Sudan? Can we enlist the LRA to help stop the genocide in Uganda? Can we enlist the Chinese to fight the oppression of the Falun Gong?
That is like a police force recruiting the Latin Kings to be a neighborhood watch so that we can fight gang violence.

I am all for the idea that the more countries we have on board, the more legitimacy we have. I understand that point crystal clear. I think those other countries have to be countries on the right side of the fence though, which is why a Concert of Democracies sounds like a good idea to me.

"Westerners are very active in promoting their various visions through the media, publication, trade, the internet, word-of mouth etc."

Hizballah has more support now than ever. The Islamic Courts have more power now than ever. Hamas has more power now than ever. Islamic Fundamentalist groups either have won, or are going to win many elections in the next decade. People in the Middle East are responding to groups that support Qutbism, Salafism, Wahhabism. The ideology of those groups is directly opposed to Jeffersonianism, Adam Smithism, Thatcherism, etc.
They are doing a much better job at getting people to support their ideas than we are. I agree that it's not even close, but I think we are losing.
Who is winning the ideological war in Aceh province?
Who is winning the ideological war in Baidoa?
Who is winning in Osh?
Not Thomas Jefferson.

"There is at this time no civil war or humanitarian crisis in Turmenistan, and absolutely no reason for a foreign intervention there."

http://www.upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20061221-030417-8008r

We can let someone take over who will run the country further underground, or we can try to affect positive change.

A fine example of why I am ambivalent toward political parties. The right attacks the individual soldiers, and the left attacks the military institutions. Both sides flatworlders playing a meaningless game of tug-o-war, the winner of which chooses the next round of beltwayed liars and thieves. The electorate remains a constant in the pendulum's inexorable swing, as always epitomising their cherished three monkey ideal; deaf dumb and blind, awash in ignorance borne from practising the American arrogant naivete.

Nope; couldn't be the fault of our brave and courageous military commanders.

Military officers must obey orders, and the ultimate responsibility for these orders belongs to the president and his political hacks.

--begin report excerpt--

Report of the DoD Commission on
Beirut International Airport Terrorist Act, October 23, 1983
20 December 1983

pp 31,32

23 October 1983.

At approximately 0622 on Sunday, 23 October 1983, the Battalion Landing Team (BLT) Headquarters building in the Marine Amphibious Unit (MAU) compound at Beirut International Airport was destroyed by a terrorist bomb. This catastrophic attack took the lives of 241 U.S. military personnel and wounded over 100 others. The bombing was carried out by a lone terrorist driving a yellow Mercedes Benz stakebed truck that accelerated through the public parking lot south of the BLT Headquarters building, crashed through a barbed wire and concertina fence, and penetrated into the central lobby of the building, where it exploded. The truck drove over the barbed and concertina wire obstacle, passed between two Marine guard posts without being engaged by fire, entered an open gate, passed around one sewer pipe barrier and between two others, flattened the Sergeant of the Guard's sandbagged booth at the building's entrance, penetrated the lobby of the building and detonated while the majority of the occupants slept. The force of the explosion ripped the building from its foundation. The building then imploded upon itself. Almost all the occupants were crushed or trapped inside the wreckage. Immediate efforts were undertaken to reestablish security, to extricate the dead and wounded form the building's rubble, and to institute a mass casualty handling and evacuation operation.

Almost simultaneously with the attack on the U.S. marine compound, a similar truck bomb exploded at the French MNF headquarters.

pp 48,49

Following the 18 April 1983 destruction of the U.S. Embassy, USCINCEUR promulgated an expanded set of ROE (rules of engagement) for use by USMNF (US Multi National Force) personnel assigned to provide security for the British Embassy and the Duraffourd Building where U.S. Embassy functions had been relocated. Those expanded ROE were implemented by CTF 62 through the issuance to each Marine assigned to Embassy security duty of an ROE card, the so called "Blue Card." Since the USCINCEUR expanded ROE were promulgated for specific use of those members of the USMNF assigned to provide security for the Embassy, USMNF elements at BIA (Beirut International Airport) continued to operate under the ROE previously provided. In order to ensure that each Marine of the USMNF understood what set of ROE were applicable to him at any given time, CTF 62 issued a "White Card" delineating the ROE for those not assigned to Embassy duty, as follows:

"The mission of the Multi-national Force (MNF) is to keep the peace. The following rules of engagement will be read and fully understood by all members of the U.S. contingent of the MNF:

• When on post, mobile or foot patrol, keep a loaded magazine in the weapon, weapons will be on safe, with no rounds in the chamber.
• Do not chamber a round unless instructed to do so by a commissioned officer unless you must act in immediate self-defense where deadly force is authorized.
• Keep ammunition for crew-served weapons readily available but not loaded in the weapon. Weapons will be on safe at all times.
• Call local forces to assist in all self-defense efforts. Notify next senior command immediately.
• Use only the minimum degree of force necessary to accomplish the mission.
• Stop the use of force when it is no longer required.
• If effective fire is received, direct return fire at a distinct target only. If possible, use friendly sniper fire.
• Respect civilian property; do not attack it unless absolutely necessary to protect friendly forces.
• Protect innocent civilians from harm.
• Respect and protect recognized medical agencies such as Red Cross, Red Crescent, etc.

These rules of engagement will be followed by all members the U.S. MNF unless otherwise directed."

--end report excerpt--

The Marines had previously come under fire from both the Israel Defense Force, and Lebanese warring factions, the later having engaged in mortar fire upon the Marines, yet still the rules of engagement, which originated in D.C., often mandated that return fire, even defensive, must first be okayed by a commander. In the case of patrols, this meant a radioed request and authorisation. In the case of the Marines manning the barracks guard posts and seeing the oncoming truck, it meant a phone call, before they could even click off the safeties, and chamber rounds into their M-16s. Even if the rules of engagement has given them the initiative to fire defensively without orders, they were not issued weapons which had a high probability of stopping a Mercedes Truck loaded with explosives estimated as equivalent to 12,000 pounds of TNT. Again I lay fault at the feet of the worthy: the braindead Reagan Administration

(See Picture of mushroom cloud it caused.)

Advocate and support International Accords that strictly limit weapons sales, and actively engage in enforcement of these accords. It is unlikely that Sudan manufactures the vast majority of the arms and ordinance used in their civil war. It won't end the violence, but would certainly cut down on its lethality.

Limiting Russia's arms sales might stop the violence when coupled with other acts, but that doesn't address what to do once the violence stops.
After they stop the genocide, what do you suggest we do? Leave and hope?

I think OSI does some great things. I wish more people knew about their work.

"I'll make uneducated suggestions on your question if you'll first suggest how we should lift our own out of poverty and free them from the shackles of religious enslavement (Christianity)."

Tom, no one has all the answers. I simply would like to hear your ideas, based on your life experience. I'm sure you've been around, I'm sure you've seen things, read things, met with people and thought deeply about some of the world's problems. I am not trying to set some kind of trap for you. I am sincerely asking for your thoughts. I am interested.

Having said that, I will take you up on your offer and lead off.
For all of our limitations, our system would be a huge improvement in many nations around the world. If Uzbekistan could import our model, they could be Central Asia's hegemon.
As good as our system is, we can obviously do better and be better than we are.
I think the first step is too look at places where we have engineered turn-arounds and learn from them. Gladwell did a great job in Tipping Points of detailing the NYC turnaround. Little things DO make a big difference.

Getting involved in sagging communities, getting involved with kids, getting involved with local organizations is extremely important. Helping organize clean-up crews, beautification projects and the like go a long way to establishing a foundation. If the local community takes pride in their town, it effects the tone and mood of the interactions. Teaching communities not to wait for someone else to do something is big.

Getting white people to work with minorities is a big deal too. It shows Black, Latin and Asian people that white people aren’t all devils, and it shows white people that minorities aren’t all crooks. It helps promote empathy between races.

Working with police, big business and church groups is important as well. Operation cease Fire in Boston was a success and it should be emulated in other places. Check it out.

I think the single biggest problem is the cycle created by fatherless children. That is a huge problem that needs time and patience to correct. For one thing, I would be in favor of making divorce more difficult. I think children should have their own representation in court. Their lawyer should have veto power over a divorce. They should haggle for a deal that suits the child best. Maybe that means ordering the parents to pay for after school programs, maybe that means paying for counseling, maybe that means no divorce.

In situations where kids are fatherless (or motherless) because the parent is in jail, or dead, or abusive, the state needs to hold up the safety net higher. Colleges and High Schools should have a massive increase in community service program requirements. Any college student looking to become a social worker should be made to volunteer in the local impoverished community. Same with teachers. They should intern at on-site tutoring services for fatherless kids for a few semesters.

We should give scholarships for social entrepreneurship. The trickle down effect to High Schools could be great.

Student teachers should not be allowed to teach in highly functioning schools. Those schools don't need help, but other schools do. Student teaching should be expanded in scope.

Students should have Unions too. Teachers and administrators fight over the best deal for themselves, but no one specifically argues or negotiates on behalf of the children. We should push for that. As part of the contract, maybe teachers get more pay, but maybe they have to log a certain amount of hours at after school programs, so single moms can essentially get free day care, which may free them up financially to quit their second job.

Those are but a few ideas. Not easy, not perfect, but worth looking at.

As to the comment about Christianity, I think that was an emotional shot you took, and not really worth addressing, but I will anyway. There are no "Ten Commandment" squads shooting barbers or mutilating their family for not following Christian law. Christian groups may creep you out, but they are nothing close to the mafia-like groups enforcing Sharia Law in southern Iraq, Somalia, Waziristan, Aceh or other places.

Now it is your turn. Let’s hear your ideas.

To me the point of a force you are proposing (which I do not necessarily disagree with, incidentally) is to help give locals the tools they need to start the climb towards liberal, free market, democratic systems.

To me the point the point is stop people from killing each other, restore order and get out. No more ambitious charge has a chance of winning broad international support. There is simply no realistic possibility, for example, of the international community creating a genuinely international force that would be authorized to go so far as to preempt "rising internal powers".

So long as armed interventions are seen as favoring the material interests of individual nations or privileged groups of nation, they will be resisted by other competing nations. That is why it is essential to take the politics and factionalism out of the humanitarian intervention business, to the extent possible.

Suppose there were some massive eruption of genocidal insurgent warfare in Malysia or Indonesia or Burma. Suppose the Chinese, presuming to act as responsible global citizens, then offered to raise an a peacemaking and peacekeeping force to intervene in the country, deafeat the insurgents and restore order. Suppose that from a military, economic and and logistical point of view, it made abundant sense for the Chinese to handle this security problem, since it is in their own back yard, and they could handle the job most effectively. Do you think the US would support such an intervention? Of course not. It would be vigorously resisted. In fact, we would probably send arms, money and "advisors" to aid the genocidal insurgents.

So the key to dealing with such problems is to have an intervening force that doesn't work for the US or the Chinese or the Russians or the Indians or the Japanese, and that isn't there to spread capitalism, or communism, or Thatcherism or "capitalism with Chinese characteristics" or any other ism, but is only there to restore peace and stop the killing.

My intention is that the international force would report to a reformed Security Council. The reforms I would like to see would expand the SC membership somewhat, and replace the veto with some sort of supermajority approval requirement. To say the force is international and global does not mean that its actions must be approved by every single UN member state and national group, down to the Janjaweed. It just means that it is directed by a Security Council that represents all the major global powers, and has significant representation from less powerful states, rather than representing only one particular ideological or regional bloc or alliance.

And as for the composition of the force, the suggestion I made in my previous post is that the proposed international force would not enlist the members of any other forces - neither the LRA or Chinese army, or Janjaweed or US Army. The members of the UN force work and answer only to that force. They are not to be members of any other country's armed forces. They come from some country, but they are not in the employ of the governement of that country - just as a US military member might come from Mississippi, but swears an oath to the president, and does not work for the state of Mississippi or give his chief loyalty to Mississipi. If a member of the US Army wished to join the force, he must be discharged from the US Army before joining it. And if were to turn out some member of the force is working covertly for some national or sub-national army, he would be summarily discharged.

On a different matter. You say:

A group like Hizbollah gains popular support because they can provide for the people in southern Lebanon. We should be able to help the Lebanese government compete for the people's loyalty better by helping them provide better.

The main thing Hizbollah was able to provide was defense against Israeli aggression, both in ending the previous Israeli occupation, and repelling the more recent incursion. They have had much more success with that than what is broadly seen as an impotent and compromised government. That is why their power grew during band following the war, including among non-Shia residents of Lebanon. So if you think we should try to compete with Hizbollah in that department, step right up with a proposal. Unfortuantely, it is not one that will get off the ground in America. Thus, we will continue to have difficulty attracting people in Lebanon and elsewhere in the Arab world to our side.

We can count it progress in Turkmenistan if the country ends up with some leader who is not an egomaniacal nutcase like Niyazov. Other than that, I suspect they will continue their independent Turkmen ways, and continue to play foreign economic suitors in the US, Russia and Europe off against each other.

The paranoid and totalitarian nature of your ideological zealotry is truly disturbing. Apparently if some Anglo-American ideology like Jeffersonism or even Thatcherism is not oozing, blob-like, into every orifice in the global body, we are "losing" the Great Struggle. Im surprised you didn't express despair over the fact that that Confucianism is more influential in Shandong province than John Stuart Mill. Baidoa? Osh? Give me a break.

And again, why do you hate all Islamic courts so much? There are a lot of different kinds, and they tend to play a significant role in the lives of ... um ... Muslims. they have since the 7th centurey. Is there absolutely nothing about Islamic law you find the least bit worthy or redeeming? Do you want to exterminate Islam and Islamic law?

My position is that Saddam, and people like him fomented Islamic Fundamentalism in the first place. Nasser killed Qutb. Karimov brutally oppresses Muslims. The Saudis kill Islamic Fundamentalists every day.

I am unsure about Nasser, but these other examples were all given substantial aid by the American government. Karimov is especially relevant, given that the Bush Admin's vocal/financial support and extended alliance with Uzbekistan's brutal kleptocracy came after the State Department had earlier tagged him as a significant human rights abuser. Even after Karimov's butchery in Andijon had occured, the Bush Administration was loath to call a spade a spade, and issued warnings to the Uzbeki people to restrain from engaging in violent acts to overthrow their tyrant who was noted for acquiring confessions by boiling prisoners alive in water. A outrageously hypocritical statement by an administration that had already revised the cause for War Upon Iraq into an act of freeing Iraqis from Saddam's iron fist.

Bush's rendition of humans to Uzbekistan is in direct violation of the UN Convention Against Torture; Article 3.1, and Bush only helped prove he was consciously aware of this with his off the wall response to a Press Conference on March 16, 2005:

Q As Commander-in-Chief, what is it that Uzbekistan can do in interrogating an individual that the United States can't?

Bush: We seek assurances that nobody will be tortured when we render a person back to their home country.

We have met the enemy, and he is One Son of a Bush

"And again, why do you hate all Islamic courts so much?"

I was referring specifically to the Islamic Courts Council that is taking over Somalia right now. There is only one kind and they believe people like you and your family should convert to Islam, grow beards, wear the burkha or get beheaded.
Not that we are especially close, Dan, but I hope none of that happens to you or anyone you love.
People with similar ideologies are doing terrible things in Southern Iraq, Waziristan and Bajaur as well. There are people who believe similar things working to replace the governments of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Yemen and other places as well. Study up on Sharia law, read the Quran and tell me you agree with how they feel about women's rights (as just one example).
Tell your wife, mother, or daughter that you have no problem with Sharia Law. It would break their hearts. I am assuming you don't realize that you are saying, so I won't continue. Either that or you agree with the nonsense spouted by Sadr and his Sharia squads. Good grief.

Your apathetic feelings are truly disturbing to me. I am sure people who think like you said that Communism was a joke back in 1916. "The Menshevieks? Come on! The Bolshieviks, are you really worried about them? You're paranoid. Cuba communist? You're dreaming!"
I'm sure people even scoffed at the idea of a group like the Taliban coming to power until they did.

"would not enlist the members of any other forces - neither the LRA or Chinese army, or Janjaweed or US Army."

My impression is that you would not ban people as long as they were "former janjaweed" or "former members of the LRA".
Now that is scary. There is no moral judgment on who gets in at all? As long as they are not official members of a national army, they are good to go? What about "former KKK members"?

To compare China and America is again a deliberate attempt by you to refuse to make a quality judgement. That type of thinking terrifies me. Action A can be good or bad depending on who is doing it, Dan. You are refusing to make that distinction. If a cop shoots some criminal who is about to shoot a child, is the cop wrong in your world view? The cop and the criminal both have guns and they both will use them, there's no difference right? Moral equivalency is how evil spreads. Talk about dangerous.

"The main thing Hizbollah was able to provide was defense against Israeli aggression"

That is actually an al Qaeda talking point. Hitting back is not aggression, at least in my book. This goes to the "there is no right or wrong" philosophy you are espousing though.
If everyone stopped attacking Israel, do you think Israel would launch a bomb or raid a village? No. Israel fights when there is a threat to their freedom. They are not perfect, of course, but if we are choosing side between Hizballah and Israel, it is a no brainer.
Has Hizballah returned the soldiers they kidnapped (in a totally unrelated act) before Israel's aggression for no reason this summer?

I hope you enjoy your Christmas. People in Iran get arrested for trying to celebrate Christmas, but let's all pretend they have a right to do that.

In another context, I would be happy to discuss what providing social benefits might be able to accomplish as way to bring about change. But my remarks were a challenge to the notion you put forward when you said:

"Sadr is the front man right now in that battle. If we don't try our hardest to stop him from gaining power, the whole idea was a waste of time."

Since this effort to "stop" him was being discussed in terms of what was a justifiable use of force, my comment about political legitimacy and the problem of not replicating the techniques of the former regime were meant to put the burden of proof upon you to show how the proposed move against the Mahdi army would not be understood as taking up the side of one faction against others in a civil war.

If you are going to argue for the level of engagement your ideas would require, you are going to have to come to grips with how the different groups in Iraq are competing for a finite number of resources and have some respect for why fighting directly for their own interests looks like a better bet than counting on the U.S. to make sure it all works out for the best.

You say elsewhere that those who declare all attempts to "reconstruct" are useless from the get go means that they are not in a position to criticize this or that means to do such work. I see the logic of that. But you should apply what follows to yourself:

The consequences of doing it wrong has a cost. The loss of influence and the reduction of options are realities, not just attitudes ranging between defeatism and patriotic fervor.

So, answer me this question: what Western power has won a pitched battle with local insurgents in a far away land since WWII? Start with the French in Algeria, and move forward in time. It ain't pretty.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

If a problem is fatherless children, with a significant number out of wedlock, why is making divorce more difficult a better solution?

Why not make it more difficult to get married? How about widespread availability of contraception, no questions asked?

For some of the orphans, I'd much rather see them with loving gay or lesbian adoptive parents, then shuffling through foster homes.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I have no argument that higher-level commanders failed, and should have resigned rather than transmit an order to put troops in such a position. That being said, it is fairly accepted in the Corps that the on-site commanders were told not to be "provocative", even to the extent of the concrete barriers you suggest. Minimal rational security for such a site would have given them a wider perimeter, and heavier weapons than M-16s that would have a chance of stopping a truck bomb at a distance.

I'm afraid that the on-site people faced, at best, the Birkenhead Drill -- but not on their initiative. IIRC, the local commanders also died.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Good point Bev, and it goes beyond how Iraqi Sunnis would see it. It appears that the Sunni Saudis have answered - abandon our Sunni brothers in Iraq and we will support them.

"Let's engage the world more, not less. Let's hire more Uzbeks, Arabs, Somalis, etc to work for USAID or the NED."

You want a serious discussion on that idea? Role up your sleeves.

 The "National Endowment for Democracy" (NED) spent $23 million in Venezuela this year trying to influence the presidential election against Chavez. Result, Chavez's victory percentage (61%) this election was a 5% gain over his previous election. Way to go smart ass. More of that is just what we need.

Venezuela's population is 1/12th that of the U.S. Would it surprise you to know that most Venezuelan's think they had every moral and legal right to have spent $276 million supporting anybody-but-George in the last election? That's more than Bush and Kerry spent combined, but proportional to your meddling in their election. But, since boy George has our hands stuck to the Iragi tar baby for the forseeable future, they instead spent the money retiring IMF debt for Argentina.

What makes you think it's alright for the U.S. to have laws prohibiting foreign money in our elections but yet advocate spending that kind of money trying to influence the elections of other countries? Do you think that you, personally, could stand on the street cornor in Caracas and espouse such hegemonic blather without being lynched?

The U.S. is not a super-power, it is just the bull in the china closet.

Report of the DoD Commission on Beirut International Airport Terrorist Act October 23, 1983

"They have a long way to go, but they are moving in the right direction"

More people die in Uganda every day at the hands of the LRA than in Darfur from the Janjaweed.
Women in refugee camps are intentionally raped by LRA soldiers with HIV as a way to intimidate and exterminate the population.
If you think the Sudan is "moving in the right direction" as well, we have very different definitions of the right direction. Uganda may be the biggest holocaust on earth right now.
It's no wonder we don't do anything. We don't even know what's goin on.

It's about power, not oil (Kache) -- or about protecting prior concessions and capital investments.

Although I've added a caveat, Kache, I don't disagree with your conclusion. The will to power -- egoism of the elites -- seems to be the most explanatory IR theory.

Were there no oil -- very cheap because the monopoly rents are recycled through our "finance" economy -- and no nuclear armed Zionists who claim after 58 years to be unable to take care of themselves there, America would have no interest in the Middle East.

Nuclear power, tar sands, switchgrass -- were "power" not the real driver, wouldn't the additional "apparent" expense of these substitutes be the way to go?

I am not too well versed in Marxism, but I have read the major works. The biggest problem with Marxism to me, was that there was no way to stop Marxism from becoming Stalinism, Maoism, or at best Castroism. One party rule designed to help the masses is a contradiction that liberal democracy does not have. Communism has Sputnik to show for it's efforts, "western democracy" has too many positives to list. No contest.

"If it's not a blank check, where are the limits?"

I agree that we are handcuffed by reality. We are simply not powerful enough to do everything, or even most things that we would otherwise be morally obligated to do.
That is one reason why I am in favor of a Concert of Democracies.
We basically have 3 options, the way I see it.
1) We can commit to an isolationist policy and hope that things work out on their own.
2) We can strive to become more powerful so that we can handle all of these problems.
3) We can work together with other like-minded nations to share the responsibility.

Number 1, I think is not justifiable, period.
Number 2, while it is a good start, is a pipe dream. We are the most powerful nation on earth right now, and we are not close to being powerful enough to do this all by ourselves. Even if we were 2 or 3 times as powerful, we would still fall far short. Not to mention we probably have no chance to become 2 or 3 times as powerful.
Number 3 helps mitigate some of the problems with number 2. If we work to become more powerful, and we work to help other like-minded nations become more powerful, we may be able to improve a few nations a decade. Somewhere down the road, we could reach a tipping point, where more nations are strong enough to be able to contribute, and we could expand the Concert.
Maybe in 15 years, Turkey could be in that position. Maybe in 15 years, Russia could be there. Maybe in 30 years, Iraq could be there.

Having said all of that, I think we have already wasted 15 years in Central Asia, and we let the power vacuum created by the fall of the Soviets be filled with dictators and Fundamentalist groups. If we had taken a pro-active approach in 1991, maybe the tone of Central Asia would have been progressive and democratic and the Taliban would have struggled to take root in Afghanistan.
We can debate maybes all day, but the bottom line is that in places where liberal democracies have taken root, the problems have stopped bubbling over. West Germany, for example, helped influence East German thought for the better. 50 years after Germany was the biggest menace on earth, they have become a leading force for good. In 1939 Germany was part of the problem, since 1989, they have been part of the solution.

To answer your question about where the limits are, I think we have to take a realistic approach and place the number 1 priority on places where failed or autocratic governments overlap with our strategic interests, or those of "western civilization."

The Middle East, Central Asia, North Africa and South East Asia would be more important on that scale than West Africa or South America.
I think Krauthammer said it best in his speech about Democratic Realism when he said:

"We will support democracy everywhere, but we will commit blood and treasure only in places where there is a strategic necessity--meaning, places central to the larger war against the existential enemy, the enemy that poses a global mortal threat to freedom."

If we add to this axiom a component of pre-emptive aid to failed states, I think we will do a lot of good in the world.
It isn't all about dropping bombs, most of what I think we should do is about getting engaged in places like Liberia, Rwanda, Burundi, and Sierra Leone, where the shooting has basically stopped and helping them insulate their society from any more brutality.
Dictators and Warlords are like a parasite that controls its host, and liberal free market democracy is an inoculation against that infestation. There are many places that are vulnerable right now. Helping the weak is the smartest way of fighting evil, but sometimes evil has to be confronted head-on.

If there's prioritization, and always the question "would freedom be better served if we let the locals decide (sort of the Prime Directive)," I have much more comfort than earlier. While I don't necessarily agree with Krauthammer's priorities, having priorities is important. For example, I tend to rate South America higher than the relatively stable, if uncertain, Maghreb of North Africa.

Rather than coming in after the shooting, it's wise, through appropriate aid, to try to avert some of that shooting. Developing a middle class often is the best thing for stability.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Not good to rely on Krauthammer to make points. The man has been consistently wrong on Iraq and just about everything else I've read in his column.

Tom

I reject, with respect to the Marines, both the "foreign invading force" and "peacekeeper" roles, because they weren't permitted to act in either role. Their "presence", under orders that did NOT let them do local security, just set themselves up as targets.

No, when Israel knowingly shells peacekeepers, it is not terrorism. It is a war crime. Not all war crimes are terrorism; calling everything terrorism makes the word meaningless.

I can't know why the IDF did that, but one possible reason is that they didn't want to be watched and chose to neutralize observers. Again, if that was their rationale, it was a war crime by overt troops, but doesn't comply with any meaningful definition of terrorism.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

First of all, let me say that this might be the best post I have read on this site.
Super job, Dan.
Some of the issues we are just going to have to agree to disagree about, but I do respect your opinions.

As for the others--

"Your idealism is, in my view, a mask for an extremely dangerous brand of fanaticism and extremism."

I think 50% of America would agree with the statement if you take the word "your" out of it, and that is a big problem for me. If the sentence read "Idealism is a mask for an extremely dangerous brand of fanaticism," you might have enough support to win the popular vote in America. That is what I have been saying since day one.

WE, AS AMERICANS, ARE NOT FANATICS ABOUT IDEALISM.

Idealism = bad

America is supposed to be an idealistic place, founded on idealistic notions. The American people have been souring on idealism for the better part of the last 40 years or so and it makes me very worried.

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is seen as corny today. That bothers me a great deal.

"we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor" -- if you said that on The Daily Show the crowd would roll their eyes and hiss at you. Do me a favor. Take a poll. Print out that quote and ask people this question—
“How would you describe the person who said that?”

Do you have any doubt what the majority would answer?
“He’s corny.”
“He sounds like a loser.”
“He sounds goofy and patriotic.”

"I have asked you a couple of times straight out if you want to exterminate Islam, and you have declined to answer flatly, choosing instead to dance around the topic with discussions that suggest the answer is “yes”, but avoid stating the answer directly."

I thought you were taking a sarcastic jab at me, so I didn't realize you were waiting for a response. No, I do not think Islam should be exterminated.
I do think there are some major "bugs" in its program though. I think Islam is the least defensible major religion, based on track record, dogma and current events. If you look at the Five Pillars and compare them to The Beatitudes, The Eightfold Path, The Ten Commandments, they don’t quite measure up as guiding principles.

I am not a very religious person, but I do see the massive good Christianity does in America. Christian groups of all denominations have a very tangible presence with the homeless and hopeless in New Orleans, and with the poor and suffering in New York. I use those examples because I have experienced both in person, and I think Christianity gets a bum rap.
The media played the "Chocolate City" quote over and over, but they don't spoend time telling you who is helping out down there. They don't tell you who is doing good work.

(Secular charities also do a great job in both places, but my point here isn't Secular vs. religious, it is Islam vs. Christianity.)

I think the message of Jesus and the message of Mohammed are different messages, and each religion has been influenced greatly by their founder.
Jesus' message was to help others even if it meant giving your life for them. He was non-violent. Whether you believe he was divine or not is irrelevant, his message is what it is.

Mohammed was a warrior. Mohammed was closer to Genghis Kahn (who incidentaly gets a bum rap as well, I think) than he was to Jesus or Siddhartha Gautama.
That is a major problem. There are some Muslims who ignore the problematic portions of the Quran, just like there are Christians who pretend that The Book of Revelations doesn't exist. I think it is good that Christians ignore some of the outdated parts of the bible. In my opinion, not enough of that happens in Islam.
I think people who say that Islamists like Sadr have hijacked Islam are letting Islam off the hook a little easy. I think one thing that separates Islam from Christianity is the reformation. Since Christians had theirs, their religion has done much more good than harm.

The thing that scares me is that some Islamic scholars think their reformation is going on right now. Seyyid Qutb may be the John Calvin of the 21st century.
The off-shoots of Catholicism were Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists. The off-shoots of Islam are Salafis, Wahabbis, Deobandis.

I hadn't but will. Thanks.

It's late where I live, so I just want to throw out a few brief thoughts about the Reformation.

I can't really agree with your benign interpretation of the Reformation. Apologists for the Reformation often seem to want to give that movement a kind of credit for the Enlightenment which followed it, credit which in most cases it doesn't deserve. The Enlightenment was a radical and unintended by-product of social and economic forces unleashed in part by the Reformation, not an aim of the Reformation itself. The social disruptions produced by the religious fragmentation of Europe ultimately helped engender a worldly, intellectually dynamic and commercially-obsessed European society that was the very opposite of the pious, modest and unworldly conservatism and predestination preached by the archetypal reformers.

The Reformation produced a motley of Christian sects and communities. But what most of them had in common was a desire to return to what they regarded as original and purified Christianity, and a simpler communal way of life they associated with it. Many developed theologies and systems of rules that were significantly more intolerant, harsh and repressive than the cosmopolitan and worldly Roman church they attacked.

But by weakening the power of the Roman church, the Reformation led, in most cases despite the intentions of the reformers themselves, to the growth of secular power and secular rivalries, accompanied by cynical, religiously tinged wars among emerging power blocs affiliated with rival secular powers. They very strife into which the Reformation propelled Europe in the end forced European society to reach an intellectual and diplomatic accommodation which de-emphasized religion across the board, again something that the original reformers certainly did not have in mind.

The Reformation also helped, again despite itself, to liberate a number of decidedly unreligious, heterodox or pagan strains of thought that ultimately aided in bringing us the scientific revolution and the enlightenment. Most of this, of course, was much to the horror of the intolerant prigs who preached reformation.

Wahhabi Islam does indeed seem analogous to much of of reformed Christianity of the 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th centuries, in that it was also a movement that sought to restore a purified, aboriginal form of Islam.

I think Americans are, on the whole, very idealistic people.

For example, I just spent several paragraphs advocating what amounts to a global police force, organized around a full-bore internationalism. Many people would regard that as pie in the sky, John Lennon, one-worlder idealism at its worst.

Contemporary Americans on the left have all sorts of idealistic agendas for ending global warming, building a sustainable society, eradicating war, ending poverty and inequality, etc. They find contemporary Washington politics to be much lacking in idealism and hope for a better future.

It is true that on the right, there are a certain number of people who are obsessed with apocalyptic visions. If you think the world is ending next week, there is not much room for idealism. But I don’t think that attitude characterizes anything close to a majority of Americans.

The reason I think your particular brand of idealism is fanatical and extreme is that it is a recipe for conflict and war. It is a call for a scorched-earth cleansing and purification of the world – a jihad to bring the whole world into the Dar-as-America.

The fact that Americans might regard slogans from the revolution as corny doesn’t show they are not idealistic. The same person who finds that quote from the Declaration of Independence goofy or corny might also be moved by political ideals that are no less ambitious and challenging as those that animated the founders. They may not be attracted to the nationalism and revolutionary love of the patria that moved Jefferson, Patrick Henry and Nathan Hale. But that might be because they have an idealistic belief in the possibilities for a global community where empire, hegemony, nationalism and patriotic chauvinism have no role.

As for the Daily Show, recall Jon Stewart’s appearance on the old Crossfire show when he mocked Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson, and you can see that behind the satirical humor is an idealist yearning for, and belief in the possibility of, a politics that is not so idiotic, intellectually dishonest, manipulative and false.

I think we are in general agreement. Some acts are terrorism, some are pure military that can be war crimes, and some can be both. Some military acts can be horrible but also neither a war crime nor terrorism.

From the standpoint of international law, the Marines may well have been a target, if the assumption is made that non-state actors can engate in combat. My concerns with that are much more with the senior commanders that put the Marines in an indefensible position with no clear mission associated with peace operations.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Upon my rereading this thread, I realise that the difference in opinion whether or not the Marine barracks attack was an act of terrorism in great measure lays is whether or not:

the assumption is made that non-state actors can engage in combat

In my mind, it is clear: in a country at civil war, there is no true difference between state and non-state actor, and determinations whether their acts constitute terrorism should be based only upon their acts, not their claim to justifiable use of force.  Furthemore, I doubt that America would be willing to sign onto an International Accord which made this distinction, as it would facilitate authoritarian states ability to demonise valid resistance, and make it harder for the US to support it.  That seems to put me in the camp with those making the assumption that non-state actors can engage in lawful combat, doesn't it?

Thanks for making the distinction transparent to me, even though it required multiple readings to bubble through my thick skull.

If it were up to me, I'd eliminate the crime of "terrorism", and instead use existing criminal definitions for the acts. It has become much too laden with connotations to be of any real value in an honest attempt to reach justice. When the term 'enviro-terrorism' and 'green terrorism' became acceptable in usage is when I decided that it needed to be gelded.

How can anyone say with a straight face that some clown whose crime spree was consisted of traipsing across rural Wisconsin, trespassing onto private farmland and releasing little half-domesticated furry creatures to face a fate worse than what the farmer had intended, slaughter for fur industry hides, as they either starved to death, or were eaten by predators they had not experience dealing with, is terroristic? This is multiple counts of brutally ironic and counter-productive idiocy, as well as trespass and robbery. I go even farther on this tangent, and say that even torching an under-construction ski resort is not terroristic, but instead arson, a crime the justice system is already experienced in dealing with. Spiking trees earmarked for harvesting without warning which trees have been spiked would be a terroristic act in my mind though. Does just the thought of some skinny epileptic girl named 'Butterfly' living in a Corporate owned Redwood Tree frighten you to to the point that you're unable to sleep at night, continuously drenched in cold sweat, sweat, and unable to control your bowels?

It is worse than this though, as Bush refuses to equally apply the same quality of due process to the detainees from his Global Farce on Terror as he gives to Luis Posada Carriles. It does not matter what his past CIA associations were, and just whose daddy was involved back then, if the evidence points to his bombing the Cuban Passenger Plane. The NSA Archives' offers pretty compelling:

• Bombing of Cuban Jetliner-30 Years Later
• The Posada File: Part II
• Luis Posada Carriles-The Declassified Record

Current publications also indicate that wealthy Cuban/Americans gave Posada material and financial assistance for his illegal entry into America, yet no big fish are being fried.

• Alfonso Chardy, Jay Weaver and Oscar Corral, "Grand jury indicts Cuban exile militant", The Miami Herald/McClatchy Newspapers, January 11.2007
• "Luis Posada Carriles Indicted on Criminal Immigration Charges", DoJ Press Releaase, January 11, 2007
• Carol J. Williams, "Suspected bomber of Cuban airliner indicted", Los Angeles Times, January 12, 2007

What I suggest as a solution to this dilemma is waging Semantic warfare against the term. Strip away it power by abusing in hyperbolic overuse, in the same fashion that 'revolution' lost much of its power in the sixties. In fact, Madison Ave, could actively aid in this goal, just as it was a significant player in co-opting 'revolution'.

The new razor blade terrorizes your beard, the additive for detergent terrorizes dirt and never leaves any surviving ring around th ecollar, the insecticide bait that terrorizes cockroaches?