June 22, 2004

WELL-MEANING WAR OPPONENTS SOUGHT

David Horowitz asks a simple question:

As wars go, the conflict in Iraq was (and is) as good as it gets. A three week military campaign with minimal casualties, 25 million people liberated from one of the most sadistic tyrants of modern times, the establishment of a military and intelligence base in the heart of the terrorist world. What well-meaning person could oppose this?

On a related topic, this from James Lileks:

I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated.

Posted by Tim Blair at June 22, 2004 04:54 AM
Comments

in previous wars, there were times when we lost more soldiers in a couple days than we have in the entire 2+ year war on terror. where is the quagmire?

Posted by: Oktober at June 22, 2004 at 05:19 AM

"...the establishment of a military and intelligence base in the heart of the terrorist world."

Of course this is what makes the war unacceptable to the left. It sets the US/Coalition on the road to achieving a military victory in the war on terror. The left, and increasingly the mainstream of the Democratic party, believe that "there are no military solutions" to any problems.

Therefore, winning a war is a bad thing because it makes you want to do it again the next time some numb-nut flies a plane into a building.

Posted by: Daniel at June 22, 2004 at 05:51 AM

...my Democrat friends (would) rather see Bush defeated....

Hey, they'd rather see America defeated.

There's millions of Hanoi Janes, now.

Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at June 22, 2004 at 08:43 AM

Wonderful. Except success in Iraq does not equal success against Al Qaeda.

Posted by: bongoman at June 22, 2004 at 09:21 AM

Horowitz: . . .A three week military campaign with minimal casualties, 25 million people liberated from one of the most sadistic tyrants of modern times, the establishment of a military and intelligence base in the heart of the terrorist world. . .

Lileks: I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated.

Bongoman: Wonderful. Except success in Iraq does not equal success against Al Qaeda.

How the hell do you argue with someone who's point is countered by the very statements he's trying to argue against? Will someone come in next and say that Bongoman is the sun and we are the moons orbiting around him because Erasamus ate bacon because it tasted good and the very fact that I am typing this sentence to ridicule an idiot proves that the idiot has got me right where he wants me?

Posted by: Sortelli at June 22, 2004 at 10:21 AM

Let me change the last question:

Would you rather Bush re-elected and Bin Laden still blowing in the wind, or Bush defeated and Bin Laden capture?

Does anyone know roughly how many Allied troops died due to hostile combatants during the occupation (not invasion) of Germany and Japan?

Posted by: Andjam at June 22, 2004 at 11:15 AM

Everything former Black Panther David Horowitz says is likely false or misleading.

Horowitz is hereunder fisked:

As wars go, the conflict in Iraq was (and is) as good as it gets.

Operation Desert Storm was handled better than the Operation Enduring Freedom.

A three week military campaign with minimal casualties,

So far the war has lasted i8 months, and the military occupation is slated to continue until 2006, which makes it a three-year, not three-week war.

The cost of the war is now calculated to be in excess of ~1,000 Coalition lives, with twice as many again seriously wounded.

There is also the financial cost, which will come to > $300 billion to the US taxpayer. The extra costs of domestic security and foreign instability are not factored in to that sum. For that kind of money the US could have got energy independence and a war on actual terrorists and actual WMDs.

25 million people liberated from one of the most sadistic tyrants of modern times,

Hussein was a sadistic tyrant, but for the better part of the nineties he was contained "kept in his box" and unable to exercise totalitarian genocide against Kurds or Shiites.

Moreover, liberation of Iraq may end in civil war and oiligarchic rule by Fascist warlords or theocratic rule by Fundamentalist witchdoctors.

the establishment of a military and intelligence base in the heart of the terrorist world.

Just like the client state that the US had in Saudi Arabia? That did not work very well, did it?

What well-meaning person could oppose this?

This little black duck does now. Anyone without rocks in their heads must be having a re-think about the wisdom of this venture. Horowitz has been a fool in war before.

Posted by: Jack Strocchi at June 22, 2004 at 12:03 PM

James Lileks' question is a false dilemma.

The re-election of Bush and the capture of Bin Laden are not directly related.

(For those that needed it pointed out to them)

Posted by: Bruce at June 22, 2004 at 12:22 PM

Jack
To comment that the Irag war will be a three year war, is like saying WW2 lasted 60+ years.

Posted by: fred at June 22, 2004 at 12:22 PM

Jack Strocchi,

Er, no.

Genocide against the Kurds and Shiite was prevented not by Saddam and his thugs being "kept in a box", it was prevented by tens of thousands sorties flown by US and British war planes enforcing the "no-fly" zone. And here too it was not just the presence of the allied planes, as they were routinely shot at and followed by ground-to-air missile radar.

And as of yet, we do not know how Iraq will look in the future, but it remains undeniably true that there are over 150,000 allied boots on the ground in the geographic, political, and religious heart of Islamic radicalism.

I'm not sure how you put your price on energy independence at $300B US, nor am I clear what you mean regarding "actual terrorists" or "actual WMD". The facts though remain well in Horowitz's corner on these claims, squarely so.

Lastly, in terms of investment by the US taxpayer, it seems a reasonable calculus to many to invest in counter-terrorism through these means no matter what the immediate costs. Recall that the terror strikes of 9/11 resulted in $100B US in property damage and over $1 Trillion lost in capital and damage to the US economy. A large scale attack at this time could potentially do much greater damage yet still. Which, as you likely know, Al-Qaeda and its various off-shoots have been and will continue to plan for some time to come (recall that planning for 9/11 reportedly began some time in 1995 or 1996).

Posted by: MeTooThen at June 22, 2004 at 12:25 PM

Jack,
I'm curious- is Strocchi Italian for "shooting fish in a barrel"?

>> Desert Storm was handled better.....
Where do we start? An operation to free a small Gulf state vs a country the size of California.... the latter was finished in 1/2 the time of the former, by smaller forces.
As for "handled better", there are plenty who would disagree with you- saying that Bush Sr called off the war too soon, Schwartzenegger was too far to the rear, Franks wasn't aggressive enough, Khafji was a tragicomedy of errors.

>> A three week military campaign with minimal casualties vs an 18 month war...

How do you expect us to take you seriously if you can't tell the difference between a campaign and a war?

>> "Kept in his box and unable to commit genocide against the Kurds and Shia..."

At a cost of billions of dollars each year, which you overlook, and a significant portion of the US military deployed. And you're correct only on the Kurds. Saddam continued to murder merrily away Shia, Sunni, and anyone else perceived as a threat.

>> May end in civil war and oligarchic rule....

Yeah. Maybe. Maybe. Before the war, it was "maybe the Arab street will erupt", "maybe the US will be attacked everywhere", "maybe there will be hundreds of thousands of casualties", "maybe the US will find itself in another Vietnam". (Actually, that last one wasn't a maybe so much as a confident prediction.)
Based on the box score from people like you, pardon me if I don't stay awake at night worrying about your maybes.

>> "Client state that the US had in Saudi Arabia" That didn't work out very well....

Well, it worked well enough to let us keep Saddam boxed, as you put it, and to overthrow him. It worked out well enough to free Kuwait. Of course, if it was really a client state, we wouldn't have withdrawn our entire military contigent (less training advisors), would we? You see, Jack, unlike most countries the US withdraws its military personnel when they are no longer wanted or needed.

>>"What well meaing person could oppose this?" This little black duck does...

You have made your position abundantly clear.
You would rather that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis die at Saddam's hands than that around a thousand coalition troops (and up to 10K Iraqis) perish. What a moral midget.
You would trust an erratic dictator who attacked three other countries out of the blue, and had a proven record of using chemical weapons, not to create or use them again. What a mental midget.
You would rather that the Middle East be left to stew as a collection of kleptocracies, thuggish theocracies, and warlord fiefdoms offering no jobs, no education, and no education to their people. What a miserable excuse for a human being.

>>"Horowitz has been a fool in war before."

It's possible. Most of us have made fools of ourselves at one time or another. Your unique gift, Jack, is that whatever a person may think about you being a military fool, you dispel all doubts on the subject as soon as your fingertips meet the keyboard.

Posted by: Don Eyres at June 22, 2004 at 12:49 PM

Don...Well said. And Bongoman - success in Iraq is success against Al Queda. WE militarily caused them problems and have sucked many AQ operatives into Iraq - excellent opportunity to kill them there, rather than them killing us here. WE are forcing Saudi Arabia to decide where they stand - without Iraq, they never even consider the question. AQ is still around and viable no doubt, but we have eliminated a safe haven for them. Now we have to consider where Saudi Arabia ends up and what to do about Iran. You know, we agreed to let Europe negotiate with Iran on their nukes and surprise, surprise, they lied. Kept right on working. If you believe all this stuff isn't inter-related, you probably figured the Europe Iran nuke deal would work. Funny, in order to oppose a president, people are willing to suspend all their judgement. No, Iraq was the second phase in the battle against AQ. Israel pretty much knocked out AQ support for the Palestinian uprising - by destroying the uprising. Funny how the only thing middle east islamofascists understand is a bullet, while we ponder what we should do amongst ourselves in US. With hope Saudi will realize where they need to go - because our troops aren't there to save them. The issue is Iran and Syria. If Iran goes nuclear, neither the US or Israel will just let that happen. What then Bongoman? What would you propose doing? Take a position before it happens and lets see what you would do.

Posted by: JEM at June 22, 2004 at 02:13 PM

"I ask my Democrat friends what they’d rather see happen – Bush reelected and bin Laden caught, or Bush defeated and bin Laden still in the wind. They’re all honest: they’d rather see Bush defeated."

I notice that Tim B didn't add a rider to this quote. What's the latest, Tim - is Osama still dead or what?

Posted by: tim g at June 22, 2004 at 02:53 PM

If I thought Kerry had a better chance of capturing Bin Laden, I would vote for him in a second.

I have seen no evidence that he has any better chance of capturing Bin Laden than Clinton had of crafting a true peace between Israel and Palestine, or that Carter had of getting the Iranian embassy hostages freed. In fact, the odds are he would undo all the things Bush has accomplished, something Democrats actually seem to think is his greatest virtue.

Posted by: Tatterdemalian at June 22, 2004 at 03:04 PM

"...the odds are he would undo all the things Bush has accomplished".

Kerry, if elected, is likely to have to contend with a hostile Republican congress. I doubt whether he will be able to do or undo much at all.

I think therefore that the only Bush accomplishments that will be undone are the ones that unravel by themselves before election day.

Posted by: tim g at June 23, 2004 at 12:13 AM


Congress is uniquely unequipped to deal with execution of foreign policy. Can you imagine the endless squabbles? They hold the purse strings, but to execute anything you need just this -executive branch; to lead in time of emergency, you need a leader. Kerry would do in the 90's; he would put us in a gravest danger now.

Posted by: Katherine at June 23, 2004 at 03:06 AM

Interesting. Jack provided lots of links to back up his assertions, but his detractors have this nice little mutual admiration society rich on namecalling but absolutely lacking in any external references.

Fred made no sense whatsoever.

The aptly-named MeTooThen argued

"Genocide against the Kurds and Shiite was prevented not by Saddam and his thugs being "kept in a box", it was prevented by tens of thousands sorties flown by US and British war planes enforcing the "no-fly" zone.
Which of course were keeping Saddam and his thugs in a box. He cites facts that he doesn't state or reference, which are therefore just as suspect as his astonishing link of the war in Iraq to 9/11. How does that work?

And how can we take Don seriously if he doesn't know the difference between an actor (Schwartzenegger) and a general (Schwartzkopf)? And from whence comes Don's assertion that we would prefer that Saddam murder hundreds of thousands of people to our killing 10,000? Saddam killed an awful lot of people, including those that Bush 41 failed to help right after the first Gulf War. But how many was he killing per year in the last, say, three years?

And JEM just makes me laugh: His best line was that we "have sucked many AQ operatives into Iraq - excellent opportunity to kill them there". What a hoot! JEM, seriously, get a clue. They're not being "sucked in," they're taking advantage of a recruiting bonanza to increase their numbers and strike a blow against the U.S. by murdering our sons and daughters in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Folks, terrorism around the world went up in the past year to a 20-year high in 2003, now that the terrorism assessment has been straightened out. I only wish Bush was executing a war on terror instead of a war in error.

Posted by: David in AK at June 23, 2004 at 01:32 PM

This war is a continuation of the 91 campaign as much as many try to pretend it is separate.

Posted by: JAMSON at June 23, 2004 at 02:53 PM

"I only wish Bush was executing a war on terror instead of a war in error."

Ooh, you rhymed! Well heck, that sure turned me around. Bush=Hitler!

Posted by: Andrea Harris at June 23, 2004 at 08:07 PM