About Michael Dunaway
Subscribe
User login
Recent comments
- Ummm, no.
The rightness or
7 weeks 1 day ago - I recently saw the re-trial
7 weeks 2 days ago - I am a conservative who did
7 weeks 2 days ago - Amen.
We're called to serve
7 weeks 4 days ago - I have to disagree with your
8 weeks 1 day ago - To break up the monotony of
8 weeks 5 days ago - Although I am a conservative
8 weeks 5 days ago - Been reading your blogs,
9 weeks 11 hours ago - Excellent post, Will.
9 weeks 16 hours ago - Thanks for the reminder,
9 weeks 22 hours ago
Friends of GWH
Recent blog posts
- Evangelicals and the Future of Politics: Wise Words from Joel Hunter
- Election 2008: The Day After
- The 2008 Good Will Hinton Voting Guide
- Dumb Reasons To Not Vote For Barack Obama
- The Immorality of the Housing Bailout
- Random Non-Partisan Thought of the Day
- Good: Bad on the Election and Voting
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Eric Metaxas
- Good Will Hinton Interviews Bridget Kibbey
- More On Obama and the Ayers Non-Story
Recommended Blogs
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 19 guests online.
Your plan for fighting the terrorists
This one should be fun. I hear an awful lot of criticism of Bush's foreign policy from both the right and the left, but what I seldom hear is any coherent alternative vision. My contention is that, whatever errors were made in the planning of the post-invasion Iraq, the Bush Doctrine is fundamentally sound. To wit, we were attacked on 9/11 by a terrorist organization with no borders, no diplomats, no uniformed personnel. The only way this organization exists as an effective force is with the shelter and succor of rogue regimes. So we gave notice that anyone offering shelter and succor to the enemies who attacked us would be considered enemies as well, and proceeded to enforce that principle on Afghanistan and Iraq.
If you think this doctrine is faulty, short-sighted, or just plain wrong, I can respect that. But you should be able to articulate an alternative. How would you deal with responding to 9/11?
Just to keep the conversation focused, I'll propose a couple of parameters:
1. Pacifism as a guiding philosophy for nation/states is actually a very rich and interesting topic, but doubtless deserves its own thread. Let's stipulate that military force is sometimes necessary and moral.
2. No bashing the conduct of the post-invasion Iraq situation unless it serves to make a larger point addressing the above. We all know it's possible to have a great strategy and terrible tactics.
3. If there are any GWH readers who believe that Al Qaeda didn't attack the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, or that Saddam didn't provide shelter and succor to Al Qaeda, let's make that a different thread, too (and I'm happy to join in either discussion).
Come on. You know you think you'd do better if you were President. Show us!
Comments
Is fantasy allowed?
Terrorism, being an international problem, ought to be tackled by some international organization, and the UN would be ideal, except that it isn't. As it really is, there are far too many elements in it far too sympathetic to many of the goals of the international terror network. Islamic nation are not "sound" and could not be trusted. Even other nations with growing Muslim minorities would have to be careful.
If life could be arranged like a novel, UN against the terror network is the way I would set the plot up. However, while I think international terrorism would be best handled by the international organization we have in place, I really think it that anyone who thinks we could hand all of this over to the UN is dreaming or imagining life as an Ian Fleming novel. The US is in the best position to handle international terrorism. Our position is not ideal and since we have squishy internal support, questions like this one are central to the political debate.
Thank you, Michael. I can't wait to see the brilliant answers put forth.
Kate Pitrone
a different option
Michael,
I probably wouldn't make better decision as president, but I disagree with the stance the president has taken.
The Bush doctrine that nations who give "shelter and succor" to terrorists are our enemies is fundamentally unsound. It's unsound because it's not something we can apply equally [invade and change regimes] to all such nations. Afghanistan's Taliban backed government was an obvious enemy. Iraq was a less likely target than is Saudi Arabia or Sudan or Syria or Iran or Pakistan, but all of these nations harbored terrorists, were locations for terrorist training camps, or had citizens who provided capital for terrorism. We cannot invade all of these countries, nor should we.
In this sense, the Bush doctrine breaks down b.c. it cannot be executed. One cannot expect to invade a country and walk away having that country be our friend - Japan and Germany post WW2 being noteworthy exceptions to this. We invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and are stuck at the rebuilding phase in both sites.
A better response would be to diplomatically put pressure on states that give support to terrorists and to build up better defenses against future terrorist attacks here in the US.
A good step to prevent future terrorist attacks would be to better regulate immigration. Recall that some of those who crashed planes on 9/11 were here illegally. Border security should be improved so that bombs cannot readily be imported into the US. Also, efforts should be made to identify and secure potential sites of future terrorist attacks - major ports, nuclear reactors, major chemical plants, oil refineries.
We should also bolster defenses at US military bases abroad and embassies, to make them less likely to be successfully harmed in attacks there - see Kobar towers, US embassy in Kenya, and marine barracks in Beirut.
on nation-building
It seems to me that whether we like it or not, Iraq has to be addressed as it represents a key element of the Bush doctrine: sometimes, governments hostile to us must be overturned by force, and in order to curb growing influence of terrorist groups, broken states must be rehabilitated. With Iraq, creating a functioning, healthy society and economy is impossible as long as the civil war and acts of terrorism continue with near-impunity. Security is the first prerequisite; along that line, Duncan Hunter has some interesting ideas, which he discussed in last Thursday's debate, in regards to standing up a battle-hardened Iraqi military capable of securing the totality of Iraq.
I think an essential
I think an essential question to be asked in this discussion is regarding interventionism. Upon what grounds can and should the United States (or any other country for that matter) intervene in the affairs of another country? To depose a dictator? To punish a government for harboring terrorists? To stop a genocide?
Why is it not acceptable for the US to have invaded Iraq yet why would it be acceptable to intervene militarily in Darfur? Or vice versa?
I wish we could get past the simply pragmatic explanations and find some root principles that would guide our decision-making in this area.
I thought the "rules" for US
I thought the "rules" for US intervention had something to do with our national interest, especially as a matter of defense. That was why the intelligence on WMD in Iraq was so important. Isn't this why George Tenet is so defensive? If the CIA were supplying incorrect intelligence on the matter to both Clinton and Bush, then history will conclude that our attack on Iraq was his fault.
We are no longer in Iraq as a matter of self-defense, unless it is true that our military presence in Iraq draws Al Qaeda there. If that is true, then we have a military reason to be in Iraq, if not, then we are there for moral reasons, which are much more difficult for any government to justify than practical ones. We have no more national interest in keeping those people from killing each other than we have such interest in southern Sudan. That is another reason why I might indulge in my initial fantasy, up above, about the utility of the UN in such matters.
Is there a sense in which having murderous dictators or genocidal ruling elites is a world-wide problem? One point in favor of intervention; who wants to have to live with such people? The world seems to be an ever smaller place and it is far too easy to know what goes on in other nations and is, therefore, harder to close our eyes to what they do there.
It is not exactly practical to think the US (or even some idealized UN) could right all of the wrongs in the world. Yet, we are going to have ignore the brutality of other nations to maintain our isolation. Isn't it because the world is coming to feel so small that to say "Whoops! There goes the neighborhood." does not always seem a comfortable option.
Kate Pitrone
WMD is beside the point
We had no evidence that SHussein possessed wmd that he could use on us. The intelligence saying he had wmd didn't show that he had methods to deliver it to us. Kim Jung Il {sic?} has more wmd capability and is a dictator, but we aren't going to attack him.
SHussein was a dictator, but his main offenses against his own people - murder of village after failed attempt to assasinate him and the gassing of Kurds - were terrible, but weren't the reasons we were going after him.
We don't have the money and will to right the worlds wrongs - to take out all the dictators or stop all of the genocide WITH THE US MILITARY. It's a bad idea.
"Who wants to live with such people" doesn't mean that armed forces are the answer. Coordinated armed effort stopped genocide in Germany in the 1940's only as a side effect [albeit a great one] of the effort to get rid of the Nazi's - who'd invaded Czech, French, Polish, Russian, and African soil.
Does anyone think the military is the answer to these problems - Darfur, terrorism, etc?
Crickets chirping
Come on, Expat, Guru, and others left of center on this site -- your refusal so far to enter into this fray is eroding the (significant) respect I have for your point of view!
(this post meant as a gentle prod, no offense intended)
Got a job....
Michael-
I'm planning on taking this up, but I've only got 5 weeks of school left and lots of stuff coming to a close. I'd expect gurufrisbee is also working extra hard as his school year ends soon, too.
Point well taken
I'm with you...I well remember those days of grading papers and giving exams! Good luck getting through, and I look forward to picking up the discussion in the glorious summertime...
Faulty Premise
Sometimes I adhere to the principle that 'if you do not have anything nice to say then don't say anything at all.'
I'll pass on this one.
r.johnson
r.johnson: so why do you
r.johnson: so why do you disagree with the premise. I'm interested in hearing your take on this.
I sent you an email.
I sent you an email.
r.johnson
I'm out - for a number of reasons
many of which have more to do with this whole site rather than this particular thread, but as far as this one specifically, the parameter:
"1. Pacifism as a guiding philosophy for nation/states is actually a very rich and interesting topic, but doubtless deserves its own thread. Let's stipulate that military force is sometimes necessary and moral."
is not one I will ever accept, so rather than fight that one from the get-go, I'll join r.johnson on the silent sidelines.
Why do we need a plan for everything?
Why can't we just, y'know, do what we're doing but better? A huuuuuge part of 9/11 happening was that a) we didn't know what to look for; and b) we weren't doing a particularly good job of detective work.
I mean, non-terrorist murders kill way, way, more people in America than terrorism; does that mean we have to have some zany, gimmicky new social engineering plan for our Local War on Terra? No, we just, y'know, police, try to identify potential problems, do stings, etc., etc.
In conservative speak: let's enforce the laws and policies we have, rather than try a bunch of wacky plans that make people say things like, "That's just crazy enough to work!"
Oh, heavens no. Where'd you come up with that?
No, no, no. Al-qaeda trains in lawless countries and those with their backs to the wall with nothing to lose. Consider this the Kissingerian corollary of the more hippie-like Bush doctrine.
To whit: is al-qaeda in North Korea? No. Iran? No. Somalia? Yep. Iraq? Well, now they are.
Following up on my prior comment, we need to treat terrorism domestically as the 12th-tier problem it is; and abroad, we need to stop backing countries into corners and start to align ourselves with countries that really, really hate al-Qaeda (Egypt; Iran; Saddam would've been perfect for that, but lost chances and all that)
Post new comment