GAO Report: GA Security Threat

Ian Graeme wrote:

Martin Hotze wrote:

"C J Campbell" wrote:


Are you suggesting that Saddam is winning the war? Then you have an even
stranger definition of 'winning.'


at best there will be a corrupt democracy, at worst it will be a
religious led country. The outcome will be more terrorists and more
terrorist attacks. And you will enforce more "security" and "defend your
country" in other parts of the world because of the rising terrorist
attacks. And then you will sit back and will wonder why less people like
the way you are acting.

NOT defending our country against terrorist attacks didn't work, so what
do you suggest is the solution?

Defending it using tactics that will actually result in a the reduction
and/or elimination of terrorist attacks.

Tactics like...
- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
the military.
- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
Afghanistan.
- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
speech.
- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
"have to".
- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
countries/peoples of that.
- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.
- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.
- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
just dollars spent.

None of these tactics require the military. That's not to say that we don't
need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.

Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
of Democracy.


--
Frank....H

Frank,

nice post!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:00:39 -0600, Frank
wrote:

Tactics like...
- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
the military.

-- Which is why it's being fought with the whole govermental
apparatus, and not just the military, y'know.

- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

-- I don't think we should ever become neutral in a conflict where one
side makes a point of attacking noncombatant children, and then hides
behind their own noncombatant children, and then claims that their
opponents are killing noncombatant children they happen to be hiding
behind.

- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
Afghanistan.

-- Good point. What other option is there? Bring in non-corrupt and
kind rulers to take the place of the ones we depose?

People the world over have had a rash reaction to us doing that in
Iraq.

- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
speech.

-- Always a good idea, provided our enemies don't use our own sense of
justice against us.

- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
"have to".

-- Y'mean, like the cold fact that 3000 innocent dead were snuffed in
the space of one sunny morning?

- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
countries/peoples of that.

-- "Freedom" and "Democracy" is not in the best interest of every
human being? (A tad jingoistic, to be sure, unless it's the truth!)

- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.

-- We would be fools not to recognize that.

- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.

Which set of morals, now that we're a tolerant multicultural
politically correct nation of relative morals?

- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
just dollars spent.

Hear hear. That's a good point.

None of these tactics require the military.

Too right. Other necessary tactics in the war *do* require the
military, and you haven't listed them.

That's not to say that we don't
need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.

One thing I think is true is that it's difficult to call a unique
situation ineptly handled, if something like it has never been
encountered before. We all differ on the details of how to take care
of the terrorists, and prevent another 9/11.

Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
of Democracy.

So spake George W. Bush, regarding Muslims, right after the attacks.
That not every American is a pillar of Democracy is nearly
self-evident, if one watches the Congress.

Rob

--
[You] don't make your kids P.C.-proof by keeping them
ignorant, you do it by helping them learn how to
educate themselves.

-- Orson Scott Card

Robert Perkins wrote:

On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 16:00:39 -0600, Frank
wrote:

Tactics like...
- recognizing that the "war on terror" isn't a "war" we can ever win with
the military.

-- Which is why it's being fought with the whole govermental
apparatus, and not just the military, y'know.

If it is then they are doing a great job of hiding it. I have not heard of
one initiative we have undertaken that is designed to head off terrorism
before it starts. Just that we are "hunting them down" and will "keep
fighting until the last one is gone". Great rhetoric but not great
prospects for any solution.

They can (and should) hunt Al Quiada and now the must also apprehend Saddam.
But if during their quest we also create a whole new generation of
terrorists then we will never win the "war"

We would do better to quit calling it a war. It confuses too many issues.


- actually becoming neutral in the Israel/Palestine conflict.

-- I don't think we should ever become neutral in a conflict where one
side makes a point of attacking noncombatant children, and then hides
behind their own noncombatant children, and then claims that their
opponents are killing noncombatant children they happen to be hiding
behind.

I will never defend the tactics of suicide bombers. But the fact remains
that the Palestinians do not have many of basic human rights we hold so
dear. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

And Israel is certainly guilty of prolonging the conflict. Sharon knows that
by continuing to provoke he can further his agenda of not actually having
to implement any of the peace proposal. He has played the "terrorist" tune
like a fiddle. Also, Israel's tactics of standoff rocket attacks and
buldozing property are nothing to be proud of either. The fact that they
also target journalists speaks volumes.

There is plenty of dirt to go around of both sides of that conflict and
that's why we should take pains to be neutral.

- not accommodating the corrupt and brutal rulers in the provinces of
Afghanistan.

-- Good point. What other option is there? Bring in non-corrupt and
kind rulers to take the place of the ones we depose?
People the world over have had a rash reaction to us doing that in
Iraq.

Expose it instead of hiding it. Insist that Karsai take action. If he
doesn't then take action ourselves. We can't afford to ever let our good
intentions get hijacked.

Every time some warlord hijacks a local reconstruction project while the US
military is in-country it makes us look like we are a) just as corrupt, b)
supporting unlawful 'government' and c) not living up to our own values of
justice. And the result is another bunch of promising recruits for the
terrorists.



- practicing abroad what we preach here at home about due process and free
speech.

-- Always a good idea, provided our enemies don't use our own sense of
justice against us.

It can't matter to us what tactics they use. If we deny due process then we
are no better then they are. If we are to hold the high moral ground then
we must abide by our own laws, no matter what. Double standards breed
cynicsm and mistrust. (This btw, is the root of why we have such little
support around the world.)

- sometimes we will have to swallow something unpleasant even if we don't
"have to".

-- Y'mean, like the cold fact that 3000 innocent dead were snuffed in
the space of one sunny morning?

No, I mean like not insisting that American forces be in charge of
multinational forces. Like choosing Japanese contractors (for example) to
implementing the new cell phone system in Iraq. Like going out of our way
to avoid any appearance of profiteering (sorry Haliburton).

And to go back before 9/11, not signing on to the Kyoto treaty laid a lot of
the groundwork for the mistrust and lack of cooperation later.

Again, we must back up our claim to the high moral ground with tangibles
that the rest of the world can recognize.

- making sure what we want for other countries is in their best interests
also and then using our considerable talents at PR to convice other
countries/peoples of that.

-- "Freedom" and "Democracy" is not in the best interest of every
human being? (A tad jingoistic, to be sure, unless it's the truth!)

"Freedom" and "Democracy" are certainly in everyone's best interest. But
defoiliating cocoa fields at the cost of farmers livelyhoods may not be.
How soon will it be until we hear of the "terrorists" coming from Colombia?


- recognizing that there are times when we will not get our way.

-- We would be fools not to recognize that.

Unfortunately, often times the money (and the accompaning lobbyists) cloud
our vision.


- recognizng that our moral values cannot be superceded by our business
interests, no matter how much the lobbyists pay the politcians.

Which set of morals, now that we're a tolerant multicultural
politically correct nation of relative morals?

We cannot have a double standard where we value US citizens rights above
others, especially in the name of expediency. Our begivingliefs are based
on "all men" being created equal, and "all men" have certain inalienable
rights, not just "American men". We should- be just as outraged when a
foreigner is denied due process as we are when one if our own is.


- get real value for our foreign aid by insisting on measured results, not
just dollars spent.

Hear hear. That's a good point.

None of these tactics require the military.

Too right. Other necessary tactics in the war *do* require the
military, and you haven't listed them.

That's not to say that we don't
need them, but the current administration's inept handling of the whole
thing is mostly a lesson in what not to do.

One thing I think is true is that it's difficult to call a unique
situation ineptly handled, if something like it has never been
encountered before. We all differ on the details of how to take care
of the terrorists, and prevent another 9/11.

Inept in the sense that we snubbed offers of help when we went to
Afghanistan in a way that offended and frightened the world. We squandered
most of the goodwill gained in the wake of 9/11.

Inept in the sense that we rammed the Iraq invasion down everyone's throats
like a schoolyard bully. Make no mistake, I am glad the world is rid of
Saddam, but we gave up much more than we needed to to make it happen.

Inept in the sense that having failed to get what we wanted at the UN we
just went ahead anyway. We basically told the world that we stand for the
rule of law only when it suits us. Again the double standard.

Most of all we Americans must reject ideas that these issues are black and
white. Not every Muslim is a terrorist and not every American is a pillar
of Democracy.

So spake George W. Bush, regarding Muslims, right after the attacks.
That not every American is a pillar of Democracy is nearly
self-evident, if one watches the Congress.

He was right to say it and I was glad to hear him say it. On that point I
will not fault his administration (although I'd like to hear it from them
more often). But the message isn't getting into the collective psyche
enough. It's the talk radio crowd that isn't getting it.

There are times when force is necessary and times when it is only an option.
In the wake of 9/11 we (understandably) rushed in to Afghanistan and as a
result made some mistakes, but it was necessary. But we still had options
in Iraq, and more importantly, the luxury of time. And we squandered it.

To win the "war on terror" we need to work to eliminate situations that
breed terrorists. We can't do that unless we resist our urge to soothe our
wounded egos by showing the world how powerful we are. We can do it by
harnessing the collective intellect and creativity of America, not with
brute force but "selective force".

Sorry for the long OT post.....
--
Frank....H