Replies

No, the U.S. didn't start this war.

Yes, in fact, it did. - and I think you are missing my point entirely.

It recognized that Al Qaeda and the Taliban were terrorist organizations we were going to have to deal with, and it took action. You can try to avoid that reality, but at the end of the day, that's what took place. You know that.

I do know that, perfectly. In fact I said:

Don't get me wrong - Retaliation was necessary. And big, statement-making retaliation at that.

Was the U.S. attacked? Yes. We could easily have lost 50 to 75,000 people on 09/11/01. Fortunately we didn't. Still, this was an attack on the political, military, and financial infrastructures of the United States.

Absolutely true. But (and listen closely to this part), the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan didn't knock those buildings down. Understand: The nations we attacked were not responsible for our injury. We were attacked by a pan-Arabic criminal organization, not any government.

To compare: It would be like JFK attacking the nation of Italy for the criminal enterprise of the mafia here in the states. Certainly the government of Italy had ties into the mafioso. And just as certainly, the mafia had infiltrated into every aspect of business, and was working to control our government and was doing so.

Now, I understand that the two are not comparable in the scope of dramatic effect, but I would wager that more American people died at the hands of the Italian mafia, either directly, or by the means of the criminal elements surrounding their "businesses" here than at the hands of the Arabs by an order of magnitude (at the least). And there is no doubt that the mafia has had a huge, and lasting impact upon the American way of life - Why didn't we go tear down Italy for the mafia's indiscretions?

You talk of the message that was sent to the world by our attacking the groups responsible, but fail to mention what the message would have been if we hadn't.

You seem to infer that there are ONLY two directions here... The way we have gone, or the way of passivity. That is not true. Nor is that what I am advocating. The magnitude of our response is not what I object to. In fact, unlimited magnitude is fine with me. *Nothing* is off the table. It is the nature of our response that I question.

To start a war, you have to take aggressive military action without basis. We were attacked. We knew who the groups responsible were. We knew who their allies were. We knew who we had been dealing with in the region. We went in to clean out the wasps nest, and we're still doing it.

This was aggressive military action without basis. Wars are fought between nations. When Japan attacked us, it was Japan herself doing the deed. Her military forces. This time around the answer is not so simple.

These were not national troops that attacked our nation. they wore no uniform. They had no national support. They are privately funded, primarily. They are multi-national. They are religious in nature. And they will survive this war.

Did terrorists oppose the United States actions in Iraq and Afghanistan? Yes. So how can anyone claim we didn't attack the right places? Tens of thousands of terrorists disagree with your premise regarding Iraq and Afghanistan. They have fought the U.S. tooth and nail. They have killed thousands of Iraqis in the process, without concern for innocents I might add.

All true - But they would have opposed us anywhere.

The Bush doctrine IS NOT a remarkable departure from the traditional role of our nation. We were attacked, and we went after the groups responsible.

Oh, it is most definitely a departure from the norm. Groups are not nations. And understand that I am under no illusions: Radical Islam is the culprit, to be sure. But I believe one would have to go all the way back to the Barbary Pirates to find an instance where we attacked a nation for the faults of a non-nationally aligned "group". While there is some small precedent there, it is hardly "what we do".

Where nations were known to harbor terrorists, or claimed to be an enemy of the U.S. that supported terrorists, we moved in.

Are we in Egypt? The Sudan? Yemen? Syria? Iran?

Turkey put a big dent in what we were trying to do in Iraq, are complicit in the infiltration of Radical Islam into the western world, and is the seat of all of the Arabic Caliphates... Are we conquering Turkey? Jordan is as two-faced as possible, as is the House of Saud. Both are also complicit, with the majority of funding for terrorist groups coming from these regions. Are we mowing over Jordan and Saudi-Arabia?

No, we are not doing as you say. We picked these two regions for a purpose. And it isn't as advertised.

Hussein had been a problem for decades. [...]

Sure he was. But that has nothing to do with the attack on our shores. We actually had good reason to conquer his administration - Any one of the hostile acts toward our aircraft in the no-fly zone is sufficient to break the cease-fire. That is the truth. To try to tie it to 911 was pretense.

It was thought that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in Afghanistan. Of course we were going to pursue military action there. He was known to be intimately involved in the planning for 09/11/01. We would have been remiss by not going after him.

Sure. but if we were going after him, and perhaps his inner circle, infiltration and a surgical strike seems the likely method. The work of spooks and special forces. What we did simply forced him underground.

Look, neither you or I want to see the U.S. involved in military adventurism. I thought our actions in Kosovo were extremely poor. In this instance, I am absolutely astounded to see people I respect adopt the position that we have jumped the shark in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns.

I didn't say that. Don't let patriotism and blood in your eye get into the way of critical thinking. This is what I said:

The Bush Doctrine is a remarkable departure from the traditional American position. And I don't know it to be correct, because of that.

Don't get me wrong - Retaliation was necessary. And big, statement-making retaliation at that. In a world full of options, is the Bush Doctrine the best retaliation mechanism? I don't know that to be true.

That does not suggest a position of passivity at all, nor does it suggest that I am precisely right; something unusual for me, as you should know. I do question the motives here though, as do many others. And I am against the precedent these wars provide. I think it squanders the "just cause" high ground, and suggests an authority that we do not own.