On May 1, 2003 President Bush triumphantly landed on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln in a fighter jet. It must have brought back glorious memories from his days defending the skies over Texas during the Vietnam War. With a huge Mission Accomplished banner hung from the deck behind him by the Karl Rove propaganda machine, President Bush spoke these words. "My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq have ended in the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." How stirring, inspiring and 100% completely wrong. Since these words were spoken, over 4,000 American soldiers have been killed and over 25,000 have been wounded. This is a prime example of the Bush administration's arrogance and twisting of facts to suit their own purposes. The twisting of facts began in earnest after the worst terrorist incident in world history on September 11, 2001. On that day, 19 terrorists (15 Saudis, no Iraqis) under the direction of Osama Bin Laden hijacked planes and murdered 3,000 Americans. The entire world was supportive of the United States. We had almost complete worldwide support for eliminating the Taliban and killing Osama Bin Laden. Since this time George Bush has frittered away all of this goodwill, managed to alienate most of the world, started a war based upon faulty skewed intelligence, driven oil prices from $31 a barrel to $130 a barrel, increased the national debt by $4 trillion, driven inflation up by the most since the 1980's and currently has the lowest approval rating of any President in history.
President Bush has been blustering about appeasement in the last few weeks. As usual, his neo-con speech writers have no sense of history. Either that, or young Georgie wasn't paying attention in 6th grade history class. As defined by Merriam-Websters dictionary, appeasement is to buy off an aggressor by concessions usually at the sacrifice of principles. The classic case was Neville Chamberlin, Prime Minister of Great Britain, giving Hitler half of Czechoslovakia in the Munich agreement to avoid war. Now, anyone who says that they will employ diplomacy or even speak with our "enemies" is considered an appeaser according to Bush, Cheney, and the other neo-cons. Not supporting the war is unpatriotic and traitorous in Bush world. Speaking with other leaders, whether we agree with their views, is not buying them off or conceding anything. More diplomacy and less cowboy style shoot first, ask questions later may have saved thousands of American lives in the last five years.
The Bush administration also used the appeasement card leading up to the Iraq invasion. Dr. John Hussman wrote in February 2003, "The willingness to choose long and frustrating diplomacy instead of war does not constitute "appeasement" - a word that has been recklessly contorted in recent months. Appeasement involves the grant of concessions - generally dishonorable ones - to an enemy, in return for assurances of nonaggression (as when Hitler was offered part of Czechoslovakia in the Munich Agreement, over the objections of Czechoslovakia, which was barred from attending). Appeasement is not inherent in the pursuit of diplomacy, nor in the demand for grave justifications as a precondition for war. The argument against war is also not an argument against U.S. security or the defense of its interests, but rather a recognition of the elements that are necessary to achieve those aims. It is exactly in pursuit of American security and interests that the Administration should emphasize containment, deterrence and diplomacy - even years of it if necessary - instead of a war on a government that, while tyrannical, is of questionable threat. A war would predictably increase international resentments, further destabilize very tangible risks in North Korea, and ultimately radicalize countless potential terrorists, with no central authority from which surrender could be obtained." Dr. Hussman showed that his investing prowess is matched by his wisdom in world affairs. We destabilized the Muslim world and have not made the world a safer place.
Since 9/11 2001, anyone who has questioned the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war has been branded a traitor, left winger, or a fool. I fully admit that I was 100% behind President Bush's decision to invade Iraq. I believed Colin Powell when he showed pictures of mobile biological warfare labs. I believed Muhammed Atta met with Iraqi agents. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction, because my government was sure they existed and I trusted my government. I still remember having a spirited argument in an Irish Pub with a work colleague from Sweden about the need for an invasion. We know now that the administration started planning the Iraq invasion shortly after 9/11, with no shred of evidence linking Iraq to 9/11. When it was proven that all of these "facts" were false, I admitted that I was wrong and changed my mind. This is a logical thing to do. What I find illogical are people who justify the war based on a whole new set of criteria such as: Sadaam was an evil dictator, it's better to fight them over there than over here, and we are promoting democracy in the Middle East. The fact is that there was no imminent threat from Iraq, so we should not have invaded. Case closed.
I have the utmost respect for those who opposed the Iraq invasion when it wasn't popular to do so. Ron Paul stood in front of Congress on October 8, 2002 and said, "Despite all of the information to which I have access, I remain very skeptical that the nation of Iraq poses a serious and immanent terrorist threat to the United States. If I were convinced of such a threat I would support going to war, as I did when I supported President Bush by voting to give him both the authority and the necessary funding to fight the war on terror. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution, which regardless of what many have tried to claim will lead us into war with Iraq." As the only member of Congress with knowledge of our Constitution and what our Founding Fathers meant, Ron Paul pointed out that James Madison wrote in 1798, "The Constitution supposes what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature." Instead of exercising their Constitutional responsibility, Congress was bullied into relinquishing this obligation by Bush and his Karl Rove propaganda machine. We could use a few more James Madison's and few less George Bush's and Dick Cheney's leading our country today.
Now we need to assess whether we are winning. Since this is not a traditional war, like World War II, success cannot be measured in casualties and ground taken from the enemy. Osama bin Laden was financially supported by the U.S. government when he fought against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. He offered his services to the Saudi government after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1991. His services were turned down by the Saudi rulers, as the U.S. came to the rescue and saved Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. His hate for America was triggered by the U.S. maintaining a military base in Saudi Arabia. Non-Muslims are considered infidels in bin Laden's world. He doesn't hate America because we are free and democratic. He wants us out of the Muslim world, just like he wanted the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
Al Qaeda was formed in 1988 by Bin Laden recruiting veterans of the Afghan war with the Soviet Union. According to an Arab security service, al-Qaeda had a loose configuration of approximately 3,000 members in 2001. Today, the number may be 10,000 scattered throughout the world. Bin Laden uses his personal fortune of approximately $300 million and money funded by supporters to undertake his terrorist missions. The attack on the Twin Towers was designed to show the Muslim world that the most powerful country on earth could be hurt badly. The symbolism of destroying our largest buildings and successfully hitting the center of our military power, the Pentagon, was supposed to inspire the Muslim world against Western style governments. I don't think bin Laden anticipated how the next 7 years would develop.
It is unlikely that he foresaw the reaction of the Bush administration to this horrific attack on the American people. With the world behind America, the Taliban were quickly defeated in Afghanistan. We were able to kill or capture many al Qaeda fighters. But, we have still not found bin Laden. Three years later, he clearly stated his goal. In a videotape released in October 2004, bin Laden said, "We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." His plan is to "use guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers". He is confident in this strategy because it has worked before. "We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat." He realizes the economic impact on the United States is significant. "Every dollar of al Qaeda defeated a million dollars, by the permission of Allah, besides the loss of a huge number of jobs. As for the economic deficit, it has reached astronomical numbers estimated to total more than a trillion dollars." His view on Bush's Iraq policy is that, "the darkness of black gold blurred his vision and insight, and he gave priority to private interests over the public interests of America. So, the war went ahead, the death toll rose, the American economy bled, and Bush became embroiled in the swamps of Iraq that threaten his future.
"According to Michael Scheuer, a CIA analyst who spent three years as the Counterterrorist Center's Bin Laden station chief, in his book Imperial Hubris, has pointed out that the fundamental flaw in our thinking about Bin Laden is that "Muslims hate and attack us for what we are and think, rather than what we do. Muslims are bothered by our modernity, democracy, and sexuality, but they are rarely spurred to action unless American forces encroach on their lands. It's America's foreign policy that enrages Osama and al-Qaeda, not American culture and society." Now we are occupying Iraq and Afghanistan, along with Saudi Arabia. This has further inflamed the Muslim world against us. Muslims total 1.25 billion out of a worldwide population of 6.5 billon, or 19% of the people on earth. Only a miniscule number of these Muslims are terrorists. Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski, Middle East experts at the Brookings Institution, point out that Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Estimates are that 30% of all Muslims live below the poverty line. Policy makers would likely reduce terrorism by partnering with Muslims in bettering the livelihoods in Muslim societies.
As I have grown older I found myself to be less sure of things than I was in my youth. I see more sides to issues now that I have life experience and more knowledge. I no longer trust people who are so positive their view is correct, that they are unwilling to listen to an alternative view. Humbleness is a virtue that seems to be missing from American society and American diplomacy. More cooperation and listening to opponents would be a step forward in repairing the damage that has been done by the Bush administration. Dr. Hussman spoke more words of wisdom in March 2007. "The outlook for fiscal stability and international peace will continue to be undermined so long as our leaders imagine that violence can remove violence especially when there is no central authority from which to extract surrender, and when each act of escalation creates far more enemies than can ever be destroyed. The effort to open a dialogue as a step toward peace (rather than requiring peace as a step toward dialogue); to understand those we call enemies; would not be an act of weakness but an act of strength and self-defense. Particularly with numerous, scattered factions, the attempt to find common ground and negotiate disputes is also most probably the only way to achieve peace."
"It is the beginning of wisdom to listen and understand the motivations of each side - their fears, hatreds, misconceptions, ignorance, suffering, feelings of injustice, and aspirations, without each side branding the other as inhuman, and somehow unworthy of human rights, or lacking any human commonalities. Diplomacy doesn't require us to appease an enemy by granting dishonorable concessions, but only to ask "To what is each side entitled?" For a nation with a history of respect for diplomacy, international cooperation, human rights, and beyond all else, the sacrifice of our troops, the present course is no path to peace, and is no way to lead." The Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war is not consistent with our Constitution or our history of moral world leadership. The end of the Bush reign will hopefully lead to a renewed use of diplomacy and consensus building. Time will tell.
Have the goals of Bush's War on Terror ever been clearly defined? I haven't been able to find any concrete goals which would allow someone to measure success or failure. This is very beneficial for the Bush administration. If no one knows the goals, they have a harder time proving that you are failing. Below is my assessment of the likely goals and our success thus far.
GOAL PROGRESS
| 1. Capture or kill Osama bin Laden | Seven years after 9/11, bin Laden is still alive probably living in the mountains of Pakistan. If we had not invaded Iraq and poured those resources into catching bin Laden, would we be better off today? |
| 2. Remove the Taliban as the rulers of Afghanistan | Successfully removed the Taliban from power, but failed to eliminate them at Tora Bora. After the US shifted their attention to Iraq, the Taliban have made a resurgence. Afghanistan is a more dangerous and less stable place today than it was 5 years ago. |
| 3. Protect the American public from further terrorist attacks | There have been no terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11. Attacks have occurred in England & Spain. Bin Laden is nothing if not patient. After the 1st bombing of the World Trade Center, he waited 8 years until the next attack. |
| 4. Remove Saddam Hussein from power so that he wouldn't use his weapons of mass destruction | The US invaded Iraq and removed Hussein from power, but failed to find any weapons of mass destruction. All the claims of WMD and links to 9/11 have proven to be false. We are now stuck in a never ending morass, based on a blizzard of lies. |
| 5. Turn Iraq into a Democracy | After spending $600 billion and sacrificing over 4,000 American lives, democracy is just a pipedream at this point. A civil war lasting decades is the most likely scenario. |
The Bush administration has chosen to take the offensive regarding all aspects of their foreign policy. When proven wrong, they do not admit they are wrong. They either insist that they are right or change the reasons for following the same policy. This hubris and arrogance has alienated the U.S. in the world community. We are left to shoulder the full financial and manpower burden of the wars we started. It is time to realize that as the only superpower left on earth, we do not need to use force as our first response. Diplomacy, with the unspoken threat of force, will be more effective in the world we occupy today.
If you care about the future of America join me at [link edited for length]
©2008 Jim Quinn, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Sunday, June 8, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, February 21, 2009
The views expressed in this article are those of Jim Quinn only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Jim Quinn is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Jim Quinn of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Jim Quinn |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Kipper Mathews
Date: 2008-06-08 22:02:40
I don't agree with your version of what happened on 9/11, simply because George Bush and Co. are notorious liars. Their terrorists version was invented to support the attack on Iraq, and get the people to back their greedy theft of Iraq's oil. Something they planned on long before 9/11.
That was not just a coincidence.
Still this is a very good article.
1 Thumb
Posted By: Pat Smith
Date: 2008-06-09 11:07:27
Quinny
You are a great writer but off on some major points. First of all, why does Saddam earn a pass. He invaded his neighbors twice, and used mustard gas and biological agents on his own people twice. He had ten years to get his act together and utterly refused to change his tune. He was the one who impeded the search for WMD. He could have acted responsibly, turned over his cache and records and avoided attack. This probably would have also ended sanctions and put him back on the path to recognition. All this could have been done without closing a single rape room or torture chamber. He could still be feeding Shiites into wood chippers to worldwide acclaim. It worked for Quaddafi, it would have worked for Saddam.
Osama, like Rodney King, just wants us all to get along? Bin Laden uses propaganda in a way that Karl Rove could only dream. Getting the Infidel out of Saudi Arabia is just an excuse for his war against the west. Meglomania knows no religion and the thought of 1.25 billion jihadists with bombs strapped to their backs keeps him warmer at night than his thirty wives. We could leave the Middle East tomorrow and it wouldn't change his attitude one iota. It would just prompt a new excuse such as they eat pork or they let their women vote. As for the Middle East we are only there for the oil. The 535 Washington profiles in courage won't let us drill our own oil so we are stuck with them. That would be a good campaign slogan "Drill ours so they can drink theirs."
I agree that a small fraction of Muslim's are terrorists, but the fact remains that 100% of terrorists are Muslim fanatics and the remainder don't seem to interested in discouraging the nut jobs. Forget the polar bears, the EPA should put moderate muslims on the Endangered Species List.
Keep writing Quinny, we love you down here in the bunker. Pat Smith
Posted By: FormerLPMember
Date: 2008-06-10 02:59:25
"the fact remains that 100% of terrorists are Muslim fanatics"
Pat, do you think that Abeer Qassim al-Janabi would have agreed with your statement?
Posted By: Mike Stahl
Date: 2008-06-10 17:13:25
Patty,
How about Tim McVeigh? Arguably more proficient than the muslims, he killed 165 and lived to be executed. The 9/11 guys took 19 to kill three thousand, and they died. That's 157 per for the Muslims(no Iraqis).....granted, McVeigh had Nickols' help....but it was not a suicide rap. First quarter to freaked out christian white guys.....muslims need to catch up here, it could turn into a blowout....
Should we put paranoid white guys on the endangered species list? Kill em all?
Speaking of McVeigh, do we count the FBI and BATF as Terrorist organisations? They have a respectable score from Texas and Idaho you know. Up near a hundred. Burning kids and shooting babies counts in my book, what about you?
How about Gerry Addams and the IRA? kill all Catholics? The Prods? The S.A.S.(depends on who you ask, and when)
Basque sepratists?
Sandinistas?
Serbs?
Croats?
Weather underground(I'm sure you've heard of them....not Muslim-still blower-uppers)
E.L.F.?
Skinheads?
Una-bomber?
Anthrax mailer?
I.D.F.?(again, depends on who you ask, and when)
That 100% quote looks a bit exaggerated. That's just the last twenty years(with the exception of Weather....but I'm sure you know they are resurging with the help of Obama, just ask Hannity)
Should I go back a bit farther in History? I'm concerned it would not be sporting to the Muslims, what do you think? Six million in Germany, 20 Million in Russia, you get the picture. Trail of Tears, Georgia howling, Napoleon....not to mention the Crusades...
Should we add Slavery? or the Klan?
But, please do keep writing, Patty, those of us not afraid of our shadows outside o' the bunker love ya.
Got any canned corn over there? Beets?
What do you do for a septic system in one of those things? Boil?
Look outside sometime, it's really not that dark out yet, we might just make it to nightfall.
Posted By: Mike Stahl
Date: 2008-06-10 17:31:38
That should in no way be interpreted as a complete list of other than Muslim/Arab exteremist terrorists, indeed, I totally forgot the wonderful little bastards Eric Harris and Dlyan Kliebold, and the equally snotty Wank-off Cho or whoever from Va. Tech.
And the nerve gas lunatics in Japan.
The mafia.
And of course, Abortion clinic bombers.
None of them Muslim to my knowledge.
Still not a full list.
Come to think of it, I bet the list is longer than 3000....go figure, the traffic deaths in 2001 sure the hell were.....
Posted By: Pat Smith
Date: 2008-06-19 12:57:36
Hi Mark, Greetings from the bunker;
Wow-Wow, where to start? First of all I appreciate your concern of my Vitamin D deficiency. Not to worry, I do get outside from time to time, though it is usually just to get to a dark bar. As for our nutritional needs we don’t require canned corn or beets, there are plenty of rats and insects to consume. As for septic, also not a problem; we just keep digging.
I did not know that we should equate criminality with terrorism. If that is the case we are incarcerating two million terrorists. I was also referring to recent history and excluding those with territorial claims. Otherwise I would add the Chechens, FARC, and the Uighurs to your list. I would also add FALN, although I would put them on the criminal side. The point is the club that is now targeting America is restricted to Muslims and their so called moderate brethren are annoyingly quiet. I will admit your point (and Quinny’s original point) that there are quite a few bad apples out there and we are not going to able to corral them all. Even if we could, there are plenty more waiting to step up and take their place.
So let’s take a look at the list:
Timothy McVeigh, One man’s terrorist is another man’s criminal. I choose the latter. He does raise an interesting point. The Saddam connection is still not completely settled in my mind. Who was John Doe #2? We will probably never know but we know it wasn’t Terry Nichols. Here is a link if you’re interested. [link edited for length]
[link edited for length]Kill ‘em all. Not practical. Too paraphrase Mr. Taggert (Slim Pickens) from Blazing Saddles “Somebody’s gotta go back and get a sh*tload of bullets.” Slim is much better than me; you can watch him here:
The IRA has disbanded. Unlike Fatah, Hezbellah and Hamas they took a good deal when presented. I always said Bill Gates and Michael Dell won the Irish peace by bringing jobs and economic prosperity to the North. It is difficult to blow up a building at 3 o’clock in the morning and still get to work on time 5 hours later. The Orange simlpy got frustrated. It’s no fun to shoot Catholics when they don’t shoot back.
Basques, Sandinistas, Serbs and Croats, (the Albanians and Bosnians aren’t exactly angels either) while not my favorite brand of warmonger aren’t exporting their particular viciousness to the far corners of the world.
The Weather Underground went mainstream, if you consider the Democratic Party mainstream.
E.L.F. What do you have against the Endangered Language Fund? As for the wacko environmentalists these are criminals that need to hunted down and eliminated. I have to give you that they do fit the model of religious fanatics .
Skinheads, the Unabomber, and the Anthrax mailer are criminals. By the way how do you know the Anthrax mailer wasn’t a Muslim? If you have any information you should contact the proper authorities.
I.D.F? You can’t mean that. If we were exposed to a fraction of what Israel faces every day our reaction would not be anywhere near as measured.
I will leave the megalomaniacs to history. As for the Crusades, on which side were the terrorists?
Thanks again for your concern, as for us we’ll keep singing Annie, “The sun will come out, tomorrow…”Cheers,
Patty and the Bunkermates