US winning the war...or not...

bonkey

I'm interested in hearing the opinions of the supporters of the current US action concerning teh memo from Rumsfeld which was published by USA Today a day or two ago, and which there is more media coverage of today, as he has done numerous interviews to "back it up".

(A quick perusal of teh regular news locations, or a google should find you the info if you haven't seen it yet)

In this memo, which was a leak of one Rumsfeld apparently sent to other top neocons, he apparently poses questions like whether or not the US is winning the war on terror. In his interviews, he is also using this lack of knowledge as perhaps a driving incentive to form a new intelligence agency focussed on the task.

Now, this has me confused. How can the supporters of the US action be so certain that the war on terror is the right course of action, and that the US are doing a good job with their actions when the people in charge are saying that they lack this information themselves about these actions of theirs!!!

Interestingly, Rumsfeld also goes further and asks for ideas to counter the radical Islamic schools - one of the driving forces behind the increase in anti-US terrorism.

But hold on Rummy....Afghanistan is the home of terrorism. No, sorry, I meant Iraq. What???? You're saying its not there either? These aren't the centres of terrorism you've insisted they are for months/years now? That all along its been those damned schools all along?

So, I'm just wondering....Rumsfeld's memo seems to be saying that the US cannot know whether or not its winning the war, and goes on to suggest that the problems its tackling are not even the core problems like we've constantly been told.

So on what grounds can the action still be supported, when the people carrying it out are beginning to admit to each other that they have no way of knowing whether or not what they are doing is the right thing.

jc

Vader

fcuking cowards cant defent their own philosophies or they havent read the thread yet.
either way I suggest PMing Piliger, Geromino, Qadhafi, Biffa Bacon and Sand; they're all pro american (and entitled to that veiw however flawed it might be)

Originally posted by Vader

either way I suggest PMing Piliger, Geromino, Qadhafi, Biffa Bacon and Sand; they're all pro american (and entitled to that veiw however flawed it might be)

With the exception of Biffa, I'd qualify that by saying theres a difference between being friendly towards America and outright support for Bush et al.
One is not the same as the other.
Personally I mostly take the approach of examining the actions and judging them individually.
Outright condemnation or outright support ( regardless of anything ) is not good.
Best example of posters with an unending, almost totally uncritical posting attitude towards a regime on this Board is actually Cork when anything to do with Fianna Fáil is mentioned
Biffa though is a close second...

/ anyhow thats off topic, I'll come back later with my views on the subject matter of this thread.

mm
p.s like your signiture Vader

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Bonkey
[/B]But hold on Rummy....Afghanistan is the home of terrorism. No, sorry, I meant Iraq. What???? You're saying its not there either? These aren't the centres of terrorism you've insisted they are for months/years now? That all along its been those damned schools all along?[/b]

To be fair, the US government, while detesting the Wahhabi schools had used them to gain concessions from the Saudi Arabian monarchy and has known the problems caused by these people for years - the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, the very extreme schools which export to the world (especially western Europe) their own brand of fundamentalism, want rid of US forces on 'holy' soil - and the US was persuaded to support the Saudi Arabian government to help the family of Saud retain power - military arms deals and so on were involved.

The US refused however to turn over US intelligence files on the Wahhabis in order that the Saudi's could jump on their most aggressive and militaristic proponents - this was because it was feared that the US might then lose the concessions they had just gained (the article I read was very nebulous about what exact concessions had been gained though).

Biffa Bacon

I find the memo very reassuring. It shows that the prosecutors of the War on Terror are continuously questioning and reevaluating their strategies, which is exactly what they should be doing. The loonies are just clutching at straws with this.

Now, this has me confused. How can the supporters of the US action be so certain that the war on terror is the right course of action, and that the US are doing a good job with their actions when the people in charge are saying that they lack this information themselves about these actions of theirs!!!

First of all, just because they don’t have perfect information doesn’t mean they have no information whatsoever. Second, the outcomes of any course of action will not be known in advance. The best we can do is make well-informed guesses as to what those outcomes will be, based on personal theories, past experience, current information etc. Therefore, a lack of information doesn’t necessarily make something a bad strategy.

And finally, you can just as easily flip the question around and ask how people be so sure it’s the wrong course of action “when the people in charge are saying that they lack this information themselves about these actions of theirs.”

Interestingly, Rumsfeld also goes further and asks for ideas to counter the radical Islamic schools - one of the driving forces behind the increase in anti-US terrorism.

But hold on Rummy....Afghanistan is the home of terrorism. No, sorry, I meant Iraq. What???? You're saying its not there either? These aren't the centres of terrorism you've insisted they are for months/years now? That all along its been those damned schools all along?

When did anyone ever say Afghanistan was an exclusive centre of terrorism, or Iraq was an exclusive centre of terrorism, or the madrassas are an exclusive centre of terrorism? Can they not all be manifestations of the one problem?

Vader

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
First of all, just because they don’t have perfect information doesn’t mean they have no information whatsoever. Second, the outcomes of any course of action will not be known in advance. The best we can do is make well-informed guesses as to what those outcomes will be, based on personal theories, past experience, current information etc. Therefore, a lack of information doesn’t necessarily make something a bad strategy.

And finally, you can just as easily flip the question around and ask how people be so sure it’s the wrong course of action “when the people in charge are saying that they lack this information themselves about these actions of theirs.”

The best thing to do is to fill in the gaps with past experiences; when I look at past US interventions, liberations and humanitarian relief I see imperialism, puppet governments and self serving politicians. Thats why I cant trust this new american "strategy".

I dont fully understand the second paragraph I quoted. You're saying that *I* cant know for sure that what Bush is doing is wrong, when Bush doesnt know what *he* is doing

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I find the memo very reassuring.

Well, given that you spend the rest of the post applying double standards, I'm not surprised.

Outraged I would say you're applying double standards? Allow me to elucidate :

It shows that the prosecutors of the War on Terror are continuously questioning and reevaluating their strategies, which is exactly what they should be doing. The loonies are just clutching at straws with this.

Those would be the loonies who from day 1 have been saying that the US is going after the wrong targets in the wrong manner, yes?

Now that key members of the US "top office" are saying "hold on - maybe we've been targetting the wrong targets and using the wrong tactics all along", its amusing that you are supporting this line of thinking from them whilst insisting that those who have been saying it since the start are still loonies.

So, if a non-US supporter says "wrong way", they're a loonie. If the big cheeses start saying the same thing, its reassuring and comforting to know that they're questioning their correctness.

Double standards? You decide.

Presumably if Rummy convinced Bush et al to change directions, you would not see this as validation of the criticism levelled at the previous direction by "loonies", but rather "comforting" that Washingon are improving their methods.

So, in other words, if I say they're wrong because of X, I'm a loony. If they say they are wrong because of X shortly after me, I am still a loony, but they are exemplifying good leadership.

If ever I needed a post to show how "strong" the logic is behind your support for the neocons and your ridicule of their critics, this is it.

Alternately, if the same standards clearly don't apply to critics and leaders, there's no flaw in the logic at all......

So maybe I was wrong. It may not be double standards after all...it might just be illogical. Strange that, considering critics like me are the loonies. One would think we would be the ones with a lesser grasp of "non-lunatic" concepts like logic.

Second, the outcomes of any course of action will not be known in advance.

Thats funny, because you've been the one predicting the "good things" that will come at the end of all of this, whilst many of the looni... - sorry, I mean critics - have been saying that the risk is too great, that we can't be certain we won't make things worse, and that any claim of success, or it "all being worth it" is premature.

Indeed, many of those crazy critics said "you don't have enough proof to be certain - you could be wrong", and the US administration countered with "rubbish, we're certain, only we can't show you the proof". Now that its beginning to look like they could be wrong, and the critics right - you defend this by saying that the loonies were right all along in saying you couldn't be sure?????

I'm beginning to think maybe it is your logic which is at fault, and not your standards......

And finally, you can just as easily flip the question around and ask how people be so sure it’s the wrong course of action “when the people in charge are saying that they lack this information themselves about these actions of theirs.”

The wrong course of action is one where you are in a volatile situation and you are acting in a manner that you have no idea whether or not it will improve things, but choose to do so anyway.

This is exactly what Rumsfeld is wondering if the US are doing wrong - taking action without knowing (or even being able to know) where it will lead or if it is even the right way to go.

This is exactly what you have been calling other people loonies, lefties, and other types of -ies for who-knows-how-long.

When did anyone ever say Afghanistan was an exclusive centre of terrorism, or Iraq was an exclusive centre of terrorism, or the madrassas are an exclusive centre of terrorism? Can they not all be manifestations of the one problem?

Given that the top administration of the US have their speeches written for them by professionals, it can be no coincidence that with references to "centre of terrorism", you should find that the definite article - as opposed to the indefinite - was used.

Now, you can call that pedantry all you like, but "the centre" implies singular, and "a centre" implies (potential) plurality.

So I think you'll find, Biffa,that he Administration have indeed said several times that different places are the centre of terrorism. That is exclusive.

Yes, I'm fully aware that such declarations by the US administration were never anything but spin. Everything is about definitives and superlatives when you're trying to sell it. If it wasn't, then someone - a loony no doubt - might ask "why this one and not one of the others".

The point is that when you make such statements and then turn around and say that you lack the means to have made that determination in the first place - which is what Rumsfeld has effectively done - then you make yourself look a little...how shall I say it....stupid or dishonest, depending on whether you'd prefer to believe it was just an honest mistake or deliberately misleading.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Full text of the memo can be found here.

Originally posted by Vader
I dont fully understand the second paragraph I quoted. You're saying that *I* cant know for sure that what Bush is doing is wrong, when Bush doesnt know what *he* is doing

It’s not that Bush doesn’t know what he is doing, it’s that the administration does not have a full and complete picture of the effect of the War on Terror on overall terrorist numbers. But why would you conclude from that that support for the current strategy is irrational but opposition to it is not?

Originally posted by bonkey
Now that key members of the US "top office" are saying "hold on - maybe we've been targetting the wrong targets and using the wrong tactics all along", its amusing that you are supporting this line of thinking from them whilst insisting that those who have been saying it since the start are still loonies.

Nowhere in the memo does Rumsfeld say that the US has been hitting the wrong targets. He questions the appropriateness of certain tactics, but this is more rhetorical than critical. To suggest that the memo shows that the administration is having doubts about the general strategy of the War on Terror is ludicrous.

Thats funny, because you've been the one predicting the "good things" that will come at the end of all of this, whilst many of the looni... - sorry, I mean critics - have been saying that the risk is too great, that we can't be certain we won't make things worse, and that any claim of success, or it "all being worth it" is premature.

Indeed, many of those crazy critics said "you don't have enough proof to be certain - you could be wrong", and the US administration countered with "rubbish, we're certain, only we can't show you the proof".

I don’t recall anyone in the administration ever making such claims about the War on Terror.

Now that its beginning to look like they could be wrong, and the critics right - you defend this by saying that the loonies were right all along in saying you couldn't be sure?????

I never questioned the fact that we couldn’t be sure.

The wrong course of action is one where you are in a volatile situation and you are acting in a manner that you have no idea whether or not it will improve things, but choose to do so anyway.

But this will be true of any course of action you take. This is not a valid objection.

This is exactly what Rumsfeld is wondering if the US are doing wrong - taking action without knowing (or even being able to know) where it will lead or if it is even the right way to go.

What Rumsfeld is doing is trying to stimulate critical thinking about America’s tactics in the War of Terror, as opposed to the overall strategy of hunting down and eliminating terrorists and overthrowing rogue regimes.

So I think you'll find, Biffa,that he Administration have indeed said several times that different places are the centre of terrorism.

If they did say that, and I know of no occasion on which they did, then I would agree that they were wrong to do so.

By the way, the loonies are not the ones who criticise the War on Terror because they think it’s an inappropriate response. The loonies are the “It’s all about oil”, “America is the world’s leading terrorist state”, “Bush is worse than Hitler” brigade.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Nowhere in the memo does Rumsfeld say that the US has been hitting the wrong targets. He questions the appropriateness of certain tactics, but this is more rhetorical than critical. To suggest that the memo shows that the administration is having doubts about the general strategy of the War on Terror is ludicrous.

What Rumsfeld says is that the US Administration lacks the necessary tools to be able to determine if its current actions are helping or making the situation worse :

"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror".

Now, if you lack the metrics to identify whether or not your actions are helping or worsening the situation, it must follow that you lack the metrics to be able to determine which actions would be the ones to help the situation. It also follows that, while you may not say for sure your actions are wrong, you have no way of saying they are right either.

If they did say that, and I know of no occasion on which they did, then I would agree that they were wrong to do so.

Would you also agree that If what Rumsfeld says is true - that the US does lack the ability to determine whether or not it is winning the war on terror - then it would be wrong for Mr. Bush to declare that the US is winning said war, or that it is even making positive progress in said war?

What Rumsfeld is doing is trying to stimulate critical thinking about America’s tactics in the War of Terror, as opposed to the overall strategy of hunting down and eliminating terrorists and overthrowing rogue regimes.

Yes, he's saying that the US needs to think critically about how its doing things, because right now it lacks the ability to figure out whether or not what it is doing is the "right" thing to do in terms of winning the War on Terror.

It is also interesting to note that he barely mentions Iraq - the central focus of the War on Terror - in the memo. If there are no metrics to determine success or failure, surely Iraq should occupy pride of place amongst the "are we doing this right, for example" questions, but it doesn't.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey
Would you also agree that If what Rumsfeld says is true - that the US does lack the ability to determine whether or not it is winning the war on terror - then it would be wrong for Mr. Bush to declare that the US is winning said war, or that it is even making positive progress in said war?

That depends on how you define "winning" and "progress". If you define them in the way Rumsfeld has, i.e. in terms of whether the world's stock of terrorists has increased or decreased, then yes it would be wrong for Bush to say that.

Éomer of Rohan

I find likening it to the events in a paranoid monarchy or dictatorship helps; if there are no revolutionaries and you go hunting them with large brands and tweezers, then very soon there are revolutionaries all over the place and sooner or later one of them will get it right...obviously not the one who went after Paul Wolfowitz though.

By the way, for those of you impervious to analogy, 'revolutionary' is being used in the context of 'terrorist.'

popinfresh

Yes USA is winning the war (evil b*stards). The reason there is to try and enforce their influence into the middle east. And hence, have a more solid hold of the last 30 years or so of world economics as we know it. (The oil's gonna run out). They're winning financially because in the long run, they're going to save, or rather not have to spend upwards of trillions of dollars, because if Saudi Arabia starts p1ssing them off they can say "Fcuk you, we've got Iraq". And looking at the war militarily, the losses America is receiving is nothing. Oh sure they go on of how sad they are and what heros the soldiers were but in reality they dont care, the only worry is that it'll look bad to the voters. Having said that though there is a chance that the Iraqi resistance will get so tough that they'll have to pull out. But only if the resistance gets a hundred times worse than it is. The USA has got what it wants through use of superior military, superior economic stronghold and superior propeganda. And tbh, I don't think they'll try and invade Iran for the moment because then they'd actually be stirring up sh1t so much so they'd have to face the reality of the world ganging up on them. Plus, Iran is unnecessary, it would be nice to have, but Iraq is probably enough. Although in the long run I can see USA running into problems, when the oil supplys start to get tight, other countries are going to get annoyed with Americans dominance, and then they'll cock up a WMD excuse and attack USA. I'm predicting USA vs CHina in the next 10 - 30 years

Éomer of Rohan

37 people killed yesterday and at least six more today - I really don't call that a firm hold on the situation.

I swear if Bush gets any more Orwellian though, I really will become worried....anyone hear that ridiculously pervertedly naive speech he made today?

Cork

I think tageting the Red Cross yesterday was a new low.

I am not sure, if the US are winning - but I think they have secured finance to rebuilt Iraq & a time table for this and setting up a democratic system out there should be done as soon as possible

Éomer of Rohan

Iraq is not going to get a 'democracy' outside of the one through which the USA can hold down Iraqis to US ends. The fact is that the government, by virtue of being established by the USA will alienate the greater part of the Iraqi people who want the US forces out - and therefore the candidates for such a parliament will almost be exclusively pro-American; that they get elected is not democracy, it is a sham - and let's not forget that the USA are still employing propaganda in Iraq...

Hobbes

The loonies are reading the document wrong.

He is not saying that they are failing. He is saying that they should get more funding, more Orwellian.

"The harder we work, the behinder we get"

ROFL. I love that quote.

Fukker needs to go with Bush. This is the guy who was buddy buddy with Saddam.

Iraqi will not be democratic unless its a democracy that the US wants. The problem with real democracy is the people tend to vote against what you want.

As for the oil. The oil means dick if the US$ tanks, which is what is going to happen and all the other countries call in thier debts.

Corporations also have no loyalty to countries, so you see more and more jobs moving to India from the US. The prediction is in 5 years or there abouts almost all IT sector will be done in India. Also recently a US tobacco company has moved thier base of operations out of the US. The more unstable the US becomes the more the companies will pull out.