If you've posted in forums you might remember writing some decent responses. I usually spend a lot of time polishing my discussion forum responses depending on the subject or who I am talking to. Often I want to remember what I said about something, but finding the original post can be difficult. So it makes sense to capture the better responses for later review. Welcome to Clint's Reposts.Friday, February 20, 2004
Iraq as Seen by David Warren (Politics Forum Feb 19)
That's a good response. I don't want to spend a lot of time on this, but I do want to make a couple points. I think both Warren and I agree with you that the best possible method long term of fighting "terror-ism" is through diplomatic means. But I think where Warren is coming from is that the attack on the Trade Centers, the proliferation of nuclear technology seeking terror networks, the increasing sophistication of terror methods such as using airplanes to bring down buildings, can't and shouldn't wait for diplomatic solutions. The UN proved incapable of exerting sufficient pressure via that route; otherwise the Trade Centers would still be standing. The heart of the matter is one's opinion about WHEN military response is necessary and we disagree about that. To take a leaf from Warren:
"There is also too little appreciation of what e.g. the military historian John Keegan has been stressing in his recent journalism. Reliable intelligence has rarely been available to any power in the world's history. It is by messing in with sheer brute force that one soon finds what is going on. And this is the Bush administration's greatest success: messing in. They have not waited for an American or European city to go up in radioactive smoke before doing something."
But OK, people either buy that or they don't.
I don't get the impression Warren is an optimist at all when it comes to Iraq and the entire Islamic problem. Just read his latest for instance, "Women & Minorities" and you'll see a sober realization that Islam is winning in Iraq, not us. I think the sooner we get out of Iraq the better and I hope they stick to their timetable. There is never going to be a perfect withdrawal or ending. But we should stand ready to do this all over again if necessary in any other country that actually crosses our borders and destroys our citizens. That includes going after anyone threating to do so, if we detect it. Backed by that, we should continue the diplomatic approach. I think Warren called it the "Mutt and Jeff" act.
Clint
"There is also too little appreciation of what e.g. the military historian John Keegan has been stressing in his recent journalism. Reliable intelligence has rarely been available to any power in the world's history. It is by messing in with sheer brute force that one soon finds what is going on. And this is the Bush administration's greatest success: messing in. They have not waited for an American or European city to go up in radioactive smoke before doing something."
But OK, people either buy that or they don't.
I don't get the impression Warren is an optimist at all when it comes to Iraq and the entire Islamic problem. Just read his latest for instance, "Women & Minorities" and you'll see a sober realization that Islam is winning in Iraq, not us. I think the sooner we get out of Iraq the better and I hope they stick to their timetable. There is never going to be a perfect withdrawal or ending. But we should stand ready to do this all over again if necessary in any other country that actually crosses our borders and destroys our citizens. That includes going after anyone threating to do so, if we detect it. Backed by that, we should continue the diplomatic approach. I think Warren called it the "Mutt and Jeff" act.
Clint
