[Industrialblog,
October 7, 2004]
Whittle on what's at stake: Deterrence
Bill Whittle has a brilliant and outstanding essay that cuts to the heart of the matter.
He posts a picture of the Twin Towers in flames and says this:
Bill makes me feel a bit ashamed for my harsh criticism of President Bush's inarticulation. No matter how we look at it, President Bush is the only choice. Yeah, I'd like him to be more articulate. He's not. But I trust President Bush and his executive team to hunt down terrorists. I trust John Kerry to do whatever the conventional liberal wisdom believe is the right plan of action, whether or not it works.
I'll add one comment, then urge folks to head over there: I'm starting to hear some people talk about Sept. 11 as a "one time thing". The word for this kind of thinking: denial.
One side's in denial and the other side wants to do the hard work of defending civilization. The choice is clear. But let's hope even if our opponents win that we never find out just how wrong they are.
He posts a picture of the Twin Towers in flames and says this:
And all of this rage and fury and spitting and tearing up of signs, all of these insults and spinmeisters and forgeries and all the rest, seem to come down to the fact that about half the country thinks you deter this sort of thing by being nice, while the other half thinks you deter this by being mean.
Bill makes me feel a bit ashamed for my harsh criticism of President Bush's inarticulation. No matter how we look at it, President Bush is the only choice. Yeah, I'd like him to be more articulate. He's not. But I trust President Bush and his executive team to hunt down terrorists. I trust John Kerry to do whatever the conventional liberal wisdom believe is the right plan of action, whether or not it works.
I'll add one comment, then urge folks to head over there: I'm starting to hear some people talk about Sept. 11 as a "one time thing". The word for this kind of thinking: denial.
One side's in denial and the other side wants to do the hard work of defending civilization. The choice is clear. But let's hope even if our opponents win that we never find out just how wrong they are.
Technically, that would be "But let's hope that if our opponents win, it turns out some miracle that they were right."
After all, if they pretend that the terrorists don't exist and the terrorists don't attack (on their watch or shortly after it), they would be right that it was an ignorable threat, just like those of us who don't worry too much about the PATRIOT act turning the US into Saddam's Iraq have been right that it is an ignorable threat. Other than that, Amen.
Believe me, if Kerry wins, I will pray frequently for him to be the luckiest man alive. One caveat: he can't just pull a Clinton and luck out by having the attack come a few months after he leaves office — it's got to be genuine luck where the terrorists don't even bother attacking, for some inexplicable reason.
Like Dubya had them killed already?
FTR I think Bin Laden is still alive, and Mullah Omar and Bin Laden have threatened to kill four million Americans.
I'd be happy with an ignoble threat, though.
Those that think 9/11 is a one time thing are obviously dangerous in their own right. Given our large open borders it seems obvious that we will have more terrorists attacks in the US. If we don't get attacked, it will be that the terrorists think they have better targets elsewhere. Thank God we're not centered closer to these guys.
IMO: We are in a war, but it is not just a military war, so military solutions alone will be wanting. It requires the military (including covert operations), law enforcement (FBI+), espionage (CIA+), economics, and diplomacy. My problem with Bush isn't really the first three so much, it is economics and diplomacy (plus lots of personal issues about the openness of government, etc.).
If Bush actually manages to lose the election, it will be because of Iraq, but not because he is inarticulate. It's two fold: we didn't find a single WMD and there is at least the appearance that the White House mismanaged the post-war situation. If we had found a big weapons stash or the war had gone like he promised, Bush would be home free.
Personally, I'm not so pessimistic about Iraq as the "experts" seem to be (but I'm not at expert). As an Iraqi army grows and takes over or supplements the US forces, things will get better because Iraqis want Iraqis to provide the peace. Unfortunately for Bush, he set expectations very different from what common sense said he could deliver.
Of course, in true Presidential debate style, none of this really addresses your deterrence article.
Heh. FTP I think that OBL is dead. I'm not certain of that, of course, but I think that a thermobarric warhead incinerated him years ago.
By the way, "Bill makes me feel a bit ashamed for my harsh criticism of President Bush's inarticulation."
Don't feel too bad; if Bush were articulate and a great orator, there would probably be fewer soldiers (US, Iraqi, &others) dead in Iraq and Iraq would probably be more peaceful. It's a great pity that we can't have a better President than Bush in office right now, but we must live with reality as we find it, not as we wish it to be.
Actually, Super G, you did one better: you used facts which are untrue.
Specifically, "we didn't find a single WMD" when actually we've found somewhere between a half dozen and a dozen. Remember, the media talking point changed from "no WMD" to "no stockpiles of WMD" after that. You can always take your cues as to what the facts are from when the goal-posts have been moved by someone's enemies. :-)
"war had gone like he promised"
Go find one instance of Bush promising that the war would be easy or bloodless or cheap. All he's ever said is that it will be hard but worth doing. Especially in all of his major speeches. What you're referring to is the straw man that opponents of his have long since set up.
As Donald Rumsfeld once said, "No reasonable person thinks that we massed 200,000 troops (from various members of the coalition) on Iraq's border because overthrowing Saddam would be easy.
Anyhow, aside from the factual inaccuracies:
As to diplomacy, what do you want? France — a decaying country rife with corruption — was bribed quite heavily by Saddam. Bush is at fault for not bribing them more than Saddam did?
Frankly, if diplomacy means buying countries cooperation, I'd rather that we militarily smash them. As Machiavelli observed, it is better to be feared than to be loved, and it's more honorable to kill a corrupt man than to bribe him anyhow. Killing a corrupt man is an act of justice, whereas bribing him is taking part in his corruption.
But I fear than I am rare in this world — I hold morality to be more important than comfort.
Sorry - I could answer over the weekend, I've forgotten my sign-in information.
The points of offense were really not intended as a criticism of Bush (I do that all the time on my blog). It was my interpretation of why he will lose the election, if he does. Bill seems to think his criticism of GW as being inarticulate as wrong. I think he’s wrong in feeling that way. In fact, that it is a little like being an enabler.
I almost corrected the “no WMD” but decided not to because I was interested to see if anyone would really care to differentiate almost none versus none. However, here's the estimate Bush gave us "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." Of course, I believe there were other motives to invade Iraq, but as Paul Bremer said, "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." But you've got to credit them for playing the hand they chose.
WRT to “gone like he promised” I not sure how much stake I put in your criticism here. If you think everyone believes that Bush is entirely credible on Iraq, I think you’re wrong. If you think it is just because the Democrats have been able to misrepresent his positions, I think you’re wrong about that as well. Perhaps I’m crazy to think that over 900 soldiers have died and thousands wounded since Bush strutted around like a cock (male chicken) on an aircraft carrier that had to be turned just so off the coast of California to make it a good photo op.
I'm happy that you're self assured in your “morality" over "comfort." I'm sure there's an jab hidden in there, but I'd like it a little more clear next time.
As for diplomacy, it's my choice to care about it.
Still, I think if Bush loses the election, it won't be for his lack of fiscal responsibility (my chief complaint), it will over Iraq.
SG
are you talking about the cache that the Poles uncovered a few months back?
I apologize for misunderstanding the meaning of your post. First, a few incidentals:
"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
Which is, as you will no doubt observe, not at all contradicted by finding not even a pound of any of them. This is the difference between potentiality and actuality.
Anyhow, most of the rest of my post has little relevance since I misunderstood your point.
However, I think that you're not completely correct in your assessment; there are many reasons that Bush could lose this one. For example, he might have been too liberal to motivate conservatives to turn out in sufficient numbers (whether you want to take that as socially or fiscally liberal). It's possible that since nothing has happened in the homeland in the last 3 years people won't want to see things through and will want a return to normalcy. Or they'll just forget about politics and not bother to vote.
Success — even Kerry's (hypothetical) success — tends to have many fathers.
But do you really think that the ordinary American cares whether or not we jerked the french off well enough for them to give us a nod of approval? It seems to me that Americans' vices are usually rather far away from overvaluing diplomacy. Do you really disagree with that?
Various stuff; there were a few IEDs which used (ineffective) mustard as I recall.
I agree on the potential versus the actual WRT to WMD. I don't know anyone (including my most liberal friends) that didn't think Saddam was harboring at least some chemical weapons. I've been surprised by the official reports on weapons. Hence, there is a bit of intellectual dishonesty involved in some of these criticisms of Bush.
Success and failure do have many sources.
I'm just about through the book "Running on Empty" by Peter Peterson. He is a Republican with business experience and has served in government. This book takes aim at both Democrats and Republicans on taxes and social spending as it spells out the impact of our current policies on future fiscal responsibility. It is worthwhile a read, but scary when you see how incapable either party is of moving to where we need to be.
Despite my liberal leanings on many issues, I completely believe we need to seriously slash social security and medicare + use some means testing on these items. I think this requires rationing medical access and other drastic interventions, but the math is completely against us otherwise.
The Afghanistan elections are a big victory for Bush. He should run some commercials telling this story, rather than focus on attacking Kerry. Decent elections in Iraq would be a big victory for everyone. Whatever the other set backs, I think Bush should be touting these a bit more.
I remember there was a roadside bomb rigged out of a chemical warhead that failed to go off (but my memory may be wrong).
Have a good day all.
SG
Social security and medicare are an interesting subject. One of the obvious reforms is to raise the retirement age to 70, or maybe 95. Work gives people dignity, after all. :-)
More seriously, though, medicare will be fixed well if the costs of care can be shifted partially to the individual's sholders (though only proportionally); this way they will take a proactive stand in rationing their care themselves, which is the best sort of rationing because it's most likely to be correct.
Of course, I think that one of the larger reforms would also be tort reform, because of all the deleterious effects that has (over-treatment and over-testing most especially among them).
Also, part of the problem with not attacking Kerry is that the guy has so damn many positions that if you try to run a positive campaign, Kerry will just usurp them. :-)
I do really like Bush's stance of going for strict constructionists for supreme court appointees. If he really means it, it would be a real move back towards a non-despotic supreme court (I mean that in its older sense of despotes, not its more modern sense of merely bad).