The Way to Debate Iraq

If you don't believe that an anti-US fifth column (8-10% of the US population) exists in America, read these voluntarily written articles from some very well-known blogs.  Anyone, Democrat or Republican, Liberal or Conservative, who feels any love for the United States, will be offended by this :

Daily Kos, The Left Coaster, Daily Kos again, the burning of US soldiers in effigy, the comments here, this poll stating that 11% are hoping for America to lose in Iraq, and Rosie O'Donnell defending 9/11 mastermind and Al-Qaeda No. 3 Khalid Sheikh Mohammad on national TV (even though he also confessed to making plans to assassinate Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton).  Even Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit, as genuine of a political moderate as one can ever hope to find, has arrived at a similar conclusion, going even further than me by saying the 'left' sides with America's enemies, as has Captain Ed.  I don't think the fifth column represents all of the 'left', however. 

There is a significant percentage of the US population that does not want the US to win in Iraq (and will deny the existence of victory when we achieve it by 2008).  Some because they have always hated America (fifth-columnists), others simply because they hate President Bush so much, beyond any policy disagreement, that they want to discredit him even if it means harming America (Bush Derangement Syndrome), and yet others because it is a socially fashionable opinion to hold, and they need to conform to the groupthink of their clique (fashion sheep). 

This is an article I could have written a long time ago.  I refrained in order to wait until the anti-US fifth column overplays their hand, which has happened.  Applying true Sun-Tzu tactics, their exhausted state is the perfect time for a counterattack. 

You can win debates against all of them easily, by debating them on principle, which they are usually not confronted on, and observing their willingness to offer constructive ideas.

Also, never refer to these people as 'liberals', 'progressives', and 'elites'.  This is not only an insult to genuine classical liberals (who have an open mind and can come to agreement with others easily), but these are terms that the actions of anti-Americans are quite the opposite of.  Does it make much sense to debate someone if, from the start, they insist that you address them as the smarter person among the two of you, without them having to earn that status through deeds?  So don't allow them to stealthily get away with this branding over here. 

Here are some examples of common one-liners (in italics) and possible responses you could wield (in bold) :

_____________________________________________

"The Iraq War has put us in more danger/has not made us any safer"

An absolute like this can be easily disproved by providing counterexamples.  So you can say :

"Well, we have not any attacks on US soil for 65 months and counting.  At the same time, other nations have experienced attacks during the same period, like in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan in Russia, Mumbai, Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey.  All but two of these countries have not had troops in Iraq.  How do you explain that?"

This forces them to provide proof to support their belief, which is vastly more difficult to do given the lack of further attacks. 

_____________________________________________

"Saddam had no ties to 9/11"

It is true that Saddam had no participation in 9/11, which is why we dealt with the Taliban in Afghanistan first.  But the statement above implies an assumption that 9/11 was the only terrorist attack ever to occur against US citizens or US allies.  The way to corner your opponents is to test their knowledge of (or willingness to acknowledge) the numerous other terror attacks on US citizens before 9/11 (some of which received direct and indirect support from Saddam).

"Do you think 9/11 was the first terrorist attack ever?  Tell me what you know about the 1983 attacks in Lebanon that killed 241 Marines, the 1993 WTC bombing, the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, the 1998 Kenya/Tanzania US Embassy bombings, and the 2000 USS Cole bombing.  I would like to see that you know about those."

The burden of demonstrating knowledge about the subject matter thus shifts to your opponent. 

_____________________________________________

"The Iraq War has gone on longer than World War II"

Not only is it ignorant to think WWII only started when America joined, but why should duration matter?  This is also red-handed proof of their scheme to only select comparisons that can make the Iraq War look bad.  A comparison of US casualties between WWII (300,000) and the Iraq War (2500) make Iraq look minor, so that comparison is simply not convenient to the fifth-column agenda (even though they trumpet casualties everywhere else).  Also note that the War in Afghanistan started before the War in Iraq, so a duration metric would imply that Afghanistan is even worse (despite only 300 US troops dying there in 5 years).  Thus :

"Afghanistan has been going on longer than Iraq.  Do you oppose the post-9/11 action in Afghanistan?"

Of course, they do oppose Afghanistan, but this exposes their anti-Americanism more readily.  They will retreat. 

_____________________________________________

"Bush lied about WMDs"

Of course, the facts are that Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and 77 of 100 Senators (including Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and John Edwards) all believed that Saddam had WMDs, particularly since he used them against the Kurds and Iranians before.  However, stating these facts in a debate will merely lead to a stalemate.  Instead, you can win by posing a 'what would you do if?' type of question : (see details on how to do this over here)

____________________________________________

"More Americans have died in Iraq than on 9/11"

Aren't these the same people who said Iraq had no ties to 9/11 (a statement which itself ignores all the terrorist attacks before 9/11)?  Plus, a tendency to lump non-hostile casualties into the Iraq casualty total exposes a sinister desire to inflate the total to be larger than it really is.  To date, 2521 US troops have died of hostile causes, and 590 of non-hostile causes.  To use the total (3121) itself is wrong. 

"I thought you believe Iraq had no ties to 9/11?  Why do you link the two only when you can find a way to portray Iraq negatively?  So are the two related, or not?"

and then proceed to ask :

"I am happy to inform you that the US hostile deaths are actually only 2521 (or whatever the number is at the time).  Why are you counting non-hostile deaths, like accidents, in the total?"

Also note how low the Iraq casualties truly are, relative to Vietnam, as per this striking graph. 

____________________________________________

"600,000 (or 1 million, or whatever) civilians have died in Iraq"

Bogus reports from non-credible sources have discovered that if natural deaths in Iraq are counted, they can fabricate a much larger tally of innocent deaths than the official Iraqi Government or even the UN estimate (15-30,000 a year).  By this measure, 3 million Americans died in 2006 alone, and 12 million (average age : 77) since the Iraq War began.  Oh the humanity!!

"Why are you taking a bogus number much larger than the UN estimate?  Is it only because you want to be able to blame the US, facts be damned?"

Plus, notice how they excuse the actual terrorists who are doing the killing.  Don't let that slide either.

"So by that measure, you should support US and British efforts to eliminate the terrorists who are doing the killing.  Why aren't you condemning the actual terrorists?"

_____________________________________________

You can also counterattack by widening the scope of the debate to corner them on their broader principles (which they certainly will not be proud to reveal).  This can be done with questions such as :

"We had had troops in Germany and Japan for 62 years, in South Korea for 54 years, and in Bosnia for 9 years.  Should we not remove those first?  Why are they not asking us to remove our troops?"

or

"I notice that people like you tend to always side against democracy.  Examples of this include your support of Hezbollah and Hamas against Israel, China against Taiwan, North Korea against South Korea, Cuba against the US, etc.  Why?"

An even simpler tactic is the expose the ignorance of the commenter by asking them a very simple, non-political question about Iraq, such as :

"Please name for me the countries that border Iraq, in clockwise order.  I need to see that you know where Iraq is on the map."

or

"What are the 3 main groups in Iraq, and what percentage of the population are each?"

or

"Name any 5 cities in Iraq.  One is Baghdad, I would like to see if you can name four others."

or

"What are the names of the President and Prime Minister of Iraq?"

You will be surprised how many fashion sheep will be unable to answer these general questions.  You have effectively destroyed any claim they have to act as an authority on the subject of Iraq.  Watching 10 minutes of MSNBC a day an expert does not make, and you should inform them of that. 

_____________________________________________

Now, for the final and most crucial segment of this article. 

I recognize that there is a sizable population of Americans, Democrats and Republicans, who support America, the troops, and the fight against terrorists, but are simply unhappy about how the Iraq War has been waged, or believe that other approaches might have been a better use of resources.  This is certainly a valid position to take, and one that I want to encourage.  Many on the Right make the mistake of not acknowledging this easily unnoticed groups of patriots, and thus lose potential allies against anti-American fifth-columnists. 

Instead, I would like to create a custom tool just for them, which they can use whether they are in the midst of anti-Americans, or are wrongly characterized by an Iraq War supporter. 

If you fall into this category, the best way for you carve out your own turf is to offer alternative ideas to help fight the War on Terror.  By doing what a fifth-columnist would never do, your patriotism is no longer in question.

For example, you could suggest that the US conduct an advertising/media campaign to reach out to the women of the Islamic world, and inform that they are just as deserving of the sametrights that women in other societies have.  This would cost a fraction of the Iraq War, and yet possibly be even more effective at undermining support for Al-Qaeda's ideology, perhaps tricking them into spewing even more over-the-top rhetoric.  This reframes the whole conflict as a women's rights issue, and could bring in new allies. 

This is a superb platform for the Democrats to construct.  If (in theory) Hillary Clinton aggressively pursued such an approach, I would even be happy with her as my President. 

There are endless possibilities for fresh new ideas in fighting the War on Terror.  Show everyone else your constructive ideas that would be more effective than the Iraq War, thus setting yourself apart from those who offer nothing.  I will always encourage you. 

Update : A great article from Dr. Sanity on the deeper pathology of the group in question.

Update : A quick video of Democrats agreeing with President Bush's strategy on Iraq, back when it was politically profitable to do so. 

Update : Christopher Hitchens is always concise and witty.

Related :

We Will Decisively Win in Iraq.....in 2008

Who Hates America?

Zarqawi and the Anti-American Fifth Column

North Korea and the Anti-Americans

Comments

[usnjay]

Hello from Baghdad.

I’ve enjoyed your blog for quite awhile, and I found your techniques highly effective at debating Iraq war critics. Cognitive dissonance prevents them from actually admitting to themselves they are wrong, but at least they appear to start thinking. I’ve also asked the question
"If you oppose the Iraq war, how would you prevent another 9/11?" to show that war opponents have no workable alternatives (I don’t recall where I first read it, may have been this site). Shockingly, I've since been banned from DKos, despite my respectful tone.

I’m launching a site tomorrow for active duty military to voice their opposition to congressional calls to retreat and media efforts to undercut our mission, www.AppealForCourage.org. With your permission I’d like to reprint this article and your “decisively win in ‘08’ articles in their entirety. Of course I’ll link back here as the source.

Thanks for your rational analysis of world events, keep up the good work.
Regards,
LT Nichols
jason@appealforcourage.org

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Thank you for your service, lieutenant.

I have characterised the leftist groupthink as tribal rather than cliquish, and have been discussing the implications of this defensiveness for both intelligent debate and American security over at my own site. I think you would find at least some of the November-January archives enjoyable.

I very much like the style of questioning which asks: "if not this, then what?"

[GK]

usnjay,

You're IN Baghdad now? Wow - please stay safe, my friend.

Yes, please reprint anything you need from here, and I will try to get some traffic to go to your site as well, from here as well as from other blogs.

[tmi3rd]

USNJay-

As a member of the MSM who gets to battle the idiot groupthink that goes on in my current day gig, it is with great pleasure that I send the link to your blog to all my military friends... reservists and active-duty folks in all five branches of the service. Thanks very much for your service, and watch your tail over there.

Uuurrah!

tmi3rd

[GK]

tmi3rd,

You are a member of the MSM? I what capacity, may I ask?

I have many questions on which I would love to hear your thoughts, such as :

1) Why do they sometimes resort to *mischaracterization* on order to make the War appear worse than it is?

2) Will they support the WoT after Bush leaves office, or will they oppose it even then? Are they likely to be more supportive of, say, Giuliani?

3) Why do they have so much cognitive dissonance about the fact that Al-Qaeda and other such groups support an ideology that is the diametric opposite of everything that the Left claims to support (women's rights, gay rights, etc)?

[tmi3rd]

GK-

Thanks for asking. I'm what is known as an assignment editor- I am sort of a traffic cop in that I assign the reporters and photographers to the stories they cover on a local level- after the producers decide what stories they want done that day. I am in charge of calling the shots on what we call spot news (fires, car accidents, that sort of thing). I work at a CBS affiliate in a top 50 market in the mid-South. In the interest of not jeopardizing my position (it supports my music career) I will apologetically not say where specifically.

Anyway, on to your questions... bear in mind that my training is not primarily in journalism, but in music, and so someone with a true J-school degree may have more to add to it than I.

Let's background most of this by describing your typical TV reporter/producer/news director. There will usually be only one degree- a BA in Mass Communications or Broadcast Journalism. As is the case with most of academia, the overriding majority of folks who teach journalism lean hard left- conservative journalists tend to find academic environments very hostile, isolated, and suffocating. Folks who go for an MA or a DA in either field usually get fed up with being told what stories to cover. Oddly enough, it is my experience that there is a balance of viewpoints among photographers, particularly those who have embedded.

Sooo...
1) At a national level, my counterparts almost exclusively come from Columbia University. Some attend Mizzou- their J-school is very highly regarded. In any event, they've lived in NYC pretty much since they got out of high school, if not before. Allow for that to have colored their viewpoints significantly. They probably didn't pay any attention to current events until they had to, and most of the people with whom I've ever worked still don't pay attention.

On a local level, you run the national stories that your network gives you. There typically isn't an opportunity to go back and revoice them, and you almost never have the raw footage to go back and correct obvious failings within the writing. For example, a typical CBS package from over the weekend contained only soundbites from Pelosi and Reid, and no word at all from their Republican counterparts. At a local level, we have to run both sides or else we can't run the package. This rule does not seem to apply up the ladder on a national level. This stems mainly from the fact that any affiliate is going to pay a fee to their network to run those network shows, and you are essentially beholden to that network's stance on national news.

At a national level, it's worth noting how overdramatized the wording is in most stories... one of my very left-leaning producers and I spent about 45 minutes last night parsing AP stories down from 2 minutes of hyperbole to 20 seconds of cold hard facts. There is uniform disgust within most local newsrooms about that (at least with conscientious producers of any political stripe).

Anyway, moving on, the bureaus over in the Middle East are usually fairly lightly staffed- it costs a lot of money to have people live over in harm's way. CBS, as an example, has closed many of their foreign bureaus... for an interesting perspective from someone who has worked in the foreign bureaus, check out the following link... Scotti Williston is the writer's name- she's ex-CBS. Note her interesting remarks about CNN.
http://www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Spring01/Williston.html

Anyway, let me bring this back to a local perspective. So much of what we do is reaction news- how do people feel about this, that, or the other thing, and blood gets reactions. The number crunchers have decided that good news doesn't sell, so we specialize in bad or "hard news"- we save one happy or funny story for the end of a newscast, called the kicker. Reporting bad news out of Iraq or Afghanistan serves that model.

I can't stress enough- it is that way even on FNC because that's the template. The thinking is, if you want to read about accomplishments, go to the sports section. Even the Weather Channel has gone to this sensational, disaster--driven coverage (and note how many insurance ads you see during severe weather outbreaks) instead of delivering dry, fact-based weather coverage.

To conclude this rambling explanation, Iraq is being covered the same way your neighborhood murder is covered... the bad guys kill someone, you get the grieving relatives, you get the grim-faced policeman to deliver facts, and then you get the politician screaming about how they're going to make it all better.

Whew. If any of that needs clarification, just ask- I'll be back. Moving on...

2) The WoT is not likely to ever be supported by major media outlets, as near as I can tell. This is because we're talking about something that, if successfully accomplished, will realistically take a couple of decades. Iraq I was a great TV war because it was over almost as quickly as it started. Here, we're trying to put stuff back together, and the MSM doesn't institutionally know how to cover progress and good happenings in any part of the world. Even with stories about people working hard, suffering has to go along with it. Hell, look at the feature stories you see in the Olympics. An ingrown toenail never has sounded so dramatic. The broad scope does not exist to tell the story of the War on Terror properly because you can't condense it down into 20 second soundbites. One of the great failings of the current administration is not having a true professional group of newsers there to counterbattery the MSM. Tony Snow is a good start, but he literally needs his own aggressive news staff to counterweight the forces against him.

The MSM has written the story to be disaster in the Middle East, and it can't afford the kind of retractions it had to make early in Iraq II, when the NYT told stories of us getting our asses kicked, only to see the statue of Saddam topple.

3) Here's the fun one.
Within the news business, you are talking about a demographic that closely resembles a theater ensemble- primarily aggressive women and gay men. They view domestic politics as the only tangible threat in their lives. Most of these folks have never met a true believer in jihad... nor faced crime on the wrong end of a gun... and have come from the very America-centric notion that if you don't like someone, you can avoid them and they'll go away and leave you alone. They believe that everyone plays by the same rules that we do. It's not just AQ- it's Castro, it's Chavez, it's Ahmadinejad, and so forth- many of my colleagues really don't understand that they'd be in jail in Cuba, in Venezuela, in Iran, or even in Mexico!

The knee-jerk reaction is that peace is the absence of conflict. They were shaken out of that mentality for about 6-9 months at best after September 11th... but they think in terms of news cycles, and forget about most stories within a week. The newsroom mentality does not lend itself to research or careful analysis of what's going on in the world, and most of these folks are still just wondering what they're going to do to get laid this week. All the things that make them feel good- stop the violence, help the animals at the shelter, those poor women at the domestic violence shelter, et cetera- real threats to their country, their way of life, do not really exist except in some sort of right-wing paranoia.

Thus, you get that horrible inbred arrogance of the media, who will merrily tell the rest of us in flyover country what to think. And what do we in the newsrooms do? We take on the same mentality.

GK, this was a long post, and I apologize for the verbosity. I welcome your questions, and will merrily answer them to the best of my ability.

Thanks again for asking- hope it all made sense. I'm on the back end of having to endure that awful drivel that is the Grammys. I have a close friend whose mother was nominated but didn't win... otherwise, I'd have just turned the crap off.

The Police were quite good, though.

tmi3rd

[Yuva]

well, its sound good for debate but fact is fact.

questioning wrong policy NOT anti-american if so, be it.

its mistake by Bush(since he is the leader) and no excuses will change/save people life.

[GK]

Yuva,

You haven't read the article.

What are your alternative ideas that would be a better course of action? If you are going to criticize, you better have some better ideas.

[tmi3rd]

GK-

A better endorsement of your debate tactics could not possibly exist than post #7. I look forward to bringing them up in the near future. It won't change minds, but it will expose the depth of the argument.

tmi3rd

[GK]

tmi3rd,

You are right. I am going to append the article to include a method of parrying this predictable first response that Bush critics will push out that "dissent is patriotic". Yes, dissent with BETTER IDEAS is patriotic. Dissent with no ideas is juvenile, and dissent with a barely concealed hope that things go badly for the US is much worse.

BTW, your detailed account is quite interesting, and taught me a couple of things I was not aware of. I hope to discuss this much more on an ongoing basis with you in the future.

[tmi3rd]

GK-

It would be my pleasure. I'm getting ready to take a break from my MSM duties to do an opera tour in the Northeast, and will have plenty of time to respond. Thanks for the invite, and I look forward to your questions.

And, if I didn't say so already, bravo- I wish I had a stable of producers that write half as well as you do. Some of my reporters in the past have managed to misspell their own names in different fashions multiple times in the same stories...

tmi3rd

[DemocracyRules]

8 SIMPLE RULES

HE WHO HATES will himself become hated. He who loves hate destroys his own soul. He who wishes death on others invites his own death. He who fights peace will have no peace. He who lives in hate will die in hate. He who dies in hate will pour his own blood into the sand, no trace of it to be revered by those who knew him. He who is without caring will live amongst those without caring. He who will not love will not be loved.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Democracy rules - who made those rules? I would agree that they are "simple," but that word has several meanings.

tmi3rd - I read every word, so even if you find yourself meandering, don't stop. I'll let you know when you are spreading yourself too wide. I thank you for your observations.

When you encounter Paul Radulescu, the Romanian baritone, on your opera jaunts, you might strike up a conversation with him (though I believe he is recently in the Pacific northwest). For reasons which will be obvious to you, though not to many others, it seems, he is a strongly anti-communist observer of events and very intelligent.

[DemocracyRules]

To: "Assistant Village Idiot", & 8 Simple Rules...
I wrote those rules, about an hour ago. If you don't like them, don't use them. They are not laws! Also, I did not, of course, invent the ideas behind them. I simply tried to write 8 simple statements that most humans would agree with. Also, they are designed to be mostly true most of the time, i.e., a rule. In times of war, our worst enemy is hate itself.

[tmi3rd]

AVA-

Thanks much. I found myself ventilating a lot of stuff after the Grammys... it's awfully easy for a screed like that to turn into an "it's all about me" purging.

I've heard Paul sing... since we largely sing the same repertoire (high baritone stuff), we don't cross paths too much. Nonetheless, I'll keep my eye out for him in the next audition season.

A thought that occurred to me earlier today- note as well that you can usually guess what region wrote different stories. The majority of news goes through NY, but you will occasionally on later shows find stories written out of the LA or Seattle bureaus... look for them to have some sort of bizarre environmental garbage thrown in there.

Keep your ears to the ground about a few things as they apply to the media, and something that sure as hell doesn't get a lot of press:

1) NBC Universal is quietly up for sale. GE tried to sell MSNBC to Microsoft, and were politely told to go to hell. With Jeff Zucker having taken over, there is some downsizing going on. Other NBC networks are very much on the market... USA, Bravo, Telemundo, and so forth. It's not a stretch to assume that the fire sale is beginning.

2) Westinghouse, after splitting up Viacom and CBS, is now making real noises about selling CBS.

3) Time Warner (CNN) just sold the Atlanta Braves today to Liberty Media, one of whose corporations is News Corp (FNC and the NY Post, among others).

One can reasonably ask questions about the profitability of these media networks for a couple of reasons...

a) Four networks and a whole bunch of newspapers are covering the left side of politics... ABC, CBS, CNN, and the NBC networks. The market is flooded.

b) People are extremely aware of their angry left lean, even if they keep watching. MSNBC and CNBC have never drawn well, but the advertisers keep buying. Nonetheless, advertising rates are driven by ratings. FNC's prices go up as MSNBC's go down, and so forth.

c) ABC, as it has tacked gently back towards the center, is noting an uptick in ratings- ABC's evening news program is projected to overtake NBC Nightly News in the next couple of ratings periods, as CBS is a steady last place.

Again, some interesting things to keep an eye on... more later.

tmi3rd

[mishu]

GK,

As always, your writing is concise and clear. For this topic, I've tagged it for future encounters with the BDS'ers.

tmi3rd,

You comment describing the inner workings of news media was facinating. It really should be a post in and of itself. I'd also like to ask, are you aware of any blogs, aside from the one you linked, written my conservative media people in a situtation similar to yours?

[Fabulinus]

I think the best way to beat someone in the "fifth column" is with a baseball bat. (INSENSITIVITY ALERT! INSENSITIVITY ALERT!)

- No, that only adds fuel to their fire and makes them think we cannot win in the realm of ideas and supports their belief that we resort first to violence -

I actually like to beat them with their own rhetoric, because when you speak in terms they can relate to, you have an easier time making progress.

When discussing WMD's, I first make the point that we know Saddam had them because he used them against his own people and against his enemies. In the 80's he used them against the Iranians during the Iraq-Iran war and towards the end of that war he began using them against his own people (the Kurds in the north during the Anfal campaign). When making this argument I like to rely on groups like human rights watch. Libs love human rights watch. When you link to articles who write about how Saddam committed genocide against the men women and children in Halabja, and how this was the "largest chemical weapons attack on a civilian population in modern times" it really sets the stage for you. It is also good to exhibit knowledge of genocidal attacks, because for some reason libs love knowing the names of atrocities committed by militaries and they likely have never heard of Halabja.

It is one thing to say Saddam was a brutal dictator, it is another to catalogue the attacks against his own people and show the the images of the dead children.

By using groups like human rights watch to help make your point, you are also using a source they trust - and that is KEY to winning over their hearts and minds.

For instance, "fifth columnists" rely on the 9/11 commission report as evidence of their world view. The reason they believe the 9/11 commission report helps their position is because the American media, relying on the fact that most Americans would not read the 500+ page report, distorted, cherry picked, and misreported the 9/11 report to no end. This works to our advantage. When you quote the 9/11 commission report to prove the links between Al Qaeda and Saddam, or to point out that the 9/11 commission report could not disprove the Czech meeting between Atta and Iraqi intel (they cited compelling evidence against the meeting but flat out said they could not disprove it) then you have just shattered the left's notion that the 9/11 commission report proved Bush wrong.

When making the case FOR wmds in Iraq, the absolute best resource is the ISG's "Dulfer Report."

Once again, the Dulfer Report was widely misreported. It was like the AP reported every other line, skipping anything that helped the Bush Administration's case.

The Dulfer report discusses everything that was declassified as of 2004, but is absolutely chock full of reliable information about what Saddam had.

The UN is also a good source of intel. If you take the time to read the UNMOVIC reports, you have a wealth of knowledge from a source the "fifth column" wouldn't dare deny.

When you speak in terms they can relate to, and cite to sources they trust, you win.

[GK]

Fabulinus,

Those tactics would work against honest people. However, it will not change the opinion of those who secretly (yet proveably) want the US to lose.

That is why questions about general principle, and demanding that they produce ideas, reveal the most.

[aravi]

I just want to address some of your points (I'll number them for clarity's sake):

1) Although it's true that it'd be difficult to prove the Iraq War has made America less safe, there are a few points to make in support of that position. The war has obviously agitated some Muslims in Western countries as your list of attacked cities attests. America is not immune to this phenomena. There have been a few minor cases such as the attack at UNC last year. There have also been alleged attempts that authorities have foiled. The fact there hasn't been another major attack since 2001 attests the hard work of police & intelligence authorities and the strength of America's immigration system in integrating newcomers.

2) When I hear people say "Saddam had no ties to 9/11" they're often trying to make the case that resources could have been better used to combat the forces that led to the attack, that Iraq was a careless diversion. A waste of money, time, and lives. The other attacks you mention are irrelevant.

3) I agree with your analyses of WWII comparisons. It's arbitrary and not at all informative. I should add though that I also dislike it when pro-Iraq War folks make too much of WWII comparisons.

4) I too haven't seen evidence that Bush had knowingly lied about WMDs but there is a bone to pick here. It's clear by now that, behind the scenes, there was an environment the encouraged people to emphasize things Bush and other senior level administrators wanted to hear. Generals were silenced for making helpful recommendations. This was a disaster and probably Bush's worst legacy.

5) I agree that comparing Iraq war deaths with 9/11 deaths is unhelpful. Like the WWII comparisons, they're arbitrary and not at all informative as well as somewhat irrelevant.

6) I wouldn't call The Lancet a "non-credible" source. It's a respected medical journal. If you think about it, the war must have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Remember, it's not just direct deaths by terrorists or coalition forces. For example, less accessible doctors also lead to death. There are the innocent casualties of American attacks, the victims of terrorism, the victims of increased crime, the victims of disease, and there are those who are simply unaccounted for because they weren't sent to the morgue but were buried right away. Of course the terrorists are to be condemned, and I support every effort to eradicate them, but one cannot escape the conclusion that if the US didn't attack, many of these people would still be alive.

7) I do support pulling soldiers out of Germany. They would be more helpful elsewhere. The Cold War is over the new war is in Asia/Africa. The soldiers in Bosnia appear to be helpful and those positioned in the pacific should remain for geostrategic reasons.

I support Israel over Hezbollah and Hamas, Taiwan over China, South Korea over North Korea, and the US over Cuba (though I don't support the embargo).

Three main ethnic groups? Aren't there just the two: Arabs and Kurds? There are the Assyrians but they're minor. There also the two main religious groups: Sunni and Shia.

[GK]

aravi,

1) The war has obviously agitated some Muslims in Western countries as your list of attacked cities attests.

Perhaps, but that still leaves many attacks that have been against countries other than those in the Coalition (India, Russia), and even other Muslim countries (Jordan, Morocco, Turkey, Bali in Indonesia).

This cannot possibly be due to Iraq (the Bali attack was even before Iraq). It is quite obvious that Al-Qaeda is targeting a very wide range of victims, including other Muslims in Muslim countries.

2) If it is a waste of resources, I can agree if the person saying this quickly presents better ideas. I distinctly account for this position in my article, and even provide an example of such an idea. Your ability to present better ideas will bring you a lot of consensus with those who support the War on Terror.

The other attacks are most certainly RELEVANT, as it shows that we have been under attack for a long time, particularly before Bush was in office. The 1993 WTC attack was particularly relevant to any discussion of the issue today.

4) Whatever cherrypicking Bush allegedly may have done, it was not enough to prevent Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and many Democratic Senators from having the same opinion as Bush. I don't think Bush did anything more than a salesman trying to sell a car.

6) Lancet's number deviates by more than an order of magnitude from the UN number. This destroys their credibility.

but one cannot escape the conclusion that if the US didn't attack, many of these people would still be alive.

In Iraq, Saddam's death chambers would still be there (Saddam killed thousands per year). The UN sanctions that led to the starvation of 500,000 Iraqi children would still be in place, as would the Oil for Food scandal. The US has also brought vaccinations that were not there before.

Thus, there is no evidence that the US invasion has caused a net negative, even if the terrorist attacks are wrongly counted as an indirect consequence of US action.

If the US did not attack Afghanistan, some people in Afghanistan would still be alive too. Does your reasoning also apply to Afghanistan?

Take Darfur, where there is currently genocide. If the US (or Europe) intervened there, there would certainly be some innocent deaths, as well as terrorists killing people. By your statement, how would you account for Darfur?

I support Israel over Hezbollah and Hamas, Taiwan over China, South Korea over North Korea, and the US over Cuba (though I don't support the embargo).

Thankfully, you are at odds with most Leftists.

[aravi]

Before I respond to some of your more specific points, I'd just like to say that I supported the Iraq War. I don't anymore but I don't support cutting and running either. I hope Bush's new plan works.

1) Of course there were Islamist terrorist attacks before Iraq and they were going to continue even if Iraq never happened. This doesn't change the fact that it has at least made it easier to manipulate impressionable Muslims thus making recruitment that much easier.

2) The Iraq War has little to do with those previous attacks. Perhaps they serve as examples of consequences to unanswered threats but that's pretty indirect.

4) There were many people who thought Saddam probably had WMDs but had arrived at the conclusion that not enough evidence was presented to justify a war.

6) I believe the UN counted the bodies that arrived at morgues and which could be attributed to the violence plaguing the country. The Lancet took a more broad view of the overall affect of the War. They didn't talk in terms of net positives or negatives.

I'm pretty sure polls have shown that Iraqis feel there was more security under Saddam's regime than now (but they still didn't want him to return). Assuming he wasn't in the mood for more genocide, of course there are more people dying now than would have died under Saddam's rule. Hundreds are dying every week just from violence alone.

The violence and chaos in Afghanistan don't compare to Iraq and, as a direct response to an attack on American soil, Afghanistan was worth it. The humanitarian cause in that country is secondary and a natural consequence of the war.

Stopping genocide isn't what we're talking about in Iraq or Afghanistan. If this was the 80s, I would have supported the invasion of Kurdistan, at least, in order to protect those threatened with extermination. The Kurds wouldn't have turned on the Americans. I don't think the Darfurians would either.

[baxtermadux]

If you were George Bush, and I punched you in the face, how would your respond?...You would turn the other way and punch someone else in the face of course. That is essentially the way George bush has responded to 9/11, and a metaphor for the war in Iraq.

And as a George Bush apologist, you are someone who stands around and cheers George Bush along as he continues to beat up the wrong guy, who never threw a punch, and was never planning on throwing a punch.

Your entire critique of the people that criticize this war is totally misguided. We should have never even invaded Iraq. It was wrong. You are wrong for defending it.

[GK]

baxtermadux,

You have essentially proven the whole point of the article.

You did not respond to any of the points in the article (because you know they quickly send you to a crushing defeat). Most importantly, YOU DID NOT OFFER ANY BETTER IDEAS.

The article already states how to defeat those who claim Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Go read it.

And as far as 'beating up the wrong guy', by your logic, since Iran is openly threatening the US and Israel, they are justified in beating Iran up, no? Explain your contradictory views (if you can).

And if you claim that US action in Iraq is the reason that Al-Qaeda attacked Mumbai, Morocco, Jordan, Turkey, etc., isn't that a genuine example of them beating up someone who had nothing to do with Iraq? Why do you excuse that, while wrongly claiming America did the same?

I doubt you have the courage to answer these questions.

[GK]

aravi,

1) This doesn't change the fact that it has at least made it easier to manipulate impressionable Muslims thus making recruitment that much easier.

Not provable. If Iraq succeeds as a democracy, it is a huge setback for Al-Qaeda. Zawahiri has said as much, and it is why they are pouring so much of their own resources in destabilizing the democratic government.

2) Ramzi Yousuf (of 1993) had ties with Saddam that were suspicious to say the least.

4) There were many people who thought Saddam probably had WMDs but had arrived at the conclusion that not enough evidence was presented to justify a war.

The group you mention did not include Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and many Democratic Senators, who DID think the evidence was sufficient and hence either voted for it (senators) or joined up (Blair, etc.)

6) Lancet used the most far-fetched indirect causes to inflate a number to be as high as possible.

Saddam killed thousands outside of his larger genocides, all the way up to 2002. Plus, you didn't acknowledge the 500,000 dying through the UN sanctions.

Overall life expectancy in Iraq has risen since 2003. It is arguable that the US vaccines alone saved far more people than have died.

You have nothing to back up your claim that more are dying now than under Saddam. Plus, you still have to concede that it is the terrorists that are killing people.

[baxtermadux]

"(because you know they reveal your intellectual bankruptcy)"

How insightful. I don't reply to Ad hominem attacks.

[GK]

baxtermadux,

Translation : You are stumped in the debate, and seek to retreat.

I said :
"I doubt you have the courage to answer these questions"

I was right.

[baxtermadux]

"And as far as 'beating up the wrong guy', by your logic, since Iran is openly threatening the US and Israel, they are justified in beating Iran up, no? Explain your contradictory views (if you can)."

Please tell me what I said that was contradictory?

How does Iran threatening us have anything to do with the fact that we waged war against Iraq on false pretenses?

How can I root to win a war that was waged on lies and bad CIA Intelligence?

The War on Terror taking place in Iraq is a Self Fulfilling Prophecy, because the very fact that we have invaded that country has created the terror we are fighting.

[baxtermadux]

"I said :
"I doubt you have the courage to answer these questions""

Arguing with a child is not a courageous act. It's a never ending cycle of Ad hominem attack.

Who gives a hoot about being the winner in an argument on a blog, when people are dying everyday in the middle east because of Bush's War of Choice?

[GK]

baxtermadux,

Answer the two simple questions :

Has Iran done things that might justify military action against them, by the US or Israel or both? (Note that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.)

Also, how has Iraq created more terror, when we have not had an attack on US soil in 65 months, even while countries with no troops in Iraq have been attacked (Mumbai, Beslan, Bali, Madrid, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan)? (this point of yours is also discussed and defeated in the article.)

Simply saying things that you wish to be true, does not make them true in the real world (a world with which you may someday become acquainted).

[GK]

Who gives a hoot about being the winner in an argument on a blog, when people are dying everyday in the middle east because of Bush's War of Choice?

Translation : baxtermadux wants to surrender and retreat from the debate, which he concedes he has lost.

As Sun-Tzu once said, the pinnacle of excellence is not to win the battle each time. The pinnacle of excellence is when your opponent surrenders without the courage to fight.

The same has just happened here in this debate.

[baxtermadux]

"It is true that Saddam had no participation in 9/11, "Which is why we dealt with the Taliban in Afghanistan first"

But we diverted our attention from Afghanistan too soon and did not fully "deal" with the Taliban, because they have had a resurgence there now, and are beginning to control the rural areas. Iraq was merely a distraction on the real war in Afghan which we have failed to fully secure.

"But the statement above implies an assumption that 9/11 was the only terrorist attack ever to occur against US citizens or US allies. The way to corner your opponents is to test their knowledge of (or willingness to acknowledge) the numerous other terror attacks on US citizens before 9/11 (some of which received direct and indirect support from Saddam)."

Nice little way you try to divert the issue here, but the fact is that the War in Iraq was sold to the American Public by the Administration a) linking Saddam to 9/11 and b) cherry picking CIA intelligence about WMD's which turned out to be completely false and outdated and based on terribly poor and unreliable sources.

Please tell me one time when a Bush official Sold the Idea of a War in Iraq because of a terrorist attack before 9/11.
You can't, because you are just making up rhetorical talking points for your bobbling heads.

[GK]

But we diverted our attention from Afghanistan too soon and did not fully "deal" with the Taliban,

Not really. Hamid Karzai's democratically elected government is secure, and is under no threat of being overthrown by the Taliban. That is victory for the US.

a) linking Saddam to 9/11 and b) cherry picking CIA intelligence about WMD's which turned out to be completely false and outdated and based on terribly poor and unreliable sources.

No one buys your 4-year old Kool-Aid. Bush never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11 (nor have I). Plus, you admitted that the intelligence was outdate and poor. This is not the same as 'lying', which you claimed earlier.

And why did Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin also believe Saddam had WMDs (which he used on Kurds and Iranians before)?

Plus, you continue to dodge the whole crux of my article, which is that unless you provide better ideas, there is no evidence that you are on America's side. Let's see your ideas for America to win from here.

Please tell me one time when a Bush official Sold the Idea of a War in Iraq because of a terrorist attack before 9/11
Better than that, Bill Clinton already attacked Iraq in 1998 over Saddam's WMDs, killing 2400 people. This was Operation Desert Fox. 1998 was before 9/11, you know. Of course, you never heard of this before due to your limited knowledge of the subject.

You can't, because you are just making up rhetorical talking points for your bobbling heads.
It is you who is stumped by simple questions.

[baxtermadux]

"Has Iran done things that might justify military action against them, by the US or Israel or both? (Note that Iran had nothing to do with 9/11.)"

No. Ahmadenijad has no control over the true rulers of Iran. The Ayatollahs control Iran and make all the decisions. His Hyperbole is causing his own administration to implode becuause the ayatollahs are angry with his Anti-US rhetoric. By the west attacking Iran, we will galvanize an Iranian population (which just so happens to like America) to support their unpopular leader.

"Also, how has Iraq created more terror, when we have not had an attack on US soil in 65 months, even while countries with no troops in Iraq have been attacked (Mumbai, Beslan, Bali, Madrid, Morocco, Turkey, Jordan)? (this point of yours is also discussed and defeated in the article.)"

Let me get this straight. you dont believe that terrorism is taking place in Iraq? When a bomb blows up innocent people at a farmers market or standing in line or in a cafe in Iraq, how is that not terrorism? That happens every week in Iraq because we are there, That was not happening before we went. Terrorism takes place everyday in Iraq because we sent troops there.

"Simply saying things that you wish to be true, does not make them true in the real world (a world with which you may someday become acquainted). "

Again, Ad Hominem and completely baseless. You seem to be pretty good at it. Perhaps you should look it up in the dictionary.

I am never afraid to debate. But when I debate with people, I don't feel the desperate deisre to dance around and say "I'm right, I'm right" like a 3 year old.

[baxtermadux]

"Not really. Hamid Karzai's democratically elected government is secure, and is under no threat of being overthrown by the Taliban."

Perhaps you should read a newspaper every now and then. The Taliban is growing and strong in Afghan and that is a US failure.
http://paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?167813

"No one buys your 4-year old Kool-Aid."

Huh? That statement is just retarded.

"Bush never said Saddam was responsible for 9/11"

To deny that Bush and Cheney linked 9/11 and Iraq is denying reality. ( I never said bush claimed Saddam is responsible for it, but simply pointed out that they unjustly tried to link the two)

"(nor have I)"
I couldnt care less

"Plus, you admitted that the intelligence was outdate and poor. This is not the same as 'lying', which you claimed earlier."

You would be misguided to assume those two facts are linked. Yes the Intel was outdated, and Yes they lied. Two different facts.

African-Saddam Yellowcake link in the State of the Union in the leadup to the war- Bush Lie

We know Saddam has WMD's - Bush Lie

"And why did Tony Blair and Vladimir Putin also believe Saddam had WMDs (which he used on Kurds and Iranians before)?"

You mean the WMD's that the United States Sold to him? Oh yeah, those.

"Plus, you continue to dodge the whole crux of my article, which is that unless you provide better ideas, there is no evidence that you are on America's side. Let's see your ideas for America to win from here."

I have a pretty good Idea that I think is Pro american. how about we stop threatening everyone, and worry about our own Domestic Agendas and maybe there will be a little less tension in the world. We don't have to start wars with every country that doesn't like us. I've heard about something called diplomacy, it works pretty well. Solved the cold war. It's ok to talk to your enemies.

I don't need to prove my patriotism to a internet peon like yourself.

"Please tell me one time when a Bush official Sold the Idea of a War in Iraq because of a terrorist attack before 9/11"

you justify the war in Iraq because of terrorism that took place before 9/11. Yet the public was never presented with a logical excuse for this war for any other reason besides WMD's and Yellowcake, and link to 9/11 with Al Quaeda.

"Better than that, Bill Clinton already attacked Iraq in 1998 over Saddam's WMDs, killing 2400 people. This was Operation Desert Fox. 1998 was before 9/11, you know."

this statement doesn't even make a point. you seem to have confused yourself about the point you should be trying to make.

"You fail Of course, you never heard of this before due to your limited knowledge of the subject."

you sure are great at talking out of your ass. That must be quite the attention getter at parties.

"It is you who is stumped by simple questions."

Keep telling yourself that

[GK]

baxtermadux,

So you have no ideas for how America can win the War on Terror, other than :

1) America should stop threatening people.

2) America should focus on its domestic agenda.

3) We should talk to Al-Qaeda, a.k.a 'diplomacy'.

THAT'S YOUR IDEA? My god, you are insane. I even spoonfeed you an idea in the article, and you still can't build on that.

You can't even decide whether the intelligence was faulty or whether 'Bush lied', and have shied away from the gaping contradiction between the two.

You also claim that 'Iraq has increased the risk of terror against the US', but could not admit that America has not had an attack in the last 65 months.

At the same time, you admit that terrorism is happening inside Iraq, yet claim that victory in Iraq has nothing to do with winning the war on terror.

You claim 'Bush lied about WMDs', but in the next sentence, when confronted with the fact that Blair, Clinton, etc. also knew Saddam had WMDs, you reveal your anti-Americanism by saying "oh yes, America sold those to him."

So if America sold him WMDs, how did Bush lie about their existence (again, you are also saying Bill Clinton lied, then)?

You avoided (with conspicuous cowardice) answering my question about Operation Desert Fox, as well.

Your inability to admit these massive contradictions, and unwillingness to provide ANY workable alternatives other than 'America should stop threatening people', makes you both an anti-American and a non-thinker. Period.

Readers, note how this person simultaneously says that 'the intelligence was faulty and outdated', that 'Bush lied about WMD despite the faulty intelligence', AND that 'America sold WMDs to Saddam, that is where he got them'. A thinking person would see the contradiction between these 3 beliefs. This person is not a thinking person.

Plus, look at his lame ideas for winning the War on Terror (this too only after multiple requests for ideas). Other than 'America should not fight terrorists', he says little. He also refuses to admit that many other countries have sufferer terrorist attacks in the last 4 years, as this does not fit his US-centric worldview that there would be no terrorism without US troublemaking.

[Spinx]

GK,

I agree. This baxtermad person has exhibited the textbook liberal stupidity. The earlier post by tmi3rd explaining the psychology of 'liberals' has predicted the exact behavior of this baxter fool perfectly.

Great work dismantling him, as always.

[Josh]

Well, we have not any attacks on US soil for 65 months and counting.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

At the same time, other nations have experienced attacks during the same period, like in London, Madrid, Bali, Beslan in Russia, Mumbai, Jordan, Morocco, and Turkey. All but two of these countries have not had troops in Iraq. How do you explain that?"

Those countries have much larger Muslim populations, and are much closer to the Middle East.

Many of your other rebuttals are similarly weak.

[GK]

Those countries have much larger Muslim populations, and are much closer to the Middle East.

Distance from the ME does not matter. Italy and Bulgaria are near the ME, and have not had attacks.

Plus, your statement does nothing to prove the assertion that Iraq has increased the danger to the US.

In fact, you are stating that terrorism is a function of Islam in general, which may very well be a valid point, but is quite the opposite of what baxtermadux and others of his ilk believe - that there would be no problem anywhere in the world if not for US aggression.

[aravi]

Not provable. If Iraq succeeds as a democracy, it is a huge setback for Al-Qaeda. Zawahiri has said as much, and it is why they are pouring so much of their own resources in destabilizing the democratic government.

We've seen it happen in the UK and there are endless examples of Muslims, even in Europe, enunciating that America is waging a war against Islam. They point to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. There has also been an uptick in the terrorist incidents in Europe post-Iraq War and here I'm including those attacks that seemed to have been foiled.

Regardless, I would agree with you that all this would be worth it if democracy were to flourish in Iraq. In the longer term, this would alleviate much of today's problems. I believed this when I supported the war and I believe it now. The difference is that I now know that when I supported the war I overestimated the Bush administration's competency, underestimated the ability to export democracy from the top-down, and I underestimated the potential for sectarian conflict. Needless to say, the odds of a real functioning democracy in Iraq are minor at best.

This is as good a place as any to make it clear that Iraqi deaths and more terrorism are the least of why I recognize the War to have been a mistake. My main concern is Iran and the current Shia revival. You asked what I would have done if not Iraq. I would have concentrated on Afghanistan, increasing the number of troops and aid. Having a lot of troops on Iran's border whom are not tied down would have placed pressure on that country. More options would have been available right now. I would have even perhaps taken it a step further and used Saddam's attacks on American planes as an excuse to enter Kurdistan in order to place pressure on Saddam and even more on Iran.

The group you mention did not include Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and many Democratic Senators, who DID think the evidence was sufficient and hence either voted for it (senators) or joined up (Blair, etc.)

Well, Clinton didn't vote. Blair and the Democratic Senators obviously misjudged. I'm not convinced that either particularly thought the evidence was convincing. I have no doubt they assumed that Saddam had WMDs but political issues must have come in to play when they made their final decisions.

You have nothing to back up your claim that more are dying now than under Saddam. Plus, you still have to concede that it is the terrorists that are killing people.

The terrorists are killing people but if the war didn't happen the terrorists wouldn't be killing people. Instead, Saddam and sanctions would have been killing them. I still maintain that The Lancet numbers are trust worthy as the journal isn't known for publishing rubbish. They're world-renown and they have earned that status. They put the number at around 600,000. I do question their decision to publish each of their articles right before important elections (2004 and 2006) but that's immaterial to their content.

[GK]

aravi,

The difference is that I now know that when I supported the war I overestimated the Bush administration's competency, underestimated the ability to export democracy from the top-down, and I underestimated the potential for sectarian conflict.

I'll agree here, but note that this is in hindsight only.

Needless to say, the odds of a real functioning democracy in Iraq are minor at best.

I'm more optimistic than that. I think you will agree that the Kurds have become what we hoped they would. We just have to get the other 80% of the population (of which only a small fraction is causing trouble) to go along. If it can happen for Kurds, it can happen elsewhere.

My main concern is Iran and the current Shia revival.

Remember that when we went into Iraq, Khatami was in charge of Iran, who was far less explosive. Ahmadinejad came afterwards.

But at least you are presenting ideas, which separates you from those who uselessly criticize, or worse, root for failure.

The terrorists are killing people but if the war didn't happen the terrorists wouldn't be killing people.

Ah.. a key piece. Note that many terrorists from around the world have gone to Iraq to fight America, Zarqawi being the most well-known. These people WOULD be doing attacks elsewhere if they were not in Iraq. Many have been killed by US forces, indicating that the 'flypaper' model has worked, to some extent.

Many Mujahideen in Kashmir have gone to Iraq (and gotten killed), which is why Kashmir terrorism has conspicuously gone down.

each of their articles right before important elections (2004 and 2006) but that's immaterial to their content.

It shows the intent for bias, and is particularly ghoulish for a medical journal to hope for as high a number as possible. Plus, their numbers include deaths that are not attributable to the war (such as petty robberies, etc). They furthermore do not account for the positive affects of US vaccines, removal of UN sanctions, etc.

Again overall life expectancy has risen from 2003 to today. That is really the best metric to use.

The UN figure is more accurate than Lancet. If you think Lancet is right, you are saying the UN is wrong. Lancet's indirect metrics have a lot of room for exaggeration to suit the bias of the creators.

Lancet's number, even if accurate (which I believe it is not), is a *gross* number, not a net. For all we know, the 600,000 from 2003-06 might be against 800,000 from 2000-2003 through the Saddam+UN+lack of vaccines causes, thus the net being a benefit of +200,000.

[mishu]

I still maintain that The Lancet numbers are trust worthy as the journal isn't known for publishing rubbish.

Isn't that the 'Appeal to Authority' logical fallicy? Take a look at these two articles criticizing the methodology of the Lancet survey. For me, the biggest problem I had was the deviation from the number Lancet settled on to publish. 57,000 to 190,000 for the first study? Then there is the issue of always publishing the study just before the election. If the Lancet were truly interested in science, it wouldn't have rushed the report in order to influence an election.

[Josh]

Distance from the ME does not matter. Italy and Bulgaria are near the ME, and have not had attacks.

Two data points are insufficient to disprove the hypothesis that distance from the middle east may correlate with increased terrorist attacks.

In fact, you are stating that terrorism is a function of Islam in general

No, I'm not. I'm implying that having a large population of muslims increases the likelihood that a few of them will be islamic terrorists. If you must resort to straw men I won't waste my time.

but is quite the opposite of what baxtermadux and others of his ilk believe

I'm not at all interested in what baxtermadux and others of his ilk believe. See the point about straw men above.

Perhaps any hope for reasoned discourse in this thread has become irrevocably lost in the tedious exchange with baxtermadux, but at this point you appear primarily interested in scoring cheap rhetorical points via logical fallacies and misrepresentations. Let me know when you are interested in having an honest, good-faith, debate of the issues.

[GK]

Two data points are insufficient to disprove the hypothesis that distance from the middle east may correlate with increased terrorist attacks.

Nor is there sufficient evidence that geographical distance from the Islamic world has a close corelation to terrorist attacks within a country. In terms of number of casualties over the last 5 years, the US is still higher than any country other than Iraq and perhaps India.

You said :
Those countries have much larger Muslim populations, and are much closer to the Middle East.

This implies that you are suggesting :

1) Terrorism is a function of the size of a Muslim population, as some fraction of those will be terrorists
2) Distance from the ME corelates with the risk of terror.

Neither of these points is necessarily wrong. But if this is true, it certainly defeats those who claim that US actions are increasing terrorism. Terrorism is merely a function of the size of a Muslim population, and the distance from the ME.

But this is indeed what you are suggesting from the statement above.

[aravi]

On the war deaths: I concede that the numbers are, by their nature, rough. That whether more or less Iraqis are dying now than would have under different conditions is very speculative. But I maintain that The Lancet and the UN are both correct. They simply took different perspectives. The perspective The Lancet chose to pursue will inherently have a wider margin of error and I believe their article makes that clear. Appealing to authority isn't always a bad idea.

I think you will agree that the Kurds have become what we hoped they would. We just have to get the other 80% of the population (of which only a small fraction is causing trouble) to go along. If it can happen for Kurds, it can happen elsewhere.

The Kurds are secular capitalists who admire the West. They deserve almost all the credit for their success. The Arabs, and I'll risk being accused of rascism, are just less culturally inclined towards democracy. This might not matter if Saddam didn't so devastate civil society and insititutions in his country.

[Josh]

Nor is there sufficient evidence that geographical distance from the Islamic world has a close corelation to terrorist attacks within a country. In terms of number of casualties over the last 5 years, the US is still higher than any country other than Iraq and perhaps India.

Why is the casualty count your preferred metric, instead of the number of terrorist incidents?

But this is indeed what you are suggesting from the statement above.

Correct. You got it right the second time around.

But if this is true, it certainly defeats those who claim that US actions are increasing terrorism. Terrorism is merely a function of the size of a Muslim population, and the distance from the ME.

I never said, or implied, "merely," or that these were the only two relevant factors.

[GK]

Josh,

Why is the casualty count your preferred metric, instead of the number of terrorist incidents?

Then why not also try to quantify attacks that were foiled? The US/UK airline plot this summer might have killed 12,000.

The US has foiled over a dozen major attacks since 9/11, attacks that probably would not have been foiled in India, Kenya, or Turkey.

Correct. You got it right the second time around.

So your statement, if we accept it, does destroy any claim that US actions are the cause of world terrorism (you are not the one who has claimed this, but others often do).

[Josh]

Then why not also try to quantify attacks that were foiled? The US/UK airline plot this summer might have killed 12,000.

You can add them if you want, but they don't seem to help your case. If the proposition being debated is whether or not the Iraq war has radicalized more Muslims into jihadist activity, terrorist attacks since the Iraq war, foiled or not, tend to support that proposition.

But my point is that attacks, not numbers killed and wounded, are a better measure of whether our actions are increasing Islamic radicalism.

So your statement, if we accept it, does destroy any claim that US actions are the cause of world terrorism (you are not the one who has claimed this, but others often do).

I disagree. The problem with your statement is that you appear to assume that there is only one cause of world terrorism - note you used the phrase "the cause" rather than "a cause".

It seems to me that the claim that our actions have played no role in radicalizing some Muslims to jihad is just as implausible as the notion that our actions are solely responsible. The causes of jihadism are complex and difficult to weigh with precision.

[tommy higbee]

Questions for Josh:

1) Isn't accusing the U.S. in Iraq of "radicalizing" Muslims to jihad blaming the victim? Or is it your position that the U.S. is always the victimizer, never the victim? Even on 9/11?

2) Given that terrorism predated the Iraq War and has continued in venues unrelated to it, can you really support the claim that the war in Iraq is causing more terrorism?

3) If our presence in Iraq is radicalizing previously moderate Muslims, doesn't that contradict the claim that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror?

4) During the Cold War, the accusation was often made that spending money on our military made war more likely, because it antagonized the Soviets. But we achieved peace with the Soviets only after significant deficit spending to make our military and weaponry stronger. Wouldn't that suggest that being seen as strong makes peace MORE likely, not less?

5) Given that Osama bin Laden has accused the U.S. of being a "paper tiger" for backing down in Somalia, wouldn't backing down in Iraq make us far more likely to be targeted than before?

6) And if backing down from the conflict makes us more likely to be targeted, does it even make sense to complain that we're "radicalizing" Muslims?

7) Given that you yourself used the word "jihadist", which has a long history of referring to "holy war" by Muslims against "infidels", is terrorism really new with radical Muslims, or simply a new tactic in the same old jihad?

8) Isn't it possible that the real reason so many Muslims have recently turned to terrorism is that the U.S. is too strong for more overt military action, leaving them with terrorism as the only tactic that seems to work at all?

9) Finally, doesn't it bother you that suggesting we're radicalizing them implies they're not capable of being radicalized without our help? Are they children? Are they only capable of doing bad things if we push them to it?

[bfartan]

Josh,

"The causes of jihadism are complex and difficult to weigh with precision."

Yet it must be done esp. when the US is the one on the receiving end of jihad, no?

If you're asking for more careful and accurate discussions of what's going on, then it seems you agree with the point of the original post: that we should demolish and move beyond the simplistic arguments motivated by anti-Americanism, by Bush hate, by current fashion.

Unfortunately, the stupid simplistic arguments have too much traction and the MSM is doing very little to shed light on the matter. As noted in the comments from tmi3rd, they'd rather generate more emotion & heat because that's the template they insist on framing the WoT.

Thank you for trying to discuss matters beyond the silly talking points mindlessly repeated by people like baxtermadux.

[Josh]

Tommy,

Many of your questions are premised on what I feel are false dichotomies and mistaken, or at least questionable, assumptions.

1) Isn't accusing the U.S. in Iraq of "radicalizing" Muslims to jihad blaming the victim?

The use of emotionally loaded language obscures more than it clarifies. Either our actions are radicalizing some Muslims who would otherwise be peaceful, or they are not. How you care to label it makes no difference.

2) Given that terrorism predated the Iraq War and has continued in venues unrelated to it, can you really support the claim that the war in Iraq is causing more terrorism?

Yes. Are you seriously contending that, if a phenomenon exists before an event, it is impossible for that event to result in an increase in the incidence of that phenomenon? Would you, for example, seriously ask this question "Given that lung cancer existed before cigarettes were invented, can you seriously contend that cigarette smoking increases lung cancer rates?"

3) If our presence in Iraq is radicalizing previously moderate Muslims, doesn't that contradict the claim that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror?

I never made that claim. Certainly now that the chaoes resulting from the invasion has created more space for al Quaeda to operate, Iraq is part of the war on terror.

4) During the Cold War, the accusation was often made that spending money on our military made war more likely, because it antagonized the Soviets. But we achieved peace with the Soviets only after significant deficit spending to make our military and weaponry stronger. Wouldn't that suggest that being seen as strong makes peace MORE likely, not less?

I don't think the jihadists are sufficiently similar to the leadership of the Soviet Union for this analogy to bear much weight.

5) Given that Osama bin Laden has accused the U.S. of being a "paper tiger" for backing down in Somalia, wouldn't backing down in Iraq make us far more likely to be targeted than before?

bin Laden has also pointed to the Iraq war as a reason to wage jihad against the US. How do you decide which of his claims to accept and which to reject?

6) And if backing down from the conflict makes us more likely to be targeted, does it even make sense to complain that we're "radicalizing" Muslims?

Yes. The issue in question is whether withdrawal or stay the course is more likely to create more jihadists. So of course it makes sense to assess the likely consequences of both courses of action.

9) Finally, doesn't it bother you that suggesting we're radicalizing them implies they're not capable of being radicalized without our help? Are they children? Are they only capable of doing bad things if we push them to it?

No, because it doesn't imply that.