[CMichael]

This is an interesting memo by Rumsfeld. I think the gist of it is


"It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror," Rumsfeld wrote. "An alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere - one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem."

What do you all think? Can a more efficient system be devloped to hunt down and kill terrorists? If so what is it?





Rumsfeld Questions U.S. in Terror Fight

By MATT KELLEY
Associated Press Writer





WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld questioned whether the United States was doing enough to win the war on terrorism, citing "mixed results" in the fight against al-Qaida in a pointed memo to top Pentagon officials.

Rumsfeld said the U.S.-led coalitions would win in Afghanistan and Iraq, but not without "a long, hard slog." He wrote that the United States "has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis" but has made "somewhat slower progress" tracking down top Taliban leaders who sheltered al-Qaida in Afghanistan.

"My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?" Rumsfeld wrote.

The memo, dated Oct. 16 and first reported by USA Today on Wednesday, offered a much more stark assessment of the global war on terrorism than contained in Rumsfeld's public statements.

"It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog," he wrote.



Interactives
Homeland Security




The Latest News
Rumsfeld Questions U.S. in Terror Fight
Swedish Police Arrest Terror Suspect

'New Species' of Terrorist Threatens Kabul

New Zealand Adopts a New Terrorism Law






White House press secretary Scott McClellan, traveling with President Bush in Australia, reacted by voicing support for Rumsfeld. "That's exactly what a strong and capable secretary of defense like Secretary Rumsfeld should be doing," said McClellan.

"The president has always said it will require thinking differently. It's a different type of war," McClellan said.

Bush talked about the war on terrorism with reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Canberra, where he planned to discuss it with Prime Minister John Howard.

"I've always felt that there's a tendency of people to kind of seek a comfort zone and hope that the war on terror is over," Bush said. "And I view it as a responsibility of the United States to remind people of our mutual obligations to deal with the terrorists."

Rumsfeld's spokesman, Larry Di Rita, told reporters Wednesday the memo was meant to raise "big questions that deserve big thinking" and preserve a "constant sense of urgency" about where the war on terror is heading.

On the battle against the terror network blamed for the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Rumsfeld wrote: "We are having mixed results with al-Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them - nonetheless, a great many remain at large." They include the group's top leader, Osama bin Laden, and his right-hand man, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Rumsfeld wrote "we are just getting started" in battling Ansar al-Islam, an Iraq-based terrorist group linked to al-Qaida.

Di Rita said the memo was another in a series of provocative questions that the secretary regularly raises with Pentagon brass.

Three members of Congress who met with Rumsfeld Wednesday morning said the defense secretary gave them copies of the memo and discussed it with them.

"He's asking the tough questions we all need to be asking," said Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas.

"Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror," Rumsfeld wrote. "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

Madrassas are Islamic religious schools. Rumsfeld and other U.S. officials say some schools run by radical groups indoctrinate students to join in an anti-American holy war.

Rumsfeld's memo raises the possibility of creating "a private foundation to entice radical madrassas to a more moderate course" and questions how to block the funding of the extremist schools.

Sounding a theme Rumsfeld has voiced repeatedly in the past two years, the memo says the Defense Department is too big and slow to effectively fight small groups of terrorists.

"It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror," Rumsfeld wrote. "An alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere - one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem."

Rumsfeld also suggested the United States may need to do more to "stop the next generation of terrorists."

"The U.S. is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists," Rumsfeld wrote. "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."

Copyright 2003 Associated Press. All rights reserved.

[Malone LaVeigh]

The word "Gestapo" comes to mind...

[CMichael]

You want terrorists to be able to freely operate?

I would really be interested in LEOs and/or military people of what would be the most effective method to hunt down terrorists?

[JimP]

How about the tinfoil helmet nuts shutting the heck up and letting the military do its job?? Of course we are winning the war on terrorism. They came to our house and killed 3000 innocent people. We took the fight to their house, kicked them out and are continuing to stack them up like cordwood. Haven't had another 9/11 yet have we?? They have found that - unlike the other administration - when they attack us now, we will attack back.

As for as fighting these duds, I'd rather fight them in Baghdad and Kabul rather than fight them here. My choice.

[bountyhunter]

Why doesn't the US adopt an even handed stance in dealings with the countries through which these vermin find haven, make these countries believe we are not actually planning to take over their section of the world, apply a little grease so they see their lives will be better WITH us than without us (and then they will start kicking the roaches out of their countries). Or, we could just keep doing what what we are doing: blame everybody in the world for not backing us up and invade countries hoping to eventually find the one where the terrorists are hiding. That should get the world on our side.

[bountyhunter]

How about the tinfoil helmet nuts shutting the heck up and letting the military do its job?? Of course we are winning the war on terrorism. They came to our house and killed 3000 innocent people. We took the fight to their house, kicked them out and are continuing to stack them up like cordwood.

Thanks for re-stating one of the biggest lies ever told by a US president:

1) Al Qaeda (Bin Laden) murdered our 3000 people at 9/11. His "house" was saudi Arabia until he was expelled, then the Sudan, now he is a free agent and hangs out in pakistan, Afghanistan, and any place else he can hide. But, FWIW, Bin Laden's money source and power base is still in saudi Arabia.

2) We went to war with Iraq, a country with ZERO ties to Al Qaeda or any other group who has carried out an attack on the US as best the evidence shows. Hussein is a bad guy, but he had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, he was at one time on the CIA payroll and our little "enforcer" in the region after he did such a good job of hammering Iran for us without us getting our hands dirty. As far as I know, his CIA salary has been cut off now (although I'm sure they would send the checks if he would give them a current address).:p

[fallingblock]

He's a very practical fellow!

Rumsfeld wrote. "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

[DaveB]

Vote Republican.
http://www.bigbrotherawards.nl/img/award_kl.jpg
It's the Police State, stupid.

db

[CMichael]

Thanks for re-stating one of the biggest lies ever told by a US president:

1) Al Qaeda (Bin Laden) murdered our 3000 people at 9/11. His "house" was saudi Arabia until he was expelled, then the Sudan, now he is a free agent and hangs out in pakistan, Afghanistan, and any place else he can hide. But, FWIW, Bin Laden's money source and power base is still in saudi Arabia.<<

It appears that your a bit misinformed. UBL was expelled from Saudi Arabia a long time ago. Also, at least they expelled him. And you are right that they did pay protection money so UBL wouldn't attack them. They are guilt of that.

Since UBL recently executed a massive terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia what makes you think that the Saudi government is their biggest power base and money source? In fact, they recently made many arrest of Al Qaida goons there.

>>2) We went to war with Iraq, a country with ZERO ties to Al Qaeda or any other group who has carried out an attack on the US as best the evidence shows. Hussein is a bad guy, but he had nothing to do with 9/11. In fact, he was at one time on the CIA payroll and our little "enforcer" in the region after he did such a good job of hammering Iran for us without us getting our hands dirty. As far as I know, his CIA salary has been cut off now (although I'm sure they would send the checks if he would give them a current address).

You are mistaken. What do you think the Al Qaida training camps were doing in Iraq? Vacationing? Going to the camel races?

Also, what do you think top Al Qaida and Iraq leaders did when they meet? That is documented.

No. We don't have evidence that Hussein helped executed 9 11. However, he certainly did help Al Qaida and it certainly wouldn't be surprising if he did have involvement in it. Unfortunately, the former Iraqi government was not open with us in the terrrorist attacks that they were organizing.

[JimP]

Please don't put words in my mouth. The taliban, (AQ supported/supporters) RAN Afghanistan. They no longer run Afghanistan. While we were on a roll, we acted to prevent Iraq from becoming another North Korea. I know that there are those of you who would not have acted until they actually were an imminent threat, but we in the military don't appreciate you making foreign policy. YOU guys go deal with North Korea (BTW: I just spent a year in South Korea - tweren't fun). Having just come back from Iraq, I would urge caution in your rhetoric until we see what happens. Bottom line - we don't have to worry about saddam anymore. Mistake?? Maybe. Time will tell. I just don't think what we did was wrong.

Please answer the question as to how many more terrorists attacks we have had in this country since 9/11??? Why do you want to make it easy on them again??

[bountyhunter]

Since UBL recently executed a massive terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia what makes you think that the Saudi government is their biggest power base and money source? In fact, they recently made many arrest of Al Qaida goons there.

Simple. The country of Saudi Arabia is not a monolithic entity. Within it there is a large faction of hard-line Islamics that support Bin laden. Many members of the royal family support him, and many do not.

Point is, the actual "government" of SA is a western oriented one, which is to say the people running it only care about keeping themselves in power, increasing their personal wealth, and enjoying all the things that wealth buys. Bin Laden has spoken out consistently about his complete opposition and hatred of the SA ruling body and stated they should all be killed for letting the US put forces in SA (a violation of Islamic soil). He has also stated he will overthrow the government of SA and install an Islamic theocracy... and that this is the goal for all nations where Muslims exist. So, when he strikes in saudi Arabia, it is in keeping with his plan to terrorize and overthrow the ruling body presently there.

Ergo, the Saudi Governement "proper" may not officially support OBL, but many people in positions of power within the government do. And the wealthy Saudis who do support OBL are channeling plenty of money to keep Al Qaeda running and buying the kind of silence required to keep the most wanted man on earth hidden. And the actual saudi government not only does nothing to stop these terrorist funding citizens, it stonewalls investigations to keep them hidden because so many of them are wealthy and influential. So, they are accomplices in the crime.

[bountyhunter]

Bottom line - we don't have to worry about saddam anymore.

I wish that statement was a toaster because then it would come with a guarantee. Saddam Hussein is alive and controls a personal fortune estimated to be at least 50 BILLION dollars. That can buy a lot of firepower and a lot of loyalty. The actual war for Iraq is only now getting underway, and it will not be over until the Sunni resistance is wiped out and the country is secured from the steady flow of terrorists coming in from surrounding countries. The analogy to Korea is valid, but in reverse: we probably have created another Korea in that we have fashioned and will attempt to prop up a puppet government in the midst of a sea of Islamic states. It, like South Korea, will stand as long as our military forces are there to hold it up.

[bountyhunter]

You are mistaken. What do you think the Al Qaida training camps were doing in Iraq? Vacationing? Going to the camel races? Also, what do you think top Al Qaida and Iraq leaders did when they meet? That is documented.


The only place it's documented is in the file of things proven to be false... like the giant underground nuclear site.

Never proven, no evidence. If there was, Bush would have been waving it like a giant flag instead of publicly acknowledging that there was "no credible evidence showing a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda". He, Rumsfeld, and Cheney all made public statements to that effect within the last month. The famous meeting is an urban myth that they would have desparately loved to be true... but it is not true. This was covered extensively on all news sources.

FWIW: the only documented "training camps" were in Northern Iraq in an area controlled by Kurds. Our own intel agencies said they were basically squatters and they were not even Al Qaeda. I recall Hammas was their best guess. Point is, Hussein did not control all of Iraq and terrorists pitch their tents where ever they can since they have no actual country.

[fallingblock]

Is to do what Donny's question suggests:D


Rumsfeld wrote. "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

Maybe the pace needs to be stepped up a bit, but otherwise, we're well-positioned to execute the plan;) .

[Malone LaVeigh]

Rumsfeld wrote. "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"It never occurs to the nitwit that capturing and killing does more to recruit terrorists than the "madrassas and the radical clerics" ever will. Our forces being there is a better recruiting tool than their wildest dreams.

we in the military don't appreciate you making foreign policy.Well, excuse me, but that is one of the most unAmerican things I've ever read here. JimP, I'm sure I speak for almost everyone here when I say I appreciate your sacrifice and service, even if I don't think they were necessary or wise in the current situation. But that doesn't give you in the military any more right to set foreign policy. A country that lets the military decide when and where to engage is not a democratic republic.

Besides, in the runup to the war, it was mostly the military that was resisting the rush. It was the chickenhawks like Cheny and Wolfowitz that were gung-ho, if you remember.

[fallingblock]

"It never occurs to the nitwit that capturing and killing does more to recruit terrorists than the "madrassas and the radical clerics" ever will. Our forces being there is a better recruiting tool than their wildest dreams."
************************************************************

That's how we get them into a position to kill them:D !

[Glock Glockler]

It's guerilla warfare, genius. Do you really think multiplying your enemy, creating an enemy where there was none before is a good thing? When more and more American bodies keep stacking up ask yourself how good a thing that is.

[fallingblock]

"It's guerilla warfare, genius. Do you really think multiplying your enemy, creating an enemy where there was none before is a good thing?***********************************************************

Yes!
I've been around long enough to realize that when your sworn enemy
seeks to destroy you by any means possible, your best option is to kill as many of them as possible as rapidly as possible, on their ground if possible.

This tends to disadvantage the enemy by demoralizing them as well as depleting them:D


************************************************************
"When more and more American bodies keep stacking up ask yourself how good a thing that is."
************************************************************

It's a corollary of war that bodies tend to stack up....the islamofanatics stacked up 3,000 relatively innocent victims in NYC in the opening act of this particular one. The ideal is to stack the other side's bodies up high enough fast enough and they'll quit.

Don Rumsfeld has the attitude necessary to win the war....you, Glock Glocker, obviously do not.

If your preferred option is appeasement, go for it;)

I like Don's approach because it is practical and if rigorously pursued will result in victory. :D

[Hkmp5sd]

It never occurs to the nitwit that capturing and killing does more to recruit terrorists than the "madrassas and the radical clerics" ever will. Our forces being there is a better recruiting tool than their wildest dreams.

Even if you believe this, it is obvious that the only way to stop the terrorists is to capture or kill them. Allowing your comment that the radical leaders cannot recruit as fast, they still recruit with no end in sight. If you sit on your hands so as not to PO any potential terrorists, terrorism prospers and continues forever.

Saddam Hussein is alive and controls a personal fortune estimated to be at least 50 BILLION dollars.

And the reason they were trying to escape from Iraq with US currency is because it is extremely hazardous for them to attempt to handle money electronically. He may have a lot of money in foreign banks, but if he attempts to use it, both him and his money pop up on the radar screen.

Vote Republican. It's the Police State, stupid.

Amusing graphic. I've got some really nice ones representing the democrat's stance on terrorism too. Unfortunately, they show graphic forced sexual activity with an American bent over on the receiving end, so they cannot be displayed on THR.

[JimP]

agree that the military is the least wanton to jump to war. it's our a** on the line when things go wrong. BUT...we are there now. Please don't create a situation in the world wherein all the nuts/terrorists/enemies need do is to kill a bunch of us and we cut and run like schoolgirls at a fight at recess. Got to stay and finish the job.

And - I really wish the banner waving about "stopping the unjust war" would stop until we finish the job - Yes, Virginia, it actually DOES encourage our enemies.

BTW, how many of you have actually served...??? And...YES, I really do feel that unless you have served this country in some capacity, your ability to impact policy should be remote. Call me Heinlen all you want...

Again, opinions may differ. Just give it a chance to work before you join the "cut and run", "US ouit of North America" crowd. Jim

Anyone really want to fight these guys here; (reference to all the foreign fighters heading to Iraq)?? We're killing them there so we don't have to kill them in your back yard. Bad move??

[rapaz]

I've been around long enough to realize that when your sworn enemy seeks to destroy you by any means possible, your best option is to kill as many of them as possible as rapidly as possible, on their ground if possible.

This tends to disadvantage the enemy by demoralizing them as well as depleting them

Sounds great... if we were actually fighting al quaeda. Instead, we are fighting taliban remnants in Afganistan (or more accurately, no longer fighting them, having pulled out almost all of the special forces who were looking for bin ladin) and some odd combination of Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans in Iraq.

Al quaeda is more of a 'virtual' organization. If I decided I agreed with their goals, and set off a bomb downtown, and sent out a press release, I would BE al quaeda, even if I never met bin ladin or whomever is now more or less in charge. Much more like Earth First, and less like the IRA. Its based on ideas, and you have to fight it in part with ideas, which we aren't doing.

I can't think of a single thing that this administration has done that has made me feel safer. Worse, they seem to be trying as hard as they can to cut the US off from international support and good will (recouping the lost good will will probably take decades), and are busy bankrupting the nation to pay for tax cuts for the most wealthy. Meanwhile container ports are undefended and any college student who feels like it can sneak box cutters on an airplane, and the Red Cross is publically castigating us for the embarassment of imprisoning people with no trials.

So yes, I say fire Rumsfeld and the rest of his group.

Edited to add: Unfortunately, I'm not hearing good ideas from any of the presidential contenders for how to improve things. Maybe McCain needs to jump back in? Clark's probably the best of the lot--certainly better than Bush--but is pretty far from ideal. And I'm not sure where any of them--including Bush--stands on the AWB. I've already been seeing 'anti' ads, but no 'pro' yet.

[rock jock]

The word "Gestapo" comes to mind...
Of course it does. You see Nazis around every corner and conspiracies in every story.

[rock jock]

Saddam Hussein is alive and controls a personal fortune estimated to be at least 50 BILLION dollars.
Citation?

[Chris Rhines]

Snuffing terrorists is all fine and dandy, but I see that as a distant second to the protection of my life, liberty, and property.

If it came down to a choice between the two, I'd much prefer to have Osama and all his clones operating freely than to give up a single one of my freedoms.

- Chris

[fallingblock]

"and some odd combination of Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans in Iraq."
************************************************************

These very folks are the ones who must be dealt with (killed or discouraged) to win in Iraq.

The solutions posed by Rumsfeld's question are in the direction of prevailing in Iraq, and by extention against Al quaeda.

Fighting ideas with ideas is a good thing. What's necessary is to hurt the other side enough to get their attention....like with Harry Truman's Missouri mule.:)

Of course the tricky part is to do so without alienating the entire civilian population.;)


************************************************************
"Worse, they seem to be trying as hard as they can to cut the US off from international support and good will (recouping the lost good will will probably take decades)"
************************************************************

Another point of view could be that they are taking the courageous course of actually dealing with the problem, and in doing so are looking after the intersets of the U.S., which is what they've been hired to do.;)

Clark is a disaster waiting to happen....hopefully he won't get the opportunity:eek: .

Chris:
************************************************************
"Snuffing terrorists is all fine and dandy, but I see that as a distant second to the protection of my life, liberty, and property.

If it came down to a choice between the two, I'd much prefer to have Osama and all his clones operating freely than to give up a single one of my freedoms"
************************************************************

We couldn't occur more on the above.:D
The most distressing thing about the current administration is that they are not looking after our freedoms:uhoh: When I get discouraged, I try to imagine what the alternative would have been like in the same scenario.
Hmmmm...Al Gore protecting our freedoms?:eek:

[Malone LaVeigh]

Even if you believe this, it is obvious that the only way to stop the terrorists is to capture or kill them. Allowing your comment that the radical leaders cannot recruit as fast, they still recruit with no end in sight. If you sit on your hands so as not to PO any potential terrorists, terrorism prospers and continues forever.So how does going after the wrong target solve anything?

And - I really wish the banner waving about "stopping the unjust war" would stop until we finish the job - Yes, Virginia, it actually DOES encourage our enemies.See my sig line. I agree we have to finish the job, but have less faith every day that we can do it. At this point, I'll settle for getting Saddam.

BTW, how many of you have actually served...??? And...YES, I really do feel that unless you have served this country in some capacity, your ability to impact policy should be remote. Call me Heinlen all you want...I assume you mean served in the military. I doubt if Jefferson, Madison, or Franklin would have agreed.

Again, opinions may differ. Just give it a chance to work before you join the "cut and run", "US ouit of North America" crowd.The problem is that the definition of making "it" work keeps changing. At this point, the best we can hope for is a friendly, market economy government in Baghdad. Lasting more than a week. But that has nothing to do with any threat of terrorism we may have been under before the war.

Of course it does. You see Nazis around every corner and conspiracies in every story.Would it have made you feel any better if I had said "KGB"?

"and some odd combination of Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans in Iraq."
************************************************************

These very folks are the ones who must be dealt with (killed or discouraged) to win in Iraq. That's the best example of circular reasoning I've seen in a long time.

[Hkmp5sd]

So how does going after the wrong target solve anything?

The wrong target in your opinion.

[fallingblock]

"and some odd combination of Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans in Iraq."

These very folks are the ones who must be dealt with (killed or discouraged) to win in Iraq.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"That's the best example of circular reasoning I've seen in a long time."
***********************************************************

How so? It appears to be a very logical conclusion to me:D ;)
The thread is about the war on terrorism, and winning in Afghanistan and Iraq,and Rumsfeld's ideas, and he has some very valid thoughts to offer.
For example:

"Rumsfeld also suggested the United States may need to do more to "stop the next generation of terrorists."

"The U.S. is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists," Rumsfeld wrote. "The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions."

************************************************************
"The wrong target in your opinion."
************************************************************

Hkmp5sd beat me to this observation:)

We differ on evaluating the relative significance of available targets.
Your sig line is commendable, you just gotta 'keep the faith'.......
(and kill enough "Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans"):D

[Glock Glockler]

It would make sense to arrest Baathists just like it would make sense to arrest Nazis, I think de-Baathicizing Iraq would be a good idea but killing folks because they're anti-American or Nationalist is psychotic.

How would you feel if a foreign country with a very different culture and a reputation for being a global bully stormed in and occupied your homeland? Many of us here have very little love for the US govt, but I'd be damned if some group of foreigners decided to invade, occupy the country to save us from ourselves. I'd fight tooth and nail, what would you do?

What do you think is going to happen if we kill folks because they hate us? Makes about as much sense as the old school management attitude of "The beatings will continue until morale improves".

To make the best out of this Iraq mess we should be

- establishing an infrastructure that will allow commerce and investment. If the Iraqis can be kept busy they will be less likely to become terrorists or support them. Iddle hands are the Devil's playthings. Being busy making money will also not want to rock the boat, and it will also make them far less likely to give aid and shelter to those that are rocking the boat.

- Get the Iraqis to do the dirty work. It's very easy to an Iraqi to kill and American but far less likely to kill one of his own people, and it's also easier for an Iraqi to gather intelligence than it is for us. Having American soldiers on the ground acting as a police force is an invitation to disaster, both in our domestic political situation and in the practical situation there.

The best case scenario would for us to be the puppetmaster pulling the strings but not being in the spotlight at all, we'd also be well served by not killing people simply because they don't like us.

[fallingblock]

"if some group of foreigners decided to invade, occupy the country to save us from ourselves. I'd fight tooth and nail, what would you do?************************************************************

If they were freeing me from a tyrant who had persecuted and murdered my family and friends for a quarter of a century, I believe I'd welcome them, as the majority of Iraqis have welcomed the U.S. removal of Saddam.


************************************************************

"What do you think is going to happen if we kill folks because they hate us? "
************************************************************

Only if they are trying to kill us, of course. There is a significant distinction between 'activists' and 'fence-sitters'. The more of the former killed, the better for our cause.


************************************************************
"The best case scenario would for us to be the puppetmaster pulling the strings but not being in the spotlight at all, we'd also be well served by not killing people simply because they don't like us."
************************************************************

Certainly true, but in order to reach this stage, the situation in Iraq must be stabilized by killing or 'removing' those who for whatever reason want the new Iraqi government to fail.

I believe this is the plan we are pursuing, however confused the situation may be (or is being portrayed by a hostile media in an election run-up:) ).

The enemy must be defeated to establish the replacement to Saddam's dictatorship. It will take time and a lot of effort to do it right. This is Rumsfeld's message, and I believe he is correct.
I also appreciate his analysis.:D

[rapaz]

"and some odd combination of Baathists, nationalists, and anti-americans in Iraq."
************************************************************

These very folks are the ones who must be dealt with (killed or discouraged) to win in Iraq.

The solutions posed by Rumsfeld's question are in the direction of prevailing in Iraq, and by extention against Al quaeda.

Fighting ideas with ideas is a good thing. What's necessary is to hurt the other side enough to get their attention....like with Harry Truman's Missouri mule.

Of course the tricky part is to do so without alienating the entire civilian population.

I think we basically agree, except for one fundamental point. If you want to "hurt the other side," I assume you mean al quaeda, right? If so, what the hell are we doing in Iraq????? Al Quaeda is in saudi, kenya, yemen, malasia, all sorts of places... but never had a home in Iraq. There are all sorts of reasons to bomb Saadam, but al quaeda/9-11/terrorism has nothing to do with it. Bush et al have been shameless about conflating the two, and should be held accountable for that deceit. Now that we are in Iraq, we need to do the right thing (and then leave)--the 101st Airborn has been getting rave reviews for how they are handling things in their area; pity the rest is being handled so poorly. But don't mistake doing well in Iraq with "defeating al quaeda".

About my freedoms--I'll vote for anyone who promises to never hire Ashcroft. (Although he does get a few points for his 2nd ammendment stance, mind you.) I like my bill of rights, dammit, and I don't appreciate it being trampled on by the left or right. This administration has been going after the 1st, 4th, etc, without shame--how better could the terrorists win than for us to throw our freedom out the window? I'll vote for the easter bunny if he promises to pay attention to the constitution!

[Marko Kloos]

If they were freeing me from a tyrant who had persecuted and murdered my family and friends for a quarter of a century, I believe I'd welcome them...

Then you do not comprehend the mindset of the average Muslim in the Middle East. We are the Great Satan. Saddam was a bad dude, and even other Arabic countries conceded the fact, but if they have to take a side, they'll always take the one of the fellow Muslim and Arab over the infidel Westerner. It's like a domestic disturbance call, when the wife with the bloody nose and the black eye fights the cops tooth and nail when they slap the cuffs on her husband.

[fallingblock]

"If you want to "hurt the other side," I assume you mean al quaeda, right? If so, what the hell are we doing in Iraq????? Al Quaeda is in saudi, kenya, yemen, malasia, all sorts of places... but never had a home in Iraq."
************************************************************

But it seems to me that the decision to take out Saddam was intended to give the U.S. a foothold in the area of maximum terrorist activity, without the complications of knocking off the Saudis or embarrassing Egypt.

************************************************************
"But don't mistake doing well in Iraq with "defeating al quaeda".
************************************************************

The two are linked, I believe. If a stable pro-western or even neutral mildly democratic nation emerges from the ashes of Saddam's Iraq, the region will be 'de-terrorized' to a degree. Add the advantages of a forward operational base within the area between potential hotspots of support for al quaeda, and you have a fine strategic victory.
Can the U.S. pull it off? Not without whacking the folks resisting them in Iraq, and the quicker the better.:)

************************************************************
"I'll vote for the easter bunny if he promises to pay attention to the constitution!"
************************************************************


I share your pain, brother rapaz.:D !


I do believe that Bush has been far better than Gore would have been under the same circumstances (both Second Amendment-wise and WoT- wise), and after all, that was what we had to choose from at the time:( .


Markos Kloos:
************************************************************
"Then you do not comprehend the mindset of the average Muslim in the Middle East. We are the Great Satan. Saddam was a bad dude, and even other Arabic countries conceded the fact, but if they have to take a side, they'll always take the one of the fellow Muslim and Arab over the infidel Westerner."
************************************************************

I know that seems to be 'conventional wisdom' these days, but I think this assumption does a great disservice to educted Muslims everywhere. I have known several Palestinian and Saudi friends from my university days, and they are certainly not blindly devoted to other muslim governments. There is a wide range of aspiration and opinion across the Middle East today, and I think you may be misleading yourself with such generalizations.

[bountyhunter]

This tends to disadvantage the enemy by demoralizing them as well as depleting them

I guess we really have them on the run now. The frequency of attacks has been mutiplying exponentially and the ones in the last three days showed a level of sophistication and co-ordination not previously seen. The rocket attack on the "safe" house used to hold US generals and politicians did a lot more than rattle windows..... It sent the mesage that the real war has just started and they are going to strike any targets, civilian or military. The slaughter of the Iraqi police says that anybody who collaborates with the US dies first.

God protect our troops. I hope they get out soon and leave that dust bowl forever.

BTW: on meet the press they explained the "hang up" with getting the civilain government enstated. We have told the current governing party to get a "constitutional congress" together to draft their constitution. The problem is, the Iraqi people are demanding those attending the congress be elected, not selected by the US. Our position is elections would "take too long", which is being perceived as a reply: we won't allow it because then we can't pick who will be in the puppet government we want to fill with US-friendly officials. This is a mess. We are claiming to be installing a democracy but are actually blocking free elections because they would almost certainly lead to a government that was mostly Islamic in makeup. I guess we are going to give them freedom to choose as long as they choose the right one(?)

[bountyhunter]

"If you want to "hurt the other side," I assume you mean al quaeda, right? If so, what the hell are we doing in Iraq????? Al Quaeda is in saudi, kenya, yemen, malasia, all sorts of places... but never had a home in Iraq."

Funny thing is, even though it only takes about one brain cell to figure that out, some days I can't find anybody else who knows it.

Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other and have for years. OBL stated publicly that Hussein is not a true Islamic, he's a liar who uses Islam as an excuse to get people to follow him. OBL also said he would overthrow Hussein and install an Islamic government in Iraq. BTW, he said exactly the same thing about the Saudi ruling government.

So, I have to laugh when I hear the fairy tales of how Hussein has been supporting Al Qaeda, giving them bases, money, etc. Hussein is many things, but would anybody be stupid enough to support the group that has sworn to destroy him?

Truth is, Hussein always hated OBL and Islamic fundamentalists because of the threat they posed to him. There is about as much "connection" between Hussein and OBL as there was between Reagan and communism..... and just about as much love.:barf:

[rapaz]

But it seems to me that the decision to take out Saddam was intended to give the U.S. a foothold in the area of maximum terrorist activity, without the complications of knocking off the Saudis or embarrassing Egypt.


Is that what it's about this week? ;) But really, the US already had "force projection" footholds in the middle east--we had bases in Saudi and other countries. From this link (http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/01/21012002094435.asp) : The U.S. also maintains a military presence in other Gulf states, such as Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, and Kuwait

Now, of course, we have been forced to accede to one of Bin Ladin's top demands, and get out of Saudi Arabia. Man, progress every day, huh?

The really controversial part of Rumsfeld's memo, if I understand things correctly, is that it presented a far more pessimistic view than his public pronouncements. Either things are going great, or it is a "long hard slog." Can't be both. Rumors abound that Rummy is on the way out, but I'm not buying it yet.

A lot of criticism is due to rumsfeld and the pentagon for poor post-invasion planning. The intel was there (see, for example, comprehensive report provided by the state dept. before the war) but they, I guess believing Cheney's claim that we would be met with open arms, ignored it. I'd say that the blood of every US soldier and UN worker killed since Bush made that shameful carrier landing (and worse, said "bring it on") is on their hands.

But that is all Iraq. About the 'war on terrorism' (different thing)--Rumsfeld is right; very little good attention has been paid to this. Mostly lip service, and certainly not adequate resources, nor the attention to good international relations that are needed. Earth to White House: fully funding things like port security might be more important than tax cuts for your buddies.

Gore vs Bush? Well, I wasn't in love with Gore. On the other hand, unlike Bush he didn't spend the Vietnam war AWOL. He certainly had the political connections to avoid the war the same way Bush did, and he didn't do so. So... I think he would have a clue about the costs of war, and the reasons for it. Would the Gore white house have been as bad about ignoring pre-9/11 intelligence as Bush's? Probably, but there's no way to know that for sure. Would the US be this alienated from the rest of the world at this point under Gore? I doubt it. Would we be facing the largest deficit in history? Probably not.

It's an interesting question about how bad would things have to be in the US before you would welcome a, say, Nigerian, or French, occupation force. How about if they said "we aren't leaving for a few years." Feel different? How about if they said, "oh, to be more sensitive we'll invite Mexican peacekeeping troops to help"? (Like we have with Turkey.) Myself, I'm not sure, but things would have to be pretty impressively bad before I'd be liking that idea. Don't forget the widespread belief (true or not) that bad conditions in Iraq were more the fault of US-led sanctions than the fault of Sadaam himself....

[fallingblock]

************************************************************
"I guess we really have them on the run now. The frequency of attacks has been mutiplying exponentially and the ones in the last three days showed a level of sophistication and co-ordination not previously seen."
************************************************************


Yup, looks like we've got their attention now....time to start whackin' 'em!



************************************************************
The rocket attack on the "safe" house used to hold US generals and politicians did a lot more than rattle windows..... It sent the mesage that the real war has just started and they are going to strike any targets, civilian or military. The slaughter of the Iraqi police says that anybody who collaborates with the US dies first.
************************************************************


Real dumb move by the other side....I don't imagine the vast majority of Iraqis are silly enough to welcome as heroes those who are killing the Red Cross and Iraqi police.


************************************************************
"This is a mess. We are claiming to be installing a democracy but are actually blocking free elections because they would almost certainly lead to a government that was mostly Islamic in makeup. I guess we are going to give them freedom to choose as long as they choose the right one(?)"
************************************************************


A mess?? It looks like we are getting it sorted out to provide some sort of balance between the Muslims and secular government. Sounds like a good plan to me.



************************************************************
"Hussein is many things, but would anybody be stupid enough to support the group that has sworn to destroy him?"
************************************************************


Saddam was smart enough to support the enemies of his enemy....He was
happy with anyone who would fight his fight.



************************************************************
"Now, of course, we have been forced to accede to one of Bin Ladin's top demands, and get out of Saudi Arabia. Man, progress every day, huh?"
************************************************************


That's why we've got Iraq.:D Or rather, hope to have Iraq.....


************************************************************
" I'd say that the blood of every US soldier and UN worker killed since Bush made that shameful carrier landing (and worse, said "bring it on") is on their hands."
************************************************************


Someone with an unreasoning hatred of Bush might say that....but they'd be missing the point that those who fired the rockets and detonated the bombs are the ones responsible for the deaths....gun control or politics....it's the same old game-blame the object of your phobia.

I rather liked the spirit manifested by the "Bring it on" remark....it beats cowering in your corner waiting to see what the islamofanatics will do to you next.



************************************************************
"But that is all Iraq. About the 'war on terrorism' (different thing)--"
************************************************************


An interesting opinion, but only another opinion, of course:D



************************************************************
"I wasn't in love with Gore. On the other hand, unlike Bush he didn't spend the Vietnam war AWOL. He certainly had the political connections to avoid the war the same way Bush did, and he didn't do so. So... I think he would have a clue about the costs of war, and the reasons for it."
************************************************************



Ho-ho-ho. You are kidding, right? Gore went to Vietnam to help his Dad's re-election campaign (the 'patriotic son' and all that.) Old Albert insisted that Al Jr. never be placed in harm's way (a behind-the-lines journalist) and little Al was home again inside of seven months....it didn't help get big Al re-elected, by the way.

As far as what 'clues' Al would have picked up in Vietnam, it would more likely have involved where the coldest beer was in Saigon.

Geez, at least "Dubya" learned how to fly a 'dart' while he was there in the Texas Air National Guard.:D



************************************************************
"How about if they said "we aren't leaving for a few years." Feel different? How about if they said, "oh, to be more sensitive we'll invite Mexican peacekeeping troops to help"? (Like we have with Turkey.) Myself, I'm not sure, but things would have to be pretty impressively bad before I'd be liking that idea. Don't forget the widespread belief (true or not) that bad conditions in Iraq were more the fault of US-led sanctions than the fault of Sadaam himself...."
************************************************************



"If I'd seen my entire family whacked by Saddam's boys, or had a Kurd's perspective, I'd say "Bring it On" for sure.

Bad conditions a result of sanctions? Aw, gee...poor Saddam signs on to an agreement to save his posterior, and then chooses to violate the conditions almost daily. Whose fault is that, indeed? And what about the billions gentle old Saddam was gathering from the illicit sale of oil during all those years? Why didn't it find its way down to the non-Sunnis in Iraq? Could it be that Saddam really was a despicable tyrant and needed the boot?:)

Markos Kloos is right about "flagellating the deceased Equus" !
:banghead:

[rapaz]

You're right--Bush makes me see red. Interestingly, it's the same for an awful lot of people I know, many of whom are VERY conservative and feel betrayed by that man. You know, deficit spending, standing in the world, etc. I actually believe (tax cuts for the rich aside) that Bush has honest and good intentions, but just isn't smart enough to figure out the consequences and interpretations of his actions.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion now; I think I've made my views on how we should respond to terrorism as clear (or murky) as they will ever be. I'll sit back and read, and maybe even learn something.

And people--let's be careful with the "bring it on" sentiments, 'cause US soldiers are dying at a fairly fast rate, and the people doing the shooting aren't getting caught, much less killed. Bad mojo, you know.

[fallingblock]

"I actually believe (tax cuts for the rich aside) that Bush has honest and good intentions, but just isn't smart enough to figure out the consequences and interpretations of his actions."
************************************************************

I believe this could be the case:( .

And I speak from experience about unreasoning hatred of a president....
Bill Clinton's name is enough to give me the fantods:mad: .



************************************************************
"US soldiers are dying at a fairly fast rate, and the people doing the shooting aren't getting caught, much less killed. Bad mojo, you know."
************************************************************


I got into this thread by making the statement that Rumsfeld seemed to have the idea of what was necessary by posing his question:

"Rumsfeld wrote. "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"

Now that the 'exploding enemy' is blowing up random targets of opportunity, some if not most of the bombers from outside Iraq, it would seem like a good time to do some culling of the opposition's ranks throughout the area. A plan seems to be lacking, however.

I'll also do more reading than posting on this subject....it's too easy to generate lots of heat but no light where several 'hot button' issues coincide.

Let's hope the folks at the command end are learning their lessons sooner rather than later on how to deal with fulminating fanatics.:scrutiny: