Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 05/01/2006 View Sun 04/30/2006 View Sat 04/29/2006 View Fri 04/28/2006 View Thu 04/27/2006 View Wed 04/26/2006 View Tue 04/25/2006
1
2006-05-01 Terror Networks
State Department reports raises first doubts over US ability to win "long war"
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Dan Darling 2006-05-01 01:38|| || Front Page|| [11134 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 Some people are so desperate to believe that all wars and conflicts should be like Grenada. If it can't be finished and forgotten about in a few months with maybe 1 or 2 tragic losses at the most, well then it's not worth doing. Set backs, extreme difficulties, etc. equal hopeless quagmire. Wake up people. We are fighting a virulent ideology with millions of adherents across a region of backwardness and dysfunction spanning the whole globe. It's going to take decades and it's going to be bloody. I don't like it either but the idea that you can withdraw and pretend the whole thing doesn't exist is the ultimate form of madness.
Posted by Monsieur Moonbat 2006-05-01 01:55||   2006-05-01 01:55|| Front Page Top

#2 Correct me if I'm wrong but there is a big difference between saying that "the US remains in the first stage of a long war with cave men forced by the modern world to enter the 21st Century" and "the prospect that the West and its allies might be unable to defeat Al Qaida."

We are in for a long war - I'll agree to that. But no one said we will lose. it We're fighting against a culture that has done ZERO, NADA, ZILCH, ZIP, ZERO, since the 7th century. I'm not a betting person - but if I was, i'd not be betting my wager on advice from people who suddenly found themselves unfrozen a few centuries ahead of their time. But, hey, that's just me.
Posted by 2b 2006-05-01 02:20||   2006-05-01 02:20|| Front Page Top

#3 I sure hope your economy can stand up to it.
Posted by Rafael 2006-05-01 04:07||   2006-05-01 04:07|| Front Page Top

#4 Our economy stood up to the Cold War and the dissolution of the Soviet Union. These cave dwellers are not spending hundreds of billions a year and making us meet or beat that amount.
As a matter of fact, compare the US economy in 1948 to the same economy in 1989 {beginning and end of the Cold War}. It freaking expanded like nobody's business, if you will excuse the pun.
Posted by Shieldwolf 2006-05-01 04:51||   2006-05-01 04:51|| Front Page Top

#5 file under NOT NEWS.

The Bush admin has said all along that the WOT was an armed struggle unlike those of the past wars. There's no state to defeat but a ideology of terror which might take a generation to discredit and defeat.

Posted by RD 2006-05-01 04:55||   2006-05-01 04:55|| Front Page Top

#6 Win versus lose in the WOT is a false dichotomy.

The dichotomy is lose versus not lose.

The Gates of Vienna comparison is appropriate. Western Europe beat the muslims back but did not defeat them and then (and their transplanted societies in North America and the Antipodies) went on to dominate the world and give us the astonishing progress we have seen over the last 300 years.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-05-01 06:15|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-05-01 06:15|| Front Page Top

#7 These are the first doubts from the State Department? I doubt that.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-01 07:32||   2006-05-01 07:32|| Front Page Top

#8 Well, I'm sure State's been quite confident when talking to their paymasters in Saudi Arabia.
Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford  2006-05-01 08:02|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-05-01 08:02|| Front Page Top

#9 It seems your States Department is also very good at screening out good potenial immigrants in favor of lousy ones.
Posted by Duh! 2006-05-01 08:15||   2006-05-01 08:15|| Front Page Top

#10 State utters defeat all the time, I don't even know why we have the damn thing.
Posted by djohn66 2006-05-01 09:08||   2006-05-01 09:08|| Front Page Top

#11 We don't, they do.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-01 09:37||   2006-05-01 09:37|| Front Page Top

#12 Rafael: I sure hope your economy can stand up to it.

Not a problem. We spent 50% of annual output annually during WWII, and ended the war with debt equal to 1-1/2 year's output. We are spending less than 1% of annual output on Iraq and have added about 1% per year to the national debt annually because of the war, not about 40% as in WWII. The rest of the deficit is due to civilian and non-war defense sector spending increases, not Iraq.
Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-05-01 11:56|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com]  2006-05-01 11:56|| Front Page Top

#13 Phil B is absolutely right. A favorite tactic of the news benders is to set up a false analogy or straw-man. Name one single person in the Bush administration who ever said this would be a cheap quick war?
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-01 12:00||   2006-05-01 12:00|| Front Page Top

#14 And, what's the alternative? Let the radical towel-heads take over the world? Nope, when you have a bully on your block, best thing is to go down the street and mop up with him before he starts.
Posted by mcsegeek1 2006-05-01 12:02||   2006-05-01 12:02|| Front Page Top

#15 No one ever offered you a "choice".
Posted by closedanger">closedanger  2006-05-01 13:10||   2006-05-01 13:10|| Front Page Top

#16 Rafael hopes our econemy can stand up to it because we are Canadas only defense.
Posted by Mike N. 2006-05-01 14:49||   2006-05-01 14:49|| Front Page Top

#17 I don't know what Rafael knows about the American economy, but from here, there is almost no way of determining that there is a war going on, except, the occasional ribbon on a car or van. There is so much bussle, that nobody has the time to think about it.
Posted by wxjames 2006-05-01 14:58||   2006-05-01 14:58|| Front Page Top

#18 In WWII FDR got everyone's attention and involvement by instituting a wartime consumer Rationing Program. Auto tires, sugar, and many other consumer goods were "rationed." I still have my folks ration books and stamps. How about some GASOLINE rationing for the effort? Of course the oil companies would throw a fit, but it might accomplish a couple of things at the same time.
Posted by Besoeker 2006-05-01 15:19||   2006-05-01 15:19|| Front Page Top

#19 We spent 50% of annual output annually during WWII

In WW2 almost every dollar spent on the war, stayed in the US. Not the case anymore. You'll note that there are foreign companies now supplying the Pentagon. In WW2 you had companies like Ford (or GM?) producing the Sherman tank in substantive quantities. Now these companies are partnering with their global counterparts, like Daimler-Chrysler, for instance. It's the net effect of globalisation.

Rafael hopes our econemy can stand up to it because we are Canadas only defense.

Well, yes. But as things stand now, it's you who has been attacked, not Canada.

I don't know what Rafael knows about the American economy, but from here, there is almost no way of determining that there is a war going on

Except for the price of gasoline, of course. And all the screaming about illegals, too (indirectly of course, if it hadn't been for 9-11, you wouldn't be worrying about unsecure borders).
Posted by Rafael 2006-05-01 15:31||   2006-05-01 15:31|| Front Page Top

#20 
Gawd, full blown Aris bird flu.
Posted by RD 2006-05-01 15:40||   2006-05-01 15:40|| Front Page Top

#21 You have anything that would refute what I said, RD?
Posted by Rafael 2006-05-01 15:50||   2006-05-01 15:50|| Front Page Top

#22 are you actually trying to make a point Rafel?

illegal immigration
or
Gasoline prices
or
WWII
or
9-11

or feelings about your inadequacy?

yep, it's feelings of inadequacy ain't it Rafael,

thought so.
Posted by RD 2006-05-01 16:00||   2006-05-01 16:00|| Front Page Top

#23 I agree with the report's conclusions. We may not win, because it will be a long war. Officials will come and go. Will they all take the war seriously, or will some be more interested in short-term political advantage? We all know that answer already--the only unknown is whether our enemies will be able to take advantage of the opportunities we provide them.
Posted by James">James  2006-05-01 16:01|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2006-05-01 16:01|| Front Page Top

#24 Rafael has decided to come out of the closet, today. Many already knew of or suspected the Tranzi anti-Americanism was the substance - and posts otherwise were vapor, but it's good to come clean. An enema spread across multiple stories today, he's letting it all go. On May Day. Good choice.
Posted by Angins Creting3466 2006-05-01 16:45||   2006-05-01 16:45|| Front Page Top

#25 Yes, Menewslines point is not justified by whast the Dept of State actually said. But in fairness, they didnt put in the headline. Check the linked article.
Posted by Liberalhawk 2006-05-01 16:46||   2006-05-01 16:46|| Front Page Top

#26 In WW2 almost every dollar spent on the war, stayed in the US
LOL!
Come on Buddy, be cool. Think Lend-Lease.
Posted by 6 2006-05-01 16:55||   2006-05-01 16:55|| Front Page Top

#27 Wait a second - you're not a closet Mercantilist are 'ya?
Posted by 6 2006-05-01 16:55||   2006-05-01 16:55|| Front Page Top

#28 Rafael, Don't be such a Polyanna as to think that the terrorist will never get around to Canada. Thay just aren't there YET. That of course has a lot to do with how insignificant Canda is.
If Canada keeps assisting in the WOT they will eventually get some attention. Then we'll see if those horse mounted gentlemen with thier silly hats can do anything.
Posted by Mike N. 2006-05-01 17:27||   2006-05-01 17:27|| Front Page Top

#29  Over the last three years, the Bush administration has claimed progress in downgrading the Al Qaida network.

We have downgraded the nework. Anyone who doubts it isn't paying attention. As for winning/losing/not losing the Long War, isn't that what the Cold War was? Despite the government changing hands several times over the years, despite active suborning by Communist agents and fellow travellers, and despite dumping an ally to the tune of a million or more VietNamese dead, we still won and the Communists still lost.

The Soviet Union melted away. Its remnants are more or less capitalist economically, wavering between democracy and Strong Man totalitarianism socially. China is a semi-totalitarian, semi-capitalist oligarchy, whose government hopes to win its covert war against the US before it melts down completely.

And most of the country didn't really believe we were at war for a generation. But the rough men and women who set themselves to guard the rest of us did a wonderful job, despite the overt lack of support.

The first phase of the Long War on Terror (really on imperialist Islamofascism, but why quibble) involves armies and uniformed troops, and is going quite well, despite all the whining in the media... and from the as-yet unpurged mid-levels at State. The second phase, like in the Cold War, will involve planting gardens of freedom -- and weeding ruthlessly -- and will take its participants to places unseen by reporters. Hunter/killer teams will no doubt be heavily involved, and somehow spewing vicious and warlike hate will gradually become unpopular.

The alternative, that the imperialist jihadis actually establish their worldwide Caliphate, including the US, will mean they spend the next several generations trying to get rid of Western guerrilla fighters. And our guys, male and female alike, are professionals who don't shoot from the hip. The Caliphate will wear itself out against us, and in the end will fail... and fall. If that happens, the only Muslims left in the world will be those who can hide themselves in remote and isolated areas. Slave revolts are ugly.

That's the opinion of this little Midwestern housewife, at any rate.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-01 17:48||   2006-05-01 17:48|| Front Page Top

#30 I'm sorry. In paragraph three of my little screed, that should read, "Most of the West didn't really believe we were at war for the past generation."
Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-01 17:52||   2006-05-01 17:52|| Front Page Top

#31 you are dead right on the slave revolt part.
Posted by 3dc 2006-05-01 17:53||   2006-05-01 17:53|| Front Page Top

#32 Reminds me of a history prof decades ago in college. He thought we could win the cold war by giving the USSR India and Paraguay. Figured it would take every university educated person in the USSR + to run those two countries.
Posted by 3dc 2006-05-01 17:55||   2006-05-01 17:55|| Front Page Top

#33 Except for the price of gasoline, of course.

Adjust them for inflation and look at what the numbers say.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-05-01 18:01|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-05-01 18:01|| Front Page Top

#34 Then we'll see if those horse mounted gentlemen with thier silly hats can do anything.

But you see, it'll be you first, so those horse mounted gentlemen won't have that much do. You're higher on the totem pole so if you fall, it's all over for the rest of us. I don't see the sense in pointing out Canada's insignificance in the world.

RD, it's obvious there's no point in discussing anything intelligent with you. Otherwise you'd have something to offer other than condescension.

Rafael has decided to come out of the closet, today. Many already knew of or suspected the Tranzi anti-Americanism was the substance

LOL! Yup. Of course, Mr. Anonymous. For a full response you're gonna have to come out of the closet too.
Posted by Rafael 2006-05-01 18:12||   2006-05-01 18:12|| Front Page Top

#35 Otherwise you'd have something to offer other than condescension.

Er, have you been offering anything else today?
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-05-01 18:15|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-05-01 18:15|| Front Page Top

#36 Where Rob? What did you take as condescension from me?
Posted by Rafael 2006-05-01 18:19||   2006-05-01 18:19|| Front Page Top

#37 as things stand now, it's you who has been attacked, not Canada.

If you roll over, beg, give up, grow nice beard, etc. I guess it stops feeling like an attack for a while.
Posted by jim#6 2006-05-01 18:39||   2006-05-01 18:39|| Front Page Top

#38 Rafael I've defended your take on things in the past, but since you showed today with the express purpose of working out some inner angst, I'll go a couple rounds with you. To make you feel better! LOL!

[see the difference, that's condescension]

How 'bout this for starters,

Rafael: I sure hope your economy can stand up to it.

that's got condescenion all over it. Thats how you sarted this thread.

you're *concerned* for our economy, LOL.

Or is your concern more about the way the United States is conducting the WOT? What is it with you, too pricey? We should do it on the cheap.

No blood for Oil perhaps?

It would be less expensive for the USA Rafael, if more SMUG TRANZI nations took some responsibility and contributed their BLOOD and TREASURE in the fight against the fascist Islamic Nation!

Posted by RD 2006-05-01 20:19||   2006-05-01 20:19|| Front Page Top

#39 I sure hope your economy can stand up to it.

When we start turning back your comedians, actors and would-be news anchors at the border, you'll know there's a problem.
Posted by Pappy 2006-05-01 20:53||   2006-05-01 20:53|| Front Page Top

#40 Rafael is right about the risks of globalization and the resulting economic dependence on places beyond a countries political control. It's unprecedented in history. And were a global crisis to occur that stopped that trade, the economic shock would be enormous.

However, he is completely wrong about the consequences. The most trade dependant economies would suffer the most. From memory, Canada is the world's most trade dependent large economy and the US (one of?) the least trade dependent. Canada would suffer far more than the USA.
Posted by phil_b">phil_b  2006-05-01 21:04|| http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]">[http://autonomousoperation.blogspot.com/]  2006-05-01 21:04|| Front Page Top

#41 Canada was a cushy place for the terror network under the previous government. It looks like things are changing under the new gov't, and impressively quickly, too, as far as I can tell. Soon either there will be far fewer terror-linked people up north -- whether decamped or arrested I wouldn't venture to predict -- or things will start to go boom as they assert their right to stay.

Nota bene: all uniforms look silly to those who have no emotional attachment to the wearers. Even camouflage -- although I personally think those wearing the latest American camo uniforms are just the handsomest things on two legs, male and female alike. Q.E.D. ;-)

Rafael, just apologise. I'm sure you didn't mean it the way it came out, but some of us (me, too) are touchy right now, waiting for the next stage to commence. That I haven't seriously ticked someone off recently is either luck or kindness on their part. But I'm sure I will accidentally say the wrong thing, so I apologize pre-emptively in the hope that these things can be banked against need.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-05-01 21:06||   2006-05-01 21:06|| Front Page Top

#42 Rafael, maybe you should review the history of the Civil War - two particular comments concerned the north fighting with only one hand, and Sherman carrying spare tunnels with him as he progressed through Georgia.

The United States has progressed a bit since then, and its industrial and productive capacities are essentially untapped for warfighting purposes - namely, the defense and civilian industrial bases have grown apart - check the figures from WWII to see what would happen if the US went on anything approaching a war footing.

There's no, zero, nada, zip issue of material capacity involved. It's about 80% cultural and the remainder diplomatic/political/psychological.

Finally, to answer the question of our "ability to win a long war", perhaps simplifying the problem by making it a short war is an option as well.
Posted by Whong Whoting4646 2006-05-01 21:13||   2006-05-01 21:13|| Front Page Top

#43 What was it that Yamamoto told Japan, you have 1 to 2 years for expansion after that sue for peace because when the US goes to full war footing you have lost.
Posted by djohn66 2006-05-01 21:49||   2006-05-01 21:49|| Front Page Top

#44 On 9-11 any and all Americans were given the choiuces of either de facto surrendering to Socialism-Communism, and OWG; or being destroyed. The corollary to this was that America either de facto rules the world, or it will be destroyed. There are no in-betweens, as any ARMISTICE-STALEMATE only means Amer's enemies get to destroy us later, not sooner. Isolationism > America basically contrained itself - America won two world wars + one Cold War [vv Reagan Defense Buildup/Star Wars/Econ] by applying itself to victory. America's enemies > WAR = NON-WAR, WW2 = KOREA 1/VIETNAM, BATTLE OF BULGE or PEARL HARBOR, etc. = COLUMBINE SHOOTING or OJ SIMPSON TRIAL or HEALTH CARE FOR WALMART EMPLOYEES, etc. It will be a "long war" becuz America's enemies are both from within and without, but no matter what the endgame is the defeat andor destruction of America. The WOT, among other precepts, is a war for control of America and later the World . AMERICANS EITHER WIN, OR WE AND OUR NATION AND BELIEFS DIE, AND RUNNING OFF TO TAHITI OR THE NORTH POLE OR SHANGRI-LA ISN'T GOING TO SAVE ANYONE.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-05-01 23:27||   2006-05-01 23:27|| Front Page Top

#45 you're *concerned* for our economy, LOL.

Actually I am. What happens south has a direct effect on Canada. I'm sure I don't have to explain why that is.

Or is your concern more about the way the United States is conducting the WOT?

Of course. I thought everybody was concerned about that. Aren't you?

Mrs. TW, the reason my comment sparked so much outrage is because I'm not the most popular person here, to put it mildly, and not because it was a particularly egregious comment. It certainly wasn't meant to be condescending. If you note, the rest of the time was spent returning fire.

However, I don't ever remember, you specifically, being unkind to me in your comments in the past, no matter how much I may have pushed the line. In view of this, what you say has sway with me, and so I will do what you suggest:

I apologise for my comment, and to everyone who took offense with it. Simple as that.
Posted by Rafael 2006-05-01 23:38||   2006-05-01 23:38|| Front Page Top

23:50 KBK
23:41 JosephMendiola
23:38 Rafael
23:27 JosephMendiola
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:49 Glererong Hupinese5782
22:48 3dc
22:44 Captain America
22:42 Captain America
22:28 Frank G
22:18 Captain America
22:18 Anonymoose
22:16 Captain America
22:13 Frank G
22:13 Anonymoose
22:10 DMFD
22:09 Captain America
22:05 Captain America
22:05 jim#6
22:05 Eric Jablow
22:03 trailing wife
22:01 trailing wife
21:58 JosephMendiola
21:57 Ptah









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com