RoR: Forum

It's quite difficult to comment on the 'logic' of your argument, as there doesn't appear to be much of an argument let alone any logic. It's rather more akin to a scene from Kubrick's Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, it's certainly about as bizarre and perverse. You're saying, essentially: there are lots of terrorists out there, so let's launch a massive nuclear or biological strike on the non-Western world and eradicate everything. That way, there'll be no more terrorists. I might as well argue that there are lots of murderers in my city, so I'll go around killing everyone except myself. That way, there'll be no more murderers. You offer to save the innocents by evacuating them, which is completely impractical. Further, you imply that whole populations are guilty for allowing these regimes to exist. Here you have no notion of history. I'd like to see you will into existence the kind of cultural change you're demanding as a requisite for innocence in the middle of faith-driven medieval Europe. Did that population deserve to be slaughtered en masse? What you're calling for is an insane dystopia, a holocaust of monstrous proportions that would involve the death of millions. The terrorist threat to the western world is very real, but this trigger-happy blood lust is out of all proportion.

Why do so many Objectivists continue to come up with this biblical-style, apocalyptic, 'last battle' stuff?

Post 1

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 3:42am

I am never a fan of "The Nuclear Option" unless we are talking power plants or space ships. So since we are talking about bombs I would have to say no.

Why say no to the bomb?
Simply put the option would cause more problems than it would solve in regards to your "certain enemy."

How would it cause more problems?
The friends of your enemy are also your friend thanks to the UN and they would probably try to call up a world wide force against you.

The war on terrorism is not just a ground war but also a ideological war against a strong mental virus, a form of Religious fascism called Islam.

The use of the bomb in a war against Islamic Fascists would be as effective as using the bomb against the enviromentalist terrorist insurgency in America. It would acomplish only one thing: establishing a radioactive background count on lands that we could really use.

Right now we have one planet with X amount of useable space. The bomb makes it: [X - blast radius] for a long while.

prices in every market across the globe would rise with each bomb that is dropped;
as the oil feilds of various Middle eastern countries became glass parking lots the cost of every shipped good on the planet would shoot through the roof.

And you think the cost of gas is high now! HA! Just wait til Orion Drops the bomb!

Regards,

Eric J. Tower

Post 2

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 6:39am

I think there is a rational use for nuclear weapons. In the weeks following 9/11, intelligence reports indicated many terrorists in the mountainous region of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, the infamous caves which we attempted to search by foot and by Predator drones. Tactical nuclear weapons would have been far more effective -- and fully justified. And it would have told the terrorists and the world that the U.S. will employ any and every means necessary to defend ourselves.

This is a fight to the death. The terrorists know this, but many in the U.S. apparently do not. We should un-muzzle the U.S. military and tell them to fight a war against the terrorists -- not attempt a police-style round-up with the emphasis on minimizing civilian casualties.

We will never win as long as minimizing civilian casualties has a higher priority than killing the enemy. We do not have to adopt a Dr. Strangelove attitude and melt the entire mid-east. But we do have to realize that the terrorists are never going to stop trying to kill us and will kill as many civilians as necessary to accomplish their goals.

When we get a bunch of them cornered like they were in Fallujah, we should bomb them to oblivion -- and if that means using nuclear weapons (it almost never will), we should use them. As long as our reaction is to negotiate instead of obliterate, we will lose.

Post 3

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 7:29am

I agree with Michael on this, except I am not sure nuclear weapons would have helped much in Afghanistan (plus some intel was collected from those caves). I do agree with the principle that nuclear weapons - though always a last resort - should never be off the table.

As for the issue of minimizing civilian casualties ("collateral damage"), the commanders and politicians speaking to the press may say one thing but from my experience the average grunt on the ground knows better. There was an incident that happened in OIF I now taught in rules of engagement classes as a case study. These rules of engagement classes are required for all 1st Marine Division Marines and Sailors about to deploy to Iraq for OIF II. During a battle in one of the cities, there was a little girl that was running back and forth between the Marine lines and the Iraqi lines, letting the Iraqis know where the Marines were and what they were up to. She was obviously a civilian and unarmed. According to the Law of Armed Conflict, this girl can be held in custody should not be harmed in any way. That was rather difficult with the hail of lead flying through the air. A buddy of mine about to go to Iraq was in the last class and the instructor asked the class what they would do in that situation. To the dismay of the instructor, the majority of the Marines in the audience answered "Kill the b$%ch!" Needless to say, that was the same thing that really happened.

Of course, the principle of collateral damage will always be in the back of a grunt's mind and, worse, affect the decisions of their commanders. The commanders and the politicians should be in synch with what the grunts on the ground already know. In war, innocents die. Innocents always die. But that is better than a US Marine (or soldier, sailor, etc.) dying.

Post 4

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 8:36am

And if it was the Iraqis who put the poor thing up to it, as I am sure it was, all the more reason for viewing her death as their responsibility.

I am all in favor of using nuclear bombs, and not necessarily as a last resort. Merely if it will best accomplish our goal in a given situation.

(These are just general comments prompted by Mr. Garcia's post, not an evaluation of Mr. Reasoner's ideas.)

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 5/04, 5:52pm)

Post 5

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 7:10am

So we should institutionalise the practice of the guards at Abu Ghriab prison then? Iraqi's their all guilty, if a heavily armed soldier knocks down their front door in the dead of night grabs them without a warrant to detain them indefinatelty without trial its there own fault for being a muslim and if any kids get in the way of the tanks we should blame the parents and then roll right the way over them.

And we certainly shouldn't question our tactics when the population rises up against us, that is appeasement we simply need to follow through crack a few more eggs and make a few more examples of them in order for them to realise that we're here to help them.

Post 6

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 10:16am

Malarki,

I do not think there are any easy, cookie-cutter answers to the problems that arise in war. In the heat of battle, a grunt has to make decisions on the fly, taking many factors into consideration, all the while in the face of danger to himself and his buddies. In the example I gave in my post above, I showed why the textbook answer to a question posed in a classroom may go out the window in the field. As horrid as it may sound to someone who was not there, the men who found themselves in that situation did the best they could to eliminate a threat to their very lives. I did not mention that the intel this girl was giving to the enemy allowed them to direct all their fire at the Marine unit's position. The Marines took quite a few casualties before someone made the choice to put down that girl (and that was after seeing her run up to their position for the third time). It is never an easy thing to do. Many of the Marines who were there have sisters and daughters who were as old as that girl. If you think that was horrid, it does not compare to some of the horrors I have seen on both sides of the line (which I would rather never have to talk about). It was not easy for me to see dead kids and women, and I know it is the same for my buddies whom I shared my feelings with. I can assure you this: the enemy has far less respect for life.

I do not agree with the implication that the American role in Iraq should be "winning hearts and minds" by appeasing them or apologizing for our presence there. The enemy does not and will never respect weakness but they do fear strength (which is why they fear the Marines more so than the Army). Our rationale there should not be to help the Iraqi people but to defend our interests. For example, there were standing orders to not attack enemy soldiers hiding in a mosque or hospital. During OIF I, they took advantage of this by hiding in mosques and hospitals. In Fallujah, when the Marines were taking heavy fire from soldiers hiding in a mosque, they destroyed it. I am not saying go out of the way to destroy mosques and hospitals. All I am saying is that no option should be off the table. If there was another way to take out that threat, without needlessly jeopardizing life and limb, then you are a better man than me. I wish you can pick up a rifle and lead the next combat patrol.

Note: Edited for blatantly incorrect spelling and grammar.

(Edited by Byron Garcia on 5/04, 11:00am)

Post 7

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 3:06pm

Orion,

If there is a country threatening to invade or in the process of invading the United States, the United States would certainly be right to use Nuclear Bombs against that country.

Maybe you forgot, Iraq did not invade the United States. Maybe you did not notice, they couldn't. The United States invaded Iraq.

Supposedly, the reason we invaded Iraq, originally, was as part of the so-called "War On Terror." (It has now been respun as a war of humanitarianism, to free the Iraqi people from the cruel tyrant Saddam, even though they never lifted a finger to free themselves, and also to impose..., ah ... provide, them with democracy.)

One of the major terrorist organizations is al Quada, the one being blamed for 9/11. Al Quada is known to be substantially supported by Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. So, of course, we invade Iraq. Why? Because they might also have been supporting al Quada and you cannot prove they weren't. But, then, you cannot prove the Wall Mart corporation is not supporting al Quada either, so maybe we should invade them.

Whatever one thinks of the strategy, one thing is certain--whatever happens in Iraq, if we wipe it clean as a whistle with our handy-nuclear-wipes, or pack up all the troops and bring them home today, or anything in between, it will not make a scintilla of difference to the potential threat of terrorist attacks in the United States.

There is not any one country, or any two, or any ten, even if completely neutralized, that would end or limit terrorism or its threat to us. Because the source of terrorism is not countries, but ideology. That ideology has a name; it is Islam.

Of course, if all the Muslim countries in the world were eliminated, that might reduce terrorism a bit. But, do you know how many Muslim countries there are?

There are 70 Muslim countries in the world today, with more headed that way. The largest Muslim country in the world is not in the Middle East, it is Indonesia (think Bali if you think terrorism is an Arab or Middle East problem). Most Muslims are not Arabs. This is even true in the Middle east. Iranians, for example, are not Arab, they are Persian. From Afganistan east and sub-Sahara Africa south, the Muslims are not Arabs. The majority of Muslims in the US are not Arabs, they are Black, and more than half of the Arabs in the US are not Muslims, they Christians. The cause of terrorism is not nationality, or even a culture, it is an evil philosophy passed off as religion.

Here is an atomic bomb I posted on another forum:

"As for Muslim contributions to civilization there are none, unless you think murder, rape, no music, no art, no alcohol, no pork, mutilating girls, repressing women and suicidal terrorists are contributions. Muslims have never created anything of value. Eveything Muslims have of value was stolen, including so-called contributions to science and algebra, (which all came from India, [and Persia], mostly from Hindu scholars, before the Muslims slaughtered them), as well as the oil stolen from American companies which got it out of the ground for them, before the Muslims nationalized (read stole) them.

"Islam is the stupidest, most repressive, retrograde ideology on the planet. It is unkind to pretend it is anything else, and if people really cared about Arabs, and all others who have been deceived by this horrid life-destroying religion, they would be doing everything they could to see it wiped off the earth."

Not with nuclear bombs, but "truth" bombs. Until the civilized world admits what Islam actually is, anything else done to "end terrorism" is futile and wasted effort, (and many lives lost to no purpose whatsoever.) So long as the United States continues to send millions of dollars to Egypt, the PA (Arafat), Pakistan, and continues to blow kisses at Saudi Arabia, how ever many Americans die in Iraq, or however many Iraqies die, it is nothing but useless slaughter that anyone having anything to do with ought to be ashamed. (I do not include those members of the military who have been deceived by their government and its educational system, or even many Americans who do not really understand the nature of the beast we are fighting.)

Fight terrorism by nuking Iraq? Sure, so long as that is the first step in the program. There would only be sixty nine more Muslim countries to nuke. Then we could pick off those Muslims who have already infiltrated non-Mulsim countries, like most of Europe and the US, one by one.

Would it work? Sure, anything works; Communism worked for awhile; but it is undoubtedly a cure worse than the malady.

Regi

Post 8

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 4:21pm

Orion: �what do we really have to lose by using our nuclear and biological weapons against maniacs who respect only apocalyptic savagery?�

In the case of Iraq, we�d have a lot to lose, if the fallout from these weapons contaminated the ground for years to come and deprived us of our rightful use of Iraqi oil. The bombing solution would also destroy potentially valuable property and deny the victors the means to recoup some of the costs of the conflict. There would also be the dangers of counter-strike from fellow fanatics.

A more environmentally sound and economical solution would be to build dedicated slaughter facilities on the ground. We have the technology and expertise, and the contractors are already in place.

Once the area was cleansed, we could install a pro-western population, and within a few decades the new Iraq could be enjoying the fruits of western civilisation, free of the savagery of Islamic fanaticism.

Brendan

Post 9

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 5:06pm

I have one response to Orion Reasoner's idea.

It's pure evil.

This "war on terrorism" is getting way out of proportion. Ask yourself, what are the odds of you being taken out by a terrorist - as opposed to being killed in a car accident, or being beaten to death in a subway?

How many real terrorists are there? Maybe 2000 worldwide? What is the real extent of the danger?

Talk about a sledgehammer to kill a flea!

The logic of nuking entire nations to get rid of a couple of thousand people is something I never expected to hear uttered on a forum of Objectivists. I'm appalled.

Just imagine this scenario. If a mass murderer was on the loose in the USA - and he (or she) was deemed to be hiding in San Francisco - would it justify bombing the entire city to kill the murderer?

Perhaps that's too outrageous a comparison. So, try this one. If a known satanist, and practitioner of human sacrifice, was celebrating halloween by having dinner with friends in a downtown Los Angeles restaurant - would it be morally acceptable to take out the whole restaurant to neutralise him?

It's the same with Iraq. Those war mongers who dribbled on about "freeing the Iraqi people - and bringing democracy", apparently have no qualms about the tens of thousands of innocent lives lost in this war of "liberation".

Personally, the hypocrisy of it makes me sick. If there was any genuine concern with the freedom of Iraqis, then there would be no support for any type of collateral damage.

To attempt to blame a whole people, because of a few extremists, is simply a way of dehumanising them.

As for Islam being the fuel of hatred. So what? Is there no one here who has not had "previous" beliefs - which they no longer subscribe to? I was once a Christian (30 years ago), so should I have been neutralised back then - before I got around to preaching self-sacrifice?

People change!

As Regi says - terrorism is based on a particular ideology. You cannot fight ideas with bombs.

Any Islamic nation is in the grip of its beliefs, not because of wanton evilness on the part of its people - but because such people grew up with that belief, and have been culturally impregnated with it - much in the same way, we in the west are culturally impregnated with Christianity.

The idea that we should nuke a whole Islamic people - because a few hundred of them want to kill Americans - is a monstrous suggestion.

All I can say is, thank god no such Objectivist thinkers are running the present US administration.

Post 10

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 5:02pm

Some of the things I'm reading on here make me truly sick. The only arguments that are coming out against mass genocide are that it wouldn't be a very economical way to tap into those oil fields. But even that won't stop some. Now it's "dedicated slaughter facilities on the ground." What would that mean - gas chambers and ovens? Or killing fields? This kind of genocidal mania belongs with religious fundamentalism, not with a philosophy of individualism.

Post 11

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 5:25pm

Okay...

Guys, I understand your strong reaction to this, and all I wanted to hear were your reasons for or against it. I respected all of you from the beginning for precisely this reason. With no insincerity, I truly value the quality of your evaluations, each of you. So, all I ask is to consider that this truly was a good faith effort on my part to put this out there for you.

In my own defense, I would ask you to consider that I wanted my logic (or lack thereof, as some of you are pointing out), to be critically evaluated.

I can only say that I am only as evil as the logic I'm employing. If you correct my logic, my feelings and attitudes will change. At this point, I don't yet have the time to scrutinize all your responses and critiques, but I will tonight.

Again, thank you for responding, even in the strong negative. I wouldn't trust any other group to pose this question to.

O.

Post 12

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 8:22pm

> This kind of genocidal mania belongs with religious
> fundamentalism, not with a philosophy of individualism.

I agree, entirely.

Part of the problem is that people think one can win a war against terrorists without trading casualties in an unfavourable ratio.

AFAIK, history suggests that a conventional force fighting assymetrical warfare *can* prevail, but it's bloody. So, you have people suggesting the use of nukes etc. because they consider the losses suffered too high.

Post 13

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 8:33pm

Hi, I'm not sure if your last post signaled an end to the discussion, but I wanted to express my agreement with Post 0, and say this:

Is it better to die slowly - a certain death by a thousand deep cuts from an unjustified, certain enemy - than it is to take one righteous, furious stand, and risk possible mutual annihilation through one irresistible and inescapable, lethal strike?

Yes! Who would risk mutual annihilation, even if it means getting rid of all terrorists? Do you understand what this means? No more human beings! No more skyscrapers, no more Great Wall, no more McDonald's hamburgers. I can comtemplate this possibility and it frightens me. It seems that whatever weapons we come up with we do not fail to use. It has not become a problem until now, when we have the potential to obliterate all life on this planet. I don't need to remind anyone that its the only one we've got.

On a side note, did you know the inventor of dynamite thought it was a wonderful invention because it was so horrible, that no one could possible use it and wars would end? Naive, yes, with 20/20 hindsight. This is certainly not an anti-technology diatribe, but we should be cautious considering the power we have.

And since when does Objectivism advocate killing everyone you don't agree with? I have heard many Objectivists refer to Christianity as an evil religion, and I agree. Do we want to slaughter every Christian in this country? I think not.

I would like to say something compelling about the power of pursuasion, but it's been said, and I need to be somewhere. Glad you are receptive to feedback!

Meg Townsend

Post 14

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 11:22pm

Okay, now that I've had the time to read all the posts, I'll respond in particular to Firehammer's and Brendan's posts...

Firehammer explicitly says my unstated rationale, which I did not think need to be said... That the terrorist enemy are Islamic fundamentalists is not some isolated phenomena. It is true Islam itself that seeks our gruesome destruction. True Islam seeks the total destruction and conversion of all other religions. Those "Muslims" who do not advocate such behavior are not being true Muslims, for whatever reasons... either they are deliberately concealing the truth, or they are stuck in a religion which they cannot escape and must try and make the best of things. But at any rate, it's not true Islam.

So, when someone earlier in this topic string stated that, by my logic, if a murderer is loose in some city, then that whole city should be "nuked", that understandably shows a misunderstanding of my basic premise, which of course I did not explicitly state. Because in the "murderer in the city" scenario, the murderer would be a true anomaly (unless the entire city is built on a culture of murder-love), and eradicating the entire city would be utter lunacy.

But in the situation we now encounter, we are not actually dealing with anomolous terrorists (though many in the media would like us to believe that such is the case) in Iraq. In truth, over hundreds of years, the presence of Islam has totally entrenched the region in enculturated, rabid madness and sadomasochism (an entirely appropriate term).  Just about everyone there has long since been converted over to that way of life, and only Western influence threatens their stranglehold of madness. So, going back to the comparision with the "murderer in the city" scenario, the case could much more readily be made that, in fact, you are dealing with not just one country built on a culture of murder-love, but an entire world region.

Explicitly put, the entire barrel of apples may likely be rotten... and this is just one such country!  Think of what the world would be like, were Communism allowed to spread largely unchecked for 1,300 years!!! That seems to me what has happened with Islam.

And finally, Firehammer also states that what is required are truth bombs.  Let me be clear: I could NOT agree more!

What I don't think has been really applied here, is a widespread philosophical campaign whereby the philosophical notions of such intellectuals as Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Locke, Ayn Rand, and others, are printed on pamphlets and spread throughout the core Arab regions.   As Rand correctly identifies, it is philosophy and compelling logic that moves the world. Truly, Firehammer is correct in vehemently promoting this! We should be doing this!

BUT, as Rand also astutely notes, the rational state is a choice.  It is also possible to choose to abdicate reason in favor of terror and force. In many Islamic nations, I think we have people who are making both sorts of choices. This is why I suggest creating an opportunity to grant shelter and amnesty to those who revere rationality and freedom, and those who do not, can not be reasoned with, and prefer savagery. Therefore, deal with them in kind.

And if the nuclear option is too messy (which it likely is), surely there are others.

Comments?

Post 15

Tuesday, May 4, 2004 - 11:39pm

I'm going to pinch my nose and agree with the soft-bellied civilians (no offense). The best way to fight the war against terrorism is not by invading other states but by refuting Islamic fundamentalism itself. Before I go on, I should explain that my thoughts on "collateral damage" (as described in my two previous posts) should not be taken as a justification for jumping to go to war (Iraq or otherwise), much less a wanton massacre of civilians. It is my insight on how a military unit would and should conduct itself when it does find itself in battle with the enemy. I forget how the quote goes, but Ayn Rand wrote something alone the lines that once the initiation of force is introduced into a relationship, the rules change and the defender should be prepared to use whatever means are at his disposal necessary to counter the aggressor. Sometimes, these methods may lead to the deaths of innocents, but it would be altruistic to sacrifice your own life or a loved one for the sake of some stranger. As much as it pained me to see civilian casualties, it does not compare to me seeing my buddy's head blown off because of a rule some desk-bound office jockey wrote.

When American forces went into Iraq, it was under the justification that there was credible intel of a WMD program and that it was likely that these weapons would find themselves in the hands of terrorists. To me, that would have been a threat that the US had to act against at all costs. For whatever reason, the rationale has shifted from that to liberating the Iraqi people and restoring democracy. At the risk of court martial (no joke), I will say I am not sure that goal, however noble, is worth the casualties the American forces are taking. Perhaps it could have been better pulled off by our special operations forces training pro-Western insurgents within the country (if there were even any).

Now that the US has found itself as an occupation force, I think it has little choice now but to follow through. I have every confidence that if the US took the proper steps, it will prevail. They should focus more on counter-insurgency operations, which is the province of special operations forces (SOF, or the "snake-eaters"), not conventional forces. Unfortunately, I do not think they're doing enough of that. And I also don't buy this half-hearted "winning hearts and minds" crap that the armchair officers dream up. When I was in Afghanistan, I remember going into villages treating the sick and injured only to have these same people turn around at night to ambush our patrols.

Post 16

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 1:12am

Byron,

Then explain again to me how you're actually disagreeing with me?

Post 17

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 5:33am

How many real terrorists are there? Maybe 2000 worldwide? What is the real extent of the danger?

It seems to me there can be no doubt that bin Laden will use nuclear weapons against American cities if he has the chance. If he detonates nuclear weapons -- even crude, low-yield ones - in, say, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and the middle of the Panama canal, how many people will die? 5 million? 10 million?

What will happen to the American and world economies with these cities in ruins and all shipping through the canal stopped? How many jobs will be destroyed?

How much would such an attack embolden and encourage the militant wing of Islam?

Do you really think that world-wide distribution of philosophical brochures is an appropriate response to such a threat?

There is considerable evidence that the regime in Iraq was -- and the regimes in Iran and North Korea still are -- actively seeking nuclear weapons -- for use against both the Great Satan as well as the little one. I'm no weapons expert, but I think the probability of private individuals developing nuclear weapons is small. But the probability of these regimes doing it cannot be ignored. And since they publicly call for the destruction of America, it is folly to ignore such a threat.

These regimes need to be destroyed. Not necessarily the entire country, not the entire population, but certainly the regime, its leaders, and all of the infrastructure that could be used to support a nuclear weapons program. How to identify what should and should not be destroyed is clearly going to be difficult. How best to go about doing this is obviously debatable. Nuclear attack? Invasion and occupation? Conventional bombing? Special forces operations? These are issues for military experts.

But the overall goal of eliminating -- or at least minimizing -- the terrorist's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction is beyond question. And that means neutralizing the regimes that are actively working toward precisely such a threat.

I say again, this is a fight to the death. We need to do everything possible to make sure it is their death, not America's.

Post 18

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 8:53am

Orion,

Honestly, I was not replying to your article in as much as I was replying to the replies to your article and the replies to my reply (does that make sense?). I was also typing my masterpiece of a response about the same time your masterpiece came out, so I did not get to read it. Since you asked, I do not think that any of the participants of this thread (except perhaps "Malarki") have any fundamental disagreement on what our goals should be: defending civilization against the threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Where we do differ is on how to defend against that threat. In military terms, we agree on the strategic objectives but differ on tactical objectives. On the one hand, I do not think that is an answer for philosophy alone, much less philosophical discourse. As Michael pointed out, distributing brochures by itself is probably not the way to go. If it does not work too well in the West, I do not see it working too well within the Muslim community. On the other hand, a "nuke them all" strategy is too much, as others who have posted here have pointed out, even if it is true that an entire culture was dedicated to irrationality. By the way, that was the impression I got from reading your article prior to reading post 14.

Here is where I get to be a "war-monger" (ouch!) and agree with you and Michael. Americans cannot sit on their asses and twiddle their thumbs. We're in a war, in every sense of the term. Wars are traditionally fought by armies against armies but this war is different from any other war we have fought. I remember after September 11 President Bush delegated the US Special Operations Command (US SOCOM) responsibility for leading the Armed Forces in this global war against terrorism. I agreed with the principle of this unprecedented decision because this is a campaign the snake-eaters have experience in. They have fought "shadow wars" since World War II. They fought a shadow war without a hitch when they toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, a regime that gave aid and comfort to the terrorists. When news of intel regarding an Iraqi WMD program came out, SOCOM should have been responsible for destroying that potential threat. I don't know how that changed to a point where we invaded a country with conventional forces to liberate the Iraqis and restore democracy. Unless someone here is an undercover agent for the CIA, we'll never know what intelligence failures (or if they even were failures) mislead us into believing there was a WMD program.

Like I said, I am not one of the doomsayers who believes that an American occupation is doomed to failure. America has some experience occupying countries, such as Germany, Japan, and my former home, the Philippines (which was an American colony for awhile). Like I also said, it is time for the conventional forces to take a back seat and let SOCOM show us how to fight a counter-guerilla war.

Post 19

Wednesday, May 5, 2004 - 9:40am