The Iraq War retrospective Thread

[kandrathe]

If the sarcasm is reinforcing the dogma, then it is also dogma.

I might be reinforcing a liberal stereotype, but hardly anyones dogma.

In a previous post (IIRC) you were talking about how the jihadists don't care who it is or what they say. True enough. So you can't change them. What can be changed are the moderates in the countries where jihadists are generated.

I don't know that appealing to moderates helps. If these moderates appear to be even tolerant of West, the jihadists label them as apostate and target them as local examples. I don't agree that you "can't change them". My thinking is that we need to be more "Akido" in our approach to terrorism, in that their own energy should generate their pain.

Bush started off well, getting Pakistan on his side.

I'm not sure they are on our side, although they don't appear to be against us. I'm still uncertain exactly what leverage we have on Pervez Musharraf.

However, all the bungling in Iraq (some of which was not the administration's fault, but certainly the lion's share is theirs) has been horrific for public opinion in those places, and their governments are harder pressed to crack down on militants.

There was some bungling, some mediocrity, and a ton of bad press. It would help the cause if our own press wasn't so negative. I'm not advocating positive inaccuracy, just not the incessant "if it bleeds it leads" approach to pulp reality.

Why'd they let the Cole bomber go? It seems that a score of American lives was only worth a couple years in jail, no more.

You mean Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri? He is in Gitmo possibly facing the death penalty.

Perhaps more emphasis on empathy will prevent more trouble than emphasis on the retribution. The president should keep up the "big stick", but in public we should see more "speak softly".

Before we advocate a change of policy to "speak softly", we should determine if it helps or hurts the problem. To complicate the issue, for any government in such a position, there are at least three groups you need to consider, 1) your supporters, 2) your adversaries, and 3) your enemies.

Yeah, the last 7.5 years we've had a "qualified" guy and see what that got us.

There is a difference between qualified and competent.

I think by your standards the last two "unqualified" presidents were Kennedy and Truman, and you'd find Lincoln on the list too.

Well, Truman was a Senator for 10 years and VP for almost 4, and Kennedy was in Congress for 7 years as representative, and 7 years as Senator. It is questionable as to whether serving in a state legislature, or as a state Governor helps one to be President. Personally, I'd like to see that they have some success and record as a leader.