George W. Bush is fond of describing himself as a "war president." And he has made many decisions involving soldiers and battle. But does this make the description an appropriate one? For many people the answer is obvious. We're engaged in conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, after all. But Bill Clinton initiated hostilities in the Balkans twice, George H.W. Bush invaded Panama and Iraq, and neither president ever described himself as a "war president."
For a superpower, being involved in a military conflict somewhere is more the norm than the exception. Since 1945, only one president has not presided over combat that engaged American troops—Jimmy Carter. (Between the Bay of Pigs operation and the American "advisers" in South Vietnam, John F. Kennedy doesn't make the cut.) America remains the world's dominant military-political power, so local crises often engage American allies or interests. Britain was in a somewhat similar position in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. As a result, British forces were fighting someone, somewhere for most of that period. But Britain did not think of itself as "at war," nor would British prime ministers have described themselves as "wartime" leaders. (In fact, Tony Blair has never described himself as such, even though he presided over British military involvement in the Balkans, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq.)
America (and before it, Britain) has felt it was "at war" when the conflict threatened the country's basic security—not merely its interests or its allies abroad. This is the common-sense way in which we define a wartime leader, and by that definition the politicians in charge during World Wars I and II—Wilson, Lloyd George, Roosevelt, Churchill—are often described as such. It's not a perfect definition. The United States has been so far removed from most conflicts that even World War I's effects could be described as indirect (incorrectly in my view). But it conjures up the image of a threat to society as a whole, which then requires a national response.
By any of these criteria, we are not at war. At some level, we all know it. Life in America today is surprisingly normal for a country with troops in two battle zones. The country may be engaged in wars, but it is not at war. Consider as evidence the behavior of our "war president." Bush recently explained that for the last few years he has given up golf, because "to play the sport in a time of war" would send the wrong signal. Compare Bush's "sacrifice" to those made by Americans during World War II, when most able-bodied men were drafted, food was rationed and industries were commandeered to produce military equipment. For example, there were no civilian cars manufactured in the United States from 1941 to 1945.
Of course, there are people, including Bush, who would argue that we are at war even in this deeper sense. In its June 23 issue, Fortune magazine asked Sen. John McCain what the gravest long-term threat to the U.S. economy was. He took a while to answer—an 11-second pause, by Fortune's count—but then said, "Well, I would think that the absolute gravest threat is the struggle that we're in against radical Islamic extremism, which can affect, if they prevail, our very existence."
It is by now overwhelmingly clear that Al Qaeda and its philosophy are not the worldwide leviathan that they were once portrayed to be. Both have been losing support over the last seven years. The terrorist organization's ability to plan large-scale operations has crumbled, their funding streams are smaller and more closely tracked. Of course, small groups of people can still cause great havoc, but is this movement an "existential threat" to the United States or the Western world? No, because it is fundamentally weak. Al Qaeda and its ilk comprise a few thousand jihadists, with no country as a base, almost no territory and limited funds. Most crucially, they lack an ideology that has mass appeal. They are fighting not just America but the vast majority of the Muslim world. In fact, they are fighting modernity itself.
The evidence supporting this view of the threat was already growing by 2003. Scholars like Benjamin Friedman, Marc Sageman and John Mueller collected much of it. I've been making a similar case in columns and a book since 2004. James Fallows wrote a fine cover essay in The Atlantic in September 2006 arguing that if there was ever a war against militant Islam, it was now over and the latter had lost.
These writings never really changed the debate because they fell into a political vacuum. The right wanted to argue that we lived in scary times and that this justified the aggressive unilateralism of George W. Bush. And the left was wedded to the idea that Bush had screwed everything up and created a frighteningly dangerous world in which the ranks of jihadists had grown. But these days, the director of the CIA himself has testified that Al Qaeda is on the ropes. The journalist Peter Bergen, who in 2007 wrote a cover essay in The New Republic titled "The Return of Al Qaeda," recently wrote another cover essay, "The Unraveling," about the group's decline. The neoconservative Weekly Standard finally recognizes that "the enemy," as it likes to say ominously, is much weaker now, but quickly notes that Bush deserves all the credit. Terrorism is down in virtually every country, including ones that took a much less militaristic approach to the struggle. (Ironically, the two countries where terrorism persists and in some cases has grown as a threat are Iraq and Afghanistan.)
The administration does deserve some credit for its counterterrorism activities. The combined efforts of most governments since 9/11—busting cells in Europe and Asia, tracking money, hunting down jihadist groups—have been extremely effective. But how you see the world determines how you will respond, and the administration has greatly inflated the threat, casting it as an existential and imminent danger. As a result, we've massively overreacted. Bush and his circle have conceived of the problem as military and urgent when it's more of a long-term political and cultural problem. The massive expansion of the military budget, the unilateral rush to war in Iraq, the creation of the cumbersome Department of Homeland Security, the new restrictions on visas and travel can all be chalked up to this sense that we are at war. No cost-benefit analysis has been done. John Mueller points out that in response to a total of five deaths from anthrax, the U.S. government has spent $5 billion on new security procedures.
Of course, this is actually what Osama bin Laden hoped for. Despite his current weakness, he has always been an extremely shrewd strategist. In explaining the goal of the 9/11 attacks, he pointed out that they inflicted about $500 billion worth of damage to the American economy and yet cost only $500,000. He was describing an LTA, a leveraged terrorist attack. But by the same token, the 9/11 attacks caused an economic swoon because of their scope, and because they were the first of their kind. Since then, each successive terrorist attack—in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, Britain—has had a much smaller effect on the world economy.
We are in a struggle against Islamic extremism, but it is more like the cold war than a hot war—a long, mostly peacetime challenge in which a leader must be willing to use military power but also know when not to do so. Perhaps the wisest American president during the cold war was Dwight Eisenhower, and his greatest virtues were those of balance, judgment and restraint. He knew we were in a contest with the Soviet Union, but—at a time when the rest of the country was vastly inflating the threat—he put it in considerable perspective. Eisenhower refused to follow the French into Vietnam or support the British at Suez. He turned down several requests for new weapons systems and missiles, and instead used defense dollars to build the interstate highway system and make other investments in improving America's economic competitiveness. Those are the kinds of challenges that the next president truly needs to address.
In a sense, the warriors are pessimists. In the old days they were scared that communists would destroy America. Today they rail that Al Qaeda and Iran threaten our way of life. In fact, America is an extremely powerful country, with a unique and extraordinary set of strengths. The only way that position can truly be eroded is by its own actions and overreactions—by unwise and imprudent leadership. A good way to start correcting the errors of the past would be to recognize that we are not at war.
Answer: False
Editor's Note: Fareed Zakaria is the editor of Newsweek International, and co-moderator of PostGlobal. His "World View" column and recent pieces for Newsweek can be found here.
Comments (157)
Bush has set off a chain of events that no one could have predicted.
we are in a weak position and our enemies know that. Bush is a fool
Posted July 10, 2008 9:32 AM
Posted on July 10, 2008 09:32
Somali, I hear you. I believe if a world leader did to Christians what George Bush is doing to Muslims we would call him the Anti-Christ. When I have time I need to consider end times prophecy from the Muslim perspective.
Posted July 9, 2008 11:32 AM
Posted on July 9, 2008 11:32
Wow. Washington Post needs to disable comments immediately. Some of what is said is thought-provoking, but a lot of it is dribble or racist.
Posted July 9, 2008 10:39 AM
Posted on July 9, 2008 10:39
"each successive terrorist attack—in Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Turkey, Spain, Britain...."
Amazing how choosy one can get. The repeated terrorist attacks on India never find a place in the list. What ails the world's leading journalists editors and readers that such omission is routine in any discussion?
Posted July 9, 2008 12:24 AM
Posted on July 9, 2008 00:24
Please take a moment to look at the DOD daily contract awards. The sums are consistently impressive.
http://www.defenselink.mil/contracts/
Posted July 8, 2008 4:52 PM
Posted on July 8, 2008 16:52
Of course America's not 'at war'-if we were, people with names like 'Fareed' would have been deported or in internment camps.
Posted July 8, 2008 1:34 PM
Posted on July 8, 2008 13:34
America possesses a nuclear arsenal under the oceans that could decimate even the most stout enemy, Russia or even China. The very idea that Iran, which so far has not even a tiny fission weapon, could threaten American existentially within the next fifteen or twenty years is preposterous.
Posted July 8, 2008 2:16 AM
Posted on July 8, 2008 02:16
Dear Mr. or Ms. Bosco:
Just a couple of things:
Do you really believe that Dickless "Go F___ Yourself" Cheney and the rest of the Bush League of so-called neoconservatives would not love to have the kind of power that Saddam Hussein wielded?
Many of these same folks thought Hussein was such a cool guy, when Iran was last in the POTUS sights, that our gov't thought it very wise to give this dictator's military a few million pounds of high-explosive weaponry, which those same "wise" people were too stupid to police up on the road to "regime change."
And ask the GIs and Iraqis now being blown up daily by that same recycled weaponry about how "we" won the war in a couple of days -- what, seven years ago?
And how many horrific dictators, compared to whom Saddam Hussein was a veritable saint, are busily grinding the people and economies of the nations they rule into the ground? And "we" think that's just hunky-dory, as long as they hold pretend elections every so often, and don't have any oil beneath their territory?
"We," that is, the "troops" we so earnestly support with our Made In China Flag Pins and Little Yellow Ribbon Tailgate Stickers, have an earnest component that's trying to establish order in a strange land. While staying alive, where pretty much every hand is first extended for a payoff, and then reappears holding an AK or B-40 or the trigger of a bomb belt.
Wars and warriors do not build nations. They don't secure peace. Their function is to "find, fix and kill the enemy," whoever their leaders determine the enemy to be, and give young men (and now young women) an outlet for testosterone-driven aggression.
Blogspaces like this mislead all of us. All of what makes up the present state of the world is way too complicated, and mostly invisible, for reduction and analysis via the clever little sound bites and snappy ripostes that appear here.
The people who profit off the chaos we call war know that slogans and propaganda cloud the air as they drive away with one of those literal pallet-loads of $100 dollar greenbacks that have disappeared into Iraq and Afghanistan.
But we only know how to see things through our own perverse little lenses, so all the complex chicanery of political leaders and generals and contractors and war materiel suppliers just simply is invisible, or happens to be a part of one's IRA portfolio. So who cares?
I think the only thing you have right about this situation is the part about killing and letting one God or another sort it all out. But all of us humans now have guns, bombs and knives, whatever our sect or creed. So maybe we are on the right path to letting the Divine Omnipotence sort the sheep from the goats and reward the faithful with virgins or mansions and streets of gold, and cast whoever turns out to be the unbelievers into the Fiery Lake.
Posted July 7, 2008 9:02 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 21:02
Zakaria gets one thing right--we are not at war. We won the war rather handily and rather quickly, deposing a tyrant who terrorized his own people. (Let's not forget what Saddam would have done to most of you on this post had you voiced the criticisms of him that you do of our president.)
No, we're not at war. We're just trying to keep one band of extremists from liquidating the other--and vice versa.
Maybe it is time to withdraw. Let them all kill each other and let Allah sort it out.
Posted July 7, 2008 6:03 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 18:03
Zakaria wrote at the very end of his article...."A good way to start correcting the errors of the past would be to recognize that we are not at war."
I like to add to that...use of correct syntax of words would also be appropriate. For example
"War on Terror" basically means war against terror which is vague and does not energize anything in form of completion.
So far based on my reading and experience, "War On" anything has always lost.
War on Drugs - On going
War on Poverty - On going
War on Terror - On going
Good article for context but little too much sugar coating
Posted July 7, 2008 5:52 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 17:52
Bush lied in order to get the war started that he wanted*. It was not a mistake. It was what he wanted.
*) in Iraq
Posted July 7, 2008 4:41 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 16:41
ritch:
We.ve been in this war since 1804...Jefferson's administration against the Barbary Pirates. At least Jefferson had it right. Read "America and the Barbary Pirates:An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe".
I suggest you are not talking about a war but a clash of ideologies. At any rate, they haven't succeeded in destroying our country in 204 years. That should tell you something about how a strong nation and can stand against a determined foe.
We are less strong now, economically, morally, militarily, and politically. We don't need military action to survive, we need only be a strong country again.
You should pay attention to the real lesson of the events you cite. Our nation is far too powerful to be destroyed by this conflicting ideology but we are not to powerful to be destroyed by our own overreaction.
Posted July 7, 2008 3:19 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 15:19
We are in a war of sorts. Bush is bin Laden's most effective soldier. Or is it the other way around? George's actions have damaged our military capability, currency, constitution and clear conscience before the world. This 'war' has served as a conduit for the net present value of our children's futute to flow into the pockets of Bush's tribe. In a sense, he declared war on ourselves. It is a conflict we were doomed to lose.
Posted July 7, 2008 3:11 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 15:11
KSM,
People are killed overseas all the time, the fact that there is some nominal connection between some of the groups claiming responsibility for attacks does not render the current conflict a "hot war". Just out of curiosity, what is the definitional distinction you draw between a "hot" war, "cold war", "conflict", "occupation", or "counter-insurgency"? To lump what in reality is a much different situation in Afghanistan with that in Iraq denies the fundamentally different situations in which the United States Military currently finds itself (unless of course you figure that ethnic tensions between Hazars and Pashtuns are the same as those between Shiites and Sunnis, and that cross border action by Iranian sponsored individuals is the same as a resurgent Taliban's cross border raids from Waziristan).
On a separate note, how does Al Qaeda's "declaration of war" affect the actual status of the conflicts the United States is currently engaged in, especially considering that their existence in Iraq was negligible prior to the U.S. invasion and that AQI is not under the direct control of Bin Laden.
What intelligence reports are you privy too? Since you seem to be under the impression that "only the Bush Administration's effectiveness" is keeping us safe, can you provide me with a scintilla of evidence or other data relating to a terrorist attack that has actually been prevented as a direct result of some exceptional Bush policy? I would also point out that the resurgence of the Taliban and the deterioration of the situtation in Afghanistan is a direct result of prioritizing Iraq in the "War on Terror". For someone who claims to recognize the threat posed by an Al Qaeda controlled Waziristan, from which to operate and plan further attacks, you seem woefully ignorant of the Administrations failure to address this growing threat and instead focus on regime change.
To Fareed, excellent article... its rare to see a well written policy driven polemic in the media.
Posted July 7, 2008 3:07 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 15:07
"Since 1945, only one president has not presided over combat that engaged American troops—Jimmy Carter."
And only because EAGLE CLAW was such a spectacular failure that the troops didn't make it there...
Posted July 7, 2008 2:44 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 14:44
Fareed,
Your article is riddled with inaccuracies and misjudgments. First, Al-Qaeda declared war on us a while ago and has not withdrawn it. Intelligence reports continue to indicate that this is a threat and only the Bush Administration's effectiveness in repelling the threat and taking it seriously is keeping us safe. You give Bush minimal credit for this for having prevented no attacks on our soil since 9/11.
Second, Al-Qaeda does have a safe haven in Pakistan. For you to either not know or to ignore this is shocking.
Third, Al-Qaeda has killed many people overseas and so it is a hot war.
The problem is that the hot war fits the Bush Administration narrative and not your narrative.
Posted July 7, 2008 2:25 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 14:25
*** American public has always been gullible. More so when it comes to indulging in bouts of self-pity and self-importance.
Take 9/11. The attack on that Tuesday was the equivalent of a pinprick for a country which is world’s most powerful and richest nation. Yet the gullible Americans were quickly led to believe that 9/11 was the biggest event in the history of the universe since the BIG BANG. They began to talk in terms of a BEFORE and an AFTER 9/11 which overshadowed the B.C. and A.D. of Christian calendar.
Anybody with the most rudimentary sense of objectivity would know that the American military expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan are mere substitutes for big military exercises in realistic environments.
The exercise can and will continue as long as the military command is willing to extend it. The command HQ can at any time decide to discontinue the effort and wind down, fold in the forces back to their bases.
AMERICA IS NOT AT WAR!
That Fareed Zakaria should have to spend several hours composing this piece to point out something which is so self-evident to the American public is astounding.
Posted July 7, 2008 2:20 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 14:20
*** American public has always been gullible. More so when it comes to indulging in bouts of self-pity and self-importance.
Take 9/11. The attack on that Tuesday was the equivalent of a pinprick for a country which is world’s most powerful and richest nation. Yet the gullible Americans quickly were led to believe that 9/11 was the biggest event in the history of the universe since the Big bang. They began to talk in terms of a BEFORE and an AFTER 9/11 which overshadowed the B.C. and A.D. of Christian calendar.
Anybody with the most rudimentary sense of objectivity would know that the American military expeditions in Iraq and Afghanistan are mere ubstitutes for big military exercises in realistic environments.
The exercise can and will continue as long as the military command is willing to extend it. The command HQ can at any time decide to discontinue the effort and wind down, fold in the forces back to their bases.
AMERICA IS NOT AT WAR!
That Fareed Zakaria should have to spend several hours composing this piece to point out something which is so self-evident to the American public is astounding.
Posted July 7, 2008 2:13 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 14:13
The Terrorist They Call "president" Is The Enemy Of Humanity!!
What always gets neglected in "such a good article" is the NUMBER of Muslim civilians, especially women and children that the Terrorist and War Criminal Americans call "president" has killed in countries he has ILLEGALLY invaded. It is JUST astonishing that the white man's media DO NOT WISH TO MENTION THE HIGH NUMBER OF INOCENET PEOPLE, MAINLY WOMEN AND CHUILDREN, mass murdered by the Terrorist. In Somalia, which Mr Zakaria NEVER mentions, 10,000 CIVILIANS, mostly women and children have been massacred for the "interests" of The terrorist and his population and their country. What are these "interests" that require the mass murder of women and children?
In Iraq, the number is 1,000,000 or MORE. Mostly women and children, again. The Terrorist took his cowardly troops into Iraqi and Somali CITIES and thus the mass murder of women and children.
In Afghanistan, I don't know the number, but it must ben running into the TENS OF THOUSANDS. All in all, the Terrorist and his so-called "war" on Muslims have killed more than a million CIVILIANS in many different countries. This RIVALS the records of such ugly, monstrous creatures such as Hitler, Musolini and Stalin and Pol Pot.
And thus it shocks me and it frightens me that so-called writers and so-called journalists such as this gentleman write at length about the Terrorist and his crimes in the Muslim world without EVER, EVER mentioning or CONDEMNING the huge numbers of the poor, innocent women and children killed by the Terrorist Americans call "president". Why is this Mr Zakaria? Do you think we are NOT human to you Americans? Or may be you think the millionas your terrorist keeps attacking and killing have NO FRIENds, families, neighbourhoods? Or may be you think, Mr Zakaria, we don't FEEL LOSE, Pain? Why do the deaths of sooooooo MANY innocent people for what the terrorist keeps, shockingly, describes as "AMerica's interests", why don't these deaths matter to you people? You hate Muslims sooo much you don't care how many of their children and women you kill and massacre?
It is perhaps WHy you call those you mass murder in the Muslim world "colateral damage." We are just nothing but this monstrous, meaningless word to them!!!!
There's NO justice in the white man's world. If there was, the Terrorist they call "president" would have been hang from a ROPE a few years ago!!
Posted July 7, 2008 2:10 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 14:10
Some folks here have portrayed Al Qaeda as much less of a threat than it appeared to be on 9/11. That's not precisely true. AQ accomplished something no other attacker has ever achieved - a mass casualty attack on the US mainland. But since the nothing? Why not? Is it possible that AQ was never as strong as they appeared?
The answer is yes and no. You see, before 9/11 they were a powerful organization with a global reach dominating their chosen field of combat. This is true or they would not have achieved such dramatic successes during the Clinton Administration leading up to 9/11.
However, this success - although real - created only the illusion of power. The US has real power. Millions of citizens. Legitimate status as a nation. Professional armed services. Effectively unlimited industrial and financial power. The minute we decided to act, the minute we decided to fight, AQ lost. We just shifted a teensy bit of our power into the anti-terrorism arena and became the 800-lb gorilla in a room full of lightwieghts.
Since then the illusion has evaporated. Some of you even question whether or not AQ was ever really winning. The answer is yeah, they were - while we weren't paying attention. Then they got our attention.
Terrorist and bandits and guerrillas are always successful until their success finally attracts the attention of competent legitimate authorities. Then they are destroyed. This is only iteration seven billion of the same old story. Success leads to notice leads to destruction.
Posted July 7, 2008 2:04 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 14:04
It was a good article and I agree with its conclusions -- but an aside to bassetwranger: Fareed supported our invasion of Iraq but not on WMD grounds (he never accepted the propositon that Iraq was such an emminent danger to jusify our preemtive attack). As I recall, he thought Sadam represented a one-of-a-kind rationale for overthrow. Am I wrong?
Posted July 7, 2008 2:03 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 14:03
Fareed,
You are articulate and wise. We need you!!! Please consider a position in the upcoming Obama Administration.
Posted July 7, 2008 1:57 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:57
Dr H: "Bush's over reaction has done nothing more than elevate Al Qaida's status"
Imagine: The Bush administration financially supporting Al Qaida and pseudo-Muslim threats in order to justify US resources being given to Republican henchmen. See Bin Laden as being Bush's socio-economic superior as the reason he has not been captured.
Tell me nothing like this has ever happened before.
Posted July 7, 2008 1:48 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:48
America hasn't been at war since WWII. Korea was a "police action." Vietnam was an insurgency mostly with no real armed combat with the Vietnam regulars. And U.S. dead stacked like cord wood to make first LBJ, then Nixon, feel like they were real players in the grand, global power stage. It wasn't for nothing that they both chose to stay out of WWII as real combatants.
Gulf I was a cakewalk. Gulf II was the afterbirth of Gulf I coming back to life and strangling the U.S. with the umbilical cord. The cord blood still spreads throughout the region.
The other mindless little interventions were just that [Grenada, Panama, Somalia, Lebanon, Haiti, Kosovo,..]. Pointless exercises of Olympian oily ego tossed together with the sour vinegar of human suffering and abject misery.
Winner? No one.
War? What war? Mere posturing, over-reach, and folly.
Thanks much. Vietnam Draftee/Veteran
Posted July 7, 2008 1:41 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:41
It was a good article and I agree with its conclusions -- but an aside to bassetwranger: Fareed supported our invasion of Iraq but not on WMD grounds (he never accepted the propositon that Iraq was such an emminent danger to jusify our preemtive attack). As I recall, he thought Sadam represented a one-of-a-kind rationale for overthrow. Am I wrong?
Posted July 7, 2008 1:31 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:31
I found this especially interesting as for the past few months it has occurred to me that history's assessment of 9/11, the Islamic jihadists and the reaction of the West to this threat, will be that we misjudged the power and extend of Al-Qaeda and that our response (and rhetoric) went far beyond what was required. I've hesitated to even bring this subject up as this is absolute heresy, if not treason, to many, as is evident in looking through other postings. But looking back, societies have often seen grave, even existential threats in small extremist groups, which are always vocal (or media savvy)and whose stock-in-trade are violent acts calculated to produce the most horror and disgust amongst the population in general. The anarchists and nihilists of the 19th century immediately come to mind. Technology has for some time provided us with the means and opportunity for a small group to create highly destructive devices, along with a complex infrastructure that can be easily damaged and disrupted. That is what we should be aware of and, unfortunately, get accustomed to. We will always have the handful of 9/11 terrorists or the Timothy McVeighs to deal with. But as movements, these extremeists rarely, if ever succeed, and societies are able to deal with them by addressing the real, tangible, issues that gave life to these movements (the Haymarket Square rally, which resulted in the infamous bombing, was called to push for an eight hour work day). Once these real probelms are addressed, or once it becomes clear there will be changes forthcoming, these movements lose their impetus. That should be our strategy when we are, as a society, faced with this type of threat. Rhetoric which defines these groups as representing everything inimical to our values and "way of life" and therefore any attempt to address any real grievance or issue they have broached is "surrendering to the enemy", this rhetoric is counter-productive. And instead of stamping out these groups, it sustains them and allows them to continue to recruit.
Posted July 7, 2008 1:30 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:30
The most significant war US citizens have to face is the war on the ignorant, arrogant powerful who have a strangle hold on this country. I would like to say that this is just Republicans, but that would be passing over the many Democrats who are Republican look-alikes. The term "war on" is obvious rhetoric supposed to describe fear, enemies, and inevitable violent conflict, implying the speaker has the ability to protect from this threat if you will only give them the power. Our current government takes this power and uses it only on its own behalf. They understand their tenure is fragile, so they intend to get as much as they can before they are removed from office. After moving vast amounts of US resources into the Middle-East, these people will move their center of operations there when they are no longer in favor here.
Posted July 7, 2008 1:29 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:29
It was a good article and I agree with its conclusions -- but an aside to bassetwranger: Fareed supported our invasion of Iraq but not on WMD grounds (he never accepted the propositon that Iraq was such an emminent danger to jusify our preemtive attack). As I recall, he thought Sadam represented a one-of-a-kind rationale for overthrow. Am I wrong?
Posted July 7, 2008 1:29 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:29
"What worries me is that if the election is close, the Republicans will steal it again. All they have to do is get it close enough so they can take it."
I hear the "Diebold Spread" is 6 points.
Obama is currently leading McLame by 6 points.
Can the Repukes steal another election? They sure can!!
Posted July 7, 2008 1:26 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:26
Congress NEVER declared war and their authorization of force in Iraq is NOT a Constitutional declaration of war.
So, legally Chimpy is NOT a "War Preznit" and never was one.
Repukes live in a Bizzaro World where war is peace and slavery is freedom. Sounds familiar.
Posted July 7, 2008 1:25 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:25
Oh, good grief, "charlie browns," (et al.), answer: True!
your myopic views of a "war" panorama is breath-takingly frightening in its myopia. America and its "last, best hope" has been "at war" since 1789-ish (starting with the barbary pirates) and will continue to defend humanity.
however, you can create the defeat from within with your ignorant grip on reality (darwinism? ... malthus-ism?).
learn from history; learn some history.
in the shorter run, quoting dabrack,
"We are faced with an enemy that kills every American he can get close to and has said publicly on video and audio that he is at war with us. What more do you need to consider this a war?"
Posted July 7, 2008 1:21 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:21
THE BIGGEST LONG TERM THREAT TO THIS COUNTRY IS ANOTHER REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION--PERIOD!!
Posted July 7, 2008 1:19 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:19
Hopefully, after January 2009, we can put Bush and the years of misery he inflicted behind us.
What worries me is that if the election is close, the Republicans will steal it again. All they have to do is get it close enough so they can take it.
Posted July 7, 2008 1:07 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 13:07
Bush may be a war president -- a FAILED war president.
It is long past time to declare war against Bush and the Republican rabble that have cost America and the American people so much. I cannot believe that this little idiot is still in office --
Posted July 7, 2008 12:55 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:55
I've followed Fareed Zakaria's reporting for years and he has been consistent in his criticism of the manufactured "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan. As with every reality-based observer, he has been shouted down by the ignorant who regurgitate every new Bush administration slogan.
As John Kerry pointed out in his campaign and as the governments of Great Britain and Spain responded to similar terrorist acts, the 9/11 events should have been treated primarily as criminal acts. Bush and his conspirators took a big problem and made it a huge one (mostly for America).
If the Bush administration is as inept at covering the tracks of their many crimes as they have we just about everything else we will hopefully find them prosecuted as war criminals. And that would be appropriate justice for our Wartime President.
Posted July 7, 2008 12:52 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:52
Fareed, it would be appropriate to put Mumbai commuter train attacks of July 11, 2006 as terrorist attacks alongside all the other ones you cited in your column.
Posted July 7, 2008 12:50 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:50
Posted on July 7, 2008 08:12
Cheez:
"Terrorism is a 'weapon'". Terrorism is more of an ideology and you can't fight an ideology.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, ideology can be defeated with a superior ideology. 99+% of the people of this planet want peace and happiness. We are more than happy to adopt any religion, ideology or principles that delivers.
Bush's policies are not delivering but AQ policies are delivering MUCH less so intellectual bottom feeders can claim some success but at the expense of a much better policy and greater humanitarian results.
Posted July 7, 2008 12:47 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:47
Nailed it.
Al Qaida was never a global threat. An international threat? Yes. But a global threat? Never. And Bush's over reaction has done nothing more than elevate Al Qaida's status, increase their donation coffers, and fill their ranks with scores of new recruits since the invasion of Iraq.
Iran is an excellent example of Bush's incompetent characterization of Al Qaida. During the early operations in Afghanistan in 2001, Iran was helping us tremendously with intelligence against the Taliban and Al Qaida. That Shia-dominated government hated the Sunni Taliban and Al Qaida more than we did. Then Bush declared the Khatami government part of an "Axis of Evil" and expanded the response to 9/11 to include terrorists everywhere in the world...a "Global War on Terror." The Iranian clerics kicked all the moderates who supported Khatami's reforms out of their 2002 elections and now the Shia fundamentalists are stronger than ever. Bush's cowboy cockiness pulled the rug out from under Iran's reform movement and set that country back decades, where they are seeking more violent militant ways of exerting power in the region.
Consider Bush an incompetent fire fighter. He's been setting backfires upwind for the past 7 years.
After 7 years of Bush's bumbling, the military struggles in Afghanistan and Iraq are tremendously expensive and might be considered wars, but they're not. We don't even have 25% of the forces we used in DESERT STORM engaged in OIF and OEF. Of course those operations were competently completed within the guidelines of the Weinberger Doctrine with clear objectives, overwhelming national and international (Powell Doctrine) participation, and an exit strategy. So they could afford to devote over a million troops from an internatioal coalition force to the cause.
I will have to say one thing about OIF though. The food is better than during DESERT STORM.
Posted July 7, 2008 12:46 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:46
Unfortunately, Fareed fails to remember that the continental US was not directly attacked during WWI (other than a couple shots by a Uboat against a CapeCod beach), WWII (a Jap few balloons with bombs)and the Cold War. This weak group you refer to (AQ) caused billions of damage on the soil of the US. Al Queda accomplished in a couple hours what Hitler, Stalin, and Hirohito would have loved to achieve. You are totally confused by the size of the group and their ability/desire to inflict destruction.
Posted July 7, 2008 12:39 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:39
The "War of Poverty" - Not a war.
The "War on Drugs" - Not a war.
The "War on Terror" - Not a war.
The War on Iraq has destroyed the lives of 3 generations of Iraqis by creating 5 years of terror, destruction of institutions, families, and infrastructure, and causing mass exodus from home and country.
For Americans, not so much. Well done Bushie!
Posted July 7, 2008 12:30 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:30
Perhaps President Bush should be asking President Eisenhower about his golf game!
Posted July 7, 2008 12:19 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:19
"Nick: Well written article and absolutely true. Of course any informed, intelligent, thoughtful citizen had come to these conclusions five years ago. - Posted July 7, 2008 9:33 AM "
Well, five years ago, Bush etal were enjoying tremendous support for their war. Rumsfeld was treating the press corps with disdain, scorn and sarcasm. The "Red Staters" were flexing their muscle.
The MSM pundits (take your pick - David Broder, Fareed Zakaria, Chris Mathews, Bob Woodward etal) couldn't come to these conclusions, as they were "unpopular" then. Now that the war is seen for the utter travesty and the dismal failure that it is, they can boldly put forth what everybody already knows.
These guys value "access" so much they won't upset the apple cart, until they are certain beyond a shadow of doubt that it is time to change their Rolodex for a new set of contacts. They smell that in the air.
Zakaria says "Mr. Bush's policies since December of 2001 have been disastrous. Iraq could have been successfully contained with renewed inspections ". If Zakaraia wrote a column expressing this view in 2002, or 2003, I would like to see that.
Posted July 7, 2008 12:17 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:17
Now that the oil companies have been allocated speific areas of Iraq to explore for new oil, we can better understand why it is necessary for our armed forces to continue their occupancy of the country. Perhaps we can make them pay for the protection costs!
Posted July 7, 2008 12:16 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:16
No other president would call himself a war president. No other president would be proud of the fact he was sending our men and women out to die for our country.
Posted July 7, 2008 12:15 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:15
I tried to get attention years ago to the writer's view that we are not at war. I think Bush & Co. calculated that declaring from the beginning that we "are at war", as Bush said explicitly almost immediately after 9/11, would yield to the administration the long strong of extra-ordinary powers which attend a country at war. And why could not Congress pass a resolution declaring that we are NOT at war, reversing the claims to extraordinary powers captured by wartime presidents, especially this one?
Posted July 7, 2008 12:02 PM
Posted on July 7, 2008 12:02
We.ve been in this war since 1804...Jefferson's administration against the Barbary Pirates. At least Jefferson had it right. Read "America and the Barbary Pirates:An International Battle Against an Unconventional Foe".
Posted July 7, 2008 11:48 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 11:48
Why don't we ask Bob Ney or Tom DeLay if we are at war or not? After all, they are the Republican politicians that claimed we were in a life and death struggle against Al Qaeda, then flew off to Scotland to play golf on a junket paid for by lobbyists. Actions speak louder than words... if we were truly in a great war that threatened our lives, the GOP wouldn't have let so much corruption run rampant under their watch. Think of all the GOP scandals that have taken place during the Bush years, including Mark Foley, Larry Craig, etc... Republican politicians can talk up themselves as much as they like, but their actions speak much louder. All the American people ever did was give the GOP a chance... that chance was blown by the GOP and Bush, and now they are paying the political price for such. Karl Rove is an abject failure, as are the lies he tried to prop up Bush with. Let the conservatives blindly defend the Rovian way of deliberate lies. The electoral consequences of fielding such a losing strategy will be much greater this year than they were in 2006.
Posted July 7, 2008 11:30 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 11:30
Legally we are not at war -- Article I reserves that power to Congress; the same Article gives the Senate the power to ratify a treaty of peace. Had Dubya taken his inaugaral oath to support and defend the constitution as a serious vow, he might have made it into the history books as a "war president" (like Wilson, FDR and Truman -- or to a lesser extent Madison, Polk or even the reluctant McKinley). As it stands, W's just another politician with blood on his hands.
Posted July 7, 2008 11:22 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 11:22
It must be pointed out that no firebreathing dragons have attacked America since 9/11. And no Martian invasion has taken place. Therefore, we must credit George W Bush for preventing firebreathing dragons and Martian invasions these last 7 years.
THAT is the logic of the Bushies, who never want to hold Bush accountable for the massive terrorist attack on 9/11 that happenned right under Bush's nose. They'll give him all the credit for preventing nothing since then, without any proof that Al Qaeda has even tried to strike again since 9/11 or that Bush and company prevented such an attack.
All the conservatives have these days are Rovian lies they pull out of thin air. The blind partisans that support Bush no matter what care nothing for the truth of the matter. They just want to put out whatever lie they can to weakly prop up Bush and the Republicans. Specious reasoning is what it is called. That's fine... these crazy right wing arguments only serve to alienate the right from the rest of the voting public. Bush gets no credit for preventing phantom attacks that have yet to take place; Instead, he gets plenty of blame for the real terrorist attack on 9/11 that he never saw coming. The man took an oath to defend this country to the best of his abilities, and all it lead to was 9/11 right under his nose. We all know that Bush is an incompetent leader, and it is merely empty lies that try to create the illusion of competency on his part. Truth is, the Global War On Terror is over... Al Qaeda won it, and the Republican party lost it.
Posted July 7, 2008 11:20 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 11:20
Fareed -- Ike would be proud of you. The apparent self-annointment of Bush as "War President" directly reflected Karl Rove's realization in Feb 2002 that the GOP would be running on the war. This worked in the fall elections of 2002 and in the presidential election of 2004 but stopped working by 2006. Israel has and continues to be the target of terrorist attacks but does knows when it is "at war" (6-Day War, Yom Kippur War) and when it is not. The current administration created and continues to foster the myth that we are "at war" for pure political advantage even though this strategy has ceased being effective. Their perseveration is not surprising since it comes from people who were never properly suited for national leadership in the first place and they are fundamentally incapable of the task at hand.
Posted July 7, 2008 11:19 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 11:19
Maybe is we defined war in more classical terms then we wouldn't be so conflicted, so to speak. In my book, "war" means that you are out to totally destry your enemy. If that means destroying their infrastructure and their ability to feed themselves. It also means that we don't blink an eye in pursuing tose goals, even if so-call innocent people get hurt. We didn't blink an eye when we had to firebomb German cities and nuke the daylights out of Japan.
Bush describing himself as a war president is a joke. Mr tough guy is nothing but a macho show off trying to make up for a whole lot of psychological shortcomings in a president who has the intellect of a clam, and that is being unkind to the clam.
Posted July 7, 2008 11:10 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 11:10
Psst! Peope those are over-acting are reactionary. Surely, immediate action for US to bomb some place aftermath of 911, its more desirable masculine thing to do, than really thoughtfully executing a long-term policy. This is new american century, the mighty US has to act!
Bush, history will judge, started the fall of new Saigon!
Posted July 7, 2008 11:02 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 11:02
No Gary, we could not all die. Fareed is correct in that. What isn't clear is whether or not there are threats that do not rise to the level of an existential threat that need to be confronted using war-like methods in order to be effective.
I assert that there are such threats, that the terrorist threat is one. I further assert that we have done so effectively and that effectiveness is proof that we have chosen the correct method.
I don't think Fareed disagrees with any of that, I just think he's trying to deflate George Bush's accomplishments by asserting that he isn't a "war-time President".
Personally I don't care, history will make it's own judgments. What I do care about is that the next President separates politics from policy and acknowledges (at least privately) our success so far and continues George Bush's successful policies.
Posted July 7, 2008 11:01 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 11:01
The average American family has spent what, $20,000, 25,000? in the past few years on this "non-war"? Taxes have not gone up, yet, but we will---and already are in terms of bad economy---pay dearly for this war. In addition to the sacrifice in lives lost and lives ruined. Financial smoke and mirrors of this magnitude did not exist in WWII. It IS a war.
Posted July 7, 2008 10:55 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 10:55
Fareed Zakaria you are flat out wrong. This is war. We could all die.
Posted July 7, 2008 10:52 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 10:52
'America (and before it, Britain) has felt it was "at war" when the conflict threatened the country's basic security—not merely its interests or its allies abroad.'
Our nation's seat of economic power, and the seat of it's military command was directly attacked on September 11th 2001. Almost three thousand military, police, and civilians were killed. Wall Street was shut down, the airlines was shut down. Movement of financial transactions stopped as airlines couldn't deliver checks to banks. This crippled the Federal Reserve banks ability to process. The visual iconic image of world trade disappeared to ashes.
Not a direct act of war??? Fareed, this is a naive almost silly statement, delivered with an underlying political bias. Smart people aren't supposed to be 'Dumb'. Get over it!
And then, there are the bombings of sovereign U.S. Embassies - acts of war. The attack and attempted sinking of U.S.S. Cole - A vessel of the fleet!!
Posted July 7, 2008 10:50 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 10:50
OK! OK! I'll get it right yet! Here goes: To talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk, Farood. You don't look too old and our Armed Forces definitely need your experience and talents. Run - don't walk - to the nearest recruiting center. There!
Posted July 7, 2008 10:50 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 10:50
Skeptonomist say that "martial law can only be declared when civil law is inoperative - martial law can never apply except when actual conditions, such as riots or rebellions, make the civil authorities incapable of keeping order"
So doesn't that support my premise? I agree that there are conflicts that need to be handled as a military matter rather than a civil one. Fareed wants to call them "wars" but you don't. Fareed also doesn't want to call a President who conducts wars that do not pose an existential threat to the nation a "wartime president". I'm actually fine with that, since it's just a semantical argument intended to devalue the sitting President's acheivements (which Fareed acknowledges).
I suppose part of our disagreement is many believe that the conflict with the terrorists needs to be treated as a civil matter because that would be more efftective. I would argue that treating it as a non-civil military matter has in fact been very effective - so where's the problem?
Civil authorities (using police methods) failed to prevent terrorist attacks, military authorities (using "war" methods) succeeded. Therefore, that was the right approach.
Posted July 7, 2008 10:46 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 10:46
To talk the talk, you gotta walk the walk, Farood. You don't look too old and our Armed Forces defitiely need you experience and talents. Run - don't walk - to the nearest recruiting center
Posted July 7, 2008 10:45 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 10:45
How the h%*l you ever got past the eighth grade is a mystery to me, Mr. Zakaria. When soldiers are shooting at people, ransacking their homes, taking over their country and getting killed maimed, this is called "war." Although, you're probably not as stupid as you want us to think you are. You apparently are smart enough to know that most Americans need to feel good and be lied to, or we might DO SOMETHING DRASTIC and say, vote Democratic!
Next week: How nuking Iran isn't "really" a nuclear attack or well, is, like, OK anyhow.
Posted July 7, 2008 10:43 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 10:43
Mr. Zakaria:
We are faced with an enemy that kills every American he can get close to and has said publicly on video and audio that he is at war with us. What more do you need to consider this a war?
Posted July 7, 2008 10:43 AM
Posted on July 7, 2008 10:43