This thread was initially started to address the President's repeated call for "patience." The argument that someone is "burying their head in the sand" is appropriate, if misplaced. There is definitely naiveté involved, it's simply the target that was misidentified.
As I have noted before, the enemy has shown patience. Unfortunately, it was the impatience of our rather petulant leadership that got us haring off after the wrong target. There is a very small and somewhat dedicated core of individuals who are interested in attacking the west, and more particularly the United States, and seek a new Caliphate. While they now go by the rubric "Al Qaieda" that was not always the case. It was popularized by our leadership, which is the subject of yet another thread. The President's impatience, however, has resulted in their gaining credence that they did not have in the Arab world, and has damaged not only our national reputation, but weakened our ability to do the very thing that we most need to do.
Even now, however, the threat that they pose is so grossly exaggerated that it boggles my mind. Yes, they made a spectacular, successful attack on the United States on 9/11, and have made other attempts that have been less successful. But the threat to our infrastructure and population from that has been truly minuscule. We have amplified its importance multifold. It is much like a fear of flying in a commercial aircraft. It seems scary, but statistically the risk is vanishingly small. Nothing, however, succeeds like instilling fear. Unfortunately we have two enemies that are using terror to seek our compliance. It's just that one of them is supposed to be on our side.
Had we instead shown a little restraint I believe the threat that does exist would already be contained by now. The problem is that the President has only been willing to use one tool in his "war on terrorism." The term itself is a misnomer. He has no imagination, and no patience. The military option, on the large scale that it has been employed, was not only foolhardy, it was probably the most counterproductive action that we could have taken. The Iraq war is probably the worst mistake this country has ever made diplomatically. It is not that military force is not sometimes necessary. It obviously is or I would not continue to wear the uniform. But it is only one of a number of tools at our disposal and a very blunt instrument.
If instead of the headlong rush to war, the President had exercised some forethought (something he continually lacks), we could have limited our exposure nationally, curried favor with our allies, targeted our force carefully, and kept our eye on the real threat. In Operational Law I teach the concept of "Military Necessity" - the 'why' of the use of force in international law. Sometimes military necessity means exercising patience and not attacking the target immediately because it would be counterproductive to your overall objective - giving away your position, using up your resources, moving into an indefensible postion, etc. It is not so much that the Iraq war was an illegal war (a term, by the way, that does not exist in international law), as it was an unnecessary one.
Afghanistan is a very different case, as are Pakistan, Syria, Indonesia, the Philippines, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, and other havens of terrorism. Each requires a particular balance of tools and force. To the extent that Iraq was a threat, it was clearly containable by other means. Perhaps, eventually, it might have been necessary to introduce forces, but it certainly was not so in 2003. It was the impatience of the President that precipitated the crisis, and virtually everyone outside of his cabal saw that, understood that, and expressed it: the military leadership, our allies, the U.N. It is supremely ironic that it is now he that is calling for "patience." Would that he had exercised some himself.
Last edited by NW Ponderer; 11/16/07 02:03 PM.
