A Letter to Senator Bob Smith - September 2002

[michaeledward]

I sent this letter to Senator Smith prior to the election of 2002. Senator Smith lost the election .... Anyhow ... here it is.

Dear Mr. Smith,

I am writing to request that you vote against the upcoming action authorizing military force against the sovereign nation of Iraq.

While spending time with a friend and colleague in Pittsburg, NH this past weekend, we discussed the current state of actions and negotiations concerning Iraq. We both believed it is apparent that we, as a nation, are on a course of military action. My colleague believes the government of the United States has sufficient information connecting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein with Osama Bin Laden to substantiate the former a 'Terrorist'. As such, he reasons, the President of the United States has the moral obligation to destroy the Iraqi President and leadership as part of his Presidential Oath to 'protect and defend the constitution of the United States'.

My concerns are many; here I will enumerate only some of those concerns.

I am aware of no evidence connecting Saddam Hussein with any terrorist organization. I believe the freedom of the press, as a basic function of our government, and the independent journalists practicing this freedom daily, would reveal any such connection, if it exists.

The Presidents' own words on September 11, 2002 seem to acknowledge a lack of connection. The president said we would attack 'Terrorists and Tyrants'. To my knowledge, this was the first instance of referring to 'tyrants' as targets of our nations' actions in the ‘War’ on terrorism. This, of course, begs the question, 'Who qualifies as a tyrant?’ Fidel Castro? Kim Yong Il? Yasser Arafat? Ariel Sharon? (Each of these leaders can be said to be repressive to their constituencies).

At what point does ‘pre-emptive self-defense’ simply become the actions of an aggressor nation. My friend believes that we can and should take actions against the government of Iraq. He justifies this belief with the statement, ‘we are the Good Guys”. How can we remain the ‘Good Guys’, when attacking people, within the borders of their country, without their request?

In America, every discussion about the use of force generally includes question of the ‘exit strategy’. In my observations, the exit strategy discussion is not taking place concerning the proposed Iraqi Regime Change. I believe we must ask not just ‘What to Change’, but also ‘What to Change to’.

Mr. Smith, I certainly do not know the answers to these questions. Before we as a people vote to allow the President of the United States to use military force against an established state, these questions should be discussed, if not clearly answered and defined.

While the President has the authority to use the United States military to protect and defend our way of life, you, as a member of the Senate, are the check and balance to his authority. Please use your vote to preserve the three separate, but equal branches of government. Please use your vote to keep the United States of America as the ‘Good Guys’. Please use your vote to support this constituent.

Thank you,

Sincerely,

Michael Atkinson

Nashua, NH 03060

 

[Cameron]

Interesting letter. I am curious, would you also be against using force against the sovereign nation of Germany in 1939? Were you against the use of force against the sovereign nation of Somalia in 1993? Or the sovereign nation of Hati in 1994? Or the sovereign nation of Bosnia in 1995? Or the sovereign nation of Serbia in 1999?



The reason I ask is that over the past few years I have seen many people who were conspicuously quiet during the Clinton administration speak out against war now. I would be interested in seeing your letters to Senators during the Clinton administration voicing your concerns for the sovereignty of the above mentioned nations.





And don’t get mad, you started it :wink1:

 

[Makalakumu]

Interesting letter. I am curious, would you also be against using force against the sovereign nation of Germany in 1939? Were you against the use of force against the sovereign nation of Somalia in 1993? Or the sovereign nation of Hati in 1994? Or the sovereign nation of Bosnia in 1995? Or the sovereign nation of Serbia in 1999?

It is fallacious on your part to connect the actions of a superpower like Germany in 1939 to current military actions taken durning the Clinton administration. Those situations have distinct historical differences. Also, the situations in which Clinton presided over were not "pre-emptive". This doctrine of "pre-emption" is something wholley intruduced by the Bush administration. This doctrine was created in a Neo-Conservative think tank called the Plan for the New American Century. Which means that the Bush administration is completely responsible for EVERYTHING that subsequently occurs regarding this new doctrine. And it is very important for the history books to note this.

 

[OULobo]

Interesting letter. I am curious, would you also be against using force against the sovereign nation of Germany in 1939? Were you against the use of force against the sovereign nation of Somalia in 1993? Or the sovereign nation of Hati in 1994? Or the sovereign nation of Bosnia in 1995? Or the sovereign nation of Serbia in 1999?



The reason I ask is that over the past few years I have seen many people who were conspicuously quiet during the Clinton administration speak out against war now. I would be interested in seeing your letters to Senators during the Clinton administration voicing your concerns for the sovereignty of the above mentioned nations.





And don’t get mad, you started it :wink1:

Many of the examples you give are situations that involved the invasion of other sovereign nations (Germany, Bosnia, Serbia). I won't argue that Somalia was a clusterf*** and a bad choice in use of force. Hati like current issues in Dom. Rep. is a door step issue. Americans hate unrest in their front yard, which is why I'm amazed we haven't jumped on Cuba harder. The other issue here is one of humanitarian cause, which is valid in all the above examples. The problem I think that Micheal has is in the inconsistancy of our decisions to get involved. Why haven't we charged into Korea, Cuba, all the small unstable African nations, ect.? Why instead did we choose Iraq? Was it mabey other less noble reasons, like a personal grudge, oil demands, the distraction that a war can cause, military profiteering, ect. It's hard to voice concern about the Clinton era war actions when there very few significant ones.

 

[Cameron]

Our attack against Germany was in fact pre-emptive. Japan attacked the US and we declared war on Germany. It was not until years after the war started did we fully grasp the horrors Germany inflicted on not only the Jews but many others as well.


What threat to the United States was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia or Serbia? I’m not saying I am for or against the war in Iraq but if your going to pull the “sovereignty” card, they explain what the differences are between Iraq and the nations I just mentioned? If it was okay for Clinton to attack, why not Bush?


Iraq violated more then 17 UN resolutions before we attacked them. When Clinton bombed Iraq, where was the outrage from the Left?


It’s okay to be against the war. It’s okay to protest. All I ask is don’t be a hypocrite about it (I’m not saying you are).


Again, I am not saying I am for or against. All I am saying is that many people I hear protesting the war in Iraq were silent when Clinton was bombing them and when we were in the other nations I mentions. Further, I am not saying Clinton made a bad choice in going into these countries.


OULobo says “It's hard to voice concern about the Clinton era war actions when there very few significant ones.” Define significant? One could easily cite humanitarian reasons for us being in Iraq. Is that good enough? Probably not. Is it that we have so many troops there? If that’s it, what is the cutoff? Would 100,000 troops be okay? 20,000? 100? Ya see my point?Why was it okay to go into Bosnia and not Iraq?


I guess the question I am trying to ask is, when is it okay to invade a country? Is it every okay if that country is not an imminent threat to the US ?

I hope I am not offending anyone. I truly respect your opinions and enjoy these types of discussions. I feel, if we can discuss these things like adults, we can all grow just a little.

 

[loki09789]

This doctrine of "pre-emption" is something wholley intruduced by the Bush administration. This doctrine was created in a Neo-Conservative think tank called the Plan for the New American Century. Which means that the Bush administration is completely responsible for EVERYTHING that subsequently occurs regarding this new doctrine. And it is very important for the history books to note this.

As voters and citizens, aren't we carrying some of the 'blame' since we are one nation? Who sat back and let things get to this state. If it is a government of/for/by the people, we all are contributing in someway to the problems as well as the future reforms.

On the issue of 'pre - emptive' practices, the Bay of Pigs/CIA planted protestors in CUBA and such were not 'pre-emptive' actions. Though not out right war, it was actively sparking the events. Of course the Bay of Pigs was initiated with the assumption that there would be US support....oops.


Even on a personal level of self defense, most state penal codes don't require you to wait for the Bad guy to throw the first strike, you just have to be able to reasonably percieve a threat in order to be justified (of course you better know what it takes to make sure your ducks are in a row on this point).
In this day and age, with the pace of technology, do we really have to wait until N.Korea drops a nuc before we are justified to take action? Should we wait for another 9/11 (well Spain already got theirs) to happen in order to be justified?

As far as proof of terrorist links in Iraq/WMD. I agree that the findings in evidence are woefully thin right now, but SHussein had a hell of a long stretch to get rid of stuff to show that link. And BTW if you really examin the current tactic of hostage taking, none of these Iraq based hostage holding terrorists are trying to leverage for the release of SHussein with their civilian/military hostages... but are focusing on the US standing down or releasing their own. THey are in Iraq, operating as usual. It might not be a PDB, but it smacks of some proof of terrorist/Iraqi relations to me.

 

[OULobo]

Our attack against Germany was in fact pre-emptive. Japan attacked the US and we declared war on Germany. It was not until years after the war started did we fully grasp the horrors Germany inflicted on not only the Jews but many others as well.

Still we attacked Germany during Germany's drive of invasion that included and threatened allies of the US.

What threat to the United States was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia or Serbia? I’m not saying I am for or against the war in Iraq but if your going to pull the “sovereignty” card, they explain what the differences are between Iraq and the nations I just mentioned? If it was okay for Clinton to attack, why not Bush?

Let's also remember that we do take many actions with motivation from the UN.

Iraq violated more then 17 UN resolutions before we attacked them. When Clinton bombed Iraq, where was the outrage from the Left?

I may be a little ignorant here but, Clinton bombed Iraq?

I personally liked the idea of hitting Iraq, I just don't like the method. I am for the most part an all or nothing man. I have no problem going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons, but there are greater threats and more vile dictators to attack if we are going to take that policy. N. Korea is ramping up nuclear production and bold faced in telling us that they are pointing thier weapons directly at us. They outright threaten our well being everyday and verbalize these unveiled threats at every opportunity. If Bush is all about humanitarian causes, then go to Korea; if he is about WMD, then go to Korea; if he is about threats against our sovereignty, then go to Korea. All arrows point to actions against N. Korea and Kim, but he chooses to attack someone who took a pot shot a papa and has a good chunk of the world's oil, all the while claiming terroistic ties and WMDs that never materialized. Hmmmmm.

OULobo says "It's hard to voice concern about the Clinton era war actions when there very few significant ones.” Define significant? One could easily cite humanitarian reasons for us being in Iraq. Is that good enough? Probably not. Is it that we have so many troops there? If that’s it, what is the cutoff? Would 100,000 troops be okay? 20,000? 100? Ya see my point? Why was it okay to go into Bosnia and not Iraq?

The only action of Clinton's I can think of, and again I may be a little ignorant here, that didn't have UN backing was the Osama missile fiasco.

I guess the question I am trying to ask is, when is it okay to invade a country? Is it every okay if that country is not an imminent threat to the US.

Indeed, and that is a good question.

 

[Ender]

Cameron,

You've made some very points and I agree with you. We KNOW Hussein had terrorist training camps in his country, we KNOW he had WMD with biological agents and chemicals, we KNOW he used them on his own people, we KNOW he threatened to use them on Israel, and we KNOW he brushed off 17 UN resolutions. It was only a matter of time before a major catastrophe occured. Either we fight them on their land or on US soil.

And I can respect if people protest the war. that is our right, But I cannot respect them if they were for the "military action" in Bosnia, Serbia, and Yugoslavia and against the war in Iraq. That is hypocritical. Milosevich was a boy scout compared to Hussein. And now they are complaining the war is costing too much, yet I bet they have NO IDEA how much we spent in the Balkans. at best that is hypocritical, at least, selective posturing.

And don't worry about offending anyone, someone will undoubtedly be offended anyway.*L

 

[Makalakumu]

As voters and citizens, aren't we carrying some of the 'blame' since we are one nation? Who sat back and let things get to this state. If it is a government of/for/by the people, we all are contributing in someway to the problems as well as the future reforms.

I agree that we ARE one nation. This nation is a democracy, though. The Bush administration only needs to convince 51% of the voters that their policies are correct. The rest of us are drug along just as Goering said we should be. I think that if we really ARE one nation and that if we really DO share a brotherhood because of that, perhaps our president should take a little more head to the voice of the dissent.

Regardless, people against the war in Iraq, I believe, are engaging in a pointless protest. The point is moot. We are there and we need to make the best of it before it totally goes FUBAR. On the same note, we need to hold the Bush Administration accountable for the actions that occur in Iraq. We need to give accolades where appropriate and criticize when needed. I am of the opinion that there is much to criticize. The handling of this situation could have been much better in the following ways...

1. Allowing weapons inspectors the time they were BEGGING for.
2. Compromising to build a stronger coalition.
3. Working through the UN (this does not mean handing over control)
4. Planning the reconstruction phase more

A recent pole was given out. Its results stated that most people feel that the war in Iraq has made the War on Terror more difficult. And if you look at the information released by the Fed (through the press) regarding terrorist recruiting - it has only gotten worse since the war started. Basically we gave them a huge target to attack all of the time. Perhaps the War on Terror could have been won through a tactical knowledge of geography...

 

[loki09789]

1. Allowing weapons inspectors the time they were BEGGING for.
2. Compromising to build a stronger coalition.
3. Working through the UN (this does not mean handing over control)
4. Planning the reconstruction phase more

I agree with the time issue. Let the inspectors do their job - that means time and access as well.

Comprimise would also help with the financial burden

The UN has really proven to be a mucky thing in terms of effectiveness at times, but I think involvement and coordination would go a long way diplomatically as well.

I don't know enough about the current stability to say that it would be now for increased focus on reconstruction.

Funny thing about information though. Here at school kids are raising money for charity work to help support the construction and institution of schools and other humanitarian efforts in Afg. There are students refusing because they don't want to support Afg. or they say 'my money will be stolen and used to buy rockets and bombs, no way.' In another year or two for some of these guys and gals, they will be eligible to vote.....

 

[CanuckMA]

Our attack against Germany was in fact pre-emptive. Japan attacked the US and we declared war on Germany. It was not until years after the war started did we fully grasp the horrors Germany inflicted on not only the Jews but many others as well.

Japan and Germany were allies. By declaring war in Japan, Germany was involved. Also, walking into Europe 2 years after Germany declared war on US allies hardly qualifies as pre-emptive.

What threat to the United States was Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia or Serbia? I’m not saying I am for or against the war in Iraq but if your going to pull the “sovereignty” card, they explain what the differences are between Iraq and the nations I just mentioned? If it was okay for Clinton to attack, why not Bush?

Somalia, Bosnia and Serbia where humanitarian, peace making/keeping efforts under the banner of either the UN or NATO. Haiti is a neighbourood kind of thing, and the US didn't exactly invade Haiti.

Iraq violated more then 17 UN resolutions before we attacked them. When Clinton bombed Iraq, where was the outrage from the Left?

The first Gulf war was fought under authority of the UN. The ceasefire was under authority of the UN. If the US wanted to invade Iraq because of those violation, they should have asked the UN permission to do so.

I guess the question I am trying to ask is, when is it okay to invade a country? Is it every okay if that country is not an imminent threat to the US ?

When that country is an imminent theat to you, or you are asked by a third country that is under imminent threat. Pre-emptive invasion because a country MAY be a threat is setting a dangerous precedent.

 

[Makalakumu]

Funny thing about information though. Here at school kids are raising money for charity work to help support the construction and institution of schools and other humanitarian efforts in Afg. There are students refusing because they don't want to support Afg. or they say 'my money will be stolen and used to buy rockets and bombs, no way.' In another year or two for some of these guys and gals, they will be eligible to vote.....

I see the same thing at my school. What this indicates to me is the rise of a new political movement. The best label I can put on it is Liberal Libertarian. These guys do not want large government interfering in their lives and taking their money to things they disagree with. I think these guys have grown up surrounded with the abuses of big government enough to recognize the solution. The other part of this is the general liberal attitude among this new group. As one, they believe in equal rights for everyone (this list of rights includes education and health care by the way). They believe in protecting the environment. And when it comes right down to the matter of actually fighting a war, they would rather have peace. If I were to rank the functions of government in order of importance, it would come out something like this...

1. Safety - the government is responsible for keeping it's citizens safe at home. (implications - the current state of the military is overkill)
2. Health - the government is responsible for keeping the populace healthy and productive.
3. Education - the government is responsible for providing a basic education for its citizens which will allow them to be productive. (In todays time, this includes college)
4. Environment - the government is responsible for stewardship of the countries natural resources. This includes the usage, preservation, and regulation of said resources.
5. Human Rights - the government is responsible for making sure its citizens practice humane principals in their dealings inside and outside the country.

I guess we'll see where this is all heading in about 30 years...

 

[Cameron]

The UN authorized the use of force if any part of the cease fire was violated. Iraq violated the rules of the cease fire countless times. The US allowed the UN to submit to Iraq 17 different resolutions over 8 years in order to find a peaceful resolution. Again, the US was authorized under the UN cease fire to begin hostilities in Iraq.

It is a fact that Saddam was a ruthless dictator that killed and / tortured hundreds of thousands if not millions.

It is a fact that he used chemical weapons (AKA WMD) on his own people.
It is a fact that Saddam attempted to assassinate George H. W. Bush. To any other country, this alone would be an act of war. Not to Clinton though.
It is a fact that Saddam had attempted to gain nuclear weapons (with the help of the French mind you) as far back as the 80s.
It is a fact that Hezbollah blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut killing 200.
It is a fact that Libyan terrorists blew up Pan Am flight 103
It is a fact Khobar Towers in Dahran were bombed
It is a fact the U.S.S. Cole was attacked by Arab terrorists
It is a fact that Saddam not only authorized al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, he encouraged it.
It is a fact that after Clinton took office, many Democrats criticized Bush Sr. for not having finished the job.


It was imperative that we take Saddam out before he could obtain the nuclear weapons that even Clinton and until just a few months ago, John Kerry said he was trying to get. Seriously, what does a dictator have to do to make it okay to take him out of power? You speak of humanitarian missions. Tell me that freeing millions of people that have endured this ruthless dictator for decades is not a humanitarian cause.
The reason (quite possibly) that we have not found WMD in Iraq is because, thanks to the UNs inability to enforce their own mandates, Saddam had plenty of time to send them off to other countries.

I know this is a very emotional subject for people. I just find it interesting that the same people who are quick to criticize the war on Iraq are the same people who say “when Clinton attacked (Fill in the blank with one of several sovereign nations) that was different”.

I would simply like to know the difference. And, if all the things that Saddam did were not reason enough to go to war with him, what is?

 

[CanuckMA]

I would simply like to know the difference. And, if all the things that Saddam did were not reason enough to go to war with him, what is?[/font]

Imminent threat to your country. Saddam was not an imminent threat to the US. You wanted to call him on the breaking of the UN resolution, you go to the UN and argue that case. It's their resolution.

 

[Makalakumu]

It is a fact that Saddam not only authorized al Qaeda training camps in Iraq, he encouraged it.

Wrong. Even the CIA Director Geoge Tenet says so. There is no link between Iraq and 911 and there is no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.

 

[michaeledward]

Interesting letter. I am curious, would you also be against using force against the sovereign nation of Germany in 1939?

No. The use of force was validated because of the Axis allience. When Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the United States had the responsibility to defend the territory. The Japanese / German / Italian alliance made a responce against Germany appropriate. And, lest we forget, Germany, by 1941, had invaded many other nation states in Europe. Defending and repelling that invasion was an appropriate action.

Were you against the use of force against the sovereign nation of Somalia in 1993?

In 1992, the United States entered the nation state of Somalia to distribute food as part of a humanitarian effort. The United States was there because we were able to act much quicker than the United Nations. It was anticipated that the United Nations would take over the humanitarian effort after 6 months of US service.
The United States military action in Somalia was apparently the result of an effort to capture one of the tribal warlords; one Farah Aideed, after he killed 24 Pakistanit troops who were operating under the UN command. And, incidentally, the actions by the US military in Mogadishu could have been completed by the Delta force as a covert operation; which were requested by Admiral Howe (retired) by not approved by the Pentagon.

Or the sovereign nation of Hati in 1994?

I have less knowledge of Haiti, however, I do not think the US military should have been used to bring an ousted leader back to power (Aristide).
I do think the United States should respond to humanitarian crises. Please note, that is not now, nor has it ever been the policy of the United States.

Or the sovereign nation of Bosnia in 1995?

Recall that Bosnia, in 1994 and 1995 was in a military confrontation with Serbia and Montenegro. As I recall, the United States, through the United Nations got all of the parties to sign the Dayton Peace Accords. If this peace agreement came about because the United States choose a side in the conflict, I think it is a supportable position.

Or the sovereign nation of Serbia in 1999?

The bombing of Serbia is an unjustified action on foreign soil. The actions were taken for the right reason; to prevent ethinc atrocities.
Under US policy, however, this is not a justified reason to take action.

The reason I ask is that over the past few years I have seen many people who were conspicuously quiet during the Clinton administration speak out against war now. I would be interested in seeing your letters to Senators during the Clinton administration voicing your concerns for the sovereignty of the above mentioned nations.

And don’t get mad, you started it :wink1:

Truthfully, I probably did spend less time fretting over Clinton's military choices, because I was so outraged by the 70 million dollar witch hunt headed by Ken Star. I kinda thought the attack on the factory in Sudan didn't make sense at the time, but I think the 'Wag the Dog' theory drowned out any protest I may have made.

Also, after reading Clarke's book, I understand why the Sudan attack took place.

Mike

 

[michaeledward]

When Clinton bombed Iraq, where was the outrage from the Left?

Less outrage because the attack-counter attack of the no-fly zones was an ongoing, below the news threshold type of thing.
The more heavy duty strikes in Iraq by Clinton, were in response to the assassination attempt on President Bush, during his visit to Kuwait. As such, I think it was justified, and it stopped similar actions from Baghdad.

I guess the question I am trying to ask is, when is it okay to invade a country? Is it every okay if that country is not an imminent threat to the US ?
I hope I am not offending anyone. I truly respect your opinions and enjoy these types of discussions. I feel, if we can discuss these things like adults, we can all grow just a little.

No offense taken. I don't know if it is ever justified to invade a country 'pre-emptively'; which is a different method than 'preventatively'. I guess this goes to the idea of an imminent threat.

If Mexico is massing its soldiers along the Arizona border, then it might be justified to invade Mexico. Of course, if Mexico was massing its soldiers along the Arizona border, invading Brazil would not be justified.

Concerning Iraq: the Iraqi military was not a threat to its neighboring states, the United States or its allies. Despite statements to the contrary in this thread, there were no established terrorist training camps under the protection of Saddam Hussein's government (yes Isla Al Jamiah did have a camp in the Kurdish controlled - US No Fly Zone protected - area of Northern Iraq). The best knowledge of the world experts could not prove the existance of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons in Iraq immediately preceeding the US invasion (of course, it is very difficult to prove the negative: that the weapons did not exist).

Thanks for the input all ... I was really quite surprised to see all the responses. Mike

 

[michaeledward]

Okay, my last sequential post (I hope).

Paul, thanks for your thoughts here. Quite valid, I think

As voters and citizens, aren't we carrying some of the 'blame' since we are one nation? Who sat back and let things get to this state. If it is a government of/for/by the people, we all are contributing in someway to the problems as well as the future reforms.

I think that 'We the People' get a pass on this issue, because we have not really had an election since 911 (at least not a presidential election, and the administration drives foreign policy). Certainly, those who voted for candidate Bush might also have an arguement that he campaigned as a centrist; I believe his phrase was "a uniter, not a divider".
And yet, two examples of his leadership certainly do not qualify as the actions of a 'uniter'. 1 - the policy of pre-emptive war. 2 - the abandonment of the Palestinian refugee right of return.
Certainly, both actions are those of the post 911 adminstration. But, if one watched candidate Bush, they certainly could not have expected such actions from president Bush.

On the issue of 'pre - emptive' practices, the Bay of Pigs/CIA planted protestors in CUBA and such were not 'pre-emptive' actions. Though not out right war, it was actively sparking the events. Of course the Bay of Pigs was initiated with the assumption that there would be US support....oops.

I think the United States, in its self-interest should have a strong and deep intelligence operation world wide. To exercise force through covert actions can be justified, as long as there is proper oversight in the elected bodies of our government. The struggle between the congress and the intelligence community should be vigorous at all times, to ensure protections where deserved, and actions where justified.
Of course, we can look much closer for the 'assumption' of 'US support'; the Shi-ite Iraqi's in 1991.

Even on a personal level of self defense, most state penal codes don't require you to wait for the Bad guy to throw the first strike, you just have to be able to reasonably percieve a threat in order to be justified (of course you better know what it takes to make sure your ducks are in a row on this point).
In this day and age, with the pace of technology, do we really have to wait until N.Korea drops a nuc before we are justified to take action? Should we wait for another 9/11 (well Spain already got theirs) to happen in order to be justified?

To defend against these actions before they occur is the domain of Law Enforcement, not the military. This, of course, requires a vigorous law enforcement capabilities, which, by its very nature, pinches against the civil liberties of the citizens. The struggle between Law Enforcement and Civil Liberties should be on-going and open. To hide an investigation into my library reading materials (aka PATRIOT Act), I believe, puts too much faith in the best intentions of Law Enforcement. But, if the citizens can not have a discussion about the reach of the long arm of the law (have you tried to read the USA PATRIOT act?) then the oversight can not be appropriately balanced.
Of course, after an action like the Spanish bombings ... it may be appropriate to take military action (as the actions in Afghanistan were justified).
Unfortuneately, sometimes you just have to take a sucker punch. And, concerning North Korea, they have not yet launched, or even tested a nuclear weapon. We should do our best to ensure our intelligence is monitoring the situation. If the threat becomes imminent, then action could be justified. I am not certain that the existance of a nuclear weapon constitutes an imminent threat (hello India ... hello Pakistan)

As far as proof of terrorist links in Iraq/WMD. I agree that the findings in evidence are woefully thin right now, but SHussein had a hell of a long stretch to get rid of stuff to show that link. And BTW if you really examin the current tactic of hostage taking, none of these Iraq based hostage holding terrorists are trying to leverage for the release of SHussein with their civilian/military hostages... but are focusing on the US standing down or releasing their own. THey are in Iraq, operating as usual. It might not be a PDB, but it smacks of some proof of terrorist/Iraqi relations to me.

I think here, the logic fails to prove the existence of terrorist elements in Iraq prior to the downfall of Baghdad Bob ... oh, OK ... the Saddam Hussein government. When Saddam was in power, the terrorist elements were not in Iraq. Of course, the authoritarian nature of the Iraqi regime could be said to be terroristic, but is it really any different than Castro's Cuba?
Nature, (and terrorists) however, abhors a vacuum. With the downfall of a government, there was a great sucking sound as terrorists dislocated from Afghanistan (and Pakistan) moved into Iraq.

OK .. it is bedtime ... good night all.

Mike

 

[loki09789]

Okay, my last sequential post (I hope).

To defend against these actions before they occur is the domain of Law Enforcement, not the military.[quote/=]

The use of military force throughout history has been to 'police' nations/alligiances that are violating something or another. Just a different level of force application. I think that the problem is that procedurally, the military has been used like a huge police force without the refinement of the forensic sciences, procedural sophisitications that domestic law enforcement has had. But, this trend toward peacekeeping, operational/missions designed to snatch key individuals instead of strategic/geographic objectives is relatively new and in the long run with become more refined and sound. That doesn't mean that there won't be arguments and changes based on different views of civil/humanitarian issues...

[quote/=]I think here, the logic fails to prove the existence of terrorist elements in Iraq prior to the downfall of Baghdad Bob ... oh, OK ... the Saddam Hussein government. When Saddam was in power, the terrorist elements were not in Iraq. Of course, the authoritarian nature of the Iraqi regime could be said to be terroristic, but is it really any different than Castro's Cuba?[quote/=]

I agree that there is no evidence, but if you observe the pattern of terrorist cell tactics, imbedding takes place well in advance of upheavals. The risk of moving into Iraq during a major military campaign (yes I know that it wasn't a surround and drown campaign so there were huge gaps), just so they can harass some patrols with IED and take a few hostages isn't strategically sound. Terrorists WANT credit and clear advertising on who they are associated with so that their cause comes to the forefront. I am working with the theory that they were there already because SHussein was a bribable (is that a word?) leader, who generally didn't have the most solid domestic system. So, even if they moved into key locations and bought off the local leader, or were even invited by him, it makes sense to have way stations/rest points/safe houses that these groups would be operating quietly to suppor other operations. When the war in Iraq blew up, they were stuck there, decided that if they ran, they might get caught (either in a cross fire, or detained) and decided to go to ground. Now much like the pockets of air borne troops that were disorganized but motivated after the Normandy drops, they are executing harassing operations to at least try and do something.

I am also working from the theory that terrorist cells are usually blind operations that don't know where the other cells are. They are basically cut off from support and intelligence. They could have even assumed that they were the Target of the American campaign and that SHussein sold them out... who knows. Cells are like infantry squads, only without the mutual support so they have to make so many decisions without higher up coordination.

 

[TonyM.]

Actually terrorist cells(God I hate that word as I'm not terrified in the least) are organized in a pyramid plan pretty much like real CIA operatives.
P.S. Bob Smith never answered questions live at town meetings so I wouldn't expect him to respond to a letter.