[kenberg]

Trinidad, on 2014-December-16, 02:02, said:

Nobody said anything like it. When I am in the US, I sing the Star Spangled Banner with my hand on my heart. I actually sang it this morning to my kids during breakfast.

I will never forget when the Twin Towers were hit and how undescribably horrible I felt. At the time I was living in Sweden, but we had recently moved from the USA where we were all American (just not US citizens): we lived American, we spoke American (we still do), we thaught American, we did American.

And I also remember the second thing I felt: "Oh s--t! There is no way they (the US) are going to let this go. Afghanistan is dead... and I hope it will be limited to that... and hate against the USA will only increase."

The question was not about who is naughty and good. After all, Abdul from Kabul was just as naughty and good as Bob from New York City. (And now, they are both dead.) The question was: "What would be the wise thing to do in the long term interest of the USA?". I am convinced that ignoring it, frightfully difficult, would have been better... for the USA.

Rik

I don't have any great interest in being either loved or hated by people I don't know. I do insist, however, that they do not hi-jack out planes and fly those planes into our buildings. I suppose, when someone does such a thing, we could just laugh it off and say boys will be boys, just ignore them and they will stop, but it doesn't seem like a good plan.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2014-December-16, 07:28, said:

I don't have any great interest in being either loved or hated by people I don't know. I do insist, however, that they do not hi-jack out planes and fly those planes into our buildings. I suppose, when someone does such a thing, we could just laugh it off and say boys will be boys, just ignore them and they will stop, but it doesn't seem like a good plan.

Agree. With people who would do such a thing, it is a mortal certainty that they will do it again as long as they retain the ability to do so. Removing that ability is essential.

I suppose the extent to which we have done that is debatable. But ignoring it isn't on my list.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-December-16, 07:28, said:

I don't have any great interest in being either loved or hated by people I don't know. I do insist, however, that they do not hi-jack our planes and fly those planes into our buildings.

In my opinion the US should respond directly to an attack. In the case of bin Laden, we should have gone after him relentlessly and come right back when the job was done.

However, that does not mean that we should blind ourselves to the fact that US actions enrage people to the point that they feel the need to attack even at the cost of their own lives. We can be sure that if the US were on the receiving end of similar actions, there would be many men here who would retaliate at all costs too.

It is a good idea to think through the long-term implications of military actions and of supporting autocratic regimes. One of the things I like about Obama is that he can't be pushed into thoughtless military reactions. I know that to some folks that trait makes him seem like a weak president, but those folks are wrong.

[hrothgar]

PassedOut, on 2014-December-16, 08:55, said:

It is a good idea to think through the long-term implications of military actions and of supporting autocratic regimes. One of the things I like about Obama is that he can't be pushed into thoughtless military reactions. I know that to some folks that trait makes him seem like a weak president, but those folks are wrong.

Obama's response to ISIS is making me question this.

[mikeh]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-15, 22:57, said:

"Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something.

Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?"

--From the Notebooks of Lazarus Long

Seriously? You really think that aphorisms by a writer of science fiction should be seen as guiding principles?

Heinlein's ideas, as usually uttered by his character Lazurus Long, appealed to me greatly when I was in my late teens, but I've grown up since then.

[blackshoe]

mikeh, on 2014-December-16, 15:16, said:

Seriously? You really think that aphorisms by a writer of science fiction should be seen as guiding principles?

Heinlein's ideas, as usually uttered by his character Lazurus Long, appealed to me greatly when I was in my late teens, but I've grown up since then.

No, I don't think that. I thought it was an amusing juxtaposition given the comment which caused me to think of it.

If you're implying I need to grow up, well, you're about 50 years too late.

[mycroft]

I understand the need to respond. I really do. But I look at two other things as well:

• So, we responded. How's that working out?
  • We've killed more Americans responding than the hijackers did. What did that get us?
    
  • Now, of course, the body count is right; tens more of the uniformed enemy are dead as well (and many more civilians). Do any of their survivors have feelings? Do they feel like we do? Of course they do. Do they want revenge? Of course they do. And when the guy in the black outfit comes up and explains how he can get that revenge, what happens?
  
  
• The U.S. has spent *how* much with the whole DHS thing in the last 13 years? And how much has business paid, 30 minutes of aggravation at a time, because of the new regulations (never mind you and me)? And the rest of the world? And the "no, you haven't done anything wrong, you just can't get on this aircraft. I can't tell you why, I can't tell you how to fix it"? And the secrets? And the loss of freedom (which of course can't be quantified, because that's a secret, too)? And the damage to our countries' reputations because of some of the things our reactions caused us to do? Come on, al-Qaida *won*, man - [Edit, added: and it cost them effectively nothing after Sept 12; we did it to ourselves].

Two middle fingers and a "you can't get me to inconvenience my life even one iota with your silly games"; where would that have got us? (My guess is "different problems", but I'm almost certain it wouldn't include "a Twin Towers every year", especially because of the two [Edit, missed: things Schneier says was critical: locking cockpit doors during flight, and the knowledge passengers have now that, in a kidnap situation, it's no longer best to sit back and wait for release.] Especially if, somewhere, some time, "legally" (at least within the bounds of Cold War-era, or Bismarck-era international relations), there was a Seal Team Six...

[kenberg]

If we become convinced that the Taliban/Isis/jihadists/whoever only want to behead their own people and shoot their own school children than no doubt wewill stay out of it. Americans have no plan or desire to rescue the world. We have ignored genocide in Africa. We ignored the Iraq-Iran war in the 80s, except for giving Saddam some satellite intelligence so that he could make more effective use of his poison gas. Americans have a long history of staying out of other people's troubles. We stayed out of the European war in the middle of the last century until the Japanese insisted that we get into it. We stayed out of most of the Great War also, I am not really sure why we got in near the end. In the current situation we hope to do something, maybe, as long as it doesn't actually involve any ground troops. We are drawing various lines of various colors here and there, but everyone understands that we don't really mean it.

And are al-Qaeda et al winning? Yes, I would say so. No doubt they think so, and that helps with recruiting.

If we really are a bunch of war crazy nuts here, we are some of the most ineffective war crazy nuts in the long history of war crazy nuts. But we are not war crazy nuts. Most of us are perfectly content to sit back while Syrians of one persuasion kill Syrians of another persuasion. As long as they do it in Syria.

We desperately need to find our way out of this. Assad is psychologically equipped to deal with jihadists, as was Saddam. We are not, we just aren't. And I hope we never become ready to go down that path. Syrians, Egyptians, I raqis, they all have all been torturing each other for ages. They are up for this sort of thing, we aren't. We are in over our heads and we need to find the exit.

If just packing up and going home is truly practical, I am all for it. I wish I believed that this were so. Convince us it is so, and we are out of there tomorrow, Sitting back and watching while other people kill each other is totally consistent with American history.

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2014-December-16, 09:52, said:

Obama's response to ISIS is making me question this.

President Obama puzzles me - how can someone so adept at getting elected be so poor at framing himself and his party in the best light? Bill Clinton was masterful at framing - Clinton would frame being against a bill that increased dairy farm subsidies so cheese could be given to low income families as being against "feeding children". How can you be against feeding children?

But Obama attaches an "us" to the Iraq problems, making the war his and ours instead of theirs. He should have framed responsibility for that war directly on the new conservative hawks like Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-December-17, 16:32, said:

If just packing up and going home is truly practical, I am all for it. I wish I believed that this were so. Convince us it is so, and we are out of there tomorrow, Sitting back and watching while other people kill each other is totally consistent with American history.

I think "totally" might be an overbid. I remember Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, and the US hasn't been timid about using military force in the past either: List of wars involving the United States

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2014-December-17, 16:32, said:

We stayed out of most of the Great War also, I am not really sure why we got in near the end.

Two reasons: The increased German submarine warfare offensive starting in early 1917, targeting US ships, when we were officially neutral, and the Zimmerman telegram, in which Germany offered Mexico a military alliance against the United States.
Both of these outraged the country, and Wilson asked for, and Congress granted, a declaration of war against Germany on April 6, 1917. BTW, the Germans increased their submarine warfare offense knowing that it would likely bring the US into the war.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2014-December-17, 17:07, said:

I think "totally" might be an overbid. I remember Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, and the US hasn't been timid about using military force in the past either: List of wars involving the United States

War is an ever present danger. I would be very happy for us to not be involved in any military way in the middle east or anywhere else. You, I and I believe virtually everyone would be very pleased to keep a low or non-existent military profile. Let us hope that we find a way to do it. I won't put words in your mouth, or at least I won't try to slant them, but I gather you are saying that the way to become militarily dis-engaged is, basically, to bring the troops home. Just do it. Perhaps that is so. Sometimes that works, sometimes it emboldens those who are not at all shy about the use of force.

In Africa, we let people kill each other. I won't say that we don't care, but we don't care much. Certainly not enough to do anything about it. We gave it a try in Somalia a long time back, we got burned, we stay out. In the middle east there are two differences. We have a commitment to Israel and we need oil. The latter problem, over time, can be solved. The former can't. Well, I guess we could tell the Israelius that they are on their own. They have numes, they can defend themselves as they see fit. Not a great solution.

I want out of the middle east. I want out. I want out. So does just about everyone I know. It's a trap, nothing good will come of anything there. What is it Joe Walsh sings? Oh yes. "it's hard to leave when you can't find the door".

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-December-17, 18:15, said:

I won't put words in your mouth, or at least I won't try to slant them, but I gather you are saying that the way to become militarily dis-engaged is, basically, to bring the troops home. Just do it. Perhaps that is so. Sometimes that works, sometimes it emboldens those who are not at all shy about the use of force.

I don't oppose providing US air support to people who are fighting off aggressive invaders. But the fight has to be theirs, not ours. We do need to preserve a strong defense, especially considering the amount of rage we've aroused. We do (in my opinion) need to strike back hard at, specifically, those who strike us.

It was a huge mistake not to do that, and only that, after the 9/11 attacks. It was in large part that weakness of the US administration that emboldened our enemies, and the ISIS situation we face now was the inevitable -- and foreseen (in general terms, anyway) -- result of our attack on Iraq.

We might, and likely will, face additional terrorist attacks. I see no evidence that sending in US ground troops to fight ISIS will reduce the chances for that one bit. On the contrary.

[helene_t]

Ken, how can you say that it is consistent with US history to sit back and watch? Ok I suppose you could say that USA doesn't fight wars without reason. But there is always a reason to find. Even north korea or North Vietnam didn't threaten the US. Kosovo, well, milosevic was an asshole but when even the European nato partners didn't care, why should USA? I am not complaining, it was one of the few wars which I actually think were justified. But it just shows that you guys are happier getting involved than we are.

Same with middle east. Isis doesn't thread usa who gets most of her oil from own wells or other American countries. Isis also helps securing Israël by diverting attention from the Palestine problem. EU has some vague intetest in the middle east because of oil and refugees although it is not clear how best to pursue them. But I think if I were American I would think that somebody else can save the middle east if they want.

Panama? Ok the president might have been a drug dealer but so what? He didn't even shoot American tourists.

[the hog]

blackshoe, on 2014-December-15, 14:56, said:

To a Muslim terrorist, there can be only two outcomes to Jihad: we infidels all convert to Islam, and submit to Shari'a law, or we all die. We infidels, at least most of the ones I know, are not going to convert to Islam. For the Jihadist, that leaves only one option: we all die (or maybe become slaves, I don't know). For the infidels, there are two counters to that, at least in theory: 1) they all die, or 2) we somehow convince them to change their minds. I confess I would prefer the latter.

Unfortunately, I don't see a way forward to that second option. If we do decide it's to be war, though, we should go all out*, quit pussy-footing around, find the terrorists and their associates, and destroy them. And when we're done, no "Marshall Plan" either, at least not for countries that harbor or actively aid the terrorists. It's harsh, yes, but I think the situation calls for harsh. It does not call for torture or any similar actions.

* and war should be formally declared by Congress.


And yet, if we cannot convince the Jihadists to change, what other choice do we have?

Do you really believe this crap you are spouting or are you tro;;ing/? If the former, you are a nutter, if the latter ok.

[kenberg]

helene_t, on 2014-December-18, 02:20, said:

Ken, how can you say that it is consistent with US history to sit back and watch? Ok I suppose you could say that USA doesn't fight wars without reason. But there is always a reason to find. Even north korea or North Vietnam didn't threaten the US. Kosovo, well, milosevic was an asshole but when even the European nato partners didn't care, why should USA? I am not complaining, it was one of the few wars which I actually think were justified. But it just shows that you guys are happier getting involved than we are.

Same with middle east. Isis doesn't thread usa who gets most of her oil from own wells or other American countries. Isis also helps securing Israël by diverting attention from the Palestine problem. EU has some vague interest in the middle east because of oil and refugees although it is not clear how best to pursue them. But I think if I were American I would think that somebody else can save the middle east if they want.

Panama? Ok the president might have been a drug dealer but so what? He didn't even shoot American tourists.

Nothing is absolute, of course, but I think I am closer to right than wrong. I was born in early 1939, before the invasion of Poland later that year. We entered the war ni late 1941 after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Germany declared war on us. in between, there were several countries that could hae used our assistance. We declined. After the war, France was hoping for our help in Indo-China. We declined. During the Suez crisis, as I recall although I have not looked it up, England and France were both quite upset with us for declining to be more forceful. We stayed out of European struggles in Africa, and after the Europeans left we have stayed out of various genocidal campaigns there.

There have, of course, been examples in the other direction. Understatement is acknowledged here.

Where are we headed? That's a good question. Everything in my life leads me to conclude that Americans have no appetite for war. Your phrase " if I were American I would think that somebody else can save the middle east if they want." resonated strongly with me and with everyone. Really it is not just Americans who are struggling with what to do. I was reading the other day that the UK is in a bit of a quandry over what to do about citizens who went off to fight in Syria, some of them making vidoes urging their fellow citizens at home to take action, Some of these folks are now coming back home, or rather thay wish to. There is, apparently, some question about this. For some reason, making videos urging people to blow things up is not regarded by everyone as an example of protected free speech. What to do? I give no advice here. There are people seriously interested in destruction, we have to cope as best we can.


The question before the country is: Can we wish evveryone in the middle east the best of luck, pack our bags, and catch the next flight out? I can absolutely guarantee you that this would have great appeal to almost every American. We will all suffer through the ambiguities of the Obama presidency, but I think that by the end of 1916 we will have decided on an answer to this.

[mycroft]

The U.S. entered the war in early 1940, if not 1939. It just didn't *declare war* or put uniformed servicemen in the line of fire until they got stung. Made a pretty penny out of it, too; as well as shepherding enough resources and enough tech to exit the war as a superpower.

Of course, the ones the U.S. *did* put in the line of fire got, and get, minimal recognition (mostly because they weren't given anything to shoot back with, I guess).

Everything in my life leads me to conclude that Americans have an infinite appetite for war - as long as their children aren't fighting it, or at least as long as we have such a technological advantage that our human losses are ignorable, and we "are winning".

[kenberg]

If we did not declare war and we did not put uniformed people in the line of fire, that is what is usually, I think, called not being at war. Yes, some guys enlisted in the RAF, and we shipped supplies to Britain, but really we were not at war, at least not as I would use that phrase. Before Pearl Harbor, we were not at war. After Pearl Harbor, we were. I seriously doubt that any soldier, or anyone else, was confused about the difference.

I imagine it is correct that most everyone understood that it was just a matter of time, but not many were rushing into it.

We went to war because we really were not given a choice. That's the same reason England went to war. It was not Oh goody, we get to go to war.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-December-18, 12:41, said:

If we did not declare war and we did not put uniformed people in the line of fire, that is what is usually, I think, called not being at war. Yes, some guys enlisted in the RAF, and we shipped supplies to Britain, but really we were not at war, at least not as I would use that phrase. Before Pearl Harbor, we were not at war. After Pearl Harbor, we were. I seriously doubt that any soldier, or anyone else, was confused about the difference.

I imagine it is correct that most everyone understood that it was just a matter of time, but not many were rushing into it.

We went to war because we really were not given a choice. That's the same reason England went to war. It was not Oh goody, we get to go to war.

I don't see WWII as the template for the wars the US has fought since then. We fought the Vietnamese to block them from having the government they wanted. We invaded Iraq "at a time of our choosing."

[mike777]

mycroft, on 2014-December-18, 11:48, said:

The U.S. entered the war in early 1940, if not 1939. It just didn't *declare war* or put uniformed servicemen in the line of fire until they got stung. Made a pretty penny out of it, too; as well as shepherding enough resources and enough tech to exit the war as a superpower.

Of course, the ones the U.S. *did* put in the line of fire got, and get, minimal recognition (mostly because they weren't given anything to shoot back with, I guess).

Everything in my life leads me to conclude that Americans have an infinite appetite for war - as long as their children aren't fighting it, or at least as long as we have such a technological advantage that our human losses are ignorable, and we "are winning".

Any suggestions on what the USA could be doing better on the topic of terror and war in 2015?