From a press release by the Cato Institute:
Charles V. Pena, director of defense policy studies, made the following comments regarding yesterday's deadly bomb blast in Saudi Arabia:
"Monday night's terrorist attack in Riyadh, which Secretary of State Colin Powell said "had all the earmarks" of an al Qaeda operation, is a sober reminder that the war against Iraq was a wrong target in the war on terrorism, despite the administration's claims that Iraq is part and parcel of the war on terrorism.
"If this latest attack is the work of al Qaeda, it should serve as notice that the United States needs to clear the decks and focus the war on terrorism against al Qaeda. It is absolutely imperative that the United States jettison obsolete or unnecessary commitments, such as 100,000 troops stationed in Western Europe to defend NATO against a non-existent threat, and missions, such as nation-building in the Balkans. Even the U.S. presence in Iraq is a distraction. It is also likely to become, if it has not already, a source for motivating terrorism against the United States and U.S. targets in the region."
Mr. Pena, once again, has said it all.
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
the United States needs to clear the decks and focus the war on terrorism against al Qaeda.
How about focusing on the CAUSE of terrorism? Wherever it occurs.
How about making the causes clear for starters?
Posted by Anonymous on May 13, 2003 04:34 PM
Is there some reason we can’t do both?
Posted by James Landrith on May 13, 2003 04:43 PM
Nice statement but aren’t you forgetting our dear african nations in trumoil like
Congo,
Somalia,
Liberia (kidnapped child soldiers)
Sudan
Nigeria (remember the terrorists activities of last year ?)
and so on.
In all honesty, many of you just don’t get it do you.
It is not Japan or Germany, France or even Russia who control IMF, world bank and expedtion armies on foreign soil threatening everybody and insulting everyone.
Something is very clear to these locals that isn’t to the general public in the US.
IT IS YOU that they’re after, not the free world, not your riches, your christian faith or even your 2 party “democracy” system. It is the influence that the US has outside the US.
Sever that influence and you have a real shot at controlling your destiny. Without the US the Isreal problem WILL be solved in no time. Without the US support, dictorships will falter in short periods. Without US influence Cuba can develop normally and reformers can get a hold in Cuba. Same for Iran and several other countries. Without a monopolistic US the weak nations have a better negociation position in trade agreements.
Simply put it is of interest to a whole lot of people to shaft the US properly. Let call it “the coalition of opportunity”
And with each new development initiated by your Bush neocons this coalitions is cementing.
Don’t push it any further.
Get to the streets, protest, effect regime change at home and work with allies and friendly powers in local area’s and FORONCE be sincere about freedom, opportunity, justice and democracy for all.
Yes, indeed I agree, I don’t think this has a snowball’s chance in hell too, considering the apathy of the US citizen. But at least I tried and I can die knowing that.
Wouter
Posted by Wouter on May 13, 2003 07:23 PM
“It is absolutely imperative that the United States jettison obsolete or unnecessary commitments, such as 100,000 troops stationed in Western Europe to defend NATO against a non-existent threat, and missions, such as nation-building in the Balkans. ”
Where do you suppose Mr Peņa would have us put those100000 troops?
Wouter wrote:
“Without US influence Cuba can develop normally andreformers can get a hold in Cuba.”
Absolutely amazing. Absolute drivel. I suppose it was the USwho forced Castro to throw those 75 journalists in jail for life? (Believe me, 25 years in a Cuban jail is worse than life.)
Posted by Mike on May 13, 2003 08:00 PM
Mike said:
“Where do you suppose Mr Peņa would have us put those100000 troops?”
Why not bring them back to the U.S. instead of putting them all over the globe as targets? We aren’t defending ourselves from Germany, the Balkans, or Okinawa anymore. Our military exists for national defense, not nation-building or policing Europe, Africa or Asia.
Posted by James Landrith on May 14, 2003 10:23 AM
Mike wrote:
“Where do you suppose Mr Peņa would have us put those100000 troops?”
How about nowhere? Or, at least somewhere they belong, like in their home nation.
Perhaps a better question is: Where would these troops be if the U.S. hadn’t eliminated to a large extent living-wage (read: unionized) manufacturing jobs or the ability of small farms to survive? THAT is where those troops should probably be.
Posted by tom on May 13, 2003 08:48 PM
James says “Why not bring them back to the U.S. instead…”
I’d add that were they to be redeployed to the US they’d be creating tens of thousands of American civilian jobs as well.
Posted by Jim M on May 14, 2003 10:23 PM
In fact, since terrorism is a strategy, not an ideology, as someone said, the “policing” function can’t be separate from a focus on causes. This is something the “root causers” overlook. Terrorism seems to thrive where there are not only “oppressed” and forgotten people, but also where there are a lot of weapons laying around, the Middle East and Afghanistan being the most obvious examples. There’s not a lot of terrorism in many impoverished parts of Africa and Latin America, such as Ethiopia and Mexico.
Posted by mike on May 13, 2003 05:44 PM
the “policing” function can’t be separate from a focus on causes
If causes aren’t dealt with, policing won’t work.
There’s not a lot of terrorism in many impoverished parts ofA frica and Latin America
What world are you living in?
Posted by Anonymous on May 13, 2003 07:06 PM
It is the influence that the US has outside the US. Sever that influence and you have a real shot at controlling your destiny. Without the US the Isreal problem WILL be solved in no time. Without the US support, dictorships will falter in short periods. Without US influence Cuba can develop normally and reformers can get a hold in Cuba. Same for Iran and several other countries. Without a monopolistic US the weak nations have a better negociation position in trade agreements. Simply put it is of interest to a whole lot of people to shaft the US properly. I don’t think this has a snowball’s chance in hell too, considering the apathy of the US citizen.
Fight terrorism. I know – let’s lower taxes every year until there is no more tax and no more government, except a huge military. Apathy keeps snowballs and crackpot schemes alive -and it shafts the whole country. Thank God for anti-tax advocates.
Any other ideas?
Posted by Anonymous on May 13, 2003 10:25 PM
Right, that’s what we need, to abandon the mission in theBalkans. The region is thiiiiiis close to having extremists repeatBosnian ethnic cleansing all over again. But what we need to dois withdraw our necessary military presence. That’ll work.
Posted by The Littlest Cynic on May 14, 2003 12:55 AM
abandon the mission in the Balkans ?
Not about Balkans.
Posted by Anonymous on May 14, 2003 02:45 AM
What impresses me the most is how Iraq’s most wanted keep falling like ducks from the sky, and yet the coalition has showed us nothing concrete on WMDs; all heresay, possibilities, sketchy confirmations, but nothing solid. The 55 card parody was designed to tell the world that these people would tell the US where the weaopons were. To date, nothing has surfaced.
Plus, if you’ve been watching the BBC – Iraqi television is back, only this time the Iraqi leadership has been replaced by US administrators, who wish to control editorial content. The US administrator basically kicked out the BBC when they filmed him talking to the Iraqi broadcast manager. Why is that?
Posted by Helmy on May 14, 2003 09:48 AM
Littlest Cynic said: “Right, that’s what we need, to abandon the mission in the Balkans. The region is thiiiiiis close to having extremists repeat Bosnian ethnic cleansing all over again. But what we need to do is withdraw our necessary military presence. That’ll work.”
That region has been a minefield for generations. Do you believe that our presence is required there for generations as well until everyone stops hating everyone else? Are you willing to be one of the folks who dies for that interventionist effort? U.S. troops in the Balkans are not defending the U.S., they’re policing a family fued that been going on longer than any participants can remember. It’s not our business and never has been.
Posted by James Landrith on May 14, 2003 10:02 AM
So, in other words, Mr. Landrith, we should allow what would potentially be another mass scale genocide akin to Bosnia take place? Sentiments for Milosevic, or at least the nationalist principles for which he stood, still run very high among the Serbian people. The assasination of the liberal prime minister just a few weeks ago is evidence of the volitile nature of the region and our need to commit to maintaining the peace within it. It is no longer a matter of whether to bomb or not to bomb, it is a matter of ensuring peace and human rights are maintained, and this should be a matter all liberals can agree on. I welcome your perspective however, and would like to know why you think the mission in Bosnia is failing/too costly to maintain.
Posted by The Littlest Cynic on May 15, 2003 02:21 AM
Littlest Cynic: There are all kinds of bad people doing bad things all over the world. Iran, Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba, etc. Why only care about the Balkans?
We didn’t create the situation, nor is it our Constitutional responsibility to fix it. Nor is it fair to demand that our military, who enlisted to “support and defend the Constitution” be bridled with the responsibility of fighting and dying in a hundred wars around the world, only to see the same events repeat themselves over and over. You are obviously an interventionist and I guess that works for you. The funny thing about interventionists though is that they seldom ever face the consequences of their advocacy. They instead, safe and secure in their comfortable chairs, argue that our military, which exists solely for national defense should be sent overseas to die for their causes. If you are interested in saving the world, first put your own ass on the line. Why not found a “Liberal Interventionist Army” or something if you are truly committed to such causes?
Our military exists for NATIONAL DEFENSE, not to play nation builder or stop bad men. It’s very simple.
Posted by James Landrith on May 15, 2003 10:41 AM
First of all, it’s my belief that it is the responsibility of the entire world to stop genocide, and that’s what made the Balkans different. If it’s a beefed up UN, fine. If it’s a coalition, fine. If it’s the US, fine. I don’t care, but it must be done.
Your last comment seems to be based on the fallacious principle that if we just keep to ourselves, things will work out to the best. In another time, that was called isolationism. It doesn’t work. World stability is necessary for national security. Of course we could do a lot of good by staying out of some conflicts, and using weapons other then our military (sanctions, diplomatic pressure, etc.). But when a region has broken out into complete chaos or another Hitler has arisen, there are only gains to be made by restoring the peace.
Posted by The Littlest Cynic on May 15, 2003 06:40 PM
It’s interesting that you bring up Hitler, considering his rise to power was a direct result of our entrance into WWI. It’s a favorite of interventionists, yet it’s disproves their very philosophy.
Had we sat WWI out, rather than lengthening the conflict by getting involved, it is more than plausible that the punitive Treaty of Versailles would never have come to fruition. Hitler wouldn’t have had a bitter populace on which to prey, control and slaughter.
Which leads me to the next point, WWII would likely never have occurred without a Hitler type leading the war machine. Neither Japan nor Italy were in a position to conquer Europe alone. It was US intervention in WWI which lead to the rise of Hitler and WWII.
Posted by James Landrith on May 16, 2003 08:36 AM