in case you thought Patraeus was apolitical ...

[AEON]

but is Islam incompatible with democracy?

It seems Turkey is making a decent run to prove that it is not.

 

[A_Wanderer]

If you are talking about a situation where God is the highest power in the land and the law is all in the form of revealed truth that cannot be altered then yes it is incompatiable with democratic principles. If you are talking about a situation where Muslims elect their own leaders and follow a rule of law not from a holy book then it isn't (Indonesia and Turkey would be two examples of the latter).

 

[anitram]

The point is that if a democratically elected leader turns the country into a dictatorship after he takes office, it is no longer a democracy but a dictatorship.

Who says it's a dictatorship?

What if it's an Islamic theocracy based on the will of the people? And while not necessarily engaging in attacks on the US, still isn't friendly to you or your interests?

 

[Vincent Vega]

It seems Turkey is making a decent run to prove that it is not.

It's a secularised state with a majority of its population being Muslims, just like western countries are secularized states with a Christian majority.

 

[AEON]

A quick history lesson: America is no Rome

The tired analogy of imperial decline and fall

Gerard Baker
From The London Times September 14, 2007


The ethnic origins of General David Petraeus are apparently Dutch, which is a shame because there’s something sonorously classical about the family name of the commander of the US forces in Iraq. When you discover that his father was christened Sixtus, the fantasy really takes flight. Somewhere in the recesses of the brain, where memory mingles hazily with imagination, I fancy I can recall toiling through a schoolboy Latin textbook that documented the progress of one Petraeus Sixtus as he triumphantly extended the imperium romanum across some dusty plain in Asia Minor.

The fantasy is not wholly inapt, of course. General Petraeus was the star turn in Washington this week, testifying before Congress about the progress of the surge by US forces in Iraq. Some evidently see America’s wearying detention in the quagmire of Mesopotamia as a classic example of imperial overreach of the kind that is thought to have doomed Rome. Who knows? Perhaps 1,500 years ago one of the forebears of General Petraeus was hauled before the Senate to explain the progress of some surge of Roman forces to defeat the insurgents in Germania.

The US is indeed in the middle of another gloomy ride around the “America as Rome” theme park of half-understood history lessons. The pessimists, equipped with their Fodor’s guidebooks, their summer school diplomas, and their DVD collection of Cecil B. DeMille movies, are convinced it’s all up for the people who march today under the standard of the eagle, just as it was for their predecessors. They see military defeat abroad and political decay at home; they watch as far-flung peoples chafe at the dictates of imperial rule and as the plebs at home grow metaphorically hungry from misgovernment. The only real uncertainty in their minds is who will play the Vandals and lay waste to Washington?

It’s a familiar and very tired analogy, of course. From the moment that America became top nation in the middle of the last century, people have been racing to be contemporary Gibbons, chronicling the decline and fall even as it was supposedly happening. Not the least of the objections to their efforts is that Rome’s domination of the known world lasted about 500 years, and survived more than the odd thrashing or two at the hands of barbarian tribes. In modern America, it’s always the same. Every lost battle or turbulent day on the foreign exchanges and the obituary writers are sharpening their pencils.

The bigger objection is that America is not much of an empire after all. No one pays tribute, no one declares allegiance to Caesar, and what kind of empire is it that owes its foreign subjects a couple of trillion dollars? Still, as Gibbon himself noted in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: “There exists in human nature a strong propensity to depreciate the advantages, and to magnify the evils, of the present times.” Which brings us back neatly to General Petraeus and the Iraq war.

The antiwar crowd’s efforts to depreciate America’s efforts in the Middle East hit a new low on the first day of the long-awaited congressional testimony, when MoveOn.org, the self-appointed leftwing base of the Democratic Party, took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times that called the commander “General Betray Us” and accused him of lying about the progress of the surge. As stunts go, it was as startlingly offensive as it was politically self-defeating.

Not many Americans – not even those who oppose the war – like the idea of calling their generals traitors. They have a vaguely disconcerting sense that they know where that leads – and it’s not Rome but a rather shorter-lived empire of the 20th century that springs to mind. And so it had the signal effect this week of forcing Democrats to distance themselves from the antiwar movement. Most of them – especially those who harbour presidential ambitions – had to go out of their way during the hearings to emphasise their admiration for the general and his soldiers.

This is good. You can argue about the surge. The evidence is encouraging that the increased US military effort, together with a change in tactics, has reduced the violence in Iraq. On the other hand there are legitimate questions about the long-term viability of the strategy. But if America is to emerge from Iraq with a renewed sense of its global role, you shouldn’t really debase the motives of those who lead US forces there. Because in the end what they are doing is deeply honourable – fighting to destroy an enemy that delights in killing women and children; rebuilding a nation ruined by rapine and savagery; trying to bridge sectarian divides that have caused more misery in the world than the US could manage if it lasted a thousand years.

It is helpful to think about Iraq this way. Imagine if the US had never been there; and that this sectarian strife had broken out in any case – as, one day it surely would, given the hatreds engendered by a thousand years of Muslim history and the efforts of Saddam Hussein.

What would we in the West think about it? What would we think of as our responsibilities? There would be some who would want to wash their hands of it. There would be others who would think that UN resolutions and diplomatic initiatives would be enough to salve our consciences if not to stop the slaughter.

But many of us surely would think we should do something about it – as we did in the Balkans more than a decade ago – and as, infamously, we failed to do in Africa at the same time. And we would know that, for all our high ideals and our soaring rhetoric, there would be only one country with the historical commitment to make massive sacrifices in the defence of the lives and liberty of others, the leadership to mobilise efforts to relieve the suffering and, above all, the economic and military wherewithal to make it happen.

That’s the only really workable analogy between the US and Rome. When Rome fell, the world went dark for the best part of a millennium. America may not be an empire. But whatever it is, for the sake of humanity, pray it lasts at least as long as Rome.

 

[namkcuR]

It seems Turkey is making a decent run to prove that it is not.

It is a secular state. It's been a secular state for over 8 decades. There are power-seekers there who would wish to make it otherwise, but so far, they have not succeeded. There are even some already in power who are attempting to gradually force some aspects of the religion on the state...there is talk of making headscarves mandatory for women...but trust me...MANY people there will not easily give in to that kind of thing.

 

[BVS]

I also wonder how many lives were needlessly lost because we didn't bomb soon enough (World War II and over 72 MILLION lives immediately comes to mind)

And that's probably one of the few cases. It would definately be the exception rather than the rule.

How do you reconcile your hawkish beliefs with your religious beliefs?

 

[Infinity]

States sponser terrorists all the time; USA in Latin America, Saudi Arabia in Afghanistan, Iran in Lebanon. Saddam Hussein had no problem keeping Abu Nidal in Iraq (of course having him killed when he could prove a liability).

Yes but Saddam Hussein did not harbor al-Qaeda. As I said before Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden didn't care about each other.

 

[Infinity]

Are you saying you would support the invasion of these countries?

Absolutely not, but I'm trying to say how ridiculous your idea is of invading every country that isn't a democracy. So you would support an invasion of that list that I made wouldn't you?

 

[Infinity]

I also wonder how many lives were needlessly lost because we didn't bomb soon enough (World War II and over 72 MILLION lives immediately comes to mind)

Okay now this is just getting ridiculous. Comparing WWII to Iraq is stupid. Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, France and the Netherlands in WWII. He started a war, and so we attacked Germany. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, we went after them, and there was nothing wrong with that war. But who did Iraq invade in 2003? And don't you dare say that it was okay to go into Iraq in 2003 because Iraq went into Kuwait in 1991 and we needed stop Iraq before they invade Kuwait again. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. They had virtually no Navy, and I don't remember but there were a lot of restrictions placed on Iraq. This is why we were able to defeat Iraq in three days. They weren't powerful at all.

 

[BVS]

I think weak logic is his strong point.

 

[Infinity]

No, but the argument that Iraq was invaded exclusively on the basis of WMD is demonstrably false.

Well without the WMD lie, the 9/11 connection lie, the threat to the U.S. lie, the harboring of al-Qaeda lie, it would have been next to impossible for Bush to convince Congress or the American people to go to war.

And that is why they needed all these lies.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Okay now this is just getting ridiculous. Comparing WWII to Iraq is stupid. Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, France and the Netherlands in WWII. He started a war, and so we attacked Germany. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991, we went after them, and there was nothing wrong with that war. But who did Iraq invade in 2003? And don't you dare say that it was okay to go into Iraq in 2003 because Iraq went into Kuwait in 1991 and we needed stop Iraq before they invade Kuwait again. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone. They had virtually no Navy, and I don't remember but there were a lot of restrictions placed on Iraq. This is why we were able to defeat Iraq in three days. They weren't powerful at all.

Do you think that sanctions were okay? Do you think that it was okay to continue to use sanctions as a way to bring Iraq to submission?

 

[Infinity]

Do you think that sanctions were okay? Do you think that it was okay to continue to use sanctions as a way to bring Iraq to submission?

The sanctions were working fine. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.

 

[Infinity]

The best question of the night. And I admit - other than resources, and I can't think of a good reason. (with the exception of China - which is showing progress)

Wow, I can even hear Bush laughing at this statement.

 

[Irvine511]

The sanctions were working fine. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone.

in all fairness, while Saddam was effectively contained, the Iraqi people were suffering, and this became a source of discontent in the Muslim world.

 

[AEON]

phased withdrawal that begins now.

redeployment to Kurdistan and Anbar to manage from afar.

I think Gates is taking your advice:
Gates hopes to cut Iraq troop levels to 100,000

 

[Infinity]

in all fairness, while Saddam was effectively contained, the Iraqi people were suffering, and this became a source of discontent in the Muslim world.

That is true, the Iraqis were suffering. I meant however that Iraq wasn't a threat to any other country.

 

[A_Wanderer]

in all fairness, while Saddam was effectively contained, the Iraqi people were suffering, and this became a source of discontent in the Muslim world.

Didn't stop the money from flowing to the regime either; or offer a means of getting American troops out of Saudi Arabia.

 

[AEON]

Well without the WMD lie, the 9/11 connection lie, the threat to the U.S. lie, the harboring of al-Qaeda lie, it would have been next to impossible for Bush to convince Congress or the American people to go to war.

And that is why they needed all these lies.

It is amazing the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for this war. Although it is easy to see how the articulate, smooth, and unctuous George W. manipulated them all. Who could ever escape his magnetic charm and rapier wit?

 

[Infinity]

It is amazing the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for this war. Although it is easy to see how the articulate, smooth, and unctuous George W. manipulated them all. Who could ever escape his magnetic charm and rapier wit?

Few. Ron Paul being one of them. Though you can't not blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Colin Powell for brainwashing the American people through countless T.V. appearances that Iraq had a hand in 9/11 and also held WMD's, part of the blame does lie in the stupidity of Congress. I was 15 years old when we sent in weapons inspectors into Iraq and then eventually sent troops in, and I can honestly say right now that I was against it from the beginning. And if a 15 year old like me could see that this war was unnecessary from the beginning, then Congress definitely should have seen it.

So yes I do blame Hillary Clinton and the other members of Congress who now say that they were lied to. Yes, they were lied to, but they should have known better. And that is why someone like Ron Paul gets my support. Because he had the wisdom in that situation to go against the crowd, especially while being a Republican.

I know that Ron Paul is not doing that great in the ratings. But i'm going to be honest. Hillary Clinton will most likely be the democratic nominee and will crush the Republican candidate over the Iraq War debate which will cause us to lose the election. Unless if we nominate Ron Paul, he is the only one who has an even better history then Hillary on the issue of this war.

 

[BVS]

How do you reconcile your hawkish beliefs with your religious beliefs?

I'm guessing you don't have an answer for this?

 

[Diemen]

He's bringing back old-world evangelization. Bringing democracy, by use of force, to the heathens because we know what's best for them.

 

[phillyfan26]

It is amazing the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for this war. Although it is easy to see how the articulate, smooth, and unctuous George W. manipulated them all. Who could ever escape his magnetic charm and rapier wit?

At least they had the decency to admit they were wrong and are now against it.

All I remember is hearing about all this intelligence we had and how we knew better than the UN cause of our intelligence information.

And, if I recall, Barack Obama was against the war before it started.

 

[Muldfeld]

... you can take that delusion and stuff it.

he's giving a one-hour exclusive interview to Brit Hume tomorrow after he gives a glowing report about "the surge" to Congress all day long.

i'm sure he'll be tired after all that testifyin' (testify!), so no hard questions, mmm-kay?

you know, "the surge" that was supposed to enable a political reconciliation in Iraq? we can talk all day about how this neighborhood has 30% fewer murders (but let's not talk about the Iraqis who've fled, and remember, Iraqis who've been shot in the head through the forehead aren't victims of ethnic violence but criminal violence, and that's a big difference) but there's no getting around the fact that there's been absolutely no, none, nada political progress in Iraq and we've given said "surge" 9 months.

a big round of applause to the total politicization of any and all policy and intelligence. that's the true legacy of the Bush administration. there is no policy that's formulated independent of the political.

and shame on Patraeus. but, hey, when you want to be on the R ticket in 2012, one has to put things other than the troops on the ground first.

Interesting points, especially about the statistical manipulation of political deaths versus murders. Everyone's so quick to uphold Petraus as a God, but he's just a human being subject to all the frailties we all are. He's been given a prestigeous job and he'd find it hard to say I can't do it; let someone else. He's not perfect, and there's no reason to supply him with perfect morality and knowledge. Conservatives are just using him as an excuse. They weren't too interested in standing up for military men when Rumsfeld was firing man of them and bullied and got rid of General Shinseki for opposing the war.

 

[Muldfeld]

Few. Ron Paul being one of them. Though you can't not blame Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Colin Powell for brainwashing the American people through countless T.V. appearances that Iraq had a hand in 9/11 and also held WMD's, part of the blame does lie in the stupidity of Congress. I was 15 years old when we sent in weapons inspectors into Iraq and then eventually sent troops in, and I can honestly say right now that I was against it from the beginning. And if a 15 year old like me could see that this war was unnecessary from the beginning, then Congress definitely should have seen it.

So yes I do blame Hillary Clinton and the other members of Congress who now say that they were lied to. Yes, they were lied to, but they should have known better. And that is why someone like Ron Paul gets my support. Because he had the wisdom in that situation to go against the crowd, especially while being a Republican.

I know that Ron Paul is not doing that great in the ratings. But i'm going to be honest. Hillary Clinton will most likely be the democratic nominee and will crush the Republican candidate over the Iraq War debate which will cause us to lose the election. Unless if we nominate Ron Paul, he is the only one who has an even better history then Hillary on the issue of this war.

I quite like Ron Paul and Democrat Mike Gravel's sole willingness to speak honestly about America's cruelty in the Middle East and its cause in the current instability and terrorism. All the others are ready to attack Iran, but these two tell the American people the truth about what American has done to Iran for decades. Good for them!

 

[Muldfeld]

in all fairness, while Saddam was effectively contained, the Iraqi people were suffering, and this became a source of discontent in the Muslim world.

Very much agreed. Clinton is partly to blame for continuing the exaggeration in the American public mind about the thread Saddam Hussein posed.

According to Scott Ritter, it was Bill Clinton who oversaw the CIA's illegal infiltration into the UN Weapons Inspection regime. Saddam didn't want this, so he kicked the weapons inspectors out. If Clinton hadn't botched this, the weapons inspectors would have been able to know Saddam didn't have WMDs.

 

[AEON]

So yes I do blame Hillary Clinton and the other members of Congress who now say that they were lied to. Yes, they were lied to, but they should have known better.

Well who can really blame her for believing Bush? After all - all of these distinguished people, including her legendary husband, said the same thing. (NOTE - George W. Bush took office in Jan. 2001)

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

(sources can be found here:
Sources of Quotes)

 

[Irvine511]

It is amazing the Democrats voted overwhelmingly for this war. Although it is easy to see how the articulate, smooth, and unctuous George W. manipulated them all. Who could ever escape his magnetic charm and rapier wit?

but this still avoids the issue: the Republicans led the country into a disasterous war in Iraq which has made the United States and the rest of the region far less safer.

you can point fingers all you want and call the Dems enablers, but it's still you people that have been drinking long, greedy gulps of spiked Kool Aid for the past 6 years, and this mess is your responsibility.

 

[Irvine511]

Well who can really blame her for believing Bush? After all - all of these distinguished people, including her legendary husband, said the same thing. (NOTE - George W. Bush took office in Jan. 2001)

could it also be possible that many people didn't think that this adminsitration would turn out to the THE MOST INCOMPETENT IN HISTORY? is it possible that, maybe, just maybe, the authorization of the use of force, IF NECESSARY, wasn't a carte blanche, but an agreement to give the president the ability to use the threat of force as a negotiating tool? is it possible that no one thought he'd acutally go to war in the way that he did with no allies but the UK? is it possible that everyone believed that he would have had a post-war plan? is it possible that people belived that the Bush adminstration WOULD HAVE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK and not done things like DISSOLVE THE ARMY?

i can only hold the 2002 Congress so responsible.

you can dodge and point fingers, but it sounds like you're the guy who got really drunk, jumped up on the bar and started to dance to "honkey tonk woman" and you fell off and you broke your arm, and you're blaming the bartender for serving you drinks.