Clarification/Follow-up by Dark_Crow on 01/08/07 10:36 pm:
Good argument, Elliot. I think we could find a number of similarities between the, “War on Poverty” and the “War on Terrorism”. For instance, there is the same assumption by the theorist of both Wars, and that is that there is a fixed number of needy and terrorist. Never mind that both Wars are unrealizable. Government poverty relief had been around a very long time, as has been the war on terror and spending against terrorism dates back decades. Another thing they both have in common is that spending continues to increase. Never mind that the Aid just gives people a reason to be poor, as the War on Terrorism just gives people a reason to commit terrorism.
Any government program that requires ever more spending and power in order to work should be considered very carefully.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/09/07 1:52 pm:
Dark Crow, I get your point. But I believe that you have made an error in your assumptions about the Wor on Terror.

"the War on Terrorism just gives people a reason to commit terrorism."

First of all, the War on Terrorism doesn't give them the excuse to commit terrorism. Their religious beliefs give them the excuse to commit terrorism, and have done so for 1500 years.

Second, I don't believe that fighting terrorism causes more terrorism. In fact, if you look at Israel as an example, the West Bank has been relatively silent for over a year now precisely because Israel has finally fought terrorism there the way it needs to be fought: by hunting them down and killing them (they call it targetted strikes, but essentially it was assassination of the terrorists and their leaders). They have not taken the same actions in Gaza yet, and so Gaza remains a trouble-spot for Israel. Somalia is another good example: fighting al Qaeda there has virtually eliminated the terrorists in a matter of months.

History has clearly shown that when we fight against terrorism... really fight it, not just blow up a few buildings for show... terrorism decreases. The problem in Iraq is not that we have been fighting and losing. Its that we have not been fighting. Not really, not with our full potential and skill and ruthlesness. If we did, the war would already be over, just as it is in Somalia.

Now... the big question is this: what does "winning the war" mean?

The Bush Administration has defined winning as establishing a strong government in Iraq that is capable of handling its own affairs without our military assistance. In order to do that, the violence must be suppressed long enough for the Iraqi government to get their feet under themselves. THAT should be our primary goal: suppression of violence. Paradoxically, that means that our troops have to be more violent than the perpetrators. The problem is that our government (in its infinite lack of wisdom) has refused to allow the troops to be that sort of violent.

Bush's new strategy must not just be an increase in troop strength. No matter how many troops we send, nothing will be accomplished unless we change the rules of engagement and allow the troops to do their jobs. If we do that then the war is VERY winable (under the definition put forth by the Bush Administration). It won't mean a complete elimination of violence (even with the decrease in crime in New York City, crime still happens), but it will result in an Iraqi government that is able to handle the problem by itself... that can field a force capable of limiting the violence and killing the bad guys when they crop up. EVERY government must be willing and able to do just that in order to win the overal Global War on Terror. Any government that is either unwilling or unable to do that MUST change. And if every government becomes willing and able to fight terrorism, the terrorists will have nowhere to hide and operate. THAT is how the war on teror can be won.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Dark_Crow on 01/09/07 3:33 pm:
Elliot I think we can all agree that “Poverty is not the cause of Terrorism”, however, that is a strawman. There is no single cause, unless we say the cause was the working of the mind of the terrorist.
So far as the comment I made, ("the War on Terrorism just gives people a reason to commit terrorism.") let the following be a clarification. Copycat killers: coverage makes things worse
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/815
“Everytime George Bush says the threat of Muslim terrorists is greater than anything the west has ever faced before (put aside the absurdity of that statement for now) he only gives Osama Bin Laden and co-conspirators the encouragement they need.
Everytime the media release a poll showing how scared Londoners are of sitting next to brown kids on the Tube the discord that the terrorists wanted to spread is bearing fruition. Remember the four wanna-be suicide bombers of 22nd July? They saw the reaction to July 7th and wanted it for themselves.
Robert Baer’s ‘Cult of the Suicide Bomber’, a recent documentary showed how suicide bombers were regarded as celebrities in the Occupied Territories, as they do in Lebanon. This supports my point - propping up the suicide bombing ideology is a also desire for fame and glory. [hat tip: Graemewilliams from cif]
The problem is sometimes we inadvertently do their job in attaining that fame for them.
A measured response
A similar debate ensued when broadcasters were asking themselves last year whether airing videos by terrorists were playing into their hands in their desire for notriety.
I believe a similar debate should be had over the statements made by politicians and media moral panic. This does not mean the media should censor themselves but that coverage should be more measured and nuanced.
Politicians should be more measured when making statements. Let actions speak for themselves rather than telling us everyday how this is the greatest threat we have ever ever ever faced. That has the potential to make the threat worse.”

As an aside, Tom I wish Bush was as quite about the war on terrorism as he is about his giving.

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/09/07 3:49 pm:
DC,

I've been in favor of a complete media blackout over the war in Iraq from day one. There is no reason to have embedded reporters in combat units, stringers in hospitals looking for casualties to report, and investigative reporters looking at our POW camps. The military staff and the President should be giving the reporters ZERO access to military operations in progress. If they want to print something, they should be printing what the government gives them. This is the first time in history that reporters reporting on a war haven't been vetted and edited the way their governments want it. And if it sounds like censorship... well, it is. And I have no problem with censorship in a military situation. In that way, the government can control what "notariety" the enemy gets, the morale of the home front and the secrecy of the military operations. If the newspapers want more than that, let them get it on their own. Its not the job of the government to give reporters the rope to hang the government with. If there was a real media crackdown, there wouldn't be an issue of copycats, because the media would never get the story in the first place. That is how wars USED to be run.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Dark_Crow on 01/09/07 4:41 pm:
I can’t go down that road with you, Elliot, as tempting as it is. :)

Clarification/Follow-up by ETWolverine on 01/09/07 5:10 pm:
Fair enough. I can understand why some would have issues with a press blackout. But it is completely within a President's Constitutional powers to have a media blackout of information of a military nature during a time of war.

Elliot

Clarification/Follow-up by Dark_Crow on 01/09/07 5:19 pm:
James Q. Wilson, in my last post above, writes a very compelling story about the Media. (One of my favorite teachers on Political Science.)