|
Blogger Symposium -- The War On Terrorism
by John Hawkins
Thanks to Venomous Kate from Electric Venom, Kathy Kinsley from On The Third Hand, Lee from Right-Thinking From The Left Coast, & Sparkey from Sgt. Stryker's Daily Briefing (who showed up late) for participating.
John Hawkins: To begin with, give the Bush administration a grade on how they've prosecuted the war on terrorism so far -- A to F...
Kathy Kinsley: A on foreign, D on domestic.
Lee: Good question. B on foreign, C on domestic.
Venomous Kate: B on foreign, D on domestic.
John Hawkins: I'd give him an A- on foreign, B on domestic -- what is the Bush administration doing or not doing to get the low domestic grades in your opinion?
Kathy Kinsley: Mineta and the whole 'airport insecurity' thing & no attempt to stop Saudi/Wahabi funding of schools and Mosques in the US.
Lee: I totally agree with you on Mineta, I've been a big proponent of getting rid of both him and Tenet.
Venomous Kate: The Transportation Security Administration is a joke. Harbor security is pathetic, and there's still no adequate border control.
John Hawkins: Well, let's start with airport security -- should we be racially profiling?
Lee: Absolutely.
Kathy Kinsley: No. We should be religiously profiling.
Lee: The race issue shouldn't be the only aspect, but it shouldn't be ignored, as is Mineta's policy. It's like looking for Klan members by including black people in the search, it just doesn't make any sense.
Kathy Kinsley: I'd say it shouldn't be a 'negative' for profiling, as it seems to be in Mineta's policy.
Venomous Kate: We should be profiling on a combination of religion, ethnicity, age and gender.
Kathy Kinsley: Not sure about gender, Kate, have you heard of the Chechnyan 'Black Widows'?
Venomous Kate: Heh. The involvement of women in international terrorism still remains relatively low; however, I'm not saying that you don't check females if they hit on 3 out of 4 profile targets.
John Hawkins: I agree with Kate. I don't think we could do straight up racial or religious profiling because I see a conflict with the 4th Amendment. But, if it's just one factor in the search, I don't see that as a problem. To me, there's no question that any system that doesn't somehow single out Muslims & Arabic males under a certain age for more scrutiny than other passengers is a waste of time.
Lee: I couldn't agree more, John.
John Hawkins: I don't want to spend all our time on this though -- what about border security? How are we doing there?
Lee: I think our borders are porous, and it's extremely un-PC to try and close them, so not enough is being done. Terrorists, like anyone else who wishes to do you harm, will exploit your weaknesses. And the fact that just about anyone can walk into the US via Mexico is a huge weakness.
Kathy Kinsley: Border security isn't possible. Sorry. We have how many miles of borders with Canada and Mexico, along with borders on two major oceans.
Venomous Kate: Again, it's an area where the potential threat is so large and the resources are comparatively small and pandering to political correctness is compounding the problem.
John Hawkins: Would you support putting the military on the border? Should we be using predators on the borders? Should we be putting water stations in the desert for illegals to use?
Lee: Yes on Predators, no on water stations.
Venomous Kate: Yes on both.
Lee: Yes on water stations, Kate?
Venomous Kate: Yes.
Lee: Why? Water stations simply make it easier and provide an incentive for illegals to sneak into America. It's like providing ammunition stations in a bank.
John Hawkins: What else are we falling down in the area of domestic security? What else should we be doing?
Venomous Kate: Harbor security, John.
John Hawkins: I know we have started a program where we check some boats before they get into port...
Venomous Kate: Our checking remains rather innocuous, though. We're not inspecting each cargo container. We're comparing their manifests with their actual volume, and that's it.
John Hawkins: Realistically, do you think we can ever do that?
Lee: I don't think it's possible to check every container, there are tens of millions of them.
Venomous Kate: Randomized inspections for most boats, with thorough inspections of those coming from terror-friendly regions r through them, I should add. That's feasible, and would work.
Lee: But if it's a choice between checking a container from Canada and one from Yemen I know where I'd rather send the authorities.
John Hawkins: Dittos Lee.
Kathy Kinsley: Agreed. Country profiling is indicated there.
John Hawkins: So what about our intelligence agencies? Do they have too little power, too much, or is it just about right?
Kathy Kinsley: We need to kick the bureaucrats out of our intelligence agencies, and all the PC types (on both sides).
Venomous Kate: The agency power seems about right, but they could use some real coordination.
Lee: I think we're doing okay, but I don't support the idea of a PATRIOT II. There still is a lack of coordination between the agencies. But I do like the self-imposed restrictions on the FBI being lifted by Ashcroft.
John Hawkins: Do you think the Homeland Security Department is making us safer or is it just creating adding another layer of bureaucracy? I lean towards the latter personally...
Venomous Kate: I do, too.
Lee: Yeah, I would tend to agree, John.
Lee: I do think we are safer, but I also think we've created yet another government behemoth.
John Hawkins: So up to this point, is there any specific new power our intelligence agencies have been given that troubles you?
Venomous Kate: Total Information Awareness has me very concerned.
Lee: Yeah, I'd agree about TIA. I don't think that TIA would actually work, but as technology advances it eventually will.
Kathy Kinsley: Agreed. TIA will result in a lot of people with loud mouths (like me) being checked, and others who are more circumspect being ignored.
John Hawkins: I'm strongly opposed to Total Information Awareness myself, but they haven't actually gotten that off the ground yet. Does it bother you that the Patriot Act has been used for non-terrorist related law enforcement issues in some instances?
Kathy Kinsley: YES.
Venomous Kate: Absolutely. Particularly since we were assured that wouldn't happen.
Lee: Yes, absolutely. That was the big criticism of the Patriot Act, and it's come true. Which is why I am opposed to Patriot II.
Kathy Kinsley: I found the 'TIPS' idea positively frightening. I'm just glad the rest of the US public didn't like it either.
John Hawkins: I think TIPS got a bad rap. It was basically just like the Crimewatch program, but for terrorism. You see something suspicious, you have one place to call it in.
Lee: Yeah, I never understood the whole panic over TIPS.
Kathy Kinsley: Yeah? That's the sort of thing the USSR did. How many good tips do you think would get called in VS how many 'I can't stand my neighbor' tips?
John Hawkins: Yah, but that's what Crimewatch is too Kathy and no one freaks out over McGruff the Crime Dog.
Kathy Kinsley: Ummm, not fond of that either...
Lee: Yeah, TIPS was like 'America's Most Wanted'. If you call your local cops with a tip there are a thousand layers of bureaucracy that you have to go through. With TIPS you got right thorough to someone.
John Hawkins: Let's talk Afghanistan -- Militarily, how well do you think it went and how much did we accomplish?
Lee: Afghanistan was a total success militarily, but I think we've really neglected it since then.
Venomous Kate: You're using the past tense, John. But we're still there, and the fighting is still going on.
John Hawkins: We haven't done anything militarily significant there in almost a year and a half.
Kathy Kinsley: I think the comment (can't recall whose) about 'the first time we ever bombed anyone out of the Stone Age' is pretty much spot-on.
Lee: Christopher Hitchens said that, Kathy.
Kathy Kinsley: Thanks, Lee.
Lee: Rather than $15 billion for African AIDS, we need $15 billion for Afghan reconstruction.
Venomous Kate: I agree with Lee. Reconstruction would go a long way to stemming the ongoing attacks.
John Hawkins: I do think we should pumping billions more into Afghanistan. The Afghan government is starving for cash which is understandable given that they're pretty much trying to rebuild their country from scratch.
Venomous Kate: Yep. And our foreign policy for decades shows that cash makes friends. Well, unless they're French.
Lee: Afghanistan doesn't have the natural resources of Iraq. They don't have an educated middle class like Iraq. They need our help a lot more.
Venomous Kate: The lack of natural resources is the biggie. Afghanistan will never be a world player because of it.
Lee: Afghanistan is a 10-20 year project, but we still need to be doing more now.
John Hawkins: How much of a blow do you think it was to Al-Qaeda to lose Afghanistan as a base?
Venomous Kate: A big one, John, but not a fatal one.
Lee: I think it was a major blow, but they're not going to take it lying down. They're going to find another place to train and harbor. Which is the main reason for Bush's Africa initiative, to stop terrorists from using Africa as a base.
John Hawkins: I don't think Africa is a great base for Al Qaeda under current conditions -- the Arabs will stick out like a sore thumb and there are plenty of people happy to sell them out for cash.
Venomous Kate: But consider the number of primarily Muslim countries there, John.
Lee: Sudan, especially.
Kathy Kinsley: There are many Islamist Africans that are quite willing to join the jihad.
Venomous Kate: Islamic extremists are often welcomed in terribly impoverished countries.
John Hawkins: That's true and I think we have to worry about the locals getting into terrorism, but I don't see a bunch of Arabs setting up shop there like they did in Afghanistan.
Venomous Kate: No, I don't either. But finding harbor and manpower? You bet.
Lee: Africa is a big place. There are lots of areas to hide.
Kathy Kinsley: Hiding them, yes, I agree with Kate. I don't think they'll have the same kind of safe-harbor they did in Afghanistan.
John Hawkins: Hide, yes that's possible. But setting up training camps and sending people from all over the world there to train -- I don't see that happening. So let's talk Iraq -- first off, how do you think the military operation went on a ten scale?
Venomous Kate: The initial op: 9. (It would be a 10 if it weren't for bad intel early on.)
Kathy Kinsley: 9.8 -- including the psyops. They managed to convince Saddam that the attack was weeks away, even while surrounding him.
John Hawkins: I'd give it a 9.9 on a 10 scale on the initial operation.
Lee: 9.5. But, I think that it's quite obvious we need more manpower there. But we've got troops working now as a police force, something they are simply not trained to do.
Venomous Kate: Lee, I don't know that the answer is more manpower, or switching our troops out of peacekeeping mode back to being soldiers.
John Hawkins: I think it'll be key to get plenty of Iraqi police officers up and running as soon as possible.
Kathy Kinsley: They are doing that, it's just not getting reported in the media much.
Venomous Kate: And some of the police officers don't want to be near our troops because they may become targets.
Lee: ...Since we are being dragged reluctantly into nation building we need a force that is trained specifically to do so. It should be able to conduct the police functions that the military currently does not.
--> Sparkey has Entered the room.
John Hawkins: Hi Ya Sparkey =) I think ya made it an hour late =)
Kathy Kinsley: Hi Sparkey
Venomous Kate: Hi Sparkey.
John Hawkins: Realistically, how long do all of you see a significant # of US troops stationed in Iraq as peacekeepers?
Lee: 5 years.
Kathy Kinsley: 6-10 years, at least.
Sparkey: Realistically, John, how long have we been in Japan or Germany? I fully expect my son (who is now 8) to one day write home from a base in Iraq. I told him to pay attention to what was going on, because in just a few years his generation was going to inherit the responsibility for what is happening today.
Kathy Kinsley: As a presence, I agree with Sparkey.
Lee: Well we haven't been there as peacekeepers, though.
Venomous Kate: Sadly, I don't see us leaving for at least a dozen years.
Lee: I think we'll have a presence there forever, just like in Germany and Japan, but as a peacekeeping force I see 5 years.
Sparkey: It was once said the reason the US Was in NATO to Keep America in Europe, the Germans from day tripping through Belgium, and the Russians out. That sounds like peacekeeping to me!
John Hawkins: Well I expect us to set up military bases even after we're done acting as peacekeepers.
Lee: John, I think bases in the region were one of the main reasons for going into Iraq in the first place.
Kathy Kinsley: So do I, Lee. And that was the main reason I went pro-war instead of anti.
Venomous Kate: (What I'd like to see us do, however, is pull out now and leave them to their own devices, then wait to go back when we're invited.) I just don't think with the tribal structure that we're going to be able to get out of peacekeeping until a new generation takes power there.
Sparkey: VERY good point Kate!
John Hawkins: So should we let a NATO or UN handle things instead of American peacekeepers?
Venomous Kate: NATO or UN? Not a chance. That's almost like letting the State Department handle it all.
Kathy Kinsley: Some of the NATO nations might be debatable, but absolutely not UN.
Lee: I have no problem with NATO or UN forces working as supplemental troops to the US effort, but only if they are under US control.
Venomous Kate: If we're going to stay there, then increased NATO involvement would be great, but only as a supplement to our troops.
Lee: Exactly, Kate.
John Hawkins: I wouldn't mind NATO if we set up some sort of structure that kept France and Germany out of the decision making process -- it might give NATO a purpose.
Sparkey: Personally, I don't want to see ANY peacekeepers under the UN flag in Iraq. To me the UN is a discredited organization.
Kathy Kinsley: Agreed, Sparkey.
Venomous Kate: Not running the show. As for the U.N. running it, I have one word: Cambodia.
Sparkey: Add Congo, Palestine, yadda, yadda, yadda...The biggest problem with either the UN or NATO is you get too may cooks making the stew.
John Hawkins: So what's next in the war on terrorism? Does anyone think there's any chance Israel and the palestinians will move towards a real peace settlement?
Lee: Not a chance, John. The Palestinians will settle for nothing less than the destruction of Israel.
Kathy Kinsley: Sigh. Did you have to ask that? No.
Sparkey: Israel has, IMHO, moved. The problem is on the other side.
Venomous Kate: What do you mean 'moved', Sparkey?
John Hawkins: He means Israel is serious about making peace, the Palestinians are not.
Venomous Kate: Ah. I'm with you now. Yes, Israel has made concessions and Palestine just demands more. I'm with Lee.
Sparkey: Kate, John is correct.
Lee: I would agree, John.
John Hawkins: So when this latest attempt to make peace fails -- and it will -- what then? Do we just let it ride for a couple of years? Is there a strategy that offers hope any of you see?
Lee: I was much more pro-Palestine until the Oslo accords. Israel offered Arafat everything he wanted, and he launched the Intifada. It's obvious to me who wants peace and who does not.
Sparkey: And that's the problem, every time you make a concession to a criminal mind, they view you as weak.
Venomous Kate: I think it's time to view Palestine as nothing less than terrorists. And to stick by our position of declaring war on terrorists.
John Hawkins: So you think we should declare war on the Palestinians?
Venomous Kate: Nothing else has seemed to work, John. We treated them as a political entity and they increased terror attacks. We negotiated. Israel negotiated and they continued their attacks. We've watered down our support of Israel, and the attacks increased. So I think it's time to reconsider our views and declare them terrorists.
Lee: No, not at all. But we shouldn't restrain Israel from doing so.
Sparkey: Kate yes! All terrorists are our enemies, their destabilization of the Middle East has directly effected our national security.
John Hawkins: I'd be in favor of transferring them to the surrounding countries because I believe that would work, but I don't think Israel or the US has the political will to do that.
Kathy Kinsley: If I had a magic wand, I'd pick up Israel's people and all their infrastructure, and drop them in the US somewhere. (And they'd scream, loudly). But from that point, the Arab world would have no one to blame...
Lee: Israel and Palestine simply need a nice long war, with one side destroying the other.
Sparkey: In a war with no outside influences the Israelis would do most of the destroying and the Arabs would do most of the dying.
Venomous Kate: Sounds good to me.
Kathy Kinsley: Me too.
John Hawkins: Do you see any solution short of the most extreme ones? All out war or transfer? Do you have any hope of a negotiated settlement could be enforced?
Kathy Kinsley: Unfortunately, no.
Lee: Not really. The Palestinians have been brainwashed by their leadership for so long than they will never accept the State of Israel. The Jews fill their traditional role as the scapegoats for the failures of other societies.
Sparkey: Lee, that's part of the problem. The surrounding Arab states, by not assimilating the refugees, have created the problem. The surrounding Arab despots want their populations to focus on the Israelis, not their own failings.
Venomous Kate: I don't think a transfer would work at all, John. Imagine a transfer of the PA to other regions in the Middle East. Who do you think they'd ally themselves with? The last place I'd want to see groups of disenfranchised, pissed Palestinians rushing into the arms of Al-Qaeda.
Kathy Kinsley: Heh... I was about to point that out Kate, should've known you already had the idea.
John Hawkins: I cannot morally accept just killing the Palestinians, so transfer looks to be the only reasonable option to me.
Sparkey: The Palestinians need to have some sort of group epiphany to get them out of their fantasy ideology. The populace stills supports terrorism.
Kathy Kinsley: I agree, Sparkey.
John Hawkins: I think you're right Sparkey, but I have no idea how to induce an epiphany and most of Europe and the UN doesn't see a need for the Palestinians to do anything to earn a state.
Venomous Kate: I think a war in which Israel was winning by overwhelming numbers, and in which the U.S. didn't waver in its support of Israel, might be a good inducement to such an epiphany.
John Hawkins: Iran is rapidly moving towards nuclear weapons, they're supporting terrorism, and quite possibly supporting Al Qaeda. What do we do about it -- and when?
Sparkey: Iran is between a rock and a hard place. Rock = Afghanistan, Hard Place = Iraq.
Venomous Kate: I actually think the populace will take care of the situation themselves in a year or so. They have a record of doing so.
Lee: I still think there will be a revolution in Iran within two years. The population there smells the end of the regime, and they're not going to give up completely. They voted in a reformer and haven't gotten any reforms.
Sparkey: Kate & Lee, I agree. Though many Iranians wish we would do it for them. But I think it will be better for the Iranian psychologically if they do it for themselves.
Kathy Kinsley: I think the continued support of the western bloggers is important, and the continued support of the US government for them is also important. I also think direct intervention (at this point) would backfire.
John Hawkins: I'd rather have the Iranians do it themselves too and I think they may be able to manage it, but I don't know how long we have. What if the mullahs get nukes before then? That may be entirely possible given what we're hearing.
Lee: John, I honestly believe that I'm going to see a nuclear detonation in my lifetime.
John Hawkins: I would guess within 10 years Lee. Either in Israel, here, or in Europe.
Venomous Kate: On the nukes... most of the non-French western world will clamp down on Iran if that happens.
Sparkey: Kate, don't bet the farm on it.
Venomous Kate: Really, Sparkey?
Sparkey: The rest of the world doesn't have the military capability to put it's foot down. Like Jonah Goldberg said, 'if all you have is talk, then all problems can be solved by talking.'
Venomous Kate: Ah, I see what you mean. But I think they'd support direct intervention.....
John Hawkins: We know Iran is going to have nukes relatively soon and I don't see any nation in Europe that really seems to care much one way or the other -- not even Britain.
Venomous Kate: You've got a point, John.
John Hawkins: If we had a choice between letting Iran have nukes or going to war, should we go to war or let them have nukes?
Lee: Go to war
Sparkey: We'd have to go to war...
Venomous Kate: War.
Kathy Kinsley: I'd personally go to war today to free Iran, but I'm not so sure about giving my government that permission.
John Hawkins: Do you see a diplomatic solution to the conflict with North Korea or do you see hostilities commencing at some point in the future?
Sparkey: How do you negotiate with the mob?
Kathy Kinsley: Good question.
John Hawkins: Put a gun to their head and tell them how it's going to be if they want to live.
Venomous Kate: I think North Korea will be resolved diplomatically, but Kim needs to go.
Kathy Kinsley: I think NK will implode if we can keep up our 'diplomacy' long enough.
Sparkey: For what it's worth, I think NK will slip into civil war between rival Army factions leading to an NK implosion.
Venomous Kate: I think you've got a point, Sparkey. I'm expecting a coup of sorts that takes out Kim and then negotiate with us.
Sparkey: Kim will be on the sidelines watching his Army commanders fight each other over 'turf.'
Lee: All the more reason to keep rattling the sabre at NK. That's not going to happen unless the NK generals think there is a danger in keeping 'Dear Leader' around.
John Hawkins: Really? My guess is that they'll get rid of their nukes & their nuclear program (verifiably) and we, Japan, & South Korea will give them goodies.
Kathy Kinsley: That won't happen unless China gets really involved, John. I have hopes there, just not high hopes.
Lee: China and Russia, both.
Sparkey: Naw, John, the NK twits in power will view that as a loss of face to surrender anything like that. You are thinking like a Westerner.
John Hawkins: I think China is serious about this. They make too much money off of us, Japan & South Korea to let this continue indefinitely.
Kathy Kinsley: China could get rid of Kim, if it really wanted to.
Sparkey: True, but just how much REAL influence do they have with Kim. Not much from events so far.
Lee: I think quite a bit, NK gets propped up by China.
Kathy Kinsley: Kim's become a raving lunatic but China has contacts in the rest of NK that we don't have. And it wouldn't cause any loss of face if those contacts took over...
Sparkey: Contacts don't necessarily translate to influence, and that's the problem. How do you influence an government that has less morals than the Mafia?
Venomous Kate: Like John said: hold a gun to their heads and tell them how it's going to be if they want to live.
John Hawkins: What about Syria & Hizbollah?
Venomous Kate: Let Syria watch how we handle Iraq, Iran and the Palestinians. Then ask if they want to be next.
Kathy Kinsley: Yep. Syria's already showing signs of 'wimping out'.
Lee: It's amazing what a dramatic show of power can achieve in the Middle East.
Sparkey: I think our actions in Afghanistan & Iraq have upped our 'deterrance' factor. We are less the paper tiger OBL thought we were.
John Hawkins: Last question -- Saudi Arabia -- how should we handle them?
Venomous Kate: Realize they're not our friends. Stop treating them as if they are.
Sparkey: I agree with Kate...
Lee: Diplomatically. They know they're screwed without our help, which should be dangled over their heads like a carrot.
Kathy Kinsley: Riyadh Delenda Est!
John Hawkins: What else should we do besides moving our troops out of Saudi Arabia?
Lee: Tell them that we won't defend them the next time Al-Qaeda attacks.
Sparkey: Too many Saudis support Al-Qaeda, they would welcome it. The House of Saud is a screwed-up bunch of spoiled frat boys.
Kathy Kinsley: Good description.
Lee: Keeping Iraq out of OPEC is a paramount concern.
Sparkey: Lee, really, why? I would think they would now be a moderating influence.
Lee: With a major oil producer out of OPEC these countries lose the stranglehold they have over world oil prices.
John Hawkins: Get Iraq out of OPEC and get them producing oil at full capacity, and that would drop the worldwide price of oil and cut into Saudi royal family income and weaken their hold on power. That's if we decide we want them gone -- who knows what would replace them though. There is no chance of a Democracy springing up in Saudi Arabia without outside help right now.
Lee: Exactly, John.
Kathy Kinsley: What would replace them would be worse, I'm afraid.
Sparkey: I kinda like the idea of the 101st Airborne replacing them, but that's just me.
Kathy Kinsley: Well, in that case, I'd agree, Sparkey. That would be a good idea!
Venomous Kate: Lee, John - great point. If the Saudis get hit in their wallets, fat as they are, they'll be more compliant.
John Hawkins: Well gentlemen, ladies, that is about all we have time for. Thank you for participating.
|
