[BlackGriffen]

Boston Globe Article excerpts:

WASHINGTON -- Nearly three years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, US officials are uncertain whether efforts to combat terrorism are reducing the pool of recruits for militant groups or appealing to moderates in the Islamic world, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday.
[...]
He also acknowledged concerns that the war on terrorism is too dependent on military resources to track down terrorists, and that not enough emphasis is being placed on using diplomatic, economic, political, and other means to spread democracy and win over the populations from which most terrorists come.

Rumsfeld raised concerns last year in a memo to his senior staff that the war on terrorism wasn't emphasizing winning hearts and minds in the Islamic world, pointedly asking at the time whether ''we are capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the religious schools and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us."

Yesterday, Rumsfeld said he believes there is a greater appreciation in the US government that long-term success in the war on terrorism will ultimately come from nonmilitary efforts.

''It is not a military problem alone, to be sure," Rumsfeld said. ''It is clear that the political, the economic, and the military have to proceed apace. I think that there's a better, deeper understanding of the fact that this is not a one-dimensional, military-only conflict; this is something that is multidimensional."
[...]
''Rumsfeld [and Vice President Dick] Cheney have followed the Machiavellian precept that it is better to be feared than to be loved," said Joseph Nye, assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and author of ''Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics," in which he advocates greater use of foreign aid, cultural exchanges, and the media to spread American ideals and win allies. ''The real answer is it is better to be both.

''What we have seen is so much emphasis on hard power that we have helped create more recruits for Osama bin Laden," Nye, now a professor of government at Harvard University, said in an interview yesterday.
[...]
The United States and its allies have to ''make sure that the effort is directed at the problems -- plural, not a single problem," Rumsfeld said. ''I know there's an effort to cut off funding to the more radical madrassa schools and to convert a number of those schools, for example in Pakistan, to schools that teach things that are useful to a life, such as languages and mathematics and science."

Now that it's coming from Rumsfeld's mouth (for a second time) will the hawks realize that charging off to war in Iraq may have been a mistake? I doubt it, but it certainly seems to me like the administration is advocating a "more sensitive" war on terror.

BlackGriffen

[chris v]

If we were to take 4 BILLION dollars a month, and put that money towards education in backward places like Pakistan, where fundamentalist Islamic Madrasas are often the only choice for schooling, we could put a serious dent in the number of new terrorists turned out by these schools.

Unfortunately, that would be socialism, and all touchy-feely sensitive, and not at all macho. We'd appear to be girlymen, attempting a root-cause fix, which only deluded liberal America-haters see as being a viable alternative to smart bombs and a missile defense shield.

Not gonna happen.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I think you, and a lot of other critics, fall into the fallacy of thinking that your unflattering interpretation of what others think is actually what others think. Rumsfeld and the rest of the Administration never felt that force alone would defeat terror. They think that force is part of what is needed to defeat terror in certain situations, and at certain times. It is a tool to be used when needed, but not the only tool.

You are surprised not because Rumsfeld is saying anything he hasn't said all along, but merely because you now hear him say something different from the stereotype you have built in your mind.

[chris v]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you, and a lot of other critics, fall into the fallacy of thinking that your unflattering interpretation of what others think is actually what others think. Rumsfeld and the rest of the Administration never felt that force alone would defeat terror. They think that force is part of what is needed to defeat terror, but not the only part.

You are surprised not because Rumsfeld is saying anything he hasn't said all along, but merely because you now hear him say something different from the stereotype you have built in your mind.

Show me the money.

[BRussell]

Don't tell me he's for a more sensitive war on terror.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by chris v:
Show me the money.

Research administration statements on Iran and North Korea. That should get you started. Then follow up with democracy promotion. For example, Bush's remarks at the National Endowment for Democracy.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by chris v:
If we were to take 4 BILLION dollars a month, and put that money towards education in backward places like Pakistan, where fundamentalist Islamic Madrasas are often the only choice for schooling, we could put a serious dent in the number of new terrorists turned out by these schools.

Unfortunately, that would be socialism, and all touchy-feely sensitive, and not at all macho. We'd appear to be girlymen, attempting a root-cause fix, which only deluded liberal America-haters see as being a viable alternative to smart bombs and a missile defense shield.

Not gonna happen.

Why can't the 'backward' places spend their own money on education?

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you, and a lot of other critics, fall into the fallacy of thinking that your unflattering interpretation of what others think is actually what others think. Rumsfeld and the rest of the Administration never felt that force alone would defeat terror. They think that force is part of what is needed to defeat terror in certain situations, and at certain times. It is a tool to be used when needed, but not the only tool.

You are surprised not because Rumsfeld is saying anything he hasn't said all along, but merely because you now hear him say something different from the stereotype you have built in your mind.

I don't think so. First and foremost, I don't think that Rumsfeld is stupid enough to think that force alone can win - we would have invaded Saudi Arabia if he did. There are posters around here who certainly seem to be of that mindset, though. Second, in politics, perception is reality. Those who perceive force as the answer, and perceive Bush as agreeing, like to call Kerry a pu$$y, etc. Well, it turns out that either the Bush administration is moderating its position, or they weren't as far apart as some would like to believe. This is just a reminder of that fact.

BlackGriffen

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why can't the 'backward' places spend their own money on education?

Most likely because they have none or what little they do have is thoroughly dominated by people in power.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
I don't think so. First and foremost, I don't think that Rumsfeld is stupid enough to think that force alone can win - we would have invaded Saudi Arabia if he did. There are posters around here who certainly seem to be of that mindset, though. Second, in politics, perception is reality. Those who perceive force as the answer, and perceive Bush as agreeing, like to call Kerry a pu$$y, etc. Well, it turns out that either the Bush administration is moderating its position, or they weren't as far apart as some would like to believe. This is just a reminder of that fact.

BlackGriffen

My objection to Kerry is that his version of the War on Terror is entirely reactive. He has no strategic vision that I can see. He says that he would respond with force if the US is attacked, and I believe him on that. He would use force to retaliate -- just as Bill Clinton used force to retaliate. The problem is that just using force to retaliate is useless if not tied to a strategic vision. Just lobbing a few cruise missiles as Clinton did was ineffective. It didn't deter, and didn't weaken terrorism. If anything, all it did was embolden terrorists, and their state sponsors.

The alternative is a coherent strategic vision that uses all the tools of state power to effect a proactive goal. Some of those tools involve force, but most of them have nothing to do with force. How you mix the tools you select depends on the situation. In some cases, that might mean being willing and able to use force preemptively, but certainly not in all cases. In other cases, it might mean promoting democracy through entirely peaceful means, such as suppling support to grassroots activists. That is the NED route, and it also has a track record.

But that mix is complicated, and nuanced and harder to demonize. It is much easier to pretend that all that is involved is a binary choice -- force, or no force. Force is just a means, it's Kerry's lack of vision on ends that worries me.

[chris v]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Research administration statements on Iran and North Korea. That should get you started. Then follow up with democracy promotion. For example, Bush's remarks at the National Endowment for Democracy.

Okay, I read. However, I didn't say "show me the words," I said "Show me the money." With Afghanistan falling into chaos, and Karzai having to come to the US just to beg for the money that was promised three years ago, those words ring hollow.

[chris v]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Why can't the 'backward' places spend their own money on education?

Pakistan Per Capita income 2003= 470 US Dollars.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by chris v:
Pakistan Per Capita income 2003= 470 US Dollars.

But why should the US pay for their education? Because they like to bomb us?

[deedar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
But why should the US pay for their education? Because they like to bomb us?

Ohh, maybe, I dunno - to protect US?

[chris v]

Originally posted by dcolton:
But why should the US pay for their education? Because they like to bomb us?

Did you read the article? One of the main reasons they "like to bomb us" is because they're being educated in fundamentalist schools. We could help stem the tide of terrorists flowing out of these places, and maybe some kids would lead happy productive lives, or we can keep our heads in the sand until we have to spend the same money later anyway to kill them.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Rumsfeld and the rest of the Administration never felt that force alone would defeat terror. They think that force is part of what is needed to defeat terror in certain situations, and at certain times. It is a tool to be used when needed, but not the only tool.

Then let me give you a diplomatic advice:

America believes that force and non-force means are necessary to fight terrorism. It is fully willing to use force as a mean. Other allied countries can not use force or see non-forceful means as more promising (Germany, France, others) Instead of alienating these countries with "you're not with us, so you're against us" rhetorics the USA could have worked together with these countries and itself mainly deploy forceful means and let these other countries deploy the non-forceful means. That way everybody would have worked together and complemented each other on the common goal of fighting terrorism instead of working against each other.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by deedar:
Ohh, maybe, I dunno - to protect US?

Extortion?

[dcolton]

Originally posted by chris v:
Did you read the article? One of the main reasons they "like to bomb us" is because they're being educated in fundamentalist schools. We could help stem the tide of terrorists flowing out of these places, and maybe some kids would lead happy productive lives, or we can keep our heads in the sand until we have to spend the same money later anyway to kill them.

Nope. Where do you cross the line? It is not our responsibility to pay for a bunch of terrorists to like us. It is our responsibility to protect the interests of the United States. It is our responsibility to spend that money so we can defend our interests...not to appease killers who don't have a legitimate gripe.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by deedar:
Ohh, maybe, I dunno - to protect US?

Sounds like a protection racket to me.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Then let me give you a diplomatic advice:

America believes that force and non-force means are necessary to fight terrorism. It is fully willing to use force as a mean. Other allied countries can not use force or see non-forceful means as more promising (Germany, France, others) Instead of alienating these countries with "you're not with us, so you're against us" rhetorics the USA could have worked together with these countries and itself mainly deploy forceful means and let these other countries deploy the non-forceful means. That way everybody would have worked together and complemented each other on the common goal of fighting terrorism instead of working against each other.

We did offer France and Germany that option. They could have voted in the security council for a second (actually, 13th) resolution, and then we would have fought the war. They weren't obligated to be a part of it. All they had to do was, as you put it let the US "itself mainly deploy forceful means and let these other countries deploy the non-forceful means."

The problem was that France and Germany declared the forceful means off the table. It wasn't just that they didn't want to participate, they wanted to prevent the US from doing something they objected to. You seem to have the idea that the US was telling the Europeans to use force, when in fact it was France and Germany telling the US what they said we couldn't do.

In contrast, the US is quite happy to see the Europeans doing the non-forceful things to defeat terror whether or not you are participating in the forceful side. If you want to work to promote democracy in the Middle East, your efforts are welcome. If you join in the international police and intelligence efforts (and as a matter of fact, you are), then that is welcome too. Just don't think that you have a veto on our security interests, and don't think that we will appreciate anything that smacks of appeasement of terror, or trying to shift the crosshairs to Americans. We are in this together, right?

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by dcolton:
It is not our responsibility to pay for a bunch of terrorists to like us.

The idea is not to pay terrorists to like us. The idea is to pay non-terrorists to educate normal children so that they are educated by these non-terrorists instead of educated and influenced by extremests and terrorists.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Extortion?

Much more comfortable with paying to TAKE their lives rather than GIVE them the knowledge that we aren't evil?

[chris v]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Nope. Where do you cross the line? It is not our responsibility to pay for a bunch of terrorists to like us. It is our responsibility to protect the interests of the United States. It is our responsibility to spend that money so we can defend our interests...not to appease killers who don't have a legitimate gripe.

So, Rumsfeld's too liberal for ya? I read posts like yours, and weep for all humanity, becase I fear there is indeed no hope.

Hey, cockroaches, get ready! It's almost your turn!

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You seem to have the idea that the US was telling the Europeans to use force, [...]

It is my understanding that that was the case.

We are in this together, right?

If you mean fighting terrorism, then of course we are together in this. We disagree on the means, but I don't see this as a bad thing. If different means can complement each other it can be a strength.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
It is my understanding that that was the case.

Well you were wrong. It would have been nice, but it wasn't demanded.

However, you probably should be aware that Kerry is promising that he can get your country and other European countries to send forces to Iraq so that the US can start withdrawing forces. Just a heads up.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Sounds like a protection racket to me.

Didn't you get the memo? That's what government is, if you look at it from a certain point of view.

The question isn't whether you'll give in to a protection racket, the question is which rackets are worth giving in to. Welfare, for instance, is a protection racket that is supposed to help keep the crime rate down. The threat isn't literal, but the cause and effect is there.

I don't care to elaborate on what I feel the proper response to terrorism is at the moment, but I will say that it isn't a simple hard line nor is it acquiescence.

BlackGriffen

[dcolton]

Originally posted by chris v:
So, Rumsfeld's too liberal for ya? I read posts like yours, and weep for all humanity, becase I fear there is indeed no hope.

Hey, cockroaches, get ready! It's almost your turn!

Because I don't believe in extortion? Screw them. Appeasement doesn't work...especially with truly evil people who kill in the name of allah. Just open up a history book and learn a little

[Beewee]

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
Now that it's coming from Rumsfeld's mouth (for a second time) will the hawks realize that charging off to war in Iraq may have been a mistake? I doubt it, but it certainly seems to me like the administration is advocating a "more sensitive" war on terror.

BlackGriffen

No, I'm sure once we invade syria and Iran, where the real terrorists are, that we'll put an end to this WoT once and for all .

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Because I don't believe in extortion? Screw them. Appeasement doesn't work...especially with truly evil people who kill in the name of allah. Just open up a history book and learn a little

Educating them as to our not being the devil is appeasement? That's an interesting way of looking at things.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
Educating them as to our not being the devil is appeasement? That's an interesting way of looking at things.

Then we would be accused of brainwashing. You don't get it. There is NOTHING the US can do to satisfy these dogs. Hell, if we started a pro-usa campaign, even Europe would point the finger at the US because of the propoganda.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Then we would be accused of brainwashing. You don't get it. There is NOTHING the US can do to satisfy these dogs. Hell, if we started a pro-usa campaign, even Europe would point the finger at the US because of the propoganda.

That's because it would be.

And as far as satisfying the "dogs" goes I'm sure if we stopped backing Israel it would go a long way toward improving our standing in the Middle East.

If they don't want us there...why are we there?

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Then we would be accused of brainwashing. You don't get it. There is NOTHING the US can do to satisfy these dogs.

You don't get it either. We kill all the terrorists and 20 years down the line their sons and daughters will be back to get us. You keep looking for reasons why anything else but war will fail. It's easy to kill people. It's a lot harder to help them, but the effects are much longer lasting. Kill one terrorist and he is the only one that dies. Educate 1 potential terrorist and the knowledge will spread through them to others.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Hell, if we started a pro-usa campaign, even Europe would point the finger at the US because of the propoganda.

Please. A lesson in worrying about what Europe thinks from you? Try again.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Beewee:
That's because it would be.

And as far as satisfying the "dogs" goes I'm sure if we stopped backing Israel it would go a long way toward improving our standing in the Middle East.

If they don't want us there...why are we there?

To ensure peace...or a positive outcome when peace fails.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Dakar:
You don't get it either. We kill all the terrorists and 20 years down the line their sons and daughters will be back to get us. You keep looking for reasons why anything else but war will fail. It's easy to kill people. It's a lot harder to help them, but the effects are much longer lasting. Kill one terrorist and he is the only one that dies. Educate 1 potential terrorist and the knowledge will spread through them to others.

you can't educate people who don't want to be educated. I am not willing to chance spending a dime on a terrorist.

Please. A lesson in worrying about what Europe thinks from you? Try again.

Don't really care what Europe thinks. Just pointing out the problem with your extortion solution. Maybe France, Germany, Spain and a handful of other European nations could spend that money on pro-western education

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Beewee:
That's because it would be.

And as far as satisfying the "dogs" goes I'm sure if we stopped backing Israel it would go a long way toward improving our standing in the Middle East.

If they don't want us there...why are we there?

Because it is the right thing to do, perhaps?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Because it is the right thing to do, perhaps?

Appeasers and cowards would rather we abandon the only true ally in the mideast, because they falsely assume that this will make terrorist muslims stop hating us.

It's only jews anyhow, so who gives a crap right ?

[Beewee]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Appeasers and cowards would rather we abandon the only true ally in the mideast, because they falsely assume that this will make terrorist muslims stop hating us.

It's only jews anyhow, so who gives a crap right ?

Yes so lets kill the "other guys" just a bunch of sand n***ers, and "killer muslims" anyway.
We need to step back and think what are we getting out of siding with Israel, because it isn't peace.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
you can't educate people who don't want to be educated.

I'm not denying most of the current generation can't be helped. I'm talking of the next generation. The damage can still be undone there.

Originally posted by dcolton:
I am not willing to chance spending a dime on a terrorist.

Nope, just the lives of American soldiers, apparently.

Originally posted by dcolton:
Don't really care what Europe thinks. Just pointing out the problem with your extortion solution.

If you don't care what Europe thinks, how can it be a problem?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Dakar:
If you don't care what Europe thinks, how can it be a problem?

It is a problem, but it's not our problem. Europe will pay dearly for it's appeasing policies, IMO. Guess those geniuses didn't learn much last time around.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Beewee:
We need to step back and think what are we getting out of siding with Israel, because it isn't peace.

Maybe, maybe not. The only peace that will come out of abandoning Israel is the peace of the grave: first for the genocided Palestinians, then for the revenge-genocided Israelis.

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Beewee:
Yes so lets kill the "other guys" just a bunch of sand n***ers, and "killer muslims" anyway.
We need to step back and think what are we getting out of siding with Israel, because it isn't peace.

Peace ? Who wants peace ? Not me anyhow. We are at war. Peace is in the future, when the enemy, who has declared war upon us, has been defeated.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Dakar:
If you don't care what Europe thinks, how can it be a problem?

Because it encourages the terrorists, by giving them positive reinforcement.

[Dakar]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Because it encourages the terrorists, by giving them positive reinforcement.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by PacHead:
Peace ? Who wants peace ? Not me anyhow. We are at war. Peace is in the future, when the enemy, who has declared war upon us, has been defeated.

I seriously hope you are the minority of the American population.
If this country invades another country I'll seriously think about giving up my citizenship. Canada sounds nice, or I like Japan, anywhere in western Europe would be good, Germany, Spain, France.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by dcolton:
you can't educate people who don't want to be educated. I am not willing to chance spending a dime on a terrorist.

I said it already, but it appeared to not have reached you: The idea is not to spend money on terrorists, the idea is to spend money for people before they are influenced by terrorists. If you assume people are not born evil one could support kindergärten and schools for example and these children wouldn't come under the influence of extremists.

[Wiskedjak]

He also acknowledged concerns that the war on terrorism is too dependent on military resources to track down terrorists, and that not enough emphasis is being placed on using diplomatic, economic, political, and other means to spread democracy and win over the populations from which most terrorists come.

Sounds like APPEASEMENT to me

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Beewee:
I seriously hope you are the minority of the American population.
If this country invades another country I'll seriously think about giving up my citizenship. Canada sounds nice, or I like Japan, anywhere in western Europe would be good, Germany, Spain, France.

I am afraid I am in the majority, and NOV will probably prove that.

[Beewee]

Originally posted by PacHead:
I am afraid I am in the majority, and NOV will probably prove that.

I seriously doubt that, or, our nation is in serious trouble.

[deedar]

Originally posted by dcolton:
Extortion?

Victory?

Coexistence?

Survival?

[PacHead]

Originally posted by Beewee:
I seriously doubt that, or, our nation is in serious trouble.

Then bet $20 with spliffdaddy in that other thread if you so seriously doubt that.

I already made my bet, so I'm not betting anymore.