Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (3503)	2/8/2004 5:28:46 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 90947

...we would have had plenty of equipment for Afghanistan if we hadn't attacked Iraq... If weapons systems used in Afghanistan had been killed one or two decades ago as Kerry wanted, they wouldn't have been around to use in Afghanistan regardless of Iraq. B1 and B2 bombers armed with JDAM's were used with great effectiveness in Afghanistan. How could this have been if Kerry had canceled them in 1984 like he wanted? Also I can't see how cutting intel and counterterror funding as Kerry wanted have aided us in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else. The dossier on Kerry also includes a 1995 proposal to cut intelligence funding by $300 million for the next five years and a 1994 proposal to cut $1 billion from the program that coordinates counterterrorism activities. The Boston Globe observed last year that in 1984, Kerry said he would cancel the B-1 bomber and the B-2 stealth bomber; the Apache helicopter; the Patriot missile; F-15, F-14 and Harrier jets; and the Aegis air-defense cruiser. The Globe also reported that he advocated cuts in other systems, including the Abrams tank, Bradley fighting vehicle and Tomahawk missile, all critical to U.S. military success in Afghanistan and Iraq. And while Kerry legitimately surrounds himself with fellow Vietnam War veterans and protests GOP cuts in veterans' programs, opponents point out that he never sought an appointment to the Veterans' Affairs Committee, where he could have had an impact on policy. realclearpolitics.com

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (3503)	2/8/2004 5:47:51 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

The GOP has become the party of pork barrel spending. McCain is totally disgusted by it. There is no reason to not touch defense spending. Some of it is just as much pork as Hooters restaurants in Louisiana.

To: Patricia Trinchero who wrote (3503)	2/9/2004 11:11:48 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

"First of all we would have had plenty of equipment for Afghanistan if we hadn't attacked Iraq." THE DIVERSION MYTH By RALPH PETERS <font size=4> February 9, 2004 -- THE political left is in trouble. It's been going down for decades, but since 9/11 it's fallen so low that lefties embrace any lie that offers comfort. One of their favorite fantasies is that deposing Saddam diverted resources from the War on Terror. First of all, the War on Terror is global. It can't be confined to Afghanistan or to any other bad neighborhood. You can't put police tape around a failed civilization. Our response must be comprehensive, our vigilance constant. <font size=3> Destroying Saddam's regime removed a government based on domestic and regional terror. Our triumph broke the fateful stasis in the Middle East, extending the possibility of democracy to 25 million people. The Iraqis may ultimately fail themselves, but even an imperfect success would prove that tyranny isn't inevitable in the Middle East. Giving Muslim populations hope won't eliminate terrorism in the short term. But it could reduce it dramatically in the long term. <font size=4> Yet leftists reject the argument for broad efforts to influence deep causes - even though it used to be their own demand. They're far more interested in getting President Bush than in getting Osama. Their interests lie in sound bites, not in strategy. All right. Set strategy aside. Step down to the practical level. To listen to the primary-campaign cries deploring the mythical shift of assets from the War on Terror to the liberation of Iraq, you'd think our government can't walk and chew gum at the same time. I have one simple question for the critics: Exactly which vital assets were diverted to Iraq from our efforts to continue al Qaeda's destruction? No generalities allowed. No waffling. Be specific. Gen. Wesley Clark, at least, should be able to tell us (to be fair, his only experience on the left comes from driving a car in England). Can't do it, huh? The critics insist that our government's attention was forced away from the urgent pursuit of terrorists. It simply isn't true. The instruments of power used to overthrow Saddam were fundamentally different from those required by the cat-and-mouse game that continues on the Afghan-Pakistani border - or in the countless rat-holes around the world where our efforts don't show up on 24/7. <font size=3> What did those on the left want us to do in Afghanistan, anyway? If you go back to the autumn of 2001, you'll find the answer is "Nothing." Have they had a change of heart? Would they like to deploy a half-dozen Army divisions to Kandahar? The fact is that Afghanistan and Iraq are fundamentally different and require nearly-opposite approaches. Rural Afghans truly are warriors and their xenophobia runs deeper than their petty selfishness. Iraqis (except for the Kurds) have no warrior tradition. Born collaborators, they pursue personal, family and clan self-interest. "Resistance" to our occupation in Iraq has been petty in historical terms, the actions of the bitter few, not the grasping many. In Afghanistan, however, too heavy a hand would embitter the population and wreck any chance of building even a semi-functional state. The War on Terror in Afghanistan is like a basketball game. You don't want a hundred players crowding the court. It's about strategy and agility, skill and the will to win, not raw numbers. Occupations never lasted in Afghanistan. But artful policy and limited campaigns did the trick, from the age of the khans down to the age of Kipling. Have we done everything perfectly in Afghanistan? Or in Iraq, for that matter? Of course not. Warfare never lacks some ragged edges. The arrows in the history books are tidy and clear, but battlefields are not. The enemy doesn't behave according to your script. Even the best commanders err occasionally. But our military successes, in both theaters of operation, have been remarkable by any standard. <font size=4> The other dishonest objection is that key intelligence resources were diverted from the War on Terror to the "unnecessary" toppling of Saddam. It simply isn't true. No experts on al Qaeda, or on Afghanistan or Pakistan, were diverted to count Saddam's artillery pieces. Lower-skilled analysts are shifted frequently, even when there isn't a crisis. But the artisans of intelligence stay focused. <font size=3> We do have too few linguists. But that's an inherited, bipartisan problem. And we didn't transfer Urdu, Tajik or Pushtoon speakers from the hunt for Osama to the search for Saddam. It's simply not the way the system works. <font size=4> But the critics don't want to know how the system works. Nor do they lend their own talents to improve it. They simply want to complain while others die. Consider the hundreds of bona fide terrorists we've captured or killed in Iraq, including high-ranking members of al Qaeda. Don't they count? By what measure is the War on Terror failing or slowing? Suicide bombers can grab the tactical initiative now and then - no one has a solution to that challenge. But we have seized and retained the strategic initiative, the one that really counts. If anyone really believes that our global efforts against terrorism, from Tikrit to Tijuana, are ineffective, just ask Osama. If you can track him down. He's harder to find than dignity on a cable channel. Not because we've failed, but because we've kept him on the run for over two years. He once controlled an empire of terror. Now Osama lives in terror himself. He's even afraid of video cameras. Meanwhile, not one of our domestic critics has offered us a detailed plan for a more effective pursuit of America's enemies. Because none of them has a plan. It's all talk. If speeches alone solved problems, Castro and Khadafy would rule the world. <font size=3> Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World." NEW YORK POST