The Debate will continue!!!

A fellow blogger, with whom I have agreed to disagree, writes the following:

"It is a shame that not everyone can see what is really going on [in Iraq]. The media and reporters know that images and success stories will not sell and that it is fashionable to hate America. So people whould believe that this is the "wrong war at the wrong time".

I do agree that we should have taken care of OBL before heading to Iraq but the war in Iraq was necessary on so many levels if not for ousting that despotic asshole then at least to give people over there a chance to live without fear from their own ruler who would rather see his people starve then to lift a finger to help them. Serioiusly, Andy, what do you think OBL's other motiviations are? Peace in the Middle East? Actually, it probably is and he will get peace, in his mind, when all the infidels are destroyed."

Well, I'll agree with you as far as the first period.

What do you think is really going on in Iraq? I'll tell you what I see. I see a tenuous "government" handpicked by an invading, occupying power that is looked upon by the Iraqi people with skepticism at best. I see the two figures with the largest command of Iraqi public opinion, Ayatollah al-Sistani and Moktada al-Sadr, marginalized by the U.S. government because of our fear of Islam. (Ironic, isn't it, that in the U.S. the separation between God and Government is being systematically dismantled by the same people whose greatest fear is a religious government in Iraq.)

I see us rushing to premature elections with U.S.-backed candidates who will be viewed, at best, by their compatriots with skepticism. Donald Rumsfeld thinks it's okay if Iraq is secure enough by January for most of Iraq to vote. Well, which regions of Iraq do you think won't be secure enough? It will be the places most suspicious of the U.S.-backed government and elections. If they are unable to participate in the process because of "security" reasons, they will not accept the results. Voila...civil war.

I see a nation that may have suffered as many as 100,000 civilian casualties, according to a recent academic study. I see a nation where basic infrastructure and services are still worse now than before the invasion. I see a "reconstruction" plan, budgeted at $18 billion, for which $1 billion has been spent, and a big chunk has been reappropriated for security.

I see an American military force that is overextended. The biggest scandal of the missing 380 tons of explosive is likely not the explosives themselves, but the fact that it is concrete proof that Bush didn't send enough troops to secure the country. I see Iraq with an endlessly self-generating supply of angry insurgents; their determination easily surpasses ours.

I see a terrorist organization which was not affiliated with al Qaeda before the invasion but has since sworn allegiance to bin Laden.

I don't buy that the present perception that Iraq isn't going so well has been manufactured by the media. In fact, I think Iraq is likely worse than we know. Someone please point to some achievements and successes in Iraq by this administration that have been overlooked by the media.

With my whole heart I believe it was an unjustified war of choice. Bush likes to make the argument that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam in power. Show me some statistics to support that assertion. If the Iraqi people were so miserable, it was their responsibility to do something about it. I don't believe it's the proper role for the U.S. to go around determining the nature of governments in foreign countries. And in the 2000 election, Bush unequivocally agreed with me.

In all the campaign rhetoric, we lost sight of the fact that Saddam Hussein was always an asshole. Yet there's Donald Rumsfeld in 1983 shaking his hand. There's Ronald Reagan, the boss of the current president's father, selling weapons to Saddam for use against Iran, turning a blind eye to Hussein's documented use of illegal chemical weapons. If we want to blame the situation in Iraq on Saddam, it's only honest to back one step further and remember who put him there and made him as strong as he was.

So what is going on in Iraq right now? We toppled our own dictator and are in the process of starting an "election"

--- have to break here in the middle of writing this; 11:37 a.m. Eastern Time. Kerry has conceded. Speechless. --

Okay, breathing again.

As I was saying, we're in the process of setting up an election with U.S.-friendly candidates in Iraq. We have, as I pointed out earlier, marginalized the significant opposition. Now, it may well be that the administration's intentions here are utterly sincere; obviously having a pro-U.S. Iraqi government is more desirable than an unfriendly one. Maybe the candidates they're supporting really are the best ones. But you've got to examine this from the Arab perspective, and recall that we don't have a great track record doing this. It could easily appear that we are replacing one puppet with another, which is exactly what bin Laden is accusing us of. By the way, did I mention that we gave more than $117 million to the Taliban in 2001 alone? And did I mention that Hamid Karzai is a former Unocal consultant?

What do I seriously think Osama bin Laden's motivations are? Okay, I'll tell you. He wants the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, but probably at the cost of the destruction of Israel. He wants the current aristocratic government of Saudi Arabia overthrown and replaced by a Taliban-like theocracy, and he wants the U.S. military presence removed. Now that we've done him the enormous favor of overthrowing a man bin Laden called a "socialist infidel" in Iraq, he wants a theocracy there, too. In short, yes, he wants an Islamic revolution in the middle east.

To the conservatives who argue bin Laden is at war with the United States, I would like to ask: to what end? Do you think he thinks he can bring about the destruction of America and the subjugation of the American people? In fact, if you look at his most recent remarks, that doesn't seem to be his goal at all. He criticizes George Bush, mentions the Patriot Act specifically by name, and accuses the President of adopting the tactics of Arab tyrants in order to upend the basic order of our society and eliminate civil rights and protections.

So what do we do about bin Laden?

First of all, sad but true, I believe terrorism is a reality of life for America in the 21st century. It's important to remember terrorism is not a tactic employed only by radical Islamists. Oklahoma City, anyone?

Therefore, it's important to study terrorist threats and history and do our best to prevent an attack, both with security and intelligence measures. It's also important to be prepared, as such security measures frequently fail. See Israel. Cutting the budgets of fire departments in New York City is not a good way to be prepared for the next terrorist attack.

Secondly, take a good hard look at bin Laden's accusations. As Karl Rove can tell you, in politics what is "true" is quite relevant. In politics, what is "true" is what people believe. And in the middle east, we have millions upon millions of people who believe these perceptions of our nation. Can we fight this perception, true or not, with a bomb? With a hundred bombs? How many more invasions will it take before the Arabs greet their liberators with open arms, George?

When solid intelligence about terrorists and their locations comes in, strike. Republicans criticized Clinton for "lobbing missiles at tents and camels." Don't you wish now he'd lobbed a few more? Don't you wish that President Bush hadn't declined the recommendation to strike Zarqawi when he was located in Northern Iraq?

Here's how to defuse al Qaeda. Number one problem is Israel.

Let me say this categorically. Israel has the unquestionable right to exist and the unquestionable right to defend itself. I would wholeheartedly support any action necessary by the President of the United States to protect Israel.

I also believe that Palestine has the unquestionable right to exist and the right to defend itself, and the President ought to stand up for the Palestinians, too.

The neocons who thought the path to democracy began in Baghdad were deluded. It begins in Ramallah. Israel must draw back to the pre-1967 borders and respect them. Israel must stop retaliating for terror attacks with clumsy military operations. If you can pinpoint the car a blind, paraplegic sheikh is traveling in, you can stop the car, arrest the sheikh, bring him up before an internationally recognized court of law, present your evidence, and try him fairly. To dispatch a missile which deprives the accused not only of his right to defend himself in court but also of his life and the lives of innocents around him is barbaric. To bulldoze an apartment building and leave families homeless is barbaric. To shoot rock-throwing adolescents with high-powered precision rifles is barbaric. An American president needs to say so.

Establish a major program of energy conservation and subsidizing of alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on oil from this part of the world. It's a finite resource, anyway, better to do this sooner or later. It's only a start, but you know what? It's a HELL of a lot better than what Bush has planned.