In Bagdad
BAGDAD, Arizona – Dit is Mark Finelli. Het woestijndorpje Bagdad in Arizona leek ons een geschikte plek om af te spreken. Zeven jaar en zeven dagen geleden werkte Mark nog als financieel analist bij zakenbank Morgan Stanley op Wall Street. Daarna kwam zijn leven in een achtbaan terecht. Via de woestijn van Irak naar de woestijn van Arizona. En dat terwijl die dinsdag nog zo mooi begon: ‘It was the most picturesque morning in the history of New York City‘.
Op dinsdag 11 september 2001 werkte Mark op de 61e verdieping van de zuidtoren van het World Trade Center. Kort daarvoor had hij een baan bij de bank bemachtigd, en vol verwachting was hij van Arizona terugverhuisd naar zijn geboortestad New York.
Wat er die ochtend tussen 8.45 uur en 10.28 uur gebeurde, is bekend. Wat telt is dat Mark Finelli aan het eind van die ochtend langs de oever van de Hudson River stond, onder het stof, en besloot dat hij zich bij het Marine Corps zou melden. Hij vocht niet in Afghanistan. Maar zijn zes maanden in Irak waren voor Finelli net zo vanzelfsprekend. Zoals er bij hemzelf een rechte lijn liep van 9/11 naar Irak, zo gold dat ook in het grotere plaatje, vindt hij. Niet omdat Irak een hand had in de aanslagen. Maar wel omdat een inval in Irak nodig was om een nieuwe aanslag te voorkomen.
Finelli vindt dat er heel veel fouten zijn gemaakt, met name door zogeheten ‘armchair generals‘ als Cheney en Rumsfeld, die zelf nooit in een oorlog vochten. Politici moeten weten waar ze Amerika’s zonen en dochter naar toe sturen. Daarom, vindt Finelli, is het tijd voor een herinvoering van de dienstplicht, zodat niet alleen kansarme plattelandsjongens als kanonnenvlees dienen. Finelli schreef er dit stuk over in Newsweek – zo kwamen we hem op het spoor. Niet verrassend: de oud-marinier is een fervent aanhanger van John McCain.
Finelli is inmiddels terug in Arizona, maar de huidige crisis op Wall Street -zijn oude werkgever Morgan Stanley is een van de weinige zakenbanken die nog overeind staat- volgt Finelli op de voet. En misschien heeft Obama wel meer kijk op de economie. Maar Finelli noemt zichzelf een ouderwetse national security voter. Zonder veiligheid geen welvaart: “Wat heb je aan een Ferrari als je dood bent?”
Naar zijn geboortestad New York hoeft Finelli nooit meer terug. In het interview legt hij uit waarom: ze begrijpen hem daar niet. In plaatsjes als Bagdad, het mijnwerkersgehucht waar we hem spreken, voelt hij zich veel meer thuis. Dit soort plaatsjes kiest de nieuwe president, en dus weet Finelli zeker: het wordt John McCain. Hieronder ruimte voor (beleefde) discussie. Heeft Finelli gelijk? En waarom wel/niet? Eerst het interview. Finelli, over hoe hij besloot om het leger in te gaan, pal na het instorten van het WTC.
Zet Javascript en Flash aan om deze Flash video te zien.
@Eelco,
Erg interessant gezichtspunt. Momenteel zijn vooral mensen als de demokraat Charlie Wrangel lid van de club die de draft terugwillen, maar dan vooral ook om iedereen te draften (een soort gelijkheid).
Het is wel degelijk een terechte klacht dat Medal of Honor winnaars in de VS onbekend zijn terwijl iedereen de achievements van Britney Spears of Pamela Anderson kent. Voor MOH winnaars heb ik meer respect overigens.
De haat tegen veteranen van sommige politici is wel griezelig, zo vergeleek Robert Byrd en Durban demokratische senatoren het leger met de Nazis. Die vergelijking gaat wat mij betreft (veel) te ver.
Of een draft dit zou verhelpen, momenteel krijgt het marine corps (waar hij bij zit 118% of zo) en andere onderdelen al meer bijtekenaars dan ze nodig hebben. Ik denk dat een draft er wel voor zorgt dat niet alleen militaire families in het leger zitten maar ook “left wing antileger types”.
Voordeel, het voorkomt de irritatie van Finelli die ook vindt dat ze “waterdragers” zijn voor de elitaire “Legerhaters” maar aan de andere kant is het amerikaanse leger zo specialistisch geworden dat je je ook kunt afvragen of ze echt iets opschieten met een draft!
Ik heb meer zoiets een draft alleen als het ECHT noodzakelijk en effectief is! Op dit moment zou een selectieve draft waarschijnlijk alleen maar tot meer problemen leiden, zoals het amerikaanse leger in de jaren 70/80 had met drugsgebruik, rebellie. (dienstplichtigen zijn vaak ook minder gemotiveerd )
“Zoals er bij hemzelf een rechte lijn liep van 9/11 naar Irak, zo gold dat ook in het grotere plaatje, vindt hij. Niet omdat Irak een hand had in de aanslagen. Maar wel omdat een inval in Irak nodig was om een nieuwe aanslag te voorkomen.” Ik wil oppassen te oordelen (ik heb hierover gewoon te weinig kennis), maar 2 dingen:
1. Is dat laatste ooit reëel geweest?
2. Als hij het zo zegt (“Irak heeft geen hand gehad in de aanslagen”) wordt toch de verkeerde oorlog gevoerd?
Quote: “Maar wel omdat een inval in Irak nodig was om een nieuwe aanslag te voorkomen.”
Hij geeft in het filmpje wat argumenten die aantonen dat het er nu beter gaat als een paar jaar geleden, maar dat onderbouwt zijn stelling nog niet.
Saddam was een echte terrorist, maar wel eentje met een bloedhekel aan andere terroristen. Voorzover bekend had hij het moslimterrorisme prima in de hand.
Dat het voormalig regime in Irak zelf van plan of in staat geweest zou zijn om Amerika aan te vallen is inmiddels ook wel ontkracht.
@Kees,
Gaat over Irak maar niet over dienstplicht. Het gedoe met Irak begon niet op 9/11 maar vooral in 1990 met de inval in Kuwait. In 1998 werd de policy regime change (in die tijd was Clinton president en het congress geloof ik nog net republikeins). Vanaf 1991 was er een no-fly zone en werden werden vliegtuigen beschoten en aanvallen uitgevoerd.
Saddam steunde trouwens wel degelijk terroristen, zo verborg hij de kaper van de Achille Lauro en betaalde hij $25000,- per zelfmoordenaar in Israel. Na 9/11 ging het niet alleen om de kapers zelf maar ook om terrorisme net zoals slavernij te proberen uit te bannen.
Tja dit laatste is een oorlog zonder einde? omdat er altijd wel terrorisme is en als je slavernij ruim ziet is er ondanks de enorme inspanningen van de 19e eeuw (Britten) nog steeds sprake van slavernij.
Saddam, had wel de hand in een poging een aanslag te plegen op Bush sr. Saddam was een “loose cannon”. Of je voor of tegen de invasie was, echt rationeel was Saddam en zijn zoontjes ook niet, het is gevaarlijk er van uit te gaan dat leiders van dictaturen zich net zo rationeel gedragen als we zouden denken.
Dat het westen Saddam eerder steunden tegen Iran klppt trouwens ook, Duitse tanks, Amerikaanse helikopters(van Anraat met zijn gas..brr). Smerige wereld.
Overigens ben ik echt blij dat het nu een stuk beter gaat in Irak, hopelijk blijven de verbeteringen aanhouden!
Als Amerika inderdaad in 2001 de dienstplicht had ingevoerd, zoals Finelli had gewild, om vervolgens in Irak, dat niets met 9/11 te maken had (behalve dan in de ogen van diegenen die denken dat alle moslims schuldig zijn) oorlog te gaan voeren, dan was die oorlog of niet gevoerd of nu al lang afgelopen. De inval in en de daaropvolgende langdurige bezetting van Irak kon alleen plaatsvinden omdat er in de VS geen dienstplicht is.
Finelli is een intelligentere versie van Private Dancer in de televisieserie ‘Scrubs’, een sympatieke jongen die is misleid door zijn meerderen (en bovenal door zijn ‘Commander in Chief’). Ik heb de laatste zeven jaar het raadsel niet kunnen oplossen hoe je troepen kunt steunen die een volstrekt foute en onnodige oorlog voeren. Zij zijn echter evenzeer het slachtoffer van de regering-Bush als de honderdduizenden Irakezen die gedood, verminkt of van huis verdreven zijn.
Hij heeft mooie one-liners maar voor mij komt het toch neer op simpele redeneringen die er vanuit gaan dat er een zwaard van Damocles boven het hoofd van Amerika hangt.. Bad guys, good guys denken.
Ik hoop dat Amerika gaat inzien dat deze wereld niet bestaat uit good guys en bad guys.
Of we het nu wel of niet met deze beste man eens zijn, hij verwoordt wel het gedachte goed van (ik gok maar iets) 60% van de amerikanen. Ook onder democraten is een grote groep die er grofweg zo over denkt.
Verder zie ik inderdaad wel wat in de stelling van Hugo dat een dienstplicht de oorlog in Irak had verkort. Als je daar gedwongen naar toe zou moeten zouden veel meer veteranen voor hun tweede tour in opstand zijn gekomen, en dus zouden meer demonstraties etc zijn geweest. Dat veel veteranen vinden dat ze daar goed en nuttig werk hebben verrcht voor hun land is vrij eenvoudig te verklaren als cognitieve dissonatie reductie.
Ik denk niet dat een dienstplicht een oplossing is om politici te kweken met verstand van zaken op defensiegebied. Bush had gewoon de verkeerde mensen (cheney, rumsfeld) op de verkeerde plek.
Ik denk wel dat die inval in Irak een goede zet was. Het heeft er ook voor gezorgd dat Libie is bijgedraaid en dat Syrie nu weg is uit Libanon en weer met Israel praat.
Dat de Amerikanen zoveel fouten hebben gemaakt daar is vooral heel erg voor de Iraqi’s zelf en uiteraard ook voor Amerika zelf. Toch is er nu meer hoop dan ooit onder Saddam dat Irak een redelijk vrij en democratisch land wordt.
Ook de mensen in Irak zijn het geweld spuugzat en Al-Qaida heeft veel steun verloren doordat zoveel mensen van hun eigen volk slachtoffer werden van hun aanslagen. Er is geen keus dan vooruit te kijken en er het beste van te maken ongeacht of Obama of McCain wint. En als na vele jaren de wonden langzaam geheeld zijn, zal hopelijk blijken dat alles beter is geworden dan het ooit was.
Wat een klinklare onzin. Cognitieve dissonaNtie reductie en dienstplicht hadden de oorlog in Irak verkort? Het is zo overduidelijk dat Eliza en Hugo zo weinig van het Amerikaanse volk begrijpen.
De oorlog in Irak heeft een volk bevrijd van een extreem gruwelijke dictator die honderdduizenden, zo niet miljoenen mensen (vaak ook nog Irakezen) heeft laten vermoorden. Hij heeft een land aangevallen, bezet en geroofd. Zijn opvolgers (zonen) waren zowaarlijk nog wreder. De wereld bestaat niet uit bad guys??
De oorlog duurt zo lang omdat de democraten (meerderheid in congres) continue Bush dwars zitten. Hij misleidt werd door eerdere generaals. En hij Rummy als hoofdadviseur had.
En de strategisten de religie zwaar hebben onderschat.
De surge heeft voor extra troepen gezorgd en nu is het leger in staat de taken wel uit te voeren. Het gaat nu veel beter in Irak, alleen dat hoor je niet in de democratische media.
De militairen misleidt door hun superieuren? Prietpraat, zoals Eliza al zegt vindt een meerderheid van de Amerikanen het waard om te strijden voor vrijheid en democratie, en dat is ook zo. En daar zelfs hele grote offers voor te geven.
Als je dat na 7 jaar nog niet hebt kunnen oplossen dan kan ik niet anders concluderen dat je heel selectief hebt gezocht. Ik zou het oogkleppen noemen.
De religieuze partijen in Irak zijn verantwoordelijk voor de honderdduizenden doden in Irak, en niet de VS. De goddelijken offeren alles en iedereen voor hun eigen perverse ideeen, inclusief vrouwen en babies.
Daarom steunen de Amerikanen de oorlog, zij proberen het Iraakse volk hun vrijheid terug te geven. En een democratie, waar het Amerikaanse volk heel hard in gelooft.
En ook Bush wil graag terug trekken uit Irak, alleen niet om dan te zien dat het allemaal in elkaar stort. Dus dat heeft tijd nodig. Zuid-Korea is ook niet in 1 nacht een vrij en democratisch land geworden. Dat heeft tijd nodig.
Ik ben zelf geen voorstander van de dienstplicht, omdat een professioneel bedrijf beter presteert met gemotiveerde mensen.
I wish I knew what the hell these people were saying about me.
Hallooooh duivjuh: “De Amerikanen steunen de oorlog”. Heb jij daarover de polls van de laatste jaren wel eens gezien? Over oogkleppen gesproken!
Saddam was een wrede diktator, en zijn zoontjes waren nog erger. Allemaal toegegeven. Maar als dat de reden is waarom we in Irak zijn, waarom zitten we dan niet in Zimbabwe?
En als het gaat om het aanvallen van een ander land door Irak, waarom zitten we dan niet in Peking, dat al een halve eeuw Tibet bezet houdt?
Bush heeft eerst gelogen over de rol van Irak in 9/11 en toen over WMDs. Toen dat allemaal gelul bleek te zijn was het laatste excuus voor de inval dat wij het Iraakse volk bevrijdden van Sadam. Daar hebben zowel het Amerikaanse als het Iraakse volk een veel te hoge prijs voor betaald, en de rekening loopt nog steeds op.
@ everyone: Mark Finelli has joined the conversation. If you want him to respond, please comment in English.
@Mark Finelli,
Let me first start with something I say to veterans, thanks for your service and I mean that! One might not like the war, I think some respect for veterans is in order! Where I live around Eindhoven we are actually celebrating our liberation this weekend! (market garden). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtjesroute
I was reacting to Kees
Translating”, I hope I can write coherently this early and in a hurry
This blog wasn’t about Iraq but the draft. The whole Iraq involvement started not after 9/11 but in 1990 with the invasion/annexation attempt of Kuwait. The policy of regime change was adopted in 1998 (Clinton +republican congress). From 1991 there was a no fly zone and coalition planes were shot at, missile attacks.
Saddam DID Support terrorist, he hid the hijacker of the Achille Lauro and paid $25000 per suicide attack in Israel. After 9/11 the fight against terror wasn’t just to get to the 9/11 hi-jackers but also after terrorisme in general. In a very similar way to ban terrorism the way slavery was banned in the 19th century.
OK this policy is a war without end? There problably always will be some terrorism. but if you see slavery in a broad definition there still is too. In spite of enormous efforts started by the Brits, there still is some slavery (trafficking). (and actually also Jefferson in the barbary wars now I think of it)
Saddam also tried to assassinate the “elder” Bush. Saddam was a ‘loose cannon”. Whether one was for a or against the invasion of Iraq, the point is that Saddam and his son weren’t “rational” leaders. It is dangerous to assume that other leaders would act according to what WE (meaning westerners, normal people) would find to be rational.
Of course it’s true that the west supported Iraq before against Iran, German tanks, American UH-1 transport helicopters, Dutch firms were also supplying and not to forget our Anraat (a Dutch criminal who was involved in selling chemical weapons to Iraq). Ugly world it is.
BTW I am very pleased to see things have improved dramatically in Iraq and hope it will stay that way.
Saddam, had wel de hand in een poging een aanslag te plegen op Bush sr. Saddam was een “loose cannon”.
Of je voor of tegen de invasie was, echt rationeel was Saddam en zijn zoontjes ook niet, het is gevaarlijk er van uit te gaan dat leiders van dictaturen zich net zo rationeel gedragen als we zouden denken.
Dat het westen Saddam eerder steunden tegen Iran klppt trouwens ook, Duitse tanks, Amerikaanse helikopters(van Anraat met zijn gas..brr). Smerige wereld.
Overigens ben ik echt blij dat het nu een stuk beter gaat in Irak, hopelijk blijven de verbeteringen aanhouden
Oops I forgot to delete some dutch stuff at the bottom
(it’s all there in English:). Naah. I’ll just blame the small typing window instead of my clumsiness!
@Eelco, Mark Finelli
Very interesting viewpoint. At the moment I believe especially people like Charly Wrangel (Democrat New York, now really well known for tax fraud allegations) want the draft reinstated. His argument is more that of equality.
I think the complaint is very valid that the Medal of Honor winners are virtually unknown in the US. The “achievements” of Britney Spears and Pamela Anderson are on the other hand well known by everybody. I have more respect for MOH winners if you haven’t inferred it from the text
The hate against veterans of some politicians is scary. Robert Byrd Dem Senator-West Virgina had it’s Nazi allegations of the Bush policy. Dick Durban Dem senator Illinois compared the military to the Nazis. This comparison is going way too far in my viewpoint. Although in hindsight Robert Byrd might be the expert, HE used to be a member of the Ku Klux Klan, so being compared to Nazis by him could be a compliment?. The last part is probably a joke, the first part is certainly true!
Whether a draft would improve the view of the military?
At this point the marine corps has a 118% (of required) reenlistment rate. I do think that a draft ensure that non military families also enter the army. (left wing antimilitary types)
Advantage: it would prevent the vexing though you had that you and your fellow veterans where water carriers for the armyhaters (this was my understanding of your point), correct me if I am wrong). On the other had the US Army has become so specialized that one can question whether a world war 1 or 2 style draft would help.
I would only before a draft i fit is necessary and effective. At this point a draft probably would lead to more problems like in the 70s and early 80s. Drug usage, rebellious behavior. Draftees tend to be less motivated
@Mark Fineli: first things first: Glad you made it alive out of the twin towers and out of Iraq! You have my respect! As do all the veterans. Because although I am against the war in Iraq (and was so at the beginning) this opinion is directed at politicians not ever at the men who serve, as several of my excellent countryman did.
But there are some things an outsider like myself do not understand. e.g. You claim that the most important reason to go to Iraq was to keep the terrorist in de defence. But the Al-Qa’ida never was in Iraq before your president claimed to have won the war. Only after that the real enemy of the USA came to Iraq (Saddam hated them, and would never have aloud them in his country). So instead of going into defence America provided them with a reason to go into offence. As a result more Americans died by terrorist hands in Iraq than Al-Qa’ida could ever have managed to kill otherwise.
Second of all, the current administration is responsible for giving the boys and grills who serve in Iraq that crappy gear. As a result of which many needlessly died. The same administration which outsourced so much in Iraq that their where no funds left to equip you guys with the thing you deserve. I do not understand why you can support the same party the same who did al that in this election. Do you really think that McCain will be that different? Even when he draws heavily on the same structures as Bush did? How can you as a veteran trust a government (or its ideological successor, McCain) who this not even trust their own soldiers to protect the first chief in Iraq (Bremmer was guarded not by US soldiers but by mercenaries)? (apologies for the crappy English, As you can see I’m not a native speaker)
Well sir, as our reporters wrote, you see a direct relationship between the 9/11 attacks and the invasion of Iraq. According to you, the invasion was necessary te prevent new attacks, despite the fact that Iraq wasn’t involved in 9/11. I’m careful to judge (I don’t have that much knowlegde about this), but 2 remarks:
1. Have new attacks of Iraq ever been realistic?
2. If you put it this way (“Iraq wasn’t involved in the attacks”), isn’t the wrong war being fought?
@ Mark Finelli
I support your viewpoint. It’s better to fight jihadists in Iraq than on American soil. And naturally, notional security is the most important issue, although many Europeans don’t understand that (most of them are post-modern cultural relativists, who think capitulation to totalitarianism is preferable above fighting for freedom). We could use more people like you in Western-Europe, because the situation here is dramatically. One example: http://online.wsj.com/article/.....47109.html
@James
Oh really what an exaggeration ‘most of them are post-modern cultural relativists, who think capitulation to totalitarianism is preferable above fighting for freedom’
Just because we like to uphold our legal system we suddenly do not like to fight for our freedom. Personally I’m so glad that we do not let terrorist win their ideological war by downgrading our own judicial system. And that as a result our opponent can use our system against our defenders (as Nekschot)has nothing to do with post-modern cultural relativis
(vervolg, sorry) [...] has noting to do with Post-modern cultural relativism. It is just a case of upholding the same standards to everyone. Justice is blind! So she can not see if a terrorist or a free artist is standing in her courtroom. I’m very confident that Nekschot will be exonerated. It is best to do it this way, rather than to install so called tribunals outside every legal standard!
I do agree national security is important, but not as important as to lose our best values to it. I would rather like our politicians to take a broader look at national security, No foreign state funds that can take part of our financial en energy companies. Support agriculture not because of those poor farmers but because we do not not want to become depended on the likes of Poetin an Chaves for our grain. This is a far bigger threat to us than idiots like van de Ven. Just let our legal system work on those guys. So please hands of our freedom ‘in casu’ hands of our legal system!
I believe it’s legitimate to ask the question whether Iraq was Iraq because of Saddam, or whether Saddam was Saddam because of Iraq. At the beginning of the occupation of Iraq, the New York Times published an analysis demonstrating the tendency of Iraqi ethnic groups to go after each other, and argued for a very strong, in fact dictatorial leadership in Iraq. It was written by the English general who was in charge of the territory in 1918! Secondly, I’d like to remind everybody that there were no Jihadists in Iraq before the occupation.
@Hugo,
Question are almost always legitamite. The english in 1918 were not known for their very fair treatment of their “new and old colonies” anyway India just being an example.
Are you implying harsh dictatorship is the only option for these type of ethnic groups?. With the same logic we could have imposed a harsh dictatorship on Europe! One has to ask te question whether Saddam’s behaviour like Invading Kuwait, supporting suicide terrorist and gassing it’s own people as created because of Iraq or are there addtional factors. (like his personality?)
But back to jihadist, the term is pretty ambiguous. Even scholars of the Koran don’t seem to agree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
Of course using the broad form it is simply not true to assume that there were no Jihadist in Iraq before 2003. Al Zarqawi was operating in Iraq in 2002 and Ansar al Islam. The hi-jacker of the Achille Lauro who murder Klinghoffer(old jewish man in wheelchair was in Iraq), furthermore Saddam paid $25000.- per suicide bomber on jews in Israel. Putting money on the lives of jews was something the Nazis did, hideous stuff.
Of course the early phases of the war could have gone much better, especially the DoD and state should’ve cooperated more. Afghanistan and the also the Europeans have the same issue. But I think we are learning.
Meanwhile Al -Qaeda has lost most of it’s popularity in even the Arab world due to the horrors. The simple fact that there has been NO significant terrorist attack in the USA after 9/11 must account for something in this respect.
Saddam was supporting international terrorist, he tried to assisinate a US president, he tried to annex another country (which started the international military action), this alone is a pretty good reason to get rid of him. The number of suicide bombers in Israel has dropped dramatically. I understand it’s easy to viciously criticize every safety measure, I think we also should at least show some respect from the people who’s job it is to protect us from terrorism. If nothing happens their successes are ignored, if something happens they are the one’s who get to blame.
And in an assymetrical war a state can support terrorists operating in another state!
@Eliza,
of course the affair with cartoonist Nekshot is ridiculous, I don’t know of a US cartoonist on trial. Seems to be a Dutch thing. I also doubt if it has to do with antiterror, Janmaat was also convicted just for saying that the Netherlands is “Full”.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/seria...../sec12.pdf
My apologies, friends from the other side of the pond. This is the first time I am seeing your responses. I will respond shortly. Thanks for you input!
Also, I would strongly, strongly suggest any person who is interested in the subjects I discussed to read “America’s Secret War,” by Dr. George Friedman. I fear that I cannot answer your questions as well as this book, which truly demonstrates why the invasion of Iraq was necessary after a post 9/11 world (or at least the appearance of a pending invasion), regardless of whether President Bush or President Gore was in the Oval Office.
It is my strong opinion that if Senator McCain had won South Carolina in 2000 and had become president, the post-9.11 response would have been tighter and more efficient, and, possibly, would have avoided an invasion of Iraq, and, if not, would have proved a swifter occupation of Iraq. A must read for pro/con Iraq war opiners alike.
@Dear Mark Finnelli,
Greetings to the desert!
America’s Secret war is an excellent and non-partisan read indeed. It is kind of difficult to get “non partisan” books, Shelves tend to be filled with ultrapartisan books these days which seem to be adept at fudging numbers (like Michael Moore) of call people idiots like “Ann Coulter”!.
http://www.stratfor.com/ is his website, he offers some free stuff as well. If you like this you might also like http://www.rand.org, my friend works for them. or the polity 4 project http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm which documents trends in conflicts and governance. Just to name a few interesting links!
Wars almost always have more than one cause and many effects which makes “cherry picking” very easy for partisan politicians, “Vasquez, the war puzzle” is a good classic (but tough read) (google books has a cut down version of it).
I agree with your analyses of McCain he was a critic of the handling of the war early on and he is one who can hold an opinion even if it is an unpopular one within his own party!
Actually I have another question, did choosing Bagdad Az as a residence have anything to do with your time in the Marines or was that accidental:-)
@Mark (not Finelli): I’m not implying that Iraq will always have a dictatorship, just that the ideosyncracies of Iraqi ethnic divisions explain some of Saddam’s practices.
@Mark & Finelli: The invasion in Iraq was dumm and unnecessary. It has exhausted the US both militarily and economically, and it as given Al Queida and the Taliban the opportunity to regroup. You should both read Richard Clarke’s book.
Mark: it is amazing that you had to leave the US. I’m sure the Bush/Cheney administration would have found a position for you in its propaganda machine, if you had pursued one.
@Hugo,
Maybe we should discuss the facts and don’t make silly inferences like whether I qualify for a “propaganda” department. I think I mentioned before that I am not aligned to a either party, personal attacks in my view are just a way of showing lack of arguments! Actually also I didn’t really “have” to leave the USA. Home sweet home is still the Netherlands for me!
Richard Clarke is a good tip, I own the book. The fact that he in 1998 was still very much a regime change proponent (like the Clintons). He was the “counter terrorism Czar under the Clintons and early Bush”. His books reads like that of someone with an axe to grind! His accusations kind of make you wonder whether he shouldn’t have come forward earlier. Maybe he should have argued to do more in the 1990′s when Bill Clinton just launched some cruise missiles to blow up a few tents and some Iraqi and Sudanese targets.
Douglash Feith “war and decision is also a very good insight in the political squabbling over the Iraq war. It also gives an insight in the popular differences and the actual work.
Most Democrats supported the war in Iraq, whether you like it or not. Your argument and that of Richard Clarke that it was all a mistake, I can just be happy that there were no significant attacks in the USA for the last 7 years and that Al-Qaeda’s capabilities thus logically are a lot less than when Bush came into office!
I am not saying the government has a perfect record but they did have a lot of success in fighting terror.
And just to reiterate
The advice of Richard Clarke, the “antiterror Czar” under Clinton till 03 Bush is a little unconvincing as the USA is a lot safer after he left! 0 significant attacks without him.
One always should be careful in my view with sources especially when there is a personal stake involved! I would never argue that Clarke is responsible for 9/11 (that were the attackers) but his book has too many factual errors to be seen as a non-partisan, let alone a scholarly work! Too bad had he made more effort to make it non partisan and made it more into a “lessons learned” it would have been better for all.
Time has a short note on some discrepancies!:
http://www.time.com/time/natio.....98,00.html
@Mark: What I mean is that you’re just rehashing the arguments the Bush/Cheney administration has used the last 7 years to defend the war. You’re not talking about the damage the war has done to the US, both nationally and internationally. As for the fact that there have been no attacks on US soil since 9/11, I’m not holding my breath. There have been major attacks in Madrid, London and many other places, and when I look at the ‘security’ here in New York, I see no reason why a major attack could not take place here. Moreover, if Bush had bothered to read his security memos, 9/11 could have been prevented, so don’t give that fool too much credit.
Yes, there have been attacks across Europe. I fear that earlier in the decade, not so much anymore, that many European cities were far too complacent in dealing possibilities of jihadists in their growing Muslim immigrant populations.
Clearly, that has changed.
@Mark Fineli: I don’t believe it was complacency, but rather that it is very hard, if not impossible, to protect any open city against terrorists.
@Hugo,
Rehashing or not, i think friedman is not rehashing of Bush, true is true. This is said before by Bush so it’s not true is not a logical argument. Clinton had far more to actually do something, not just demonstrating that the only thing the al qaida had to fear were a few cruise missiles aiming for their tents?. This is generally recognized as one of the low points in US action, it showed that the US was a paper tiger.
NATO countries in Europe are still working with the USA, that international damage is limited. Sure some people hate the US, but I stongly believe a lot of people actually don’t participate in the I hate the US hype but understand the issues! Even the governments of France and Germany are more pro American, so I think the story of “damage” is overrated. Of course the democrats make political hay out of it, like people loved the US before (9/11 not)!
The memo would be that of Michael Moore? There is no proof he didn’t read the memo. And do you have proof that just by reading 1 extra memo the attacks could have been prevented. So far you only came up with Clarke who was the “anti-terror Czar”.
The attacks in Europe were partly due to complacency, can’t you just be glad that these didn’t happen in the US! There were attempts in the US!
You must have taken that memo story from Michael Moore, sure in hindsight Bush and Clinton could have done better. To call Bush a fool, I am not sure the way democrats are trying to block him from fighting terror.
I congratulate Bush with keeping America terror free in the last 7 years. I do give credit were it’s due. You seem to see the poltics very pro-democrat, could you e.g. bring yourself to condemn the Klan membership past of Robert Byrd!!
I’ll give you a head up, Bush made some big mistakes early in the Iraq war by not aligning the state department rebuilding efforts with the military.
@Mark: Like so many others I have been wondering for years about the real reasons why the US went to war in Iraq. My questions were answered when I saw the documentary “Cheney and Rumsfeld, the dark side”. Here were these two old men, who all of their careers, as Congressman, White House Chief of Staff, and Secretary of Defense, had been dancing around this fantastic toy, the US Armed Forces, and now they had a last chance to play with it. They took advantage of a guilible President, who had his own reasons to finish off Sadam (an assasination attempt on Poppy Bush), to pursue their own interests. For Cheney, oil and business for Haliburton. For Rumsfeld, to prove that a major war can be fought with minimal military resources. I strongly recommend that you both watch that documentary.
@Mark: It has been well documented, among others by the 9/11 Commission, that Bush all but ignored an early August 2001 CIA memo warning that Al Queida was planning to hijack planes in an attack in the US. It wasn’t the only security gaffe in those days, but it was a big one. Senator Byrd has denounced his own membership of the KKK so often, and in such strong terms, that I don’t see the need to add my two cents there.
@all:
Both the Bush and Clinton administration choose to ignore (early) warnings. And to be honest I think there would have been little difference to the early policy after 9/11, whether it would have been Gore or Bush at the White House. If a democrat had been president at the time, he would also have invaded Iraq. Maybe in a different way, because there would have been other advisors, but Iraq was to be invaded all the same. Both party had something to set right in Iraq after the 1st Gulf war. I do believe though that a dem would have chosen a different approach in selling this war.
And furthermore I strongly do believe that a dem president would not have violated the uttermost important aspect of a democratic country, its judicial system! For me this is single worst part of the Bush years. Give in to the terrorist by becoming an autocracy yourself. “Torture is necessary, or rather let’s not call it torture but do it all the same. ‘Show courts’ are far easier (like most dictators understood far earlier in history) to be dealing with enemy combatants (we mean the normal housefather defending his house, but that’s not good in public opinion so lets change the term to ‘enemy combatant’), then the legal system we uphold.” I use ‘we’ because, sadly, this degeneration of American ideals reflects badly on the rest of the ‘free west’.
Sad thing is that the media attempts to change public opinion, in favour of the things described above. Some shows are not only money makers, but prepare the public for these thing, e.g. 24 or Threat Matrix (although I like Kiefer Sutherland, his illegal actions as Jack Bauer are nothing short of disgusting once you are able to look outside of the story box).
So I do hope that both candidates will be able to reverse these things, though I do have doubts about it because turning back is far more difficult than not choosing to go in a direction.
@Hugo,
Have you read America’s secret war? It reads a lot better than that of Clark disgruntled Czar or all these documentaries
As for Cheney, he is no longer with Halliburton and has no financial interest. There are lot of documentaries around which claim they just love war and are on the dark side (darth vader?). That mistakes were made (in hindsight, Omaha beach would have maybe been done differently) is obvious. Bush seems to be a lot less gullible in his effort to implement the surge and select the right people. It seems that this documentary didn’t stand the test of time.
Senator Byrd, complained that his KKK career was a albatross around his neck. Appearantly he only renounced it when it became inconvenient, he was still quite happily voting against the civil rights act.
I am really wondering why you refuse to condemn this ex member of the jew and black hating club. Same thing had he been a republican? Byrd didn’t even deny having been involved in lynchings?
For people who don’t know what the Klan is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan gives a quick overview
“(an assasination attempt on Poppy Bush), ”
Actually this is quite serious, trying to assasinate a head of state is an act of war! Was Saddam rational? NO was that an issue YES!
You haven’t reacted to Saddam paying @25000, – per suicide bomber (on jews) or hiding jew murderers. I was hoping to learn from your viewpoints as a scientist! Do you have any references to scholarly works!
First I hope we can at least agree on the fact that the terrorist (Al Qaeda ) were responsible.
As for the problem with the memo, I will give a link below that includes an interview with a commission member. The memo was historical and Al – Qaeda was planning attacks all the time. And wait a moment 70 ground investigations against “Al Qaeda” were in progress.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/c.....0412.asp#1
After 9/11 bush got rid of the wall between internal and external intelligence (erected by Clinton), consolidated the numerous departments working on safety into homeland security! And hop no attacks after 9/11! Europe is luckily learning also from (US/Israel) after a few security gaffes of our own.
This was also in the Memo by the way,
“The document, citing a foreign intelligence service whose identity was redacted, said bin Laden told followers he wanted to “retaliate in Washington” for the United States’ 1998 missile attack on his facilities in Afghanistan. ”
should I conclude Clinton was the big culprit? Clinton did the same as Bush, but he took only half measures!
Just to reiterate, nobody really foresaw a 9/11 attack, that includes the Clintons, Bushes anyone. After 9/11 virtually no one foresaw 7 attack free years (on the US).
“and when I look at the ’security’ here in New York, I see no reason why a major attack could not take place here. ”
A lot of security efforts are normally not even noticed by us. (I know : big brother is watching you gives me a double feeling too). If I feel security is lax (like back in november 01 in flying through Australia) I notify the authorities. They up untill now always appreciated it. I can just put a friendly request here to others to do the same!
Why not do the good thing and help out were it’s needed!
@ Mark,
Sure; Help out were it’s needed, is a good thing. But please shall we help out with the things that actually work. And try to put an end to things that do not work, like no toe clippers of fluids in your hand luggage. As you say, most security measures are the ones we don not see. But Big Brother is asking to much useless info. As reasoned some time a go to some senior members of the Dutch ministry of the interior, would I be a terrorist, I would put up a big lobby for the integration of even more information (including al electronic available information on any person). Just because ‘more is less’. The necessary info to track me as a terrorist will be there, they just would no know where to start looking. I could be hiding in the (electronic) masses.
Funny thing to say that Europe is learning from US/Israel.both exemplary for their decent approach (not). Europe did not need to learn because we have more experience with terrorism than the US (IRA, ETA, Rote arme, Italians, Algerians etc etc). Fact is the USA needed to learn from Europe how to act on insurgency (eg they copied the UK approach in south Iraq after drastic failures in mid and north Iraq)
But he, that’s just pointing fingers. Fact is none of the parties (dem’s, GOP, USA, EU) where prepared, all made big mistakes. For my opinion on who made the biggest, see above
@Mark: This is getting old and very annoying, so I’ll respond to you one more time. To save time and energy, I won’t respond to every distracting titbit you throw at me, like Senator Byrd’s past, but I’ll limit myself to your main thesis: America has become safer and more secure because of it’s response to 9/11, including the invasion of Iraq.
You have to be ideologically blind or insane (or both) to maintain that point. As a result of diverting US military force to Iraq, Al Queida and the Taliban have been able to rebuild in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Additionally, jihadists emerged in Iraq, where they did not operate before. On a larger scale, America has lost all its moral authority in the world, because of the deceitful way in which the Bush administration justified the invasion and subsequent occupation, and because of the violation of international standards with regards to the treatment of prisoners. It has rendered the US totally ineffective in acting on major security issues, such as the nuclear aspirations of North Korea and Iran. Militarily, the US forces are stretched so thin that Russia can play around in Georgia and China in Tibet without having to take any word of critique from the US seriously. Economically, finally, the US is facing the most serious credit crisis in its history. This a due to deregulation, greed on the part of Wall Street, and stupidity on the part of sub-prime mortgage takers, but it is hard to imagine that the fact that the US is conducting a war that costs $1 billion day and has not been paid for doesn’t have something to do with it.
So count your blessings that there has not been a successful terrorist attack in the US in the last seven years, in spite of what I believe to be ample opportunity (and I have frequent conversations about this with members of the NYPD and the US Coast Guard). I don’t hold terrorists in high regard, intellectually and otherwise, and I consider their methods generally crude, including the one used on 9/11. This may be the reason they haven’t attacked he US on US soil again, but it is also possible that somewhere in the jihadist world, someone has been able to come up with the thought: why attack an enemy that’s already in a total selfdestructive mode?
Please keep focusing on Senator Byrd’s past, because that is undoubtedly the most pressing issue in politics this year.
All: I’m sorry to have put you in a depressed mode with the above assessment of the impact of Bush/Cheney policies, so here is some good news: McCain’s chances of winning the election are dwindling faster than investment banks on Wall Street
To finish my sentence: and his latest gimmick and distraction, suspending his campaign to ‘save’ the nation, won’t save his sinking candidacy.
@Hugo, Mark Fine
I brought up Senator Byrd to test your little theory, you find it very hard to criticize opponents of the US. Saddam was an “understandable” product (not there can be many other Saddams). Your criticism of Bush is extreme, there is nothing he did well, not even keeping the US safe, yet you show understanding for Saddam and refuse to even condemn the KKK. One could say “cognitive dissonance reduction” is at play here but I can’t judge that as I rather stay away from personal analyses of thinking processes. Having done (more) than a bit of psychology at uni level, take it as advice from someone who knows a bit!
I wonder why you concluded in Dutch about Mark Finelli but refused to follow my question (vraag het hemzelf) Just ask him yourself!
“Zoals bij Finelli heb je daar ook wat Eliza terecht ‘cognitieve dissonantie reductie’ noemt.Het is voor militairen die in Irak hebben gediend heel moeilijk om het Amerikaanse optreden daar af te keuren, omdat zij te veel leed hebben meegemaakt, zowel van henzelf als van anderen, dat allemaal betekenisloos zou worden als het Amerikaanse optreden fout en dom zou blijken te zijn (geweest). Het vereist een hoe mate van intelligentie en mentale kracht om die stap te maken, en (oud) militairen die dat niet kunnen valt niets te verwijten, hun ‘Commander in Chief daarentegen des te meer.
”
Translation, done in good faith (I am sure I will get some nitpicking on grammar and meanings:)
As is the case with Finelli you have what Eliza callis is “cognitive dissonance reduction” For Soldiers who served in Iraq it is very difficult because they and others suffered so much. This all would be meaningless had the American involvement been stupid and dumb. It requires a level of intelligence and mental power to make that step, soldiers who can’t make that step are not to blame. Their Commander in Chief does.
@Mark Finelli,
The reason I translated because I feel that it would be dishonorable (reiterate: my feeling what’s honorable) to say this about you without then putting the question forward with your comments. I kind of wonder if you agree with the conclusion that lack of intelligence and mental powers leads you to not criticizing the US involvement in Iraq.
@Hugo,Eliza
Don’t take this as a personal attack please!
@Hugo,
“You have to be ideologically blind or insane (or both) to maintain that point.”
I am always getting a little worried when people call having an opposing view “insanity”. There used to be a lot of regimes who lock up people!
“On a larger scale, America has lost all its moral authority in the world, because of the deceitful way in which the Bush administration justified the invasion and subsequent occupation,”
No it has not!, only with people who hated America anyway. The bipartisan congressional commission concluded that there was NO bamboozling and a lot of Congressmembers voted for the Ira
@Hugo,
“You have to be ideologically blind or insane (or both) to maintain that point.”
I am always getting a little worried when people call having an opposing view “insanity”. There used to be a lot of regimes who lock up people as “insane”! I find this continous allusion of madness a little strange !! Why do you keep doing this?
“On a larger scale, America has lost all its moral authority in the world, because of the deceitful way in which the Bush administration justified the invasion and subsequent occupation,”
No it has not!, only with people who hated America anyway. The bipartisan congressional commission concluded that there was NO bamboozling and a lot of Congressmembers voted for the Iraq war!
Compared to Saddam and Al – Qaeda and all these hate filled us speech America has a lot of moral authority. More for instance than e.g. the left wing parties in Europe who criticize the USA in Mao and Che guevarra shirts. Some European politicians made political hay by being anti American like Schroeder (who has been rewarded by Putin with a fat job), was against extraditing SS- war criminals. I think people who supported Saddam have some moral questions to argue.
Just to put some facts straight on international issues:
*Kosovo a process started 10 years ago by the Clintons actually was a risky move in my view. The EU already had a 3 year mission their. This must be seen in the “borders are holy” policy of the EU! after 45 we decided not to change the borders.
The EU then refused to admit Georgia to NATO, and Russia reacted because there only a few advisers there. Without Iraq and Afghanistan it is likely that the same scenario would have played out! Not the whole world is as nice as our backyard, and any problems are not automatically caused by the US!
As for terrorist attacks, well everyone has an opinion, here an article that proved 19 terrorist attacks have been thwarted
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....bg2085.cfm
Your statement that yes but there could have been??? Might be but the facts show US anti terror policy after 9/11 was based on results far more effective that that under Clinton!
The Financial crises was also caused by government backed mortgages to poor people (Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac). Bush tried to regulate earlier but was buffed of by democrats and some republicans. The crises is bad but America will get over it, also did it with the other S&L crises, internet bubble (Enron) etc. You’re beloved Sweden had the same issues 10 years of so ago!
“Additionally, jihadists emerged in Iraq, where they did not operate before”
I proved early that Zarqawi was in Iraq in 2002 and that Saddam was hiding terrorist. Will you react to arguments or just allude to me as “insane” again? Security experts tend to agree that Al-Qaeda’s capability has been deteriorated greatly. Al-Qaeda and alike terrorist are getting more popular because they are a bunch of extremist who seem to be killing muslims most of the time. Yes their own country suffered.
It seems that in spite of all the evidence you still hold on to Richard Clarke and others. It would be refreshing if you could get yourself to write anything positive over the last few years.
And sure the USA is doing very bad, still 5% of the population 25% of the economy, back in 1945 it used to be 75% of the world economy. You can read these numbers both ways, as a huge US decline or still as a lead of the US over the rest of us!
Mark: Let’s just agree to disagree and stop this fruitless exchange. You think the US are doing fine, morally and politically, and I think the opposite. You’ll never convince me and I’ll never convince you (and they couldn’t pay me enough to keep trying), so let history be the judge. You’ve made one thing clear to me though: the color of the sky in your world is definitely red. So make sure you wear sunglasses until the light goes out on November 4th.
@Hugo,
Like I said, I don’t belong to a party, being red in Holland means something else BTW
haha not my color.
You are very convinced about November 4th we’ll see. If you want to convince someone fine, but don’t try ad hominem attacks.
You seem to be a very partisan person, You must be if you refuse to criticize the clan. I also have much admiration for the Vice Presidential candidate, Democrat 2000, or other democrates like Zell Miller.
As far as morals, yeah, I was really embarrased about Europe. We like to point fingers and yet let 240000 people get murdered in Yugoslavia.
History will be a judge in that I agree, looking at world war 2. After the war it was seen as the “good war”. By most Americans before the war the pacifist and anti-war people (Like Lindbergh) were showing “even admiration for the Nazis”. Same here with the “broken gun”.
Actually fighting against facism at the time proved to be a far more contentious issue than people remember after World war 2 when it was all over. Please note we didn’t defeat the Nazis by talking to them, there are a lot of military people who foot the footprint was actually to light going in. Interesting book in this respect is also “After Bush”
But we’ll see if we are in for another Bradley, in 2004 even weeks after Kerry lost the Zogby site still showed a win for Kerry. (For Dutch people Paul Zogby is a bit like Maurice de Hond in the Netherlands). “Tom Bradley for governor also springs to mind
”
Actually I don’t even think an Obama victory will make a giant difference in international policy! I do feel his reliance on unions will mean he is for protectionism which will lead to more trade conflicts which will lead to lower employment. The other issue is that with Obama, national security might get a lower prioritiy (can’t profile terrorists anymore) again which would worry me as I travel to and from the US a lot!
Well best of luck!
@Mark Finelli,
In case you thought that Europe and socialized medicine was a paradise.
Here you have huge waiting lists and people dying because of them, I went to Los Angeles to get an MRI to circumvent the 8 months waiting list. Luckily all was well, had it not been my survival chances would have decreased! Even with money you can’t go to private care here so people flock abroad!
And in case you thought people are against the USA. When I was in the USA I saw on the news that 200 people were demonstrating against Condaleeza Rice’s visit. When I was at a commemoration in France of the marines (Belleau wood might ring a bell with you) cars were parked beside the street for 3 miles around the cemetary. Amazing and refreshing to see, that doesn’t seem to get to the news in the US. And a lot of French people were thanking the US VFW’s as well!
Mark: You call me a partisan person because I ‘refuse to criticise the clan’……….??????? It is precisely because of these nonsensical accusations, your mental acrobatics, the erratic nature of your ‘arguments’ and the pigeon English in which they are presented that I’m done with responding. Eelco, please close this ‘discussion’.
Eelco: never mind, I wrote that request in the spur of the moment. If Mark wants to continue on his own, he should by all means do so. I made the point that the US is less safe and secure because of the invasion of Iraq, and ultimately he returns with a freakshow containing BTW, the KKK, Zell Miller, Srebrenica, Lindbergh, the Nazis, Zogby, Kerry and Maurice the Hond, and the conclusion that Obama might be lax on national security. I already have a full-time and a part-time job, and I simply don’t have the time to follow the threads in Mark’s mental labyrinth.
I think that if we had John McCain at the head of the table on 9.11 (or even, dare I say, Al Gore) the pending invasion and occuption of Iraq would have gone smoothly.
I know, Gore came out against the invasion. However, if you read America’s Secret War (I see there is another fan here!), you must conclude that in a post-9.11 world, America had to invade Iraq.
@Mark Fineli: With all due respect, if Al Gore had been President, the US would not have invaded the wrong country and withdrawn troops from the fight with Al Qaeda.
Sorry Hugo, on this one I have to aggree with Mark Finelli. Not on the same grounds however, but a democratic president would have invaded Iraq all the same.
And Yes Mark, europeans are not anti USA, just cirtical, as friend should be!
@Mark Finelli,
” know, Gore came out against the invasion. However, if you read America’s Secret War (I see there is another fan here!), you must conclude that in a post-9.11 world, America had to invade Iraq.”‘
I think you have a point virtually all democrats were for the invasion at the time of voting.
@Hugo?
Actually when irak was hit with Cruise missiles in he 1990′s who was VP again. I’ll answer that one for you Al Gore. Who was VP when the “regime change policy” started in 1998. Also Al Gore. Of course when he didn’t have to vote in Congress it was easy for Al Gore to be against the invasion. But his job did carry responsibilty.
@Hugo second point:
If you start to discuss on forums you can expect someone to respond to incorrect information or with different opinions. If you want to “moderate” maybe start up your own website. If you want to talk about an American in Dutch so he can’t read it? or for whatever reason, go ahead but if you do it here I’ll quite happily translate in “pigeon english” (what didn’t you understand?).
What you think Al Gore would do is very hypothetical, the fact that Al Gore supported regime change in Iraq in 1998 is not hypothesis but a fact.
Maybe you should dive into international relations and read e.g. America’s Secret war or visit Rand and Stratfor more often. At least dive into history. And that the war in Iraq had withdrawn troops from the fight with Al – Qaeda. Which part of “Al Zarqawi was in Iraq in 2002″ is unclear to you! Right now you’re saying that Al – Qaeda never visited Iraq in the last 5 year? Your logics seems to be based on distorting history!
Mark
@ Eliza,
“And Yes Mark, europeans are not anti USA, just cirtical, as friend should be!”
True:
And divided in opinion, like Americans. I agree that friends should be critical. When I see some Europeans yelling that “All Americans are Say the same thing about blacks/jews/ Turks and you guess what reaction you get?stupid/dopey etc”. That’s not critical but offensive in my opinion. And also untrue!
I think some Europeans ARE very very anti-American and definitely no friends of the USA. Most are though, in the US Main Stream Media I often saw distortions like a BBC journalist speaking for Europe, or another German like “we Europeans”. ??? just as silly to say “we Americans think x”.
Eliza
I have the feeling that you actually want to discuss on arguments, and not just tell people would they should think!