There cannot be freedom without security nor true security

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

without freedom

Victor Davis Hanson delivered the The Margaret Thatcher lecture to the Heritage Foundation, June 3rd, 2008.

I promise it won't actually make your head explode.

[mrkelley23]

Hanson is a good writer and excellent thinker. Yet he makes the same fundamental error that so many others have. In this piece he pillories those who compare Abu Ghraib with Nazi Stalags, for instance, and never blinks at the fact that he compares September 11 with The Civil War and World War II and other immense conflicts. He links September 11 with the Iraq invasion and compares them unshakingly to other World Wars and military conflicts.

But September 11 was an isolated terrorist incident that was successful beyond its perpetrators' wildest dreams. And to use Hanson logic, "only" 3200 people or so died in the attack, many of them not even Americans. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and displaced many times that many. But I'm a Western "liberal," according to this speech, so context is irrelevant to me.

I do agree with him that post-9/11 fear and hysteria have ruled the day in the United States, leading to over-reactions of historic proportions. I do not agree with his apparent conclusion that many if not most people's revulsion at what's going on in Iraq is due to some delusion and guilt at our success. Rather I think it is a realization at the enormity of what we've done: invading and occupying a sovereign nation for the first time in our history, without being attacked by that nation first.

[Bob Juch]

Hanson has nine yards of bullshit.

[tanstaafl2]

Hanson is a good writer and excellent thinker. Yet he makes the same fundamental error that so many others have. In this piece he pillories those who compare Abu Ghraib with Nazi Stalags, for instance, and never blinks at the fact that he compares September 11 with The Civil War and World War II and other immense conflicts. He links September 11 with the Iraq invasion and compares them unshakingly to other World Wars and military conflicts.

But September 11 was an isolated terrorist incident that was successful beyond its perpetrators' wildest dreams. And to use Hanson logic, "only" 3200 people or so died in the attack, many of them not even Americans. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and displaced many times that many. But I'm a Western "liberal," according to this speech, so context is irrelevant to me.

I do agree with him that post-9/11 fear and hysteria have ruled the day in the United States, leading to over-reactions of historic proportions. I do not agree with his apparent conclusion that many if not most people's revulsion at what's going on in Iraq is due to some delusion and guilt at our success. Rather I think it is a realization at the enormity of what we've done: invading and occupying a sovereign nation for the first time in our history, without being attacked by that nation first.

Haven't taken time to read the link yet but as to the first time for invading a sovereign nation without suposed provocation, well you may not want to mention that to native Hawaiians! Less bloody perhaps but never the less...

Of course, depending on who you ask, that worked out OK.

[silverscreenselect]

Osama bin Laden and his ilk pose less of a threat to the security of the United States than any "enemy" that we have faced in our history. There is no chance whatsoever of them occupying, for any measurable length of time one square inch of American territory. Yet we choose to view them as far greater of a threat to our national security than Great Britain in the late 1700's, or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union.

What has changed in 230 years and was brought home to us on 9/11 is the technology of destruction. Our technological capacities have increased to the point that it is possible for a small number of dedicated fanatics to inflict a large amount of death and destruction. There's no real difference betwee the mindset of bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers and that of John Brown and his bunch in the 1850's. Doubtless, Brown would have tried to pull off a 9/11 if he had the capacity to do so.

As I said over the weekend, the founding fathers knew what a real threat to this country's security was; they lived in an era when we were literally at great risk from the European powers whose military might far exceeded our own. They also knew first hand what being labelled as "terrorists" entailed. Had any of them been caught by the British, they would have faced the prospect of an 18th century Guantanamo detention or much much worse. They came down unequivocally on the side of freedom and the Constituion as opposed to ephemeral claims that curtailing freedeom in the name of "security" is necessary to protect freedom. Curtailing freedom only serves to protect, if at all, the existing government, not our nation and not our essential liberty.

We face greater risk of mass destruction in the future from people like Timothy McVeigh than Osama bin Laden for the simple reason that there are more McVeighs at large in this country then there are bin Laden disciples. Vigilence and careful police work are necessary at all times, but the possibility that another group of fanatics might destroy another building or several buildings does not justify either a mass suspension of our civil rights at home or turning us into a nation destroyer internationally.

[TheConfessor]

Haven't taken time to read the link yet but as to the first time for invading a sovereign nation without suposed provocation, well you may not want to mention that to native Hawaiians! Less bloody perhaps but never the less...

Of course, depending on who you ask, that worked out OK.

It has worked out OK for a native Hawaiian named Barack Obama.

[flockofseagulls104]

Osama bin Laden and his ilk pose less of a threat to the security of the United States than any "enemy" that we have faced in our history. There is no chance whatsoever of them occupying, for any measurable length of time one square inch of American territory. Yet we choose to view them as far greater of a threat to our national security than Great Britain in the late 1700's, or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union.

The ilk you refer to have no desire to occupy any territory. They seek to destroy our nation and culture from without and from within. To that end they are prepared to and have proven they will use ANY means necessary. They have no country to protect, no dampers on their actions. These people are and will continue to be a great threat to our national security, and to ignore them or discount them is very dangerous.

[silverscreenselect]

These people are and will continue to be a great threat to our national security, and to ignore them or discount them is very dangerous.

I don't discount them. They are dangerous people. They are a threat to local security because they have the intention and possibly the ability to cause a considerable amount of damage.

But so do people like Timothy McVeigh and Eric Robert Rudolph. So do drug lords. So do gangbangers in urban areas. So do serial killers. So do mob bosses.

You are confusing threats to our national security, of the sort that England in the 18th century posed, and that, more recently, Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union posed, with what these people threaten. These people threaten death and distruction on a potentially large scale but by no means what the Soviet Union could have done to us had they launched a nuclear strike during the cold war, or what Germany and Japan might have done had World War II progressed to their liking, or what England could well have done if they had the desire to commit more troops to hold onto their colonies here.

Any of those enemies could have effectively destroyed our ability to funcition as a nation or even, in England's case, to have completely conquered us. Those were serious, credible threats to our national security. Trying to inflate bin Laden and his bunch to that level is ridiculous.

[TheCalvinator24]

Osama bin Laden and his ilk pose less of a threat to the security of the United States than any "enemy" that we have faced in our history. There is no chance whatsoever of them occupying, for any measurable length of time one square inch of American territory. Yet we choose to view them as far greater of a threat to our national security than Great Britain in the late 1700's, or Nazi Germany or Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union.

The ilk you refer to have no desire to occupy any territory. They seek to destroy our nation and culture from without and from within. To that end they are prepared to and have proven they will use ANY means necessary. They have no country to protect, no dampers on their actions. These people are and will continue to be a great threat to our national security, and to ignore them or discount them is very dangerous.

I think I have to acknowledge that sss's analysis here was pretty much spot-on.

I doubt I agree with his conclusions regarding whether we should continue to seek out bin Laden and whether we should continue our campaign in Iraq, but I saw nothing overly partisan or ostrich-like in his post.

[Appa23]

invading and occupying a sovereign nation for the first time in our history, without being attacked by that nation first.

I wager that there are quite a few Native Americans who might have a different viewpoint.

[Flybrick]

Osama bin Laden and his ilk pose less of a threat to the security of the United States than any "enemy" that we have faced in our history.

but the possibility that another group of fanatics might destroy another building or several buildings does not justify either a mass suspension of our civil rights at home or turning us into a nation destroyer internationally.

For the first part of your post, may I just respond with an incredulous UFB!

There is a segment of a population who want to destroy the West. Not throw the West out of some homeland, not come to an accommodation with the West, but destroy it and bring the world back to the 12th Century. al Qeada has stated this. The fact that they are not a nation/state and do not operate according to the rules of war or what we call civilized behavior (and I am NOT going to engage in a "Oh yeah, what about this or that?"

For the last part of your post and the second in the paraphrased version I included here, I agree with you.

But, how does the US Government successfully engage in the most fundamental of all governmental functions, namely that of keeping its citizens secure?

So the question I always ask, and I do not have the answer, is if you were President on 9/11, what would you have done/what will you do to secure the country?

Please, if you answer, refrain from the "Well, I wouldn't have done this or that" without providing an affirmative action that you would have done. We want and expect the government to be perfect and make the best choices, yet do nothing but complain when the all too humans that comprise the government make less than perfect decisions. They have to operate in the moment usually with less than complete information. They have to be right 100% of the time, the bad guys only once.

So, given the scope of the problem, a ponderous government, the Congress, the 50 states, world opinion, etc, etc, what would you DO?

I'd be interested.

[mrkelley23]

Forgive me for providing an answer to a question I was not asked.

I would have stated to the world that Osama bin Laden and his organization were now wanted criminals by the USA, and that anyone who harbored him or anyone else claiming association would be considered to be at war with the United States. I would have used every intelligence at my disposal to hunt him and his associates down and kill them. I would have pumped the billions of dollars that are going into an unjustified and unnecessary occupation into intelligence and spying to make sure that we knew what terrorists worldwide are planning, and to root them out wherever they dwell. And I most definitely would NOT have left Tora Bora without killing bin Laden, or assuring myself where he was,. so that we could kill him there.

Is that affirmative enough?

[Flybrick]

Sure. But it's a tactical answer.

How are gonna keep the country safe from SSS's 'negligble' threat posed by the terrorists? After all, it would 'only' be local.

As a reminder, the 'local' attacks in NYC cost billions in destroyed property, insurance, etc.

But the financial shock, shutting down of the NYSE, loss of confidence, etc cost many times that amount.

The airlines have been delivered a body blow from which they aren't likely to survive. The ginormous fuel costs will just pull the plug on many of them.

The good news is that flying will probably become more genteel again since there won't be many air carriers around to cart the masses.

But I digress. I wished we'd killed OBL. But how would you stop future attacks? Intel is great, but how do you get that? Are you willing to have the govt listen to phone calls? Is it allowed to see what you do online? Can it search in intimate detail your financial life?

If it stops an attack before anything bad happens, what happens to those caught? What if those folks are caught overseas?

If you can't answer these and hundreds of other details, you don't have 'good intel.' Again, the bad guys only need to find one loophole. The govt has to try and close all of them.

Next?

[mrkelley23]

Sure. But it's a tactical answer.

How are gonna keep the country safe from SSS's 'negligble' threat posed by the terrorists? After all, it would 'only' be local.

As a reminder, the 'local' attacks in NYC cost billions in destroyed property, insurance, etc.

But the financial shock, shutting down of the NYSE, loss of confidence, etc cost many times that amount.

The airlines have been delivered a body blow from which they aren't likely to survive. The ginormous fuel costs will just pull the plug on many of them.

The good news is that flying will probably become more genteel again since there won't be many air carriers around to cart the masses.

But I digress. I wished we'd killed OBL. But how would you stop future attacks? Intel is great, but how do you get that? Are you willing to have the govt listen to phone calls? Is it allowed to see what you do online? Can it search in intimate detail your financial life?

If it stops an attack before anything bad happens, what happens to those caught? What if those folks are caught overseas?

If you can't answer these and hundreds of other details, you don't have 'good intel.' Again, the bad guys only need to find one loophole. The govt has to try and close all of them.

Next?

I respect your knowledge of our country's military and defense capabilities to get into a pissing match about this, flybrick. But I will ask you this: do you think invading and occupying Iraq was a good and proper thing for our country to do in the response to global terrorism? In total, I mean, not just in particulars. We can nitpick about all the details later.

[christie1111]

Hanson is a good writer and excellent thinker. Yet he makes the same fundamental error that so many others have. In this piece he pillories those who compare Abu Ghraib with Nazi Stalags, for instance, and never blinks at the fact that he compares September 11 with The Civil War and World War II and other immense conflicts. He links September 11 with the Iraq invasion and compares them unshakingly to other World Wars and military conflicts.

But September 11 was an isolated terrorist incident that was successful beyond its perpetrators' wildest dreams. And to use Hanson logic, "only" 3200 people or so died in the attack, many of them not even Americans. Our invasion and occupation of Iraq has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and displaced many times that many. But I'm a Western "liberal," according to this speech, so context is irrelevant to me.

I do agree with him that post-9/11 fear and hysteria have ruled the day in the United States, leading to over-reactions of historic proportions. I do not agree with his apparent conclusion that many if not most people's revulsion at what's going on in Iraq is due to some delusion and guilt at our success. Rather I think it is a realization at the enormity of what we've done: invading and occupying a sovereign nation for the first time in our history, without being attacked by that nation first.

Haven't taken time to read the link yet but as to the first time for invading a sovereign nation without suposed provocation, well you may not want to mention that to native Hawaiians! Less bloody perhaps but never the less...

Of course, depending on who you ask, that worked out OK.

Yeah, don't ask those guys who had the peaceful demonstration last year.

[Flybrick]

I respect your knowledge of our country's military and defense capabilities to get into a pissing match about this, flybrick. But I will ask you this: do you think invading and occupying Iraq was a good and proper thing for our country to do in the response to global terrorism? In total, I mean, not just in particulars. We can nitpick about all the details later.

Nope, I didn't/don't.

Starting a war goes against 200+ years of American tradition. (One can argue that Saddam was in continued violation of the UN resolutions that ceased Gulf War I, but that's a separate argument.). Iraq wasn't going anywhere at the time.

That said, once the invasion started, we were committed to 'finishing the job.' Leaving Iraq will result in a bloodbath that makes the casualties endured by both the Americans/Allies and the Iraqis look tame.

It will be 'nail a GI' to earn one's street cred in whatever militia is around and the sectarian factions will go hammer and tongs to gain the top of the heap.

Iran will play a big role which will force Saudi Arabia to intervene, etc, etc. Watch oil zoom to $500 a barrel then. Can you say global depression?

It's a cluster...., no argument from me.

However, back to the topic: it's easy to criticize an Administration, this one especially, but much harder to develop practical methods that can keep us safe. Remember, each of those methods has to withstand challenges, often just for the hell of it, from the opposition political party, the other branches of the government, the ACLU in many cases, and have to implemented and operated by a beauracracy composed of folks just like you and me.

It ain't easy. I don't have the answer for most of the problems and issues yet we expect the Administration to have them, make them work, and keep us safe.

[mrkelley23]

I can't disagree with a thing you've said above, Flybrick. (I also left out a couple of words in my opening sentence of my previous message -- Hope you didn't take it wrong.) I do think the solution is a little counterintuitive, though. My plan of action mirrors something Obama's camp (So SSS is guaranteed to hate it) has been saying all along: if you want to beat the Middle East, you have to remove their 2x4. This country has been without a coherent energy policy for at least 28 years, and the one before this was pretty much a disaster. Let's stop wasting money on foreign adventures that are not in our national interest, and start pumping some of our considerable resources into R&D that can change the world's energy dynamic.

It won't be done overnight, but it will be done -- either by reaction or proaction. Proaction is politically much more difficult, but reaction could be fatal to our nation and even our species.