This plan is the sort of thing people like me have been advocating since about, oh I dunno, 9/12/01?
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has approved the military’s most ambitious plan yet to fight terrorism around the world and retaliate more rapidly and decisively in the case of another major terrorist attack on the United States, according to defense officials.
…
Details of the plans are secret, but in general they envision a significantly expanded role for the military — and, in particular, a growing force of elite Special Operations troops — in continuous operations to combat terrorism outside of war zones such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Developed over about three years by the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in Tampa, the plans reflect a beefing up of the Pentagon’s involvement in domains traditionally handled by the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department.
Because they’re so focused on selling the Iraq War mistake, the Bush administration and the media won’t admit that most of the fighting that needs to occur to defeat terror networks doesn’t involving a major league shooting war. Eliminating terror cells and support networks in nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (among others) will take subterfuge and stealth, things our armed forces are capable of no matter how inept their civilian leadership is. There also needs to be - still - more resource sharing among the various agencies involved in this fight. That we’ve allowed these groups to grow while our resources are died up in protection and nation building in Iraq is a travesty. We’ll be dealing with the consequences of that for some time to come.
Rumsfeld in says Bush! He is the decider.
Oliver please demonstrate any evidence that we don’t have special operations units tracking and attacking terrorist cells the world over.
Your knowledge of military operations is so miniscule, yet you continue to make broad reaching statements about thing you know virtually nothing about.
Also, I would love a link to your prescient military plans regarding using the military (vs covert cia operatives) to attack terrorists.
that should be “thing since” — or you could pretend I’ve made up a new word!
I’d be way more interested in hearing about the people who have been advocating this kind of thince 9/12/01…
Especially since, as I recall, most liberals weren’t even in favor of any military action whatever.
Oliver please demonstrate any evidence that we don t have special operations units tracking and attacking terrorist cells the world over.
I’m sure we have some, but it clearly hasn’t been our top priority nor our public stance on the issue. Why do you think we’re sitting at Pakistan’s border, hoping OBL will saunter on over? I’ve advocated for a long time using military powers against Al Qaeda no matter where they are — including so called allies like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
Frank: The vast majority of Democrats and liberals supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the real war against terrorism. For must of us, it is that very reason why we didn’t support going to war with Iraq.
Oliver, were you out of the country between 9/11 and 10/11/2001?
The “vast majority” of Democrats didn’t get in line with the war on Afghanistan, until bombers were flying over Kabul
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1772
It’s only one guy, but that’s all you ever needed to “toss a grenade”…
So we invade sovereign nations to find OBL? What if we can’t get a coalition to agree with that?
Ollie, we have spec op guys and cia covert operatives (real NOCs, not soccer moms who report into the headquarters at Langley everyday) working both of those places you are referring to. This is not a “war” that requires brute force, much like your wish to just get enough money in one room to solve our energy problems, you can’t just get “more troops” to get OBL….
You should spend less time reading “Superman” comics, and more understanding our military if you are going to comment on tactics my little friend….
You keep saying it DrDoper, so I have to believe you have some kind of evidence that Valerie Plame worked every day at CIA headquarters and had no special covert status. No I don’t. Prove it.
There shouldn’t have been any war since terrorism should be handled as a criminal offence, not an act of war (Afghanistan never attacked us in the first place). That’s neither here nor there, in regards to this conversation though, I suppose.
Wasn’t the authorization for war [in Afghanistan] something like 99-1?!
http://www.quentinlangley.net/article.php?id=177
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162227,00.html
Thousands of people have “covert” status at CIA, but that doesn’t automatically give them the special status of NOC…in fact, a NOC agent wouldn’t be caught dead there….
Did you miss the part where it said SOCOM had been working on a plan for three years? Also would you really just “UNILATERALLY” send in ” judge, jury and executioner” squads into other soverereign nations and assassinate their citizens????? I don’t think you would and I believe you are blowing smoke. This is precisely the kind of thing that causes progressives to get their panties ina big soggy wad. Violating sovereignty, assassinations, no trial, no due process, no consideration of the childhood of the victim (did his father abuse him, was he poisoned by enviro pollutants?). How ironic, you guys blew your cookies when suspect T prisoners were scared by a dog - yet now its OK to assassaninate suspects in foreign lands?
Dugger, Dr. Dean, Help Me Here - You Would Give Those Terrorists a Trial Right?
Todd B: There shouldn t have been any war since terrorism should be handled as a criminal offence
I don’t want to debate your idea, but I will say that you’re not the only one who felt that way after 9/11.
My point was that some of the people who felt like you changed their minds in December 2001, but there were, and are, still many who agree with you to this day — and my extremely strong hunch is that these people are predominantly liberal and / or democrat.
I don’t know FrankD, the Afghan War resolution passed congress with only one opposed vote (518-1 both houses). Oh yeah, that resolution was signed on Sept 18, 2001. The anti-war faction was certainly against war, but that is pretty much their mission statement. I couldn’t load your link for some reason.
One of the big problems is the right wings scorn that keeps them from looking at anti-terrorism as a law enforcement issue instead of as a war issue. I know throwing big bombs in a far away country is easy to point at politically, but it is not so effective at breaking up terrorist cells that have an underground global reach.
Funny that wingnuts don’t want to talk about OBL, since their Dear Leader “doesn’t spend much time thinking about him”.
The cognitive dissonance that it takes to be a con must be incredible.
I agree - although I think that the majority of those who changed their minds from supporting to the invasion to opposing it after December is pretty opportunistic, there are still a few genuine that changed their views for legimate reasons.
For the record, I’d label myself as a fairly strong liberal and I generally opposed the war because I tend to support the Consistent Life Ethic philosophy when it comes to matters of abortion (though I also have libertarian leanings when it comes to this subject as well), death penalty, euthanasia, and war.
I think that you had a very well worded point though. I don’t post or read many of the comments here often, so I’m not sure about other threads, but it’s a welcome change of pace to have a discussion rather then just reading threads that begin with “Bush sucks” or “liberals are traitors”!
so piddgy, you disagree with Oliver’s premise then?
So let me get this straight.
SOCOM, the military, says they’ve got a plan to do things right. i.e., in a way we haven’t been doing things.
Oliver says he agrees.
Ergo, we’ve been doing that all along and dugger and the rest of the liberals have been wanting to avoid any fighting whatsoever?
You know, there’d be a lot less hate in the political discourse if you people would actually listen to what we say rather than just making lines up and holding up a big comic book talking bubble that you wrote and pretending like its what we’re actually saying.
And what really chaps my ass is that when pat robertson or ann coulter spouts off with a “kill all the ragheads!” comment, they’re not representative of the party. When some left wing nut job (and I don’t even know any major names…all the people I know are just hippie college kids) spouts off with “All war for any reason is evil!”, suddenly its indicative of everyone left of right-center.
You guys are really a bunch of tools, you know that?
I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.
Could someone please tell me what’s to like?
Now Quickie,
“You know, there d be a lot less hate in the political discourse if you people would actually listen to what ‘
I’m all for lowering the hate level, and I’ll promise to listen to what you say if you go back and read and comprehend what OW says. Fair enough? He wants us to send US military troops in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Did you miss that? Thats not what the summary of the plan said at all. The plan as described mentions Afghanistan and Iraq. World of difference, nicht wahr?
Are we ‘tools’ for reading what OW wrote? Should we automatically know that he doesn’t mean everything he says? If so, maybe he could put a little smily face before and after each paragraph that is Bravo Sierra. Its hard to sort out otherwise.
Dugger, I introduce into evidence:
From Mad About You; THE CASE FOR BUSH HATRED by Jonathan Chait, The New Republic
“I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it.”
I agree that the number one front in the so-called war on terror is not in Iraq or even in Afghanistan, it’s intelligence gathering and analyzation, law enforcement, and cooperation in the international community in these areas.
Where necessary, surgical strikes, instead of full scale invasions, into countries that harbor and support terrorists. I think we’ve been develeoping the capability that Oliver talks about for the last 10+ years. I think it has a lower priority than Iraq in the pentagon and a lower priority than Iraq and Missile Defense in the Bush Administration’s national defense policy (missile defense doesn’t necessarily compete with these two however).
I am not sure how I feel about Oliver’s premise that the military should venture into territory the CIA and others handle now. I just can’t foresee the repurcussions. Warring factions as the CIA and State department try to protect their territories against military encroachment, things of that nature.
mitter,
You know what a surgical strike by the military into a sovereign nation is - an act of war. The CIA does not asssassinate in and kill in Saudi and Paki. They spy - usually using foreign nationals. And not enough of that because of hand-tying Church era reforms.
There is no easy answer to any of this. Special Ops is not magic. They’re just good soldiers. Very, very good soldiers - but soldiers. All of the free talk in the world, all of the technology, all of the capable military will go for nought if we can’t match the enemies patience.
frame,
you forgot your ‘not’
Dugger
If you are entertaining two options, Dukker, full scale invasion or surgical strikes…?
mitter
surgical strikes - if thats my universe
Dugger
Excellent Duros!
the democrats have agreed to something that the republicans started planning …….3 years ago!
Now who says the left is slow…huh?
OBL will be dead right after we kill him…
If we capture him, check and see who wants him to have a fair trial, with all the bells and whistles…
And, after we capture him, check and see who says, “What took you so long?” or, (in effect) “Big deal! What have you done lately?”
And, that’s why there’s no string of Spec Ops walking shoulder - to - shoulder through the Tora Bora mts, looking for him.
Because nobody, including you, Oliver, really cares if he’s caught, killed or whatever…
I haven’t read the whole thing, pressed for time, but on the surface it sounds like the military is calling for more spies and special ops units…..Isn’t that exactly what the Democrats called for about 3 weeks ago? And all you righties said it couldn’t be done!!!
Everyone has been calling for more special ops troops and spies since 1993, except for pre-9-11 Bush.
Hey FrankD, what has taken them so long? Everyone cares except Bush supporters that the man behind the 9-11 attacks is still a free man. 4+ years is a little too long. Oh my god! Osama bin Laden is DB Cooper! No wonder we can’t catch him.
Everyone cares … that the man behind the 9-11 attacks is still a free man
Yeah, riiiight! (see comment Apr 24 2006 6:26 PM)
Evidence, please
This link works better…
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/TerrorInUSA/Polls.asp
midder (finally got that right),
“Everyone has been calling for more special ops troops and spies since 1993, except for pre-9-11 Bush.”
Well…..You might be interested to know that most of the regular armed forces don’t want more special ops, but less. They regard them as budget-sapping ‘cowboys’ to some extent - cowyboys who can’t sustain an operation or fight a real war. Cowboys who go it alone and don’t work so well with the big team. For a long time special ops money was skimmed off the top of the other service’s budgets.
Dugger