Purple wrote:By declaring war on those who belong to groups associated with that ideology.

Not at all easy to do. For instance, the State Department's list of terrorist organizations is continually evolving. Would you declare war on "whoever the Sec'y of State determines, from time to time, to be a group associated with the ideology of al Qaeda"? For that matter, al Qaeda itself evolves (and other groups dissolve and reform under new names). Can you really define their ideology?[/quote]

Can you?

If you want us to roleplay a la Avalon Hill, "Now YOU Play the President!" Okay, fine.

You can start with groups that advocate and/or facilitate terror based on a jihadist worldview.

Even more troublesome: can you define their ideology without including in your declaration a whole raft of quasi-Islamist institutions? Would you declare war on the Muslim Brotherhood and the scores of institutions all over associated with it? How about on the entire religious structure of Saudi Arabia - all those Wahabbi - the doctrinal foundation of al Qaeda's fundamentalism?

If they advocate and/or facilitate terror based on a jihadist worldview, they have declared war on the United States--as AQ did. All we really had to do was just take them at their word, as we did with the Barbary Pirates.

Having a job and a family, I am not willing to draft the hundreds of pages that would be necessary to codify what you want. As they say, "Lo siento."

You think this DoW would solve the POW problem. It would not. Say we take a prisoner in Afghanistan under the suspicion or assumption that he's a "member" of the Taliban. He wears no uniform and carries no membership card. We presumably have some evidence of some sort to fuel our belief, but how much evidence is enough? You are once again in a quasi-judicial situation, like it or not. In a "regular" war like WWII such uncertain situations do arise, I imagine, but not frequently. In the war on terror it would be more the rule than the exception.

But, no one would then dispute a military tribunal is the proper venue.

George W. and Barack H. have muddled through relying on a series of executive orders, a few court cases, some loosely-worded legislation, and the patience of a world that in general has no more liking of Islamicist terrorists than you. It's been ugly, but I really don't think any legalistic formality such as you wish for would do much to neaten things up, and the effort could open up lots of new cans of worms.

So, we should just relax and learn to live with the sovereign President? He declares an American citizen a "terrorist" and kills him via drone with no review? Who determines the limits of that? Are there none? Is the next drone heading for Massachusetts, Oregon, or New Mexico?

IN LATE NEWS:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Two U.S. attorneys will lead a pair of criminal investigations already under way into possible unauthorized disclosures of classified information within the executive and legislative branches of government, Attorney General Eric Holder said Friday.

The announcement of the appointments followed President Barack Obama's denial that the White House had deliberately leaked classified national security information that was flattering to him in this election year, calling such allegations "offensive" and "wrong." He promised investigations into the source of leaks about U.S. involvement in cyber-attacks on Iran and drone strikes on suspected terrorists.

source: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120609/D9V9ADPO1.html

I really don't care who gets the credit. What has been going on is wrong and needs to be stopped. As Feinstein has said (paraphrasing): we will not get anyone's cooperation around the world if they know we can't keep a secret. That's what's been going on and it is a national security threat, contra freeman2.

Dr. Fate:

Second, he's projecting weakness in Russia, in Iran, in China, and in Afghanistan (by announcing a withdrawal date). The only strong move he's made recently is reaching out to India. That is the lever with Pakistan.

I've been pleased with Obama / H. Clinton / Panetta's approach in Asia. We've shifted naval resources to the Pacific. We've made huge progress with India (started by Bush) ... we are strengthening military ties with Vietnam ... we are strengthening military ties with the Philipines, and other Asian countries as well. Many of these countries see China as a threat and much prefer the tiger to the dragon. We've been capitalizing on that in a forceful, but not reckless way. The rhetoric has been soft, but the facts on the ground (and at sea) have been important.

I also think that we are getting Syria almost right. The whole world can see what Russia and China are made of. We are slowly (maybe too slowly) ratcheting up pressure. I'm hopeful of the better result out of a lot of bad possibilities. Assad leavs power ... we don't waste human resources ... the Arab world is pleased ... Russia, Iran, and China are weakened.

Ray Jay wrote:Dr. Fate:

Second, he's projecting weakness in Russia, in Iran, in China, and in Afghanistan (by announcing a withdrawal date). The only strong move he's made recently is reaching out to India. That is the lever with Pakistan.

I've been pleased with Obama / H. Clinton / Panetta's approach in Asia. We've shifted naval resources to the Pacific. We've made huge progress with India (started by Bush) ... we are strengthening military ties with Vietnam ... we are strengthening military ties with the Philipines, and other Asian countries as well. Many of these countries see China as a threat and much prefer the tiger to the dragon. We've been capitalizing on that in a forceful, but not reckless way. The rhetoric has been soft, but the facts on the ground (and at sea) have been important.

Korea?

Other than that insane place, you're right. However, I do think the planned reductions in our navy are too draconian.

I also think that we are getting Syria almost right. The whole world can see what Russia and China are made of. We are slowly (maybe too slowly) ratcheting up pressure. I'm hopeful of the better result out of a lot of bad possibilities. Assad leavs power ... we don't waste human resources ... the Arab world is pleased ... Russia, Iran, and China are weakened.

We will see. I don't think Russia and Iran, in particular, will stop at much to keep Assad in power. If "getting it almost right" means thousands die for no good result, then I think we got it wrong. When Kofi is your trump card, you need a new hand.

More:

In an excerpt from his just published book, Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, from which the cyber war story was adapted for the Times, Sanger recounts how Pentagon officials “fumed” when White House counterterrorism czar John Brennan apparently gave away “operational secrets never shared outside the tribe.” Defense Secretary Robert Gates confronted the senior administration official he perhaps believed in the best position to enact, or at least forward, his recommendation for a “new strategic communications approach.” And what was that strategic approach? asked White House national security adviser Thomas Donilon. “Shut the f— up,” said Gates.

In other words, Defense Secretary Robert Gates thought President Obama’s national security adviser was responsible, directly or indirectly, for the leaks. And if Donilon is responsible, the buck stops with President Obama.

Liberals howled mightily when Plame was "outed." No one died as a result. Libby went to jail for having a bad memory and there was a special prosecutor.

Here, we already no there's been damage. We already know that an informant of ours is in Pakistani prison. We already know there's a movie in the works with White House approval.

We should find out who the leaker(s) is/are and punish them.

POWs cannot be prosecuted for taking a direct part in hostilities.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/pro ... ersons.htm

POW status would have caused a few difficulties. For insrtance Omar Khader couldn't have been tried ...

ricky

Many were simply turned in to US forces by Afghan's for the bounty being offered. They were supposed to be "members of Al Queda" or Taliban". But it turned out a lot were just in the wrong place and the wrong time

.

steve

And, are those folks still in Gitmo? If not, what's the problem?

I guess if you are the phtographer from Aj Jazeers imprisoned for 6 years without recourse or one of these men (see link) you'd see a problem.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/pro ... ersons.htm

steve

It's unfortunate they were turned in, but this is not a standard war.

And yet you would have prefered a State of War be declared, making it a standard war?
(who against?) which would have placed the limitations of the geneva Convention on their treatment. Which would have precluded Gitmo as it existed... (good)
but probably allowed some real terrorists to get loose (bad)
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/pro ... ersons.htm

Should we just take everyone's word for it that they're not terrorists?

Well, the US Army took the wod of the war lords and villagers turning them in for bounty that they were....
And again, if a state of war were declared, their treatment would have been substantially different.
I agree with you that applying the geneva conventions made sense. But who and how do you declare war and when or how do you know when you've won?

Dr. Fate:

We will see. I don't think Russia and Iran, in particular, will stop at much to keep Assad in power. If "getting it almost right" means thousands die for no good result, then I think we got it wrong. When Kofi is your trump card, you need a new hand.

I think the Obama administration understands that there are limits to our power. We just don't have all the cards. Bush 43 overplayed our hand, and Obama is judiciously walking it back. I think he is mindful that there are many possible terrible outcomes in Syria including all out civil war, varieties of ethnic cleansing, failed states, and terrorist havens. Getting it right may mean avoiding those bad outcomes and having Assad spend the rest of his life in Moscow. That and Teheran may be his only choices.

Ray Jay wrote:Dr. Fate:

We will see. I don't think Russia and Iran, in particular, will stop at much to keep Assad in power. If "getting it almost right" means thousands die for no good result, then I think we got it wrong. When Kofi is your trump card, you need a new hand.

I think the Obama administration understands that there are limits to our power. We just don't have all the cards. Bush 43 overplayed our hand, and Obama is judiciously walking it back.

I think he's waiting for someone else, anyone else, to lead on the matter. So, we disagree.

I think he is mindful that there are many possible terrible outcomes in Syria including all out civil war, varieties of ethnic cleansing, failed states, and terrorist havens. Getting it right may mean avoiding those bad outcomes and having Assad spend the rest of his life in Moscow. That and Teheran may be his only choices.

From what I understand, there are 15K rebels. That doesn't strike me as "civil war" material.

I believe Assad will survive in office for as long as the President does. I'm not saying it is the President's fault. I am saying it's going to take more than what he's willing to say and do to remove Assad with external pressure. Iran and the Kremlin can prop him up as long as he is useful.

Dr. Fate:

I believe Assad will survive in office for as long as the President does. I'm not saying it is the President's fault. I am saying it's going to take more than what he's willing to say and do to remove Assad with external pressure. Iran and the Kremlin can prop him up as long as he is useful.

That's a fair bet. I bet Obama is President longer than Assad stays in power.

Ray Jay wrote:Dr. Fate:

I believe Assad will survive in office for as long as the President does. I'm not saying it is the President's fault. I am saying it's going to take more than what he's willing to say and do to remove Assad with external pressure. Iran and the Kremlin can prop him up as long as he is useful.

That's a fair bet. I bet Obama is President longer than Assad stays in power.

Btw, I'd rather you be right.

When he took the reins from his father, I bought into the media hype that Bashir was too smart and too well educated to be the butcher his father was. After all, he was what, a dentist? His wife is lovely, British, and well-educated? How could he possibly . . . and now we know.

Yes, Bashir's psychological progression is interesting. You would have expected his world view to be western to a great extent. You would have expected some sense of basic human rights and respect for the rule of law.

The reality is that he made a Faustian bargain to stay in power. He needed the support of his generals and the rest of the Alewite power structure. Syria has never been a democracy.

I'm sure this is not politically correct, and no doubt there are exceptions, but to a large extent this is the Arab world. This is also Russia, and this is also China. (And of course the N. Korean regime is even worse.) We in the West -- and some more than others -- need to be reminded of these basic differences.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm sure this is not politically correct, and no doubt there are exceptions, but to a large extent this is the Arab world. This is also Russia, and this is also China. (And of course the N. Korean regime is even worse.) We in the West -- and some more than others -- need to be reminded of these basic differences.

It's true. It's the single biggest flaw in the neo-conservative worldview. The idea that everyone longs for democracy is just not true. Or, it might be "true," but culturally irrelevant. The whole Eastern mindset is different. Human life is cheap; absolute power is revered.

It is easy to confuse peoples with their governments, sometimes. As well as being easy to generalise about billions of people...

We are only a few generations from authoritarian governments in the West. It would be hubristic to suggest we are 'above' that now.

danivon wrote:We are only a few generations from authoritarian governments in the West. It would be hubristic to suggest we are 'above' that now.

Over 200 years or about 7- 8 generations in the US context including a recent election that was settled by just one vote of the highest court. Nobody took to the streets. No weapons were discharged. No armies needed to be put on alert. That we have managed to govern ourselves democratically for this long is quite an achievement. Perhaps the UK can argue an even longer time span? Why poo poo such an achievement?

In that last 200 years there has been one particularly brutal and deadly civil war fought in large part over whether people could still own other people as chattel, though.

Likewise, we may have had a longer tradition of democracy (perhaps 100 years longer?), but we did also run an Empire and fight many wars in that time with, shall we say, dubious methods.

Sure, it's an achievement, and I'm not knocking it. And that means I'm not complacent about it, either. It would not take much for any country to descend into bloodshed or tyranny. Ours perhaps more than others, but it's not a long journey.