I’m going to assume you are taking issue with my equivocation of 911 as strategic, as opposed to tactical.

It was blast who said the difference between the two as Pearl Harbor (strategic) vs 911 (tactical) was merely the weaponry used. In addition, this was an add on to our debate over his refusal to see the global jihad movement’s assault on the west as a “huge strategic threat”. He will term them a threat… but seems reluctant to attach either “huge” or “strategic” to his assessment.

Thus, using his thought, I replied making the points separately… first using his comments INRE the weaponry to demonstrate what he was saying was an absurd tangent.

Then again, I would think that most who post here would know the quest of the 911 assault team. Perhaps I’m wrong. So I’ll explain why I why I believe 911 to be strategic and, like Pearl Harbor, an act of war.

Tactical is an enemy attack designed to affect a local level or area, while strategic is striking the enemy at the sources of it’s military, economic or political power.

Pearl Harbor is obviously, and without question, strategic.

911’s culminated events were also designed to be strategic. I assuming you’re astute enough not to fall for the media’s plaintive wailing and BS that the Twin Towers were struck because they were “symbols” of America and our freedom. That is just plain lame media spin. The entire 911 assault was strategic from start to finish… regardless of the chosen weaponry and their origin.

The WTC towers (only one of the three targets) were not chosen as “symbols”, and that was confirmed by Bin Laden himself months later. The assaults were unquestionably strategic as they were meant to cut the US off at the knees from our economic/financial center (WTC housed primarily financial and trading institutions, shutting down Wall St for a week). Strike two was military (the Pentagon), and the last failed was political center (Flight 93 headed towards either Capitol or WH).

As for the lives lost associated with the two examples of strategic assaults on US soil… it was to re’stress the *huge*, or enormity, of the [*very* strategic] threat facing the western culture at the hands of stateless jihadis. A threat which blast keeps repeating was neither “huge” – nor strategic.

First, we need to put our feelings and emotions away. You know, the thing you claim none of us dirty liberals can do. While I still tear up when I replay the imagery of that tower coming down in my mind, if we are going to talk about strategy and tactics, that has NO part in the discussion. You are coming VERY close to dragging dead Americans through the street to prove your point. Please stop. It was a horrific event. Please quit dancing on it to make points, particularly when the point you are trying to make has NOTHING to do with it.

Death is irrelavant to strategy or tactic. This is not callous, or “sad” or anything. It is simple fact. When a general is looking at his maps, the LAST…and I meand ABSOLUTE LAST thing that should be going through his mind is “boys”, “soldiers”, “kids”, “horror”, “carnage” or anything else. For the sake of those boys and soldiers, he must have NOTHING on his mind other than the field in front of him and his training and knowledge. (go ahead and twist that around, I expect it at this point…sane people will get the point, so you loonies can claim that I said generals are heartless or whatever other nonsense you can come up with)

Now, back to the point…if not a single person had died at Pearl Harbor and had it been carried out by three Japanese pilots in jacked up bi-planes, it was still a far more *strategic* issue than AQ or 9/11. Even if Sadam’s personal fighter escort, with the support of the Chinese and firing Russian missiles had flown into the US and taken the towers out with “traditional” methods…When you compare the near-complete annialation of almost our entire Pacific fleet in the shadow of a rising, mechanised, organized, military-cultured society positioning itself to sweep across the region gobbling up its resources…

Again, after you get done gleefully talking about crying mothers and dying children again to score a point in your own mind…please tell me how tactcially, strategically, heck, even logically that is comparable to anything that happened on 9/11 or since…

The comparison is childish, ignorant and…MAN would I love to play you in a game of chess.

Its one thing to debate beliefs and faith, or to argue about a certain political figure. It is utterly different to say stupid, ignorant things and then try to insulate that ignorance in the memories of fallen Americans.

I do not think christians are stupid, because my wife is about 10 times smarter than me, she went overseas and while working fulltime in a hotel, took the English Bar exam in england and got within the top 20 places. Then later went back home and took the local professional exam and got within the top 3 places. And English is her second language, she speaks cantonese at home. Her hobby is doing brain puzzles. And she is pretty as hell in addition to that. Think of Gong Li, Zhang ZiYi, whatever chinese actress, she’s up there with them.

My spouse could run rings around Barack Obama in an academic setting, and also Clinton(the male one who was a Rhodes scholar). Obama did not even get an honors in his basic degree and has no publications as Editor of Harvard Law. It’s obvious that his position was bought and paid for as some kind of political machination.

Now I don’t think academic qualifications mean that much, seldom are they an indication of true intelligence and capability. I never judge a person by their paper qualifications. The saying goes: Those who cannot really do the work, need paper qualifications instead.

But I just want to show that there are people with high academic qualifications who think Barack Obama is nothing great(like my wife thinks of him). She calls him a “false prophet”, I just call him an ambitious crook, with a marxist inclination.

The criticism being leveled at Bush regarding Iraq is based strictly on how the media “thinks” the war should have been conducted. And their perception of war is about as realistic as their assessment of Obama’s experience in foreign policy.

First, the initial conquest of Iraq was nearly flawless. It was quick, overwhelming, and comparatively bloodless.

The initial steps after the conquest that have been excoriated by pundits and press; dissolving the Sunni infrastructure and bureaucracy, holding US troops back and letting the Iraqi people attempt to establish a civil society, and not imposing heavy marshal law, are actually necessary steps in the eventual development of a democratic Iraq.

If Bush had allowed the established Sunni civil bureaucrats to remain in place, they would have soon re-established a caste society in which Sunnis controlled the civil apparatus, and Shiites were the lower caste with little or no political power. This would have resulted, sooner or later, in a violent revolution, including genocide supported by Iran.

By not immediately setting the structure of society, and letting the Iraqi people suffer the resulting effects of lawlessness, and infrastructure breakdown, the conditions for the establishment of a true civil society were set. This period, painful as it was, has historically been necessary for a culture to discard the old and embrace ‘the new’. Recent examples are Germany and Japan. Until the populace suffered the effects of their political decisions, they were not ready to accept, and embrace, change.

For students of military strategy, the actions of the US military in drawing Al-Qaeda into Iraq is classic Sun-Tzu, and simply brilliant. Instead of trying to fight AQ in a terrain, culture, and logistical ground that favored AQ, the US military brought AQ into the Iraqi killing ground, where they were distinct from the population, separated from their leadership, stretched in their supply chains, and open to attack by tanks, helo, artillery, and rapid response teams. In other words, although the media thought it was wrong, the actions of the US military have been just short of brilliant. The morons of the media simply don’t “get it”.

And, in case nobody noticed, we haven’t been attacked since 9/11.

I love and agree with everything you said.

and supported the President until evidence of his poor decision making was plain to see. Going after and destroying AQ and killing Bin Laden should have been the paramount objective of his government.

What were the “poor decisions”? Certainly there were some (name me one war strategy that turned out to be 100% bulletproof of hindsight criticism); but I don’t think the decision to remove Saddam by force was one of them.

Did Bush adapt or not to the situation on the ground? He “stayed the course” to victory, by implementing the surge strategy while Harry Reid declared “the war is lost” and Barack Obama made his own “poor decision” by standing opposed to “doubling down” and “winning”.

You’re still failing to see the point that Mata’s previously brought up- that the scope of the war we find ourselves in is greater than going after just bin Laden and his group. The Islamic terror threat is a network of terror groups with shared goals, shared ideology, cross-over cooperation, training, and funding. We are more properly at war with the al Qaeda NETWORK, and affiliates. The distinctions separating one terror group from another becomes blurred and irrelevant. Really, what is the difference between Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ansar al Islam, abu Sayyaf, National Islamic Front, Abu Nidal Organization, Jemaah Islamiya, and all the rest I ran out of patience to name?

This is why it’s a war effort, and not strictly a law enforcement approach.

@blast:

With power comes great responsibility.

Awesome! Not only do we have Elvis and Terri Schiavo in the house, now we get Peter Parker, aka The Amazing Spiderman!

@jay severin has a small pen1s:
thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking as I read this. saved me some typing.

Then my reply to jay applies to you as well. jay saw fit not to come back with a counter-response; care to tag in?

@Rocky_B:

yet unsatisfied with that, you demand to know why Bush didn’t inform the American public during his SOTU addresses.

I see it as mostly hindsight finger-wagging.

I do agree that ultimately, Bush is the captain of the ship, and the buck stops there. But saying “but the government was run by the Republican Party for the past 8 years.” (comment #46) is not accurate; unless you think we’ve been living under a dictatorship of Bushitler and the Republican Guard. You should have stopped at “Both parties are up to their ankles in this,”

Democrats are up to their necks in this, I’d say. Seriously, is there any evidence to suggest that a Democratically controlled Congress and presidency would have had the foresight to avert the current economic crisis had they governed 2001-2008? This is all hindsight blamegaming. Easy to do.

The only ones I see who actually did see some cause for concern, were the Republicans.

Now, had Saddam Hussein not been removed from power in 2003, what would we be facing today, in 2008? Instead of crediting Bush with eliminating a state-sponsor of terror, unrepentant seeker of wmd capabilities, and 12-year menace, he’s blamed for the decision of carrying out official U.S. policy of “regime change”, established on Clinton’s watch, because war, unfortunately, incurs casualties in the path to achieving the greater, long-term good.

Of course the Japanese were a huge strategic threat, conflating 9/11 with the attack on Pearl Harbor is mind boggling. Japan attacked us with a capital force of Naval aircraft and military forces. Japan was a sovereign country with industry to produce the weapons of war that could be used to destroy our ability to defend ourselves. Strategic.

The 9/11 attack used aircraft manufactured my the US and operated by the US. They used box cutters and playdough bombs. Tactical.

So how much military hardware must be used to be a “huge strategic threat”, blast? Is there a number? One warship? Several tanks? How about military issue autos and rocket mortars? Suitcase bombs count? Since our USS Cole was attacked, is it still not a threat because they used small craft that wasn’t military? Why must these weapons be a state industry, when they can be so easily bought on the black market?

My point is that in WWII, we were fighting against States with militaries and uniforms. Today our warfare is guerrilla in nature, and against stateless thugs and gangs. If anything, I consider their threat more strident because they live in the shadows, and come out to attack the innocent…”brave” warriors that they are (snicker….)

Just because the global jihad movement is stateless does not mean their intent to take over “apostate regimes” and wipe out all western presence from Arab lands is any less “huge”. You must understand, the only way they will leave the west alone (if they do at all) is if all western presence (meaning non-Muslim) is removed from their Caliphate from Spain to China. No bases, not even Mickey D’s will be tolerated. No western films, clothing… nothing.

Even at that, they would merely seek to make the entire planet subject to Shariah law. Yes, blast…. they are a *huge* strategic threat because they are even more difficult to gain intel, and their assaults are done in stealth… i.e. Mumbai, which escaped the eyes of all intel agencies.

BTW, on your post #51…. *Finally* you echo what I said about Congress letting us down more than a POTUS. The POTUS does not introduce or write legislation, but has to get it done on his behalf. Attempts were done. And I agree… not with enough urgency.

This, however, is entirely different than laying this at Bush’s feet. You have finally laid it at the feet of the elected body of Congress. Now if you could just get it thru your head as to the start of it all… because it’s been building for more than a decade.

For that alone, he should be remembered as a great wartime american president.

OK, that aside, taking Iraq away from Saddam freed the oil supply there to the global markets, reduced a financing house and base for terrorism, and also protected the US dollar as Saddam wanted to take euros for his oil. It also showed Iran and Syria and also Saudi that the US was not a paper tiger, and that any of them, if they were to go too far or be too lax in allowing terrorists to stage strikes on the US, well the US could simply change their regimes, and get the whole previous governments hung(like Saddam).

Saddam was the most feared leader in the whole arab world and what happened to him??? Got hunted down like a dog and hung by the neck on youtube. This made america feared and respected in the eyes of the arab world. Don’t be foolish enough to think otherwise: the more they criticise and ridicule GWB, the more it means they fear and respect him. If they praise you, it means they think you are a fool and can be easily cheated by them.

Yet there are some sadly deluded and dimwitted people in the media(and also in your country) who actually believe that more criticism means the target is really as bad as they say. It is actually the opposite.

So your GWB got a lot of advantages and benefits for america besides freeing those 50M people. Thus he did a good job as leader of america.

As a chinese, I must show thus my respect for this fearless leader, GWB. Thank godness we are not foolish enough to make him our enemy.

While the americans last time caused endless problems to china, this time they are benefiting the world(and us) by being in the front in fighting the islamic terrorism menace, so we must respect and support them all the way.

As for Obama, I think we will get our way with him easily. This guy is sure to sell out america’s interests for his own personal ambition, to get some political advantage, to look good in the media, or for his own personal enrichment.

GWB was always, “america first, even if everybody hates me for it.”
But Obama will be, “me first, even if it means america will die.”

Also, as typical in your posts, when your bias is proven wrong, rather than conceding your limited focus might be in error, you go the bait and switch route, resorting to distraction from the topic, (your posts 36-Blame Bush & 46-Terri Schiavo Bill), shift the focus away from those areas where you find yourself loosing points to claim your question was not addressed (your post 42-State of the Union address), or chose someone else to target whom you apparently perceive as perhaps less formidable (your posts 49 & 52).

As for your post 42, Wordsmith had previously amply addressed your allegations that Bush & the Republicans did nothing about the housing market danger, yet unsatisfied with that, you demand to know why Bush didn’t inform the American public during his SOTU addresses. As if Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac were the sole driving issue of our time. Bush did speak several time to the press, yet since as you point out, he didn’t do it in a “State of the Union address”, I suppose those just don’t count in your book. This is a no win argument with your ilk. I’m sure if Bush had mentioned that particular issue in a SOTU address, the next argument would be, “Why the hell didn’t he put out mailings to everyone in the United States?”. Presidents have more to contend with than to focus only on single issues. What I want to know is why you are so quick to blame Bush, yet you won’t take Frank, Dodd, and other Dems to task for actively refuting and attempting to conceal the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac problem while accepting their lobby money? Why don’t you take the media to task for their silence and not pursuing this issue before it became an issue.

Keep gloating. When you lose it will make our victory that much sweeter.

If gloating is pointing out the failings of Bush and the Republican party, then I am… I also will point out when Obama fails as well, but I don’t want him to fail as our country’s future hangs in the balance. If you want Obama to fail you are working against the best interest of our country.