PDA

View Full Version : High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group



Kaa
08-25-2009, 10:09 AM
White House Deputy Press Secretary Bill Burton confirmed today that President Obama signed an executive order allowing a high-value detainee interrogation group to be established.

"The president, at the consensus recommendation of his interagency task force on interrogations and detainees, did put in place a new group, the High Value Interrogation Group, which will be housed at the FBI, the director will report to the director of the FBI. ...

Administration and DOJ officials said the group will handle future interrogations of high value al Qaeda and terrorism suspects. The NSC will oversee the group ultimately. (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/08/white-house-confirms-president-signed-off-on-interrogation-group.html)

Kaa

John of Phoenix
08-25-2009, 10:16 AM
"...recommendation of his interagency task force on interrogations and detainees..."
Interagency group gives the job to the FBI? Interesting. I'd like to know who is on that task force.

LeeG
08-25-2009, 11:09 AM
boy, Cheney warned us about changing what he put into place. It worked so well once the chicken hawks got to mess with interrogation and war planning. General Cheney and General Rumsfeld put the country on the right track where enemies are found wherever you look.

Kaa
08-25-2009, 11:11 AM
General Cheney and General Rumsfeld put the country on the right track where enemies are found wherever you look.

...and Obama sticks to this track quite well.

While it's no longer fashionable to mention the Global War on Terror aloud, evidently it proceeds without interruptions, acquiring more and more institutional accoutrements along the way...

Kaa

LeeG
08-25-2009, 11:17 AM
evidently one can find what one is looking for

High C
08-25-2009, 11:18 AM
...and Obama sticks to this track quite well.

While it's no longer fashionable to mention the Global War on Terror aloud, evidently it proceeds without interruptions, acquiring more and more institutional accoutrements along the way...

Kaa

It's back in the closet where it belongs. Don't want to upset the sheep, ya know.

Captain Intrepid
08-25-2009, 02:25 PM
...and Obama sticks to this track quite well.

While it's no longer fashionable to mention the Global War on Terror aloud, evidently it proceeds without interruptions, acquiring more and more institutional accoutrements along the way...

Kaa

Terrorism is a fact of life. If the USA stands for a thousand years it'll never completely wipe out terrorism. The "War on Terror" is a reactionary assignation of blame to drum up support for a previous government. No longer pretending terrorism is a discrete nicely packaged enemy has nothing to do with fighting it appropriately.

LeeG
08-25-2009, 02:39 PM
...and Obama sticks to this track quite well.

While it's no longer fashionable to mention the Global War on Terror aloud, evidently it proceeds without interruptions, acquiring more and more institutional accoutrements along the way...

Kaa

a lot of meaning is swept under the rug with "this".

Are you saying GWOT is a valid concept or that counterrorism was invented by the Bush administration?

Facts are that the Bush administration downplayed the Clinton administrations CIAs advice on counterterrorism. Rumsfeld prioritized missle defense higher than counterterrorism and when 9/11 occured they cynically used terrorism as a propoganda tool for hegemonic war resulting in more influence for Iran in Iraq and more fertile ground for terrorism through millions of Iraqi refugees.

Your attempts at being cute don't fly.

Kaa
08-25-2009, 02:47 PM
The "War on Terror" is a reactionary assignation of blame to drum up support for a previous government.

Huh?


No longer pretending terrorism is a discrete nicely packaged enemy has nothing to do with fighting it appropriately.

How do you think the USA should fight terrorism "appropriately"?

Kaa

Kaa
08-25-2009, 02:48 PM
Are you saying GWOT is a valid concept or that counterrorism was invented by the Bush administration?

I am saying Obama is continuing on the same track that the Bush administration constructed.


Your attempts at being cute don't fly.

Awww... not even a little bit? <puppy eyes>

Kaa

ljb5
08-25-2009, 02:50 PM
Kaa, you missed the point.

Under the Bush administration there were very poor controls and oversight of the interrogation of high-value detainees.

Obama has rectified this problem by creating a more formal organizational structure to oversee. He has taken control away from the CIA and brought it in-house where procedures can be better enforced.

One of the big problems with Bush's torture policies is that everyone pretended like there was no command structure. The CIA claimed to act independently and the White House claimed they didn't know what the CIA was doing.

Now, there's a direct line of reporting to the NSC.

Spin it as you will, this is a big step forwards for accountability and compliance.

Kaa
08-25-2009, 02:58 PM
Kaa, you missed the point.

I don't think so. Perhaps my point is different from yours.


Under the Bush administration there were very poor controls and oversight of the interrogation of high-value detainees.

I don't think so either. I've seen no evidence of poor controls -- I've seen evidence of both "do anything to them to make them talk" and "hey, for public consumption let's pretend nothing is happening and I didn't say anything".

You're confusing cover-up and deliberate lack of responsibility with poor controls and oversight.


Obama has rectified this problem by creating a more formal organizational structure to oversee. He has taken control away from the CIA and brought it in-house where procedures can be better enforced.

"In-house"? As in, brought it into the White House? The White House is now in the business of forcefully interrogating people? :D

I don't see creating a "more formal organizational structure" as a step forward.

Kaa

John of Phoenix
08-25-2009, 03:15 PM
I don't think so. Perhaps my point is different from yours.


What is your point then?


I've seen no evidence of poor controls -- I've seen evidence of both "do anything to them to make them talk" and "hey, for public consumption let's pretend nothing is happening and I didn't say anything".

Couldn't agree more. Now let's prove it in court. Some good old fashioned (and I do mean OLD fashioned) GOP accountability.

ljb5
08-25-2009, 03:54 PM
In-house"? As in, brought it into the White House? The White House is now in the business of forcefully interrogating people?

No, you idiot, the White House is in the business of maintaining operational control over those who do conduct interrogations so that they can ensure proper procedures are followed and prevent improper techniques from being used.


I don't see creating a "more formal organizational structure" as a step forward.

Well of course you don't. You're in the business of not seeing anything unless it's shoved in your face.

A more formal organizational structure is a step forward because it makes it clear who is in charge and what the proper procedures are. If there is a disagreement, there is a clear path of escalation to resolve the question.

With an informal, disorganized structure, no one really knew who was calling the shots and what was approved or not approved.

Some of the abuses under the Bush system were caused by low-level enlisted men and women following orders without knowing the clear chain of authority.

Now, they won't have to wonder about questions such as:

Has this interrogation technique been approved?
Am I authorized to do this?
Who authorized this?
Does the person who authorized this have the authority to do so?
If I have a concern about the legality of this, who do I escalate to?

Kaa
08-25-2009, 03:59 PM
No, you idiot,

You lose, sir. I bid you good day.

Kaa

ljb5
08-25-2009, 04:11 PM
What's the alternative, Kaa?

Would you prefer to have delicate interrogations of high-value detainees performed by low-level agents who don't have specific training or a complete understanding of the legal implications of their actions?

Would you prefer that PFCs and Specialists conduct interrogations on their own without clear guidance from the command structure about how to proceed?

Would your prefer that the command structure all the way to the White House maintain a veil of deniability because they never asked and no one ever told them what was going on in the interrogation rooms?

Don't bother to answer. Everyone can already see you've made a fool of yourself.

pefjr
08-25-2009, 04:36 PM
More of the "Don't you dare question Obama's policies when we are trying to blame Bush and Cheney for it, that looks bad"

PeterSibley
08-25-2009, 05:03 PM
More of the "Don't you dare question Obama's policies when we are trying to blame Bush and Cheney for it, that looks bad"

Yep , you're right .Bush did far more than ANY other POTUS to encourage and enthuse anti US terrorism ...definitely a success .

pefjr
08-25-2009, 05:19 PM
Yep , you're right .Bush did far more than ANY other POTUS to encourage and enthuse anti US terrorism ...definitely a success .
I have heard that many times in this bilge, but step out of your liberal world and look around sometime, listen to someone other that a liberal, just for kicks.

John of Phoenix
08-25-2009, 05:21 PM
Listen to whom? Rush? Ann?

I have. No thanks.

ljb5
08-25-2009, 05:24 PM
More of the "Don't you dare question Obama's policies when we are trying to blame Bush and Cheney for it, that looks bad"

Wow, you've got that totally backwards, Junior.

I'm not trying to discourage you from questioning his policies. I'm more than happy to have a discussion about Obama's policies.

But I do expect you to pull your head out of your butt enough to participate in the discussion.

Obama took a system that was clearly broken (Remember Abu Ghraib?) and created a system of command and accountability to ensure proper procedures are in place and followed.

The advantages of having a clear chain of accountability should be obvious to anyone. If they aren't obvious to you, I think I've done a pretty good job of pointing them out.

If you'd like to question Obama's policies, feel free. I'd love to see your reasoned and insightful contribution to the subject.

If you're not able to make such a reasoned and insightful contribution -- or to defend your position with any sort of logical basis -- you're JAFT.

PeterSibley
08-25-2009, 05:24 PM
I have heard that many times in this bilge, but step out of your liberal world and look around sometime, listen to someone other that a liberal, just for kicks.

I listened to our last PM ,an ardent Bu****e , he made just as little sense .:rolleyes:

So which POTUS do you think helped AQ most ?

Kaa
08-25-2009, 05:27 PM
Bush did far more than ANY other POTUS to encourage and enthuse anti US terrorism ...

Can I see some data? How do you measure that, anyway?

Or you're just handwaving?

Kaa

SamSam
08-25-2009, 05:28 PM
What is your point then?


Couldn't agree more. Now let's prove it in court. Some good old fashioned (and I do mean OLD fashioned) GOP accountability.
Yeah, whatever happened to "law and order"? (Besides the two getting thrown out of office for bribery and burglary.)

PeterSibley
08-25-2009, 05:31 PM
Can I see some data? How do you measure that, anyway?

Or you're just handwaving?

Kaa

Hell ,Kaa , just as reasonable as any of your posts .

Sadam was the best bulwalk against religious fundamentalism in Iraq and Bush got rid of him .Folla ?

Kaa
08-25-2009, 05:40 PM
Hell ,Kaa , just as reasonable as any of your posts .

I don't think so, but you'd probably disagree :-)


Sadam was the best bulwalk against religious fundamentalism in Iraq and Bush got rid of him .Folla ?

Saddam was quite good about suppressing islamists. However, he was quite good at suppressing other people as well. You're not trying to judge regimes by how successful they are at these kind of things, are you? :-)

There's more to life (and geopolitics) than just suppressing islamists.

Kaa

C. Ross
08-25-2009, 05:42 PM
It is a very good idea. It's curious why the accountability doesn't simply stop at the FBI, a law enforcement agency with experience in due process and judicial oversight, rather than having ultimate reporting to the NSC.

It probably means two things. First, President Obama understands that this is not solely a law enforcement and judicial activity, but is also an intelligence and national defense activity. Second, it also means that President Obama will join a parade of other presidents who are playing off turf and ego between State, Defense, CIA, and the NSC.

Oy. Leon Panetta at CIA must have about the toughest job in DC.

PeterSibley
08-25-2009, 05:52 PM
I don't think so, but you'd probably disagree :-)



Saddam was quite good about suppressing islamists. However, he was quite good at suppressing other people as well. You're not trying to judge regimes by how successful they are at these kind of things, are you? :-)

There's more to life (and geopolitics) than just suppressing islamists.

Kaa
Yes , there also the process of generating multi generational enemies .Hard work but someone has to do it .

As to supressing radical Islam ....that was the supposed point of the ME adventure , both of them ,was it not ....not oil ? Radical Islam ? Possibly Saddam was the best US ally in the ME in this venture ?

pefjr
08-26-2009, 09:10 AM
I listened to our last PM ,an ardent Bu****e , he made just as little sense .:rolleyes:

So which POTUS do you think helped AQ most ? Bill Clinton

Kaa
08-26-2009, 09:33 AM
As to supressing radical Islam ....that was the supposed point of the ME adventure , both of them ,was it not ....not oil ? Radical Islam ? Possibly Saddam was the best US ally in the ME in this venture ?

But don't you shout from the rooftops that Bush lied when he connected al-Qaida and Iraq? If Bush was full of ****, and in reality there's no connection between islamists and Iraq, why do you keep harping on this connection?

Besides, may I remind that you that antiamerican terrorism is much older and wider than al-Qaida.

Kaa

pefjr
08-26-2009, 09:58 AM
They don't want to talk about that, Kaa

Kaa
08-26-2009, 10:03 AM
They don't want to talk about that, Kaa

Oh, come on, they should be so used to cognitive dissonance and doublethink it wouldn't be a problem! :D

Kaa

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 10:07 AM
and whose ox is being gored now? hippo-crates

LeeG
08-26-2009, 10:13 AM
I am saying Obama is continuing on the same track that the Bush administration constructed.



Awww... not even a little bit? <puppy eyes>

Kaa

that's the new meme floating around. "Obama hasn't changed things" with the implication that GW didn't screw the pooch after all.

Kaa
08-26-2009, 10:16 AM
that's the new meme floating around. "Obama hasn't changed things" with the implication that GW didn't screw the pooch after all.

Um, no :D The implication is that Bush did screw the pooch and Obama picked up the poor animal and continued the process...

Kaa

LeeG
08-26-2009, 10:24 AM
I don't think so. Perhaps my point is different from yours.



I don't think so either. I've seen no evidence of poor controls -- I've seen evidence of both "do anything to them to make them talk" and "hey, for public consumption let's pretend nothing is happening and I didn't say anything".

You're confusing cover-up and deliberate lack of responsibility with poor controls and oversight.





The distortion of SERE training into interrogation tactics by psychologists who had never been involved in REAL interrogations resulted in a flawed interrogation technique. The was developed when the initial interrogations of Al Qaeda suspects was taken out of FBI hands and put in the CIAs. Control is kind of irrelevant when the entire program is flawed. BUT if you want to discuss control take techniques that were used in Guantanmo where the guard to prisoner ratio was l at least 1:1 and move it into a war zone where the ration could be 70:1 as in Abu Ghraib.

The SERE based interrogations was developed without controls, the issue is irrelevant.

Osborne Russell
08-26-2009, 10:26 AM
Um, no :D The implication is that Bush did screw the pooch and Obama picked up the poor animal and continued the process...

This is the magical President theory. The President symbolizes all and can do all.

The point is to sabotage any real inquiry into what a President actually does, and therefore his actual responsibility.

Obama hasn't changed things instantly, therefore he's just the same, duh.

Still, good to see you admit the Chimp was a chump.

LeeG
08-26-2009, 10:29 AM
Um, no :D The implication is that Bush did screw the pooch and Obama picked up the poor animal and continued the process...

Kaa

ummkay. So you repeat the meme and don't discuss specifics.

Kaa
08-26-2009, 10:31 AM
ummkay. So you repeat the meme and don't discuss specifics.

The specifics are in the original post in this thread :D :D

Kaa

Kaa
08-26-2009, 10:33 AM
This is the magical President theory. The President symbolizes all and can do all.

But it's so much more popular on the left than on the right :D

WE CAN DO IT! HOPE AND CHANGE! AMERICA TURNED THE CORNER! A NEW ERA HAS BEGUN! :D

Kaa

ljb5
08-26-2009, 10:40 AM
Um, no :D The implication is that Bush did screw the pooch and Obama picked up the poor animal and continued the process...

Kaa

Except in this case, he didn't continue the process.

He put a halt to the old process and implemented a new system with better organization, controls and accountability.

Your entire argument is based on the premise that Obama didn't change anything.... yet the first post of this thread tells us he did.

LeeG
08-26-2009, 10:41 AM
The specifics are in the original post in this thread :D :D

Kaa

(smiley face) noun (winking face) verb (smiley face)(smiley face) noun

John of Phoenix
08-26-2009, 11:12 AM
Your entire argument is based on the premise that Obama didn't change anything.... yet the first post of this thread tells us he did.

Hmmm. Well, that wraps this one up.

LeeG
08-26-2009, 12:13 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxnegxNEDAc

Captain Intrepid
08-26-2009, 02:39 PM
The "War on Terror" is a reactionary assignation of blame to drum up support for a previous government.
Huh?

Basically, the "War on Terror" is spin. Americans haven't ever really paid attention to the horrors of terrorism in the past, for example evidenced by American support of the IRA. All of a sudden the US is attacked by terrorists and the government has to appear strong on the issue to woo it's voters. To do this it packaged "terrorism" nicely into an enemy, as if "terrorism" was a conventional enemy, fought like a conventional war. You kill enough of the enemy, take enough of their ground, and they give up. This is utter rubbish, and yet it fooled your voting public (as all voting publics are rather stupid, just ask me my opinion on the Canadian voting public!) The Obama administration has begun the long shift in (if you'll forgive the buzzword) paradigms towards viewing terrorism as a tactic instead of an enemy.



No longer pretending terrorism is a discrete nicely packaged enemy has nothing to do with fighting it appropriately.How do you think the USA should fight terrorism "appropriately"?

Kaa

Well, that sure is a simple question to ask. Ending violent anti west Jihadism is going to be a long uphill struggle, and trying to pin down the best approach to doing so is difficult. There are a number of ways to do so but the only one that'll have a definitive effect is denying the radicals public support. That'll take years of the US being a positive force in the ME, one that shows moderation, understanding and benevolence. Not to say that military action won't be needed, but take it too far and it will do nothing but create more militants as I'm convinced it's already done in Iraq. It's been said that the Iraq War is Al Queda's greatest recruiting tool.

Only problem is that the American people view patience, perseverance and peacefulness with a touch of sacrifice as always inferior to direct action, no matter how inexpertly applied.

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 02:53 PM
I guess the question is...does Obama support tourture?

Kaa
08-26-2009, 02:55 PM
Basically, the "War on Terror" is spin.

Correct.


The Obama administration has begun the long shift in (if you'll forgive the buzzword) paradigms towards viewing terrorism as a tactic instead of an enemy.

Evidence, please..? I don't think this to be the case -- and that's exactly my point about Obama staying on track.

It seems to me Obama discovered the many advantages of being a "wartime President" and is quite happy to continue. With some adjustments, of course, but relatively minor.

For example, he really likes the war in Afghanistan, don't you remember? :-D


Well, that sure is a simple question to ask. Ending violent anti west Jihadism is going to be a long uphill struggle, and trying to pin down the best approach to doing so is difficult. There are a number of ways to do so but the only one that'll have a definitive effect is denying the radicals public support. That'll take years of the US being a positive force in the ME, one that shows moderation, understanding and benevolence.

Make up your mind -- either it's a difficult question or there's "only one [way] that'll have a definitive effect" :-)

And, of course, "moderation, understanding and benevolence" are all very fuzzy words the meaning of which entirely depends on the framework in which they are being used. Not to mention that if we accept that islamism has deep social causes rooted in culture and economy, there might not be much the US can do about it.

Kaa

LeeG
08-26-2009, 03:14 PM
Kaa, they may be fuzzy words but they are distinct from other fuzzy words like deceit, death and delusion

PeterSibley
08-26-2009, 05:10 PM
But don't you shout from the rooftops that Bush lied when he connected al-Qaida and Iraq? If Bush was full of ****, and in reality there's no connection between islamists and Iraq, why do you keep harping on this connection?


Kaa

Yep ,al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq until you guys took over , then they flooded in from all over .They joined up by the thousands for the nice new war .And before you say it ...you didn't kill them all ,they're in Afganistan now , still fighting alongside the Taliban .

Bush and Cheney were their number one recruiters .

LeeG
08-26-2009, 05:20 PM
Yep ,al-Qaida wasn't in Iraq until you guys took over , then they flooded in from all over .They joined up by the thousands for the nice new war .And before you say it ...you didn't kill them all ,they're in Afganistan now , still fighting alongside the Taliban .

Bush and Cheney were their number one recruiters .

go back to General Patreaus' presentation to Congress in fall of '07 , there's a big map of Iraq with big fat arrows showing bad things from Iran, Syria. But somehow on the border with Saudi Arabia, there's nothing. The fountain of modern Sunni fundamentalism we teamed up with Pakistan against Russia was totally absent. Of course what he left out was that the majority of suicidal jihadists were from Saudi Arabia. shhhhhh.
Then of course the political forces developing in this new democracy of Iraq, except for the Kurdish region, is fundamentalist Shia aligned with Iran. shhhhh

Our country has so much power and wealth we could afford to waste it with ignorance and pride. And look at the results. It's wasted.

ljb5
08-26-2009, 05:37 PM
I guess the question is...does Obama support tourture?


He's been quite clear about the answer to that question.

Do you have any reason to think otherwise?

LeeG
08-26-2009, 05:43 PM
sure he has a reason to think otherwise. If the disinformation program says what Obama is doing is no different than what Bush is doing then he supports torture, or at least what Bush authorized. It's a way of trying to redefine reality. The tactic keeps getting recycled, define the terms of the argument at the outset.

High C
08-26-2009, 05:56 PM
Reports that the Obama administration supports torture are grossly exaggerated for transparently political purpose.

Phillip Allen
08-26-2009, 05:59 PM
He's been quite clear about the answer to that question.

Do you have any reason to think otherwise?

I don't claim to know one way or the other...

Captain Intrepid
08-26-2009, 06:07 PM
I don't claim to know one way or the other...

"I was clear throughout this campaign and was clear throughout this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture," Obama said, when asked at the news conference whether he would continue the Bush administration's policy of harsh interrogation. "We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals."

Seems pretty clear to me. That and that he released memos from the previous administration discussing torture makes it fairly clear he's not planning to continue in their footsteps.



Correct.



Evidence, please..? I don't think this to be the case -- and that's exactly my point about Obama staying on track.

It seems to me Obama discovered the many advantages of being a "wartime President" and is quite happy to continue. With some adjustments, of course, but relatively minor.

For example, he really likes the war in Afghanistan, don't you remember? :-D



Make up your mind -- either it's a difficult question or there's "only one [way] that'll have a definitive effect" :-)

And, of course, "moderation, understanding and benevolence" are all very fuzzy words the meaning of which entirely depends on the framework in which they are being used. Not to mention that if we accept that islamism has deep social causes rooted in culture and economy, there might not be much the US can do about it.

Kaa

Alas I'm going out for a while, but I'll get back to this tomorrow when I have time to do it justice.

High C
08-26-2009, 06:12 PM
"I was clear throughout this campaign and was clear throughout this transition that under my administration the United States does not torture," Obama said, when asked at the news conference whether he would continue the Bush administration's policy of harsh interrogation. "We will abide by the Geneva Conventions. We will uphold our highest ideals."

Seems pretty clear to me. That and that he released memos from the previous administration discussing torture makes it fairly clear he's not planning to continue in their footsteps.....

Clear as mud! That was a non answer answer if ever I saw one. :D His recent actions make clear his policy intentions.

PeterSibley
08-26-2009, 06:19 PM
What's unclear .Geneva Conventions ? Definitions of torture ?

ljb5
08-26-2009, 06:52 PM
I don't claim to know one way or the other...

It would behoove you to find out.

ljb5
08-26-2009, 06:53 PM
His recent actions make clear his policy intentions.

In what way?

Osborne Russell
08-27-2009, 12:12 PM
But it's so much more popular on the left than on the right :D

WE CAN DO IT! HOPE AND CHANGE! AMERICA TURNED THE CORNER! A NEW ERA HAS BEGUN! :D

Kaa

Definitely popular with the mommy state/patchouli crowd (what you call liberals). But without the religion. Magic President/Messiah/Big Daddy is the velvet groove with Reds.


Ralph Reed was the very first executive director of the Christian Coalition, and held that position 1989 to 1997.

Ralph Reed appeared on the cover of TIME on May 15, 1995, under the banner "The Right Hand of God: Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition."

-- Wikipedia.

Osborne Russell
08-27-2009, 12:14 PM
I don't claim to know one way or the other...

Remember the guy Schultz in "Hogan's Heroes"?

Osborne Russell
08-27-2009, 12:16 PM
Not to mention that if we accept that islamism has deep social causes rooted in culture and economy, there might not be much the US can do about it.

Which makes the military option even stupider than it normally is. Not that I don't support the troops. They have to torture to get information to protect themselves.

Captain Intrepid
08-28-2009, 02:55 PM
The Obama administration has begun the long shift in (if you'll forgive the buzzword) paradigms towards viewing terrorism as a tactic instead of an enemy.

Evidence, please..? I don't think this to be the case -- and that's exactly my point about Obama staying on track.

It seems to me Obama discovered the many advantages of being a "wartime President" and is quite happy to continue. With some adjustments, of course, but relatively minor.

For example, he really likes the war in Afghanistan, don't you remember? :-D

It's true, I think that the main difference so far has been one of perception and attitude more than actual different policies, partly because of the short time Obama has been in office, and partly because American policies are pretty static no matter who's in office. But I think that in this case perception and attitude are areas that'll really help. Worldwide perception has shifted towards the US... and for the better. There's a reason why high quality dates in Egypt are named after Obama this season and low quality ones are named after Bush.

Shifting from "you're either with us or against us" to "assalaamu alaykum" does a lot of good.



Well, that sure is a simple question to ask. Ending violent anti west Jihadism is going to be a long uphill struggle, and trying to pin down the best approach to doing so is difficult. There are a number of ways to do so but the only one that'll have a definitive effect is denying the radicals public support. That'll take years of the US being a positive force in the ME, one that shows moderation, understanding and benevolence.

Make up your mind -- either it's a difficult question or there's "only one [way] that'll have a definitive effect" :-)

And, of course, "moderation, understanding and benevolence" are all very fuzzy words the meaning of which entirely depends on the framework in which they are being used. Not to mention that if we accept that islamism has deep social causes rooted in culture and economy, there might not be much the US can do about it.

Kaa

It's both! The generality of it, the fuzzy words, are easy to figure out, it's the planning and application that's incredibly difficult.

Phillip Allen
08-28-2009, 02:59 PM
I have only scanned this thread but it looks now like some folks have reversed themselves since last year...different party in office so different rules I suppose

I saw this coming long ago

ljb5
08-28-2009, 03:12 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The Republican concept of victory is "We broke it so badly that you can't fix it."

Bush created a hell of a mess. Obama hasn't yet solved it, so we're supposed to conclude that it's all Obama's fault. :rolleyes: