Comments on: Pace Takes Page from Kerry Playbook?

By: rationaljim

rationaljim — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 17:15:02 +0000

This is in response to Campbell:
Yeah, the Israeli strategy has really worked, hasn’t it? How long will they continue to live in fear of the next bomber?

By: brantl

brantl — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:43:06 +0000

Kerry was right in the first place; until you're talking about taking a man out of a hostile country, what difference is there between running down an international criminal and a terrorist? Zip. Do the police have firefights with suspects? Yes, when a bust isn't optimal. Do terrorists get taken without firefights, sure they do, when the 'capture' is optimal? Are they ready to shoot him in both cases? Of course they are. 'Capture', 'bust'? Real big difference there. What you may do in prosecution may be different (it seems the Supreme Court disagrees that they are) but how you get them uses the same strategies and tactics. Kerry was right from the get-go.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 19:19:03 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
Lets face it General Pace’s job is on the line along with all of the Rumsfled appointed three and four stars in the Pentagon. Along with General Casey, General Pace can expect to be among the first to be fired when Robert Gates takes over as Sec. Of Defense.
Long know as “Rumsfeld’s Parott” General Peter Pace has not stood out as a desenting voice to what has very widely become know as a failed policy in Iraq or even Afghanistan. His absence was noted Wednesday, when his boss “resigned”, General Pace has disgraced the Marine Corp. by his performance as the first Marine Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a stain on the Corps honor that will take generations to go away. To equate his thinking with Senator Jhn Kerry is not out of line.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 10:09:22 +0000

Perhaps it would be useful to look at the British experience here. IRA terrorism continued for decades, including many bombings in London, assassinations of major political figures and more than one near-miss with attacks on the Prime Minister.
The was NEVER classed as a war and IRA members were never treated as POWs. At all times it was treated as an extension of the fight against crime. There was never any question of shooting out of hand, and the idea of airstrikes in West Belfast — or over the border in Eire — was unthinkable.
As a direct consequence, there was no escalation of the sort we have seen in the struggle against Islamic terrorism and which the head of MI5 commented on yesterday.

By: campbell

campbell — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 01:00:00 +0000

Oh yeah, and what “Phila” said; last two portions.

By: Noah Shachtman

Noah Shachtman — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:01:23 +0000

K:
As is typical with Kerry, I’ve found statements that both contradict and bolster (at least a little) what you say. But, bottom line, I don’t think Kerry’s words back up your notion that he “intended to tolerate terror and make it less of a priority, only acting if and when it got out of hand.“
Throughout the ’04 campaign, Kerry said a bunch of things like this:
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=8320
“We cannot win the War on Terror through military power alone. As President, if necessary, I will use military force to protect our security, our people, and our vital interests.
“But the fight requires us to use every tool at our disposal. Not only a strong military

By: Kaltes

Kaltes — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 22:38:01 +0000

Look, there is no way around it when Kerry calls terrorism merely a NUISANCE, and when he says he wants to go BACK TO A TIME when terrorism was not the focus (that would be September 10, folks). His statements were a clear indication that he intended to tolerate terror and make it less of a priority, only acting if and when it got out of hand. This is the same failed strategy that Clinton used in the 1990s.
Now, just so you know I am being fair with Kerry here, let me say that I believe Kerry’s recent comment about uneducated people who don’t study ending up stuck in Iraq was very likely a reference to BUSH and not intended as a reference to the TROOPS. I don’t agree that Kerry intended to slam the troops merely because it would have been politically suicidal for him to do so. I do know that MANY liberals truly believe that the US military is comprised of people who couldn’t get ahead by getting educated. I have had more then one liberal tell me to my face in the last few weeks that Kerry obviously didnt mean to slam the troops, but by the way, what he said was true of the troops! Hahah. Of all things! So I think the backlash against Kerry was technically wrong, and I didn’t jump on that bandwagon, but I think the people who DID jump on the bandwagon were reasonable people who were holding Kerry accountable for his history of bashing the troops in his career dating back to Vietnam.

By: C-Low

C-Low — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:08:06 +0000

Kerry is a politician and a master of nuance but I think it was pretty clear that Kerry was slamming the idea of pre-emption and aggressive military efforts of US choosing the battle field that has defined the Bush policy in favor of a more Judicious, FBI, Warrants, Interpol, Police actions, military reactionary measures (cruise missile here or there after a attack) that were used in the Clinton days, when military options were at best a secondary thought.
The military option albeit not without cost (very limited in historical comparison but still heart felt cost) is WORKING and succeeding. All the money in world cannot protect the homeland of a free and open society all we can do is force the fight on a field of our choice.
Radical Islamist because of pride have been forced into spending most if not all of their limited resource in Iraq/Afghanistan instead of here in our homeland. For them getting US out of their house is above all else (it

By: Edward Liu

Edward Liu — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:37:50 +0000

Why is it that the “War on Terror” has to be either a police matter OR a military matter? It seems to me that it needs to be both, with a healthy helping of good old fashioned diplomacy to counter the negative attitudes that foster terrorism in the first place.
Semantically, I see absolutely no difference between what Gen. Pace said and what Sen. Kerry said.

By: Endyr

Endyr — Fri, 10 Nov 2006 20:03:26 +0000

I think I agree with Noah on this one.
General Pace and Senator Kerry’s statements do seem to be basically saying that they want to force terrorism to be a small enough problem that it can be effectively contained.
I think that is the only logical statement of victory there is. You are never going to make it impossible for some loon to blow up a cafe or something, but you have to simply mitigate the risk of it happening.
I like Noah am not a fan of Kerry* but I think he did get that comment taken out of context and hosed on, but then isn’t that what elections are all about. =P
* who by the way served in Vietnam.