Change Of Strategy Needed?

Now this is interesting, and quite to the point. As is this.

This entry was posted in A Fistful Of Euros, Terrorism and tagged by Edward Hugh. Bookmark the permalink.

About Edward Hugh

Edward 'the bonobo is a Catalan economist of British extraction. After being born, brought-up and educated in the United Kingdom, Edward subsequently settled in Barcelona where he has now lived for over 15 years. As a consequence Edward considers himself to be "Catalan by adoption". He has also to some extent been "adopted by Catalonia", since throughout the current economic crisis he has been a constant voice on TV, radio and in the press arguing in favor of the need for some kind of internal devaluation if Spain wants to stay inside the Euro. By inclination he is a macro economist, but his obsession with trying to understand the economic impact of demographic changes has often taken him far from home, off and away from the more tranquil and placid pastures of the dismal science, into the bracken and thicket of demography, anthropology, biology, sociology and systems theory. All of which has lead him to ask himself whether Thomas Wolfe was not in fact right when he asserted that the fact of the matter is "you can never go home again".

8 thoughts on “Change Of Strategy Needed?

  1. constant theme of the Bush administration is that America and the world are safer because of the US invasion of Iraq and its anti-terror strategy.

    Hmmm. So what about Afghanistan? Or is that lumped into ‘anti-terror strategy’? After all the bombers claimed this was revenge for both Iraq and Afghanistan. So are we to believe that Afghanistan was both immoral and illegal now too?

    This could only be interesting to you Edward, considering it’s a carbon copy of the stuff you posted a couple of weeks ago.

    Everyone knew this was going to happen. And it will happen again. In fact, I think you’ll find France is going to be next, and they vigorously protested the war. It will be some other excuse, such as the hijab ban.

    With Gerry Adams driving around in a British taxpayer funded limousine these days, what other conclusion can terrorist draw from current British will and resolve other than it can be bent?

    btw, the article claims ‘Bush has to review strategy, say US experts’., yet they quote only one John Hamre, a Clinton appointee who served throught the Clinton administration. Draw whatever conclusion from that you will.

    And what’s up with this quote?:

    “Classified studies by the CIA and State Department leaked to the media last month concluded that Iraq had replaced Afghanistan as the prime training ground for foreign terrorists who could travel across the world spreading destruction. The Bush administration has struggled even to work out whether the world is a safer place or not.”

    Are they mixing editorials with reporting now?

  2. I don’t see any editorial in the last FT sentence, other than the lack of space to explain what they mean. They mean this — the fiasco over the way the US counts terrorism incidents, which is the kind of indicator one would want to have right to judge progress in the GWOT.

    Afghanistan and Iraq are different wars. For the former, the US made a feasible demand based on solid evidence to the Taliban: we have reason to suspect Osama of involvement in 9/11, hand him over. The Taliban did not comply. 6 weeks after 9/11, the US invaded. But then the prism switched from al Qaeda to WMD and Saddam, the latter two now forming the intellectual model of the GWOT. How does the WMD/Saddam focus help explain what happened in London yesterday?

  3. “After all the bombers claimed this was revenge for both Iraq and Afghanistan. So are we to believe that Afghanistan was both immoral and illegal now too?”
    It looks like you let things being dictated by these madmen. If the madmen claim something to be the same why should we go along with that?

    With mixed feelings yes, but I certainly did endorse the attack on Afghanistan after september 11 (of course you remember too that Afghanistan was not really invaded in the way Iraq was – a lot of work on the ground was done by the Northern Alliance).
    I strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq on the moment and under the conditions Bush en Blair chose.
    With these two opinions I am with the majority of the Europeans I think.

    With my opinion that it is no use in relation to what should be done today to go on repeating that Bush, Blair and Balkenende were wrong I am not sure the same majority is with me.

    The world (all of it) being safer or not is a rather broad criterium.

  4. “”After all the bombers claimed this was revenge for both Iraq and Afghanistan. So are we to believe that Afghanistan was both immoral and illegal now too?”
    It looks like you let things being dictated by these madmen. If the madmen claim something to be the same why should we go along with that? ”

    Well, part of the issue is that the madmen who are making the claim are non-coincidentally the same madmen bombing the trains. Furthermore the infamous September 11 took place before the invasion of Iraq and even before the invasion of Afghanistan, and inferring a casual chain backward in time is usually frowned upon.

  5. “Change Of Strategy Needed?”

    I find quite compelling the reasons given by Paul Krugman in this article to “start winding down the war”

  6. “…inferring a casual chain backward in time is usually frowned upon”
    Who could disagree with that. But I honestly don’t see to what casual chain you are referring.

  7. @Sebastian I want to remind you of one *simple* fact and ask you one simple question.
    Fact: history did not start at september 11.
    Question: can you point out one, just one person (not being one of the murderers) suggesting that the Afghan bombing or Iraq invasion jusitifies or explains why OBL and the likes of him are so murderous?
    (yes the tendency is strongly reinforced by these events but that is not the same)

Comments are closed.