libertango: (Default)
Hal ([personal profile] libertango) wrote2003-12-22 11:28 pm

Hey, wait-a-minnit

Remember how Dean just caught a lot of flak over saying the uncomfortable truth that Hussein's capture doesn't make us any safer? (Or even the troops in Iraq?)

Well... If he was so wrong, why are we suddenly at Terror Alert Level Ernie? You're pretty much left with two choices: The terror alerts really are a sham, or Dean was right.

{Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] holyoutlaw for Ernie, and The Daily Kos for the observation.}

[identity profile] scottscidmore.livejournal.com 2003-12-22 11:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Well, Dean was wrong because he doesn't support Fearless Leader in his war on Bad Guys Who Hate US\\Us Because We Are Free (and if you disagree, the AG wants to talk with you). Whereas we've moved from Alert Level Lemon to Alert Level Orange because the terrorists are executing a last desperate spasm attack on us, after the mastermind behind 9/11 and all that terror was caught and we'll be safer RSN.

Right?

[identity profile] camfangrrl.livejournal.com 2003-12-23 07:26 am (UTC)(link)
Safety isn't binary, either existing or not. I believe Dean is wrong, and we are safer than we have been. We have more eyes looking out for trouble, and more eyes always equals a better chance at achieving safety than not. The terror alert is the tip of an iceberg of activity devoted to making us even safer. There's no ceiling on safety, nobody can become perfectly safe, but the chances can be cut way down. Compare the concept of being safe to the concept of being cancer-free. Howard Dean could say that we as a people are no more cancer-free than we have ever been, but you have to admit that with more eyes from doctors and consumers and medical devices watching to scan for imminent cancer threats, we as a people are much more likely to catch cancer in its early stages and prevent widespread devastation that, in earlier times, would have destroyed us. Saddam was a great big tumor in the world's body. We've cut him out. That doesn't mean that the process hasn't put us at risk of having let loose a few stray cells which can metastasize, but with our doctor on Orange Alert for the possibility, there's a greater chance of catching future problems in their early stages.

[identity profile] hal-obrien.livejournal.com 2003-12-23 02:02 pm (UTC)(link)
Safety isn't binary, either existing or not.

I agree completely. Good thing I never said it was, eh? Have you ever read Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World? It's a good book for looking at these issues.

As to the metaphor you then go on to use, it's a bit unfortunate, because sometimes one can bump up against what can be called Heisenberg problems. That is, some of the methods used to look for cancer can themselves be carcinogenic (take a look at the cancer rate among cancer researchers sometime).

Had we captured Hussein in March, April, May, June... Yes, I'd agree that would have had a positive impact. But waiting until now has pretty much made him an irrelevancy. In fact, if anything, waiting until now shows just how reluctant we were to capture him in the first place -- as I've said before, having Hussein on the loose was very useful for us, because it allowed us to label Iraqi nationalists as "Saddam Loyalists", and "Ba'athist hard-liners", and other such clap trap. The insurgents almost certainly don't want the old regime back -- they want us out.

In fact, one of the ways capturing Hussein puts us at greater risk is that it's now likely that some factions who were holding back because they didn't want to be seen as aiding Hussein are now going to become active. This has been reported in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I've had other problems with Will Saletan at Slate, but I think this quote is relevant:

""The line ... in the speech that draws the most flak afterward is, "The capture of Saddam has not made America safer." But analytically, Dean is right. The people who are safer with Saddam in prison are in Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait. We weren't on the list. I supported the war to punish a scofflaw and put teeth in U.N. resolutions. Bush now defends the war as a rescue mission for oppressed Iraqis. Neither reason has to do with U.S. security."