>>>Someone should maybe ask candidates to explain how did US reach this point of being so voulnerable/prone to boggeyman attacks of all sorts, (now even nuclear!) from generally improving security situation back in 90ties and end of cold war, and do they have any plans/solutions for restoring that calm and optimistic outlook of nineties.
>>>Or things are already shifted to the next level & beyond repair :(
>
>>
>>Sometimes when you say stuff like this I have trouble believing you are serious. The "general improving security situation" of the 90s included the first attack on the World Trade center, the embassy bombings in Africa, the attack on the USS Cole and Al Quaeda planning the second attack on the WTC. And these were just the attempts that to one degree or another succeeded.
>
>I was talking in general/global terms. There was clear ease of tension after
>cold war was over troughout the world. Now all the rest you are mentioning were isolated incidents in relatively long span of time which were not directly/clearly related. Second time you called me 'naive' (which to the point I am) but I take it as compliment in this case :)

Okay, I get the point that there was an appearance of "ease of tension" after 1989 but my point is that it was more a shift of public focus than a reality. Genocide in Africa was easy to ignore ( to the shame of the world ) and as of course you know the situation in the Balkans was 'tense' - and a complete mystery to everyone outside the Balkans ( and probably to most people inside the Balkans ).

The agony of Islamic civilization continued to get worse - again, completely misunderstood by most of people both inside and outside of that culture.

The chaos in the former Soviet Union meant that one of the two largest nuclear stockpiles in the world was relatively unprotected for the first time and subject to leaking to the black market. ( most people don't even want to know exactly how bad that was )

And Pakistan came perilously close to being the atomic arms bazaar for the Islamic world.

But the stock market was good and in the West we wanted to believe that everything was going to be okay now that the Evil Empire had fallen.

Unfortunately the world is a little more complex than that.

>
>On the other side I find your standings (aldough sometime very informed/educated) to be (confusingly to me) very biased and in line with current administration talk. The fact that you spent time in some of the agencies does not mean that your glasses are more clear.
>You know very well how it goes ;
>If you are (ex)soldier standing in the woods, then every sound/motion you hear could be an enemy sneaking behind trying to get you. Even if You are on on leave/discharged and - camping in Connecticut!
>

I understand what you are saying but I don't think this is paranoia on my part. I'm not claiming there are terrorists behind every rock but I also don't believe wishing make you safe. And this particular threat requires different defensive tactics than the Cold War did. Big armies and lots of tanks and lots of missiles don't protect you. This is about knowing what your enemies want to do to you and doing it to them first.



>Sorry if this sounds naive to you, but I do believe that this
>Administration clearly inflated Al-Qaeda threat way out of proportions creating 'case' for two completely unjustified wars. Morover I believe that (if not recognised/stopped) this trend will continue, dangerously destabilising world.

I understand the argument about Iraq being an unjustified war. I think that one will only be settled with historical perspective ( though I think it is clear now that justified or not the 'post-war' period was completely mishandled ) But Afghanistan? That was about as clearly justified as a war gets. ( though once again we don't seem to know how to finish - Tora Bora should have been the end of it and Waziristan should now look like the dark side of the moon )

>
>>As to a "nuclear bogeyman" ... until somebody accounts for the suitcase nukes and all the rest of the stuff that is unaccounted for after the collapse of the USSR I think you would have to be very naive to believe this isn't a threat. More of a threat than the Soviet arsenal as in those days an attack would have a very obvious source and would mean retaliation. If a bomb suddenly goes off on US soil now you will be telling us the CIA or Israel did it so Bush could declare martial law.
>
>I don't know what to tell you.
>You are talking about unaccounted 'russian arsenal' while in Iraq alone US military cannot account for 190000 peaces of guns and thousands of helmets and body armour which is enough to equip entire army.
>Can we really believe that US military know exactly what is in which of their suitcases and where is every and each of them ??

I'm not worried about 100,000 ak47s. I am quite sure we are a lot more careful with the nukes. I agree that it seems silly to complain about Iran giving guns to 'the insurgents' when they seem to get quite enough guns from our 'friends' in Iraq.

But the point remains that people who wish us harm are actively attempting to obtain nuclear,chemical and biological weapons. That is a very big deal. If you don't believe that is true it really doesn't matter because it is not your job to prevent a horrible tragedy but for those whose job it is it keeps you awake at night.


>
>Now in the same time everybody else (Iran,Syria) is blamed for arming Al-Qaeda in Iraq (maybe they found those missing guns and gave them to OBL?), while if some of those suitcases blows up in US, (by mistake or otherwise) my wild guess is that (who else) Iran will be blamed and consecutively attacked.
>
>Fact that the suitcase lands on some boggeyman lynatic lap, does not clear
>responsability from 'donor'. So if that suitcase blows up in US who do *you* believe would be responsible ?

Well, I don't think it would be Israel or the CIA, but I would bet a best-selling book would be published in France within a month claiming exactly that.

I believe the people responsible would be those who thought that if we just wish hard enough and be nice to people and cut off aid to Israel and implement Sha' ria law and let the kakistocracy at the UN run the world we would be safe.

>
>>
>>The Turkish military has been the greatest protector of Turkish democracy since the beginning of the republic. Democracy in Turkey is not perfect, but compared to those parts of the former Ottoman Empire that did not have an Ataturk, they are doing very well and have a lot to be proud of.
>
>I agree to the point on this. Not all societies are really ready to sustain democracy naturally and right away. I wish some general with guts4glory took power Serbia and arrested Milosevic back in 1991. Meny people would probably hate him, but fate of Serbia (and Bolkens) would hv been much better. I believe that Turkish generals will gradually delegate more power to
>'Civilians' provided that populist movements does not come close to jeopardising secular nature of the state. But they still hold most of it, and I can't really blame them.

I think all together the Turkish military has behaved with a lot of restraint. They see their role as protecting Kemalism and democracy ( though admittedly there are sometimes some contradictions between those two ). I do know they have a very sobering effect on any Turkish politician who thinks he is going to demagogue his way to a People's Republic or and Islamic Republic of Turkey. They've only intervened all the way three times in 85 years but they have often had serious conversations with politicians who were going off the rails.

It is a pretty unique situation as Turkey is a very unique nation.

>
>Democracy is as you know very distinct and delicate proccess, (something like wineyard/wine growing/making). You can't just drop all the grapes inside barrel, shake it hard enough and have wine.
>
>You can witness this today in Afganistan and Iraq, so why do YOU believe
>neocons that Iran's 'wine' (or any other wineyard in that walley) would be any better ?
>What do they really want outthere ?

I'm not a big believer in democracy in cultures that have no traditions supporting it. I am also not an optimist about the ability of some cultures to every provide decent government or living standards for the people. If the world's cars ran on coal instead of oil the Arab world would have completely collapsed fifty years ago.