Did Franklin Roosevelt Take His Eye off the Ball?

(By Ray D.)

Some Issues Unraised by the German Media

"The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor. That's what we have here." ---John Kerry, from the first presidential debate.

Recently the Kerry campaign has accused the Bush administration of taking its “eye off the ball” on Al-Qaeda by going into Iraq instead of focusing on Afghanistan. Mr. Kerry also stated during the first presidential debate that invading Iraq after 9/11 would have been like invading Mexico after Pearl Harbor. This naturally invites us to ask the question: How so Mr. Kerry?

Kerry's 'Mexico 1941 - Iraq 2003' Comparison an Insult to Mexico and Mexicans Everywhere

After all, Mexico in 1941 was not a nation ruled by a tyrant responsible for the mass murder, torture, imprisonment and suppression of hundreds of thousands of his own people. Mexico was not a nation dotted by mass graves. Mexico had not launched invasions of two neighboring countries and fired missiles at numerous others in its recent past. Mexico in 1941 had never possessed or used weapons of mass destruction nor did it have the plans or infrastructure to develop them. The Mexican government did not support the families of terrorist suicide bombers with $25,000 payments nor did it serve as a haven for terrorists. The government of Mexico had not violated a string of 17 international resolutions on arms control for more than a decade. The government of Mexico had not fired upon US aircraft enforcing no fly zones.

No. That was not Mexico in 1941. What other nation of that period then, murdered, tortured, suppressed and imprisoned the innocent? What other nation was ruled by a militant, National-Socialist tyrant? What other nation grabbed land and invaded her neighbors? What other nation sought to build long-range missiles and an atomic bomb? What other nation had repeatedly violated arms agreements while the world looked on? It wasn’t Mexico: It was Germany!

So when America was attacked by Japan on December 7, 1941 at Pearl harbor, was President Roosevelt “taking his eye off the ball” by committing so many of the nation’s resources and troops to the fight against Germany and her Axis allies in North Africa and Europe, thousands of miles away from Japan? After all, Japanese, not German planes dropped the bombs and torpedoes that killed over 2,000 Americans on that fateful morning in Hawaii. Roosevelt’s decision meant that it would take far longer to defeat the Japanese, those actually directly responsible for the attacks on the United States. Would Mr. Kerry have accused Roosevelt of pursuing the “wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” in the presidential campaign of 1944? Had he done so, how would the American people have reacted?

Some might argue that there is no clear link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda as there was between Germany and Japan during World War II. Admittedly, there was no formal, signed alliance between Saddam and Osama, they didn’t sit down at a table, shake hands and exchange diplomats as the Axis nations did. The facts, however, are clear: Al-Qaeda and Iraq were both common enemies of the United States. Both were strong supporters and practitioners of terror and an overall ideology of aggressive violence. Both sought weapons of mass destruction to strike at the United States, Israel and others. Both directly supported suicide bombers with cash and moral support. Both had no qualms about killing and maiming innocents and engaging in mass murder to achieve their goals.

Others might point out that Germany declared war on the United States. Also true. But hadn’t Saddam Hussein already declared war by firing on US planes enforcing no-fly zones? Hadn’t he declared war by repeatedly defying cease-fire agreements and international law? We have to ask ourselves, if Saddam had nothing to hide and no intention of restarting his WMD program, why didn’t he simply cooperate fully with the UN? Why would he risk war, crippling sanctions and ultimately his claim to power if he had nothing to hide and no future plans of aggression?

Mr. Kerry is also missing out on the fact that most of Al-Qaeda’s top leaders are likely no longer in Afghanistan, but in nations like Pakistan, where it is impossible for US troops to reach them no matter how many resources and reinforcements they are given. This is supported by the fact that, to date, the majority of major Al-Qaeda figures killed or captured were neutralized in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia by local authorities, not in Afghanistan by US troops. The senator even directly asserted that Osama bin Laden was still in Afghanistan during the debate, a claim for which there is absolutely no evidence and one that is contradicted by most intelligence authorities. Here is his statement:

"The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so."

The Democrat's 'Iraq 2003 - Mexico 1941' comparison is not only historically off the mark, it is frankly absurd and insulting to America’s neighbors to the south and to Mexican-Americans in the United States. Above all, the comparison is an insult to the intelligence of anyone with the most basic working knowledge of the past. Historically and politically speaking, it is a strike out.

UPDATE: Upon further historic review, the Iraq-Mexico comparison gets even worse. Actually, Mexico was an ally of the United States throughout World War II and officially declared war on the Axis powers in the first half of 1942. Mexico also contributed an air unit known as the "Aztec Eagles" to the Allied war effort whose members fought, bled and died alongside American troops in the fight against Japan. That said, how could one possibly compare Saddam's Iraq in 2003 to Mexico during World War II?

Comments

[lost one]

Wow, Ray. This should be on the op ed page of every paper in nthe U.S. I might have to print it up and carry it around with me, especially when I go to Germany. You always do a bang up job, but I must say this is your best one yet.

Keeep 'em comin'

[Don]

Good point, ray. Germany did declare war on the US, but Senator Kerry would no doubt have pointed out that the true enemy was Japan and the fact that the US was devoting 2/3rds of it's military spending to defeating Germany was 'a massive mistake'. Even though in retrospect it appears that Germany may have been able to complete the A-Bomb given a delay of a couple years. Or even a negociated armistice (something Kerry would surely have supported).

[Joe N.]

His comparison was insulting, not so much at face value, but at Kerry's attempt to make the whole thing trivial - to make light of the legitimate goals of removing Sadaam Hussein.

Kerry clearly cares more for his personal ambitions than he does his country or the protection of its' citizens.

[PacRim Jim]

Mexico supported Germany in WWII. So did Ireland, for that matter.

Joe,

you might want to exchange 'Kerry' with 'a majority of Democrat officials'. After all Kerry does not have the power to steer the Democrats in a direction of his choice.

Ray,

there's still another angle. Panama did not drop bombs on Mexican territory to prevent them from finishing a facility to build WMDs (as did Israel to the Osirak facility in 1981). However, there were a number of British and American intelligence operations to kidnap German nuclear scientists in 1944, just as UN weapons inspectors tried to do in Iraq.

Also, notice that Kerry complains that the US still did not catch OBL. But we all know what'd happen if OBL were caught - 'highly questionable timing ... re-election gift to Dumbya ... been kept under Area 51 for months.'

[Joe N.]

Niko:
They've been saying that for the past year. If he turned up last year, it would have been suspicious in theirs eyes.

[Ray D.]

@ PacRim Jim:

Mexico supported Germany in WWII.

Boy, you Kerry supporters sure know your history! In fact, Mexico declared war on the Axis in 1942 and was a US ally throughout the war!

---Ray D.

[Don]

Ray, Ireland was officially neutral during WWII - but read the following:

"Ireland was officially neutral during WWII - while the rest of the world fought the Republic had the 'Emergency' - but more than 70,000 people, men and women, from the South of Ireland served with the British armed forces - many others joined the Canadian, South African and American armies." http://indigo.ie/~kfinlay/General/vc.html

[JB]

Another intersting point to this whole Mexico question: Mexico joined the Allies in declaring war against Germany, but there still is the whole issue of that infamous "Zimmerman Note"... I'm far too young and uneducated to know all the details, but there just may have been some grumblings between the US and Mexico at the time to prompt Germany to send such a secret invitation to attack the US. My point being. . . If relations between the US and Mexico were truly strained, and there was sufficient reason to believe that Mexico was in some way allied with Germany (and Japan by extension), America would have been quite justified in "bombing them" in response to Pearl Harbor. Just as America attacked Iraq, a known sponsor of terrorism and general threat to the nation, in part as a retalliation for 9/11. However we know that Mexico did eventually become a strong supporter of the Allied forces, eliminating any need to count them as an enemy.

Despite any complexities in the issue, I still think Kerry was a bit off to make such a comment.

[Don]

The 'Zimmerman Telegram' was a major causus belli for US entry into WWI, JB, 1917, not 1941.....

[Ray D.]

Hey JB,

Yes, I just wanted to say the Zimmermann note was WW1, NOT WW2. That makes a BIG difference. I think the Zimmermann note actually predated the entry of the US into the war and was a minor factor, along with the U-Boats which were a major factor that ultimately pulled the US into the war.

In World War II, Mexico was definitely on the Allied side, no question about that, which is why this Kerry 'Mexico - Iraq' comparison is so off.

---Ray D.

[Don]

Ray, my reading of the chronology of the US entry is that the Zimmerman telegraph was the proverbial last straw.... ;)

[rick]

I am not sure why Kerry's analogy about bombing Mexico is so important to the overall debate. It was just a statement to make a comparison of the absurdity of the Bush policy. He didn't say America should have bombed Mexico. Mexico is not our best friend today and they weren't in 1941. Of course I wouldn't put them in the same category of Iraq either and niether would John Kerry.

Kerry's point was that Iraq was not the threat that the leadership of Al Qaeda was and still is. Bush mentioned at least twice that they have wiped out 75% of Al Queda. That is a huge lie. There are thousands of Al Qaeda in this world and what he said is just not true. He wishes it was and we all wish it was true, but it isn't.

My guess is that they are infiltrating into the US the same way that most illegal aliens are entering, through the Mexican border. Many people don't know that there was cell of Arab terrorists caught while seeking to enter the California-Mexican Border at Mexicali, Baja California a few months ago. How many terrorists have not gotten caught? These are not Iraqi citizens infiltrating our border they are Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria.

Do any of you really feel safer with our borders wide open? Bush only makes excuses and tells half truths about our security because there is much that he has failed to do to make us safe.

My guess is that if Bush is re-elected, we will see new efforts to attack the US from within our borders. I can't prove it, but I just have a bad feeling about it. Bush-Cheney are saying a lot, but I think they are negligent in many areas of national security. Kerry made a valid point about the cargo containers that aren't searched (95% of them) Who knows what is coming into the country in those containers? Maybe a suitcase dirty bomb or even an actual nuclear bomb or some other weapon of mass destruction. Can you say that makes you feel safer? If you say yes, then you are either a fool or so pro-Bush that nothing will effect your mind-set.

I don't know how John Kerry will be able to change things and neither do any of you. I do know what George Bush has certainly made a big mess of things and I have seen his abilities and I am not very impressed with what I have seen thus far. Things seem worse to me and more dangerous rather than less.

[MrGrumpyDrawers]

"These are not Iraqi citizens infiltrating our border they are Arabs from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Iran, and Syria." Good point, rick. FYI, neither Pakistanis nor Iranians are Arabs. Arabs are Semites. Pakistanis and Iranians are not. Neither Urdu nor Farsi (principal national languages of Pakistan and Iran, respectively) are Semitic languages, but Indoeuropean - as are English or Spanish.

The types you are referring to who try to sneak into the country may be Islamists and potential terrorists, but they are not necessarily Arabs.

There very well may have been a "cell of Arab [sic] terrorists caught while seeking to enter the California-Mexican Border at Mexicali". It would be good of you to provide a reference so the rest of us can check it out. This couldn't have happened in a vacuum. Certainly if a "cell" had been apprehended, we would have read about it in short order after the information was leaked to the LATimes or the NYTimes or CNN, and these worthy organs would have taken up the story, replete with ritual denunciations of Bushite anti-terror activities and trampling of rights and innuendos about Patriotic Act excesses and on and on. Where can we confirm what you say?

[rick]

McGrumpy,

I think that the people who are coming from Pakistan and Iran probably are Arabs who have been hiding out in those countries. For example mujahadeen fighters from Saudi Arabia that have been routed out of Afghanistan into Pakistan, Some may be Pakistani but my guess is they are Arabs. Iran is notorious for helping Arab terrorists. While some Iranians may be involved, again my guess the majority are Arabs from Arab countries. Al Zarqawi is a Jordanian, not Iraqi. Of course, Sadr is Iraqi but is being helped by Arabs in the insurgency.

As for the "Mexicali terrorists" I am not sure why the LA times did not pick up on the issue. It was in our local hometown paper (I live 23 miles from the Mexican border) I did a google search and found a few bits and pieces about it and some other stories related to terrorists trying to enter the US via the Mexican border.

There are a couple of articles on this website by the Overseas Security Advisory Council:

http://www.ds-osac.org/view.cfm?key=7E43514A4151&type=2B170C1E0A3A0F162820

US Authorities Warn Mexican Police of Possible Presence of Al-Qa'ida in Sonora US authorities yesterday alerted Mexican police of the presence of two members of the al-Qa'ida terrorist network in Agua Prieta, Sonora. The pair are on the FBI's most wanted list. Mexican Government sources affirmed that the Mexican Army and various police forces remain on alert on both sides of the border, due to the upcoming date of 11 September. The FBI is seeking Adnan G. El Shukrijumah and Ali Saed Bin Ali-El Hoorie for allegedly planning terrorist attacks on behalf of al-Qa'ida. One source said that National Migration Institute (INM) agents raided two guesthouses in Agua Prieta over the weekend (14-15 August). One official consulted said: "There is information that the two known terrorists tried to cross the border at Agua Prieta into the United States last week. Mexican migration officials knew about it and did not report anything." Copyright 2004 Mexicali La Cronica. All rights reserved.

http://www.oregonir.org/Al-Qaida_in_Latin_America.htm

The Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge says he hasn't seen any evidence of terrorists trying to cross the border. (see below)

I suppose they are telling everyone that they are terrorists as the sneak across. Living along the border, I can tell you that the Mexican border is wide open thousands of people cross everyday both legally and illegally. Smugglers have literal pipelines running under the border in Calexico, Ca from Mexicali, B.C., tunnels they have dug using engineering expertise.

AP
Ridge: No sign of terrorists trying to cross border Associated Press NOGALES, Ariz. (AP) -Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday that he's seen no sign of terrorist efforts to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, and that the United States is not going to start militarizing it. ``We have a long tradition with our friends to the north and south. We're very fortunate that we've never had to assign military to our borders, and we're not going to start that now,'' Ridge said. ``We don't militarize our borders with friends.'' Ridge said that he had seen nothing from any intelligence sources...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24987

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/15/wmex15.xml

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/world/americas/9861068.htm?1c

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_8-4-2003_pg7_60

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_world_story_skin/449459%3fformat=html

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040928-123346-3928r.htm

[rick]

McGrumpy,

I found out why the Mexicali-terrorists were not big news...

It turns out they weren't terrorists after all. According to the San Diego Union-Tribune, it seems the Mexican authorities had initially thought they were Iraqis, but it turns out they were not. They ended up being Armenian and Iranian. Two men – identified by Mexican authorities as Kirakos Gary and Gurgen Koshnudyan – are U.S. citizens, according to a press release issued by the Mexican immigration agency. Mexico deported them to the U.S.

The other six people, including an Iranian man with legal residency in the United States, have been sent or are being sent to Mexico City for further investigation and possible deportation, according to Mexican authorities.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040821/news_2m21detain.html

It shows that there is "some" border security but apparently also points out that any person of middle eastern persuasion is subject to "profiling." Maybe that is good?

To me it points out that America is vulnerable to terrorists who CAN and possibly have already crossed the Mexican border.