The 'reality' of the U.S. "War on Terror"

A reply from a friend of mine I copied and pasted my questions to him his response:

the thing about the US govt is it is a constantly changing entity. the goverment that picks the fights is very rarely the goverment that has to fight them.

truth
Visavis, I can't imagine a small group of men, scattered across the globe, and without a national geographical base, declaring WAR on the great national powers, U.S.A., Russia, England, Spain, and others. We have "declared" war on them, at least this administration has decided to label this conflict--which can have no definitive victory or loss--a war, for its own political reasons. It is an on-going conflict which requires a greatly expanded intelligence system (with better international connections) for purposes of crime prevention. Wars are, by definition, conflicts between sovereign nation states, not between bands of guerillas and states.

I don't consider it to be a war...but the title allows for such morally-questionable actions as those allegedly undertaken in Guantanamo Bay, without recourse to the everyday legal strictures of peace time.

truth
Precisely, KP. And it gives the president and his minions (i.e., Asscroft) a rationalization for asserting anti-democratic controls over his own people. I wonder if the Republicans are going to contest this definition of the situation when it gives unwarranted powers to the Kerry administration after Nov. 04.

Re: truth


One can only hope that we see Kerry in office rather than bush. But yea when I first read the quote i originally posted the first thing that came to my mind was that they created this reality - this is NOT a war in any respects and to get down to bushes level (around preschool-ish) the US Government started it... namely bush V.1.

Good book you may have read but its humorous-serious and very reasearched. It is by Michael Moore "Dude, Where's My Country?" its an awesome book.

George W. Bush (Moses's bush?) versus a person who can have a pretty good arguement with himself.

The American voter is going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place


Kinda sKerry, isn't it

truth
Did you notice that Condolezza Rice (sounds like a meal at a Caribean restaurant) gave as an excuse for not preventing 9/11 our culture's aversion to domestic intelligence? That's the basis for the Patriot Acts.

JL,

As an employee of the U.S. Govt for about nine years of a fortyfive years working life, I find Condolezza's testimony very believeable. Thats how a bureaucracy works and thinks. I have seen evidence of this mindset frequently at work.

I strongly suspect that if an officer of the CIA had known to a "T" what was going to happen Sept. 11-01 he would have kept that knowledge from the FBI if at all possible. The fact that the "domestic survelliance clause" of the CIA's charter is further enshrined in law only made it worse.

A bureaucracts first instinct is to protect the mission of his agency. I see this all the time in the wrangling between the Corps of Engineers, the USDA (forest service) The U.S. Dept of the Interior (park service). I am a very very low person on the totem pole. If it's bad at my level I suspect that it is acute at the GS supergrade level.

truth
To protect the mission of his agency? How scary. This means that we not only have "structural" problems, as Rice put it, but cultural problems as well. The agencies will simply have to be brought, coercively if necessary, to think about their mission differently. They serve their country, not their agency.

I have been in the army for going on 3 years now and i have seen the same thing on a much smaller level yet none the less it exists. Several times I have heard leaders say to me and to others "you don't have to tell superiors more than needs to be said to get the job done." its scary but thats how the 'business ethics' works inside the government.

Yes, It is scary. I caught excerpts from Janet Reno's testimony this afternoon and she pretty much seconded Dr. Rices testimony.

The only thing that the people really have going for them is that all bureaucracies seem to work that way. This is not the fault of the people that work for or attempt to control the agency . It seems to be something that is inherent in the nature of organizations that are set up to perform services for the people in general. Unfortunatly once an organization reaches a critical size a bureaucracy seems to be necessary.

I have no good ideas as to a solution. Apparently no good one has come along from anyone else either.


It costs nothing to hope though

and see thats just the thing - a good answer is present.. its just people ignore it.. It is what our government was founded upon. Life Liberety and FREEDOM for EVERYONE. Let them live how they want to and let us live how we want to.. and unless expressly asked dont go and 'help' anyone. and DO NOT let personal and theological 'beliefs' get in the way of clear thought.

Nationalism clouds clear thought for the masses and so alot of people follow bassed on 'patriotism' and well it all rolls down hill from that.

Vis, Nice thoughts but they tend to fall down or at least waver a bit when "leave alone" comes up against varied human nature and experience.

I admit that your right to move your arm ends at the tip of my nose. The difficulty seems to arise when we have an inability to determine exactly where my nose ends.

Obviously I have some fair interests at somewhat greater distances .

Like my kids educations, use of my wifes uterus, property rights, security etc.

I have also been in govt service for a few years. My exposure to bueracracy leads me to think that decisive action needs to be taken, perhaps people replaced that cannot get with the new vision. But no one is really at fault for the failures.
People in charge have responsibility for the actions and inactions of their agencies but they are not "at fault" per se.
A case in point is the CIA. Before 9/11 the CIA were the bad guys. The American people knew these were the guys that ran ops in Cambodia like Air America, planned the Bay of Pigs and tried to kill Castro with an exploding cigar. THE PEOPLE did not want an efficient, effective, funded CIA. They did not want the CIA to have ANY role inside CONUS.
So the Patriot Act and the revamp of the intelligence apparatus all depends on The People. If the people want to give up some civil liberties for security...then the government will provide, or the government will be voted out and replaced with someone who will.
My personal belief is that the system must be revamped by civil liberties must be upheld also. I will put up with the occational terrorist attack. While I was shocked and horrified by 9/11 I expected something of its ilk long ago.

Yes Chem,

I have heard (probably Ben Franklin) that a government big enough to provide everything is also big enough to take it all.

So the problem should probably be stated as-- How much liberty will you swap for security? That would be a rough question for the most astute statesman. As for a politician I suspect that that question could not even be imagined.

The reality of the war on terror
Hi guys, I am sorry for the length and depth of my first post but due to topic it can not be helped.

Ever since the push for globalization there has been a culture to unite people into a global village. The side effect of this has been the perceived unification (Al Qaeda) of terror groups. On their own they were seen as annoying but now due to the sideeffects of globalization individual terror groups have been given a unintended helping handto co-ordinate their attacks to more places in the world. The fear mongering which has gone on of late has convinced most that terror groups have united to fight a global war, but the truth is that the globalization revolution has removed many barriers and given extended mediums of communication that has made it more possible for mutually exclusive terror groups to stage attacks. The assumption that groups which have different agenda and goals have given them up for a coalition of terror is based on fear and not fact. I say this because fear is a powerful thing and in the hands of the powerful or the mad can cause many to lose sight of the facts and act out of their heightened fear. Without the facts how can anyone unite to fight terror? If fear is the cause and the effect; the action or the reaction then those who benefit from it most are the ones who are to blame for it. I think those in the media, the governemntand in the coroporationshave benefited most from this cycle of fear. I am afraid there are those in the media through dis-information and headlines journalism who are helping the cause of terrorist organizations and it suits the powers that be nicely. These people need to be confronted with their lies and propaganda and the truth told about who is using terror and why. Terrorism has always been there so why now do people now see the need to change the world? There are far more noble, just causes and reasons to change the world through peaceful means; why should war and invasions be always the end result of solving global problems? By reversing the domino theory and invading countries to make them democracies how is that going to win hearts and minds? It is only because the media has been given excessive scope to continually highlight terrorism (which has rewarded and expanded the terrorist cause) without giving the same attention to other threats. This continual programming has brainwashed Americans and those in the west to take their concerns from off domestic issues and look at the global problems and they have been convinced that their military might is the way to solve them. Before 9/11America was a protector but now they have become a liberator not due to problems based on their merits but because they themselves were attacked. This is not action but a reaction and while they react to their perceived enemies they will go further and further down the path of destruction. They now do not like what they have been shown by the media so they go on the offensive charging off on a crusade trying to fix the world without collecting all the facts. If more time was spent doing some police work and investigating what are the real threats and less on forming armiesthen there might be a chance to finding a solution. Look news is big businessand if the news does not make money or entertain it is not given the attention it deserves. The terrorists will never change America but its Americans who will changeAmerica so who should you fear more? From all the propaganda which has been spouted its hard to find the truth and the only way to find a solution to terror is with the truth and by peaceful and charitable action not by showing your enemies that your brand of fear is more terrible then theirs. All I see is people trying to out do one another to how much fear they can generate in the hope that their respective fear becomes so great it overwhelms their opponents into becoming too fearful to act/react. Using fear (words) to fight fear (actions) only perpetuates the fear cycle and ANYONE who does that is a part of the problem. I quote this from this site:



The war on terror is a war which can not be won because the same financial base the foreign terrorists use is also used by those in theory who wish to destroy them. In a world where money can be put into secretaccounts and members of terroristorganizations are used by certain people for security and protection; the U.S and other western countries will in theory try to stopterrorism being a more profitable and lucritiveactivity. There are companieswhich do businessin foreign countries which have direct links to terrorist groups yet nothing is done to stop this activity. It is just pointless spending billionsto invadecountries and then build them back up again without dealing with the root causesof terrorism. Relying on U.S military might as the main thrust to invade countries trying to destroy organizations which were brought into existence due to their own finances, training, and once supportedactivities and then try to replace the governments which allegedly supported their recent actions with pro-democratic pro-American ideals will only strengthen the foreign terrorists position. Look in Israel for example: there certain people who are assassinatedto stop terrorism but those actions have led to heightened attention so people join these organizations. The use of the media, the army or merceneriesjust gives the foreign terrorists the attention they crave and while they receive the title as a immanent major threat there will be those in this world who will give their lives to keep that going. Those who use terrorismto change the world will fail so why give them the attention they do not deserve? The U.S government prides itself in the secrecy it has over its own people, the assassinations they have carried out in secret on foreign people who were perceived threats and the secret covert actions the CIA have used through proxy to change the governments of foreign countries but now on the war on terror they seek to make their actions daily news. Domestic terrorism (the drug trade, the extortion rackets, the prostitution rings, right wing groups ect...)should receive the same attention but since it does not suit the powers that be agenda they has been side lined. To me this policy of dealing with foreign terrorists and not fully addressing the domestic problems shows a lack of balance and consistency and it seems those in power want thiskind of terrorism to continue so they can divert attention away from the growing domestic problems within their own borders. Why reward (through daily attention to their cause) those who use murder and ignore those groups who use other methods for their cause? It seems they want this to continue so they are given more power and more control over the common western man through fear so they can bring in more laws and receive more money to weaken the rights and freedoms of people. The laws and funding are sufficient enough already to do the job, but fear will drive people to do extreme things. The U.S government could no way justifiably exercise what is going on in places like Iraq over westerners so that is why they wage wars; as a example to demonstrate to all what they are capable of doing when they have the daily media propaganda behind them which has induced a popular public support for retaliations and aggression. Patriotism, nationalism and big business have combined to unite through fear a nation to invade countries to fight terror, and a never ending process this will now be because if people continue to think their actions are right and justified then we must support them and if we do not then we are terrorists; it is now a black or white good Vs evil issue and this religious zeal will cause people to seek out opinions or political view points different from their own and wipe them out. The way which will be adopted to properly deal with domestic terrorism by the governments in western countries will be the use of RFID technologyto trackgoods, money and eventually peoplewithin their borders so that foreign or domestic terrorism will not be as effective as it has been in the past; and with that control will come the ability to monitor every person within their borders through big brother style means which is their ultimate goal and weapon in the war on terror. People will have their securityand peace but the corporations will be in full control; unelected, unchallenged and the masters. Terrorism which causes fear will drive people into their system and the instigators of this recent terrorismand those which allow it to happen; which the people thought they had elected to fight terrorism will end up deceiving them into accepting a communist state ruled by capitalist rulers. Freedom and democracy as we know it will cease to exist and in its place will be a system where every thought and every action will be under surveillance; this is the New World Order (The Third Way).

Hi Third Way,

I am at least hoping that this current bruhah gives the Iraquis a shot at some sort of self government.
If it wasn't for France I'd still be singing "God save the Queen", a song that is abhorrent to my personal sensibilities on two counts.

I don't think that Clinton took the moral "high ground" by ignoring Rwanda in favor of Monica.

I don't think that the UN took a proper position in Yugoslavia by allowing the massacres.

Idi Amin also deserves some censure.

I am sorry but civilized persons cannot just let murderers run amuck. At some point some one must say ENOUGH.

The UN absolutely will not do it, and nobody else has the capability.

(Did you note where the UN and Saddam skimmed off more or less five billion dollars off the "Oil for Food" program.)

Sometimes one must shoot a mad dog. I feel bad about it but if civilization is to survive the worst of the priests and politicians must be brought to see the realities of the people .

Hi Third Way, glad that wasn't in capitals! Seriously a paragraph break or two would have been kind.

I have to express the POV that USA politicans and the CIA seems to have materially fostered and supported 23 out of 25 of the world's greatest terrorist groups or dictators of all time over the past 30 years. Folk who turn around and bite you after took much involvement or interference in their causes.

In the name of national security it appears that the USA has taken an incredibly interventionist approach to foreign politics. Your government has messed up alot of peoples' backyards and has not been held accountable. 9/11 seems to be your former, now seriously pissed off, terror allies striking back on your home turf.

This raises serious worries. Will more fighting really stem their cause or motivation or ability to fight? I find it very unlikely. Can modern warfare effectively respond to organised, distributed domestic terrorist cells? Again very unlikely. Are Americans suceptible to a wave of on-shore terror attacks - now more than ever.

Bush seems to be merely saying might makes right, and we will fight you into submission because the victors write history. I don't think the USA has ever really accepted the hostility and harm elements of its Government have done on many, many, many sovereign countries on their home soil. Its barely apologised to its native indians which it so readily slaughtered - more than 95% wiped out in under a hundred years. So why should it care more about foreign citizens in a country where it is either inciting terrorist or fighting against it?

* * * Resumes of folk the USA has supported

As little as 14 years ago the CIA was still strongly backing dictators into power all over the world, financing, trading with, giving military intelligence and support to nice folk like Phol Pott, the Ayatollahs in Tehran, Sadam and Osama, Gamal Nasser of Egypt, Qaddafi of Libya, Chilean General Augusto Pinochet, the King of Jordan, his Hashemite cousin on the Iraqi throne, Argentina General Videla, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, General Suharto, Papa and Baby Doc Duvalier, Mobutu in Zairie, the Baath Party, Manuel Noriega, the Shah of Iran, the Taliban in Afghanistan, even some Lebanese Hizbollah leaders and let's not forget Nicaragua's notorious Anastazio Somoza. And they weren't one offs - America's elected officials had been doing that for over 80 years! e.g. http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2...003/oped/o1.htm or http://www.zum.de/whkmla/period/lat...r/uslatam2.html

So does the US Government really expect its allies to believe its actions for decades has made the world safer for everyone?

g_day,

When you are up to your a## in alligaters is not the time sit around discussing draining the swamp.

As any mechanic will tell you when your vehicle is broken out in the woods you do what you have to to get it running or you walk.

Admiting of course that sometimes it wont go because nobody there has any knowlege of what makes it go.

Sometimes you don't even have the tools to work with so you have to make do with what you've got.

Pol Pot, Saddam, Franco, Ngo Din Diem, Marco, etc. were all tools which needed to be used at the time. They weren't very good tools but they may have served some purpose at the time.

It's called "realpolitic" and IMO the NATO nations, The SEATO nations, and the Arab League bear a lot of shame for the stunts in Liberia, Zimbabwe, Sudan,and the Former Yugoslavia amongst many others.