Has the war on terror gone too far? Or has it just started?

Could be, but it is not the United Nations.

It isn't really possible to determine with any certainty whether this war is being won or lost.

Folks have opinions, largely based upon their political stance in the world. Of course for Pacifists (with some justification), all wars are a losing proposition for all parties. Anarchists, Socialists, and Marxists begin with a strong bias against any government action that doesn't further their own agendas. For those who believe that there is no legitimate place for a nation to militarily act outside its own borders, Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns are wrong, wrong, wrong. Finally, one of the critical elements of the terrorist strategy is to influence the public mind in Western countries, and test our resolve to continue what is at best a distasteful enterprise.

These are all perceptions, and perceptions are often misleading.

The current situation has deep roots in history. There is a history of conflict between Islam and the West from the 8th century through the 15th centuries. From the 15th century on Western Civilization struggled with questions of religion, social/political structure, and technology. That struggle largely led away from religious dominance to a humanistic, materialistic, and industrialized economy that for a time believed colonial possessions necessary for a nation to prosper. Those nations where Islam predominated didn't go through that fire. The Ottoman Empire was repressive and discouraged any movement that interfered with tax collection. The various Islamic factions were pretty much left to themselves, and the whole Ottoman world progressively sank into technological and economic obsolescence. In the East, Islamic despotism and in the West, materialism tempered with humanistic values.

By the end of the 19th century, the Ottoman Empire was collapsing and filling that void the European nations and Russia fell into contention. At the same time petroleum was becoming an important resource. The U.S. had huge oil reserves in Texas (Texas sweet light is still a benchmark), and Oklahoma, but Europe had no known reserves. Russia's had large oil reserves, but needed warm water access to the world's shipping lanes. Wars were fought as the Ottoman crumbled. These events helped set the stage for WWI, and WWI dealt the coupe de grace to Ottoman influence. The old Ottoman Empire had fought alongside the Germans, and so the Allies regarded the remains as a legitimate prize, and Southwestern Asia was divided up among the winners, primarily France and Britain. Britain got the lions share, and divided the territory up into Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and Persia. British administrators left Islam alone, but tended to favor the small Jewish communities that existed. The British PM Balflour had already made promises to the Zionist leaders in return for their support of the Allies during the Great War. Guess what, the Islamic population of the region hated and resented British rule and chaffed under the odium of being defeated.

When WWII started, the highest ranking Islamic leader in Jerusalem (who was rabidly anti-Jewish and Western) through his support to the Nazi's. Whoops, those favored by Allah lost again, and even though the British relinquished its hold over the whole area there was a new Jewish State created by the United Nations occupying a portion of Palestine. The Arab States in combination attacked the infant Israel as it was being born and were soundly beaten again. Repeatedly beaten on the battlefield, those States with large Islamic populations and a hatred of the West found a sponsor and mentor in the Soviet Union. The soviets supplied technical assistance and arms as a means of keeping regional pressure on the West, but refused to become directly and significantly involved in the effort to destroy Israel and eliminate Western influence. It was in the Soviet's interest to keep the pot boiling, but not to let it deteriorate to the point that might lead to a nuclear confrontation with the U.S. The Soviets fell, and once again those who wanted to push Israel and the West entirely out of the region lost again ... or so it seemed.

Actually, what happened was that the constraining hand of the Soviets was removed and terrorist-oriented Islamic movements grew and became more bold in their efforts to cleanse and reclaim the region for radical Islam. From the early 1990's on we can trace an escalation of terrorist violence against Western and Israeli interests. Planes and luxury liners were highjacked and their passengers murdered. It became fashionable for young Muslims to blow themselves up close to Israeli civilians, often children. Israel responded in kind and set off a cycle of political assassinations and revenge operations.

In the meantime, the West was reveling in the first "real" peace in over 60 years. Military spending was cut, and ambitious new social programs adopted. U.S. HUMINT was cut so drastically as to leave it ineffective, though ELINT and SATINT were clearly unable to "take up the slack". No where was the new confidence greater than in the U.S., now the most powerful nation in the world without question ... though many resented the fact. U.S. support for its old Cold War clients and allies was reduced, but not abandoned. U.S. military and intelligence communities warned Congress and every administration that an attack on CONUS by some radical Islamic terrorist organization unaffiliated with any foreign government was growing in probability. Those warnings beginning over a decade ago mostly fell on deaf ears, and almost nothing was done.

Saddam attacked Iran and WWI-like trench warfare resulted. Saddam used poison gas, and Iran sent "volunteer brigades" of school age children out in front of their formations to explode mines and unexploded ordinance. To carry on his little war, Saddam borrowed money from Kuwait that he could never repay. Saddam invaded Kuwait in the belief that the West would do nothing. Wrong! Bush the Elder led a coalition of Western nations in kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, and extracted from him a series of promises designed to insure the end of his regional threat. Saddam brutally suppressed Iraqi efforts to overthrow his government by gassing Kurdish villages and murdering whole populations in southern Iraq. Saddam's police tortured and murdered tens of thousands. Over a decade passed with Saddam obstructing weapons inspections, and otherwise evading the conditions of the Cease Fire. It was widely believed by the most informed people around the world that Saddam was continuing his efforts to build an inventory of forbidden weapons. Saddam publicly paid awards to the families of suicide bombers, and called for more volunteers to attack the West. It is known that Saddam offered a bounty for anyone who would assassinate the President of the United States.

9/11 was not all that big of a surprise to intelligence analysts, after all such attacks were deemed almost inevitable. To everyone else 9/11 was a wake up call. Almost immediately Saddam and Iraq were suspected of playing some role in the attack, though nothing concrete was found to support that first impression. Partially the problem was that a great deal of attention and focus was on Saddam and his shenanigans, so that other terrorist groups un-affiliated with governments weren't taken seriously enough. After all, it would take more than just a handful of fanatics to carry off a complex operation like that on 9/11 ... right? We believed that we had good relations with most of the governments in the Islamic world, Iran and Syria excepted. Iraq was very suspect at the time, and even though there was almost no evidence to support Saddam's complicity, Iraq's destabilizing effect on the region was a complication that could no longer be tolerated. The U.S. resumed the Gulf War. Saddam fell and no significant forbidden weapons were discovered.

The effort to rebuild and reconstitute a stable Iraq was resisted first by the remainder of Saddam's Ba'athist cronies, and them by an increasing number of foreign volunteers from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. Munitions continue to be supplied across the Syrian and Iranian borders. Terrorist attacks on Iraqi civilians have been an important tactic of these radical Islamic terrorists. Every effort has been made to project a negative image of U.S. involvement in the Western media by the terrorists. As time goes by and casualties mount, more and more in the West have come to belive that Iraq should be ceded to the radical Islamic movement led primarily by Iran. Iran has seized the opportunity, though they have been one of the worst instigators of the problems, to advance their goal of procuring nuclear weapons.

Is the Radical Islamic Movement winning? Can we afford to let them win? Some believe that we should just give up the struggle, and then there will be universal peace. Those believe in such fairy tales don't seem to have any concern that Israel would be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust, or that a sizable proportion of the world's petroleum reserves might be denied all those infidels in Europe and Asia. These folks don't believe Iran really means that they wish to crush Christianity, occupy Rome and murder the Pope. They wouldn't really suppress political cartoons they don't like, would they? Islamic world conquest? A joke, surely. That's far beyond their capability and they aren't religious fanatics ... are they?

This war is not a U.N., or U.S. plan to "take over the world". The plan for world conquest is a dream of radical Islamic extremists ... and they are dead serious about trying the question. They regard every "success" as another step toward final victory. They probably don't expect to secure world domination today or tomorrow, but they fervently believe that eventually the Earth will be cleansed of all infidels, and anyone who disagrees with their own narrow interpetation of the Koran is an infidel whose death is praiseworthy. Now we get a choice. Fight them and destroy this idea that a few religious zealots can dictate to the rest of us, or give it up and eventgually see the whole world converted to their brand of Islam. There isn't a whole lot of wiggle room in between, so which side are you on?

you forgot an option

the war has gone too far AND it's just beginning.

It's not just beginning, and some wars have been known to go on for hundreds of years and/or with casualties in the hundreds of thousands. If this war deteriorates into a nuclear exchange it may end pretty quickly, but with millions of casualties.

This is likely to be a long, frustrating war. We still haven't entirely come to terms with a conflict so at odds with the conventional definitions of war. When the other side is determined that they are doing God's work and will be eventually rewarded with victory, the war can go on until they are victorious or eliminated as a threat to the rest of us.

You all are missing the point.

The war on terror is a Republican invention whose sole purpose is to win elections.

We will see if it is effective on November 7th.

Your assertion that the war on terror is an invention, certainly resonates with the lunatic fringe. Is the war on terror really an invention, or is it a real and ongoing campaign? Has all the media coverage supposedly depicting serious armed conflict with terrorists (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Israel, Lebanon, et. al.) be purely the invention of Republican dominated Hollywood? Is there really a conspiracy at the highest levels to destroy America and subjugate the whole world to a small band of bloodthirsty and greedy .....fill in the blank....? I don't thinks so, and neither do I believe that you believe such drivel.

There is an ongoing conflict between a radical Islamic terrorists without direct ties to any legitimate national government, and the Western World ... primarily the United States and Britain (the only two major States willing to directly address the threat). It is real, and real people are harmed by it every single day. The attack on 9/11 was cheered by the radicalized Islamic populations of Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. The governments of most of those States were embarrassed by the attacks, and the radical elements were encouraged to further "heroic" attacks. U.S./Britain led coalition forces really did go in and clean Saddam's clock, and remain there fighting terrorists who might otherwise be focusing their attention on matching 9/11. No one is making up the inflammatory speeches coming from Iran threatening the extinction of Israel and promising the conquest of the West. Iran truly is working around the clock to produce nuclear weapons that have no other purpose beyond blackmail and an aggressive attack on Israel, the United States, or both.

That is a REAL threat, not something "invented", and it existed during the Clinton Administration as well as the Republican administration of Bush. Was the Clinton Administration the first sucker to be taken in by this "Republican invention"? If today, we called all U.S. troops home to CONUS what would be the likely effect? If the war on terror is an "invention", then the world should almost immediately become a peaceful pasture where lions become vegans. On the other hand, if the threat is real and not an imaginary "invention", things could go to hell pretty fast.

But, we are assured that there is no threat, that the war on terrorism is merely an invention of the GOP for the sole purpose of winning elections. ebrown proposes that the effectiveness of that Republican scare campaign will be tested in the upcoming mid-term elections. It is normal for a lame duck administration to lose seats in the penultimate Congressional elections, so we shouldn't be surprised to find an increase in Democratic Party seats in the new legislature. This election isn't a referendum on the "invented" war on terror, its the periodic scramble for political seats at the table. The apparent Democratic strategy of running their Congressional candidates against Bush rather than their GOP opponents could back fire on them. Its entirely too early to try predicting who the Congressional races will turn out, and afterward we'll go through a period when winners will trumpet their wisdom and losers will try to shift the blame to someone else. "I lost because, the other side didn't play fair." "I lost because the electorate were duped into believing in fairy tales." "I lost because the GOP has all the big money and power behind them." "I lost because the voting machines were made in Ohio, a clearly Republican State." Yada, yada, yada.

I didn't say that terrorism is a real threat.

I am saying that Republicans are using terror to win elections. The more that they can hype it, the better they will do in the ballot box. Calling the threat of terrorism a "war" is a political ploy... and calling it a "struggle for the very survival of civilization" is even better.

Conservatives love war and they want to make any issue into war.

There was Nancy Reagans war on drugs.
The fact that poor immigrants come to pick our vegetables is an "invasion".
They even claim the Jews, by not wanting to emphasize the Christian religion in our annual orgy of consumerism, are waging a "War on Christmas".

In the real war in Iraq, tens of thousands of people died (including 2,700 Americans but I think people are people) and hundreds of thousands have been left injured and homeless. Is the damage done by all the terrorism in the world anywhere near to this number? Add it up.

Yes terrorism is a real threat. Yes there are people who think killing Americans is to their advantage.

But it is clear that there is a real political advantage for conservatives and Republicans to hype this threat. The more afraid Americans are, the better it is for them.

As an American, I want to look at terrorism rationally. I want to come up with effective ways to reduce the threat and find the bad guys without sacraficing my rights or my moral values. I also recognize that sometimes it is difficult to do both at the same times and their needs to be a balanced discussion.

But I don't want hysteria. I don't want clearly irrational measures or unbalanced actions taken based on fear without reason.

The fact that politicians are whipping up this hysteria for partisan political gain-- even to the point of saying that criticizing the Speaker of the House for his tacit acceptance of innapproprate behavior should be curtailed because of terrorism-- is very disturbing.

I resent the cynical marketing campaign that is now called the "war on terror (TM)".

I don't have the silver toungue that Asherman has, but I'd just like to add that ebrown_p is forwarding a really f***cking stupid argument in this thread. Moreso then usual.

Your judgement of that being worth nothing, however, as you couldn't advance an intelligent argument if you tried.

Cycloptichorn

Thanks McG. From you that is a compliment.

So, you agree with ebrown-p then Cycloptichorn? Or just taking the free jab because your an ass?

It's hard to miss such an easy target, how can you blame people, McG?

Before you get all holier-than-thou, remember that it was originally you who decided to take a 'free jab'

Cycloptichorn

So do you agree or not?

I don't believe in making war on emotions or tactics. You make wars against other nations.

Calling this the 'war' on terror is nothing but a way to get more votes for Republicans, I agree with that. It's asinine. We will never defeat an emotion, so the 'war' on terror will never end, ever. Thinking about it in terms of a traditional war is stupid.

Cycloptichorn

Boys, boys! Knock it off. Name calling and insulting one another is pointless. Behave like gentlemen, and try being civil to one another for just a little while. No one is going to change their minds here, but we can at least discuss things like rational adults. Shame on you both.

ebrown,

An onion is still an onion even if you call it a banana. There is an armed conflict being waged. On one side is a group of international criminals who believe in radical Islam, and on the other is Western materialism/humanism typified by the United States. It is called a "war" because we haven't yet invented a better term from the circumstances. This isn't primarily an armed conflict (war) between nations fought according to the usages of conventional war. The terrorists have national sponsors, prime among which are Iran and Syria. The bottom line is that a group of committed religious radicals are conducting military-style operations against us, and we are doing our best to help them into paradise. They initiated the struggle, they have had some success, and they intend to win and dominate the world. Though the number of those willing to die for that Islamic dream is probably very small, they have the sympathy and support of large number of Muslims living in Southwest Asia.

Lets suppose for a moment that the Republican Party expects that its policies supporting U.S. military operations in Iraq and Iran are true. There is some truth in that, even as it is true that the Democratic Party hopes to gain the votes of those who do not support military action against our enemies. Its a partisan football kicked back and forth as each side tries to score a touchdown by controlling the Executive and/or Legislative branches. Military operations are the status quo, and the nation is committed to the fight.

Now ... ebrown ... let us suppose that you are the newly elected President and your party has control of the Congress. What would you propose as an alternative means of dealing with radical Islamic terrorists? Now we all expect you to say pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably your policy would be to ignore the nuclear ambitions of Iran. That s all very nice, if the other side makes nice and give up their dreams of a world purged of infidels. What I'd like to hear is what your administration's response would be to:

* Iraq governed by a radical Islamic government similar to, and dominated by Iran.

* Having the Gulf States blackmailed into submission by a nuclear armed Iran.

* A nuclear attack (Iranian warhead(s) on Israel, and/or American or European seaports.

* Collapse of the Pakistani government, with a new radical government more friendly to the Taliban, Al Quida, and other radical groups of terrorists. A corollary to this would be increased tensions between India and Pakistan, and the nuclear clock would be something like 11:58 and 10 seconds.

* A major attack of 9/11 dimensions somewhere within CONUS.

All of these are likely scenarios of abandoning the current "war on terrorism" policies. Perhaps even worse, would be the secondary problems stemming from an American retrenchment, abdication of world leadership, and return to a form of isolation.

What do you propose as an alternative to the nation's current policies ebrown? How would your administration respond to the likely consequences of a 180 degree shift in policy? What will you say to the survivors of a terrorist attack that claims the lives of thousands, perhaps millions if you are wrong and the GOP is correct in assessing the dangers?

"Really f**king stupid" doesn't say much McG.
Would it not suffice to say that you disagree....and then perhaps offer some explanation as to why you disagree?

No, they are not. They are nothing more than conjecture on your part, because you equate 'abandoning current policies' with 'doing nothing.' There are other ways of handling our situation than the way we currently are.

If you wonder 'what would those ways be,' I would say that not waging war on nations who don't support Al Qaeda might be a good start.

Cycloptichorn

So, tell us what policies you believe will secure the United States and reduce World tension related to the behavior of the radical Islamic Movement.

The Radical Islamic Movement isn't Al Quida, but Al Quida is one of many groups within that Movement devoted to the defeat of Western materialism and humanistic values. Cessation of military support for Iraq and Aghganistan would doubtless result in a "victory" for the Radical Islamic Movement, with a corresponding loss of credibility for the United States. To remove our support now would cost us whatever support we have left in countries who depend upon the United States for their own security. The result would almost certainly be a greatly increased risk of some sort of nuclear exchange.

What policy do you suggest that would avoid ramping up the risks of a larger and more costly war in the region? If thousands of enemy combatants were suddenly freed from operations in Iraq, why do you believe that they would not go on to other operations more directly aimed at the United States, Europe and Israel?

Of course, the short list of expected negative outcomes of bugging out are all conjecture, but there they are well within the realm of possiblity ... and many believe they are probable. What outcomes would you expect, and why do you believe your "positive" outcomes are more probable than the negative outcomes I've listed?

You have to understand that I'm at a serious disadvantage, because I can't go back in time and have us un-Attack Iraq. It is such a huge mistake/hole that we have dug for ourselves, that we are reduced to a situation in which there are no good options at all, and we are forced to picking the least worst option, which is unenviable.

But I'll give it a shot anyways.

First, we must define whether the problem is truly a problem of religion, or if the religion itself is being used as an excuse for those who are unhappy with their socio-economic situation. This is an important distinction, because it speaks to the motivations of our enemies: are they rational actors, who have some sort of legitimate grievances, or are they irrational actors, who are murderously bent on ending Western Civilization? Of course, the answer is somewhere in the middle, and even moreso, I would say that those with legitimate grievances - living under a repressive government which we support, watching their culture get erased by our superior culture, having little hope for economic improvement, and the Israel land problem - are being used by those who are religious zealots as soldiers.

In the long run, what will be more efficient: killing terrorists and their sympathizers, or convincing the societies in which they hide that they are not worth joining/keeping hidden? I firmly believe the latter. Does this mean that we must immediately pull out of the region and give into their demands? No, of course not. It means that we have to shift the battle from (the West vs. the Muslims) to (the Muslims vs. the Muslim extremists). We must convince the average Islaamic citizen that they are far better off being on our side, than theirs. And we won't be able to do this through violence, especially that violence which will kill innocent civilians, which is a problem because the terrorists (not having morals, or at least not ones which invovle the safety of innocents) hide amongst them. So it seems to me that the idea that we can win this battle through force of arms is a silly one.

Instead, I would say there are three or four steps (All of which are worthy of a thread of individual discussion themselves) in no particular order:

1st, we absolutely must get assistance and backing from other countries in this fight. Without worldwide condemnation of the actions of the terrorists, they will always have a place to run, a place to hide, a place to grow. We won't be able to stamp them out, no matter how hard we try, because we simply cannot invade every country out there, let alone all the countries that are unfriendly to the US.

So it is essential that we encourage other countries, and their member societies, that improving their defenses against terrorism is as important to their survival as it is ours. What are these defenses? Not just walls and guns and computers, but people. Remember the plot to blow up airliners in Britain that got busted up? A tip from a concerned Muslim citizen is what led to the arrests, we need more of this 'humint' if we are to prevail against the idea that terrorism is an effective tool. And you don't get goodwill and tipsters by cracking down on people's freedoms and scaring them into submission.

Is this going to mean concessions on our part? Probably, but what doesn't?

2nd, we must make it clear that state sponsoring of terror=death for your country at the hands of the rest of the world. You'll notice that the unity seen during the attack on Afghanistan was unparalled; why? Because the moral objective was quite clear to everyone, hell, the Taliban rejoiced at the 9/11 attacks and dared us to do something about it. So we did. But it can't be just the US who is doing the policing/attacking/guarding of the world from state-sponsored terror. You see, the force of the entire group of nations combined, though you may not agree, is seen as somewhat more persuasive than just the US, to the rest of the world. So we are going to have get others to support us in our goal of stopping state sponsored terror. This has the added bonus of overwhemling our enemies with other enemies, diminishing their focus on attacking the US.

3rd, we must examine our economic policies in the region and really around the whole world. Capitalism is not a system that takes into account the human factor, and when the effects of this start to build up over time, you can see how it causes unrest. Right now we (the west) import a massive amount of oil from the Middle East. The citizens of the countries who have the oil see very little of that money (with the exceptions of Kuwait, maybe the UAE). Yet we support the leaders of these countries anyways, knowing that they are essentaily stealing the oil from their people (and re-investing the monies in Western markets instead of local ones, which leads to further poverty and resentment). Even though you can't point to any one action and say 'this action is the one which makes the Islaamic world hate the West, economically' the combined effect over time is huge. Once again, this will mean a re-adjustment to the current idea of doing business with these countries, and yes it will lower profits, something I know is anathema to Republicans, but could help overall.

4th, we have to stop giving Israel billions of dollars every year and even more in military support. They've been around now for as long as many other nations, they have plenty of money to work with, a strong military (thanks to us) and a strong nuclear arsenal. It is time to let them sink or swim on their own. We are not permanantley indebted to Israel, and the truth is that they don't do much for us (sometimes they sink our ships, and we conveinently look the other way, even!). One of the major complaints about the US is that we have enabled Israel, well, let us discontinue our support. It isn't as if we provide any other of our allies with such huge support, why should we to them, especially given such problems it causes us?

When the Israelis begin to complain about this, offer to continue the support if they will truly create a Palestinian state, with water access and rights, and respect that. Then we'll see what kind of negotiations we can do.


5th, we have to start acting like the rule of law means something to us. No more kidnappings, no more spying on citizens, no more holding people without trial, no more torture. No more flaunting international courts, no more hypocrisy. We continually admonish others for things we are guilty of ourselves, and it has to stop, because our moral superiority is by far the strongest weapon that we have!

I could write pages about all this, but the simple point is that we must convince - through both acts of goodwill and shows of force - other countries to not sponsor terrorists. We must convince other populaces that we will not support dictatorial rulers, even if they sell us oil at a cheap rate. We must not lie down with the dogs because it is the easiest short-term solution.

All of these things will be very difficult to accomplish, but present a much more realistic chance at reducing the level of this conflict before it continues to grow, and have the added bonus of showing that the US is more than just talk when it comes to moral superiority.



You're right, Iraq is f*cked and we can't just up and leave without causing a problem. So, we must engage the rest of the world in helping us calm the place down.

Right now we have what, 160k troops there? Tops? We need 2 million. An overwhelming amount, and another million construction workers and volunteers to help make things better for Iraqis. But, we won't get that without world support, which we won't get because of Cowboy Bush's attitude towards other world leaders, so it will most likely be neccessary to have a change of leadership here at home as well, to someone who understands how to compromise and/or change course once new data comes into play.



There is no policy which can be suggested at this point that will not lead to higher costs. None. This is the hole that the Iraq war has put us in. The only question now, is whether or not we are going to keep digging, or try to build a ladder before it is too late.

I predict that we will eventually be forced out Iraq, either by a massive uprising amongst Iraqis, a civil war which we want no part of, or massive levels of war weariness at home. I pray it doesn't come to that.

Cycloptichorn