The effectiveness of a "War" on terror

[Fenir_LacDanan]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

You can't win a "war on terrorISM", but you can win a war on certain "terrorISTS"...which is what this war ALWAYS intended.

Well, my friend. Does that seem to be working? Did that work against the "terrorist" Vietcong? Has it ever worked?

Unless you defeat their ideal, it really doesn't matter how many terrorists you kill.

Could America be conquered by the simple killing of its soldiers? perhaps the death of the American ideal would be necessary?

Shall we....?

Finn

[Curubethion]

Originally Posted by Fenir_LacDanan

Well, my friend. Does that seem to be working? Did that work against the "terrorist" Vietcong? Has it ever worked?

Actually, it was whuppin' the Viet Cong until our stupid media decided to go anti-war on us.

Unless you defeat their ideal, it really doesn't matter how many terrorists you kill.

Could America be conquered by the simple killing of its soldiers? perhaps the death of the American ideal would be necessary?

I sense a William Wallace speech coming on...

Anyhow, the point is not to eliminate the terrorist ideal, because that's not realistic. It's an entirely different goal.

You see, according to that logic, we shouldn't have police, either, because no matter how many criminals are imprisoned, the only way we'll beat crime is by defeating the criminal "ideal". And yet we continue to have police, and crime is not rampant everywhere. Why?

It's because we're rendering the criminals incapable of causing harm. And that's exactly what the goal of the WoT is: to render the terrorists incapable of causing massive destruction.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by Curubethion

Actually, it was whuppin' the Viet Cong until our stupid media decided to go anti-war on us.

.

Who told you that? Personally, I find that rather amusing, renewed Vietnam Hawk talk after all these years. Of course why not....we are firmly entrenched in the "anything is true if you want it to be era".
So what good would "whuppin" the viet Cong's ass have done in the long run anyway? Didn't we just normalize trade relations with them recently? The better good, for all the soldiers that were messed up, maimed, or died, would have been to have never gone there in the first place....

[Nurvingiel]

Yeah, I'm sure the war in Vietnam was going just fine until the darn media painted it in a bad light.



Anyway, I don't think a war on terror can be won. I believe it's the wrong approach, and the war in Iraq, while good things have been achieved, has not weakened any terrorist group anywhere in the slightest.

I would argue that it has given some terrorist groups more strength, as war and civilian casualties cause mistrust, poverty, hardship, and instability, all of which increase the ability of terrorist groups to exploit people.

Recently, the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq (2'952 [source]) has exceeded the number of people killed in the terrorist attack of 9/11 (2'752 [source]).

Deaths of civilians in Iraq is estimated between 51 and 56 thousand [source].

The USA is not safer than it was 5 years ago.

I would conclude that a war on terror is ineffective.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Silly Nurv, we'd already concluded that on page 1.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, I'm sure the war in Vietnam was going just fine until the darn media painted it in a bad light.

The Vietcong did not have the technology or the resources to defeat the United States over the long haul. I think that we probably could have won, if we'd been willing to pay a higher cost. Though I'm not entirely sure- there wasn't any clear end we were working toward in Vietnam like there is in Iraq. That end being the completion of the construction of the Iraqi military.

US citizens are not willing to pay any price for victories, nowadays. So we don't win victories. It's as simple as that, and that's why I think we'll lose this war in Iraq. The US citizens will demand we pull out, and perhaps will elect a president who will pull us out early. We should stay until the Iraqi troops can defend the security and fight this war on their own, however. That goal is not an impossible one to achieve. Their numbers and training have been constantly improving, in spite of the massive numbers of attacks they are experiencing. There are problems in those forces too. In some places, they support milias and there is corruption and such. However, overall they are improving constantly. If we can wait until they are in a position, in numbers and training, to take over security, then we may yet pull off a success in Iraq. That takes patience, though.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Anyway, I don't think a war on terror can be won. I believe it's the wrong approach, and the war in Iraq, while good things have been achieved, has not weakened any terrorist group anywhere in the slightest.

I would argue that it has given some terrorist groups more strength, as war and civilian casualties cause mistrust, poverty, hardship, and instability, all of which increase the ability of terrorist groups to exploit people.

Recently, the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq (2'952 [source]) has exceeded the number of people killed in the terrorist attack of 9/11 (2'752 [source]).

Deaths of civilians in Iraq is estimated between 51 and 56 thousand [source].

The USA is not safer than it was 5 years ago.

I would conclude that a war on terror is ineffective.

I think all the evidence you pointed to is sound, but the conclusion (as regards Iraq, anyway) is faulty. We went into Iraq because there was strong evidence indicating that there were WMDs in Iraq. Sarin, nerve agents and some illegal weapons capable of launching them into other countries were in fact found in Iraq. They weren't found in anywhere near the quantity we expected to find them, and though perhaps Saddam did actually just have a small quantity of WMDs, he could also have hidden further weapons in the Iraqi desert or shipped them out to foreign countries.

The big fear was that Saddam would give those weapons to terrorist groups. He did have connections with many terrorist groups that had been responsible for killing many US citizens before, though apparently there wasn't much of a link between them and Al'Qaeda, like it was originally believed.

If we hadn't invaded Iraq, Saddam would have continued to secretly produce illegal weapons and may have given them secretly to terrorist groups.

So we're left with the dilemma now that we always had. Attacking Iraq has increased terrorism, because it makes the US again look like an aggressor against the Muslim world, but holding back and not attacking Iraq would have allowed Saddam to produce more WMDs.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Silly Nurv, we'd already concluded that on page 1.

Haaaa.

Lief doesn't seem to think so though.

I think you raise excellent points Lief. However, I'm not disputing whether or not attacking Iraq was necessary. I've never been able to sort out my own feelings on that one.

Attacking Iraq certainly halted any weopens program that Saddam had going, thus depriving terrorist organisations of a possible source for weopens. However, it gave strength to terrorists in other ways by increasing violence and instability in the area, etc. So I don't think attacking Iraq really achieved anything.

The one bright point is that Iraq was able to try Saddam Hussein for ordering the use of chemical weopens against Kurds, and other crimes.

This is an interesting article about Saddam Hussein's life.

[Lief Erikson]

I see it as having been a lose-lose situation. Stay out of Iraq, and based upon our best intelligence of the time, we would have been allowing Islamic extremist terrorist groups that have already killed American civilians access to large quantities of deadly WMDs. Go into Iraq, and we create the impression that we're at war with Islam (if Al'Qaeda and other extremists play their cards right, which so far they are), so we increase the terrorism. I view the whole fight as essentially battling a hydra. Let it go, and it'll eat you. The WMDs will get you. Attack and cut off a head, however, and two heads grow back in its place. So it's lose-lose. The choice that's left to us is which of the bad options is our best option.

I personally don't care for the term "war on terror" though, because it's too broad and simplistic. It throws together all sorts of situations and treats them as the same, when many of them are not. There also isn't any single accepted definition of terrorism. Nations call their opponents terrorists all the time now. Also, some terrorists may have valid complaints, but blacklisting them under the label "terrorists," which automatically indicates to people that they are evil keeps people from understanding the problem, and failing understanding it, keeps them from solving it.

I very, very strongly agree with British MI5's chief Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, who said, "My service needs to understand the motivations behind terrorism to succeed in countering it, as far as that is possible. Al-Qaeda has developed an ideology which claims that Islam is under attack, and needs to be defended."

She is absolutely right, and I'm glad that the US intelligence services also seem to understand this. I say that based upon the (I think leaked) contents of a memo from sixteen US intelligence agencies, which described the sources of Islamic terrorism.

[Nurvingiel]

I completely agree with you Lief. The decision had to be made whether or not to go to Iraq, and they were both bad options.

Going to Iraq and then screwing up royally was definitely the worse option of the two.

I don't know if going to Iraq and not screwing it all up would have been the best or not. Maybe it would have been.

[brownjenkins]

I think any intelligent person would have realized that going into Iraq and not screwing things up was an impossibility. It was a major reason why Bush senior did not take out Saddam when he could have. Only a brutal dictator could keep the muslim factions at bay, something we will discover eventually.

The mistake was Bush junior not listening to those who knew better.

On WMDs, the former Soviet Union states have been and will continue to be the source for groups to obtain them. A much greater risk than Iraq ever would have been. Even if they built a bomb or two.

And let's not forget that Pakistan is nuclear, and has a very large faction of muslim fundamentalists who might come back into power at any time.

The only real solution is to work on changing the things that lead to terrorism in the first place. Destitute and oppressed populations under dictatorships supported monetarily and militarily by the West. Millions who glorify anyone willing to take on that oppression. Give them something to live for and I think you will find them less willing to give up their own lives.

Remember, technology doesn't stop. One day a nuclear device will be no bigger or harder to obtain than a handgun. In the true longrun, we can't stop the spread of WMDs, it's inevitable, the only thing we can control is people's willingness to use them.

Think on the old NRA saying: guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with that. I'd also amend the foreign policy of installing dicatators sympathetic with American goals. Dictators like Saddam Hussein himself.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with that. I'd also amend the foreign policy of installing dicatators sympathetic with American goals. Dictators like Saddam Hussein himself.

That gets pretty tough, though. Do that, and you'll get Islamic extremists in charge of Syria that are much more extreme than the current leaders. The current government in Syria was originally quite secular, but it's been making a more radical appearance because of the change in the culture.

In Egypt, you'd have the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical extremist group that has been responsible for many terrorist murders in the past, getting a lot of political power.

Hamas rulership is the result of free elections in the Palestinian territories.

What we should do regarding spreading freedom in the Middle East isn't really an easy and simple question. And most of these regimes we've propped up were propped up in the Cold War. It was necessary at that time to support allies against the Soviet Union, nasty dictators though they might have been. If we hadn't done that, the Soviet Union would have done a lot more damage to a lot more people, and it would have posed a far greater threat to the world's security. The Cold War was a worldwide conflict.

I have trouble knowing what the right course is, regarding freedom in the Middle East. Give freedom and you give power to radicals and alienate allies in the War on Terror. So really, our efforts to spread democracy are working against the West, peace and security. It seems to me that spreading democracy is empowering extremism, which might in turn squash democracy all over again.

[Insidious Rex]

Well how you deal with that is you hold everyone to roughly the same standard. What we are seeing now is a backlash against age old policies of installing and supporting dictators and tyrants because it served our purposes at the time. Of course when democracy is finally allowed youll get things like Hammas and Hezbollah getting more political power in retaliation. We would be foolish to think otherwise. But you don’t just keep installing dictators because of this. What you do is hold BOTH the dictators like Hussein to account for their actions like we did when he invaded Kuwait AND the extremists, elected or not, when they do things the world body holds as unacceptable (like protect al Quaeda within their borders).

We are in danger now of going down this road again with Musharraf in Pakistan. He is hated by a significant portion of his population although I certainly wouldn’t describe him at this point as a “dictator”. And of course we are still suffering from the mess we made of Iran in the 50’s/60’s/70’s. They still hate us for that. And of course now they want nukes…

[Lief Erikson]

Do you support our policy of seeking to spread democratic reform in the Middle East?

[Insidious Rex]

Not the way Bush is doing it.

[Nurvingiel]

I agree with IRex - installing a dictator does not help promote peace or democracy. Supporting a democratically elected leader in another country would help.

I support the promotion of democracy in the Middle-east and around the world. I do not support the current American policy of implementing this idea, which seems to be attacking and occupying a country, not relieving their forces soon or often enough, then having PR nightmares like Abu Grahib, having American contractors awarded most of the rebuilding contracts, and having civilian casualties of over 50'000 people.

While Saddam Hussein has been brought to justice* and a democratic government has been elected in Iraq, there are still a great deal of problems. Some are not the USA's fault. But some are. Abu Grahib should never have happened, it's no wonder no one trusts American forces in Iraq. This is unfortunate, as it's very important for the occupying forces to work with the people, as they don't really want to occupy the country, but rather, support the newly minted democratic government.

(*I would rather see Saddam rotting away in a jail somewhere rather than hanged for two reasons. Mainly, I do not agree with the death penalty in any country. Also, this may incite more violence among his supporters. However, he was an Iraqi, tried and convicted in an Iraqi court, so how I feel about it has no bearing. As much as I don't like it, that is the law in Iraq.)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with IRex - installing a dictator does not help promote peace or democracy. Supporting a democratically elected leader in another country would help.

I agree with you that installing a dictator does not help to promote democracy. Note, though, that the US has not supported dictators in countries that were previously democratic. Instead, we support dictators in countries that have always been ruled in a totalitarian way.

Also, in many of these cases, if we hadn't supported the dictator we did, the USSR would have taken control of those countries. Afghanistan's conflict against the Soviet Union in the 1980s should serve as a good example of what the USSR was like at that time.

The USSR was a terrible menace to the world. Supporting certain dictators in the Middle East, in countries that had always been totalitarian, in order to stop the forward movement of the USSR was a necessary US policy.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I support the promotion of democracy in the Middle-east and around the world. I do not support the current American policy of implementing this idea, which seems to be attacking and occupying a country,

You're forgetting also Libya's liberalizing and ending repression and the search for WMDs. We've also sought reform among many other countries, including China and North Korea, through non-military means. We have used force when we feel that it is necessary, based on the best intelligence we have available, as is only logical.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

not relieving their forces soon or often enough,

You'd have to blame the generals on the ground, if you think that that was a major issue. President Bush said that if they told him that they needed more troops, he'd give them more troops at once.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

then having PR nightmares like Abu Grahib,

You know, in any war effort, you're bound to have some atrocities committed by your side. You're talking about tens of thousands of people, and there are bound to be some people in all that who are either rotters to begin with or who get really mad and crack under the pressure of a military situation. All you can do is seek to keep that number of rotters as small as possible. So if you have evidence that torture among US troops is very widespread, then you'd have a real case. Otherwise, you're just referring to the inevitable.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

having American contractors awarded most of the rebuilding contracts,

That is only natural. We are the ones who put most of the effort into liberating Iraq, so why shouldn't our country be somewhat recompensed, while simultaneously supporting the Iraqi economy?

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

and having civilian casualties of over 50'000 people.

For that, you should be blaming Islamic extremists- not the US. We have been doing our utmost to protect civilians, even when that means putting our people's lives at much higher risk. For example, when we invaded Iraq, we put our troops on the ground from the first rather than simply bombing all our enemies into the dark ages. We put our troops on the ground, in harm's way, because we knew that in that way, we could minimize civilian casualties. Civilian casualties are bound to happen in a war, but we have done all we can to avoid them and to protect the people of the country. It is many of the people who are determined to kill one another, and Al'Qaeda which is determined just to kill civilians. The radical Islamic groups involved are the black-hatters there.

[Jonathan]

I can't but largely agree with what you guys are saying. Just a few quick notes:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree with you that installing a dictator does not help to promote democracy. Note, though, that the US has not supported dictators in countries that were previously democratic.

I'm not so sure about that. Didn't the CIA help overthrow a democratically elected leader in Guatemala during the cold war?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The USSR was a terrible menace to the world. Supporting certain dictators in the Middle East, in countries that had always been totalitarian, in order to stop the forward movement of the USSR was a necessary US policy.

Yes. But remember that was in the past and the USSR is no more.

[Falagar]

Not to forget Chile (though not 'installed', clearly helped along).

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You'd have to blame the generals on the ground, if you think that that was a major issue. President Bush said that if they told him that they needed more troops, he'd give them more troops at once.

Come on Lief that’s pie in the sky stuff at this point. Its been made clear that many many generals “on the ground” disagreed with many ways that this operation was run but the Cheney/Rumsfield cabal nixed any change in planning that they suggested no matter how vehemently. And then what you usually saw was generals stepping down. One after the other.

That is only natural. We are the ones who put most of the effort into liberating Iraq, so why shouldn't our country be somewhat recompensed, while simultaneously supporting the Iraqi economy?

By soaking its own tax paying citizens to make Cheney’s old company’s executives rich? How in the world does that help us? Who do you think pays for those ridiculous contracts? Not the Iraqis.