War on Terror

[sgtmac_46]

I ran across this while browsing the net. http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Landsdowne.htm

It was written in October 2001. I realized reading it that it made some very good points about the situation we find ourselves in now with Iraq.

I've heard a lot of support for simply pulling out of Iraq, but none of it seems to take in to account the consequences of what that means. In my opinion pulling out of Iraq now would simply be considered a victory for Al-Queda and the insurgents currently operating on their behalf, and will simply be more evidence in the Arab world that the US is a paper-tiger and can be defeated.

It will simply earn us more contempt, which as the writer pointed out, is far WORSE than simple hatred. Just one more example, in a long history of examples, showing that the US lacks the resolve to see anything through. If we pull out on those terms, i'm not sure I would think they were wrong.

What think you folks?

 

[OUMoose]

I ran across this while browsing the net. http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Landsdowne.htm

It was written in October 2001. I realized reading it that it made some very good points about the situation we find ourselves in now with Iraq.

I've heard a lot of support for simply pulling out of Iraq, but none of it seems to take in to account the consequences of what that means. In my opinion pulling out of Iraq now would simply be considered a victory for Al-Queda and the insurgents currently operating on their behalf, and will simply be more evidence in the Arab world that the US is a paper-tiger and can be defeated.

It will simply earn us more contempt, which as the writer pointed out, is far WORSE than simple hatred. Just one more example, in a long history of examples, showing that the US lacks the resolve to see anything through. If we pull out on those terms, i'm not sure I would think they were wrong.

What think you folks?

Personally I think the whole thing is a no-win scenerio. If we pull our troops out, we're "giving in" and (as you said) the terrorist world would interpret that as a victory. If we stay there, we breed the same contempt by occupying a country for "unclear" reasons with no set date for extraction. I'm not a politician, so I don't have a good answer as to what to do in this situation. :idunno:

 

[Tgace]

You build an Iraqi Army and police force that can meet at least an acceptable level of proficiency and you get out.

 

[Flatlander]

Interesting perspective there... It seems to me that the US ought to remain in Iraq so as to provide a measure of safety and stability for the citizens of that country. As TGace said - train up the Army and police, assist the new government in becoming self sufficient.

 

[MisterMike]

If there were no Americans outside of America, where would terrorists have to go to kill Americans?

Iraq is the obvious front in the war on terror. Why we said we went, what happened since, really don't matter now does it? It is what it is now.

They are pouring in through the Iraqi borders every day. (Probably a few thru Mexico as well). Better to fight them there, I think.

As for the end of our stay in Iraq, probably when the Iraqi's get it under control for themselves.
:idunno:

 

[FearlessFreep]

MisterMike makes a point I've been thinking about a lot in the last few weeks. It seems that in Iraq we are no longer fighting the same people we started out. We are now fighting all the other terrorists who keep coming in to fight us. In effect, we are fighting a war on terrorists, but rather than letting them bring the war to our land, we've brought the war to theirs

 

[Marginal]

I ran across this while browsing the net. http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Landsdowne.htm

It will simply earn us more contempt, which as the writer pointed out, is far WORSE than simple hatred. Just one more example, in a long history of examples, showing that the US lacks the resolve to see anything through. If we pull out on those terms, i'm not sure I would think they were wrong.

What think you folks?

I don't agree with this war(main reason being that the US stood a very good chance of destablizing the region and leaving a hopeless mess in its wake), but once we stepped in it, we do need to see it through.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I don't agree with this war(main reason being that the US stood a very good chance of destablizing the region and leaving a hopeless mess in its wake), but once we stepped in it, we do need to see it through.

That's an excellent point. We've committed to an action, to fail to respond with resolve is actually worse than not starting to begin with. I have heard some very good arguments for not invading Iraq. Irregardless of ones perspective, however, those arguments are moot. We've got to see this through, and pulling out before it is completed is not a viable option.

I think the argument made some good distinctions between why the US is sometimes hated (interference in the affairs of other nations, unpopular military, corporate and public policies) and why it is held in contempt (lack of resolve, it is perceived as a paper tiger with no courage or will to engage in a protracted conflict).

As Machiavelli said, it is better to be feared than loved. It is ideal to be both, but it is important to avoid being held in contempt. Our enemies have hated us without any fear for quite some time. Take the case of Iran. From the time of the Iran hostage to the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut to the TWA hostage crisis, Iran has been involved in attacking the US through terror. Iran has never once faced in serious consequence for those actions. They hate us without fear. Iran's example is why Bin Laden and Al Queda felt they could attack us without any serious consequences. For the first time since we've been dealing with Islamic terrorism, the US has been hitting back hard.

 

[BaiKaiGuy]

The biggest issue with pulling out for me doesn't even have to do with the "war" per se. Iraq's infrastructure is still a mess. We helped caused it by invading, now we need to clean it up. We need to do more than just create a stable police force, now we also have to rebuild the place.

 

[Floating Egg]

My biggest problem with the so-called War on Terror is the idea that you can make war against terrorism. I'm sure everyone has come across the quotation "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

The word terrorism was originally used to decribe the actions of the French government in the late 18th century. If you look up the etymology, you'll find the following quote:

"If the basis of a popular government in peacetime is virtue, its basis in a time of revolution is virtue and terror -- virtue, without which terror would be barbaric; and terror, without which virtue would be impotent." [Robespierre, speech in Fr. National Convention, 1794]

 

[FearlessFreep]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I actually hold to a simple distinction. If you target combatants and strategic or tactical targets, you are a freedom fighter. If you target non-combatants, you are a terrorist.

 

[Floating Egg]

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I actually hold to a simple distinction. If you target combatants and strategic or tactical targets, you are a freedom fighter. If you target non-combatants, you are a terrorist.

That distinction does not hold up to history. Consider General William Sherman as an example.

 

[sgtmac_46]

I hold a much simpler distinction. If terrorism creates a threat to my family, friends, neighbors and nation, then those terrorists are the enemy. Moral equivalencies go out the window when the threat becomes personal. If firmly believe than any sign of weakness in the war on terror, or whatever you want to call it, would simply result in an emboldened enemy.

In fact, it would likely encourage other groups with an agenda to engage in similar behavior by virtue of the fact that it worked before, it will work again. I could care less the historical nature of the word "terrorism" or what it means from a philosophical standpoint.

My only concern is what the word "terrorism" means in the context we are using it, anything else is merely semantics. Therefore, the definition I am concerned with is that of an ongoing enterprise conducted by groups of radical muslim fundamentalist, both Shiite and Sunni Wahhabists, who's goal is the destruction of Israel, the removal of the US and other western powers from any influence in Middle Eastern affairs, and the establishment of a pan-arab super-state headed by either A) In the case of Wahhabists a Caliph, or B) In the case of Shiite fundamentalists, headed by the clerics, and who in the pursuit of those aims use attacks on both military and civilian targets for the purposes of frightening western regimes and winning propaganda victories in western and islamic media, with the material logistics and training support assistance, both overt and covert, of several muslims nations. Chief among those nations is Iran, followed by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and in the past at least, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and numerous others.

In regards to Iran, that Iran has given large scale support to terrorist organizations that attack the US is without question. That they are currently supporting terrorist organizations that attack the US is without question. That they currently are supporting insurgency operations within Iraq is strongly supported. That they currently have direct ties Al Queda, to include currently harboring high ranking members, to include possibly Osama Bin Laden, is highly supported. That Iran had some involvement in the 9/11 plot is strongly believed and supported. To leave Iraq at this point would further embolden Iran to even further terrorist attacks.