War on terrorism making America less safe?

[napoleon_complex]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/wa...?ex=1342411200

Can we please stop this charade that the war in Iraq or the war on terror are being even remotely effective? I mean, no one can rationally come to the conclusion that being in Iraq or staying in Iraq will do anything to make America safer. I couldn't even imagine how much safer we would be if the money and time spent on Iraq and the war on terror were instead used on securing our borders, shoring up our immigration and visa system, and improving domestic security.

Yeah the Democrats are basically retards that have yet to put forward a unified alternative, but that doesn't by default make the Republican/White House stance right or better, it just happens to be easier to keep what we currently have instead of making hard decisions.

Anyways, does anyone still believe in the war on terror? If so, why? I don't see how any Republican or conservative can support any of our actions so far, considering how expensive and shortsighted they are.

[stormshadowftb]

i thought the plan with the iraq war was to make america less safe, to make americans more scared, to make them vote for the repugnicant party.

btw, i know where bin laden is hiding.

[reggie_love]

Hell yeah it's making America less safe.

Our intrusion into that region is what started anti-american terrorism, and when we invaded in "response" we took out Saddam Hussein, one of Osama Bin Laden's ENEMIES.

[Parallax]

Yes, it's counterproductive.

[AeroDynamic]

Only a person with his head in the sand will not "believe in the war on terror". The threat of Islamic terrorism is very real and still very dangerous to not only the US but all of the West. This cannot be denied.

The question is whether or not one still supports the War in Iraq. The problem with Iraq is not the war in itself IMO. Removing Saddam Hussein and installing a pro-American democratic regime in the heart of the Arab world was a noble and worthy cause. The root cause of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is not our policies in the Middle East or even our allegedly decadent culture; it's the culture of the Arab world. The Christian world was similarly barbaric and illiberal until the Enlightenment, of course.

The neoconservatives, who truly believe in the transformative and universality of liberal democracy (see The End of History and the Last Man) postulated the only way to ultimately defeat Islamic fundamentalism was to export American values and the concept of liberal democracy to the Arab world. In effect, force modernization onto their society as we did in Japan. A top-down Enlightenment is the best way to describe neoconservative foreign policy. "Draining the swamp" was one of the phrases the neocons brandied about during the run up to the war. Once Iraq was a stable, pro-American and democratic nation, the dominoes would fall throughout the Middle East and what started as a top-down process would grow into a mass grassroots movement throughout the Arab world and with time the root causes of Islamic fundamentalism would be destroyed just like the root causes of Japanese militarism were destroyed after their top-down democratization after WWII.

The problem is that the neoconservatives were academics. They were university professors who had doctorate degrees in philosophy and literature. They were not military strategists or planners. They didn't see a need for a massive amount of ground troops because they thought they would be greeted with flowers and candy. Donald Rumsfeld, far from being a neoconservative, agreed with this conclusion based on his belief of turning America's military into an agile, small and technologically-driven force for the 21st century. What resulted is the quagmire we have now. The lack of adequate number of soldiers in the initial invasion is what led to all the problems we are having now. Of course the blame doesn't lie solely with Rummy; the buck stops at the President.

Personally, I believed and still do believe that if it was done competently and honestly, the War in Iraq could have been successful and the democratization of the Middle East would be something we would all be watching unfold right now. And I still believe that military action alone cannot ever defeat Islamic fundamentalism; a change of their culture is necessary. Unfortunately, that is not happening. Wherever there was a semblance of democracy (Palestine, Lebanon) it occurred without the liberalism and we got Hamas and Hezbollah in positions of political power.

The question now is whether to leave Iraq now or not. Despite what is going on right now and regardless of your personal opinions on the initial invasion, are you willing to cut and run in Iraq and let a genocide happen? What do you think will happen to the Kurds? They are perhaps the most pro-American (besides the Israelis) group in the entire Middle East. Are you willing to let al-Qaeda seize control of Iraq's Sunni areas and let Iran overrun Shia regions? A regional civil war could break out between these two groups. The best plan is to stay in Iraq and basically run the clock out. IIRC the US military will be able to keep up its current level of soldiers until next March or April. We should try to diminish the presence of al-Qaeda and Iran's power in Iraq as much as possible until that time. Then, split Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions along its sectarian divisions with a federal government that will equally distribute the oil revenues. Then redeploy to Kurdistan or Kuwait and stay there indefinitely (like South Korea, Germany) so we can not only monitor al-Qaeda in Iraq but also use the permanent troop presence there as a launching pad for any possible future military action against Iran.

[lilfrea]

Only a person with his head in the sand will "believe in the war on terror". The threat of Islamic terrorism has never been shown to be a real threat to the United States.

The question is whether or not one still supports the War in Iraq. The problem with Iraq is not the war in itself IMO. Removing Saddam Hussein and installing a pro-American democratic regime in the heart of the Arab world was a noble and worthy cause. The root cause of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism is not our policies in the Middle East or even our allegedly decadent culture; it's the culture of the Arab world. The Christian world was similarly barbaric and illiberal until the Enlightenment, of course.

noble and worthy. but practical?

The question now is whether to leave Iraq now or not. Despite what is going on right now and regardless of your personal opinions on the initial invasion, are you willing to cut and run in Iraq and let a genocide happen? What do you think will happen to the Kurds? They are perhaps the most pro-American (besides the Israelis) group in the entire Middle East. Are you willing to let al-Qaeda seize control of Iraq's Sunni areas and let Iran overrun Shia regions? A regional civil war could break out between these two groups. The best plan is to stay in Iraq and basically run the clock out. IIRC the US military will be able to keep up its current level of soldiers until next March or April. We should try to diminish the presence of al-Qaeda and Iran's power in Iraq as much as possible until that time. Then, split Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions along its sectarian divisions with a federal government that will equally distribute the oil revenues. Then redeploy to Kurdistan or Kuwait and stay there indefinitely (like South Korea, Germany) so we can not only monitor al-Qaeda in Iraq but also use the permanent troop presence there as a launching pad for any possible future military action against Iran.

The problem with Iraq is that the Middle East is inherently unstable, and the US getting involved would only make it worse. It is clear that the US has built an increasing presence in Iraq--military bases, airports, embassies, etc... and the US government intends to stay. Like in the case of Israel, we believe that we will be more powerful with an arm in Iraq, that it will make us more influential.

However, we're missing the point that the US should not only be concerned with expanding itself over the globe, but also preparing itself for competition with countries like China, India, and even Russia. The war on Iraq costs the US precious resources that we cannot afford to waste. However the government insists on staying because it, playing into the hands of business, because does 1) not want to be the one to confront the threat of globalization, so they can shift blame to other leaders and 2) they are in the pocket of big business.

Sucks for Americans. India and China get their money. The administration gets its money. We're the ones that lose.

[Zman]

Bush has taken his eye off the ball that is terror. Leaving Iraq would be really, really bad news, but he's letting terrorism go in the rest of the middle east.

[napoleon_complex]

Originally Posted by Zman

Bush has taken his eye off the ball that is terror. Leaving Iraq would be really, really bad news, but he's letting terrorism go in the rest of the middle east.

Even while that's partly true, our current strategy is completely ineffective when it comes to fighting terror. That's why Iraq has spawned more terrorism than it's prevented.

You can't fight ideologies with ground troops. It's just impossible.

[Parallax]

The "war" on terror is making us less safe in 2 ways.

1. More meddling in the Middle East pisses off more towelheads who decide to become terrorists.

2. The government grows more powerful here at home and starts tapping peoples' phones, using "enhanced interrogation techniques" (newspeak for torture) and etc.

I'm much more concerned about a tyrannical government than I am about terrorists. The worst the terrorists can do is blow up a bus here and there, and they have a hard time even just pulling that off. 9/11 was a fluke, made possible in part by government enforced victim disarmament laws. It won't happen again.

On the other hand, tyrannical governments have killed something like 260,000,000 people in the last century alone according to RJ Rummel.

[AeroDynamic]

Originally Posted by Parallax

The "war" on terror is making us less safe in 2 ways.

1. More meddling in the Middle East pisses off more towelheads who decide to become terrorists.

2. The government grows more powerful here at home and starts tapping peoples' phones, using "enhanced interrogation techniques" (newspeak for torture) and etc.

I'm much more concerned about a tyrannical government than I am about terrorists. The worst the terrorists can do is blow up a bus here and there, and they have a hard time even just pulling that off. 9/11 was a fluke, made possible in part by government enforced victim disarmament laws. It won't happen again.

On the other hand, tyrannical governments have killed something like 260,000,000 people in the last century alone according to RJ Rummel.

R.J. Rummel supports the War in Iraq and the larger War on Terror BTW.

He supports it for the reasons I outlined above about liberal democracy.

Question: Israel's Deputy Prime Minister Natan Sharansky recently wrote in The Wall Street Journal that "only when the world is free will the world be safe." Is this claim valid?

Yes. Democracies don't make war on each other, commit virtually no domestic genocide and mass murder, and have by far the least internal violence. There has never in history been a war between two clearly democratic nations. For those of a statistical bent, this is a highly significant finding. For those scientifically inclined, note that this finding has been consistently replicated by different researchers trying to prove it false, on different data, and with different definitions of democratic and war.

Question: How would you recommend the United States prosecute the present war?

I think the course Bush is following now is the correct one. That is, the full use of American military might within shifting alliances, depending on the target; the defeat and replacement of regimes that harbor and support terrorism; a full court press on terrorist and terrorist cells within the democracies; openness and full communication with the American people.

Question: Some anti-interventionists have argued that American foreign policy, e.g., military and economic aid to Israel and sanctions against Iraq, is the root of the present war. Do you agree?

The root of the war is the hatred on the part of the fundamentalists of the democratic way of life—its freedom, tolerance of different religions, and equality of women. These people are theocratic absolutists, and would oppose democratic freedoms, of which the US is the prime representative, regardless of sanctions against Iraq or aid for Israel.

Also, ask those who make the criticism you mention what they would have done. No aid and support for democratic Israel? No sanctions against Saddam Hussein, so that he can without hindrance build up his military machine? Have a peace conference with the terrorists?

Smart man.