News Is the War on Terrorism Worth It?

[Gokul43201]

We overturned what was the equivalent of a Middle Eastern Adolf Hitler.

One huge difference though: Hitler commanded what was arguably the most powerful military in the world while Hussein had little power over much more than the 50,000 or so strong Republican Guard.

No we didn't. The actions taken by the Bush administration involved a lot of careful thought and planning and were not easy to make, and have been subjected to the court system.

And repeatedly found to be illegal by that system.

In Hamdi, the SC told Bush he couldn't trash habeas corpus.

In Hamdan, the SC nullified Bush's tribunals as violating the Geneva Convention.

In Al Haramain, the Federal Court found the warrantless wiretap program illegal.

...

We won't be able to understand whether the War on Terror was "worth it" for many years IMO. As for the war being "never-ending," well that's just a cold reality. If we pretend it doesn't exist, like we did during the 1990s, we'd end up getting attacked again.

And is that such a big deal (compared to the alternative)?

 

[loseyourname]

And is that such a big deal (compared to the alternative)?

The other thing is, for all this talk of inaction in the 90s leading to 9/11, we stop 9/11 but for one paranoid quirk in the US Code that has since been changed due to the Patriot Act: the CIA and FBI not being allowed to share information. If that law hadn't been in place in the 90s, 9/11 never happens. There are much simpler law enforcement and intelligence gathering measures to be taken that are ultimately more effective and much easier and cheaper than trying to perpetrate a land war with half a million deployed servicemembers. Heck, the Patriot Act and creation of the DHS, along with ousting the Taliban, were probably sufficient measures to make us adequately safer than we previously were, with no need to do anything further other than to keep enough troops in Afghanistan to secure the border and keep the Taliban gone while working government services and infrastructure were installed, which likely would have been accomplished by now.

I'm not even convinced we needed to oust the Taliban, but I can at least understand the sentiment to do so since they harbored the group that attacked us.

And hell, for that matter, just not allowing people to carry razor blades on airplanes could also have prevented 9/11. I realize the enemy adapts, but you simply have to be proactive in adapting ahead of time to potential attacks in the way you mount a defense. Trying to go the extreme route of physically eliminating all potential future enemies is an overkill approach that is bound to fail.

 

[Gokul43201]

The other thing is, for all this talk of inaction in the 90s leading to 9/11, we stop 9/11 but for one paranoid quirk in the US Code that has since been changed due to the Patriot Act: the CIA and FBI not being allowed to share information. If that law hadn't been in place in the 90s, 9/11 never happens. There are much simpler law enforcement and intelligence gathering measures to be taken that are ultimately more effective and much easier and cheaper than trying to perpetrate a land war with half a million deployed servicemembers. Heck, the Patriot Act and creation of the DHS, along with ousting the Taliban, were probably sufficient measures to make us adequately safer than we previously were, with no need to do anything further other than to keep enough troops in Afghanistan to secure the border and keep the Taliban gone while working government services and infrastructure were installed, which likely would have been accomplished by now.

I'm not even convinced we needed to oust the Taliban, but I can at least understand the sentiment to do so since they harbored the group that attacked us.

And hell, for that matter, just not allowing people to carry razor blades on airplanes could also have prevented 9/11. I realize the enemy adapts, but you simply have to be proactive in adapting ahead of time to potential attacks in the way you mount a defense. Trying to go the extreme route of physically eliminating all potential future enemies is an overkill approach that is bound to fail.

Thank you. That's three paragraphs I won't have to type up to summarize my position.

 

[russ_watters]

And hell, for that matter, just not allowing people to carry razor blades on airplanes could also have prevented 9/11.

Maybe/mabye not, but locked doors on cockpits certainly would have.

 

[mheslep]

I just meant the support of groups that were any direct threat to US security.

And before the fact exactly who is a direct threat to US security? I suggest that line of thought leads one down the road in the year ~1999 to saying AQ was no direct threat to US security; that the proper course was to use law enforcement, and to send in few cruise missiles after the fact. After all, it was known that AQ descended from a gang of Arab bozos that couldn't shoot straight in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

I realize he sponsored agents that destabilized his neighbors, but well, every nation does that. The US itself does that. It shouldn't matter to us unless those groups are a threat to us.

Every nation does not sponsor terrorists and suicide bombers. The US destabilizes its neighbors through violence? As in border neighbors? I don't think so. In the cold war days the US had (some fool hardy) destabilization operations, but that is a different story.

 

[russ_watters]

And repeatedly found to be illegal by that system.

In Hamdi, the SC told Bush he couldn't trash habeas corpus.

In Hamdan, the SC nullified Bush's tribunals as violating the Geneva Convention.

In Al Haramain, the Federal Court found the warrantless wiretap program illegal.

Setting aside for now the fact that those matters are not yet resolved and Obama has for the most part picked-up where Bush left off, what does any of that have to do with why we went to war or whether the war was worth it? Even if it is ultimately decided the courts are right, that's a side issue not directly related to the success/failure of the wars. The only way to directly connected it that I can see is to speculate that if capturees had been immediately repatriated, the wars would not have succeeded in their primary missions because of the military's inability to fight them.

In other words: legal or not, they happened and they have so far worked.

 

[mheslep]

I realize the enemy adapts, but you simply have to be proactive in adapting ahead of time to potential attacks in the way you mount a defense. Trying to go the extreme route of physically eliminating all potential future enemies is an overkill approach that is bound to fail.

I'd say fighting only in a defensive posture is bound to fail, or as US Army FM 3-0 states:

Defensive operations alone normally cannot achieve a decision.

http://www.army.mil/fm3-0/FM3-0.pdf
You mount a defense, adaptive or otherwise, in order to

defeat an enemy attack, gain time, economize forces, and develop conditions favorable for offensive or stability operations.

i.e. never just for the sake of a defense alone. And, choosing to go on the offensive does not mean you have to attack and destroy every possible enemy. I'm consequently in near immediate agreement with anyone who argues for more accuracy in defining the threat in the War on Terror.

 

[russ_watters]

Just taking into consideration the actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the presumed objective of eliminating situations like pre-9/11 Al Qaeda having de facto state sponsorship and safe haven in Afghanistan under the Taliban, from which they launched a direct attack, I'll guess no.

Granted, that's just a guess, not a more detailed analysis, but I think our worldwide efforts to boost intelligence collection and cooperate with local law enforcement and efforts stateside to increase the powers of intelligence collection and law enforcement have been fruitful enough in and of themselves, and trying to eliminate failed states where terror cells find haven is multiplying costs by the millions without the payoff to justify it. We may very well succeed ultimately in Iraq, but they weren't providing haven or weapons to terrorists anyway. We probably could succeed in Afghanistan, but we'd need to stay there with 100,000 troops for another ten years, which would hardly be worth it. What would we do after that? Occupy Yemen for the following 20 years until we could install a stable friendly government there, too?

That's an interesting and reasonable view, but I think it could lead us into an argument over whether those intelligence efforts were part of the "war on terror" or not. As I said in my post #8, I consider the "war on terror" to contain one traditional war (and possibly a second) and what I called a "law enforcement component".

It's fine to say that with better law enforcement, 9/11 could have been prevented, but the reality of what happened since is that with the two-pronged approach, additional 9/11s have been prevented. As you said, a detailed analysis would be necessary, but the suggestion that a detailed analysis would be necessary implies to me that both prongs have had an impact and assigning more responsibility for one would not be easy (you're not a person who typically glosses over difficult questions here).

I'll say it's entirely possible that we've provided a nice concentration point for Al Qaeda efforts, getting them offtrack enough in trying to keep Iraq and Afghanistan destabilized that they probably haven't had the additional capacity to attack us domestically, which has made US citizens safer at home, but then again, that's really just transferring the risk of terrorism from domestic US citizens to deployed soldiers and the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq...

Agreed, and it is for that reason alone that Iraq might be included in the "war on terror". We didn't go into Iraq looking for terrorists, but once in Iraq, terrorists went there looking for us.

...which isn't the purpose of soldiers and isn't fair to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, and furthermore doesn't actually eliminate terrorism or even reduce it.

As a former member of the military, I'd say that you're dead wrong about the purpose of soldiers and therefore the last part is irrelevant. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives to keep civilians safe. If that means a transferring of the risk from civilians to soldiers (and more soldiers have died than civilians did on 9/11), then that's a success of the war.

 

[Proton Soup]

As a former member of the military, I'd say that you're dead wrong about the purpose of soldiers and therefore the last part is irrelevant. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives to keep civilians safe. If that means a transferring of the risk from civilians to soldiers (and more soldiers have died than civilians did on 9/11), then that's a success of the war.

since you claim their purpose is also to bring justice for those in afghanistan and iraq, you must include iraqi and afghan civilian casualties when measuring success.

 

[CAC1001]

One huge difference though: Hitler commanded what was arguably the most powerful military in the world while Hussein had little power over much more than the 50,000 or so strong Republican Guard.

I wasn't saying Hussein was equivalent to Hitler in being a military threat to the United States, I was responding to the notion that the U.S. has made the West look evil by toppling Hussein.

And repeatedly found to be illegal by that system.

In Hamdi, the SC told Bush he couldn't trash habeas corpus.

I wouldn't say President Bush was "trashing" habeas corpus, as Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan. That said, he still was a U.S. citizen.

In Hamdan, the SC nullified Bush's tribunals as violating the Geneva Convention.

From what I understand on the issue, the Bush administration never considered that non-state terrorists are entitled to the Geneva Conventions, that only uniformed soldiers fighting in a declared war are. Non-state terrorists who disguise themselves as civilians to murder civilians violate the rules of war, and the Geneva Conventions never were meant to be applied to them (as the original purpose of the GC was to disincentivize violating the rules of war; if terrorists, who routinely violate the rules of war, are allowed GC rights, it completely undermines the purpose of the GC; it says to them, "Do what you want, you still get GC rights.").

In Al Haramain, the Federal Court found the warrantless wiretap program illegal.

It isn't warrantless wiretapping per se from my understanding, but rather a surveillance program for international signals. If the government wants to wiretap a person, they still need a warrant I believe. Obama has continued this policy however.

And is that such a big deal (compared to the alternative)?

Yes, considering we don't know what the nature of the attack would be. The War on Terror doesn't need to involve out-and-out invasions of countries.

Invading Iraq was not necessary for the War on Terror.

 

[CAC1001]

The other thing is, for all this talk of inaction in the 90s leading to 9/11, we stop 9/11 but for one paranoid quirk in the US Code that has since been changed due to the Patriot Act: the CIA and FBI not being allowed to share information. If that law hadn't been in place in the 90s, 9/11 never happens. There are much simpler law enforcement and intelligence gathering measures to be taken that are ultimately more effective and much easier and cheaper than trying to perpetrate a land war with half a million deployed servicemembers. Heck, the Patriot Act and creation of the DHS, along with ousting the Taliban, were probably sufficient measures to make us adequately safer than we previously were, with no need to do anything further other than to keep enough troops in Afghanistan to secure the border and keep the Taliban gone while working government services and infrastructure were installed, which likely would have been accomplished by now.

I'm not even convinced we needed to oust the Taliban, but I can at least understand the sentiment to do so since they harbored the group that attacked us.

And hell, for that matter, just not allowing people to carry razor blades on airplanes could also have prevented 9/11. I realize the enemy adapts, but you simply have to be proactive in adapting ahead of time to potential attacks in the way you mount a defense. Trying to go the extreme route of physically eliminating all potential future enemies is an overkill approach that is bound to fail.

The Iraq War wasn't part of the War on Terror, it was a separate issue that later came to be tied in with it. Iraq was invaded over the belief that Hussein was a major threat.

 

[Gokul43201]

In other words: legal or not, they happened and they have so far worked.

1. Whether they are legal or not is the issue I was responding to.

2. They have worked? That's an unsupported assertion.

3. These issues are not resolved? What ultimate authority decides whether the USSC is correct?

 

[Gokul43201]

As a former member of the military, I'd say that you're dead wrong about the purpose of soldiers and therefore the last part is irrelevant. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives to keep civilians safe. If that means a transferring of the risk from civilians to soldiers (and more soldiers have died than civilians did on 9/11), then that's a success of the war.

You've completely ignored one of the points made in that last part (civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan), yet deemed it irrelevant.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Iraq War wasn't part of the War on Terror, it was a separate issue that later came to be tied in with it. Iraq was invaded over the belief that Hussein was a major threat.

This couldn't be further from the truth - Part I:

The following are reasons provided for justifying an invasion of Iraq (from the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002):

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
...
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possesses and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
...
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
...
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
...
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) ;​

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

I hope that establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Iraq War was to be recognized as a part of the war on terrorism, not much after the fact, but right at the planning stage, long before it began.

Let me also point out that in this text of the Iraq War Resolution, whereas the words 'terror', 'terrorist(s)' and 'terrorism' appear a total of 19 times, Mr. Hussein is mentioned a grand total of ZERO times. I think the administration wanted to ensure they could have their war even if Mr Hussein choked on an olive and popped off.

(additional supporting material to follow in Part II)

 

[Gokul43201]

Part II:

Not only was Congress to recognize that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism, it was (arguably) very useful for the all-volunteer members of the military to see it that way too. Revenge is a powerful motivator.

In 2006, Zogby conducted a poll among US troops serving in Iraq, and found that the overwhelmingly majority of respondents justified the Iraq War as an act of revenge for 9/11.

While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks," 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1075

And of course, the whole concept of the Iraq War being a part of the War on Terror needed to be sold to the electorate as well, both in order to gain support for the invasion as well as to keep seeing it through.

I could, I suspect, with enough time, dig up several quotes to support this (starting from the speech made just a week after 9/11 in which a bulls-eye was painted on all nations that harbor terrorists, to the 2002 State of the Union "Axis of Evil" speech, and so on), but I'll settle for a 2006 interview with Katie Couric to summarize:

There – it's – you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. I believe it. As I told you, Osama bin Laden believes it. But the American people – have got to understand that a defeat in Iraq – in other words, if this government there fails - the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/five_years/main1980074.shtml

 

[Barwick]

I'll summarize... Just stay with me here for a second:

In 1989, Poland elected the first non-communist leader of a communist country. In witness that day was a US Representative by the name of Bob McEwen. He turned to his wife and said "This is it". She replied "This is what?" He said "This is it, either the tanks roll, or Communism as an accepted form of government is over"

The tanks did not roll that day, and as we know history, countries all across Eastern Europe said "Oh, we can remove the bayonet from our throats?" and began electing non-communist leaders. That sparked events that culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the eventual collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union itself.

In the same exact way, these terrorists know that the only reason very few people in the Middle East leave Islam is because they will be murdered if they convert.

They also know that crap like that doesn't fly in the United States because the government here prosecutes people for doing such things. But they can do it with impunity in the Middle East because the governments there are sympathetic.

So, with that in mind, the United States is fighting a war in the middle east to bring not just one, but two free democracies in the Middle East, one where people can secretly and fearlessly vote for a NON-FUNDAMENTALIST government. We know that, just like in Poland, if people are able to pull the knife away from their throat, they'll do so, and you'll watch fundamentalist Islam, and the terrorists they harbor, begin to disappear into the ash heap of history. The terrorists know this, and unfortunately for us, the proverbial "tanks are rolling", and we're trying to stop them.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd say fighting only in a defensive posture is bound to fail, or as US Army FM 3-0 states:

http://www.army.mil/fm3-0/FM3-0.pdf
You mount a defense, adaptive or otherwise, in order to
i.e. never just for the sake of a defense alone. And, choosing to go on the offensive does not mean you have to attack and destroy every possible enemy. I'm consequently in near immediate agreement with anyone who argues for more accuracy in defining the threat in the War on Terror.

I'm an active-duty Army officer in a combat arms branch. I'm familiar with the operations FM and standard defensive doctrine. The US military is an offensive force. We believe the key to winning any war is to gain and maintain and never give up the initiative. Make the enemy adapt to you. Keep moving. Never present a static target. Yada yada.

What I'm advocating isn't in violation of that. We certainly need to go after Al Qaeda and any other terror groups that might launch an attack against US interests. That doesn't mean we need to invade sovereign nations that are thousands of miles away with ten divisions of infantry. We have offensive counter-terrorism units in the CIA, FBI, and even the military that are trained to conduct surgical strikes (there's even a division of the US Treasury devoted to freezing and intercepting assets used to finance terrorism). Aside from doing that, it's a question of how to most effectively acquire targets. I think cooperation with worldwide law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies and the expansion of our own efforts is more cost effective, and possibly even more effective period, than full-scale country invasions and nation-building efforts.

The thing is, I don't believe our major problem is with individual failed or rogue states. We can turn Iraq and Afghanistan into the next Germany and the next Japan and that won't eliminate Al Qaeda. It might not even weaken them. They don't need the nations they operate from to be friendly to them in order to effectively operate from them.

Heck, just look at one simple metric. Since 9/11, terror attacks worldwide are up. Terror attacks in the US are non-existent. It seems obvious to me that our military efforts have not eliminated or even weakened the ability of terrorist groups to plan and launch attacks. However, our domestic law enforcement and intelligence gathering efforts have very clearly born fruit. Everyone that tried to attack stateside was caught.

Someone posted a study by the Rand Corporation here a few months back looking at historical instances of terror groups dissolving or becoming legitimate and the causes behind it. Superior law enforcement efforts were almost always the cause of success and military action almost never worked.

 

[loseyourname]

And before the fact exactly who is a direct threat to US security? I suggest that line of thought leads one down the road in the year ~1999 to saying AQ was no direct threat to US security; that the proper course was to use law enforcement, and to send in few cruise missiles after the fact.

Al Qaeda had launched prior attacks on the US, so I have no idea why that conclusion would have been reached. Domestic terror groups with limited regional aims are clearly not in the same class. The Chechens will never be a threat to us. The IRA was never a threat to us. They were problems of Russia and the UK. It's the same thing with suicide bombers in Turkey. One of the good things with terror groups is they tend to tell you ahead of time what they're after. They don't simply attack random targets for no reason.

As for the proper course, yes, law enforcement is part of it. If the Patriot Act is in place prior to 9/11, it doesn't happen. If we ban airline passengers from boarding with box cutters, 9/11 doesn't happen. That doesn't mean don't try to eliminate Al Qaeda or attack when you find them. That's what Delta Force is for.

For the sake of argument, let's say we had ousted the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in 1999. Does that prevent 9/11? The attackers mostly came from Saudi Arabia and trained in Florida.

 

[loseyourname]

That's an interesting and reasonable view, but I think it could lead us into an argument over whether those intelligence efforts were part of the "war on terror" or not. As I said in my post #8, I consider the "war on terror" to contain one traditional war (and possibly a second) and what I called a "law enforcement component".

Well, generally, I thinking fighting terror is more than worth it. That's why in my first post I specified that I was only going to address the explicit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not convinced those are worth it, but I think everything else we've done was more than worth it.

It's fine to say that with better law enforcement, 9/11 could have been prevented, but the reality of what happened since is that with the two-pronged approach, additional 9/11s have been prevented. As you said, a detailed analysis would be necessary, but the suggestion that a detailed analysis would be necessary implies to me that both prongs have had an impact and assigning more responsibility for one would not be easy (you're not a person who typically glosses over difficult questions here).

Well, I mentioned this in the post I just made, but from what I can see, we've prevented further attacks mostly by catching the attackers. On the other hand, they've been successful in attacking other places. That suggests to me that our military efforts overseas have not crippled the ability of terror groups to plan and launch attacks, but that our domestic efforts have made it damn near impossible for an attack domestically to actually be pulled off. And the military efforts have been orders of magnitude more expensive, suggesting they have likely born far less fruit per dollar spent than our domestic efforts (which aren't entirely domestic, mind you - finding these guys and stopping them involves foreign intelligence gathering and cooperation with foreign agencies as much as anything else).

Agreed, and it is for that reason alone that Iraq might be included in the "war on terror". We didn't go into Iraq looking for terrorists, but once in Iraq, terrorists went there looking for us. As a former member of the military, I'd say that you're dead wrong about the purpose of soldiers and therefore the last part is irrelevant. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives to keep civilians safe. If that means a transferring of the risk from civilians to soldiers (and more soldiers have died than civilians did on 9/11), then that's a success of the war.

I get what you're saying. I'm just looking at relative numbers here. There have been what? Half a million combined deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians? If that hasn't prevented another 3,000 US civilian deaths, then it definitely wasn't worth it. But even if it did prevent another 3,000 US civilian deaths, I'd still question whether that's worth it. It's an awfully steep price to pay. I mean, in principle, we could carpet bomb all of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa with h-bombs and probably prevent any further US civilian deaths from Islamic terrorists ever, at the cost of killing a few billion non-US civilians. That's definitely not considered worth it or acceptable. Somewhere between a few billion and zero is the collateral damage we're willing to accept to save 3,000 US civilian lives. What is that number?

 

[BobG]

In the same exact way, these terrorists know that the only reason very few people in the Middle East leave Islam is because they will be murdered if they convert.

They also know that crap like that doesn't fly in the United States because the government here prosecutes people for doing such things. But they can do it with impunity in the Middle East because the governments there are sympathetic.

So, with that in mind, the United States is fighting a war in the middle east to bring not just one, but two free democracies in the Middle East, one where people can secretly and fearlessly vote for a NON-FUNDAMENTALIST government. We know that, just like in Poland, if people are able to pull the knife away from their throat, they'll do so, and you'll watch fundamentalist Islam, and the terrorists they harbor, begin to disappear into the ash heap of history. The terrorists know this, and unfortunately for us, the proverbial "tanks are rolling", and we're trying to stop them.

What you say could be truthfully said about Afghanistan (pre-invasion), Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Iran.

It wouldn't be true about Yemen, which is a democracy with a court system based on Islamic law.

It wouldn't be true about any other Middle Eastern country except in a very limited fashion. The predominant judicial system in the Middle East separates courts by function. There's a secular court system for civil affairs & most criminal affairs that is similar to Western court systems. There's a family judicial system (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc) that's usually based on religious law. Islamic law is the most common, but there's exceptions - such as Egypt that has three separate family judicial systems: one based on Islamic law, one based on Christian law, one based on secular law (based on the French judicial system). Some Middle Eastern judicial systems include at least some types of criminal law in their religious court system.

It definitely wouldn't be true about Hussein era Iraq. Iraq under Hussein would be most similar to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Theoretically, Iraq was a communist secular government with the Baath Party ruling the country. In practice, Hussein was virtually a dictator. The entire judicial system was secular, although rather corrupted by the whims of Hussein.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, there were only two true democracies in the Middle East: Lebanon and Yemen. In fact, they're two of the half-dozen countries ever to resolve a civil war by the opposing parties sharing power in a democracy.

Granted, civil war eventually erupted in Lebanon yet again since religious factions still dominate Lebanon politics. You can't get the Christian faction, the Sunni faction, and the Shiite faction to agree even with what's supposedly a secular government.

And Yemen has been plagued with low-level ethnic conflicts even after the civil war between the Communist and Democratic factions was resolved (something made easier when the Soviet Union fell apart and reduced support for other communist governments in the world).

In other words:

1) Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of Middle East governments. It's the exception (with one exception being a US ally).

2) Democracy has not been a solution for ethnic/religious tensions in the past. But it's only been tried as a solution in two instances prior to Iraq, so that's not conclusive.

As an aside, the idea of allowing religious beliefs to have more influence on family law isn't unheard of in the US, either. Backlash against no-fault divorce and its impact on families has resulted in some states having something called "covenant marriages". The couple marrying decides whether they want a regular marriage or a covenant marriage. If they choose to have a covenant marriage, there's a completely separate set of divorce laws covering their marriage that make divorce a lot tougher than for a regular marriage.

 

[Barwick]

The thing is, I don't believe our major problem is with individual failed or rogue states. We can turn Iraq and Afghanistan into the next Germany and the next Japan and that won't eliminate Al Qaeda. It might not even weaken them. They don't need the nations they operate from to be friendly to them in order to effectively operate from them.

The thing is, they need the people in those states. Vast amounts of people who are supportive of their actions. If Iraq and Afghanistan turn into free nations, then the rest of the Middle East will likely follow suit, and the terrorists will have to go elsewhere for their support. They would have minimal funding, fewer places they could hide in relative safety, and more eyes watching out for their sorry behinds to pop out from behind a rock so they can call authorities to capture or kill them.

 

[Barwick]

It wouldn't be true about any other Middle Eastern country except in a very limited fashion. The predominant judicial system in the Middle East separates courts by function. There's a secular court system for civil affairs & most criminal affairs that is similar to Western court systems. There's a family judicial system (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc) that's usually based on religious law. Islamic law is the most common, but there's exceptions - such as Egypt that has three separate family judicial systems: one based on Islamic law, one based on Christian law, one based on secular law (based on the French judicial system). Some Middle Eastern judicial systems include at least some types of criminal law in their religious court system.

They may in fact have these court systems, but that doesn't mean that that is what is followed in those nations. Try being a Christian in Egypt, and you'll quickly find out that the "tolerant" people and government of Egypt aren't exactly tolerant.

Read this short article from Voice of the Martyrs, these are the people who work with persecuted Christians all over the world, North Korea, China, the Middle East, Africa, etc.
http://www.persecution.net/eg-2010-09-02.htm (w/f safe)

What I'm trying to say is, just because the government "has" something, doesn't mean it's followed. The United States "has" a Constitution, but they've ignored that to pass whatever they please for almost two centuries now, how else would we have Socialist Security, Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, the Dept of Education, the Dept of HUD, etc...

It definitely wouldn't be true about Hussein era Iraq. Iraq under Hussein would be most similar to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Theoretically, Iraq was a communist secular government with the Baath Party ruling the country. In practice, Hussein was virtually a dictator. The entire judicial system was secular, although rather corrupted by the whims of Hussein.

Exactly, it was a dictatorship, the people there, if they tried to remove the bayonet from their throats, would have been slaughtered like the Kurds were. They were not free.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, there were only two true democracies in the Middle East: Lebanon and Yemen. In fact, they're two of the half-dozen countries ever to resolve a civil war by the opposing parties sharing power in a democracy.

Granted, civil war eventually erupted in Lebanon yet again since religious factions still dominate Lebanon politics. You can't get the Christian faction, the Sunni faction, and the Shiite faction to agree even with what's supposedly a secular government.

And Yemen has been plagued with low-level ethnic conflicts even after the civil war between the Communist and Democratic factions was resolved (something made easier when the Soviet Union fell apart and reduced support for other communist governments in the world).

In other words:

1) Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of Middle East governments. It's the exception (with one exception being a US ally).

2) Democracy has not been a solution for ethnic/religious tensions in the past. But it's only been tried as a solution in two instances prior to Iraq, so that's not conclusive.

On Yemen:
http://www.persecution.net/yemen.htm

Again, in almost all of these nations (with Lebanon being somewhat the exception), Sharia Law rules, whether officially or unofficially. There are families in the United States (very few of them) that live according to Sharia Law. Within those families and those nations, according to Sharia Law, if someone converts from Islam to another religion, they must be killed.

When that happens in Saudi Arabia, the authorities don't even blink. When it happens in Yemen, there may be reprisal, possibly. When it happens in Lebanon, there's slightly more chance of that person being arrested for murder. When it happens in the United States, the full weight of law enforcement is put behind finding that person and bringing them to justice.

IF that same thing were to happen in the Middle East today, where the full weight of Law Enforcement was brought to bear on anyone who murdered someone for leaving Islam, you would see support for Islam, and subsequently, these terrorist groups, go down dramatically.

As an aside, the idea of allowing religious beliefs to have more influence on family law isn't unheard of in the US, either. Backlash against no-fault divorce and its impact on families has resulted in some states having something called "covenant marriages". The couple marrying decides whether they want a regular marriage or a covenant marriage. If they choose to have a covenant marriage, there's a completely separate set of divorce laws covering their marriage that make divorce a lot tougher than for a regular marriage.

States should not be involved in marriage at all. There is no reason that two people should be required to get a government license to marry. Do you know why mandatory marriage licensing started? To prevent whites from marrying blacks. A similar reason why gun control laws were originally enacted, to prevent freed blacks from obtaining guns.

My point here is, the bigger the government, the smaller the individual. When government decides how you live (in an Islamic society, or a supposedly free society like ours), problems arise.

 

[mheslep]

Comments today at the National Press Club from former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in response to a question about the legacy of the Iraq War, which I post here because I think her comments at the end are directly relevant to the 'are we more secure' question.

Starting in the Q&A period ~45mins:

[...]
And while they're struggling - and let me tell you we could have done many many things much better. I don't have any doubt about that. Maybe I'll come backand tell you ...

But - and I will never be able -any of us - to forget the many many lives that were lost.
But if the Iraqis do take the opportunity to be the first multi confessional Arab democracy where they settle their differences within Democratic institutions rather than either by violence or somebody oppressing somebody else, then the Middle East is going to be a very different place because Iraq is an important country in the Middle East. And while we are frustrated with them while they wrangle for who is going to be PM and whose going to get this or that post, just think about it.
What is the conversation we are having about Iraq today?
Its not about WMD.
Its not about invading Kuwait.
Its not about shooting at American aircraft.
Its not about the potential for a nuclear race between Ahmadinejad and Saddam Hussein.
Its about whether Shia and Sunnis can find away to form a government.

http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/10/15/HP/R/39445/NPC+and+Book+TV+host+Condoleezza+Rice+on+her+Memoir.aspx

 

[mheslep]

I'm just looking at relative numbers here. There have been what? Half a million combined deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians? If that hasn't prevented another 3,000 US civilian deaths, then it definitely wasn't worth it. But even if it did prevent another 3,000 US civilian deaths, I'd still question whether that's worth it. It's an awfully steep price to pay. I mean, in principle, we could carpet bomb all of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa with h-bombs and probably prevent any further US civilian deaths from Islamic terrorists ever, at the cost of killing a few billion non-US civilians. That's definitely not considered worth it or acceptable. Somewhere between a few billion and zero is the collateral damage we're willing to accept to save 3,000 US civilian lives. What is that number?

More like 90K Iraqi military and civilians deaths.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/14/AR2010101406139.html
For those who want to consider the foreign death toll due to the invasion (as I do), it seems to me they should not ignore the likely death toll from no invasion. We know Hussein put some 400k of his own people in the ground. We know the Iran Iraq war death toll was a about a half million. We know Hussein gassed Halabja and killed some 5000. We know he was financing suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel where such action might have set off yet another Intifada there by now and another round of slaughter.

 

[russ_watters]

1. Whether they are legal or not is the issue I was responding to.

Fair enough.

2. They have worked? That's an unsupported assertion.

It shouldn't need to be supported, Gokul, as it is common knowledge that there has been but one Islamic terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and that was by a homegrown terrorist (the Ft Hood shooting).

3. These issues are not resolved? What ultimate authority decides whether the USSC is correct?

I don't know - as I said, it isn't resolved. But I suggest you ask Obama - he's still fighting those battles: warrentless wiretaps still happen, and 'Gitmo is still full of foreign fighters who have not had a writ of habeas corpus. At the moment, the reality of the situation is that the Executive Branch is driving the situation by ignoring the Judicial branch.

 

[russ_watters]

You've completely ignored one of the points made in that last part (civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan), yet deemed it irrelevant.

That's not what I was deeming irrelevant in the post, but since you asked, yes, I see it as being irrelevant. Why do you consider it relevant?

 

[mheslep]

The attackers mostly came from Saudi Arabia and trained in Florida.

Yes from SA, Lebanon, Egypt, and the UAE. There is good evidence that all of them, all 19+6, trained initially in Afghanistan before reaching the US, including the pilots like Atta.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2213701.stm

 

[Gokul43201]

It shouldn't need to be supported, Gokul, as it is common knowledge that there has been but one Islamic terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and that was by a homegrown terrorist (the Ft Hood shooting).

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

I don't know - as I said, it isn't resolved. But I suggest you ask Obama - he's still fighting those battles: warrentless wiretaps still happen, and 'Gitmo is still full of foreign fighters who have not had a writ of habeas corpus. At the moment, the reality of the situation is that the Executive Branch is driving the situation by ignoring the Judicial branch.

This doesn't change the question of their legality. They were ruled illegal by the SC. If the same practices are carried out by Obama, then they are still illegal.

That's not what I was deeming irrelevant in the post, but since you asked, yes, I see it as being irrelevant. Why do you consider it relevant?

I consider it relevant because I think the lives of these people has some worth.

 

[russ_watters]

This couldn't be further from the truth - Part I:

Well, "further from the truth" is quite a stretch, but I'll acknowledge the idea that the war on terror had somewhat of a role in the stated reason for going to war with Iraq (and that I'd forgotten it). I'll explain.

The following are reasons provided for justifying an invasion of Iraq (from the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002):

That may be how Congress saw the issue, but the person who sent us to war was Bush and he's the one who gets to decide why we went. Here's his speech: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq

Without actually counting paragraphs, I'd say its probably 3:1 about the WMDs vs terorrism and much of the terrorism angle is also about the WMDs. Because of that, I consider it a relatively minor part of the justification, whereas later on, with the flood of foreign fighters, it dominated the conflict. Nevertheless, he does make the connection:

Members of Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons and diseases and gases and atomic weapons.

Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is how best can we achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions about the nature of the threat, about the urgency of action. Why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror and the wider war on terror.

These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration, and tonight I want to share those discussions with you.

Ie, primary issue: wmd. Secondary and somewhat related issue: terorrism.

Let me also point out that in this text of the Iraq War Resolution, whereas the words 'terror', 'terrorist(s)' and 'terrorism' appear a total of 19 times, Mr. Hussein is mentioned a grand total of ZERO times. I think the administration wanted to ensure they could have their war even if Mr Hussein choked on an olive and popped off.

Well, no, that's not right. It may not name him, but it references "the current Iraqi regime" four times. It is interesting that they didn't name him, but it is clear that that's who they are talking about. Regardless, it was Bush's decision to go to war and Bush refers to him by name 23 times in his speech.

How does this affect the discussion? Well, it doesn't - I was just trying to be fair by separating it. Iraq turned out to be the easier of the two wars and the current state of Iraq implies to me very strongly a long-term success and that it will ultimately prove to have been worth it.

However, if you like, I can break apart my opinion this way:
1. Intel/police actions were a very necessary and successful part of the war on terror.
2. Afghanistan was a necessary and based on the strict goals of toppling the Taliban and rendering Al Qaeda unable to attack the US populace, successful.
3. Iraq was not essential to the war on terror, but it helped and was successful in all of its goals, including the ones not at all associated with the war on terror.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

- Jed Bartlet

 

[russ_watters]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Seriously? What do you actually believe the reason is then? Have we been lucky that Al Qaeda hasn't hit us? Has Bin Laden (despite his statements to the contrary) lost interest in attacking us? There have been a lot of failed terrorist attacks on the US in the past 10 years, Gokul and I'm sure you know that. Why do you think there have been a lot of failed attacks and no successful attacks by al Qaeda?

This doesn't change the question of their legality. They were ruled illegal by the SC. If the same practices are carried out by Obama, then they are still illegal.

Well then I guess Obama should be impeached then, shouldn't he? Gokul, yes, the courts say that they were illegal (and if that's all you wanted to comment on, fine, but I think there is more to the issue than you are acknowledging) and generally it is true that when the court declares something illegal, it is, because that's its job. But when tangling with the executive branch, it doesn't always work out that way. And in those cases, it so far has not.

I consider it relevant because I think the lives of these people has some worth.

Ok...well so do I, but what does their worth have to do with whether our war goals were met?

 

[BobG]

Fair enough. It shouldn't need to be supported, Gokul, as it is common knowledge that there has been but one Islamic terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11 and that was by a homegrown terrorist (the Ft Hood shooting).

Not only is there no support for cause and effect, the facts aren't even true.

2002

Luke Helder places pipe bombs in mail boxes to protest government interference into people's lives and to protest illegality of marijuana. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_Helder

Egyption gunman shoots Israelis at LA Intl Airport. http://articles.cnn.com/2002-07-04/us/la.airport.shooting_1_el-al-gunman-yakov-aminov?_s=PM:US

The Muhammad-Malvo Beltway Sniper attacks (I'm not sure this really qualifies as a terrorist attack since there was no goal)

2006

March: Taheri-azar drives his SUV into a crowd. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Reza_Taheri-azar_SUV_attack

Aug: An Afghani-Muslim drives his SUV into a crowd (whether this was a terrorist attack or coincidence that the rampage occurred at a Jewish Center is up for debate). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omeed_Aziz_Popal_SUV_rampage

2005/2007: Fake grenades thrown at British consulate/Mexican consulate in NYC (small explosion with lots of smoke).
2008: Bomb explodes outside empty recruiting station in NYC. (similar to consulate bombings)

July 2008: David Adkisson shooting at Unitarian Universalist church aimed at killing liberals and Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting

At least 8 attacks, which are pretty typical for terrorist attacks in the US. Attacks like the Oklahoma City bombing and the World Trade Center/Pentagon are very rare. Having two attacks of that magnitude in such a short time span is more coincidence than anything else.

Or, if you're limiting strictly to terrorist attacks by Muslims, then 2 to 4 attacks.

 

[mheslep]

I'm an active-duty Army officer in a combat arms branch...

Yes I was aware of your service hence the Army FM reference which I knew would not be oblique to you.

I'm familiar with the operations FM and standard defensive doctrine. The US military is an offensive force. We believe the key to winning any war is to gain and maintain and never give up the initiative. Make the enemy adapt to you. Keep moving. Never present a static target. Yada yada.

Yes, check, I'm also familiar from years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA_loop" loops are another way of explaining the rationale behind 'gain and maintain', 'keep the initiative', which require continual contact with and pressure on the enemy.

What I'm advocating isn't in violation of that.

I suggest what you advocate - Delta Force, counter terror ops launched from well outside the theater, etc - is a direct contradiction to the FM definition (and your summary) of offensive operations. By definition, special operators are not meant to 'maintain' anything. SOF are meant for short term, limited scope missions. And generally the greater the tactical distance from the target, then the shorter the term, the more limited the scope. SOF (DoD, CIA, whoever) are therefore an agile and fast moving tool to be used effectively in advance of a larger force. When SoF is used to hit and run with no larger follow up, if the enemy has any roots and resilience at all it will frequently resupply, reorient and regain the initiative.

We certainly need to go after Al Qaeda and any other terror groups that might launch an attack against US interests. That doesn't mean we need to invade sovereign nations that are thousands of miles away with ten divisions of infantry.

Ok, perhaps not. I agree the costs are enormous and there are terrible downsides. So, in lieu of, the US does what?

We have offensive counter-terrorism units in the CIA, FBI, and even the military that are trained to conduct surgical strikes (there's even a division of the US Treasury devoted to freezing and intercepting assets used to finance terrorism). Aside from doing that, it's a question of how to most effectively acquire targets. I think cooperation with worldwide law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies

Clearly the US had all these capabilities before 9/11, and used them, but surgical strikes did not stop 9/11. Such strikes killed innocents and leveled some irrelevant factories, but did little to slow AQ. By way of intelligence the US gained from the pre 9/11 operations, relative to what it knows today, next to nothing on AQ. I grant there's better coordination now between the FBI and CIA (I'm told), Patriot Act is in place, yada, yada. I doubt seriously if those alone account for most of the security difference.

We can turn Iraq and Afghanistan into the next Germany and the next Japan and that won't eliminate Al Qaeda. It might not even weaken them. They don't need the nations they operate from to be friendly to them in order to effectively operate from them.

We disagree. 9/11 did not stem from 19 disaffected guys that met online or at the local radicalized Mosque, who then in isolation traded some emails and some phone calls. Rather, it was derivative of years of training, financial network development, and materials acquisition based out of the AQ camps in the Sudan and Afghanistan - leadership development, morale building, inculcation, tactics - all took place there. Bin Laden actually wanted to return to Saudi Arabia to pursue his fantasies but the Saudis refused to allow him to operate as before and remain alive. So I suggest it is nearly impossible to operate a terror group at that scale without the tacit complicity of a local government.

Heck, just look at one simple metric. Since 9/11, terror attacks worldwide are up.

Hmm, not since 2008 or so, instead I believe they are down substantially, though I'd have to check world wide. I know the attacks in many places, e.g. Israel, are way down from 9/11 until now.

Here's another metric: Despite being the most wanted men in the world, with no doubt endless special operations forces and counter terror ops sent after them [*], Bin Laden and Zawahiri remain loose, probably somewhere in Pakistan.

*Woodward says Bush put all of his best people on an all out effort to find them before leaving office.

Terror attacks in the US are non-existent. It seems obvious to me that our military efforts have not eliminated or even weakened the ability of terrorist groups to plan and launch attacks. However, our domestic law enforcement and intelligence gathering efforts have very clearly born fruit.

The US now has a great deal of intelligence about the AQ network, the Taliban, the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan#Al_Qaeda_and_the_Taliban" in Pakistan that it did not possess, and I argue it probably never would have possessed in a useful time period, before the Afghanistan invasion. That intel gets much of the credit, my view, for the prevention of further attacks.

Everyone that tried to attack stateside was caught.

Well all the public knows is that many attacks have been thwarted and attackers caught, not that all attempted assailants have been caught.

 

[Gokul43201]

Well, "further from the truth" is quite a stretch, but I'll acknowledge the idea that the war on terror had somewhat of a role in the stated reason for going to war with Iraq (and that I'd forgotten it). I'll explain. That may be how Congress saw the issue, but the person who sent us to war was Bush and he's the one who gets to decide why we went. Here's his speech: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/oct/07/usa.iraq

So Bush himself describes the invasion of Iraq as a crucial aspect of the War on Terror. I don't see how that does anything but help make my point. Incidentally, that speech has 34 instances of "terror*" and 32 instances of "*weapons*.

Without actually counting paragraphs, I'd say its probably 3:1 about the WMDs vs terorrism and much of the terrorism angle is also about the WMDs.

Alternatively, one could just as well argue that the WMD angle was also about terrorists (after all Saddam had no missiles capable of reaching the US, so the primary WMD threat to the homeland would have to be by propagation via terrorist groups). But this misses the point. The argument here is not about whether WMDs were the primary justification or terrorism was (and I will gladly stipulate that WMDs were the primary justification). The argument here is about whether the Iraq War was labeled as a part of the War on Terror from the very beginning or if that only happened much later.

To re-quote the statement made by CAC: "The Iraq War wasn't part of the War on Terror, it was a separate issue that later came to be tied in with it."

Well, no, that's not right. It may not name him, but it references "the current Iraqi regime" four times. It is interesting that they didn't name him, but it is clear that that's who they are talking about.

This is a secondary point, and my guess for the rationale behind not naming anyone specifically in the authorization is just that - a guess. Not naming Saddam leaves open the option of invading Iraq were someone like Uday or Qusay to take over in the event of Saddam's death or resignation or some other clever political play. Presumably, such a transfer of power would still constitute a continuation of the existing regime, so using the broader term "Iraqi regime" simply provides a broader set of options.

Regardless, it was Bush's decision to go to war and Bush refers to him by name 23 times in his speech.

Speeches are not legally binding, hence the difference. Also, if I recall correctly, the Authorization bill that was finally signed was almost identical to the original version proposed by the White House.

Seriously?

Yes, definitely seriously.

What do you actually believe the reason is then?

I shouldn't have to provide one to defend myself. The onus is on the person who claims that A, B & C helped reduce terrorism to demonstrate how each of them did. For instance, how and to what extent did the warrantless wiretapping help?

And even if I should want to, I couldn't tell you what the reasons for a reduction in terror attacks are (assuming this is true), nor can anyone else who hasn't done or looked at some careful multivariate analysis. I could at best make some guesses. But for the sake of argument, how about anyone (or to be a little more general, some subset) of those actions by themselves was dominantly responsible, make the rest of them mostly unnecessary?

Have we been lucky that Al Qaeda hasn't hit us?

It's possible. After all, in Richard Reid's case, his fuse failed to ignite because the flight was delayed by a day and the rainy weather during the wait day got his shoes damp.

Has Bin Laden (despite his statements to the contrary) lost interest in attacking us?

Lost interest. Lost health. Biding his time, waiting for the heat to subside.

There have been a lot of failed terrorist attacks on the US in the past 10 years, Gokul and I'm sure you know that.

How many in the 10 years before that?

Well then I guess Obama should be impeached then, shouldn't he?

I don't know. Has Obama denied any US citizen the right to habeas corpus? Hasn't the warrantless wiretap program been modified by Congress and the new version judged to be constitutionally sound? Is any of this relevant to the discussion?

Gokul, yes, the courts say that they were illegal (and if that's all you wanted to comment on, fine...)

Cutting off your quote there as that is all I wanted. If I recall correctly, this is not the first time that CAC posted something about actions taken by the Bush administration that were given the blessing of the courts.

In this particular case, the quote I was responding to was: "The actions taken by the Bush administration involved a lot of careful thought and planning and were not easy to make, and have been subjected to the court system."

And my response was that they were found to be illegal by that court system.

Ok...well so do I, but what does their worth have to do with whether our war goals were met?

I don't know - that depends on what the war goals are/were. But their worth is directly relevant to whether or not "the War on Terrorism is worth it", at least in my opinion. I think civilian lives lost should be counted as a cost. Use whatever metric is generally used to determine acceptable levels of collateral damage, but don't dismiss it as irrelevant.

 

[BobG]

Seriously? What do you actually believe the reason is then? Have we been lucky that Al Qaeda hasn't hit us? Has Bin Laden (despite his statements to the contrary) lost interest in attacking us? There have been a lot of failed terrorist attacks on the US in the past 10 years, Gokul and I'm sure you know that. Why do you think there have been a lot of failed attacks and no successful attacks by al Qaeda?

At least 3 or 4 and of about the same magnitude as the successful attacks.

Which is a very good record! How in the world do you put up a safety net that protects against individually planned attacks as simple as an SUV rampage?

There is some value to limiting the discussion to just major attack attempts that had some actual planning and organized al-Qaeda support. Once you do that, the number of data points is so small it's pointless to say our effort was successful because we prevented attacks for x number of years. We don't have enough attack attempts to say what the average amount of time between attacks should be.

 

[Gokul43201]

I wasn't saying Hussein was equivalent to Hitler in being a military threat to the United States, I was responding to the notion that the U.S. has made the West look evil by toppling Hussein.

Okay. I'm fine with that.

I wouldn't say President Bush was "trashing" habeas corpus, as Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan. That said, he still was a U.S. citizen.

Fine, I will accept a different verb. But I'd like to point out that one usually doesn't have to worry about governments blatantly violating the constitution in benign situations. Their mettle is only ever tested when the going gets tough. No one is likely to violate your first amendment rights if you are walking down the street and exclaiming what a wonderful day it is - the test arrives when you show up near someone's funeral and hold up hateful signs.

From what I understand on the issue, the Bush administration never considered that non-state terrorists are entitled to the Geneva Conventions, that only uniformed soldiers fighting in a declared war are. Non-state terrorists who disguise themselves as civilians to murder civilians violate the rules of war, and the Geneva Conventions never were meant to be applied to them (as the original purpose of the GC was to disincentivize violating the rules of war; if terrorists, who routinely violate the rules of war, are allowed GC rights, it completely undermines the purpose of the GC; it says to them, "Do what you want, you still get GC rights.").

My point is simply that the Supreme Court disagrees with the Bush Administration.

It isn't warrantless wiretapping per se from my understanding, but rather a surveillance program for international signals. If the government wants to wiretap a person, they still need a warrant I believe. Obama has continued this policy however.

You've actually just got the facts wrong with this one. The government was in fact wiretapping actual communications without a warrant from the FISA court. Congress amended the FISA Act in 2006, making it legal to wiretap without a warrant in certain cases, but subject to a new set of checks and balances. So no, Obama has not done what Bush did.

Yes, considering we don't know what the nature of the attack would be.

I don't see how exactly this supports your argument (but I suspect I may be misunderstanding). After all, if the next wave or terror attacks are all say, cyber attacks, how did our spending billions/trillions of dollars and losing thousands/millions of lives on the War on Terror help?

 

[mheslep]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

- Jed Bartlet

Yeah could be. I'm guessing Krauthammer night before last (prompted) the use here. Gokul?

 

[Gokul43201]

Neither, but I am a bigger fan of Bartlett (or even CJ) than I am of Krauthammer! I used to run into Krauhammer every now and then on WaPo, but it's been a while now.

 

[CAC1001]

"The actions taken by the Bush administration involved a lot of careful thought and planning and were not easy to make, and have been subjected to the court system."

Just wanted to clarify, in having said this, I didn't mean the Bush administration was ultimately right or legal on everything, but that it didn't (at least as I saw it) just decide to ride roughshod over the Constitution. It had to think carefully on what it was doing, and the system of checks and balances in our government immediately went to work, with the courts shooting down certain things of the Bush administration, the wiretapping/surveillance program being modified, the Patriot Act being reviewed and debated and modified in certain ways, etc...

Fine, I will accept a different verb. But I'd like to point out that one usually doesn't have to worry about governments blatantly violating the constitution in benign situations. Their mettle is only ever tested when the going gets tough. No one is likely to violate your first amendment rights if you are walking down the street and exclaiming what a wonderful day it is - the test arrives when you show up near someone's funeral and hold up hateful signs.

True.

You've actually just got the facts wrong with this one. The government was in fact wiretapping actual communications without a warrant from the FISA court. Congress amended the FISA Act in 2006, making it legal to wiretap without a warrant in certain cases, but subject to a new set of checks and balances. So no, Obama has not done what Bush did.

Is not President Obama continuing the wiretap program?

I don't see how exactly this supports your argument (but I suspect I may be misunderstanding). After all, if the next wave or terror attacks are all say, cyber attacks, how did our spending billions/trillions of dollars and losing thousands/millions of lives on the War on Terror help?

Well as said I didn't consider invading Iraq as necessary to fighting the War on Terror. But I would consider the "War on Terror" to include fighting all aspects of terrorism, from bombs to cyber.

Neither, but I am a bigger fan of Bartlett (or even CJ) than I am of Krauthammer! I used to run into Krauhammer every now and then on WaPo, but it's been a while now.

I see Krauthammer on Fox News a lot and read his columns, who is CJ?

 

[CAC1001]

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, there were only two true democracies in the Middle East: Lebanon and Yemen. In fact, they're two of the half-dozen countries ever to resolve a civil war by the opposing parties sharing power in a democracy.

Isn't Israel a liberal democracy...? Or is Israel different in somehow, or not part of the Middle East...?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

...who is CJ?

She was the White House Press Secretary under President Bartlet.

 

[CAC1001]

Ivan I don't get/understand your post...?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan I don't get/understand your post...?

CJ Cregg was the name of the character I mentioned, in a TV show called The West Wing, which was a show about a highly intelligent Democratic President Barltet, and the magical land where Democrats and Independents went to live when Bush was President.

The logical fallacy, post hoc, ergo propter hoc, was the theme and title of one episode.

 

[BobG]

Isn't Israel a liberal democracy...? Or is Israel different in somehow, or not part of the Middle East...?

They're different somehow.

The reply was to a post that inferred that people in the Middle East would reject Islam if only they lived in a democracy and had a choice. That Middle East governments imposed a culture on Middle East people; that Middle East people would not choose that type of culture given a choice.

Or maybe I should have included Israel. If people really would reject Islam given the choice, then a single combined Israeli/Palestinian state should be no problem even if Palestinians outnumbered Israelis.

Or, perhaps, even if Palestinians weren't Islamic, you'd still have a problem in that Palestinians are Arabs. Maybe there's more to Arabic culture than just their religion.

 

[hagopbul]

No it is not after all Terrorism is an idea not some thing that you have to fight

Only education and Hope can stop it not war and advance arsenal

After all ideas are bullet proof

For example where I came from only 4% of people have university degree

That make them venerable to bad influence

Ok

Education what we can do

Start in the school support the teachers[ who have a university degree] financially and that will make them capable to do some damage to the idea of terrorism

 

[WhoWee]

Another attempt.
http://nation.foxnews.com/al-qaeda/2010/11/27/oregon-christmas-tree-bomb-attempt

 

[_Tully]

Yes, a War on Terrorism is worth it. No, a 'Tip-toe around the issue and try to please both sides while Infantryman die on the ground due to lack of support' on Terrorism, is not worth it.