News Is the War on Terrorism Worth It?

[mheslep]

[...]
If you follow the causal chains you can see pretty clearly that there is much we can do to improve terrorism that does not involve war.

One clear example is Pakistan. We've spent how much supplying arms and money to the military there over the last 10 years? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082305476.html" . Yet when they have an unprecedented natural disaster we offer aid of what? $150 million. [...]

When making this kind of argument, that there's much that can be done but somehow the current political authority has missed or fails to see the wisdom for, it is easy to appear naive, so I suggest care is warranted when bringing forth the One clear example of what is wrong. Yet the numbers above are grossly wrong and misleading when compared as they are.

• The $18B, ten year, figure above includes, as the http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/23/AR2010082305476.html" source states, "civilian and military aid".
• Before Sept 11, 2001, the US had cut off all military sales to Pakistan. I don't like the idea of arms sales to Pakistan now. But, given a corrupt government that was actively encouraging the Taliban in Afghanistan (if not outright inventing it), and if one indeed wants to have Pakistan police itself rather than forcing yet another invasion of "countless small countries" then, assuming arms sales buy some Pakistani cooperation, I at least stand waiting for better ideas to influence the Pakistani government before calling for another halt.
• The actual flood aid alone is about http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=52906", for this one year, including in-kind military aid (airlift, etc), and in Pakistan is the largest flood aid donor in the world, as the US usually is worldwide disasters, in addition to providing the overwhelming share of airlift for these disasters in hard to reach places. Note that it is nearly always and everywhere in the the developing world difficult to effectively distribute civilian aid to those who actually need it, and here the WaPo source makes that especially clear for the case of Pakistan, especially with a local government impeding the effort either through incompetence or malice.
• The Kerry-Lugar act of 2009 authorizes $7.5B of non-military aid to Pakistan over several years. This bill apparently takes some pains to monitor and certify where the money goes, http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2009/1014/p90s01-wosc.html"

 

[Alfi]

It should not be a 'war' on terror.

I think it should be a 'Police Action' against terror criminals.
Many Nations, United, against the same type of crimes, should be called ..ummm
The United Nations.
No borders! This type of crime should have a Police force able to go anywhere to seek out the criminals and bring them to justice.

 

[inflector]

Yet the numbers above are grossly wrong and misleading when compared as they are.

Thanks for the clarifications. I shouldn't trust a brief search in google for these sorts of things. Nor newspaper articles.

I am not, in general, a big fan of foreign aid as it has been traditionally doled out. It tends to go for large projects with a huge slice going to graft and most of the rest getting paid out to U.S. companies doing the large projects. That's the reason that as the article you cited about the Kerry-Lugar act said: the average Pakistani is not confident that they will see any benefit from the proposed aid.

In the case of the flood, the answer is not to simply use bigger numbers, i.e. offer $1 billion instead of $400 million or whatever it is. For disasters of this sort, we really ought to have the ability to respond quickly. We can handle the logistics for two foreign wars, we know how to move a lot of materials quickly. We don't have the equivalent of a large-scale disaster response group modeled and organized logistically like the army. We don't spend near as much on the tools and equipment needed to respond to disasters like these (whether they happen in Pakistan or New Orleans). It simply has not been a priority.

Just throwing money at the problem when disaster strikes is not as effective as having a long-term plan and an ability to execute on that plan. I think that disaster response is an obvious win. We are the richest country in the world. We should be able to respond in a big way to help out when a relatively poor country suffers a disaster.

If we were able to come to the aid of Pakistan with the logistical equivalent of a carrier battle group, for example, or in the past with Indonesia and SE Asia after the tsunami, we'd change our perception in the world. As it is, we pitch in a bit and help out a bit, but we are not serious about it. Not serious about it on the same scale as we are serious about our military.

I'm not saying that we're not doing quite a bit in Pakistan, I just think that if we had other responses that were within just one order of magnitude of what we spend on war and preparations for war, this would help defuse the root causes of terrorism. We spend a lot of money on curing symptoms and not enough on fighting and preventing the disease.

That, and we should stop selling arms to despotic regimes and calling them allies no matter what their form.

 

[nismaratwork]

Of course, that information alone is not sufficient to judge. One also needs to know things like what goals have been attained or are likely to be attained in the future... and a good estimate of the comparable information for the alternatives.

But I'll assume you knew that, and were just trying to add color, for better or worse.

If one wanted to, they could lay out the goals that were to be achieved in most wars in history; the initial grievences, and the mission statement.

For this "war", do you think that's possible in a way that distinguishes it from what it appears (to me) to be, which is a policy of disrupting networks, and a major intelligence struggle? How can we estimate what's to be attained in the future when the entire concept of a "war on terror" is fatuous to begin with?! What we have is a war in Iraq, a war in Afghanistan, and a paramilitary and intelligence struggle against (mostly) extremists who claim they commit atrocities in the name of islam.

So, in WWII we wanted to end the German invasion of Europe, halt Italian ambitions, and defend ourselves and attack Japan for its role in the Axis powers. What's the deal here, because if you take elements of the wars in the two aforementioned nations out of the deal, then where's the war occurring?

No reasonable person could answer this poll because it addresses a phrase used as propaganda, nothing more. Break it down, into post 9-11 actions, and then yes...along these lines:

Was it necessary and/or useful to neutralize Al Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and did that require boots on the ground? My answer: Yes.
Was it necessary and/or useful to go to war in Iraq: my answer: No, it is completely unrelated.
Is the policy of drone strikes proving useful as a means to kill leaders of terrorist organizations, even when they occur within Pakistani border? My answer: Yes.
and so forth...

The problem with "the war on terror", is that you'd be lucky to get agreement or understanding of WHAT that is. Without dealing in a given specific action or issue, this is a meaningless debate.

 

[apeiron]

Of course, that information alone is not sufficient to judge. One also needs to know things like what goals have been attained or are likely to be attained in the future... and a good estimate of the comparable information for the alternatives.

But I'll assume you knew that, and were just trying to add color, for better or worse.

I was responding to a simple "aw shucks" comment - give war a chance to work - so yes, there is plenty more that could be said.

Isn't the key mistake of the war on terror that instead of a surgical focus on the actual legitimate target - Al Qaeda - it became a messy, unnecessary, battle against the Taliban?

If Afghanistan was left to produce its own regime in control, no matter how despotic, then the usual international policing/intelligence/bribery/arm-twisting could be used to contain and eradicate any threat Al Qaeda actually posed. And with all the extra money to be spent on homeland security, how much threat of repeat attacks were there?

War just makes a mess that still has to be cleaned up. In the context of containing/eliminating a small group of terrorists, forcing an intact regime to police their territory seems commonsense.

So maybe the US high command wanted to send messages to other countries in the region. Maybe securing pipelines from the Caspian sea was a strategic imperative. Or maybe it was just a case of a dumb hick "aw shucks" let's give war a go mentality. When you are in control of half the world's military expenditure, maybe it is just too hard letting it sit there not doing anything. You got to get the toys out and play.

 

[nismaratwork]

I was responding to a simple "aw shucks" comment - give war a chance to work - so yes, there is plenty more that could be said.

Isn't the key mistake of the war on terror that instead of a surgical focus on the actual legitimate target - Al Qaeda - it became a messy, unnecessary, battle against the Taliban?

If Afghanistan was left to produce its own regime in control, no matter how despotic, then the usual international policing/intelligence/bribery/arm-twisting could be used to contain and eradicate any threat Al Qaeda actually posed. And with all the extra money to be spent on homeland security, how much threat of repeat attacks were there?

War just makes a mess that still has to be cleaned up. In the context of containing/eliminating a small group of terrorists, forcing an intact regime to police their territory seems commonsense.

So maybe the US high command wanted to send messages to other countries in the region. Maybe securing pipelines from the Caspian sea was a strategic imperative. Or maybe it was just a case of a dumb hick "aw shucks" let's give war a go mentality. When you are in control of half the world's military expenditure, maybe it is just too hard letting it sit there not doing anything. You got to get the toys out and play.

A good idea, and one that, if it failed, could easily be replaces by aerial bombardment... an failing that, boots on the ground. We started for reasons of ideology and god knows what else, with the least flexible and reversible option and tens of thousands of American soldiers and contractors have died, have TBIs, or lost limbs as a result.

 

[ikos9lives]

I think something else that has not been brought up but bears mentioning is the relative costs being expended by the two sides in this war. The terrorists are spending a miniscule amount compared to the U.S. and indeed all of the western nations for the purpose of defending against these groups.

One of the ways in which the U.S. utlimately defeated the USSR was through spending. When Pr. Reagan announced the SDI program, the so called, "Star wars" program, the USSR took him seriously and attempted to spend monies they did not have in order to "keep up", It was just one of several factors that ultimately bankrupted the Soviets.

We have a number of military and ex-military types here on the boards. I am sure that they will concur that, terrorist groups, can, by retaining the initiative, and going on the attack, force their opponent to spend an inordinate amount of money trying to defend multiple points against multiple forms of attack.
The attacks themselve need not be that spectacular, just enough to get the opponent "fired up" so that they expend still more money until there is simply no more to spend...

So - in point of fact, the terrorists could very well force the U.S. into bankruptcy unless we find and use different tactics than we have seen so far.

 

[BobG]

We have a number of military and ex-military types here on the boards. I am sure that they will concur that, terrorist groups, can, by retaining the initiative, and going on the attack, force their opponent to spend an inordinate amount of money trying to defend multiple points against multiple forms of attack.
The attacks themselve need not be that spectacular, just enough to get the opponent "fired up" so that they expend still more money until there is simply no more to spend...

So - in point of fact, the terrorists could very well force the U.S. into bankruptcy unless we find and use different tactics than we have seen so far.

I don't think small terrorist groups could ever mount enough attacks to bankrupt the US, even if it does cost a lot more to defend against their attacks than it takes to initiate them.

For small terrorist groups to bankrupt a superpower, they'd have to somehow motivate superpowers to start entire wars against...

Uh, wait a minute...

 

[mheslep]

If the above was meant to mean the US could not be bankrupted by military spending against isolated attacks, I agree, but then that's a very narrow case. Assuming some kind of US turned completely inward and isolated, so that it did nothing but arrest terrorists after the fact, then I think numerous and sustained terror attacks could curtail the trade and mobile society dependent business output of the US so that tax revenue would fall drastically (see e.g. all commercial air traffic grounded over the the US for several days), and given the major US expenditures are in entitlements which have never been cut back, then yes I could see either a default or a currency collapse.

Apropos:
Oct 8: Dollar's Fall Roils World
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704696304575538334028041428.html

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think small terrorist groups could ever mount enough attacks to bankrupt the US, even if it does cost a lot more to defend against their attacks than it takes to initiate them.

For small terrorist groups to bankrupt a superpower, they'd have to somehow motivate superpowers to start entire wars against...

Uh, wait a minute...

*Speaks into cuff* "We have visual on the target"

Sir... would you like to come with these *points at well armed DHS agents* nice men and finish that last sentence for us?



Kidding aside, I agree, we couldn't be bankrupted by terrorism. Mheslep your scenario is really the US bankrupting itself...

 

[mheslep]

Mheslep your scenario is really the US bankrupting itself...

Really ... no, not more than any other scenario. The spending - entitlements, military, whatever - is always done by the government itself, and the revenue side could be drastically cut by terror action if sustained.

 

[mugaliens]

Fighting terrorism is an option, and isn't all that expensive.

Rebuilding infrastructures hit by terrorists have destroyed is not an option, and can be very expensive.

Fighting unnecessary wars overseas is also an option, and is also very expensive.

Helping to secure our freedoms against idealists who'd love nothing than to destroy our society?

Priceless.

 

[mheslep]

Fighting terrorism is an option, and isn't all that expensive.

Rebuilding infrastructures hit by terrorists have destroyed is not an option, and can be very expensive.

Fighting unnecessary wars overseas is also an option, and is also very expensive.

Helping to secure our freedoms against idealists who'd love nothing than to destroy our society?

Priceless.

Since the above indicates you don't see fighting wars overseas as 'fighting terrorism', then could you explain what you do mean by 'fighting terrorism'?

 

[loseyourname]

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?

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, 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.

 

[mheslep]

Some good points for discussion above, especially your points about the expense of toppling and fixed rogue/failed states, but this is baffling:

... they [Iraq] weren't providing haven or weapons to terrorists anyway.

If you are referring specifically to AQ and 911 fine, but terrorist action/havens in general?

Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
[...]
Saddam's payments
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35m paid since September 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/terrorism_havens.html

 

[deluks917]

In this post I discuss only the US:

In my opinion the September 11th attacks were not as much of a tragedy as people make them out to be. It was a terrible day but we could have moved forward. The country as a whole was not in danger, no one was invading. There were apparently serious gaps in communication between various government agencies that came to light and needed to be corrected. We could have rebuilt the Twin Towers. Instead I think all we have done is make things much worse for everyone. More Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq then died on September 11th. Tens of thousands of more soldiers have been seriously wounded.

We've spent over 800 billion dollars on these wars. Nothing has been built where the towers stood. We are not safer. We invaded Iraq for no clear reason. Even our government admits we have killed 300,000 Iraqi civillians. The real number is probably higher. We are just justifying the belief that the "West" is evil. Worth of all we have thrown our constitution into the fire. We allow american citizens to be jailed indefinitely if they are declared "unlawful enemy combatants." We have relaxed restraints on searches and wiretaps. We are just giving more and more power to a government that has proved incompetent.

Who has benefited from all this? The "war on terror" is not a real war. No enemy country is attacking us. Worst of all this "War" is never ending. How can we possibly defeat terror? I think the most errible tragedy of 9/11 was not the terroist attacks but the way the United States reacted.

edit: I obviously voted no to the thread but it appears to have counted my vote as yes. Did this happen to anyone else?

 

[mheslep]

In this post I discuss only the US:

In my opinion the September 11th attacks were not as much of a tragedy as people make them out to be. It was a terrible day but we could have moved forward. The country as a whole was not in danger, no one was invading. There were apparently serious gaps in communication between various government agencies that came to light and needed to be corrected. We could have rebuilt the Twin Towers. Instead I think all we have done is make things much worse for everyone. More Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq then died on September 11th. Tens of thousands of more soldiers have been seriously wounded.

We've spent over 800 billion dollars on these wars. Nothing has been built where the towers stood. We are not safer. We invaded Iraq for no reason. Even our government admits we have killed 300,000 Iraqi civillians. The real number is higher. We are just justifying the belief that the "West" is evil. Worth of all we have thrown our constitution into the fire. We allow american citizens to be jailed indefinitely if they are declared "unlawful enemy combatants." We have relaxed restraints on searches and wiretaps. We are just giving more and more power to a government that has proved incompetent.

Who has benefited from all this? All the "War on Terror" as done is spread hate for America. The cost has been hundreds of thousands of deaths and many more serious injuries. We say we want to "protect our freedoms" but we have discarded them in the name of "Safety." I don't think the United States was at any risk of being overrun by Muslim Extremists. I think the real disaster of September 11th was how the United States reacted.

I'm struck by the lack of consistency in the assessment of harm in the above.

You begin by saying the 911 attack, its 3000 killed and billions of dollars in economic damage, when considered against the harm to the country at large was not so severe. Ok, I disagree, but I grant that's an arguable point. Then you say the constitution has been thrown in the "fire" because, among other things, american citizens are allowed to be jailed indefinitely.

First, since the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld" , your statement about citizen detention is incorrect (as are some of the other specific claims). And I think the SCOTUS decision banning detention of citizen and forcing tribunals was ~appropriate. That fact aside, my main complaint is that given the perspective you allow in your first point, it seems to me you throw perspective out the window in the latter statement about detention. How many citizens did you imagine were being detained? One? Two? And from where? NYC or a battlefield? So the destruction of the WTC was an acceptable loss but the indefinite detention of one dirt bag engaged in violence in Afghanistan for a fascist cause is 'the real disaster'?

 

[CAC1001]

We could have rebuilt the Twin Towers.

Construction of the replacements for the Twin Towers is currently underway.

We've spent over 800 billion dollars on these wars. Nothing has been built where the towers stood. We are not safer.

I think we are.

We invaded Iraq for no clear reason.

The reasons were very clear, they just turned out to be wrong.

Even our government admits we have killed 300,000 Iraqi civillians. The real number is probably higher. We are just justifying the belief that the "West" is evil.

No we aren't. We overturned what was the equivalent of a Middle Eastern Adolf Hitler. Hussein's Baath party was modeled on the Nazi party. He was a brutal dictator and oppressor who used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands. He attacked neighboring countries and bombed others. And he could have possibly obtained a nuclear weapon by the Gulf War if Israel hadn't taken out the Osirak reactor in 1981.

Worth of all we have thrown our constitution into the fire.

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.

Who has benefited from all this? The "war on terror" is not a real war. No enemy country is attacking us. Worst of all this "War" is never ending. How can we possibly defeat terror? I think the most errible tragedy of 9/11 was not the terroist attacks but the way the United States reacted.

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.

 

[BobG]

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The support to terrorist groups fighting Turkey is an interesting issue.

Turkey scorns US with threat to attack Kurds (Oct 14, 2007)
Did Rice urging Turkey not to attack Kurdish 'rebels' amount to supporting a 'terrorist' group? Same group with a different label.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101012/ap_on_re_eu/eu_turkey_kurds
Or has the US acceptance of the Turkish attacks in Iraq mean we offered no real support to Kurdish rebels/terrorists?

I think Hussein did more to combat Kurdish insurgents/rebels/insurgents than the US ever did. He even used posion gas on them. It's a tough dividing line between which Kurds threaten Turkey and which Kurds threatened Hussein, especially when both mounted their attacks from Northern Iraq.

I'm not sure I like how that quote used the term "terrorist". It's a little vague (or perhaps how we've handled it in Iraq has been a bit problematic).

 

[loseyourname]

Some good points for discussion above, especially your points about the expense of toppling and fixed rogue/failed states, but this is baffling:
If you are referring specifically to AQ and 911 fine, but terrorist action/havens in general?

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

Thinking purely in terms of benefits and costs here, I don't think the incremental safety gained from the elimination of one state's support to groups of minor world significance that were never likely to threaten the US itself is worth billions in dollars, thousands in US deaths, and hundreds of thousands in Iraqi deaths.

 

[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.