News The war on terror, self defeating or a neccesity?

[Schrodinger's Dog]

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2311307.ece

How the war on terror made the world a more terrifying place
New figures show dramatic rise in terror attacks worldwide since the invasion of Iraq
By Kim Sengupta and Patrick Cockburn
Published: 28 February 2007

Innocent people across the world are now paying the price of the "Iraq effect", with the loss of hundreds of lives directly linked to the invasion and occupation by American and British forces.

An authoritative US study of terrorist attacks after the invasion in 2003 contradicts the repeated denials of George Bush and Tony Blair that the war is not to blame for an upsurge in fundamentalist violence worldwide. The research is said to be the first to attempt to measure the "Iraq effect" on global terrorism. It found that the number killed in jihadist attacks around the world has risen dramatically since the Iraq war began in March 2003. The study compared the period between 11 September 2001 and the invasion of Iraq with the period since the invasion. The count - excluding the Arab-Israel conflict - shows the number of deaths due to terrorism rose from 729 to 5,420. As well as strikes in Europe, attacks have also increased in Chechnya and Kashmir since the invasion. The research was carried out by the Centre on Law and Security at the NYU Foundation for Mother Jones magazine.

Edit: Please do not post entire articles, it is a copyright violation.

I think the article speaks for itself, its certainly something that has been voiced alot, ie is fighting terror aggressively the best way to reduce terrorism? Is there anything positive to come out of Iraq? Etc, etc...

I don't want to introduce any bias or voice an opinion, I'm sure plenty of people will have one though?

 

[russ_watters]

Other: heavily biased poll choices.

And the article has some blatantly obvious flaws:

-It counts terrorists actions in the middle of the war zones.
-The timeperiods are different lengths.
-It ignores the fact that the primary goal of the "war on terror" is to protect American civilians.
-They exclude some terrorist groups specifically (anti-Israel terrorism) and utterly ignore others (how is African sectarian violence any different from Iraqi?).

These flaws are so bad, it can't be anything other than intentional dishonesty on the part of the reporters.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Other: heavily biased poll choices.

OK, it's a poll, no one takes them that seriously anyway, I am more interested in peoples opinions; the poll is for fun, but if you want to take it to heart or exceedingly seriously that's up to you.

 

[J77]

It certainly doesn't seem to have made the world a safer place... and now Iraq will probably be left in the same state as Afghanistan when it's time to move onto a new target... it's seems like a cock-up from where I've been sitting.

 

[Yonoz]

Though I agree the invasion of Iraq was mismanaged at best, it's very hard to say "what if". Every person will have their own idea of what the world would seem like the US behaved differently largely based on "wishful thinking".

 

[EL]

-It ignores the fact that the primary goal of the "war on terror" is to protect American civilians.

Or more precisely, the primary goal of the "war on terror" is to give American civilians the impression they are being protected.

 

[Kurdt]

You have to admire the planning. Remove the leader of Iraq that had kept insurgents in check for decades and posed no significant threat to any western country. Send in your own troops and watch them get slaughtered as they anger the indiginous people by comitting diabolical acts against Iraqi civilians and suffered reprisals from insurgents who now had no sanctions upon them from the Iraqi government (or at least none that work). The terrorists have certainly instilled some terror in people.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Though I agree the invasion of Iraq was mismanaged at best, it's very hard to say "what if". Every person will have their own idea of what the world would seem like the US behaved differently largely based on "wishful thinking".

What if they had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, but had just gone after Osamah?

I think most people know the answer to that question. And most people know the rise in terrorism is a direct result of those two wars. As ye reap so shall ye sow. Is all I can say.

Before 911, neocons were labelled as nuts and were highly controversial, there ideas of aggressive self interest were dismissed as stupid and unlikely to work; after 911 they gained credence, now we know the whole idea of fighting terror by attacking countries is completely absurd at best, but that is the only advantage I can see, having to learn this lesson the hard way;to reiterate for idiots and or neocons: it's mind numbingly self defeating and stupid to try and quell terrorism by throwing oil on the fire.

Since Terrorism springs from hatred, kicking bees nests will achieve what exactly?

 

[Yonoz]

What if they had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, but had just gone after Osamah?

I think most people know the answer to that question. And most people know the rise in terrorism is a direct result of those two wars.

While I tend to agree with this statement, it is pure speculation nonetheless - I would phrase it "most people assume the rise in terrorism is a direct result of those two wars." There are so many unknowns it is impossible to tell what would have been if the US taken a less aggressive strategy. Would Qaddafi have warmed up to the west? Would Syria have pulled its military out of Lebanon? Would radical Muslim leaders not find other grievances, such as the Danish cartoons or the Pope's speech to fuel their followers' hatred?

 

[Kurdt]

While I tend to agree with this statement, it is pure speculation nonetheless - I would phrase it "most people assume the rise in terrorism is a direct result of those two wars." There are so many unknowns it is impossible to tell what would have been if the US taken a less aggressive strategy.

No assumptions are needed since for example, the 7th of July bombings in London were commited by people who clearly stated that British involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was their motivation. there have been numerous other warnings from terrorist groups to countries with troops in those two aforementioned countries.

 

[russ_watters]

What if they had never invaded Afghanistan or Iraq, but had just gone after Osamah?

How could we go after Osama without invading Afghanistan?

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

How could we go after Osama without invading Afghanistan?

You can't what I mean is we didn't have to become bogged down in a war with Afghani rebels like we are now, the priority mission could have been to go after Osamah and everything else was a secondary consideration. Go in,hopefully kill Osama destroy Al-qaeda, and then leave. I think this conflict may well parallel the Russian conflict, it has all the hallmarks. I could even have been a small scale covert operation using special forces to target Al Qaeda, in kill out. No one questions the justification of Afghanistan only the results.

 

[russ_watters]

You can't what I mean is we didn't have to become bogged down in a war with Afghani rebels like we are now, the priority mission could have been to go after Osamah and everything else was a secondary consideration. Go in,hopefully kill Osama destroy Al-qaeda, and then leave.

And do this without taking-down the Taliban? Would that even be possible (to invade a country without engaging the army of the country you are invading)? And even if we could have, wouldn't that leave us worse-off than we are now, given that the Taliban was a terrorist government?

Right now the primary concern is that the Taliban is reconstituting itself - you seem to be suggesting we shouldn't have deposed them in the first place.

 

[baywax]

And do this without taking-down the Taliban? Would that even be possible (to invade a country without engaging the army of the country you are invading)? And even if we could have, wouldn't that leave us worse-off than we are now, given that the Taliban was a terrorist government?

Right now the primary concern is that the Taliban is reconstituting itself - you seem to be suggesting we shouldn't have deposed them in the first place.

Since it is obvious that the idea of democracy will not be eradicated by the disposition of a group that supports the idea I don't see how eradicating a group that supports the ideals of "Al Quanda" will have any effect toward ridding the world of those ideals.

I'd suggest using the example of democracie's positive features to woo supporters of the "Al quada" ideals away from violent protest to basically render the group powerless rather than expending so much energy by fighting and trying to eleminate them when actions like these obviously fuel them and the support of their cause in an alarming fashion.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

Side note on the conversation above, fighting them makes them stronger (Al Qaeda).
there would be no war against terrorism if the USA was not there in the first place, cause if u look to the root of the problem, it was the USA who created Taliban and their leader Osama bin Laden, it was the USA who created Saddam Hussain and covered the crimes he did against his people, it was USA who helped Syria with their allies (Joumblatt, Geagea, and hariri) to invade lebanon and massacre the resisting population. in the final massacre thousands were slaughtered in cold blood and the US covered those crimes. Here again we see the USA again forcing countries with leaders the people don't want, in Lebanon they want to force the criminals on the people, in Iraq they want to force an american government on the people there, in Afghanistan they want to force a tribesman on a whole country...and so on...The usa bred a lot of dictatoring countries in the name of world peace and now we see the peace that was promised. now they are forcing new kinds of dictatorships, democratic dictatorship like in Lebanon or iraq, they say they are voted by the ppl, but in truth they are not. this will create more turmoil in the future, and more trouble for the us. if usa wants peace in the region they have to stop interfering and the resonance of crime would go lower by itself.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

BTW another point i forgot to mention, how come the USA claims that they want to fight Al Qaeda and in Lebanon they back the people who let them out of the jails and back in our country? we have a group of al qaeda in Lebanon who slaughtered 11 military personnel and many christian families in the north of Lebanon, and first thing hariri did when he gained power is to let the criminals out. not to mention that he also released Geagea, a notorious criminal who feels a sense of pride after neutralising some family and has the nerve to boast massacres he made in which children and women died..those are the leaders the USA prefers to put in Lebanon ?? what kind of democracy or peace they want?

 

[denverdoc]

BTW another point i forgot to mention, how come the USA claims that they want to fight Al Qaeda and in Lebanon they back the people who let them out of the jails and back in our country? we have a group of al qaeda in Lebanon who slaughtered 11 military personnel and many christian families in the north of Lebanon, and first thing hariri did when he gained power is to let the criminals out. not to mention that he also released Geagea, a notorious criminal who feels a sense of pride after neutralising some family and has the nerve to boast massacres he made in which children and women died..those are the leaders the USA prefers to put in Lebanon ?? what kind of democracy or peace they want?

You know better than I that the recent war in Lebanon was not about 2 Israeli soldiers, or missiles attacks--just how many died as a result of missile attacks? We were spoiling for an attack, and how better than by proxy?

Unfortunately, we will defend to the bitter end anyone if its in our capatilistic interests--in fact let's speak frankly, the US military most days functions as an enforcer of the right for whatever US corporation has an economic interest there. Afghamistan might have been an exception, but we were full of bloodlust at the time, and of course had aided and abetted the Taliban when they were busy fighting the Soviets. Just as we supported Suddam and provided the nerve gas whose use led to his execution. What I think is ne more step on the reprehensible scale is when we allow Coca Cola and the like to do their own para-military ops.

But i digress, the only surefire antedote to terrorism is to recognize legitimate grievances where they exist, and to openly debate our foreign policy. For those born here, how many articles have you seen which look at a historical perspective evenhandedly while considering fallout from the continued support, blank check, we give Israel? There is something very fishy there. None of our allies has ever received such preferential treatment. None. Where does all this good will come from that we can veto after veto any alleged misdeed deemed sanctionable by the UN? I am not unsympathetc to the plight of their people, but we watch genocide occur in regions of Africa on an equal scale, and argue about language!@#$#%

To cross a few threads here, in the early and middle ages of TV, there was something known as a documentary, even a white paper, whose sole purpose seemed to be about education on political affairs. Most of the stuff nowadays is aired sun morning and consists of moderate leftists slinging mud at moderate rightests. Wow what an education.

 

[eaboujaoudeh]

hahahaha...i could have never said the story better than you did, seems everywhere i go americans are all thinking on the same track, but what happens at presidential elections? where do all those people go? i mean you're smart, americans are educated.don't they ever ask themselves why their country condemns a massacre of Albanians in Jugoslavija and give praise to the same massacre done by israeli's ! wherever i meet americans they seem to agree to this pt, but what happens at the polls? really?

 

[Yonoz]

No assumptions are needed since for example, the 7th of July bombings in London were commited by people who clearly stated that British involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq was their motivation. there have been numerous other warnings from terrorist groups to countries with troops in those two aforementioned countries.

You assume they would not have been "motivated" by some other event.

 

[Yonoz]

You know better than I that the recent war in Lebanon was not about 2 Israeli soldiers, or missiles attacks--just how many died as a result of missile attacks?

I suppose you wouldn't mind the residents of the northern half of your country living in shelters while their cities are bombarded.
Your "sensitivity" seems to be distributed quite unevenly.

 

[Kurdt]

You assume they would not have been "motivated" by some other event.

So we take their actual stated reasons for the attack ignore them and assume they were motivated by something else they did not want to disclose? Doesn't sound very logical to me.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

And do this without taking-down the Taliban? Would that even be possible (to invade a country without engaging the army of the country you are invading)? And even if we could have, wouldn't that leave us worse-off than we are now, given that the Taliban was a terrorist government?

Right now the primary concern is that the Taliban is reconstituting itself - you seem to be suggesting we shouldn't have deposed them in the first place.

Yep. Should of gone for the real target not the Taliban, that's precisely what I'm suggesting, a lighting strike by special force units. I don't see what the problem is with the idea?

 

[Yonoz]

So we take their actual stated reasons for the attack ignore them and assume they were motivated by something else they did not want to disclose? Doesn't sound very logical to me.

Those bombings were quite clearly the work of an experienced terror organisation. It would have been nearly impossible for these men to organise and execute such a large scale bombing on their own. It is their operators' nature that should be scrutinised, as they are nothing more than disposable pawns, who also state they believe they will be entered into "the gardens of paradise". In their statements they mention places and events that Britain's current population has little control over, such as Chechnya and Kashmir, in the same breath as Iraq and Afghanistan - it certainly seems as if one is no more important than the other. They also demand the release of all Muslim prisoners in British prisons. Is it your opinion that the British people should yield to these demands?

 

[baywax]

Yep. Should of gone for the real target not the Taliban, that's precisely what I'm suggesting, a lighting strike by special force units. I don't see what the problem is with the idea?

I totally agree here. The sole purpose should be to "de-flower" a trend and render any "pollenation" of its ideals impossible. And not to provide an example of violence, degredation and lack of compassion with large scale operations.

Of course if the undesirable ideals have merit and are beneficial to the common good of all people it will be impossible to stop. That kind of ideal will never be erased since it resembles a "law" of nature.

That's why I say that if knocking off a Democratic leader and group of democracts hasn't been able to stop Democracy (which, ideally, works well for people), what makes you think doing the same thing to an extremist leader and group will have the desired effect of stopping their actions?
(the answer being that the integrity of the extremist's ideals is probably flawed and is destined to discontinue anyway).

 

[denverdoc]

Well that's exactly what GWB and the neocons argue for in their in their natl security memo/manifesto--a preemptive shot to the brain of anyone who harbors motives against the USA. Before the Hydra has 100 head, behead. I'm the biologist here on a physicist's forum--heck anyone knows that to make a plant grow faster, pinch their leaves.

 

[Kurdt]

Those bombings were quite clearly the work of an experienced terror organisation. It would have been nearly impossible for these men to organise and execute such a large scale bombing on their own. It is their operators' nature that should be scrutinised, as they are nothing more than disposable pawns, who also state they believe they will be entered into "the gardens of paradise". In their statements they mention places and events that Britain's current population has little control over, such as Chechnya and Kashmir, in the same breath as Iraq and Afghanistan - it certainly seems as if one is no more important than the other. They also demand the release of all Muslim prisoners in British prisons. Is it your opinion that the British people should yield to these demands?

They mention events that Britain has no control over because they serve as a warning to other countries. That is their publicity. The fact is that they carried out those bombings as a direct result of Britains involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

[ray b]

classic locking of barn door
after horse is stolen and barn burned down
but be sure to lock that door
never mind on horse or barn

next attack will be something totally different
these nuts are not real dumb
and will look for an eazy target
not a rerun of the 9-11 attack

 

[turbo]

The "War on Terror" is a put-up PR job. Terrorism is not a country, a group, etc, that can be attacked. Terrorism is a tactical decision to put people at fear for their lives and well-being. The "war on terror" in Iraq is a pure money-making enterprise for the benefit of oil companies, defense contractors, Halliburton, and "security businesses" that are no more than mercenaries.

Every time Bush is asked about the war on the Iraqi people, he starts spouting off about how "the world is a very different place after 9-11" despite the fact that the none of the plotters implicated in the attack were Iraqi, and most were Saudis. Why not air strikes against the Saudis, especially the Bin Ladin family and the house of Saud, both of which have close ties to the Bushies?

 

[baywax]

Well that's exactly what GWB and the neocons argue for in their in their natl security memo/manifesto--a preemptive shot to the brain of anyone who harbors motives against the USA. Before the Hydra has 100 head, behead. I'm the biologist here on a physicist's forum--heck anyone knows that to make a plant grow faster, pinch their leaves.

Yeah but you don't stomp the whole plant while you're getting to the flower or the mutated leaf. That's why you use a special kind of force so as not to disturb the rest of the plant and its neighbors.

Its not how we perceive what a covert operation is doing. Its what its actually doing. As long as the ethics of the operation are firmly in line with human rights the acts of the special forces will be in the interest of all those concerned, not just the US and other, western affiliates.

 

[Art]

"The War On Terror" is nothing more than a meaningless slogan.

"We will retaliate against any individual or group which threatens or attacks us" would be a lot more quantifiable and meaningful even if not so 'catchy'.

 

[Yonoz]

They mention events that Britain has no control over because they serve as a warning to other countries.

Perhaps, but it is just as likely they fail, or refuse, to distinguish between western entities. The question remains - should the people of Britain yield to any entity excercising violence?

That is their publicity. The fact is that they carried out those bombings as a direct result of Britains involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, I refer you to the tape of Sehzad Sanweer:

What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a series of attacks which will intensify and continue to until you pull all your troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Until you stop all financial and military support to the US and Israel and until you release all Muslim prisoners from Belmarsh and your other concentration camps. And know that if you fail to comply with this then know that this war will never stop and that we are willing to give our lives 100 times over for the cause of Islam. You will never experience peace until our children in Palestine, our mothers and sisters in Kashmir, and our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq feel peace.

What is this "cause of Islam" (in the bombers' view)? His accomplice, Muhammd Sidique Khan, said in his recording:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God Allah and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger.

This is how our ethical stances are dictated.

Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.

Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

I myself, I make duaa (pray) to Allah ... (garbled)... to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the ... (garbled) ... of this cause.

AFAIK, this cause has existed since long before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Astronuc]

our beloved Sheikh Osama bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

I find such belief very troubling. The three individuals are not heros, but simply murderers.

I voted other - the policy of the Bush administration was and is faulty. As far as the 'War on Terror' goes, the dike has been breached and the land is being flooded. Now one is left wondering if the breach in the dike was deliberate, or an accident due to incompetence, or just a natural development.

In some ways, the War on Terror is a natural progression of history - the continued clash of tribes or cultures - and it seems perpetuated as it has historically, by vain or egoistic individuals who somehow justify the death and destruction, and otherwise suffering, as necessity.

Why in this modern age, with such rapid and far reaching communication, does mankind still drift into conflict and violence?

Why is it so easy to reject peace and make war? And why do so many find it acceptable, or at least seem resigned to it as fait accompli, or perhaps worse, are indifferent to the suffering of others?

Where are the Gandhis or Schweitzers of the current day?

 

[BobG]

You can't what I mean is we didn't have to become bogged down in a war with Afghani rebels like we are now, the priority mission could have been to go after Osamah and everything else was a secondary consideration. Go in,hopefully kill Osama destroy Al-qaeda, and then leave. I think this conflict may well parallel the Russian conflict, it has all the hallmarks. I could even have been a small scale covert operation using special forces to target Al Qaeda, in kill out. No one questions the justification of Afghanistan only the results.

I'd say this most closely mirrors my thoughts on Afghanistan.

I don't think destroying the government in power in route to Al-Qaeda and leaving the mess behind after we were done would present the best image of the US. Image aside, leaving the Afghans to sort out the mess afterward would not have left Afghanistan in any worse political shape than they've been for the last 30 years or so.

The only drawback to leaving is that there would have been a pretty good chance we'd have to invade again sometime in the future. In Afghanistan's case, a future invasion would be more economical than becoming involved in trying to maintain a stable government. Our only goal should have been to make sure it was clear that any alliance with terrorist groups that might initially help one of the Afghan factions obtain power would actually be a guarantee that the faction's power would be decimated. Even if the US had to invade Afghanistan again, I think the message would have been effectively communicated after a second invasion.

The invasion of Iraq contributes nothing positive to the war on terror and isn't even directly related to it.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think destroying the government in power in route to Al-Qaeda and leaving the mess behind after we were done would present the best image of the US. Image aside, leaving the Afghans to sort out the mess afterward would not have left Afghanistan in any worse political shape than they've been for the last 30 years or so.

The only drawback to leaving is that there would have been a pretty good chance we'd have to invade again sometime in the future. In Afghanistan's case, a future invasion would be more economical than becoming involved in trying to maintain a stable government. Our only goal should have been to make sure it was clear that any alliance with terrorist groups that might initially help one of the Afghan factions obtain power would actually be a guarantee that the faction's power would be decimated. Even if the US had to invade Afghanistan again, I think the message would have been effectively communicated after a second invasion.

My mother always taught me to clean up after myself. As a matter of national policy, I don't think it is ethical to destroy a country (justified or not) and leave it as a smoking hole in the ground and I don't think economics should be the primary determining factor in the decision-making.

As for the image issue, regardless of whether it was 'fair' or 'right' to take-down the Taliban (we may as well assume it was, since the world community agrees), leaving it without helping reconstitute the government would look bad. Right or wrong, the Marshall Plan set the standard by which future conduct has been judged and as bad as world opinion is of us now, it would be worse if we didn't adhere to that.

 

[BobG]

My mother always taught me to clean up after myself. As a matter of national policy, I don't think it is ethical to destroy a country (justified or not) and leave it as a smoking hole in the ground and I don't think economics should be the primary determining factor in the decision-making.

As for the image issue, regardless of whether it was 'fair' or 'right' to take-down the Taliban (we may as well assume it was, since the world community agrees), leaving it without helping reconstitute the government would look bad. Right or wrong, the Marshall Plan set the standard by which future conduct has been judged and as bad as world opinion is of us now, it would be worse if we didn't adhere to that.

I realize that leaving Afghanistan wouldn't have been a very realistic option.

Still, the only difference between eliminating the Taliban government and the death penalty is that there would be the perception that the US was punishing innocent residents of Afghanistan along with the government. In reality, that wouldn't be the case since Afganistan has been a chronic conflict between rival warlords for decades. The residents would have been returning to the same situation they've endured for decades.

That's a little different than than post WWII where stability and the desire for a stable government was a little more imbedded among citizens that had a lot in common with each other. The idea that you can instill a common culture on disparate groups is more unrealistic than the idea of just leaving after we've done what we set out to do.

At a minimum, we should accept the idea that Afghanistan won't be the democracy people envisioned. If we could get two or three of the groups in Afghanistan to band together into a force stronger than the rest we'd have a chance to walk out of there without leaving total chaos behind.

Iraq is a little different (even if it has nothing to do with the war on terror). Leaving Afghanistan in chaos would just hurt our image. Leaving Iraq has a chance to have a much more dramatic impact on the US - namely a regional war that sends fuel prices skyrocketing and has a significant impact on the world's economy, not to mention no idea how the war will turn out.

 

[baywax]

I think we have to put ourselves in the shoes of our alleged aggressors or the shoes of the people supposedly harboring our aggressors in Iraq and Afganistan.

Lets say that a faction from our own country bombed the crap out of Bejing, for example. Then we get invaded by China on the premise that we are harboring the people who bombed them. Would you rather experience a different approach by China than a full scale invasion of our country?

 

[devil-fire]

Why is it so easy to reject peace and make war? And why do so many find it acceptable, or at least seem resigned to it as fait accompli, or perhaps worse, are indifferent to the suffering of others?

when was the last time there was a maimed soldier or mutilated bystander shown on the evening news? iv seen a lot of video of the aftermath of a car bomb where there was a pool of blood on the ground, and a lot of people with blood on them being carried away (although, no significant wounds. these people are always in one well connected piece). what iv seen a lot of is fireworks and soldiers standing and walking around with a determined look on their face.

war as portrayed in american media is about a light show and heroic duty, not about people being killed. statistics aside, one could almost think the wounded in war are still perfectly good looking, presentable people. one might also think the dead were mostly able to give a message to their relatives with their last breath.

it is the duty of good countrymen to be aware of the heroic aspects of war, but its uncouth to show children with crushed body parts. its taboo for media to show people why war is anything but acceptable

 

[denverdoc]

well put, but an earlier thread determined it was uncouth to show the real results of war/occupation. So you're on the beam IMO--the war is portrayed as a noble and determined cause, when hasn't it?, and people here in the states still believing that the trillion plus is well spent. There has been much discussion from the beginnng abut avoiding the Viet Nam effect--ie journalism is what changed americicans minds about the bellicose misadventure, and forced a premature surrender. In other words we lost the belly for a good fight. So from the beginning we have had embedded journalists, non-embedded journalists dieing like flies, and not a single view of the coffins coming home. Just numbers and rhetoric.

 

[BobG]

Do you think visits from Congressmen to countries like Syria undermine the US's 'war on terror'?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Syria-House-Visit.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Republican Congressmen Frank Wolf (Virginia), Joe Pitts (Pennsylvania) and Robert Aderholt (Alabama) just visited Syrian President Bashir Assad.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about ''ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon.''

''We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue,'' the statement said. ''We are following in the lead of Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the Soviets during the Cold War,'' it added.

The White House response? White House criticizes [Congressional] ... Visit

"We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the (Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow through its borders to Iraq.

Okay, that's a lie . The White House had no response to the Congressmens' visit. Perino's comments were about Pelosi's planned visit to visit Assad.

That's life in the spin zone.

 

[Yonoz]

Do you think visits from Congressmen to countries like Syria undermine the US's 'war on terror'?

On the contrary, the "war" is on "terror", not Syria. The aim is to stop Syria's support of terror - this cannot be achieved by threats alone.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you think visits from Congressmen to countries like Syria undermine the US's 'war on terror'?

I'll broaden it: it undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy in general. It should be illegal.

 

[SticksandStones]

I'll broaden it: it undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy in general. It should be illegal.

Given the incompetence of the President in matters of foreign policy, I would say it is the only logical route to go.

 

[BobG]

I'll broaden it: it undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy in general. It should be illegal.

The main point was the decision to criticize Pelosi, but ignore the Republicans.

However, the intent could be to apply it to all members of the House of Representatives in a way less likely to offend the members the White House depend upon for legislative support. If interpreted that way, and limited to the House of Representatives, I'd find it understandable even if I don't completely agree with it. The House plays no part in treaties.

I wouldn't find that message acceptable towards Congress in general. Treaties can't be enacted without 2/3 approval by the Senate. Hopefully, Senators would rely on more than just the word of the President. It's entirely appropriate for Senators to make the kind of trips Pelosi, Wolf, Pitts, and Aderholt made.

While I think trips like this by members of the House have very limited value, I wouldn't find them completely unacceptable, either. They'll still have an impact on foreign policy just by virtue of controlling the government's money.

Interesting viewpoints on how US foreign policy and treaties should be conducted:

http://www.thisnation.com/library/books/federalist/75.html

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/75.html

I don't agree with the particular argument by what is basically the 18th century equivalent of an anonymous blogger, but I do like his second to last paragraph.

 

[Yonoz]

I'll broaden it: it undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy in general. It should be illegal.

Isn't the congress meant to "check and balance" the President, including in matters of foreign policy?

 

[BobG]

Isn't the congress meant to "check and balance" the President, including in matters of foreign policy?

Yes.

But a man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of chief magistrate, possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, and looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably be obliged to return to the station from which he was taken, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth.

The motivations of one man (the President) concerned people from the very beginning. Judging from the number of posts about the links between Bush and oil, Cheney and Halliburton, and Halliburton and Iraq, people haven't become any more trusting.

I don't think a desire for wealth was the cause of the mistakes Bush and Cheney have made, but the Senate is an integral part of foreign policy whether they have courage to fulfill their role or not.

 

[devil-fire]

this might be off topic but i don't think the 'war on terror' has much to do with preventing terrorist attacks or undermining the benefits of using terrorism as a tactic.

there are lots of places where terrorist attacks are vary commonly used (south america, sub-sahara africa) and there is not so much as a peep about it. but when someone from the middle east has something to do with a terrorist attack, suddenly there is a fight to be fought here because terrorism has to be stamped out everywhere it shows itself. i don't think its coincidence at all that the war on terror is being fought in the region that is of primary interest to american foreign policy. I am seeing it like: attack (gulf war, support of israel, general involvement in regional politics), counter attack (sept 11th, 2001), continued attack (afghanistan, gulf war 2, occupation of iraq).

so back to the original question about the necessity of the war on terror, i think the real questions should be 'is the current foreign policy regarding the middle east a necessity? has it been effective? could it be better?

"Identifying terrorism itself as the enemy also blithely ignored the fact that terrorism is a lethal technique for intimidation employed by individuals, groups, and states. One does not wage a war against a technique or a tactic.No one, for instance would have declared at the outset of world war II that the war was being fought against 'blitzkrieg' " - Zbigniew Brzezinski

 

[denverdoc]

i think your last 3 paragraphs nailed something that is beyond the scope of TV news or your average newspaper. Terrorism comes in many guises, and used for various motives: but ultimately the worst use is the state vs the people.

 

[BillJx]

I didn't answer the poll because I frankly have no answers. However:

1) Political / social causes tend to get grouped into camps, not always for sound reasons. Differing with Bush politically shouldn't automatically lead to a demand to pull out of the mid-East and leave it in chaos. Bush may have promoted the war for the wrong reasons, but now it's a difficult situation that needs to be evaluated on its own terms. The moral imperitive now is to fix what you broke.

2) Terrorism needs to be fought. Always. Never back away from evil because of fear or moral laziness. Terrorism also needs to be defined. A third world power in a fight with the U.S. can't go head to head on the battlefield, it needs to use some kind of guerilla tactics. That's no excuse for bombing restaurants, murdering tourists, sacrificing kids etc. Evil isn't hard to spot, independantly of the proclaimed cause that's used as an excuse. Root such people out at any expense.

3) Maybe underground organizations have a tendency to be taken over by psychopaths. War in general is good for psychopaths, how much better is an underground war? Once you're giving people accolades for murdering children and non-combantants, you've lost control of your organization. The cause becomes just an excuse for killing. If independance organizations want world support, they need to find a way to eliminate the psychopaths from their leadership and close the door to them.

4) I'm sorry, but a war can't be fought without deaths. The world isn't civilized enough yet for war to be ended, sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a solution. So young people will die. Unfortunately, that can't be the reason for a country to end a war. Enemy deaths are reason enough to avert war where it's possible. If it can't be averted, it needs to be seen through. The alternative is capitulation to governments that don't care how many people are killed, theirs or ours.

 

[denverdoc]

above ground organizations (or at least that portion above the water) are also run by psychopaths. Name a company, usu a psychopath at the helm. I'm talking the clinical definition, not some guy who collects feet to satisty his shoe fetish.

Terrorism should be fought, but not on their own turf, ie remove the political issues and it hasn't a leg to stand upon.

Whether foot attached to leg, all depends on negotiation skills.

 

[Yonoz]

I don't think a desire for wealth was the cause of the mistakes Bush and Cheney have made, but the Senate is an integral part of foreign policy whether they have courage to fulfill their role or not.

IMO this needn't necessarily undermine the President, if he plays his cards right.
"good cop, bad cop"?