The Long War Versus Terror

      There is no way to explain the need because Americans do not respond logically. The same people who screamed "Why did the government allow this to happen?!?" on Sept 12th cannot understand the draconian efforts necessary to actually "prevent" acts like that from going on. They maintain that the government should have discovered the terrorists but don't wan't phone conversation monitoring. They say there were "lots of signs" but don't want their personal lives monitored in any way.

      People say that they "support the troops" and then freak out when one dies in combat. You can't support "troops" when you don't even know what "troops" are used for (fighting and dying).

     People want "Islamofacism stamped out" but balk at laws that would then infringe on their own religion's freedom of speech or assembly.

     We cry out over less than 4,000 deaths a year from terrorism and don't bat an eyelash at 50,000+/yr on the highways.

     The gorup of people known as Americans are simply far too heterogenous in ideas and critical thought processes that there is no method to apprise the entire population of anything. The population has Balkanized internally rather than melted together as the beloved "melting pot" metaphor would imply.

     There is probably only one thing that would bring the nation together on an issue like this and sadly it would likely have to be a terror strike of equal or greater magnitude to 9/11 (likely greater frankly). There are people who simply won't support the use of force until an armed and dangerous stranger is threatening them and their loved ones. Amazingly their positions move quickly towards fascism under those circumstances.

     There aren't many atheists under fire and there aren't many pacifists under threat of murder.

6 years prior.

Greywar makes good points.  And it is the gordian knot that will plague us until they are marching down Pennsylvania avenue.  many (and some here at JU even), Are yelling "cry wolf" every time a plot is thwarted.  And of course denouncing the plot as a bunch of simpletons that cant shoot straight.  Yet the only difference between the JFK 4 and the 911 19 is in results.  ONe group was caught, the other was not.

I doubt if the Bush haters will be satisfied when someone does carry out the next attack sucessfully, although that is what they want from their poo-pooing the failed attempts.  Instead of crediting our intelligence agencies (that at least have been revamped and re-prioritized), they just see a bunch of key stone cops that Bush Parades around to incite fear (which for many of us, actually has us breathing a sigh of relief.

There were nay sayers in all the wars that America has fought.  I do not pretend to gloss over those who were against us going into WWII or even the Civil war.  The only difference is that now, instead of saying "this is Roosevelt's War" or "this is Wilson's war", they are actively working for the defeat of American troops.  And that is the sad and scary part.  For while they can oppose Bush, the fact they try to tar and feather the troops, and indeed even root for their deaths, indicates that they hate more than they care.  And in that hate, they do not care who falls for it, as long as their goals are met.

They support the troops........when they serve their purpose.

There is no way to win this debate about the war on terror, as pointed out, if we thwart plots, the MSM calls them bogus, the NY times went as far as to put the JFK plot on Page 37 while every other paper in the country had it as first page above the fold news. If somehow {and it will happen} that a plot succeeds, then the MSM, and the far left will scream "how could you {BUSH} let this happen, why didn't you stop it? it's all your fault. This is a damned if we do, damned if we don't situation, the Democrats dream, they can't lose on this debate thanks to the MSM.

How can we have a war on terror? Terror is a tactic not a country or a government. It's just an excuse to have a constant state of war. Who is our enemy in Iraq? Sunni Muslim insurgents, Shia militias, foreign fighters? Unfortunately they aren't wearing a uniform to identify themselves like our troops are.

I care about our troops. I don't want any more of them to die. I don't wish for failure or defeat but I think this is an unwinnable war. What exactly does victory look like? Bush proclaimed mission accomplished years ago. Saddam was removed. A democratic government was installed. Still the attacks continue. How long should we stay, four more years, ten more years, twenty more years?

I personally do not think the war in Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I don't think it has made us safer. I don't think we should throw our civil liberties out the window to feel safer. It's a false feeling of safety anyway.

I thnik what singrdave et al are trying to say is... BOO!!!

...anybody scared yet?

If you want to be scared, go check out rightwingers latest propoganda offering.

anybody scared yet? If you want to be scared, go check out rightwingers latest propoganda offering.

It's "not" a propoganda offering. It "could" be a very real possibility. Just because you don't believe it, does not make it any less possible.
I also take note that you can't/haven/t made any appropriate arguements about what singrdave had to say.

I don't think we should throw our civil liberties out the window to feel safer. It's a false feeling of safety anyway.

Civil liberties have not been thrown "out the window". As others have said liberals complain that nothing is done to prevent terrorism, then complain about their "civil liberties" being taken away (which they have not).

If you want to be scared, go check out rightwingers latest propoganda offering.

What "propaganda" specifically? It seems every time terrorists are caught planning an attack, here comes the liberals with their "it's just propaganda" or "scare tactics" nonsense.

MM:

if we thwart plots, the MSM calls them bogus, the NY times went as far as to put the JFK plot on Page 37 while every other paper in the country had it as first page above the fold news. If somehow {and it will happen} that a plot succeeds, then the MSM, and the far left will scream "how could you {BUSH} let this happen, why didn't you stop it? it's all your fault.

Absolutely 100% accurate. This is selective outrage and the intentional playing-down of efforts, successes, and arrests. It is very demeaning to the people who work long and hard (heh, he said "long and hard") to thwart terror and keep people safe. It's also very misleading to critics of the War on Terror (specifically, the war in Iraq) who believe that nothing is happening in the States because there is no threat. (Because if there really was a threat, I can read about it in the NYT, can't I?)

Greywar:

The same people who screamed "Why did the government allow this to happen?!?" on Sept 12th cannot understand the draconian efforts necessary to actually "prevent" acts like that from going on. They maintain that the government should have discovered the terrorists but don't want phone conversation monitoring. They say there were "lots of signs" but don't want their personal lives monitored in any way.

Actual crime prevention, beyond passive deterrence with the threat of punishment, is far more draconian than people imagine. Fully implementing a counter-terrorism strategy would impose more than just a slight inconvenience on Americans.

As far as I'm concerned, the protracted War on Terror goes well in America but has reached a stalemate on foreign shores.

The American public is regaled nightly with body counts and car bombs from Iraq. Joint NATO/Afghan/Pakistani efforts to root the Taliban from the eastern Afghan mountains are similarly disappointing.

The American rhetoric has become more and more heated, especially since further prosecution of the War on Terror has become a political football to be kicked around in the House and Senate and for the Republican and Democratic presidential contenders. Public opinion is mixed -- most seem to want withdrawal but fear the carnage that would result from an American military abandonment of Iraq and the War on Terror as a whole. Clearly the American people are not ready for a war of attrition; kicking in the right door has yet to reveal bin Laden and that galls the low-attention-span American electorate.

But how to do that without being dismissed as a war hawk or a Bush crony...?

I thnik what singrdave et al are trying to say is... BOO!!! anybody scared yet?

Apparently I also forgot that reminding people of the threat of terrorism means accusations of Chicken Little syndrome.

Apparently I also forgot that reminding people of the threat of terrorism means accusations of Chicken Little syndrome.

Until the ground smacks them in the face - then they yell "Why did you not stop it!".

Sean Conners' recent posting regarding Keith Olbermann's 13 connections between politics and terror highlights the difficulties that the CT community finds when trying to instill the proper level of urgency into society.

For those who haven't been made aware of this list, on June 4th's edition of "Countdown", Olbermann's crack staff made an attempt to link announcements regarding the prosecution of the War on Terror with administrative scandals and within-Beltway goings-on. His spoken accusation is that the Bush Administration continually uses news of CT efforts to supersede governmental scandals and further partisan politics. Olbermann's attempt to debunk the CT effort by accusing government officials... priceless.

Olbermann's attempt to debunk the CT effort by accusing government officials... priceless.

What was his excuse for JFK?  Surely he was not trying to protect Paris!

Islam is the problem. Sorry, politically-correct-bed-wetting liberals. Wherever there is a terror plot or attack, wherever the asshole are from, ISLAM is the reason they do it.

This is just a fact. To downplay or ignore this is just playing politics.

They come for Guyana, Albania, Chechnya, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi, need I go on?

What do the diaper-wearers REALLY think is going on here? All FOX news hyperbole?

The thing is, it doesn't matter who you are, if you say ANYTHING even remotely postive about Prs. Bush you are written off as a "Shill for Bush".  If you say anything positive about the war, you are a "shill for Bush"... in fact, if you say ANYTHING positive about the US, you are a "Shill for Bush".

On the other hand, if you say, "I support the Troops" before the "But", then nothing is negative, vile or evil enough against the US... anything goes.

 

Ted:

On the other hand, if you say, "I support the Troops" before the "But", then nothing is negative, vile or evil enough against the US... anything goes.

You're absolutely right: "I support the troops" has become the new mantra for just any old policy statement, domestic or foreign. My favorite is "I support the troops, so I think they should come home as soon as possible -- what better way to support the troops than to bring them out of danger?" And don't forget, "I support the troops so we should not give them the dollars, money, or equipment they need." That takes some perverse logic, I tell you what.

Is that like in "Talladega Nights", where Ricky Bobby felt he could say anything he wanted as long as he started the sentence with "With all due respect..."?

Is that like in "Talladega Nights", where Ricky Bobby felt he could say anything he wanted as long as he started the sentence with "With all due respect..."?

Or when a southern lady starts a sentence with "Bless your heart..........."

But does "supporting the troops" mean that we're seeing an increased sense of urgency regarding the reason they're over there: ostensibly to fight terrorism on their shores rather than on our own?

Let me check the Magic 8-Ball: signs point to no.

We are seeing an increased sense of urgency regarding the reasons from where it counts most... the troops.

i'm guessing yall prefer to ignore this because it's like dna in that it irrefutably identifies those responsible for propogating such an outrageous prevarication.

deny it however it serves you best; in fact, we're no safer today than we were 6 years ago. blame it on the liberals, blame it on diversity, blame it on the media or the phases of the moon but it's really a consequence of 6 years of incredible misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance.

here's a lil more dna: in october 2004, ron suskind reported a conversation he'd had with the inexorable "unamed administration official" (by which he prolly meant karl rove but..) during which he was informed "guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' (people who) 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors.... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"

i'm actively working for the defeat of those who vainly and arrogantly consider themselves history's actors--disgustingly corrupt wanna-be emperors so determined to create their own reality they willingly, blithely sacrifice lives of american troops.

those who empowered people like rumsfeld and left him in power even after hearing him wondering aloud on september 15, 2001 whether we shouldn't "do iraq first" since afghanistan had so little in the way of newsworthy targets.

in other words, the men who squat behind the man who works the soft machine.

Quite easily, believe it or not. The key to terror isn't what we do, it is what we WON'T do. They balance their violence carefully to ensure that it is just enough so any overreaction will receive negative play in the world. Sadly, we give a damn.

Look at Israel. Hezbollah won their recent little tiff if Lebanon. The world looked at the ongoing bloodbath and said "All that over three guys"? Granted, the world is generally ignorant of the constant harrowing crap Israel has to put up with, but then the terrorist groups count on that, too. What did they do? Pulled out defeated.

The way we combat that is by devaluing their ability to judge our reaction. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt that we won't invade Pakistan to catch bin Laden. They know that we won't risk the ire of other states by using nuclear weapons.

Look at Fallujah. We decide to get tough, we start cleaning the place out, it endangers talks elsewhere, we drag our shredded soldiers away. They knew we would, and they know next week we'll do it again. Had we leveled the city from 30k feet, they would have been taken aback and the next city might not have been so welcoming to the insurgency.

Terrorist groups are a loose collection of bad people, working under the tolerance of slightly less bad people, in communities full of ordinary people. If those other people knew with certainty that terrorism will provoke their doom, they'd hand terrorists over by the truckload. The day that world leaders say "Oh God, they might attack the US, and you know we are really screwed then", THEN we'll start winning the war on terror.

We have to poison their soil, and the only way to do that is by making sure that any soil that welcomes them is burned black and unfit for habitation. Harsh? Yep, but such wars are bloody, and over quickly. Fewer of our soldiers at risk, and their scars serving as a lesson for the future.

Basing your wars on public opinion only makes terrorism bloom, because that's their playing field.

i shoulda elaborated.

terror is, as she points out, a tactic (one could also argue warfare is itself institutionalized or formalized terrorism).

as a slogan, a mission or an objective, a war on terrorists or war on terrorism woulda at least made sense at a cost of not being nearly as impactful.

what shoulda been conducted was a war on afghanistan or a war on the taliban and al quaeda.

it woulda made harboring a terrorist like posada less of an issue, if nothing else, no?