singrdave singrdave

The Long War Versus Terror

▼

The Long War Versus Terror

Keeping America's head in the game

from JoeUser Forums
In what ways, if any, do you think that US policymakers can do a better job apprising the American public of the long-term nature of the Global War on Terrorism and he sacrifices that struggle will continue to entail?

Certain members of Congress and the White House articulate the importance of staying in the fight quite well. It is just a matter of whether or not the claims fall on deaf ears or are taken seriously. Supporters of the War on Terror are seen as Bush's shills or cronies, as this is perceived by the left as "Bush's War". Evoking the specter of 9/11 brings only statements decrying such pandering. Public support for the war has waned and all who publicly support the long-term fight against terrorism are skating not just on thin ice, but on a fully-melted, fast-flowing river.

To illustrate this point, just this morning I was watching a CNN interview with Sen. Joe Lieberman. To my mind he is the most believable and articulate supporter of both the war and the doctrine of preemption. He still maintains that not only was the US right in invading Iraq but that also the US forces in Iraq can win. For this position he suffered a stinging defeat at the hands of his own party, returning to the Senate as an independent. Ostracized from the very party that stood him as a presidential contender six years prior, Lieberman's pariah status stems solely from his support of "Bush's War".

Another reason people do not wish to hear the gruesome, protracted details about a war on terror is that there is rarely any good news to report. The American people are tired of hearing about body counts from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a whole lot of nothing from within the US. Domestic terror-related arrests fade quickly in the public consciousness. Those who beat the drum about terror are dismissed as fear mongers or one-note Johnnys.

How can US policymakers get through the partisan political atmosphere and emphasize the danger of international terrorism? I think patiently reminding people that this isn't just Bush's War and that it really does affect every man, woman, and child in the civilized world is the key. Then curt reminders that 9/11 actually DID happen, it actually WAS devastating and horrible, and that there are still people out there trying to kill Americans would also be in order.

But how to do that without being dismissed as a war hawk or a Bush crony...?
13,862 views 32 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
The real test would have been Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Our decision not to treat Pakistan like the friends of Al Qaeda they were has gutted our efforts around the world.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
The real test would have been Afghanistan's border with Pakistan. Our decision not to treat Pakistan like the friends of Al Qaeda they were has gutted our efforts around the world.


Did you read today how al Qaeda and some Libyan terror group based in Pakistan are joining forces? Hmmm... guess you were right.
The Political Machine 2024
Reply #28 from PolMach Forums Top
The problem as I see it is there has been no distinction between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. Iraq is now a hotbed of terrorist activity because we have given them an easy target. They can now kill Americans on a daily basis. It has been proven that any ties that Iraq had in terrorism were at worst turning a blind eye.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.


That is an incredibly salient, relevant quote that fully sums up the problems we have fighting terrorism. How can we fight an enemy that blends in perfectly with the populace? Have the populace turn on them. Easier said than done, but we can figure out how over the course of years.

If the West and forces of globalization can provide these people who harbor terrorists a glimpse or promise of a better life, then they will hopefully drop the terrorists like a bad habit.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anyone that would argue we are not in danger from the radical Islamists is both dangerous and disconnected from reality. The sheer magnitude, the dispersion and the passion of those who are part of this movement demonstrate just how big a danger it presents to the United States and most non Moslem countries. The issue is not is the radical Islamic movement a danger but HOW WELL has Bush delta with this danger.

The invasion of Iraq was a mistake for several reasons. First, we invaded an Islamic country that was NOT in the forefront of the radical Islamic movement. We put it on the front burner and allowed radicals like al Qaeda to establish a foothold from which they can plan future attacks. We committed a large portion of our ground forces in a war that is not going well and has proven to be an effective source for the radicals to recruit more people that are willing to attack us in the future. We acted against the wishes of most of our allies and alienated people in most countries at a time when we need their cooperation more then ever to deal with the world wide Islamic Radicals. We did not eliminate the source of the radicals that planned 9/11 and the violence in Afghanistan is on the rise because we choose to invade Iraq. We have avoided diplomatic action to move toward a settlement of the Israeli/Palestine issue and appear far too biased toward Israel. We have enabled elections in Palestine where the people elected Hamas as their governing party. We enabled the people of Iraq to elect a government that is dominated by the Shea who are close to Iran and the enemy of our friends in Jordan and the oil rich Arab states such as Saudi Arabia. We helped a weak government in Lebanon free themselves of the Syrians and then allowed Israel to severely weaken that same government over the capture of two Israeli Soldiers.

Taken together our actions during the past 6 plus years have played into the hands of those that are our worst enemies in the Moslem World. The issue is not do we understand the struggle with radical Islamists is serious. The issue is the way Bush has delta with EVERY ASPECT of this dangerous enemy. He has weakened our position and played into the hands of our enemies. We are in FAR more danger today from the Radical Islamic Terrorists then in 2001. Only better intelligence and defense has enabled us to prevent another disastrous attack on the United States. It is not that we have reduced the danger. To the contrary, our actions have increased the danger of attacks in the future! The failure is not in understanding the severity of the danger but in how we have dealt with that danger!!!
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
This from another Blog:

June 18, 2007 4:45 PM

Brian Ross Reports:

Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.

WE ARE IN MORE DANGER TODAY!
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
COL, good to have you here. You gave me a double-eyebrow raise with your response, mostly because we are actually discussing a topic that I feel strongly about.
Anyone that would argue we are not in danger from the radical Islamists is both dangerous and disconnected from reality. The sheer magnitude, the dispersion and the passion of those who are part of this movement demonstrate just how big a danger it presents to the United States and most non Moslem countries.

I couldn't agree more. Those who are in denial about the seriousness and the ferocity of our enemies couldn't be more dead -- and I do mean DEAD -- wrong. John Edwards and Ron Paul are probably our candidates who are most willfully in the dark about the seriousness of the danger from terror... I would never wish for any terror attack on American soil, but they'd be the one on whose watch one would be most likely.

Only better intelligence and defense has enabled us to prevent another disastrous attack on the United States. It is not that we have reduced the danger. To the contrary, our actions have increased the danger of attacks in the future!


First, we invaded an Islamic country that was NOT in the forefront of the radical Islamic movement. We put it on the front burner and allowed radicals like al Qaeda to establish a foothold from which they can plan future attacks.

Ah, the well-worn ground. About Iraq being part of the War on Terror... true that Iraq was not a direct planner of 9/11 nor was it holding all the WMD we suspected. But Greenpeace did find this canister of yellowcake inside Iraq just after the war.



Anyway, it is a well-known fact that Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. From BBC News, 2003:
Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel. Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques. "Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony. With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the ceremony as support for terrorism.

Saddam's payments
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35 million paid since September 2000
So clearly he was part of the problem, certainly not part of the solution.

As for your other contention, al-Qaeda has flocked to Iraq since the invasion in order to kill some Americans. However, it's better there than here, which was the rationale all along. I seem to remember Michael Moore asking Bill O'Reilly if he'd send his son to die for Fallujah -- the retort being that O'Reilly would rather it be Fallujah than Des Moines.

Only better intelligence and defense has enabled us to prevent another disastrous attack on the United States. It is not that we have reduced the danger. To the contrary, our actions have increased the danger of attacks in the future!

Absolutely true, and people don't realize that we've stirred up the hornet's nest. Why do you think they're training all these suicide bombers? Yes, they are sending them to the West for their own scary reasons. But for accusations that the Global War on Terror is a 'bumper sticker slogan' is short-sighted and quite clueless, don't you agree?

WE ARE IN MORE DANGER TODAY!

You may well be right.