It was poor strategy to validate the terrorists by declaring war on them, poor strategy choosing Iraq as an "entry point" into the mayhem that is the Middle East, poor strategy not having an exit plan, and poor strategy to ignore the lessons history have taught us.
Poor strategy that our progeny will be paying for...far into the future.
You raise some very interesting points. You're challenging some of the basic assumptions behind the GWOT, not just the execution. Care to elaborate further?
I couldn't agree more with uraslacker (despite his unfortunate choice of a name). From the start, the Bush Administration's "war on terror" has been based upon a lot of false and sometimes intentionally misleading assumptions.
For example, Bush has said repeatedly, in so many words, that terrorists hate the U.S. because they are against our freedoms. The truth is that, at least as far as Al Qaeda is concerned, they don't care about our freedoms one way or the other. They're primarily against the U.S. for supporting the Saudi monarchy, for stationing foreign troops in Saudi Arabia, and for backing Israel. We're never going to be able to understand an enemy well enough to counter them effectively if we continually ascribe false motives to them.
Beyond that, ascribing false motives to an enemy enables our government to justify all sorts of things. If the terrorists are against freedom, well, we have to do everything possible to protect freedom, right? Even if it means torture, or holding people in secret prisons without charges, or massive warrantless eavesdropping, or invading a country that doesn't really pose a threat to us.
There's nothing wrong with Bush's strategy in the GWOT. (We haven't been attacked since 9-11, have we?) The only thing wrong is that some in Congress, the media and the public lack the will for this fight, and are even trying to undermine the strategy. That's an unfortunate distraction at a time when we need to be focusing hard on the struggle at hand.
Declaring war on tactics that are supposed to be illegitimate, legitimizes them. We shouldn't have declared war on terror, to begin with, and we certainly shouldn't have gone beyond our 9/11 retaliation to...dubiously...attack Iraq. At the very least, we should have waited for a broader coalition. Since day one of the invasion, I've always questioned the lack of strategy. It's a shame that I'm still questioning. At this point, I think exiting blindly would just make things worse. We need to involve the few allies we haven't alienated and spend more time training (and paying) Iraqi police forces, and get them to do their jobs....so that we can get out of there.
The only good that's come out of this (I hope) is a completely discredited neo-conservative movement. We don't need any more "bright ideas" from this bunch.
As far as Bush's "homeland" policy...Ummm...we're not quite sure what to do with the mess that is the 3 existing security agencies (NSA/CIA/FBI), so let's CREATE ANOTHER ONE! I thought that the GOP was supposed to be for fiscal responsibility and smaller government! It certainly was when I voted that way!
This message has been edited. Last edited by: uraslacker,
Uraslacker: If you didn't see Sunday's Washington Post Outlook section, there was an essay on the GWOT by Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and he pretty much echoes what you are saying:
The "war on terror" has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us.
The damage these three words have done -- a classic self-inflicted wound -- is infinitely greater than any wild dreams entertained by the fanatical perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks when they were plotting against us in distant Afghan caves. The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.
But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Support for President Bush in the 2004 elections was also mobilized in part by the notion that "a nation at war" does not change its commander in chief in midstream. The sense of a pervasive but otherwise imprecise danger was thus channeled in a politically expedient direction by the mobilizing appeal of being "at war."
The West has consistantly meddled in the internal affairs of the Islamic nations since the turn of the last century. This began with the discovery of oil in 1908 at Masjid-iSulayman in Persia, (present day Iran), by the British. The Anglo Persian Oil Company, (APOC), was formed. Note: this became the small beginnings of BP..British Petroleum, from the British interest after Iran Nationalized it's oil Industry...We,(the Western alliances), have devided up, carved out nations, established military garrisons, inforced our influence, and exploited these people since the fall of the Ottomon Empire after WW 1. We have supported Coup's, helped plan overthrow of governments, & supplied regimes with military muscle. Regimes like Saddam Hussein, The Sha of Iran, the royal families of Saud,(Ibn Saud, founder of the Saudi Dynasty, 1913). Devided up territories and created the current borders of nations after WW 1 like Syria, Lebenon, Iraq, Kuwait..and created the State of Israel after WW 2. The radical Islamist use this history as a ralleying point to recruit their followers. The main focal point of terrorism against the West..is...they don't want the west in their Islamic countries, telling them what to do and how to live. We,(the west, Infidels), are not welcome there anymore because of our involvement in their internal affairs of the past and especially our presence in the region NOW!...Terrorism? How would we like it if we had foriegners, Islamic Businessmen and their Military occupying our Western Hemisphere soil from Argentina up to Canada, telling us how to live, deciding our faith, establishing borders that interrupt ancient ethnic lines, ex.(Texas to Oregon becomes Mexico and must speak Spanish), and most of all, getting wealthy off of our natural resources, while supporting regimes that keep our citizens frightened, uneducated & living in poverty. What we did is made our Bed, now we have to sleep in it. In other words..we are paying the price for Our Capitalistic exploitations of the Mid East and Persian Gulf Regions..Islamic nations exploitations of the past & occupation of the present. Make no mistake, I certainly do not support the terrorist, I think they are Barbaric and fanatical..but they are what they are.. Ignorant & Brainwashed and thay will keep coming at us & fighting us until WE GET THE H*#L OUT OF THEIR LAND AND STAY OUT. Fighting in Iraq only provides more propaganda for the Fundamentalist to feed the masses for recruitment. Until we,(the West), come to the reality of what the Conflict between Islam and the West is really all about and quit being so Niave, we will always be under the threat of Terror from these people. Here's some STRATEGY... Throw the Oil Company Lobbiest Out of Washington D.C...Find a new Energy source, ( Non Carbon & Renewable)..and leave these people alone. If they want to live in a desert and kill each other..so be it..They can drown in their own oil..It is none of our Business how they live their lives, who they worship, how they govern themselves or even how they don't govern themselves. But of course we can't do that as long as we need their oil and there is big profits in it! Trying to convert these people to Democracy is like trying to teach a Baboon how to write software programs...It simply is not possible. Islam and Democracy just will not mix..it's like oil and water.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: koonism,
I agree with Peace Mom,but would add the folowing to her list, this pertains to Afganistan. UTILIZE all resources chemical and biological war fare,take no prisoners,ELIMINATE those religious leader who advocate terroist actvites againist the peacefull solution. IN OTHER WORDS TREAT WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE.
Hmmmm. I think the "extreme prejudice" approach has been tried before by foreign armies in Afghanistan--the Persians in the 18th century, British in the 19th, the Soviets in the 20th. (The Soviets even tried chemical weapons, as you suggest.) It didn't work either of those times and I don't think it would work any better now.
Poor strategy you say that all this has been tried before, what would be your solution? Remember that insurgents can continue to operate only under the following conditions, support from an outside source (Iran) advocasy by a major religious leaders, corruption within the present government. Extreme poverty among the people. Illitracy among the people. Remember the young taliban boy who was interned at GITMO,received an education (read,write in Farsi, and later released back to Afganistan. He was later killed in a firefight w/one AK47 on his person.The intel was he was recruited back into the taliban with promises that upon victory he was to be rewarded with a senior post. Chemical warfare can be used to deny entrance to Iran & Pakistan. Biological warfare can be used as the Brits did during the French indian wars. And treat with extreme prejudice should be used as originaly intended. Take out the disenters especialy the religous types who are in favor of total religous rule.
We need to keep it simple. We are complicating the whole mess out of the scale of reality and common sense. Lets Kick the Oil companies out of our government, create our own renewable energy, get the hell out of Islam, and let them, the Muslims, solve their own political/ Idealology/ Human rights/ economic.. problems. The sooner what goes on overthere becomes non of our business..the sooner we can take care of the growing problems of what is going on overhere, that is our business! like immigration issues, health care for all American citizens, Tax reform, fair labor laws, creating new energy resources, like making ethanol from abundant natural wild plants that are nusiance like Water Hayicinth choking the waterways of the south. We need to get out of the mind set of doom and gloom and turn towards an attitude of lets take another route and find the solutions. Senator Luger..Rep,( Howdy Doody look alike ), now says the surge will not work. DUH!! How can we keep electing people to lead us. People that are elected by us, human minds that take forever for the light of reality and common sense to come on, How can these leaders protect and guide our nation without the ability to see simple solutions. How can the U.S. remain a super power and a leader of free nations with incompetence at the helm. We need to fire the current leadership both Dem & Rep, Revise our election process so we can stop electing idiots to represent us. Just because one has wealth doesn't mean they know what they are doing. Our current President is a prime example of this flaw in our Democratic process. We need to come home and clean up our democracy before we try to take the show on the road again.
How do you compensate for those American lives lost? Again your answer does not relate to the problem. The problem is the total removal of the muslim force from destroying the elected governments ,and putting an end to their objective of total and complete control of the middle east.This was demonstrated in Iran (under Sadam) where the minority had the edge over the majority. And this total control would place the entire middle east into a unstable situation.
My answer does relate to the problem, our presence and dominating influence in other soverign nations for the purpose of exploiting their resources for our benefit. You have to know the history and the whole sorid mess that we as western nations have caused by manipulating governments and propping up regimes that allowed for that exploitation. We attacked a soverign nation that had nothing to do with 9-11 on the basis of fabricated intelligence for what..OIL! We supported the Saddam regime, provided weapons for his military during the Iran/Iraqi war. Some of the chemical weapons found there had U.S. I.D.'s stamped on them. The incompetence of this administration and the foriegn policy mistakes of those administrations prior to the Bush dynasty has everything to do with the hatred those people have for western societies. The main BEEF that Osama & his followers has with the west is our presence both politicaly and militarily om their soil. If we cop the attitude that you have towards countries that don't embrace our idealogies and our way of government then we could be considered as NAZI's. In other words if you don't become a democracy then we will bomb you into submission. That is absurd & ludicrist. WHO benefits from this war in Iraq? What is the goal? Why did we really go after Saddam. Violation of human rights? Why not attack China, Bolivia, Cuba, or any other country with human rights violations?...Saddam would not allow Al Quida to operate in his nation because he shared power with no one. If you examine the history of Shite and Sunni conflicts you will find that it takes a tyrant like Saddam to keep these factions in line or else it will spill out in to civil war...like..like.. well like the civil war that we are stuck in the middle of right now in IRAQ! Remember this..the Brits tried to institute Democracy in the same region after World War 1..and promptly left after learning the hard lesson that like oil and water Democracy and Islam do not mix. Before Muslims accept Democracy they will have to be brainwashed out of 1300 + years of Islam indoctrination. Do you actually think that the Lord of Democracy & the Messiah of Capitalism George Bush can inspire these people to make a 180 degree change in their culture. The King of the United States with his 29% approval of his own subjects can't even take care of issues at home..who is going to listen to him abroad. We as a nation need to examine our role as citizens of this planet and learn to live with things we can't change. We need to become energy independent, strong at home and not devided like we are, stop the cast system that is developing in our own nation between the haves and the have nots. We can not solve the problems of the world by threatening to take military action on everyone that disagrees with our idealology. If we continue this type of behavior the world will turn on us and like the NAZI's we will be destroyed. Our problems with the rest of the world stared in Washington D.C. not in Iraq! I love my Country..but as a nation we have become something other than the country God Blessed!
Koonism: no problem, it's just the filtering software acting up. (It stopped a bunch of my posts about prisons last week.) Your post is now up on the board.
Originally posted by ford1938: Treaties are written on paper right. Treaties are broken every day. In order to win some treaties must be set aside.
Look at how much the Bush Administration's violation of international conventions barring torture has harmed U.S. interests. People and countries who used to be on our side around the world--and whose help we need in fighting Al Qaeda--are now against us. If the U.S. violated international law on chemical and biological weapons, the backlash would be far greater.
Beyond that, the U.S. would forfeit any claim to moral legitimacy for its foreign policy and use of military power. Remember that Bush invaded Iraq on the pretext that Saddam Hussein was defying UN security council resolutions by not giving up his (nonexistent) chemical and biological arsenal. How would it look to the rest of the world if we began using the same weapons?
Again the key word WORLD OPINION SOMEWHERES in your message you have ommitted the the actual countries who are opposed to the utilization of chem & bio weapons? Now don't forget the effort in Afganistan is now under NATO, and tere are quite a few foreign troops there. Well Pat_K me thinks your hated of the present administration has clouded your mind,sealed your ears and provided your eyes with blinders.
quote:
Originally posted by pat_k:
quote:
Originally posted by ford1938: Treaties are written on paper right. Treaties are broken every day. In order to win some treaties must be set aside.
Look at how much the Bush Administration's violation of international conventions barring torture has harmed U.S. interests. People and countries who used to be on our side around the world--and whose help we need in fighting Al Qaeda--are now against us. If the U.S. violated international law on chemical and biological weapons, the backlash would be far greater.
Beyond that, the U.S. would forfeit any claim to moral legitimacy for its foreign policy and use of military power. Remember that Bush invaded Iraq on the pretext that Saddam Hussein was defying UN security council resolutions by not giving up his (nonexistent) chemical and biological arsenal. How would it look to the rest of the world if we began using the same weapons?
