FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » The War "on" Terrorism

   
Author Topic: The War "on" Terrorism
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
It just doesn't seem to be particularly successful. It has pretty clearly increased terrorism, in fact. Why do we keep prosecuting a strategy that endangers people throughout the world, particularly US citizens traveling abroad?

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/pubs/fs/5902.htm

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Storm Saxon
Member
Member # 3101

 - posted      Profile for Storm Saxon           Edit/Delete Post 
There is no war on terrorism, as a war signifies something that is winnable.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anti-Christ
Member
Member # 5714

 - posted      Profile for Anti-Christ           Edit/Delete Post 
No one wins in war.

War doesn't decide who's right, it decides who's left.

Posts: 125 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
As goofy a saying as that is, if you're the only one left - nobody else will contradict you.

And in all fairness, while Bush's "bull in a tea shop" approach leaves something to be desired, it has demonstrated an American willingness to deploy military force en masse as opposed to the occasional float-by missile attack which was so popular during the Clinton Administration.

As for alienating more people - as long as we continue to support Israel blindly, we will continue to accumulate enemies. And frankly, supporting Israel after it's habit of encouraging treason among American citzens and rampant espionage on the sole reason for its continued existence leaves me a little dissatisfied.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Occasional float by missile attack? I think Serbia may disagree with you.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mabus
Member
Member # 6320

 - posted      Profile for Mabus   Email Mabus         Edit/Delete Post 
Trevor, Israel is a free state and our only reliable ally in the Middle East, surrounded by a sea of terrorist-supporting dictatorships. They are pursuing the only policy available to them, which is to strike back with overwhelming force.

So tell me why we shouldn't support them?

Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
foundling
Member
Member # 6348

 - posted      Profile for foundling   Email foundling         Edit/Delete Post 
What the hell are you talking about, Mabus?

"They are pursuing the only policy available to them, which is to strike back with overwhelming force."
How is that the only policy available to them? Isreals policies are remarkably similiar to US policies, or vice versa, and they are both based on destructive idealogies. So, yes, I agree that it is only logical this country should ally itself with another that held such similiar views. And, yes, they are our only reliable ally in the Middle East. Mostly because we have completely alienated everyone else. But it is still a foolish, blind alliance that is nothing but long term destructive for both parties.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
docmagik
Member
Member # 1131

 - posted      Profile for docmagik   Email docmagik         Edit/Delete Post 
T o help put the war on terror in a historical perspective.
Posts: 1894 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
digging_holes
Member
Member # 6237

 - posted      Profile for digging_holes   Email digging_holes         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
As for alienating more people - as long as we continue to support Israel blindly, we will continue to accumulate enemies. And frankly, supporting Israel after it's habit of encouraging treason among American citzens and rampant espionage on the sole reason for its continued existence leaves me a little dissatisfied.

Of course we all know that all decisions should be based on how many people we anger or make happy. [Roll Eyes]

And you make Israel's continued existence seem like such a small thing. How dare they take extreme measures to ensure that they are not annihilated? How dare they not just roll over a die for a few idiots' convenience?

Your comments thorougly disgust me.

[ July 17, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: digging_holes ]

Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
I challenge anyone to come up with any means of responding to terrorism that would not increase its frequency.

Now, someone will say, "But this increases it even MORE than all those other methods," which is (possibly) true. But it certainly puts the question in its proper perspective to stop implying that it's a choice between doing this and increasing terrorism, and doing that and quickly DEcreasing terrorism./

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
Extreme measures at the expense of our own security? Biting the hand that feeds you is never a bright idea.

And if Israel decides to continue to encourage espionage from US citizens on behalf of Israel and steal US military secrets to sell to China then I stand by my decision not to support Israel.

Reminding Israel they depend on the goodwill of the US should discourage future "Jonathan Pollard" cases.

As for disgust, if you support Israel's espionage against the US, your opinion doesn't mean a lot to me.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
As Rake pointed out - 9/11 was proof that while terrorism was not forefront on our minds, the notion had not been left by the wayside in other parts of the world.

Are we accumulating more enemies? Probably. Is there anything we can do that wouldn't garner us more hostility? Probably not. If it wasn't the current US policies cited as reasons to strike against the US, they would find something else.

If you want to kill someone, justification just becomes an issue of semantics.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I challenge anyone to come up with any means of responding to terrorism that would not increase its frequency.
I'm not exactly sure what it would look like, but I'm pretty sure that operations which are spoken of in terms of violence are going to spawn more terrorists. Throwing young men with guns at the problem isn't going to make it go away. If we think in terms of food, water, and stable local governments, economic and educational planning, then maybe we can build the integrity of these countries against any maurading terrorist organizations. I go back and forth on Karzai's job as President of Afghanistan/Mayor of Kabul, but he came to speak to the senate foreign relations committee two years ago about irrigation in Afganistan, nobody took him seriously, paying lip-service.

The reason our solutions breed more terrorism is that we haven't thought enough about irrigation for and the integrity of the people, and we think too much about how we can invade whom. As long as we continue to think of these violent casualty and collateral damage filled wars as the only legitimate solution, and not just as an adjunct to the real solution, we will, indeed, be fighting a self-perpetuating war.

The good new is that we are really good at fighting. The bad news is that our way puts an emphasis on destroying from the outside as opposed to building up from the inside.

Where do our values lie? Instead of speaking about international conflicts wars and history in terms of violent repercussions and killing the bad, it's just a shame that the subtle and art of strengthening the good, for the sake of stability and integrity, aren't seen as active solutions.

[ July 17, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
Food, stable governments.

Great - when we try to help develop a government in Iraq, we get accused of fostering Zionist conspiracies or creating puppets of the American government. It's not like the American Government is that coordinated or effective.

America is a popular scapegoat for rhetoric in countries that live, breath and die on rhetoric.

Even if and I do emphasize if we did everything the various Arabic states wanted, the justification for "America, the great Satan" would shift to another topic.

You gain and retain power by whipping up your followers into a frenzy and direct them against a common enemy, real or perceived.

Warlords or clerics with a power base rarely, if ever, surrender that willingly. Now try putting two or more of these groups in the same area and watch them try to get along.

Once the US leaves and the Iraqi government topples, I fully anticipate a fair amount of fighting among entrenched groups to determine who is top dog. The masked men demanding an opposition cleric leave Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Great - when we try to help develop a government in Iraq, we get accused of fostering Zionist conspiracies or creating puppets of the American government. It's not like the American Government is that coordinated or effective.

America is a popular scapegoat for rhetoric in countries that live, breath and die on rhetoric.

The American discourse and heart aren't in the rebuilding of Iraq, it was in the War of Iraq. I think that's why there is such a confusion in the discourse surrounding our current purpose in Iraq. The military aspects of our invasion were expounded upon in detail. What I didn't see before is Colin Powell making a case to the UN about what we were to do after the War, and that's why we lay in the muck now. We had a precise objective if ridding Iraq of Saddam, but we hadn't had a precise plan for the entirety of events. It's not unlike a kid having spent an entire day preparing and grooming in order to sleep with a gal, and make the sex wonderful for everyone involved, and not thinking about, and in turn, cobbling together only a scant plan for the resulting pregnancy.

[ July 20, 2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
Granted - I would have liked to see Bush turn the nuances of developing a government over to the UN so as to avoid the current "it's only a puppet of the Americans" nonsense currently.

That being said, how exactly do we build and institutionalize a system in the course of a year? Or two?

If the people of Iraq were willing to accept and embrace such a system, it might work. But having grown up under the thumb of Hussein and his sons, they are understably reluctant and unsure.

Wars are relatively clear issues that can be planned, executed and resolved in short order. Building governments and solving deep social, political and economic issues are not so easy to do. Frag, we can't even do that in the US - how the hell are we going to do that in a foreign country with foreign customs, social standards and perhaps altogether different expectations?

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
If we think in terms of food, water, and stable local governments, economic and educational planning, then maybe we can build the integrity of these countries against any maurading terrorist organizations.
I am of the opinion that you simply cannot do that without warfare, at least in the environments where it is most needed.

Name me a place on the planet where food, water, stable local government, economic and education systems, can be fostered without removing the current set of systems. Then tell me how that removal can be done without warfare.

We were giving food and medicine to Iraq throughout the past decade, and the things you (and I) desire did not get placed.

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Irami Osei-Frimpong
Member
Member # 2229

 - posted      Profile for Irami Osei-Frimpong   Email Irami Osei-Frimpong         Edit/Delete Post 
Jesus, Mohammad, and Gandhi all achieved their most important victories without killing. And while Christians killed and while Muslims killed, the Christian symbol, the one that is still on the breast of many Christians, is still the man who sacrificed himself on the cross, not the one who lost himself in a fit of violence at the money tables, and Mohammad is known as the man who, through faith, engineered the bloodless victory in Makkah, not because of his warrior status.

quote:
We were giving food and medicine to Iraq throughout the past decade, and the things you (and I) desire did not get placed.
There are better and worse ways of giving food and medicine. There are better and worse ways of building the political integrity of the people. But these ways weren't ever discussed with the same nuance and energy as we discussed the precision of our weapons systems. If you want people to stop killing to get their point across, change the terms of the debate. As long as we talk about winning and losing in terms of the enemies dead bodies, there are going to be more dead bodies to count.

____________________________________
quote:
Wars are relatively clear issues that can be planned, executed and resolved in short order. Building governments and solving deep social, political and economic issues are not so easy to do. Frag, we can't even do that in the US - how the hell are we going to do that in a foreign country with foreign customs, social standards and perhaps altogether different expectations?
If our commander and chief would have accepted those sensibilites before the occupation, the level of discourse would have been raise, the quality and quantity of thought and planning and resources would have been higher, the motives behind the counter-insurgency may have been nipped in the bud and nobody would know who Motar al-Sadr is.

In the same vain, if he placed the same resources and priorities here, I think that the ranks of the jails would decrease by a sizable amount. But instead we think in terms of kill the bad guys abroad, and throwing them in jail or executing them at home, because it's easier for our collective imagination to think about guns than the nuances of good global and domestic policy. Ease alone. But when did good policy, or even good living, ever become about ease alone.

[ July 18, 2004, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
Since we developed a dislike for wasting American lives and squandering resources while trying to alter deeply held, nigh cultural attitudes.

Somlia was an exercise in sheer stupidity. Yes, people were starving. Yes, what a shame.

Now, which warlord are we going to deal with? Coaxing all available factions to the table and convince them to take pity on their starving brethern when they themselves don't care? Of course, first we have to figure out the best means of "solving" the problem - which nobody can agree on and the myriad of quick-fix solutions only made the situation worse.

To solve any of these complex social issues requires a long term committment which the American people and Government are reluctant to do. And as I've pointed out, we can't agree on what approach to take at home, never mind reaching a concensus abroad. And this entire "let's fix their problems" thread is an example of why people accuse us of trying to enforce "Pax Americana", to the point of overriding their decisions because "we know what's best for our little brown brothers." (And before you ask, that was a commentary regarding the American occupation of the Philipines)

Example - Female Circumcision. It's a grotesque practice that makes me physically ill and I don't even have the parts being altered. Do I think it's a repugnant practice? Yes. Do I think I have the right to tell the countries that inflict this mutilation upon it's women that they (as a country) are wrong? And this cultural value is, in my opinion, mysoginistic and horrific? Sure.

But I don't have the right to enforce my opinion on these countries. Whatever values or cultural issues they choose to embrace are a matter strictly for them to decide.

As for policies back home - you would have to change the outlook of American society a great, great deal. Too much governmental interference smacks of Socialism which, gasp, is a bad thing.

Don't get me started on the failure of the current prison/correctional facility models.

</rant>

Sorry, I'm rambling and babbling now.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TMedina
Member
Member # 6649

 - posted      Profile for TMedina   Email TMedina         Edit/Delete Post 
Sorry, last comment -

The "motives" behind the insurgency are fairly simple.

1. Let's kill Americans.
2. No, really - let's kill Americans.
3. Dude, I'm serious - let's kill the Americans.

Forgive me, it's a rough translation.

The only way to mimize the perception that America is trying to "conquer" Iraq would be to pull all troops out and let the UN handle the details.

Unfortunately, the only time we could have done that gracefully was just after the fall of Saddam.

Now it's such a quagmire, a number of people are saying, "See? Told you so." and have no particular desire to involve themselves.

If the US stays its course and continues to pull out troops in phases, we save international "face" at the cost of more lives in a guerilla action that cannot be fought with conventional tactics. Considering we pioneered the concept during the Revolutionary War, it's more than a little embarassing we've forgotten that lesson.

If we throw up our hands and withdraw entirely, we'll save lives but give the insurgents a political victory that far outweighs the loss of life so far.

Sorry, another political rant.

-Trevor

Posts: 5413 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
If every action proactively "against" it increases it, why are we taking proactive actions against it, Rakeesh? [Wink]

More seriously though: terrorism is (generally) a minor problem; even at its worth it does little human damage compared to everyday things -- a minor increase in the safety of automobiles would save far more people than terrorism has killed in the past few years. Its a much bigger relations and property damage related problem, but still small in comparison.

Or in another for instance, if we took all the money we're spending proactively against terrorism and spent it against, say, hunger/poverty, we would save millions upon millions lives more than we're saving now.

We're going after the terrorists because they got us, not because they're particularly damaging to us or because they pose a particular threat to us. In fact, we went after Iraq without giving the international community any justification beforehand that we could substantiate adequately, which has majorly pissed off the population of the arabic world, terrorists included. The way we went about it practically seems designed to stir up opposition.

Just some thoughts.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, we've already pulled out of many of the major cities. Control in them has been ceded to insurgent forces. Not to friendly people who are controlling them for us, but people with whom we have an uneasy truce by virtue of us having pulled out of where they are, hence we're not there to be attacked any more.

The Bush administration has decided the stability of Iraq is not worth the necessary commitment of force and accompanying American casualties that would look bad in the news.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
J T Stryker
Member
Member # 6300

 - posted      Profile for J T Stryker   Email J T Stryker         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
We're going after the terrorists because they got us, not because they're particularly damaging to us or because they pose a particular threat to us.
I think he's on to something here. We're not engaged in this "war on terror" for any reason other than to prove to the international community that even though we sometimes speak softly, we still carry a big stick. This stick is superior weapons and training for are armed forces. Saddam being in control was just a minor inconvience that allowed us to show off our new toys. The US has had the policy of using force to make examples out of our enemies, who will surely loose, since WWII. One atomic bomb and the Japanese were willing to surrender, but after the second one, the Russians decide to give up part of Germany. They did this because they saw we had more than one, when they saw this they said, "Crap, the first one wasn't an accident." it didn't matter that we only had 2, it was just the fact that we could make more that scared them, and now we're showing off our modern weapons that the rest of the world will be trying to duplicate until we come up with something better.

Stryker

[ July 17, 2004, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: J T Stryker ]

Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
foundling
Member
Member # 6348

 - posted      Profile for foundling   Email foundling         Edit/Delete Post 
TMedina -
"You gain and retain power by whipping up your followers into a frenzy and direct them against a common enemy, real or perceived.

Warlords or clerics with a power base rarely, if ever, surrender that willingly."

I'm sorry, who were you describing here? Terrorist nations do NOT have a monopoly on these tactics. This is exactly what has been happening in this country since... well, I guess it's been happening for alot longer than I want to think about. Our tactics, policies, and actions are remarkably similiar to those from whom we are "liberating" the Iraqi people. As such, WE are one of those terrorist nations. Just because our motive is not religion(yet), doesnt give us free rein to use the same tactics against those we fight as they have used against us. So, I agree with Irami. As long as violence is the only fathomable solution to violence, then it will never end.

Posts: 499 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rubble
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for rubble           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Or in another for instance, if we took all the money we're spending proactively against terrorism and spent it against, say, hunger/poverty, we would save millions upon millions lives more than we're saving now.
Fugu,

I don't dispute that if our metric is the total number of human lives saved, we should revisit our spending priorities. IMO, though, the metric that the current government is basing their prioritization on is preservation of the nation. That is, the spending priority that is in the balance is providing for national security. I believe that this government is convinced that instability in the "Arab" world, as evidenced by attacks on US soil, is a credible threat to the livelihood of every inhabitant of the country--possibly a threat to the continued existence of the country.

All of that said, you can easily argue that these convictions aren't legitimate and thus the government's priorities are indeed out of wack.

Even in that case, though, how would you have the US go about providing "food, water, and stable local governments" in countries that are hostile towards us? I don't have any success stories at the tip of my tongue, but I'm sure that they're out there. My point is that this is not a very easy thing. In fact we're failing at this sort of "nation building" thing in many friendly countries--Argentina is a decent example I think.

A lot of words to say that I don't think it is quite as easy as "take all that war money and spend it on something else".

kk

Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
I am not terribly surprised that a war on terrorism would result in slightly higher terrorist activity. It's like stirring up a hornets nest.

The question is, can you really kill all the hornets? I don't know. Is there any good way to deal with terrorists? Let's see. You can ignore them. You can comply with their wishes. You can try to prosecute the ones doing individual acts of terror, if you can find or catch them. You can attack the hornets nest.

There are many ways to attack, you can do something mild like using the US's strong economy to put pressure on them. Not easy to do when that part of the world happens to be the main source of one of the most valuable resources known to man. Or you can send troops over and start killing people.

Have I missed any options?

I am far from qualified to make such decisions myself, I feel far from qualified to even have opinions on the matter.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Take a look at the list. Slightly higher is an understatement.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rubble
Member
Member # 6454

 - posted      Profile for rubble           Edit/Delete Post 
How to deal with this threat is obviously a very thorny issue.

quote:
There are many ways to attack, you can do something mild like using the US's strong economy to put pressure on them.
I think that this answer falls into the basket of motivating others based on your values. Doesn't it also represent the way that we tried to deal with Iraq in the intervening years between wars? That is sanctions, UN resolutions etc. I'm pretty sure that my British neighbors, however, would say that this is the way to go. They claim that we haven't been patient enough.

kk

Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
beverly
Member
Member # 6246

 - posted      Profile for beverly   Email beverly         Edit/Delete Post 
Again, not that I am advocating support one way or another, but sometimes when you go to clean up a mess the mess gets a whole lot bigger before it gets better. (Thinking of organizing all my papers. Grumble grumble.)

My actual thought is more that I am not sure how effective this ploy really is in the long run. I just don't know.

Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2