Is George Bush doing a good job fighting terrorism?

[senseiman]

OK, now that we've finished our debate on the other thread I guess I'll take.

I agree with the need to reinforce America's borders. I was especially alarmed at the comments of a CIA official recently who said that a well-planned and financed plot to smuggle a nuclear weapon into the US would stand a 90% chance of success as things stand today. If terrorists ever did detonate a nuke in Washington the ripple effect that would have would stand a good chance of ending human civilization as we know it and that scares the hell out of me. I think security at ports where such weapons would most likely be smuggled needs to be seriously improved and fast.

I'm not sure what to make of your quote from the other thread that you posted above. Are you still arguing that the Iraq invasion was an efficient means of combatting global terrorism because it acted as a ruse to draw in Islamic militants to a central location (Iraq) where the US military could kill them off? There are quite a few obvious weak points to that supposition, not the least of which being the fact that the Bush administration never envisaged that the war in Iraq lasting beyond the length of time it took to wipe up the remaining Ba'athist hardliners. Its also worth mentioning that the US government is making considerable efforts to keep terrorists from entering Iraq in the first place, which is sort of counterproductive if their strategy is supposed to be to get all the militants to come to Iraq.

As for what I think they should do, withdrawing from Iraq is step one, for reasons I outlined in the other thread. From the point of view of its role in the war on terror, staying in Iraq makes little sense. It inflames public opinion across the Islamic world against the US. Now, you can say that the US is never going to be popular in the Islamic world and that may be true, but there is a big difference between people grumbling about the cursed Americans in their own homes and people picking up arms to kill Americans. The invasion of Iraq has served as a catalyst to turn thousands of the former into the latter. It is a huge political weapon that militant Islamic groups are being able to use to their advantage against the US.

The political factor is very important because it is not possible to defeat 'terror' through conventional military means. In the Iraq war the US military has actually had great success in killing and capturing insurgents. Its something of a paradox, the insurgency started out with only about 5,000 members according to most estimates and the military has killed or captured several times that number in the past year and a half and yet, instead of destroying the insurgency its number have grown exponentially. The head of Iraqi intelligence estimates its size at 200,000, with 40,000 of those being full time fighters. For every fighter the Americans kill, about 5 rise up to take his place.

It seems obvious that a military solution is not feasable because the violence only strengthens the insurgency rather than deterring it. So a political solution has to be found. Withdrawing from Iraq will rob the radicals of their most powerful weapon, not just in Iraq but throughout the Arab and Muslim world. Naturally the hardliners are going to want to kill Americans whether they are in Iraq or not, but under normal circumstances these people are not part of the mainstream. The Iraq war however has given these people a whole new level of respectability in large parts of the Arab world and they can use that against the US. Take away the Iraq excuse and it'll seriously discredit them. That could allow the US to drive a wedge between the radicals and the societies in which they operate and that would make it a hell of a lot easier for local security forces, possibly acting in coordination with US forces, to kill or capture them.

Obviously there are a lot of other things that need to be done too, but I think that fighting terrorism through the Iraq war makes about as much sense as using a bazooka to try to kill a mosquito. Its got only a slim chance of getting the job done and the damage inflicted is going to just make matters worse.

 

[Censport]

Senseiman, thanks for responding.

My question that I recycled was just that. I was asking those who have suggested "going after al-Qaeda" to think that through out loud. It's one thing to have an idea or a slogan; it's another to have a plan.

I still strongly disagree about pulling out of Iraq. After all, if we're going to help rebuild Iraq, which we should, then we're going to have to protect those people. The insurgency won't stop targeting aid workers and truck drivers just because the U.S. military is no longer there. Besides, since you said that the world's largest military can't defeat the Sunnis and Ba'athists, how do you expect the Shiites accomplish that? Because they won't be held to the same human rights standards expected of the U.S.? The insurgents want control and they'll use deadly force against anyone who gets in their way.

You stated before that as a former serviceman, you know better than to tell the troops that they're wasting their time. But if you shoot-and-run, leaving before the enemy is defeated, doesn't that tell the soldiers that their buddies died in vain?!? I couldn't help but notice that Sen. Teddy Kennedy pulled an Osama bin Laden yesterday by politically timing a message to undermine a foreign election. What a classy guy! But then his father, Joe, spoke in favor of Hitler while in London in... 1939? 1937?

Also, retreating will tell the insurgents (and anyone else who wants to fight us) that we can be defeated when the going gets tough and/or a war becomes unpopular with our media. (See: Vietnam, Somalia) Those we have "inflamed" by staying in Iraq will be further encouraged and feel validated in their hatred.

As for the remaining Iraqi citizens (those not taking up arms), they will be reminded of when we abandoned them when they tried to overthrow Saddam internally. "Oh great, typical Americans! 'We'll be there to help you, but not if the going gets tough.' "

You're right: There is a "difference between people grumbling about the cursed Americans in their own homes and people picking up arms to kill Americans." That difference is decided by those people. They can choose to keep grumbling. They can choose to blow themselves up in a mess hall. Blaming someone else for a decision you make is akin to calling an "excuse" a "reason".

For some reason, your reference to US troops' efforts to stem the flow of terrorists into Iraq brought that toll-booth scene from Blazing Saddles to mind. Any word on how successful they've been? Y'know, we don't have a good record of securing borders....

 

[Brooker]

staying in Iraq makes little sense. It inflames public opinion across the Islamic world against the US.

there is a big difference between people grumbling about the cursed Americans in their own homes and people picking up arms to kill Americans. The invasion of Iraq has served as a catalyst to turn thousands of the former into the latter.

These are the exact reasons I think Bush has made the terrorist threat worse.

Censport wrote...

retreating will tell the insurgents (and anyone else who wants to fight us) that we can be defeated when the going gets tough and/or a war becomes unpopular with our media.

This, "we gotta seem tough in the eyes of our enemies," argument always seems to come up. But I don't think "keeping your cred" is a good justification for war. Unfortunately many would disagree with me.

 

[Shooter452]

To answer the original question...

No.

Before the invasion of Afghanistan (remember that one? Lets stick with just that for now!) I opposed committing our military forces en mass in this "war on terrorism." It smelled like an open-ended commitment with no exit strategy. You remember that phrase? "Exit strategy" is what you plan to keep from fighting war-without-end, amen.

If you want to fight terrorists, you do not send a 24,000 man Marine Division. You fight terrorists in the shadows, in back alleyways, with shadow warriors. You fight what Frank Herbert (DUNE the book, you remember people!) called a War of Assassins. You fight the way they fight. If you must (you will) you kill women and children, the elderly, the innocent, because those are the rules of the game. You double-deal, you cheat, you do every loathsome thing that you swore as a kid that you would never do. But that is how you win such a war.

You don't like that stuff? Well, neither do I, but that is how you win a War of Assassins. How badly to you want to punish the people who hurt us?

I know that I wanted to hurt them after 11 Sept 01. I wanted to kill them. But it was then that I realized that every act of vengence we perpetrated would fuel the need to revenge that act. And I know in my heart that once you sink to their level of barbarism, where do you go from there?

And I know something else: if you start a war like the one we have on our hands, it can only end one way...one side expunges the other. As long as there are Muslim women teaching their children that when they are grown they should revenge the deaths of their fathers, uncles, cousins, brothers, this is never going to stop. It is like Pandora's Box, except that there is no Hope at the bottom. The war in Iraq is only us "kickin' it up a notch." BAM!!!!

I am not opposed to killing. I have taken human life--quite a bit of human life, in fact. It is not something I relish, but neither am I afraid to do it. But I believe that we have started something here that we do not have the resolve to complete. And I thank God for it. Because I see no resolution except to kill every single Muslim man, woman, and child. And I know that the last culture to attempt something like this was Nazi Germany. I do not want to be counted in that company, but there it is.

The only winning move in this game was not to play. Oooooooppppsss! I guess it is too late for that!

Ave caesar! Morituri te salutamus

 

[senseiman]

I still strongly disagree about pulling out of Iraq. After all, if we're going to help rebuild Iraq, which we should, then we're going to have to protect those people. The insurgency won't stop targeting aid workers and truck drivers just because the U.S. military is no longer there.

This may be true, but it is also true that the US military is currently incapable of protecting aid workers and truck drivers in Iraq. I'm not criticizing the military here, its just that the troops have to spend so much of their efforts just keeping themselves alive that they can't go around protecting aid agencies, which is why most of them have pulled out and why most foreign contractors are now spending most of there time in secure base camps rather than working on reconstruction projects.

Besides, since you said that the world's largest military can't defeat the Sunnis and Ba'athists, how do you expect the Shiites accomplish that? Because they won't be held to the same human rights standards expected of the U.S.? The insurgents want control and they'll use deadly force against anyone who gets in their way.

Yes, I did say that the world's most powerful military was incapable of defeating the insurgency. But I also said that the insurgency which a Shi'ite government would have to face after an American withdrawal would be much weaker than it is now. The insurgency doesn't seem to have much of a centralized leadership, so I don't think you can accurately state that they want control of Iraq. A lot of them may just be fighting to rid their country of the American presence or to avenge slain relatives or tribal members.

I'll have to respond tot he rest later,

 

[Dream Time]

no

if he wants to destroy terrorism, he would have to kill himself.

 

[goto]

wow..this site makes Japantoday look good. Compared Bush to Hitler? You can't be educated.
I guess you won't be posting about the elction that happened in iraq. How the terrorist are running out of sancuaries and losing by the will of the people.
in 15 years when iraqi's look back, don't worry, they will remember who helped them and those how oppossed them and would rather they live under atyrant.

 

[senseiman]

Sorry about the delay, I got taken away in the middle of my last post and couldn't get back until now.

You stated before that as a former serviceman, you know better than to tell the troops that they're wasting their time. But if you shoot-and-run, leaving before the enemy is defeated, doesn't that tell the soldiers that their buddies died in vain?!? I couldn't help but notice that Sen. Teddy Kennedy pulled an Osama bin Laden yesterday by politically timing a message to undermine a foreign election. What a classy guy! But then his father, Joe, spoke in favor of Hitler while in London in... 1939? 1937?

The stated objective of the war is not to kill all of the enemy, it is to create a stable, democratic government in Iraq. So if they can accomplish that by withdrawing as part of the strategy to defeat the enemy then I fail to see how those troops would have died in vain. As a former serviceman I stand in awe of what those troops are doing. My measly military career consisted of 4 years in the peacetime Canadian army, I never got within a thousand miles of a combat zone. So I'm not really qualified to speak on their behalf, though I should note that those guys are going through 15 month rotations, which must cause hardships that I cannot imagine to them and their families. I imagine (I don't mean to speak on their behalf, I'm just making an educated guess here) that if you were to ask most of the troops in Iraq whether they would rather stay in that hellhole indefinitely to defeat the insurgency as a way of honoring the sacrifices of their fallen comrades or if they would rather go home to their loved ones and let the new government try to come to a political solution to the war I'm guessing the vast majority would opt for the latter, seeing as how it would be the method that would cost a lot less of them to die in the coming years.

Also, retreating will tell the insurgents (and anyone else who wants to fight us) that we can be defeated when the going gets tough and/or a war becomes unpopular with our media. (See: Vietnam, Somalia) Those we have "inflamed" by staying in Iraq will be further encouraged and feel validated in their hatred.

To be honest I don't really see this being too much of a big reason to stay in Iraq. For one thing the withdrawal from Vietnam didn't really do anything to encourage the Soviets to do anything aggressive and in fact relations between the US improved during the period when Nixon withdrew the troops.

As for Somalia it certainly does give the Osama Bin Ladins cause to gloat but it really didn't do anything to alter things. That is, the political fallout wasnt very big, and it probably would have been bigger if the US had chosen to stay and casualties had increased.

Same with Iraq. It probably would validate the insurgent's use of violence, but what would that really change? For one thing every time the insurgents blow up another humvee it validates their use of violence so its not like that message isn't being broadcast loud and clear already. The further they are able to drag the US into the quagmire in Iraq the more they will be able to paint themselves as being succesful. As far as the PR war is concerned (and this is essentially what your point is all about) the US lost a long time ago and its time to cut their losses IMHO.

As for the remaining Iraqi citizens (those not taking up arms), they will be reminded of when we abandoned them when they tried to overthrow Saddam internally. "Oh great, typical Americans! 'We'll be there to help you, but not if the going gets tough.' "

Actually, while most Shi'ites are grateful that the US liberated them from Saddam they are just as anxious as the Sunnis to see the US forces off of Iraqi soil. Even members of the hand picked US interim government are adamant about that point if for no other reason than the simple fact that having American troops fighting running gunbattles with insurgents on a daily basis will make the country that much harder to govern.

You're right: There is a "difference between people grumbling about the cursed Americans in their own homes and people picking up arms to kill Americans." That difference is decided by those people. They can choose to keep grumbling. They can choose to blow themselves up in a mess hall. Blaming someone else for a decision you make is akin to calling an "excuse" a "reason".

My point was that the US has an obvious interest in reducing the number of people taking up arms against them. The Iraq war has obviously had the opposite effect. Whether or not their reasons for fighting the Americans are valid really makes no difference in the strategic context.

For some reason, your reference to US troops' efforts to stem the flow of terrorists into Iraq brought that toll-booth scene from Blazing Saddles to mind. Any word on how successful they've been? Y'know, we don't have a good record of securing borders....

I'm afraid I don't have any idea.

A couple of questions I want to ask though:

1) You say that the US is trying to turn Iraq into a battlefield against Islamic militants but at the same time is trying to turn Iraq into a stable democracy. How to you reconcile these two obviously divergent objectives? It seems like a no-brainer that you can't establish a democratic society if at the same time you are deliberately trying to coax violent, militant foreigners into the country with the objective of killing them in gun battles that are both de-stabilizing and destructive. This makes no sense.

2) How exactly is the US military going to defeat the insurgency by force? Every trend in Iraq over the past year and a half has suggested that this is a futile effort. The number of insurgents, the number of attacks, the number of casualties inflicted and the sophistication of the attacks have all increased dramatically DESPITE the US military's successes in defeating the insurgents in EVERY drawn battle they've fought with them. It is the same as Vietnam and I'm wondering what your strategy for victory is, given that even the general's in charge of the war seem to be running it on a day by day basis.

 

[Censport]

wow..this site makes Japantoday look good. Compared Bush to Hitler? You can't be educated.
.....
Maybe the site should be added here. http://japantodaysucks.com/index.html
seems these japan discussion forums are platforms for the kosanto's.

I'm here from Japantoday too. Lately, I've been having fun on there pointing out the behavioral patterns of a couple of the more hate-filled posters. That's about the only reason I go back to that site anymore.

Thanks for the link! I was wondering if I was the only one who had noticed the bias....

 

[No-name]

I'm figuring from looking at the vitriolic temper of japantoday that anti-Americanism is gaining popularity abroad and just seems way cooler than the pro American-Coca Cola-Levi's-Harley Davidson- Chicago Bulls- M&M wave.

It should have been a reason for voting for the other guy back in November...

 

[Censport]

Oh sure, let's all join the "in" crowd. Let's all start wearing Che t-shirts and cry "Fashion over freedom!" Would Andy Warhol be the patron saint?

And just for the record...

Sprite or A&W, not Coke. Ale, if after 5:00 and I'm not driving.
Draggin' Jeans, not Levi's.
Honda and Triumph, not Harley Davidson (pretty much ANYTHING BUT H-D!)
The Chicago whats? They have cattle in Chicago?
Reese's Pieces over M&Ms, any day.

Seeeee? We're individuals!

 

[Censport]

1) You say that the US is trying to turn Iraq into a battlefield against Islamic militants but at the same time is trying to turn Iraq into a stable democracy. How to you reconcile these two obviously divergent objectives? It seems like a no-brainer that you can't establish a democratic society if at the same time you are deliberately trying to coax violent, militant foreigners into the country with the objective of killing them in gun battles that are both de-stabilizing and destructive. This makes no sense.

My understanding is that we're expecting the battle to end at some point. It's kind of an interlocking process, I suppose. The end of battle helps the democracy grow and at the same time, the growing democracy helps diffuse the insurgency.

2) How exactly is the US military going to defeat the insurgency by force? Every trend in Iraq over the past year and a half has suggested that this is a futile effort. The number of insurgents, the number of attacks, the number of casualties inflicted and the sophistication of the attacks have all increased dramatically DESPITE the US military's successes in defeating the insurgents in EVERY drawn battle they've fought with them. It is the same as Vietnam and I'm wondering what your strategy for victory is, given that even the general's in charge of the war seem to be running it on a day by day basis.

Our kill/loss ratio is pretty good, and getting better. Using your Lancet figure, we're at 77/1. And the generals are having to run this day by day, as the insurgents keep changing their strategy every day.

 

[No-name]

Are insurgents the same thing as terrorist? I was thinking that a terrorist is defined by methodology, and insurgents, although some may engage in terrorism, may not necessarily be defined as terrorists.

Domestically, it will always be difficult to defeat terrorism if we continue to maintain a free and open society.

 

[Censport]

But what gets me?

Hitler was a million times more charismatic than Bush.
:frown:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Hitler made people proud to be German; President Bush has made most Americans ashamed of themselves.

kashii:

The same thing was said of Arafat; that he was charasmatic. One HAS to be charasmatic to convince people to hate Jews so much, to strap bombs to their kids and put them on Israeli buses, to create concentration camps.

Osama bin Laden could be called a charasmatic leader, no?

Sounds like charisma is over-rated.

PS: Americans re-elected Bush. And since the Democrats made the war in Iraq the deciding issue of the campaign, apparently we're not feeling very ashamed. Most of the people you hang out with, perhaps. Most Americans? No.

 

[mad pierrot]

Oh boy....

I'll be responding to this and the other political thread that just won't die later....

 

[senseiman]

My understanding is that we're expecting the battle to end at some point. It's kind of an interlocking process, I suppose. The end of battle helps the democracy grow and at the same time, the growing democracy helps diffuse the insurgency.

Yeah, but with no end in sight its hard to see how this battle is helping democracy grow. This is a bit of a convoluted rationale, especially given the resentment the people must be feeling given that 'Democracy" delivered to them in this manner is always going to be associated with violence and bloodshed.

Our kill/loss ratio is pretty good, and getting better. Using your Lancet figure, we're at 77/1. And the generals are having to run this day by day, as the insurgents keep changing their strategy every day.

This isn't a strategy. They've been killiing insurgents with great skill for two years now and its accomlished nothing in terms of diminishing the strength of the insurgency. On a tactical level (being a pampered, enlightened armchair quarterback I'm able to distinguish the difference) they have to change things to adapt themselves to the insurgents but htat isn't a strategy for winning the war no matter how good the kill ratio is.

It isn't viable because it is reactive. The initiative is always on the insurgent's side and the US military is forced to adapt to whatever changes they make rather than the other way around.

So basically your answer seems to be to simply continue with the status quo. That is a losing strategy as should be plainto see.

 

[mad pierrot]

Most of the people you hang out with, perhaps. Most Americans? No.

Fair enough. I made that comment before the elections, and later conceded to Brooker's judgment, which was correct. I guess that's what I get for spending 3 of the last 4 years living outside of the US....

Just to make note: As much as I dislike our President, comparing him to Hitler is NOT fair. I won?ft even bother listing the glaring disparities between the two.

 

[Brooker]

Iraq Conflict Feeds International Terror Threat -CIA

This is what I've been saying all along and the CIA has finally figured it out.

"Those jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries,"

Click here for full article.

 

[Doc]

You know all this talk about Bush reminds me when I was forced to watch the State of the Union Address this year for my US Government class. After about thirty minutes of Bush's BS, I had to get up and leave the room before my teeth went around to the back of my head and ate my brain. Not only that, but I was pretty close to shoving a spoon up my ass. Why might you ask would I do such a thing? Because if I'm going to have pain inflicted upon me, I'd rather do it myself.

Doc

 

[Mycernius]

A short answer to the question, NO. A slighly longer explanation for my choice. Killing innocent Muslims is going to keep the recruiting books of islamic terrorist organisation full for about the next 100 years or so. George Bush is an idiot, his advisors are idiots and our prime minister is an idiot for following old Dubya. I thought all these men and women had university educations. Worrying, isn't it? kashii: