Originally posted by gop_jeff
Don't forget that millions also marched in support of this war and in support of the soldiers that fought. I was one of them.
I respect that Jeff, but don't mistake opposition to the war for opposition to the soldiers. I know a lot of people who oppose the war but none that oppose the troops. I've been to Iraq myself on the feds dime, but not in a combat capacity.
Originally posted by gop_jeff But you are right... where do we go from here? Bush has laid out his plan. I think he is pretty much right on. While we have not executed the war perfectly, the facts remain: Saddam is gone, Iraq is free, and we are on our way to seeing a sovreign Iraqi government being elected, which replaces an Iraq that was friendly to terrorists. [/B]
Saddam is gone, but the outcome remains in doubt. I think Powelll had it right with what has come to be known as the Powell doctrine, which, in a nutshell is: Only fight when you have to, use overwhelming force to execute your war plan (a lesson from the mission creep of Vietnam), set clear military objectives and exit strategy.
I wish Powell had Rummy's job.
Originally posted by gop_jeff I would like you to explain one thing to me, though, that I have yet to understand: why do you feel it is necessary to build an international framework in order to fight terrorism? I ask this not in an acussing manner, but because I truly don't understand the reasoning behind it. Given the results of the last 2 1/2 years of the GWOT, why do you feel it necessary to have a "real international coalition" to continue the fight? [/B]
---Sorry, Ive been away on an errand.----
That is a good question. I have to preface my response. One of the primary reasons that I opposed the war against Iraq is that I've never bought the link between OBL and Iraq. I have never accepted Iraq as center of the war on terrorism. I would refer you to the finding of the US Army War College (where Bush spoke yesterday), which concluded that Iraq was a war of choice that has significantly strained the US military. General Zinni has made similar comments.
I realize you do not, but if you shared the views of Gen. Zinni, Gen. Brent Scocroft, the US Army War College and many others, than the war in Iraq is a best a distraction from the war against terrorists, at worse, it undermines our militarys capability to deal with the real threat of Islamic fundamentalist, drains resources needed to respond to that threat, increased the threat, and has alienated the international community whose support in the war on terrorism we need.
Which brings me to your question.
My first response is that it is simply pragmatic. It is in the interest of all Western countries, to contain radical fundamentalist terrorist movements. Nobody is immune. It seems self-evident that the efforts to contain international terrorism will be more effective if we cooperate in our collective self-interest.
When I think of terrorists, I think of 9/11, not Saddam. In that context, (in retrospect) we need the cooperation of the international banking community to track the money trail, the German government where many of the 9/11 terrorists lived, the Saudi government where most came from, the Canadian government where I believe Mohammad Atta boarded his airplane (if I remember correctly). More recently weve cancelled a dozen flights from France because of terrorist threats. Do you think the US would be safer if the countries where U. S. bound flights originate cooperate in an international passenger screening? Terrorists dont need to build an ICBM to drop a bomb on Manhattan. A shipping container will do. How about international cooperation among nations that flag vessels?
And how about bio-medical research? Do you think US security would be enhanced if Western countries cooperated in developing bio-medical screening devices or treatment methodologies? And how many Saudi (dont mean to pick on them, obviously there are other states of concern) students are studying in biomedical research labs in the US, in Brazil or in Italy. I dont know either, but I sure as hell would like to.
Terrorism is a virus. It can cross borders without being detected, lay dormant for years, strike nearly anywhere, attack without being detected. It is what you folks at the Pentagon call asymmetrical warfare. What that means is that 12 carrier task forces are largely irrelevant to the war on terrorism. Terrorists are not trying to protect shipping lanes, hold territory or take over a country. The targets of terrorists are often non-military like the World Trade Center.
I guy I know used to say when your only tool is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. Our military is second to none, and the American soldier is the best trained, led, and equipped in the world. But to defeat terrorism well need other tools as well.
Of course, there is an important role for the military to play in fighting fundamentalist terrorists movements, but military means along can never defeat terrorism. Terrorism does not have defined borders, a national identity, armies that can be defeated in the field (for the most part), a government to negotiate with. Terrorists are non-state actors. Our vast nuclear arsenal means nothing to them.
Not only do we need international cooperation to share the burden and costs when we do have to fight, we need the support and cooperation of international trading community, bankers, telecommunication companies, universities, law enforcement, medical research to name just a few.
And on top of all of that we need to establish an international framework of law because terrorism is often a transnational event. It would suck if the CIA had specific information about a credible threat in Thailand, but there were no laws in Thailand to extradite the suspects or detain them. Do you think international treaties to control the transfer of dangerous chemicals, toxins or nuclear material is in our security interests? You bet. And what about the enforcement mechanisms to make them effective?
We need a diplomatic tool as well. Fundamental wahabbism (spelling?) is largely funding by our allies the Saudis. They sit on the largest reserves of oil in the world, a resource we need. We need to cooperate with the government in the Philippines.
We also need to cooperate in looking at, and addressing the causes of terrorism. Hasnt it occurred to someone that if we help send kids to proper schools then they wont be going to Madrasses where they learn to hate Americans and Jews? Could we do more to move the Middle East peace process to a just peace. Do we support ruthless dictatorships in the Middle East and elsewhere that create a burning resentment towards the US? Do we ignore genocide in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the Congo but discover humanitarian intervention when our strategic or economic interests are at stake? What message does that send? Surely we need a more nuanced understanding of terrorism than a simplistic and inadequate expedient that they hate freedom.
Sorry Ive gone on so long here Jeff. This is a big subject. Ill just stop here.
on France
