The failed war on Terror

[ElWingador]

I thought this was a good article.

http://www.progress.org/2005/eland31.htm

by Ivan Eland
August, 2005
U.S. government officials, both politicians and career bureaucrats, always imply that a tradeoff exists between security and liberty and that we cannot have both. This view, however, depends on buying into key erroneous assumptions made by those same officials.
The Bush administration’s high-octane “war on terror” has undertaken an active and highly publicized agenda domestically and overseas to rid the world of “evildoers.” Unfortunately, after the September 11 attacks, the American public would have been freer and safer, both at home and when traveling and doing business abroad, if the administration’s security bureaucracies had taken a long vacation. In short, the administration’s activism -- whether it be for ulterior motives, as in the invasion of Iraq, or to win public relations points with voters -- ensures that Americans will see both their security and liberty eroded.

The administration’s strategy in the war on terror has been that the “best defense is a good offense.” Both domestically and overseas, this strategy involves casting a wide net in the quest for enemies. Abroad, instead of focusing finite government resources and attention on neutralizing al Qaeda, the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks, the administration used 9/11 as an excuse to threaten the nations of a make-believe “axis of evil,” invade one of them, and topple its leader, who had nothing to do with those attacks. In addition to the deaths of almost 2,000 U.S. forces and many more innocent Iraqis, the resulting quagmire in Iraq has acted both as a motivator and training ground for the swelling number of anti-U.S. jihadists worldwide, which hardly increases the security of Americans anywhere.

Had the administration really wanted to lessen anti-U.S. attacks, it should have realized that the only way to stop terrorism is to remove its underlying cause—U.S. foreign policy toward Arab and Islamic nations. Most Americans are unaware—or choose to ignore—their government’s profligate meddling in the affairs of those countries after World War II.

Poll after poll in Islamic countries indicate that their people admire U.S. freedoms -— both political and economic —- wealth, technology, and even culture, but hate U.S. foreign policy toward Islamic nations. In particular, by their own statements and writings, Islamist jihadists, such as Osama bin Laden, hate the United States for its military presence on Islamic lands and for its support of corrupt Arab governments and Israel.

After 9/11, to avoid stirring up even more hatred in the Islamic world, the administration should have pursued al Qaeda more aggressively and quietly and avoided occupying Islamic soil (Afghanistan and Iraq)—a lightning rod to the jihadists. For the long-term, the Bush administration should have realized that the end of the Cold War would have allowed the United States to follow a “more humble” and less interventionist foreign policy, as President Bush had promised during his first campaign in 2000.

At home, the administration has also acted offensively, supporting the draconian Patriot Act -- and now its renewal -- that has increased police powers across the board, rather than being confined to terrorism cases. Also, a military command was created that has just developed war plans to use within the borders of the United States. The plans apparently include secret scenarios being kept from the American public that would likely further militarize law enforcement and would seem to involve the imposition of martial law.

It is questionable whether these measures will actually either stop or increase the government’s ability to respond to a terrorist attack. What is less questionable is whether these constrictions of liberty -- the foundation of our nation -- would have been needed or enacted if the United States wasn’t rampaging around the world tilting at imagined security threats and stirring the hornets’ nest in the process.

Yet instead of toning down U.S. foreign policy and shrinking the bull’s eye painted on back of the American public, the administration has tried to assuage the public’s fears of losing their liberties by creating the toothless President’s Board on Safeguarding Americans’ Civil Liberties, a panel with few resources, no enforcement clout, and little presidential enthusiasm or backing. Even such window dressing to cover the needless loss of liberties would be unnecessary if the United States got rid of its outdated interventionist foreign policy, which is a relic of the Cold War.

--------------------

 

[manu1959]

I thought this was a good article.

http://www.progress.org/2005/eland31.htm

by Ivan Eland
August, 2005
U.S. government officials, both politicians and career bureaucrats, always imply that a tradeoff exists between security and liberty and that we cannot have both. This view, however, depends on buying into key erroneous assumptions made by those same officials.
The Bush administration’s high-octane “war on terror” has undertaken an active and highly publicized agenda domestically and overseas to rid the world of “evildoers.” Unfortunately, after the September 11 attacks, the American public would have been freer and safer, both at home and when traveling and doing business abroad, if the administration’s security bureaucracies had taken a long vacation. In short, the administration’s activism -- whether it be for ulterior motives, as in the invasion of Iraq, or to win public relations points with voters -- ensures that Americans will see both their security and liberty eroded.

The administration’s strategy in the war on terror has been that the “best defense is a good offense.” Both domestically and overseas, this strategy involves casting a wide net in the quest for enemies. Abroad, instead of focusing finite government resources and attention on neutralizing al Qaeda, the perpetrator of the September 11 attacks, the administration used 9/11 as an excuse to threaten the nations of a make-believe “axis of evil,” invade one of them, and topple its leader, who had nothing to do with those attacks. In addition to the deaths of almost 2,000 U.S. forces and many more innocent Iraqis, the resulting quagmire in Iraq has acted both as a motivator and training ground for the swelling number of anti-U.S. jihadists worldwide, which hardly increases the security of Americans anywhere.

Had the administration really wanted to lessen anti-U.S. attacks, it should have realized that the only way to stop terrorism is to remove its underlying cause—U.S. foreign policy toward Arab and Islamic nations. Most Americans are unaware—or choose to ignore—their government’s profligate meddling in the affairs of those countries after World War II.

Poll after poll in Islamic countries indicate that their people admire U.S. freedoms -— both political and economic —- wealth, technology, and even culture, but hate U.S. foreign policy toward Islamic nations. In particular, by their own statements and writings, Islamist jihadists, such as Osama bin Laden, hate the United States for its military presence on Islamic lands and for its support of corrupt Arab governments and Israel.

After 9/11, to avoid stirring up even more hatred in the Islamic world, the administration should have pursued al Qaeda more aggressively and quietly and avoided occupying Islamic soil (Afghanistan and Iraq)—a lightning rod to the jihadists. For the long-term, the Bush administration should have realized that the end of the Cold War would have allowed the United States to follow a “more humble” and less interventionist foreign policy, as President Bush had promised during his first campaign in 2000.

At home, the administration has also acted offensively, supporting the draconian Patriot Act -- and now its renewal -- that has increased police powers across the board, rather than being confined to terrorism cases. Also, a military command was created that has just developed war plans to use within the borders of the United States. The plans apparently include secret scenarios being kept from the American public that would likely further militarize law enforcement and would seem to involve the imposition of martial law.

It is questionable whether these measures will actually either stop or increase the government’s ability to respond to a terrorist attack. What is less questionable is whether these constrictions of liberty -- the foundation of our nation -- would have been needed or enacted if the United States wasn’t rampaging around the world tilting at imagined security threats and stirring the hornets’ nest in the process.

Yet instead of toning down U.S. foreign policy and shrinking the bull’s eye painted on back of the American public, the administration has tried to assuage the public’s fears of losing their liberties by creating the toothless President’s Board on Safeguarding Americans’ Civil Liberties, a panel with few resources, no enforcement clout, and little presidential enthusiasm or backing. Even such window dressing to cover the needless loss of liberties would be unnecessary if the United States got rid of its outdated interventionist foreign policy, which is a relic of the Cold War.

--------------------

tis interesting.....

how exactly are these two things done?

Had the administration really wanted to lessen anti-U.S. attacks, it should have realized that the only way to stop terrorism is to remove its underlying cause—U.S. foreign policy toward Arab and Islamic nations. Most Americans are unaware—or choose to ignore—their government’s profligate meddling in the affairs of those countries after World War II.

well among other things this means do not support israel and when iraq invaded kuwait don't help kuwait .... fine by me

After 9/11, to avoid stirring up even more hatred in the Islamic world, the administration should have pursued al Qaeda more aggressively and quietly and avoided occupying Islamic soil (Afghanistan and Iraq)—a lightning rod to the jihadists. For the long-term, the Bush administration should have realized that the end of the Cold War would have allowed the United States to follow a “more humble” and less interventionist foreign policy, as President Bush had promised during his first campaign in 2000.

so how exactly do you persue people on forigen soil without going onto that soil ..... oh yea you ask the arab countries to capture arab terrorists funded by them and ask them to turn them over to you.....

 

[GotZoom]

tis interesting.....

how exactly are these two things done?

Had the administration really wanted to lessen anti-U.S. attacks, it should have realized that the only way to stop terrorism is to remove its underlying cause—U.S. foreign policy toward Arab and Islamic nations. Most Americans are unaware—or choose to ignore—their government’s profligate meddling in the affairs of those countries after World War II.

well among other things this means do not support israel and when iraq invaded kuwait don't help kuwait .... fine by me

After 9/11, to avoid stirring up even more hatred in the Islamic world, the administration should have pursued al Qaeda more aggressively and quietly and avoided occupying Islamic soil (Afghanistan and Iraq)—a lightning rod to the jihadists. For the long-term, the Bush administration should have realized that the end of the Cold War would have allowed the United States to follow a “more humble” and less interventionist foreign policy, as President Bush had promised during his first campaign in 2000.

so how exactly do you persue people on forigen soil without going onto that soil ..... oh yea you ask the arab countries to capture arab terrorists funded by them and ask them to turn them over to you.....

I'm sure they think it would have worked...as long as we said "Please."

 

[manu1959]

I'm sure they think it would have worked...as long as we said "Please."

maybe the world court's police force can go arrest them.

 

[USMCDevilDog]

I'm sure they think it would have worked...as long as we said "Please."

Exactly, why do they all think we could have just stopped it all from happening if we just talked to them? I know that Osama still did the attacks even after we had talked to him, so, talking with people who absolutely hate America ain't gonna do shit.

It is a good article though, nicely written to just make more people not like our country.

 

[Mr. P]

I'm sure they think it would have worked...as long as we said "Please."

Oh yea have to say "Pretty Please" followed with $$$$$$$.

 

[jimnyc]

This thread should have been more appropriately named "failed return by Funk".

This retard has been banned at least a dozen or so times so far. Someone needs phsychiatric assistance.

 

[Mr. P]

This thread should have been more appropriately named "failed return by Funk".

This retard has been banned at least a dozen or so times so far. Someone needs phsychiatric assistance.

Crap, another playmate bites the dust!

 

[manu1959]

Exactly, why do they all think we could have just stopped it all from happening if we just talked to them? I know that Osama still did the attacks even after we had talked to him, so, talking with people who absolutely hate America ain't gonna do shit.

It is a good article though, nicely written to just make more people not like our country.

i think they really belive that if we stop supporting israel and take the first step towards giving them back all that they belive is theirs (just as israel has done on the west bank and gaza) and remove all of our troops from SA and UAB then they will not be aggressive towards us or anyone else.

but until you actually do it they will always say that it would work.

 

[Abbey Normal]

This thread should have been more appropriately named "failed return by Funk".

This retard has been banned at least a dozen or so times so far. Someone needs phsychiatric assistance.

We are simply irresistable.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Is the only difference between the current "war on terror" and what police, diplomats and spies were doing before 9/11 that now we use the army instead of police and preemptively invade any country that we see as a threat to fight an incohesive enemy that replenishes itself every generation and is incapable of being distinguished from a regular civilian?

The "war on terror" just kind of seems like a concept more than a real war, kind of like the war on drugs or the war on poverty.

 

[dilloduck]

Is the only difference between the current "war on terror" and what police, diplomats and spies were doing before 9/11 that now we use the army instead of police and preemptively invade any country that we see as a threat to fight an incohesive enemy that replenishes itself every generation and is incapable of being distinguished from a regular civilian?

The "war on terror" just kind of seems like a concept more than a real war, kind of like the war on drugs or the war on poverty.

right--dead people are just concepts. :huh:

 

[trobinett]

Yea boy, the war on terror is just like the war on drugs, only deadlier.

What I find amusing, is the lengths, that these, I`m againts the war, but I love my country types, go to.

I mean they search the internet for articles like the one posted here, well writen, but totally full of bull pucky.

Call a spade a spade, if ya don`t agree, DON`T AGREE, don`t make sh*t up, don`t fine something, that`s so full of spin, the most simple minded of people can see right through it.

Ya lose respect, without respect, yer just another, in a l-o-n-g line of trolls, that seem to find life amongts the living.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yea boy, the war on terror is just like the war on drugs, only deadlier.

There have been plenty of deaths in the war on drugs. My point is that "the war on terror," like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, will never end because there is no way to eliminate extremism. It's just a concept. And we're doing a pretty poor job of fighting "terror" anyway. Just ask the people living in Bali. The war in Iraq is totally different from the war on terror. Now, instead of fighting terrorists, we're fighting Iraqi insurgents who just want us the hell out of their country and we're obliged to fight them until the Iraqis are capable of handling it themselves, which by the looks of it won't be for another decade, if that. They should've named it the "war on Muslim extremism" and worked with arab and other countries around the world to locate and monitor extremists instead of invading Iraq and making a big mess IMO.

 

[trobinett]

There have been plenty of deaths in the war on drugs. My point is that "the war on terror," like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, will never end because there is no way to eliminate extremism. It's just a concept. And we're doing a pretty poor job of fighting "terror" anyway. Just ask the people living in Bali. The war in Iraq is totally different from the war on terror. Now, instead of fighting terrorists, we're fighting Iraqi insurgents who just want us the hell out of their country and we're obliged to fight them until the Iraqis are capable of handling it themselves, which by the looks of it won't be for another decade, if that. They should've named it the "war on Muslim extremism" and worked with arab and other countries around the world to locate and monitor extremists instead of invading Iraq and making a big mess IMO.

So, HC, would it be fair to say, your all for packing it in, and running for cover?

Had enough, leave the "heavy lifting" to someone else?

The war in Iraq, IS the war on terror.

Have you been living under a rock?

Wait, I know, you`ve been mislead by the mainstream, left leaning, popular. elite media.

Do you wear a ring in your nose too?

Branch out, educate yourself.

We ARE at war, Iraq is the front lines, this is NOT COMPLICATED.

Jeeeezzzzzzz.......................

 

[Nuc]

There have been plenty of deaths in the war on drugs. My point is that "the war on terror," like the war on drugs or the war on poverty, will never end because there is no way to eliminate extremism. It's just a concept. And we're doing a pretty poor job of fighting "terror" anyway. Just ask the people living in Bali. The war in Iraq is totally different from the war on terror. Now, instead of fighting terrorists, we're fighting Iraqi insurgents who just want us the hell out of their country and we're obliged to fight them until the Iraqis are capable of handling it themselves, which by the looks of it won't be for another decade, if that. They should've named it the "war on Muslim extremism" and worked with arab and other countries around the world to locate and monitor extremists instead of invading Iraq and making a big mess IMO.

It's hilarious how these things they call "wars" on terror, drugs, poverty, etc. are not wars. And the things that are wars are not called wars, they are called conflicts or other such mumbo jumbo. Talk about PC crap! Words have meaning.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

So, HC, would it be fair to say, your all for packing it in, and running for cover?
Had enough, leave the "heavy lifting" to someone else?
The war in Iraq, IS the war on terror.
Have you been living under a rock?
Wait, I know, you`ve been mislead by the mainstream, left leaning, popular. elite media.
Do you wear a ring in your nose too?
Branch out, educate yourself.
We ARE at war, Iraq is the front lines, this is NOT COMPLICATED.

1. "Stay the course, there's hard work ahead" is just a talking point that Bush's speech writers have decided is a reasonable way of deflecting criticism of the administration's Iraq policy. Listen for it in Bush's Iraq speeches, it's in every one of them and all the other administration and party officials use it too. It's a bullsh*tty way of addressing the problems with their strategy and avoiding discussion of the Bush administration's policies, which is the story of this administration's whole tenure. Accusing me of being spineless and wanting to "pack up and leave" is also bullsh*tty and dismissive, plus you ignored a large part of what I said, which was:

we're fighting Iraqi insurgents who just want us the hell out of their country and we're obliged to fight them until the Iraqis are capable of handling it themselves, which by the looks of it won't be for another decade, if that.

See that? I don't think you did the first time. Try looking harder from now on. I didn't say we needed to leave, I said we're obliged to stay until Iraq can handle the job itself.

2. The war in Iraq has proven itself to be just the plain old war in Iraq, not the war on terrorism. We know now (and we're finding out slowly that we knew all along) that Saddam never had any WMDs or nukes and had no hand in 9/11, which is what started this whole thing! We're not fighting terrorists anymore, we're fighting Ba'ath party and Sunni insurgents who believe that the US is occupying their country illegally. And now we're forced to stay and fight them because we created the situation. If we were really fighting a successful "war on terrorism," those Bali suicide bombers would have been stopped, the London suicide bombers would have been stopped and there would be a concerted effort to discover extremism worldwide before it turned into violence. So far, I'm not seeing it. All I see is an occupation that's costing the lives of US soldiers and costing the US taxpayers billions of dollars every year and isn't making us any safer. The only "front line" Iraq presents is as a showcase for the incompetency of US intelligence and military planning by those in charge.

3. As for the "mainstream, elite liberal media," get over any delusions or conspiracies you may have been clinging to. Most major news corporations are owned by conservatives. The media's main function is supposed to be as that of the "social watchdog." It's supposed to bark when it sniffs things that don't quite smell right. Your failure to understand why the news media doesn't fawn over the Bush administration, especially in light of all the policy failures it has experienced is baffling. Bush's job approval rating has been in the 30s for months now. Where I come from, "30" is an "F." It's time to let go of the fantasy trobinett.

4. My nose is way too sculpturally and symmetrically perfect to ruin its harmony with a piercing. Sorry to disappoint.

5. I'm currently getting my "education" at one of the top five public j-schools in the nation. So get over yourself.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Had the administration really wanted to lessen anti-U.S. attacks, it should have realized that the only way to stop terrorism is to remove its underlying cause—U.S. foreign policy toward Arab and Islamic nations.,--

Hmmm, so, are you saying we should remove US foreign policy towards arab nations???? Just not have any??

After 9/11, to avoid stirring up even more hatred in the Islamic world,--

Yea, good thing they werent already really pissed at us when they flew the planes into the twin towers, (so, someone murders your mom and dad i your haouse, then the cops suddenly arrive so they flee, now you say "we better be nice to him or we might really piss him off),,,now, on cue everyone, lets cower and tremble before the almighty terrorists, and pacify them, yes, that will decrease American hatred....

Lessen anti US attacks? Bali is mostly Aussies, its been bombed twice, London bombings, was that an attack on the US? Spain, again, an attack on the US???

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Yea, good thing they werent already really pissed at us when they flew the planes into the twin towers,,,now, on cue everyone, lets cower and tremble before the almighty terrorists, and pacify them, yes, that will decrease American hatred....

You talk as if the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by all Arabs, but they weren't. They were planned and executed by Bin Laden (still at large) and a small army of al-Qaeda operatives. THAT'S who we should have our guys hunting for right now. Their time and our tax money is being wasted occupying Iraq.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And we're doing a pretty poor job of fighting "terror" anyway. Just ask the people living in Bali. .

How many Americans were murdered in Bali? WHAT??? I CANT HEAR YOU, PLEASE SPEAK UP !!!!! Oh, here, let me tell you,,,"Fourteen Indonesians, two Australians and one Japanese man were among the dead. Officials were trying to identify the nationalities of the other corpses."

Now, instead of fighting terrorists, we're fighting Iraqi insurgents who just want us the hell out of their country and we're obliged to fight them until the Iraqis are capable of handling it themselves, which by the looks of it won't be for another decade, if that. They should've named it the "war on Muslim extremism" and worked with arab and other countries around the world to locate and monitor extremists instead of invading Iraq and making a big mess IMO.

So, lets see, Insurgents just want us out of Iraq, and we are obliged to stay in Iraq till the Iraqi's themselves can stop the Insurgents....you dont see a problem with that statement??? If our presence is what is making the insurgents fight, then why dont we just leave? You say we are obliged to be there, to stop the violence, so our presence is both causing and preventing the violence, how does that work in your logic (or lack of)?