Winning the "War on Terror"

[Brandon]

Well, I tried playing Devil's Advocate for Bush's war for a short while and got met with some violent resistance. Before I completely become persona non grata around here, though (and say something that borders on Vince-ism), I'll explain my actual views on post-9/11 foreign policy and the fight against terrorism.

Iraq was a boneheaded mistake. I can't deny it. Reconstruction plans, which were shoddy to nonexistent, were executed poorly, and we excluded some potentially helpful people from the process (Chalabi, for example). The idea of "democratizing" the Middle East by force is not going to work, and even the "neocons" are backing off from it now.

That being said, I definitely feel that we need to resist the urge to retreat into isolationism. It's not going to keep us safe anymore.

Now as I said in the Condi thread, terrorists need, above all things, money and places to set up camp. States in the Middle East such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been providing both for some time now, and we've done next to nothing to address it. It stands to reason that if these states (and prominent indiviudals inside them) stopped harboring and funding terrorist organizations, it would cripple operations. Clearly the solution is to push for that.

The strategy has to start at the United Nations, however. Under current international law (Article 51 of the U.N. charter), military action is justifiable if done in self-defense; in response to an aggressor. The United States, its allies, and other like-minded nations need to push have the meaning of "aggressive"action redefined, so that it includes the harboring and funding of terrorists that seek to do other nations harm. It's a more than reasonable request, and I see no rational reason why it shouldn't pass.

If the U.N. refuses to change, though, it will demonstrate that they are not acting in the best interest of not only American but international security, and we may need to be prepared to turn away from them.

We then need to aggressively confront the aforementioned "rogue states," pressuring them to stop the flow of money into terrorist organizations (INCLUDING Hamas and Hezbollah), to stop harboring terrorists, to surrender any and all terrorists living with their borders, and to condemn extremist elements within their cultures. Similarly, Saudi Arabia must be taken to task for the spreading of violent, extremist, Wahhabist Islam.

Syria will easily crack under threat of military action and/or the cutting off of oil from Iraq. Saudi Arabia will be a little bit more challenging, but a possible strategy is to threaten to support an uprising in the oil-rich, Shiite dominated, eastern provinces. Iran is the trickiest of all, but we could easily support the existing movements to overthrow the mullahs.

These actions will have a side benefit. By cutting off terrorist funding in these countries, the Palestinian terrorist groups will be severely weakened, taking us one step closer to actual peace talks in the Israeli situation.

So, there you have it. Input is appreciated. Share your own ideas on winning the "War on Terror."

[Drew Katsikas]

It doesn't matter. People here aren't tolerant of views right of Max. Everyone fucking worships him. Don't even bother.

[AChimp]

Here's the best way to win the "war on terror." Stop stepping on toes and acting like you rule the world.

The entire world is NOT threatened by terrorism. It would take a helluva lot more than a few buildings blowing up to stop the world.

Pre-emptive strikes against countries are bullshit. Don't want to be attacked? Build up your defenses. You buy burglar alarms to keep your house from being broken into; you don't go out and start shooting potential thieves because they didn't hop when you said toad.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Actually, We worship chimp. it's a strange religion...a mixture of Haitian Voodoo and Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp adoration. We tolerate Max because he is a Stone Pants Rabbit.

We ALL hate Fartin. :)

[GAsux]

I have two points I'd like to make. Thank you.

First, Chalabi was cut out of the process because he had no popular backing and has proven to be weaselish from the start. The agency folks all had doubts and suspicions about Chalabi from the start because they realized that he had virtually no popular support and was in place as a result of nothing more than the money we were throwing him. In any kind of post Iraq government he'd be powerless to exercise loyalty and power over the masses of Iraq.

Second, the U.S. is absolutely magnificent at fighting wars. There is no doubt about it. You can site cases of "friendly fire" and civilian casualties all you want but the bottom line is in terms of strategic capabilities no one does it better than we do. However, we suck donkey nuts when it comes to "police actions" and nation building.

We didn't need the U.N. to invade Iraq. Bush was absolutely right. However, we DID need the U.N. to rebuild Iraq and that's where we got it all wrong. The Pentagon is great at the X's and O's of war fighting, but completely incompetent in the ways of stabilizing a tattered nation suffering from a severe power vacuum.

If the U.S. had agreed to turn over the rebuilding and reconstruction to the U.N. immediately following the cessation of "combat" I believe Iraq would be light years ahead of where they are now. Each day longer the U.S. maintains a military presence on the ground adds to the fuel being spread by muslim leaders and clerics already oppossed to U.S. "occupation". We will never win the hearts and minds as long as our troops are walking the streets.

The only feasible exit at this point in my mind is at least a gradual transition to a U.N. led rebuilding process. Unfortunately for a variety of reasons at this point it appears as if the U.N. (see Anan's statements today) is unwilling to play. Perhaps it's the situation, perhaps it's the bridges we've burned. Regardless, Iraq still requires involvement in the economic, political, and domestic security arenas but as long as that involvement comes in the form of the U.S. military, progress will not be made.

But that's just me.

[davinxtk]

Okay, Brandon, this is very close to what I was getting at; however, I don't think rewording UN policy to allow for unilateral activity in cases where nations feel they are "threatened" is quite the proper answer here. I would more support the idea that the UN should be tapped in such a situation, with UN troops, policies, and reconstruction.
And yes, I know where the UN gets its troops and funding, but I also know that the UN occupying a country is more acceptable than the US, by anyone's account.

[Brandon]

Okay, Brandon, this is very close to what I was getting at; however, I don't think rewording UN policy to allow for unilateral activity in cases where nations feel they are "threatened" is quite the proper answer here.
Neither do I, but that wasn't the point I was making. The UN policy needs to be reworded so that countries proven to harbor and fund terrorists be regarded as aggressors. There's no ambiguity in the cases of Syria, Iran, and especially Saudi Arabia.

[davinxtk]

Agreed. As long as we're on the same page about unilateralism, though. Pre-emptive strikes should be handled by international organizations, not by America and and our "coalition." The only difference between "coalition" and "rogue states" is that we're the ones naming names.

[Brandon]

In addition to what I've already said, I think that the United States and other like-minded nations should not hesitate to start a debate in the United Nations on the rather erroneous assumption that all governments are created equal. Oppressive dictatorships and theocracies should not be considered as legitimate as the democratic governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, etc.

[Perndog]

Here's the best way to win the "war on terror." Stop stepping on toes and acting like you rule the world.

The entire world is NOT threatened by terrorism. It would take a helluva lot more than a few buildings blowing up to stop the world.

Pre-emptive strikes against countries are bullshit. Don't want to be attacked? Build up your defenses. You buy burglar alarms to keep your house from being broken into; you don't go out and start shooting potential thieves because they didn't hop when you said toad.

Shitty analogy. In place of thief, insert "person who promised he would kill your kids as soon as he got a chance" and consider that there is no higher authority to turn to (like police) that will stop him for you.

[Brandon]

EDIT: Accidental post.

[ArrowX]

I can't say anything because I'm Not an imperialist american pig :(

I'mfrom CunadIuh

[sspadowsky]

I would just like to say that I hope we win the War on Terror as quickly, efficiently, and decisively as we won the War on Drugs.

[GAsux]

We're about to see by just how much exactly we're winning when in the next week or so the feces hits the oscillator in Najaf and Fallujah. When the Marines move in, and I'm confident they will, the lid is going to blow off this whole silly game.

[Brandon]

I would just like to say that I hope we win the War on Terror as quickly, efficiently, and decisively as we won the War on Drugs.
Thanks for the input.

[ScruU2wice]

It's kinda like solving a rubiks cube with 54 different colors...

Is that a good analogy, i've been working on it for a while :/

[sspadowsky]

I would just like to say that I hope we win the War on Terror as quickly, efficiently, and decisively as we won the War on Drugs.
Thanks for the input.

Thanks for the witty retort, Mr. Rickles.

[Brandon]

I would just like to say that I hope we win the War on Terror as quickly, efficiently, and decisively as we won the War on Drugs.
Thanks for the input.

Thanks for the witty retort, Mr. Rickles.
No problem, sweetie.

[Ghost of Fraiser]

Brandon, your like Rudy, no matter how hard you try, you are going to die at the end of the movie.

[Dole]

'Now as I said in the Condi thread, terrorists need, above all things, money and places to set up campStates in the Middle East such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia have been providing both for some time now, and we've done next to nothing to address it.'

-Ummm...terrorists have been living in the UK, Spain, Germany...the spanish bombers funded themselves through drug dealing. You dont need the backing of a 'rogue state' to exist as a terrorist cell. They can live almost anywhere. I am sure there are lots in the US and UK as we speak. They can fund themselves in tons of different ways. Blowing up a few more nations wont change a thing.

[kahljorn]

LOL?

Yea, everybody in the entire World needs a job to survive. Haven't you ever pulled up into a KFC and seen the Taliban working in the back? Damn right. They practice their killing slaughtering cloned chickens. Now you know the secret of funding terrorist activities, minimum wage jobs.

[AChimp]

Here's the best way to win the "war on terror." Stop stepping on toes and acting like you rule the world.

The entire world is NOT threatened by terrorism. It would take a helluva lot more than a few buildings blowing up to stop the world.

Pre-emptive strikes against countries are bullshit. Don't want to be attacked? Build up your defenses. You buy burglar alarms to keep your house from being broken into; you don't go out and start shooting potential thieves because they didn't hop when you said toad.

Shitty analogy. In place of thief, insert "person who promised he would kill your kids as soon as he got a chance" and consider that there is no higher authority to turn to (like police) that will stop him for you.

You're still breaking the law if you start shooting potential murderers. :rolleyes

[KevinTheOmnivore]

It doesn't matter. People here aren't tolerant of views right of Max. Everyone fucking worships him. Don't even bother.

You are such a fucking herb. I had that to say. Thank you.

EDIT: I'd like to actually add more to this later, but as for Chalabi being excluded from the process, GAsux hit it right on the head. Chalabi, despite condemnation from the CIA, has been our "go to guy" in Irq for years now. Several actors never would've come to the table if they thought this whole process was just a smoke and mirrors show, ultimately leading to a Prime Minister Chalabi, or whatever. He just had an op/ed in today's Wallstreet Journal. His party is involved in the coalition. He is still a significant mover-and-shaker behind the scenes, me thinks.

[Perndog]

Shitty analogy. In place of thief, insert "person who promised he would kill your kids as soon as he got a chance" and consider that there is no higher authority to turn to (like police) that will stop him for you.

You're still breaking the law if you start shooting potential murderers. :rolleyes

Remember, there are no police. Only more psychotic neighbors.

[AChimp]

:lol

Now your analogy is crap. The world is hardly comprised solely of "psychotic neighbours." People who are tired of you raking your leaves onto their lawn, maybe, but hardly the kind you're trying to make it seem like.

[Buffalo Tom]

I agree with you that law enforcement efforts need to be increased to stop terrorism. However, your proposals only treat the symptom of a more pernicious disease and that is anti-Western hatred. Countries in the West, in particular the United States, are viewed as selfish and as having agendas that look after corporate interests over human interests. I mean, can you blame the large portions of people in Iraq who are spouting anti-American slogans? The U.S. military has crapped bombs all over the country, and now the American post-invasion administrators are handing over control of most of Iraq's infrastructure to American and pro-American corporations.

Some recent highlights: At the end of March, building on his Order 39 of last September, Bremer passed yet another law further opening up Iraq's economy to foreign ownership, a law that Iraq's next government is prohibited from changing under the terms of the interim constitution. Bremer also announced the establishment of several independent regulators, which will drastically reduce the power of Iraqi government ministries. For instance, the Financial Times reports that "officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority said the regulator would prevent communications minister Haider al-Abadi, a thorn in the side of the coalition, from carrying out his threat to cancel licenses the coalition awarded to foreign-managed consortia to operate three mobile networks and the national broadcaster."

When people who perceive that have had the power to decide their future taken from them by other people with a vast store of resources, what means do they have to redress their situation? The terrorists are ready to give people their answer to this question.

What is the West's answer going to be?

[Brandon]

Ummm...terrorists have been living in the UK, Spain, Germany...the spanish bombers funded themselves through drug dealing. You dont need the backing of a 'rogue state' to exist as a terrorist cell. They can live almost anywhere. I am sure there are lots in the US and UK as we speak. They can fund themselves in tons of different ways. Blowing up a few more nations wont change a thing.
The difference is that terrorists are prosecuted in the countries you mentioned.

[Brandon]

I agree with you that law enforcement efforts need to be increased to stop terrorism. However, your proposals only treat the symptom of a more pernicious disease and that is anti-Western hatred. Countries in the West, in particular the United States, are viewed as selfish and as having agendas that look after corporate interests over human interests. I mean, can you blame the large portions of people in Iraq who are spouting anti-American slogans? The U.S. military has crapped bombs all over the country, and now the American post-invasion administrators are handing over control of most of Iraq's infrastructure to American and pro-American corporations.
Tom, I acknowledge anti-American sentiment as a "root cause" for terrorism, but here's the problem:

"Root-causeism" is based on a conceit. Just as you can't possibly eliminate all poverty and economic inequality in order to prevent crime here, you also can't completely eliminate anti-American hatred abroad. The Arab world didn't just start hating the West in the late 20th century; it can be traced back to the fucking Crusades. I'm not saying we shouldn't soften our image, but the idea that anything other than attacking the "root causes" amounts to pure thuggery is based on intellectual snobbery.

[Buffalo Tom]

I'm not saying we shouldn't soften our image a bit, but the idea that anything other than attacking the "root causes" amounts to pure thuggery is based on intellectual snobbery.

It is not based on intellectual snobbery. It is simple arithmetic. There are more poor people than rich people. If western countries continue only to concentrate on 'shock and awe' military campaigns, and do not make significant efforts to build a world where social justice is more than a feel-good catchphrase, then we might as well give up trying to catch Osama Bin Laden. We'll have a whole generation who will have grown up admiring al Qaeda and others of their ilk.

[davinxtk]

Countries in the West, in particular the United States, are viewed as selfish and as having agendas that look after corporate interests over human interests.
I wonder where that came from.

... we might as well give up trying to catch Osama Bin Laden. We'll have a whole generation who will have grown up admiring al Qaeda and others of their ilk.
They've certainly gotten the attention of our government right quick.

I'm honestly surprised these activities (9/11 and beyond) haven't caused a sharp uprising in domestic terrorism -- currently the desert rats have the market cornered on getting our government's attention, but just wait until civil rights violations ramp up in the states (thank you, right wing) and someone realizes that blowing people up gets attention like nobody's business.

[Brandon]

It is not based on intellectual snobbery. It is simple arithmetic. There are more poor people than rich people. If western countries continue only to concentrate on 'shock and awe' military campaigns, and do not make significant efforts to build a world where social justice is more than a feel-good catchphrase, then we might as well give up trying to catch Osama Bin Laden. We'll have a whole generation who will have grown up admiring al Qaeda and others of their ilk.
Let me guess. Socialism?

Keep in mind that the ideas I mentioned allow for working through the United Nations.

[Perndog]

I don't think most anti-Western sentiment is due to a lack of humanitarianism. Dozens of brands of Islam hate the West because of its decadence or its supposed association with Jews. Countries like North Korea hate the West because their rulers tell them to. There are some people who are genuinely pissed off because their houses were bombed. But most of them hated us before they started getting hurt because they were raised that way by anti-Western parents and anti-Western governments that are often crueler than ours. It doesn't matter how nice the US is to some of these groups. They'll still hate us and everyone like us.

[sspadowsky]

I don't think most anti-Western sentiment is due to a lack of humanitarianism. Dozens of brands of Islam hate the West because of its decadence or its supposed association with Jews. Countries like North Korea hate the West because their rulers tell them to. There are some people who are genuinely pissed off because their houses were bombed. But most of them hated us before they started getting hurt because they were raised that way by anti-Western parents and anti-Western governments that are often crueler than ours. It doesn't matter how nice the US is to some of these groups. They'll still hate us and everyone like us.

I was waiting for a good opportunity to explain my "War on Drugs" quip to Brandon, since it obviously went over his head. Thanks for providing it, Pern. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it does help get the point across: The "War on Terror," just like the "War on Drugs," is a complete joke and an utter failure. As David Cross said, "It's like having a War on Jealousy- you're not going to win."

Now before any War Hawks jump in and rattle off statistics showing how many senior Al-Qaeda officials we've caught or killed, etc., think of that monster from Greek mythology- the one who, once its head is chopped off, sprouts seven more heads- yes, Joan Rivers.

You're never going to get them all, and our present course of action is only going to make things worse. I'm sure I could use Israel and Palestine as a solid example, but we all know that would just be pinko-commie-america-hatin'-fag talk.

[Brandon]

I was waiting for a good opportunity to explain my "War on Drugs" quip to Brandon, since it obviously went over his head. Thanks for providing it, Pern. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it does help get the point across: The "War on Terror," just like the "War on Drugs," is a complete joke and an utter failure. As David Cross said, "It's like having a War on Jealousy- you're not going to win."
It didn't go over my head, you smug cunt, I just didn't feel the need to address it since it's the same line of garbage that's been repeated ad nauseum by the left since the "War on Terror" began.

Now before any War Hawks jump in and rattle off statistics showing how many senior Al-Qaeda officials we've caught or killed, etc., think of that monster from Greek mythology- the one who, once its head is chopped off, sprouts seven more heads- yes, Joan Rivers.
Of course we have to discard those statistics. Otherwise your assertion that the war has been an "utter failure" would seem less credible.

You're never going to get them all, and our present course of action is only going to make things worse. I'm sure I could use Israel and Palestine as a solid example, but we all know that would just be pinko-commie-america-hatin'-fag talk.
So.. what? What would your solution be, exactly? Ignore it? If you can't win permanently don't bother at all? The Clinton administration practically ignored terrorism for 8 years and we still had 9/11.

[GAsux]

You're a silly fucktard if your honest assertion is that the Clinton administration did nothing regarding terrorism. Further, let's get back to the issue at hand. I would love to see a single statistic that remotely validates the assumption that overthrowing Saddam has somehow affected a positive change in global terrorism.

They are not related.

[Brandon]

You're a silly fucktard if your honest assertion is that the Clinton administration did nothing regarding terrorism.
Clinton had a habit of avoiding decisive action after every major terror attack that occurred during his two terms, including the first WTC bombing. When he did make military strikes, they were typically ineffectual or botched, such as the infamous "aspirin factory" incident. The Sudan offered him Osama bin Laden on a silver platter at least three times, and he refused.

Further, let's get back to the issue at hand. I would love to see a single statistic that remotely validates the assumption that overthrowing Saddam has somehow affected a positive change in global terrorism.
Hold on a minute; the Iraq war isn't the issue in this thread.

[sspadowsky]

Well, I'm sure you're right. But let's indulge my smug cuntiness for a moment and compare it to the War on Drugs- On one hand, we have a group of shady people, loosely organized and globally distributed, using terrorism and violence to achieve their own ends, with no tangible governmental affiliation, scruples, or respect for human life. We've spent years and untold billions of dollars circumnavigating the globe chasing these bastards, and the US government has had a hand in funding and even training some of these groups. Hell, we've even put some of their leaders in power.

Am I talking about the terrorists or the drug cartels? Hmmmm....

You're right. Silly me, I guess it was a weak analogy after all. :blah

[ArrowX]

I"m a terrorist, according to my family discussing ways to stab a president in the face makes me a terrorist.

And we should go the way of the game N.A.R.C. to win the war on drugs.