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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

Originally Posted by ArtificialBrandon

Thanks for the input.

Thanks for the witty retort, Mr. Rickles.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by sspadowsky

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by Drew Katsikas

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]

Originally Posted by AChimp

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

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

[AChimp]

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.