"War on Terror"

[DPB]

Before I start, I sincerely hope this thread remains a civil discussion, because I am genuinely interested in people's thoughts on the subject.

I was originally posting this in the "Door Kicker" thread, but that thread has somewhat exhausted it's usefulness.

In that thread, LorDiego01 made the comment:

"But I think the whole War on Drugs thing is a failure of epic proportions that will only be dwarfed by the failure which is the War on Terror."

I would like to know what the measurement is that defines the "War on Terror" as a failure.

My measurement is simple. Since the attack which provoked the U.S. to respond (which was far from the first attack), how many further attacks have there been on U.S. soil? None. That, to me, defines the "War on Terror" as an unqualified success.

If your yardstick is casulty rates, the casulty rate has been far below any other modern conflict that has lasted more than 12 months. Before anyone gets their feelings hurt, I've had entirely too many friends not make it home, just like some of you. This doesn't change the fact that casulties have been, by the standards of modern conflict, light.

Also, if we're going to discuss the "We're still in Iraq" argument, well, we're still holding a hostile border in Korea, and have been for 53 years. And if you talk to the boys who were on the DMZ in the mid 80s, they were still getting into firefights with North Korean infiltration teams, taking and inflicting casulties. There were a great many things that didn't make the news during the Cold War.

Now, I dislike the semantics of "War on Terror," which is why I insist on putting that silly phrase in quotations. There have been some operational mistakes that should have been avoided, but on the other hand, Eisenhower signed off on Market Garden, too. I believe that the proper analogy for the "War on Terror" is not Viet Nam, as some insist, but rather the entire Cold War (1946-1989). We are looking at a long duration conflict which will have intermittent periods of higher intensity, which will last many years, which will cost a lot of money, and which must be fought by all of the elements of national power (military, political, economic, etc.)

Now the "War on Drugs," yeah, I'm going to have to agree with LorDiego01 and others on this one. The 80s and 90s version of Prohibition, with similar catastrophic long term results. I don't think total legalization is the answer, but it's definitely time we tried something else.

doug

[billamj]

DPB, I'm with you all the way. I would also like to point out that we still have troops in Germany, Japan, and Italy and it has been sixty plus years since the second world war has ended. As much as I hate seeing the casulty toll, the numbers a very light. We still haven't reached the total count of those lost on D-Day alone. One last point, I would much rather fight them over there than to have our guys, and no doubt some of us, fight them over here. We must be doing something right if they are continually sending more of their folks in to fight our guys in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[bsb]

I'll chime in with a few of my own feelings on some of the topics below:

I would like to know what the measurement is that defines the "War on Terror" as a failure.

My measurement is simple. Since the attack which provoked the U.S. to respond (which was far from the first attack), how many further attacks have there been on U.S. soil? None. That, to me, defines the "War on Terror" as an unqualified success.

There may not have been any attacks since 9/11, which I'm assuming is "the attack which provoked the U.S. to respond." However, prior to 9/11 there isn't much history of terrorist attacks on American soil. Only two come to mind--the first WTC bombing and Oklahoma City. For the purposes of this discussion, and to help keep things civil, I'm obviously not counting any police or government action (e.g. the Waco incident.) I feel fortunate to be able to say this, but I don't think the sample size is significant enough to warrant drawing the conclusion that the "War on Terror" has been a success because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the last 5 years.

Unfortunately, we regular folks won't ever know how many, if any, attacks were prevented or broken up while prosecuting the "War on Terror." I know there have been reports of plots uncovered or broken up in various stages of planning, but I choose to try and take the information made public with as big a grain of salt as I can without reaching for the tinfoil.

Also, if we're going to discuss the "We're still in Iraq" argument,

The problem with Iraq in my mind, and I suspect I'm not alone, is that our invasion was not a direct response to the events of 9/11. That may have heightened our sensitivity to any threats, real or perceived, and given us a reason to try to displace a regime that may or may not have had hostile intentions toward us based on what in hindsight looks to be shakier intelligence than we might have normally required to go out on such an adventure.

Also, there is the matter of bin Laden still being at large, even if he's been rendered largely ineffective. I'd feel better if more of our resources going into the "War on Terror" were utilized towards finding him and the rest of his top deputies (who actually did attack the U.S. without provocation) rather than trying to secure Iraq, a country which suddenly seems a lot less stable now than before we got involved there. Not to say that the people of that country weren't suffering under a terrible dictator, but that is something for them to work out as long as that dictator does no harm to us.

In the end, though, my problem with the "War on Terror" has nothing to do with any current military action. It has a lot more to do with what we as a society have signed away with things like the PATRIOT Act, and what I fear we will continue to give up before things are said and done. Think about it--how many user signatures on this board contain some variation of the "people who would trade freedom for safety do not deserve and will not long have either one" quote. That's one I very strongly agree with, and so I'm not comfortable making those trades.

Now the "War on Drugs," yeah, I'm going to have to agree with LorDiego01 and others on this one. The 80s and 90s version of Prohibition, with similar catastrophic long term results. I don't think total legalization is the answer, but it's definitely time we tried something else.

Hear, hear. I'm sure this will turn into a thread of its own in very short order...

[DPB]

billamj, I take back everything bad I've ever said about the Air Force.

The only reason I quoted Korea and not the WW2 theaters was because there were still hostilities in Korea until relatively recently. And for a slightly lesser time, we have had troops in the Sinai, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.

Regarding D-Day, I recently saw a statistic that we had over 1000 KIA in the final REHEARSAL for D-Day. Forget actual combat operations. Without researching it, I don't know what the actual combat casulties were in places like Normandy, the Bulge, the daylight bombing missions over France and Germany, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, or Iwo, but you're right, there were DAYS that were a lot worse than this war.

billamj also brings up another point, the alternative to fighting them "there" is that we can fight them "here." History shows that fighting in the other guys yard is a far superior strategy to fighting in your own.

doug

[kimbercdp]

Its very simple, loose the war on terror, you die. Lots of people die. Smoke all the dope you want, then you die. Get a clean head about you and realize, this is not just about today, but forever. There will always be bad guys, always has, always will be. We need to keep killing them, today and tomorrow.
And by the way, no one is ever going to run a campaign with legaizing dope as and issue. So keep snorting/shootin/smoking your crap in some dark corner, and hope the bad guys don't find you and cut your head off.

[billamj]

doug - I've even taken back some of the stuff that I've said about Army types myself on occasion. lol... I know that there are guys like you who are awfully happy to see that A-10 coming in on target. I understand about the situation in Korera, my brother-in-law was stationed over there, assigned to the AFRTS unit in Seoul, about five years ago and I had numerous friends when I was in who spent time over there, I was just trying to point out to the "still there" crowd that we are still there in numerous countries and that building new democracies takes time. You know that and I know that, but it seems like quite a number of folks have forgotten that.

[DPB]

bsb,

Good, well articulated points.

You are correct, there were not many attacks on US soil pre 9/11. I don't even count the OKC building, because that was a home grown operation. I should have explained a little better. We have not have had another attack since a foreign entity demonstrated the willingness and capability to conduct a large scale attack, and they have been prevented from a repeat performance.

I don't know, either, how many attacks have been thwarted, but so far the answer is "All of them."

I don't consider you un-civil for mentioning Waco, but I think that is a sufficiently different issue to warrant it's own discussion.

You are correct, the connection between 9/11 and Iraq doesn't follow a straight line. The best explanation I have seen is that attacking Iraq put pressure on the Saudis and forced them to attack AQ's Saudi money men. Additionally, establishing a presence in Iraq applies pressure to Iran, Syria, and the other surrounding countries.

Regarding the "terrible dictator," Hitler and Mussolini did no harm to us, either. Iraq did violate the UN sanctions, they engaged us war planes and troops enforcing the no fly zones whenever they got a chance, and, despite claims to the contrary, we have found WMDs and evidence of WMD programs. We have not found a single container with a million cubic feet of sarin gas, but we have found stuff. Also, the mass exodous of cargo trucks into Syria prior to OIF has never been satisfactorily explained.

I absolutely agree with your concerns about the Patriot Act and similar legislation. Here's my big thing: You might be the most rightous guy in the world, who would never under any circumstances mis-use this legislation. But the guy who gets elected after you may very well not share your piece of the moral high ground. There is not nearly enough thought being given to the potential long term consequences of these laws.

doug

[LorDiego01]

.... despite claims to the contrary, we have found WMDs and evidence of WMD programs. We have not found a single container with a million cubic feet of sarin gas, but we have found stuff. Also, the mass exodous of cargo trucks into Syria prior to OIF has never been satisfactorily explained.

Sorry to post a quick jab, but I lack the time to formulate a full post, but would you please cite your source for saying they found WMDs in Iraq? Im sure I can find clips of the daily show, as well as other news sources on YouTube that has the Administration agreeing that no WMDs were ever found. And please, if you can, no .gov websites.

Now, if you are counting the ones that the US sold to Iraq way back when, well, that doesnt justify your argument.

[DPB]

billamj,

I know, I just didn't want you to think I had been dropped on my head too many times and forgot about the places you mentioned.

You're right about the A-10, but my personal preference for small arms is a radio with an AC-130 on the other end. Something about a 105 firing with pinpoint accuracy from 10K AGL makes my heart skip. Not to mention it's "lesser" armaments.

DPB

[phillyd2]

The war is already raging http://www.pafoa.org/forum/national-...ca-debate.html

BSB, to the best of my knowledge by international law a country's embassy is in fact the same as that country's soil so "prior to 9/11 there isn't much history of terrorist attacks on American soil" is not exactly true. This war started around 1986. It's just that since 9/11 we are also in the fight.

Imagine CNN at D-Day. Imagine MSNBC commentary during the Battle of the Bulge. No winter sock! Impeach FDR! Imagine Saddam still in power and UN sanctions lifted.

Our invasion of Iraq may not have been a direct response to the events of 9/11 but it was a direct response to the change of thinking from 9/12 on. The benefit of doubt many had given Iraq disappeared.

The PATRIOT Act is like the above reference post a boogieman issue. I would hope that those who are against it would post actual clauses they are against so it can be thoughtfully debated. For those interested:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...:H.R.3162.enr:

There may be things in there we do not like but can anybody argue that the removal of the wall between the FBI and CIA was a bad thing? It is reported that when he heard about the 911 attacks the FBI director said "I sure hope this is not about those Arabs in the flight schools". Trillions spent (wasted) on the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA etc. and they could not stop 9/11?

From what I understand, President Bush said to those around him "make sure this (911) can never happen again. The result first result of this order was the PATRIOT Act, silly name and all. When I talk to those against the PATRIOT Act I am reminded the interview with some in the administration when asked if the Act was in force a year before 9/11 could they have stopped it. Most have said, most likely YES.