OK, before everyone starts moaning about the above quote (which came from a Today Show interview that questioned whether or not the war on terror is winnable), let me just say that I understand that the President is not "admitting defeat" in the war on terror, as some on the Left claim. His point is a reasonable one, and one that many informed people fully understand. There will be no peace accord with terrorists, no wall to tear down, no official end to the war on terror. That point is fully understood by most people who understand that we are waging a war on a military tactic combined with a religious ideology, not a nation-state. However, let me just put out there for debate how I think Bush is doing in the War on Terror.
Aright, let me say that I agree with just about everything President Bush did with regards to the war on terror before he invaded Iraq. I think the war in Afghanistan was justified and well executed. I am personally of the mindset that the much decried "civil liberty infringing" powers that Bush gave many intelligence agencies following 9/11 were right on. They made us safer, and I truly believe that a peaceful American citizen with nothing to hide has no reason to fear such "infringements" (despite what Michael Moore would have us believe, the FBI talking to you because you made comments that caused your friends to turn you in is not the equivalent of Soviet Union KGB...as soon as they figured out that the man was simply questioning Bush's policy decisions, not planning to bomb anywhere, they left and considered it another dead lead. I would consider a short conversation with the FBI a small price to pay for my peace of mind that they were checking every lead) Anyway, getting off topic...back to Bush
So, I do agree with many of Bush's decisions following 9/11. However, I think his policy is now taking us down the wrong road. Bush has made it clear that he intends to win the war on terror by attacking the states that "harbor and support terrorist". This is really an understandable reaction, as it boils down a stateless war into terms we can understand and fight against.The problem arises in the fact that these wars are not only costly in both an economic and humanitarian sense (which is enough of a problem to give me pause), but also because they give more people more reasons to hate us. In this day and age, the line between a person who dislikes the United States and a Terrorist is not a hard one to push someone over. (Just remember how blood thirsty a lot of Americans became when we heard that 3,000 of our citizens had been killed...add the radical Islamic ideology to that and you're asking for trouble) So, what Bush is essentially creating is an endless war. We have conceded that we cannot kill or jail every terrorist in the world, so we have moved to a plan of constant disruption. We disrupt the states that harbor terrorists and we do everything we can through intelligence to disrupt them at home and abroad( I agree with the second part) I think this plan of constant disruption will keep us safe for maybe 4 to 6 years, but we have to remember that at some point we are not going to have a Neocon in office and that person may pause this constant war just long enough for all these new terrorists that we've created through these wars to coordinate their effortsand hit us big-time. (not to mention the fact that, someday, the general public may just get tired of budget deficits, ignorance of domestic issues, and dying soldiers. You know how many "terrorist regimes" there are out there, according to our current broad definition? Think Africa.....all of it.)
As it stands now, I think we can start thinking long term by using all of this money that we would be spending on disrupting terrorist regimes through war and redirecting it towards securing our borders, creating and funding THE BEST intelligence community in the world, and training civilians and civil servants how to protect each and every street in the United States.This creates no new terrorists and forces Bin Laden and his ilk to recruit without our help in a world that will allow them fewer newsworthy successes on our soil. I fully understand John McCain's point tonight that this war is the great challenge of my generation and that I cannot just say "I don't wanna fight forever"...I'd be living in a dreamworld if I thought Jihad would end anytime soon. However, I think Bush is pursuing a course of action that, while it will secure us in the near future will force my generation and possibly my children's generation to pay the mounting tab.
That said, I think Kim Jung Il needs to be taken out ASAP but I don't think we should invade North Korea. Whatever happened to good old fashioned assasinations and covert support of civilian uprisings? (bay of pigs...yeah, yeah,yeah)
Anyway, your opinions mean a lot to me, so tell me where I'm wrong or right and we'll discuss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yo, good points; however, there is some important stuff left unsaid.
Jay spoke about McCain's point about keeping WMD's out of the hands of terrorists. To prove that a) this has already worked and b) we need more of it:
a) Libya's leader Colonel Qadhafi (post Iraq invasion) has stopped his WMD programs whilst facing the political reality of its impact on Iraq.
b) Iran's WMD program (since the Iraq invasion) has been jumpstarted and is in full swing again. As well as the crazy Korean who is just content to try and ship his nuke carrying missiles to potential aggressive states.
The fact of the matter is that even with the most secure borders, Eastern seaboard cities, El Paso, San Diego, and West Coast cities will still be at risk because of the threat of WMD's. You just have to get close enough if you have the right stuff.
Finally, before said 'neocons' were put into office there was the previous administration that held office for eight years and dictated a lot of policy that influenced Bin Laden et al. to take out the towers/Pentagon.
Also, Jay hit on what is your best point. We desparately (sp?) need better intelligence if we can justify out foriegn policy. Thus we will probably have to be right about something bad that happens before it actually happens for the world to trust the CIA, NSA et al. again. This takes time and is in the works as we speak.
Gotta run to class now. Keep the good stuff coming.
Actually, Jay, you just touched on apoint that I started writing about and decided I was getting too long winded so I quit. Anyway, I agree that we are making a lot of countries, allies and not-so-strong allies alike, very nervous with our current international posturing. While in the short term it has given us some amount of superficial success in the form of sacrificial lambs (increased arrests in Pakistan, the abandonment of Nuclear programsin other nations...both of which we have seen before from countriesin that areaof the world and they havea nastyhabitof changing their minds)I think behind allof these "shows of good faith", these nations are sending their "Destroy America" programs underground.Actually, I'd sooner let these nations just go about their business under the full belief that no one is watching. Like the saying goes, sometimes you have to give someone just enough rope to hang themselves with. If, once they feel confident enough that they really want to make a play at taking the United States down, they will be a crater within 24 hours. (not to mention the fact that, if we improve intelligence like I want to, we'll know about theirplans long before they make that play) As it stands now, though, they are being forced into a policy of distracting us with these small "successes"while they still harbor and support terrorists underground.
I understand your point that a WMD only needs to get so close to do a lot of damage, Logan, but I think my plan could addressthat. Without our military fighting wars abroad, we can increase thepresence of national guardsmen along our borders and the Coast guard protecting our shores. We have been blessed in this nation with a tactical location (surrounded by ocean an 2 allies) that allows us to retract in and protect the homeland with much more effectiveness than many other countries. I think we would be remiss to abandon that gift just so we could build democracies in other nations because, as I stated before, such efforts often come back to haunt us 10 years down the line.
Post a Comment