Why Are Americans Backing Off With The War on Terror? (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

Then why do Democrats propose retreating from the 12,000 Al Qaeda fighting our troops in Iraq? I'm not posing this as anything other than a very concerned citizen. Yes, I'm Republican, but, I'm scared to death with Al Qeada claiming all of this stuff and these "troops" in Iraq and the Democrats proposing retreat. As an American, regardless of party, this is very concerning. I just don't want us to send the wrong message, in light of the fact that we are, pretty much, already fighting Al Qaeda one on one and that is why it is so ugly. The suicide bombings, roadside bombings, kidnappings, etc., are hallmark occurrences that reveal, we are already one on one with the enemy and it seems that some are proposing retreating from this type of warfare, when, in reality, this it the type of warfare the enemy is offering and they have already publicly claimed that we could not stand up to this type of warfare. Does retreat reveal that it is simply too ugly and too much for us?

Maybe because occupying a Muslim country served to only give Al-Queda a playground to attack our troops in a Guerilla war?

There won't be any "message" sent to AQ if the U.S retreats from Iraq--if U.S. troops leave Iraq, well it leaves one less place or opportunity for AQ to attack our troops. Right now, they're sitting ducks in a veritable shooting gallery for RPG attacks, roadside bombs, etc.

The message actually might be fear. Occupying Iraq is not benefiting the war on terror. It is actually producing more terrorists, and providing AQ the perfect circumstances to attack our troops--who are mostly acting as policemen.

This idea that somehow withdrawing from Iraq would be retreating from the "war on terror" is specious.

And the Dems have not advocated completely pulling out.

 

[DadsDream]

Why Are Americans Backing Off With The War on Terror?

We're not.

But, the old shell game of pointing at every single potential adversary on earth and calling it "The War on Terror" has worn thin. There's no way to win. It goes on and on forever like the "War on Poverty" or as Reb has pointed out, the "War on Drugs."

The use of terror to influence world events is a concept. You can't physically fight and defeat a concept.

My guess is that the "War on Terror" is going to undergo a makeover and a renaming.

 

[LSSpam]

Why Are Americans Backing Off With The War on Terror?

We're not.

But, the old shell game of pointing at every single potential adversary on earth and calling it "The War on Terror" has worn thin. There's no way to win. It goes on and on forever like the "War on Poverty" or as Reb has pointed out, the "War on Drugs."

The use of terror to influence world events is a concept. You can't physically fight and defeat a concept.

My guess is that the "War on Terror" is going to undergo a makeover and a renaming.

"War on Al Qaeda" would make infinitely more sense. It'd be nice to divorce the geo-political games we play with Iran (and their client Hezbollah) as well as dealing with Israel/Palestine from "the War on Terror". They aren't the same thing, they never were the same thing, and it just confuses the American public about what the heck we're doing when you call it the same thing.

 

[RebSaint]

Why Are Americans Backing Off With The War on Terror?

We're not.

But, the old shell game of pointing at every single potential adversary on earth and calling it "The War on Terror" has worn thin. There's no way to win. It goes on and on forever like the "War on Poverty" or as Reb has pointed out, the "War on Drugs."

The use of terror to influence world events is a concept. You can't physically fight and defeat a concept.

My guess is that the "War on Terror" is going to undergo a makeover and a renaming.

Wow. We agree. BTW, I think it's silly to rely on the conventional military to fight terrorists.

We need to put more resources in special forces and intelligence (human intelligence). And the special forces guys should be ready to eat their own guts and ask for seconds.

 

[alon504]

Maybe you all are right. Maybe if we put a lockdown on our country and retreat, then we won't have to worry about another terrorist attack. Who really cares if 1.5 Billion people claim a worldwide victory on the US and 9/11? I'm sure we'll still be fine. And Europe knows what really happened, anyway. They aren't Muslim. As long as our economics are OK?!

 

[RebSaint]

Who really cares if 1.5 Billion people claim a worldwide victory on the US and 9/11?

Now you're being rather silly. You and I both well know that not all Muslims are terrorists.

Why don't you address some of the points others, including myself have raised instead of going down this path?

 

[St. Widge]

Maybe you all are right. Maybe if we put a lockdown on our country and retreat, then we won't have to worry about another terrorist attack. Who really cares if 1.5 Billion people claim a worldwide victory on the US and 9/11? I'm sure we'll still be fine. And Europe knows what really happened, anyway. They aren't Muslim. As long as our economics are OK?!

You know, this was a decent discussion until instead of addressing the points raised you retreated into fear mongering. Did you read what people wrote? No one is advocating giving up on fighting terrorists, we are advocating fighting them in a smarter way, a way that we can win.

But, it does show that the message the Iraq A.Q. leader was trying to send got through. You post shows that Americans are scared and as a result, they are willing to let other people, our soldiers, stay in Iraq as sitting ducks on the odd chance that the sacrificing of their lives in a useless war will keep you safe at home in bed.

 

[LSSpam]

Wow. We agree. BTW, I think it's silly to rely on the conventional military to fight terrorists.

We need to put more resources in special forces and intelligence (human intelligence). And the special forces guys should be ready to eat their own guts and ask for seconds.

You're assuming of course the invasion of Iraq was intended to create a direct conflict between Al Qaeda and the US Military. It's my opinion that was never the intention. If you consider Iraq to have more to do with applying pressure to the Sauds and Iran, then we were fighting terrorism through other means (ie Intelligence, Diplomacy).

At least, we intended too

 

[DadsDream]

Wow. We agree. BTW, I think it's silly to rely on the conventional military to fight terrorists.

We need to put more resources in special forces and intelligence (human intelligence). And the special forces guys should be ready to eat their own guts and ask for seconds.

I will add the caveat that I still don't think we've got all the info on the "why" we went into Iraq. In fact, I know we don't.

Much of the "War on Terror" needs to fade into the shadow realms which are the specialty of the NSA, CIA and the State Department.

We need to get our conventional forces completely replenished and rested.

We need to reassess the wisdom of downsizing and hiring contractors to the point where National Guard troops are faced with unending rotations overseas.

I'm still angry over contractors getting paid huge money to take the same risks some poor private is taking for chump change. I disagreed with it when the idea was floated under Carter and Reagan, then enacted under Bush I and Clinton.

For what? So Congress could beat its chest and say it had saved $Billions in retirement and benefits by reducing the number of authorized troops and cutting benefits to the bone.

Then, Congress turned around and spent many times more $Billions on contractors than they ever would have spent on soldiers' retirement and benefits!

I'm still so mad over that that I could spit nails. Pay a kid private's pay to disarm mines...pay some civilian technician contractor six figures...IT DON'T MAKE SENSE.

I'll get off my soap box now.

 

[TPS]

>>Third, they are "cheering" for the Democrats because they hate Bush. They wrongly assume that because the Democrats oppose Bush, they must be better for them.

Well President Bush made it clear. I think alon kind of tipped his hand that he was just stirring the pot. Here's a link to the President. Now he is spinning the results, but he is quite accurate. This also from today's radio address:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/11/bush.radio/index.html



TPS

 

[alon504]

You know, this was a decent discussion until instead of addressing the points raised you retreated into fear mongering. Did you read what people wrote? No one is advocating giving up on fighting terrorists, we are advocating fighting them in a smarter way, a way that we can win.

But, it does show that the message the Iraq A.Q. leader was trying to send got through. You post shows that Americans are scared and as a result, they are willing to let other people, our soldiers, stay in Iraq as sitting ducks on the odd chance that the sacrificing of their lives in a useless war will keep you safe at home in bed.

I am not going into fear mongering....there is an option out there and it is public with us retreating. And it is a tactic available to us that we could use without caring, at all, what the terrorists think or say?! I'm staying real here. This isn't a game. I'm opting for questions, as I post, that are up for consideration (even amongst myself). The War is stagnant and we have a seriously VERY UGLY enemy that uses tactics that we aren't accustomed to seeing. They are sly, evil, and even know how to dabble in our own politics. Will they manipulate us, or do we say, who cares what they think?, or do we hit them full force and continue on with the battle??? These are questions I even ask, and the recent election reveals that I am not alone with these questions. Hey...I want to squash them with every thing we have to offer...but, none of this is pretty. Keep in mind...it is the Democrats that propose a retreat and it is the Democrats that recently won. Let's analyze all options since we now have to do this. It is no longer a tough battle with the Republicans. We have to address the message the Democrats victory is sending to the enemy.

 

[alon504]

I will add the caveat that I still don't think we've got all the info on the "why" we went into Iraq. In fact, I know we don't.

Much of the "War on Terror" needs to fade into the shadow realms which are the specialty of the NSA, CIA and the State Department.

We need to get our conventional forces completely replenished and rested.

We need to reassess the wisdom of downsizing and hiring contractors to the point where National Guard troops are faced with unending rotations overseas.

I'm still angry over contractors getting paid huge money to take the same risks some poor private is taking for chump change. I disagreed with it when the idea was floated under Carter and Reagan, then enacted under Bush I and Clinton.

For what? So Congress could beat its chest and say it had saved $Billions in retirement and benefits by reducing the number of authorized troops and cutting benefits to the bone.

Then, Congress turned around and spent many times more $Billions on contractors than they ever would have spent on soldiers' retirement and benefits!

I'm still so mad over that that I could spit nails. Pay a kid private's pay to disarm mines...pay some civilian technician contractor six figures...IT DON'T MAKE SENSE.

I'll get off my soap box now.

We went into Iraq to get rid of an evil empire (as a convenience), and we knew we would DRAW the enemy (Al Qaeda) in to us...and it worked. Now that the enemy is in our face and we see how ugly it is, WHY are there individuals that are proposing any type of retreat? I want to know WHY???...Did we not want the enenmy in our faces after what occurred on 9/11. And now they are in our face in Iraq and I want to know why, now that we have got them where we want them, which is in front of our own troops, are there people and a party proposing a retreat from Iraq??? That is what I want to know.

 

[RebSaint]

I am not going into fear mongering....there is an option out there and it is public with us retreating. And it is a tactic available to us that we could use without caring, at all, what the terrorists think or say?! I'm staying real here. This isn't a game. I'm opting for questions, as I post, that are up for consideration (even amongst myself). The War is stagnant and we have a seriously VERY UGLY enemy that uses tactics that we aren't accustomed to seeing. They are sly, evil, and even know how to dabble in our own politics. Will they manipulate us, or do we say, who cares what they think?, or do we hit them full force and continue on with the battle??? These are questions I even ask, and the recent election reveals that I am not alone with these questions. Hey...I want to squash them with every thing we have to offer...but, none of this is pretty. Keep in mind...it is the Democrats that propose a retreat and it is the Democrats that recently won. Let's analyze all options since we now have to do this. It is no longer a tough battle with the Republicans. We have to address the message the Democrats victory is sending to the enemy.

What you're not comprehending here, is that actually RETREATING from Iraq might make more sense from a tactical standpoint to fight AQ. Don't buy into the testosterone-laced propaganda that comes from those who want to sit in Iraq, and justify it as fighting terrorism.

What you don't understand as well as that "retreating" from Iraq isn't "weak," and even if AQ interprets it as such. Who cares?

I don't understand how people can continue to defend a continued occupation.
Saddam is gone, a government is in place, they have an army. They are a SOVEREIGN nation.

Free up money and manpower to fight AQ elsewhere and build levees here at home.

Leaving Iraq won't mean that this country or the troops, or anybody else any more vulnerable to AQ attacks. In fact, one can argue that it might help.

Did you read others' points about U.S. troops as being sitting ducks in Iraq? Leaving Iraq doesn't present AQ with such easy targets. It's not hard to comprehend, especially from a military and tactical standpoint.

 

[St. Widge]

Will they manipulate us, or do we say, who cares what they think?, .

Well, if that's the question, my answer is who cares what they think? People who will strap bombs to kids or run planes into buildings in the name of their god aren't exactly rational or smart. We should act to do what we think will make us safer regardless of what they think.

The Democratic majority in the House and Senate does not really make me happier than when the Reps. were in control. They will likely do no better. But, what I did find encouraging is that it looks like it resulted in Rumsfeld being fired ("resigned") and Gates being hired. It sounds to me like Gates will do a better job of handling this and I think he will use the approach that DD discusses above.

 

[LSSpam]

We went into Iraq to get rid of an evil empire (as a convenience), and we knew we would DRAW the enemy (Al Qaeda) in to us...and it worked. Now that the enemy is in our face and we see how ugly it is, WHY are there individuals that are proposing any type of retreat? I want to know WHY???...Did we not want the enenmy in our faces after what occurred on 9/11. And now they are in our face in Iraq and I want to know why, now that we have got them where we want them, which is in front of our own troops, are there people and a party proposing a retreat from Iraq??? That is what I want to know.

I don't think that is accurate. There was no need to "draw" Al Qaeda. Bin Laden didn't travel to Iraq. Al Qaeda has plenty of foot soliders, and can get plenty more. Setting up a beacon to attract suicide bombers makes as much sense as setting up a bug zapper to kill all mosquito's (did someone else use this analogy?).

If you want to "kill" Al Qaeda you have to disrupt their command, control, and communication structure as well as their finance structure. Afghanistan was about their C3 structure. Iraq seems to me to be more about their financial structure, more specifically leverage on the Saud's who weren't cracking down prior to Iraq.