pinky-wink |
|
_______________
_______________ Recent Posts: Update of how to help The Secret Creative Class History of Chicago, Part...
|
Sunday, September 11, 2005
Four years on...
It is unbelievable to me that it has been four years since 9/11. Of course I still remember where I was, and all that, but what is truly unbelievable to me is that our "War on Terror" has been waged so incompetently. The questions are large and illogical: Why are we in Iraq? Why are we still in Iraq? Why is Bin Laden still roaming free? Why have we responded to a threat against our people by playing into our enemy's hands? Why have there been more terrorist attacks in the last four years than in the last twenty? Are we losing?
As several authors have pointed out, Bin Laden's strategy was to draw us out of our "hole" and lure us into attacking a Muslim country. He wants to created widespread resistance to American foreign policy. He has been successful - the terrorist attacks of the last four years have been unprecendented in contemporary history. From Madrid to Casablanca, Bali to London, the terrorists have struck again and again at our allies. They have killed hundreds of our soldiers. The control much of Iraq. They are showing no signs of weakening. In fact, they seem to be stronger than ever. We, on the other hand, have failed to find and kill their leader. We have failed to control Afghanistan and Iraq. We have sent thousands of our young people into harm's way with little result. We have spoken of crusades and Evil, giving the terrorists free recruitment propaganda, while cutting taxes for the wealthy and stripping our emergency services of their budgets and effectiveness. Perhaps Mark Danner said it best in this morning's Times: Four years after the collapse of the towers, evil is still with us and so is terrorism. Terrorists have staged spectacular attacks, killing thousands, in Tunisia, Bali, Mombasa, Riyadh, Istanbul, Casablanca, Jakarta, Madrid, Sharm el Sheik and London, to name only the best known. Last year, they mounted 651 "significant terrorist attacks," triple the year before and the highest since the State Department started gathering figures two decades ago. One hundred ninety-eight of these came in Iraq, Bush's "central front of the war on terror" - nine times the year before. And this does not include the hundreds of attacks on U.S. troops. It is in Iraq, which was to serve as the first step in the "democratization of the Middle East," that insurgents have taken terrorism to a new level, killing well over 4,000 people since April in Baghdad alone; in May, Iraq suffered 90 suicide-bombings. Perhaps the "shining example of democracy" that the administration promised will someday come, but for now Iraq has become a grotesque advertisement for the power and efficacy of terror.On this anniversary of carnage, I pray for our people. May no more innocents die for the folly of their leaders. God Bless America, indeed.  
|
8 Comments:
foleyma...is it possible that the terrorists are increasing their attacks because we are winning and finally challenging them? We destroyed an evil empire in Afghanistan and yes Iraq is more difficult but the odds are higher..a democracy in the Mideast other than Israel would terrify Muslim extremists. Or do you think Iraq was better off with Chemical Ali and Saddam...and whatever bastards would come after them in perpetuity? IMO as soon as we're done in Iraq (be it 1 year or 10) we should hit N. Korea next. People say we shouldn't be the world's police...but if we aren't then who will be (power abhors a vacuum)...probably China. Hmmmm. Call it smug patriotism...but I prefer it to be us.
cordially,
Judson Thomas
"is it possible that the terrorists are increasing their attacks because we are winning and finally challenging them?"
no
You know, from a completely strategic point of view, we were much better off with Saddam alive and on our side in this war. He was an avid enemy of Iran - the first major muslim fundamentalist state of the current era. He was also an enemy of Al Qaeda, and the Taliban. There is little question that Iran is sponsoring terrorism throughout the region, and Saddam would have made a perfect strong man against them.
If you'd like to have a serious discussion about how things are going, I'd ask you to explain our lack of success in wooing the Sunnis into the constitutional process. Did our inability to protect the infrastructure of Iraq - to control the country in order to prevent attacks and discrimination on the Sunnis - lead to their shunning our overtures? If, for example, we had sent 200,000 troops to maintain order, police the streets, control the looting and quickly rebuild the infrastructure couldn't we expect better results from the constitutional conventions? If not, why not? What's the problem?
Saddam was a bad man. We got rid of him fairly efficiently, and with (imo) a very small loss of civilian life.
Unfortunately that is where our success in Iraq ends. Allowing the country to spiral down into anarchy, failing to take serious measures to control the insurgency, and focusing on liberalizing the economy while the people sweat with no electricity has created a country that can no longer be won.
We have lost this war, my friend. We do not have the leadership or the political will to win. It would take hundreds of thousands of troops, billions more in treasure, and years of effort to win. That is not going to happen.
Get used to it. If you have a theory that doesn't come from Rush Limbaugh, I'd love to hear it. But please try to address the issues. I don't need to hear about evil regimes and terrifying extemists with a ballot box. It's a bit more complicated than all that, dontcha think?
it's probably more possible that the gov. blew up the towers to force a war on multiple fronts. Try finding debris of a 757 on the lawn of the pentagon after it crashed. Um, there isn't any. And the immediate aftermath shows that the Pentagon's wall hadn't even collapsed. More questions than answers. It's a huge cover-up, and we're all paying for someone's sinister greed.
I am hoping that the last comment posted was intended to be taken humorously. The planes in the videos then...computer generated? Please. foleyma...my arguments do not come from Rush L. May I point out that you cry wolf a good deal about ad hominem attacks while dishing out a number of them yourselves. I agree...more troops on the ground in Iraq are needed. But that doesn't make Bush's war wrong...a miscalculation does not obviate the purpose and vision of the war- a free Iraq.
Are we not blessed to have a leader who is willing to take on the bad guys? Who is the hero of history...Neville Chamberlain or Churchill?
Dialogue, by the way, entails the answering of questions posed.
regards,
Judson Thomas
it's not meant to be humorous. It's true. study the web and you'll find the truth. we're being duped by our government, and innocent people are dying because of it. it's hard to believe, but it's true, and it's unbelievably sad.
It actually may be true, though I am not sure what the motive was behind staging the attack. I am still naive enough to believe that even the neo-cons aren't that heartless. I hope I am right.
Judson - let me answer you directly. A careful study of Churchill shows that he had little interest in playing offense to stop the German army, but was a master of defense. Most of the major strategic victories for the allies came from military commanders. The first bombing run on Berlin, for example, which shifted Goerring's attacks away from airstrips and planes an onto residential London. This was the turning point of the war, as the British were perhaps weeks away from capitulation under the air attack.
Churchill was an excellent speaker, however, and a generally great leader of people. He walked the streets of London during the bombings, motivated the citizens with his speeches and generally articulated the feelings of the time. A far cry from our current leadership (imo).
Bush's Iraq War will be considered a misstep unless we win. Bin Laden's aim is to motivate the legions of Muslims to rise up against the West. His goal in sponsoring terrorist attacks in America was to draw us out of our hole - get us to attack a Muslim nation. Iraq actually wasn't a Muslim nation (ie: fundamentalist government), but attacking it has definitely spread the hate throughout the Muslim world, feeding directly into Bin Laden's hands. Abu Ghraib just continued to spread the hate and recruiting. The "success" of the dozens of international attacks (London, Madrid, etc.) and the hundreds of successful attacks against our troops have only made the terrorists stronger.
The next attack is not a matter of it, but of when. It seems that the terrorists are now going indie - with less and less central control from Qaeda. London, for example, seems like an indie attack. In other words, the terror is beginning to spread out of control. Even Bin Laden is no longer in control of the hate and death that is coming our way.
Bush may indeed be willing to take on the bad guys. Realistically, I think Al Gore may have made the same errors had he been in office on 9/11. That doesn't mean these cold war strategies are getting us anywhere. The War in Iraq is a major blunder in the War on Terror, and it has made us less safe.
You talk of Chamberlain, but he was using the strategies of a former time. With the mindset in post WWI Europe being against war at any cost, he was giving the people what they wanted. It was Hitler who understood the new paradigm of war, and his brilliance in understanding how to be successful in the contemporary era was superseded only by his madness. He lost only because he was crazy - his strategies were correct for the time.
Bush is more Chamberlain than Churchill. Clinging to the paradigm of the past (cold war) - the war in Iraq the current equivalent of the Chamberlain-Hitler agreement. What we need today are leaders who can understand how to fight terrorists on their terms. Only when the allies adjusted to the Germans did they become successful.
I only hope it is not too late.
foleyma-
It has been a pleasure discussing world affairs with you. As it turns out I've been offered a position in an oil company based in Saudi Arabia. I will be leaving shortly and will not have time for blogging. Keep driving your car and keep us Republicans happy! Seriously. Keep driving.
Cheerio.
Judson Thomas
Post a Comment
<< Home