Fighting & Winning The Global War on Terror (WW IV)

[Bograt]

We can go at nausea regarding the justification of the military action in Iraq.

My silly question to the "lefties" is "What do you propose to do now." Its a mess- Kurd, Shiites, Turkey Iran, Syria, Sunnies (sp) all ready to skin themselves. If the US leaves what then?

It is easy to bitch and moan about the current situation, but your argument would have more weight if you offered some kind of alternative. So what is it... I'm listening.

 

[rifleman]

Come on, easy solution there, walk away. Funny thing is, people survived there before us and will after us too

 

[winchable]

I'm a "leftie" But sure as hell don't object to war or a great big military.

Gah that's starting to bug me.

2 Dimensional politics are politics for dummies and it's pretty obvious that no one here is a dummy.

As for the war on terror.
And don't anybody take this the wrong way, I think that for the present it's a good thing obviously and the present world leaders/countries should stay in and finish the job. But in the long run, the history of the region suggests that the modern concept of "Democracy" will not last long.
The longest lasting governments have been empires and military regimes, whereas the elected ones with idealistic thoughts of installing good western civility seem to be on the outs.

 

[Bograt]

Che,

By no means did I mean to suggest that there are two sides to this debate. I absolutely respect your opinion. My issue is what do we do now? When the boat is sinking this is not the time to argue about who steered the ship into the iceburg. What do we do now? If the US pulls out of Iraq there will be civil war and perhaps a larger conflict between Turkey, Iran, Syria etc...

The world is not black and white, nor are countries inspired by evil or righteousness. It is a constant balance of trying to achieve national interests with the least amount of harm.

 

[winchable]

Oh no worries, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular I've just been counting the number of times I've seen the word leftist today and it's almost making me as sick as when people espouce any extreme view.

The world is not black and white, nor are countries inspired by evil or righteousness.

I'm beginning to wonder whether or not this is true today...for either side.

It is a constant balance of trying to achieve national interests with the least amount of harm.

True, but I've noticed lately, especially around these parts that people are choosing to ignore the fact that balancing and achieving national interests involves listening to those "leftists".
I've seen some well informed well argued opinions from the other side and I've seen these arguments retorted by a barrage of sometimes well informed arguments but almost always they're mixed in with insults and this is exact same thing that we complain about here happening.
This is a phenomena that has arisen as of late.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

in the long run, the history of the region suggests that the modern concept of "Democracy" will not last long ... the elected ones with idealistic thoughts of installing good western civility seem to be on the outs.

Care to expand on this?

 

[winchable]

The Ottomans ran the region for about 500 years through an imperial Turkey based and military heavy regime.
They had the advantage of not being plagued by the media and humans rights watches and not having to uphold any ideal of democracy.
Do you think that a government working under the guise of democracy would work in a country of tribes unified by a treaty made in 1746 after years (thousands) of tribalism?
Empires have held the region under moderate stability, Military regimes hold stability. This modern notion of democracy has ended something like this in Afghanistan:

(assassination), 1929 (abdication), 1929 (execution), 1933 (assassination), 1973 (deposition), 1978 (execution), 1979 (execution), 1979 (execution), 1987 (removal), 1992 (overthrow) and 1996 (overthrow).

And in Iraq after the Monarchy was overthrown in 1958 and named a republic, the Ba'ath party took power and that worked out quite well.

Afghanistan has been occupied by the perisans, alexander and genghis khan and it has always reverted to tribes in power.
Iraq was held by the caliphs until the ottomans and if you look at anything past the treaty of sevres in 1918 it's been assasination, coup etc.

I have no doubt that the war on terror will do a lot in the short run to save our hides by routing many of the bad guys. However Afghanistan(especially), Iraq will go the way of any other democratically elected regime in the region, the dustbin. Eventually the west will lose interest, perhaps when another means of fuel is found? And the people of the region will be left to their own devices which will result in the natural Arabian state, that of Tribes, city states etc.

I think that we will not live to see the end of the war on terror, but it will bring us stability in our lifetimes, quite frankly beyond that I care little. However history judges all things and I wonder how people will see it a hundred years from now?

 

[Ty]

"The war on terror"- that phrase irks me to no end.   How do you wage war- in the traditional sense- against a concept?   If they're using it in the not so traditional sense, then the REAL war on terror wouldn't be primarily a military war.   It would target inequality, ignorance and, to a lesser degree, poverty.   I'm probably going to take heat on this, but I truly believe that no-one wants to die, regardless of what afterlife has been promised.   Humans, regardless of nationality, have an ingrained need for self-preservation.   Indeed, it's one of the main columns supporting the definition of life.   If we examine those people that not only put themselves in harm's way, but actually set out to kill themselves- those that commit suicide, those that ram battleships with aircraft, and those that hijack planes and crash them into buildings- the underlying principles are the same:   Distress, duty, and desolation- or a combination of the three.   The explanation that terrorists do what they do because they are "evil" is absurd and dangerous.   They do what they do because they believe, on whatever level, what they are doing is right- either to their people or to themselves directly.    To me, winning the "war on terror" doesn't mean tracking down every last terrorist cell and bombing them, it means eliminating the root causes of terrorism.

It means revisiting foreign policy in a global context and not always doing what is absolute best for you, but something that you can live with and would make the world, on a whole, a better place.   Before some sling arrows here, I'm not a pacifist.   I realize that some people, usually the "haves" of respective societies, will not allow this in order to protect their way of life (i.e. the Taliban among hundreds of others). And where there is unequivocal support and a cry for help form a truly oppressed people- and where diplomacy falls on deaf ears- we should explore the use of force.  

All said, if a nation wishes to route out terrorist cells, organizations, and individuals, that right, with the adequate proof, should unequivocally be there and supported.   However, doing so will not address the root causes of terrorism and will only delay terrorist acts- not eliminate them.   Only by giving people no basic need to be terrorists will we ever succeed at the latter.    I never support terrorism which I define as the undue and intentional targetting of non-combatants- please don't take my post to be justification or acceptance of any terrorist act.

That said, I have absolutely no evidence besides empirical personal and first-hand observations to back up any of those statements-   please take them as you will.

 

[Acorn]

TA, I agree to a certain extent that "War on Terror" is a bit absurd. However, I think you have followed the wrong path as to the root causes. You are right that human nature is self-preservation, but wrong (IMO) in the assumption that suicide attackers are motivated by "sistress, duty and desolation." It's indoctrination, pure and simple, that creats a suicide attacker. Distress and desolation may take part, but more often do not. I would pose that not one of the 9/11 attackers suffered distress or desolation, and any duty was questionable. They were indoctrinated to believe that the US was a great enemy, and that suicide is "martyrdom" that grants greater priviledge in the afterlife.

Acorn

 

[a_majoor]

Just as an aside, Osama Bin Laden came from a wealthy family. Mohamed Atta and the other 19 attackers in the 9/11 plot were well off by Arab standards, and if they had completed flight training, potentially could have made very good incomes as airline pilots in the west. Yassar Arafat was one of history's great Kleptocrats, no one knows for certain how much money funneled to "the cause" ended up in his bank accounts.

The root cause of terror is power, and the terrorist has discovered that spreading fear is a very fast and potent means of gaining power. If the terror masters can indoctrinate young and naive persons into becoming suicide bombers, then they create a very sinister weapon to spread more fear, and hopefully gain more power in turn. It is not the Bin Ladens or Arafats who wear the vests but rather celebrate the spread of fear against their "enemies" to consolodate their power within their own limited spheres. (For those of you with classical education, think "better reign 'or Hell than be a servant in Heaven"). Left unchecked, they will eventually grow to the extent they can take over states (SA street thugs in 1930, rulers of Germany by 1936), or in the modern age, religions.

TA is right in a way, discredit the terror masters in their own lands and they will find their flow of funds and recruits dry up, and the power they so covet runs through their hands like water. Unfortunately for us, the best way to discredit the terror masters is to hand them their heads on a plate, or pummel their followers with a totally humiliating defeat. A rapid CIMIC/PSYOPS campaign along with Nation building afterwards will prevent the rebirth of the terrorist idiologies; National Socialism is no longer alive as a motivating force in Germany, nor is Imperial aggrandizement the ruling meme in Japanese culture.

 

[McG]

Would early intervention in failed states & against represive governments make a substantial dent in terrorist recruiting pools or do we have more to worry from certain "stable" states?

 

[48Highlander]

I'm probably going to take heat on this, but I truly believe that no-one wants to die, regardless of what afterlife has been promised.

Look at how many suicides take place across north america every year.  I can say, with a fair ammount of confidence, that the majority of us have at some point or another considered suicide.  Especially during the teenage years.  Obviously, none of us have followed through on it, but just try to imagine what it would be like to live in a society that encourages "martyrdom".  Having a cause to die for when you're already considering suicide....and being able to do it with the touch of a button....I don't know.  If I had been born and raised in, for instance,  Palestine, I know that I may very well have ended up being a suicide bomber.  I'm not trying to justify their actions, I'm just pointing out that there ARE a lot of people who, at some point in their lives, want to die.  The only reason most of them don't (in our culture) is because they're concerned about how it would affect their family and friends.  But in a culture which encourages suicide bombings...what motives could stop an angst-ridden teenager from strapping on some explosives and walking onto a bus and hitting the button?

 

[NavyGrunt]

Look at how many suicides take place across north america every year.   I can say, with a fair ammount of confidence, that the majority of us have at some point or another considered suicide.   Especially during the teenage years.   Obviously, none of us have followed through on it, but just try to imagine what it would be like to live in a society that encourages "martyrdom".   Having a cause to die for when you're already considering suicide....and being able to do it with the touch of a button....I don't know.   If I had been born and raised in, for instance,   Palestine, I know that I may very well have ended up being a suicide bomber.   I'm not trying to justify their actions, I'm just pointing out that there ARE a lot of people who, at some point in their lives, want to die.   The only reason most of them don't (in our culture) is because they're concerned about how it would affect their family and friends.   But in a culture which encourages suicide bombings...what motives could stop an angst-ridden teenager from strapping on some explosives and walking onto a bus and hitting the button?

Especially when your family gets that fat paycheck and everyone goes around worshipping your memory....

 

[rifleman]

Just as an aside, Osama Bin Laden came from a wealthy family. Mohamed Atta and the other 19 attackers in the 9/11 plot were well off by Arab standards, and if they had completed flight training, potentially could have made very good incomes as airline pilots in the west. Yassar Arafat was one of history's great Kleptocrats, no one knows for certain how much money funneled to "the cause" ended up in his bank accounts.

The root cause of terror is power, and the terrorist has discovered that spreading fear is a very fast and potent means of gaining power. If the terror masters can indoctrinate young and naive persons into becoming suicide bombers, then they create a very sinister weapon to spread more fear, and hopefully gain more power in turn. It is not the Bin Ladens or Arafats who wear the vests but rather celebrate the spread of fear against their "enemies" to consolodate their power within their own limited spheres. (For those of you with classical education, think "better reign 'or heck than be a servant in Heaven"). Left unchecked, they will eventually grow to the extent they can take over states (SA street thugs in 1930, rulers of Germany by 1936), or in the modern age, religions.

TA is right in a way, discredit the terror masters in their own lands and they will find their flow of funds and recruits dry up, and the power they so covet runs through their hands like water. Unfortunately for us, the best way to discredit the terror masters is to hand them their heads on a plate, or pummel their followers with a totally humiliating defeat. A rapid CIMIC/PSYOPS campaign along with Nation building afterwards will prevent the rebirth of the terrorist idiologies; National Socialism is no longer alive as a motivating force in Germany, nor is Imperial aggrandizement the ruling meme in Japanese culture.

First, There are very few leaders in governments that are poor middle class working types. They also use the naive and young to further their view for the betterment of the nation. You won't see Bush or Martin putting on a vest and doing sentry on the line.

Second, Handing the "terror masters" their heads on a platter only allows the position to be filled by someone else who will now swear revenge. As for the followers, you have to show them that their is a better way of living. Having Families in other countries, living this life can be a powerful weapon against creating new followers

I argue that if a person is constantly told that the enemy is an evil nation bent on destroying them, then that nation ends up bombing the heck out of thier homes, killing their dog, just reinforces what the "terror masters" told them. No CIMIC/ Psyops can fight that. - We are hurting you cause we love you.

Every situation has to be looked at differently and treated differently.

Just my view outside of the Lefist/Right spectrum

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Che,

You have made an excellent argument for why would should be supporting the idea of democracy in the Middle East.  Democracy doesn't spontaneously break-out: it comes about as a result of use of (or successful resistance to) force and/or coercion (generally aided, if not foisted, by an outside power).

With few exceptions, Middle Eastern countries have simply not had the situation where the "democrats" enjoyed the strongest support (Israel's experience suggests this is the result of a lack of external support).  Much like Japan, which had no democratic tradition and was coerced into it, they will be grateful a hundred years from now!

 

[Kirkhill]

I am a "Top Down" type of person when it comes to wars and revolutions.

I believe that most armed insurrections, etc start when the person or people next to the throne see no chance at achieving the throne.  To achieve their personal goals, whether they are doing for self-aggrandizement, out of idealism or evil intent, they then work to secure an activist core (organizers and soldiers) and a base of support.  The activist core probably includes a fair share of idealists as well as those that are in it out of self-interest.  The base of support is created by telling the populace at large how bad things are, how the problems are the fault of those warming the throne and how much better they will be if only the new crop of leaders gets to run the show.

The procedure is the same whether or not we are talking about Russian, French, American or British revolutions or civil wars, Hitler's Germany or Canadian and US elections.

To get to power you must define some deficit in peoples' lives, make it obvious too them, then convince them it can be changed, it must be changed and you can change it.

It doesn't matter if the issue is bread, conscription, poverty, liberty, abortion, freedom of religion or even riding to hounds.  It is only important to find and exploit an issue.

I agree that by treating poverty and making people prosperous they are likely to become indolent and idle.  Just like most of us in the West.  And that certainly is one way to undermine the enemy, by taking away his arguments.

However even in our own prosperous, indolent an idle country people can sow dissension.  Tanks, Health Care, Aircraft Carriers, Abortion, Separation, Trees, Residential Schools, Oka, Quebec Politicians, Alberta Politicians.  All of these have been used recently just for those purposes.

You can never address all the issues that may divide.  Those intent on dividing will always find a "wedge".  Politicians do it as a matter of course. It is the road to power. 

Power is the goal.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/05/martin051205.html

Martin's vague answers on the extent of commitments he is willing to make to iraq, and whether or not he wants to send troops is likely a political move to not anger the american people... still, it scares me.

 

[scm77]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/12/05/martin051205.html

Martin's vague answers on the extent of commitments he is willing to make to iraq, and whether or not he wants to send troops is likely a political move to not anger the american people... still, it scares me.

I'd say it's more of a political move to not anger the Canadian people.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

hes a fence sitter... I wish the liberals would just make up their minds and say No we arent sending troops, the end, or, on a darker day, yes we do plan to send troops, the end.

 

[mazda3mazdaspeed]

I believe Canadian troops should NOT go to Iraq currently for the US war against terror. After all, who is everyone looking for? It should be throught the Sudan not necessarily Afgani that soldiers should be sent to look for PRICK laden. Would he hang around the most popluar US occupied areas? For the topic, laden claimed responsibility for the attack on US, he was NOT Iraqi and lead the Al-Quadia, and US bombs Iraq? What the he?? What will we as Canadians be fighting in Iraq if we are sent, the poor local people, Sadaam is already gone, mission accomplished, what purpose? If anything, only peacekeeping missions should be performed in Iraq at this time. Please correct me anybody if I misunderstand the situation.