US War with Iran

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

Is terrorism a police problem or a military problem?

Or both?

If the terrorism is confined to a geographical area where a nation's police have jurisdiction, then the police can deal with the problem.

However if we look at the 9/11 attacks we have a terrorist group based out of another country making attacks on the US. The NYPD couldn't do much to Ossama bin Laden, could they? Since the Afghinistan government wouldn't cooperate with US authorities, the US decided to go in militarily. Thus terrorism became a military issue.

Many of the al queda operatives fled Afghanistan and went to Pakistan and Iraq. Pakistan cooperated with US authories and Iraq did not. So again, military force was used.

I think Israel is another example of a country that uses a mix of police and military to fight terrorism. I don't think there is any one right way to fight terrorism but certainly something has to be done to discourage the behavior and make people feel they are not being left to be victems.

[Neil D]

Quote:

However if we look at the 9/11 attacks we have a terrorist group based out of another country making attacks on the US. The NYPD couldn't do much to Ossama bin Laden, could they? Since the Afghinistan government wouldn't cooperate with US authorities, the US decided to go in militarily. Thus terrorism became a military issue

Ok, but why did we have to take a whole country when we could have taken out several miliatry bases, and instillations and various govermental heads of state.... We could have sent in covert operations, and got taken out various individuals... There could have been air strikes and land sorties to reinforce the message "YOU DON'T MESS WITH THE US WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES!". It would have been better, and granted, the world would have screemed about abuse of a superpower...but that would have died down after 3 months.... Now, we have world opinion against us, mostly...after botching up a war that has lasted the better part of 7 years...and busting up one nation and additionally occupying another one. ...now fighting a civil war in one of those nations... And we still don't have the mastermind of 9/11!

[bevin]

The traditional way of dealing with this has been that countries are responsible for controlling their geographic area, and for helping other countries control theirs.

An act in the USA should be dealt with by the USA within the USA. If the USA determines that the attackers came from another country then

(a) the USA should have enforced its borders better, and

( the other country should help the USA catch the perpetrators

If the other country fails to do so, and the USA is sufficiently annoyed, the USA should declare war on the other country.

In 9/11, we have a bunch of non-Iraqis commiting an attack in the USA, and the USA responding by trying to cause a change of government in Iraq...

/Bevin

[phkrause]

Because we hastily jumped into that situation without thinking it through. I believe Neil that the way you put it seems like a better alternative to the way it went down.

pkrause

[Dr. Shane]

In Afghanistan, little girls that learned how to read were taken into the public square, put on their knees with a gun to their head and their brains were blown out for spectators to view. I don't think we acted hastily in removing the Taliban from power.

In the situation with Iraq, several resolutions were passed by the UN. The US Congress passed authorization to use force in Iraq and Afghanistan which is how the US Congress declares war under the 1973 Wars Power Act. While Iraq was not directly with the attacks of 9/11, they were providing safe harbor to those that were. Saddam called Bush's bluff and... well.. we know how that turned out for him, don't we?

[phkrause]

I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. But those situations have been done in other countries at various times. And we did not go and help. All I'm saying is that what Neal has said makes alot of sense. But for myself I believe that we did not think things through to the end. I mean look at the results and whats happening. I served my country during the Vietnam War and I see the same mistakes. Look at what happen the first time we went in to Iraq, we went in and did what needed to be done. The reason for that is we allowed the military to do its job. Which is nit being done now and which was not allowed during vietnam. Just a few observations.

pkrause

[Dr. Shane]

The post-invasion war with the insurgents has gone terrible. Rumsfield should have been forced to resign long before he was. However I do not believe it is possible to think a war through to its end before it is fought. Like I said before, it is not like a construction project that can follow a detailed plan. It is more like the dynamics of a football or hockey game which requires the plan to be constantly changing.

A few strategical strikes on Afghanistan would not have destroyed the Taliban. They were one of the few governments unwilling to help the US seek out those that carried out the 9/11 attacks. Iraq was another government that would not help the US apprehend those responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

[Neil D]

Quote:

The post-invasion war with the insurgents has gone terrible.

Now, there's a "duh" statement. The question is....Why? Why has it "gone terrible"?

It's because of the cherry picking of intelligence. It's because the hawks of the Administration wanted to jump in and do something major and let the world know just how VAIN we were. Now, we are repeating the war of the Russians when they were in Afgahnistan, only we are doing it in Iraq...and slowly in Afgahnistan.

Quote:

A few strategical strikes on Afghanistan would not have destroyed the Taliban.

We didn't have to do "a few". We could have done "a many"! :

..And let's face it...replacing a goverment is the citizen's job, not an occupying force. Otherwise, it is looked upon by the citizenery [and the world] as an attempt to take over the land. IOWs, stealing a country from it's citizens. Not good PR, in my humble opinion. Iknow, Iknow, we just 'accelerated" the process...but it still that cowpie thingy...a stick stirred in a cowpie....stinks to high heaven...

[Dr. Shane]

I understand that the radical left wing will never be able to do anything other than repeat anti-Bush rhetoric. No sense in trying to have a balanced discussion with that type of mentality.

Quote:

replacing a government is the citizen's job, not an occupying force

Not sure what that is referring to. I am not aware the US soldiers have had a vote in any of the free elections in the countries they have bled and dyed to liberate.

[bevin]

They have got to be protected,

all their rights respected,

at least until somebody we like

has been elected

Tom Lehrer

/Bevin

[lazarus]

While Iraq was not directly with the attacks of 9/11, they were providing safe harbor to those that were.

I think you need to take that back Shane.

From the recent report on iraq links to Al Qaeda.....

"The Feith office alternative intelligence assessments concluded that Iraq and al Qaeda were cooperating and had a "mature, symbiotic" relationship, a view that was not supported by the available intelligence, and was contrary to the consensus view of the Intelligence Community. These alternative assessments were used by the Administration to support its public arguments in its case for war. As the DOD IG report confirms, the Intelligence Community never found an operational relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda; the report specifically states that," the CIA and DIA disavowed any 'mature, symbiotic' relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida."

[lazarus]

That is pretty much consistent with what I have been saying. In Iraq we have both guerrilla and terrorist attacks. The attacks on our troops, Iraqi troops and police are guerrilla attacks devised to drive us out and prevent the local government from becoming established. The attacks on Iraqi civilians are clearly terrorist attacks.

From this article it is hard to determine if this is a group of guerrillas or terrorists. More information is needed to determine that. If they are just guerrillas, I see no conflict in supporting them. If they are terrorists, we should not support them.

It would be foolish for the US gov make the kind of distinctions you describe. The key difference, in the US goverment's mind, is simply to do with whether US foreign policy is served by the actions of this or that group. History, if you are ware of itwill tell you that.

Talk of guerillars v terrorists is a distinction without a difference as far as US policy is concerned.

[bevin]

Quote:

The attacks on our troops, Iraqi troops and police are guerrilla attacks devised to drive us out and prevent the local government from becoming established. The attacks on Iraqi civilians are clearly terrorist attacks.

You are (a) treating the Iraqi population as a homogeneous group - it is not, and ( thinking that the population is against all local govenment - they are not.

The Iraqi population is a small set of very large groups competing for a fixed resource. We are trying to impose some specific restrictions on how these groups interact, and each group is fighting for its own self-interest.

There are also smaller groups making hay while the sun shines - but if the larger groups wanted to squash them, they could.

By being there, being in between them, we are actually prolonging the violence because we are defending them from and not letting them suffer from the consequences of their inactions.

Of course, we are also the cause of the power struggle being as open and violent as it is in the first place. Hussein had already won this struggle - by using violence to do so.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

While Iraq was not directly with the attacks of 9/11, they were providing safe harbor to those that were.

I think you need to take that back Shane.

From the recent report on Iraq links to Al Qaeda.....

Al Qaeda operatives fled to Iraq from Afghanistan and Saddam did nothing to help us capture them. That doesn't mean Saddam had a working relationship with them. It does mean they had safe harbor in Iraq. They found a place where we couldn't get them. That is safe harbor.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

You are (a) treating the Iraqi population as a homogeneous group - it is not, and ( thinking that the population is against all local government - they are not.

That is incorrect and does not summarize the statements I have been making.