War On Terror

[Dr. Shane]

The US let bin Laden go at Tora Bora

The mountainous area of Tora Bora is a rough and difficult area. General Tommy Franks thought it better to use local war lords to attack the area where bin Laden was thought to be hiding rather than their own forces. These war lords were supported by American air strikes. Once into the battle, al Qeida forces held up in the region agreed to a truce to surrender their weapons. In hindsight, it is thought that this was a ploy to allow bin Laden to escape as corrupt local militias failed to seal off the area. Soon after, the fighting started up again. Bin Laden voice was later picked up, presumably on a mobile phone or radio, instructing those remaining in Tora Bora to keep fighting and die as martyrs. General Tommy Franks has publicly expressed serious doubt that bin Laden was at Tora Bora although several al Qeida forces captured there report he was.

President Bush decided to go to war with Iraq before September 11, 2001.

In November 1998, at the urging of President Bill Clinton, the U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate passed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," which "declare that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." President Clinton signed this bill into law. This was not a bill authorizing the use of force and section 8 of the bill clarified that. However this is the bill that changed the direction of US policy toward Iraq which eventually resulted in the invasion in 2003.

The US-led Iraq War was illegal.

The basis of this claim is the view that the US-led attack was an unprovoked attack on an independent country. However since the conflict originally began with Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. At the end of that conflict Iraq signed a cease-fire agreement which established no-fly zones in the northern and southern areas of Iraq. Iraq continuous would fire at American and British planes patrolling the no-fly zones and even shot down an unmanned plane. Iraq also agree to weapons inspectors to verify they destroyed all WMDs and did not start producing more. In February 2003 the leading weapons inspector Hans Blix reported that while Iraqi cooperation had improved significantly, he was still unable to verify all WMDs had been destroyed. Since Iraq was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, one would reason the US had the legal right to resume the conflict which had been on hold since 1991.

The Bush Adminstration claimed Saddam was linked to al Qieda and helped in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Actually a link was only suspected due to information gained from Iraqi defectors. The reasons for the Iraq War were listed in the “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” They were:

• Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, including interference with weapons inspectors
• Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
• Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
• Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
• Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of former President George H. W. Bush, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
• Members of al-Qaida were "known to be in Iraq"
• Iraq's "continuing to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations
• Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States
• The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight the 9/11 terrorists and those who aided or harbored them
• The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism

The Iraq War has cause an increase in terrorism

Anytime a war is declared it can be expected that those upon whom the war is declared will be able to successfully recruit more than they had before. When Japan bombed the US and Germany soon after declared war on the US, it resulted in the US military increasing dramatically in size. The question that no one can answer is when the Iraq War is over, will the result be less terrorism or more.

The Bush Administration never planned for the insurgency in Iraq.

This appears to be true. War is by its nature unpredictable. It seems those in the Bush Administration and the Pentagon felt they would be able to predict certain reactions that they were not. However, except for the Sunni triangle, much of Iraq has been receptive to the change in government and can honestly be considered a success.

[bevin]

The US let bin Laden go at Tora Bora

...In hindsight, it is thought that this was a ploy to allow bin Laden to escape as corrupt local militias failed to seal off the area.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

It is always tempting to label people who have different goals than you do "corrupt".

If I am hired to do a job, say provide security for a bank, but I take money from someone else in exchange for not doing my job, say from thieves that want to rob the bank, wouldn't that make me corrupt? Local Afghan militia were paid to seal off the area but recieved money from al Qieda not to do so. Since they were taking money from both sides, by anyone's diffinition, that would be corrupt.

Quote:

It is also tempting to choose the starting point of an issue to be the one most advantageous to your point of view.

Saddam's violation of the cease-fire was listed as a reason for military action in the Congression Authorization to use force. No spin there. Claiming it is only being used to support a point of view is spin.

Quote:

The Bush Administration used 9/11 as a reason to attack Iraq. Why?

9/11 taught us the threat of terrorism was real. Saddam was known to provide safe harbor for terrorists. The extent of his connection to terrorists was not known. However by not attacking Iraq, the US sent a message that cease-fire agreements with us are meaningless. 13 years was more than enough time for Saddam to provide weapons inspectors with proof that his WMDs had been destroyed.

Quote:

Nobody with half a mind believed the "welcome us with flowers"

In most of Iraq we have been welcomed as liberators. There has been very little violence in kurdistan. The majority of the violence is confined to the Sunni triangle. That is simply no spin.

[Bravus]

Not responding to any of the points (because I can't muster the energy to cover the same ground again and again), but just the title and the concept.

'Terror' is an emotion, and is impossible to wage war on. 'Terrorism' is a tactic, and is similarly impossible to wage war on. 'Terrorists' are people who use a particular tactic, and while it's possible to wage war on those individuals, there will always be more, so victory is impossible. The entire concept of the 'War on Terror' is incoherent.

[Dr. Shane]

OK, I will concede that President Bush could use the help of an English teacher. :)

[bevin]

Quote:

Local Afghan militia were paid to seal off the area but recieved money from al Qieda not to do so. Since they were taking money from both sides, by anyone's diffinition, that would be corrupt.

Afghanistan, like all countries, had a political/power system in place.

We walked in with B-52's, Predators, Apache attack helicopters, and $B's of other high tech weaponry - and perturbed that power system.

The local people did what local people have always done since the dawn of time when a overwhelmingly powerful invading army comes - they try to survive and do as well for themselves as they can. This is not corruption - it is survival in the presence of a force that could easily destroy you.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Right is right. Wrong is wrong. Spin is spin.

The US mistake was subcontracting the use of force. I think most people agree on that. But that is with hindsight.

It was currupt for warlords to agree to fight al Qeida, accept money to do so and then turn around and take money from al Qeida to let some of them escape. That is wrong no matter how anyone tries to spin it.

Now one can understand why the mistake was made. The war lords wanted control of the land and the US wanted to capture al Qeida. With al Qeida out of the way, the war lords would have contol of the land. So both them would get what they wanted by defeating al Qeida. So one reasons, why put American lives on the line when the war lords are locals, will get the direct benefit and know the area best?

Quote:

We walked in with B-52's

Actually we flew the B-52 in. We dropped so many bombs we actually caused an earthquake. Some would say that would show God was with us.