• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Strategic war on terror.. either no longer possible or never was possible

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Strategic war on terror.... no longer possible or never was possible

Strategic: designed or trained to strike an enemy at the sources of his military, economic, or political power <a strategic bomber>

This is what the Iraq war purports to be, yet it's so far off the mark in terms of defeating terroists that come from all over the world & set off bombs all over the world from London to Bali, one has to ask... How can the war on terror be fought in a strategic manner in Iraq or anywhere else ?

It seems to me intially in relation to 911, the war in Afganistan had a significant effect & could be described as a 'strategic move' although to some extent even then it failed becuase Bin Laden is still alive, so a strategic war on terror is no longer possible unless one bombs Pakistan to dust. Obviously impossible & unacceptable & anyway Bin Laden is not hidden in a know bunker as was Hitler.
A strategic war can only be fought where the enemy has a base. Example would be Hitler & Berlin. But idealogy has no base & no borders so how can you fight a war on idealogy ?
How would you even know when you've won, when there are hundreds of millions of Muslims around the world ?

Tactical1 : of or relating to combat tactics : as a (1) : of or occurring at the battlefront <tactical defense> <tactical first strike> (2) : using or being weapons or forces employed at the battlefront <tactical missiles> b of an air force : of, relating to, or designed for air attack in close support of friendly ground forces
2 a : of or relating to tactics : as (1) : of or relating to small-scale actions serving a larger purpose (2) : made or carried out with only a limited or immediate end in view b : adroit in planning or maneuvering to accomplish a purpose


I believe a tactical war on terror is now the only possibility. The terrorists that are going to hit us on London tubes or wherever, have to be dealt with tactically in the actual locations in which they reside. A strategic war in one country like Iraq that is miles away from terrorists attacks & had nothing to do with 911 & has not been a source of funding or resources for terrorists & is not even where the main terrorist leaders reside, is totally the wrong approach & has been a collossal waste of resources & human life.
 
Last edited:
G

gdalton

I can see where your argument is coming from (I may not agree 100% but I understand). I have to ask though, how are we supposed to run this war?
Where are we to go next?
Do we not need to remove all allies of the terrorists?
Do we not need to asses threat levels of individual countries and act on the ones who are found to be allies of the enemy?
Where would we attack those countries from?
Do you agree that we need to remove the enemy’s infrastructure to leave them unsupported?

You suggest a tactical response where we hit the enemy where they live and train, but that means we must go into someone’s country.
What if that country refuses to help in the ousting of the enemy?
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
gdalton said:
I can see where your argument is coming from (I may not agree 100% but I understand). I have to ask though, how are we supposed to run this war?
Where are we to go next?
The tactical aproach must involve guess what...... 'good tactics', that means more intelligence & less brute force. We need to know where they are. We need spies in Mosques in our own countries & abroad. We also need to engage moderate Muslims as much as possible in our countries & abroad. They can help moderate opinion amongst Muslims & provide intelligence.
Those insurgents in Iraq weren't fighting us until we were in Iraq. They are angry becuase we are there. They don't like democracy & they don't like infidels as they call us in a Muslim country but they were never terrorists about to attack us.
Defeating the insurgents doesn't really matter becuase they aren't hitting us here. They are only 'insurgents' becuase we are there.
No Iraqi has participated in a terrorists attack in Europe or USA. Iraq is a red herring... a kick back for the arms manufacturers that supported & financed Bush.

gdalton said:
Do we not need to remove all allies of the terrorists?
Impossible as I've said before... it's like a fly swat. You only kill a few & they breed faster than you can kill them anyway. Saddam has been removed but was not an ally of Al Queda anyway.

gdalton said:
Do we not need to asses threat levels of individual countries and act on the ones who are found to be allies of the enemy?
That's the problem, it's not individual counties.. it's individual people, as witnessed by the London bombings.
gdalton said:
Where would we attack those countries from?
Irrelevant, see above. Attacking a country is a strategic move & as I've shown, that is not appropriate.

gdalton said:
Do you agree that we need to remove the enemy’s infrastructure to leave them unsupported?
Spy, spy, spy, evesdrop & spy a little more. Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence, covert action & yet more covert action.
gdalton said:
You suggest a tactical response where we hit the enemy where they live and train, but that means we must go into someone’s country.
What if that country refuses to help in the ousting of the enemy?
Pakistan forces are total cooperation with the US in N.Pakistan in the hunt for Bin Laden.
No country should be able to refuse in the hunt for terrorists but should be invaded only as a last resort. Unfortunately Iraq was invaded almost as a first resort & there aren't even any Al Qaeda terrorists there !
 
Last edited:

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
gdalton said:
I can see where your argument is coming from (I may not agree 100% but I understand). I have to ask though, how are we supposed to run this war?
Where are we to go next?
Do we not need to remove all allies of the terrorists?
Do we not need to asses threat levels of individual countries and act on the ones who are found to be allies of the enemy?
Where would we attack those countries from?
Do you agree that we need to remove the enemy’s infrastructure to leave them unsupported?

You suggest a tactical response where we hit the enemy where they live and train, but that means we must go into someone’s country.
What if that country refuses to help in the ousting of the enemy?
Our strategy as it relates to Iraq, in my opinion, is this: The terrorists have no 'home country' where they all live and stage attacks. Their strategy involves sneak-attacking westerners in Islamic lands. This is why we invaded the muslim land of Iraq. One of our strengths is our warriors, but, as you correctly theorize, we cannot simply enter, militarily, all the countries in which they reside. So we needed to use their mantra (no westerners on muslim soil) againt them.

They show their followers and sympathizers that their existence is needed to defend, asymmetrically, and with previous success (Russia out of Afghanistan; The US out of Somalia and Lebanon), muslim countries from infidels. They were forced by our invasion of Iraq, and the required justification of their existence, to amass and join the battle in Iraq. Iraq is an irresistable trap for jihadis all over the world to come and fight our warriors and unavoidably lose. The propaganda and recruiting value their previous victories (and they were victories) ,which lured the potential recruits with the possibility of glory and victory and captured the hopes for victory of the region in general, are being replaced by snapshots of their leaders in US custody, reports of their destruction and death and the solid fact that they cannot win in iraq. There exists, no doubt, a pool of individuals willing to die to kill infidels. It is this same zealotous devotion to their cause that makes them pour into Iraq to be awarded their martyrdom.

Sadly, they have had some success sneak attacking our warriors in this war. But the hard fight (not run away) tactics of our warriors and our administration will deflate their pumped up image in the muslim world and replace it with one of hopelessness, defeat and failure. I firmly believe that these followers who are willing to be martyrs for the cause were going to be used somewhere, sometime. I prefer in Iraq, against our warriors to in the malls and schools of America against your family and mine. I believe the only drawback to Bush's strategy is our heroes who have fallen doing their duty, but we need not forget that our warriors are patriots and volunteers, not conscripts or draftees. I honor each and every one of these brave souls, for they, knowing the danger of their duty, volunteered to defend my freedom. I think the whines of the peaceniks and America-bashers was expected and for all the public backstabbing and calls for impeachment, the mission, and Bush's plan, are unaffected. I think that this chessmatch we call the 'war on terror' is and has been a brilliant display of American ingenuity and strength, in strong contrast to the free victories given our enemies in the past. The 'quagmire' calls and the 'we can never win' statements made by enemies of America within our borders were counted on by our enemies to afford them another free victory. Thankfully, Mr. Bush, and a majority of American's have enough vision to see the future, and enough honor to fight for their nation instead of undermining it.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Thoracle
Sorry but whilst I agree with some of your post & the 'their mantra' bit, I think your warrior ethos & macho talk is not very intelligent really. In fact it sounds like the blindly patriotic ramblings of an Insurgent :lol:
 
Last edited:

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
robin said:
Thoracle
Sorry but whilst I agree with some of your post & the 'their mantra' bit, I think your warrior ethos & macho talk is not very intelligent really. In fact it sounds like the blindly patriotic ramblings of an Insurgent :lol:
That is because, as you stated earlier, you only see the options: "no longer possible or never was possible" . Why, pray tell, do you not include the options always been possible, or still possible in your question? Simple, the strategy I represented in my post is beyond the grasp of both your intellect and your vision. I would submit that your 'we are failing', and 'we can never win' comments ally you with the terrorists and insurgents killing our warriors much more than mine do me.
 
G

gdalton

I agree with Thoracle, let's lead the sheep to the slaughter.

Robin, your ideas on spy, spy, spy and covert operations sounds good but in reality would waste to much time, and time is all our enemy needs to plan another attack. We must remove as much of the threat as possible and I prefer to do that on their turf not mine. I understand your views on Iraq but regardless of the situations that took us there I see a "tactical" advantage to removing as many of the enemy as possible in the shortest amount of time. If we can flush out many would be terrorist by provoking them to come out of hiding and fight us on their land, we will eventually diminish their means and spirit.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
thoracle said:
That is because, as you stated earlier, you only see the options: "no longer possible or never was possible" . Why, pray tell, do you not include the options always been possible, or still possible in your question? Simple, the strategy I represented in my post is beyond the grasp of both your intellect and your vision. I would submit that your 'we are failing', and 'we can never win' comments ally you with the terrorists and insurgents killing our warriors much more than mine do me.
You remind me of that oaf Earl Marshall Haig the British general in the 1st world war.

Q)What did he do after he'd ordered 50,000 men to march slowly into German machine gun fire & get mown down ?
A)Order another 50,000 men to march slowly into German machine gun fire.

Q)How did he describe anyone that suggested that might not be a good way to fight a war ?
A)Traitor

I would suggest in reality it was Haig that was the traitor. Our soldiers were Lions lead by donkeys.
The other resemblance you Thoracle bear to Haig is you have about as good a tactical mind & capacity for analytical thought as he had.... which was that of a donkeys :lol:
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
gdalton said:
I agree with Thoracle, let's lead the sheep to the slaughter.

Robin, your ideas on spy, spy, spy and covert operations sounds good but in reality would waste to much time, and time is all our enemy needs to plan another attack.
An ear to the ground in our own backyard along with a more militant policy in dealing with extremist Muslims in our midst... ie deport the bastards, would almost certainly have prevented the London bombings where a war in Iraq hadn't a hope in hell of doing so !
How the hell is Iraq relevant to stopping bombers coming down from Yorkshire to blow themselves & 51 people up in London ?
Pictures of Abu Ghraib were one reason they did it !
Blair's crusade into Iraq thousands of miles away was an ego trip... a way to get onto the world stage of politics while all along the real threat was under his nose !
 
Last edited:
G

gdalton

robin said:
An ear to the ground in our own backyard along with a more militant policy in dealing with extremist Muslims in our midst... ie deport the bastards, would almost certainly have prevented the London bombings where a war in Iraq hadn't a hope in hell of doing so !
How the hell is Iraq relevant to stopping bombers coming down from Yorkshire to blow themselves & 51 people up in London ?
Pictures of Abu Ghraib were one reason they did it !
Blair's crusade into Iraq thousands of miles away was an ego trip... a way to get onto the world stage of politics while all along the real threat was under his nose !

I believe we are utilizing our intelligence community in this war, but I'm sure if I show you the evidence they presented that showed Iraq was a threat you would most certainly disagree with those findings and still insist on more intell before action.

I can, however, agree 100% with the idea of "a more militant policy in dealing with extremist Muslims in our midst", but then again you might view the Patriot Act as an infringement on our rights.

The bottom line is we can not prevent every attack (as in London) but we must do something in order to reduce the numbers of the enemy and the supporters of them. We must take as much of the fight to them as we can in order to keep our people as safe as possible.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
gdalton said:
I believe we are utilizing our intelligence community in this war, but I'm sure if I show you the evidence they presented that showed Iraq was a threat you would most certainly disagree with those findings and still insist on more intell before action.
The scientist & top world weapons expert David Kelly who had spent years in Iraq as a weapons inspector, was not of the opinion that Iraq was a threat. He was hounded by Blair & press secretary & dagger in the back merchant Alistair Macenzie, to the point of suicide for it.
Who do you believe ?
An impartial scientist & expert or a politician who was hell bent on a war in Iraq ?
 
G

gdalton

robin said:
The scientist & top world weapons expert David Kelly who had spent years in Iraq as a weapons inspector, was not of the opinion that Iraq was a threat. He was hounded by Blair & press secretary & dagger in the back merchant Alistair Macenzie, to the point of suicide for it.
Who do you believe ?
An impartial scientist & expert or a politician who was hell bent on a war in Iraq ?
Kay clearly admires Bush, and believes he went to war in Iraq in good faith because he thought Baghdad was a threat to the American people. Nevertheless, he thinks the president has to go further to regain public trust. "It's about confronting and coming clean with the American people, not just slipping a phrase into the state of the union speech. He should say: 'We were mistaken and I am determined to find out why'."


Before the war, Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action. And more than two months after the invasion, with no signs of an arsenal, Kay came to believe it was because the Pentagon was botching the search. In early June, the administration decided to take him at his word. It took control of the weapons search away from the military and gave it to the CIA, which set up the ISG. The CIA director, George Tenet, asked Kay to lead the hunt.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160916,00.html
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
I thought you were going to post something to show intelligence that genuinely supported the case for war ? What you posted supports what I'm saying. They were wrong but chose to believe the mistaken expert whose opinion concurred with their agenda rather than the correct expert who's view didn't concurr with their agenda !
gdalton said:
Kay clearly admires Bush, and believes he went to war in Iraq in good faith because he thought Baghdad was a threat to the American people. Nevertheless, he thinks the president has to go further to regain public trust. "It's about confronting and coming clean with the American people, not just slipping a phrase into the state of the union speech. He should say: 'We were mistaken and I am determined to find out why'."


Before the war, Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action. And more than two months after the invasion, with no signs of an arsenal, Kay came to believe it was because the Pentagon was botching the search. In early June, the administration decided to take him at his word. It took control of the weapons search away from the military and gave it to the CIA, which set up the ISG. The CIA director, George Tenet, asked Kay to lead the hunt.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1160916,00.html
The Pentagon LOL... Riddled with professional lobbyists employed by the arms companies to lobby for wars.
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1441
 
Last edited:

thoracle

Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
robin said:
You remind me of that oaf Earl Marshall Haig the British general in the 1st world war.

Q)What did he do after he'd ordered 50,000 men to march slowly into German machine gun fire & get mown down ?
A)Order another 50,000 men to march slowly into German machine gun fire.

Q)How did he describe anyone that suggested that might not be a good way to fight a war ?
A)Traitor

I would suggest in reality it was Haig that was the traitor. Our soldiers were Lions lead by donkeys.
The other resemblance you Thoracle bear to Haig is you have about as good a tactical mind & capacity for analytical thought as he had.... which was that of a donkeys :lol:
OK.....what the hell are you blathering about? Your analysis of Haig's action is narrow-minded to say the least. Your comparison between he and I, even as it relates to your ignorant historical reference, I must confess, escapes me. I believe that you have not one lucid, reality or fact based response to my statement, hence the nonsensical blathering. The fact that your options were limited to fail or fail demonstrates both your debating abilities and your intellect. Also, what 50,000 troops have been marched to their death? Did you actually use the word "mown", and then say I have the mind of a donkey? WOW.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
thoracle said:
OK.....what the hell are you blathering about? Your analysis of Haig's action is narrow-minded to say the least. Your comparison between he and I, even as it relates to your ignorant historical reference, I must confess, escapes me. I believe that you have not one lucid, reality or fact based response to my statement, hence the nonsensical blathering. The fact that your options were limited to fail or fail demonstrates both your debating abilities and your intellect. Also, what 50,000 troops have been marched to their death? Did you actually use the word "mown", and then say I have the mind of a donkey? WOW.
I shalln't bother with you again. You understand neither history nor English !

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
One entry found for mow.
Main Entry: 2mow
Pronunciation: 'mO
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mowed; mowed or mown /'mOn/; mow·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English mAwan; akin to Old High German mAen to mow, Latin metere to reap, mow, Greek aman
transitive senses
1 a : to cut down with a scythe or sickle or machine b : to cut the standing herbage (as grass) of
2 a (1) : to kill or destroy in great numbers or mercilessly <machine guns mowed down the enemy> (2) : to cause to fall :
 
G

gdalton

I must confess Robin, you have stumped me. I am going to have to request your help in the understanding of all of this. So let’s see if I can get this straight, please correct me where I go wrong.

You state that a strategically fought war on terror is futile so we must therefore switch to a tactical war instead. These tactics should include; spying, identifying threats and their supporters, removing threats with covert operations, (Robin: “Spy, spy, spy, evesdrop & spy a little more. Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence, covert action & yet more covert action”) and as a last resort, invade countries where known threats are if said country refuses to help us remove them (Robin: “No country should be able to refuse in the hunt for terrorists but should be invaded only as a last resort.”). We will need to rely on intelligence to find these threats, as you have stated, but we can not rely on our intelligence people because they are political hacks who can not be trusted (Robin: “The Pentagon LOL... Riddled with professional lobbyists employed by the arms companies to lobby for wars”) We should listen to impartial scientist (Robin: “Who do you believe? An impartial scientist & expert or a politician who was hell bent on a war in Iraq?”) but not before an invasion, because they (the impartial scientist) may believe a country poses a threat before we invade, (The Guardian news paper: “Before the war, Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action”) only to change their mind two months later due to lack of evidence they first believed to be there. It is only then that we should listen to said impartial scientist, because they now believe their own opinion wrong, therefore proving our actions misguided.

If I have all of that is correct, then I’m confused as to what this statement is supposed to imply (Robin: “They were wrong but chose to believe the mistaken expert whose opinion concurred with their agenda rather than the correct expert who's view didn't concurr with their agenda!”). So please set me straight about your tactics and how they are to be used, because I can’t seem to figure it out on my own.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
gdalton said:
I must confess Robin, you have stumped me. I am going to have to request your help in the understanding of all of this. So let’s see if I can get this straight, please correct me where I go wrong.

You state that a strategically fought war on terror is futile so we must therefore switch to a tactical war instead. These tactics should include; spying, identifying threats and their supporters, removing threats with covert operations, (Robin: “Spy, spy, spy, evesdrop & spy a little more. Intelligence, intelligence, intelligence, covert action & yet more covert action”) and as a last resort, invade countries where known threats are if said country refuses to help us remove them (Robin: “No country should be able to refuse in the hunt for terrorists but should be invaded only as a last resort.”). We will need to rely on intelligence to find these threats, as you have stated, but we can not rely on our intelligence people because they are political hacks who can not be trusted (Robin: “The Pentagon LOL... Riddled with professional lobbyists employed by the arms companies to lobby for wars”) We should listen to impartial scientist (Robin: “Who do you believe? An impartial scientist & expert or a politician who was hell bent on a war in Iraq?”) but not before an invasion, because they (the impartial scientist) may believe a country poses a threat before we invade, (The Guardian news paper: “Before the war, Kay was one of the most fervent supporters of military action”) only to change their mind two months later due to lack of evidence they first believed to be there. It is only then that we should listen to said impartial scientist, because they now believe their own opinion wrong, therefore proving our actions misguided.

If I have all of that is correct, then I’m confused as to what this statement is supposed to imply (Robin: “They were wrong but chose to believe the mistaken expert whose opinion concurred with their agenda rather than the correct expert who's view didn't concurr with their agenda!”). So please set me straight about your tactics and how they are to be used, because I can’t seem to figure it out on my own.
GD let me explain. The politicians chose to believe the scientist/s that were of the opinion that Saddam was a threat, becuase that supported their wish to go to war with Iraq.
They chose to ignore David Kelly & other scientists that said Saddam was not a threat, becuase the opinion of those scientists, who incidently were the correct ones, did not support their wish to go to war with Iraq.
Just becuase Kay subsequently came clean after the war commenced, or did a 180... whichever, that doesn't mean the politicians were being impartial before the war. The politicians chose to believe those with scientists with opinions on WMD that supported their wish to go to war & they chose to ignore the opinions of the scientists that didn't support their wish.
Hope that's clearer ;)
 
Last edited:
G

gdalton

Which scientists had the opinion that Iraq was not a threat before the war?
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,413
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Amatures.

All of you have said true things (even Robin), but you are missing the mark. I guess I have an advantage here. Are any of you familiar with the military term "roll back?"
 
G

gdalton

GySgt said:
Amatures.

All of you have said true things (even Robin), but you are missing the mark. I guess I have an advantage here. Are any of you familiar with the military term "roll back?"
No, can't say that I have heard of "roll back", and you are right I am an amature. Please inform all of us on what is correct in this argument and what we are missing.

My assertion is that Robin, who believes we should be fighting just not in Iraq, is going around in circles as to how and who we should get our intell from, and how and when we should act on that intell. I'm just trying to see exactly what Robin is suggesting we do, plus I'm having fun with his answers :2razz:

By the way nice to see you here Gunny, I'm looking forward to reading your insight on this matter.
 

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,413
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Throughout much of the 90s, intelligence personnel were not quite forbidden to consider religion as a strategic factor, but the issue was considered soft and potentially embarrassing in those years of epidemic political correctness. Now, of course, religion may be discussed in intelligence circles, if bracketed with careful disclaimers noting that all religions have problems and that we are not bigoted toward any one religion. But what if a large world religion is bigoted toward us? While we must deal with fanatical, soulless killers in the present, Islam’s future is undecided. Millions of Muslims are willing to keep that door open to a brighter and truer Islam, despite the threats of a legion of fanatics. A struggle of immense proportions and immeasurable importance has been under way for the soul of Islam, a mighty contest to decide between a humane, tolerant, and progressive faith, and a hangman’s vision of a punitive God and a humankind defined by prohibitions. The U.S. military has been screaming this to deaf ears since the mid 80’s. Still, the majority of the world refuses to see it or even notice it and our own Government refuses to really deal with it.

We have been looking in the wrong direction, because that is where we have been conditioned to look. The contest between competing Muslim visions, between those who would turn back the clock and those who believe they must embrace the future, has already been lost in the Arab homelands. Blinded by oil and riveted by the Arab-Israeli conflict, our leaders and legislators alike have failed to reexamine their thinking for the past 40 years. The Middle East has been left behind by history and their response has been to blame everyone but themselves—and to sponsor terror (sometimes casually, but often officially). Much of the Arab world has withdrawn into a fortress of intolerance and self-righteousness as psychologically comfortable as it is practically destructive. Of course, we need not call back our ambassadors from the Middle East, nor could we cease dealing with the oil states entirely. If we do not shift our focus to where the Islamists are waging war against infidels and inferior Muslims, we will reap the repercussions. That location is on the fringes of the Islamic world where the strains of religious conflict and terrorism have become routine and are escalating.

Militant Islamists have spread their doctrine into Africa and slaughtered over two million Christians in Sudan and over 700,000 “back slidden” Muslims. They were slaughtering non-muslims and "inferior" Muslims in Bosnia and in Kosovo. There is a mounting Islamic insurgency that has been murdering Buddhists in Thailand for over a year now. There is Jihadist action in regions as diverse as Chechnya, Nigeria, Spain, Central Asia and the Philippines. Even China is worried about separatist sentiment in its vast and mostly Muslim western province of Xinjiang. But, what has the rest of the world done about any of this? Nothing. They are caught up in some kind of fear, that only permits them to point out the violence but not the problem, which is a struggle within Islam and it's violence outward, and pointing out America's mistakes. Mistakes, that are certainly there, but we are doing something. Driven by the ferocity of events, we have begun to react militarily to the violence in Islam’s borderlands, from the Caucasus to the Philippines, as well as in that eternal frontier state, Afghanistan. Iraq represents the Islamists reacting to us. They will not let a country in their heartland fall to the west easily. The military is addressing the issues of today, but the amount of military engagement that will be necessary in the future will depend on our diplomatic actions in the outer fringes. So far, we (the U.S.) have done absolutely...nothing. This is where “roll back” and the lessons learned during the Cold War is needed and will be successful.
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,413
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Part II

Many don't believe that "The War on Terror" is not worth fighting, because they believe that we cannot win. It is winnable if we refocus. We did not imagine we could defeat Soviet communism starting in Moscow; likewise, Islamic extremism cannot be engaged most effectively where it was born and bred. We must work our way in from the hopeful, unsettled frontiers, from Africa through Asia, in the Balkans, and in North America. The complex, exasperating, and frequently inspiring world of Islam faces a historically unique challenge. An entire religious civilization, of remarkable variety, must change if it is to survive economically and culturally. In the dark days of the Cold War, American strategists touted the notion of “rolling back” communism. In fact, we never rolled back much—at least until 1989—but did our best to hold the line. Most obvious places are Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. But “roll-back” may have been a strategy far ahead of its time, a concept waiting for more propitious circumstances. It appears to be eminently suited as an approach for dealing with violent Islamic extremism.

Despite Afghanistan and Iraq, troubles with Syria and Iran, and the insistent temper tantrums of the Palestinians against Israel, we are not at war with Islam. But the most radical elements within the Muslim world are convinced that they are at war with us and they would have many around the globe believe it too. Our fight is with the few, but our struggle must be with the many. The United States will never be the decisive factor in the struggle for the future of Islam. That role is reserved for Muslims themselves. So far, they have not lifted a finger (Except for the Iraqi military and some police, they aren't even trying to match our efforts in that country.), but we can play a far more constructive role than we have yet done also. While Pakistan has been wracked with phenomenal corruption and suffers from a ravaged education system that opened the door for the expansion of fundamentalist religious schools, and even though its economy is in shambles, that most-endangered state still has not strayed irretrievably into the extremist camp. India and Indonesia are the two countries with the largest Muslim populations. Each state presents a reason for hope in the world of Islam. Muslims in India mirror Muslims in our own country. They are both faced with living in different cultures and compete for religious identity. The West’s liberation of women is the essential element that renders so many Muslims irreconcilable to us. This particular set of freedoms threatens not only the Muslim male’s religious prejudices, but also his central identity. Until it successfully addresses the issue of women’s rights—full rights—Islam will not compete successfully, in any area, with the West. In that regard, Indonesia offers a hopeful example among foreign states and the Kurds offer a very ignored example for the Arabs of the Middle East (where they seem incapable of constructive change).

Military action should be reserved for places like Sudan and Afghanistan and other places where an established government of terror reigns over the weak. Success will never be final, but always a matter of degree - which is the difference between a bloody contest of civilizations and the routine ebb and flow of lesser conflicts. For the Middle East, bloody contest is what our "toleration" and failures to act decisively, have led us. In Iraq, these self-appointed executioners of “Allah” have come to die for their god. Let ‘em. For the rest of the Muslim world, we still have the power of diplomacy and friendship - if only we don't let it slip away.
 
Last edited:

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
gdalton said:
No, can't say that I have heard of "roll back", and you are right I am an amature. Please inform all of us on what is correct in this argument and what we are missing.

My assertion is that Robin, who believes we should be fighting just not in Iraq, is going around in circles as to how and who we should get our intell from, and how and when we should act on that intell. I'm just trying to see exactly what Robin is suggesting we do, plus I'm having fun with his answers :2razz:
Let me suggest two simple examples.
1) An Arab asylum seeker stopped recently at Dover had notebooks on terror & plans on how to build bombs.
Answer we need to adopt the tactic of far stricter immigration controls/checks that would catch more of these bastards. The last few times I've re entered UK the immigration control has been lax. Just drive past two guys & wave my passport. We can thank the EEC for this lax border control to some extent.

2) The London bombers were brainwashed in British extremist Mosques. Why didn't we adopt the tactic of having spies in those mosques to get intelligence just like we had IRA informers ?
Bombing people in Iraq has sod all to do with stopping British born & bred terrorists attacking our country or Morrocon born & bred terroists hitting Madrid or Bali terroists blowing up young tourists.... & I'm going to say it again folks... The war in Iraq as a means to defeat worldwide terror is as futile as trying to eradicate the entire world population of flies by standing in one country & swatting them. You don't kill many flies & you just make a lot more angry & I'm sorry if I repeat that so often but I think it a totally valid analogy. Surely you can see that ?
If by some miracle we do leave Iraq in a stable state of democracy & law & order it will be a good thing but make no difference whatsover in the war on terror. The terrorists are everywhere... Bali, Morroco, Eritrea, London, Pakistan etc etc... they never were in Iraq & the ones left all round the world will still be active.

gdalton said:
Which scientists had the opinion that Iraq was not a threat before the war?
David Kelly to start with.
More here.... http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008110.html
 
Last edited:

MSgt

Stabler Genius
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
23,722
Reaction score
8,413
Location
Highlands Ranch, CO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
robin said:
Let me suggest two simple examples.
1) An Arab asylum seeker stopped recently at Dover had notebooks on terror & plans on how to build bombs.
Answer we need to adopt the tactic of far stricter immigration controls/checks that would catch more of these bastards. The last few times I've re entered UK the immigration control has been lax. Just drive past two guys & wave my passport. We can thank the EEC for this lax border control to some extent.

2) The London bombers were brainwashed in British extremist Mosques. Why didn't we adopt the tactic of having spies in those mosques to get intelligence like we had IRA informers ?
Bombing people in Iraq has sod all to do with stopping British born & bred terrorists attacking in our country or Morrocon born & bred terroists hitting Madrid or Bali terroists blowing up young tourists.... & I'm going to say it again folks... The war in Iraq as a war on terror is as futile as trying to eradicate the entire world population of flies by standing in one country & swatting them. You don't kill many flies & you just make a lot more angry & I'm sorry if I repeat that so often but I think it a totally valid analogy. Surely you can see that ?

David Kelly to start with.
More here.... http://talkleft.com/new_archives/008110.html

This is all fine, but you are focusing on protection. Protection is not prevention. I realize that this is not your views...but in my line of work, prevention is proactive not reactive. Beefing up securities and closing down borders only push them off and will only encourage them to find new ways to enter the countries. We have to go to them and stop ignoring this very real and growing threat.

And before you argue about American foreign policy, keep in mind places like Bali, Sudan, Kurdistan, Tailand, Indonesia, Nigeria, China, etc. The list goes on. Our foreign policies have nothing to do with these places. Using our foreign policy is only an "excuse" for their brand of religious practice and their legions of cheerleaders in the Middle East.
 

robin

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
0
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
For christs sake gysgt... none the people that have set off bombs in our countries are from Iraq !!!!!
Holy **** I can't believe your intransigence !!!!
Have you read the link about Bush & spin on WMD ?
Do you ever look at things from another point of view other than that of a blinkered ex military man & patriotic fool ?
 
Top Bottom