U.S. believes it killed al Qaeda No.3

[Polynikes]

:rofl you're getting irate about my post, which you should actually agree with. You can kill as much Taliban and Al-Qaeda as you want, go ahead. 10 more #3's will pop up in his place.

I don't think killing is making your country safer, because the majority of the threat is overblown. If there were 1000's of terrorists out there, they could cause havoc anywhere they wanted. I got on a greyhound bus a couple of weeks ago, my bags were not searched, my ID not checked, this was from Vancouver to Whistler straight after the Olympics, if a terrorist truly wanted to cause havoc, blowing up a bus would be the way, and since it's so easy, and it did not happen, I can only assume you are way, far, and way too scared.

No, I'm not irate at all. I just find your post immature and lacking knowledge of the subject at hand. A little annoyed, perhaps, irate, by no means.

If I killed as much Taliban and Al-Qaeda as I wanted, they wouldn't exist anymore. You also have to take in to account that this war isn't be fought from strictly a military perspective. The death of a senior leader proves to be exponentially important when the ideology in which they represent is also being defeated economically and spiritually. Radical Islam will fade, even if it takes generations.

Your knowledge of terrorism, terrorist, their operational capabilities, how they are organized and the measures being carried out by the U.S to defeat them is lacking.

The premise of your post is that terrorism is an overblown threat because the bus you were riding on did not get blown up? Tell that to the families off the passengers aboard flights 11, 93, 77 and 175. Tell that to the families of those whose remains were never identified in the rubble of the WTC.

In a way I hope your next post is as poorly thought out as your previous posts so I can ignore further ones and not waste my time responding to such ignorant anti-Americanism.



BTW, you still never stated exactly the point you were trying to make, nor did you answer any of my questions.

 

[Kandahar]

Had we not gone in to Afghanistan or pulled out with out it being somewhat stabilized against an Al-Qaeda/Taliban resurgence, then Al-Qaeda would have the same save haven they did prior to 9/11 to train and plan.

There will always be terrorist hotspots, at least for the foreseeable future. There is no way we can ever hope to fix Afghanistan; it's one of the poorest, most fragmented nations in the world, and our military presence can never change that. Besides, terrorists have plenty of room to operate whether we're in Afghanistan or not. They have Western Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Gaza, and other desperately poor parts of the Muslim world.

We haven't spent anywhere near the amount in Afghanistan economically as was caused by the attacks of 9/11.

Meh, it depends how you measure the economic costs, I suppose. A quick Google search yielded $270 billion as the cost of the war in Afghanistan, and $95 billion as the cost of 9/11. Your numbers may vary...but the costs aren't really comparable anyway because we don't know if our presence in Afghanistan has actually prevented any attacks. It's certainly possible that we wouldn't have had another major attack even if we had never gone into Afghanistan. It's not like 9/11s were common events BEFORE we went in.

If you are looking at it in terms of lives lost, a little over 1,000 service members, nearly all of whom are aware of the risk that their job entails, and would gladly lay down their lives if need be to protect America, compared to over 3,000 civilians on 9/11.

But again, the lives lost aren't really comparable because we don't know how many (if any) lives our presence in Afghanistan actually saved from terrorist attacks.

There's also the matter of the amount of political capital this has cost us. Our presence in Afghanistan has been an albatross around our neck that has made us less able to project our military power elsewhere in the world.

And in terms of lives saved, this was certainly not the most efficient use of our money. Large terrorist attacks are sensational news stories, but they aren't really that commonplace. If we merely wanted to save as many lives as possible for a given dollar cost, there are other things we could spend the money on instead, like cancer research or safer cars. I realize that dollars-per-life may not be the only metric we want to use, but it's definitely something to consider when evaluating this.

 

[Polynikes]

There will always be terrorist hotspots, at least for the foreseeable future. There is no way we can ever hope to fix Afghanistan; it's one of the poorest, most fragmented nations in the world, and our military presence can never change that. Besides, terrorists have plenty of room to operate whether we're in Afghanistan or not. They have Western Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Gaza, and other desperately poor parts of the Muslim world.

Agreed about the hotspots, but some are much more dangerous than others. Afghanistan provided a save haven where Al-Qaeda had direct support from the host government. Most other countries do not want Al-Qaeda in their countries because their presence has proven to be de-stabilizing. We may never be able to fix Afghanistan to the point we'd like, but by providing them with the opportunity to form some resemblance of a democracy, or at the very least something better than the Taliban, we in turn deny a save haven for Al-Qaeda. Sure they will always operate in remote areas of the country, but they will not have the lines of communication, logistics and training capabilities as before.

Meh, it depends how you measure the economic costs, I suppose. A quick Google search yielded $270 billion as the cost of the war in Afghanistan, and $95 billion as the cost of 9/11. Your numbers may vary...but the costs aren't really comparable anyway because we don't know if our presence in Afghanistan has actually prevented any attacks. It's certainly possible that we wouldn't have had another major attack even if we had never gone into Afghanistan. It's not like 9/11s were common events BEFORE we went in

.

Comparing the 2 in monetary terms, or most other terms for that matter is difficult. However, the bottom line still remains that Al-Qaeda was harbored by the Taliban prior to 9/11. A large amount of Al-Qaeda terrorists received training and money from Afghanistan. I don't see any alternative after 9/11 than going in to Afghanistan. Had we not done anything after 9/11 in terms of eliminating the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, I would bet a large amount of money there would of been another 9/11, and most likely much worse.


Question: looking back to 9/11, and everything playing out the same, including the current situation in Afghanistan, do you think we should of still gone in to Afghanistan? Remember, this is without changing anything, a simple yes or no, not a "Ya, but in a different manner."

But again, the lives lost aren't really comparable because we don't know how many (if any) lives our presence in Afghanistan actually saved from terrorist attacks.

There's also the matter of the amount of political capital this has cost us. Our presence in Afghanistan has been an albatross around our neck that has made us less able to project our military power elsewhere in the world.

And in terms of lives saved, this was certainly not the most efficient use of our money. Large terrorist attacks are sensational news stories, but they aren't really that commonplace. If we merely wanted to save as many lives as possible for a given dollar cost, there are other things we could spend the money on instead, like cancer research or safer cars. I realize that dollars-per-life may not be the only metric we want to use, but it's definitely something to consider when evaluating this.

I only started making these comparisons because you brought them up as a relative point in your post. Our presence in Afghanistan is the most important military mission we have right now. It is not an albatross, but a vital task. I would also argue that our presence in Afghanistan and Iraq allows us to project more power, particularly on Iran. Granted these two campaigns have most likely emboldened North Korea, but that situation is so complex that us being in Afghanistan wouldn't of changed much.

Question: Since you made the evaluation in terms of saving the maximum number of lives saved per dollar spent, then would you advocate not responding militarily after an attack like 9/11 because it is inefficient?

You're right, cancer will kill more people this year than all the terrorist attacks in history (depending on your definition of terrorism). That being said, I'm having a hard time with this analogy. I understand you are using it strictly for dollar/lives saved analysis, but the nature of the two are so different and the very fabric of society so differently affected by them that I think it's a poor comparison.