PRESIDENT Bush and Alquida agree on one thing, Iraq is the main central front of the war on terror. The war looks bad because the only thing the media covers is the car bombs and anyother bad news they can rake together from their hotels.When was the last time Iraq's electric power was in the news?Answer- when the power was out after the initial invasion. Our 24hour news cycle in action. All negative, all of the time. There is no time for positve news because the same 20min. of negative coverage must be shown over and over.robin said:Steven Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University
Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.
robin said:Reuters
by David Morgan
WASHINGTON - U.S. terrorism experts Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon have reached a stark conclusion about the war on terrorism: the United States is losing.
(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially.
Steven Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University
Despite an early victory over the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the two former Clinton administration officials say President George W. Bush's policies have created a new haven for terrorism in Iraq that escalates the potential for Islamic violence against Europe and the United States.
America's badly damaged image in the Muslim world could take more than a generation to set right. And Bush's mounting political woes at home have undermined the chance for any bold U.S. initiatives to address the grim social realities that feed Islamic radicalism, they say.
"It's been fairly disastrous," said Benjamin, who worked as a director for counterterrorism at the National Security Council from 1994 to 1999.
"We have had some very important successes getting individual terrorists. But I think the broader story is really quite awful. We have done a lot to fuel the fires, and we have done a lot to encourage people to hate us," he added in an interview.
Benjamin and Simon, a former State Department official who was also at the NSC, are co-authors of a new book titled: "The Next Attack: The Failure of the War on Terror and a Strategy for Getting it Right" (Times Books).
Following on from their 2002 book, "The Age of Sacred Terror" (Random House), Benjamin and Simon list what they call U.S. missteps since the September 11, 2001, attacks on America.
The Bush administration presents the war on terrorism as a difficult but largely successful struggle that has seen the gutting of al Qaeda's pre-September 11 leadership and prevented new attacks in the United States over the past four years.
Bush said last month the United States and its allies had disrupted plans for 10 al Qaeda attacks since September 11, including one against West Coast targets with hijacked planes.
The White House describes Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism and says the building of democracy there will confound militant aims and help to propel the entire Middle East region toward democracy.
Benjamin and Simon's criticism of the Bush administration in Iraq follows a path similar to those of other critics, including former U.S. national security adviser Brent Scowcroft and former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke.
"We may be attacked by terrorists who receive their training in Iraq, or attacked by terrorists who were inspired, organized and trained by people who were in Iraq," said Simon, a Rand Corp. analyst who teaches at Georgetown University.
"(Bush) has given them an excellent American target in Iraq but in the process has energized the jihad and given militants the kind of urban warfare experience that will raise the future threat to the United States exponentially."
For Benjamin and Simon, the war on terrorism has cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and failed to counter a deadly global movement responsible for attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Indonesia, and Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt.
And not even al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, they say, could have dreamed the United States would stumble so badly in the court of Muslim public opinion.
"Everyone says there's a war of ideas out there, and I agree. The sad fact is that we're on the wrong side," said Benjamin, now a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
U.S. fortunes could improve, the authors say, if Washington took a number of politically challenging steps, like bolstering public diplomacy with trade pacts aimed at expanding middle-class influence in countries such as Pakistan.
Washington also needs to do more to ease regional tensions that feed Muslim grievances across the globe, from Thailand and the Philippines to Chechnya and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In a Muslim world of 1.2 billion people, as many as three-in-four hold negative views of the United States.
Because anti-U.S. rhetoric often appeals strongly to impressionable youth, Benjamin and Simon believe many of today's young Muslims will harbor grievances against the United States for the rest of their lives.
The authors believe there is little prospect for fundamental improvement in U.S. policy under Bush "There are resource constraints, there are constraints in the realm of trade, there are political constraints," said Simon.
"These are not the kinds of circumstances that favor bold new policies that require spending political capital that it turns out the White House just doesn't have," he added.
Copyright 2005 Reuters
Ridicules. 1).Nobody would start an unwinnable war.2).War does not mean big profits, PRES. Bush is critized by the left because the war is costing so much. There are no profits. 3).A war machine is imortant to defend this country. If we had no military, our country would have been invaded and conquered a long time ago. If we had a bigger military we could get more done with threats. 4). Peace machine?! give me abreak.Focus on the real reality.Canuck said:YEs it is an unwinable war Bush already knew this or at least he was told this prior to the war
he chose to go anyways because it meant big profits in a time of economic melt down for USA
&USA lives off it's war machine
it is high time that America abandon the war machine and build a peace machine
Canuck said:YEs it is an unwinable war Bush already knew this or at least he was told this prior to the war
he chose to go anyways because it meant big profits in a time of economic melt down for USA
&USA lives off it's war machine
it is high time that America abandon the war machine and build a peace machine
AK_Conservative said:By the way.. i thought you were banned...
alienken said:Ridicules. 1).Nobody would start an unwinnable war.2).War does not mean big profits, PRES. Bush is critized by the left because the war is costing so much. There are no profits. 3).A war machine is imortant to defend this country. If we had no military, our country would have been invaded and conquered a long time ago. If we had a bigger military we could get more done with threats. 4). Peace machine?! give me abreak.Focus on the real reality.
Iraq is so independent that they could ask us to leave and we would leave. They want us there. They are not fighting us, they are fighting terrorist with us.Comrade Brian said:4. Most of our enemies want peace, they just don't want our invasions and occupations. They would be willing to have peace, but we don't wanna leave.
tecoyah said:I simply cannot understand why we abandoned this silver platter, and decided to go after a bit player in the terrorist game(Saddam), unless I want to believe the paranoid conspiracy crap .....and I dont want to believe it.
alienken said:Iraq is so independent that they could ask us to leave and we would leave. They want us there. They are not fighting us, they are fighting terrorist with us.
Of course. They started in Iraq to get us out. Why would they start before we got there.Why do use "" around terrorist? What else would you call Al-quedi. Which side are you on?..There really are only two sides.Comrade Brian said:Well their first Iraqi govt. leader was voted in because the base of his campagn was to ask the US to leave, we have not left.
And these "terrorists" in Iraq only started after the US invaded.
Have you ever seen all the demonstrations?
Sob said:Am I correct in my understanding that you think we abandoned our efforts in Afghanistan?
We're still VERY busy there. However, the Navy SEALS are just as happy not to be in the headlines. Which will be the case unless things start going badly in that area--then the networks will be all over it.
Comrade Brian said:Well their first Iraqi govt. leader was voted in because the base of his campagn was to ask the US to leave, we have not left.
And these "terrorists" in Iraq only started after the US invaded.
Have you ever seen all the demonstrations?
alienken said:Of course. They started in Iraq to get us out. Why would they start before we got there.Why do use "" around terrorist? What else would you call Al-quedi. Which side are you on?..There really are only two sides.
Comrade Brian said:4. Al-Qaeda was a US supported group, originally made as an anti-soviet resistance group in Afghanistan. They recieved CIA weapons and training, now that the Soviets are out of the area, they want to push the US out.[/QUOTE I doubt it, but if we did it was because a larger threat was more of a concern. Soviet Union. In a similar fashion we were allies with Saddam because he fought against Iran.
1).WHAT? The US hasn't targeted civilians like Sept. 11. 2). WHAT?! The terrorist hasn't been as bad as the US in Iraq? Compare Abu Grabe naked prisoner photos with the videos of the be-headings. NO comparison.When our military took on a town that had a terrorist strong hold it was deemed a failer because we missed the leader.Why? Because we told them we were coming so the civilians could evacuate. The terrorist leader also evacuated and still causing us problems to this day. Do you realize how quick and easy it would have been if our military did not care about civilians? We could have leveled their whole town, terrorist leaders and all....3).I know there are two sides and no I am not naive just because I TOTALLY disagree with you. Terrorist side - They hate us and want us to die. U.S. side - we need to kill them first.Comrade Brian said:1. I use "" around "terrorist" is because technically the US spread more terror than they have, the US has killed more people. So I don't think they are "terrorist" as many would have people believe.
2. Technically I would be on the "terrorist" because I support their goals of US out of Iraq, I don't necessarily like how they've done it, but they haven't been as bad as the US.
3. There are more than 2 sides to almost every issue. Don't be so naive.
4. Al-Qaeda was a US supported group, originally made as an anti-soviet resistance group in Afghanistan. They recieved CIA weapons and training, now that the Soviets are out of the area, they want to push the US out.
alienken said:1).WHAT? The US hasn't targeted civilians like Sept. 11. 2). WHAT?! The terrorist hasn't been as bad as the US in Iraq? Compare Abu Grabe naked prisoner photos with the videos of the be-headings. NO comparison.When our military took on a town that had a terrorist strong hold it was deemed a failer because we missed the leader.Why? Because we told them we were coming so the civilians could evacuate. The terrorist leader also evacuated and still causing us problems to this day. Do you realize how quick and easy it would have been if our military did not care about civilians? We could have leveled their whole town, terrorist leaders and all....3).I know there are two sides and no I am not naive just because I TOTALLY disagree with you. Terrorist side - They hate us and want us to die. U.S. side - we need to kill them first.
alienken said:3).I know there are two sides and no I am not naive just because I TOTALLY disagree with you. Terrorist side - They hate us and want us to die. U.S. side - we need to kill them first.
alienken said:1).WHAT? The US hasn't targeted civilians like Sept. 11.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?