Is the War on Terrorism Worth It?

[nismaratwork]

I was responding to a simple "aw shucks" comment - give war a chance to work - so yes, there is plenty more that could be said.

Isn't the key mistake of the war on terror that instead of a surgical focus on the actual legitimate target - Al Qaeda - it became a messy, unnecessary, battle against the Taliban?

If Afghanistan was left to produce its own regime in control, no matter how despotic, then the usual international policing/intelligence/bribery/arm-twisting could be used to contain and eradicate any threat Al Qaeda actually posed. And with all the extra money to be spent on homeland security, how much threat of repeat attacks were there?

War just makes a mess that still has to be cleaned up. In the context of containing/eliminating a small group of terrorists, forcing an intact regime to police their territory seems commonsense.

So maybe the US high command wanted to send messages to other countries in the region. Maybe securing pipelines from the Caspian sea was a strategic imperative. Or maybe it was just a case of a dumb hick "aw shucks" let's give war a go mentality. When you are in control of half the world's military expenditure, maybe it is just too hard letting it sit there not doing anything. You got to get the toys out and play.

A good idea, and one that, if it failed, could easily be replaces by aerial bombardment... an failing that, boots on the ground. We started for reasons of ideology and god knows what else, with the least flexible and reversible option and tens of thousands of American soldiers and contractors have died, have TBIs, or lost limbs as a result.

 

[ikos9lives]

I think something else that has not been brought up but bears mentioning is the relative costs being expended by the two sides in this war. The terrorists are spending a miniscule amount compared to the U.S. and indeed all of the western nations for the purpose of defending against these groups.

One of the ways in which the U.S. utlimately defeated the USSR was through spending. When Pr. Reagan announced the SDI program, the so called, "Star wars" program, the USSR took him seriously and attempted to spend monies they did not have in order to "keep up", It was just one of several factors that ultimately bankrupted the Soviets.

We have a number of military and ex-military types here on the boards. I am sure that they will concur that, terrorist groups, can, by retaining the initiative, and going on the attack, force their opponent to spend an inordinate amount of money trying to defend multiple points against multiple forms of attack.
The attacks themselve need not be that spectacular, just enough to get the opponent "fired up" so that they expend still more money until there is simply no more to spend...

So - in point of fact, the terrorists could very well force the U.S. into bankruptcy unless we find and use different tactics than we have seen so far.

 

[BobG]

We have a number of military and ex-military types here on the boards. I am sure that they will concur that, terrorist groups, can, by retaining the initiative, and going on the attack, force their opponent to spend an inordinate amount of money trying to defend multiple points against multiple forms of attack.
The attacks themselve need not be that spectacular, just enough to get the opponent "fired up" so that they expend still more money until there is simply no more to spend...

So - in point of fact, the terrorists could very well force the U.S. into bankruptcy unless we find and use different tactics than we have seen so far.

I don't think small terrorist groups could ever mount enough attacks to bankrupt the US, even if it does cost a lot more to defend against their attacks than it takes to initiate them.

For small terrorist groups to bankrupt a superpower, they'd have to somehow motivate superpowers to start entire wars against...

Uh, wait a minute...

 

[mheslep]

If the above was meant to mean the US could not be bankrupted by military spending against isolated attacks, I agree, but then that's a very narrow case. Assuming some kind of US turned completely inward and isolated, so that it did nothing but arrest terrorists after the fact, then I think numerous and sustained terror attacks could curtail the trade and mobile society dependent business output of the US so that tax revenue would fall drastically (see e.g. all commercial air traffic grounded over the the US for several days), and given the major US expenditures are in entitlements which have never been cut back, then yes I could see either a default or a currency collapse.

Apropos:
Oct 8: Dollar's Fall Roils World
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748704696304575538334028041428.html

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't think small terrorist groups could ever mount enough attacks to bankrupt the US, even if it does cost a lot more to defend against their attacks than it takes to initiate them.

For small terrorist groups to bankrupt a superpower, they'd have to somehow motivate superpowers to start entire wars against...

Uh, wait a minute...

*Speaks into cuff* "We have visual on the target"

Sir... would you like to come with these *points at well armed DHS agents* nice men and finish that last sentence for us?



Kidding aside, I agree, we couldn't be bankrupted by terrorism. Mheslep your scenario is really the US bankrupting itself...

 

[mheslep]

Mheslep your scenario is really the US bankrupting itself...

Really ... no, not more than any other scenario. The spending - entitlements, military, whatever - is always done by the government itself, and the revenue side could be drastically cut by terror action if sustained.

 

[mugaliens]

Fighting terrorism is an option, and isn't all that expensive.

Rebuilding infrastructures hit by terrorists have destroyed is not an option, and can be very expensive.

Fighting unnecessary wars overseas is also an option, and is also very expensive.

Helping to secure our freedoms against idealists who'd love nothing than to destroy our society?

Priceless.

 

[mheslep]

Fighting terrorism is an option, and isn't all that expensive.

Rebuilding infrastructures hit by terrorists have destroyed is not an option, and can be very expensive.

Fighting unnecessary wars overseas is also an option, and is also very expensive.

Helping to secure our freedoms against idealists who'd love nothing than to destroy our society?

Priceless.

Since the above indicates you don't see fighting wars overseas as 'fighting terrorism', then could you explain what you do mean by 'fighting terrorism'?

 

[loseyourname]

Just taking into consideration the actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the presumed objective of eliminating situations like pre-9/11 Al Qaeda having de facto state sponsorship and safe haven in Afghanistan under the Taliban, from which they launched a direct attack, I'll guess no.

Granted, that's just a guess, not a more detailed analysis, but I think our worldwide efforts to boost intelligence collection and cooperate with local law enforcement and efforts stateside to increase the powers of intelligence collection and law enforcement have been fruitful enough in and of themselves, and trying to eliminate failed states where terror cells find haven is multiplying costs by the millions without the payoff to justify it. We may very well succeed ultimately in Iraq, but they weren't providing haven or weapons to terrorists anyway. We probably could succeed in Afghanistan, but we'd need to stay there with 100,000 troops for another ten years, which would hardly be worth it. What would we do after that? Occupy Yemen for the following 20 years until we could install a stable friendly government there, too?

I'll say it's entirely possible that we've provided a nice concentration point for Al Qaeda efforts, getting them offtrack enough in trying to keep Iraq and Afghanistan destabilized that they probably haven't had the additional capacity to attack us domestically, which has made US citizens safer at home, but then again, that's really just transferring the risk of terrorism from domestic US citizens to deployed soldiers and the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq, which isn't the purpose of soldiers and isn't fair to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, and furthermore doesn't actually eliminate terrorism or even reduce it.

 

[mheslep]

Some good points for discussion above, especially your points about the expense of toppling and fixed rogue/failed states, but this is baffling:

... they [Iraq] weren't providing haven or weapons to terrorists anyway.

If you are referring specifically to AQ and 911 fine, but terrorist action/havens in general?

Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel.
[...]
Saddam's payments
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35m paid since September 2000

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/9513/terrorism_havens.html

 

[deluks917]

In this post I discuss only the US:

In my opinion the September 11th attacks were not as much of a tragedy as people make them out to be. It was a terrible day but we could have moved forward. The country as a whole was not in danger, no one was invading. There were apparently serious gaps in communication between various government agencies that came to light and needed to be corrected. We could have rebuilt the Twin Towers. Instead I think all we have done is make things much worse for everyone. More Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq then died on September 11th. Tens of thousands of more soldiers have been seriously wounded.

We've spent over 800 billion dollars on these wars. Nothing has been built where the towers stood. We are not safer. We invaded Iraq for no clear reason. Even our government admits we have killed 300,000 Iraqi civillians. The real number is probably higher. We are just justifying the belief that the "West" is evil. Worth of all we have thrown our constitution into the fire. We allow american citizens to be jailed indefinitely if they are declared "unlawful enemy combatants." We have relaxed restraints on searches and wiretaps. We are just giving more and more power to a government that has proved incompetent.

Who has benefited from all this? The "war on terror" is not a real war. No enemy country is attacking us. Worst of all this "War" is never ending. How can we possibly defeat terror? I think the most errible tragedy of 9/11 was not the terroist attacks but the way the United States reacted.

edit: I obviously voted no to the thread but it appears to have counted my vote as yes. Did this happen to anyone else?

 

[mheslep]

In this post I discuss only the US:

In my opinion the September 11th attacks were not as much of a tragedy as people make them out to be. It was a terrible day but we could have moved forward. The country as a whole was not in danger, no one was invading. There were apparently serious gaps in communication between various government agencies that came to light and needed to be corrected. We could have rebuilt the Twin Towers. Instead I think all we have done is make things much worse for everyone. More Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq then died on September 11th. Tens of thousands of more soldiers have been seriously wounded.

We've spent over 800 billion dollars on these wars. Nothing has been built where the towers stood. We are not safer. We invaded Iraq for no reason. Even our government admits we have killed 300,000 Iraqi civillians. The real number is higher. We are just justifying the belief that the "West" is evil. Worth of all we have thrown our constitution into the fire. We allow american citizens to be jailed indefinitely if they are declared "unlawful enemy combatants." We have relaxed restraints on searches and wiretaps. We are just giving more and more power to a government that has proved incompetent.

Who has benefited from all this? All the "War on Terror" as done is spread hate for America. The cost has been hundreds of thousands of deaths and many more serious injuries. We say we want to "protect our freedoms" but we have discarded them in the name of "Safety." I don't think the United States was at any risk of being overrun by Muslim Extremists. I think the real disaster of September 11th was how the United States reacted.

I'm struck by the lack of consistency in the assessment of harm in the above.

You begin by saying the 911 attack, its 3000 killed and billions of dollars in economic damage, when considered against the harm to the country at large was not so severe. Ok, I disagree, but I grant that's an arguable point. Then you say the constitution has been thrown in the "fire" because, among other things, american citizens are allowed to be jailed indefinitely.

First, since the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld" , your statement about citizen detention is incorrect (as are some of the other specific claims). And I think the SCOTUS decision banning detention of citizen and forcing tribunals was ~appropriate. That fact aside, my main complaint is that given the perspective you allow in your first point, it seems to me you throw perspective out the window in the latter statement about detention. How many citizens did you imagine were being detained? One? Two? And from where? NYC or a battlefield? So the destruction of the WTC was an acceptable loss but the indefinite detention of one dirt bag engaged in violence in Afghanistan for a fascist cause is 'the real disaster'?

 

[CAC1001]

We could have rebuilt the Twin Towers.

Construction of the replacements for the Twin Towers is currently underway.

We've spent over 800 billion dollars on these wars. Nothing has been built where the towers stood. We are not safer.

I think we are.

We invaded Iraq for no clear reason.

The reasons were very clear, they just turned out to be wrong.

Even our government admits we have killed 300,000 Iraqi civillians. The real number is probably higher. We are just justifying the belief that the "West" is evil.

No we aren't. We overturned what was the equivalent of a Middle Eastern Adolf Hitler. Hussein's Baath party was modeled on the Nazi party. He was a brutal dictator and oppressor who used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands. He attacked neighboring countries and bombed others. And he could have possibly obtained a nuclear weapon by the Gulf War if Israel hadn't taken out the Osirak reactor in 1981.

Worth of all we have thrown our constitution into the fire.

No we didn't. The actions taken by the Bush administration involved a lot of careful thought and planning and were not easy to make, and have been subjected to the court system.

Who has benefited from all this? The "war on terror" is not a real war. No enemy country is attacking us. Worst of all this "War" is never ending. How can we possibly defeat terror? I think the most errible tragedy of 9/11 was not the terroist attacks but the way the United States reacted.

We won't be able to understand whether the War on Terror was "worth it" for many years IMO. As for the war being "never-ending," well that's just a cold reality. If we pretend it doesn't exist, like we did during the 1990s, we'd end up getting attacked again.

 

[BobG]

Has Iraq sponsored terrorism?
Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the State Department listed Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

The support to terrorist groups fighting Turkey is an interesting issue.

Turkey scorns US with threat to attack Kurds (Oct 14, 2007)
Did Rice urging Turkey not to attack Kurdish 'rebels' amount to supporting a 'terrorist' group? Same group with a different label.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101012/ap_on_re_eu/eu_turkey_kurds
Or has the US acceptance of the Turkish attacks in Iraq mean we offered no real support to Kurdish rebels/terrorists?

I think Hussein did more to combat Kurdish insurgents/rebels/insurgents than the US ever did. He even used posion gas on them. It's a tough dividing line between which Kurds threaten Turkey and which Kurds threatened Hussein, especially when both mounted their attacks from Northern Iraq.

I'm not sure I like how that quote used the term "terrorist". It's a little vague (or perhaps how we've handled it in Iraq has been a bit problematic).

 

[loseyourname]

Some good points for discussion above, especially your points about the expense of toppling and fixed rogue/failed states, but this is baffling:
If you are referring specifically to AQ and 911 fine, but terrorist action/havens in general?

I just meant the support of groups that were any direct threat to US security. I realize he sponsored agents that destabilized his neighbors, but well, every nation does that. The US itself does that. It shouldn't matter to us unless those groups are a threat to us.

Thinking purely in terms of benefits and costs here, I don't think the incremental safety gained from the elimination of one state's support to groups of minor world significance that were never likely to threaten the US itself is worth billions in dollars, thousands in US deaths, and hundreds of thousands in Iraqi deaths.

 

[Gokul43201]

We overturned what was the equivalent of a Middle Eastern Adolf Hitler.

One huge difference though: Hitler commanded what was arguably the most powerful military in the world while Hussein had little power over much more than the 50,000 or so strong Republican Guard.

No we didn't. The actions taken by the Bush administration involved a lot of careful thought and planning and were not easy to make, and have been subjected to the court system.

And repeatedly found to be illegal by that system.

In Hamdi, the SC told Bush he couldn't trash habeas corpus.

In Hamdan, the SC nullified Bush's tribunals as violating the Geneva Convention.

In Al Haramain, the Federal Court found the warrantless wiretap program illegal.

...

We won't be able to understand whether the War on Terror was "worth it" for many years IMO. As for the war being "never-ending," well that's just a cold reality. If we pretend it doesn't exist, like we did during the 1990s, we'd end up getting attacked again.

And is that such a big deal (compared to the alternative)?

 

[loseyourname]

And is that such a big deal (compared to the alternative)?

The other thing is, for all this talk of inaction in the 90s leading to 9/11, we stop 9/11 but for one paranoid quirk in the US Code that has since been changed due to the Patriot Act: the CIA and FBI not being allowed to share information. If that law hadn't been in place in the 90s, 9/11 never happens. There are much simpler law enforcement and intelligence gathering measures to be taken that are ultimately more effective and much easier and cheaper than trying to perpetrate a land war with half a million deployed servicemembers. Heck, the Patriot Act and creation of the DHS, along with ousting the Taliban, were probably sufficient measures to make us adequately safer than we previously were, with no need to do anything further other than to keep enough troops in Afghanistan to secure the border and keep the Taliban gone while working government services and infrastructure were installed, which likely would have been accomplished by now.

I'm not even convinced we needed to oust the Taliban, but I can at least understand the sentiment to do so since they harbored the group that attacked us.

And hell, for that matter, just not allowing people to carry razor blades on airplanes could also have prevented 9/11. I realize the enemy adapts, but you simply have to be proactive in adapting ahead of time to potential attacks in the way you mount a defense. Trying to go the extreme route of physically eliminating all potential future enemies is an overkill approach that is bound to fail.

 

[Gokul43201]

The other thing is, for all this talk of inaction in the 90s leading to 9/11, we stop 9/11 but for one paranoid quirk in the US Code that has since been changed due to the Patriot Act: the CIA and FBI not being allowed to share information. If that law hadn't been in place in the 90s, 9/11 never happens. There are much simpler law enforcement and intelligence gathering measures to be taken that are ultimately more effective and much easier and cheaper than trying to perpetrate a land war with half a million deployed servicemembers. Heck, the Patriot Act and creation of the DHS, along with ousting the Taliban, were probably sufficient measures to make us adequately safer than we previously were, with no need to do anything further other than to keep enough troops in Afghanistan to secure the border and keep the Taliban gone while working government services and infrastructure were installed, which likely would have been accomplished by now.

I'm not even convinced we needed to oust the Taliban, but I can at least understand the sentiment to do so since they harbored the group that attacked us.

And hell, for that matter, just not allowing people to carry razor blades on airplanes could also have prevented 9/11. I realize the enemy adapts, but you simply have to be proactive in adapting ahead of time to potential attacks in the way you mount a defense. Trying to go the extreme route of physically eliminating all potential future enemies is an overkill approach that is bound to fail.

Thank you. That's three paragraphs I won't have to type up to summarize my position.

 

[russ_watters]

And hell, for that matter, just not allowing people to carry razor blades on airplanes could also have prevented 9/11.

Maybe/mabye not, but locked doors on cockpits certainly would have.

 

[mheslep]

I just meant the support of groups that were any direct threat to US security.

And before the fact exactly who is a direct threat to US security? I suggest that line of thought leads one down the road in the year ~1999 to saying AQ was no direct threat to US security; that the proper course was to use law enforcement, and to send in few cruise missiles after the fact. After all, it was known that AQ descended from a gang of Arab bozos that couldn't shoot straight in the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

I realize he sponsored agents that destabilized his neighbors, but well, every nation does that. The US itself does that. It shouldn't matter to us unless those groups are a threat to us.

Every nation does not sponsor terrorists and suicide bombers. The US destabilizes its neighbors through violence? As in border neighbors? I don't think so. In the cold war days the US had (some fool hardy) destabilization operations, but that is a different story.

 

[russ_watters]

And repeatedly found to be illegal by that system.

In Hamdi, the SC told Bush he couldn't trash habeas corpus.

In Hamdan, the SC nullified Bush's tribunals as violating the Geneva Convention.

In Al Haramain, the Federal Court found the warrantless wiretap program illegal.

Setting aside for now the fact that those matters are not yet resolved and Obama has for the most part picked-up where Bush left off, what does any of that have to do with why we went to war or whether the war was worth it? Even if it is ultimately decided the courts are right, that's a side issue not directly related to the success/failure of the wars. The only way to directly connected it that I can see is to speculate that if capturees had been immediately repatriated, the wars would not have succeeded in their primary missions because of the military's inability to fight them.

In other words: legal or not, they happened and they have so far worked.

 

[mheslep]

I realize the enemy adapts, but you simply have to be proactive in adapting ahead of time to potential attacks in the way you mount a defense. Trying to go the extreme route of physically eliminating all potential future enemies is an overkill approach that is bound to fail.

I'd say fighting only in a defensive posture is bound to fail, or as US Army FM 3-0 states:

Defensive operations alone normally cannot achieve a decision.

http://www.army.mil/fm3-0/FM3-0.pdf
You mount a defense, adaptive or otherwise, in order to

defeat an enemy attack, gain time, economize forces, and develop conditions favorable for offensive or stability operations.

i.e. never just for the sake of a defense alone. And, choosing to go on the offensive does not mean you have to attack and destroy every possible enemy. I'm consequently in near immediate agreement with anyone who argues for more accuracy in defining the threat in the War on Terror.

 

[russ_watters]

Just taking into consideration the actual wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the presumed objective of eliminating situations like pre-9/11 Al Qaeda having de facto state sponsorship and safe haven in Afghanistan under the Taliban, from which they launched a direct attack, I'll guess no.

Granted, that's just a guess, not a more detailed analysis, but I think our worldwide efforts to boost intelligence collection and cooperate with local law enforcement and efforts stateside to increase the powers of intelligence collection and law enforcement have been fruitful enough in and of themselves, and trying to eliminate failed states where terror cells find haven is multiplying costs by the millions without the payoff to justify it. We may very well succeed ultimately in Iraq, but they weren't providing haven or weapons to terrorists anyway. We probably could succeed in Afghanistan, but we'd need to stay there with 100,000 troops for another ten years, which would hardly be worth it. What would we do after that? Occupy Yemen for the following 20 years until we could install a stable friendly government there, too?

That's an interesting and reasonable view, but I think it could lead us into an argument over whether those intelligence efforts were part of the "war on terror" or not. As I said in my post #8, I consider the "war on terror" to contain one traditional war (and possibly a second) and what I called a "law enforcement component".

It's fine to say that with better law enforcement, 9/11 could have been prevented, but the reality of what happened since is that with the two-pronged approach, additional 9/11s have been prevented. As you said, a detailed analysis would be necessary, but the suggestion that a detailed analysis would be necessary implies to me that both prongs have had an impact and assigning more responsibility for one would not be easy (you're not a person who typically glosses over difficult questions here).

I'll say it's entirely possible that we've provided a nice concentration point for Al Qaeda efforts, getting them offtrack enough in trying to keep Iraq and Afghanistan destabilized that they probably haven't had the additional capacity to attack us domestically, which has made US citizens safer at home, but then again, that's really just transferring the risk of terrorism from domestic US citizens to deployed soldiers and the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq...

Agreed, and it is for that reason alone that Iraq might be included in the "war on terror". We didn't go into Iraq looking for terrorists, but once in Iraq, terrorists went there looking for us.

...which isn't the purpose of soldiers and isn't fair to the citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan, and furthermore doesn't actually eliminate terrorism or even reduce it.

As a former member of the military, I'd say that you're dead wrong about the purpose of soldiers and therefore the last part is irrelevant. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives to keep civilians safe. If that means a transferring of the risk from civilians to soldiers (and more soldiers have died than civilians did on 9/11), then that's a success of the war.

 

[Proton Soup]

As a former member of the military, I'd say that you're dead wrong about the purpose of soldiers and therefore the last part is irrelevant. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives to keep civilians safe. If that means a transferring of the risk from civilians to soldiers (and more soldiers have died than civilians did on 9/11), then that's a success of the war.

since you claim their purpose is also to bring justice for those in afghanistan and iraq, you must include iraqi and afghan civilian casualties when measuring success.

 

[CAC1001]

One huge difference though: Hitler commanded what was arguably the most powerful military in the world while Hussein had little power over much more than the 50,000 or so strong Republican Guard.

I wasn't saying Hussein was equivalent to Hitler in being a military threat to the United States, I was responding to the notion that the U.S. has made the West look evil by toppling Hussein.

And repeatedly found to be illegal by that system.

In Hamdi, the SC told Bush he couldn't trash habeas corpus.

I wouldn't say President Bush was "trashing" habeas corpus, as Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan. That said, he still was a U.S. citizen.

In Hamdan, the SC nullified Bush's tribunals as violating the Geneva Convention.

From what I understand on the issue, the Bush administration never considered that non-state terrorists are entitled to the Geneva Conventions, that only uniformed soldiers fighting in a declared war are. Non-state terrorists who disguise themselves as civilians to murder civilians violate the rules of war, and the Geneva Conventions never were meant to be applied to them (as the original purpose of the GC was to disincentivize violating the rules of war; if terrorists, who routinely violate the rules of war, are allowed GC rights, it completely undermines the purpose of the GC; it says to them, "Do what you want, you still get GC rights.").

In Al Haramain, the Federal Court found the warrantless wiretap program illegal.

It isn't warrantless wiretapping per se from my understanding, but rather a surveillance program for international signals. If the government wants to wiretap a person, they still need a warrant I believe. Obama has continued this policy however.

And is that such a big deal (compared to the alternative)?

Yes, considering we don't know what the nature of the attack would be. The War on Terror doesn't need to involve out-and-out invasions of countries.

Invading Iraq was not necessary for the War on Terror.

 

[CAC1001]

The other thing is, for all this talk of inaction in the 90s leading to 9/11, we stop 9/11 but for one paranoid quirk in the US Code that has since been changed due to the Patriot Act: the CIA and FBI not being allowed to share information. If that law hadn't been in place in the 90s, 9/11 never happens. There are much simpler law enforcement and intelligence gathering measures to be taken that are ultimately more effective and much easier and cheaper than trying to perpetrate a land war with half a million deployed servicemembers. Heck, the Patriot Act and creation of the DHS, along with ousting the Taliban, were probably sufficient measures to make us adequately safer than we previously were, with no need to do anything further other than to keep enough troops in Afghanistan to secure the border and keep the Taliban gone while working government services and infrastructure were installed, which likely would have been accomplished by now.

I'm not even convinced we needed to oust the Taliban, but I can at least understand the sentiment to do so since they harbored the group that attacked us.

And hell, for that matter, just not allowing people to carry razor blades on airplanes could also have prevented 9/11. I realize the enemy adapts, but you simply have to be proactive in adapting ahead of time to potential attacks in the way you mount a defense. Trying to go the extreme route of physically eliminating all potential future enemies is an overkill approach that is bound to fail.

The Iraq War wasn't part of the War on Terror, it was a separate issue that later came to be tied in with it. Iraq was invaded over the belief that Hussein was a major threat.

 

[Gokul43201]

In other words: legal or not, they happened and they have so far worked.

1. Whether they are legal or not is the issue I was responding to.

2. They have worked? That's an unsupported assertion.

3. These issues are not resolved? What ultimate authority decides whether the USSC is correct?

 

[Gokul43201]

As a former member of the military, I'd say that you're dead wrong about the purpose of soldiers and therefore the last part is irrelevant. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives to keep civilians safe. If that means a transferring of the risk from civilians to soldiers (and more soldiers have died than civilians did on 9/11), then that's a success of the war.

You've completely ignored one of the points made in that last part (civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan), yet deemed it irrelevant.

 

[Gokul43201]

The Iraq War wasn't part of the War on Terror, it was a separate issue that later came to be tied in with it. Iraq was invaded over the belief that Hussein was a major threat.

This couldn't be further from the truth - Part I:

The following are reasons provided for justifying an invasion of Iraq (from the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002):

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
...
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possesses and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
...
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
...
Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
...
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40) ;​

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107

I hope that establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the Iraq War was to be recognized as a part of the war on terrorism, not much after the fact, but right at the planning stage, long before it began.

Let me also point out that in this text of the Iraq War Resolution, whereas the words 'terror', 'terrorist(s)' and 'terrorism' appear a total of 19 times, Mr. Hussein is mentioned a grand total of ZERO times. I think the administration wanted to ensure they could have their war even if Mr Hussein choked on an olive and popped off.

(additional supporting material to follow in Part II)

 

[Gokul43201]

Part II:

Not only was Congress to recognize that the Iraq War was part of the War on Terrorism, it was (arguably) very useful for the all-volunteer members of the military to see it that way too. Revenge is a powerful motivator.

In 2006, Zogby conducted a poll among US troops serving in Iraq, and found that the overwhelmingly majority of respondents justified the Iraq War as an act of revenge for 9/11.

While 85% said the U.S. mission is mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks," 77% said they also believe the main or a major reason for the war was "to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq."

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.cfm?ID=1075

And of course, the whole concept of the Iraq War being a part of the War on Terror needed to be sold to the electorate as well, both in order to gain support for the invasion as well as to keep seeing it through.

I could, I suspect, with enough time, dig up several quotes to support this (starting from the speech made just a week after 9/11 in which a bulls-eye was painted on all nations that harbor terrorists, to the 2002 State of the Union "Axis of Evil" speech, and so on), but I'll settle for a 2006 interview with Katie Couric to summarize:

There – it's – you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror. I believe it. As I told you, Osama bin Laden believes it. But the American people – have got to understand that a defeat in Iraq – in other words, if this government there fails - the terrorists will be emboldened, the radicals will topple moderate governments.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/06/five_years/main1980074.shtml

 

[Barwick]

I'll summarize... Just stay with me here for a second:

In 1989, Poland elected the first non-communist leader of a communist country. In witness that day was a US Representative by the name of Bob McEwen. He turned to his wife and said "This is it". She replied "This is what?" He said "This is it, either the tanks roll, or Communism as an accepted form of government is over"

The tanks did not roll that day, and as we know history, countries all across Eastern Europe said "Oh, we can remove the bayonet from our throats?" and began electing non-communist leaders. That sparked events that culminated in the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the eventual collapse of Communism in the Soviet Union itself.

In the same exact way, these terrorists know that the only reason very few people in the Middle East leave Islam is because they will be murdered if they convert.

They also know that crap like that doesn't fly in the United States because the government here prosecutes people for doing such things. But they can do it with impunity in the Middle East because the governments there are sympathetic.

So, with that in mind, the United States is fighting a war in the middle east to bring not just one, but two free democracies in the Middle East, one where people can secretly and fearlessly vote for a NON-FUNDAMENTALIST government. We know that, just like in Poland, if people are able to pull the knife away from their throat, they'll do so, and you'll watch fundamentalist Islam, and the terrorists they harbor, begin to disappear into the ash heap of history. The terrorists know this, and unfortunately for us, the proverbial "tanks are rolling", and we're trying to stop them.

 

[loseyourname]

I'd say fighting only in a defensive posture is bound to fail, or as US Army FM 3-0 states:

http://www.army.mil/fm3-0/FM3-0.pdf
You mount a defense, adaptive or otherwise, in order to
i.e. never just for the sake of a defense alone. And, choosing to go on the offensive does not mean you have to attack and destroy every possible enemy. I'm consequently in near immediate agreement with anyone who argues for more accuracy in defining the threat in the War on Terror.

I'm an active-duty Army officer in a combat arms branch. I'm familiar with the operations FM and standard defensive doctrine. The US military is an offensive force. We believe the key to winning any war is to gain and maintain and never give up the initiative. Make the enemy adapt to you. Keep moving. Never present a static target. Yada yada.

What I'm advocating isn't in violation of that. We certainly need to go after Al Qaeda and any other terror groups that might launch an attack against US interests. That doesn't mean we need to invade sovereign nations that are thousands of miles away with ten divisions of infantry. We have offensive counter-terrorism units in the CIA, FBI, and even the military that are trained to conduct surgical strikes (there's even a division of the US Treasury devoted to freezing and intercepting assets used to finance terrorism). Aside from doing that, it's a question of how to most effectively acquire targets. I think cooperation with worldwide law enforcement and intelligence gathering agencies and the expansion of our own efforts is more cost effective, and possibly even more effective period, than full-scale country invasions and nation-building efforts.

The thing is, I don't believe our major problem is with individual failed or rogue states. We can turn Iraq and Afghanistan into the next Germany and the next Japan and that won't eliminate Al Qaeda. It might not even weaken them. They don't need the nations they operate from to be friendly to them in order to effectively operate from them.

Heck, just look at one simple metric. Since 9/11, terror attacks worldwide are up. Terror attacks in the US are non-existent. It seems obvious to me that our military efforts have not eliminated or even weakened the ability of terrorist groups to plan and launch attacks. However, our domestic law enforcement and intelligence gathering efforts have very clearly born fruit. Everyone that tried to attack stateside was caught.

Someone posted a study by the Rand Corporation here a few months back looking at historical instances of terror groups dissolving or becoming legitimate and the causes behind it. Superior law enforcement efforts were almost always the cause of success and military action almost never worked.

 

[loseyourname]

And before the fact exactly who is a direct threat to US security? I suggest that line of thought leads one down the road in the year ~1999 to saying AQ was no direct threat to US security; that the proper course was to use law enforcement, and to send in few cruise missiles after the fact.

Al Qaeda had launched prior attacks on the US, so I have no idea why that conclusion would have been reached. Domestic terror groups with limited regional aims are clearly not in the same class. The Chechens will never be a threat to us. The IRA was never a threat to us. They were problems of Russia and the UK. It's the same thing with suicide bombers in Turkey. One of the good things with terror groups is they tend to tell you ahead of time what they're after. They don't simply attack random targets for no reason.

As for the proper course, yes, law enforcement is part of it. If the Patriot Act is in place prior to 9/11, it doesn't happen. If we ban airline passengers from boarding with box cutters, 9/11 doesn't happen. That doesn't mean don't try to eliminate Al Qaeda or attack when you find them. That's what Delta Force is for.

For the sake of argument, let's say we had ousted the Taliban and Saddam Hussein in 1999. Does that prevent 9/11? The attackers mostly came from Saudi Arabia and trained in Florida.

 

[loseyourname]

That's an interesting and reasonable view, but I think it could lead us into an argument over whether those intelligence efforts were part of the "war on terror" or not. As I said in my post #8, I consider the "war on terror" to contain one traditional war (and possibly a second) and what I called a "law enforcement component".

Well, generally, I thinking fighting terror is more than worth it. That's why in my first post I specified that I was only going to address the explicit wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I'm not convinced those are worth it, but I think everything else we've done was more than worth it.

It's fine to say that with better law enforcement, 9/11 could have been prevented, but the reality of what happened since is that with the two-pronged approach, additional 9/11s have been prevented. As you said, a detailed analysis would be necessary, but the suggestion that a detailed analysis would be necessary implies to me that both prongs have had an impact and assigning more responsibility for one would not be easy (you're not a person who typically glosses over difficult questions here).

Well, I mentioned this in the post I just made, but from what I can see, we've prevented further attacks mostly by catching the attackers. On the other hand, they've been successful in attacking other places. That suggests to me that our military efforts overseas have not crippled the ability of terror groups to plan and launch attacks, but that our domestic efforts have made it damn near impossible for an attack domestically to actually be pulled off. And the military efforts have been orders of magnitude more expensive, suggesting they have likely born far less fruit per dollar spent than our domestic efforts (which aren't entirely domestic, mind you - finding these guys and stopping them involves foreign intelligence gathering and cooperation with foreign agencies as much as anything else).

Agreed, and it is for that reason alone that Iraq might be included in the "war on terror". We didn't go into Iraq looking for terrorists, but once in Iraq, terrorists went there looking for us. As a former member of the military, I'd say that you're dead wrong about the purpose of soldiers and therefore the last part is irrelevant. Soldiers are paid to risk their lives to keep civilians safe. If that means a transferring of the risk from civilians to soldiers (and more soldiers have died than civilians did on 9/11), then that's a success of the war.

I get what you're saying. I'm just looking at relative numbers here. There have been what? Half a million combined deaths of US soldiers and Iraqi and Afghan civilians? If that hasn't prevented another 3,000 US civilian deaths, then it definitely wasn't worth it. But even if it did prevent another 3,000 US civilian deaths, I'd still question whether that's worth it. It's an awfully steep price to pay. I mean, in principle, we could carpet bomb all of Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa with h-bombs and probably prevent any further US civilian deaths from Islamic terrorists ever, at the cost of killing a few billion non-US civilians. That's definitely not considered worth it or acceptable. Somewhere between a few billion and zero is the collateral damage we're willing to accept to save 3,000 US civilian lives. What is that number?

 

[BobG]

In the same exact way, these terrorists know that the only reason very few people in the Middle East leave Islam is because they will be murdered if they convert.

They also know that crap like that doesn't fly in the United States because the government here prosecutes people for doing such things. But they can do it with impunity in the Middle East because the governments there are sympathetic.

So, with that in mind, the United States is fighting a war in the middle east to bring not just one, but two free democracies in the Middle East, one where people can secretly and fearlessly vote for a NON-FUNDAMENTALIST government. We know that, just like in Poland, if people are able to pull the knife away from their throat, they'll do so, and you'll watch fundamentalist Islam, and the terrorists they harbor, begin to disappear into the ash heap of history. The terrorists know this, and unfortunately for us, the proverbial "tanks are rolling", and we're trying to stop them.

What you say could be truthfully said about Afghanistan (pre-invasion), Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Iran.

It wouldn't be true about Yemen, which is a democracy with a court system based on Islamic law.

It wouldn't be true about any other Middle Eastern country except in a very limited fashion. The predominant judicial system in the Middle East separates courts by function. There's a secular court system for civil affairs & most criminal affairs that is similar to Western court systems. There's a family judicial system (marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc) that's usually based on religious law. Islamic law is the most common, but there's exceptions - such as Egypt that has three separate family judicial systems: one based on Islamic law, one based on Christian law, one based on secular law (based on the French judicial system). Some Middle Eastern judicial systems include at least some types of criminal law in their religious court system.

It definitely wouldn't be true about Hussein era Iraq. Iraq under Hussein would be most similar to the Soviet Union under Stalin. Theoretically, Iraq was a communist secular government with the Baath Party ruling the country. In practice, Hussein was virtually a dictator. The entire judicial system was secular, although rather corrupted by the whims of Hussein.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, there were only two true democracies in the Middle East: Lebanon and Yemen. In fact, they're two of the half-dozen countries ever to resolve a civil war by the opposing parties sharing power in a democracy.

Granted, civil war eventually erupted in Lebanon yet again since religious factions still dominate Lebanon politics. You can't get the Christian faction, the Sunni faction, and the Shiite faction to agree even with what's supposedly a secular government.

And Yemen has been plagued with low-level ethnic conflicts even after the civil war between the Communist and Democratic factions was resolved (something made easier when the Soviet Union fell apart and reduced support for other communist governments in the world).

In other words:

1) Islamic fundamentalism is not the main driver of Middle East governments. It's the exception (with one exception being a US ally).

2) Democracy has not been a solution for ethnic/religious tensions in the past. But it's only been tried as a solution in two instances prior to Iraq, so that's not conclusive.

As an aside, the idea of allowing religious beliefs to have more influence on family law isn't unheard of in the US, either. Backlash against no-fault divorce and its impact on families has resulted in some states having something called "covenant marriages". The couple marrying decides whether they want a regular marriage or a covenant marriage. If they choose to have a covenant marriage, there's a completely separate set of divorce laws covering their marriage that make divorce a lot tougher than for a regular marriage.