The State of the Union

[pilferk]

For me "winning" would be killing as many terrorists/insurgents as humanly possible...and having Iraq able to take care of themselves as a successufl democracy...a successful democracy in the middle east would be a major blow to Al Qaeda..it is obvious because they are trying so hard to stop that from happening...that to me would be "winning" whether or not we are on the right course to get there is another story....

1) "Killing as many terrorists as humanly possible":  You have to remember, it's almost like an infinite shooting gallery over there.  For every one we kill, two more get recruited....largely because we killed the first.  Our very presense does a lot of Al Qaeda's recruiting for them (along with the civilian casualties that accrue because of our presense)...many of the recruits view us as invaders of their homeland.  So, by choosing to fight the war on that front...we're essentially bolstering the enemies forces.  And if we stay long enough to "kill as many as humanly possible"...we're likely never going to leave because the supply of terrorists is unlikely to run low until we're not there anymore.  So, what's the end game?  When do we "win" in this objective.  Something quantifiable would be sort of nice.....

2)  Democracy in Iraq:  It's a noble idea.  But the thing is democracy is fickle.  It exists by the will of the people...or at least the majority of them...and the ability for it to defend itself.  We can't force Iraq, by sheer force of will, into a democracy.  We can train their forces...make them better able to defend themselves...but that requires a fraction of the deployment we currently have.  What we're doing now is doing their job for them...which I could understand if the training was making any real progress.  But it's not, or rather it's making much slower progress than it should, by all accounts.  So again, what's the end game.  I suppose you're going to say "a STABLE democracy in Iraq" but, once again, you're talking a decade or more of involvement.  That's not realistic and it's certainly not fair to ask the U.S. population to absorb that cost in both funding and resources.  So what's a quantifiable "win" in this objective?

On the "blow to Al Qaeda"...I hate to break it to you, it's not the democracy their fighting (that's a peripheral fight).  It's US.  Literally, the U.S.A.  They want a front to visibly fight us on, and we gave them one in a destabilized Iraq.  They wanted exactly what they got: Not a battle they could "win", but a battlefield on which they could make us look the fool to the world.  The fight against "democracy" is used as a rallying cry to recruit secular radicals, and as an ancillary goal for the rest.

GW gave  them EXACTLY what they wanted.  And has not yet ONCE provided anything close to a "win" scenario or a list of goals to accomplish so that we can untagle ourselves from Iraq.  He's just started to vaguely HINT at a set of goals....in justifying the surge...but even then he hasn't been specific.

Nobody really has.  That's the problem.

[Bodhi]

For me "winning" would be killing as many terrorists/insurgents as humanly possible...and having Iraq able to take care of themselves as a successufl democracy...a successful democracy in the middle east would be a major blow to Al Qaeda..it is obvious because they are trying so hard to stop that from happening...that to me would be "winning" whether or not we are on the right course to get there is another story....

1) "Killing as many terrorists as humanly possible":? You have to remember, it's almost like an infinite shooting gallery over there.? For every one we kill, two more get recruited....largely because we killed the first.? Our very presense does a lot of Al Qaeda's recruiting for them (along with the civilian casualties that accrue because of our presense)...many of the recruits view us as invaders of their homeland.? So, by choosing to fight the war on that front...we're essentially bolstering the enemies forces.? And if we stay long enough to "kill as many as humanly possible"...we're likely never going to leave because the supply of terrorists is unlikely to run low until we're not there anymore.? So, what's the end game?? When do we "win" in this objective.? Something quantifiable would be sort of nice.....

2)? Democracy in Iraq:? It's a noble idea.? But the thing is democracy is fickle.? It exists by the will of the people...or at least the majority of them...and the ability for it to defend itself.? We can't force Iraq, by sheer force of will, into a democracy.? We can train their forces...make them better able to defend themselves...but that requires a fraction of the deployment we currently have.? What we're doing now is doing their job for them...which I could understand if the training was making any real progress.? But it's not, or rather it's making much slower progress than it should, by all accounts.? So again, what's the end game.? I suppose you're going to say "a STABLE democracy in Iraq" but, once again, you're talking a decade or more of involvement.? That's not realistic and it's certainly not fair to ask the U.S. population to absorb that cost in both funding and resources.? So what's a quantifiable "win" in this objective?

On the "blow to Al Qaeda"...I hate to break it to you, it's not the democracy their fighting (that's a peripheral fight).? It's US.? Literally, the U.S.A.? They want a front to visibly fight us on, and we gave them one in a destabilized Iraq.? They wanted exactly what they got: Not a battle they could "win", but a battlefield on which they could make us look the fool to the world.? The fight against "democracy" is used as a rallying cry to recruit secular radicals, and as an ancillary goal for the rest.

GW gave? them EXACTLY what they wanted.? And has not yet ONCE provided anything close to a "win" scenario or a list of goals to accomplish so that we can untagle ourselves from Iraq.? He's just started to vaguely HINT at a set of goals....in justifying the surge...but even then he hasn't been specific.

Nobody really has.? That's the problem.

that was a good post....I am always of the opinion that if we kill a terrorist over there..it is then IMPOSSIBLE for the same terrorist to end up riding the subway in New York City... Is that the best option in the world? of course not...but it seems to be the ONLY option....other than just sitting around and not doing anything and waiting for the terrorists to come here....This group of religous fanatics wants to kill you, me and every other American...they can care less about our political beliefs...they want us all dead....so I am asking you..How do you think we should deal with them?  I am not even being a prick...I am honestly asking you...is there another option besides a.whats going on now, or b. doing nothing.....because I cant think of one....and apparently neither can any politician...

[Booker Floyd]

that was a good post....I am always of the opinion that if we kill a terrorist over there..it is then IMPOSSIBLE for the same terrorist to end up riding the subway in New York City... Is that the best option in the world? of course not...but it seems to be the ONLY option....other than just sitting around and not doing anything and waiting for the terrorists to come here....This group of religous fanatics wants to kill you, me and every other American...they can care less about our political beliefs...they want us all dead....so I am asking you..How do you think we should deal with them?  I am not even being a prick...I am honestly asking you...is there another option besides a.whats going on now, or b. doing nothing.....because I cant think of one....and apparently neither can any politician...

Im always bewildered by those who earnestly believe the "were fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" justification.

If invasion/occupation of a country containing terrorists is the only solution you can fathom, wouldnt you suggest occupying Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc? 

[Bodhi]

that was a good post....I am always of the opinion that if we kill a terrorist over there..it is then IMPOSSIBLE for the same terrorist to end up riding the subway in New York City... Is that the best option in the world? of course not...but it seems to be the ONLY option....other than just sitting around and not doing anything and waiting for the terrorists to come here....This group of religous fanatics wants to kill you, me and every other American...they can care less about our political beliefs...they want us all dead....so I am asking you..How do you think we should deal with them?? I am not even being a prick...I am honestly asking you...is there another option besides a.whats going on now, or b. doing nothing.....because I cant think of one....and apparently neither can any politician...

Im always bewildered by those who earnestly believe the "were fighting them there so we dont have to fight them here" justification.

If invasion/occupation of a country containing terrorists is the only solution you can fathom, wouldnt you suggest occupying Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc??

ok Booker..give me a solution to the problem...stop dancing around it.....

[Booker Floyd]

ok Booker..give me a solution to the problem...stop dancing around it.....

Dancing around it?  I posted in response to the question once and made no effort to answer it.  The reason was to see if you could rationalize your own suggestion - feel free to answer my question.

To answer yours, terrorism is probably better countered through effective counterterrorism practices than invasions of hostile countries, so that should be the focus.  That includes local and foreign intelligence and law enforcement; all of which is presumably done now.  Do you really think its best to be willfully simple-minded and state that the only options available to us are waging foreign wars and sitting around and not doing anything?  Do you genuinely just dismiss giving the topic any serious thought and skip right to giving the most brash, jingoistic response you can think of?

Your tone has been more sensible in the past day or so, so perhaps you are giving these things more thought, but judging from the post above, you might still have a way to go.

[misterID]

The insurgents in Iraq will/won't/never would have made it to this country. There are specific cells that train specific people to come here and hit us. I'd say 99.9% of insurgents in Iraq are poor and uneducated, the opposite of the terrorists on 9/11. They have open boarders and there is no way to stop them from flooding in. So fighting them over there is not keeping terrorists away from here. In all honesty, the terrorists who are going to eventually strike us are probably already here.

[Layne Staley's Sunglasses]

Home grown terrorists are who I fear most nowadays.

[Bodhi]

ok Booker..give me a solution to the problem...stop dancing around it.....

Dancing around it?? I posted in response to the question once and made no effort to answer it.? The reason was to see if you could rationalize your own suggestion - feel free to answer my question.

.

which question do you want me to answer? about invading other countries?

[The Dog]

Home grown terrorists are who I fear most nowadays.

Agreed - and they will get their intelligence/training/funding and orders via the internet from terrorist groups in other countries.  Whats really fucked up is the US's own invasion of Iraq is what is going to motivate the home grown terrorists to attack.  Bush went to Iraq to "fight terror" only to create it within our own borders.

What a f'ing douche. 

As for the Iraqi terrorists that are "poor/uneducated".  You don't need a brain to strap a bomb to your chest or carry a small knife on a plane.  with the right funding anyone can get to mexico and walk across our border.  Shit, if they can operate a lite brite machine they can cause panic in major metropolitan areas!!!

And the "fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" nonsense is utter bullshit.  Tell that to the troops in Iraq and their families.  If people who want to justify the war in iraq with those kind of statements then they should be so brave to go to iraq themselves to fight the war on terror.  assholes.

[Booker Floyd]

which question do you want me to answer? about invading other countries?

If invasion/occupation of a country containing terrorists is the only solution you can fathom, wouldnt you suggest occupying Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc?

[pilferk]

For me "winning" would be killing as many terrorists/insurgents as humanly possible...and having Iraq able to take care of themselves as a successufl democracy...a successful democracy in the middle east would be a major blow to Al Qaeda..it is obvious because they are trying so hard to stop that from happening...that to me would be "winning" whether or not we are on the right course to get there is another story....

1) "Killing as many terrorists as humanly possible":? You have to remember, it's almost like an infinite shooting gallery over there.? For every one we kill, two more get recruited....largely because we killed the first.? Our very presense does a lot of Al Qaeda's recruiting for them (along with the civilian casualties that accrue because of our presense)...many of the recruits view us as invaders of their homeland.? So, by choosing to fight the war on that front...we're essentially bolstering the enemies forces.? And if we stay long enough to "kill as many as humanly possible"...we're likely never going to leave because the supply of terrorists is unlikely to run low until we're not there anymore.? So, what's the end game?? When do we "win" in this objective.? Something quantifiable would be sort of nice.....

2)? Democracy in Iraq:? It's a noble idea.? But the thing is democracy is fickle.? It exists by the will of the people...or at least the majority of them...and the ability for it to defend itself.? We can't force Iraq, by sheer force of will, into a democracy.? We can train their forces...make them better able to defend themselves...but that requires a fraction of the deployment we currently have.? What we're doing now is doing their job for them...which I could understand if the training was making any real progress.? But it's not, or rather it's making much slower progress than it should, by all accounts.? So again, what's the end game.? I suppose you're going to say "a STABLE democracy in Iraq" but, once again, you're talking a decade or more of involvement.? That's not realistic and it's certainly not fair to ask the U.S. population to absorb that cost in both funding and resources.? So what's a quantifiable "win" in this objective?

On the "blow to Al Qaeda"...I hate to break it to you, it's not the democracy their fighting (that's a peripheral fight).? It's US.? Literally, the U.S.A.? They want a front to visibly fight us on, and we gave them one in a destabilized Iraq.? They wanted exactly what they got: Not a battle they could "win", but a battlefield on which they could make us look the fool to the world.? The fight against "democracy" is used as a rallying cry to recruit secular radicals, and as an ancillary goal for the rest.

GW gave? them EXACTLY what they wanted.? And has not yet ONCE provided anything close to a "win" scenario or a list of goals to accomplish so that we can untagle ourselves from Iraq.? He's just started to vaguely HINT at a set of goals....in justifying the surge...but even then he hasn't been specific.

Nobody really has.? That's the problem.

that was a good post....I am always of the opinion that if we kill a terrorist over there..it is then IMPOSSIBLE for the same terrorist to end up riding the subway in New York City... Is that the best option in the world? of course not...but it seems to be the ONLY option....other than just sitting around and not doing anything and waiting for the terrorists to come here....This group of religous fanatics wants to kill you, me and every other American...they can care less about our political beliefs...they want us all dead....so I am asking you..How do you think we should deal with them?? I am not even being a prick...I am honestly asking you...is there another option besides a.whats going on now, or b. doing nothing.....because I cant think of one....and apparently neither can any politician...

There's lots of other options, many based on small scale strikes of their leadership based on intelligence, rather than fighting a never ending supply of "soldiers" on  front that we can't possibly get to an endgame scenario.  The problem with the recruits that Al Qaeda is now drumming up in Iraq is that they are not ever going to ascend to top leadership in the organization...they're simply cannon fodder....and they'd never, ever be able to get into the US to actually be a threat.  Cut off the head of the snake...and the snake dies.  Unfortunately for us, the heads of the snake are nowhere near Iraq....so no matter what we do there, it's not really going to cause much damage to AQ...which is precisely the point of them engaging us there.  We get involved with their cannon fodder begging to be martyred, while they sit thousands of miles away, with our attention somewhat diverted, so they can try to plan more attacks on the world.

In addition, asking ME for additional options is a straw man.  I'm not remotely as informed as those in a position to make these decisions.  Hell, I'm not even aware of all their available resources.  But, just from a cursory observation, it looks like there are many other options for dealing with the terrorist.....not so many with stabalizing Iraq.

People talk like terrorism is some new thing....it's been around for decades.  We've found VERY effective ways of dealing with them, without engaging them in mano y mano fighting on a traditional front.  Yes, 9/11 was awful...the problem is that it's cause was as much from a failing of the administration, and the intelligence community, as it was a function of anything else.  We need to fix those problems.  We need to go after those that actually perpetrated the attack, and not their canon fodder....cannon fodder who aren't even protecting the castle gates, so to speak, but are rushing our walls thousands of miles from where their top brass are sitting. 

When put in that perspective, it seems sort of pointless, in the "war on terror" to be paying much attention to the "front" in Iraq, doesn't it?  What does fighting them actually accomplish?

[misterID]

As for the Iraqi terrorists that are "poor/uneducated".? You don't need a brain to strap a bomb to your chest or carry a small knife on a plane.? with the right funding anyone can get to mexico and walk across our border.? Shit, if they can operate a lite brite machine they can cause panic in major metropolitan areas!!!

How would they get over here, Hanna? If that were true they would all ready be here doing it.

My point is, every terrorist that has attacked us have not been the "average" fanatic. The ones who come here are not the same as the ones over in Iraq.