Obama’s response to terrorist attack is troubling
My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s called, “Obama’s response to terrorist attack is troubling.” Here’s a part:
The first thing it tells us is that the Obama administration’s initial reaction to a terrorist attack on in American air space is to go into a defensive political posture to try to prevent it from looking bad. This is much the same reaction we saw after the terrorist attack at Fort Hood. The Obama Administration spent great efforts to downplay the event and assure everyone that they didn’t screw up.
That is why Napolitano tried to immediately defend “the system” as working and downplay the possibility that it was part of a larger plot. When that position became indefensible, she and Obama admitted vague failures in “the system” and promised a review. Only when it was obvious to everyone on the planet that this was terrorist attack did the administration admit a larger plot, promise another review and to work on fixes for “the system.” Instead of showing any leadership, the Obama Administration has let events drag them along as they fight off a rear-guar political battle.
The second thing all of this teaches us is that our government has fully reverted back to President Clinton administration’s stance of treating terrorism as a matter of law enforcement. Abdulmutallab was immediately Mirandized and taken into federal custody. He has a lawyer and is being granted the full protections of the U.S. States Constitution even though he is not an American and tried to commit a terrorist act on our nation.
One can also see the change in stance in the language of the administration. Obama called Abdulmutallab the “suspect” who “allegedly” tried to ignite a bomb. He sounds more like a county district attorney giving a press conference about a burglary suspect than the POTUS talking about a terrorist.
This treatment of terrorists has real world consequences. For example, now that we know that Abdulmutallab was trained and supplied by Al-Qaeda in Yemen, what can we do about it? He has a 5th Amendment right not to incriminate himself. The United States might have to grant him immunity and release him in order to coerce information about the larger terrorist infrastructure out of him.
By treating him as a criminal instead of a terrorist, the Obama administration has seriously hampered our ability to fight the larger terrorist network.
Like i said, obama, like clinton is going to get more Americans killed.
He’s as much a President as I am a Brain Surgeon.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1203 hrs
How was the shoe bomber treated post terrorist threat?
I think he came after the Clinton administration.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1438 hrs
By treating him as a criminal instead of a terrorist, the Obama administration has seriously hampered our ability to fight the larger terrorist network.
It’s really weird, but I searched your archives, and I was unable to find similar criticism of the Bush administration’s handling of richard reid (the shoebomber). In fact, the only post I found on him in your archives was approvingly quoting the sentencing judge who, as part of his sentence, said the following:
You are not a soldier in any war. You are a terrorist. To give you that reference, to call you a soldier gives you far too much stature…So war talk is way out of line in this court. You are a big fellow. But you are not that big. You’re no warrior. I know warriors. You are a terrorist. A species of criminal guilty of multiple attempted murders...It is because we prize individual freedom so much that you are here in this beautiful courtroom. So that everyone can see, truly see that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely...Here in this courtroom and courtrooms all across America, the American people will gather to see that justice,individual justice, justice, not war, individual justice is in fact being done.
That in itself is a pretty damning indictment of conservative hypocrisy.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1603 hrs
Bush did it wrong with the Shoe Bomber too. But he learned from it. And we didn’t start the blog until well after the Shoe Bomber was indicted, so you inability to find anything is not surprising.
Do y’all actually have an opinion on the issue or do you just want to play footsie with your perceived moral superiority?
Posted by Owen on January 05, 2010 at 1615 hrs
Bush and Reid’s sentencing judge got it right the first time. Our judicial system, the rule of law and our country is strengthened when we prosecute and punish mass murders, or attempted mass murders, in the light of day for all to see.
Our country is weakened when our enemies can claim that we torture and prosecute unjustly and behind closed doors.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1643 hrs
@Owen - My opinion on this is very clear. I am really more interested in what part of the sentencing judge’s comments you disagree with.
Is it where he notes that to call our fight against these islamic terrorists a “war” is to give them far too much stature?
Is it where he notes that our love of liberty and freedom is what prompts us to make sure “that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely”?
Or perhaps it was his concern that the entire world see that we are a nation that prizes our principles above all else?
I’ve always had questions and concerns about people who want to treat our response to terrorism as a “War”.
How do we know we’ve won? Are you expecting that the terrorists will just give up at some point and stop attacking us? Perhaps you think that there is some finite number of terrorists, and once we’ve killed all of them (and their families according to some), there won’t be any more?
Once we’ve won the “war on terror”, maybe we could wage war against murder. Maybe a war against burglary?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1656 hrs
The idiots (oops, I mean liberals) don’t get it. I hope that when a plane goes up in flames, they and their families are on board. Jerks, the lot of them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1810 hrs
Spoken like a true fascist coward.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1812 hrs
I meant it. But you’re too much of a cowardly weasel douchebag to do anything about it anyways.
Actually, if a plane goes up, I don’t hope you’re on it…I just hope you have to watch it go up with your family on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1818 hrs
I’m sure you would be the first to light the fuse.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 1839 hrs
Once we’ve won the “war on terror”, maybe we could wage war against murder. Maybe a war against burglary?
What an idiot. Very hard to take this guy seriously…
Posted by Smeety on January 05, 2010 at 1921 hrs
@Smeety - Somehow, you calling me an idiot does not bother me much.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2116 hrs
do you just want to play footsie with your perceived moral superiority?
I hope that when a plane goes up in flames, they and their families are on board
The morally superior argument is usually very easy to perceive.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2119 hrs
djheru, seems you don’t mind terrorists blowing up planes and killing people unless they’re related to you. Sounds a lot like holder, who has the means to protect his own while putting everyone else in danger. Great bunch of people you Liberals are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2120 hrs
djheru has a very good point, one that’s been raised many times but consistently ignored by the right. Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You can’t defeat terrorism any more than you can defeat murder or rape. You can, however, try to understand and address the causes. For some reason that notion raises the hackles of conservatives, as if it’s some kind of tacit admission of defeat.
But if I’m wrong, like djheru, I’d love for someone to explain how we know we’ve won the war on terrorism. What’s the metric? How do we know when we’ve made the move that means we’re free of the threat?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2123 hrs
Scott, seems like you are making shit up again since you can’t respond to the points I made.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2124 hrs
DJ is simply being insincere and partisan, taking his sheepish cues from the executive branch.
Posted by Smeety on January 05, 2010 at 2151 hrs
In what way? Be specific.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2153 hrs
It’s telling that none of you have addressed any substantive points. I guess you are too weak-minded to debate policy, preferring to call for my death and the death of my family, or throw childish insults.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2155 hrs
@djheru, fellow traveler:
You haven’t made any substantive points. You’ve simply towed the company line (not at war, miranda rights, questioning victory)... tomorrow if BHO pulls out of Afghanistan, you will support; tomorrow if BHO escalates in Afghanistan, you will support…
Posted by Smeety on January 05, 2010 at 2219 hrs
I think you must be confusing me with the imaginary eeeevillllll liberal that lives inside your head. Nice try though.
Miranda rights? WTF.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2221 hrs
speaking of childish insults…
Posted by Smeety on January 05, 2010 at 2225 hrs
So, yeah. One more time, as NYTexan so succinctly put it:
Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You can’t defeat terrorism any more than you can defeat murder or rape…I’d love for someone to explain how we know we’ve won the war on terrorism. What’s the metric? How do we know when we’ve made the move that means we’re free of the threat?
And for bonus points -
am really more interested in what part of the sentencing judge’s comments you disagree with.
Is it where he notes that to call our fight against these islamic terrorists a “war” is to give them far too much stature?
Is it where he notes that our love of liberty and freedom is what prompts us to make sure “that justice is administered fairly, individually, and discretely”?
Or perhaps it was his concern that the entire world see that we are a nation that prizes our principles above all else?
I’ve always had questions and concerns about people who want to treat our response to terrorism as a “War”.
How do we know we’ve won? Are you expecting that the terrorists will just give up at some point and stop attacking us? Perhaps you think that there is some finite number of terrorists, and once we’ve killed all of them (and their families according to some), there won’t be any more?
If those are not “substantive points” to you, then you don’t know the meaning of the phrase, which wouldn’t surprise me a bit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2226 hrs
Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. You can’t defeat terrorism any more than you can defeat murder or rape…I’d love for someone to explain how we know we’ve won the war on terrorism. What’s the metric? How do we know when we’ve made the move that means we’re free of the threat?
Al Queda is an enemy which has declared war on us.
Posted by Smeety on January 05, 2010 at 2228 hrs
I don’t want to play footsie, my point was to counter your point Owen that Obama has reverted back to the Clinton Administrations approach, when this approach has been taken for a very long time and continued through the Bush years. (orginal twin tower, Oklahoma bombing, 9/11,)
Obama may not play the cowboy threatening future terrorist but I admire that he displays a lack of fear or reaction that rewards future attacks. If we run around and scream fear then haven’t we indicated we are weak. I too am confused who we are fighting, Yemenize, Iraq, Taliban, Al-quaida, Pakistan, radical Islam, anyone that doesn’t like the American government that bombs us (Tim McVeigh). The answer to that question is yes to all but not all, only radical isolated haters, that join other haters. So what are we to do with Abdulmatallab?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2232 hrs
So what are we to do with Abdulmatallab?
Lethal injection is my suggestion.
Posted by Smeety on January 05, 2010 at 2234 hrs
Al Queda is an enemy which has declared war on us.
Since they obviously can’t defeat us, let’s consider together what they would consider “winning” the war.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2239 hrs
Seeing as how “terror” is a tactic why not unleash terror our enemies will not soon forget? We can easily turn the mountains of Afghanistan where alQueda is hold up into foot hills. But I’m sure the “enlightened” who find faux drowning intolerable would never stand for irradiating these vermin into extinction.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 05, 2010 at 2329 hrs
The idiots (oops, I mean liberals) don’t get it. I hope that when a plane goes up in flames, they and their families are on board. Jerks, the lot of them.
This is pretty sick.
I meant it. But you’re too much of a cowardly weasel douchebag to do anything about it anyways.
Actually, if a plane goes up, I don’t hope you’re on it…I just hope you have to watch it go up with your family on it.
This is really, really, sick.
I took a lashing in another thread for someone’s perception that I supported the torture and murder of terorist family members. I don’t. In this case you are saying that you support terrorist attacks, as long as those on the planes are the wives and children of American liberals? That is really messed up, and people like you make it a lot harder for people like me, who may have similar opinions to yours on 85% of subjects, to be taken seriously in the real world…. Which you clearly do not occupy.
If this is all that occupies the mush you perceive as a brain, maybe you should follow everyone else’s better judgement and keep your mouth, and keyboard quiet.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 0717 hrs
Since they obviously can’t defeat us, let’s consider together what they would consider “winning” the war.
I read a pretty smart analysis yesterday that used a metaphor of a fictional sport called “TerrorBall” to describe the GOP’s framing of our conflict with militant islam as the “War on Terror”.
I’m quite sure I could beat LeBron James in a game of one on one basketball. The game merely needs to feature two special rules: It lasts until I score, and as soon as I score I win. Such a game might last several hours, or even a week or two, and James would probably score hundreds and possibly thousands of points before my ultimate victory, but eventually I’m going to find a way to put the ball in the basket.
Our national government and almost all of the establishment media have decided to play a similar game, which could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:
(1) The game lasts until there are no longer any terrorists, and;
(2) If terrorists manage to ever kill or injure or seriously frighten any Americans, they win.Terrorball, then, is an elaborate political game that seems irrational on its face – after all, it’s certain that more than 2.4 million Americans will die this year, and fairly likely that not even one of those deaths will be caused by terrorism—but which features its own peculiar logic. That logic reflects the anxieties of those who have created its rules, and serves the interests of both terrorists and those who profit from exploiting the fear of terrorism.
http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2010/01/terrorball.html
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1021 hrs
Doug, I fully agree with you.
DJ, I do not know any of the disgusting freaks that have commented to this point so I won’t apologize for them, though i share your contempt of them. Your points are good ones and I do not care about official Republican position because I am way more conservative than the Republican Party is. I will address them with my opinion, though.War on terrorism: This is a Republican device. While it is generally favored by religious conservatives, it is not a conservative viewpoint, it is a Republican viewpoint. Terrorism is indeed a tactic not an ‘enemy’. I do understand the mindset behind calling it a war, though. Terrorism is a cowardly, dehumanizing, vile, below the belt, sort of tactic. Declaring ‘war’ on it gives the use of military forces in combating it a ‘proper’ face. Without that, it is much more difficult to justify the use of military forces to combat it.
To treat terrorists as US criminals gives them many more opportunities to succeed at hurting us. An enemy in war gets killed for attempting to kill even one soldier. A failed suicide bombing ‘criminal’, could get off on technicalities from our legal system or out for good behavior. I, personally, would not ever want to see someone willing to mass murder for their faith to get out. Is there any doubt they would not be more willing to go for the 70 some virgins in heaven after 20 years in jail?
I favor the death penalty. I would favor a mandatory death penalty for any and all mass muderers with a one year maximum time limit. Other people are passionately opposed to the death penalty, including many judges and as long as there are many of them we are down to 2 other options. Feed clothe and care for them the rest of their lives, or let them out eventually, neither of which excite me. Which do you favor?
Your point by point of the Judge’s sentencing is less substantive and something of a straw man. I do not disagree with any of the Judge’s statements on their face and I doubt Owen does. The problems with trying foreign terrorists as US citizens usually come before sentencing such as the ones I noted above. Another example could include extradition treaties. If a terrorist camp were set up in France, I could very well see France demanding their French citizen of Muslim descent just to tweak the US lion’s tail.
Our justice system is not perfect. I understand why, and except for vastly overpaying the lawyers, I do not have a huge problem with many of its flaws because other options are ususally much worse. I do not want jihadists tried with the common criminal because the consequences of their release are so much more dire. It is a fact that more than 50% percent of homicides in the US are repeat offenses every year usually for selfish reasons, how much more true would that be for people willing to kill many people for their faith?
Personally, I would most favor a standing law for mass murderers (or attempted mass murderers) of immediate execution after successful trial for an admission, and a one year maximum wait for convicted mass murderers who protest their innocence. With a clear standing law and no other sentencing options, the rest of the world could hardly quibble about below board double-dealing and perhaps we could treat them as criminals instead of calling in the military.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1027 hrs
2.4 million Americans will die this year, and fairly likely that not even one of those deaths will be caused by terrorism—but which features its own peculiar logic.
So .... not one soldier killed in Afghanistan this year was by an Al Queda terrorist?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1115 hrs
TUERQAS, it seems that we are wrestling with similar peccadillo’s. On one hand, I feel like if military action is justified in seeking out and killing terrorists in foreign countries, then when they act against us it should also be a military matter…. On the other hand, terrorism is murder, and even foreign nationals charged with murder within our borders are charged and tried as civilians. This is extremely difficult territory, and I think you have really got something there.
Justice in these cases should be much more swift and severe than it is in standard cases.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1406 hrs
I think that if we are in a situation where we are using the military in a foreign country to destroy training camps or whatnot, then the military rules should apply (i.e. shoot to kill). But if it is a situation like the underpants bomber, where he was in the US, committing a crime (not in combat), then civilian rules should apply. I also think that we should set mandatory life sentences for attempted acts of terrorism. I think that would be a worse punishment than the death penalty, since most of them would rather be “martyrs” than to rot in jail with a bunch of violent predators.
When we don’t uphold our own standards of justice, we make it easier for al qaeda to recruit the next generation of terrorists. That doesn’t mean we should be soft, just fair, and not stoop to their level. People like G “Man” are no better than terrorists. The only thing that separates him from al qaeda is that he is too much of a coward to act on his depraved lust for the murder of innocents.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1425 hrs
But if I’m wrong, like djheru, I’d love for someone to explain how we know we’ve won the war on terrorism. What’s the metric? How do we know when we’ve made the move that means we’re free of the threat?
I don’t think your wrong, but by the Bush standard the metric would be when the final terrorist is killed.
I think the “War On Terror” method of selling this thing was just a way to make the reality of the situation “conceptualizable” in the mind of the average Joe.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1440 hrs
The line between a criminal attempt at mass murder and a terrorist attack is the intent and whether or not the attack is part of a larger movement.
For example, if a lunatic wants to kill a bunch of people because he’s a neo-Nazi freak so he boards a plane with a stick of dynamite up his ass, then yes… he should be tried by the criminal justice system.
If a jihadi terrorist that was trained in Yemen tries to kill a plane full of people with an explosive strapped under his nut sack in order to kill the infidel, then it should be treated as an act of war. After all, he is a foreign national trying to kill Americans as part of a movement. It matters not the physical location of that attack. Our opponents are indeed at war with us and are using asymmetrical warfare. Just because they are unified by religion/fanatacism instead of nationalism doesn’t change things.
One of the reasons we should make this distinction is to learn more about our enemy. In the neo-Nazi’s case, he’s a lone nut job. It would be interesting to know how he got that way, but is really a matter for academics. In the jihadi terrorists’ case, we need to know who trained him, who provided the weapon, who else might be involved in the program, where he trained, which leaders encouraged him, etc. We need to gain as much intelligence as we can to thwart the next attack and we are severely hampered in getting that information if the terrorist is in the criminal justice system. It’s not about torture. It’s about our ability to question and investigate without worrying about damaging the case and letting a terrorist get off on a technicality.
As far as our enemy’s motivations… they have shown that how we conduct ourselves has little bearing on whether or not they will attack us. If it’s not one thing, it’s another. Why? It’s about power. For much the same reasons that medieval kings in Europe launched crusades against the infidel to unify their kingdoms, gain wealth and power, and crush their internal enemies, the mullahs are using the same tactic to enhance their own power. This has less to do with America than with different factions of Islam trying to gain supremacy over the faith.
Posted by Owen on January 06, 2010 at 1445 hrs
In the jihadi terrorists’ case, we need to know who trained him, who provided the weapon, who else might be involved in the program, where he trained, which leaders encouraged him, etc. We need to gain as much intelligence as we can to thwart the next attack and we are severely hampered in getting that information if the terrorist is in the criminal justice system.
I’m afraid that assertion is not backed up by the facts. US law enforcement has broken up organizations more complex, well funded and sophisticated than al qaeda. The FBI has much more experience at interrogation than the military or the CIA. And their techniques have been shown to be much more effective than “enhanced interrogation”.
As far as our enemy’s motivations… they have shown that how we conduct ourselves has little bearing on whether or not they will attack us.
As the worlds greatest superpower and beacon of economic freedom and liberal values, we will always have backwards reactionary groups that hate us and some will be willing to use terrorism to attack us. That will never go away. There will always be someone who wants to attack us. But how we conduct ourselves determines in large part HOW MANY people want to join those who would attack us.
It is easy to imagine that if we were to go into Yemen tomorrow start indiscriminately and wantonly killing innocent women and children, the threat of terrorism would become worse, not better.
It is not inconceivable that the escalation of the threat of terrorism coming from Yemen is directly linked to the fact that we have held 90 of their countrymen for years without charges even though nearly half of them have been “cleared for release” for years meaning that even the U.S. Government believes they are innocent and pose no danger to the U.S.
The people of Yemen know this, and it makes the al qaeda propaganda sound more credible. If it were your father, or brother, or cousin that had been imprisioned for years with no charges even though it was widely known that he was no terrorist, you might be willing to fight the country that did it too.
I’m not saying they are justified, I’m just saying that we need to act in a way that hurts, not helps, al qaeda recruiting.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1503 hrs
I would also like to point out that the underwear bomber sang like a bird to the FBI and the information gleaned from him resulting in several strikes against the leadership in Yemin. Several terrorist planners were killed, including the sheik who was in contact with the Ft Hood attacker.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1604 hrs
Owen,
I understand the distinction you are making between home grown mass murderers and terrorists, I just disagree that the distinction is important or necessary. A clear law and consequence for mass murder regardless of the source gives a much better image to the world in my opinion.I think treating this as a war glorifies terrorist organizations in any case. From a recruiting stance, any hot blooded human can ‘go to war’ against the US simply by declaring themself a terrorist. Before we declared this war most people who might feel antipathy for us may well have felt like many of us do about our Government. ‘Yeah they suck and I hate what they are doing to me, but what can I do?’
I agree with djheru that there is no factual basis that torture is the most effective interrogation technique so why take the bad rap for it internationally? I also agree with him that to call this a war guarantees that we will be at war as a nation until we cease to be a nation. Screw winning, how could this ever end? Even if you were able to magically kill every single person in the world that considers himself a terrorist at this moment, you would have only ended the war for this moment.
The biggest conundrum is the chasing down of camps and recruiters in other countries and I again agree with djheru that that is a military matter and military rules apply, cuz the NYPD won’t be going to Yemen soon.
Where djheru and I disagree is paying to keep them alive for the rest of their lives and giving them all the same rights of a US citizen in our courts.
My sympathies are not ‘Jesus like’ enough to forgive that kind of person and I am too pragmatic to care about ‘giving them the worst punishment’ at a cost of about a million per individual over a lifetime. I am also unwilling to let the courts dismiss a clear case through some sort of technicality. I could stand it for a case like OJ, but if someone wants to kill others by killing themself he can find a way to do it and there is no logical reason to give them second chances.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1629 hrs
djheru,
While I disagree with you vehemently, I am sickened by GMAN’s comments. Wishing harm on you or your family is beyond the pale, and must be condemned. I wish you and yours a very happy and prosperous 2010.
As to the moniker “War on Terror”, I really could care less what we call it. And while you are correct gramatically, that terror is a strategy, not an opponent, I guess “War on Terrorists” must not be as catchy. But that is a war we have to admit we are fighting. As long as there are people who have dedicated themselves to killing our fellow citizens, we need to be doing everything we can to remove that threat. Your inference that you can’t have a war on terror, because terror isn’t a noun, is just silly. We have an opponent, an abhorent and evil one, even if it isn’t gramatically correct.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 06, 2010 at 1650 hrs
Curt,
The honest question djheru has been asking is when/how can it end. I can declare war on Pepsi and never drink it again. If I never do, I have won. I can declare war on my fat and declare victory when I have reached a goal of 195lbs. The US could declare war on France and call victory when there is no living person of French ancestry inside its current borders (Did I just say that?). When do you declare victory on world-wide terrorism?No matter when you do, the survivors will feel emboldened and energized for action and probably want to do something immediately to prove it wrong. Saying it is over when the last terrorist is dead may sound good on an Army recruitment poster, but it is a ridiculous and impossible goal. Regardless of how metaphorically you use the term war, the terms ‘victory’ or ‘defeat’ will be attached to it. There was terrorism before and there will be terrorism after the ‘war’. How many trillions do we want to toss at it before the rest of the world just gets sick of us invading their borders?
djheru will have to answer for himself, I guess, but I believe arguing the semantics was not the main thrust here and no one who agrees with calling it a war has given a serious answer on how it could ever end.
I know in the end, the biggest disappointment to me about Obama’s presidency (and I, like the vast majority of conservatives, absolutely hate all the socialistic redistribution policies he stands for) will be that he did not end the ‘war’. The best way I saw us ever saving face would have been the ‘political solution’ of a new pacifist Government redefining the conflict and putting an end to it declaring no victory or loss. All the Republicans would have condemned it blah, blah, blah, but I think our international face would have been saved.
You don’t send a half million troops to find a few thousand people. In the end the terrorists are going to be the ones romanticized in world history outside the US and Israel. Give this back to special forces and spend $10,000 per terrorist death instead of $1,000,000.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010 at 0910 hrs
You don’t send a half million troops to find a few thousand people.
You do not measure the potential of an enemy by their number of soldiers.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010 at 1106 hrs
djheru will have to answer for himself, I guess, but I believe arguing the semantics was not the main thrust here and no one who agrees with calling it a war has given a serious answer on how it could ever end.
It’s not complicated. When Al Qaeda stops aggressively pursuing the destruction of non-islamists, the war is over.
This defeatist attitude is wrong. Because it is harder does not make it impossible. There are a finite number of radicalized Islamists, just like there were a finite number of Nazis or Japanese during WWII….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010 at 1307 hrs
This defeatist attitude is wrong. Because it is harder does not make it impossible. There are a finite number of radicalized Islamists, just like there were a finite number of Nazis or Japanese during WWII….
Like it or not, this statement is not factual and can be disagreed with. Our policies abroad continually make us new enemies. So as long as libidonous young men think a bunch of virgins await them at their death, we will never run out of radicalized Islamists.
Taking advantage of the perceived current weakness at President concerning these concepts, an entire nation of US hating extremists is brewing in Iran. The KKK, which is really just a bunch of Nazis without the power to enact their hatreds, is still alive and well right here in the US.
From another angle, there are an awful lot of fiscally conservative people who, for different reasons are in full agreement with anti-war liberals. There is a law of diminishing returns in here. I would prefer to go after the terrorist camps without destabilizing the current Governments and then pay to set their entire nation straight again. This is much more efficiently done by sending in special forces rather than a whole army. You can drive in a nail with a sledgehammer, but then you have to fix the hole(s) in the wall.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010 at 1325 hrs
Tuerqas,
So what is your solution, if not killing terrorists?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010 at 1333 hrs
I would prefer to go after the terrorist camps without destabilizing the current Governments and then pay to set their entire nation straight again.
This is not really an option in Pakistan…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010 at 1334 hrs
Is going to war an option in Pakistan? Is your solution sending tropps to Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Afghanistan? I am not sure we have enough. Nor can we honestly afford to support troops in all those nations.
If I was an Al-Qaeda planner, part of my strategy would be to have smaller camps in as many countries as possible and rumours in that many more. In my opinion, it is not just manpower Al-Qaeda is consciously trying to make us spend. If they can make us spend a million for every thousand they spend, they are winning.
Another major part of my strategy would be to not try anything extravagant until after the US has declared victory. Then I would hit them in the US right after… The true headquarters would show no activity except some honest business to cover the drug money and my counterattack plans and agents would already be laid and waiting for that day when the US declares victory.
Tuerqas,
So what is your solution, if not killing terrorists?
Read the thread, I have offered at least 2 and they both include killing terrorists.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010 at 1643 hrs
Is going to war an option in Pakistan?
No. I never said it was.
I do apologize…Immediately after sending out my request I saw your proposed solutions. I’ve been doing that a lot lately…need to slow down…Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 07, 2010 at 1727 hrs
Is going to war an option in Pakistan?
No. I never said it was.
I didn’t think that was what you meant, but your wording was unclear. So what is the sledgehammer solution for terrorists holed up in ‘allied’ territories? I think both of my solutions have validity and they cost less. Passing a law with specific consequences concerning all mass murderers gives us a better face internationally and treating terrorists as any other mass murderer lowers them from ‘freedom fighter to woman and child killing criminal. Using special forces or even creating an official specific arm of the law((joining interpol?) to combat terrorists abroad will get us in to more places around the world and certainly cost much less than maintaining the military presences we currently maintain abroad.
Why do we still have forces in Germany?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 08, 2010 at 0930 hrs
Total Entries: 19650
Total Comments: 129787
Most Recent Entry: 02/09/2012 07:47 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/09/2012 07:17 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 135
Total anonymous users: 3
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/09/2012 08:04 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).