I've been thinking about the "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" argument with regard to Iraq. Questions for debate:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the premise: "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here"? Why?

2. If you agree, do you think this creates an incentive to continue fighting indefinitely (that is, we'll never have to fight them over here if we're fighting them over there)?

3. If you disagree, then what does fighting them over there accomplish? Would (or should) we be fighting them over here?

I disagree. The premise suggests that somehow our military presence in Iraq acts as an invisible barrier, holding terrorists in Iraq and preventing them from coming to this country to commit their atrocities.

Yet we're also told that Al Quaeda has sleeper cells in this country, waiting for the right moment to attack, and it's no secret that our borders are so porous as to be nonexistent.

Besides, the idea that US troops overseas prevent terrorists from attacking our homeland because they're fighting our troops suggests that we should send American troops out of the country to attract and absorb such violence. Human bait, if you will.

I think it is true that American troops act as a magnet for terrorists, who hope not only to kill Americans but also to humiliate America - to prove to the world that our troops are not invincible, and that our goals won't be met if they're at odds with the terrorists'.

. Do you agree or disagree with the premise: "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here"? Why?
Not completely. Clearly we have to fight them here and there. Needless to say they are here since our wide open borders make getting in to this country top do harm ridiculously easy.

That said fighting them aggressively “over there” IMO has the effect of sapping resources they would be using here. No army, or group has infinite resources.

2. If you agree, do you think this creates an incentive to continue fighting indefinitely (that is, we'll never have to fight them over here if we're fighting them over there)?
We need to fight them as long as they continue to attack us and our assets/allies abroad.

3. If you disagree, then what does fighting them over there accomplish? Would (or should) we be fighting them over here?

Fighting them “over there” with our military, who are better prepared is certainly better than fighting them in our shopping malls and streets.

Bill Clinton showed us the price we pay for thinking we could not aggressively go after them abroad and not suffer at home. Putting terrorists on the FBI most wanted list alone, simply does not work.

1) I disagree with the premise, but I do think that it is a brilliant piece of propaganda. It's so simplistic and presents such an easy albeit false choice: either we fight them there or we fight them them here. This isn't an us vs "them" kind of thing going on, there is no "them". "Terrorists" aren't some monolithic group playing on the same team. Iraq is a country that's hopelessly divided by religion, region, class, tribal affiliation, and ethnicity with each sect vying for control of parts of the country. They are not fighting and falling all over themselves so they can come over here and attack us, they are fighting to be in charge.

3) Despite how much our presence contributes to the state that Iraq is in, I imagine that in some respects our presence/fighting helps keep the country from teetering over the edge into total anarchy. I know it's hard to believe that it isn't there already with the 6 figure death toll, but it could get worse.

Should we be fighting them over there? Do we stay and die slowly or leave and let them extinguish themselves quickly? That's one of those dilemmas that really don't have a correct answer. I'm probably being naive, but if I were in charge, I'd leave tomorrow, lock down all of our borders, block immigration to a trickle, and use the $300 billion in military savings to invest in scaled sustainable energy production so we wouldn't have anymore "interests" over there: we'd be uber isolationists.

You misunderstood – the “them” is AQ and there is little doubt we face them in Iraq – even they call Iraq the “front” against the US. THEY are heavily involved in fomenting the sectarian violence and they are most if not all the suicide bombers.

They are only monolithic in their purpose which is to kill Americans and attack our allies and interests. We need to search them out and kill them wherever they are.

If this is true, then isn't it in our best interest to keep fighting "over there" so that there is no risk to fighting the "over here"? In other words, aren't you arguing that we should never stop fighting "over there" because we will never know when we've completely taken "them" out "over there"? Unless...hmm...unless you have a crystal ball that can reveal exactly how many of "them" there are "over there".

1. Do you agree or disagree with the premise: "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here"? Why?

I agree with it. I prefer the notion of trying to keep it off our shores. We're the biggest target around and if we can prevent "them" from bringing it here then we've accomplished quite a bit.

2. If you agree, do you think this creates an incentive to continue fighting indefinitely (that is, we'll never have to fight them over here if we're fighting them over there)?

Yes, it does create a potentially dangerous incentive. Attempting to insure stability in Iraq has its limits though I do not believe we have reached that limit yet.


If Bush genuinely intends to completely take them out then I disagree with the President. There is no way to know that. We do have a shot at insuring an acceptable semblance of order in Iraq and that should be the goal. We should be at the ready to engage once again should those same variables (as in Iraq) align themselves once again.

I think that about sums it up. Something out of a Joseph Heller novel. Al Qaeda is in Iraq because we are there, so we must stay there because as long as we are there they will be there and we must kill them there....

Do you agree or disagree with the premise: "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here"?

Well, if a genie jumped out of a bottle and told me, "Tonight, a family must be blown up. Would you like this to be your family or some poor shmoe's family far away from here?" My answer would be some other schmoe's of course. Not that I have anything against that shmoe, but given the genie gives me no choice I'd rather his family suffer than mine. I think any honest person would answer that way. Unless you love no one and wish for suicide for whatever reason. I don't believe that is the choice we are given, though. It's a false dichotomy.

Oil, though important, doesn't depend on our force presence in the Middle East. We were able to buy oil for decades back when that was almost the entire source of our supply. Now, it's about 40 percent of our supply (or less?). If Canada starts mining in the far North it might drop to a quarter of our supply. Meanwhile the connection between terrorism and occupation is pretty well documented (occupation by Democratic countries that is...there generally isn't much terrorism in countries occupied by Dictatorships because the tactic wouldn't be very successful).

That isn't to say I think terrorism is justified by occupation. I don't believe that because we had forces in Saudi (that was at the behest of the Saudi government) we deserved 911...any more than we would "deserve" an attack from Korea or Japan or Europe for having forces there at the behest of those respective governments. Nor do I think the fact that most of the Middle East was colonized justifies bad behavior. We, too, were a British colony. But it is a fact that holding military forces in the Middle East tends to draw out the fanatics. It would be interesting to see what would happen if we left them to sort it out among themselves.

This entire "fight them over here so we don't have to fight them here" ignores one crucial fact - the amount of passive Muslims becoming active terrorists is constantly increasing. This talking point assumes there are a finite number of terrorists in the world and by drawing them to an area (I'm sure the people "there" appreciate us volunteering their neighborhoods for our war zone), we reduce those numbers. But that is factually incorrect. Those same bad guys stay there (statistically speaking - some may move) while the newly created don't go anywhere - they are already there because they've just been created. We cannot solve this problem militarily. But when all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail. More military action just breeds more. Does that mean I'm against military action? Of course not - we need to take out their command and control along with anybody sponsoring their activities. But as a matter of strategy, attempting to win a "war" with these terrorists is as absurd as our "war on poverty" or "war on drugs".

With that being said, it is my personal opinion that this talking point is a security blanket for cowards. I would rather fight them here. I love my family and country as much as the next person, but I am willing to fight for it. Fighting them in their neighborhoods gives them advantages in every way. They can assimilate into their populations. People there will give them shelter and protect them. There is a never ending supply of Muslim extremists there. Why would they ever want to fight us here when they have a strategic advantage there?

However, if we sealed our borders and pooled all our resources into defending our homeland, they wouldn't have a chance. Nobody would provide them shelter here as they do there. Much like the unabomber and other murderous thugs, someone - even family members - would not allow these types of activities to happen. A full scale assault on us would make Muslim communities uninhabitable here in the US. 50 million rednecks with the second amendment at their back would ensure there could be no Muslim extremist success. They cannot assimilate here. They cannot seek cover here. And their supply of terrorists would be limited.

I'm brave enough to take them on myself along with my neighbors knowing the risks to my family. I don't feel the need to send my neighbor's kid somewhere to fight an enemy on their terms because I'm afraid of getting hurt.

As long as we fight them over there, we give them the advantage they need to be successful. The "fight them over here so we don't fight them over here" is for cowards who have no respect for the life in the war zones we create. Let's seal our borders and force them to fight us on our terms and see how long this "war" lasts.

So, I have to wonder at this point...Did you feel personally empowered by 911? Were you jumping up and down shouting, "YEAH! Now they've taken the battle to us rather than back in the bases in Kuwait or the USS Cole! Booyah!" ?

I agree there are fewer places to hide in America, but I for one wouldn't want to see a thousand rednecks running with torches at every Muslim they see. Nor do I think things would get better if we faced a constant imminent fear of school and neighborhood bombings. Do you live in a high crime area? That's certainly a better place to fight crime, and keep it near you (we hold the right to bear arms for personal protection..you could save others through your own efforts. Just leave the door unlocked and wait!). Or do you live as far away from crime as you can afford to be?

Well as has been said here they are in Iraq partially because we are there. But there is no doubt they are elsewhere as well and we need to pursue them wherever they are for the 3,000 killed in 9/11 and to protect our citizens and interests. Our intel services are charged with identifying them wherever they are and the then states (like Pakistan) take them out or we do as in Afghanistan and Iraq.




A ludicrous idea. Should we have waited for the Germans and Japanese to reach our shores before we struck back? Certainly it is harder to identify the AQ people as they are spread out in various countries but certainly not impossible.

There are numerous ways to fight them abroad without rooting them out ourselves. As Bush correctly said after 9/11 any country that knowingly harbors and shields AQ is our enemy. Thus we saw countries immediately move to identify and eliminate AQ cells.

The alternative you seem top suggest, waiting for the attacks here while doing what Clinton did abroad is IMO a losing strategy. “sealing” our borders is a joke and will never happen esp. now that Dems are in and agree with the stupid Bush open border policies.

What kind of comparison is that? Nobody invaded us. They either attacked us our our allies and we fought traditional wars using mostly traditional tactics (except for all the WMD we used). And we retaliated against those countries. None of them ended up on our shores.

Now why do you think that didn't happen Mr. Talking Point? Let me help you here - look at Iraq. They knew they could not defeat an army of 200 million ready to kick their Japanese or German butts once they landed here.

Conversely, we invaded a country to take on an enemy (after excuse #1, #2 and #3 don't pan out any longer) that wears no uniform and looks no different than your typical civilian. As we learned in Vietnam, we cannot defeat an enemy that assimilates into the civilian population. In every other war, our enemy's military made efforts to protect their land and population. Both sides usually (with us being the exception most times - Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Hanoi, etc) avoided the civilian populations and targeted the military.

But terrorists thrive because it's backwards for them - the civilian population protects them instead. So what is our answer? Use the same tactics like every other conflict and pretend the rules are the same. And unbelievably, there are enough people to accept our occupation of a foreign country using traditional tactics. This makes as much sense as a soccer team playing American football against a football team while the soccer team tries to win the game by only kicking the ball.

The rules are completely different. So how do we level the playing field? Take their advantages away. And we can't do that in the mid-east.

I'm not a coward. If they want a war, give them one someplace they can't hide. Right here. With closed borders, they could not win. They could not increase their size, they could not be armed, and the innocent Muslims here would turn them in if they wanted to stay here in the US.

It doesn't take a very brave person to instead, allow your civil liberties to be stripped away due to their fear, allow someone else's kid to be targets, allow innocents to be slaughtered every day of the week every week of the year, and never make an ounce of progress against this problem just so they don't lose a nail.

You know, I'm very active in the second amendment debates. My position is that the second is a collective right - not an individual right. The second amendment appears to be the perfect solution to this problem. We have a right to repel foreign invaders and should not have to rely on the federal government to do it for us. In fact, constitutionally, the government can't stop us. And they are not defending us. They are making it worse while reducing our civil liberties.

What is the purpose of the second amendment if you're too afraid to use it? Why have it if your answer to all problems is sending our military out to make the situation worse? Why have it if allowing the government to spy on us, send us to foreign prisons without trial, arrest us without representation, and torture us is OK to you? You don't need the second amendment - you need a babysitter.

I would die to protect my family. I would not want a hair on their head to be harmed. But I have no problem fighting an enemy out to destroy us here. To me, that's the best chance of success to ensure their safety. Otherwise, you're relying on luck. Maybe you trust your family's welfare to the Bush administration. I don't.

I believe DR hit is right on the head when he claimed it as 'talking points for cowards"-

1. Do you agree or disagree with the premise: "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here"? Why?

Oh sure, with 9/11 how many iraqs had attacked the US that day? Um, uh, 0. How many Saudis attacked us that day? - Well, they were all Saudis. By this definition-, ooopsie Goergie boy- you need to look on the map- Saudi Arabia is one country to the south- if we want to stop those that attacked us- we need to invade and kill Saudi Arabians indiscriminately as possible- immediately

No Iraqi had ever attacked the US under auspices of the Iraqi goverment- or ever, IIRC. So therefore- why are we fighting someone "over there" that never had any intention of fighting us "over here"?

2. If you agree, do you think this creates an incentive to continue fighting indefinitely (that is, we'll never have to fight them over here if we're fighting them over there)?

Only if you are a brain dead bushbot with no ability to think on your own. Which is what folks like Rove count on. - if we really want national security, we will withdraw to our borders and protect them.

3. If you disagree, then what does fighting them over there accomplish? Would (or should) we be fighting them over here?

It accomplishes a couple things.

1) Al-Quaida gets to up thier recruiting goals every month, because they keep blowing the goals away, with the many thousands of formerly apolitical extremists signing up in droves.

2) Haliburton gets to have billions in no-competition contracts, indefinately and forever. How long before GW or Cheney is an officer of that company after they are out of office?

[quote name='logophage' date='Aug 1 2007, 03:37 PM' post='222622']
I've been thinking about the "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here" argument with regard to Iraq. Questions for debate:

Do you agree or disagree with the premise: "fight them over there so we don't fight them over here"? Why?

No, I disagree with this premise completely! "They"(and we're not really sure who this is) are already over here, and probably always will be. Our going "over there" just has made the situation much, much worse! If we had put our money, time and energy into border protection, instead of running after Saddam Hussein, we would be much better off today. Instead we now have the counting of coffins - boxes draped in the American flag - as if that makes burying our sons and daughters more heroic. This president won’t let images of those long boxes be televised because he knows they are filled with what’s left of our hope…the “earned capital” Bush declares he now intends to continue spending..

Do any of you happen to feel a ‘draft’ headed your way? Our sons and daughters in Iraq are seriously unprotected on many levels including military force because there just aren’t enough kids willing to volunteer to fight in a country that doesn’t even have a military. And as far as I can tell so far, no one has figured out how to do battle successfully when there are no rules to fight by, or a unified group to target.



If you disagree, then what does fighting them over there accomplish?

We are trying to force democracy down the throats of those who don't want it, and can't maintain it when we're gone. "They" don't need aggressive recruitment programs, because they have us, there in Iraq, and every youngster growing up wants to join in that fight! What kind of a Pandora's Box have we opened?