The War in Iraq is underway and there is no turning back. We have a responsiblity now to see this through to an at least reasonably secure Iraq. We took on this obligation the moment we invaded the country.

However, we can learn from the War in Iraq to help us when we approach future issues in the war on terror.


Dept of Homeland Security Budget:
[quote]2005 Discretionary Budget Authority: $33.8 billion[/quote] source

Iraq War Budget:
[quote]the bill for the war is still under $120 billion[/quote] Source

I purposely used sources here that were possibly biased. The source for the budget of Homeland Security is the White house's OMB and the source for the cost of the Iraqi war a site seen by some to be anti-Kerry. So these numbers, if biased should be biased in support of President Bush.

We still have many weaknesses when it comes to Homeland Security:

[quote]Yet, almost three years after Sept. 11, chemical plants are still not subject to federal regulations when it comes to security. [/quote] source

[quote]Scores of chemical plants across the country may be attractive targets for terrorists, according to a critical government report which says the federal government has not fully assessed that threat.[/quote] source

[quote]Transportation targets are almost infinite in number ranging from the highlyvisible 747 aircraft to the tens of thousands of private and business aircraft;from large containerships to inland waterway barges. And from 18 wheel trac-tor-trailers to a FedEx delivery vehicle.[/quote] Source

[quote]Welcome to the new front in the war on terrorism. Despite the billions of dollars spent since the Sept. 11 terror attacks to secure commercial aviation, security experts say that effort has created a new vulnerability: the thousands of ports around the world, many of which have only recently turned their attention to thwarting terrorism. [/quote] source

[quote]The nation's 103 nuclear power reactors are vulnerable to attack by terrorists, two watchdog groups warned today. The groups charge that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other government entities have failed to impose the security measures needed to prevent a successful attack and avert a potential catastrophe. [/quote] source

The continued weakness of you countries borders:

[quote]In a recent television interview, T. J. Bonnes, president of the National Border Patrol Association, states that the border control is in crisis with half the personnel considering finding other employment. 64% per cent state that there are not enough personnel while 76% say that the requirement that they work from "fixed positions" prevents them from being effective in controlling the flow of illegals into the country. They feel that "9/11 should have been a wake-up call" and insufficient resources have been invested in their work.[/quote] source

The Risk of Computer Based Attacks:

[quote]Much of the U.S. critical infrastructure is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack.Industrial control computer systems involved in this infrastructure are specific pointsof vulnerability, as cyber-security for these systems has not been perceived as a highpriority. Industries potentially affected by a cyber-attack on industrial controlsystems include the electrical, telephone, water, chemical and energy sectors[/quote] source

Troops and Equipment are pulled from other sectors of the war to Iraq:

[quote]In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.[/quote] source

[quote]a brigade of 3,600 troops was moved from South Korea to Iraq[/quote] source

Not to mention all the other troops tied up in Iraq.

[quote]Two thirds of America's combat brigades are now tied down in this war[/quote] source

The argument can be made that there was a link between terrorists and Saddam.

The 9/11 commission saw that there were some links:

[quote]the al-Qaida leader had previously provided support for “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.”

Bin Laden ceased that support in the early 1990s, opening the way for a meeting between the al-Qaida leader and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in 1994 in Sudan, the report said. At the meeting, bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded, the staff report said. [/quote] source

Though thoses links seem to be limited to communication. They may have developed into a real threat in the future, though they did not appear to be a major threat at this time.

There was Saddam's support of Palestinian suicide bombers.

[quote]Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers — a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers' families.
The arguement could be made that we went to war with Iraq because Iraq continued to ignore the UN and was failing to complete the actions in agreed to that ended the Gulf war.  [/quote] source

[quote]Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people.[/quote] source

Saddam's Harboring of known terrorists:

[quote]Key terrorists enjoyed Hussein’s warmth, some sorecently that Coalitionforces subsequently foundthem alive and well andliving in Iraq.[/quote] source (this source contains a list of all the known terrorists found in Iraq)

Then there is the Argument that we are fighting terrorists organizations in Iraq (as they are drawn to us there like moths to a porch light) so that we don't have to fight them in the US. This seems a lot like: "We are fighting in Saigon now so we don't have to fight in San Francisco later."

The issues here is a matter of priorities.

The war on terror is supposed to be about securing our lands and our people from terrorist attack. One focus was supposed to be strengthening our country, making us a harder target. Another focus was to be taking the fight to the terrorists, and another was to deal with States that sponsor and/or support terrorists.

Well, we are currently paying 3+ dollars on the War in Iraq for every 1 dollar we spend on homeland security. We are pulling troops from hunting Terrorists in Afghanistan and reassigning them to Iraq. We are moving troops from Korea, where North Korea is appearing more and more unstable and moving them to Iraq.

To add to this it can be argued that Iraq could have been contained similarly to the way we contained the USSR.

[quote]For that reason, among others, I support a revived "containment" strategy. A containment strategy would probably take longer to achieve our objectives, it could be costly, and it would require continued vigilance on our part. But if the United States could successfully contain the Soviet Union, a superpower, during the Cold War, we should be able to overcome the Iraqi threat without going to war.[/quote] source



Questions for Debate:

Should Iraq have been invaded at this time considering the resources it would take from both Homeland Security and the fight against Terrorist Organizations with global reach?

Could we have continued business as usual and contained Iraq while we dealt with improving Homeland Security and the war against global terrorism?

Would we be have been better off if we had taken the resources used for the war in Iraq and applied them to improving Homeland Security and Hunting Terrorists with Global Reach?

Should Iraq have been invaded at this time considering the resources it would take from both Homeland Security and the fight against Terrorist Organizations with global reach?

I think you are incorrectly framing this as an "either/or" choice.

On the chance that Iraq had provided terrorists with WMD technology and said terrorists deployed it, would the question then be turned around into : Why didn't we invest more in external threat management rather than internal threat management? This question deals in complete hypotheticals.

For example, the Federal FY2005 budget calls for $57 billion in discretionary spending. Budget News—U.S. Department of Education. Does that mean that Iraq is twice as important as education?

The answer is no. Resources come from other sources than the federal government when it comes to education. The same analogy holds with Homeland Security. The bulk of "Homeland Security" is provided by already existing and funded local police, fire, and other emergency teams. The federal budget is a supplement to already existing budgets. The military, on the other hand, has no other source of funding than the federal government.

These two items cannot be compared on a dollar for dollar basis.


Could we have continued business as usual and contained Iraq while we dealt with improving Homeland Security and the war against global terrorism?

I think that is a policy decision. Sure we could have. But considering that all the major intelligence services in the world thought Saddam had WMDs. British intelligence, Russian intelligence, Israeli intelligence all said he had WMDs. When Russia warned the US about an attack from Iraq after 9/11, I think Bush took the stance of "Hey, it's time to get rid of this guy". Putin says Iraq planned US attack

Business as usual was not going to work in the long run. Iraq was a reason used by Osama bin Laden in justifying 9/11. Bin Laden's warning: full text

Our troops in Saudi Arabia were a big recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. The status quo was unsustainable.

Would we be have been better off if we had taken the resources used for the war in Iraq and applied them to improving Homeland Security and Hunting Terrorists with Global Reach?

Again, apples to oranges comparison. I don't know how tanks and body armor in Iraq detracts from Homeland Security and the Global War on Terror. They are not mutually exclusive.

Should Iraq have been invaded at this time considering the resources it would take from both Homeland Security and the fight against Terrorist Organizations with global reach?

Iraq shouldn't have ever been invaded in the first place because it was a complete distraction from the war on terror. While we were making plans to invade Iraq, Bin Laden was busy escaping from Afghanistan.

While I think Amlord is correct, that you cannot make a dollar for dollar comparison of budgets for Iraq vs. Homeland Security, I think that the $120 Billion we have spent could have been put to much better use in other areas. I think that is what OverlandSailor was getting at with his question Amlord.

Could we have continued business as usual and contained Iraq while we dealt with improving Homeland Security and the war against global terrorism?

Who knows what would have happened here if we had waited around to find out the final results of the UN Weapons Inspectors report where they would most likely have stated that Iraq didn't have WMD.

According to Powell, Rice and Others, containment had worked up until the 2002 timeframe and then they started changing their tune based on evidence that was later determined to be flawed and inaccurate.

The war on terrorism should have remained our focus, and as I said above Iraq was a distraction from this.

So Amlord, you think that stationing more troops than were even in Saudi Arabia was the solution? Don't you think that our increased presence there might be an even bigger recruiting tool for Al Qaeda? What about all of the bombings, beheadings, etc - you think those would have happened if we hadn't moved into Iraq?

I'm not sure why you are trying to justify Iraq by saying that Osama Bin Laden attacked because of troop presence in the middle east.

Would we be have been better off if we had taken the resources used for the war in Iraq and applied them to improving Homeland Security and Hunting Terrorists with Global Reach?
Yes, because those dollars and men should have been used to hunt terrorists not bring down some regime because the Bush administration felt they had to go. We have discussed the reasons for the Iraq war extensively in several threads, but the fact of the matter is that none of us know why we went over there and the reason du jour from the bush administration changes frequently.

The war on terror is not going to be won by sending in invading armies to a state, it is going to be won through intelligence work, cooperation with other countries, police work and special operations. All of those things could have greatly benefited from additional funding that was used on the Iraq war.

When we started the war in Iraq, things were far from being wrapped up in Afghanistan. We hadn't yet caught Bin Laden and Afghanistan hadn't yet had elections, nor was it a stable country. If we were really serious about winning this war on terror it seems like we should have focused all of our resources on catching Bin Laden when we had the chance instead of just moving on.

Finally, I would argue that what has happened in Iraq has set us back in the war on terror and not moved us forward. The events there have allowed terrorists to recruit more people due to things like Abu Gharib, "collateral damage" and the idea of American insurgency.

I think the framing is absolutely correct. Your follow up question proves the point. We had a choice we could make with regards to Iraq. Committ our country, its resources, and the largesse of its AVF to creating the Pottery Barn encounter its been thus far, or focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan and reallocate some of those resources (200 billion would quadruple Homeland Security's budget) as to assist in fortifying our country's infrastructure to maybe, just maybe, prevent another attack.

Yes, state and local governments do provide some of the resources, but they desperately need help and have a substantially smaller tax base to work from than the Federal Government. Homeland Security is a Federal focus. The local agencies you refer to are but one piece of that larger puzzle.


I'm not gonna derail this thread, but if you honestly believe the Putin claim, why oh why wasn't it used as justification by this Administration for going to war??? It certainly seemed to have better credibility than the Yellow cake fiasco and was a far better indicator that Iraq posed a direct threat to us. Could it be because, like the Prague meeting and other disputed intel sources, its simply wasn't good or corroborated intel? Shoot, even Dick Cheney hasn't latched onto it and he still thinks Saddam and Al Qaeda were in bed together.

Iraq being quoted by Bin-Laden? Is that the link du jour of Iraq to Al Qaeda?


On this we can agree. Problem is, I see no indication Bush will pull those troops and bases out even after Iraq is secured.

Let me reframe this for you Amlord. If we could have, say, kept Saddam in check for 2 more years while Homeland Security did its work (maybe with a little more funding), we revamped our intelligence agencies, continued inspections, actually finished the job in Afghanistan and continued to chase Al Qaeda, etc. and THEN focused on Saddam, what would the cost have been?


That statement is partially correct, but holistically inaccurate. Committing this nation to a war in Iraq created a fundamental opportunity cost that *did* keep us from focusing more resources in Homeland Security and the real War on Terror. Instead, we've created two failing nation-states and phenomenal incubators for future generations of terrorists to come. It doesn't translate into body armor vs. first responders or border patrol funding but its pretty darn close.

Those two areas are mutually exclusive when it comes to prioritizing federal funding and making out of budget appropriations. Governance is about choosing, about prioritizing amongst finite resources and I think this topic is a fair retrospective on what could have been gained by making different choices.

Doc

We would have been a lot better off if we would have taken some those billions of dollars and maybe thought about saving a few Americans from mundane problems like hunger and healthcare and lack of education opportunities. Why warmongering has become a higher priority then the wellbeing of this country's own citizens is beyond me (although I believe I know exactly why, and if your wondering feel free to message me and we can chat).

That said, there is still a real threat of terror at home and abroad, and to not consider such issues would be irresponsible. The first step in fighting global terrorism as an American is this: Stop making policy that fuels global unrest!!!! Our stance on so many issues in the middle east, our arrogance in policy concerns, our treatment of the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, and others are everyday reminders that America is a rogue state to those people. Osama Bin Laden is considered a hero by much of the arab world. It is unimaginably ignorant to assume that "oh, well much of the arab world is islamic, and muslims are taught to hate freedom and Americans, so of course they'd see OBL as a hero." Sadly this is the logic wielded by many Americans today. The people of the arab world are in general just as moral and good, just and important as the American people. Their perspective on American foreign policy, being on the receiving end, is what creates anti-american sentiments. If we take these people's feelings and realities into consideration when making foreign policy, we could change their view of America as a nation, and likely reduce their want to damage America, or kill Americans.

After we make such considerations we would be far, far safer. But not wholly safe I understand, because there are still destructive people out there, who have more on their minds than bad American policy. Their are Jihad-ists who want to destroy America because we represents the most powerful western-christian government, a threat to their religous beliefs. That sucks... but unless we are willing adhere to the separation of church and state, and leave fundamentalist christian dogma out of public policy (hasn't come close to happening yet, we still have culture wars over the removal of the ten commandments from a government building), there will always be those who disagree with the primary christian ideology of the American nation.

I would rather that we stop those terrorists on the borders or overseas, as apposed to allowing them to do something scary like blowing up buildings and such. However doing this is hard. There is no way to have a war on terror, or a war on terrorists, because terrorist is not a nationality, country, religion or social doctrine. Terrorism is simply the usual tactic resorted to by the less powerful side of an unbalanced conflict. If you can't fight the USA on an open battlefield, you hide, and use tactics that scare the population of the USA into unrest. Anyone can choose to do this. So Everyone is a potential terrorist. Essentially a war on terror is a war on everyone who greatly disagrees with American policy, or a silencing of our political opponents, and the idea of this raises some very frightening... no terrifying Orwellian possibilities.

(I don't pretend to know how to tell the government to spend their money. I don't know what it takes to fight and win a war. I would never fight a war, I don't think that ANYONE wins wars. I believe that every person on the earth is an individual part of a greater society, and we all have responsiblities to each other. Religion and Nationalism only serves to separate people, and turn them against each other while those with power act behind the scenes, constructing wars and profits.)

The whole problem of the Western approach, led, it has to be said, by the US is the fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.

Firstly, You can't fight terrorists with armies. Proof: Bin Laden still at large and al Qaeda more active than ever.

Secondly, You can't go to war - breaking UN law - on "intelligence" information alone. Proof: Iraq intelligence was almost 100% wrong.

Thirdly, it is dangerous to legitimise a terrorist group by "going to war" with them. Last time I looked, terrorists were criminals with political intentions. The IRA were never considered and army by the British despite their third initial.

Fourthly, the number of lives lost to terrorism in America in the next 10 years is likely to be a fraction of 1% of those lives lost to murder, drink driving, dangerous working conditions and pollution. Yet the funds allocated the respective problems are almost inversely proportionate to their threat to American lives. Strange, that.

I think OverlandSailors catalogue of weaknesses merely betrays the level of threat the government really feels al Qaeda represents - minimal. Why is that?

I really don't know. But the utterly bizaare multiple security failure - even as simple as not scrambling jets in time whilst hijacked planes glided around for almost an hour - 9/11 represented, which resulted in precisely nil repremands, coupled with the conspicuous lack of concrete security in "non-headline" areas of American infrastructure smells very fishy to me.

Look at where al Qaeda hit before and since 9/11 and you'll see they were remarkably soft targets:

Bali,
Iraq,
Spain - very large Muslim population due to the country's history and location,
Gulf,
Sudan - Muslim country.

The one "hard" target has been on 9/11. But this was using one of the most insecure parts of American transport. The only challenge was finding pilots who could have flown well enough to carry it out. The training of these people, incidentally, appears to have been largely not in Afghanistan, but in Germany and the US.

When al Qaeda did manage to attack another Western Country - Spain - the perpetrators were found and blew themselves up in their flat. They were caught, basically. Very impressive.

It seems, does it not, that these people are few in number and low in potential. Put it this way, these people are never going to "defeat" America - whatever you take that to mean. Bush knows this, you know this and I know this.

In the same way that Iraq - a crushed and inert country after 10 years of sanctions and weekly bombing - was never going to regain the ability - as long as he was contained - to develop any kind of arsenal. Rice and Powell pretty much said as much in early 2001.

But the remarkable thing is that Afghanistan and the much touted hunt for Bin Laden was not even 10% done before Saddam became the #1 target. Bin Laden became "not a priority". Let's not forget Richard Clarke's tesimony of the neocons trying to pin 9/11 on Iraq from day one. They were itching to get onto Iraq at the earliest opportunity.

The priorities and judgements made thus far have been wrong whether you think al Qaeda a real and credible threat or you think them an overhyped bunch of psychos who should not be given the time of day, let alone countless billions in extra spending and American - and foreign - blood. Whichever way you look at it, things have been hugely messed up. and every man woman and child in America is paying for this.

The one thing you don't take into consideration in this is that most of the Muslim world is run by governments that strictly limit information. If your only information sources say that American policy is bad without any effort being made to point out the American side of it then of course you'll think the policy is bad. If your only information sources portray America as a nation of crusaders and OBOL as a Freedom Fighter, then of course you will see OBOL as a hero.

Combine the limited access to information with the limited access to education and you have a population who is quite easily manipulated, especially by religious leaders. Remember, back when the everyday people of the western world had limited access to information and very poor (at best) education it was easily for the Pope to gain the support needed for the Crusades.



Though I agree that it takes a lot more then just Armies to fight Terrorists I would like to know where you get the idea that al Cauda is "more active than ever".



The British fought the IRA in Ireland with the Military.



I understand your point. However, Murder, DUI and other crimes are State issues, and not federal (unless they happen on federal land). So these issues really can't be compared because it is not the Federal Government's job to address or fund these problems, whereas the security of the United States against foreign attackers is.

As for dangerous working conditions and pollution, We have OCHE, we have the EPA and both have created a ton of regulations to try to control these problems. The issues with these types of regulations is that then can frequently do more harm then good to the American people if you don't take each measure and review the cost fs. benefits of it. I don't think that much, if any, more money needs to go to these organizations, but rather the money they get should be managed better.

source

This is less then what the Congress appropriated, and just barely under the 7.8 Billion the EPA itself requested. source (PDF)

Source

Source

Now in the case of both of these agencies we seem to be giving them almost exactly what they are requesting in funding to accomplish their goals. I am not sure that more money would solve anything in these areas, especially when these Agencies don't seem to think they need it.



There was also the previous attempt on the DC in 1993 and the attacks on the American Embassies in Africa, and the attack on the USS Cole. Not exactly "soft" targets.

All the soft target attacks since 9/11 suggests to me that we have in fact done some good against al Cauda, as they can't seem to put together a major attack in the vain of many of there attacks prior to our War on Terror.



I am not sure what you are getting at here. Are you suggesting that they are not a threat worth focusing on? If we suddenly stopped the War on Terror and they attacked again, this time in your home town would you feel the same? I'm not trying to call you out, I am just trying to understand your position.

AC is clearly a threat, there have been plenty of "hard target" attacks by them in the past. The reason they are successful is because they are willing to invest vast amounts of time and money into planning their attacks. It is no accident that most of their attacks succeeded because of limited security or lax security in one area or another. Those weaknesses were found through their surveillance and exploited.



This is one of the questions behind this post. Iraq was inevitable and necessary in my eyes. However, I am having a hard time justifying it now, instead of waiting until Afghanistan was reasonably stable and homeland security was well on it's way. I think Saddam could have remained contained. However, we all benefit from hindsight at this time. Prior to the Invasion, the vast majority of the world believed Iraq had Mads (which is what he wanted us, and especially his own people to believe). After seeing a horrific attack like 9/11 and knowing that Saddam has had ties to many terrorists groups (most ties are to anti-Israel groups), perhaps we saw it as a better safe then sorry issue.

I am still on the fence. I still wonder if the better strategy would not have been to contain and monitor Iraq while we focused on the mission on Afghanistan's Stability, the War on Terrorists and strengthening Homeland Security.

The Britsh army was almost never used in modern times to fight the IRA. Almost exclusively, the Police, MI5/6 and certain special forces were used. Most members of the IRA were well known and living on benefits! There were virtually no pitched battles.

I have never advocated an end to defending against terrorism but Bush's war on terror has been utterly counterproductive.

Al Qaeda is more active than ever because they are behind most of the daily bombings in Iraq.

In my opinion, for a group like al Qaeda, all their targets have been soft. The first WTC bomb was reportedly allowed to happen by the FBI for some reason unexplained.

Schooly

The special forces are the military. But now I think I understand where you were coming from. You were saying that you can't fight Terrorism with conventional Armies or tactics, am I correct? As for Afghanistan, the target there was not just the terrorists but the government that supported them. In Iraq the target was Saddam and his government. When the government of a nation is the problem and when force is necessary, the only way to use it to topple a government is completely and on a grand scale, IE with conventional Armies or tactics. However, when individual terrorists, or cells are the target then you are absolutely correct, conventional means is not the way to go.



Well, that is true, though most seem to think (wrongly) that it is all done by Iraqi Insurgents. However, if the choice is deal with terrorists and terrorist attacks in the Middle East or deal with them here I will take the Middle East. I realize this is a selfish position, I just don't think it's a wrong one.



The USS Cole was a "soft" Target?
The American Embassies in Africa were "soft" targets? (trust me, an Embassy (even before 9/11) is a MUCH harder target the the WTC was, or even is today thanks to the Marines and especially the DSS).



Reported where? You're going to have to back a claim like this up with something.

Should Iraq have been invaded at this time considering the resources it would take from both Homeland Security and the fight against Terrorist Organizations with global reach?
No Iraq shouldn't have been. We had him very well contained. By not using the bulk of our resources to get Usama and the Al Quada we have allowed them to build a reputation as effective guerillas. We should have been pushing an all out war of agression on them. Basically making them an example No One Else Would EVER want to follow. Instead they now have three years of evading us. Osama now looks like Robin hood to the kinds of people who support him. WE have made ourselves look incompetent. We have made him look like the SLY FOX, instead of the murdering SOB he is.
We have allowed them to define themselves in the past three years. We get the occasional hit in regards to a higher up member being caught, but he is being replaced by scores of volunteers.
There should have been a scorched earth policy in regards to AlQaueda. Not the weak approach we have followed. ANY group or persons who EVER supported these fellows should have benn made into an example. Especially in SAUDI.
The detainees in Guantanamo should have been a higher priority. They should have been processed faster, instead of left to rot and be used as political martyrs.
Sadly IF they weren't Al Quaeda when they went in THEY will be now. Sooner or later some will be released and they will go home and recruit others. Plus they will get sympathy for their treatment at our hands from others in their homes. Not quite martyrs, NO. However they can achieve a sort of hero status. Stupid!

Could we have continued business as usual and contained Iraq while we dealt with improving Homeland Security and the war against global terrorism?
Hell Yes. Saddam was contained. We had the time. Instead chicken littles with their fears of imminent mushroom clouds in Duluth allowed irrational group fear to sacrifice our safety for the Pretty pictures of a Glorious Victory over the forces of Bagdad--which turned out to be a few republican Gurad hold outs armed with spitballs.
Eye Candy and Mental Fluff for fools.
We have sacrificed soldiers for cable news ratings for all flavors of faux news channels. CNN<FOX, doesn't matter. This has been better than kiddie porn for these losers and their chirping monkey submissives.
Sadly at least a crack whore will be honest about what you get for your 20 bucks. She won't wave a flag in your face and sing about gods and country.

Would we be have been better off if we had taken the resources used for the war in Iraq and applied them to improving Homeland Security and Hunting Terrorists with Global Reach?

How do you use a missile against a hidden terror cell located in London or Newark?
What good is an apache helicopter against a cargo container filled with explosives as it sails into San Diego or New York?
How do you explain to a kid whose mother just got turned into hamburger in front of him that we "Tried to minimize civilian casualties with precision strikes" so that he does not grow up full of HATE and prevent him from thinking the AQuaedas of the world are the way to go.
We are failing to offer any real funding for our security at home. Measures are NOT being effectively taken to build our security. The necessary tools to fight this war are not being channeled where they need to go. instead we fund Iraq's reconstruction and a new bloated government agency--Zee Glorious Deepartment of ze Homelohnd Security!
What does it matter how the resources are used with the sledgehammer approach we follow?

Last first. This page summarises the story and links to a transcript from the 1993 report: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing

The Sudanese embassy cannot be claimed to be a hard target for a car bomb. The whole point is that you don't see a car bomb coming. The Cole was hit at night by a bomb boat. The smartest bomb alive is a suicide bomber. It was the sort of attack the average military ship would never imagine as doable. They were blindsided, in short.

I never said the military was not used against the IRA, I said "the British army". But under no circumstances can the toppling of governments with armies possibly have anything like a powerful effect on terrorists. This was a "war" on terrorism. The whole policy of illegal invasions in this "war" has to be called into question when it is obvious that to fight terrorists you can't do that.

The policy being supposedly taken credit for by Bush of drawing in terrorists into leaderless states so that they kill "newly liberated" people rather than American civilians on American soil is something of a double bluff, surely. If the US now finds the illegal invasions justified because Iraqis are now no longer threatened by death and are free then how can they then say that the invasions are further justified because those "free" people leaving their homes are now the targets of daily suicide bombings rather than US citizens?

"We had to sacrifice American lives - and many more Iraqi lives - to liberate Iraq but we also had to invade Iraq so that al Qaeda would kill Iraqis rather than Americans." ----See how warped that sounds? How Arabs are hearing this bizaare message?

Just a thought.

But to get fully back on topic, it just seems strange to me that the US should long to rush headlong into invading Afghanistan and Iraq when they had little and nothing, respectively, to do with 9/11 especially when you contrast that with Saudi Arabia. A dictatorship every bit as brutal as any other in the region, yet treated as an ally by the US. Even after 15 Saudis - funded by a Saudi figurehead - committed 9/11. It's kinda like punching the ugly school nurse and the school bully when it was the Principal's son who beat your kid up. Illegally attacking two parties who may have little going for them but are not the heart of the problem.

And I haven't even mentioned the debacle of Israel/Palestine - the festering wound that has infected the entire Middle East.

This is a very valid point. The perspective of the arab people is definitly influenced by the arab press. However, you bring this point up seemingly to avoid having to question whether or not US foreign policy in the arab world could be the problem. Media manipulation can have quite an effect on people (just look at the US and FNC, talking points and party lines), but they need something to demonize. Our position in Palestine is one of many good examples of what would appear to be policy based on religous exclusivism. We must be able to look at all the factors and perspectives when trying to answer this complicated ordeal, and ignoring the massive influence of US foreign policy is like ignoring the eight-hundred pound gorilla in the room.

This is a pretty weak source, when you consider that ANYONE can add content to this "Encyclopedia". For proof of this go back to your link and see where I added:
"Where is the proof of this Claim against the FBI??" In the 'see also' section, just below the section on FBI Foreknowledge. If you do not know the author, you cannot trust the source.



As a former US Navy Sailor I can say with authority that naval personnel are trained to be wary of these kinds of attacks and were trained in regard to these kinds of attacks as far back as my active duty time which was 1987-1991.

source

They were not attacked at Night. They were attacked while refueling operations were going on, undoubtedly an attempt to increase the damage. Also, the method of approach mirrored the way a local would come to the boat to deliver things. It was an exploited hole in security.

When in port in the middle east, US Navy ships have quarterdeck watches, roving security watches and manned security posts. During refueling operations the ships deck is manned by all deck division personnel, as wells as fire fighting teams, and other refueling watchstanders. If anything, the deck had more eyes on the water when it was attacked then they normally would have.

As for the Embassy. It is the job of the DSS and the Marine detachment to maintain security. This includes keeping eyes out for strange behavior, including abandoned vehicles, outside the Embassy.

Frankly, to suggest that locations like a US Navy Ship of war, and US Embassys are soft targets, even at the time they were struck, is a slap in the face and an insult to all those who's jobs it is to protect those locations. Holes in security were exploited. Holes that were found through extensive surveillance and good intelligence work on the part of the terrorists. The exploitation of those holes allowed the attacks to succeed despite the fact that these were clearly hard targets.




The President put the world on Notice. If you are a nation that harbors or supports terrorists then you are terrorists and would be treated as such. The Taliban, CLEARLY supported and Harbored terrorists. Furthermore, the refused to turn over OBL when asked to do so by the US on several occasions. They were given the option to clean house and stay in power. They choose not to. So we cleaned house for them, and we included the Taliban in the garbage.




I can see your point. But, when discussing this, most that suggest that we are fighting the terrorists in the middle east rather then the US are referring to all the attacks made agains the US personnel, as well as all the US Personnel directly hunting terrorists over there.

The situation is very tough in Iraq, but from my own experience I can say the most people in Iraq prefer the current situation because they now have something they have not had in 20 years, hope for the future. It is a tough fight, a difficult situation both militarily and politically, but in the end, if the Iraqi people take charge of their lives and their government (which I am quite sure they can and will) then a new Democratic Iraq (even if the democracy they choose seems more like a theocracy) will be an example of what alternatives and possibilities are out there, if others take a chance and reach for them. If nothing else, they rest of the middle east will see that one Iraq stabilized and choose it's own destiny we left. It will likely cause some to question their beliefs of America. It could quite possibly help the US reputation throughout the middle east.




It is a good point. And one that many people make. It is certainly a question I have as well. Why do we consider Saudi Arabia an ally? I don't know, personally I don't consider them as such. And this has been a problem for a long time.



Yep, if the WORLD had not made the state of Israel after WWII we would not have this problem. But, since the Europeans disliked Jews so much it was better to given them a homeland in the middle east then give them homes in Europe.

But that is a topic for another debate.



Not just the Arab press, but the arab governments, religious leaders, and teachers (not not all Arabs in general, just the frantics that choose to direct their followers against the US). When your education is limited and your information resources are limited then you are open to tyranny in the worse way, because you will not know any better.

I was not trying to suggest that US involvement in the Middle East does not effect the perception in the Middle East. I was pointing out, that peoples perceptions are limited if they are only aware of one side of the argument.

There are educated people who believe the US Policies are quite wrong in the Middle East. All I was pointing out is that the vast majority of the public being poor, uneducated, and having no access to information outside of what their leaders choose to tell them have very little reason to believe anything else.

Just to tidy this up on the USS Cole point, security holes like the one you mention make an otherwise hard target soft. These people may be low on technology but they make up for it in guile - and, ahem, CIA training.

The report of 1993 is from the New York Times quoting a named interviewed source and the claims have not been denied by the FBI. I'm not saying its true, I'm saying it was reported, hence my use of the word "reportedly" in my original post.

The problem of fighting terrorists with the military - al la Israel - is that it kills bystanders. Every attack on Falluja or other strongholds is killing kids and other non-combatants. This is also what happens in Gaza and only fuels terrorism there as it will fuel hatred in Iraq. Bulldozing houses etc. just does not work (and has been condemned by the UN - except the US, of course). Such heavy handedness - as Russia is discovering with the Chechen Black Widows (70% of Chechen women have lost a male relative to the Russians) - only deepens the problem.

The issue with Afghanistan is that the US demanded extradition without offering any evidence whatsoever to the Taliban - this has to be part of standard extradition procedure. The evil taliban were threatened with invasion. Surely that is the definition of terrorism in itself - "give us what we want or we attack you". The invasion of Afghanistan is just as illegal as that of Iraq. The UN sanctioned neither invasion. 9/11 was not an act of war, it was a heinous crime of multiple murder committed by people who died in the process. No country attacked the US. I personally think that as the Taliban were so clearly bonkers and had no friends internationally there was little international uproar about it. That does not, however, make it any less illegal.

The problem of casting countries in the same light as the terrorists themselves is the hypocrisy of that situation. There are many people sought by governments for crimes against humanity and terrorism harbored by the US. There have been many brutal leaders and military men trained in the the US by the US army. Noreaga is an obvious example.

But the ultimate problem is that no country, not even the US, can legally unilaterally invade a nation. "Pre-emption" is starting a war in basic language. I thought the idea was that "democracies don't start wars". Which is why Iraq is supposed to be a democracy. But democracies are starting wars. They have invaded two countries in as many years. The second one based on completely false intelligence and after a 10 year truce where we bombed it every week.

The US ignored the UN charter to supposedly "strengthen" the UN. The biggest irony you can find.

When there was no "war on terrorism", the neocons wanted to invade Iraq - their PNAC site proves this. So clearly, the 2003 invasion had precious little to do with it and further supports the case of how much of an unnecessary diversion it was.

Overland, I commend you on a thorough lead-up to this question. No, Iraq should not have been invaded. This just invited what we see today. But then, you know that about me.



Yes, but this is 20-20 hindsight. I had 40-40 foresight. Or maybe 1970-1970 foresight. Our government lies. It does. Get accustomed to it.



No doubt. In fact, I would say that we blew it. We blew it big time. Not just your standard get in the face and pull back, but get into it with both feet, commit generations to it, and make bloody war.

I am trying to be civil here.

Much stronger terms could be done. But you do not need to read them.

I want us out of Iraq. Wish we would have never gone there. Oh well...

I am too old to care. Kids, God bless ye.

True. The whole was that, the officers, assumably the commanding officer allowed a local to regularly come to the ship to sell and deliver things. The CO likely thought it was good for Morale and also good for local relations. It was a bad decision, at least in retrospect.



If you happen to have a link to this that is more reputable, even the New York Times, I would be interested in seeing it.



In the case of Israel, what would you suggest they do? Simply allow the attacks to continue? Israel is attempting a non-violent solution in creating the wall between Israel and the Palestinians. The UN Condemned the wall too. However, The anti-Israel approach of the UN over the years would tend to invalidate what the UN has to say on the matter.



The approach is merely the only approach left. You cannot end Terrorism without ending the financial and political support of terrorists. Countries that support such individuals in modern times are on notice that they will be considered as guilty as the terrorists in the future. I for one have no sympathy for any country that harbors terrorists.



"Illegal" based on what? I for one will support any action that helps to secure my country and countryman from future attacks regardless of what the UN has to say. In the case of Afghanistan I completely supported it. In the cas of Iraq, I am on the fence because, as this thread was written to discuss, I feel that continued containment could have at least delayed this action until Afghanistan was finished.



As far as I am concerned. ANY country who supported Al Qaeda prior to the 9/11 attack and continues to support them now is equally as guilty as the terrorist flew the planes.



I would like to know what constituted MANY when it comes to those the US "Harbors". As for brutal leaders trained by the US that was another time, we have been burned by this approach too many times to do it in the future.



The War on Terror is a war to end the greats threat of the 21st century. Any country, that chooses to support or harbor terrorists will be considered an enemy of the US and should be considered an enemy of the civilized world.



A 10 year truce where Saddam was supposed to end his WMD programs, allow unrestricted access to weapons inspectors. He choose to fight the conditions of this truce rather then follow them. The man is out of power as a result. That fact that no WMD were found troubles me when it comes to the effectiveness of the worlds intelligence services. However, we agreed to end the war if Saddam agreed to dismantle all WMDs and programs and prove that it was done to the UN. He failed to do so so we started shooting again.

When exactly did we Bomb them every week of the the 10 year truce? I know they fired on US and UK planes patrolling the no-fly zones nearly weakly but I do not know of any weekly bombing campaign on Iraq.



The US Ignored the UN charter because the US is tired of the UN failing to back it's own stances while working all sorts of backroom deals that allow various interests to profit from the status quo. The UN has made itself a joke.