Why the hell should a decades old conflict be considered part of GWs war on terrorism? Don’t you think that maybe, just maybe, GW is primarily concerned with terrorism in the fucking country he leads? :rolleyes:
Well, he has spent a lot of time and national lives and treasure over the mistreatment of the population of a country that he doesn’t lead. In fact he went to war over it, or so he claims.
And it seems to me that stupid war has interfered and does interfere every day with the war on terrorism.
Yes, and it was a poorly-chosen example. I’m sure I was clear about that.
Oh, wait - I think you just whooshed me, Alien. You were being facetious, weren’t you. :smack:
Now that is an argument. Clearly starting a war with a country which was not even the country which attacked us could only interfere with our war of retribution…
Oh, wait. I’ve been watching too much D-Day coverage. 
Oh, I see - so then we are supposed to accept as unfalsifiable, the premise that Bush’s “war on terrorism” is, or is going to be, effective. Cute.
If you believe that to evaluate the effectiveness of Bush’s policies, we must go back to 1993, then no, I really don’t think you DO understand.
I haven’t seen you do so. You don’t disprove a statement merely by saying “I can do that.”
Actually, I sincerely doubt that you could. But even if you could, the proper response would be to show how your conclusion is in error, not mere hand-waving about, “anybody can do that”, or “that’s carrot logic”, or other meaningless cliches.
First of all, nobody is looking at terrorist incidents from Bush’s FIRST day in office, because it’s obvious that one day is not enough time to enact any changes in policy. The OP looked at TWO YEARS after HIS DECLARED WAR ON TERRORISM, not one day after he took office. So please stop with the inapt comparisons.
And second - cite?
Not really relevant to the discussion, but anti-abortionists committed at least 265 acts of violence in the United States that year. Cite. I always wonder why this isn’t treated as a terrorism problem.
You certainly have.
We didn’t start WWII as a preemptive war. We didn’t even enter it against Germany as a preemptive strike. Many people, before the attack on Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, claimed that out actions in the Atlantic were provocative so go ahead and expand on that if you choose - somewhere else.
You could also have defended GW’s actions by pointing out that we incarcerated a whole bunch of people without trial and held them for several years without even any charges against them, just like now.
We since admitted that was a blunder. Of course you can also find a lot of people who deny that it was.
What does this have to do with the success or lack thereof of the ‘war on terrorism?’
I appologize for the snipiness of that post. I was merely trying to make a remark about the idea that Iraq has nothing to do with our war agianst terror because it has nothing to do with the country which attacked us. My only point was that we Declared war on Germany dispite the fact that Japan had been the one to attack us. It was a minor point and not really worth commenting on. I appologize.
Not to derail this any further, but we declared war on Germany because they declared war on us.
Noooooo. You can certainly suggest that it is ineffective so far. But to claim that this means that it is not working requires more evidence. There certainly are ways to asses the current state (re:success or failure) of the war on terror. But simply noting that additional terrorist attacks have occured is no more valid than noting that German attacks against the US increased in 1942. Certainly true, but not nearly enough evidence to maintain that the policy was mistaken or that it should be abandoned.
My bad. Although I notice the two declarations were pretty close together. Thanks for the link.
Good point, but I disagree with your analogy. Very few argued that going after al Qaeda and OBL was not an effective strategy against terrorism. It’s the other things that are much less directly related, such as the Iraq invasion and the Patriot Act. A better analogy might be if, rather than fighting Germany and Japan after Pearl Harbor, we had attacked Australia or something. Then it might reasonably have been asked, “Why are we doing this? Is this helping to end the war?” Or to use a real situation, we can ask whether the internment of U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry really helped the war effort.
Another thing to note is that the Bush administration has trumpeted the supposed reduction in terrorism after his War on Terror started. Is it fair to claim it as evidence for him, but when that is contradicted by statistics, then claim it’s not relevant?
So if not the number of terrorist incidents, then what is your criteria for assessing the effectiveness?
Excuse me for sticking my two cents in here but …
I would think the purpose of a war on terrorism would be to get rid of terrorists and their support so as to reduce the number of terrorist attacks. it the number of attacks increases or stays the same aren’t you just putting people in jail, killing them and spending a lot of money to no good end?
Besides the necessary retributions after actual attacks, which you could think of as enforcing the law, I would think a true war on terrorism would be concentrated on mitigating and, if possible, removing the reasons that persons become terrorists in the first place. There were, in fact, some encouraging words from the Powell wing right after 9/11 about “draining the swamp”. But this administration has seemingly gone out of its way to radicalize people who would have been moderate realists if treated respectfully. By acting oppressively and humiliatingly, giving no sign of being willing to listen to and act on grievances, they make it look like the only language Americans know is that of force, and that makes acts of terror seem like the only approach available to those they’ve made into enemies. Bush has not fought terror; he’s engendered it.
Except, in this case, it suggests very strongly more enemy combatants are being created. In WWII the enemy was a constant (or constantly declining) force. Swelling your enemy’s ranks by upsetting otherwise peaceful people seems a queer way to run a war to me.
blowero Agreed. The analogy is a poor one in many respects.
Absolutely not. I hope I have not done this.
At this early stage in the war on terror, I would hesitate to reduce the status to a pass fail analysis. I consider this to be a very long and difficult undertaking. There will be good news, and bad news. Early on the bad new may indeed dominate.
I suppose I have not answered your question. Sorry about that. I’m just not sure how to reduce such a complex question to a simple solution.
David Simmons: Not necessarily. Granted, if the number of terrorist attacks continues to rise over time, then the war could eventually be said to have been lost. My only contention is that is a bit early to reduce the war to a single number and claim success or failure.
I’m not entirely sure about that. Terrorist recruitment has been going on for a long time all over the world. While current actions probably have affected it negatively (that is the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have increased recruitment), I’m not at all convinced that these people would not have been recruited anyway. Perhaps not as fast, or perhaps not as vehemently. But the sorts of people willing to follow Bin Laden were not exactly sympathetic to the cause of stamping out terrorism in the first place.
I guess I’m simply taking the long view on this issue. I’m willing to criticize the Administration for politicizing it by taking credit for the early reports of reduced terrorist activity.
A far better analogy would be if we had invaded Spain. Franco was a ruthless dictator, who came into power with the assistance of our enemies, and though he claimed to be neutral who could be sure. It would also have been relatively easy to take him out. Though not doing so left him in power for another 30 years or so, would having invaded Spain really have helped the war effort?
OK except that the administration has used the State Department reports on the incidence of terrorist attacks to claim success according to a story in the Los Angeles Times of today, 9 June.
I would give the cite but the damned site still won’t let me in.
The story concerns the fact that State is correcting its method of tallying such incidents because of what seems to be a legitimate claim that they have been under counting. I say the claim seems legitimate because State is changing their methods in response to it.
First paragraph of the story: “The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003 …”
And there is this quote from the story: "When the most recent ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’* report was issued April 29 senior Bush administrations officials immediately hailed it as objective proof they were winning the war on terrorism."*
So you need to write and tell them to cut it out.