Has the Iraq war made the U.S. safer?

Great Debates
21

“By siphoning off many of the hot-headed Islamists in the region, (and their money/resources), there are less hot-headed Islamists that are thinking about how swell it would be to take out the Sears Tower”
This “theory” was looked at and found seriously wanting in this thread

The war has probably damaged US national security. Let me repeat my post in errata's [thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=205684) on the matter:

"No, the war has probably damaged American national security.

As you note if Iraq actually has any WMD the failure of the American troops to secure them means that the war has increased the chances that they fall in the hands of terrorists. This was, of course, the very thing the war was supposed to prevent.

In addition to this:
1)The war has cost the US one of its most valuable intelligence sources about Islamic terrorists: Syria.

  1. There have been reports of increased Al-quaeda recruiting and certainly there is great anger in the Arab world about the war.

3)The continuing deployments in horrible conditions in Iraq will erode troop morale and readiness and perhaps reduce recruitment in future years.

4)While it was focussed on Iraq the administration has let the situation in Afghanistan and North Korea drift. The latter is probably the most serious threat facing the US.

5)The war and its aftermath will probably end up costing 100-200 billion dollars. That is money that could have been used improving homeland security among other things.

6)The war has badly damaged American credibility and alienated public opinion in almost every single allied country.

I can barely see any plus side from the pov. of US national security to balance even one of these points let alone all of them. Sure Saddam was a brutal dictator but there is little reason to believe he was a significant threat to the US."

22

Well then, how about this:

No country is attacked because it is too strong. Countries are attacked because they are weak.

Terrorists went after the U.S. because they thought it would work. They had good reason to believe that U.S foreign policy was feckless, and Americans were prone to caving in and running away when the heat was on.

Terrorists bombed the barracks in Beirut. Result? The U.S. withdrew from Lebanon.

Some soldiers are dragged through the streets in Mogadishu, and the Americans pack up and leave.

The World Trade Center is attacked in 1993, an act which came close to being much, much worse than the second WTC bombing, and the U.S. response is to treat it like a criminal matter. Arrest a couple of people, throw them in jail, and forget it.

The Cole is attacked. Feckless response. The Khobar Towers are bombed. Feckless response.

The message: America is weak. America can be pushed around. Americans are despicable, because they are slovenly and lack courage. The terrorists have courage. The terrorists will win, because they are willing to do the hard, dirty work that Americans don’t have the stomach for.

Terrorism has been negotiated away and appeased for decades. It’s gotten worse. I fail to see how more appeasement, negotiation, and ‘understanding’ is going to do anything but have them treat the west with even more contempt.

It was time to put Marines in the mud. Time to take the fight to the enemy. Time to show them just how tough American soldiers can be. Hell, how tough Americans can be. And Canadians. And Brits. And Australians. And anyone else willing to join the fight.

The passengers of Flight 93 struck the first blow. They put the terrorists on notice, that civilized people aren’t about to sit like cattle and allow themselves to be used as missiles. The next lesson was taught in Afghanistan, but even there the terrorists could tell themselves that the Americans were cowards who hid behind smart bombs and remotely-piloted vehicles.

But Iraq is different. In Iraq, it’s soldier against soldier. The military has stepped up to the plate, and they are showing the people of the region how tough they can be, but also how magnanimous they can be in victory. It was a necessary lesson, and Iraq was the perfect place for it.

Now the Islamist nutbars are streaming into Iraq, still believing that they just have to bloody America’s nose a little bit more, and they’ll run away. What they have to find out is that even trying it buys them a quick grave and no other result. For every American they kill, 20 terrorists are killed or captured.

What would help a lot is if the entire country stood up, and offered a message of resolve: Give us your best shot. We’re as tough as you are, and smarter.

That’s why I liked Bush’s Bring it on! comment. It was the perfect message, in the perfect tone. Everyone should be saying the same thing.

Then, while you’re killing them willy-nilly, you offer an alternative. Give them hope. Show them a better way. Rebuild Iraq. Enlist the Iraqi people. Show the Arab world that they can build a democracy, that their young men have a choice other than unemployment and martyrdom.

That’s how you beat terrorism. Iraq is a very important piece of the puzzle, because it’s both the battleground and (hopefully) an example of a better way.

23

Brutus, I’m certain that those in SE Asia, NW and SE Africa, and Israel feel safer now that the terrorists are focusing on Iraq.

Wait, they just had devastating terrorist attacks in their areas, oops.

Oh, and I’m certain that since America is safer now, Ashcroft and co. can lead the repealing of the Patriot Act, meant to be gone when the war on terror is over.

Wait, you’re telling me that Ashcroft is going cross-country and recruiting all fed prosecutors to drum up support for this law? Really now.

24

I was going to stay out of this one, but the idea of the cold war making anyboy safer intrigued me somewhat, so I’ve been trying to think of how any of us are safer because of it.

Russia eventually went banckrupt, largely because of the cold war from what I gather.

The demise of a centralized and accountable control over thousands of nuclear weapons and huge amounts of weapons-grade materials, the fracturing of political and social structures to the point of civil war, the changing ownership of nuclear weapons into hands of those at far greater risk by geography to immediate conflict, and the scattering of anti-west power into differing and differently governed centers of concentration seem to me to be relatively unsafe things.

On the other hand, there’s anough nuclear ordinance on OUR side to vaporize us all many times over. This is precisely because of the one-upmanship soooo prevalent in the Kennedy/ Johnson/Nixon era. There’s only one solid (or logical) reason why the nuclear arsenals had to grow larger than the annihilation level of the planet. Profits of those who made them. No other reason can be proven reasonable once we cross the threshold of total vaporization of the rock we’re on, IMHO, but I digress.

The amounts of nuclear weapons capable of inflicting extermination level damage continent wide , the absolute polarization of previously independent nations into an East vs. West political stance with “our” target being easily painted around the Pentagon, the animosity on the part of formerly Soviet-supported states towards the west, (read “Middle East, Asia, parts of Central America and a quarter of the civilised world”), and the use of American insurgency, political manipulation, and puppet government states to further the corporate hegemony so nothing to impress upon me our improved safety, as perceived “good guys” or “bad guys”.

If having tens of millions of people worldwide with deep and murderous grudges against America AND against the Soviets is a success, then so be it.

And if having tens of thousands of fresh dead and maimed in Iraq (regardless of the righteousness of the legally unprovoked attack) makes us any safer from rabid anti-American hatred, having the alliances with former military brothers in arms brutally severed, and having an entire generation of extremists swear to annihilate anything American they can makes any of us any safer, then…

I guess the real proof of improved safety is in the terror alerts now commonplace, the and the resurgence of the stated threat of large-scale international conflict … I guess it’ll be safer yet when you finally exterminate those pesky foreigners with their uppity independent ways.:rolleyes:

25

Oh yeah P.S. don’t forget the old adage “You’re always safer with a bunch of NEW AND IMPROVED nuclear weapons around!!!”

26

Cite?

27

That’s pretty much exactly the opposite of what’s going on isn’t it? Islamic terrorists are hitting Israel, the strongest country in the region, and the US, the nation with the most powerful military in the history of mankind. If they’re choosing their targets based on weakness, why do Costa Rica and Luxembourg keep getting a pass?

28

Too bad for them. America is not responsible for every country in the world; America is. however, responsible for the security of the American homeland, first and foremost. America has taken steps to curb terrorism at home; If other nations are having a problem with terrorism, they too should take steps to protect themselves.

**

Certain self-proclaimed ‘civil libertarians’ have a problem with security measures, it appears. I would certainly take issue with some self-righteous, head-up-ass, city councilman taking it upon himself to reduce my security. I don’t buy for one second that the USPA reduces my civil liberties by so much as one iota.

Opposition to Ashcroft and the US Patriot act hardly means the threat has passed. But if some idiotic local politicians can score some points by mindlessly attacking it, they will.

29

Go right ahead, Sam. But it won’t do any good for you to say it from the comfort of your own home.

OTOH, since the US is desperately trying to recruit foreign cannon-fodder for the Iraq snafu, I’m sure they could give you front and center accommodations in say, Baghdad or Tikrit.

If you took december with you, I just might be tempted to yell some of that “Bring it on!” nonsense myself. 'cause I know how brave and righteous both of you are and how much you’d enjoy being on the recieving end of an Iraqi resistance fighter’s ire.

Heck, your idea is so good, I suggest you recruit the Great Misleader himself.

A guy can dream, right?

30

If you actually believe that the only threat of terrorism for America is domestic, you are seriously mistaken. The Jakarta bombers have been linked to al-Qaeda, Bali bombings as well. Hambali was involved in the USS Cole bombings as well as the Bali and Jakarta bombings. If anything these terrorist attacks have shown that we failed miserably in the war on terror and are in no better shape than we were before. Bush said we “destabilized” al-Qaeda and all that crap. Well this is obviously not true. And it is only a matter of time before Bush learns it the hard way.

31

Ah yes. The bravery of being out of range.

32

“Give them hope. Show them a better way. Rebuild Iraq. Enlist the Iraqi people”
Of course one of the many problems of the silly “flypaper” theory is that all these goals are undercut by the ongoing terrorist attacks. You are not going to get much rebuilding done when there are multiple terrorists attacks everyday destroying vital infrastructure and bombing UN offices.

And there is zero evidence that the people attacking US forces today would othewise be attacking US civilians. What the war has done is created a whole new group of people who weren’t killing Americans but are now: Baathist militias. And there are those radical Shia militias in Iraq who may not be fighting now but who are certainly no friends of the US. You don’t fight terrorism by creating whole new classes of enemies.

The irony is that Iraq was not a major source of anti-American terrorism before the war. In fact it was probably provided the least number of recruits to Al-queda among major Arab countries. This is likely to change now.

33

If you don’t mind, CyberPundit . . .

34

Forgot to add:

A-fucking-men.

35

In terms of military attacks I might agree, but terrorism arises generally when the adversaries are beaten militarily. Terrorism, followed closely be guerilla war, is the strategy for dealing with a militarily superior opponent.

What does “work” mean to you? Really, I’m curious.

Do you really think that’s why people hate the US?

What did the Iraq war have to do with appeasing terrorists? You seem to be muddling issues here.

That reminds me of a quote pertaining to Vietnam.

I’d laugh at this if it wasn’t so sick.

Once again, the Iraq/terrorism link needs to be explicit for your argument to make any sense.

36

And, if we fail, show them that Western-style democracy can never work in the Arab world, making the Islamists the only remaining political opposition to the status quo.

Quite a big risk to take, I would think, considering that the sort of success envisioned by the Administration has never before been achieved.

37

I find it amusing that the same people who always said that the US government should only be concerned with US interests (screw the UN and the rest of the world) are now so concerned with liberating the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein.

I loathed president Clinton but I liked his choice for Secretary of State, Madelaine Albright who I always found had a pretty good perspective on international politics. I can say the same today: I loathe president Bush but I like Colin Powell and I wish Bush had listened to Powell and not to Rumsfeld.

Here’s what Ms. Albright has to say now:

I agree with her.

38

Yes, similar to the cynicism of being out of range. Except one of them wasn’t ripped from Roger Waters.

39

You think we should invade another country and occupy it indefinitely, in order to give Americans the illusion of safety?

Wow. Just wow.

Besides, shouldn’t Afghanistan have been enough, illusion-wise?

And wouldn’t you say the events of the past week have shattered the illusion? What do we do now to get it back, invade yet another country?

40

“For every American they kill, 20 terrorists are killed or captured.”

Now whose policies of retribution does THAT one remind me of?

And Read_Neck, I can’t cite sources for an opinion. I guess the cite would be me… I made sure to include the little IMHO on that observation. Nope, I can’t prove it, but I can’t prove that Oswald didn’t act alone either, so…

And is that how it is now? Anybody that attacks American forces is a terrorist simply because they attacked American forces?