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

Great Debates
101

The time to “put up” would be in another thread. Why don’t you just admit you don’t have a clue instead of trying to change the argument?

Frankly however, it hasn’t been demonstrated that the Iraq had anything to do with eliminating terrorism. I don’t even know the Dubya said that. It was about Saddamm. And now Saddamm is gone (mostly) but I don’t feel any safer because his threat to the US was minimal if any, but now a large number of US soldiers are in harm’s way for an indefinite period.

The thread just posits the question “are we safer” not “has it eliminated all terrorism”. If you can’t answer that question, then you must admit that it wasn’t one of the goals, or if was than the goal wasn’t clearly demonstrable.

102

december:

Oh, I just love the new strategy – it looks darling on you.

But let’s fight fire with fire, shall we?

To which you reply:

Now my question runs: why on earth would Demo owe you an apology, when he did nothing other that state a truism?

After all, he didn’t call you a liar.

103

Errata said:

Okay, here you go:

Terrorism: What’s your plan?

104

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by december *
Here are some examples: [ul][li]The Ku Klux Klan[]The “Werewolves” in post WW2 Germany[]Cuban Communists attempting to overthrow other Latin American govrnments[]The Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas[]American “gay-bashers” []Students for a Democratic Society and other “new left” groupsMurderers of abortion doctors[/ul] [/li][/QUOTE]

That’s a rather odd list. But it rather proves my position, actually. Now, note that there are two different sort of groups here. There are your nationalist/revolutionary guerillas, and there are your extremists, usually religious, bent on terror. Of the former, you have the “Werewolves” and the “Cuban communists”. I know of no insurgency in Central America that was actually put down by force. Held in check by force, yes, but that is another thing. All the insurgencies I know of ended either through negotiation, as in El Salvador, victory, as in Nicaragua, or generally changing social conditions leading to cessation of popular support. If you want to make a case that any were put down by force, I’d be interested in seeing it. And you have yet to demonstrate that your “Werewolves” actually existed as a guerilla movement, so speculation as to why they vanished seems a tad futile. Perhaps the full moon set and they became ordinary Germans once again, yes?

Of the terrorists, it’s not clear to me that any on your list actually have had force used against them in an effort to eliminate them. It’s also not clear that any have been eliminated. I’ll skip over the Branch Davidians, because I don’t see how they even qualify for the list under either category. The KKK, gaybashers, abortion murderers, all still exist, none have had force brought to bear except for criminal procedings in the case of individual crimes, and none have dwindled due to such procedings. To the extent that they have dwindled, it’s been due to changing societal opinions, which, of course, supports my position, not yours.

Finally, I find it very odd that you’ve decided to label yourself as a terrorist who’s been defeated by force. I also find it odd that you’d call students protesting a war terrorists, and that you’d say they’d been defeated. They were protestors, and things got unruly at time, but there was no campaign of terror, except possibly on the part of Guardsmen at Kent State. And the protestors won, remember? That whole pulling out of Saigon thing ring any bells? Without the war, there was nothing to protest against, and all that was left were a few starry-eyed idealists. How this is supposed to be a point in your favour is beyond me.

Sam, I gave you “the answer” in my last post.

And last, you know, this whole terrorism thing is rather a red herring. Treating it as the central issue assumes that the war in Iraq is a “battle in the war on terrorism.” It is not, or at least, it was not, though it may be becoming one, due to the fact that it appears to be breeding a good many terrorists. Brilliant, that.

105

I’m not trying to pull an “I told you so;” rather, I’m generally curious: Is this post a tacit admission that fighting fire with fire (i.e., “Bringing it on”) is a tactic doomed to failure? If so, then why the smarmy belligerence? Are you just being pouty?

If, however, you still stand by your original assertion that we need to meet the terror with our own draconian violence, then I’ve got two questions:

(1) Would you mind justifying your position? Saying, “I’d like to see you come up with something better!” is not adequate justification. While justifying your position, please address the historical situations where Bush’s plan would have (or has) failed: Palestine vs Israel, Russia vs Chechnya, 1776 US vs 1776 UK, etc. See my earlier post, as well as Gorsnak’s, for further specific examples.

(2) If you’re not going to answer question 1, why should I bother addressing this new, highly confrontational question of yours? Just to have my answer ignored again?

106

Yes, it’s quite disparate. But, none of these groups were stopped by understanding, by tolerance, by sympathy, by providing financial support or welfare payments. They were defeated by police and military action.

The point is, no other Latin American country went Communist. That’s a good result. When Che Guevera was active, there was real risk of Communism spreading throughout Latin America.

I’ll pass for now. Maybe some other poster is more familiar with the details and can save me from searching.

There’s no dispute that the Werewolves existed. The only question is the magnitude. Without checking, I am absolutely positive that they weren’t stopped by the US providing sympathy or economic aid to saboteurs. That sort of “advanced” defence concept didn’t yet exist.

There were people in the SDS who got involved in murders and bombings. Those were the terrorists.

You have a point that the anti-war side did get its way. It may be that the end of their terrorism is more because of the end of the war and end of the draft.

107

We have a basic problem here. We have one bunch of people who take the position that the justifications listed by the President in the State of the Union Speech are just and righteous altogether and are therefore beyond discussion and debate—that Iraq was actively supporting BenLiden and the boys, that Sadam somehow had a hand in the September 11 Catastrophe, that Iraq had nuclear weapons on the verge of being ready for deployment and biological weapons and chemical weapons actually deployed, that Sadam was ready to give the Bios and the Chems to BenLaden and the boys and that he was certain to give them nukes just as soon as he had them. It is their position that since the invasion all those threats posed by Iraq have been eliminated. Thus, Sadam will fly no more airplanes into tall buildings in American cities. The threat has been eliminated.

On the other hand we have people who thing that the justifications for the invasion of Iraq were largely, if not wholly, based on conjecture, speculation and wishful thinking. They think that the invasion has not eliminated a threat because there never was a credible threat to begin with.

These two lines of thought will never be reconciled because it one is correct then the other is erroneous. Both sides of this issue will readily concede that their position is correct, but neither will willingly acknowledge the bare possibility that their position could conceivably be erroneous. Right now the people who claim that the invasion was premised on false assumption seems to have the better position. Despite a presence on the ground for something like five months American troops, FBI agents, CID operatives and who knows how many expert task forces of civilian and military experts have produced not one shred of a viable nuclear, biological or chemical weapon, not even the forensic traces of such weapons. Nothing has turned up that shows any connection between Iraq and BenLaden and the boys, no indication that Iraq in any way supported, supplied or financed BenLaden.

None the less, the people who see Iraq as being a threat to the United States continue to trumpet that the US is safer because the threat posed by Iraq has been eliminated. To the extent that the US is made safer by the elimination of an IMAGINARY threat this is a justifiable statement. By the same token, a small child is made safer by assurances that Daddy has looked in the closet and chased the bogeyman away.

In the mean time, one might reasonably think that the alienation of pretty much all of the Islamic world, the rupture of our relations with our traditional European allies, the emasculating of the UN and the over extension of our armed forces and the continued existence of BenLaden and the boys (and their enhanced recruiting) and the chronic civil disorder in Iraq might just very effectively counter balance what ever a security the nation and its vital interests might have gained by the elimination of the IMAGINARY threat posed by Iraq.

108

And where, pray tell, have I advocated that as a strategy? You appear confused. Insofar as I advocated a strategy, I pointed to Northern Ireland, where to my knowledge there has been precious little “sympathy” shown to those engaged in terror, let alone financial support or welfare payments. What I said, was, address the legitimate grievances which drive men to illegitimate actions. Modify the social context so that there is no place for the violent hatred to fester. This doesn’t mean sympathy or welfare, for chrissakes, since the lack of such is not particularly likely to result in extremism. In Northern Ireland it has largely just been giving the republicans a political voice. In Latin America (where another country did indeed become communist, and since it’s already been mentioned twice in this thread, I’m surprised it slipped your mind), the grievances were peasant farmers being pushed off their land by the business cronies of authoritarian dictators (I oversimplify, of course). The decline in insurgencies was not a result of brute force brought to bear against them, but reformation of the corrupt governments they fought against (again, I oversimplify).

The KKK, insofar as it has diminished, has not done so as a result of police action. It has done so as a result of the declining level of social acceptibility of racism. The use of brute force against the Branch Davidians, who so far as I know where not bent on terror at all, merely on arming themselves against the coming apocalypse or something which ran them into trouble with the ATF, is a failure of precisely the sort I’m trying to point out, insofar as it provided the motivation for someone who was bent on terror, i.e., Timothy McVeigh.

You seem to think that the only alternative to brute force is this ridiculous strawman you’ve built of showing love and sympathy for the terrorists. It is not. I know of no one with any sense who doesn’t support vigourous police action (not military action, mind you) against terrorists, to eliminate those that already exist, and to minimize their effectiveness. The mistake is in thinking that this is somehow the complete answer, or that if it isn’t, the rest of the answer is more force. It is not. It is a mystery to me why anyone would think that the prospect of being killed is likely deter anyone who is willing to die for a cause. The complete answer is that in addition to the police work, the social context which is breeding new terrorists needs to be altered, eliminating the hatred, or despair, or fanaticism, or whatever it is that is motivating the people in question. This, of course, is hard. It is complex. It takes decades or longer. So I guess it’s no surprise that people looking for solutions before the next election aren’t keen on it, but that’s no excuse for someone with aspirations to understanding the nature of problem such as yourself.

And of course, this all has SFA to do with Iraq anyways. Insofar as the US has been “soft” on terror in the past, it hasn’t been connected to Iraq in any way. The demographic heart of Al Qaeda appears to be Saudi Arabia. Invading Iraq as a means of deterring those people is sort of like the North invading California prior to the Confederacy’s seccesion in order to dissuade them. (I saw someone handing out seccessionist tracts in San Fransisco, I swear it’s true! Oh, well, we can’t have that! Send in the cavalry! That’ll show those Virginians!) It’s just going to add fuel to the fires already burning, is all.

It may be? Yes, that is true. It may be. It may be that bears shit in the woods, too.

109

Interestingly, I read this as “desperate” :wink:

Gorsnak - I love your posts.

110

Scylla: Is it your thesis that if the number of police in the US were doubled or halved overnight, there would be no change in the crime rate? In either case the change is far less than the order of magnitude you require. My completely ignorant horribly unqualified man on the street WAG would be that halving the police force, even if done with extreme care and selection, would probably end up with a significantly higher crime rate. I would also guess that if you doubled the number of police the crime rate would go down (until the tax revolt that is). The argument for more troops is that if you have more troops you can have visible force (deterrent/threat/security blanket) in a lot more areas and still have the ability to guarantee that anyone who does attack will rapidly be in the center of a shitstorm of Yankees.

I would also wager that CENTCOM would not make requests for more troops via the media, especially if POTUS and SECDEF have made it abundantly clear that such a request would be poorly received at best (and a public request would not be popular at all). That other similarly qualified individuals (Shinseki, others with peacekeeping experiene in Bosnia, etc) who are not currently part of the chain of command take the opposite view - many more troops now may or may not be equally significant. (After all if I allow for the possibility that CENTCOM is following the party line, I have to allow for the fact that old lefty McCain is just partisan sniping)

Sam Stone I don’t think anyone would argue that force is irrelevant to “solving” terrorism/guerilla warfare but rather what is the proper application or forum for its application, and is force on its own sufficient to the solution. My read is that historically when facing a guerilla threat both carrot and stick are necessary - alienate the guerillas from the population, improve the population’s life, and limit opportunities for successful guerilla attacks. Err - Nation building. Malyasia, the Phillipines, etc

With respect to countries only starting wars with weak (or weak-er) countries I say hogwash. Most countries/leaders have historically been piss-poor at estimating their enemies strengths. Even Germany when it made its most rational decisions to start wars it has not been due to its enemies weakness but rather that even though they were strong, they would only get stronger. Britain has always done its incredible balance of power calculations to make sure it was always on the opposite side from the strongest power (WWII notwithstanding). Weak countries can be ignored, strengthening ones are a threat. Equally balance forces but with the situation worsening in the forseeable future for one side - now there’s the ticket for war. (Megalomaniacal rulers help too, but then you throw the whole rational analysis of strength out the window)

However, while an interesting historical aside (okay, except for the interesting part) this really has nothing to do with terrorism. If the terrorists could stand up and take us on mano a mano with a prayer of success they would do so in a heartbeat. Much more impressive, better propoganda, easier to justify, no need to encourage suicidal behavior - a lot going for it. Terrorism is the first and last refuge of the weak.

Even were naked unalloyed force the solution to terrorism it would not necessarily justify the invasion of Iraq without some decent evidence of linkage.

On the “flypaper” theory: It seems to me that you can argue the humanitarian explanation for Iraqi invasion or you can favor the flypaper theory but not both - setting Iraqi civilians in the crossfire between a firepower intensive US force and a random smattering of renegade Baathists, resentful Sunnis, ambitious Shiias, and imported Wahabi terrorists is not consistent with making their lives better (and now we have Turkmen v Kurds going on too). So if you are seeking a non WMD related reason to invade Iraq and you want to use “humanitarian intervention” you are not allowed to also use “flypaper”.

111

Oops, forgot to say:

With respect to the OP: Too soon to tell.

112

No. That is not my thesis.

Our armed forces are not the same thing as police.

The threat is terrorists and guerrilla fighters. These are not police problems.

The high crime rates in Iraq are a police problem.

The terrorists and guerrilla fighters are a military problem. By all accounts there are not enough policemen in Iraq.

The problem facing our troops in Iraq right now is not a manpower shortage. It is an intelligence shortage.

You cannot solve the latter simply by adding more of the former.

113

First, when we removed the Iraqi police, we became the police by default (and I’m pretty sure legally as well) - we cannot simply wait until there are enough retrained Iraqi police personnel. More visible troops would probably have some deterrent effect on crime, at least on making the streets safe.

Second, taking care of the crime problem would help with the intelligence problem. The terrorists are targeting people who aid us. If we are incapable of protecting teh general populace from criminals how can we expect them to believe we can protect informers from terrorists (especially given that we could protect neither the Jordanian embassy nor the UN from terrorists)

More troops would partly compensate for an intelligence shortage. With the exception of the two suicide bombings most of the attacks have been hit and run raids. If the guerillas know that there is nowhere they can hit where they are not close to several heavily armed groups of Americans they will have to reconsider their topics or suffer heavy casualties. It should be noted that prior to WWII the Chinese Nationalists had considerable success against the Communist forces using a blockhouse strategy - having large numbers of troops dispersed in groups large enough to handle any reasonable number of Communist Guerillas - eventually the Communists were choked out of those operating areas.

In order to defeat guerillas you need the forces to hold what you have, prevent them from attacking what’s yours, as well as chase them down whenever you run into them. It seems that we don’t have forces enough even to do the first.

I think the police/military issue with respect to terrorism and guerillas is much more of a spectrum thing than a difference of kind. Guerillas are definitely a military issue but terrorism kind of is all over the place.

114

As to the amount of troops in Iraq. Rummy has said more times than once that we don’t need any more troops. Does any one expect the men that work for him to differ?

They are asking for troops from other countries…yet they have never said it was to replace ours.

That says a lot.

115

Scylla I still think my bad police analogy works to a certain extent (bad analogy, not bad police). Unless we have hit on the perfect force level I think that more troops should mean faster response times.

But even leaving the analogy aside, you dismiss a doubling or trebling of troop size as unlikely to have any effect. Is the converse true - could we cut 50% or 33% (or 25% or 10%) of our forces without reduction in our ability to provide either civil or military security? I don’t think so, and my guess is neither does CENTCOM (or they would send the troops home). I realize that there are probably threshhold levels - say less than 100k it don’t matter how good they are there just is too much space and >500k they just get in each other’s way - but I don’t know where those thresholds might lie. I very much doubt we are at the upper threshhold.

It occurs to me that we could be at the most efficient level of garrisoning - at the point where the curve just starts to start leveling off - we may estimate that an additional 25% of forces may only bring10-15% more effectiveness, in which case increasing force levels would not make sense to administration trying to do imperialism on the cheap. Oh well, for this last paragraph I am pretty much talking out of my ass. (You may feel that I am overly constraining that previous sentence)

Good morning and happy monday