Given the recent spate of suicide bombings and stalled Mideast peace talks, I thought we might re-open the discussion that was started in this thread: Terrorist attacks drop. Is the War on Terror working?
For those who thought the “War on Terror” was working to end terrorism, do you still think so?
yes.
This is not a survey but a debate. You are supposed to support and reason your views.
Yes and no.
Has the war on terrorism put a crimp in the plans of terrorists around the world? Definitely.
Have we gotten all of the terrorists? Definitely not. Will we ever get all of the terrorists via the War on Terror? Definitely not.
Unfortunately it only takes one single nutcase to do huge damage (ala Timothy McVeigh). Out of some 6 billion people in the world there is always going to be some who are disenfranchised and willing to blow other people up to spout whatever it is they are on about.
You will never be able to stop random suicide bombers completely via the military or police. Hopefully we can prevent the really big stakes such as hijacking four planes in one day and toppling two skyscrapers. Then again maybe not but it will certainly be harder for terrorists to pull off BIG attacks such as that than it was two years ago.
So when are we sending troops into Northern Ireland to take care of the IRA? Or into France/Spain to clear out those pesky Basque (ETA)? Or are we only interested in clearing out those insidious non-christian terrorists? Or hey - why not go into Israel to clear out Hamas?
It was interesting listening to Bush talk about making those responsible for the recent bombings in Saudi Arabia and Morroco ‘pay’ for their actions. Isn’t that what the war in Afghanistan was about? Hmmm… didn’t seem to have done much good to me.
The “war” on terrorism seems to be going the same way as the war on drugs.
The term “WAR” seems to be just a catchy frase for politicians to use mindlessly and demagogically.
You don’t fight drugs brutalizing addicts and desperate marginalized dealers
You certainly don’t fight terrorism bombing and killing THOUSANDS of COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEOPLE.
We are going after the group that attacked us, and the groups allied with them. Not every other country’s domestic terrorism problem. We don’t expect Britain to be sending troops to help us deal with the ELF or abortion clinic bombers. Duh.
I take it then that you have proof that there would not have been more terrorists attacks had we not gone to war in Afghanistan?
Or, perhaps, since SAT scores have not gone up since the establishment of the Dept of Education, you would advocate its abolition? No? Didn’t think so.
Actually, it appears my last analogy was incorrect. To make it more accurately reflect the situation. Let’s say SAT scores had gone up since the establishment of the DoE (overall, I believe they haven’t, but for the sake of argument) but they weren’t all 1600. Would you then argue that the DoE was a total failure?
no
Perhaps it would’ve help if the OP had some view and reason for the views. I’m guessing Spite was reacting to that.
As for the Isreali bombings, I would not link them with the US’s “war on terror” but on what typically happens when there is any hint of peace talks. The Saudi and Moroccan bombings look more like the terrorism aimed specifically at US and the west.
I thought it was pretty obvious. My view is that, despite an aggressive U.S. foreign policy, terrorism continues. If you care to look at the linked thread, December originally cited a website where the U.S. administration claims credit for a supposed drop in terrorist activity. That was before the recent spate of suicide bombings, and the recent indication that Al Qaeda is still active, despite the fact that eradicating Al Queda was a primary objective of U.S. military actions. What I’m wondering is whether anyone thinks that Bush’s aggressive foreign policy has helped at all to eradicate terrorism. I see no evidence that it has. Other than that, I’m not sure what you want from me. I’ll be happy to post links to news articles about the terrorist activity and cite opinions that the Saudi Arabia bombings have been linked to Al Qaeda, if that will help. Do we need to do that?
But you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. The U.S. administration is perfectly happy to claim credit for a supposed decrease in worldwide terrorism, so any terrorism that occurs in the world is evidence against that claim, whether directly aimed at the U.S. or not. My point is that aggressive military action like the Iraq invasion has not been effective in deterring terrorism. I am not making the positive claim that it has caused terrorism (although I wouldn’t doubt it), but am saying that it has NOT diminished terrorism, as was the plan.
Whack-a-Mole:
The Saudi Arabia bombings appear to have been a coordinated effort of 9 people, backed by Al Qaeda. I don’t agree that it falls under the “single nutcase” category.
If we will never get all of the terrorists, then isn’t the position “the War on Terror is working”, an unfalsifyable one? In other words, what would have to happen for you to say the War of Terror is NOT working?
Whether or not we’re “winning” or “losing” the war on terrorism is virtually unknowable at this point. I have no real idea if we’re “winning” or not.
With that said…
If you told me immediately after the attacks of September 11, 2001 that there would be no further major terrorist attacks* on American soil as of May 21, 2003, I would have been VERY surprised and pleased.
*To clarify, major terrorist attacks from foreign sources. The DC sniper doesn’t count unless Malvo/Muhammad are proven to be linked to al Qaida. DC Snipers were more like serial killers.
I realize that the Saudi attacks seem to have been coordinated. My point is it only takes one wacko to pull off a terrorist bombing which is probably impossible to stop entirely no mater how hard we might try to prevent it. Out of 6 billion people in the world I doubt it is hard to find several thousand would be terrorists.
I guess you have to define what the end goal is for the War on Terror to be considered successful. A 100% stop to all terrorism? Practically impossible. Prevent anything of the scale of the WTC attacks from happening again (or worse)? Might be possible.
The problem is you never know if you’ve succeeded. How much time needs to pass with no attacks to pass before you consider the ‘war’ won?
As mentioned above the use of the word ‘war’ is a rhetorical device and not really relevant. You have wars on crime, drugs, cancer, AIDS, etc. Suffice it to say that people are working to stop these things. Whether they will ever be successful or not doesn’t mean it isn’t worth the effort to try. (Of course what that ‘effort’ actually entails is open to huge debate but I doubt anyone would argue that nothing be done.)
We as a society comprised of ~300 million individuals have to determine that for ourselves. Those of us who take our responsibilities as citizens will respond by voting, debating, etc. Each person will decide what an “acceptable” amount of terrorism is, just like we all determine an “acceptable” amount of other societal ills.
And from the limited evidence I have at my fingertips, at this moment, I think we’re doing as well as could be expected. If events occur that convince me we’re on the wrong track, I’ll adjust my opinion accordingly.
Others will disagree, I’m sure. That’s fine, too.
GoHeels brings up a couple of interesting points in passing:
Was Timothy McVeigh a terrorist or a criminal? How about Richard Reid?
Do attacks on American and UK assets not on American or UK soil count as terrorism?
To an extent, if you define your terms appropriately, you can make the case that there has been less terrorism since the “War on Terror” started (no foreign attacks on American soil by people proven to be associated with groups on the DoJ/State Dept list of Terrorist Organisations) or there have been more attacks on American and coalition (well, ok, British) ciivilians and assets elsewhere in the world that were of an arbitrary and non-specific nature (car-bombs, suicide bombs, other IEDs…).
I am very cynical about the whole “War on Terror” thing.
In much the same way that the “War On Drugs” has been so successful (people have lifetime employment in DEA, local sheriffs can impound and sell property on the suspicion of illegal activity (always a good source of secondary income)), I think the “War on Terror” has spawned a vast bureaucracy and “government welfare program”, a practically bottomless source of “pork” and high-paying jobs for campaign contributors and other jobs for registered voters. And who could be against it? And if public opinion starts to move against the restrictions placed on legitimate activities of citizens, well all we need to do is raise the “Terror Index” to Orange for a few weeks because of an “unspecified threat” or the “possibility of an attack”. We can then lower the alert status when funding is assured; I’m sorry, when our security measures served to save the population.
I’m sure it will do all some good – it will certainly make it harder for young gentlemen of swarthy appearance to hijack aircraft and fly them into buildings (which is a good thing – don’t get me wrong) but terrorists have the long view. It may take a couple of years for the next major attack on American soil, it may take five years. But it will come, and in a way that we have not thought of.
We’ve done the equivalent of putting a big, ugly policeman at the checkout counter of the WalMart in an effort to reduce shoplifting. The TSA and “Homeland Security” will deter and catch the amateurs; the Richard Reid’s who were never much of a threat. They cannot catch the next Osama bin Laden. For that, we need human intelligence. We need people to infiltrate these organizations, and rise to senior positions in the various terrorist groups that we identify as threats. We need the equivalent of Donnie Brasco in organizations that are forming all across the world. I hope and pray that somewhere in the “War on Terror”, the brave men and women of the various intelligence services are out there putting their lives on the line for this great country. But I’m afraid that the present jingoistic administration has a disdain for “indirect” tactics and a great love for gunboat diplomacy.
Do I feel safer now than I did on September 12th, 2001?
No.
Do I feel safer now than I did on January 1st, 2003?
Sadly also no.
(To be fair) Could I come up with a better answer than our government?
Sadly no.
Unless we’re questioning the State Department’s figures, let’s drop the “supposed.” And the study refers to 2002, and for all I know there have been even fewer in 2003, despite the recent high-publicity ones. Or more; I don’t know. There are a lot of caveats one can apply to that State Department study, but absent contrary evidence, it appears that for now at least terrorism is indeed down.
In a sense, yes, as is your position that it is not working. Both sides are arguing from absence, since we have no real way of knowing what would have happened. Did the Battle of Iraq inflame some militants? Certainly; many of them traveled to Iraq to take part. Did it frighten others, as well as eliminating a material supporter for some terrorists? Again, yes. Which one outweighs the other? Hell if I know. If you have some sort of insight into the minds of would-be terrorists, tell us. Better yet, apply to the CIA.
Really, even if there were an increase in attacks, would that mean that the WOT was a long-term failure? It seems to me that if you decide to take down a nest of hornets, you are likely to experience a short-term increase in the number of stings. On the other hand, a short-term decrease might indicate failure, if it meant that people were holed up plotting more major operations.
The one thing I do know – and the Admin made this plain in the first weeks after 9/11 (and it makes complete sense, IMO) – is that the effort will take years, and success or failure will be measured in the long term. It seems to me that fall 2004 will be a fair enough time to step back and assess how things are going at a preliminary stage; in the meantime we have to fight the media urge to revaulate long-term policies every two weeks.
Blowero:
I don’t believe that the US has taken any direct measures against the suicide bombers in Israel. We have encouraged peace talks, but have left it up the Israelis to go after the terrorists. If I’m wrong about that, please correct me. It’s in that sense that I would not use Palestinian suicide bombing rates in Israel as a judge of our success or failure in the war on terror.
I’ll second whoever it was above that said on Sept 12th 2001 I would have said that I’d expect to see more terrorism on US soil by May of 2003. Since we haven’t seen this, I’d say things are going OK. This is a very tough business, and success will be hard to pinpoint.
I’d also say that both McVeigh and Reid were terrorists. They executed or planned to execute attacks specifically aimed at civilians to further a political cause. I’d be curious to see if anyone would say either of those two were not terrorists.
Why ask this? According to Bush (who knows where he got his info) 1/2 the Al Qaeda leadership is dead or arrested. The war on terrorism is only 18 months old.
We are pressuring countries that are currently/were homes to terrorists (pakistan, Syria, Lebanon, Iran) to reform and crack down.
Assets have been frozen.
The FBI has focused more effort on terrorism instead of dumb shit like drugs.
Afghanistans Taliban gov. has been routed.
So i’d say yes. But we haven’t dealt with Saudi Arabia yet.
Fang:
So what´s the connection between Al Qaeda and the former Iraqi government? Has any such connection, whatsoever, been proven? No.
And of course, if there were such a connection it would have been quite absurd, given that Osama bin Laden hated Saddam Hussein and the secular regime of Iraq. So then, what were the motives behind the attack? Iraq as a possible future treat against the USA?
You have a funny idea of what ‘routed’ looks like. For being ‘routed’, they are pretty well organized and pretty darn powerful. They might have been ousted, but certainly not routed. They have, in fact, found a new powerful ally in Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. They still have a stronger hold on some areas of Afghanistan than the new government.