This is eminently sensible, eminently frightening, and eminently unlikely to be acted upon. People need the illusion of saftely when the real thing isn't available.
« Her voice sounded like money . . . | Main | Ground Zero: If you build it, they won't come » Safety first17 Jul 2008 04:12 pm Comments (17)
Should I be ashamed when I saw the domain name of the link, I jumped to the conclusion that there would be no concrete ideas for security? (and not just don't bother doing what you are doing) 
hmmmm.....I wonder if that argument would be made if the Capitol had been hnit on 9/11.......
To defend the Statue of Liberty and whatnot is to fight the terrorist on ground of his choosing. Of course, fighting him on ground of your choosing isn't a good idea if you choose as badly as Iraq.
Of course, fighting him on ground of your choosing isn't a good idea if you choose as badly as Iraq. Still, I'm glad that the collateral damage is as far away from me as possible.
The discussion in the comments seemed to have narrowed to wondering why death by terrorism is worse than death by some other random but much more likely event. Everyone considers this illogical, while ignoring the intent. Car accident may kill many people, and they will kill slightly more or slightly less depending on what steps we take to prevent them. But they will not kill everyone, since they are accidents. Terrorists will, if only given the opportunity.
Of course, fighting him on ground of your choosing isn't a good idea if you choose as badly as Iraq. Neglecting the politics, Iraq is far better ground than Afghanistan. I do concede that you can't neglect the politics, however.
.... it will come back to within our borders. Hmmm, you mean how we had all that terrorism in the '60s, '70s and '80s when we weren't involved in the Middle East? Lets face it. Al Qaeda is spent as an organization capable of direct attack. And, no, it wasn't our efforts in Iraq that accomplished that, it was our (woefully underfunded) efforts in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda today is a "sponsor" of local jihadi groups who act on local grievances. If we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, the risk of another spectacular terrorist attack on US soil would neither rise nor fall one iota. A pull-out of Afghanistan, on the other hand, would probably allow Al Qaeda to reform under its Taliban sponsors. I wish people would stop believing the Administration's line about Iraq and Afghanistan being "two fronts in the global war on terror." They're not two fronts. They're two different wars against two completely different enemies; enemies who only allied themselves after they faced a common enemy - namely us. </rant>
This thread is funny. I think Demonspawn is aware of the illogical nature of his, "they will follow us here" Iraq spiel since Iraq was not fighting us on our soil beforehand and seems to admit that what he is really saying is that they will fight us wherever we choose to fight them (and we chose Iraq). Which, as pointed out, means we chose a really stupid place in Iraq, but Demonspawn points out this is preferable to Afghanistan (who really did attack us on our soil, and according to the US Gov't, would likely be the source of a new attack). With this logic, we could simply leave Iraq and choose a new place for them to follow us to for a fight in the place of our liking. It is unclear what exactly his take is on the war in the country that actually served as the base of operations for the people we are fighting. Needless to say, if they will follow us to wherever we are (like they did in Iraq, or like they would to the US, should we leave Iraq, as he says), we should pick a new spot for a war thats even better than Iraq AND Afghanistan. I propose South East Asia. We've always had SO much luck there. Kidding. Canada or Mexico would have much less transportation costs and many fewer sand storms. With the minutemen on the case, we shouldn't have to worry about it spilling over to the US. Plus, I know for a fact that Canada has a nuclear program so getting the UN on board will be a piece of (yellow)cake, and, they speak French in some areas! Downside...not as many brown people to kill as Mexico. Dead white civilians look a lot worse on the TV...even if they do speak French. /sarcasm Seriously, if some AQ cells in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan wanted to blow something up in the US, how does fighting in Iraq prevent that? The US just abandoned a post, handing it over to the Taliban in Afghanistan the other day. our war policy is inane. Didn't the Iraqi government just ask us for a withdrawal timetable?
Re: But they will not kill everyone, since they are accidents. Terrorists will, if only given the opportunity. I doubt even the most depraved terrorist would or could kill "everyone" if given free reign to do so. Everyhone is six billion plus human beings. Simply for practical reasons that's impossible to achieve. Re: And, no, it wasn't our efforts in Iraq that accomplished that, it was our (woefully underfunded) efforts in Afghanistan.
It makes too much damn sense. No one will ever go for it.
Now apply this to global warming.
With this logic, we could simply leave Iraq and choose a new place for them to follow us to for a fight in the place of our liking. Yep, pretty much. As long as there is a sufficient force there to draw attention (and sufficient assets of theirs to start the fight over). If we went into Jordan or Iran and attacked known assets there, we'd start a new brawl. The problem is we haven't ended the Iraq brawl yet so that would stretch us even thinner. Why is Iraq important? Democracy in the region. Follow through on an invasion. If we leave Iraq in shambles, even as much as so many of us want to (people and nations), then that will just feed the "look, America leaves a mess of thing" retort, no matter that it was what these asinine people wanted!! However, if we finish through and leave a stable government in our wake, we'll gain world respect, middle east respect, and will get much more support the next time we decide to start kicking some ass. It will make those rogue nations much more fearful of us. cont.. It is unclear what exactly his take is on the war in the country that actually served as the base of operations for the people we are fighting. And we're going to need that fear, because we are pretty much done in Afghanistan. Like Iraq, it is a war of pacification. The problem with the nature of terrorism is that it works along UW principles. Our enemies are always "just over the border" and we need to use Iraq to build international support by ending it the RIGHT way (leaving it better than we found it) because to track down terrorism we are going to need to border jump quite a bit. Right now, our enemies aren't in Iraq or Afghanistan. They are in Pakistan and Iran/Jordan and border-jumping into our AO to cause havoc. Seriously, if some AQ cells in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Afghanistan wanted to blow something up in the US, how does fighting in Iraq prevent that? It doesn't prevent it, it just makes it less likely. Why make all the effort to go thru all the US security to come in here and use up US assets to blow up a subway station when it's much easier to create a few IEDs in Iraq or create a skirmish in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border? The war-fatigue is greater when it's just our guys in green getting pasted... to attack us here is not only a higher cost but it strengthens our national resolve against them... meaning it had better be good. Without our men in service abroad, the only option left is to attack us on our soil. Right now we are bringing the fight to them instead of allowing them to bring the fight to us. Once we are done in Iraq we can concentrate on the next target. The problem is that the next location is likely going to be worse (terrain, fighting enviroment) than either Iraq or Afghanistan.
from JonF: I don't mean everyone, I mean everyone who isn't Muslim, and wants no part of this caliphate thing. There is a reason why "Death to America" is such a popular slogan, and maybe its because at least some of those that use it, mean it.
And, no, it wasn't our efforts in Iraq that accomplished that, it was our (woefully underfunded) efforts in Afghanistan. I'd suggest that the effort in Afghannistan is not "underfunded". Some of our NATO allies (remember, Afghanistan is a NATO operation in response to an attack on a member) have proven to be unwilling to have their troops in theatre engage in combat operations - leaving the US, the UK and a few of the smaller countries to do all the heavy lifting. The problem is complicated by the fact that Pakistan has been unable (and is possibly unwilling) to stop the Taliban and AlQaeda from using their territory as sanctuary. However, recent reports are that US troops have followed Taliban troops across the border in hot pursuit, something that is long overdue. I'd suggest reading The Strategy Page for an unfiltered look at what is happening on the ground. They pick up on trends months before national press.
The problem is complicated by the fact that Pakistan has been unable (and is possibly unwilling) to stop the Taliban and AlQaeda from using their territory as sanctuary. However, recent reports are that US troops have followed Taliban troops across the border in hot pursuit, something that is long overdue. Yes. Our next target is Pakistan, not Iraq. We just might have to tell Pakistan that we respect them as a country, but we will not allow Terrorists to use their borders as a shield. If they (Pakistan) won't help us, then they just have to stay out of our way while we take care of the problem. If they won't stay out of the way, we will move them out of the way. And yes, the area of Pakistan we are talking about is going to be a "pit of hell" AO. But that's what it's like when we take the fight to the enemy, rather than just having our boys out somewhere to be shot at.
Yes. Our next target is Pakistan, not Iraq. Pakistan, not Iran. Dang typos. Dang typos that are fundamentally message changing and require a correction! ;) Oh, and do I agree with the invasion of Iraq? Not really. Can't change the fact that it happened, however. Have to deal with the fact that we are there and attempts to just "undo" that fact will create more problems than they solve.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
Categories
 Should I call myself a feminist? Series III Tivo
|
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Megan-
The problem is that in our culture of "one X is too many!" people haven't learned how to assess, calculate, or manage risk. They think Government is an endless money source (forgetting where Government's money comes from... taxpayers) that can spend any amount to achieve 100% safety (an impossibility in it's own right).
So, yes, for the average sheep, the illusion is much more important considering their goal is impossible.
But, knowing your political views, I ask you to read the premise of that paper and think... where is most terroristic activity happening today? What happens when we are no longer in Iraq available to be fought with?
.... it will come back to within our borders.
Posted by Demonspawn | July 17, 2008 4:30 PM