Friday, February 02, 2007

Truth & Terrorism

For those who support the war in Iraq so Islamic terrorists don't bring the war to the States... I understand your reasoning. For those who believe our presence in Iraq only inflames moderates to become radicals... I understand your reasoning as well.

What I do not understand is why the two positions are mutually exclusive. Both want to neutralize the threat of terrorism. Most agree that fundamental religious views are not the pervasive cause even though it may make it easier to target over one billion people. It is akin to suggesting that all Germans were Nazis.

I cautioned a good friend who is among those in support of American troop withdrawal from Iraq that their efforts would be negated by a clever scheme. The ploy is the increase or surge of troops suggested by the Bush administration. In effect, this takes the wind out of those arguing for phased withdrawal. It does this by controlling the message. Few elected officials would be willing to be tainted by supporting funding cuts. This would be categorized as being against the troops, not better expenditure of defense funding. When is the last time we heard about withdrawal? If you said just before the November elections, you're correct. It's a clever subterfuge of the underlying issue of maintaining presence and troop strength in Iraq.

What should be asked is does the United States have adequate combat troop strength given the force reduction of over 600,000 more than a decade ago. Let’s not forget the number of redeployments for active, reserve and National Guard personnel.

It would be ignorant to believe there are no terrorists in Iraq or that the majority of them are in Iraq. The question should be "Are we doing battle with them effectively as this was supposed to be a global war on terrorism?" We're led to believe this effort was righteous as reflected by the loss of American lives. Most American lives being lost are as a result of being caught in sectarian violence between groups who all seek power and economic influence. The guise of religion is to create the distraction and passion of them versus us.

Ponder this... The United States has been fighting the war on drugs. What is notable is that most drugs come into our country from foreign containers and across the border. Given the tighter border/national security after 9/11, how is it there has been no significant decline in the flow of drugs? Afghanistan, one of the two countries targeted by our GWOT, now distributes more heroin to the rest of the world than when the Taliban and Al Quaeda were dominant in the region.

If we want to be serious about actually minimizing physical and fiscal risk of terrorism on American soil, we have to recognize that the enemy cannot be over-generalized and that fundamentalists do not only reside in the Middle East. Our foreign policy has placed the awesome American military power with not one aircraft battle carrier group in the region, which is typical, but three. Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Turkey, Saudi Arabia... and other nations all have significant Muslim populations. The notion of "fighting a war" to arouse our patriotism paralleling WWII is a ruse. The enemy, and their location was clear then. Their ideology was wrapped behind a banner of the swastika and the rising sun and later the hammer and sickle.

It seems there are several hard truths that neither misdirected nor misguided rhetoric will resolve. There are organized people who have directed their ire principally at the U.S. government and by extension Americans - not all Democratic nations' or their citizens. These other nations... mostly allies... stood with us before and immediately after 9/11, but many have distanced themselves since then. Is it legitimately from fear or a more objective and seasoned global perspective? None want terrorism on their lands, but believe we need to balance strength with humility. A good place to begin is to expect our elected leaders to level with the American people and for us to be honest with ourselves of the costs and consequences of recklessness.

In order to secure support, our approach to this endeavor requires legitimately locating those who would mean us harm in a manner that is more effective than our border security or war on drugs has been.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home