• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Creating Terrorists, Why do we continue to do it?

Ron Paul on Cheney and foreign policy:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnJt_h44-00"]YouTube- Ron Paul on the ED Show[/ame]
 
Tom Jones said:
There is no failure to the war on terror forced on America - the only failure was for them to declare war against America and then attack America.

That turned out to be a bif f ''k up on their behalf.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion.

"According to the UN, 700 civilians have died in the Afghan conflict just this year. Human Rights Watch reports that 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in 2007 and 929 in 2006. And, those killed in U.S. bomb attacks are accounting for a greater and greater proportion of the civilian deaths as that war goes on. As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

Consequently, as the Rand study reports, the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida."

Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure
 
Catawba said:
Clinton did not do what the Rand Report recommended:

" * Make policing and intelligence the backbone of U.S. efforts. Al Qa'ida consists of a network of individuals who need to be tracked and arrested. This requires careful involvement of the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as their cooperation with foreign police and intelligence agencies."

Clinton did not put in the resources necessary to track and arrest the terrorists.

"* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all."

Nor did he work closely enough with local military forces of the countries where al Qaeda were.

So to say the the 2008 Rand Report recommendations have already been tried is dishonest.

Key to this strategy is replacing the war-on-terrorism orientation with the kind of counterterrorism approach that is employed by most governments facing significant terrorist threats today. "

Additionally, from the Brookings Institute:

"Rather than finishing the job in Afghanistan, Bush of course decided to invade Iraq. Thousands of intelligence operatives, hundreds of thousands of troops, and billions of dollars were then diverted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the terrorists to pursuing an ill-fated occupation that, the NIE concludes, has become "the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

Ironically, and tragically, it is the people of Afghanistan who are now suffering the consequences of this gross strategic blunder. The upsurge of violence there — of suicide bombings and other terrorist acts — is reminiscent of what has been happening in Iraq. Indeed, NATO soldiers have concluded that there has been an "Iraqization" of the Afghan insurgency. The similarity in tactics — the way IEDs are hidden, suicide bombers are used, etc. — is just too great.

So not only did Bush leave Afghans to their own devises so he could invade Iraq, but the invasion of Iraq created forces that are now terrorizing the Afghans themselves. Some may still doubt that Iraq has been a strategic failure for the war on terrorism. But I find it difficult to think of anything more convincing than what is happening in Afghanistan to prove them wrong."

The True Failure of Bush's 'War on Terror' - Brookings Institution
Click to expand...
Clinton treated the threat as a simple matter or crime. His approach proved a colossal failure.

Bush's and Rumsfeld attempt at minimizing the use military presence and use of local military forces in the early stages of the Afghan war proved a failure as well and allowed bin Laden and a significant number of radical Islamists to escape.

Whereas an increase in troop level in the Surge in Iraq routed al-Qaeda in Iraq.

So consider it noted that your proposed polices have already been proven a failure.
 
Last edited:
ScummyD said:
As cpwill noted, the Rand study has been shown to be incorrect.
Click to expand...

qualifier: as far as their raw data I can't really comment. It is their policy proscriptions that have been tried and found severely wanting.
 
ScummyD said:
Clinton treated the threat as a simple matter or crime. His approach proved a colossal failure.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove that Clinton put in the resources necessary. We've spent 3 trillion on an 8 year war on terror that has according to the Generals on the ground, and the Rand Corp, have been a failure. What kind of resources did Clinton put into his efforts?

Bush's and Rumsfeld attempt at minimizing the use military presence and use of local military forces in the early stages of the Afghan war proved a failure as well and allowed bin Laden and a significant number of radical Islamists to escape.

Whereas an increase in troop level in the Surge in Iraq routed al-Qaeda in Iraq.
Click to expand...

Bush's and Rumsfeld's idiotic notion of invading Iraq (a country that never attacked us nor had the capacity to attack us resulting in the unnecessary civilian deaths) further fueled the hatred against the US, enabling easier recruitment by the radicals world wide.
 
Catawba said:
Thanks for your opinion.

"According to the UN, 700 civilians have died in the Afghan conflict just this year. Human Rights Watch reports that 1,633 Afghan civilians were killed in 2007 and 929 in 2006. And, those killed in U.S. bomb attacks are accounting for a greater and greater proportion of the civilian deaths as that war goes on. As the Rand Corporation predicts in such circumstances, this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."

Consequently, as the Rand study reports, the U.S. "war on terrorism" has been a failure in combating al Qaida."

Dan Kovalik: Rand Corp -- War On Terrorism Is A Failure
Click to expand...

LOL - most of the deaths are caused by terrorists blowing up people in schools, markets, workplaces, hotels, restaurants and bars - everyone knows this - for you to say otherwise is a waste of your time.
 
Tom Jones said:
LOL - most of the deaths are caused by terrorists blowing up people in schools, markets, workplaces, hotels, restaurants and bars - everyone knows this - for you to say otherwise is a waste of your time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion.
 
Catawba said:
this has only led to an increase in popular support for those resisting the U.S. military onslaught. In short, the war is counterproductive."
Click to expand...
That must be why violence against US troops in Iraq is way down. :doh And that's not opinion but fact.

The war in Iraq had been far more fierce and deadly and yet violence is down these days despite the assertions that US caused deaths were spur a recruitment drive for the terrorist forces.
 
cpwill said:
qualifier: as far as their raw data I can't really comment. It is their policy proscriptions that have been tried and found severely wanting.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we try the 'lighter US presence and/or rely on indigenous forces' idea in both Iraq and Afghanistan and had to readjust our policy in both regions because it was found to be insufficient?
 
ScummyD said:
Interesting. So the Rand study suggests we are somehow creating terrorists.
Click to expand...

we are. logic, the law of large numbers, and experience teach us that this is occurring. The question therefore becomes twofold:

1. can we make sure that we create fewer terrorists than the terrorist population creates anti-Islamist fighters (which it does,too. I have never understood the logic of those who claim that a targeted civilian casualty from a drone strike creates an enemy, but a random civilian casualty from a car bomb does not.); both through the manner in which we fight, and in our strategic orientation on population security as the center of gravity in a COIN fight. As Tom Jones points out, sadly, the enemy often makes this a short bar to hop over. (this is the short-term battle)

2. can we create the conditions that will lead to the minimization or removal of those factors which produce and feed islamist terrorist networks originally, and turn potential members of such groups following US actions on the ground. (this is the long-term battle)

Catawba loves the sound of that because it fits his partisan viewpoint that America sucks and it's our fault we are being attacked so he buys into it
Click to expand...

I can' speak for Catawba; but it is true that this reality has been stretched all out of proportion by those who see the US as a negative influence in the world and favor a more pacifist approach to islamist networks.

Sounds similar to Catawba's beliefs on the underlying main reason why bin Laden declared war on us
Click to expand...

he listed his reasons, and we would be foolish to ignore what he is willing to admit to as powerful motivators.

However, while those can be particular gripes of the Islamist movement, they are not it's source.
 
Last edited:
ScummyD said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't we try the 'lighter US presence and/or rely on indigenous forces' idea in both Iraq and Afghanistan and had to readjust our policy in both regions because it was found to be insufficient?
Click to expand...

you are absolutely correct. as i pointed out, this (much like Joe Bidens' recent wargaming) is basically the Rumsfeld Doctrine.
 
ScummyD said:
That must be why violence against US troops in Iraq is way down. :doh And that's not opinion but fact.

The war in Iraq had been far more fierce and deadly and yet violence is down these days despite the assertions that US caused deaths were spur a recruitment drive for the terrorist forces.
Click to expand...

We are not winning the war according to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, and the Commander on the ground, General McChrystal:

" A year ago, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, said:

"... in a counterinsurgency, if you're not winning, you're losing."

And we weren't winning. Again in March, Admiral Mullen said we're losing. Now, the Commander on the ground, General McChrystal, said we're not winning. We're losing."


Sen. Fritz Hollings: Creating Terrorism
 
Catawba said:
"* Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all."

Nor did he work closely enough with local military forces of the countries where al Qaeda were.]
Click to expand...

So let me make sure that I understand you correctly. We were supposed to work together with the local millitary in Astan to defeat al Qaida. That is your plan. Boy I wonder how that would have worked for us. And we have been working with the Pakastan millitary to help stop al qaida there.
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
"Minimize the use of U.S. military force. In most operations against al Qa'ida, local military forces frequently have more legitimacy to operate and a better understanding of the operating environment than U.S. forces have. This means a light U.S. military footprint or none at all."
Click to expand...
As far as I understand events in Afghanistan that is precisely the thinking that shaped American efforts in the early stages of the war and exactly what was tried, which allowed bin Laden and huge numbers of radical Islamists to escape through the mountains.

So why would we want to implement a policy that is a proven failure?
 
cpwill said:
I have never understood the logic of those who claim that a targeted civilian casualty from a drone strike creates an enemy, but a random civilian casualty from a car bomb does not.)
Click to expand...
Good point.

he listed his reasons, and we would be foolish to ignore what he is willing to admit to as powerful motivators.

However, while those can be particular gripes of the Islamist movement, they are not it's source.
Click to expand...
We certainly should not ignore that. Just to be clear, not necessarily to you, I never said to ignore him. I acknowledged America's role in providing motivating factors, but have just argued that they are less than their religion.
 
braindrain said:
So let me make sure that I understand you correctly. We were supposed to work together with the local millitary in Astan to defeat al Qaida. That is your plan. Boy I wonder how that would have worked for us. And we have been working with the Pakastan millitary to help stop al qaida there.
Click to expand...

Not sure where Astan is but The Rand Corp was referring to all of the 50 some countries where al Qaeda is located. They are also suggesting that our intelligence agencies work in those countries in conjunction with local forces to track down and arrest the terrorists, as opposed to the bombing of large numbers of civilians which has fueled the insurgency.
 
Catawba said:
Not sure where Astan is but The Rand Corp was referring to all of the 50 some countries where al Qaeda is located. They are also suggesting that our intelligence agencies work in those countries in conjunction with local forces to track down and arrest the terrorists, as opposed to the bombing of large numbers of civilians which has fueled the insurgency.
Click to expand...
That's a given; obvious. And something Bush did and I assume Obama has continued.

We're not going to invade 50 countries and nobody has suggested such a thing.
 
One Question--soon as it was determinate that Irag had no WMD, why didn't we load up, say "excuse me, my bad" and bring our butts back home?:roll:
 
Skateguy said:
One Question--soon as it was determinate that Irag had no WMD, why didn't we load up, say "excuse me, my bad" and bring our butts back home?:roll:
Click to expand...

Because the real reason we were there was to do nation building and spread democracy in the middle east.
 
reefedjib said:
Because the real reason we were there was to do nation building and spread democracy in the middle east.
Click to expand...

Actually, we went in there to knock out a dictator and go after the terrorists he was harboring; the many who fled Afghanistan to seek shelter in Iraq, and it worked like a charm.

A benefit of this action is to the people of Iraq who are now setting up their own government without being under the dictatorship of a brutal tyrant who was mass murdering them.
 
Skateguy said:
One Question--soon as it was determinate that Irag had no WMD, why didn't we load up, say "excuse me, my bad" and bring our butts back home?:roll:
Click to expand...
Because our leaders were smart enough to recognize that allowing a power vacuum to ensue wherein the most brutal and violent authoritarians would rise to power, say for instance Baathists, al-Qaeda, Iranian agents or Taliban types, would not be in our best interests. It would have been foolish to remove Saddam, who was keeping things in check, only to allow another tyrant to ascend and perhaps facilitate terror attacks against the US.

We left Afghanistan following the Russian withdrawal and that helped lead to 11 September.
 
Last edited:
reefedjib said:
Because the real reason we were there was to do nation building and spread democracy in the middle east.
Click to expand...

Since Congress only provided Authorization for an invasion if Iraq presented direct threat to the US, if what you claim is true, than Bush and Cheney took us to war illegally.
 
Tom Jones said:
thanks be to the good stars we had Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld in there when we did.
Click to expand...
"The New York Times reports that Gore wrote the speech 'after consulting a fairly far-flung group of advisers that included Rob Reiner' [Reiner="Meathead" from the TV show Archy Bunker]. Current U.S. foreign policy is the combined product of Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz and the president. Meanwhile, the pretender is huddling with Meathead.

Had it not been for a few little old ladies baffled by the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach, Fla., American foreign policy today would be made by Gore-Reiner instead of the Bush brain trust. Who says God doesn’t smile upon the United States of America?"

--Krauthammer
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom