I have heard the Administration refer to the war in Iraq as the 'War on Terror' repeatedly. Why is it called the war on terror? We invaded Iraq for one or more of the following reasons- 1. Suddam was connected to 9/11 (false) 2. Suddam sponsored Al Queda (false) 3. WMD (false) 4. Suddam defied the UN (true, I guess) 5. Suddam was an evil dictator (true) 6. The Iraq people deserved democracy (did we have permission?) 7. Neo-cons had planned in advance to topple Saddam (true) 8. Oil- (works for me) 9. Needed more military bases in the region (that's what's happening at least) 10. Terrorists bases in Iraq (false) What ever the reason we are having this war in Iraq, why is it referred to repeatedly as the war on terror. What is different today than when the marines were car bombed in Lebanon. Isn't the war in Iraq really fighting against insurgents opposed to the invasion and occupation. Isn't that obvious? Are we fighting to prevent civil war. Couldn't we call it the war to be sure the democracy we put in place remains. Anything more accurate would be nice. I just don't like being treated stupid. I always felt like truth was the best policy and I have little respect for politicians who use deceptive word-speak. Tell me clearly what the objectives are, why we are investing American blood and $$$$ in a nation that is divided religiously and politically and culturally trying to force a regime into power that we will have to prop up and I will respect your honesty much more than this media spin show and political double speak.
well terrorist is a cute word nowadays. but the way i guess you carve up a lil scaffolding of semantics is to insist that since the insurgents are determined to attack civilians they aren't 'insurgents' but terrorists. if they were only attacking the military it would be different.
So why was it called the war on terror before the insurgency- you know the shock and awe days when we swept into Bagdad?
you are right Iraq/Iraq War was never a part of the War on Terror But the War on Terror has just gone bigger as direct result of the Iraq War
I am from a family with a very proud military history. I grew up learning to love and respect our country. I enlisted in the Navy not because I wanted college money but because I wanted to defend my nation and have the honor of wearing the uniform. It pains me to say it but I am ashamed to be an American today. I am ashamed that the country I love has made our world a much worse place to live. I feel that we are more of a target today than ever before and that it is only a matter of time before something tragic happens again. I put that on the head of our fearful leader. I feel less safe now in our country than I have at any point in my life, even directly after 9-11.
Post intervention it should be obvious that it is part of the War on Terror (ie Al Queda is actively engaged). Pre-intervention it was part of the War on Terror because (a) Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism and (b) the lack of democratic outlets breeds terrorism [so the thinking goes].
That seems to be a stretch of the military objectives since post intervention insurgents can be anyone against the occupation; it would be better named the War on Muslims since most of the insurgents are Muslims. Al Queda's involvement in Iraq still isn't played as the major drive of the insurgency. And Iraq was a very poor strategic strike at state sponsored terrorism. China, Paskistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria are documented by the govt. to be far more strategic than Iraq. Also the lack of democratic outlets would lend us again to target more direct players like China and Saudi Arabia. Saddam was a brutal dictator but not too friendly with terror groups. At least from what has been reported prior to 9-11 he was more for grooming WMD to destabilize the region.- Just didn't find them. At least that is what I have read. I still don't understand why this war is being tied all the way back to the hijackings of 9-11. Al Queda was pretty much linked to everyone but Saddam after the first WTC attack and the Cole attack. Now we are fighting the war on terror in Iraq.
The xbox is good. I'm waiting to sell some crap that I have laying around to pick up a mod chip and hard drive for it. It will be fun to have something new to mess around with again Is the PS2 living up to expectations?
No. That's like saying the intervention in Bosnia was a War on Christianity since most Serbs are Christians. That's silly and just a lame attempt to be inflammatory. I don't understand this sentence. Whether it was a poor strategic choice or not is irrelevant to your question, which was 'why is this part of the War on Terror,' IIRC. The other countries you list are more susceptible to outside pressure or engagement - whereas Iraq was not. China, for one, is already in the process of democratizing. Further Iraq is ideally positioned to positively affect democratic outcomes in the ME (if we get a positive outcome ). Depends on which terror groups you're talking about. I don't think he was ever friendly with Al Queda, if that's what you mean. Because 9/11 was the impetus for the 'War on Terror.' The War on Terror is not singularly focused on Al Queda, but on stamping out terrorism in general (including AQ). That means both killing or capturing members of terrorist groups and addressing the causes (if the ME is democratized then the people have more voice and are less likely to become or support terrorists).
Best post I've seen in the D&D in months. I don't have the military history you do, MB, but I feel exactly the same.
It's a worldwide war to maintain the empire we've worked so hard to build over the past century, rhester. Iraq's a small plot in a geostrategic chessmatch between the U.S. on one hand and the rising threats to U.S. hegemonic power on the other (Islamo-nationalists just happen to be one of the major threats today, much like Nasser being an Arab nationalist was considered a major threat back in the 1950's-60's, but rest assured they're not the only threat; Leftist Latin American socialists will also have to be dealt with sooner or later).
Very well said . I feel the same but I do have a ? has there been any polls that show the number of Americans that feel less safe or more safe since 9-11.
I’ve said this before but this seems to be a good place to say it again. It is easy to slip into stereotypes, especially when one is angry and frustrated, and I’ll add that it’s also especially easy for us non-Americans to stereotype Americans based on the actions of this administration. But in this internet age it’s as easy as dragging yourself out of bed, hair a rat’s next and pjs twisted into knots, and sitting down at the computer with a cup of coffee in hand (and this morning a forecast for 6" of snow bouncing around in your cranium ), and logging onto a site like this to wake you up to the fact that not all Americans think alike. In fact there are many many Americans who are every bit as concerned and vocal as any of the rest of us, if not more so. And once your brain starts rolling a bit you realise that the very fact that the Bush administration used the talk of WMD, the “axis of evil”, and the war on terror rhetoric at the outset shows that they knew that most Americans would not support what they were really doing. So in reality it’s a minority, and likely a very small minority, of Americans that ever supported what this war is really about. That doesn’t negate the fact that this administration is in power and that it is doing what it’s doing in Iraq, but it does place that in its proper context. It is also largely up to you Americans to do something about it as you are the ones who can best inform the American public and you are the only ones who can vote this administration out, but the clear and very important distinction that we can’t let ourselves forget is that it’s not “the Americans” who are doing this. It is a small group of Americans in this administration (and a few mercenaries like basso whose sole motivation seems to be to defend anything this administration does no matter what the cost or morality). In fact many of us non-Americans will have much more in common with a great many Americans on this than with some of our own citizens, so when you sit back and think about it the boundaries are really changing in the internet age. It’s people with a similar worldview, or perhaps a similar morality (using Kohlberg’s definitions) across national lines who are joining together to oppose this war, and that’s a very interesting phenomenon when you think about it.
Good post. The internet is an amazing phenomenon. However, I do object to your characterization of anyone pro-intervention as a 'mercenary.' I think that is a little condescending. I am not a Bush supporter but I support the intervention in Iraq. You don't have a monopoly on the truth, just your opinion, as do I.
1. War of Terror - Ambigious War means Ambiguous Objectives and Ambigious Victory - much more useful when you can say it was part of the Ambigious war . . because If you had a clearly defined war with clearly define objectives. . .a. you could not claim victory easily and b. you cannot claim something is PART of the Plan . . when the plan was pre-laid out 2. MARKETING - 'no one would buy the SUGGESTIONS of ACQUISITION' - the Grand Negess Rocket River
