Date registered: Sep 2004
Vehicle: 2014 E250 Bluetec 4-Matic, 1983 240D 4-Speed
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Quoted: 256 Post(s)
This thread is getting more interesting. My original question had hoped to ask, if the "War on Terror" is going to last decades to hundreds of years, and the approach to fighting this "war" involves a persistent erosion of the substance of being an American in America, how can we hope to win when merely engaging in the "war" under these circumstances is losing. While still a question I would like to know how others feel about, the thrust of the discussion has switched to a more fundamental question of "why are we fighting a "war" on terror."
It is easy to categorize those offering any and all proposals to act other than the way we have as "Arab appologists" or "Jew haters" or, god forbid! "liberals" or even "Al-Qaeda sympathizers." There are equally shallow responses from the other side as well. However, given we all seem to agree this is a conflict that is nearly impossible to carry on effectively, much less successfully, under the present plan, how about we take a reasoned look at those chances of success if we merely stay the course?
I was a supporter of the "war on terror" when we attacked Iraq, I am now sorry to admit. Regardless of the reasons why I changed my outlook, it seems to me, to actually continue supporting the present course of confrontation by the United States military there has to be some vision of how things turn out, and they have to be good, right? Otherwise, wouldn't it be more reasonable to try to come up with another course of action that does have a positive outcome?
So, QBNCGAR, Bruce R., Jayhawk and others who appear to support the present course of action, what is your actual, believable (to you anyway) view of how the present course of action brings about the defeat of terror and a set of conditions where America can go back to being the America our Constitution prescribes? What are the key events, estimated timetables and reasoning for why these sequences are likely?
My issue, when I read the rstone recap of the grievances of the Arab world's acknowledged "extremist" leadership (but, at the same time the most effective leadership within the Middle East) is that we are engaging the war on terror on their terms, and, on their terms only they can win. We have elected to react to their actions, and they have studied us to the point where they operate our psyche like a puppeteer manipulating puppet strings.
I do not see the Iraqis taking our side in this confrontation. It is just not believable. We have done dispicable things to them, some on purpose, some out of just lack of regard for them and some by unfortunate accident. But the number and magnitude of the injuries is overhwelming. It is what the Ossamma's wanted and we have complied. It is apparent that we as a population understand so little of the Arab population's perspective that we misunderstand every communication, either due to arrogant neglect in our outlook (they should be grateful we deposed Saddam!) or genuine disdain, likely based on religious and racial bias. There can be no reasonable expectation that we are not viewed as a hostile occupying force, and, that those Iraqis who are supportive of us are viewed as the French Nazi sympathizers of WWII by their neighbors.
The premise rstone tried to offer, that we might learn something about the enemy if we listen to what he says and watch what he does, is probably pretty wise. It might also be wise to try to temper our plans by what we learn.
I have said this before and will offer it up again and again. The Israeli role in this is not a uniquely American problem. It is a UN problem. The UN created the borders that are now Israel, not the United States. It is now time for the UN to act on Israel's behalf, not the US. The US is a major UN participant, and source of funds, so I don't see how this is not possible.
The rest of the "demands" seem pretty reasonable. Let the Saudi royal family fend for itself in a struggle for power that has some kind of lasting resolution that does not depend on our enforcement. The same for the rest of the Middle East. We should stop supporting dictators, or dictators with titles like "King" or "Emir" and the like. And, we should develop a no holds barred approach to relieving the US from the need to have Middle East oil. Once we no longer need from the Arabs we can try to establish some less threatening relationship.