The USA War Against Terrorists

M 2006-07-21 13:33:41 3983

I agree with you in principle & I am against war as well. Where we differ is what to do about it. What is a good war? Are you against all wars - even to protect (say) Washington State?

There are cases, where if a soverign nation does not defend itself, it will be anilated as such. Those are the times it will be necceary to wage war or accept being conquered.

Do you have a principle that says wait for the terrorists to act before waging a war to protect the US ?

I think the Bush Doctrine is fundamentaly flawed.

Terrorism is a new kind of war - it's hard to distinguish the terrorists from the innocents.

In the VietNam war we had the term "guerrilla war". That is a succesful tactic of waging war where your land is being occupied by a superior militarily force. But in Iraq the term was changed to "terrorists". In Israel and the West Bank and in Gaza the term was changed to "terrorists". But in all these cases you have a people who honestly believe that their land is being occupied by a superior military force. The people being termed "terrorists" are the ones that are fighting from military inferiority. They are the ones who consider it their land. When terrorist strike inside of Israel it is because they honestly believe that it is there land.

Please note, and this is an important point. We are fighting no such guerrilla war in the USA today. There simply are no incidents that qualify as such. The attack on the World Trade towers was clearly a pot shot terrorist attack by a foreign power in our land.

I think it is an important distinction for our thinking to keep the term "guerrilla war" to apply to people fighting on their land for their land as distinguished from a foreign power making a "terrorist attack" on land which they have no claim. The best defense for the latter is extreme security measures. Those measures in the US have been very successful because there have been no such attacks since 911. The best defense for the former is to decide who's land it really is. Fortunately the good old US of A does not have that problem. There is no dispute that we own the land between our borders.

How would you fight it given that America's enemies are already armed & ready? Call a cease-fire? Will terrorists observe a cease fire without America's or Israel's capitulation ? It is a bit too late to remove war's cause in poverty isn't it? What would you do about the Islamic madrassas preaching hate of America?
It may be hard to believe now but it takes time to eliminate the causes of war.

Certainly it will take time to eliminate the causes of war in the Middle East. It is too late to affect the current hot war being waged between Israel and Hezbollah. That will take its course regardless of any peace initivite. What follows, however, is going to be very very important. Hopefully Israel has a plan for the peace.

Now let us turn to the US fight to eliminate terrorists attacks on its soil. Increased security measures within our borders are certainly warrented. Increased intelligence gathering abroad will give us the ability to thwart developing attacks in the bud. I don't call that "waiting for the terrorists to attack". Additionaly encouraging moderate Islamic jourists in their campaign to reform their religion might help emiminate some of the bs that is going on in some madrassas, see fatwa. But going on our own holy war against radical Islam as WFB discussess, 3944, will just create more of 3983. It will not prevent more of this. In fact it will make it more likely to happen.

Comments

Mark de LA says

Nice piece!

thanks for the courage to express it.
   Viet Nam had no terrorists. Nobody strapped a bomb on themselves or their children and went into the heart of a city to blow up themselves & so-called occupiers. The Viet Cong were essentially an army. The North was invading the South to spread Maoist communism by force.
   There are currently people in Mexico & in this country (LaRaza) who think the southwest belongs to Mexico. So is it legitimate for them to use terrorist tactics against California & other targets?
   WFB did not suggest a holy war against Islam - please remove your head from your anus on that one!
   To just say that the Bush doctrine is fundamentally flawed without any further comment is merely to affirm your anti-Bush stand - nothing new there.

source: ... Please note, and this is an important point. We are fighting no such guerrilla war in the USA today. There simply are no incidents that qualify as such. The attack on the World Trade towers was clearly a pot shot terrorist attack by a foreign power in our land.

... we are fighting a war against terrorism; 9-11 made that plain. Until terrorism is defeated we will be subject to more of the same. The attempt to reframe terrorism as a guerrilla war is specious. In case you have lost the distinction on what terrorism is (& I think you did) please see the Wikipedia.
Israel was legitimized by the UN:

source: ...
The UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947), which served as the foundation for the Israeli Declaration of Independence, was passed by the General Assembly with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 absentions.

... so Israel is fighting off foreign powers, who are using terrorism - the terrorists are illegitimate !

Mark de LA says

M 2006-07-22 10:46:32 3989

The definition of terrorism teased out of the Wikipedia subject can be found here .

Insurgency is another interesting distinction to master.

Seth says

M 2006-07-22 11:08:55 3989

It is precisely that there are two factions that disagree on whose land it is (& each negates the other) that is fundamental to the Middle East wars.

There is only one context that i can think of where "each negates the other" and that is some kind of debate where points are scored. But my item here is no such context. There is no way that what you, or what i, or what the UN legislates negates what the Palentenians believe. People do act on their beliefs. What a peace will be groping for is to change that belief struture to align it with what is practical.

Seth says

M 2006-07-22 10:33:39 3989

To just say that the Bush doctrine is fundamentally flawed without any further comment is merely to affirm your anti-Bush stand - nothing new there.

I am refering to this particular foreign policy doctirne and not Bush the man or even his politics. Specifically that doctrine is fundamentally flawed. My whole piece talked of how it is flawed. The first instance of his doctrine was the invasion of Afganastan to remove the terrorists camps. I think that instance was justified and it was successful. If Bush had stopped there he would be my hero today.

The UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947), which served as the foundation for the Israeli Declaration of Independence, was passed by the General Assembly with 33 votes in favor, 13 against, and 10 absentions.

... so Israel is fighting off foreign powers, who are using terrorism - the terrorists are illegitimate !

Note please that i merely mentioned that Palestinians truly believe that they are defending their land. That is the important point. Now whether you or i or even Israli believe that as well is quite another matter. To understand what i said and to understand the long term crisis in the Middle East, i think you need to accept that premis. It is a good point of departure to decide who's land it is. It is a good point of departure to decide where there is a land that the dispossessed people of Palenstine can legitimately call their own.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-07-22 11:33:31 3989

M 2006-07-22 11:08:55 3989

It is precisely that there are two factions that disagree on whose land it is (& each negates the other) that is fundamental to the Middle East wars.

Yep.... so then you are agreeing that the point of departure isn't there for peace. That was what the so-called roadmap was all about. One point of annoyance is if peace were to breakout then the terrorists would be disenfranchised & have nothing to do. What does an ex-terrorist, or worse yet, an ex-martyr do for a living ?
The world is deep shit if peace rests just on what people believe!

Those minds that are on the periphery US, UN, Russia, China, Europe etc also have to have minds changed within them as they are frequently called to one cause or another to "help".

Seth says

M 2006-07-22 10:48:48 3989

M 2006-07-22 10:46:32 3989

The definition of terrorism teased out of the Wikipedia subject can be found here .

Insurgency is another interesting distinction to master.

Good point. Actually "terrorism" is a tactic of waging war. If i were to rewrite my item above i would write it differently. Insurgency is pretty much another term for guerilla war. From the perspective of those waging it, it is defense of homeland. There would be no insurgency were there no invasion of Iraq. The cause of the insurgency is the implementation of the Bush Doctrine.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-07-22 12:45:17 3989

M 2006-07-22 10:48:48 3989

M 2006-07-22 10:46:32 3989

The definition of terrorism teased out of the Wikipedia subject can be found here .

Insurgency is another interesting distinction to master.

Sounds good. There should be no more insurgency as long as Iraq has a new government & agrees with the US that the US should go when they have the military strong enough to preserve the new government.

Seth says

M 2006-07-22 13:17:16 3989

Apparently NOT Hamas & Hezbollah have just started a war on both ends of Israel just when the roadmap seemed possible.

Yes those are the glaring exceptions. Hezbollah, primarialy a Sheii organization, has elected representatives in the government of Lebenon. Hamas was legitimately elected in (Gaza?). I believe that both of those organizations deny Israel's right to exist. Actually those are the current military targets of Israel. These organizations have deep support in the people's of the region. I doubt that current Israli operations will do anything but make that support grow. Like i said above, I hope Israel has a plan for the peace.

Seth says

M 2006-07-22 11:53:03 3989

Yep.... so then you are agreeing that the point of departure isn't there for peace.

I don't think you understad what i said. The point of departure is to accept the assumption that the Palestenians still believe that is there land. There actions are justified in their eyes as defense of homeland. To not accept that they honestly believe it is there land, is to not arrive at that point of departure.

In this regard I have been corresponding with Nicholas Heer a learned jurists to better understand the situation from the other point of view. In response to my question:

source:
What is the solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict ? Hopefully you are not going to tell me that Israel should not exist and should turn that land and its governance over to Muslims ? Certainly that solution must involve Israel not agressing against its neighbors. Certainly that solution must involve the US not undermining Islam in the Middle East. Certainly that solution must involve elimination of the conditions that keep the Palestinians in squalor. But how can the US and Israel be convinced to draw back from the precipice when daily we hear of terror waged against Israel and (to a lesser extent) the US. What real solution do you see ? How do you see it happening?

Respectfully, your student....

he responded as follows:

source: private email from Nicholas Heer

Seth,
I think the solution has been clear for quite some time now. The Palestine of the British mandate must be divided into two states, Israel and Palestine. The boundary should be approximately the pre-1967 armistice lines. Both Israel and Palestine must recognize the existence of the other. In addition the Palestinian refugees from 1948 should be compensated for the loss of their land and homes. If they were offered compensation and citizenship in a country of their choice almost all of the Palestinian refugees would take the money and leave the camps for a new life elsewhere. Such a solution, of course, means that the Jews now living in the occupied territories would either have to leave or remain where they are but as citizens of Palestine.

These are the kind of proposals that need to be taken on face value. To reject them out of hand and to interject other issues as prrequisites of peace, is to ignore the real problem.

The biggest problem i see is that there are so many different voices of the Palestenian cause and that none of them have been legitimized. Finding, recognizing, and legitimizing the other side of this peace, me thinks, should be our first priority.

Seth says

M 2006-07-22 12:50:13 3989

source: ...
The biggest problem i see is that there are so many different voices of the Palestenian cause and that none of them have been legitimized. Finding, recognizing, and legitimizing the other side of this peace, me thinks, should be our first priority.

... In fact that has been the goal of the Roadmap. The challenge is from the other side to recognize Israel's right to exist both to their people & to the world.

Well if you put it that way, then most voices from the other side have already met that challenge. Certainly you can hear that as an assumption from Heer's point of view. Perhaps you have also noticed that all of the Arab governments have also also accepted that assumption. The only place we still hear that rhetoric is from the government of the Persian state of Iran and from other Sheii. I think that if progress is made on the major issue of estabolishing a land that the Palestenians can call home, that rhetoric will loose it's bite and will evaporate.

Mark de LA says

seth 2006-07-22 13:47:49 3989

M 2006-07-22 13:37:38 3989
Yep. I also hope that Hezbollah & Hamas & Iran have a plan for peace.

I expect not. But if Palestinians start to believe that alternatives to the terrorists strategies of those organizations are real, practical, and happening now, then the support for terrorism in those organizations will evaporate. Take the fuel away from the fire and it will go out. Put more fuel on the fire and it will burn more furiously.

Again that sounds like wishful thinking. Someone's not watching the news. Israel withdraws & Hamas starts a war with rockets & kidnaps. By electing Hamas, who would not after election overtly recognize Israel, the Palestinians put the brakes on the roadmap. I wonder if anyone amongst the Palestinians has second thoughts now. Abu Mazen had done his best to quell Hamas to restart the roadmap, but no takers yet. You might say that Hamas snatched a defeat out of the jaws of victory to establish a Palestinian state along side that of Israel. This is why the USA & others have to broker the negotiations. Neither of the major parties can get out of the game on their own.

Seth says

M 2006-07-22 13:37:38 3989
Yep. I also hope that Hezbollah & Hamas & Iran have a plan for peace.

The USA War Against Terrorists

Tags

Comments

See Also