Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Part 1
Published on September 14, 2006 By Draginol In War on Terror

This is going to be part one of a two part article that talks about what the War on Terror is about and how it got started.

Every so often I'll see a book or read an article that either asks "Why do they hate us?" or asserts how "we" squandered the "good will" that the United States had right after 9/11.

When I get into debates with people on these subjects the main problem I run into is that many people - on both sides of the debate - are appalling unfamiliar with history -- even recent history. 

Let's start with a look back at the 90s.  Right after the terrorist attack in New York there were a number of commentaries that argued essentially that we had it coming because of our "foreign policy".  When pressed, these people could rarely point to anything concrete. Instead, you got ridiculous "bad karma" like arguments like "Didn't pass the Kyoto accords" (as if that was what caused 9/11).

The reality is, US foreign policy in the 90s was nothing short of heroic. If you felt US foreign policy in the 90s somehow justified the attack on 9/11 then I humbly submit that you are insane.  Let us recap US foreign policy in the 90s:

  • The United States puts together an international force including Muslim states to roll back the unprovoked conquest of Kuwait. The US returns Kuwait to its recognized government and leaves only a US air base in Saudi Arabia in order to help implement the No-Fly zone.
  • Why did we have a No-Fly zone? Because Saddam was butchering Kurds in the North and Shiite Muslims in the south. The no-fly zone was there to help protect Muslims.
  • The US sends forces to Somalia to help deliver food to starving people. Local warlords, wanting to use that food to build their own vile little power base fight against US troops resulting in the infamous Black Hawk Down incident.
  • US helps Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo against "ethnic cleansing".  Despite being located in Europe, the United States provided the vast bulk of aid.

This is just a sampling.  Meanwhile, Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization that is part of the Islamic Fascism movement plots during the 90s on how to destroy the WTC.  It was during the 90s that Al Qaeda made several attacks on US interests including the embassy bombings, the first WTC attack, and the USS Cole.

So anyone who somehow thinks that US behavior in the Middle East made us "deserve" 9/11 is just nuts.

Next, let's look at the argument that we "squandered" good will after 9/11.  What good will was there actually? Le Monde saying "We are all Americans now?"  France's response was to send a trivial number of special forces to Afghanistan.

Let's be clear here: For the past 50 years, the United States had been spending billions of dollars and stationing hundreds of thousands of soldiers in Europe to defend Europe as part of its NATO obligation.  The United States is brutally attacked, the source of the attack is identified, the country they are in located, and the regime supporting them determined. And what did the other nations of Europe do (other than UK - they rock)? Not a lot. They sent some troops but as a percentage of their forces or what they were capable of doing? Not very much.  50 years, trillions spent defending Europe and we get attacked and a trickle of forces from NATO are sent to Afghanistan.  What good will? Momentary sympathy is not good will.

So why do people make such erroneous assertions that the US could somehow, realistically have avoided 9/11? Or that the US foreign misbehavior is somehow responsible? Or that the rest of the world was on our side but was squandered because of Iraq (which occurred two years later -- plenty of time to see "good will" translated into actionable will).

The answer I believe is that most people do not understand what the war on terror is about. Some people play semantical games ("You can't defeat a form of warfare")  Some try to cloud the issue by arguing there really is no war, just American right-wing hysteria.  But the truth is, the war on terrorism is a war on a particular ideology that is located in a specific area of the world.  And that we'll get into in part 2...


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Sep 19, 2006
IslandDog

We should have completed the job in Afghanistan and NOT gone into Iraq. We NEVER finished the job against those we know were responsible for 9/11. Now they are rebuilding in Afghanistan and we are bogged down in a NO WIN Civil War in Iraq.
on Sep 19, 2006

We should have completed the job in Afghanistan and NOT gone into Iraq. We NEVER finished the job against those we know were responsible for 9/11. Now they are rebuilding in Afghanistan and we are bogged down in a NO WIN Civil War in Iraq.

How do you define job completed?

on Sep 19, 2006
Destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, end the drug production that finances the terrorists, capture Ben Laden and insure the new central government has control of the entire country. We have NOT done ANY of those things because we were diverted our resources to Iraq which was not a threat to the U.S. under Saddam regardless of what Bush and Cheney said!

Now Bush claims that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. That may be true and it is because of Bush they can operate in Iraq! However the real problem in Iraq is the sectarian violence that has turned into a Civil War which we can not solve.
on Sep 20, 2006
If you don't care, then why do I hear this constant whining about the European opinion and how irrelevant it is? If you don't care and it is irrelevant, it is not worth talking about. And certainly don't complain about a lack of support from countries you don't care about.


Not from me you haven't! And I don't.
on Sep 22, 2006
Draginol

I gave my answer as to a success in Afghanistan what is your answer?
on Sep 22, 2006
Something just to mention...sine the war on terror. "began," or, so to say...became a primary point in the world. I've always been concerned with the fact John Walker Lynn (i think that is his name) showed us, not all muslim fanatics/muhjahadeen, etc...are of middle eastern origin. I think people as a whole really don't understand that.

Anywho...good article.

on Sep 25, 2006
Right on, Draginol. Looking forward to Part II.

Still, we did profit from it, and for that America as a country still is mighty popular around here. The country is, its policy (and politicians) is not. There is a big difference between the two.


What does this mean, exactly? I'll be the first to tell you I don't like a lot of things about American politics, but I'll take my politicans over any other politicians in the world. I support many of the politicans in power to day. I don't understand how you can like the US but not those we choose to represent us, unless your just speaking geographicly, in which case I'd like to say for the first time, "I love France."

on Sep 28, 2006
We are NOT engaged in a war on terrorism. We are in the middle of a very basic fight for control of a region by a group that has a fanatical belief that ANY non Muslim involvement is an attack on their beliefs. The Muslims DO NOT separate their religion from their secular life like we do. We have interjected our influence into the Moslem world. The first reason is due to our dependence on the oil the Moslem world controls. The simple truth is we MUST have access to their oil. The second issue is our blind support for Israel who the Moslems HATE.

Our actions in Iraq and our support for what ever Israel does has enabled the Moslem radicals that hate us to recruit more and more members from the less radical Moslem elements. That is what the NIE concluded and is WHY both the Iraq War and our Blind Support of Israel are making America LESS SAFE!
on Sep 30, 2006

Destroyed Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, end the drug production that finances the terrorists, capture Ben Laden and insure the new central government has control of the entire country. We have NOT done ANY of those things because we were diverted our resources to Iraq which was not a threat to the U.S. under Saddam regardless of what Bush and Cheney said!

Now Bush claims that Al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. That may be true and it is because of Bush they can operate in Iraq! However the real problem in Iraq is the sectarian violence that has turned into a Civil War which we can not solve.

What does drug production have to do with the war on terror?

Let's consider how you measure "job complete" with past wars:

Did the United States win in World War II?

1) Was Naziism eliminated? No.

2) Did the US capture Hitler? No.

Getting Bin Laden would be nice. I'd like to see him brought in just as I'm sure people would have liked to get Hitler on trial. But it's not a prerequisite for victory.

In Afghanistan, the Taliban was removed from power and terrorist training camps and safe havens for terrorists removed. That's success.

2 Pages1 2