0
votes

Did We Just Lose the War on Terror?

posted December 1, 2006 - 11:35am
Did We Just Lose the War on Terror?

We might be watching the beginning of the end.

Afghanistan is now making cooperation agreements with Iran. Inside Afghanistan, the Taliban is reemerging.

As for Iraq, the government we helped create stood us up at a recent summit and made a pilgrimage to Iran, where it agreed to undisclosed cooperation agreements. The country looks to be in a freefall from self-inflicted violence.

In Lebanon, Hezbollah has withdrawn from the government and is making a serious effort to depose the existing government.

In all three cases, Iran is an active participant. This is the same Iran the U.S. accused of being a state sponsor of terrorism. Along with the U.N., we warned it of dire consequences if it proceeds with its nuclear weapons program. Iran ignored both of us and continues its weapons program. Our response? No response.

So Iran has learned it can sponsor groups we consider terrorists without having to worry. In fact, it’s now learning that some people at our highest levels of government are urging others to ask its help with Iraq. Iran will soon see that not only can it sponsor terrorists with impunity; we will help it to become a regional (and possibly world) powerbroker for doing so. As for its nuclear program, it already knows that nobody, with the possible exception of Israel, will not do a thing to stop its nuclear program. Even the likelihood of Israel taking action will disappear when the U.S. pressures it to be nice.

In recent weeks, President Bush has stopped using the term “cut and run” as he realizes that in the next year or so, he’d have to accuse himself of “cutting and running”. We’re currently in the process of updating the term “Vietnamization” to read “Iraquiization”. When that happens, Iran will have a free hand with the Shiite majority in Iraq and will use it to crush the Sunnis. Saudi Arabia has already said it won’t allow that to happen if we’re not there to prevent it. As things look right now, that chain of events seems almost certain.

We don’t have a lot of prestige in that part of the world right now. Pretty soon, not only will we not be liked, we won’t be feared or respected. If we’re not liked, feared or respected, it’s not clear how we succeed in deterring terrorists.

www.xomba.com/xombyte/thewonderer



Comments

Yes, I did. I don't think

Yes, I did. I don't think anybody, including George Bush, believes the Iraq policy is working. That's probably why he nominated a member of the Iraq Study Group for Defense Secretary. But,I ask you again. What do you say to Iran at this stage? Do you link their nuclear program to talks on Iraq or do you keep it separated? Do you say we have every intention of staying until Iraq is stable or do you indicate that we plan on pulling out? Do you allude to the fact that only last week, the Iranian president was calling for the replacement of western governments with Islamic rulers? I'm just throwing these things out there - what would you plan to talk about and what would be your goal in talking to Iran?

Did you listen

to what the new defense secretary said to Congress? The current Iraq policy is "not working," he said that at least three times. Even Rumsfeld said in that memo that changes were needed What's my "basis"? What does that mean? Sorry, I disagree, talking IS harmless. It doesn't mean there's any bad outcome. If you don't like the progress or outcome of talks, you stop talking. It happens in talks all the time. Why are people so afraid of simply talking to people of different backgrounds and viewpoints? How do countries agree on treaties and borders with their enemies? Well, they discuss them.

It may be that there's no

It may be that there's no harm in talking to Iran, but what's your basis for saying that? If you were asked to speak to Iran's government about the state of the mideast right now, what would you say? It's not a given that talking is harmless - it depends on what is said. ps - the Iraq study group isn't infallible. The cold war had two established world powers as the main antagonists, not one country and a series of shifting non-government alliances backed by a hostile theocracy.

Ding!

Yeah, I bet that Ding! sound is going off all over D.C. Bet there are a lot of folks in Washington who'd like to go somewhere else.

Talking

Like I said, there's no harm in talking, and there can be great benefits. The Iraq Study Group said yesterday that Iraq should talk with Syria and Iran. And they pointed out that the U.S. and USSR communicated throughout the Cold War, even though they had thousands of nuclear missles pointed at each other.

Want to get away?

I think Southwest Airlines should feature George W. in their next commercial. "Want to get away?" www.joesnare.com

So how would you rate the

So how would you rate the war on terror so far? Two elected governments we helped create in the war on terrorism are exercising their sovereign rights to strengthen their ties with another (Iran) that is the prime sponsor of anti-western terrorism. A third government in Lebanon is in danger of falling because of another group (Hezbollah) that is funded and sponsored by Iran. The world's greatest sponsor of anti-western terrorism is developing a nuclear weapons program without facing anything more than empty rhetoric from the west. This isn't a question about the rights of Iran, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq to talk to each other. It's a question of how do we react if those talks produce results that weaken our position in fighting terrorism. As for the United States, our efforts to strengthen our security through elected governments there have not produced good results so far. In this position of relative weakness, we have virtually no leverage with Iran. Talking with them about Iraq would produce nothing and we'd walk away with even less to show for it. So if the war on terror is to be fought where terrorists are based rather than here at home, have we lost the war on terror?

The war

I don't think so. Even our govt's Iraq study group has suggested that Iraq conduct talks with Iran and Syria, so why not Afghanistan? There's a mistaken assumption by people that talking with someone means capitulating to them or agreeing with them. If adversaries didn't talk to each other, there would never be peace treaties or even cease fires. If the talks with Iran or Syria don't lead to an agreement, OK; but at least let them try. As for the stand-up, I'm curious why our govt would leak that report on not having confidence in the Iraqi leader on the day Bush was to meet with him, doesn't seem wise at all. Another report says that the leader cancelled the meeting because of a disagreement with the Jordanian leader. In any case, isn't our whole stated goal to let the Iraqis de a democracy and run their own affairs? If their elected govt wants to talk with Iran, then that's their right, isn't it?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • You can use BBCode tags in the text. URLs will automatically be converted to links.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <p> <br> <b> <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <span> <object> <param> <embed> <table> <tr> <td> <div>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

Join Xomba Today

Do you like to write? Would you like to make a little extra money on the side? These people do. Join the Xomba community today.
Become a Member