The Long War Versus Terror

Keeping America's head in the game

Published on June 7, 2007 By singrdave In War on Terror

In what ways, if any, do you think that US policymakers can do a better job apprising the American public of the long-term nature of the Global War on Terrorism and he sacrifices that struggle will continue to entail?

Certain members of Congress and the White House articulate the importance of staying in the fight quite well. It is just a matter of whether or not the claims fall on deaf ears or are taken seriously. Supporters of the War on Terror are seen as Bush's shills or cronies, as this is perceived by the left as "Bush's War". Evoking the specter of 9/11 brings only statements decrying such pandering. Public support for the war has waned and all who publicly support the long-term fight against terrorism are skating not just on thin ice, but on a fully-melted, fast-flowing river.

To illustrate this point, just this morning I was watching a CNN interview with Sen. Joe Lieberman. To my mind he is the most believable and articulate supporter of both the war and the doctrine of preemption. He still maintains that not only was the US right in invading Iraq but that also the US forces in Iraq can win. For this position he suffered a stinging defeat at the hands of his own party, returning to the Senate as an independent. Ostracized from the very party that stood him as a presidential contender six years prior, Lieberman's pariah status stems solely from his support of "Bush's War".

Another reason people do not wish to hear the gruesome, protracted details about a war on terror is that there is rarely any good news to report. The American people are tired of hearing about body counts from Iraq and Afghanistan as well as a whole lot of nothing from within the US. Domestic terror-related arrests fade quickly in the public consciousness. Those who beat the drum about terror are dismissed as fear mongers or one-note Johnnys.

How can US policymakers get through the partisan political atmosphere and emphasize the danger of international terrorism? I think patiently reminding people that this isn't just Bush's War and that it really does affect every man, woman, and child in the civilized world is the key. Then curt reminders that 9/11 actually DID happen, it actually WAS devastating and horrible, and that there are still people out there trying to kill Americans would also be in order.

But how to do that without being dismissed as a war hawk or a Bush crony...?

Comments (Page 3)

COL Gene

on Jun 20, 2007

This from another Blog:

June 18, 2007 4:45 PM

Brian Ross Reports:

Large teams of newly trained suicide bombers are being sent to the United States and Europe, according to evidence contained on a new videotape obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com.

Teams assigned to carry out attacks in the United States, Canada, Great Britain and Germany were introduced at an al Qaeda/Taliban training camp graduation ceremony held June 9.

A Pakistani journalist was invited to attend and take pictures as some 300 recruits, including boys as young as 12, were supposedly sent off on their suicide missions.

WE ARE IN MORE DANGER TODAY!

singrdave

on Jun 20, 2007

COL, good to have you here. You gave me a double-eyebrow raise with your response, mostly because we are actually discussing a topic that I feel strongly about.

Anyone that would argue we are not in danger from the radical Islamists is both dangerous and disconnected from reality. The sheer magnitude, the dispersion and the passion of those who are part of this movement demonstrate just how big a danger it presents to the United States and most non Moslem countries.

I couldn't agree more. Those who are in denial about the seriousness and the ferocity of our enemies couldn't be more dead -- and I do mean DEAD -- wrong. John Edwards and Ron Paul are probably our candidates who are most willfully in the dark about the seriousness of the danger from terror... I would never wish for any terror attack on American soil, but they'd be the one on whose watch one would be most likely.

Only better intelligence and defense has enabled us to prevent another disastrous attack on the United States. It is not that we have reduced the danger. To the contrary, our actions have increased the danger of attacks in the future!

First, we invaded an Islamic country that was NOT in the forefront of the radical Islamic movement. We put it on the front burner and allowed radicals like al Qaeda to establish a foothold from which they can plan future attacks.

Ah, the well-worn ground. About Iraq being part of the War on Terror... true that Iraq was not a direct planner of 9/11 nor was it holding all the WMD we suspected. But Greenpeace did find this canister of yellowcake inside Iraq just after the war.

Anyway, it is a well-known fact that Saddam was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. From BBC News, 2003:
Saddam Hussein has paid out thousands of dollars to families of Palestinians killed in fighting with Israel. Relatives of at least one suicide attacker as well as other militants and civilians gathered in a hall in Gaza City to receive cheques. "Iraq and Palestine are in one trench. Saddam is a hero," read a banner over a picture of the Iraqi leader and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat at the ceremony. With war looming in the Middle East, Palestinian speakers condemned the United States and Israel, which dismissed the ceremony as support for terrorism.

Saddam's payments
$10,000 per family
$25,000 for family of a suicide bomber
$35 million paid since September 2000
So clearly he was part of the problem, certainly not part of the solution.

As for your other contention, al-Qaeda has flocked to Iraq since the invasion in order to kill some Americans. However, it's better there than here, which was the rationale all along. I seem to remember Michael Moore asking Bill O'Reilly if he'd send his son to die for Fallujah -- the retort being that O'Reilly would rather it be Fallujah than Des Moines.

Absolutely true, and people don't realize that we've stirred up the hornet's nest. Why do you think they're training all these suicide bombers? Yes, they are sending them to the West for their own scary reasons. But for accusations that the Global War on Terror is a 'bumper sticker slogan' is short-sighted and quite clueless, don't you agree?

WE ARE IN MORE DANGER TODAY!

You may well be right.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!