What the Democrats Don't Understand About the War on Terror

By Greg Reeson, published Sep 22, 2006
Published Content: 203  Total Views: 52,124  Favorited By: 15 CPs
Contact  Subscribe   Add to Favorites
Rating: 4.2 of 5
 
Font
 
Font
As the mid-term election cycle enters the home stretch, Democratic congressional candidates, party leaders, and left-wing pundits are taking to the airwaves in a vigorous assault on the Bush administration’s handling of the Global War on Terror. By criticizing President Bush for diverting military manpower from the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, and by repeatedly calling for the rapid withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, Democrats demonstrate with remarkable clarity that they just don’t understand the purpose of the war or the battlegrounds upon which it is being fought.

After terrorists successfully attacked the United States on September 11, 2001, President Bush announced the launching of the Global War on Terror, a military and law enforcement campaign that would take the fight to our enemies so that we would not have to fight them at home. Really, though, America had been at war with fundamentalist Islamic ideology, manifesting itself in the form of vicious terrorist attacks against the United States and her allies, since long before the Twin Towers fell, the Pentagon was struck, and Americans fought back on United Flight 93 over Shanksville, Pennsylvania.

Radical Islamic terrorists attacked a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983, killing nearly two hundred fifty American service members. They struck again in Mogadishu, Somalia and in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993. They attacked us in Saudi Arabia in 1996, in East Africa in 1998, and in Yemen in 2000. They have called for the destruction of the United States and made clear their intent to attack and kill Americans whenever and wherever they could.

There is no disputing that Bin Laden is responsible for the murder of thousands of American citizens. But to focus on killing or capturing him as a means for ending the terrorist threat would be a strategic mistake and a tremendous waste of critical resources. Taking out Bin Laden would certainly be cause for celebration, but it would mean little in the overall battle against radical Islamic terrorists.

 
Share
 
Save For Later
 
Publish Yours
 
Print
More by Greg Reeson
View all »
You may also like...
Other topics: 
Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 42
Next >>
 
Greg, you made the point I've been waiting for this entire war: "...the best solution to the terrorist problem is the promotion of freedom and democracy in places where repression and dictatorial rule stifle human liberty." Why don't people get that? How many women are now allowed to vote because of our presence in Iraq? How many businesses have been erected? How many people can now feed their families? Why are the democrats fighting for the rights of people who are violent (Islam extremists) rather for the people whose lives have been improved by our efforts?

Add a Comment

Posted on 11/10/2006 at 7:11:00 PM

 
my comment was truncated. The point of it was to assail the theory that fighting them over there makes us safer. The NIE disagrees, and if fact concludes that we are more UNSAFE because of Iraq. I am sure the whole document is more nuanced, but the conclusions were clear. Also, I agree with you on the fact that we cannot leave Iraq without getting it right. Along those lines, NOTHING in the past 7 years has even hinted that the current administration has the wherewithal, the smarts, or the moral authority to fix what they broke. The fact that no one in the administration has been fired for the debacle in planning, and execution is shocking.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/27/2006 at 4:09:00 PM

 
Bush has no response when asked about Clinton's assertion that the Bush admin. didn't have a single meeting regarding Osama Bin Laden in the 8 months prior to 9/11. Bush was asleep at the wheel regarding terrorism and still is.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/26/2006 at 10:09:00 PM

 
Dang, the NIE must be a bunch of d*mned Democrats, too!!!

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/25/2006 at 3:09:00 PM

 
If Bush is so upfront about the cost of his war on terror, then why does he insist on hiding it from his budget? I assume you do know that every single dollar spent in Iraq and Aghanistan is officially considered "supplemental spending" that doesn't even figure into the record deficits that Bush has created out of the surplus handed him by Clinton. I don't know, maybe your definition of being upfront about the cost his war on terror is different from mine.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/24/2006 at 5:09:00 PM

 
I'm really amazed by all of the neo cons lurking on this site. Any nonsense article like this has tons of views and a 4.8 ... strange indeed. Where's this stuff being linked?

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/24/2006 at 9:09:00 AM

 
Craig, I respond by repeating what I said in the article: " While Iraq may not have been a prominent battleground for terrorists before the March 2003 invasion, it has undeniably become a crucial front in the war on terror today." Pay attention to what I said before posting your comments. I never implied that Iraq WAS part of the war on terror BEFORE, but certainly IS NOW. The previous sponsorship of terrorist activity by Saddam was directed not at us, but at the Israelis, the Turks, and the Iranians.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/24/2006 at 5:09:00 AM

 
How do you respond to this? and don't respond by saying the NY Times is a Bolshevik rag. In this sunday times... "A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks. The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final document. The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by United States intelligence agencies since the Iraq war began, and represents a consensus view of the 16 disparate spy services inside government.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/24/2006 at 5:09:00 AM

 
Kim Hagen, I see, is from the lesser-intelligent side of our family branch... Kim, 1) Bush declared "mission accomplished," and then kept claiming how the war needed more funding and we had to keep fighting it; 2) Bush ignored critical data available to him pertaining to WMDs in Iraq; 3) How could Bush possibly have been "up front" with the American people if HIS OWN SECRETARY OF DEFENSE didn't have any idea how long the conflict would last??? Donald Rumsfeld was completely out to lunch during the first year of this thing, sending in way fewer troops than what was needed, ergo your claim that anyone in that administration was up front and honest is ridiculous because they both lied and had no idea what they were getting into. "VERY upfront" my left one. And as for "politicizing" something, huh?!?!?!? We live in a democracy, Kim. That means anything our leaders do is INHERANTLY "politicized," and should be. The left didn't politicize ANYTHING because the whole "W

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2006 at 1:09:00 PM

 
Greg, I have to say I think you almost completely miss the reasons for terrorism existing. You are correct in saying that freedom and democratic processess can help bring about societies with less terrorism, that freedom cannot be brought from the recieving end of a gun. Frankly, if I was an Iraqi, I would be fighting us too..we are an occupier, with a long term agenda. And on anohter note, I was there when the marine barracks was bombed in Lebanon (in the US Navy, right off the coast) and did alot of research surroning the hows and whys. To sum up, the barracks were attacked because Reagan choose to back the chritian militias, choosing sides. That made the Marines combatants on one side of a religious conflict. We are making the same mistake in Iraq..

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2006 at 11:09:00 AM

 
mr. reeson luckily reason is finally starting to win out in America and I foresee both the house and the senate going blue this year. the dems are far from saints but it'll be a very good thing to be able to have the power to slow down the bush admin in any way we can for the good of the country and the world.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2006 at 11:09:00 AM

 
Kim--it is insulting to write off legitimate concerns from people like me as a "Politicization" of anything. Are you aware of the costs of this "war on terror", both financially and in death? Even many who have fought in this war believe it is wrong for America, at least in how it has manifested itself in Iraq. Are they being simply political? Maybe, but that doesn't render their views illegitimate. We are not supposed to follow elected officials like zombies just cause they say so. There is a political aspect to these kinds of things whether you believe it or not, especially when presidential administartions seem to be using their wars as a POLITICAL tool of their own. Yet you seem to have no problem with that do you?

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2006 at 10:09:00 AM

 
As for the intelligence Greg. You say that the State Department doesn't have the same resources as the CIA. True. But from what I gather in my research, the State looked at the same intel that the CIA used. However, the State interpretted it differently than the CIA because the pressure from the White House had not been applied in the same way it was at the CIA. It was a matter of interpretation, not a case of two seperate sets of evidence. In any case, it turns out the State department assessments were much closer to being correct, and that information was deliberately left out. Shouldn't that raise some serious flags.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2006 at 9:09:00 AM

 
greg--You articulate your position better than most on the right I must say. However, we have a fundamental philosophical difference here, as usual. For instance, you admit that all terrorists cannot be killed, yet you belive it is worth fighting a never ending war. How is perpetual war healthy for any society. Also, pulling out of the Middle East may not show rewards instantly. But with time the extremists will loose their base of recruits if they do not have a palpable example of what they consider American involvement in their lives, and what they view as our complicity in eroding muslim culture and influence. It is simply a fallacy to say that their motivation is purely to destroy us just for the sake of destroying us. Which brings me to my next point, that is that terrorism can NEVER destroy us. We have endured far worse without dedciating ourselves to perpetual warfare as a solution.

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2006 at 9:09:00 AM

 
Greg, I enjoyed your article very much. President Bush was VERY up front about the cost & duration of the War on Terror. It's a shame how a legitimate effort to protect our country has been politicized by the Left. Personally, it's my belief that Bin Laden has been dead since the bombings of the caves... There's still the terror cell training facilities and funding with which to be concerned. Your article was a great read & thanks for writing it!

Add a Comment

Posted on 09/23/2006 at 9:09:00 AM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 42
Next >>
Most Commented On