Would you rather fight them there, or here?
Submitted by Cristian Brown on February 14, 2007 - 1:29pm.
Terrorism | Hizbollah | International | Iran | Iraq | Lebanon | Middle East | National Security | Veterans & Military
A repeated meme of the GOP House members, echoing a frequent Bush theme, has been that "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here." As a GOP memo outlined, their strategy is to avoid discussing whether any our objectives in Iraq are attainable. They know they will lose, because every informed source including the recent NIE says those objectives are impossible.
Instead, GOP House members were urged to focus on "the threat of Islamic fantaticism" and "the consequences of failure in Iraq." And so we hear Ileana Ros-Lehtenin (F-FL) saying: "If we run, they will pursue. If we cower, they will strike. The choice is this: do we fight and defeat the enemy, or do we surrender?"
Let's assume, arguendo, that if we disengage in Iraq then fantatical extremists will indeed look elsewhere for Americans to kill, including here in the United States. Is that a bad thing? Or is that good strategy?
Consider how many advantages we have meeting extremist threats here in the U.S. Rather than being fish in the ocean, as they are in Baghdad, the extremists become fish out of water. The number of foreign-mission-capable Al Qaeda operatives is miniscule compared to the number who can operate in Iraq. Such operatives must speak English, must assimilate into and move through a foreign society without attracting attention. They must acquire arms -- much more difficult here in the U.S. than in Baghdad. They must receive and spend money, in a closely-monitored international banking system.
Given all of those differences, can anyone even remotely think it likely that fanatical extremists could set off a half-dozen or more roadside IEDs per day in New York or Los Angeles or Chicago or Miami, as they currently do in Baghdad and have done for three years? Is it even remotely possible that I-95 would become "Ambush Alley?"
From a strategic perspective, we are foregoing "home field advantage." We are surrendering all of the many challenges an extremist must overcome to mount an operation in the United States. Instead, we have given the extremists convenient targets in the form of U.S. troops ... operating in a foreign environment where it is difficult to tell friend from foe, where the extremists are not fish out of water, where our troops are instead shipwrecked and attempting to survive in shark-filled waters.
Yes, let's "fight them here." Our odds are much better here.
It's called "strategy," and while it might mean that stock brokers rather than soldiers die in the occasional successful attack, we are still better off stacking the odds in our favor. And if the true strength of the United States is measured by our will and determination, I can guarantee you that would never be lacking in defending our own neighborhoods.
Yes, let's "fight them here." Because here, they cannot win.
Crissie
Hiya DB,
I can't disagree with the sentiment. The chickenhawks who went out of their ways to avoid serving when they were young -- but who now claim to be "wartime leaders" -- make me sick.
However, the "we" in that context obviously refers to the United States, and not simply to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. In that respect, "we" are all at war, whether we're personally wearing a uniform in Iraq or praying and paying for our sons and daughters who are there.
Crissie
There's some logic in your analysis, Crissie, but I hope it doesn't become widespread. You'll be laughed out of most roooms no matter where you are.
You can approach the matter indirectly. As I said in another blog a couple of days ago, we should be saying that our next attackers are already here. We must focus on internal security, intellegence, boots on the ground, and interagency cooperation and cross-communication to thwart any plans the terrorists already here might have.
Such cerebral arguments will never work in American politics.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
If not now, WHO? If not now, WHEN?
BE THE CHANGE you wish to see in the world.
Still a good argument though. Nice job Crissie.
Ron Esquerra
Alger County Democratic Party
Upper Peninsula Veterans Coordinator-
www.michigan4clark.com
Although I like it.
It's far more simple.
Just because we are in Iraq now, doesn't mean we also can't be attacked here.
So the over there vs. over here bifurcation of the argument is just silly.
As much as the Repugs like to say they're tough on terrorism, their whole argument sounds pretty cowardly. We're fighting them there because we're afraid that they'll come here just like we're afraid of Kim Jong Il's defective rocket or that blowhard Ahmadinejad? Come on, we're the United States. What are we so damn afraid of?
Anyway, if we'd finished fighting them in Afghanistan, we wouldn't have to fight them here or in Iraq.
Hi All,
First, thanks for the responses.
Second, please note that my argument began here:
Let's assume, arguendo, that if we disengage in Iraq then fantatical extremists will indeed look elsewhere for Americans to kill, including here in the United States.
GOP House members have been repeating this assumption all week, as if its truth is self-evident, or perhaps as if it will become true through repetition. As it turns out, I don't believe the assumption is true. I was joining the assumption arguendo, that is, "for purposes of argument."
In fact, Al Qaeda and other extremist missions in the U.S. have little or nothing to do with our presence in Iraq. Foreign-capable operatives -- those who can assimilate into and move through an alien culture without arousing suspicion, and committed enough to sustain their mission in the face of those challenges -- are far too rare and far too valuable to be wasted in the streets of Baghdad, Fallujah, or Tikrit.
As Stan has correctly noted, those foreign-capable operatives that exist are already here -- in the U.S. and other Western countries -- and the success or failure of their missions has nothing whatever to do with our operations in Iraq. roseba hit on the same point with her comment that bifurcating the analysis this way makes no sense; terrorist operations here are not conditioned on our failure in Iraq.
The point of my essay was this: even if this GOP assumption were true, it does not follow that our best strategy against terrorists is to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. That is tantamount to saying that our troops are simply bait ... easy, accessible targets for people who want to kill Americans ... so the terrorists can sate their bloodlust on our troops and leave the rest of us alone.
I cannot imagine a more vile and repugnant role for our bravest young men and women. Imagine the Hatfield patriarch, knowing the McCoys wanted vengeance, tethering his own child on the McCoys' property, hoping the McCoys would be satisfied with killing that child and leave the rest of the Hatfield family be. (Lest anyone take offense, I come from Hatfield stock.)
That is what "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here" means. And it is shameful.
Crissie
Here's another. If we look at what took place in the British-Irish conflict during the last 30 years of the 20th century, we discover that some of those who conducted IRA operations in England were born and raised English citizens, although generally with some Irish ancestry. Indeed, the Chief of Staff of the IRA during the most violent period of the conflict was an Englishman by the name of John Stevens, if memory serves. Those realities certainly don't mean that everyone of Irish ancestry in England was on the side of the IRA. Far from it. However, they should alert Americans to the possibility that we may even have some native born Americans who strongly sympathize with al-Qaida, and/or with some of the Iraqi insurgents. And the longer we continue Bush's Middle-Eastern folly, the more of those we are likely to produce.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
Here is a question for everyone on this board.
Define Freedom Fighters. Ok, Now think and define Terrorists in your head.
How different are your definitions of the words. Terrorists or Freedom Fighters have been around for years, in fact, since the beginning of humankind.
The "insurgents" in Iraq that we think are terrorists, they see themselves as Freedom Fighters, fighting against American Oppression.
Don't believe me, look at the activities we did back between 1775-1783. I am sure many of you know this to be the American Revolution, when we were 'Freedom Fighters' against our English Oppressors.
Or if you want a more recent example, lets go to the Vietnam 'War'. I bet you the South Vietmanese were seen as Terrorists to North Vietnam, meanwhile we saw them as Freedom fighters.
That said, lets look back at the topic. If we pull out of Iraq, and let Iraq police itself, we will have done what we set out to do. More than that, it will give Al Quida Recruits one LESS reason to join.
More to the point, god help them if they ever try to lead a prolonged assault on this Country, because when you fight for your land and your wellbeing you become your own force to be reckoned with, and your on terrain you know that you can use toward your own Gorilla Warfare. More to the Point, how many people all over this country have their own secret caches of weapons.
In conclusion, let us truly try to give them freedom, let their security forces police their country, and God Help the poor soul who attacks this one, for when you fight a man on his own soil, he if fighting not only for himself, but for the very lively hood of all those around him he cares about.
~Matthew
In my old fashioned view, acts of terror are acts of violence intentionally committed against non-combatants - especially innocent third parties. Also, in my view, those sorts of acts are equally reprehensible whether conducted by small bands of un-paid volunteer irregulars, or professional uniformed troops.
Most groups of volunteer "freedom fighters" include members who sometimes engage in acts of terror. Unfortunately, the same is true of most professional armed forces as well.
One of the most frustrating realities of modern international politics is that far too many politicians seem to think that whatever their professional armed forces do is justifiable, no matter how atrocious. At the same time, these very same politicians evidently think that anything their enemies do is a "cowardly terrorist act". This leads to protracted conflicts, because those politicians consider themselves too good to negotiate with "terrorists". If we could somehow do away with that noun (terrorist, singular or plural), and realize that the act is not the same as the person, perhaps we could find a more peaceful way to share our time on this planet.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
In invading Iraq we took out a regime that was al-Qa'ida's worst enemy in the Arab world. This "fighting them there" crap usually comes from people who can't tell one Muslim from the next, and who think we are at war with Islamic civilization, instead of being at war with a small group of extremists. Such people are the worst enemy we have in our own camp, because their policies are inflaming the Islamic world against us.
Attacking Iraq in response to the 9/11 attacks was akin to attacking China after Pearl Harbor.
Iraq was not only not the culprit, but also, prior to Bush I's formation of the Gulf War I coalition forces, Osama bin-Laden had volunteered to throw the Iraqi army out of Kuwait.
Nick Kelly
Wes Clark will be the national security candidate.
In fact we gave them an air force, with pilots, after Japan destroyed theirs. That's why Pearl Harbor was attacked. The better analogy would probably be attacking Thailand after Pearl Harbor.
And you are right to point out that there are no permanent allies, only permanent interests. Bin Ladin was allied with us in the Cold War, just as we had been allied with the USSR and other Communists in World War II.
Hi Dan,
Actually, that's the topic of my latest essay, Changing Tunnels, Still Tunnel Vision.
Crissie
I'd like for all of the chickenhawks saying "we're fighting the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here" to quit using the word 'we' unless they're willing to put on a uniform and back up their words