Tweet
The war on terror cannot be won by military force alone. Defeating
terrorists requires allies, intelligence, and respect as well as the
threat and implementation of physical force.
The war on Afganhistan, despite it's links to the pipeline deal, was
almost unanimously internationally respected. France and Germany
immedately offered troops and still have a large presence in the
country. Only 2 or 3 countries actually opposed the action.
At the time, the biggest selling French paper had the headline "We
are all Americans today." Around the world, people were overcome with
grief from the tradgedy and world opinion of the United States was
extremely high.
Why Iraq was different
According to numerous White House insiders, including Condi
Rice, Bush had talked about invading Iraq in his very first security
meeting. According to Richard Clarke, Bush asked if Iraq was involved
directly after the 9/11 attacks.
After Afghanistan, Bush talked about Iraq in the context of the 9/11
attacks, saying that they'd changed everything and that the US could no
longer accept potential threats.
The reason given was the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
The tie to terrorism was a lesser reason and regime change was
barely mentioned... even denied by Ari Fleisher.
The US then went to the United Nations and agreed to a resolution
that called for an enhances WMD inspection regime to be
implemented in Iraq, Resolution 1441. It stated very clearly that
the UN inspection teams had to report any non-compliance to the
Security Council so a suitable response could be formulated.
Nothing was mentioned about regime change or liberation.
The inspection teams began their work and immediately inspected all
the most likely weapons sites provided by US intelligence. Surprisingly,
they found nothing to report on.
In his report to the UN Security Council, Hans Blix said the
following:
"In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in
Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230
different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been
inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using
helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual
inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already
proved invaluable in helping to ?freeze? large sites by observing the
movement of traffic in and around the area."
"We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple
inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me
end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in
a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the
Security Council."
The Bush team got quite upset by the lack of inspection results and
a few Republicans bashed Hans Blix for his "failure" to uncover
weapons. A few weeks later, Colin Powell gave a speech to the
Security Council which contained pictures of Iraqi WMD equipment
(including chemical sites and biological trucks) amongst other
things.
The next day it was revealed that Powell had taken some of his
information from a forged university thesis. The next week Hans Blix
revealed that not only were the satellite photos of weapons sites
taken a few weeks apart, but also that after inspection, none of
those sites contained any evidence of WMDS. The nuclear inspection
agency promply reported that the report on Iraqi nukes was "forged",
a conclusion that Ambassador Wilson had already reported to Cheney's
office over a year ealier.
The US then attempted to push through a resolution to "disarm"
Iraq but found very scant support within the Security Council and in
the UN generally. Many countries outside the Security Council used a
special session in the UN to protest the US action.
World Opinion
"One power with a president who has no foresight -- who cannot think
properly -- is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."
Nelson Mandela
Archbishop Renato Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of
the Council for Justice and Peace, said the war against Iraq was not a
"preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not
constitute a "just war." The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran,
expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings
in the Islamic world.
On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign
ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable."
"The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass
destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a
country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons
of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so
deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly
suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to
regret."
Richard Butler who led the UN inspection teams in Iraq until 1998
Hosni Mubarak predicted "100 more Bin Laden's" would be caused by the war.
The World Council of Churches, which represents between 350 million
and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries, published a
statement in opposition to war with Iraq. The executive committee
said, "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of
the principles of the United Nations Charter."
The war in Iraq was protested by more people internationally than any
other war in history since Vietnam.
A weekend of worldwide anti-war demonstrations has brought millions
of people out onto the streets in support of a peaceful solution to
the crisis between Iraq and the United States.
Between six and 10 million people are thought to have marched in up
to 60 countries over the weekend - the largest demonstrations of
their kind since the Vietnam War.
Some of the largest turnouts were seen in countries whose governments
have offered the staunchest support for US President George W Bush's
tough stance against Iraq, threatening military action to force it to
comply with UN disarmament rules.
Since then the global opinion of the US has declined dramatically, as
reported by numerous independant surveys and polls. Countries are
less keen on sharing information with the US and some aren't even
considered "allies" for their reluctance to join the war.
The US then attacked Iraq and Iraqi opinion about the action was very
high. A lot of them thanked the US for their liberation but after the
US failed to commit enough ground troops and couldn't prevent the
looting and anarchy that followed, sure enough a lot of them turned
against the US and many of them even accept the latest terrorist attacks
as completely justified.
No large quantities of WMDs were found by the US, contrary to it's
claims and so was no evidence of established ties to Al Queda, as
documented by the 9/11 committee.
Liberation which was supposed to liberate people actually turned a
country into chaos and killed over 10,000 civilians. This was all
paraded on international television stations. Reconstruction has been
minimal due to the already stated anarchy.
As I've mentioned, global opinion was always overwhelmingly against
this war. Only now has the US public been more aware of it's reality.
Finally.
The war on terrorist requires allies. It needs credibility and all
the help and intelligence it can get. It needs less Muslims to become
terrorists and to hate the United States.
Instead of the US focussing on these problems, it created completely
new problems by declaring that it was invade Iraq, unilaterally if
necessary.
The war on Iraq completely undermined the war on terrorism. The US
removed CIA trackers from Afganhistan to join the hunt for Saddam
Hussein.
Less people respect the US and many more Muslims are happy to blow
themselves up for their cause.
In Iraq, the moderate Shite/Sunni population have become measurably
more fundamentalist, a lot of them wanting to form an Islamic State.
Even Rumsfeld admitted:
"we don't have a good visibility into how many new recruits are coming in
- the intake - and going to these radical madrassa schools and
learning how to go out and kill people and being encouraged and
equipped and trained to deploy to do these suicide missions. We don't
know that and unless one knows that, you can't answer the question
are you winning or losing."
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global
war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading
more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics
are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next
generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort
into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort
into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us!
Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
And the State Dept:
SUBJECT: PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
WORLDWIDE CAUTION
This Public Announcement is being updated to remind U.S. citizens of the continuing threat of terrorist actions and anti-American violence against U.S. citizens and interests overseas. This supersedes the Worldwide Caution dated March 23, 2004 and expires on October 23, 2004.
The Department of State is deeply concerned about the heightened threat of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests abroad. The Department is also concerned about the potential for demonstrations and violent actions against U.S. citizens and interests overseas. U.S. citizens are reminded to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness.
The Department of State remains concerned by indications that al-Qaida continues to prepare to strike U.S. interests abroad. Al-Qaida and its associated organizations have most recently struck in the Middle East and in Europe but other geographic locations could also be venues for attacks. Future al-Qaida attacks could possibly involve non-conventional weapons such as chemical or biological agents as well as conventional weapons of terror. We also cannot rule out that al-Qaida will attempt a catastrophic attack within the U.S.
Terrorist actions may include, but are not limited to, suicide operations, hijackings, bombings or kidnappings. These may involve aviation and other transportation and maritime interests, and may also include conventional weapons, such as explosive devices. Terrorists do not distinguish between official and civilian targets. These may include facilities where U.S. citizens and other foreigners congregate or visit, including residential areas, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools, hotels and public areas. U.S. citizens are encouraged to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness.
U.S. Government facilities worldwide remain at a heightened state of alert. These facilities may temporarily close or suspend public services from time to time to assess their security posture. In those instances, U.S. embassies and consulates will make every effort to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens. Americans abroad are urged to monitor the local news and maintain contact with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.
You decide whether Bush is really winning the war on terror.
terrorists requires allies, intelligence, and respect as well as the
threat and implementation of physical force.
The war on Afganhistan, despite it's links to the pipeline deal, was
almost unanimously internationally respected. France and Germany
immedately offered troops and still have a large presence in the
country. Only 2 or 3 countries actually opposed the action.
At the time, the biggest selling French paper had the headline "We
are all Americans today." Around the world, people were overcome with
grief from the tradgedy and world opinion of the United States was
extremely high.
Why Iraq was different
According to numerous White House insiders, including Condi
Rice, Bush had talked about invading Iraq in his very first security
meeting. According to Richard Clarke, Bush asked if Iraq was involved
directly after the 9/11 attacks.
After Afghanistan, Bush talked about Iraq in the context of the 9/11
attacks, saying that they'd changed everything and that the US could no
longer accept potential threats.
The reason given was the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
The tie to terrorism was a lesser reason and regime change was
barely mentioned... even denied by Ari Fleisher.
The US then went to the United Nations and agreed to a resolution
that called for an enhances WMD inspection regime to be
implemented in Iraq, Resolution 1441. It stated very clearly that
the UN inspection teams had to report any non-compliance to the
Security Council so a suitable response could be formulated.
Nothing was mentioned about regime change or liberation.
The inspection teams began their work and immediately inspected all
the most likely weapons sites provided by US intelligence. Surprisingly,
they found nothing to report on.
In his report to the UN Security Council, Hans Blix said the
following:
"In the past two months during which we have built-up our presence in
Iraq, we have conducted about 300 inspections to more than 230
different sites. Of these, more than 20 were sites that had not been
inspected before. By the end of December, UNMOVIC began using
helicopters both for the transport of inspectors and for actual
inspection work. We now have eight helicopters. They have already
proved invaluable in helping to ?freeze? large sites by observing the
movement of traffic in and around the area."
"We have now an inspection apparatus that permits us to send multiple
inspection teams every day all over Iraq, by road or by air. Let me
end by simply noting that that capability which has been built-up in
a short time and which is now operating, is at the disposal of the
Security Council."
The Bush team got quite upset by the lack of inspection results and
a few Republicans bashed Hans Blix for his "failure" to uncover
weapons. A few weeks later, Colin Powell gave a speech to the
Security Council which contained pictures of Iraqi WMD equipment
(including chemical sites and biological trucks) amongst other
things.
The next day it was revealed that Powell had taken some of his
information from a forged university thesis. The next week Hans Blix
revealed that not only were the satellite photos of weapons sites
taken a few weeks apart, but also that after inspection, none of
those sites contained any evidence of WMDS. The nuclear inspection
agency promply reported that the report on Iraqi nukes was "forged",
a conclusion that Ambassador Wilson had already reported to Cheney's
office over a year ealier.
The US then attempted to push through a resolution to "disarm"
Iraq but found very scant support within the Security Council and in
the UN generally. Many countries outside the Security Council used a
special session in the UN to protest the US action.
World Opinion
"One power with a president who has no foresight -- who cannot think
properly -- is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust."
Nelson Mandela
Archbishop Renato Martino, a former U.N. envoy and current prefect of
the Council for Justice and Peace, said the war against Iraq was not a
"preventative" war and constituted a "war of aggression", and thus did not
constitute a "just war." The foreign minister, Archbishop Jean-Louis Tauran,
expressed concerns that a war in Iraq would inflame anti-Christian feelings
in the Islamic world.
On February 8, 2003, Pope John Paul II said "we should never resign
ourselves, almost as if war is inevitable."
"The spectacle of the United States, armed with its weapons of mass
destruction, acting without Security Council authority to invade a
country in the heartland of Arabia and, if necessary, use its weapons
of mass destruction to win that battle, is something that will so
deeply violate any notion of fairness in this world that I strongly
suspect it could set loose forces that we would deeply live to
regret."
Richard Butler who led the UN inspection teams in Iraq until 1998
Hosni Mubarak predicted "100 more Bin Laden's" would be caused by the war.
The World Council of Churches, which represents between 350 million
and 450 million Christians from over 100 countries, published a
statement in opposition to war with Iraq. The executive committee
said, "War against Iraq would be immoral, unwise, and in breach of
the principles of the United Nations Charter."
The war in Iraq was protested by more people internationally than any
other war in history since Vietnam.
A weekend of worldwide anti-war demonstrations has brought millions
of people out onto the streets in support of a peaceful solution to
the crisis between Iraq and the United States.
Between six and 10 million people are thought to have marched in up
to 60 countries over the weekend - the largest demonstrations of
their kind since the Vietnam War.
Some of the largest turnouts were seen in countries whose governments
have offered the staunchest support for US President George W Bush's
tough stance against Iraq, threatening military action to force it to
comply with UN disarmament rules.
Since then the global opinion of the US has declined dramatically, as
reported by numerous independant surveys and polls. Countries are
less keen on sharing information with the US and some aren't even
considered "allies" for their reluctance to join the war.
The US then attacked Iraq and Iraqi opinion about the action was very
high. A lot of them thanked the US for their liberation but after the
US failed to commit enough ground troops and couldn't prevent the
looting and anarchy that followed, sure enough a lot of them turned
against the US and many of them even accept the latest terrorist attacks
as completely justified.
No large quantities of WMDs were found by the US, contrary to it's
claims and so was no evidence of established ties to Al Queda, as
documented by the 9/11 committee.
Liberation which was supposed to liberate people actually turned a
country into chaos and killed over 10,000 civilians. This was all
paraded on international television stations. Reconstruction has been
minimal due to the already stated anarchy.
As I've mentioned, global opinion was always overwhelmingly against
this war. Only now has the US public been more aware of it's reality.
Finally.
The war on terrorist requires allies. It needs credibility and all
the help and intelligence it can get. It needs less Muslims to become
terrorists and to hate the United States.
Instead of the US focussing on these problems, it created completely
new problems by declaring that it was invade Iraq, unilaterally if
necessary.
The war on Iraq completely undermined the war on terrorism. The US
removed CIA trackers from Afganhistan to join the hunt for Saddam
Hussein.
Less people respect the US and many more Muslims are happy to blow
themselves up for their cause.
In Iraq, the moderate Shite/Sunni population have become measurably
more fundamentalist, a lot of them wanting to form an Islamic State.
Even Rumsfeld admitted:
"we don't have a good visibility into how many new recruits are coming in
- the intake - and going to these radical madrassa schools and
learning how to go out and kill people and being encouraged and
equipped and trained to deploy to do these suicide missions. We don't
know that and unless one knows that, you can't answer the question
are you winning or losing."
Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global
war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading
more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics
are recruiting, training and deploying against us?
Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next
generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort
into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort
into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us!
Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.
And the State Dept:
SUBJECT: PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT
WORLDWIDE CAUTION
This Public Announcement is being updated to remind U.S. citizens of the continuing threat of terrorist actions and anti-American violence against U.S. citizens and interests overseas. This supersedes the Worldwide Caution dated March 23, 2004 and expires on October 23, 2004.
The Department of State is deeply concerned about the heightened threat of terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and interests abroad. The Department is also concerned about the potential for demonstrations and violent actions against U.S. citizens and interests overseas. U.S. citizens are reminded to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness.
The Department of State remains concerned by indications that al-Qaida continues to prepare to strike U.S. interests abroad. Al-Qaida and its associated organizations have most recently struck in the Middle East and in Europe but other geographic locations could also be venues for attacks. Future al-Qaida attacks could possibly involve non-conventional weapons such as chemical or biological agents as well as conventional weapons of terror. We also cannot rule out that al-Qaida will attempt a catastrophic attack within the U.S.
Terrorist actions may include, but are not limited to, suicide operations, hijackings, bombings or kidnappings. These may involve aviation and other transportation and maritime interests, and may also include conventional weapons, such as explosive devices. Terrorists do not distinguish between official and civilian targets. These may include facilities where U.S. citizens and other foreigners congregate or visit, including residential areas, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools, hotels and public areas. U.S. citizens are encouraged to maintain a high level of vigilance and to take appropriate steps to increase their security awareness.
U.S. Government facilities worldwide remain at a heightened state of alert. These facilities may temporarily close or suspend public services from time to time to assess their security posture. In those instances, U.S. embassies and consulates will make every effort to provide emergency services to U.S. citizens. Americans abroad are urged to monitor the local news and maintain contact with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.
You decide whether Bush is really winning the war on terror.
Do you have any data to back up that statement? 
Comment