Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Scipio · 03-12-2004, 12:42 PM

I don't think we've had this discussion in a while, but it might be time to revisit it in light of what has happened in Spain.

Though the Bush administration, through the so-called "Bush doctrine," has promised to fight terrorists by going after the countries that support them. Afghanistan is the clearest example of this, and I don't think anybody will dispute that the Bush doctrine not only applied there, but also resulted in a good short term outcome (major damage to al Qaeda), and was the right thing to do. The situation over there right now is certainly grim, but it probably isn't much worse than during the Taliban.

I don't want to debate Iraq here, though I will say a few things about it. The administration framed the debate in terms of terrorism. The existence of Saddam enhanced the ability of terrorists to carry out attacks against the US. He offered financial support to terrorists in Israel (though that didn't really have any consequences for anti-American terrorists), and he probably had some non-nuclear unconventional weapons that he might some day put in the wrong hands. Moreover, his regime was stable. He had a son who could take over, and Iraq has oil wealth.

So in many ways, and invasion made sense, and was the right thing to do.

But, it does get to the point I want to make. The Bush doctrine (as a doctrine, and not as rationale for one or two wars/interventions) isn't sustainable, and just plain won't work. Look at the progression from Afghanistan to Iraq. Afghanistan was openly supporting the largest, most anti-American, and most dangerous terror network the world has ever seen. Iraq might have had unconventional weapons (nobody really knows if they still existed when we invaded), and gave some money to suicide bombers.

No country in the world comes close to Afghanistan circa 2000-2001 in supporting terrorism. As a counterterrorism strategy, the Bush doctrine won't work. The countries that "support terrorism" are too numerous, and support terrorism to such small degrees that invasions aren't justified. Iraq is just one war, and our military is already stretched too thin. I don't want to talk about how successful the nation building project there is, but I sure hope that we're able to produce a democracy that works.

Can we afford to do Iraq-like projects in 1, 2, or 5 more countries? I think the answer is no.

In fact, I think the Bush administration realizes this. They realize that the best approach isn't the hard-line rhetorical one they talk about on Meet the Press. It's actually a hybrid approach. It's a proactive approach. It's a multi-faceted approach. In my mind, successful counter-terrorism starts with the proposition that it's impossible to kill every terrorist, and that it's impossible to prevent every terrorist attack. The best way is to take measures that limit the ability of terrorists to carry out attacks that kill more than, say, 50 people. The Spanish attacks have shown that even small amounts of explosives and a little coordination can be very effective.

Taking measures that completely prevent attacks like that from happening are prohibitively expensive. There's sort of a rule of thumb about offense and defense, particularly as it pertains to technology. If you build a system that costs $10, and a new threat to the system emerges, you have to spend $100 on a system to protect the old system. We talked about this in debate a few years back. If you build a missile defense system for $500 billion, in a few years you'll be spending $5 trillion on a missile defense defense. All of this is a way of saying that we have to use our limited counter-terrorism resources in a way that produces the greatest benefit.

We freeze terroist funds, we require nations that support terrorists to get tough through the use of peaceful means, such as witholding aid. We make sure we're ready to deal with crises when they emerge. Cities must be prepared to deal with the consequences of an attack. We must better train law enforcement agents to prevent terrorism. It's all common sense type stuff, but the solution isn't a war every 2 years.

03-12-2004, 12:42 PM	#1 (permalink)
Scipio Mencken Location: College	How do we fight terrorism? I don't think we've had this discussion in a while, but it might be time to revisit it in light of what has happened in Spain. Though the Bush administration, through the so-called "Bush doctrine," has promised to fight terrorists by going after the countries that support them. Afghanistan is the clearest example of this, and I don't think anybody will dispute that the Bush doctrine not only applied there, but also resulted in a good short term outcome (major damage to al Qaeda), and was the right thing to do. The situation over there right now is certainly grim, but it probably isn't much worse than during the Taliban. I don't want to debate Iraq here, though I will say a few things about it. The administration framed the debate in terms of terrorism. The existence of Saddam enhanced the ability of terrorists to carry out attacks against the US. He offered financial support to terrorists in Israel (though that didn't really have any consequences for anti-American terrorists), and he probably had some non-nuclear unconventional weapons that he might some day put in the wrong hands. Moreover, his regime was stable. He had a son who could take over, and Iraq has oil wealth. So in many ways, and invasion made sense, and was the right thing to do. But, it does get to the point I want to make. The Bush doctrine (as a doctrine, and not as rationale for one or two wars/interventions) isn't sustainable, and just plain won't work. Look at the progression from Afghanistan to Iraq. Afghanistan was openly supporting the largest, most anti-American, and most dangerous terror network the world has ever seen. Iraq might have had unconventional weapons (nobody really knows if they still existed when we invaded), and gave some money to suicide bombers. No country in the world comes close to Afghanistan circa 2000-2001 in supporting terrorism. As a counterterrorism strategy, the Bush doctrine won't work. The countries that "support terrorism" are too numerous, and support terrorism to such small degrees that invasions aren't justified. Iraq is just one war, and our military is already stretched too thin. I don't want to talk about how successful the nation building project there is, but I sure hope that we're able to produce a democracy that works. Can we afford to do Iraq-like projects in 1, 2, or 5 more countries? I think the answer is no. In fact, I think the Bush administration realizes this. They realize that the best approach isn't the hard-line rhetorical one they talk about on Meet the Press. It's actually a hybrid approach. It's a proactive approach. It's a multi-faceted approach. In my mind, successful counter-terrorism starts with the proposition that it's impossible to kill every terrorist, and that it's impossible to prevent every terrorist attack. The best way is to take measures that limit the ability of terrorists to carry out attacks that kill more than, say, 50 people. The Spanish attacks have shown that even small amounts of explosives and a little coordination can be very effective. Taking measures that completely prevent attacks like that from happening are prohibitively expensive. There's sort of a rule of thumb about offense and defense, particularly as it pertains to technology. If you build a system that costs $10, and a new threat to the system emerges, you have to spend $100 on a system to protect the old system. We talked about this in debate a few years back. If you build a missile defense system for $500 billion, in a few years you'll be spending $5 trillion on a missile defense defense. All of this is a way of saying that we have to use our limited counter-terrorism resources in a way that produces the greatest benefit. We freeze terroist funds, we require nations that support terrorists to get tough through the use of peaceful means, such as witholding aid. We make sure we're ready to deal with crises when they emerge. Cities must be prepared to deal with the consequences of an attack. We must better train law enforcement agents to prevent terrorism. It's all common sense type stuff, but the solution isn't a war every 2 years. __________________ "Erections lasting more than 4 hours, though rare, require immediate medical attention."