- This topic has 3 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
A good argument can be made for both, but I think a better argument can be made that the attack was pre-emptive. There was a post made on the discussion board at school talking about terrorism and Iraq and how it is important to know the culture you are dealing with. A statement made by the poster was “terrorism has been and always will be a response to a perceived situation and never a ?pre-emptive? action.” Now this could be an instructor or a grad student (you can't tell there unless they have 'Dr.' in front of their name). My response was along these lines: “I would completely agree if you said an insurgency is a reaction to a peceived threat, but isn't terorism more an ideology, so it CAN be pre-emptive?” (I know. That was pretty weak)What was the goal of the terrorists for 9-11? I believe it was to destroy us economically and probably politically. So in that way, it was pre-emptive. Some could say it was a reaction to our presence in the Middle East, but I disagree because, for the most part, they've been at war with themselves for a long time and they are just using that as an excuse. In Iraq and Afghanistan we are fighting insurgents and terrorists, and those are two completely seperate entities. You could say an insurgency is influenced by terrorists, but that's a different ballgame. It is to my understanding that most of the insurgency in Iraq is a reaction to our presence. Their goal is to make us leave. There goal is not to destroy America. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, want us to be weakened, defeated, and killed and they want our will and economy destroyed. That's quite a big difference. They also have clearly stated they want a caliphate from Spain to Southeast Asia. We, Britain, Australia, the West is just in the way of that goal. Our going into Afghanistan was a reactive reponse to 9-11. Was going into Iraq also reactive, or was it pre-emptive? (everyone seems to think it was pre-emptive). Is it safe to say removing Saddam was reactive, but our nation building is pre-emptive? (IMO a better word would be 'preventive'.)What about Hitler and the holocaust? Was that a reaction to a perceived threat (eliminating the economic threat of Jews) or was it pre-emptive? (eliminating Jews simply because of his hatred for them) IMO, and due to my lack of knowledge, that's a fine line. What are some other incidents in the history of warfare that could be perceived both ways? Is all war reactive?
Is all war reactive?
In a word, yes... reaction to threats (real or perceived) or to opportunities (same parameters).I really don't think anyone in Al-Qaeda thought we would react quite how we did to 9-11; they really couldn't expect us to completely roll over, curl up and die... it was an opportunity for them to send a message: "We are able to reach out from our sandbox and mess with you! You can't stop us."While we have made some progress in defeating them, we mostly showed them we weren't going to change just because they didn't like how the world is getting to be. Our victory comes by showing them how marginal they really are in the entire scheme of things. The rest of the world will not allow it... see below.Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were real threats (international communism too) because they were built on the concept that their system would, somehow, make life better for the people (at least in therory)... fundamental anything seeks to regression to a simpler system that will not support us today; not looking to build anything but to crawl back into the sandbox of history! No one really wants to go there; if that were true the Iraqis would be happier now with less infrastructure, no? Let one country in the Middle East go 100% fundamental... no holds barred, and see how the liberal press reacts. This presupposes total disclosure of all the repression and execution... not likely, eh? So in the meantime we can just hope the rest of the world gets the idea and helps squash these nut cases.One can certainly see why some folks believe religion is/has done mankind more harm than good.Wally
This is a good topic and I think that the first party to make a major “move” toward battle or war could be considered the one engaging in “pre-emptive” measures, whereas the one responding to a major move is engaging in “reaction”. I don't think that much had changed in Iraq between, say, the year 2000 and 2003, yet the United States chose to invade Iraq at that point. For this reason I think it could very well be argued a “pre-emptive” move. Now this doesn't mean to say that certain diplomatic moves were not made (e.g. the violation of U.N. regulations) but in terms of actual military action on the part of Iraq, I don't think the nation did anything which the U.S. then “reacted” to. We can go back in history....the launching of the Spanish Armada in 1588...the raid on Harper's Ferry...I think history would argue that some times military action taken as pre-emptivea measure is sometimes "required" based on perceived threats not arising from immediate military danger. The next question becomes whether or not this doctrine is legitimate in today's world given our diplomatic progress and the channels for peace we have developed in modern times.
.... The next question becomes whether or not this doctrine is legitimate in today's world given our diplomatic progress and the channels for peace we have developed in modern times.
Diplomatic solutions work only if the parties involved are willing (recognize that their position is driving the potential problem)... both sides must be willing to talk. Also assumes that the gov'ts are in control and speak for the country... Serbia wasn't able to control Black Hand and who should have had Al-Qaeda or Osama on a leash?You're right though, this is a good topic for discussion.Wally
Wally, I think you underestimate radical Islam. They are just as much a real threat as Japan or Germany was…perhaps even more. If onlt terrorismwas a country instead of an ideology, it would be much easier. They are masters of propaganda (they're kicking our butts in that area) as well as masters of small, primitive warfare and insurgency…their whole history has been that way. They also know how to adapt to our changing strategies. You said in another thread the reason for their failure was because of the tribal nature. IMO, that's what makes them strong. They certainly know how to unite when it matters to them, do they not?Diplomacy could work and has worked. Look at Anbar province. Less than a year ago they were killing American troops, today they are fighting Al Qaeda with us. Will it work and continue? Only time will tell. I believe that most who are joining the police and Iraqi army consider themselves not Sunni or Shia, but Iraqis. We need to encourage that.Thanks for saying this is a good topic of discussion, however, I notice no one touched the Hitler question. ;DOne other one, was it a good or bad idea to cut off funding to the Palestinians? Couldn't one logically say that made the situation worse?
Perhaps I overestimate the non-radical Muslims… they are the ones that have to step up and declare to the terroists and the rest of the world that Islam is really a religion that cares about human life and peace and then prove it. As to the propaganda thing; we have been trying to be politically correct and not say these guys are pond scum bent on dragging the modern world back a century and a half to live in a catbox! Yet they can go off 24-7 about the modern world being the devil's work and corrupting their ways of life... sure they win; let them give up their internet connections and SAM's and automatic weapons etc. and get on their camels and schlep back to the days of the Sultanate.Diplomacy has a chance as long as the $ holds out... in the end we are gonna get what we pay for.Hitler was, as I tell the students, one of the most influential leaders in the history of humankind... a sociopath, surely, but he told people what they wanted and needed to hear... that it wasn't their fault that their world was messed up; no he blamed the Jews. He had an audience that wanted to be the innocent victim of someone or something and Hitler picked the Jews. (Ironic isn't it that the officer that put him in for the Iron Cross in WWI was a Jew?) Any of this seem anything like the terrorist's appeal to the underclasses in the Muslim world?Ah yes... the Palestinian issue. Another case where the rest of the world did make it worse trying to fix it (with self-interest); the Balfour Declaration, bastard calf of The Treaty of Versailles. All I can say is I'm amazed that two Semitic peoples that have been the doormat for the rest of the world can't figure it out and get their (collective) act together. Tribalism again! Same old "...my God can beat up your God!" When will they figure out that my God is your God?Oh well... sorry for the rant.Wally
Wow, Wally!!! Didn't mean to hit a nerve. 😀I'll get back later but one comment I have. These moderate Muslims, what happens to them if they speak up or help our troops? Usually they end up beheaded and buried somewhere. We do need to protect them more. As for propoganda, one of the biggest tactics used by the extremists is the definition of Jihad. Do we use OBL's definition (worldwide domination, convert or die. He wants everyone to think this. That way, in his sick little mind, he can justify his actions. He certainly has Daniel Pipes, Beck, and some other Right-wing Islam so-called "experts" convinced), or the moderates' definition (a personnal spiritual and moral struggle. Many Muslims scholars and policy makers think this. We really should go with this and empower them, IMO)?
Wow, Wally!!! Didn't mean to hit a nerve. 😀
Sorry again; I tend to get that way when I think about the way our society wimps out about cultural things. We must be able to look at differences as just that, differences. To be able to solve anything (without total destruction to one side or the other) both sides are going to have to move.
I'll get back later but one comment I have. These moderate Muslims, what happens to them if they speak up or help our troops? Usually they end up beheaded and buried somewhere. We do need to protect them more.
Not just them but Muslims world wide that will speak up... as well as the young ones that need to be shown blowing yourself up doesn't fix anything.
As for propoganda, one of the biggest tactics used by the extremists is the definition of Jihad. Do we use OBL's definition (worldwide domination, convert or die. He wants everyone to think this. That way, in his sick little mind, he can justify his actions. He certainly has Daniel Pipes, Beck, and some other Right-wing Islam so-called "experts" convinced), or the moderates' definition (a personnal spiritual and moral struggle. Many Muslims scholars and policy makers think this. We really should go with this and empower them, IMO)?
Agreed. Sadly we look weak if we say that isn't what he means... we and the moderates need to say that's what the Holy Book means.Cheers,Wally
