Question 9: What's Next in the War on Terror?
Question nine in our on-going debate series on the War in Iraq and the War on Terror is:
What do you feel should be the next steps in the War on Terror? What steps do you think the Bush administration will take?.
Question One: Why did we invade Iraq?
Question Two: Has the Iraq war set any precedents?
Question Three: Are we safer?
Question Four: Why do some think America is the enemy?
Question Five: Why are we so divided?
Question Six: Why do we use words like ‘Hitler’ and ‘unpatriotic’?
Question Seven: Can you oppose the war and still support the troops?
Question Eight: Why has there been a rise in democracy in the Mid East?
posted by Alan Stewart Carl @ 10:36 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
What do you feel should be the next steps in the War on Terror? What steps do you think the Bush administration will take?
My short answer was: To change the hearts and minds of so many in the Middle East. This has to be done but we have a ways to go before that can even begin to start to happen. We still have a lot a killing of bad people to do before the hearts and minds will ever start coming our way. I’d like to add we need to go ahead and cross the boarder into Syria and take out the Bad People who are so conveniently held up just on the other side. I truly do think that not to long from now President Bush will give the go ahead on this order.
No… I’m not saying start a war with Syria but just take care of the nuts right over the boarder. But-- If Syria wants to get a major attitude with us, then we might as well go ahead and kick their butts… They have been no help to us, their neighbors or the world as far as that goes in the war on terror. THEY ARE A BIG PART of IT!!! It’s time to stop playing political games and go and get the job done. The sooner we do this the sooner many of these lives, (yet not all,) will STOP being lost over there. On all sides……..
Yet again as I said yesterday on question 8, “If America and all of its greatest Allies can not find a way to bring PEACE to the lands of Israel and the Palestinian People, if we can not achieve all our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan in a timely manner, the only thing that is going to sweep the Middle East is WAR!!! I’m talking major War like we have not seen since World War Two...” I truly believe these things to be so and should be the main objectives President Bush and the entire World, (as far as that goes,) should be working on in earnest.
I think this is where it gets tricky. I've always believed in the "talk softly and carry a big stick" mode of foreign relations. Well we've been using the stick pretty forcefully for almost 4 years now. I think everyone's got the point that we aren't afraid of using our military. So I think the next stage is to push the diplomacy. And there are numerous diplomatic problems to solve.
The greatest is the Israel/Palestine issue. Then I think Syria's role in fueling/funding terrorism. And then Saudi Arabia. In fact, SA is a massive problem because of the radical islamic schools and the serious political oppression--and the fact that SA can use oil to fight back.
Which brings me to my next step--energy independence. Handling SA would be so much easier if we weren't relying on their oil.
Finally, we have some image work to do. The Iraq war has whether legitimately or illegitimately hurt our standing as a positive world leader. Winning the War on Terror will require a lot of coordination with a lot of allies who will be much more responsive if they believe we are responsible. Now, I'm not suggesting we let the concerns of other countries dictate our foreign policy, onlt that the "talk softly" thing is needed and needed heavily.
That's at least my layman's view of how we should probably proceed. As for what I think Bush will do--I think he knows that public opinion for our military campaigns is or soon will wane. I don't think we can, at this point, invade another nation withouht heavy backlash from Americans. But, I think we will rattle our sabers, particularly towards Syria. I don't know if threatening military action can create reform in Syria, but I think that's probably the path Bush will take. Although I don't think we'll actually use military action save for targeted missle strikes on any "terrorist camps."
I also think Bush will push diplomacy hard. Condi Rice seems very focused on this.
How about a diplomatic move which would simultaneously
a) recognize a Middle East democracy,
b) emphasize that we support democracy even if it does not happen to agree with us on some issues, and
c) dramatically improve our situation relative to the Islamist terrorists?
Extend formal diplomatic recognition to the government of Palestine.
The screams of outrage from some quarters would be very loud. On the other hand, . . . .
I think we should offer therapy to the terrorists. Seriously! (No, just kidding.) ;-)
lol. aint touchig this with a ten foot pole. sorry, but i have concluded that people have set their views and will not even consider other views. It is like screaming at a wall.
for example; look at anonymous.
I like the idea of this debate. Unfortunately, happened to discover it just when you chose a broad and vague question.
Post a Comment
<< Home