Bush opponents: how would you fight terrorism?

Question

This is a respectful, serious question. What would you do differently? Is there a better way? Thanks.

PS Really - saying how awful Bush is, or how bad the Democrats are, isn't an answer. Any my political leanings aren't the issue.

Answer 1

To fight terrorism, several things would need to be done differently.

First, nations would have to stop viewing terrorists as criminals and start treating them as soldiers. You can not fight terrorism by threating to press criminal charges in a courtroom. Group leaders must be located and killed. Not located and arrested. Can you imagine what the result would have been if during World War 2 allied nations issued arrest warrents for Hitler and tried to arrest him rather than fight him.

Second: Stabalize Iraq and Afghanistan. Whether or not you believe the US and other countries should have invaded is moot. The fact is they did and if they pulled out before the coutries are stabalized it would make a bad situation worse. The current difficulties in bringing order to these nations can be put at the feet of the civilian leadership. If we look at the first Gulf War, we saw a coalition force of over 500,000 soldiers move into Iraq. Even with that many troops, the leadership at the time realized it was not enough to constitue an effective occupying force, and as such no attempt was made to become an occupying force. We look at the situation now, we see the military being forced to trying to secure an are with less than 150,000 troops when earlier leadership was unwilling to do the same with a much larger force.

Third: Commit to economic and education reforms in countries that currently breed terrorists. As great the difference between a poor person and rich person is in the West, the difference is much greater in developing nations. Poverty breeds discontent. Discontent breed violence. Education reforms are just as important. An education helps people make a better life for themselves in general, thus lessening any discontent. In the case of the Middle East, it is important that tolerance for others be reinforced. There is a great tendency in the region to think of anyone not Muslim as inferior. This is reinforced in the schools and madrassas. Even in Saudi Arabia, a supposedly devloped nation, this view of nonMuslims is being inferior is reinforced.

Fourth: Industrialized nations need to find a way to remove thier dependancy on forgien oil. As long as nations are dependant on this oil, the governments are forced into attempts to manipulate politics in the regio in such a way to secure that oil source. Granted, not all terrorism is born out of oil producing nations, but a great percentage does. Think on how the polictial atmosphere would be in the Middle East if no one was interested in the oil deposits.

The war on terrorism is a war that must be fought by all countries. No one nation, no matter how powerful can win this fight alone. Every nation needs to be involved, and that will be the most difficult aspect of the war. Too many countries have too many different agendas most at odds with each other. This disunity exists not just between nations, but within individual nations as well. Too many politicians are interested in obtaining power whatever the cost in money, lives, or global security. This is a fact that I think every country has to deal with.

I was always of the opinion that there is no room for government in politics and no room for politics in goverment.

Answer 2

If you're talking about the Homelands situation, then security is certainly a paramount concern. With regards to the foreign policies in place by the Administration, I have to say that it won't do a thing to dent Terrorism.

The fact that Terrorists are not a nation means that you can't run a war against them.

Look at the situation in Britain. Put as much emphasis as you want on decapitating the head, and focusing your efforts on the Terrorists' "home nations", but the fact that homegrown terrorists exist surely negates that option.

How about quashing Islam? That way, no more fundamentalist muslims right? wrong... the fundamentalist contingent of Islam is a small portion of the global base of muslims. Plus, how would you quash it? make it illegal? Tell me you don't see the irony there... Kill 'em all. Genocide on that scale? Are you mental?

also, terrorism is not limited to islam. Northern Ireland being a major example from a British perspective. Catholics and Protestants both performed terrorism and suicide bombings.

The short version of that fairly pesimistic missive is:
Terrorism will never go away, and its not a new thing either. The most we can do is minimize it's impact and opportunity, which initiatives like Homelands (in theory) allows.

Answer 3

George W. Bush’s ‘War on Terror’ was doomed to fail before it began, because fighting terror with terror, only creates more terrorists!

If we are to defeat terrorism, the battleground must be a negotiating table, where the weapon used, is diplomatic dialogue. George W. Bush is not capable of such dialogue!!!

Irrespective of the criticism thrown at it by George W. Bush, it is the United Nations Organisation, with the support of the international community, that holds the key to world peace. Many of the lessons of the future can be learnt from the mistakes of the past. With the Middle East in particular, those past mistakes have been well documented in United Nations Security Council Resolutions dating back more than fifty years. Had those Resolutions been fully supported by the international community, we wouldn’t have the crisis that we have today.

Answer 4

By first getting the hell out of Iraq. Iraq is not our problem, if it ever was. Right now Iraq is in a Civil War, with our troops caught in the middle. There is no way the US can solve the problem with Shiites and Sunnis because they have hated each other for centuries.

Next, we should start working WITH the countries that doesn't want terrorism & start working WITH the UN. bush continually causes other countries to be upset with us, hence Hezbollah being ELECTED by people in Lebanon, and other terrorist organizations gaining support. People on Yahoo! Answers believe the Middle East hates us because of our freedom. Even Pat Buchanan, a right-wing Conservative, states the Middle East doesn't hate us for our freedom, they hate us because of our policies towards them.

We had a right to go into Afghanistan because of 9/11, but we have yet captured Bin Laden or even proved that he died. We need to go after the people who are involved with terrorism, then get out, not force them to become another United States.

Answer 5

One can put out lot of options. But the question would be who's gonna implement those. Whatever people say the real fight is between these two religeons: Islam & christianity or whatever you call it. This was going on for hundreds of years and it will continue until one is wiped off from the Earth.
Funny thing is that if one look closely, there is no real difference in the core teachings of these 2. So don't worry. the fight continues someway or another!

Answer 6

The war on terror is a war against an ideology. Before we go to war we need to understand what we are fighting and what makes them do what they do. The Republican answers to this is, "they are jealous of us", or "they are crazy religious nut cases". This is not a good answer and it doesn't help. Trying to portray the enemy this way only creates greater animosity.

The enemy is more accurately describes as "Islamic Crusaders" who see the west as a threat to their culture and values. To them, America is trying to force american values, and american corporations, and american laws to rule over them... For the Islamic Crusaders to "win", all they have to do is win the sympathies of their compatriots.

Today the Islamic countries are divided on their views of America and the West. They don't know if America can or should be trusted. However Bush, and Republican, policies are only serving to support the goals of the Islamic Crusaders.

If we are to win the war on terror, then we need to work with good Islamic leaders. We need to establish an Office of Islamic Affairs which works as an Ambassador-at-Large, with direct access to the President. This Ambassador should be a person who is well respected in the Islamic community and who has direct access to the President, and who can have some decision making in establishing foreign policy in the middle east. He should work with Islamic leaders to establish a series of priorites which will be widely publicized.

The purpose of this war is to change people's minds, not to kill them. It is only when we win the hearts and minds of people that the Islamic Crusaders will have their power base cut from under them.

Answer 7

go after the roots of terrorism. getting the leaders is useless since new ones pop up in their place. and ignore any opinion that's not important or useful. stay on course by not starting another war without a very good reason like an actual threat to the country that can be proved. if its not proved I'll keep that country in my sights for any thing that would justifiy a war.

Answer 8

Money and good intentions.

I love the idea of liberals wanting to kick drop Israel and while still claiming America needs to have a policy of international "inclusion".

Dear friends, It is not a good time to vote for democrats. Their a bit daft at the moment. The last bastion of sense in the form of Lieberman has been expelled. I have no doubt that the DNC will rise again into greatness, but their must be a revolution from within.


RE: If in fact the roaches in the analogy were not firing rockets that targeted civilian populations, I would be inclined to agree. We can only hope you will never be in a position that would require you to be responsible for the lives of other humans.

RE: Linus - Your attitude reflect the sentiments of some in America in 1939 and latter contributed to the Holocaust.

"A war in Europe is not our problem."

"Germany murdering it's own civilians is not our problem and we do not have any jurisdiction"

Answer 9

First of all, we have to be morally consistent. We cannot ask an ally like Israel to show restraint in its response to terrorist aggression from Hezbollah or Hamas, while we freely exercise our military prowess against those who rise up against us. A house divided, after all, cannot stand.

Secondly, we need to focus our attention on infiltrating terrorist cells and the religious ideological centers (i.e. mosques and madrasses), which engender militant Islamic sentiment, and promote recruiting. Better intelligence is the key to thwarting terrorist actions. Our current stratagem entails we fight a traditional war against nation states like Iraq. To fight terrorism through conventional warfare is about as absurd as eliminating a cockroach infestation problem, by bombing the house in which the cockroaches occupy. Yes, you may get one or two cockroaches, but you end up mainly destroying a good building and its innocent inhabitants, while dispersing the surviving cockroaches to reproduce and multiply in numbers. Furthermore, you may incite such acrimony against you that no one else will assist you in your extermination plans. Hell, many may start to side with the cockroaches just to spite you, because they were just a nuisance in comparison with your brazen disregard for life.

We simply cannot fight terrorists in the same way we fought Nazi Germany or imperialist Japan. Who, after all, would we negotiate a surrender with. What would be the terms of the victory? We cannot assess it by territory gained, since a terrorist’s motivations are ideological and geographical. Our tactics against terrorist must be surgical and methodical, and not an all out military blitz on a nation.

Thirdly, we need to focus our attention on nations that actually sponsor terrorism financially and ideologically, instead of putting all our efforts on a nation like Iraq, which had nothing to do with the our being attacked on 9/11, and until our illegal occupation, had little involvement in terrorist plots against the United States. This would mean putting pressure on lucrative business partners like Saudi Arabia, despite how much it would hurt our pocket books. In the final analysis American lives are more important than American prosperity.

Finally, when we are involved in undermining terrorist efforts and their organizations we must be clandestine about the enterprise. Unlike, in Iraq, where the people can easily associate an American face to their current malaise, we need to be secretive in the machinations we use to hurt our enemy.

One thing is for certain, the current approach to resolving the terrorist problem is not solving anything, and is in fact encouraging more terrorist recruitment and increasing their popularity in the world.

Answer 10

Negotiate & trade. It sounds tough to say you won't negotiate, but it doesn't work. Even Reagan negotiated with the Soviet Union, and Nixon with China, and both of those turned out well. Compare that with Iran and Cuba, neither of whom we've been willing to negotiate or trade with.

See the article about the ex-generals asking Bush to change his foreign policy.