Can someone explain the concept of "fighting them over there, so we don't ahve to fight them here?

Question

Just what is it about fighting some of them over there that prevents others from attacking us over here?

Answer 1

It sounds like you understand the concept and the problem with the concept.

Not much more to say.

Answer 2

The concept is supposed to mean that if the United States takes the battle to a foreign country, that country will not be able to attack the Continental United States directly because it will be too busy defending its own land.

The problem with this theory is that it only works against a conventional army fighting a conventional war. By invading nations that have not militarily threatened the United States, the US has put itself in a worse position than it was in pre-September 11, 2001. Essentially, because the US has killed so many people while waging wars of conquest against nations that had no ability to strike against the US, it is actually creating its own future enemies.

While there has been no major strike against the US since September 11th, 2001, it's really only a matter of time.

As a side note, if I may sound a bit like a "tin-foil-hat" type for a moment, don't be shocked if we see some sort of attack before the upcoming US midterm elections this November. If that happens it will do a great deal to help the Republican Party maintain control of the US government. Keep in mind that any terrorist organization of sufficient sophistication to grasp the political impact of its actions will NOT attack before the elections. Why? Because doing so would be counter-productive and only strengthen the US power base of their enemies. If the US sees an attack "just in time" to bolster support for the upcoming elections, it will be cause for serious suspcion of an inside job, as horrible as that would be.

Answer 3

It measn fighting on the enemies' soil & so get them so engrossed "over" there that they lack the time to plan or set aside resources to bring the fighting to your own soil.

This concept is not new but had started since history was first written. Famous examples are:

the 2nd Punic War where Hannibal bought the fighting to roman lands for 12 years after which the tables were turned when Scipio Africanus landed on Carthaginian soil.

Alexander's invasion of Asia Minor - this brought the fighting to Persian soil whereas the Persians had previously invaded & the fighting took place in Greece.

Answer 4

Ever play FOOTBALL ?
If you can keep the other team bottled up in their " RED ZONE " they are at a real disadvantage , aren't they .
Terrorists from all over the world have flocked to Iraq to get a piece of the action and have been buried there .
The Al Quaida in Iraq admit to losing over 4000 fighters killed , That's Admited, probably twice that .
Remember , in any war the side that's losing will turn up the pace trying to get back on top .
It's easy to listen to the doomsayers because people expect war to be like fast food , quick and easy with no cleanup .

Answer 5

Well...we can either stop the attack before it happens (fighting over there) which ties in to the Bush Administrations' doctrine of Pre-emptive strike, which simply put is stopping the threat before it becomes more of a problem, or we can stop fighting "over there" and allow terrorists to become stronger and bolder.
Fighting them there does not prevent them from attacking us here, but it slows them down and messes up their plans to attack here. I've been wondering ever since 9/11 why we did not seal our borders between us and Mexico and Canada...if thousands of illegals can come in untouched as well as all the drugs that enter this country, what's to prevent terrorists from smuggling in weapons and using them on our soil?
That is why we are fighting "over there". If we can prevent terror cells from springing up and take out terrorist leadership on their turf, it sends a message...we're not afraid to kick butt in their backyard and we won't quit until the job's done.

Answer 6

Fighting a war away from home is really hard. Ask any Arab country that has tried to attack Israel. Even Israel found it difficult this time in Lebanon. So, if the terrorists wanted to REALLY attack the USA, they would need all of their resources to do it. So, by tying them up in Iraq, Aghanistan etc, it makes it more difficult (but not impossible) for them to do it.

Answer 7

If we control or eliminate where the terrorists originate or are trained, they won't be coming over onto our soil to terrorize us. That's the premise. Going to the source of the problem is better than waiting to prosecute after they've come here and killed our fellow countrymen.

Answer 8

Us being in Iraq draws a lot of attention over there because the terroists want us to fail. No it doesn't stop them from attacking us here but it does draw a lot of anti americans there when they would be thinking of ways to get us here.

Answer 9

How would you like it if Someone kicked your door in at 3 in the morning, shoved an m-4 in your face, and zip-tied your sorry *** to a humvee?

You wouldn't now would you?


That would explain "why".

Answer 10

No intelligent person wants to fight a war on their own ground. Pretty simple concept itself. The more they send to Iraq the less assest's thy have to send over here. In case your in college let me break it down to simple math. If I have 10 apples and I send 5 to Iraq I only have 5 apples left to send to America. That also rasies the shipping costs if I have to send my product to two locations. Look you got math and economics 101. Free. Hate to see how much your parents spent on college