If we totally win in Iraq... and Osama is still alive... is the war on terror over?

Question

I get this idea from Repubicans that if we win in Iraq... the war on terror is over and we won...

but what about all those places with 9-11 links that we didn't do anything about? (according to the 9-11 report)

Osama... strategically insignificant... I'm hearing this quite a bit...

but who else has killed thousands of Americans?

who else is out there? no other names... no other options are being brought up...

and if you ask me... saying "someone will just replace him" couldn've been used in Iraq about Saddam... could've been used in Germany about Hitler... that's a pretty weak excuse if you ask me...

Answer 1

Dont believe everything you read or hear. The war in Iraq is not
about terror. It was about replacing Saddam Hussains Gov.,
which has been done. Terrorism will never cease, because folks
dont want us telling their countries how to live their lives, no more
than we want them telling us. Time for us to come home.

Answer 2

We actually already won the war in Iraq a long time ago when we took out Saddam. Now we're working on maintaining peace there and stabilizing the country to stand on its own. Despite this, I expect the war on terror will go on for many years to come. You are looking at this situation in a very simplistic way. The terrorists are sponsored by several large countries, but they don't wear a uniform, so it's nearly impossible to wage a war under those circumstances.

The question should be phrased differently:

If we leave Iraq before it is stable, will we lose the war on terror?

The answer to that is easy - YES, the free world loses.

Answer 3

The war on terror is never won. There will always be terrorists as there always have been. (There were even a few terrorists working for our side in the American Revolution).

Winning in Iraq, whatever that means, won't end it. Killing every last member of the Taliban and Osama won't do it. Terrorists are spawning every day and will happen no matter what we do.

The only thing to really do is to make the various places where Terrorists tend to spawn good places to live in and work in, by helping the economies of those countries (although that doesn't seem to be helping in some of those oil rich countries). Killing them off will just spawn new ones. Bin Laden isn't really active right now and isn't calling the shots. He's in a cave. If we kill him, he becomes a martyr. If he is still alive, he is just a figurehead. Of course, if we call off the pressure, he becomes more active. The only thing to undercut the support of these folks by being nice. Apparently, our great war power isn't helping us.

Answer 4

The war in Iraq was never claimed by the Bush Administration, although a supported notion by critics of Bush but totally untrue, about retaliating for the 9-11 attacks.

Afghanistan was the immediate retaliatory strike for 9-11, soon thereafter Bin Ladin became strategically insignificant, but a greater threat was rising with Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Saddam was allowing terrorists in his country, to include Abu Musab Al- Zarquwi who was allowed to wage his Islamic Jihad against Saddam's Kurdish enemies in northern Iraq, and was seeking enriched uranium in Africa. In addition, every credible intelligence agency on the planet, to include those in the countries who publicly opposed a war in Iraq, suggested conclusively that he had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. Bush didn't want those weapons to be passed on to terrorists, and since Saddam Hussein practically had an entire thesaurus of violations of the U.N. Security Council; Bush decided to remove Saddam from power (first decided by Pres. Clinton in 1998 when he urged Congress to pass the Iraq Liberation Act).

Also, Bush has stated repeatedly that winning the war on terror is about changing the political landscape in the most troubled and backwards region in the world. That meant taking out the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, the bathists in Syria, and most importantly; the radical Islamic maniacs who control Iran.

Answer 5

First, I don't anybody can describe what it means to "win in Iraq." The Shiites and Sunnis embracing each other? Al Qaeda throwing down their weapons and coming out with their hands up? What? Really, what does that day look like where we say "mission *really* accomplised"?

Second, the "war on terror" is an eternal war. That's why it is such a wonderful catch phrase invented by the Rove et al. It's like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty" (the liberal equivalent) ... when you declare "war" on an *idea* then by definition it can never be won.

One jounalist I read said that it makes as much sense as declaring a "war on nitrogen."

Third, Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism. Osama did. But Bush shared the frustration of the American people that we had the most powerful military in the world, but we couldn't bomb anybody because *we couldn't find them*. So we turned our attention to Iraq and Saddam because that was a target that we could hit with our military.

It was like we were faced with a screw needing a screwdriver ... but all we had was a hammer ... so we left the screw and went off searching for a nail.

Answer 6

Why do some people answering, go on about 'nuke them' as if this is a solution for anyone with the slightest degree of intelligence. Just remember it's only a few short years since senior American,British,European and Russian politicians were queuing up to shake Saddam's hand. I am afraid that by invading Iraq we have released the genie of international terrorism all across the globe.

Answer 7

I think what everyone is realizing is that Osama is nothing more than small potatoes, he deals in the 1000's.

We need to win in Iraq so we can establish a foothold and deal with the real problem - Iran - possible Armageddon.

Much like we did in WWII, when we established bases in Germany so we could keep tabs on the USSR.

I bet this is the first you've heard the comparison to WWII, and not Viet Nam for a change.

This is not about the Republican party, this is about our survival, but very few seem to care as much about our survival as they want to harp on the weaknesses of our government.

Answer 8

I would hope that no one believes this to be the case. Accomplishing either goal would not end the war on terror. Both will be major stepping stones across a huge lake; our peaceful past on one side and our peaceful future on the other.

The question is, what will the other stepping stones entail? If Washington D.C. is spending as much time on this question as they did on the Iraq question, pre-invasion, we are in for a long gruesome time.

I believe an end to the war on terror will only come when the majority of peaceful Muslims stand up against the radicals defaming their religion. One way to do this is to return to our old way of handling terrorist; only attacking when attacked, and eventually giving in to their demands; Carter did it, Reagan did it, Bush I did it, and Clinton did it, or we could enlist the help of the Middle Eastern governments by allowing us excess to their intelligence information on known terrorists, giving us the ammo needed to take out those in key positions, and hopefully causing enough pain and suffering that their followers will not want to follow anymore.

Either way, the war on terror will not end with Iraqi peace nor bin Laden's death.

Answer 9

1. War in Iraq had virtually nothing to do with terror. It was about control of an oil-rich region, and getting rid of Saddam who was beginning to make oil transactions in Euro instead of $.

2. It is injustice that begets terrorism, and so long as American and Israeli policies are so dirty, don't expect peace.

3. A lot of the biggest terrorists in the world like Pinochet in Chile and even Saddam were supported into office by U.S. Don't take my words for it, just look into it deeply, and of course, look beyond Fox News sources!

Answer 10

The war on terror will never be over...but it will be decreased by tons if we win. Just think, if we don't let others know we will not put up with things like 9-11 than they (other counteries, or even Iraq) will be more likely to strike.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick"