Would the global war on terrorism had been more effective without the illegal Iraq invasion?

Answer 1

Of course it would have--if for no other reason than we would not have created a whole new crop of terrorists. Apoint Bush's own intelligence people have made--not that he's listening to them either.

But I'm afraid you're still taken in by the rhetoric. There is no "war on terror" global or otherwise--and never has been. Terrorists are not a "state' nor are they a rebellion, etc. They are simply criminals--dangerous enough that in a few cases (as in Afghanistan) military-level frorce is needed. But essentially just criminals. And curtaioling them is, beyond immediate enforcement/countermeasures--a question of whether or not we are willling to invest the money needed to build stable economic and social structures in teh areas that breed the desperation and resentment terrorists feed off of.

Since that obviously isn't happening, there is no war on terror. Just a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Answer 2

So long as this is not a hidden political rant, I would say that it has been hurt by the war in Iraq. Anyone who thinks Saddam did not fund and foster terrorism is just being blind. Along with the aerial photos of WMDs, there were several terrorist training facilities identified in Iraq. Those were found, WMDs were not though I cannot imagine that they would have left the laying around for weeks waiting for us and after they were shown on television nearly two months before we acted. We are engaged with Al Quida on the ground in Iraq and have killed many of their followers and leaders there. We are engaged with Al Quida there, which is, like the other wars better than doing it here. Other efforts in Asia and Europe have had success. Certainly, sitting by and hoping that it did not blow up, as the previous administrations did, was not effective. You use the word illegal Iraq invasion which means that you buy into that piece of political jargon and I don't. That you use that term and try to undercut the effort there by trying to sell that assumption is further proof that the war has had results, otherwise, you would be talking about the war and not directing attention to the war as being illegal. Its effective which is what you asked.

Answer 3

First your premise is wrong - it was not illegal to take out Saddam. We had the right to do that in '91 and agreed not to if he lived up to certain terms, which he then refused to do. Don't forget that if Saddam had just put his hands up and said OK inspectors, you can come back and look where you wanted to look, there wouldn't have been a war.

Second, it is arguable that the Iraq effort has diverted our resources from Al Qaeda. I think it's more a matter of the way Bush has managed the Iraq effort. But it's a valid point that troops in one place could be in another and that dollars spent on a Pentagon operation in one place could be spent on a CIA operation in another place - though the CIA was incompetent in that it should have known in advance about 9/11 logically precludes one from then arguing that the resulting war on terror should have been entrusted to them...

But it is NOT arguable that somehow we're creating more terrorists. That makes no sense. Agree or disagree with Bush or with going into Iraq or with Israel, but to argue that we created more terrorists is to argue that the terrorists were regular, work-a-day cobblers and cable guys with families and hobbies and one day after watching CNN describe a policy he didn't like just DECIDED to strap a bomb to his chest and walk into a daycare and kill 20 babies. That makes no sense. Besides - the terror isn't limited to Iraq or Israel - tell me how many troops did Bali send to Iraq? How about Indonesia? France? There shouldn't be Islamic violence there if it's about Iraq....

The global war on terrorism will become more effective when we are honest about terror's root cause. The terrorists do precisely what the Koran tells them to do. It SAYS to behead unbelievers. It COMMANDS muslims to fight and kill non-muslims and says that the muslims who do that are better than the ones who just fast and pray. There are moderate muslim leaders but their message is contradictory - they say don't kill but they say follow a book that says to kill. This contradiction needs to be dealt with openly. The moderate muslim leaders need to stand up and acknowledge that a literal reading of the Koran is God's command to do precisely what the terrorists are doing and that therefore you need to interpret the Koran figuratively or just throw it out.

Answer 4

it is purely a spin that Bush places on each and every thing, like reducing courses to help the unfavourable, "they have been wasteful and not working besides." Or how concerning the biggest lie of all, "we are reducing taxes for every person around the board" whilst we as individuals comprehend that it became a tax shrink for the very wealthy. So scuffling with terrorist on their very own floor is purely yet another spin for I have been given you in this conflict according to a lie and now we are "caught in Iraq" I ought to make up some thing to justify 10 billion money a month going to this lost reason.

Answer 5

i dont know if it would have been more effective, but either way it was wrong. im just hoping some 5,000 member group in america (that has nothing to do with the govt) goes to a country and blows up a few buildings so that country can completely invade america, forcing its government to change and hanging the president. That way we can get a feeling as to why the people over there hate us so much.

Answer 6

No. The war on terrorism is perfectly located in Iraq, which is not an illegal war.

Answer 7

It certainly would have enjoyed more support, at home and abroad. Unlike the luke warm effort by Pakistan who 'aided' the war whilst providing 1st class board for OBL and his cohorts.

btw have they looked for him at the Lahore Hilton?

Answer 8

What terrorism? You mean when Bush attacked us on 9/11?

Answer 9

No. Al Queda is having to throw so much of their resources into Iraq, that they haven't been able to get as much focused on attacking us here in the US. We've managed to get Al Queda to throw all their chips in the Iraq pot. They loose there, it's all over for them.

Answer 10

Possibly

Everyone acted on the intelligence they had at that time

Hillary & Kerry signed on too.

I for one am very happy there were no WMDs -- b/c i don't want any arab country to EVER have them.