Which is more important to US security?

Question

A stable Iraqi government, or secured borders and ports stateside? Which failure will allow the next terrorist attack on US soil?

I realize that nobody knows why we are in Iraq, so I stopped asking that question awhile ago...;)

Of course I realize it halts illegal immigration. Don't believe everything the right tells you about those who disagree with the handling of the war.

and a victory in Iraq will not make us safer at home either...funny you think that better homeland security would not fix the problem, but a war with a tiny poor country thousands of miles away will. Interesting...

Answer 1

I'm not 100% up on the port security issue. Inspecting every shipment once it arrives won't help - a nuke in a harbor will do more than enough damage. I believe we inspect and verify manifests, etc. when they set out from the point of origin, not arrive here. I don't know what percentage are inspected overseas. Obviously if something happens because a shipment was uninspected, we're in deep trouble.

Linking Iraq and immigration may well be the "silver bullet" Bush opponents are looking for. Neither party in my opinion is doing nearly enough to secure our borders. But put Bush's Iraq war policy and his open borders policy together, and one could make a good case that he is basing both policies on economic, not security, grounds. That both policies are somehow pro-business, not pro-American security.

That's a very damning indictment!

I'm not saying that's the case, but he's left himself open to the charge. If there is some provision in his immigration policy that beefs up border enforcement, or if he has sold the plan in order to "get a handle on who is here" for security purposes, I have not heard it.

Kinda like when Hannibal gave clues to Clarice, huh? :)

PS Of course, use of the phrase "silver bullet" might imply that there are some who are, and have always been, predisposed to dislike Bush and are just looking for a rationale to do so. I'm sure there are such people, just as there are those who decide first that they support Bush and then search for justifications.

I do try to consult my princples first, and evaluate all parties based on them, rather than try to adjust my principles to a particular politician, or party. I think we all should. Sometimes that all gets lost in the debate.

Answer 2

Security is an illusion. There was a time when I believed in the fight them there rather than here analogy, but the war will end at some point and there will still be terrorists out there. Border security is important, but short of completely closing the borders to all traffic it will only provide a small measure of safety as people who really want to get in will find a way. I find it amusing that so many people make this assumption that tighter border security might have prevented an attack like that of 911, but what they don't realize is that the attackers did not enter the country illegally. My answer is that both situations you describe have some positives and some negatives, but neither is going to make us noticeably safer to any real degree.

Answer 3

As I don't agree with most of your comments, this is a good question for thought. I know you will probably swing this into a "then why are we in Iraq" question next, but I can't say that I don't disagree with you on our borders. We most certainly need to secure our borders and our ports. Being a free nation does not mean being a blind nation. We need to protect our citizens and those freedoms we enjoy.

You also realize this argument halts illegal immigration too right?

However, being in Iraq and securing Iraq is also critical for our security. Every time you fail to against evil it only emboldens them and makes them stronger. You NEVER give victory to evil people.

So I guess, at this point we need both... perhaps a little more attention on our borders would be good.

Answer 4

Border and port security hasn't changed since 9-11 if you aren't using an airport. Unless the war in Iraq has disabled the terrorist networks, which seems very unlikely (aren't they hanging out in Pakistan now?), the nation is definitely not safer, and we may have made a few more people angry.

Answer 5

Both are important , however it is important to note that we will never have secure borders or ports . Both are impossible . We can have 'better' port and border control , but never totally secure . Therefore your assessment of 'failure' is inaccurate .

Answer 6

A failure to control our borders and ports will ultimately lead to terrorist attacks.

Answer 7

Both these two and several others are important to the U.S. security. we are capable of fighting a threat on more than one front. where it becomes a problem is when politics get involved. The anti anything George Bush does program of the Democrats will make us fail on all fronts.

Answer 8

Purely selfish - protect our own borders first.

Answer 9

I think both are extremely inportant and we should not sacrifice one for the other.

Answer 10

The answer to your question is obvious. Of course, you're just going to get the old "fight them there so you don't have to fight them here" rhetoric.

It's really sad that no one has a real plan, all they have is campaign slogans and rhetoric and propaganda.