Why haven't we attacked Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria or other countries from whence terrorists come?

Question

Yesterday, this common argument was put forward to me from the wife of a Serviceman. It's a valid question, particularly as few Americans have much knowledge of any of these countries. This argument is usually made against the US invasion of Iraq, as it was yesterday.

In my last article, "Terrorists and the Countries of Origin", (again I gain nothing from my blog), I examine the case for and against military action in those countries as well as the basis for the invasion of Iraq. I point out some of the reasons it was the wrong place but also the reasons it was important.

In the article preceding it,, "From the Mouths of Protestors", I expose those here that spew hatred for our troops as well as their mission.

War on Terror Blog©2007, http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-DfkctJU7dK5B7LcNROoyVQ--?cq=1
No politics. Just the groundtruth from a combat veteran of both fronts in this war based on experience, independent research, and historical study.

Dr Watson: very insightful answer.

Babak: interesting answer coming from an Iranian. I look forward to reading more of your Q&A. Your government is less supportive of OBL and AQ but is very supportive of Hezbollah and the Mehdi Militia (JAM-Iraq) and while you may not believe Hezbollah to be terrorists, they in fact do practice that tactic, including the bombing of Al-Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia.

Alibaba: When your neighbor is beating your kids to death (9/11), it is your duty to protect your kids.

When your neighbor is beating someone elses kids to death (Saddam) it is your moral obligation to help those kids that cannot help themselves.

ConRanger: You obviously did not read the article before answering, which is fine, so long as you edit your answer after reading it.

While I do not address the issue of over-extension nor even the stateside politics of it, the question was asked in fact yesterday by a servicemans wife, and the article quotes that YA answer as well as answers that question. I do hope that she happens by this question and reads the article as well as giving me direction to add her screenname to it, but until then, I will not.

No, I am not espousing opening up a new war against all of these nations, though one of them might need consideration.

Marine: Thank you for covering the flank (my 6). You make valid points which I did not in regards to why we are currently not posturing for a new front in the war.

My article goes more into why we did not attack those countries as opposed to Iraq and why Iraq was or was not the correct choice in enemies. There are points to be made on both sides of that issue.

While your arguments are correct, I would also point out that we have fought (I would argue fairly successful given our enemy) this war without increasing the size of our military, imposing a draft and while we decreased taxes and revenues are up with the budget deficit down.

That is evidence that we have a LOT of reserve if it weren't for the political situation in the US which is the result of a poor definition of our war and enemy.

My advise to the guy responsible for that is: Never let the opposition define your position. Define it yourself and do it well, with plenty of facts.

Answer 1

Excellent question, and while I make no claim to have all or even correct answer's I will give you my opinion.

1)Military reasons-History teaches us that it is NEVER a good idea to fight on more than one front. Consider this. Troops are stretched thin now. Deployments and longer and closer together than ever before. Stress levels for combat vets are running high(as to be expected) but more so knowing they will in all probability go back in harms way. Adding a third(or more)front to the WOT would only compound these issues.

Political-Given the arguement's concerning the "legality" of the war, lack of evidence of WMD's, and the seemingly growing public opinion that the war is wrong, no President would consider opening another front without first closing one or both of the current conflict zones, or without having 100% concrete rock soild evidence of said countries DIRECT involvment, finacing, training, or otherwise support of terrorist acts against the US. Do do other wise would be political suicide. And gone are the days of doing what is right BECAUSE it is right and damn the consequence's. Today, elected officals are more concerned with their political self life and how they can spin events to benefit themselves.

3)Finacial-War is expensive. In the closing months of WWII, the US was almost broke. People had grown weary of giving money to support the war, specifically in the Pacific theater, because there was no clear end in sight. The Japanese were a fanatical, fight to the death enemy, much as the ones we now face. If not for the 7th War Bond drive, and that little picture taken on Iwo Jima, the US may well have not had the money to continue the fight. Given the current state of the US economy(housing slump, intrest rates, etc..) I believe the US public would little support any acts that futher put a drain on our economy.

Again, I make no claims that any of this is fact(except the part about about fighting on two fronts, BAD idea). It is just my opinion and how I see things today.

And let me say this about John. He has never made any claim of his political superority, nor has he claimed that he has all the answers. What I have seen him do is supply something that people seem to lacking or just to lazy to find, INFORMATION. And to anybody who doubts his status as a veteran, read his blog. Either he knows of what he speaks, or he is one of the best fiction writers since Hemmingway. He has not ask me to defend him, he is more than able to do that himself, but I do have his six.

Answer 2

Jeezus, man. You should put the cart AFTER the horse with your question and ask what the hell is so special about the United States that Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia would want to attack US. Then, and only then, will your question be answered. (For those of you in Rio Linda, the literal answer to the question as to why we'd want to attack these countries is to PRE-EMPT, HEAD OFF AND/OR STOP ATTACKS AGAINST US before another 9/11 happens.) EDIT: If you're "denomding" the truth, well, here it is. Thirty years ago, in 1978, the Shah of Iran was being overthrown by some wacky bearded fellow by the name of Khomeini, and Carter was doing NOTHING about U.S. hostages being held there. If things had gone my way, your uncle's book would have read "The U.S. HAS ALREADY invaded Iran, and collapsed them like a rotten football." As for the rest of those places, the lot who were drawing paychecks from the CIA understood how dangerous they were to the United States, but President Carter either didn't listen to them or couldn't understood a word they said BECAUSE HE HAD PEANUTS IN HIS EARS. There. You "Denomded" the truth and I gave it to you.

Answer 3

It's really all a problem of definition. A terrostist can be a state or group or a person who attacks other without a declaration of war. Since this is what we did in Somalia, it would fit us into that definition. Are we going to wage war on ourselves?There are more countries from which terrorists come from. Phillipines and most of south east asia but since they don't have gas they are not a priority. The question really should be more "why did we attack Irak and Afgn"? In Irak, there is gas, In AFGN, opium poppies which the Taliban had made pretty much disappear. Since we invaded, every year has been a record for opium production and this year is the most it has ever been. Please, once again, remember that the taliban, as evil as they are, had made poppies a very dangerous business to be involved with...

Answer 4

Just how big or how good do you think the U.S. Military are, you can't get a grip on the situation in Iraq or Afghanistan, now you want to open up a conflict in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

Cute, how you pose your question from the mouth of a " serviceman wife" if, you are what you claim to be a veteran of both fronts then you of all people should have an idea of the true capabilities of the United States Military.
Do you think that the people in the USA who are not happy with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan would be happy to see more American lives being lost on another 3 fronts!!!

Or else???

Answer 5

The short answer was because Iraq was a fiasco. The Pentagon had plans to attack Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran in 5 years. Given the lack of support, difficulty and strain on our armed forced to occupy Iraq, it would be very difficult to invade another country.

Saudi Arabia will never be attacked because they are the largest oil producers. If they stop sending us oil, our country goes into chaos. It's our duty to make them happy which is why we need to reduce oil dependency.

Also I guess Bush and Cheney happy with their profiteering so far.

Answer 6

Is for America (all country's are terrorist?) America didn't win any war against Irak or either Afganistan because that countrys are to much for them ? THey kill everyday American soldiers and i do not like people kill each other for something. If you watching T.V and playing backyard of your house and your Neighbor tells you " hey don't play and dont do this and that Is that annoying you ? Its your home and you have to control.Why can't every country control they problems? Why America have to began war against them what is the problem? Every country has terrors not only Irak or Iran or Afghanistan.

Answer 7

I AM Iranian and I'm living in Iran.i agree that my country is not democratic but I think my country's government doesn't actually support terrorists like Osama Binladan or Talibans.
although I'm sure that Iran is going to detect and reach nuclear weapons and even some day launch them(but just in war),but I'm sure that it will be used for electricity too.....
most of Iran's people aren't satisfied with the government....

Answer 8

I agree, especially when it comes to Syria and Iran since those governments are openly hostile while Saudi Arabia royal family are concerned with their own survival.

Answer 9

Unless these areas can show a good prospect for lining greedy White Republican males elitist agendas with a full bank account and profits, there will BE no invasion of the aforementioned countries no matter WHAT. Thank you and good day!

Answer 10

So many terrorists from so many countries - it would not be possible to fight every nation that breed terrorists, plus, it would be unfair to condemn an entire nation because of a few rogue citizens.

Logistically I should think it would be impossible too.