I've read enough posts to ascertain that people hate GWB's proactive approach to terrorism...going after the terrorists and their cells wherever they may be housed on the planet...before they hit us again. I'd like to understand the benefits of a reactive approach, please explain...
2007-08-24 07:47:07 · 6 answers · asked by Yahoo Answer Angel 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
When the death and destruction are done, it is too late. I see no advantage to being reactive.
2007-08-24 07:56:28 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Logically, a proactive approach makes more sense. However, having the capability to enact that course of action makes or breaks any formal commitment to that strategy.
Just saying this is how it should be done, does not make it so. If all that was needed to stop terrorism was a plan, everyone in the world would be safe. The US does not have the network of information to make any plan actually work. The Intelligence agents, Homeland Security agents, any branch of the military personnel, do not have anyone on the inside of all the groups that are hell bent on bringing the United States down to her knees at the least, and at most, all out total extinction of our country.
Without any hard information, any course of action could be spun into a "to the best of our knowledge" mission, but it is no more than a guess.
The United States of America, in order to act with Honor, Courage, and Commitment has to hold itself to the higher standard of acting on facts, not probable scenarios.
2007-08-24 15:54:37 · answer #2 · answered by navymom 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's common sense. The proactive approach won't work because to kill terrorism is to kill society and everyone in it.
Anyone is a potential terrorist.
The reactive approach is much more intelligent because you are defending in case someone is a terrorist. You aren't trying to kill everyone who could be a terrorist.
Terrorism is unavoidable and unkillable, so a proactive choice is retarded at best. The best offense is a good defense in this case.
If he was hunting down 1 person, then yes, proactive works and reactive is slow and useless. But the situation isn't 1 person. It's a masked darkness.
2007-08-24 14:57:03 · answer #3 · answered by Dark L 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, GWB SAID he was going after the terrorists and their cells wherever they may be but instead he invaded a sovereign nation that didn't have anything to do with terrorism. In doing so he has made the terrorists stronger and more wide spread. In fact, the terrorists in Iraq right now are there solely because of GWB's failed policy and war.
Maybe if we got our asses out of Iraq we could BEGIN the search for terrorists.
2007-08-24 15:00:24 · answer #4 · answered by Alan S 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He wasn't pro active, he was deceptive. Pro active would have been to consentrate on Al queda until they were destroyed. Osama hanged.
2007-08-24 16:26:07 · answer #5 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
isn't that enough.?
2007-08-24 17:29:55 · answer #6 · answered by theo c 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋