Wouldn't it be a better strategy just to fight them over here?

Question

Seriously. Does anyone really believe that Baghdad is the last line of defense? Because the last time I checked, there was still a whole lot of air and water between here and there. And what if they did make it here? Are we a nation of pansies?
I'm no Rambo, but a 911 call from my house might sound like this:
911 emergency may I help you:
Uh, yeah theres a dead terrorist in my backyard.
OK sending emergency personnel. Are you injured?
Nope, just a little ringing in my ears.
Sir, did you see the man enter your yard?
Yeah, I heard my neighbors dog barking, so I peaked out back.
He walked into your yard?
No, he climbed the fence, and fell as he was coming over.
I see so was it the fall that killed him?
That is possible, and I'm no coroner, but its more likely the three 9mm rounds I put in his chest.

Conservatives always claim that liberals are cut & run. Try cut but don't run. Anyone else not wetting the bed at night over terrorists?

Answer 1

It's not either/or. It could be both and maybe already is.

That aside, the real question is one of efficiency: cost per terrorist killed. Assuming that only one or two percent of all our opponents are allied with bin Laden, and that we kill all of them, that's about a billion dollars each, plus our own casualties.
Is it an efficient use of resources to spend so much blood and treasure in Iraq to kill a few hundred Al-Qaeda terrorists while radicalizing millions of Muslims throughout the world, resulting in thousands of new martyrs? The question answers itself.

Staying the course with our present committment in Iraq cannot be rationalized in terms of fighting terrorists. "Fixing" the Middle East is the more likely rationale, but that's another subject.

Fighting terrorism requires offense and defense. The defense consists in following the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission and more. We will never do enough.

Offense means improving our standing in the Muslim world. That awaits a President who knows something about history, geography, and culture. Not this idiot.

Answer 2

Doing so would have severely limited the profits for companies such as Haliburton, Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Blackwater, and a host of other war profiteers.

Also, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so the reality is the US is fighting the wrong people over there.

Answer 3

No I do not think that Baghdad is the last line of defense.

There is 10,000 miles and an Ocean between us and them. They could not possibly attack us on U.S. soil, particularly if the President listens to Intelligence reports.

Answer 4

This isn't a question, but I agree.

We *are* fighting them over there, but Iraq didn't have to be part of the equation; that was a self-fulfilling part of the "war on terror" when we invaded. Afghanistan is righteous, though.

Like your 911 call; sounds like what mine would be like, also. Lee Enfield and Mr. Taurus .38 agree...

Answer 5

No, David.

Fighting them over there means the preference for every aspiring Jihadi is to head to Iraq to fight US troops. If we aren't in Iraq, many of them start getting visas, sneaking across borders, and disrupting our civilian life.

Much better to fight them behind our garage, instead of in our living room, so to speak.

Answer 6

i understand what your getting at but they are not cat burglars , they walk in to all the major malls museums and libraries in america and blow up as many ppl as possible , thats how they would work

Answer 7

No.
Over there ,we have them backed into their own "Red Zone",it's 4th and 80.
All they can do is punt.

Answer 8

Ooohhhhh, a tough guy - my boy is standing up and saluting you, sir!