Can regime change be justified as a response to terrorism?

Question

In the case of 9/11

Answer 1

"Regime change" is an old term. We actually began to hear it more often after the First Gulf War, when George H.W. Bush fostered the idea of rebellion against Saddam Hussein (and then failed in supporting or defending the Iraqis who did rise up - an historic "missed opportunity" quite unlike the conditions of the current Iraq War).

It's actually another word for rebellion, revolution, a coup, or other event including impeachment or lawful turnover of government, that entirely replaces an existing government or officeholders managing a government.

In the case of the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, which was a DIRECT response to the 9/11 attack, it was more than "regime change." The U.S. was attacked not only by al Quaeda, but also by the Taliban, which had taken over the country and fostered the terror organization.

As in WWII, when Germany, Italy and Japan were all defeated, occupied, and re-structured politically, the Afghani objective wasn't regime change, but actual conquest and complete reorganization of a concept and structure of government. In other words, the U.S. intended much MORE than "regime change."

This is one of the reasons that later re-directing primary U.S. effort to Iraq seems to many Americans a very poor idea. The Afghan effort was never finished, it has allowed the Taliban to re-group and dig in for a protracted war, and it is quite possible that the effort eventually will fail. But had the U.S. been persistent and committed to completing its effort, such a result almost certainly would not have followed.

The use of "regime change" in Iraq was only one of many serious strategic errors made by the George W. Bush Administration. At this time, we are clearly NOT involved in "regime change," which would have involved extremely limited involvement over a short time. The Administration DID expect that to be the case, and was only one terrible, costly, mistaken assumption made about that invasion and its consequences.

In summary, "regime change" was an invalid concept after 9/11 in all respects.

But there are some folk who think it would be terrific right nown in the U.S. - IMPEACH Bush, Cheney, and Rice!

Answer 2

If you mean should the Bush regime be changed because of his numerous terrorist acts, then yes it most definitely would be justified!

Not sure what it'd achieve though, Republicans & Democrats are just two cheeks of the same ar$e

Answer 3

It depends on the situation.

Answer 4

you bet ye.