Pol – Political Survey: The War on Terrorism

This is an updated and upgraded version of a survey I posted a few weeks ago on a forum. Anyone who wants to, feel free to take the questions and fill them out with your views. If anyone does and posts an entry on it, note me so I can come and read it. As much as many of us cover the current international situation, there are few moments when we can collectively organize the fullness of our views. This is a good chance to get it all written down for consideration. And if you want to see if anyone participates, feel free to come and visit later and see who notes.

First the questions, then my responses to them. Enjoy.

9/11

#1. What is your nation of origin?

#2. What is your general political/ideological affiliation?

#3. What are your thoughts on the 9/11 attacks?

#4. Do you think that the attacks could have been prevented? If so, how?

#5. What are your thoughts on America’s actions in the months afterward, before the build up to war in Iraq?

Afghanistan

#6. What are your thoughts on the action taken in Afghanistan by the US?

#7. What are your opinions of Karzai(Current president of Afghanistan)? Is he a fit leader?

#8. Do you think that Afghanistan will recover to become a stable, democratic nation? If so why? If not, why not?

Iraq

#9. What are your thoughts on the action taken in Iraq by the US? Do you think the Bush Administration justified its actions?

#10. How do you view the initial attack, up to the fall of Baghdad?

#11. How do you view the initial occupation just after Baghdad fell?

#12. How do you view the remainder of the occupation, up to present day?

#13. What actions do you think the US could take to better handle the post war period now?

#14. When do you think US troops should be pulled out?

#15. What do you think of the state of international assistance in Iraq? Do you think the UN should be given a leading role in Iraq?

#16. Where do you think the Weapons of Mass Destruction are? Do you think they will ever be found?

#17. How do you think Saddam should be tried?

Palestine/Israel

#18. What is your general view of the situation between Palestine and Israel?

#19. Do you think the sides have been doing enough to move toward peace? If so, why hasn’t it worked? If not, who needs to do more and what? This includes the United States.

#20. What is your opinion of Sharon’s pullout plan? Do you think he’ll get enough support for it?

#21. What do you think will be the ultimate end of the contention?

Spain

#22. Do you think that ETA had anything to do with the recent train station bombings? Or was it all alQueda?

#23. Do you think the bombings played heavy on the results of the election?

#24. Do you think the socialist party will be tough on terrorism as has been promised?

War on Terrorism: General

#25. Do you think Osama will be found before the end of the year?(some sources have suggested it). If not, when do you think he will be found?

#26. How would you define the War on Terrorism? What is it to you?

#27. How long do you think it will last?

#28. Do you think either side is currently winning?

#29. Do you think either side will truly win in the end?

Now, my answers to my own questions to get the ball rolling.

9/11

#1. United States of America.

#2. My political affiliation is, for the most part, unlinked. I have liberal tendencies, but I don’t ascribe any party affiliation to them. My general political goals are the betterment of human society in general, rather than more nationalistic foci. Label that whatever you want.

#3. The 9/11 attacks were a tragedy, obviously. In more way than one. It was a tragedy of the common variety. Such loss of life is sad in and of itself. It’s also a tragedy of intelligence as there are indications that the attack could have been, if not prevented, at least softened. It’s also a tragedy for the US in general because I think the furor afterward has set this country on the wrong path. Aggression is something to be used judiciously and I don’t think that it is being used properly. The people in charge are gambling on some pretty high stakes without a close enough certainty of getting the pot. And if we end up losing(which is possible), we stand to lose a lot.

#4. Yes. As I see things(considering what I’ve seen released about the incident and the prior intelligence tidbits), there was enough evidence to begin an investigation or watch certain people with a reasonable chance of uncovering what was going to happen. What went wrong is that the information wasn’t gathered by agencies working in a coordinated fashion on both internal and external intelligence. In the now it behooves us to worry about the future and the continued bullshit of our territorial intelligence services. They need to work like a unified machine, informing each other of what goes on internationally and domestically so that when trends make themselves known again, they can be properly addressed.

#5. Some of what happened showed just how frantic we Americans can get when stirred into a foaming frenzy. Not the least of which was the ‘Freedom Fries’ embarrassment and the sudden appearance of the American Flag everywhere in show of hollow patriotism. Every time I see one of those poor, neglected flags hanging off a car with half of its substance worn away by a year of wind shear, the irony of the metaphor comes back just as clear as ever. Fortunately I don’t see too many of them now.

Afghanistan

#6. I think that some response was warranted, but I don’t know that full on invasion was it. But that is usually the response of the US on the immediate. Some form of military action.

#7. I don’t now much about Karzai. He seems like a pretty good guy. He opposed Russia’s invasion and came to work against the Taliban. Both are good, though time will tell if he would be a capable leader. Saints without power don’t always remain so when they get power.

#8. Yes, if the US focuses work into it more intensely. Otherwise, it becomes a toss up. With the Taliban and alQueda continuing to foster problems, it raises questions. But I think, of the US’ many experiments in the Middle East, this one has the best chance of showing a good return on the investment put into it. If they can squash the drug trade.

Iraq

#9. I think that, while ousting Saddam in and of itself is a good thing, the means through which it was done weren’t. Primarily the dodgy means through which it was justified. Focused at first on the assumption that since Saddam didn’t openly rid himself of WMD that he had them at levels thought ten to twelve years ago. Lack of proof, as some like to say, doesn’t prove anything. To add to this, rather than admit they screwed up in justification, they’ve left at anything that might give them justification while slowly shifting the language from Weapons of Mass Destruction, to WMD Programs, to WMD Program Activities. Detailing the term further and further as it becomes obvious that real, meaningful proof will not be forthcoming anytime soon.

I could at least have some respect for them if they tried to be straightforward, butthe administration continues to do its own deception and denial with the truth of things, so they continue to be contemptible to me.

#10. Done as well as any other military campaign could be. It might have been a little cleaner, but the outcome as never in doubt. Considering how much we spend on our military, it would have been an open embarrassment for Saddam’s forces and their 1970s-1980s hardware to force us out.

#11. Disgraceful. Instead of having a plan for quickly seizing control and maintaining order after entering Baghdad, the Bush administration hoped to lop off the head and have the body keep walking. Unfortunately bodies crumple when you lop off a head and don’t quickly put another one on top. Thus we had lootings and a resurgence of general(non terrorist related) criminal activity that has lingered since, as well as the destruction of several important buildings. Except the Ministry of Oil which was occupied immediately.

#12. Disjointed. Going in without a clear set of plans and milestones through which to raise Iraq back onto its feet, I see what has come since as an experiment in nation building without a blueprint. Doing some generic things and hoping they all mingle into a cohesive whole. And Iraq, no matter your ideology, deserves more. If you see it as potential proof of our ability to recreate countries in our image, then it must succeed or discount that. If you care for the people over the ideology, the same holds true. Hopefully the experiment will work, regardless of the steam it gives to those who share a different ideology from mine.

#13. Jobs. The same issue we have her is a serious issue there. Part of the way you keep people from turning to crime is to make sure they’re well paid and comfortable in their lives. Employing Iraqis to rebuild their nation, rather than contracting the work out to overseas companies, would have been the best way to do that. Giving them invested interest in progress, money and focus for better things. The unemployed and disgruntled are the next ones to become a problem in terms of resistance, be it active or passive.

#14. When Iraq is stable. Now that we’re invested, prematurely pulling out would be disaster.

#15. I think that International assistance is largely cosmetic. This is, for the most part, a US affair with some additional minor players. Should the UN have a bigger role? Yes. And cries that the UN sucks should be met with the US trying to make the UN better, rather than dismissing it when being in an alliance becomes ‘difficult’. Alliances are like that, they have their pros and cons. Good allies work to improve terms, they don’t cut and run at the first sign of opposition. Recent increase in UN involvement is a good sign, but the real nature of the UN’s role will be told my time.

#16. I don’t know where they are, but I surmise that, for the most part, Saddam’s real power in terms of biological and chemical weapons has slowly decayed over time and lack of both privacy and materials has made it advantageous to put any such desires for such weapons on the backburner. Though it was also advantageous to not give away this particular deficiency in his aging military machine.

#17. Very carefully. Honestly, I don’t think there is a perfect way. The Iraqis should get a hand in it, but one should be careful to not have it be no more than a show trial. As with all else, many will be watching any trial Saddam gets and judging it for its fairness.

Palestine/Israel

#18. Messy and complicated. It’s your typical Catch 22 with only a few ways to break free. The situation is made unending by one part old, decrepit leaders focused on their own petty goals and one part annoying terrorist groups that don’t know when to quit. Unfortunately the religious aspect further complicates it, where you find it more and more difficult to decide who is fighting for what ideal and who can be dealt with best through diplomacy and who is most likely to require some force of arms. Hamas might be one you could deal with, depending. Others aren’t so easily negotiated with. Arafat complicates things by stymieing effort on the Palestinian side while Sharon continues to pursue his own goals which are counter intuitive to the peace process as they do incite further violence and continue to damage and destroy the lives of innocent Palestinians through unnecessarily brutal methods.

#19. No one is doing their fair share. Israel’s government does half measures and then retracts, bitching that the Palestinians aren’t doing anything. Yet they continue to unilaterally invade and attack any target they suspect as ‘bad’. Arafat continues to do absolutely nothing while trying to look concerned and open to change(bastard.. why won’t he die already?). Meanwhile the US tries to motivate sweeping change by poking its finger in from time to time and bossing the sides around from a distance, shrugging anytime Israel gives the US the metaphoric finger. Meanwhile the US’ rhetoric contnues to focus on ‘the Palestinians must stop terror’ without giving them the assistance that its obvious they’ll need, even if the get Arafat’s ass out of the way, largely because Palestinian security seems to be all but nonexistent and of little authority in the region. Considering that Israel can just waltz in and shoot up any place they like, who can blame anyone for not taking Palestinian security seriously?

#20. I think the plan is dangerous. Puling Israeli settlements out of Gaza is good, but strengthening settlements in the West Bank are a bad idea. The conflicting aspects of this plan pretty much nullify any hope for general positive reaction from Palestinians and likely from most neighboring Arab nations. Will he get support? Perhaps. In this case, the state of hardcore Zionism among some is likely to work for those who don’t want the plan to manifest. The settlers themselves are unlikely to go out quietly if it does get passed as they have shown negligible willingness to leave their settlements.

#21. I honestly think they’re going to grind each other to dust until all that’s left are two ailing, shattered countries with ruined economies, eroded cultures and no futures. Unless someone manages to break the cycle.

Spain

#22. I think alQueda had its fingers in there. Spain is a sterling opportunity to make an ‘example’ of a US ally. And by the look of things, they made it a damn good one. If there was a little sub group involved or if ETA had a little light assistance is something I couldn’t say. It’s possible.

#23. Yes. Considering the vast disagreement between the government and its people on Iraq, I think this attack is all that was necessary to shift the advantage to the anti-war Socialist party. Like I said, Spain was a ripe example just waiting to be plucked.

#24. If they want to keep ties with the US they will be. They might pull out of Iraq, but they should at least watch their own borders. Then again, now that alQueda made an example of them, they don’t have much reason to hit them again. Let ETA do what they will now.

War on Terrorism: General

#25. I don’t know when they’ll get Osama. Or if time will beat them to it or already has. I do find the conspiracy theory idea that they already have him and are waiting to spring him closer to the election interesting and plausible, but highly unlikely.

#26. Iwould define it as like the War on Drugs. Something that will never be won because you can’t declare ware on an idea. And when you fight an idea, that only tends to make the idea stronger. Especially when, like we’re doing, you leave a mess in the wake of your attacks on that idea. Never mind that we don’t even know how big alQueda is. We know that we’ve killed or captured 2/3 of their known leadership but I’ve seen no indication we know if those 2/3 have been replaced already or what their rank and file numbers are. We do know, however, that they still have the resources to kill hundreds of people at once in spectacular, well coordinated attacks.

#27. Until someone stops it (some prez down the line), it runs out of steam or every member of alQueda is dead(unlikely).

#28. No. There is no way to measure progress since our intelligence agencies have little deep knowledge of AlQueda’s ‘troop strength’ and the depths of it’s resources. Until we have information like this, there is no way to win since elements can always fade back, regenerate, then return as strong if not stronger than before.

#29. They won’t get what they want and we’ll never destroy them all, nor reshape the Middle East into our image. So no, no one can really win this. Ultimately, there will be a lot of bodies, a lot of destruction and that’s about it.

PS: Hah, finally broke the half way barrier of using all of my 30,000 characters. 😉 Enjoy and feel free to note back if you make an entry of the above questions for yourself.