Replies to post #643 on Tornado Alley (PROG)

[F6]

rooster -- re "We all know what Bush is doing [i.e., in having attacked and occupied Iraq] is the only way to combat terrorist."

uh, sorry, oh cocky one, but no, "we" do not all know that -- the truth is, you're not even close; in fact, your assertion is so ridiculous it's laughable:

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jid/jid040115_1_n.shtml

[F6]

rooster -- further proof that "we" do not all know what you think "we" do:

(REUTERS)  DAVOS-Bush challenged on 'safer America' Union message 
   
     By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent 
     DAVOS, Switzerland, Jan 21 (Reuters) - Security analysts and 
 a leading human rights campaigner called on Wednesday for a 
 rethink of the war on terror and challenged President George W. 
 Bush's assertion that it was making America safer. 
     Bush devoted much of Tuesday's State of the Union address to 
 rallying Americans behind the war on terror, telling them the 
 nation must not falter and leave its work unfinished. 
     He saluted the hundreds of thousands of U.S. servicemen 
 deployed across the world and declared, "By bringing hope to the 
 oppressed and delivering justice to the violent, they are making 
 America more secure." 
     But independent analysts at the opening session of the World 
 Economic Forum in Switzerland said that far from making the 
 country safer, the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq had 
 served only to aggravate the dangers. 
     "No, we are not safer," said Jessica Stern, lecturer in 
 public policy at Harvard University. 
     "Going into Iraq in the way we did, without broad 
 international support, really increased the ability of al Qaeda 
 and its sympathisers to 'prove' that the objective of the United 
 States is to humiliate the Islamic world, more than it was to 
 liberate the Iraqi people." 
     Gareth Evans, former Australian foreign minister and head of 
 the International Crisis Group think-tank, said al Qaeda and its 
 sympathisers had expanded their theatre of operations since the 
 September 11 attacks to countries including Morocco, Turkey, 
 Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. 
     "The unhappy truth is that the net result of the war on 
 terror, so far at least, has been more war and more terror," 
 Evans said. 
     "In Iraq, the least plausible of all the reasons for going 
 to war -- terrorism -- has now become the most harrowing of its 
 consequences." 
     Security and terrorism are major themes of this year's World 
 Economic Forum in the Swiss ski resort of Davos, attended by 
 more than 2,280 participants from 94 countries, including 31 
 heads of state or government. 
     Bush, in his speech to Congress, stressed the importance of 
 U.S. military action, tighter law enforcement and new security 
 measures such as the requirement on foreign airlines to submit 
 passenger lists in advance to U.S. authorities. 
     But participants in the Davos discussion urged more 
 attention be devoted to tackling underlying grievances, such as 
 the Arab-Israeli conflict and the unresolved dispute between 
 India and Pakistan over Kashmir. 
     Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, said 
 measures like the detention without trial of more than 600 
 "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, had surrendered 
 the moral high ground and provided a rallying point for 
 militants. 
     "While undoubtedly the Bush administration is leading the 
 war against terrorism, it -- in an odd way - has also become the 
 chief recruiter for al Qaeda," he said. 
     In rare praise for Bush, former Israeli prime minister Ehud 
 Barak said the president's leadership was helping to bring about 
 a safer world. The televised image of a docile Saddam Hussein, 
 submitting to medical checks after his capture, sent a powerful 
 message to the leaders of Libya, Iran, Syria and North Korea. 
     But he acknowledged the success of al Qaeda leader Osama bin 
 Laden, despite the war on terror, in stirring up support in the 
 Islamic world. 
     "The real achievement of Osama bin Laden...is that he 
 ignited the imagination of hundreds of millions in the Arab 
 world. That's his ultimate weapon. That's what gives him hope 
 and patience and a kind of evil optimism," Barak said. 
  ((Davos newsroom, [e-mail], editing by Nigel 
 Stephenson)) 
  REUTERS 
 ***  end of story  ***

and there's plenty more where this and the Jane's excerpt linked in my prior post came from -- also, in case the link to the Jane's excerpt in my prior post goes dead down the line, here's the text of that excerpt:



15 January 2004
The emperor's new clothes

JID subscribers are unlikely to be in any doubt about our assessment of the Iraq campaign. It has long been our view that the available intelligence did not provide a justification for military intervention by the USA and its allies, no matter how appalling Saddam Hussein may have been as a leader.

Our main concern, however, was that the invasion of Iraq was a dangerous distraction from the very real threat posed by international terrorists, particularly Al-Qaeda and its network.

The recent damning assessment of the global war against terrorism prepared under the auspices of the US Army War College by Dr Jeffrey Record makes for sobering reading. His assessment of the current strategy being pursued by Washington leaves little room for doubt that not only is the global war on terrorism failing in its key objectives, but that the invasion of Iraq is further undermining the USA's homeland security.

As the report observes: "The war against Iraq was a detour from, not an integral component of, the war on terrorism; in fact, Operation 'Iraqi Freedom' may have expanded the terrorist threat by establishing a large new US target set in an Arab heartland." Dr Record also goes on to point out that the mounting costs of the occupation of Iraq are having a serious impact upon the USA's homeland security requirements.

The report assesses the cost of the Iraq campaign at around US$150bn in funds already authorised or requested, although the author also observes that there is "no end in sight" - which is true both of the costs and the actual conflict. He then highlights an estimated shortfall of $98.4bn in federal funding for "emergency response agencies" in the USA over the next five years.

The Record report proposes a fundamental re-evaluation of US aims and objectives in the war against terrorism. It suggests that 'rogue states' need to be handled very differently to terrorist groups and that not all 'terrorist organisations' pose a threat to US security interests. As Dr Record posits: "Terrorism may be a horrendous means to any end, but do the Basque ETA and the Tamil Tigers really threaten the USA?"

Dr Record's conclusion, which is well worth quoting in full, is that the USA's "global war on terrorism as presently defined and conducted is strategically unfocused, promised much more than it can deliver, and threatens to dissipate US military and other resources in an endless and hopeless search for absolute security. The USA may be able to defeat, even destroy, Al-Qaeda, but it cannot rid the world of terrorism, much less evil."

This view is almost identical with those being expressed by the experienced security specialists, intelligence sources and serving military personnel who provide JID with information and analysis.

456 of 926 words

[End of non-subscriber extract.]