Thursday, September 28, 2006
The Confusion of War and Politics
As the mid-term elections draw near, the unavoidable issue is going to be that of the War on Terror (WOT) and the War in Iraq (WII). A lot of people opposed to one or both wars are claiming that there is no connection between the two and that the President misled the country into believing that there was. They are right on the first point, but wrong on the second.
A war is a war, but two wars aren’t always fought for the same reason. During the Cold War, it was the goal of the United States to have the ability to fight two region wars simultaneously. That has never happened until now. People should question the administration’s ability to complete this task because forces have been in reduction since the end of the CW and the first Gulf War.
The War in Iraq has to do with the broken cease fire agreements of the Iraq war. These agreements were arranged with Gen. Swartzkopf and were reinforced with UN resolutions. Hussein broke both of these agreements. He engaged US forces in the No Fly zone, refused to comply with inspections and manipulated the embargoes so that they were ineffective with the aid of other UN partners. Correlations between it and WOT are minimal, regardless of any “selling points” the administration publicly used to begin fighting. US participation in the UN has more to do with W.I.I. than WOT. However, because of the region of the world in which Iraq is part, some goals of the WIT have been achieved in Iraq, most notably the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Of equal importance is the diversion of Al-Qaeda into Iraq, which has diminished the overall strength of the terrorist group.
The Iraqi invasion also serves the War on Terror in other ways. The administration believes that establishing a peaceful democracy in Iraq can serve as an example to other nations and lead to a “domino effect” in the region, particularly in Iran where the younger population is more liberal and western minded than the politicians who lead them.
Iraq also serves as convenient launching point for any future military action needed in the Middle East.
The War on Terror is a response to the attack on American soil in 2001. It is the full utilization of federal assets deployed world wide to stop terrorism and capture terrorists. Afghanistan is seen as the primary front in this war because the US military was deployed there to topple the Taliban government when it refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden. But currently, military presence there is mostly confined to Coalition forces and American Special Forces conducting search and destroy missions against insurgents and stabilizing the new government. But, while military forces are being used to distract terrorists in the Middle East, federal law enforcement and intelligence assets are being used world wide and at home to prevent future homeland attacks. Much remains to be accomplished on this front, particularly in the areas of border and port security.
As the mid-term elections draw near, the unavoidable issue is going to be that of the War on Terror (WOT) and the War in Iraq (WII). A lot of people opposed to one or both wars are claiming that there is no connection between the two and that the President misled the country into believing that there was. They are right on the first point, but wrong on the second.
A war is a war, but two wars aren’t always fought for the same reason. During the Cold War, it was the goal of the United States to have the ability to fight two region wars simultaneously. That has never happened until now. People should question the administration’s ability to complete this task because forces have been in reduction since the end of the CW and the first Gulf War.
The War in Iraq has to do with the broken cease fire agreements of the Iraq war. These agreements were arranged with Gen. Swartzkopf and were reinforced with UN resolutions. Hussein broke both of these agreements. He engaged US forces in the No Fly zone, refused to comply with inspections and manipulated the embargoes so that they were ineffective with the aid of other UN partners. Correlations between it and WOT are minimal, regardless of any “selling points” the administration publicly used to begin fighting. US participation in the UN has more to do with W.I.I. than WOT. However, because of the region of the world in which Iraq is part, some goals of the WIT have been achieved in Iraq, most notably the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Of equal importance is the diversion of Al-Qaeda into Iraq, which has diminished the overall strength of the terrorist group.
The Iraqi invasion also serves the War on Terror in other ways. The administration believes that establishing a peaceful democracy in Iraq can serve as an example to other nations and lead to a “domino effect” in the region, particularly in Iran where the younger population is more liberal and western minded than the politicians who lead them.
Iraq also serves as convenient launching point for any future military action needed in the Middle East.
The War on Terror is a response to the attack on American soil in 2001. It is the full utilization of federal assets deployed world wide to stop terrorism and capture terrorists. Afghanistan is seen as the primary front in this war because the US military was deployed there to topple the Taliban government when it refused to hand over Osama Bin Laden. But currently, military presence there is mostly confined to Coalition forces and American Special Forces conducting search and destroy missions against insurgents and stabilizing the new government. But, while military forces are being used to distract terrorists in the Middle East, federal law enforcement and intelligence assets are being used world wide and at home to prevent future homeland attacks. Much remains to be accomplished on this front, particularly in the areas of border and port security.
# posted by Bonded @ 6:51 AM 
