In invading Iraq, the Coalition has actually increased the number of terrorists in the world. Of course at the same time, it has kept most, not all, of the terrorists content with staying in the Middle East to pursue westerners, as opposed to striking us at home. In the end, Iraq's legacy in the War on Terror will always be controversial. Tactically, it is unwise to simply call something a mistake. One who learns from bad decisions can never make a mistake. Besides, invading Iraq has made us more of a threat to would-be-state sponsors of terrorism, and has given us better techniques to deal with terrorism.
Remember the radicalized Nigerian who tried to blow up a plane loaded up with 290 people, back in December of 2009. He was radicalized by whom government officials believed were al-Qaeda terrorists in Yemen. Soon after this was revealed, a frustrated America turned its eyes to Yemen, but before anything to extreme occurred, Yemen's government decided to hunt down al-Qaeda in Yemen themselves. Within days, stories of terrorist assassinations in the country filled the news. Today still, the Yemenis' government hunts down al-Qaeda in Yemen.
I think this has been the greatest victory in the War on Terror since it began in 2001. Instead of having to invade a country that was known to harbor terrorists, the host nation itself decided to put an end to them. I want to say that this level of unprecedented cooperation only happened because the Yemenis understood by looking at Iraq, that they were dealing with an aggressive and volatile America.
Yemen seems to be taking care of its terrorism, but the other nation 
that we have to worry about is doing little to stop theirs. Iran has long been a state supporter of terrorism. As a matter of fact, even U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has blatantly accused them of "Exporting terrorism". The Iranian government has also, like Saddam, been accused of forging WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). The main difference with Iran though is that we actually have satellite photos of Iran's nuclear bases. What we don't know for sure is whether of not Iran is actually using these laboratories to make weapons or civilian technology.
that we have to worry about is doing little to stop theirs. Iran has long been a state supporter of terrorism. As a matter of fact, even U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has blatantly accused them of "Exporting terrorism". The Iranian government has also, like Saddam, been accused of forging WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction). The main difference with Iran though is that we actually have satellite photos of Iran's nuclear bases. What we don't know for sure is whether of not Iran is actually using these laboratories to make weapons or civilian technology.President A
hmadinejad of Iran is becoming a nuisance to the White House. His regime has remained secretive with their nuclear ambitions, causing suspicion in the west. Israel has constantly threatened to strike Iran if it feels threatened, even if the U.S. decides against it. In the War in Iraq, Iran has continuously supported Shi'ite insurgents fighting against the Western troops, all the while strengthening their military inside Iran. The stage is set, but it doesn't have to be like Iraq. The U.S. has changed its leadership during the war from the aggressive Bush-led White house to the more moderate Obama Administration. America has mellowed out since 9/11. It may be possible to have peace in Iran which is what I personally would prefer.
hmadinejad of Iran is becoming a nuisance to the White House. His regime has remained secretive with their nuclear ambitions, causing suspicion in the west. Israel has constantly threatened to strike Iran if it feels threatened, even if the U.S. decides against it. In the War in Iraq, Iran has continuously supported Shi'ite insurgents fighting against the Western troops, all the while strengthening their military inside Iran. The stage is set, but it doesn't have to be like Iraq. The U.S. has changed its leadership during the war from the aggressive Bush-led White house to the more moderate Obama Administration. America has mellowed out since 9/11. It may be possible to have peace in Iran which is what I personally would prefer.Iran is more than three times as big as Iraq land wise and has twice as many people. Not to mention that its military is probably better trained than Saddam's in 2003. Add that to the fact that Iranians, who have helped sponsor the insurgency in Iraq, have experience with fighting the Coalition. An Iranian invasion and occupation would be a bloodbath that would eventually become another den of terrorists like Iraq. In my mind, a ground invasion of I
ran is completely out of the question unless we have the support of the Iranian people, and they have their own leaders to take over after an invasion. Peace with a Iran is the most logical solution, but if this is for some reason unobtainable, than air strikes would be preferable to ground operations. I think that this is another valuable lesson that Iraq has taught us. We shouldn't get down to the nitty-gritty unless we are ready to pay a nitty-gritty price.
ran is completely out of the question unless we have the support of the Iranian people, and they have their own leaders to take over after an invasion. Peace with a Iran is the most logical solution, but if this is for some reason unobtainable, than air strikes would be preferable to ground operations. I think that this is another valuable lesson that Iraq has taught us. We shouldn't get down to the nitty-gritty unless we are ready to pay a nitty-gritty price.We can't win a war against terrorism by bombing it, or shooting it, or sending drones after it. These things may help when used appropriately, but terrorism is an 
idea. Guns can deter an idea, as seen with Yemen, but ideas are ultimately beaten by the people who once believed in them. The War on Terror is very much a "hearts and minds" campaign. As painful as it was to watch all of those civilians die on September 11th, we cannot allow ourselves to become vengeful when our enemy is hatred. This will only fuel the fire and in a way, make us terrorists. We must be strong in battle, but hold back when the time is wrong to fight. The War on Terror has and will have physical battles, but let Iraq be a lesson that this was never meant to be a physical war.
idea. Guns can deter an idea, as seen with Yemen, but ideas are ultimately beaten by the people who once believed in them. The War on Terror is very much a "hearts and minds" campaign. As painful as it was to watch all of those civilians die on September 11th, we cannot allow ourselves to become vengeful when our enemy is hatred. This will only fuel the fire and in a way, make us terrorists. We must be strong in battle, but hold back when the time is wrong to fight. The War on Terror has and will have physical battles, but let Iraq be a lesson that this was never meant to be a physical war.
0 comments:
Post a Comment