Five years later, are we safer or not?
We're safer: Fighting the terrorists over there means we don't have to fight them here.
We're less safe: The war in Iraq has created more terrorists than ever and given them more reason to hate the United States.
Talk about simplistic extremes.
Not that I have any answers. I have no way to assess the terrorist threat level, and I don't think I'm more in the dark than most other Americans about that.
I do believe it was a mistake to get into Iraq, which has distracted us from our main mission of crushing al-Qaida and ousting the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. We tend to forget that Afghanistan is still very unstable. We haven't forgotten that Osama bin Laden has not been killed or captured.
Not that we could or would have won the "war on terrorism" if we had stayed out of Iraq. We might have made more progress, but Islamic extremists are busy on many fronts. They certainly didn't need the war in Iraq to motivate them. I mean, why have they targeted countries that aren't even involved in Iraq, like Canada? Canada's prime directive in foreign and domestic affairs is to offend no one. Yet terrorists were plotting massive attacks in Toronto and Ottawa this summer until their plans were arrested.
Islamic terrorism has killed more than 1,700 people in Thailand since 2004, but very little is reported in Western media about it.
Terrorism is a continuing threat in India.
The war in Iraq has nothing to do with that. If the fighting in Iraq suddenly stopped, worldwide terrorism would continue as before -- just as the 9/11 attacks were the result of forces put in motion many, many years before.
We have not been attacked since that day five years ago, but major attacks were perpetrated by al-Qaida operatives in Madrid and London. Our government says it has prevented potential attacks here, just as the Canadians and Brits have thwarted terrorist plots. That does not make us safe. Are we? Who can say? The only thing I know is that we have to keep up our defenses on every level and not fool ourselves into thinking that, if only we pursue a nicer foreign policy (like the Canadians?), our avowed enemies will leave us alone.
Comments (3)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
Doug, When in history were we ever "safe" from attack? Going back to our beginnings man's first tool was a weapon. Then the "tool" could only kill one at a time, whereas today's "tool" can destroy millions in seconds. The numbers have changed, but the question of individual safety remains the same-----it never existed.
Posted on September 11, 2006 9:46 AM
Does anyone honestly believe that if we had simply buried our dead after 9/11 and done NOTHING to fight the threat from Islamic terrorists that they would NOT have attacked us again?? Doing nothing for 8 years prior to 9/11 in the wake of 6 attacks by Al Qaeda killing Americans is what brought us to 9/11.
Terrorists attack Canada and others because they are at war against freedom and democracy. They want to destroy us and our way of life. Usama bin Laden made the statement some years ago that negotiation was not possible until American converted to Islam.
Posted on September 11, 2006 3:10 PM
The many National Guard and Reserves being back-door drafted aren't safer. By domino effect, neither are their immediate families, children, etc. on a daily basis where simple odds of accidental death are affected because Dad or Mom isn't there to help supervise. On the whole, the citizens of this country have been spared and, yes, protected in some ways from massive terrorist strikes on the nation's soil. But, long term, the Iraq War has probably helped create more terrorists, so the chances of future strikes have gone up. Lastly, our imperialist attitude has alienated many of our former allies and thus made us more vulnerable were we in need of military or economic aid.
But of course the US is so special, we would never need such things. As long as China doesn't stop buying our government bonds. The Bush goal is world economic domination, backed up by the might of the world's "only superpower". Pre-emptive/[preventive] war is a bald declaration of a de facto empire. Terrorists will not be squashed into non-existence permanently as long as the game is rigged against developing nations' economies (free trade agreements with caveats which protect our own corporate interests). Violence is seen as the tool of last resort. We are more at risk in years to come than we were before 9/11, but it may be the wheels of empire were heading this direction already, and Bush et al. have just greased them.
Posted on September 13, 2006 2:01 AM