Home > Politics, News & Issues > International Politics > War & Peace
There will be no victory in the War on Terror in the Iraq War
Results so far:
| Disagree | 30% | 104 votes | Total: 341 votes | |
| Agree | 70% | 237 votes |
Disagree
by Nathan Hook
Created on: September 03, 2008
Determining an answer to a question like this largely depends on the parameters with which you define victory. Since the war on terror has not been a traditional war between states, such as the circumstances of World War Two, then it seems logical to assess victory in less traditional terms as well.
If the War on Terror was designed to prevent similar attacks on US soil such as the events of 9/11, then you could easily argue that the mission has been a success. The internal and external security measures implemented by the Federal Government have prevented, to date, any large scale domestic terrorist incidents.
Some may point to the increased instability in places like the Middle-East as a result of the Iraq invasion and the issues associated with rooting out terrorism in Afghanistan as a failure in the war on terror. The issues for these nations, which remain an ongoing mission, are ones which many people are divided on. The cost in lives has been exceedingly high, but it can't be overlooked that the brave men and women who have given their lives to protect the US's citizens from further events such as 9/11 have not been in vain if we enjoy a modicum of freedom.
In the broader context the US has now stretched its' area of operation for rooting out terrorism to the four corners of the globe, frequently in conjunction with the assistance of foreign governments. It is this overall campaign which many people feel is dragging the US into a protracted conflict which it is difficult to see us winning. It is harder to deliver up tangible results when the campaign has lasted years already, but to suggest that it is impossible to win is somewhat defeatist. When the British took control of Baghdad in the early part of the 20th century, they had civil war for 14 years. On this basis we have many years perhaps before we begin to see some more overt results. It again comes back to the reality that the conflict is not a traditional one and that the small victories accomplished by US and coalition forces will eventually lead to greater inroads into terrorism's grip on the West.
Already the shape of the Iraq conflict is beginning to change as the Iraqi government develops into a more independent entity able to enforce and support democratic and religious freedom for its' people. Many areas in Iraq are showing signs of increasing stability with reduced incidents of insurgent activity and a greater increase in locals turning over insurgents to authorities. Various news agencies, such as the BBC, have reported from US commanders a decrease in the number of road side bombs, and importantly, the size and power of those bombs to cause destruction.
Admittedly the results in Afghanistan have been less successful. Attacks against coalition forces have increased significantly and there has been a demand for an increased troop presence to combat the presence of the Taliban. Nevertheless important victories can occur. The recent delivery by Nato, British and Afghanistan troops of a large power turbine for electricity generation is one such example. More than three thousand troops were involved and British and American special-forces swept the route in one of the British Army's most ambitious military project since it first arrived in the country. Regular forces pounded Taliban positions keeping them occupied while the convoy made its' way to the power station located in the Helmand province. The project took two years to plan and proves that even in the face of adversity, such victories can be a significant blow to the insurgent forces determined to undermine a country's reserection.
The War on Terror may have become blurred as the US and supporting coalition forces also face implementing some governmental stability and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but every piece of infrastructure restored and terrorist cell arrested or destroyed is a victory in the campaign. Furthermore, as long as the US mainland remains free from the insidious events of 9/11, then in part, we have achieved a victory in cementing our precious freedom over those who seek to destroy it.
Learn more about this author, Nathan Hook.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Agree
by Robert C. Sage
Created on: November 27, 2007
When a foreign power invades and occupies, it creates great suspicion of its motives. In the case of America's War on Iraq, there are multiple levels of confusion and deception. In fact, Iraq, as a nation state, has a relatively short history, since it dates to the end of WWI and relates mostly to British interest in administering Iraq as a colony. Thus, there are racial and religious differences that manifest themselves in inter-sectarian violence by insurgents and private militias. These factors do not bode well for a military victory as desired.
The War on Iraq is unwinnable by America. There is no legal justification for the invasion, since the statements made by the American neo-con leadership were proven false. There was no connection to 9-11 or al-Qaeda and there were no WMDs to threaten America. Thus, the fundamental premise for the war was wrong and so the moral under-pinnings for it were compromised. Where there is a history of creative redefinition of motives, according to convenience, there is confusion that feeds into the hands of opponents. If the American leadership is able to change what America is fighting for, on short to no notice, then it is able to change whatever it wants to change. The neo-cons make the facts support the story.
Victory in the War on Terror and the War on Iraq would require sustainable peace. It is not realistic to believe that it is possible to fight until opponents give up in Iraq. When nationalist issues are at play, they can be very tough to fight with credibility, when the American leaders focus on issues that resonate with Americans. What is clear is that America invaded Iraq for its own reasons, completely separate from any local Iraqi issues. It would be necessary to answer the internecine violence of the War on Iraq with the War on Terror.
True victory in the War on Terror in the Iraq War would require major investments in economic development and social infrastructure. Since unemployment hovers at about 70% and pre-war levels of utilities have not be resumed, victory would be hollow, unless it was accompanied
by true peace. Suicide car bombs and IEDs have answered the unasked questions about why America is still in Iraq. The Iraqi insurgents don't trust American motives or practices. The nearly 5 year long occupation causes doubt and anger because it has not brought peace or prosperity. Almost all Iraqis feel worse off under the American occupation.
The number of Iraqis killed in America's war has varied widely, depending on a scientific poll in Iraq found that about 1.2 million Iraqis have been killed since 3/2003, much of it by ethnic cleansing. Estimates are that upwards of 5 million Iraqis have become refugees. Estimates of medical researchers are that 3.5 million Iraqis have been poisoned by depleted uranium 235, used extensively in American high tech weapons and equipment. Under such circumstances, what would "victory" look like? Would it involve extraordinary renditions for harsh interrogations and rules of engagement that permit summary executions of suspected terrorists? Such are not likely to endear the Americans to the Iraqis, as they do not tend to build trust.
Learn more about this author, Robert C. Sage.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley