I recently did a paper on the war in Iraq. This was an argumentative essay. I found out that some people believe that the war started for one reason and has shifted to another. They also said that they did not want it to be called the war on terror because if you say war then you think of the people in uniform as the solution. If our troops are not the solution why are they there risking their lives? I think they should at least get some credit for what they are doing but for someone ta say they are not the solution makes no sence to me.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The fact is that we are in a war. It is not a war we've started or a war we wanted, yet there is a segment of the world's population that wants the United States to be destroyed. When a large group of people bent on your destruction declares war on you, it leaves two choices.
1. Ignore them and suffer when they attack, or
2. Acknowledge we are at war and fight for our interests.
The attitudes you describe from your class are all too prevelent in today's society and that is troubling.
While I agree that we should wipe out terrorists where we find them, it's not always as simple as sending in the troops. Sometimes military strikes are the best solution, but other times they wont be. For instance, the War in Iraq. Regardless of your stance on the war, most people would agree we don't have the manpower to go in and invade another country any time soon without a massive boost in numbers. How many members of Al-Qaieda (help me anybody who actually speaks Arabic, how do you transcribe that name?) have we actually caught? And an even better question: how many are still out there to be caught? With all of our attention in Iraq, who is watching Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, China, the Phillipines, Indonesia, the Sudan, Nigeria, the Congo, Somalia, Belorussia, Chechnya, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijian, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Rwanda, Yemen, etc.?
Also, dfaith, you are correct sir/ma'am: we did not start this war, but I do intend to end it. The problem with that is that terrorism is as much a concept as it is a physical enemy if not more so. How do you fight an idea? How do you fight people who have become more than human in the eyes of their followers? Ideas can't be blown up or shot down. You win by proving that your ideas are superior. How do you do that? By following through on our principles: freedom of speech, of religion, of thought, etc. And then helping to support democracy and like-minded voices of tolerance wherever we find them and finally cutting our ties from all of the dictators of the world who are probably the most at fault for giving rise to terrorist and extremists. Even as I'm saying this, I know it will never happen and it is simply not practical as nice as it sounds, but then again, I don't think a war on terrorism can ever be won either. Terrorism is a lot older than Islam or Christianity and it will not die even if we hunt down every single member of Al-Qaieda.
Recognize and celebrate the troops for their courage in completing their duty, but don't automatically assume they are the solution to everything. To this leg of the conflict perhaps, but the war is far from over and many of us will play parts in many different roles and functions. Not all of which will involve uniforms.
You are right justsomeguy85 when you say that we are battling an ideology. We are absolutely battling an ideology of hatred and religious intolerance. You are also correct in that there is no magic cure for this problem and, yes, there will always be terrists; there will always be those who are so fueled by hate that they are willing to kill unconventionally and indiscriminately. The point I was making was that soldiers are a necessary part of the solution to minimizing these attacks, and anyone that would deny their absolute neccesity is absurd to the point of being dangerous.