General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsShould The U.S. End Its War On Terror?
6 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes, The President should declare victory, halt drone attacks, withdraw troops from Afghanistan and ask Congress to repeal the AUMF | |
5 (83%) |
|
No, The President should continue the War on Terror in the same manner that he's been waging it | |
0 (0%) |
|
Other, please explain | |
1 (17%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)There should be all sorts of changes, but I wouldn't want to halt drone attacks, for instance. I would want significantly fewer of them, but would not want to take the tactic off the table categorically.
I think the whole thing is out of hand in some ways, but even if a reality is largely of our making it's a reality, so a cold stop isn't a good idea.
I am a stern critic of almost every element of the GWOT but would not opt to simply end it, which would be as thoughtless and ideological, rather than practical, as simply continuing it.
It is not, or should not be, a binary choice of ruthless counter-productive cowboy shit vs. nothing.
cali
(114,904 posts)cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)or should we remain on a permanent war footing?
I'd be curious about your response to the information in this op.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023421237
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)I distorts and deforms our legal sense of the whole enterprise.
If the poll was "Should the US stop maintaining a legal state of war with terrorism" I would say yes, but I would also understand that ending the war would, in practice, greatly increase the militarization of law enforcement.
A team of FBI agents is not going to invade Pakistan in a car to kill Bin Laden armed with sidearms. Take the military out of it and watch the militarization of the CIA and FBI explode... it is what will happen.
The war footing has two sides. One one side it grants terrible special powers that are not necessarily appropriate. On the other hand, it retains the legal fiction that such powers are in fact, special.
Historically, courts have never restrained an American war. Sedition act, interning Japanese, patriot act.... if there's a "war" they rubber-stamp everything. Always have.
But I do not assume that absent the "war" the courts would revert to sanity. I think they would be equally likely to make law enforcement tantamount to war. (More than they already have)
cali
(114,904 posts)I don't see how the repeal of the AUMF would "greatly increase the militarization of law enforcement". I'd argue that it has been instrumental in that. Just the indisputable fact that the militarization of domestic law enforcement has greatly been advanced since 9/11 is evidence of that.
Would the repeal of the AUMF have prevented the killing of bin Laden? Would it prevent any use of drones?
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)as a last resort. It's not a military enemy, so having a large military presence is pointless and turns our troops into targets.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)and repeal the Patriot Act and it's successors.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)Take away their main reason for attacking us. It's their right and their freedom of religion to not have the US military in their countries.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)If not, why not? Teabaggers are at least as representative of America as jihadists are of Muslims.
There is no "they."
Muslims have a range of views same as anyone else.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)I'd hardly call an embassy a military base. If for example China had a military base in the USA do you think the religious right would be ok with that?
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)If the religious right bombs an abortion clinic that doesn't mean that "we" have a right to be free of the "baby-murder mills"
"We" is America, in aggregate.
It is not "their" religious freedom to have no US bases in "their" countries without saying who "they" is, and the idea that militant jihadis should be taken to be representative of all Muslims is Fox-news thinking.
L0oniX
(31,493 posts)You are right. Fuck the Islamic counties. We'll keep our imperialist military bases where ever we fucking want ...and fuck them if they don't like it and want to bomb the USA.
cali
(114,904 posts)there's evidence for that in A-Q recruitment, Taliban recruitment and public sentiment in countries like Pakistan and Yemen.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)No, just gtfo of other countries and their business.
RC
(25,592 posts)The U.S. should never have started its war on terror. Once started, it should have ended the day that damned statue was pulled down. Or any day since. Most of all, it should have ended the day after Obama's first inauguration.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)leftstreet
(36,097 posts)markiv
(1,489 posts)prior to 911, when condi rice had a memo in her in basket that said 'bin ladin plans to fly planes into buildings', she should have been reading it and considering it, not out buying new shoes
for instance, in 1970, there was a hijacking of 4 planes eirily similar to 911, right down to the airlines hijacked - yet, for 31 years pilot cabin doors remained unsecured - something that can be used as a missile. what hardware store anywhere in the usa is left unlocked at night?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawson's_Field_hijackings
we should never drop alertness to that level. combined with the 1970 experience, and the memo about bin ladin's intentions, it wasnt that hard to see 911 coming
but if war on terror means going to war on countries not involved with a terror attack on us, then yes that dshould be dropped
Initech
(100,029 posts)At this point our government are the ones committing terror - while the psychopaths who run the military industrial complex are the ones laughing all the way to the bank.
ecstatic
(32,641 posts)I think the US should become more low key, less involved like Canada.