Should The U.S. End Its War On Terror?

[cali]

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]

1. No, but without the language attached to "no"

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]

3. OK, you think it's a push poll. fine, but how about explaining what your "no" entails?

[cthulu2016]

7. I edited rather than replying

[cali]

10. Let me put it this way: Should the AUMF be repealed

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]

16. As a legal distinction I have major problems with the war footing

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]

21. Perhaps that would have been a better way of phrasing it. There our agreement ends.

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]

2. It needs to be more of an intel war, using drones sparingly and special forces teams

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]

4. Yes, The President should halt drone attacks, withdraw troops from Afghanistan

and repeal the Patriot Act and it's successors.

[L0oniX]

5. Remove our military bases from Islamic countries and see what happens.

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]

9. Is it the teabagger's right to not have foreign embassies in America?

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]

11. Let me know when "embassies" start launching jets.

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]

20. Why should I care what the religious right thinks?

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]

23. "Fox-news thinking" O gee ya caught me ....pffft

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]

12. Is it reasonable to ask if the war on terrorism has actually increased terrorism?

there's evidence for that in A-Q recruitment, Taliban recruitment and public sentiment in countries like Pakistan and Yemen.

[cthulu2016]

19. There is no doubt in my mind that it has

[Puzzledtraveller]

6. Declare victory?

No, just gtfo of other countries and their business.

[RC]

8. And use the money save to rebuild this country, with labor, utilizing with Living Wage Jobs.

[LWolf]

13. YES.

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]

14. It has become such a large percentage of our GDP that our economy would collapse.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Yes. The drone war and surveillance state are just PR saying "we didn't really lose".

[leftstreet]

17. +1

[markiv]

18. there should be a consistent alertness

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]

22. We should have ended it several years ago.

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]

24. Of course. It's doing more harm than good

I think the US should become more low key, less involved like Canada.