> -----Original Message----- > From: Sam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 11:27 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: What could $456 billion buy. > > On 5/15/07, Jim Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The list was only a sampling to show that there have been remarkably > few > > foreign terrorist attacks in America. > > I thought you sent me fishing, I didn't realize you were serious. > Going back through that list up until 9/11 I came up with this:
Again you miss the point. I said never it "got worse" - I said that most terrorist attacks in America throughout history were perpetrated by Americans. That's it. I never claimed to be unhappy with the handling of any of these cases so I'm not sure why you're defending them. Terrorism on the small scale will most likely always be with us. I was less than a block away when John Salvi opened fire at the first of two Abortion clinics in Boston - that was an act of terrorism. Acts like this will always be with as long as there are extremists - and there's no sign that anybody has a cure for that. The claim I've made is that idea that we're somehow preventing terrorism here by fighting over there is ridiculous. The incidents of terrorism at home haven't dropped. To say "well, there hasn't been another 9/11" is ridiculous because there never was one before: that single event, on that immense scale, cannot be treated as trend - failure of recurrence cannot be claimed as a metric of success. After 9/11 the worst case of terrorism at home was Oklahoma City. After that I believe it was the first World Trade Center Bombing (large in property damage but luckily there were only six causalities). After that we've got the hundreds of small cases: yes many seeking foreign policy change but most are racist, hate groups, religious extremists or social extremists. That list defiantly has events that (I think you agree) should not be defined as "terrorism" (the Virginia Tech shootings being a prime example: I feel that a fundamental aspect of terrorism has to be the use of violence to effect social or political change). The point is that, despite 9/11, America has enjoyed remarkably little violence at home in the modern age - whether we were at war or not. In my opinion I do not believe that the Iraq invasion has made us safer and very could be making us less safe. For several reasons: +) The war has become a rallying cry for terrorist recruitment groups. We will end up with more potential terrorists after this war, not less. +) It difficult to see how a resource-hungry ground occupation of a nation (especially one in the throes of civil war) is a remotely intelligent strategy when fighting nimble, borderless bands of terrorists. The previously employed strategy of precision strikes seems much more appropriate to the enemy at hand. +) While it's clear that precision strikes are still ongoing when intelligence warrants them it's also ludicrous to assume that the stretching of personal and supplies to effect a permanent occupation in Iraq hasn't affected our effectiveness in that regard. +) As I noted America has enjoyed very little domestic violence due to terrorism or the many wars we've undertaken in the modern age. One of our largest threats has always been extremists at home. With so many of our intelligence and investigatory agencies working overtime (while recovering from the various reorganizations, scandals and mission changes) it's very likely that this area is being overlooked. Take as an example the recent report on electronic security where government agencies are still scoring a "C" (on average) in computer security but security specific groups like the Department of Homeland Security and the TSA are still scoring "D's". (The TSA is also losing laptops with Air Marshal data on them.) Of course these aren't directly related to the war - more symptoms of a system stretched too thin. +) It's painfully obvious that new threats are growing: Iran and North Korea to name two. It's also clear that despite the fact that we've got better evidence of Iran aiding the insurgents than we ever had for WMDs we are simply incapable of addressing the situation militarily due to resource limitations. Iran was clearly a more dangerous threat before the Iraq invasion but the stupid assumption that we would be out of Iraq in no more than six months blinded the administration to that threat. +) The situation will likely get worse before it gets better. We're extending tours, lowering expectations and still unable to adequately supply many of our troops or care for them when they're injured. The thinner we're stretched the more advantage our enemies will take of us. +) We're no better able to prevent the institution of terrorist training camps in Iraq than we were when we were containing Saddam. In fact we're worse off: Al Qaeda has a certain and growing influence in the country where they were nearly non-existent. We need to dedicate vast resources to hold the ground we've gained. They don't. Unlike ourselves Al Qaeda is not as limited in personal (their soldiers are easily replaced, need little training and are local to the areas they set up in) and can easily expand or contract to deal with multiple offensives. They are not bound, as we have forced ourselves to be, to any particular geography. They (like Iran) can sow discontent, supply weapons and sit back and watch as we attempt to extend our sphere of influence to more than a few urban centers. They can bide their time and watch us get whittled away. Don't get me wrong here: I actually (desperately in fact) hope that you're right. I'm just not seeing any evidence of it. Jim Davis ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 and Flex 2 Build sales & marketing dashboard RIAâs for your business. Upgrade now http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2?sdid=RVJT Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:234800 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
