IrresponsibleUseOfFr's Journal: Najaf and Terrorism

The news around Najaf is really upsetting to me. The fact that militants have taken refuge in a mosque doesn't really bother me. The fact that they are actively fighting from it and using women and children as human shields is what bothers me. It is outright cowardly. In the interest of our troops, we should just bomb it. However, because of the political consequences, we are unwilling to destroy a holy mosque of Islam with women and children inside. The fact that CNN has a reporter inside the mosque further complicates matters.

It is obvious to me that we need to change the Geneva accords. Women and children who willingly put themselves in harm's way need to be classified as combantants, or at the very least not labeled as non-combantants. Otherwise, we are sacrificing our troops and getting labeled as war criminals in order to save our troops. There probably is no way around killing the women and children, but at least our troops wouldn't have to be put on trial afterwards.

The only reason our enemy resort to this tactic is because it is so effective, which makes it alot like terrorism. The "War on Terror" is an unwinnable war, and we will never beat it by beating down other countries, because terrorism, by it's nature is a tactic, not a group or person. We can defeat Osama or Saddam, but there will always be someone new to take their place.

Terrorism will exist so long as it is effective. Terrorism is an effective way for a small group of people can influence major political organizations and international diplomacy. When terrorism ceases to be effective, it will go away. That is what disturbs me about the US reaction to 9/11. We go into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden... fine that is justifiable. We can have an foreign policy that states, if terrorists are hidding in your nation, we will go after them if you are unwilling to. Iraq on the otherhand was just a tie-ing up of a loose end that Bush's father left behind when he was president and has nothing to do with the war on terror and more to do with oil. So the whole push is not about tracking down terrorist anymore, it is about going after enemies. I don't understand how Saddam was ever really our enemy. Sure, he invaded Kuwait, we kicked him out and put international sanctions on his country for the next 10 years and successfully dismantled his weapons programs. How is he our enemy. We are not in a tizzy about China invading Tibet. How is the situation any different besides the fact Tibet doesn't have oil.

We have as much justification to go after Castro as we did Hussein, which is to say none at all.

9/11 was a horrendous act of terrorism. But, the US is really shooting itself in the foot here. If the point of the attack was to destroy the West and our way-of-life, I'm afraid they have been remarkably effective. 9/11 is not effective because of the number of people killed. The number of people killed was tragic, but not earth shattering. How many people die of smoking in this country every year? How many people die in car accidents? How many people are just outright murdered by other Americans? So, 9/11 is not about how many people died but rather the effect. The West dies when it gives up on the values it treasures most. The most important of which are equality and freedom. Terrorism is the greatest challenge that we face. We must face it with bravery. Freedom and liberty have costs, and one of them is we can get hurt or killed by those that abuse those rights. Security is important as far as being diligent and wise to those that may harm you. But, when we get heavy handed and give away our civil liberties in the face of fear, the terrorists have accomplished what they have set out to do. That is how we lose the War on Terror. It is not an external battle, but rather one that is fought within, and we, my friends, are losing.