This website is no longer actively maintained
Some material and features may be unavailable

September 15, 2009
U.S. fight against terrorism has many battlegrounds

U.S. President Barack Obama says that while Afghanistan is not Vietnam, there are dangers in not having clear goals and not having strong support from the American people.

As the goals and the strategy are debated in coming weeks, the chairman of the joint chiefs — the top U.S. officer — told Congress on Tuesday that more U.S. forces in Afghanistan are probably required.

But Afghanistan is not the only battleground in the U.S. fight against extremists and terrorism. There have also been developments in Pakistan and Somalia.

Is the United States being aggressive enough — or too aggressive — in its efforts to combat international terrorism?

Tell us what you think in the comments section below.

Juan Carlos Zarate, a senior advisor on terrorism at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, joins Daljit Dhaliwal to discuss strategies in the fight against terrorism. He says that in some cases, the Obama administration has actually been more aggressive than the Bush administration in fighting the so-called war on terror.

bookmark    print

Comments

20 comments

#20

We need to focus on the problems that are internal in the United States. There is a great divide in this country and it seems to be getting worse. There are too many conflicted groups. All of us in the United States need to work as one and improve this country. We need to stop all the internal fighting, so we can fix the external problems.

#19

response to: Melancholy Poet

It does matter if the US is aggressive or not. since we continue to strive to figure out better ways to dominate in space and on land and in all military operations–we are then encouraging the rest of the world to try and beat us. we are way ahead of the game. by putting a pause on our military space programs we won’t be terrorizing the world as much.

MIT professor, “father of linguistics”, “most important intellectual of our time” Noam Chomsky is correct when he says “The U.S. itself is a leading terrorist state.”

About 3000 civilians died form the September eleventh bombings here in the US, while since the ’03 invasion of Iraq there has been over a million Iraqi’s killed–about 100,000 civilians.

http://www.popsci.com/node/19965
-this is being too aggressive–humans don’t need to be making this–we are an intimidating and transgressing death machine perpetuating and encouraging more violence.

global terrorism has risen since our “war on terror”.

#18

I have an idea: let’s fight a war in Viet Nam without regard to what is best for the Vietnamese people and let’s fight a war in the Middle East without regard to what is best for the Palestinians. Losing is so much fun.

#17

I don’t think we have a clear cut strategy in Afghanistan – we went there on emotional impulses and thought if we hung on long enough that things would be different and that we would somehow get Bin Laden and neither has happened. I think that when we go into these countries to introduce democracy – we fail to accept the fact that many countries don’t want our brand of democracy which in many cases in the Arab world comes into conflict with their religion and culture – we have to try a different approach. We are with the opinion that if they get a whiff of democracy it will take the place of their religion and culture and we in the US need to stop thinking that way. We need to develop dialog with those countries within the confines of their perception of themselves and how they perceive us while at the same time making it clear that terrorist will be tracked and eliminated. We have enough special operational forces to do that. Jim

#16

The US must be even more aggressive when it comes down to terrorism. Remember: these are people that would gladly die to see the whole US burn. No negociation or diplomacy would ever work. Time to wake up people: There is only one option – destroy them all or they will destroy us. Thank God Obama is showing some signs he understands that. To his credid – I expected him to be more ignorant to this issue. I hope he will be able to withstand pressure from ignorant people in this country.

#15

#14 Chuck kinda sounds like a home grown terrorist

You can disrespect the man but be careful when you disrespect the office he holds

#14

The US has been taken down a peg simply by choosing Obama and a majority of appologists in congress. The extreemists are loving the weak president. The US MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MANAGE THE EXTREEMISTS MUCH LONGER. No the Us is not being aggressive enough, nor will they take measures to end terrorism quickly and with extreem prejudice; in this sense the question should be taken as a joke

#13

it is not aggressive enough. it should be more ggressive because these people are idiot . THE US has get tough on them. they understand the language of power . If the American are not tough enough , the torrerist will lunch more attack. The CIA should tuture and other means to stop any future attack

#12

By implication, it will not matter whether the U.S. is aggressive or not if the geometrical
air-to-surface ‘grid-culture’ is not changed or uprooted or redesigned so as to cause a Change in the Psyche of the Global Conciousness away from the present currency of Theological-Political Thought being exchanged to Something of a more enduring Standard which can be traced and monitored on a Financial Graph which will
denote a Military Progress
which is currently underlying all the Human Tensions which are so obvious, symbolically, on the Surface of the ‘Awareness-Map’ of Incipient Metrical Decisiveness as it applies to the
Psychological Contours of the varying Terrains as applied to Intellectual Parallel Layers
[one layer involving ‘What-Has-Been’
and the other layer being parallel to the prior layer…then, becomes: ‘What-Will-Be-Manifested-By-Way-Of-Subliminal-Disguise-Depicting-The-Incipient-Stages-Manifesting-As-An-Obvious-Present’].

#11

Too aggressive. When you consider that drunk drivers killed more Americans last year than all the terrorists in history, you have to wonder about our priorities.

#10

A much more pertinent question would be: Is the US pursuing an efficient anti-terrorism program. And the answer is not at all. Dumping US armies into countries that do not welcome them is not only wasteful but staggeringly stupid. Stupid principally because is axiomatic that one takes arms against armed occupiers.
It is wasteful because the US can obtain more security by 1) engaging diplomatically (secretly if convenient) with the enemy; 2) launching small scale raids; and 3) sharing police/anti-terrorist intelligence with other national authorities.
The US penchant for expensive, intrusive, and self-defeating occupations is largely a result of American defense contractors who connive with the US Congress to obtain (borrow) funds for these insanely imprudent occupations.

#9

The question of,”Too much or too little intervention”cannot be answered by the American public at large. We simply are not privy to all the factual information necessary to come to any helpful analysis of this perplexing problem. We can only reflect our feelings to a limited exposure to a media that affects all of us in different degrees. Feelings are a poor substitute for facts and I’m afraid that that more “heat than light” will be generated in this feedback. That is what we can expect and perhaps that is enough.

#8

America is hard up against the wall of public opinion and could be more aggressive. Terrorists do not follow the same rules America does. USA

#7

Not too aggressive, could be more.

#6

The thought of a United States alone in the fight against terrorism is an ignorant point of view

There are many nations working to rid the world of the parasite that is terrorism

Tall One your day is near

#5

When is the U.S. going to give up trying to be the policeman of the world? My guess is: when it’s too late. Empires inevitable fail. Committing our troops overseas instead of keeping them at home to protect our own borders does nothing more than put us in even MORE danger to terrorist attacks, it’s a little something called “blowback.”

So much for being an anti-war candidate, Obama.

#4

How’s roaming the world trying to stamp out terrorism working out for the US?

We’ve wasted $2 Trillion in Iraq, not to mention over 4,000 lives. And as soon as we leave, the civil war Iraqis have wanted for 1,400 years will get even bigger than it is today.

After giving up the hunt for Osama during the Bush years, we now want to eliminate the Taliban in Afghanistan. My guess is we had better luck stopping the production and consumption of alcohol during prohibition than we will ever have fighting “terrorism” in that country.

And Pakistan is so uninterested in our help for anything that resembles attacking “terrorism” that our efforts may be self-satisfying, but they will accomplish nothing until we learn how to work with people who detest infidels.

Instead of trying beat “terrorists” out of these countries, we need to find a more effective civilian/military strategy to help these third world countries provide basic services to their people whose absence affords “terrorists” the opportunity to gain a foot hold.

#3

The last two quotes from my previous post and this one here are from the “High Frontier Journal for space and missile professionals” which can be found on our Air Force’s Space Command webpage – afspc.af.mil.

Putting Reactions in Context
Given basement-level public approval ratings abroad for
both President Bush and the US writ large, the media and
public reaction outside of the US to the new NSP should not
be surprising. A survey by a group of newspapers in Britain,
Canada, and Israel in October 2006 found that 69 percent of
respondents from Britain thought the US had made the world
a more dangerous place since 2001, and voted President Bush
as more dangerous to international security than North Korean
strongman Kim Jong-il. Even in Israel the survey found
dramatically sliding support for the Bush administration, with 36
percent saying that President Bush’s actions had made the world
more dangerous versus only 25 percent who said the opposite.11
America-bashing has become almost de rigeur in Russia; and, as
the nightly news confirms, US standing in the Middle East and
Arab world is even lower. The Iraq war and the events leading
up to it have been the catalyst for the precipitous decline in US
popularity abroad and for the widespread view of the US as a
militaristic, unilateralist superpower. Consequently, the new
space policy—even if substantially comparable to the Clinton era
policy—is being viewed through an already darkened prism.

[“No wonder, then, that nearly 80 percent of Muslims around the globe believe that the United States seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.” While almost two thirds say that the purpose of the War on Terror is to “spread Christianity in the region.” Throughout the Muslim world, positive perceptions of the United States remain at an all-time low, even among its staunchest allies. According to a 2006 poll by Pew Global Attitudes Project, 70 percent of Egyptians, 70 percent of Indonesians, 73 percent of Pakistanis, 85 percent of Jordanians, and 88 percent of Turks (all U.S. allies) have an unfavorable view of the United States. If the War on Terror is an ideological battle for the hearts and minds of Muslims, there should no longer be any question that the battle has been lost.” (from Reza Aslan’s “How to Win a Cosmic War”, p.159)]

#2

This question should be treated as a joke.

Of course the United States, once again, is not only being too aggressive, but absolutely utterly insane.

When the 160 nations of PAROS have been urging the US to have UN sanctioned talks about preventing an arms race in space since the mid 90s and we unilaterally say “no” while being the number one transgressors in space who spend 30 times more on their space program than all of the continent of Europe, and who state in their National Space Policy that we “shall develop and use space nuclear power systems” and who also state that “Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the US to conduct research, development, testing, and operations of other activities in space for US national interests” then I think we’re being a little too aggressive.

When our NSP states that we will reject “any limitations on the fundamental rights of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space…[while] dissuading or deterring others from either impeding those rights or developing the capabilities intended to do so” I think we’re being a little too aggressive.

By stating that we will achieve full-spectrum dominance (the ability to act alone to defeat any adversary in any situation) of land, sea, air, space and information I think we’re being a little too aggressive (Joint Vision 2020).

Our DoD and Joint Forces are completely insane. Shame on you WF for not reporting this insanity.

***

“The Pentagon
has asked Congress for $500 million “to create a new force of
conventionally armed, long-range missiles capable of striking
anywhere in the world within an hour after an order is given.”10
Currently, the CBM concept calls for this type of weapon system
to fall under the strategic control of United States Strategic
Command (USSTRATCOM).”

“The Chief of Staff, US Air
Force’s (CSAF’s) Title X, US
Code wargame, Global Engagement,
has showcased several
types of space capabilities
including tungsten rods (fragmentary
penetrators) launched
from space at speeds up to
Mach 17 and CAVs that will deliver these precision weapons
anywhere on the globe in less than 60 minutes.”

#1

This question should be treated as a joke.

Of course the United States, once again, is not only being too agressive, but absolutly utterly insane.

When the 160 nations of PAROS have been urging the US to have UN sanctioned talks about preventing an arms race in space since the mid 90s and we unilaterally say “no” while being the number one transgressors in space who spend 30 times more on their space program than all of the continent of Europe, and who state in their National Space Policy that we “shall develope and use space nuclear power systerms” and who also state that “Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the US to conduct research, development, testing, and operations of other activities in space for US national interests” then I think we’re being a little too agressive.

When our NSP states that we will reject “any limitations on the fundamental rights of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space…[while] disuading or detering others from either impeding those rights or developing the capabilities intended to do so” I think we’re being a little too agressive.

By stating that we will achieve full-spectrum dominence (the ability to act alone to defete any adversary in any situation) of land, sea, air, space and information I think we’re being a little too agressive.

Our DoD and Joint Forces are completely insane. Shame on you WF for not reporting this insanity.

***

“The Pentagon
has asked Congress for $500 million “to create a new force of
conventionally armed, long-range missiles capable of striking
anywhere in the world within an hour after an order is given.”10
Currently, the CBM concept calls for this type of weapon system
to fall under the strategic control of United States Strategic
Command (USSTRATCOM).”

“The Chief of Staff, US Air
Force’s (CSAF’s) Title X, US
Code wargame, Global Engagement,
has showcased several
types of space capabilities
including tungsten rods (fragmentary
penetrators) launched
from space at speeds up to
Mach 17 and CAVs that will deliver these precision weapons
anywhere on the globe in less than 60 minutes.”

http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-070322-103.pdf

laser as fast as light, can burn several inch-wide hole in anything it hits:
http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation-space/article/2008-03/how-it-works-airborne-laser-cannon

NSP:
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/whitehouse/ostp_space_policy06.pdf

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289

Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/doctrine/genesis_and_evolution/source_materials/joint_vision_2020.pdf

The label full spectrum dominance implies
that US forces are able to conduct prompt,
sustained, and synchronized operations with
combinations of forces tailored to specific
situations and with access to and freedom to
operate in all domains – space, sea, land, air,
and information. Additionally, given the global
nature of our interests and obligations, the
United States must maintain its overseas
presence forces and the ability to rapidly
project power worldwide in order to achieve
full spectrum dominance.

Facebook Twitter YouTube

Produced by Creative News Group LLC     ©2018 WNET.ORG     All rights reserved

Distributed by American Public Television