war on terrorism

Terrorism, and the Islamic extremism from which much of it is born, are legitimate threats to the security of our nation, and the world. These are serious concerns that must be faced; and that portion of the case for the War on Terror is certainly valid. My case, however, hinges not upon claiming the threat invalid or not serious enough to prompt action, but upon the argument, which I will present here, that war is not the way to handle the threat of terrorism. I will present 5 points to support this claim: 1.The most effective way to solve the problem of Islamic extremism, and thus a large portion of terrorism, is by opposition from within the Arab world. Islamic extremists distort the true messages of Islam; and they are, and will remain, a small minority within the Muslim population. The most effective way the problem of Islamic extremism can truly be solved is by a counter-movement from the vast majority of Muslims who are much more cool-headed, telling the extremists that they refuse to let them hijack international perception of their faith. The fact of the matter is that most Muslims are not pleased that the world now has the perception of their faith as violent and extremist; after all, what rational individual would be pleased with their culture and their faith being polluted in this way? What we need is to encourage moderate Muslim leaders to speak out against the extremists; and this, it can reasonably be assumed, would be a more powerful message against Islamic extremism than hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis due to American intervention. 2.War is not an effective means of dealing with terrorism. Terrorism is not a traditional threat. It is boundary-less, decentralized, and all but leaderless. It is a tactic used by many of the enemies of America, not a foe that can be pinned down by large-scale military operations. In the past, America has always been effective in war when we officially declared war against a concrete threat, set a precise mission or missions to accomplish, and sent our troops in force to pursue those goals. We have not traditionally been successful in war when we don't do these things; and terrorism is something that, by its very definition, cannot be faced off in such a concrete manner. The best definition we have of who our enemies are are a few lists of terrorist organizations compiled by our intelligence; and for a soldier in the field, there is no definite way to distinguish between these enemies and civilians. Everything about facing terrorism with traditional warfare is completely and fundamentally wrong. 3.The true nature of our struggle with terrorism is a battle of ideologies. What is facing off in this conflict are not two distinct "sides" comprised of allied nations; it is instead two ideologies: the ideology of freedom and democracy, and the ideology of oppression and extremism. This is not, in any way, a traditional war. There is no definite boundary between the two ideologies, and there is not a single nation in the world that is comprised entirely of people supporting one side. These opposing ideologies must battle it out. The best we can do, as a nation, is to peacefully promote the side most of us believe in. 4.Any future direct threats to Americans can be dealt with internally by increased domestic security and police action. There is no doubt that we don't want another 9/11. And certainly, there is a potential for such an event, regardless of the foreign policy we pursue to confront terrorism and extremism. But if this threat cannot be faced by our military in traditional manners, how do we combat it? The answer is simple: we increase our domestic security (while being careful, of course, not to step on personal liberties), and we improve communication between our intelligence agencies and our police bodies, so that any threat of another attack on America can be discovered and dealt with before it comes to fruition. 5.The costs of our military actions in this faulty "War on Terror" are staggering. The current death toll of American soldiers in the war in Iraq is 3911, with 28822 wounded.* Furthermore, a recent report by Congressional Democrats regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan entitled "War at Any Price?" found "that the total economic costs incurred to date -- including "hidden" expenses, such as higher oil prices, interest on borrowing, and the long-term care of injured soldiers -- are already about twice the 800 billion dollars the Bush administration has asked Congress to appropriate through 2008." The report also goes on to say that this total cost could be as high as $3.5 trillion by 2017.** It doesn't take detailed analysis to know that these costs, both human and monetary, are not worth it. In conclusion, the War on Terror is based upon the fallacy that terrorism is a traditional enemy that can be faced by traditional large-scale military operations. The threat can more effectively be faced off through opposition within the Muslim world, as well as our peaceful support of the ideology that we want to prevail, and improved domestic security. Furthermore, the costs of the war are too high to be worth it. Altogether, it is clear that the War on Terror is not the proper course of action for America in dealing with the threat of terrorism and Islamic extremism. Thank you. *http://www.antiwar.com... **http://ipsnews.net...