The "War on Terrorism" is unwinnable and should be ended

"1) Iraq was stable before we invaded. It was, perhaps, not a great place to live, as Saddam Hussein was murdering innocent civilians, but he is no longer in power, and innocent civilians are still being murdered. We've instated a government, and the people have voted. Now we need to rebuild and get out." I find the statements of "stable" and "murdering innocent civilians" to be a direct contradiction to one another, especially when used in the same assertion. I do comprehend your point, that Iraq had a stable government and a generally stable society. However, because of the media exposure brought by the US since the invasion, the sectarian violence occurring in Iraq now is in fact less than the violence incurred by not only the three separate groups (Shia, Sunni, Kurd), but also by the genocide committed by Saddam Hussein. Since the Holocaust and World War II, the US and the UN committed themselves to acting as a guise over the entire world to help preserve peace and individual security, vowing to prevent any act of genocide to ever occur again. While the Iraq War may have been improperly implemented while stuck in a web of bureauchratic American politics, a world without Saddam Hussein and an Iraq without Saddam Hussein is certainly a better Iraq. Innocent civilians are still being murdered because that's the nature of the sectarian violence between the three cultural groups. The War on Terrorism can be won because the US CAN rebuild Iraq, and yes, once Iraq is rebuilt, the US may exit. May it be noted, that since the Korean War, the US has kept at least 30,000 troops stationed on the border of North Korea and South Korea. To keep a small number of troops in Iraq to continue to train Iraqi troops and promote peace in Iraq is not a ridiculous claim. "2) The increases in airport security are best described as "security theater". There remain numerous holes in security (a commonly discussed scenario is simply setting off a bomb before the security checkpoint, where numerous people will still be killed and many people will be scared-- the point of terrorism). The security there is serves the purpose of creating an illusion of response ("security theater") and being vary annoying and wasting time (the fact that people, even if only jokingly, advise friends and family to arrive days early, when an hour was all that was needed on busy days, is testament to this)." I agree with this point. However, especially with a new President in office on January 20, 2008, there is a great opportunity to give actual improvements to airport security without making a theater out of it, giving Americans more of a mental than literal security. A security theater, I will argue, is beneficial to the US citizens. The only worse situation in an airport than a terrorist plot is a panicked citizenry. By keeping the people calm and confident in their country's security, they will be much less likely to panic and cause chaos without even a bit of influence by terrorists. Airport security is improved annually, as the tests conducted by both government projects and third part organizations using fake bomb parts and weapons have seen an increase in pass rate by the airport security increase annually. "3) Personally, cameras everywhere make me (and many others) feel less safe. Who watches the watchers? Who can say with certainty that ex post facto laws will never exist? Who can say that wearing an orange hat will not someday become a retroactive law carrying the death sentence (unlikely, I know, but it's just an example)? Furthermore, there are private security cameras covering major cities already. How does installing more help?" It helps, such as in the instance of the London bus and subway bombings of 2006, it makes it much easier to not only identify the perpetrators but also to find where the bombs or weapons were made or kept. This will provide not only a preemptive measure to preventing terrorist attacks but also help the US piece together evidence if any problems were to occur. "4) Then why was Iraq invaded? Wasn't the reason for that because Iraq had nuclear weapons? That evidence certainly wasn't irrefutable because it WAS refuted. Then the reason was changed to "Saddam is a bad person". Saddam was removed from power, captured, and executed (he wasn't even tried in an international court-- the court was US run). Still US forces remained. The excuse was then that we needed to stabilize Iraq. Well, the way to do that is to REDUCE forces and change their mission-- to rebuilding Iraq." The 9/11 Commission report connected Saddam to 9/11, specifically the harboring of suspects involved and giving financial support. Saddam may or may not have been able to transfer WMDs to Syria, but it is known, especially through the writings of Michael O'Hanlon, that Saddam supplied Syria with financial support and traded weapons with them. The threat lies with Syria's ties with the terrorist organizations Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. Despite whether the invasion of Iraq gave the US a drastic victory in the War on Terror, the invasion in itself should be considered an accomplishment. Additionally, having troops stationed in Iraq keeps Iran in check from threatening the US with nuclear technology. The Iranian President M. Acnhkalneainioea (lol) knows that the US can engage in not only an air but also a ground invasion, leaving Iran to be a sitting duck. The US should begin to reduce forces in Iraq, but there are many benefits to the invasion and to being in there. "5) We do need to capture terrorists (and give them trials), but more terrorists will always come up. Even if Al-Qaeda ceases to exist, there are other terrorist organizations. If we eliminate all terrorist organizations, then people who have similar ideas will form new ones. Do we really want to play Whack-a-Mole on an international scale, except that each round costs a few million dollars instead of 25 cents, and every time we miss, innocent people die?" The point of capturing terrorists is to cut off their ability to mobilize and organize. The long-term plan to win the War on Terror is to cut off their money supply and prevent them from acquiring additional weapons or dangerous technologies. For instance, the way to win the war in Afghanistan is to eradicate opiate crops that fund the resurrecting Taliban regime and give the poor farmers a positive incentive my microfinancing. Innocent people shouldn't die at the hands of the US, however, remember, that if it were not for the proactive stance presented by the US, not only would US citizens die, but innocent people all across the globe would die at the hands of corrupt regimes and greedy cartels. Eliminating anti-American sentiment is a challenge, and it can be accomplished by not only freeing innocent people of their anti-American "overlords", but by using the prowess of the American economy to let American entrepreneurs to microfinance and globalize other nations. The main focus of your arguments is to criticize Iraq on behalf of the anti-War front. Your arguments are certainly coherent and valid, however to ignore the benefits inherent with outing Saddam and fighting the War on Terror is a one-sided approach. In order to win this debate, you must prove that the costs of the War on Terror outweigh the benefits. The greatest value to the government must be the well-being and protection of its citizens. A Constitutional Republic like America, with a government made by the people for the people with minimal corruption (in comparison to fascism and dictatorship), should value its people over all other goals. Do not take this as an ignorant statement intended to violate the value of human life or to justify the murder of innocent people, I merely present it to defend the actions of the American military on behalf of the friends, family, and country that they are fighting for. Thanks, The Colonel