Opinion Which war on terror?

The columnist of September 15 ("It's the war on terror, stupid," Carey Tosello, The Nugget, page 2) makes the case that the war on terror is what voters this November care about the most and that we should vote for the guy who is most resolute in waging it. Moreover, the more we persist in the effort in Iraq, the safer we'll be on American soil.

This voter was compelled to examine the columnist's assertions more closely and respond in kind.

Which war on terror are we talking about? The present fight against Iraqi insurgents? The effort to flush out al Qaeda in Afghanistan? The search for Osama bin Laden? The search for terrorists in Pakistan, Spain, Indonesia, the Philippines? The handling of nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea?

I can only assume the columnist means the first since our military and intelligence resources are so utterly taken up, at present, in Iraq that there has not and cannot be any meaningful response to the remainder.

It is inexplicable that the predictions made by General Shinseki and others regarding the cost and difficulty of waging this effort were so completely ignored, and at the same time held away from general public scrutiny.

Any effort to design a broader strategy against Islamic extremists has been crippled by our myopic focus on regime change in Iraq. Where is the sweeping symbolic effect this war was to have had on terror around the world? It's had an effect, to be sure. It has increased rather than decreased, the threat to the U.S.

The chance we had "to get this one right" was squandered the day we took unilateral action against Iraq.

What is meant by the statement: "The terrorists want the end of western civilization"?

What implications are the columnist referring to if we lose the war on terror?

The former is a close relative to the view "they hate us for who we are."

This line of thinking requires some scrutiny, because it lies at the heart of what went wrong with our governmental response to 9/11.

The view that Islamic extremists want us dead because of who we are is a dangerous trap. It is naïve, ignorant, and self-deluding. Clearly, they don't like western society, but it doesn't explain their desire to attack us. We don't see Sweden or Switzerland in terrorist crosshairs.

Our behavior around the world is what inflames extremists. The 9/11 Commission stated the following with reference to long term strategies for dealing with extremist groups: "America's policy choices have consequences. Right or wrong, it is simply a fact that American policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and American actions in Iraq are dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."

Iraq, the rest of the Middle East and Central Asia are not lining up for American-style democracy because Saddam Hussein is behind bars. The question of why American-style democracy has not been embraced is a good one. And giving the war effort more time, money and precious life is not a good answer.

It is a commonly held view that our government had insufficient post-war planning going in to Iraq. There was a plan. It could not be implemented because of the fierce backlash that erupted. The plan was, and presumably still is, the utopian dream and grand experiment to open Iraq to the free market, American style. What if Iraqis and more widely, other parts of the Arab and Muslim world don't want this? Shouldn't they be free to choose against it?

Setting up a Wal-Mart in downtown Baghdad may not be their idea of freedom.

If we are not willing to examine these kinds of policy choices and the effects they have around the world, we can only expect extremists to become more entrenched and dangerous.

Staying this particular course will only escalate terrorism. The notion that focusing our efforts in Iraq so we don't face terrorism at home is nothing more than wishful thinking.

If anything, our preoccupation in Iraq leaves us more vulnerable, not less.

George W. Bush is clearly resolute in staying the course, but he is resolutely wrong.