"The Global War on Terror" -- 10 years in and counting

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

In exactly two months, the United States will observe the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the decade since those attacks, the U.S.A. has invaded and toppled the governments of two foreign states, captured and/or killed large numbers of suspected terrorists, including Osama bin Laden, changed domestic and military laws about surveillance and detention of suspected and/or captured terrorist suspects, engaged in controversial methods of interrogation that meet many definitions of the concept of torture, largely disrupted or broken up the central organization of Al Qaeda while seeing numerous independent or affiliated organizations spring up, operated a series of "black site" prisons and detention centers around the world, created an entire federal department dedicated to domestic security..and has not seen a successful attack on United States soil since the attacks of 2001 while terrorist attacks worldwide have continued with annual fluctuations.

The number of U.S. military dead in Iraq currently stands at almost 4500 and in Afghanistan it is over 1600. 10s of thousands more have been wounded. Estimates of Iraqi and Afghan dead since 2001 start at over 100,000 and climb rapidly depending upon who is doing the counting.

Meanwhile, the United States is as dependent as ever on oil imports from the Persian Gulf, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, a main talking point of Islamic radicals and terrorist affiliates, is nowhere near a resolution, and the Arab Spring revolts have drawn into an uncertain summer with no good means of predicting the future.

For discussion: What have the U.S. and its allies to show for almost a decade of policy and action in the "Global War on Terror"?

Comments

[rasilio.livejournal.com]

Well of course since it is so self evident that we didn't really go to war for terrorism and it was really all about the oil we have all this oil we are swimming in....

*Checks price of gas*


Shit I guess we got nothing.


Seriously though what we did get is a wonderful gift to anyone who favors centralized control or would want to institute a fascist state here because the security theater enacted in response to "terrorism" are exactly the sorts of controls you'd need to have one.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Well of course since it is so self evident that we didn't really go to war for terrorism and it was really all about the oil

I'll be honest -- I run in circles where that is often treated as "self evident" but I don't particularly get it.

For the first part, if we really wanted to control oil, it seems daft the take out both of Iran's major ideological opponents in the region, leaving the oil producer of the two far less capable of producing its oil and handing Iran the role of Gulf Region Superpower without Iran ever having had to fire a shot.

And second, if the goal is to "get the oil" surely there are far less risky ways of accumulating easy access to a resource than spilling blood and treasure and being left responsible for maintaining someone else's civil society.

Gulf War 1 was definitely about oil -- namely, that letting Iraq get away with conquering oil fields at will was a very bad idea. This one? If it WAS for oil, it sure was done about as stupidly as possible.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

For the first part, if we really wanted to control oil, it seems daft the take out both of Iran's major ideological opponents in the region, leaving the oil producer of the two far less capable of producing its oil and handing Iran the role of Gulf Region Superpower without Iran ever having had to fire a shot.

^This. Particularly since Iran withstood the longest conventional war of the 20th Century against a foe backed by both Cold War superpowers. Making a potential regional power without room to be an aspirant and with hostility to all the Great Powers into an actual aspirant was not the smartest move ever made by US leaders.