The war in Iraq & the war on terror. Are they one in the same or not?

[Philosoraptor]

I don't get it, I get confused as a citizen sometimes. I hear pundits say that the war on terror is being strained by the war in Iraq, or that the war in Iraq is a sidetrack to the war on terror. bush says Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, so I guess when all the terrorists are dead the central front will be elsewhere. Where?

Now they are referring to it as THE LONG WAR to let us know it will go on literally forever and to get used to it. It almost sounds as if all bush wars in the near future will be absorbed into the giant, conglomerate all encompassing global war on terror, whose central front is to be determined by future republican presidents.

[and-justice-for-all]

1. Thats what the GOP amd those who pay them lip service...

...Want people to think.

Its all a bunch of shit, the 'War On Terror' is the excuse they invaded and now occupy Iraq, 9/11 also worked in the GOPs favor as well. Saddam/Iraq has no relationship with Al-quida. Now, sine the invasion and the continuing westerner presents in the region I would not doubt that they are NOW working with the Iraqi resistence against this illegal occupation for what is also under the Iraqi soil....This is the muslims new JIHAD (Which means TO STRUGGLE).

[neoblues]

2. The weren't...

but they are related now. Even so, it's probably not a strong relationship. It's more that now the terrorists have the perfect recruiting motivational event, as well as the perfect training ground (on the job training in IRAQ).

Also, it will only be at tremendous cost that we will prevent IRAQ from becoming a significant source and home to the kind of 'terrorism' that we are supposedly at war with.

Not to confuse you, but our nation's response to 9/11 had very little to do with fighting terrorism. Even Afghanistan was more to get our desired oil pipeline--which incidentally required removing the Taliban (which was the leadership of Afghanistan and who had been financed by Bin Laden in exchange for having free run of the country). Terrorism wasn't the enormous boogy man we were led to think it was, but owing to our invasion and occupation of a Muslim country/holy land, we've provoked a real growth the details of which aren't yet obvious, but for which we will pay well into the future.

Our focus should have been smart, strategic operations to root out and destroy terrorist networks--in cooperation with the whole world (which was there to help--until Bush basically told them to all go screw themselves). That, and to make real improvements in our national security and intelligence gathering operations--not missile defense (which has no chance of working for several decades--by which time it may not even be needed), and not foreign military engagements. We've failed to improve national security--and programs to spy on Americans en-masse are certainly not significant improvements in our security against terrorists.

9/11 and the War on Terrorism has primarily been "used" as a means by which to increase the power of the President and the Republican government. They expect to continue to dominate the government for decades, and they're going to continue to use terrorism and anything else they can find, to "terrorize" and scare the American people--to allow them to keep the massive power they've taken unto themselves. Most of us consider that abuse of power to have fascist qualities.

There will always be terrorists, somewhere. Therefore, as you point out, even after IRAQ has ceased to be terrorist central, our leaders will just pick another spot that's been in the news or is convenient to their agendas at that time.

I like the way you posed the question as though you were confused and then, in two short paragraphs, hit on what probably amounts to the main issues. Of course, your final question being "where" next can't be answered until we reach that point in time, but rest assured, so long as our government is controlled by Republicans (and DINOs), there will be a "somewhere".

[Lexingtonian]

3. see, you just don't understand

that all Terrorists are brown-skinned people who are adherents to Islam, and that therefore all brown-skinned people who are adherents to Islam are Terrorists.

Once you understand this, it all makes sense. It makes you a fine and outstanding member of a higher civilization, even though it makes you unemployable at anything that involves reading, writing, arithmetic, or world travel.

And if you believe that the Republican leadership truly believes any of the talking points they give you, I think you're in for some disillusionment. Charles de Gaulle famously once said "Every politician is secretly surprised that anyone believes what he says, because he himself can't afford to."

[Parisle]

4. A Question With A Lot Of Answers,...

---- George Bush certainly equates the War on Iraq with the "War on Terror," eh? But the list of extenuating circumstances to Bush's vision is a yard long.

---- For one thing, Bush needed to attack a nation state in order to get Americans to believe they were actually in a war,.. and the PNAC had long wanted to grab Iraq's oil as a resource and means of further military adventurism throughout the world. Fighter jets don't run on bio-diesel, eh? Some PNAC documents have explicitly stated that a secure source of oil is a prerequisite for the "multiple wars" they wish to wage in order to make this the "American Century." And besides, the "War on Terror" is a semantic trick, anyway,..... there is no such thing. "Terrorism" is the term which has been gratuitously applied to the means by which ragged, underdeveloped peoples try to resist US imperialism and economic domination.

---- The division of the two terms was made in the mind of the American public. For many, warring against terrorism meant getting bin Laden, author of 9-11,... and that hasn't happened yet,... doesn't even seem to be a priority any longer. And most Americans are smart enough to dedeuce that invading Iraq did not put us any closer to catching him. That is where the two wars diverged. There should be no mistake about this -- the LAST thing the Bush administration wants to see is the end of whatever they may deem a "terror threat." It is their meal ticket.

---- Invading and occupying Iraq, on the other hand, served numerous purposes not connected to the deposing of Hussein. It averted a minor catastrophe of the US currency, as Saddam was about to switch to the Euro for oil transactions. OPEC could have followed suit. Iraq is no longer a member of OPEC,... how 'bout that? And by having a war in Iraq which lasts for decades, a US military base in the Mideast is assured. And Iraqi oil is cheap to extract; it lies shallow in the ground,... and requires only a third of the extraction costs in Saudi Arabia. There's extra profit in those numbers, right? US oil companies wanted Iraq above all. The "War on Terror" was the fabricated cover under which the PNAC-corporatist partnership decided to make the grab.

[CarbonDate]

5. No.

The Iraq War is being aired out in public. The true "War on Terror" is being conducted in secret CIA prisons across the world in locations like the Phillipines and Pakistan.