Why Should We Fight the War Against Terror?

by Robert Andrew - Date: 2006-12-21 - Word Count: 990 Share This!

The War on Terror is getting a lot of attention these days.  Most people either strongly support it or are totally against it.  And the national debate is heated.  Is this war worth fighting or are we wasting our time and resources?

What's the point of having our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq?  When terrorists flew two commercial planes into the World Trade Center, the public strongly supported an air raid on Afghanistan which was a safe harbor for terrorists.  If you're like most people, you didn't know what the Taliban was at that point.

The invasion of Iraq is much more controversial.  We were led to believe Iraq had a stockpile of dangerous weapons of mass destruction?  No evidence has been found to support that hypothesis.  Were the September 11 terrorist attacks funded by Saddam?  It appears the answer is no.  But do you think Saddam was smiling and celebrating the day terrorists flew two commercial jets into the towers of the World Trade Center?  Without a doubt.

Saddam himself could have easily prevented the invasion by letting the inspectors in to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction.  The former Iraqi dictator was a murderer who thought nothing of slaughtering his fellow countrymen.  He repeatedly violated United Nations sanctions against Iraq and refused to let inspectors in to prove he had no weapons of mass destruction.  And sometimes when you play with fire, you get burned.

Looking at the situation through the eyes of a reasonable person, what would you think?  The Irqai dictator was misleading the world.  How could anyone reach another conclusion?  He was flat out told that if he did not co-operate, the bombing would commence at a specific time.  And he sat there and did nothing.  Big mistake on his part.  Considering where he is now, do you think he would do things differently if he could?

We've had a lot of success in the war on terror to date:

1.  The ruthless tyrant Saddam Hussein has been deposed, tried in court, and sentenced to death.

2.  Mommar Qaddaffi, the terrorist leader of Libya, heard footsteps and surrendered before he suffered the same fate as Saddam.  Qaddaffi has been implicated in numerous terrorist activities for decades including the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.  How many lives has this saved?  

3.  Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, second in command of terrorist group Al-Qaeda, was killed in a air raid and put the rest of Al-Qaeda on notice that they are being tracked and will be killed on sight.  Can Al-Qaeda's leaders really orchestrate its terrorist activities effectively when their primary concern is for their own survuval?

4.  Afghanistan is no longer the safe home base it used to be for terrorists.

5.  No major terror attacks have been carried out on U.S. soil since September 11, 2001, - that's over five years.

The critical point is the last one.  The number of terrorist acts stopped and lives saved due to our proactive posture cannot be determined but it's a fact that no lives have been lost.  So there has been much success in  preventing terrorism from affecting our everyday lives.

And with thousands of lives lost, the price has been high.  Have these lives been lost in vain?  Should we withraw our troops and ignore what happens in  rest of the world as of it has no impact on our lives?  Will myopic, isolationist policies such as this be as effective at preventing terror as our current course of action?  Will we ever learn from the past?  Will we make the same mistakes over and over?

Why was World War II fought?  Because we left the job unfinished in World War I.  A ruthless tyrant was appeased, not defeated.  Troops were withdrawn and we were lulled into a false sense of security.  Meanwhile, Hitler was at work cranking up his war machine and it another war to defeat him.  And as evidenced by the thousands of crosses on the beaches of Normandy, many young lives were lost because of this bad decision.

Most of us say we'd like to leave the world a better place for our children.  Do we really mean that?  Or is it just lip service?  Are we going to finish the job?  Or should we bury our heads in the sand and leave our toughest challenges for future generations to face?

How would life in the U.S. be different if the Colonists hadn't persevered and won the war for independence against Great Britain?  What would our country look like if the North had conceded to the South in the Civil War?  Would the world be different if we'd have kept our troops out of Word War II and the Nazis had won?  And what will the world be like 10, 20, or 50 years from today if we don't finish the job of defeating terrorists?

Remember the old Midas commercials?  The guy at the auto shop says, "You can pay me now or you can pay me later."  You can take your car to the shop now and pay a much smaller price than you'd pay if you let the problem go until you can't ignore it any longer and it costs and arm and a leg to fix the mess.  

The same concept applies to the war on terror.  A few generations ago, our ancestors fought a brutal battle on foreign soil that defeated the Nazis and paved the way for the great country we live in today.  We owe it to our sons and daughters to do what our fathers and grandfathers did for us.  Let's finish the job, ugly as it is, and make the world a better place for future generations.

Is the United Nations squandering your money? Here's what the United Nations hopes you never find out. The real story might shock you. Find out at United Nations Secrets.

Related Tags: iraq, war on terror, saddam hussein, terrorism, afghanistan, war against terror, united nations

Your Article Search Directory : Find in Articles

© The article above is copyrighted by it's author. You're allowed to distribute this work according to the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs license.

Recent articles in this category:

Most viewed articles in this category: