Terrorism Discussion, Week 13, Dialog

I feel that the discussion on Tuesday, while good, strayed off topic. The intent was to see how the world has changed after the attacks on 9-11, but the class got caught up on pointing out each others misuse of words. The focus should not have been whether or not drunk driving kills more people than the war in Iraq, but rather why we are targeted. We are targeted, because of our presence in the Middle East. I was hoping to have a discussion about if by responding to their hatred of our troops by sending more troops is really the best solution.

I realize our country holds the stance of not negotiating with terrorists, but I feel that doing the oppose of what they want is just going to strengthen their cause. For instance, if there is someone in Iraq who wasn't convinced that our presence in the Middle East was a negative thing but then they see US troops increase and their lives get worse, it isn't unreasonable for them to begin to protest our involvement, not matter what our intension really are. This isn't to say that the troops aren't there because they believe they are helping these people, the point is that the people don't think they are.


This next paragraph is in reference to the post I commented on earlier titled "Physical Victory is Better and Concessions." If the United States was capable of setting up a democracy in Iraq (as they say they can) I don't see how the Iraqi people could possibly accept this as a trustworthy government. Any country would be uneasy about a government facilitated by a major power, especially one that has been under the rule of major powers for a large period of its history (first the Ottoman empire, then the British). Their fear of being manipulated by another major power, let alone perhaps the first hegemony, is real and I don't see how it can be overcome in this situation.