GingerV,
Thank you for you patience.
In re the data sets. You have identified points where you remain unpersuaded by what I have presented as corroborating evidence. Fair enough. I will grant you that the incident count’s negative trend line in the “good times” (1989 – 1997) is qualified by the casualties’ (fatality & injury) positive one. I do consider the incident count to be a more useful measure of the institution that casualty count, but not everyone agrees with me. I will repeat that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That the data may fail to provide a compelling vindication of the WOT does in no way identify failure. Vigil hints at that by pointing out the brief interval involved. To substantiate your assertion that the WOT is a failure you would need to provide data of similar quality.
My point that terrorism as an institution was growing during the period 1969-1989 has gone unchallenged. Silence implies assent. If one agrees that terrorism as an institution was growing, then I suggest that acts of terrorism have a nature which calls for a “when will there be a response” rather than “if”. About the only people who would disagree with me would be terrorists and their supporters.
I have suggested before that political and economic liberalization are the preferred long term tools to use. They are not the only tools. As Vullkan has observed, when dealing with committed, dedicated terrorists, there may be no way of resolving the conflict other than by force of arms. While it is possible for reasonable people to disagree, it is dangerous to disagree with someone who can characterised as unreasonable. People who kill women and children as political statements are, in my estimation, unreasonable.
Conflicts which play out over extended periods have both near and long term goals. As the al-Qaeda organization is a committed foe of the US, and one which has a history of violence, then one near term goal would be to reduce its operational effectiveness. A long term goal would be to change the economic and political context from which it currently draws support. Destroying the facilities al-Qaeda uses to train its operatives seems like a reasonable near term thing to do. Replacing the intolerant, fanatical, inhumane, and misogynist government of the Taliban with a democratic one seems to be a reasonable medium term goal.
It seems that you and I will be unable to agree about the causus belli for the invasion of Iraq. The action in Afghanistan was justified by the WOT. That was, and remains a distinct conflict from the one in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was based upon the purported existence of Iraq’s existing WMDs and their development programs. This was certainly the case here in the States, and, as my home page has been
http://news.bbc.co.uk/ for quite some time, I recall quite clearly that HM Government’s support for the action was also based upon the WMD theory, not the WOT.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3864301.stm
The Right Honorable Straw’s “45 minute” comments were about WMDs.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3479801.stm
Lord Hutton’s review into the suicide of Dr. Kelly was, in part, due to the allegations that the Iraq dossier was “sexed up” to make the case of invasion more strongly. It turn’s out that the Beeb was wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3437315.stm
That there were, ultimately, no WMDs, does not change the record. The position that the invasion of Iraq was based on the WOT does not jibe with the record.
Given that the subjects under debate, WMDs, I find that Mr. Blix’s position, where the Iraqi government did, over a period of many years, repeatedly thwart the goals of agents sent to execute the terms of documents to which the Iraqi government was a signatory, indefensible. The Hussein regime had a documented history of using chemical munitions on both its own and foreign nationals. It subsequently thwarted the inspectors’ efforts to verify that it had indeed disposed itself of them. The earlier Israeli bombing of the Osiris nuclear reactor prevented that same regime from realizing its stated goal of developing nuclear weapons. The responsibility for the prompt resolution of the inspections always lay in the hands of the Iraqi government.
Circumstances change cases. Had the US and HM governments received reliable reports that WMD programs had been discovered in, say, Denmark, the myriad contradictory data points would justify a leisurely approach to addressing what would be difficult to believe. Shift your focus to Baghdad. With a murderous background documented repeatedly over many years, would you recommend according Saddam Hussein the same accommodations as you would Danish Prime Minister Anders Rasmussen?
If you check, I believe that you will find that the majority of the bombs dropped by US & British aircraft in Afghanistan were dropped on the Taliban government armed forces. This was done to facilitate the success of the Afghans of the Northern Alliance. There was no “flat out invasion of Afghanistan”. The ground war was fought and won by Afghans.
Yes. Buy replacing a government which overtly supported al-Qaeda with one which does not, the War on Terrorism was advanced.