The War on Terror, A Miscalculated Nine Eleven Event Response?

I have little to no regard for the War on Terror (2001), not the War on Crime (1941) nor the War on Poverty (1964) nor the War On Drugs (1969), none of which WARS seem to have accomplished much except for those who are commanders in chief and their sycophant underlings.

I am not an anti-Semite. In America anytime you plan to use the word “Jew” you feel impelled to start off by saying you are not anti-Semetic. If that is the case, of course. I offer as proof I most often use the calendar designations, BCE , before the common era, and CE, common era, in deference to Jewish people. I prefer the term, Jewish people, rather than the equally correct word, Jew, because Jew has a lot of baggage that Jewish people does not carry. End of disclaimer.

I have read there are 613 commandments in the Torah, the Hebrew Bible. The Ten we know about and 603 others. Most of the others relate to food, its preparation and to methods of worship. Some of the others relate to social offenses. Our own American constitution has one very important provision taken almost directly from the Old Testament. It’s in our definition of treason. See US Con. Art. 3, Sec. 3, Clause 1. “ . . No person shall be convicted of treason except on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act . . “ See Foot Note 1.

Note. In the Hebrew Bible, before stoning a person to death, it says that “no person shall be stoned but on the testimony of 2 or 3 witnesses.” Loosely quoted. Although adultery is a death penalty offense, how often will there be 2 or 3 witnesses? This same provision also implies a public trial. That in turn indicates a judgment of guilt must be reached. Perhaps by a show of hands of all the adults in the group? All of this predates King John’s Magna Carta (1215 CE) by 2,000 years. End of note.

I have said a lot to say this. We - the West - stirred the hornet’s nest in 1948.

Discounting as ridiculous any claims that GOD gave the Holy Land to the Israelites and that modern Jewish people are the legal beneficiaries by right of inheritance to that Land Grant, we could ignore it but for the fact that American foreign policy is predicated on that proviso.

How we got to 1948 is important. Where do we start? I don’t know when the first Christian religiously inspired persecution of Jewish people began. We know a papal edict of the 1490s required Jews living in Spain to choose, 1) Leave the country but leave their possessions behind, or 2) convert to Catholicism, or 3) be executed. We know the Russians had the first “pogrom” against Jews under Ivan the Terrible. I am old enough to have heard with my own ears the words “Christ Killers” in Protestant pulpits. Shamelessly alluding to contemporary Jewish persons. Anti-Semitism is not unknown in the US. To summarize, it was us Christian types who laid the foundation on which Hitler built the Holocaust.

Not Radical Islamic Terrorists.

In 1948, Harry Truman and Eleanor Roosevelt - and millions of others - felt great remorse over the scenes of horror photographed for eternity at Auschwitz - the largest facility - and several dozen other similar Nazi encampments of death. Aside: Today’s Germans to their good credit, require the teaching of this material in all their schools just the opposite approach taken by the Japanese.

To give to the Holocaust survivors a homeland seemed the right thing to do in 1948. Places such as Uganda had been considered but probably not seriously. It was settled on Palestine, which was the historic site of the ancient Hebrew people. Prior to the United Nations action, about 15%-20% of the land in Palestine was owned by Jewish persons outright or by others who served as proxies for Jewish owners.

The wishes of the remaining 80%-85% of the Arabs who lived there were not solicited and were totally disregarded. Racism reared its ugly head! We - white people - regarded Arabs - dark people - as inferior people. We superiors do not consult with inferiors. (Say Hello, Iraq! Hello Iran!) It was true Arab technology was inferior to ours. Hey,1 American in 3 had a car, but only 1 Arab in 6 had a camel! That is superiority Western style!

The 1948-1949 War of Independence - Israel’s name for it - ended with an armistice and a very meticulously drawn line between the Jewish and Arab populations. In 1956, Israel joined the British and French in the Suez Crisis War. All 3 countries were “ordered” out of Egypt by US President Eisenhower.

1967. June, the famous Six Days War. A preemptive strike by Israel. Using blitzkrieg tactics learned from old German generals, Moshe Dyan then Israel’s one-eyed Defense Minister - wasn’t life simpler when we had a War Minister instead of a Defense Minister - planned a strike that would have made Hitler envious. Israel first destroyed the Arab’s air forces on the ground. Israel’s tanks swiftly captured the Sinai Peninsula. Following on quickly, the IDF overran Jordan’s much vaunted Desert Legion taking not only the West Bank but East Jerusalem, the prize of the Ages. Finally, the IDF captured the aggravating Golan Heights from Syria. And on the 7th day, they rested.

In a 1977 election, Menachem Begin became Israel’s 6th prime minister in an upset that surprised everyone. Israel’s first Likud Party prime minister Begin was first to refer to the West Bank as ‘Judea’ and ‘Samaria.’ A sea change in Israeli politics which pushes us towards 2007.

Over the years since 1967, various well meaning people have proposed a two state solution to the intrusion begun in 1948. It is so geographically logical. Readily identifiable borders that are easily controlled or defended. Leaving East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount for later. For Jewish people around the world, it was the greatest thing on earth since the legendary King David united the two kingdoms.

OTOH, for the 300,000 Arabs and their descendants, it is not much. Their property taken and no compensation was paid. They were forced out of their homes. Where they and their ancestors had lived, in some cases for centuries, but are now gone. And now faraway albeit well meaning people propose they “forget it” as “times change” and “new realities” prevail. And so goes the Right of Return? Not likely.

For all the War on Terror fans, the Arab Jewish problem in the Holy Land is either the No. 1 or No. 2 motivating grievance for Muslim Arabs around the world. People you casually label “extremists” or “radicals” because you are unable or unwilling to look at the realities as they unfolded. Foreign troops on Holy Arabia soil - Mecca and Medina - is alternatively either No. 1 or No. 2 grievance. Solve those and you end the motivation.

Everyone knows the United States has given Israel a free hand in the region. Lebanon 2006 is another sad example. Only the United States can rein in Israel. Notwithstanding the long list of mistakes, America has made dealing with Arab nations the US still has enough respect it could compel both the Palestinians (Arabs living in Palestine) and the Jewish inhabitants of Israel to make peace. If the US leaders so desired.

A workable settlement. I suggest paying the dispossessed Arabs a flat $1 million each on proof of ownership of confiscated property. I further propose that a commission of Arabs be allowed to designate 100 pieces of property from a UN prepared list of 1,000 pieces confiscated by Israel. Palestinians could participate in a lottery which would be a symbolic Right of Return, the winners being allowed to return to the property or sell it as they see fit.

East Jerusalem should be returned to the Arabs as of June, 1967, with the proviso that unimpeded access to the West Wall (a/k/a Wailing Wall) must be under the singular control of Israel and exercisable without interference by any Arabs or others.

And then there will be peace in the Middle East and the War on Terror will be ended.


Foot Note 1. Julius Rosenberg (May 12, 1918 - June 19, 1953) and Ethel Greenglass Rosenberg (September 28, 1915 - June 19, 1953) were American Communists who received international attention when they were executed for passing nuclear weapons secrets to the Soviet Union. They were not convicted of treason but of espionage.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by donwhite]

Under your plan do the 750,000 Jewish folks that were ejected from Muslim controlled countries recieve any compensation?

Jewish exodus from Arab lands

Also do the Muslim countries that have used the Palestinians as fodder and kept them in refugee camps pay anything to the Palestinians?

reply to post by DarkStormCrow



I don't know the answer to the questions, but perhaps the ADL might? I feel sure it was not meant to be, and I protest that I have only one eye to read with, but the question sounds disingenuous. I don't know how to reply. It seems to obfuscate more than it elucidates the topical issue.

It is the US that is ineptly spending $12 b. a month with disastrous outcome and so far losing nearly 4,000 KIA with no end in sight. A settlement is in OUR self-interest.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by donwhite]

I dont think the question is disingenuous, You cant discuss compensation for 300,000 displaced Palestinians without taking up the issue of the 750,000 Jewish folks that were diplaced during the 1948-1950 period at the creation and independence of Israel.

I support the right of Israel to exist just as I support the Palestinian right to a state of thier own. It is my opinion that many Moslem governments dont want a solution to the issue because it helps them keep thier people in control. My solution would be as follows in basic terms Israeli / Palestinian borders remain as they are now and Jerusalem comes under the control of a UN peacekeeping force. Palestinians would lose the right of return, the reasoning behind this is that between 1948-1950 750,000 Jews were ejected from Moslems countries and have no right of return in short the Moslem governments back then helped create the state of Israel and now they will have to deal with what they helped create.

The US Government has supported some really ruthless Dictators in the Middle East to deny it would be folly and many of the people in the Middle East are upset about it. I have been to many Moslem countries and thier governments are not kind to the people.

The Shah, brutal police state, I lived there when he was in power so I got to witness his secret police firsthand. Truly if we had not allowed him into the US for medical treatment we would not have had the Hostage crisis and would probably would have better relations with the Iranians today.

Saddam when it was convienient as a buffer to the new Iranian government we turned a blind eye to his treatment of his minorities prior to the Gulf War.

The Sauds and The Kuwaiti Royals when it became convienient in order to deal with Saddam. Kuwait was no ally of the US before the Gulf War and like the Sauds they treat thier people poorly and they treat thier imported labor even more poorly. They are a police state in thier own right and they control Mecca and Medina which gives the leverage beyond thier oil leverage. The Sauds also fund the Jihadi Madrassas and publish almost all of the religious writing that is exported to Mosques worldwide of the and 90% of these publications are of the Wahabbi Jihadi view, the most extreme in Islam. The Sauds are more of a danger to the West than Al Queda if you look deeply enough.

Trying to impose a western type democracy in the Moslem world is a mistake. The Islamic Societal Construct is different so naturally what they consider democracy will be different. Thier societies will have to evolve
( just as western societies have evolved ) toward whatever democratic system and Islam will be the basis of thier law not secularism as in the west it has to be thier choice and we have to stop supporting dictators in those countries and get off thier oil.

In short when we in the US stop blindly supporting the oil states and blindly supporting Israel and begin dealing with the people of those countries as equals instead of servants the Jihadi movement will lose its power.

We cannot bomb these people into submission unless we want to have a true world war meaning raise a 15 million man army and march through the Middle East like we did through Europe and the Pacific during WW2 thats not going to happen and it is the only way to win militarily and since we arent going to raise armies this large then we need to look at a equal and sensible political solution.

Personally I am an Isolationist and would pull troops out of every other country in the world ally or not. Now if they want to continue attacking US embassies and watnot after a full removal of US troops then I am all in favor of going to visit with a 15 million man army as in WW2. If scorched earth was good enough for my ancestors in Alanta its good enough for those who are attacking us now.

posted by DarkStormCrow
You cant discuss compensation for 300,000 displaced Palestinians without taking up the issue of the 750,000 Jewish folks that were diplaced during the 1948-1950 period at the creation and independence of Israel.

Vaguely, I recall that. I never knew the numbers, and I’m of the opinion they must have reached some agreeable state of affairs such as moving to Israel. I don’t know of any Jewish people living like the Arabs in Gaza are forced to live as we write. That sounds more like a taking point to me.

It is my opinion that many Moslem governments don’t want a solution to the issue because it helps them keep their people in control.

And because the US has contributed substantial funds to the Israeli military and often, to many of the Arab states as well, I agree the regional countries do not want to see an end to the Conflict. It must also be US foreign policy that turmoil is better than a solution we cannot dictate?

My solution would be as follows in basic terms Israeli / Palestinian borders remain as they are now and Jerusalem comes under the control of a UN peacekeeping force. Palestinians would lose the right of return, the reasoning behind this is that between 1948-1950 750,000 Jews were ejected from Moslems countries and have no right of return . .

OK up to the 750,000 counterbalancing factor. You know my thoughts on that.

The US Government has supported some really ruthless Dictators in the Middle East to deny it would be folly and many of the people in the Middle East are upset about it. I have been to many Moslem countries and their governments are not kind to the people.

You are exactly right, in fact, this is exactly what Osama bin Laden has been complaining about for a very long time. That issue is one of the FOUR he names as his cause celebre. Or raison d’etre. Your choice.

The Shah, brutal police state, I lived there when he was in power so I got to witness his secret police firsthand. Truly if we had not allowed him into the US for medical treatment we would not have had the Hostage crisis and would probably would have better relations with the Iranians today.

A blunder by Pres. Eisenhower, Allen Dulles and Kermit Roosevelt. We are still paying the heavy price for that political snafu. SAVAK. Trained by the CIA and at the US Army School of the Americas. I enjoyed a young Iranian youth who came to my home to live during the Iran Iraq War. He attended 10th through 12th grade then his first year in college before he was joined by his older sister and the two of them took an apartment near the university. That does not make me an authority on Iran and it is not nearly equal to living in Iran. Your first hand observatsions should be better than my informed opinions. I know that.

Kuwait was no ally of the US before the Gulf War and like the Saudis they treat their people poorly and they treat their imported labor even more poorly. They are a police state in their own right and they control Mecca and Medina which gives the leverage beyond their oil leverage.

Yes. Yes and yes. And you forgot the 1943 special visit to Arabia by my own icon, FDR, who exchanged pledges of mutual and perpetual support with old King Ibn Saud.

The Saudis also fund the Jihad Madrases and publish almost all of the religious writing that is exported to Mosques worldwide of the and 90% of these publications are of the Wahabbi Jihad view, the most extreme in Islam. The Saudis are more of a danger to the West than Al Queda . .

I think a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist. I wish we could trade some of ours for some of theirs.

In short when we in the US stop blindly supporting the oil states and blindly supporting Israel and begin dealing with the people of those countries as equals instead of servants the Jihad movement will lose its power.

Yes, as our black brothers express it, RESPECT, man, RESPECT.

We cannot bomb these people into submission . . and since we aren’t going to raise armies this large then we need to look at a equal and sensible political solution.

Yes, but the Neo Con theory was we’d have a 25-30 year window of opportunity from 1991 to remake the world according to our plans. We did not know that Bush43 was himself the Chief Neo Con. Not VP Cheney, not Karl Rove but B43 himself.

Personally I am an Isolationist and would pull troops out of every other country in the world ally or not. Now if they want to continue attacking US embassies and whatnot after a full removal of US troops then I am all in favor of going to visit with a 15 million man army as in WW2.

Well, I’m sympathetic with you, but I have doubts that will work today. I see the US as a much more active player in the UN as our best bet to avoid future armed conflicts and making the world a better place to live in.

[edit on 8/24/2007 by donwhite]

On Aug. 28 Iranian President Ahmadinejad said US power in Iraq is rapidly being destroyed. Then he said that Iran, with the help of regional friends and the Iraqi nation, is ready to fill the vacuum. Ahmadinejad specifically reached out to Saudi Arabia, saying the Saudis and Iranians could collaborate in managing Iraq.

Later that same day George W. Bush responded, "I want our fellow citizens to consider what would happen if these forces of radicalism and extremism are allowed to drive us out of the Middle East. The region would be dramatically transformed in a way that could imperil the civilized world." He specifically mentioned Iran and its threat of nuclear weapons.

It has already been noted the US now has only a limited ability to secure Iraq. Our strategic goal should shift from controlling Iraq to defending the Arabian Peninsula against Iranian ambitions. Whatever mistakes we made in the immediate past, the current reality is that any withdrawal from Iraq will create a vacuum which would rapidly be filled by Iran.

After the Nine Eleven Event the Saudis asked the United States to withdraw its forces and following the Iraq invasion they fought a fairly intense battle against al Qaeda inside the kingdom. Having US troops defend Saudi Arabia once again even if they were stationed outside its borders would inflame passions inside the kingdom and could potentially overthrow the regime.

The current Iranian regime arose from a very broad popular uprising against the Shah. The Ayatollah Khomeini shrewdly linked the idea of an Islamic Republic conforming with both Western revolutionary traditions and Shia political philosophy. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is an absolutist monarchy that draws its authority from traditional clan and tribal structures and Wahhabi Islam in the Arabian Peninsula.

If the Saudis did join the Iranian-led stabilization program in Iraq, they would then be forced to rely on a Turkish presence in northern Iraq to constrain any future Iranian designs on Arabia. That is not necessarily a safe bet as Russian power is returning to the Caucasus, Greek power is growing in the Balkans and the Turkish economy is requiring ever more attention from Ankara. Put simply, Turkey has a lot of irons in the fire.

Ahmadinejad sees Iran’s opening. The US even if it is not bluffing about an air attack against Iran, would find such an attack less effective than it might hope. In the end, even after an extended air campaign, it will come down to this, no matter how many moves are made, the US is going to have to define a post-Iraq strategy. However that strategy turns out, it must focus on preventing Iran from threatening the Arabian Peninsula.

Iran is developing nuclear weapons. There is quite a leap between testing a device and having a workable weapon. The problem is that negotiations have ended. The prospect of Iran trading its nuclear program for US concessions in Iraq disappeared along with the negotiations. The heart of Bush's speech was that withdrawing would vastly increase Iran's power and an Iranian nuclear weapon would be catastrophic.

Assume that the US attacked and destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities. The essential geopolitical problem would not change. The US position in Iraq would remain extremely difficult. Finally, Iran has the ability to counter any US moves. It has assets in Iraq that could surge US casualties dramatically if ordered to do so. Iran also has terrorism capabilities that are not trivial. Iran's capabilities are substantially greater than al Qaeda's.

Should it come down to this the only "safe" location for a US land force to hedge against an Iranian move against the Arabian Peninsula would be Kuwait, a country lacking the sufficient depth to serve as an effective counter. Ahmadinejad has made his rhetorical move. Bush has responded. Now the regional diplomacy intensifies as the report from the top US commander in Iraq, Gen. Petraeus, is prepared for presentation to Congress on Sept. 15.

[edit on 8/29/2007 by donwhite]

Well my personal opinion that going into Iraq was a mistake. That being the case it is not an easyone to fix. We have grabbed a tiger by the tail so to speak and the consequences of letting go are most likely worse than holding on and trying to tame the tiger.

Ahmadinejad is a nutter, but in truth he is no worse than the Sauds or any of the Gulf State rulers, they just happen to be our "friends" at the moment. I think the second biggest dirty secret of this war is the Sauds complicity with the influx of foriegn fighters. The first being the French and German made chemical weapons that we didnt find, well at least we dont acknowledge finding them officially.

The surge will work in the areas where US troops are, outside of that Iraq has become the badlands. I personally think now that the mistake has been made the only solution is to divide Iraq into 3 seperate states with some type of revenue sharing agreement between them on thier oil.

It is not in our interest to attack Iran no matter what bluster Ahmadinejad
voices its actually better to ignore him for the moment and begin to marginalize the Iranian government. I think at some point in the next 5 years Iran is looking at another revolution.

So we could stay and make a go of it, I dont like the idea of losing American lives in the endeavor, but I dont want to be in a position where Iran with its present government is lording over the middle east either, I think if we leave eventually we will have to go back and it will have to be with a large 15 million man army. So we have to pick our poison.

I often criticize Americans and our American government’s policies. There remains more than enough misfeasance, malfeasance and nonfeasance to go around!

I was however filled to overflowing with pride when the CO CHAIRMAN of the House hearing now going on is Tom Lantos, the only Member of Congress who wears on his inside left forearm, the Nazi tattoo number of the Holocaust. I am proud of that.

[edit on 9/10/2007 by donwhite]