I don't understand the idea that we could be less safe now than we were before we went in to Iraq. We aren't suffering more attacks on civilians here, nor on our domestic military bases. For that matter, we aren't even seeing the sorts of attacks on embassies that were commonplace in the 1990s.

I'd argue that, if anything, we've turned what was an asymmetrical threat into a more conventional one that is more likely to engage military targets in a war zone than civilians (or civilian employees of the government) in non-combat areas.

First, since when were attacks on our embassies "coomplace in the 1990s?" There was a total of TWO U.S. embassy bombings in the 1990s--one in Tanzania, the other in Kenya, both occurring within seconds of one another on August 7, 1998.

Second, the NIE is very clear that al Qaeda is its strongest since September 11, with parts of Pakistan (the FATA areas) becoming the Afghanistan of the pre-9/11 world. Additionally, the NIE states that Iraq, contrary to the explicit stated reasons for invading, has become the breeding ground for a new crop of terrorists who are determined to strike, as intelligence offices call it, the Homeland!

In other words, the very war that was suppose to reduce the terrorist threat has actually amplified it. Moreover, the diversion of resources from the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan has enabled both to reconstitute and grow.

As for your final paragraph, have you bothered to pay attention at all to the daily bombings, targeting civilians, throughout Iraq? The war against the insurgents in Iraq is anything but a conventional war against an organized army of a nation-state.

How often does something have to happen before it's commonplace? How often does something have to not happen before it's rare? Your position is boasted by denying that this world was terribly dangerous in the 1990s (under Clinton's watch) and that 9/11 was simply the culmination of a decade of more minor attacks and hundreds of American civilian deaths. My position is bolstered by the reality that this is now being fought as a conventional war, and American civilians aren't dying anymore.

Why do you prefer American Civilian deaths to military engagement?

FaxMeBeer:

Why do you prefer American Civilian deaths to military engagement?

Could you possibly say anything more idiotic. Not once did I insinuate that I prefer American civilian deaths to military engagement. What a profoundly stupid thing to charge.

My position, which is supported by facts is:

1. A single double bombing does not make something "commonplace"

2. There have been plenty of civilians deaths since the invasion of Afghanistan in Iraq: in London, Madrid, Bali, etc. Just because these have not occurred on U.S. soil does not change the fact that an unconventional war is still being waged. We are no more safer today than on Sept. 10.

3. The war in Iraq is not a conventional war. This is simply an absurd assertion. Daily roadside bombings, suicide attacks, etc. are not "conventional" warfare.

4. American civilians are dying, such as non-military contractors serving in Iraq; journalists, etc. And, as I noted earlier, there have been a number of major terrorist attacks since the beginning of these wars that have killed hundreds. Just because these have not happened on U.S. soil does not mean they shouldn't give you pause.

Profoundly stupid? You make the argument that "we" (most people would take that to mean, "Americans") are less safe because non-Americans have been attacked, and you say that I'm profoundly stupid?

The enemy works with the technology that it has at hand. We can send missiles from 1,000s of miles away, and they can plant improvised munitions on the side of the road. That isn't the point; the point is that they aren't planting improvised munitions on the side of interstates in the United States. What they do in Spain (after Spain backs out of the war), and in England (after they draw down their troops and promise to pull out completely, soon), doesn't matter in a discussion of rather Americans are safer.

I'd argue that the Europeans are being attacked exactly because they represent weaker targets who are less likely to fight back effectively.

Western targets are western targets, whether in Bali, Madrid, London, or the United States. The fact that the al Qaeda affiliated terrorists still operate and are able to carry out attacks against western interests should be proof to anyone that the threat has been far from diminished. For instance, a near catastrophe was recently averted in London. How you look at that and conclude that "we" (whether "we" is Americans, westerners, or whomever) are safer is utterly mind boggling.

Let's consider other facts: the World Trade Center was first targeted in 1993. Since more time passed between that event and the attacks of September 11, 2001 than Sept. 11th, 2001 and the present would you be so bold as to argue that "we" were safe on September 10, 2001?

And how do you reconcile your belief that Europeans are "weaker targets" when there are consistent reports that more attacks are being plotted against the U.S.?

And get your facts straight: the Madrid bombing occurred three days before an election. The ruling party was in support of the war in Iraq, while the opposition party and the vast majority of Spaniards opposed the war. The attacks led to the defeat of the ruling party and Spain's withdraw from Iraq.

The London bombings came when the UK under Blair continued to pledge his unyielding support for British involvement in the war.

Let me conclude be reiterating that your statement that I prefer American civilians deaths to military engagement was profoundly stupid.