Bush's Failing War on Terror and What Could Have Been

Question 1 Are we safer? The answer to this depends is uncertain and specualtive to some extent. The consolidation of governmental offices into one homeland Security Department will perhaps lead to better communication and knowledge as to who is in the country who might poise a threat. The communication between and within the various intelligence agencies was a major problem before 9-11 and there seems to be a good faith effort to remedy these problems. However, I think that our premature invasion of Iraq has set back the war on terror. We had Saddam contained and we could have gradually tightend the noose while pursing Osama bin Ladin and Al Qaedia more vigorously, using the good will of the world and the unity within the nation we had to psuh the Palestinians and Israelis towards a peace treaty, facilitated the entry of Turkey into the EU, supported democracy and economic development in Indonesia and created more good will among Muslim nations, pushed the Turks to recognize a Khurdish homeland and helped to solidify the democratic forces already developing within Northern Iraq. The president is right to say that democracy will make nations more peaceful. However, he has facilitated the creation a suicidal insurgency in Iraq, severely undermined international cooperation and short-changed the effort to capture Osama bin Ladin. He has portrayed bin Ladin as mad man and not respected him as a very clever enemy whose continued presence only serves to embolden Islamic extremists. The war in Iraq and the neglect of the peace process between Palestine and Israel has heightened resntment throughout the Muslim world and served to stimulate more sympathy for terroistic causes. meanwhile, Iran has moved closer to acquiring a nuclear weapon and our over extention of troops and resources in the Iraq war has prompted them to work quickly to get the one weapon they can use to deter an invasion by us and possibly use against us. The list of miscalculations about the consequences of invading Iraq go on and on. We have created a situation in which our servicemen and women are bound to make mistakes and these mistakes be used in the Arab world as further propaganda against us. Far more non combattants have been killed in Iraq than were killed on 9-11. Someone recently said that "terrorism is the war of the poor and war is the terrorism of the wealthy." If only soldiers were killed in war no wars could ever be won. Terrism is the most logical (though certainly not moral) means for people who see themselves as oppressed by us to achieve their goals. It is the short cut to do what ever people or nations does in war to make their enemies compliant. Force is probably necessary in combatting terrorism however, we have not used it wisely and we have underused our diplomatic powers and undermined our intelligence capabilities by belittling our allies and not doing everything possible to win over populations who have been skeptical about our intentions long before 9-11. So i would say, no we are not safer. Our actions and inactions under the leadership of the Bush administration has heightened hatred toward us, magnified sympathy for the terrorists and alienated our closest democratic allies whose uncompromised cooperation, especially in intelligence matters we greatly need if we are to win the war on terror.