Not an uncommon perception. Here are a few facts...
1) Following 9/11 the Arab world was expecting U.S. retribution. It came in the form of showing the Arabs that if we are attacked, then we will find even a weakly plausible target and kill it. In this case, the target just happened to be the Hussein government. This kind of force makes the sheiks very uncomfortable because they now know that they could be next if they facilitate terrorist attacks against the U.S. Consequent to that, the Saudi leaders have become a lot more open to maintaining good relations with the U.S. Following the 9/11 attacks U.S. citizens became aware of the Wahabis and how they train terrorists. This awareness included the association of the Saudi facilitation of training and harboring the Wahabi terrorists. Regarding yesterday's terror plot arrests, the Pakistani government was quick to take credit for helping to foil the plot that was mostly staffed by Pakistanis.
2) The emboldening of the 9/11 hijackers occured in the context of a number of very well known bombings that were performed by Islamic terrorists, and many more bombings that were not so well known to the public. The U.S. policy of treating these as police matters did not work. Something else was tried. We are currently treating these as matters of war.
3) The Middle East is now geopolitically divided, approximately in half, with the two halves on either side of Iraq. Once the factional fighting stabilizes in Iraq, it is likely that a significant democratic state will emerge. Democracy is considered a threat by leaders in Arab countries because they take power away from monarchs and oligarchs, and give that power to people who are then free to concentrate on their own welfare. Fortunately for the Iraqis, they are an oil-rich country and therefore have a good basis for a prosperous economy.
4) The process of becoming intolerant of Islamic terrorism is to the point where Moslems are now beginning to feel pressure in the United States. This pressure comes in the form of economic pressure among a relatively highly segregated population of Moslems. These Moslems have their established livelihoods at risk. While it was once unusual to see the words "Moslem" or "Islamic" associated with terrorism in the mainstream press, we now see those words in almost every article on terrorism. It was remarkable that, yesterday, president Bush used the phrase "Islamic fascists" in his terse public statement about the foiled bomb plot. This sort of pressure in America is unlike prejudice in other countries, like England and France, where the Moslem population is marginalized and lives together in close community. The difference is that economic and social pressure is greater in America. One can only hope that this leads to a belated uprising of Moslems against the terror factions that define Islam today.
5) The American casualties of the Civil War, World War I, and World War II were all so high that no attempts were made to enumerate them. The number of dead was simply rounded to the nearest 100,000. The American casualties of Vietnam are all named on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, D.C. The names of American casualties of the desert wars of the past fifteen years can be recited in about five minutes by an ordinary speaker. The costs of war are lower than ever, yet the number of occasions where fighting is necessary remains approximately constant.
6) Sentiment against Islamic terrorists has broadened to the point where the French have threatened use of nuclear arms against Iran if there should be a need to go to war.
7) Most of the country of Iraq is stable and productive. Fighting is localized. A civil war is possible. If that occurs, then one side will take part of the country, and the other side will take the other. Relative stability will follow. One of the sides will own the oil fields and become prosperous.
Public opinion is based mostly on the work of news agencies. One often heard argument against the war is "Where is the good news from Iraq? There is none!" That is an outrageous and almost entirely unchecked argument. Why should the news from Iraq be any different from any other news that's published? Those who print the news generally publish bad news. Consider the recent case of Floyd Landis, the man who won the Tour de France. The faint mainstream coverage of his win ended the morning after the race. Coverage of his alleged doping has been in the news more or less daily for weeks.
9) Many of the most capable organizers and leaders of terrorist cells are now dead. This has come principally from U.S. offensives.
10) Partisan politics and publicized casualty counts effect public opinion of the war more than strategy and risk. At 6:35am yesterday I first heard news of the foiled terrorist plot in London. Fourteen hours and ten minutes later I first heard radio commentary stating that the plot was probably a Bush administration publicity stunt.
11) The "jihad" concept is materializing in the form of more frequent and open gestures of terrorist warfare against the U.S. Iraq is a beginning, not an end. (Personally, I prefer to see most of the fighting being conducted abroad.)
12) The Guantanamo confinement of captured non-uniformed combatants for an indefinite period of years sends an interesting message of possible unpleasantness to young men contemplating anti-U.S. aggression. The Abu Ghraib humiliations, orchestrated or not, do likewise.
Williamlayton: do you happen to know why you're frustrated? What frustrates you? What seems futile about the war in Iraq?
