Wide Rift Within the Democratic Party on Foreign Policy

[Boris]

I agree 100%, Lewis. We can kill people like bin Laden and Abu Musab al Zarqawi, but someone will always pop up in their place, at least until we figure out the "why" aspect to terrorism.

In my opinion, the War on Terrorism is more of a war on an ideology. The War must be balanced with both effective military strikes and addressing the problem of terrorism. Currently, the Iraq War has destroyed both of those things, as has Bush's ineptitude in Afghanistan. We can kill all the terrorists we want to, but more will keep popping up. 

I honestly don't quite know why terrorism exists or the driving forces behind it, so I can't really address the issue on how to defeat its ideology. However, militarily, I believe NATO is the key. When the United States teams up with our Western European allies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, not crap like Poland and Bulgaria), we are essentially invincible. The Iraq War has destroyed relations with these nations, but nevertheless, we share many things in common. I strongly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just an attack on the United States; they were also an attack on Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Norway, etc. Likewise, the same applies to the Madrid and London bombings.

But alas, when dealing with any issue about terrorism, we must first deal with Iraq (due to the amount of resources it's consuming) Iraq may not have been part of the War on Terror in 2003, but, thanks to Dubya's incompetence, it sure as hell is now. Withdrawing from Iraq won't work, nor will setting a time table. Anyone who thinks staying the course will work is on LSD and Shrooms. Unfortunately, I see Iraq as a lose-lose situation, and with that, the War on Terror also translates into a similar result.

[Boris]

I honestly don't quite know why terrorism exists or the driving forces behind it, so I can't really address the issue on how to defeat its ideology. However, militarily, I believe NATO is the key. When the United States teams up with our Western European allies (Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, not crap like Poland and Bulgaria), we are essentially invincible. The Iraq War has destroyed relations with these nations, but nevertheless, we share many things in common. I strongly believe that the 9/11 attacks were not just an attack on the United States; they were also an attack on Canada, Great Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Norway, etc. Likewise, the same applies to the Madrid and London bombings.

NATO is weak.  Going without NATO is addition by subtraction.  Look back at the Kosovo campaign and you will se what I mean.  Having to get the approval of 19 world leaders before any decision was made on how to manage the war crippled our efforts.  Allies are overrated.

...While Unilateralism has pretty much lost us the war on terror in Iraq (or put us at a severe disadvantage) NATO is our best shot at winning the War on Terror. NATO isn't full of wimps either; they're now commanding all forces in Afghanistan, a nation that actually attacked the United States. NATO is easilly the best option in dealing with Iran also; Iran is just as much of a threat to France and the UK as it is to the United States.

We need the most powerful nations on our side and engaging in military options with us. In a war between the United States and Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda probably wins. Why? Because their definition of winning is easier than ours. They've already killed over 3000 U.S. civilians in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and the 1998 African Embassy bombings. Not to mention the 2000 plus U.S. soliders in Iraq and the USS Cole bombing in 2000. What do we have to counter their success? A "Free" Iraq? Oh please. Big deal. The only thing in Iraq useful to the United States is their oil. Bin Laden is still alive and free, as is Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and Mullah Omar (aka the big fish).