1. What is the difference between an insurgent and a terrorist in Iraq?
2. What is the best reason to give to people that the Invasion of Iraq was legal or illegal?
3. Has the invasion of Iraq made Afghanistan less secure from the taliban?
4. Has the war in Iraq made Americans in Kansas safer?
5. What is the current mission in Iraq/Afghanistan for US troops? How is it different to before the invasions?
1. The terms are sloppily used as if they were interchangable by many. The clearest definition is that the insurgents tend to be Iraqi Sunnis who direct their violence against coalition troops or Iraqi Security Forces and oppose both the US presence and the Shia dominated government. Terrorists tend to be foreign born, they use violence against civilians, and tend to shy away from direct military conflict with the US and the Iraqis.
2. The best legal justification is that in legal terms the First Gulf War never actually ended. There wasa cease fire but no armistice. A violation of the cease fire's provisions by one party (Iraq) gives the inherent right to the other party (The United States) to resume hostilities.
3. The Iraq war has neither made Afghanistan more secure or less secure, at least in the near term. In the long term it the war in Iraq will prove to weaken Jihadism, a benefit that will eventually be manifested in an improved security situation in Afghanistan.
4. Yes. By removing a state sponsor of terrorism, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda have been weakened. This leaves them less able to strike the US with large scale strikes.
5. The current mission in both countries is to nation-build. Before the objectives were the defeat of the ancien regime. Now that the ancien regimes have been destroyed, new regimes must be put in their place, and the current mission is to ensure that the new governments are viable.
