Should the War on Terror End?

Wednesday, September 07, 2011

On September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four planes, flying two into the Wold Trade Center towers and one into the Pentagon. The day will forever be known simply as 9/11. Ten years later, America has become involved in two overseas wars, the assassination of Osama bin Laden, and the spread of revolution through the Arab world. Is it time to finally end the "War on Terror"?

Peter Brookes, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Bush administration, and senior fellow for National Security Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation's editor and publisher, debate whether it's time to end the War on Terror.

Guests:

Peter Brookes and Katrina vanden Heuvel

Produced by:

David J Fazekas

Comments [7]

Ross Kleinstuber

Why do we need hindsight? I don't understand this defense. It is the job of leaders to evaluate all possible plans and choose the one that is likely to be most beneficial.

I was a college freshman when 9/11 happened and immediately railed against the war on terror because I could tell it would cause more harm than good--it would anger more people, make a us less safe, distract us from the goal of finding and punishing bin Laden AS A CRIMINAL, NOT A WARRIOR, and so on. I don't understand how I could correctly predict the outcome of the wars in my college newspaper's opinion section in 2002 but the leader of the free world with all the intelligence at his disposal couldn't see what was going to happen.

Sep. 07 2011 10:42 AM
John Holenko from Charleston, SC

Peter Brookes keeps saying that "hindsight is 20/20" and that, from our current perspective, we can see how things did not proceed properly and we of course could come up with better ideas. However, the folks who gave us the "war of terror", Bush, Cheney, etc. are not saying this. They continue to say that everything was done properly and they would do it the same way again.

Sep. 07 2011 09:27 AM
Angel from Miami, FL

"War on Terror" is a WPA-style work program created in 2002 to encourage retirement of high-level officials from government and use that resource to facilitate the establishment of new companies, or retool old ones, for the privatized espionage and counterterrorism industry. Like the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs", it is the government's continuing program to move Americans away from revenue producing manufacturing/innovation jobs and towards non-results-based service jobs.

Sep. 07 2011 09:24 AM
Sandy Untermyer from Appling GA

I just heard an error from the Geo W Bush contributor: the USA PATRIOT Act was NOY based on a response to the attack; it was written as a response to the Watergate reaction by Congress, which stripped the Presidency of much of his executive authority; also, it was used to investigate not terrorists as much as Democrats opposed to GWB's Iraq War. The Act didn't contribute to ANY court convictions of terrorists.

Sep. 07 2011 09:19 AM
listener

"The democracy we see now in the Arab world".
Where exactly is this democracy?
The closest example to a democracy in the Arab world is Iraq which came about due to a "illegal war" according to the guest.
Of course the only successful democracy in that region is Israel.

Sep. 07 2011 09:13 AM
Ed from Larchmont

The greatest terrorism is abortion, which our whole society participates in. Until we stop killing the unborn, other forms of terrorism will continue.

The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.
Mother Teresa.

Sep. 07 2011 08:13 AM
Don

You're still using that phrase? The idea of a war on terror, by definition, has no end. If you think about a war radical islamic terrorism, then sure. But if you're fighting an emotion or an ideology, you're never going to win, and I'm a little disappointed you've picked up that term, as catchy as it is.

Check it out, this term is waning:

http://www.google.com/trends?q=%22war+on+terror%22&ctab=0&geo=all&date=all&sort=0

Sep. 07 2011 07:12 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.