CHANGE THE "WAR ON TERROR"

Time to brings troops home
By Kelvin Wade
May 05, 2011

During the 2008 presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama repeatedly said if he received actionable intelligence that Osama bin Laden or other high-value al-Qaida targets were in Pakistan and the Pakistanis wouldn't act, he would. He kept his word in ordering the operation that killed the most wanted man in the history of civilization, Osama bin Laden.

So . . . let's end the 'War on Terror' and get out of Afghanistan. I'm not being flip. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, we've spent $444 billion in Afghanistan. We've lost 1,566 lives in Afghanistan. That's more than enough blood and treasure.

I'm no military expert, but when Cpl. Jake Diliberto, U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) and cofounder of Veterans for Rethinking Afghanistan says we need to leave Afghanistan, I pay attention.

I perk up when Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), one of the most respected statesmen in Congress, said this week that the killing of bin Laden means maybe we should put more money in those operations and go after al-Qaida where it is and not Afghanistan.

Ending the war on terror doesn't mean giving up on fighting the enemy. There should never have been a war on a tactic. Our enemy was Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Focusing on tactics rather than groups and individuals is what has had us one step behind al-Qaida when it's come to airline security.

After 9/11, we banned box cutters and other small possible weapons from airplanes. Ever since the shoe bomber Richard Reid attempted to blow up an airliner, we have to remove our shoes to fly. After a group of Brits tried to blow up a plane with liquids, we limited liquids that could be brought aboard. And after a man tried to light an underwear bomb, we're subjected to what's been called the TSA's 'gate rape.'

The Israelis don't fight terrorist tactics. They fight terrorists. They use intelligence and profile terrorist behavior. Our method is clumsy and always chases the last attack. If you're focused on the individuals and groups then you don't need to worry about the tactics. The how doesn't matter if you eliminate the who.

Yes, that means profiling potential offenders and not frisking toddlers just to be politically correct.

As for Afghanistan, sure we would like to see a stable, uncorrupt government where girls can go to school and women are treated as equals. But we don't have that in countries we call our allies. And if the Afghans want those things, let them fight for them. Our mission in Afghanistan is to stop terrorists. If the Taliban takes over and makes Afghanis' lives hell, while that would be tragic, that's not our fight unless they harbor terrorists.

While we might relish a new school built in Kandahar, I relish a new school built in Fairfield more. I'm not ashamed to say I'd rather our tax dollars go to Americans during this difficult time in our history rather than this difficult time in theirs.

There are better, smarter, sharper ways to fight this war and protect our citizens than pouring 100,000 troops into a country. Declare victory and bring our troops home. Peace.

************************************************************************
ADDITIONAL NOTES: No, I'm not talking about giving up the fight. We've got to continue taking the fight to our enemies but we've got to fight them in a new way. In a way that doesn't involve pouring 100,000 troops into a country. We've got to fight this fight smarter. It involves human intelligence, surveillance, infiltration, satellites, drones, Tomahawks and boots on the ground sometimes. Huge occupations just give them easy targets. We've got to get out of the nation building business. We can't afford it. We've got to be smart about this.

There are ways we can improve airline security without frisking 4 year olds. We've got to do what works. Not what's politically correct. Our security shouldn't be Kabuki theater.