Colleen Graffy - Nothing short of war can combat terrorism - IQ2 debate

Summary

In this debate, Colin Graffy, former assistant secretary of state during George W. Bush's second term, argues that the 'War on Terror' was the right response to the 9/11 attacks. Graffy defends the military approach against terrorism, countering arguments that law enforcement should have been the primary response. He emphasizes that terrorism was beyond the scope of traditional policing, requiring a comprehensive strategy involving military force, diplomacy, and humanitarian aid. He highlights the long-term successes, including the collapse of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East, and asserts that the War on Terror contributed to democratic movements in the region.

Takeaways

• 😀 The 'War on Terror' was framed as a necessary response to the September 11 attacks, targeting not just a tactic (terrorism) but the global networks behind it, particularly al-Qaeda and its supporters.
• 😀 Critics of the War on Terror often argue that terrorism is a tactic, not an entity that can be waged war against, but the speaker contends that this shorthand approach is effective and necessary for global understanding.
• 😀 Comparing the War on Terror to the War on Drugs, the speaker argues that both were expansive strategies requiring military involvement, not just law enforcement, to address global issues.
• 😀 Law enforcement alone was insufficient to combat terrorism before 9/11, as seen in past attacks (e.g., the 1993 World Trade Center bombing), indicating the need for a broader, military response.
• 😀 The military response allowed for a comprehensive approach, integrating law enforcement, military operations, diplomacy, aid, and humanitarian efforts, addressing both immediate security needs and long-term stability.
• 😀 The military's role was essential in providing security, particularly in conflict zones like Afghanistan and Iraq, where building schools or hospitals would not have been feasible without military protection.
• 😀 The speaker highlights the effectiveness of military action, citing the reduction in al-Qaeda's capacity and global reach, evidenced by internal documents showing Osama Bin Laden lamenting the impact of drone strikes.
• 😀 The War on Terror was instrumental in shifting U.S. foreign policy towards a more proactive stance on promoting democratic reforms in the Middle East, aligning U.S. interests with its values.
• 😀 The removal of dictators like Saddam Hussein was seen as a catalyst for political change in the Middle East, sparking hope for democracy and inspiring movements like the Arab Spring.
• 😀 Despite the ongoing challenges in regions like Iraq and Afghanistan, the end of long-standing tyrannical regimes marked a significant shift, with leaders like W. Shamat of Lebanon acknowledging the positive impact of the U.S. intervention on regional politics.

Q & A

What is the main argument presented by Colin Graphy in support of the war on terror?

Colin Graphy argues that the war on terror was the right response to the 9/11 attacks, as it was necessary to combat al-Qaeda and its supporters, which law enforcement alone could not effectively address. He emphasizes that military force was required due to the global scale and nature of the terrorist threat.

How does Graphy defend the use of the term 'war on terror'?

Graphy defends the use of the term 'war on terror' by comparing it to previous historical wars, such as World War I and the Cold War. He explains that it was shorthand for a global campaign against al-Qaeda and its allies, which was necessary to mobilize international efforts and resources.

What is Graphy’s stance on the criticism that it’s impossible to go to war against a tactic like terrorism?

Graphy counters this criticism by arguing that wars are often declared against broad concepts or adversaries (e.g., World War I, Cold War), and the 'war on terror' was a similar declaration aimed at tackling a radical network of terrorists, rather than a specific tactic.

What does Graphy say about the comparison between the war on terror and the War on Drugs?

Graphy uses the War on Drugs as an analogy to justify the war on terror, explaining that just as the U.S. needed military involvement to address the global drug trade, it needed military force to combat global terrorism, which law enforcement alone could not contain.

Why does Graphy reject the idea that law enforcement alone should have handled terrorism after 9/11?

Graphy rejects this idea by pointing out that prior to 9/11, law enforcement approaches had already failed to effectively address international terrorism. He argues that military capabilities were needed because terrorists like those involved in 9/11 could not be deterred by criminal prosecution alone.

What does Graphy say about the role of military force in supporting other counterterrorism efforts?

Graphy asserts that military force is necessary not just for direct action against terrorists, but to provide the security needed for other efforts such as diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and nation-building. He argues that military capabilities enable a more comprehensive and effective response.

What example does Graphy give to show that military intervention was effective after 9/11?

Graphy points to the decline in global terrorist attacks and the impact of U.S. drone strikes, noting that even Osama Bin Laden lamented the setbacks caused by military action, including the reduction of terrorist training and leadership capabilities.

How does Graphy justify the U.S. military’s intervention in the Middle East, particularly in Iraq?

Graphy justifies the U.S. intervention in Iraq by stating that it was essential to dismantle tyrannical regimes and promote democratic change. He highlights that the fall of Saddam Hussein symbolized a turning point, leading to the possibility of greater freedoms in the Middle East, including the Arab Spring.

What connection does Graphy draw between the U.S. intervention in Iraq and democratic movements in the Middle East?

Graphy links the U.S. intervention in Iraq to the rise of democratic movements in the Middle East, arguing that the end of Saddam Hussein’s regime sparked a broader desire for change, evidenced by the Arab Spring and uprisings in countries like Tunisia and Egypt.

What does Graphy say about the Obama administration's continuation of the war on terror?

Graphy notes that the Obama administration, despite scrutiny and deliberation, continued many of the same counterterrorism policies initiated under George W. Bush, including increased drone strikes, further reinforcing the notion that military action was essential in the fight against terrorism.