The debate format did not allow for amplification, but Edwards took the next opportunity to address his motionless stand to Williams’s question.
I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly.
But WE HAVE MORE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO US THAN BOMBS.
And America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, the terrorists are trying to recruit the next generation get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy. We need one and I will provide one as president.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
Once again...
WE HAVE MORE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO US THAN BOMBS!
Can anyone have said it better?
Previously, in a question about Russia, he set forth a principle of his foreign policy approach:
I think the question we should be asking ourselves -- and I've thought a lot about this. I've spent a fair amount of time since the last election working overseas and working on these issues. I think the question we should be asking ourselves is how does America change the underlying dynamic of what's happening in the world?
We need to maintain our strength, military, economic, political. But how do we ultimately change what's happening, the threats that America faces?
I think for that to occur, the world has to see America as a force for good again, which is why I talked about making -- leading an effort to make primary school education available to 100 million children in the world who don't have it, in the Muslim world, in Africa, in Latin America.
Leading an international effort on sanitation, clean drinking water, economic development using microfinance as a tool. I mean, here's a way that America could actually demonstrate its commitment to humanity, which I think is critical for our leadership.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
So, what does all this mean? Just what is the GWOT? Is it something worth fighting? Or is it just an excuse to keep us focused and moving in the wrong direction?
Other countries have seen the light, like our top ally, Great Britain.
April 16, 2007
British minister dumps 'War on Terror' in New York speech
The Development Secretary, Hilary Benn, will cast his lot with critics of the Bush Administration tonight when he questions the validity of the phrase "War on Terror" during a speech in New York tonight.
. . .
Mr Benn will argue that the term — which takes the form of "the global war on terror" or "GWOT" in US policy documents — gives an unwarranted legitimacy to the struggles of small fringe groups which really do not have much in common.
He will also say that war is only part of the solution to combating terrorism and Britain and America should do more to use the "soft power" of values, ideas and reform to bring about lasting change in the failed and angry states where terrorist groups prosper.
"In the UK, we do not use the phrase ‘War on Terror’ because we can’t win by military means alone, and because this isn’t us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives," Mr Benn will say, according to excerpts of his speech released in advance.
"It is the vast majority of the people in the world — of all nationalities and faiths — against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger.
"What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength," he will add.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...
Those who actually study these matters know as well, and have for a long time. Dr. Jeffrey Record, for the Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, on December 01, 2003, wrote Bounding the Global War on Terrorism, which said:
In the wake of the September 11, 2001, al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States, the U.S. Government declared a global war on terrorism (GWOT). The nature and parameters of that war, however, remain frustratingly unclear. The administration has postulated a multiplicity of enemies, including rogue states; weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) proliferators; terrorist organizations of global, regional, and national scope; and terrorism itself. It also seems to have conflated them into a monolithic threat, and in so doing has subordinated strategic clarity to the moral clarity it strives for in foreign policy and may have set the United States on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with states and nonstate entities that pose no serious threat to the United States.
. . .
Additionally, most of the GWOT's declared objectives, which include the destruction of al-Qaeda and other transnational terrorist organizations, the transformation of Iraq into a prosperous, stable democracy, the democratization of the rest of the autocratic Middle East, the eradication of terrorism as a means of irregular warfare, and the (forcible, if necessary) termination of WMD proliferation to real and potential enemies worldwide, are unrealistic and condemn the United States to a hopeless quest for absolute security. As such, the GWOT's goals are also politically, fiscally, and militarily
unsustainable.
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute...
More recently, In September, 2006, Army Col. Gary Cheek, the chief of strategic planning on the Pentagon's Joint Staff said what is needed, said that the United States should rethink the label it uses for what is known as the "global war on terror," to recast terrorists as the criminals they are:
"If we can change the name ... and find the right sequence of events that allows us to do that, that changes the dynamic of the conflict," said Cheek at the Defense Forum Washington, sponsored by the Marine Corps Association and the U.S. Naval Institute.
"It makes sense for us to find another name for the GWOT," said Cheek. "It merits rethinking. I know our European allies are more comfortable articulating issues of terrorism as criminal threats, rather than war ... It ought to be our goal to partner better with the European allies so we can migrate this from a war to something other than a war."
The "war" moniker elevates al-Qaida and other transnational terrorists, giving them legitimacy as an opposition force to the United States. It also tends to alienate Muslim populations in other countries, who see the war as a war on Islam, and feel they need to support al-Qaida as a matter of defending their faith.
It also tends to frame the fight as one in which the Defense Department has the primary role, when it is becoming increasingly clear that the "long war" against global terrorism is going to be won on other fronts -- economic, political, diplomatic, financial. Other government agencies and departments must become more engaged; only they have the expertise to help other countries take the actions necessary to defeat terrorists.
http://www.upi.com/...
But it’s not just military strategists who believe the GWOT is a misnomer, a mistake, and abuse.
Patrick Seale, on November 16, 2006, wrote, The Threat from Al-Qaida, where he said"
Several writers and thinkers are now beginning to say that perhaps the greatest mistake of all was the tendency to group together under the same terrorist label movements which are very different in nature, having in common only their resort to violence in pursuit of political goals.
This is the central argument of George Soros, the billionaire financier and philanthropist, who is emerging as a leading critic of President Bush’s foreign policy. Soros claims that the war on terror is a misleading figure of speech which has unfortunately led to real wars on many fronts -- in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also in Lebanon, Gaza and Somalia.
He explains to his fellow Americans -- a point which needs no explanation in the Middle East -- that Al-Qaida, Hamas, Hizbullah, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq and the Shi ‘i Mahdi army of Moqtada al-Sadr are very different political movements, even if they all use violent tactics. "President Bush’s global war on terror," Soros writes, "prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly."
He adds that lumping together all these different forces inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria on the grounds that they are said to support terrorist groups.
"The war on terror cannot be won," Soros says. On the contrary, "an endless war against an unseen enemy is doing great damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at home. It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has cost a lot of money."
http://www.agenceglobal.com/...
Which brings us back to John Edwards, who doesn't believe there's a "global war on terror," as evidenced by a simple-show-of-hands.
According to The Politico:
This is something a lot of Democrats say privately -- and something mainstream pols everywhere else in the world say publicly -- but it contests a Bush administration premise in a way very few American politicians have been comfortable in the last five and a half years.
http://www.politico.com/...
Edwards, among the top tier, stood out by standing motionless and calling for a new direction, where war on terror is not the way to go forward to enable us to defeat terrorists. Rather, he seeks a smarter way, a way that gets to the root of the problem. Edwards has been spreading this message for several years now. Among other places,
He did so in London on May 25, 2005: http://johnedwards.com/...
He did so in New Dehli on November 16, 2005: http://johnedwards.com/...
He did so in Brussels on April, 30, 2006: http://johnedwards.com/...
Of course, Edwards does not call for us to disarm when it comes to terrorism. But as shown above, to call it a war makes it a struggle that we cannot win.
On March 15, 2007, he gave a speech about global poverty, and set forth a positive way to win, not only for us, but humanity. These words encapsulate the Edwards approach:
We know that terrorists thrive in failed states, and in states torn apart by internal conflict and poverty.
And we know that in many African and Muslim countries today, extreme poverty and civil wars have gutted government educational systems.
So what's taking their place? The answer is troubling – but filled with opportunity if we have the courage to seize it.
A great portion of a generation is being educated in madrassas run by militant extremists rather than in public schools. And as a result, thousands and thousands of young people who might once have aspired to be educated in America are being taught to hate America.
When you understand that, it suddenly becomes clear: global poverty is not just a moral issue for the United States – it is a national security issue for the United States. If we tackle it, we will be doing a good and moral thing by helping to improve the lives of billions of people around the world who live on less than $2 per day – but we will also begin to create a world in which the ideologies of radical terrorism are overwhelmed by the ideologies of education, democracy, and opportunity. If we tackle it, we have the chance to change a generation of potential enemies into a generation of friends. Now that would be transformational.
http://johnedwards.com/...
This is bold, different, where he stands apart from the others, and this should be recognized. I’m glad that John Edwards stood tall when Brian Williams asked for that show of hands. It fortified my belief that he is most ready to be the next President.
After all...WE HAVE MORE TOOLS AVAILABLE TO US THAN BOMBS!
