Everyone has heard the pro-war slogan, "We’re fighting them over there so that we don’t have to fight them over here." Sure, the slogan sounds strong and to the point. But what substance does this statement really hold?
The U.S. is still a prime target for terrorism, nothing has changed. The terrorists want to annihilate us just as much as ever if not more. Put yourself in the shoes of a half-crazed Islamo-fascist for a second. You have two options on how to harm America: Either you destroy a skyscraper inside the U.S. or you attack a U.S. soldier patrol in Afghanistan. The decision is between a couple of thousand deaths and or a platoon. The optimal option for suicide terrorism is obviously mainland America.
Only the most fanatical and strategic terrorists can pull off an attack like September 11th. Most of the less-equipped and less intelligent fundamentalists would instead be busy burning Israeli and American flags in front CNN cameras without our presence in Middle East.
The sad truth is our bases in Iraq make killing Americans convenient. The U.S. hasn’t avoided a terrorist attack in the mainland because terrorists prefer fighting in Iraq. America remains the target. However, by fighting in our enemies’ backyard, lesser-trained Al Quaeda with smaller means can murder our troops.
The next argument tries to dumb things down further. If we kill the insurgents before they ever come to the U.S., then the problem is solved. This logic implies that the same guys hiding in the deserts of Iraq and suburbs of Baghdad will also be tomorrow’s sleeper agents.
The suspects most likely to commit the next massive terrorist attack are probably far away from the fighting in the Middle East. The next big assault on domestic soil is likely being secretly planned in some country that most of us can’t even pronounce. Yes, they once prepared attacks in Afghanistan. Times have changed and so has our opponents’ strategy.
Evidence points to future threats coming from home-grown terrorists and people born outside of the Middle East who have been infected by fundamentalist Islamic propaganda. These threats will not be stopped by battling insurgents in Iraq.
Even the leaders of the War on Terror admit that this is a "global war on terror." How does the slogan, "we’re fighting them over there…," apply when "over there" is global, meaning the whole world?
The third scare strategy used by those like Mitt Romney suggests that leaving the Middle East will allow the enemy to follow us home. This takes us back to my first point. These psychotic murderers want to be here now!
What we can do is use our military at home to protect our borders here instead of protecting borders over there. The U.S. is safest when watching its own borders, not the borders of other nations.
Further, this scare tactic is a self-indicting statement. Are Mitt Romney and his buddies admitting that terrorists can just come over whenever they please? Sure seems like it. According to him, they’ll just follow us home.
This is the reason that we need someone like Ron Paul who is ready to defend our nation’s boundaries with the entire might of our military resources. Also, Paul advocates leaving the Middle East entirely. This action would offer the greatest remedy to the problem of terrorism by changing the target.
Because of our friendship with Israel, we’ve got ourselves knee-deep in problems and wars. It’s time for America to back out and let those closest to the issues deal with their grievances.
America’s number-one concern is the safety of Americans, not Israelis, Iraqis, Pakistanis, or Afghanis. This primary election, I’m voting for America. I’m tired of presidential candidates who represent other countries better than their own country. This leaves me with only one choice, Ron Paul.
Let’s reinforce America in America. It’s time to start finding solutions to our own problems on the home front instead of deciding what other countries should do. Slogans won’t save us from suicide terrorism, economic decline, and ultimate failure; the right strategy will.
