Yes, it was the ideology of Al Qaeda, along with a human propensity for blaming others for our own problems. The US, the nation of infidels, the Great Satan, is seen by them and their ilk as the cause for problems in the ME, hence the attack. Of course, it exists in more than two countries.
It is also a threat to the nations of the Middle East.
The end of our problems? There will be no end of our problems as long as we have to stay in the Middle East. Problems there have been festering since the crusades, for heavens sake. Having invaded Iraq, then stayed in Afganistan, having engaged in nation building in those nations, has not been the end of our problems in the ME either, has it?
Deliberately targeting civilians, engaging in terror by slaughtering innocents, that would have qualified. I'm not convinced we did that, thank goodness.
We may not know specifically how many were waterboarded, but we do know that torture did not end there.
I think the argument boils down to two things:
(1) Is waterboarding torture? I say yes, you say no. To me, supporting waterboarding is supporting torture. To you, obviously it isn't.
(2) Did the US engage in other acts of torture? That one is more difficult. Of course, soldiers representing the United States did engage in the torture of prisoners that went way beyond waterboarding. To me, that amounts to the US engaging in torture, whether or not said torture was sanctioned by the government. Further, believing without proof that those actions were simply criminal acts by people operating outside of the chain of command takes more faith in government than I have. Maybe the beating and hanging of prisoners from the ceiling was a non sanctioned set of criminal acts. I'm not convinced that it was, but maybe. Regardless, those actions were taken by people wearing the uniform of the United States of America.
That much is undeniable, and inexcusable, and sounds a great deal like the US engaging in torture.
Was the intent of waterboarding to cool off prisoners subjected to the desert heat? Was the intent of beating and hanging prisoners from the ceiling to improve their health?
The only way to justify waterboarding is to use an ends justifies the means sort of argument.
There is no justification for beating or other torture that was done.
I thought the term invented was "enemy combatant", not "unlawful combatant." Regardless of what we chose to call them, it is still no different from justifying slavery by calling the slaves a name that implied that they were less than human. For the nation founded on the belief that all men are created equal to have used either term in that way is reprehensible. We are better than that, and should act better than that.
I would not have invaded Iraq, no way. That was the biggest mistake since the war in Vietnam.
A quick surgical strike into Afganistan and Pakistan in order to corral Bin Laden and his cohorts would have been very unlikely to have created the atmosphere that led to Abu Ghraib, or to Gitmo. The strike in Kuwait didn't create such problems, did it? It was a limited strike with a specific goal, and an exit strategy that worked. The invasion of Iraq was none of those things.
