War on Terror Myth Debunked

Defenders of the invasion of Iraq assert that Iraq is a better battlefield than Mainstreet, USA or, in other words, that fighting terrorists in Iraq is preferable to fighting them in the United States. Supporters of the war in Iraq accept either assertion as self-evident, on the assumption that our civilian population and infrastructure are out of harm's way. Using the terms "battlefield" or "fighting" also assumes that the USA is avoiding a military engagement on our soil by taking the fight to the "enemy". The assertion is also an indirect criticism of our armed forces by suggesting that they could not prevent our shores from being assailed by an enemy capable of waging war on our soil.

What features does Iraq have that makes it a better battlefield for the War on Terror?
What advantages do American armed forces have over the terrorists in Iraq? I cannot think of any reason that would make Iraq a better place to fight terrorists than the good old USA. All of the advantages in Iraq are with the terrorists. I can think of several reasons why the USA would make a better battlefield to engage the terrorists.

The Middle Eastern terrorists who may be in hiding in America waiting to commit a terrorist act are not going to fight with rifles, self-propelled grenades and roadside bombs in the USA. They have no means of sustaining guerilla warfare in the USA. They cannot blend in with the indigenous population like they do in Iraq. They could not obtain supplies to sustain armed combat like their logistical network in Iraq obviously provides them. They would be out-numbered in our country, as our soldiers are in Iraq. They cannot invade the USA en masse anyway without an air force or navy, and they could not breach our defenses. We simply have no need to fear or even postulate the possibility of "fighting" terrorists on American soil.

But, Americans are not out of harm's way. Individuals performing acts of terror against Americans are not proscribed by our military presence in Iraq. Rather, it is likely our presence there that gives them the opportunity to win the hearts and minds of Muslims without attacking on our soil. Rather than go against our military power, terrorists fight asymmetrically, using weapons such as improvised explosive devices, car or truck bombs, and explosive vests detonated by the wearer, and tactics such as raids, ambushes, kidnappings and murder. These are weapons and tactics not easily countered by military action. The best weapon to fight terrorism is vigilance, which takes many forms, including intelligence, threat detection, border security, surveillance, etc. The military is best suited to countering overt armed action, not covert threats.

It is inane to suggest that fighting in Iraq is better than fighting here. Our military is not keeping America out of harms' way. Our civilian law enforcement and intelligence agencies have that responsibility, but not even their best efforts can guarantee success.