First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths, injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment among their families and communities that in turn serves to build support for terrorists.
Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are states that support terrorist groups.
Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.
Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them." We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world, however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between America and much of the world.
Now, to me, George Soros' vision is very dangerous and I believe firmly anti American. The problem, from where I am sitting, is that he uses the terrorists ingenuity and evil genius against us rather than the terrorists. Furthermore, his vision of the war on terror is completely theoretical with absolutely no practical application. Elitist circles have fallen in love with the term political solution, however none of them explain how to apply that. Last time, I checked Al Qaeda has a series of goals, including the destruction of all infidels, and none of those goals are negotiable. Soros is right. Terrorists have no country and they blend in with society, and for that Soros thinks, we shouldn't go after them. In fact, that is why they blend into society.
Furthermore, Soros claims that while AQ, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. use the same tactics, they have different goals. That may be true to a point, however they all share a common goal of eliminating those that they disagree with, meaning the U.S. Soros seems to think that some of these groups could be reasoned with. Again, he simply doesn't understand the sociopathic nature of the enemy we deal with. Furthermore, he is convinced that negotiation with Syria and Iran are the proper course to take with each of those groups. To me, this is a dangerously naive view of the world simply doesn't recognize the nature of the enemy we are dealing with.
He also advances the elitist view that GWOT is all about finding UBL and Zawahiri. There is no doubt that it is shameful and embarrassing that they haven't been found, however the GWOT won't end when they are and any vision that places this much emphasis on it, is a vision that has nothing to offer the day after they are found.
Now, let's go beyond the four points he made and look at the larger picture. He doesn't consider the GWOT a war, and thus, AQ, and other terrorist, are not enemy combatants but rather criminals. As such, in the world of George Soros they would receive the rights of any other criminal. This of course is crazy. First, a terrorist act is not a crime but an act of war and should be treated as such. Second, it is one thing to investigate a crime that already happened and quite another to investigate a terrorist act that is still about to happen. The two types of individuals will deserve completely different sets of rights.
Second, if a terrorist is a criminal, then Soros would want that criminal prosecuted in criminal courts not in military tribunals. This is just as crazy for its own set of reasons. First, one only needs to look at the spectacle of Zac Moussaoui to see what a nightmare it would be if terrorists were prosecuted in criminal courts on a wholesale level. On that note, the terrorists would get access to all of the government's evidence, be able to depose witnesses, and witnesses would have to testify in open court against them. Now, since a good portion of the evidence will come from fellow terrorists ratting them out, what are the chances that we will be able to get any of them to testify in open court?
Third, Soros would want to close down Gitmo and move those prisoners to places unknown though potentially to maximum security prisons in the United States. The main problem with anyone that claims that Gitmo needs to be shut down is that frankly there is no better alternative that I can think of. Most of these people originate in countries where their civil rights will be violated significantly more than anything that happens in Gitmo. Second, most of these countries don't want them. Does Soros understand the bureaucratic and economic nighmare of trying to house and protect these terrorists if they wound up in federal lock up?
Finally, since, again, he considers them criminals not enemy combatants, all of the tough interrogation techniques: water boarding, loud music, changing temperatures, etc would no longer be in play. It is all nice and well to be a beacon of civil rights even to the worst of the worst in theory, however these techniques work and they save lives. Bill O'Reilly interviewed both Michael Sheuer and George Tenet and they each swore by the techniques and said that using them has saved lives. Thus, while protecting the civil rights of terrorists sounds good in theory, in practice it endangers American lives.
I believe that George Soros is a dangerous man for many reasons, but this is how he is dangerous vis a vis the GWOT.