At the airport, watching Rick Sanchez on CNN as he pounds home the issue that the Pentagon report on Saddam and terrorism ‘puts to rest the original justification for the war’.
Um, not quite:
This ought to be big news. Throughout the early and mid-1990s, Saddam Hussein actively supported an influential terrorist group headed by the man who is now al Qaeda’s second-in-command, according to an exhaustive study issued last week by the Pentagon. “Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives.” According to the Pentagon study, Egyptian Islamic Jihad was one of many jihadist groups that Iraq’s former dictator funded, trained, equipped, and armed.
I can imagine that there are political rationales for not taking this falsehood on. But this does show the basically supine posiiton the Bush adminsitation has been taking.
The Bush administration has done a poor, poor job on this issue. Doesn’t make what the media has done and is continuing to do any less misleading, or any less intentional.
The Weekly Standard article is about as weak an article as I have ever read. The paths of different groups of psychopaths crossed in the Middle East, years before the Iraq invasion, somehow justifies the invasion? All this does is prove that they have not the slightest idea of what they are talking about when it comes to the Middle East.
The Neo Cons ideas have been and are completely bankrupt. Articles like this put them in the Hillary Clinton league. One where they will say anything not to take any responsibility for their delusional world view.
For those who might have forgotten, Saddam was very good at turning on people at a moments notice and not the type that allowed any challenge to his absolute power. *If* he dabbled in Egypt and Somalia, it was not to threaten the U.S. and certainly not to empower Al Queda which was a direct threat to him.
I find it hard to believe that the Neo-Cons are still trying to [peddle this fantasy of theirs.
TOC — Saddam as a matter of record in the report funded both the Sons of Muhammad in the Gulf as a means to hitting the US and Egyptian Islamic Jihad, predecessor to AQ and headed by Ayman al-Zawahari. To hit America all over.
After 9/11 there was bipartisan consensus (actually, BEFORE 9/11 i.e. Clinton’s Iraq Liberation Act) to get rid of Saddam because of the risk of Saddam funding terrorists with WMDs assisted by the wealthy Iraqi state was too much.
Now, your real objection is that Iraq was not cheap, fast, and painless enough. Fair enough. Most things in Life are not. But leaving Saddam in place to fund terror and build and WMDs against America? After 12 fruitless years of trying to “negotiate” with him? Not a plan, that’s just surrender and an open invitation to more 9/11’s.
———-
David Frum at NRO has a point. Bush appointed weak people like Rice and Powell and such, and did not fire people and push for adherence to his policies. He’d appoint go-along weak people and wonder why his policies were never implemented. People just “give up” against the media.
Part of it is the Media’s fault. Reflexively anti-Bush to the point of total stupidity. But a lot is Bush’s laziness and weakness in refusing to fight with the media and fire and fire and fire people until his policies are followed.
See TOC — weakness like Bush’s only gets you more attacked. It won’t get you peace.
OK, maybe Saddam Hussein was funding terrorists to some extent. But what Islamic state isn’t?
The same argument could have been advanced for invading Libya or, most likely, Saudi Arabia. Either would have been a much easier target; and Saudi in particular would have been a walkover.
Why was it Iraq, then? Possibly because it wasn’t a walkover to take Iraq, and the military wanted to play with their toys. Possibly because Bush Jr. wanted to finish the job his daddy could and should have finished a dozen years before. Possibly because invading Saudi would have drastically reduced the incomes of Bush’s family and friends. But certainly not because it was the best target.
And then, the war won, the occupation was handled with breathtaking incompetence, starting with the de-Baathification (which meant essentially disbanding) of the Iraqi Army, without putting anything to replace it in place first. The rest, as they say, is history.
I see, TOC wants to change the facts. Fletcher would have invaded any Muslim nation other than Iraq. Both avoid the main point. The media refuses to report what is actually happening in favor of reporting what they wish was happening. Or perhaps in favor of what folk like TOC and Fletcher wish was happening?
#3 from Jim Rockford at 5:32 am on Mar 17, 2008
_Now, your real objection is that Iraq was not cheap, fast, and painless enough._
My real objection is the simplistic or should I say mindless policy the Neo-Cons put in place to deal with Iraq. The containment policy we had worked very well as it did against the Soviet Union for 60 years.
This sort of ham-handed policy is precisely what you apparently support in every instance, backed intellectually by the paranaoid “get them before they get us” mentality.
The payoff for this brainless fear, strengthening our enemies in the area, weakening our friends, an alliance with the Kurds and the Shiites, the traditionally weakest and/or despised groups in the area, the damage our economy, 4,000 dead for no apparent gain, a quagmire, an expose of the limits of our power. No, Jim my objection is a failed foreign Policy and an idiotic strategy.
By the way, there were no WMD’s. What is so hard for you to to understand about that?
_After 12 fruitless years of trying to “negotiate” with him? Not a plan, that’s just surrender and an open invitation to more 9/11’s_
You know this invade or surrender choice that you pull out all the time is patently ridiculous.
#5 from corvan at 2:04 pm on Mar 17, 2008
*I see, TOC wants to change the facts.*
Nonsense.
*Fletcher would have invaded any Muslim nation other than Iraq.*
More nonsense
*Both avoid the main point. The media refuses to report what is actually happening in favor of reporting what they wish was happening. Or perhaps in favor of what folk like TOC and Fletcher wish was happening?*
Oh yeah, historic strategic blunders are the media’s fault.
Are you Hillary Clinton?
TOC, the post is clear. The facts are clear. The media has ignored ( and sought to minimize) Saddam Hussein’s support of terrorism since George Bush came to office. Going so far as to spin the actual meaing of the Pentagon report. Funny they didn’t do that while Bill Clinton was in office. Your screaming and stomping really says more about you ( and perhaps the new media’s target audience?) than the post or the facts. If you have some information that actually contradicts the facts share it.
#8 from corvan at 3:00 pm on Mar 17, 2008
*The media has ignored ( and sought to minimize) Saddam Hussein’s support of terrorism since George Bush came to office.*
The great media conspiracy. Is this anything like Hillary’s vast right wing conspiracy?
I am a life long conservative Republican. You and the rest of the Neo Con supporters and apologists sound more and more like Hillary every day. Blame someone else. Say there is a conspiracy, actually say anything to avoid taking responsibility for an incredible blunder.
My question is, considering the intelligence services and particuarly the CIA proved itself so remarkably god-awful in this entire fiasco, why do we rely on what they are saying now? Particularly when the CIA is clearly in full blown CYA mode.
Throwing the term “neocons” around as if its some kind of slander doesn’t bolster your argument.
Mark brings up the better point, why is our often lauded security apparatus so amazingly inept and ineffective at its job? How could it be so wrong, so often and yet face no significant consequences? What you have is a typical bureaucracy, where finger pointing, CYA, and backstabbing takes precedence over doing ones job. These organizations have become bloated and ineffective at doing even the most basic of security tasks, and we trust it to prevent terrorist attacks, while a Democrat Congress cuts off its ability to do wiretaps and does everything in its power to thwart actual restructuring and culture change that would significantly impact intelligence collection ability.
Then of course, you have the political ideology set that have placed party over security in their desperate desire to discredit the President and his administration. There was once a time when leaking of the sort we see today was a crime, now its ignored and encouraged by top management (Burger/Armitage, etc).
I can’t fault the trench workers who day after day toil and do their best to protect us, the blame lies at the feet of those career bureaucrats who long ago lost sight of the reason they are employed. That we have not succumbed to another spectacular attack like 9/11 I chalk up to part luck, and part a lack of ability by al Qaeda to operate outside of their current sphere of influence. I don’t place this on our intelligence collection ability.
AL,
I will concede that Iraq did sponsor some terrorism abroad, but most experts say that Iraqi’s primary goals were attacking politically active Iraqi refugees, or against Kurdish civilians.
So let’s look at the timeline you’ve linked to:
According to a 1993 internal Iraqi intelligence memo, the regime was supporting a secret Islamic Palestinian organization dedicated to “armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests”.
This group techinically didn’t join Al Queda until 2001, but insiders claim that the group was already “dying”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_Islamic_Jihad\
bq.
EIJ’s longtime association with al-Qaeda became closer at this time when “most” of its members were reported to have gone “on the al-Qaeda payroll.” EIJ leader hoped this would be a temporary measure but later confided to one of his chief assistants that joining with bin Laden had been `the only solution to keeping the Jihad organization abroad alive.
So when EIJ died, why didn’t Saddam give money directly to Al Queda? And why does every intelligence office in the US show no further connection after 2003?
*In 1998, the Iraqi regime offered “financial and moral support” to a new group of jihadists in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq.*
As I said above, this goes back to his funding of terrorists against Iraqi groups.
*In 2002, the year before the war began, the Iraqi regime hosted in Iraq a series of 13 conferences for non-Iraqi jihadist groups. That same year, a branch of the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) issued hundreds of Iraqi passports for known terrorists.*
Isn’t this the same time that Saddam tried to prepare his country for an onslaught? This could be explained as his attempt to make the inevitable war part of the western attack on islam, thus gathering more support from the Islamic world. Didn’t work, but he was certainly trying. If you have evidence from 2001 or 2000, that would be more convincing.
Do you have anything else international after 1993? I’m still unconvinced.
oopss… no further connection after 1993.
And people wonder why international law is a joke.
Sure Saddam invaded his neighbor, took a cease-fire, tied the peace negotiations up in technical knots, shot at forces enforcing the cease-fire requirements, played shell games with the required inspectors, deliberately undermined the required sanctions, and funded terrorists throughout the region.
50 years ago everybody would be wondering why, given the clear violations of the cease fire the war wasn’t back on. Now somehow we have to justify the invasion as if it were somehow in a complete vacuum of history.
Do those who demand the justification of the invasion even begin to understand how they’ve murdered the very international law they so often claim to seek to uphold?
I’m kinda curious, exactly what, nowadays, does it take to violate a cease fire?
Do you have anything else international after 1993? I’m still unconvinced.
Hamas.
Funny……prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was NO…repeat…NO connection between Iraq/Saddam and 9/11 and there are still a few neocompoops who want to justify this mess.
Remember folks, the terrorist attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon occured during the current president’s administration. How on earth can anyone give him credit for stemming terrorism is beyond belief. Of course, the lack of distinction you have between the various organizations that commit acts of terrorism is also beyond belief.
Let’s try this again boys and girls….not all terrorists are part of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda is not the sum of all terrorism.
What would Clinton do you ask? Well, hard to say. But we do know that the criminal behind the first WTC bombing was brought to justice in 1996. Maybe it was all that fancy “book learnin'” kind of justice that isn’t as exciting as leveling a medium sized nation state, but it worked.
But, some will say, (insert whinning voice here) “Clinton didn’t stop Al Qaeda in time…wah wah wah.” However, when he tried to take action against Al Qaeda the super duper protectors of America in the GOP said he was wagging the dog to diminish the Lewinsky affair. (At least he got caught with a girl, unlike the Neo Cons who get caught either soliciting men in a bathroom stall or chasing after male Congressional aides).
Yep….the right did a good job on us……destroy our economy, credibility, budget, environment, the American dream of prosperity….but at least we can still buy assault rifles and pick up trucks. Make sure you vote GOP again in November…..there’s still some people left with jobs and a few acres of wildlife without oil wells.
Ah god i love a good rant about the halcyon days of the Clintons where terrorism didnt exist and America was everyone’s best friend. And sadly, Bush got in the WH and before they could so much as unpack, Manhattan is covered in smoke and flame and death, which the might Clinton duo would surly have thwarted, perhaps with just a generous gesture or the embrace of a child.
I’m brushing a tear from my eye even as I write this.
Treefrog: When something turns into a complete debacle, it always has to be justified. Again, if Iraq had been a resounding success, much of this critique would have vanished (as in 2004 when republicans basically had democrats by the throat). However, as long as we’re paying 100 billion a year, people are going to continue to ask if it was worth it.
As I said before, we can’t afford to invade everybody. We need to be economical about invasion, and use it only when it gives us greater benefit and not when it costs us more than we could gain. Right now, Iraq still appears to be a 500 billion dollar coin flip.
In summary: I’m less concerned about the law and more concerned about where the cards fall at the end of our misadventure.
No….try reading the post…
And if it takes you from January to September to unpack you got big problems.
What I noted was that previous to “W” there WAS anti-terrorism policy. You forget the hearings in 2004? You forget Rice admitting that OBL was not on the agenda? (swatting at flies was the metaphor used I believe)
But again, it doesn’t matter to the neocons and their ilk. In their minds Saddam was “up to sumthin” anyway, or would have been if we didn’t stop him…..or could have been…or wanted to….or had the potential to…do….something…..maybe?
What will it take for the last few (30 percent or so)to admit that the current administration doensn’t have a clue…and what’s worse…considers it unnecessary to get a clue under any circumstances? This isn’t about politics or left vs. right. This is about the fact that the admitted mastermind of the WTC bombings remains free and unhindered.
Reminds me of the story about the drunk looking for his keys under a streetlamp. When someone asks if he lost them under the streetlight he replies that he lost them in the dark, but it is so much easier to look for them under the light.
No sadly, Mike this is about the fact what the press reported as fact on the pentagon report wasn’t exactly factual. Worse the Bush administration let them by with it. You are despearately and loudly trying to change the subject to protect the press and prop up your own political position. If you were less obvious about it, and condescending, you might even succeed. As it is… well, keep talking you are the best friend my postion has. And your own worst enemy.
Getting tired of posting but….
Fact: The war in Iraq was ill conceived and ill planned.
Fact: The war in Iraq has increased the number of Al Qaeda recruits
Fact: Saddam was as bad as they get….but not involved with 911
Fact: Some people will believe otherwise regardless of what reality tells them.
Assumption: Corvan believes that the press is just a big pool of communist, pinko, terrorist loving people that can’t wait to rip on God’s annointed president of the United States.
You will probably have the “last word” here. But the real last word is the really the death of 4000 American servicepeople (not to mention wounded), an unknown number of Iraqis and hundreds of coalition troops because we were all so mad at Afghanistan for not having enough good targets to bomb.
I don’t much care about the last word, Mike the more you write the better everyone else on this site looks. The post had nothing to do with anything you’ve blathered about. It is painfully obvious you are avoding the subject and calling people names. Worse you’re not even avoiding the subject particularly well (“Saddam was as bad as they come.” Not exaclty the best reason in the world to leave him be, you understand).
At this point we’re all well aware that you consider yourself a Wiley E. Coyote super-genius. But you still haven’t made point one or even engaged AL’s thesis. If you wonder why Speaker Pelosi and Senator Ried haven’t had any luck at all changing American involvement in Iraq (even though they have solid majorities in both houses and are likely to hold onto them) you need to review your own ranting here. As much as you hate the people that are supportive of the mission in Iraq you are quite possibly their most potent politcal ally. And as long as the democratic leadership continues to listen to you their approval numbers will be even lower than those of the president. Mission accomplished, I guess.
I just find the idea entertaining that Clinton had 8 years to get OBL, but Bush should have got him in the first 8 months. In fact it does take months to get a national security and cabinet in place and just to catch up on all the intel.
Yet Clinton was surely just DAYS from getting OBL when tragically his term (second) ran out. I expect there is mountains of proof of that in the presidential archives that Sandy Bugler was nobly trying to liberate when he accidently in fact shredded them with a pair of scissors.
corvan:+1
But I can’t help but add one thing – Mike, the war was certainly “ill conceived and ill planned” as compared to the Command & Conquer battles my kids fight online; in comparison to most wars in the 19th and 20th century, I’d say it sits about in the middle in terms of competence.
Let’s see British in Afghanistan – Elphinstone, anyone? French in Algeria, Crimean War (Charge of the Light Brigade, anyone?), First World War, the Spanish Civil War, the Chinese Civil war(s)Second World War (look up the “Morgenthau Plan”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/004855.php), Korean War, Vietnamese War (the French one and ours), the Russian war in Afghanistan, not to mention Iran-Iraq.
So I’ll call it a “Gentleman’s ‘C'” and while I’m not happy with that, it’s important to note that you don’t grade wars and complex mass activities like them on an absolute scale, but rather on a relative one – not in comparison to the war you wage in your head, or the one you could have run so much better post-facto – but in comparison to other wars which have to run through history forwards.
A.L.
Fact: Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor any other Administration official ever claimed that Saddam was involved with 9/11.
What Bush said, and what many prominent Democrats agreed with, was:
that Saddam Hussein
* supported and financed America-hating terrorists
* controlled great resources including much oil revenue
* had chemical and biological weapons
* was pursuing nuclear weapons
All of this is unquestionable. (Saddam never accounted for a large fraction of his acknowledged chemical and biological arsenal. It seems to have been moved out of Iraq just before the invasion. There is no evidence it was destroyed. His nuclear-weapons program was suspended, but could be restarted when there was opportunity.)
9/11 showed that Middle Eastern terrorists like Al-Qaeda (but not just Al-Qaeda) were far more dangerous than anyone had imagined. Bush decided (and most Democrats agreed) that the U.S. should not wait for other terrorists to strike, or for backers of such terrorists to acquire the most devastating weapons.
If a wolf enters a village and kills someone, the villagers hunt and kill all wolves, not just that one.
Fact: According to Al-Qaeda’s internal memos, the war in Iraq has all but destroyed Al-Qaeda’s influence in the Middle East.
Fact: the crypto-partisanship of the press is notorious. When the news of Karl Rove’s retirement was announced in the newsroom of the Seattle _Post-Intelligencer_, the assembled staff all cheered loudly – prompting the editor-in-chief to remind them that the press is _supposed_ to be non-partisan.
corvan:
Now that Bush and his cronies, and the incompetent CYA artists in the CIA, and the gung-ho military that wanted something to blow up, have got the USA (and the rest of the West – the London bombings were a direct result of the Iraq invasion) into this mess, of course we need to get ourselves out – without looking so weak in the eyes of the tribal barbarians that are on the other side of the war that something REALLY nasty happens. Because if it does, then the casualties on our side will make 9/11 look like a fleabite – and the casualties on the other will dwarf the worst excesses of any dictator in history, and the West will never be the same.
None of that detracts from the fact that it was the wrong war, at the wrong time, using the wrong tactics, against the wrong enemy – and the aftermath was conducted wrongly, too. And there is only one person to blame – or perhaps two, as the immediate culprit was attempting to clean up his father’s mess. Unfortunately, he created an even worse mess in the attempt.
“A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do” might work in Hollywood fantasy. It might even work in Texas. But it doesn’t work in the real world.
“the immediate culprit was attempting to clean up his father’s mess.”
Which part of HW Bush’s actions do you object to, Fletcher? Hamstringing himself by getting so many allies (France, Syria) that his ability to act against Saddam was severely limited? Did you oppose the use of force to reverse the military absorption of one member of the UN by another? Do you wish the US had not interfered with Saddam’s nuclear program in 1991, when he was so tantalizingly close?
bq. “A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do” might work in Hollywood fantasy. It might even work in Texas. But it doesn’t work in the real world.
Ah. Well, there are plenty of people in the ME who still seem to think it does. Try lecturing them, too — and do let us know how that works out.
/s/
Not an apologist for Bush, just one who dislikes stick-figure cartoons as conversation stoppers.
_”the London bombings were a direct result of the Iraq invasion”_
This is the kind of foolishness that actually does embolden the enemy and make them think they can intimidate us into doing what they want.
Do you honestly think those bomber would be just working away at the local show factory if only the Iraq war hadnt pushed them over the edge until they decided to put backbacks full of explosives on commuter trains? In what kind of world does that make sense? At least the IRA _tried_ to target the military and government targets.
Here’s a rule of thumb- anybody willing to intentionally target civilians in order to indimidate a country into doing its will (ie.. terrorism) doesnt need whatever excuse you think they need. If it wasnt Iraq, it would have been Afghanistan. If not that, it would have been because of some dumb cartoon or because they dont like women not stuffed in sacks. Moreover, they _love_ us to think if we just do one or two little things differently, we can all live in peace. Yet somehow, appeasing these guys never seems to work for long. Ask Israel.
Alchemist: Just a thought to plug into your cost/benefit analysis, but consider a world where no one can trust the US or UN to negotiate any end to a conflict because we will never hold anyone accountable to the terms of the negotiation.
A world where every war is, and must be, fought to the knife.
We can’t invade everybody, true, but if you want soft power to be useful, it needs some credibility behind it.
“Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor any other Administration official ever claimed that Saddam was involved with 9/11.”
Bravo.
All the idiots who insist that ‘Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11’ somehow try to convince themselves that 9/11 was the only terrorist attack against America, past or future.
Fact : Saddam DID have fingerprints on the 1993 WTC bombing (which would have been even worse than 9/11 in death toll if successful).
Fact : Saddam was paying Palestinian families $25,000 to send a child to be a suicide bomber.
Fact : Saddam tried to assassinate a former US President (this alone is reason to remove Saddam).
Fact : Al Gore was the first person to make the case that Saddam had terrorist connections, way back in 1992.
An Inconvenient YouTube video :
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64
Fact : Bill Clinton bombed Saddam heavily 1998 due to Saddam’s WMD programs (Operation Desert Fox).
Mark B.
“Ask Israel.” That’s ironic, right? Please tell me that was ironic.
Mark, every concession Israel has ever made to the Palestians has resulted in further terrorism, sometimes within hours. Witness the withdrawal from Gaza.
TOC (#6), the Iraq containment policy was falling apart! Ever hear of Oil-for-Food?
AL (#25), an even more important grading scale for wars is relative to how your enemy is doing. In the spirit of Clemenceau (“war is a series of catastrophes…”), I’d say we’re doing pretty well. About as well as could be expected, given (a) the absolute incompetence of the administration on the PR front, and (b) the dead weight of all the short-little-span-of-attention domestic opponents.
bgates:
None of the above. What he didn’t do, and should have, is (after smashing the Iraqi military the first time) go on to Baghdad and arrest (or preferably shoot) Hussein while he had the chance. Instead of which, he gave the man another _twelve years_ to murder, starve and oppress his own people and cause trouble internationally. And to rebuild his military so that the job had to be done all over again.
But as there was an election coming up…
Kirk,
“I’d say we’re doing pretty well.” Would you? Let’s see, we’ve spent $650,000,000,000+ & 4,000+ lives over five years because there was terrorism coming out of Iraq. Yeah, I see your point.
Obviously you take the (mistaken) atomic view of our current conflict(s), probably influenced by the unhelpful tendency of us all to name things “The Gulf War”, “The War in Iraq”, etc. Instead, we need to the the long-term view a la Philip Bobbitt and realize these are merely battles or campaigns in a much larger, longer struggle.
Well, if you want to take the long view then isn’t it a little early to be talking about how well we are doing?
And why exactly is it a mistake to take what you are calling the “atomic view” of current conflicts? If the present war in Iraq is a mere battle in a larger conflict, doesn’t it make a kind of sense to try to determine how that battle is going? Might not an assessment of current battles help to make wiser decisions about future ones?
For example, let’s say the current war in Iraq is a part of some Long Global War on Terror. $650,000,000,000 is a lot of money, and if that hasn’t resulted in a decrease of terrorism, then maybe we ought to think twice next time before embarking a similar course of action.
Are we allowed to link to a sales site?
Its a fair question. But i think you need to take into account some serious counterfactions. Christopher Hitchens is a bulldog on this- Iraq was not a stable nation as its several major insurections and two regional wars attest… not to mention our own recent experiences.
What would have happened had we NOT intervened when we did? We know Iraq’s infastructure and economy had seriously degraded since GW1. Saddam wasnt going to live forever, and his two monster sons were bumbling versions of himself that had a major rivalry between them. Iraq’s collapse was an eventuality, and we also know for a fact that Zarqawi was already in country with a jihadi network, and Iran had its tentacles deep in the Shiaa religious leadership. What would this look like with no prospect of international intervention?
Not good I would say. I have a problem when people say our Iraq policy ‘produced’ terrorists. Those terrorists largely already existed (the foriegn elements certainly), and a major upheaval in Iraq would unleash those forces Saddams iron fist held in check. I think its a very defensible position to posit that a failed Iraq with no pretext for Western intervention would have made Taliban Afghanistan look like a joke.
Counterfactuals even.
If you truly wish to reduce it to financials, then I’ll say I’m inclined to believe that the GDP of the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, and Europe is worth a quadra-yearly payment of US$650 billion.
Mark B.
“I have a problem when people say our Iraq policy ‘produced’ terrorists. Those terrorists largely already existed (the foriegn elements certainly), and a major upheaval in Iraq would unleash those forces Saddams iron fist held in check. I think its a very defensible position to posit that a failed Iraq with no pretext for Western intervention would have made Taliban Afghanistan look like a joke.”
Mark, do you really think the woman who blew herself (& 30+ others) up in Karbala yesterday was a pre-existing terrorist who would have tried to blow herself up on the NYC subway had we not invade Iraq? Are the 40,000 detainees in Iraq and the 30,000 or so we’ve killed pre-existing terrorists? I have never heard a persuasive case that these people we’re about to line up and join AQ prior to our invasion.
As for the foreign elements….well, why make it easier for them? I mean, let’s say your a bored, romantic saudi. Now, Jihad is a short bus ride away. I doubt many of these guys really had it in them to do what Atta did: train in a foriegn country, live in Germany for 4 years, and then hang out in the US planning and executing a terrorist plot without getting caught.
These people aren’t born terrorists. they are caught up in a global movement, an ideology, and the US invasion of Iraq has made the movement a lot more attractive, a lot more credible and a lot more accessible to a lot of people.
To your theory about the possible events that would have followed the inevitable demise of Saddam Hussein, I would ask: who’s to say, and on what basis, which of the many forces unleashed would prevail, especially without the gravitational pull the US occupying forces present. I mean, your theory is completely at odds with the belief on our part going in 5 years ago, that Iraq was a democracy just waiting to flower and all it needed was a little weed removal. So now you are saying that rather than crying out for democracy the Iraqis are at heart hellbent on a civil war, with the Taliban faction the predictable winner? I’m going to need a little further persuasion before buying this one. Call me skeptical.
The idiots who claim that ‘the US invasion of Iraq produced more terrorists’ are so ignorant that it is almost funny.
We have had no terrorist attacks on US soil after the invasion of Iraq, and no big ones even on European soil since July 2005.
Yet, we had many terrorist attacks BEFORE our invasion of Iraq in March 2003. 9/11, USS Cole, 1993 WTC, Khobar Towers, Kenya/Tanzania bombings, etc. to name a few.
So there is absolutely NO evidence that our invasion of Iraq created more terrorists. But there is a lot of evidence to the contrary.
GK, do you notice how you switch the criteria around to suit your incongruous argument?
If the attack against the Cole constitutes a pre-Iraq terrorist attack, then, surely, the thousands of attacks against US military vehicles, installations and personnel since the invasion must also be counted as terrorist attacks.
The evidence of an increased number of terrorists since the US invasion of Iraq is the existence of the very terrorists in Iraq against whom we are said to be fighting and into whose hands we are supposed to be keeping Iraq from falling.
And I am the idiot. Odd.
#44,
I always love how people change their classification of “terrorism” or “terrorist” to suit their needs (and by “people” I think you know who I’m talking about).
On the one hand, to justify the invasion, we heard a lot about Saddams’ connections to terrorists that threatened or even attacked America (far too many people still mistakenly believe he had something to do with 9/11…that’s no accident, that’s an intentional conflation).
But now, if we are seeking to determine whether there are more “terrorists” as a result of the invasion, we get to hear that only those who stage attacks on American soil count.
Try telling that to the 100s of Iraqis that die every damn day at the hands of terrorists who are there now but were not there before.
Ask the Israeli’s if they’re feeling safer.
No wonder the world has grown to hate America and it’s current leaders…I hope that they realize people that express your type of selfish insularity do not represent the majority of US citizens…only those with the loudest megaphones (at the moment).
Welcome back alan –
…and mark, c’mon. There is a war going on in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let’s be clear about that. It’s a low-intensity war, but a war nonetheless. To count insurgent actions there as terrorist acts (as the Terrorist indices tend to do) is to suggest that the murder rate in France in 1914 was absurdly high.
I need to update “my old post”:http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006750.php , but the point remains the same.
A.L.
Somehow, the terrorists are never judged to have a moral agency of their own. All the quilt of their actions, somehow, magically rebounds onto Isreal, the US, and then the west in general.
At what point, will the terrorists who, by definition, intentionally target civilians be judged by their actions, instead of given cheap excuses?
Hey AL, I’m not the one saying we have to stay in Iraq or “the terrorists” win. I’m not the one justifying our presence in Iraq as a way of keeping it out of the terrorists hands. If you have a problem with defining those in Iraq fighting the US presence as “terrorists” you need to talk to someone other than me.
All that said, I have no problem labeling the woman who blew herself up, along with some 30 others, yesterday in Karbala as a terrorist–and there a certainly a large number of attacks in Iraq that can be reasonably defined as terrorist attacks, jihadist terrorist attacks, in fact, and attacks by AQI. Furthermore, there has most definitely and measurably been an increase in the number of jihadist terrorist attacks worldwide since the US invasion of Iraq–not all of them in Iraq, but also in Pakistan, Britain, Morocco, Turkey, Indonesia, Saudia Arabia, Spain, Somalia, Kenya, India, Holland, Algeria, etc. I don’t know how anyone can deny that.
lurker, who, may I ask, is excusing terrorists? How is pointing out that our actions are having the opposite result of what they are intended to do (i.e., reduce terrorism) in any way, shape, or form excusing terrorists? I’m not so much interested in passing moral judgement on terrorism than I am in stopping it. Your comment borders on being insulting.
#50: Because your methods won’t work, insofar as your methods seem to center around doing nothing and/or criticizing those who try to do something – which is equivalent to giving terrorists what they want. (Your apparent repeated obtuseness with regard to this likewise borders on insulting.)
Giving terrorists what they want is even worse than using force on them, as the former will quiet them for a time, giving the appearance of immediate, positive feedback, and misleading the short of memory into believing that appeasement is the solution. Later, more terrorists arrive with even more demands, and we’re apparently doomed to repeat this act again. I’m really not interested in living my life under a violence tax.
Mark, you and Alan imply that the US is responsible for more civilian deaths by creating more terrorists. Aren’t the terrorists ultimately responsible for the civilians that they kill? Or not?
lurker, You are wrong and out of line. I am talking about practical consequences, not moral responsibility. I’m not saying the US is responsible. I am saying that rather than reducing terrorism, the US invasion and occupation of Iraq has resulted in increased terrorism. Trying to understand the relationship between causes and effects has nothing to do with excusing terrorists from moral culpability for their actions. That should be obvious. Your trying to make an emotional-based argument in order to avoid a sober look at the results of a policy.
So, you are saying that the US relationship to the terrorism phenomenon is similar to any accidental release of a virulent strain of bubonic plague?
What is obvious is that you seem to ignore the effect of media on the war effort. By overreporting our failures and underreporting our successes, the media has altered the result. One could very easily argue that had the media overreported successes and underreported failures, there would be less terrorism, not more. Some will further claim that if the media engaged in “fair” coverage (the definition of “fair” here could fill several threads of its own), the result would likewise be less terrorism and fewer terrorists.
There is the war, and there is how the war is seen. You can’t ignore the latter, if you’re going to pursue this argument of pragmatism.
Paul,
I don’t recall the “terrorists” demanding that we not invade Iraq, so I don’t see how not invading Iraq could have been seen as appeasement. Further, I am at a loss to understand how you can equate evaluating the effectiveness of a particular policy with urging doing nothing or of criticizing others for doing something. This line of thinking could only lead to the position that actions should be judged by their intentions rather than their results. And, yeah, Paul, I am criticizing the decision to invade Iraq. As a component in the war vs. terror it was not only ineffective, it has been counter-productive.
no, lurker. I’m not saying that at all. There’s no need to find an analogy. What I am saying is pretty plain. The US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq has resulted in an increase in global jihadist terrorism.
I’m just saying that the terrorists have their own goals and ideals. And what we do, doesn’t effect those much. And if terrorists and jihadists kill civilians, It’s not the fault of the ones trying to protect civilians.
Also, recent polls suggests that Iraqis, and Arabs in general, are turning away from Jihadism and suicide bombing. (I wish I could remember the links!) There are also some recently captured documents that indicate that Al Qaeda in Iraq has fallen on hard times and is having much difficulty with recruiting. Where is the surge of terrorists to match our surge?
Your model that invading Iraq simply increases terrorism is flawed, especially over the long term.
“I am at a loss to understand how you can equate evaluating the effectiveness of a particular policy with urging doing nothing or of criticizing others for doing something.”
Asked and answered, in your case:
“And, yeah, Paul, I am criticizing the decision to invade Iraq. As a component in the war vs. terror it was not only ineffective, it has been counter-productive.”
So don’t be coy.
And again, if you insist on critiquing the war effort – which I will take as tacit support of any critique of the war effort in your flavor – then you can no longer consider the war effort in isolation. It’s now a war effort dogged by shrill protest. If I’m in a card game and an opponent raises me, I will do two extremely different things depending on whether there’s someone over his shoulder screaming that “he’s only bluffing!”.
lurker,
“I’m just saying that the terrorists have their own goals and ideals. And what we do, doesn’t effect those much.”
This presupposes — incorrectly, in my view — that terrorists are a) born that way; & b) finite in number. Whereas I think people become terrorists based upon a large host of factors and that their numbers can increase and decrease according to circumstance and opportunity. One way of decreasing the number of terrorists, I maintain, is to decrease the opportunity.
“And if terrorists and jihadists kill civilians, It’s not the fault of the ones trying to protect civilians.”
Fault is an irrelevant issue. We’re talking about effectiveness of policies, strategies and tactics. I don’t share your desire to find blame or absolution from blame.
“Also, recent polls suggests that Iraqis, and Arabs in general, are turning away from Jihadism and suicide bombing. (I wish I could remember the links!)” (Yeah, me too.)
“There are also some recently captured documents that indicate that Al Qaeda in Iraq has fallen on hard times and is having much difficulty with recruiting. Where is the surge of terrorists to match our surge?”
I guess this is where I remind you that Al Qaeda in Iraq didn’t exist prior to the invasion of Iraq and so whatever weakening or losses they are suffering, it remains a net increase in terrorism as a result of the invasion. If, in 3 more years, we completely eradicate AQ in Iraq, then we will back to where we started 8 years earlier before we invaded.
“Your model that invading Iraq simply increases terrorism is flawed, especially over the long term.” Is it? How so?
Paul,
In #59, did you just cut & paste randomly? Is it some sort of dadaist commentary? Or do you just enjoy typing?
Fine, mark, allow me to do your thinking for you, just this once: I didn’t “equate evaluating the effectiveness of a particular policy with urging doing nothing or of criticizing others for doing something”, you did. As evidence, I cited the thing you wrote in the very next damn paragraph.
And then you call _me_ the Dadaist. Is this what passes for debate in liberal circles? Pretending you’re not doing something you are, belittling the opposition whose writing you never read, for not getting an in-joke you’ll never reveal, while adorning your flame with references to respected figures in the arts to maintain your intellectual cred?
Hrmph. Please let me apologize for labelling mark’s circle as “liberal”. I was annoyed and rushed, and as a result, smeared a set of people that I actually hold in respect. I meant to say, “your circle”. Moving on…
_”To your theory about the possible events that would have followed the inevitable demise of Saddam Hussein, I would ask: who’s to say, and on what basis, which of the many forces unleashed would prevail, especially without the gravitational pull the US occupying forces present.”_
Good question. Which of them would be considered positive? The Hussein boys, the Sunni nationalists, the Sunni jihadis, the Shiia jihadis, the Sunni Iranian jihadis, neighbors intervening on any of the aboves behalf?
_”I mean, your theory is completely at odds with the belief on our part going in 5 years ago, that Iraq was a democracy just waiting to flower and all it needed was a little weed removal.”_
I think any nation is waiting to flower into democracy. The problem is it doesnt take many turds to spoil the apple pie, to be crass. My point is, looking at how hard it _has_ been, imagine how it would have been without US forces. No green zone, no elections, the infastructure would be completely gone, no oil pumping, no IA, nobody seperating the warring sides at all.
_”So now you are saying that rather than crying out for democracy the Iraqis are at heart hellbent on a civil war, with the Taliban faction the predictable winner?”_
No. The forces are present but they are taking a terrible beating from American and growingly Iraqi forces.
The number of jihadis and the amount of resources that have _poured_ into Iraq is not to be dismissed. All those trained Syrians and Chechnyan marksmen that met our forces on the first days of the invasion werent smoking hookas and peddling trinkits in Damascus the week before, nor would they have been the week after had we not gone. A whole of the nasty people died on the wrong end of American bullets in Iraq, and its incredibly to think they would be a problem had we ignored them.
Hrmph. Please let me apologize for labelling mark’s circle as “liberal”. I was annoyed and rushed, and as a result, smeared a word that I actually hold in respect, though its image be co-opted by poseurs. I meant to say, “your circle”. Moving on…
Shiia Iranian jihadis rather, although Iran seems not to mind playing both sides of the fence when it suites them.
Mark B., as usual, you make fine points. However, I feel they are selective, and selected with a purpose. I still feel that, on balance, we’ve done more harm than good in Iraq in terms of reducing terrorism world wide. I also feel that we have little or no chance of reversing that equation. Of course, the relationship between terrorism and Iraq is not the only justification for the war, nor is it the only rationale for opposition to the war. There are other issues on either side of the question.
Paul,
“I didn’t “equate evaluating the effectiveness of a particular policy with urging doing nothing or of criticizing others for doing something”, you did.”
You are wrong, Paul. You wrote in #51: “Because your methods won’t work, insofar as your methods seem to center around doing nothing and/or criticizing those who try to do something… ”
Since what you call “my methods” was simply an attempt to evaluate the effectiveness of the Iraq war in reducing terrorism, you did indeed explicitly equate it with both doing nothing and criticizing others for doing something. How can you explain your original statement in any other way?
Lack of a good policy is not a particularly strong argument for adopting a bad policy.
Doing nothing aside from criticizing the war effort is a bad policy.
bq. By overreporting our failures and underreporting our successes, the media has altered the result.
So the media are responsible for the death’s of Iraqi civilians, not the “terrorists”?
You guys can’t keep your story straight…
The story is fine, so long as you don’t take things out of context. Re-read what I said in context.
Context, Paul?
bq. What is obvious is that you seem to ignore the effect of media on the war effort.
Why don’t you start by explaining what you mean by “the media” and it’s “effect on the war effort” with regards to terrorism.
Are we talking about domestic reporting by the US media outlets and terrorism in Iraq? Are these two things linked, do you think? Or is it the international press? Al Jazeera?
Gah. I was responding to #53, and I thought my post followed his with no gaps. Sorry about that.
mark seems convinced that the war effort has increased terrorism. I’m convinced that it’s not the only factor, and that’s a huge distinction.
Check out the “2007 Pew Global Attitudes Project.”:http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=257 It shows big drops in world-wide confidence that Bin Laden is doing the right thing over the last five years. This came out _before_ the Surge started producing great results in Iraq. Does that indicate that Jihad terrorism is becoming more popular, or less?
How can you reduce Jihad terrorism if you don’t demonstrate that you are ready to kill Jihad terrorists in whatever numbers they show themselves? If you kill them that discourages others. Most of them aren’t really looking to die gloriously, after all. They’d rather go on a live first-person-shooter videogame vacation in a war zone and shed the blood of infidels than go into war only to die for real. They are not heroes, no matter how the As Sahab hagiographers portray their dead comrades as such.
#35 from Kirk Parker at 5:36 am on Mar 18, 2008
TOC (#6), the Iraq containment policy was falling apart! Ever hear of Oil-for-Food?
Yes I have heard of Oil for Food. Now, can you tell me how that meant that containment was falling apart? Are you trying to tell me that Saddam was on the verge of Busting out because of he Oil for Food corruption scandal?
I am sorry, but that is one I can’t buy.