I see today that GW Bush has issued warnings that Iraq is probably about to see a flare up in violence as that battered nation gears up for elections...



In his speech, GW Bush also made mention that a certain Abu Azzam has been shot dead and that this Azzam character was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's second in command...

Which sounded to me like the echo of Israel where the IDF regularly blows away the leader of Hamas, but never actually succeeds in ending the fighting. Its like an game of chess where you keep taking the Queen only to have a new one pop up whilst the king remains safe and the game never ends.

There is a certain dark machiavellian poetry involved when the US brags about killing the deputy of the deputy of the terrorist responsible for the 11 Sept attacks. Osama must be trembling in his boots. I wonder if he'll ever get around to using that machine gun he likes to be filmed with...

So I wonder... lets pretend that the elections go ahead, that the violence in Iraq and Afghanistan gradually abate and despite it all, the Bush administrations strategy in those countries succeeds...

What then? What happens when GW Bush is coming to the end of his second term in office and Osama and his al qaeda crew are still around?

What is the War on Terror about? Will liberating Iraq remove the threat of terrorism?

By what measure is success in the WOT decided? Is the WOT a failure if, despite everything Osama Bin laden is still around if Iraq is ever pacified?

After the American Civil War, groups from the south banded together and performed terrorist attacks, often against innocent people. Some of these groups exist to this day on U.S. soil. One such group is widely known as the Klu Klux Klan. Was the Civil War not worth it because such groups would go on existing? The goal is to subdue the opposition to a point where it can be contained. Once Iraqi forces can take over the job of containment, our boys will begin to come home. I'm hopeful and optimistic that it is going to work.

By what measure is success in the WOT decided? Is the WOT a failure if, despite everything Osama Bin laden is still around if Iraq is ever pacified?

Success to me is fewer or no more terrorist attacks on innocent people. So far we have not seen any terrorist attacks on U.S. soil (at least none of much significance). It tells me that OBL and any sympathetic terrorist groups have been hampered in a substantial way. Terrorism is currently a problem in Iraq, and as I mentioned above the mission is to subdue it. I don't think that once the U.S. withdraws from Iraq that the war on terrorism will be declared over. We will continue to go after OBL and his friends as long as our resolve remains intact.

What then? What happens when GW Bush is coming to the end of his second term in office and Osama and his al qaeda crew are still around?

Nothing would happen but this is an extremely unlikely scenario. For any rational observer following the war in Iraq the conclusion that the war is lost is obvious. Iran is the only winner. The situation in Afghanistan is only marginally better.

What is the War on Terror about? Will liberating Iraq remove the threat of terrorism?

The War on Terror (at least as far as Iraq is concerned) was the rational the administration used to get the public to support their effort to seize control of Iraqi oil resources and dominate the Middle East and Caspian Region. Paul Wolfowitz practically admitted as much before being exiled to the World Bank. Guardian Article on Truthout

The invasion and occupation of Iraq has dramatically increased the threat of terrorism both by providing motivation for thousands of new potential terrorist and a training ground to work in.

By what measure is success in the WOT decided? Is the WOT a failure if, despite everything Osama Bin laden is still around if Iraq is ever pacified?

As others have stated numerous times, it impossible to have a war on terrorism since terrorism is a way of conducting war and not something that can be attacked. Individual terrorists can be targeted but the real need is to identify what is motivating new terrorist recruits and finding a way to reduce the irritants. Bin Ladden is not particularly important as an individual but the power of his ideas have been tremendously enhanced by US actions.

I live for these types of comments....

If you are seriously suggesting that Bush's success on the GWOT is measured by the lack of an attack on American soil over the last 4 years, then you'd have to concede Clinton was a fricken genius.

Al Quaida and Bin Laden declared war on America long before 9/11. In fact, a few Al Quaida nutjobs tried to blow up the WTC 10 years before 9/11. As opposed to the last 4 years, we had not had an attack in 10 years.

So, why is Clinton a genius?

Somehow Clinton did not have to federalize airport screeners, did not have to strip away a serious chunk of our civil liberties through Patriot Acts, did not have to over extend our military in nation building, did not have to spend hundreds of billions of our dollars in fighting wars, and finally, did not have to send almost 2000 of our finest and bravest people off to their deaths. Without all that, Clinton had a much better track record. Oh yeah, let's not forget - we had fewer terrorist attacks during his watch. Since Bush's "success", the amount of terrorist attacks in the world have increased significantly.

But let's get real and stop the rhetoric for a second. Clinton had as little to do with terrorism before 9/11 as Bush did after 9/11. We can't stop Bin Laden or anybody that wants to destroy us. Why do you think Bush has done nothing to seal our borders? If Bin Laden could have attacked us successfully since then, he would have. If he could have had another 9/11 type of day after Katrina, we'd be in deep, deep trouble.

But he couldn't. He doesn't have access to WMD because nobody with an ounce of sense - no matter how evil - would ever supply it to him. And why? Because the WMD could be used against the supplier as (for example) blackmail for even more WMD. So Bin Laden is reduced to box cutters, pipe bombs, and an imagination.

Bin Laden gave us his best shot on 9/11 and like a washed up pitcher, that's all he's got. To give Bush due credit (which a president Gore would have done), he cut off Bin Ladens command and control capabilities in Afganistan to keep him contained. Now Bin Laden is more important to us alive than dead. Nothing twists arms like a walking and talking boogey-man.

The days of hijacked airplanes and crude destruction tactics are over. And that has nothing to do with searching my daughter's baby dolls for bombs. It just won't work any longer. We have learned through 9/11 that you don't do what the terrorists say to keep safe. We now know that will only cause more death and destruction. And that is precisely why Bin Laden is irrelevant and why the nation building in Iraq is useless.

How can you say that when the number of terrorist actions has risen since the War in Iraq began?


And yet you've seen near 2,000 US soldiers killed. Doesn't it strike you as significant that al qaeda no longer even has to strike at targets within the USA?
All it has to do is join in the fun n games in Iraq. Iraq is like a terrorists superstore where everything is cheap.

Before Iraq it would be very difficult for the terrorists to kill 2,000 Americans. Now they can not only kill/murder US soldiers, but they can look good for their supporters whilst they're doing it.

And meanwhile, their friends in the UK and Indonesia are keeping the faith carrying on the 'good work'.


No they are not. The US has put its military into a shooting gallery in Iraq whilst in Afghanistan they're cutting back operations

...despite the fact that the Germans and the Spanish are sending a few more troops to Afghanistan because thats the fight against terrorism they believe in. Link.

GW Bush has put the USA into a no win situation. How is the USA going to win in Iraq? By holding an election? According to this article US generals running the war are now saying that the 150,000 odd US troops in Iraq are 'part of the problem'...

My emphasis.

What does that mean? Even Donald Rumsfeld apparently doesn't believe the US can win in Iraq! It looks like the lesson of Vietnam has suddenly been remembered, two years too late.


But thats the crux of the matter. By the time the USA finally manages to pull itself out of Iraq, GW Bush will either be out of the White House or packing his bags.

There is no way to tell what political reality follows the Bush administrations failure in Iraq, except that since failure in Iraq is now an almost certainty* whom so ever follows GW Bush will have to deal with the aftermath of an unstable, war torn Iraq and what that means for the threat of global terrorism.

The point is. GW Bush said he was engaging in a 'War' On Terrorism. He sent the US military in Afghanistan and Iraq as a consequence of this.

Since the terrorists in question were all in Afghanistan, then the attack on Iraq was largely irrelevant to this so called WOT.

Now, as reality chews greedily, we are confronted with the possibility/probability of the war in Iraq having no long term significance against al qaeda and the search for the al qaeda leadership in Afghanistan yielding no results by the time GW Bush leaves office.

* and the Conservatives can't blame Clinton for this!

editted to add:

This is hardly rellevent to the topic, but it struck me as I was writing my post... from the LA Times article:

Hows that for an admission of utter failure? The USA goes into another country on false reasoning, takes out a dictator but leaves the country in civil war and chaos for years, and all as a part of a 'war on terrorism'.

"it is going to be a problem for the people of Iraq," Rumsfeld said.

Going to be? What planet does this man live on?

With help like this, who needs al qaeda?

What happens when GW Bush is coming to the end of his second term in office and Osama and his al qaeda crew are still around?

If they're still around, which I hope they wont be, it will be chalked up to another failure on behalf of the US and more specificaly the Bush Admin. I thought we were supposed to be getting evildoers? It's bee four years since 9/11 and if the Bush Admin. can't catch OBL by the time he's out then it will feel like we've lost. If not by the numbers then by principle. OBL will have proved that he can stand up to the strongest nation in the wold, and win. I don't think that's a message we want being sent. Now if we can't catch him because he's just plain wiley, then I guess that's another thing, but I expect better of the US and Bush.

What is the War on Terror about? Will liberating Iraq remove the threat of terrorism?

I do not think liberating Iraq will help reduce the threat of terrorism worldwide. I, and many others have said it many times, but we weren't fighting terrorism when went in. We were fighting a brutal dictator that wouldn't cooperate with us. Now we're fighting terrorists, but only the ones from and coming to Iraq. The Al Qaida sects in other countries, and not to mention the dozens of other terrorist organizations (Site as of 2004), are what needs to be addressed.

By what measure is success in the WOT decided? Is the WOT a failure if, despite everything Osama Bin laden is still around if Iraq is ever pacified?

The WOT is measured in odd ways. People would say Bush is great president and has stood tough on the WOT; yet the number of world wide terror attacks has risen and the worst attack in US history happened on his watch. So I'd say he's failed. If Gore were elected (or Kerry for that matter) we might still be in the same situation. But the only way you can measure it is in terms of attacks or organizations in existence, and by those numbers we're losing. I think that if Iraq is pacified and OBL is still around, then the WOT is a failure. OBL needs to be captured to show the US can capture terrorists. It will be a bittersweet "victory" if Iraq is at peace and OBL and other top terrorist leaders are still at large.

The war on terror is against Al-Qaeda and the upper-echelon of their leadership. Even if we are successful in Iraq beyond our wildest dreams, it won't matter one iota regarding the threat of terrorism. Saddam Hussein was a pan-Arabist, socialist dictator. Bin-Laden is a theocrat of the Muslim persuasion--huge difference between the two. The president's equation of Iraq into the war on terrorism is tenuous at best as the evidence point to a more contradictory answer.



Yes, it would be a great failure as it was Al-Qaeda and not Saddam Hussein's forces-who caused 911. It might make some in this country feel better, but it's tantamount to a desperate prosecutor finding somebody, anybody to imprison in order to feel successful.

So success to you is more terrorist attacks? I don't understand this question.



Sometimes you have to open a wound to clean it and heal it. Let's compare terrorism to cancer. It won't go away on its own. If left untreated it gets worse. To root out a cancer it frequently involves some cutting which can be painful. But the increase in pain shouldn't deter one from performing the procedure. Within an amount of time the pain will subside and the cancer will no longer be a threat.

The war against terror in Afghanistan and Iraq has opened the wound. And while it is painful we shouldn't retreat. I am optimistic that within a reasonable amount of time we will see a decline in terrorism.


How soon we forget 9/11.


Again I ask, was the American civil war not worth it because we had to deal with insurgency groups afterwards?

No, that is not what I was saying. I was responding to what you wrote: Success to me is fewer or no more terrorist attacks on innocent people.

What I am saying is simple. If success is measured by 'fewer terrorist attacks' and there has been a marked increase in terrorist attacks, then obviously the war on terrorism is failing... not succeeding


What do you mean by a 'reasonable amount of time'?

How do you suppose the people dying during that time feel about it? Its pretty easy to talk about a reasonable amount of time when your not the one being bombed...

Also, The war in Iraq cannot compare to cancer. No one chooses cancer.



I have not forgotten anything. Quite the opposite in fact. The attacks on Sept 11 were not easy. They were very difficult. That is my point!

Al qaeda was not able to strike with ease at US targets. They failed in their first attempt to destroy the WTC and it took them a whole decade to muster their forces for a second attack.

Do you understand? My point is, it was very difficult for al qaeda to strike at the USA. It took all their resources and a lot of time.

Now though they can strike at US forces every day, and with ease. They may not be able to kill 3,000 US soldiers in one fell swoop, but that hardly matters given the nature of their struggle and how they like to present it to their base.


What does the ACW have to do with the WOT?

Are you suggesting that because success was acheived then it must automatically follow that success will be acheived in Iraq....?

Have you forgotten what happened in Vietnam?

Terrorist attacks have increased. Terrorist attack deaths have increased. Numbers of terrorists have increased. Yeah, things are just going great. Medical analogies are pointless, but since you insist, lets think about it. If you're treating a cancer aggressively, and that cancer starts to spread at an exponential rate, do you really just "power through"? Here's a couple of charts I generated using the handly little tool provided by the Terrorism Knowledge Base. The first is the number of deaths worldwide by year, and the second is the number of incidents.

Deaths
Attacks

Now, the argument can be made that the spike at the end is simply the result of fighting in Iraq. So lets look at that chart when we filter Iraq out:

Attacks (less Iraq)

Notice anything alarming? Even discounting Iraq, terrorism is increasing throughout the world. The fact that no attack has occured on American soil in the last four years is as meaningless as the fact that that no attack occured on American soil in the four years before 9/11 (discounting domestic terrorists.)

First of all, we don't know if Bin Laden is still alive. Second, if he is, it really doesn't make that much of a difference. In the grand scheme of the War on Terror, Osama bin Laden himself is not very important. Also, Al-Qaeda will always be around, always. So Bush certainly isn't a failure for not being able to eradicate the largest Islamic terrorist organization in the world. Whether or not he's done a good job is a matter of debate, personally I would say that he's done an okay job, but that's just me.


The War on Terror is about preventing terrorists from killing innocent Americans [primarily] and innocent people [secondarily]. Nothing, including the liberation of Iraq will remove the threat of terrorism other than the Arab world taking a strong and active stance against it...Which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Terrorist cells destroyed, high-ranking terrorists captured and intel are all measures of success in the WOT. Osama bin Laden is a figure-head and a mastermind of Al-Qaeda, capturing him, although very, very, very sweet, would not have much impact...I'm sure that there are dozens of psychopaths waiting in the wings.

CP

Are you saying that things never get worse before they get better? Even in war? You seem to be saying that fighting terrorists only manufacturers more terrorists, therefore we should not fight terrorism.

In 1941 the U.S. had about 3,000 servicemen and civilians killed in Hawaii by the Japanese empire. The subsequent cost in terms of life from WWII for the U.S. alone was in the hundreds of thousands. Things got a lot worse before they got better. Based on your principle, should the U.S. have stayed out of that war?


What I remember about Vietnam is that 58,000 servicemen lost their lives. Divide that by about 60 months of combat and you get an average of 967 deaths each month. So two months of Vietnam equals two years in Iraq. There may be a few fringe similarities between these wars, but the cost is definitely not one of them.

Do you have anything besides aphorisms with which to defend your position? "It's like cancer... Things get worse before they get better... Sometimes you have to open a wound..."

The fact is that there are more deaths, attacks, and terrorists. Do you have any proof that this is in fact indicative of success, or are you going to resort to tired cliches?



Umm, no. I'm saying that the way this is war is being fought is ENTIRELY ineffective. The United States pacified Europe after the war by rebuilding it, not playing the "follow the dictator" shell-game that has been running in the Middle East since the 50's. Blowing up people who don't care if they are blown up is not a good way to defeat them, especially when the region has 500 million people, and each "terrorist" casualty is usually a brother, father, uncle or son of someone who probably already has doubts about Western countries.

UJ, I'm not being argumentative and am not trying to make a point here. I just want to know what, in your opinion, is the right way to the fight the war on terror...I'm certainly not disagreeing with you that bombs alone don't win a war, but what do you think we should do?

CP

Change American policy in the Middle East.
End support of corrupt dictators that finance and support terrorism.
Win hearts and minds (sorry, too late).
Work in conjunction with other nations.
Prioritize targets and find the easiest way to deal with them. (Iraq was a problem but a lower priority than Al-Qaeda I would think...and going to war with Iraq was not the easiest way to deal with them)

Those are pretty general, totaling probably 50 ways in the details that it should've been done. (*Note: Force and military might isn't automatically ruled out in each of those details)

Can we please avoid the personal attacks and stick to the substance of this debate?


I understand that the mainstream news media sweeps this fact under the rug and prefers to focus on the losses, but are we not rebuilding Iraq, just like we did in Europe and Japan?


I'm confused. You said that fighting terrorists doesn't manufacturer more terrorists, and then procede to say that it does. I guess I still don't know what your solution is to eliminating terrorism. And not every one of those 500 million people is sympathetic with terrorism. According to Pew Global, sympathy for terrorism is waning among Arabs worldwide. From the summary of findings:


Link

Perhaps hearts and minds are being won over.

Please do not construe this as an attack on you, deerjerkydave; but I disagree with your assessment. If the cancer is diagnosed to be in the lung or the breast, the careful surgeon does not remove the spleen. And that's how I see Bush's approach to his global War on Terror.

The fact remains that no WMDs were found in Iraq, nor were there any nuclear materials to be found. No Iraqis were known to have been aboard the hijacked planes of 9/11/2001 (remarkably well-preserved passports were found miraculously from the WTC site--who would have thought!); indeed, it was Saudis who were involved.

So our Commander-in-Chief decides to invade Afghanistan to get Osama bin Laden. That made sense as he took credit for the attacks. Then, having failed to get OBL, Bush has our military take a side trip to Iraq and go after Saddam Hussein, a real non-sequitor based on the flimsy evidence presented at the UN for the action and Saddam Hussein's eleventh-hour change of heart to let the UN inspectors in again. Bush was hell-bent for leather; nobody was going to rein in his passion to get the guy who "tried to kill [his] daddy."

And now Iraq, post invasion, is teeming with resurgents and terrorists. While a Constitution is being worked on, fellow Iraqis are being attacked and killed, along with American soldiers, every day. Mission certainly NOT accomplished.

I liked Bush better when he stated that getting Osama bin Laden was his "Number One Priority," but then he took that back when the job didn't get done. But he changed his mind, I guess, too much trouble for the most powerful military force in the world to get this tall Arab who has to go on a dialysis machine (as mentioned by Robin Williams some time ago).

Finding Osama bin Laden and bringing him "to justice" (as Bush is fond of saying) would be a climactic development that would look like success. Short of that, there is darned little aside from rebuilding the ruined buildings in the country that can be definitively pointed out as a "win" for our side.

My view is somewhat different...

During the course of the war in Iraq, the Danish media has closely followed the Danish military contingent in Southern Iraq.

The news from there has been varied with a strong emphasis on the Danish soldiers actions to help the local population. There have also been regular reports concerning Danish funded rebuilding operations and projects designed to promote education and/or public health and safety in the region.

However, the truth was concealed as we have now found out. During the last two years or so, the Danish government and military concealed the truth regarding the Danish military's actions and we now find out that Denmarks soldiers have killed 12 Iraqi civilians. That most of the rebuilding projects ground to a halt over a year ago, that the medical resources sent to Iraq were plundered by corrupt local officials and one by one the Danish NGO's have pulled out of Iraq due to security concerns.

Whilst our prime minister (and your president) spoke of success, our efforts in Iraq (and Afghanistan) were actually losing ground to the mindset of the local people and their insistence on supporting the terrorists whilst milking the coalition for all they could.


Perhaps... but can we be sure on the basis of a few polls taken from a population of 800 million people?

And what of the rate? How many months or years is it going to take before the Muslim nations actually act against the extremist view?

I don't think its moving anywhere nera fast enough. From your article:

Link.

I could have told you that! Attitudes towards Islam in Northern Europe are hardening faster than I am comfortable with... and its not because I fear for the Muslims. I'm already past the point of caring what happens to them. I am more concerned with the stability of Europe and especially the possibility of terrorist attack in Denmark by Islamic extremists. We're seeing almost daily clashes between our Islamic community and the rest of the country with examples of Muslim provocation ranging from gang rapes to death threats. We've had a university professor beaten up for reading aloud from the 'Koran' during a lecture on Islam, a childrens book project explaining the virtues of Islam to Danish children cancelled because no illustrator dared take on the job for fear of being killed for having dared to create an image of the prophet Mohammed (and death threats were made) and now we have Muslim politicians demanding in outbursts of passionate outrage that our newspapers remove political cartoons that mock Islam. As if we are subject to their laws!

You may think the WOT is converting hearts andminds in the middle east, but the hornets have long since spread from the nest GW Bush and Osama Bin Laden have stirred up and the hearts and minds of Europe are being lost even as we type.

Its about time this planet dealt with these religious extremists once and for all. I can't, for the life of me understand why we tolerate religious men who talk of peace and freedom whilst conducting war and terrorism!

Thank you, I didn't. I know I've asked a lot of questions in this thread, but I am trying to understand people's points of view. If WMDs were found in Iraq would you have supported the war there? And second, do you feel that the war on terror should have focused exclusively on Al Qaeda and not the broader definition given by President Bush where terrorism everywhere is fair game?

moif, your comments got me to thinking about what it is going to take to win the hearts and minds. Of course bombs and bullets are not the only way. But I think that the war on terrorism/Iraq has also ignited a strong and important debate within Islam (*and the world). Is this a religion that as it joins the 21st century going to integrate with the rest of the world, or is it going to side with the extremists bent on killing the infadels. The best change will come from within, but the war on terrorism can work as a catalyst. What else do you think the west (and that includes Europe) can do to win the hearts and minds?

*edited to add.

I'm with you here in theory Psyclist. However, the glaring exception, unfortunately, is Saudi Arabia. Until oil is obsolete, we have no choice but to support the Saudi royal family. I do think that we need to start spending federal cash on things that matter, like alternative fuel so we can speed up our independence from them though.


Again, in theory I'm with you here, Psyclist. However, how can we win the hearts and minds of people who hate us on spot, regardless of whether or not we've harmed them. Islamic extremists, like other religious zealots, don't negotiate or listen to reason, so what can we do to win their hearts and minds if the feeling of cooperation isn't mutual?


I'm also, again, with you, in theory. In order for the War on Terror to be a success, the UN needs to take an active and if necessary, an offensive stance against terror-supporting regemes and dictators. Without them it just looks like the US "bullying" poor Arab countries.

CP

I don't have a problem with multilateral action myself, but that doesn't mean it's necessary to go through the UN. The UN should only be a forum for airing grievances and hashing out disputes. It is not equipped to be an organization for conducting or coordinating concerted action (military, economic, or otherwise) in pursuance of some strategic goal. It's too unwieldy, and there's too much opportunity for various types of blackmail and other shenanigans (We won't vote the way you want unless you do this for us, etc.).

I would also argue that unilateral action, as a principle, is not all that bad. It's the way we've applied that principle in the WOT - particularly the Iraq war - that's left a lot to be desired. Basically what we did was go to the UN and tell the civilized world that they had to care about our fight and be willing to support us, and then turned around and said Go jump off a cliff, we don't need y'all anyway. That's not exactly the way to make friends and influence people.

If it was I (and if I was convinced that going to war in Iraq truly was necessary for our security), I would have simply said to the world, "Look, we have something we need to do here. Our security is at stake. We understand your concerns about this, but please be assured that we have no ulterior motive beyond looking out for the safety of our citizens. We will make every effort to answer whatever concerns you have, and to provide whatever information and opportunities for verification we can, wherever we realistically can. But this is something we need to do, and we cannot back down from it."

That probably wouldn't have satisfied everybody, but at least they could have respected our forthrightness and honesty. But just blowing them off is not the way to go, and the resulting international backlash could very well have put our soldiers in extra unnecessary danger by giving comfort to the enemy.

I think the more appropriate title for this man is Osama Bin Rottin (in the ground). I honestly think the guy is dead and has been dead for some time. It's hard to catch a dead guy. It's also almost as hard to prove that he's dead, so I won't waste your time. Osama, if he is alive, however, has not been doing his part to brag and gloat about it.

The LAST thing his supporters would want to reveal is that the man is dead. That would be seen a huge victory for the U.S., not to mention a morale boost. But come several more years with no substantiated contact (no audio recordings, give us video), I think Osama will go the way of Elvis.

I would like to see proof that Osama bin Laden is indeed dead before the assumption is made that he is dead. Habeas corpus means "show us the body," and I do not consider it unreasonable to seek out the reason we invaded Afghanistan in the first place.

Otherwise, it sounds like an excuse made by a group of leaders that just can't bring themselves to admit that they failed to get him.

An additional thought: When a criminal makes it on the FBI's Most Wanted list, is it assumed that the criminal is dead because s/he is still uncaptured? What about Eric Rudolph, who hid out in North Carolina for years before he was apprehended? Did the FBI stop looking for Rudolph? Why should it be so different with Osama bin Laden? There is no statute of limitations for murder.