"An American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by Al Qaeda and other groups," a senior American counterintelligence official said. "And it is a very effective tool." -New York Times, 3/16/03

So, does everybody feel safer, now ...?

The full article can be found at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/internat...ast/16RECR.html

Did anyone ever actually think this war would make terrorism less likely?

Sitting back, waiting for the next attack has worked wonders. Why do you think the level of attack has increased? Lack of fear. Those who are pre-disposed to terror-like activities understand one thing and one thing only. Force.

I thank God every day that we finally have the leadership in place to do what has to be done.

Yes. Al-Queda's been decimated already so they are too weak to mount any major attack on the United States, her allies, or her interests.

There might be small attacks on diplomats (assassination) or might be attempts at various locations worldwide like attempts to shot up embassies but not blowing them up


Musing from the Middle Posted on Mar 19 2003, 07:39 AM


Amen brother MM

Clinton's "Saying i will do something about it when i will just "turn the other cheek" urked me now that i look back at how bad we got hurt

Long term...yes. Short term, who knows. The world will be a safer place after Saddam is gone...

I don't really know about that. We don't really know much about the state of al Qaeda. From what I can see, they're no longer playing on monkey bars in Afganistan, but they're still probably planning attacks. I mean, these people are basically suicide bombers, so I don't think they're too worried about dying. I could be wrong, but there's no information on the subject, really.

And won't attacking a Muslim country make Muslims more likely to join a terrorist organization?

GWB's axis of evil specifically mentioned four nations, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and Iran

Iran is 89% Shi'a Muslim, and Iraq is 65%. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim, and was the only obstacle which stood before the spread of Shi'a fundamentalism during the Reagan era. (Which was also why the USA helped Saddam back then)

If the US sets up a democracy in Iraq, and the majority of the Iraqi's vote by way of the religious convictions, as happened in Morroco, Indonesia, Egypt, Turkey and just about every Muslim nation which ever held an election, then in effect, what the US risks is the spread of Iranian influence into Iraq.

Iran is also said to be developing nuclear weapons, and unlike Iraq, is out of reach of the IDF's aircraft.

So my question is; What happens if the Iraqi's use their new democratic rights to vote an Ayatollah into power who then tells the US and its interests to get out?

As an ingredient on the war on terror, this attack (on Iraq) is already being used as a recruitment drive by America's enemies and if Iraq falls into the hands of Iranian style clerics, then what will America do?

Will America go to war again in a decades time to oust a Shi'a dictator? Does America have that will?

Just a note, Afganistan was not mentioned in the "Axis of Evil" speech.


And you're assuming way too much about Iraq, anyway. Not only is most of the country Shiite Muslim, but very political and religious group hates all the other ones. These people are no more capable of holding realistic elections and keeping a democracy than they are of defeating the US in a war. We're going to see military conflicts between the Shiites, the Kurds, the Turkmen, the Sunnis, the former Baathis and many other minorities.

I didn't realize Saddam was making the world a more dangerous place.

But on topic, terrorists are patriotic in their own sick ways. Their "patriotism" will cause more terrorism then there would have been sans an American invasion and occupation of an arab state.

Now instead of having a reasonable chance to have arab states help clean up their own backyards, we need to do it all ourselves.

Do you hoestly think that people who are willing to strap bombs onto themselves and blows themselves or fly planes into buildings with themselves in them are scared of American bombs? Of course not. It will only infuriate Muslims more.

This may be a nitpick... but it will infuriate extremists, not all muslims.

It could turn normal, peaceful Muslims into extremists.

For example:



For more details, please see: http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/world/P...ysis030321.html

Relatedly, the Deutsche Welle-World page reports:



http://www.dw-world.de/english/0,3367,7489...577_1_A,00.html

Similar outbursts are taking place in Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, & the West Bank, drawing together the leaders of radical groups like Hezbollah & Hamas with respected Islamic clerics.

Long before the Al-Azhar proclamation, Arab volunteers were already travelling to Iraq to carry out a "jihad" against the U.S. invaders.

http://www.sunspot.net/news/nationworld/ir...,0,460175.story

It should also be noted that the Baghdad regime opened camps to train such volunteers as suicide bombers, several weeks ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2386791.stm

How many will join an international "jihad" against U.S. & British forces, now that some of the most influential religious authorities advocate such actions? How will this affect the prospects for a quick end of hostilities, or for regional stability?

All of which leads the ABC News analyst to ask:

But there's a thin line between fear & hatred, isn't' there?

In any case, I don't think that the choice can be reduced to either pre-emptively intervening everywhere or "sitting back, waiting."

Actually, let's look at the different strategies we've tried so far in the War on Terrorism:

Our victories over al Qaeda have resulted from international intelligence, police, & collective military actions against a group of marginal extremists condemned & opposed (to date ...) by governments everywhere. Countries ranging from the big European states (Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, etc.) to Muslim majority states (Pakistan, Indonesia, etc.) have contributed to these efforts. And such international efforts have led to the arrest of hundreds of terrorists suspects, including (in Pakistan) 2 key suspects in the 9/11 plot.

By contrast, the pre-emptive "Axis of Evil" strategy seems in practice to involve proliferating enemies everywhere by bullying potential adversaries and allies alike, & then frantically trying to keep all of these new foes from attacking us or from obtaining weapons of mass destruction. At the moment, this strategy seems to have destabilized the Middle East and the Korean peninsula, drove a wedge between the U.S. and some of our closest allies, & provoked a worldwide wave of anti-Americanism unlike anything we've seen since the Vietnam War.

Considered separately, which of these 2 strategies would seem more likely to improve our security?

Following your logic, we should sit back and wait for the next major attack against us. Then we will have the backing of so many more countries in our fight against terrorism.

Guess what? I'm not willing to sit around and wait. And thank God, neither is our President.

MM:


You're presenting this as such a black and white issue, when it is not. Is the only alternative to our present course just sitting around waiting for terrorists to attack? Come on, that's a bit asinine. I think we need to look at this outside of the paradigm of short-term cause and effect - we need to dig a little deeper.

Preventing the operations of terrorists through a massive, global campaign of war may work - in the short term. But as long as we continue to exercise our power so bluntly, as long as we view the Arab oil world merely as a means to resource production, as long as we seek obedience above cooperation, we will be providing the fertile soil of future terror. Is safety now worth global catastrophe in 50 years?

I'm sure many people think that we can't just stop in mid-stream, we would lose face, etc. But we are the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. Why should we care about face? How would our "face" and subsequently our power be curtailed if we just stopped? On the contrary, we could count on entering an era in which America as the sole super-power is welcomed the world over.

We could say, "hey, Bin Laden is a criminal. He should be treated as a criminal and tried at the ICC." Get old-fashioned; let it be known that we will give 5 billion dollars, no strings attached, to the country that coughs him up. At the same time, get our troops out of the Middle East entirely. Place trade sanctions on Israel until the Palestinian situation is resolved to the satisfaction of the UN. Money talks, after all. Take the lead in creating and promoting sound environmental treaties, and the International Criminal Court. As long as our military intervention is restricted to participation in UN peacekeeping missions, we will have nothing to fear from the creation of the ICC.

Of course, this is stuff off the top of my head. I recognize it's not all 100% feasible. But there are other ways to approach this. Think long term, that's the main thing. Will we eliminate more terrorism by crushing nations, or by removing the environment that breeds terrorism? If you want to remove weeds from your garden, and you cut the weeds off at ground level with clippers, you won't solve your weed problem. Sure, the garden will look weed-free, but they'll keep popping up. You've got to attack the roots. If only our politicians were as wise as gardeners!

I don't think anybody would suggest that. The problem is, we invaded a country that could hypothetically do something they've never done and something others are already doing for real. We've picked the least extremist Muslim state to exact our revenge.

Confronting the suppliers and proliferators of WMD, even with force, would have made the world a safer place. But as bad as Saddam is to his people, and as much as he's universally despised, he has little/nothing to do with international terrorism and has never been a supplier of WMD. Sure, he pays Palestinian murderous thugs, but as bad as that is, name me one country in that region that doesn't.

Bush picked the wrong battle. He had the world supporting him and he blew it.

If that were my "logic," I don't think that I would have stated as my opening premise that



The other choice I'm suggesting is not, I repeat not, to "wait," but combatting terrorism through



--much as we've done against al Qaeda. Such a strategy need not be confined to al Qaeda, however. We could use similar strategies to combat other terrorist groups of global reach.

On the other hand, working with allies does require that we be able show the world evidence that the specified group constitutes a real threat. That shouldn't be overwhelmingly difficult, if we have the evidence: other countries know very well what it's like to be the target of terrorism, too; the existence of terrorist groups threatens them, as well.

But, instead of cultivating allies with a common interest in fighting terrorism, the Administration has decided to go out of its way to make new enemies & alienate allies. Recent developments in the Middle East & Korean peninsula suggest that this strategy only multiplies the threats we face & makes other countries less likely to cooperate with us.

I agree with quark in that this is not black/white, nor simple.

But, we didn't get the co-operation of the rest of the world until after 9/11. So sure, we can hunt down Al Qaeda. But you can bet we wont get the same degree of help and support for any other group. The 'they didnt do anything yet' argument will be raised there too. And so, we will either wait for them to attack, or go it alone to take them out pre-emptively.

What makes that 'wait' totally unacceptable is the next could, and probably will be, significantly worse than the last.



If you lay out all the reasons to take out SH now, it's a no-brainer. Maybe no one reason is sufficient, but when you look at the big picture, the time has come.

Maybe to you. Not to many of us.

If you use track records and probabilities as justification take over countries, then we would have to take over most of the world. Saddam isn't the only despot leader in the world and he isn't armed even CLOSE to many others.

So, do we take them all out? How do we do that? Start alphabetically, or go by age? Because there's a boatload of 'em...

Just like learning to walk, you take baby steps first. It's a new world and we need to adapt or be run over. Once our willingness and ability to do something about the evil intentions that have been allowed to fester and grow in this world is made clear a couple things will happen.

We will see a growing number of countries join us in the fight. Nothing breeds success like success. Those who are victims will be more likely to rise up if they know they will be supported, fully supported. We made a huge mistake in the '91 war by not finishing off the brutal regime in Iraq. That mistake was a direct result of the misguided belief that the UN has the solution to the world's troubles. We stopped so as to honor the pre-war agreement to oust Iraq from Kuwait.

There is going to be a new world alliance soon. One led by the US. It won't sit back and tolerate the evil regimes in the world, it will do something about them. I suggest that even more than 'terror recruiters having a field day' will be the growth of those leaders willing to say 'enough'. And it is not coming any too soon.

We can thank God each and every day that He has provided us with the leaders necessary to fight this evil.

MM:



Actually, the message is perceived around the world as something more like:

"We will dictate the terms of the new world order, & all of you peons better get out of our way if you don't want to be run over by our tank treads."



O-Kay .... What do you say we do a little a reality check on this very utopian prediction? Let's review the situation so far:

1) Instead of being welcomed like the U.S. troops who liberated Paris in WW2, U.S. troops in Iraq so far face "stiff resistance" all along the line of their advance toward Baghdad;
2) Millions regularly pour out into the streets across Europe, Asia & (to a lesser extent) the Americas to protest the new Iraq war;
3) Anti-Americanism is on the rise pretty much everywhere;
4) Pro-U.S. politicians in the U.K. & Spain have made themselves overwhelmingly unpopular & are said to be at risk in future elections because of their war stance;
5) NATO is in tatters over the U.S.-French spat & the newer disputes between Germany & Turkey;
6) The CIA says that the war is providng al Qaeda with a "very effective ... recruitment tool";
7) Cairo's Al-Azhar Islamic University ("the oldest ... and most respected institution of religious learning in the Muslim world") has issued a fatwa advising "all Muslims in the world to make jihad against invading American forces" in Iraq;
8) Recent reports indicate that volunteers are filtering into Iraq to form an "Arab army" to carry out just such a jihad.

If Baghdad doesn't fall quickly, if we find ourselves bogged down in a conflcit with an irregular "Arab army" or guerilla groups legitimized by the some of the most prestigious religious authorities in the Islamic world, if we're opposed by public opinion throughout Europe & Asia, & pro-U.S. politicians can't get re-elected ....

... well, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that "new world alliance."

1) Hope nobody thought the Iraqis were all going to just give up in the first week. As for the 'open arms', when your country is being liberated from its own draconian regime you won't be met that way.....in the beginning. Fear still rules. Although the first phase may be happening in Basra as we speak.

2) No big deal. They are just anothe blip on the radar not taken seriously by anyone who matters.

3) Just a natural ebb and flow.

4) That has changed and continues to change every day. And if Tony Blair needs a job he can come here and serve in President Bush's cabinet. They'd make a helluva combo, especially since Blair is quite the liberal.

5) NATO needs to be re-organized. No more cold war Soviet threat.

6) Recruiting is one thing, carrying something off is another.

7) This is actually a good thing. It brings to the public eye what has been going on behind closed doors for decades. Wake up to the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace.

8) Best news you've provided yet. We can thin the herd sooner rather than later.

I think the world should be a bit leery of religious 'leaders' who call for jihads. I'm becoming convinced that mosques might need to be taken off the protected list in time of war.

Musing:


Please, MM, enlighten us with your extensive knowledge of Islam. Show us this isn't your own xenophobia and religious ignorance. Maybe there's a definitive word or two on the Michael Savage website! What do you know about the difference between Islam and Christianity when it comes to the structure of the clerics? The church heirarchy? Have you studied what it takes to be an imam? Who can issue a fatwa? Perhaps you need to "wake up" and study up on Islam a little more.

As far as number eight goes... even if you're joking, it's not funny. And I do hope you're joking.

When religious 'leaders' repeatedly express their mantra, "death to the infidels", how much study is needed? "Death to the Jews, Death to the Americans, Death to the West, Death to the 'infidel'". Sorry quark, I don't need to compare this to Christianity or any other religion. And before you get the wrong idea, I realize that the most radical, and therefore dangerous, element of Islam is in the area of 10%. Which is my point. It is up to the other 90% to stamp out this element. In most cases they dont even speak out let alone stamp out.

And as for item 8, why must that be a joke? If members of that 10% want to come to Iraq and join in the fight, more power to them. We will take them out now, rather than hope we can overcome them at 30,000 feet while they try to turn another plane into a deadly missile.

There is an element in this country that prefers to study a problem to death. Thank God there is an even larger element willing to act. Thank God that element now has the kind of leadership that has marked the best of our nation. By far, the best hook for terrorist recruiters has been a belief that we didn't have the resolve to take them on and defeat them. They are soon to find out that is no longer the case.

1. "Stiff resistance" is a relative thing. Of course there is resistance, its called war. The coalition forces have gone through Iraq like a warm knife through butter. At the moment they are consolidating their supply lines (something that should have been done from the get go) by getting rid of raiders in their rear. There have been reports of Iraqis celebrating the Americans. Of course, they won't do so until victory is in hand.
2. Anti-Americanism is not new. Anti-war demonstrations are not new. Even ANSWER says only hundreds of thousands of protestors worldwide, not millions. Actually, they originally claimed millions, but revised to to be hundreds of thousands. They aren't sure of the numbers, I think claiming 2 million demonstrators in London goes a bit overboard...
3. See #2. Some countries want to gain some measure of respect for "standing up" to the US, not matter whether their position has merit or not.
4. 60% of Brits now support war against Iraq...besides, think about Blair's position all along : The war with Iraq was unpopular with his people. Yet, he joins with a conservative US President (himself being a liberal) to face the common problem. Why do this? Why do something unpopular to help a US president who is just as unpopular in your country? BECAUSE ITS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I applaud Blair for that. Foreign policy cannot be run by pollsters.
5. Disputes in NATO are a spill-over of UN disputes. NATO is a stronger organization than the UN, however, since its members have more in common. The removal of the Soviet threat has weakened NATO resolve somewhat, but remember that it was a NATO sanctioned action in Serbia, not a UN sanctioned one. NATO still has power.
6. I submit that backing down from this confrontation would have been an even MORE effective recruiting tool. Remember OBL calling the US a "paper tiger"? To even suggest that OBL was right invites more terrorist recruits.
7. A religious organization that calls for jihad over Iraq...how quaint. OBL called for the same thing over our "occupation" of Saudi Arabia. It has been stated over and over that Iraq is largely non-reactionary when it comes to religion. This war is not about religion and anyone with any amount of intelligence can discern that...Besides, I have no respect for a religious leader who calls for a "holy war", such a "peaceful" religion that such a highly respected body would do such a thing. I agree with MM that the leadership of many Islamic sects not only condone, but support violence against other religions. This just shows their true stripes. (Not to say that all Muslims are that way, just many in the Middle East).
8. I don't think many will join a losing battle...I can actually give a little more credit to those who oppose war on Arabs. At least Iraq is an Arab country. But I think being the same race as another country doesn't give you much of a bond. Example : Iraq vs Iran, Iraq vs Kuwait.

Keeping this on-topic, let me restate that I think if the US backed down from Iraq, we would have many more terrorists recruited to fight the "paper tiger".

The reason I brought up the comparison is because this is commonly a little-understood area. We tend to assume Islam contains a similar leadership structure to Christianity, because that's what we are familiar with, but it does not. In fact there is no clerical hierarchy. And any Imam can call for a fatwa or a jihad. Islam is in fact structured quite chaotically, when it comes to the church itself. And this may be part of the reason that the 90% you mention don't stand up and crush the 10% radical element.

The only real danger of fundamental Islam is when an Imam or an Ayatollah gain political power. It is only within the constructs of political power that fundamentalist Islam can wield any real power structurally.



I hoped it was a joke because it's about killing people quite casually. There may be times when it is necessary to take human life, but when that time comes we must take it with the seriousness of mind and not dehumanize it. The best soldiers know that killing people is not fun, nor is it to be taken lightly, lest you yourself lose some essential part of your own humanity.

Please be more honest with your choices. As though there were two factions - study to death, and act (a nice euphemism for "kill" by the way - just say what you mean). If we were literally faced with only those two options, I would be supporting this war. Real life is not as simplistic as George Bush seems to think it is.

QH,

Aren't you just proving Musing's point here? There is no overarching structure to Islam—there is no central authority beyond the Koran, and as far as that is concerned, the Koran is open to interpretation by any Muslim. There are few Muslims, Imam or otherwise, who will oppose another Muslim's interpretation, and those who do are open to contradiction themselves. So when Osama Bin Laden decides the Koran instructs him to coordinate the hijacking of planes to fly into buildings and kill 3000 infidels, that's the end of it--no Muslim can authoritatively say he is wrong in his interpretation, and even those who deign to do so haven't any power to back it up. A Christian who goes out and commits a sin is perverting Christianity--acting absolutely counter to it. Can you say the same about a Muslim who takes it upon himself to engage in jihad? He is acting according to his religion--a religion of peace, we are reminded so often. As for fundamental Islam being dangerous only in the context of political power, you'll have to explain that one to me. Osama had money, but political power? John Muhammad had a high-powered rifle and a young accomplice, but political power? I don't think it makes a damned difference whether we're talking about power on an international level, or the power to coordinate the murders of 3000 people--it's dangerous no matter how you slice it. Maybe I'm missing your point there.

I should have been more clear - I was speaking of "dangerous" in the context of the previous paragraph - dangerous in the sense of gaining the power to impose religious statements as law. I didn't mean to imply that individuals acting on fundamentalist ideas could not be dangerous. My poor word choice.

Back on the original topic, our actions in the ME recently are probably going to push many more Muslim nations into the opposing camp. It may be that with our current strategy for fighting terrorists we end up defeating terrorist organizations at the expense of arraying against us full nations and whatever military and political power they wield.

MM writes:

[quote]we didn't get the cooperation of the rest of the world until after 9/11. [/quote]

Cooperation with what? The war on terrorism?

Prior to 9/11, "the rest of the world" needed U.S. cooperation & assistance fighting terrorism much more than the U.S. needed theirs. Countries like the U.K., France, Germany, Spain, Israel, & India were all front-line states in protracted struggles against terror groups, before 9/11. During the same years, the U.S. primarily faced sporadic strikes against overseas facilities and apparently isolated instances of terrorism at home: from the Beirut barracks attacks to the Khobar Towers and African embassy bombings, American thinking about terrorism focused on consulates and soldiers, but persisted in viewing the U.S. itself as "safe"; the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing struck at the "heartland," but Timothy McVeigh did not turn out to be the harbinger of a new right-wing insurgency; the 1993 Trade Center bombing was a harbinger of things to come, but few Americans seemed to realize it at the time.

In any case, I don't see how "the rest of the world" was failing the U.S. on the war against terror; we were the ones who were naive & aloof about the threat of terrorism.

[quote]So sure, we can hunt down Al Qaeda. But you can bet we wont get the same degree of help and support for any other group. The 'they didn't do anything yet' argument will be raised there too. And so, we will either wait for them to attack, or go it alone to take them out preemptively. [/quote]

Current international cooperation against terrorism is not limited to al Qaeda: instead, the focus is upon "terrorist organizations of global reach." The post-9/11 wave of arrests in Europe & Asia have netted numerous militants and plotters who have no demonstrable link to al Qaeda--indeed, suspects' al Qaeda ties are not necessarily what's getting them arrested: intelligence about planned attacks or possession of weapons like ricin are more than enough.

You see, 9/11 sent a message to Europeans and Asians, as well as to Americans. For countries that had experienced longer struggles against terrorist groups on their own soil, 9/11 represented above all an unprecedented escalation of terrorist tactics. The IRA, Algerian GIA, the Red Brigades, ETA, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.--none of them had ever succeeded in causing so much destruction so quickly--& al Qaeda did it without guns or bombs, just using what was to hand.

Even for countries that had fought long struggles against terrorism on their own soil, this represented a wake-up call: the GIA had actually planned to crash hi jacked planes into Paris during the mid-'90s; only the hijackers' relative clumsiness & the rapid reaction of French authorities on the tarmac in Marseilles prevented Paris from experiencing its own 9/11. But al Qaeda's successes in New York & Washington showed that it could actually be done.

MM writes:
[quote]Hope nobody thought the Iraqis were all going to just give up in the first week. As for the 'open arms', when your country is being liberated from its own draconian regime you won't be met that way.....in the beginning. Fear still rules. Although the first phase may be happening in Basra as we speak[/quote] .

I guess that we won't know how the Iraqis really feel until its over (if then), but the message reverberating through the Arab media is that most people in the region just don't believe that we're coming to liberate Iraqis. After all, the promised democratization never came to Kuwait, & we apparently seem quite comfortable with pro-U.S. autocrats there & in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain etc.

Amlord writes:
[quote]The coalition forces have gone through Iraq like a warm knife through butter.[/quote]

Butter doesn't cut back.

... Or launch counter-offensives.

[quote]Even ANSWER says only hundreds of thousands of protestors worldwide, not millions. ... They aren't sure of the numbers, I think claiming 2 million demonstrators in London goes a bit overboard...[/quote]

So, were you counting heads in London?

In any case, the question of whether there millions or hundreds of thousands have demonstrated against this war is largely academic, in light of the polling. Polling demonstrates that these protestors represent a much larger anti-war consensus throughout Asia and continental Europe.

MM:
[quote]No big deal. They are just another blip on the radar not taken seriously by anyone who matters.[/quote]

Most European states are parliamentary democracies, where voters' views do have to be taken seriously, come election time--certainly the views of the majority or any large minority.

& you can be sure that the antiwar majorities mentioned above certainly will be taken seriously by anyone about to run for office in one these countries. Should the war go badly, these political consequences will persist further into the future.

Amlord:
[quote]Some countries want to gain some measure of respect for "standing up" to the US, not matter whether their position has merit or not.[/quote]

Merely begs the question: plenty of people around the world think that the pro-war position lacks "merit"--above all Arabs & Muslims.

[quote]60% of Brits now support war against Iraq...[/quote]

A recent development, as that country "rallies 'round the troops." But I think there's room to question the depth of this support, as the British public remained vehemently opposed to the war until the outbreak of hostilities. If the U.K. begins to sustain casualties in the hundreds, support for the action may again erode as people remember the issues that made them doubt the case for war in the first place.

Regardless of which, every report that I've seen suggests that opposition remains firm in most European & Asian countries--& is reaching potentially explosive proportions in Arab & Muslim countries. Some Americans may not think that these countries "count," but U.S. troops are going to be right in the middle of the Arab world for some months or years to come, &, the way that this is developing, our traditional European & Asian allies are unlikely to commit either blood or treasure to help us out of any mess we get ourselves into, there.

MM:
[quote]And if Tony Blair needs a job he can come here and serve in President Bush's cabinet.[/quote]

Or live in the White House kennel, as the British tabloids might put it ....

Blair & Clinton made a great "team," as well: I wonder whether he ever met a U.S. president he didn't like?

Amlord:
[quote]Foreign policy cannot be run by pollsters.[/quote]

Yes, but successful election campaigns generally are. & they determine who gets the final say over foreign policy until the next election.

MM:
[quote]NATO needs to be re-organized. No more cold war Soviet threat.[/quote]

Or discarded?

Many reports suggest that France seeks to develop the EU into a new Paris-centered bloc, providing a diplomatic & (ultimately) military counterbalance to U.S. power.

At the same time, many European states would also just as soon disentangle themselves from their NATO obligations to Turkey (particularly Turkey's traditional foe, Greece, as well as an increasingly Turk-o-phobic Germany). This would naturally be a prelude to finally rejecting Turkey's petition to join the EU, which few if any EU states seem to welcome.

Amlord:
[quote]Disputes in NATO are a spill-over of UN disputes. [/quote]

MM would appear to disagree with you, viewing NATO (at least as presently organized) as a cold-war relic.

[quote]The removal of the Soviet threat has weakened NATO resolve somewhat, but remember that it was a NATO sanctioned action in Serbia, not a UN sanctioned one. [/quote]

Which comprises the main reason why I hope that struggles among the U.S., U.K., France, Germany, Belgium, & Turkey don't tear the alliance to pieces.

[quote]NATO still has power.[/quote]

But does it? NATO members could just barely cobble together a kind of working consensus on Bosnia after years of slaughter, & went through a similar internal struggle over Kosovo, a few years later. The U.S. pointedly refused offers of NATO help in Afghanistan. & now Germany & Belgium are involved in a dispute with Turkey over their treaty obligation to defend that country from potential Iraqi SCUD missile strikes or Iraqi Kurdish incursions.

MM:
[quote]Recruiting is one thing, carrying something off is another. [/quote]

Yes, & al Qaeda has such an unimpressive track record of killing people & causing mayhem ...

... Even if bin Laden's network were terribly incompetent or terribly disorganized, however, this formula still works in their favor: the more suicide bombers, the more likely a "successful"--i.e., really damaging--hit.

Amlord:
[quote]I submit that backing down from this confrontation would have been an even MORE effective recruiting tool. [/quote]

What fuels hatred bin Laden's hatred of the U.S.? That we're a weak target ... & they just want to destroy something ...? Or is it rather that we have repeatedly meddled in the Arab & Muslim worlds, confronted & defeated Arab states, & left them just generally frustrated & humiliated?

Al Qaeda's list of grievances against the U.S. are all about confrontation & power: They resent the fact that we sent a massive military force halfway around the world in 1990-1991 & used it to humiliate a feared Arab army; that we pressured the Saudis into letting us base an "infidel" army too close to Mecca & Medina; that we supply weapons to the loathed state of Israel, the enemy that Islamist & Arabist militants have never been able to defeat; & that we've now sent another vast "infidel" army around the world to impose our will on an Arab/Muslim country.

Bin Laden's not a bank-robber looking for an easy mark; by all accounts, he sees himself as a crafty David intent on bringing down Goliath with the equivalent of a slingshot. Like many other Islamic militants who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan, bin Laden gives their movement credit not only for driving the Red Army out of that country, but for the U.S.S.R.'s eventual collapse. Bin Laden has repeatedly cited the Afghan example to encourage resistance against the remaining superpower. He & his group have a very high opinion of what fearless, ruthless people can do with irregular methods (& you have to give them a kind of hellish credit for the mayhem they inflicted on 9/11). Islamist rhetoric of a superpower "paper tiger" should be viewed in this light: as egging on the troops, telling them they can really "do it"--win against the odds.

[quote]Wake up to the fact that Islam is not a religion of peace[/quote] .

Can you name one major religion on the face of the earth, one religion that's survived for more than a couple of centuries, that has not been used as a justification for violence?

Amlord:
[quote]I'm becoming convinced that mosques might need to be taken off the protected list in time of war.[/quote]

MM:
[quote]We can thin the herd sooner rather than later. [/quote]

I can see why the problems posed by al Qaeda and by Hussein's Iraq tend to blur together for you guys.

Amlord:
[quote]being the same race as another country doesn't give you much of a bond. Example : Iraq vs Iran ...[/quote]

what exactly do you mean by "race"? & what is that ethnically Arab Iraqis & ethnically Persian Iranians have in common "racially"?

Amlord:
[quote]We will take them out now, rather than hope we can overcome them at 30,000 feet while they try to turn another plane into a deadly missile.[/quote]

How many of "them" do you suppose there are or will be in the future? When will we know that all of "them" have finally been "taken out"? What if there's always a son, a younger brother, or a sister for that matter, looking to avenge the fallen loved one? When does it stop?

... & what makes you think that we will have the option choosing between an overseas & a domestic battlefield?

MM:
[quote]I realize that the most radical, and therefore dangerous, element of Islam is in the area of 10%. Which is my point. It is up to the other 90% to stamp out this element. In most cases they don't even speak out let alone stamp out. [/quote]

What you don't seem to appreciate is that images of foreign invaders & dead babies tend to radicalize moderates. & this is happening, right now: leaders who once condemned bin Laden are reacting to the carnage they're seeing on the Arab satellite channels (& that Americans are by & large not seeing) by calling on Muslims everywhere to "defend the Iraqi people"--not from Hussein, but from a non-Muslim invader whose intentions they simply do not trust.

The great irony of all of this is that the marginal, extremist Osama bin Laden dreamed that someday all of Islam would unify around a holy war against the West. Two years ago, the venerable old Islamic institutions of Egypt & Arabia were having nothing of it. But the spectacle of a Muslim country invaded by a non-Muslim force has changed everything, prompting Imams who dismiss bin Laden as a bloodthirsty charlatan to now issue their own fatwas against U.S. troops.

Incredibly, U.S. actions seem to be fulfilling bin Laden's dream, pulling the Islamic mainstream toward a wider confrontation.--But isn't this the polar opposite of what we needed to do?

Amlord:
[quote]There is an element in this country that prefers to study a problem to death. Thank God there is an even larger element willing to act.[/quote]

Well, all I can say is that you should really groove on the words of two other can-do, action-oriented guys who faced similar moments of crisis:

[quote]"Why are the intellectuals always on the other side?"[/quote]
- A French colonial officer, at the height of the Battle of Algiers.

[quote]"Death to the intellectuals!  Long live death!" [/quote]
- A Spanish fascist general at the onset of the Spanish Civil War.

saavedra77,

I believe that the post-war handling of Iraq will be the determining factor. We will eventually win the war itself, but what that means for the Iraqis' future will be the key not only to 'recruiting efforts', but to the overall chance for peace in the ME.

I lean towards going back to the UN for the rebuilding. I would look for a plan that required participation in a peacekeeping force in order to partake in the rebuilding. I would even want, especially want, France to participate.

Nice reply, Saavedra, even though you messed up who said what in some spots...



Neither do Iraqis...



The "Arab" media...bastion of truth... Jihad TV
US blasts Al-Jazeera for airing tape



Exactly my point. Let him lead, and let the voters decide whether or not to re-elect him.



Time Magazine explains bin Laden

On the NATO point, I believe defense pacts are more viable than an organization like the UN. In NATO, there is a common goal (defense) and no broad reaching social goals (which may or may not be shared by individual member nations).



You offer a REASON for France to oppose the US in the UN which has nothing to do with being against military action or pro-Iraqi people (or whatever France claims its motivations were). You actually support my position, France was acting purely to oppose the US's will. On a side note, the EU's treatment of Turkey has impacted its relations with the US over troop deployment.



Can you name another that, in the 20th century, has used religion as a motivation to attack people of differing religions on a global scale? Islam is not a "New" religion, it is over 1000 years old.



By moving pro-actively WE choose the battlefield by definition. Speculation about what could happen in the future is almost futile. You (and I) make assumptions and plan the outcome based on those assumptions. But what if the assumptions are wrong? What if bin Laden's capture (or death) curtails the fundamentalist mindset? What if a liberated Iraq becomes a positive pro-Western influence on the Middle East? What if Egypt and Iran and Saudi Arabia decide to take up jihad against the US?

Believe what you will, but people respect strength. People are far less likely to attack a strong and vigilant target. Pre 9/11, the US was strong, but not vigilant. Now, we are stronger and much more aware of the dangers posed by radical Islam.



Again, you make my point. 9/11 was an escalation. For the first time, we realized what a danger these people pose. Then we went one step further in our thinking: what is the worst possible scenario? These same terrorists armed with WMDs. They don't care who they kill or if they die themselves, as long as they send a message.

Well, guess what? It backfired, because now the US is finally a little bit frightened about what might happen. We know where the threat comes from, only not exactly where it is. So, we set out to root out these scum and deal with them and their sponsoring regimes before more death comes to us.

Iraq is a first step towards creating a safer world. And if you don't (or won't) believe that Saddam is the type of guy who would help create death and destruction in the US, I wonder who you do think would do such a thing. Even with no evidence that Saddam is linked to Al-Qaeda, he has the WEAPONS and knowledge and, more importantly, he has the mindset to escalate the terrorist threat.

Just after 9/11, President Bush promised to deal with regimes that sponsor, house, or give support to the terrorists. This war in Iraq is showing those same regimes that he was serious when he said that.

Religious extremists operate in the name of Christianity as well. I suppose you have heard of the KKK. I would be appalled if I was connected with the ideas of the KKK because I was a Christian. Equating the religion of Islam with Al-Qaeda is a similar mistake and insult. It is this type of attitude toward the Muslim world, which is not going anywhere anytime soon, that will worsen our situation.



This is a great question. Because we can only speculate about what may come, going to war with Iraq "pro-actively" to choose a battlefield and justify our aggression with this line of reasoning will be interpreted as war-mongering by many people around the world.

This preemptive strike logic can lead us easily in the wrong direction and is a very dangerous precedent to set.



Saddam Hussein has been in power a long time. He has a demonstrated history of action and a motive against the United States for getting involved in his preemptive strike against Kuwait in the Gulf War. He has had WMDs for a long time. He runs a secular government that has gone to war against the world's most powerful fundamentalist state to prove his antagonism to that type of government. He is a power hungry person who hopes to die as the leader of Iraq, he has no incentive to invite his demise by sponsoring terrorism against the United States. What evidence do you see about his mindset that has led you to conclude that he wishes to sponsor attacks on American civilians?

By this mindset we will need to go to war in Somalia, Iran, North Korea, perhaps Indonesia, maybe Pakistan, Syria, Libya, and perhaps Algeria. Does this seem like a good path to take?

Interesting, Eeyore. Is jihad not the duty of a good Muslim, as stated in the Koran? I am having some difficulty finding a corresponding passage in the New Testament of the Bible--you know, the part where Jesus exhorts his followers to kill all infidels. Nor can I find in the Christian bible a passage where the notion of white supremacy is advanced, so I'm not sure how you make the leap from Christianity to the KKK. Is it your contention that Klansmen are acting in accordance with the precepts of Christianity? But a Muslim who engages in jihad—is he not doing what the Koran tells him to do? And since the Koran is the only authority in Islam, and each Muslim's interpretation is as valid as any other's, can anyone—you or me or President Bush or Osama Bin Laden—authoritatively tell another Muslim that his interpretation is wrong?

This does not seem to be an educated response to Islam. Do you have verses of the Koran that say that it is the duty of all Muslims to kill infidels? The Muslim religious leaders I have heard speak all denounce this type of call for jihad. Is the World Trade Center bombing called for in the Koran?

Just because radical religious leaders endorse violence this does not make Islam a violent faith. They lived in relative peace ruling over empires that treated other people of the book (Jews and Chrsitians from which Islam is a descendent religion just like Christianity grew out of the religious traditions of Judaisn) relatively well. So much so that Jewish, Christian, Orthodox, and Muslim populations intermixed thoroughly in southeastern Europe. Only after an Islamic government withdrew did that region create World War I and later the devastation of the ethnic/religious cleansing in former Yugoslavia. While these empires were in the works, Catholic popes launched crusades in the name of the Bible to liberate holy lands and promised the warriors a place in heaven.

The connection between the KKK and Christianity is real. The KKK called for a return to moral purity and a maintenance of racial purity. But they were profoundly fundamentalist in their religious views and they were a big force in the push for blue laws and prohibition in their political heyday from 1915 to 1026 or so. (Heck, President Harding had leaders on an official visit to the white house)


According to your logic we are still all KKK members in Christiandom because the baptist faith does not have an ultimate authority either and their fundamentalism was used to perpetuate hate crimes.

Well that's just plain wrong. Look what I found right on CNN'S Iraq page:


Your article on Bin Laden is misleading too. It doesn't explain Bin Laden's motives on bit; nor those of Al Queda. It merely offers insight into his use of language to inflame anti-western sentiments.



I don't suppose anyone here has READ the Qauran? Because this is just plain misleading. Here is an explanation of Jihad that I found at this Site. According to my Islamic friends it is highly accurate:



On the relevance of war in jihad...

Eeyore,

Since you asked, sure, I have verses of the Koran that call for Muslims to kill infidels:

"Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have been given [Christians and Jews] as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid not that which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess not the profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand and they be humbled. Quran 9:29"

Bukhari 1.427: "May Allah curse the Jews and Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of the prophets." [Muhammad had been poisoned years earlier and the poison had slowly worked its effect. He said this while dying in the arms of his wife Aisha]." This is from a hadith, not the Koran.

And this, from an Islamic book of jurisprudence,
RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELER, PAGE 599:

"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word "mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion. And it is the lesser jihad. As for the great jihad, it is spiritual warfare against the lower self, (nafs), which is why the Prophet said as he was returning from jihad.

The scriptural basis for jihad, prior to scholarly consensus is such Koranic verses as:
1) Fighting is prescribed for you (2:216)
2) Slay them wherever you find them (4:89)
3) Fight the idolaters utterly (9:36)

and such Hadiths as the one related by Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet said:

"I have been commanded to fight people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and perform the prayer, and pay zakat. If they say it, they have saved their blood and possessions from me, except for the rights of Islam over them. And their final reckoning is with Allah."

Re: Ultimate Joe's understanding of "jihad." Literally translated as "striving," in practical application it means the spreading of Islam through warfare. The literal translation is subjugated entirely by the practice.

Islam has traditionally been spread by the sword. The idea that Islam and Judaism and Christianity were all pals back in the day is woefully ignorant. Alexandria and Istanbul (as the song says, it was Constantinople) were Christian cities before they were conquered by the Muslims. They enforced slavery, and they slaughtered anyone who refused to convert to Islam (and who refused to pay tribute—at least they were making money out of this), as the Koran told them to. There is no call for mercy in the Koran, and there is no time indicated when Muslims will lay down their arms. They will keep fighting—the jihad will continue—until all have been either converted to Islam or killed. Which is all the more bizarre, since the greatest killer of Muslims have been other Muslims. How many Muslim Kurds did Saddam Hussein kill? But I digress. You speak of the Crusades, but how far had the Muslim hordes invaded Western Europe at the time of the crusades? They had advanced as far as Southern France. And as reprehensible as some of the acts committed during the crusades were, they have been recognized as such. The Church is regretful. Is the Islamic world? The answer is no, they are not, because according to Islam, they did nothing wrong—they were true to the Koran. While Christianity has progressed, Islam is mired in the 9th Century, as they will remain: the Koran is the literal word of Allah, true for all time. It is incompatible with the modern world. A comprehensive reevaluation of the religion might pave the way for some changes--Salmon Rushdie proposed as much in his book "The Satanic Verses." Do you recall what happened to him?

You still miss the point with the KKK. Christianity decries the fundamental precepts of the Klan. Islam does not decry the fundamental precepts of Al Qaeda, and in fact supports it: namely, the elimination of infidels. You act as though since Mohammed didn't mention flying airplanes into the WTC in the Koran, he's off the hook, which is either silly or intentionally obtuse, take your pick. Osama did what the Koran said to do.

OBL's Fatwah calling for Jihad against Americans

I don't think Osama is calling for a change of heart, or an inner struggle.

Just because a word has a dictionary definition does not mean that that is what the word means in practice.

Jihad, as used today, means holy war, especially holy war against infidels (namely Westerners and the US). Maybe Daniel Webster needs to consult with some modern examples.

(As a side example, the word discrimination means "the ability to tell the difference between two things". In modern context, of course, it means something quite different).



Sorry for the aside...back to the point...

According to OBL (who, I assume HAS read the Quran):



and


His Fatwa:


OBL is clearly using his religion to call for war against the US. He must have some religious authority to issue a fatwa. I never heard major Islamic leader denounce his authority or his conclusions. Actually, I take that back...I have heard AMERICAN Islamic leaders saying that Islam is a religion of peace...etc. etc. etc. I don't recall Arabic Islamic leaders doing the same...

This debate has taken a wrong turn into religion. GWB has never used religion as a basis for his arguments. The KKK angle...I don't see how that relevant today...They are universally denounced by religious leaders, unlike radical Islamic clerics.

GWB has never used religion? Are you kidding? His presidency is steeped in the language of religion.

He has stated his personal beliefs.

He has never stated something to the effect of : "We, as a Christian nation, must confront the evils of Islam wherever and whenever we find it"

GWB does wear his beliefs on his sleeve, he doesn't hide them. I actually applaud him for this, at least people know where he is coming from. He has never stated that other religions are wrong, or evil. He never even made that inference. Is that what you are insinuating?

No. What in my post could possibly compel you to think that? I said he uses the language of religion, much like OBL does.

That comparison is totally lacking in merit. I'd like to see some examples.

The Bush/religion/policy thread is here President Bush's Motivation.

THIS thread is to debate whether or not the war in Iraq will spawn more terrorist attacks.

OK, back to the subject....

Assuming this war does increase recruiting...when do you feel that this "new wave" of terrorists will be ready to strike?

Planning for certain types of attacks takes awhile (WTC, bombing military targets...), while others (strapping a bomb onto yourself) do not...

My question is...why haven't we seen a single instance of a Palestinean-type homocide bomber in the US?

Seeing as there has been in increase in terrorist activity in Iraq, i thought it would be prudent to bring this thread back into action

I think that Terrorist Recruiters are having a field day because they try to spin the reasons or make up their own news and propaganda to encourage young naive muslim men to become terrorists and fight American troops in Iraq

They will say the UN is in Iraq to help the Americans conquer Iraq, so they tell them to bomb the UN building and the young muslim man will do it because the lies have been burned into his brain

oh yes, lets bomb the world, kill everybody that will narrow the chances of a terrorist attack.

The reason these people hate us so much is because they think they are right and we are wrong. If you fight back and be aggresive all it will do is provoke more hate and anger.

Like Ghandi said 'an eye for an eye makes the world blind'

Welcome rocalie. In case you didn't notice, you are addressing a banned member. Don't expect a response.

We can't just sit on our hands and do nothing either, yes, I think we are safer, terrorist cells are on the run, and their operations have been disrupted.

CP

I'm sure the UN would have to disagree with that. If that were the case, then the big insurgance of terrorists in Iraq, taking pop shots at our soldiers as unorganized, is pretty odd.

Not in Iraq. Whatever else you can say about SH and the baathists they were death on fundi Muslim terrorists. Now we have opened up the door and they are pouring in. They were probably responsible for that cement truck bomb that took out the UN building in Baghdad.