We have all heard the 2003 State of the Union address where he said that Saddam Hussein tried to get uranium from Africa. As it turns out, it was simply not a true and accurate statement. The subject of Weapons of Mass Destruction has pretty much been exhausted on here and the only reasonable conclusion that can be reached is that they did not exist, in any serious quantity in Iraq, to justify an invasion. I just want to get to the bottom of this, is the war in Iraq a part of the Global War on Terrorism or are we simply victims of a political propaganda bait and switch.

Let's assume that our intelligence people who could have stopped 911 but failed. Let us further assume that we could have done no better. I see no reason to think that action in Afghanistan was wrong, if anything we should have went in with more troops and force but lets assume, for the sake of argument, that we did everything we could in Afghanistan that was possible to destroy terrorism.

The question then becomes, why do we invade Iraq as a part of the Global War on Terrorism. An interview with George Tenat on NPR has me wondering if WMD speeches were propaganda, Bush had a larger ideological view that he could transform the Middle East by regime change. Terry Gross asked the question that was burning in my mind, 'Should we have invaded Iraq as a part of the War on Terror'? Tenet beats around the bush and she asks the question, 'Did the intelligence tell you that that was the sensible thing to do?'. Bottom line, it was a policy decision.

George Tenet on Life 'At the Center of the Storm' on NPR

I realize that the Middle East is a hotbed of terrorism and terrorists from the Middle East is a huge problem. The question that is giving me fits is simply this:

Question for Debate:

Was the invasion of Iraq essential, or even important, to the Global War on Terrorism?

Just one follow up question since I am aware that another view out there.

Was the invasion of Iraq detrimental to the Global War on Terrorism?

Just for the sake of argument I am prepared to take the positive position for the invasion of Iraq as a part of the Global War on Terrorism. I'm not 100% confident but still prepared to offer an opposing view for those who are able and eager to argue against it.

This is the “current” belief but certainly was not at the time of the invasion – and we were concerned with real WMD primarily NOT yellow cake from Niger.


The war may not have been part of the Global War on Terrorism in 2003 but it became the front as al Qaeda moved there in force to oppose us. Given that they have never had infinite forces they must have redirected forces we would have faced in Afghanistan to Iraq.

Over and above all this was the fact that Iraq was in 2001-early 2002 an open international wound. We were getting shot at daily, there were no inspectors there and the UN was not doing anything to resolve the stand off.

Was the invasion of Iraq essential, or even important, to the Global War on Terrorism?

The invassion of Iraq has been a mission that--in its original intent--had less to do ideologically with Islamic terrorism and more to do with its means. Hence the WMD rationale and the fears of what its unchecked proliferation could do (Though that was but one justification, its lack of legitimacy or evidence did not somehow invalidate Iraq threatening its neighbors, violating no-fly zone enforcement, flouting numerous UN orders or harboring terrorists like the Abu Nidal organization and later Abu Musab al-Zarqawi the Jordanian national who led the insurgency prior to his death). Aside from this, it is no small secret that Saddam Hussein financially compensated Palistinian suicide bombers' families in both the West Bank and Gaza, so his association with terrorism was no fevered neocon fantasy. Was it essential? It depends upon one's view of re-defining the terrorists' world.

A free and stable Iraq would spell trouble for all of its neigboring regimes (namely Iran, Syria, and to a lesser extent Saudi Arabia). In that regard, Iraq is not only important but essential. Saddam and the Ba'ath were an artificial mask over both sides of Islam's--Sunni and Shia--radicalism and with the removal of that mask and a lack of a civil society to replace the dictatorial Pan-Arab nationalism that had dominated Iraqi life for two generations, radicalism came into the fold almost at the outset of the Iraq War. What we have come to realize in hindsight is the greater problem will most likely come from Iranian backed Shia groups, like the Badr brigades or Sadr militias, not the Wahhabist al-Qaeda (Though it is important to remember al-Qaeda still remains active in the north, it is being actively rejected by the indigenous Sunni tribes "Awakening Councils" and the Sons of Iraq).

It is this disconnect that defines debates like these. I must note that this all something of a moot question and has a sort of 2003-2004 question to it, the kind one might find in a Bob Woodward book. In so long as groups like AQI, Ansar Al-Sunnah, the Quds forces and a host of other smaller groups operate in Iraq our center of gravity must remain there. I tend to think one can answer whether Iraq is now important to the War on Terror is questioning the results of our leaving and under what conditions. For me it has never been a qustion of if, but when. I only would ask we not do so for the wrong reasons.

When you say "we," who are you referring to? Do you include the Bush administration in that "we"? Because they knew - before, during, and after the invasion - that they were blowing smoke up our rear ends to sell America on their war. The American people were obviously clueless. All "we" knew was what we were being told.

------------------------------------



If Iraq was the only place that had terrorist organizations, and you could conceivably round up most of your troubles within Iraq's borders, I might be inclined to keep fighting. But there are lots of countries where terrorists operate, too many countries to be invading and imposing our will on. And I wonder if our mere presence in Iraq does not exacerbate the problem(s). Maybe it's time for another approach.

I think of the Iraq War in terms of a man that has been shot with an arrow - some people would say to leave it in place so you don't do any more damage, and some would say to get it out. My instinct would be to get it out ASAP, because I can't see living with that arrow sticking out of my side forever.

After 911 the Bush administration was immediately focused on Iraq, one of the first things he asked Centcom was if Iraq was involved. The distinct impression I got from George Tenet was there was entirely too much he didn't know. It's a known fact that Iraq was very close to getting a nuke before the Persian Gulf War and had stock piled WMDs and Saddam was doing everything he could to make the world think he had them.



I was wondering if anyone was going to bring that up but the case could be made that there was no terrorism problem prior to 2003 in Iraq.



It had been a major headache since the Persian Gulf War, even Clinton ordered air strikes over a stand off with Saddam Hussein. I just have a hard time believing that not invading was an option because everyone in the Bush administration was resolved to go through with it. Bush took a considerable amount of political capitol from 911 and pushed this WMD angle and it was an embarrassment later. I just have a hard time believing regime change was the only answer and I'm still up in the air about this being about terrorism.

Heck! Cheney even said on Meet the Press that they would have done the exact same thing regardless of the intel:

Cheney: WMD or not, Iraq invasion was correct

Absolute unsupported nonsense as I have posted to numerous times – and this is the reason liberals fall back on the very minor Niger “yellow cake” issue. Because it is the only issue that can be even slightly disputed. EVERY intel agency in the world including the CIA said Saddam retained WMD and was dangerous. Add to this every inspector who was ever in Iraq. Forget what Bush said. Look at the evidence. Then post something to prove your point.

I tend to agree but lets remember Bill bombed and then bailed on Iraq saying they were a dangerous menace with WMD – but did nothing for the balance of his term. He left the mess for Bush who after 9/11 felt he needed to deal with it.

I agree with those who say he should have waited and, like his dad, pushed the UN to get off the dime and deal with Saddam and the 29 unfulfilled Resolutions

Was the invasion of Iraq essential, or even important, to the Global War on Terrorism?


Of course not- quick, show of hands- how many Iraqis were in on 9/11? Oops. that would be none. How large an organizational support system did Iraq have with Al-Quaida prior to our invasion? Oops, none. How strong were the ties, financial, organizational or really, in any way, did Iran have in Iraq prior to our invasion? Oops, none or next to none. How many Iraqi terrorists were operating out of Iraq? Again, none. How many terrorist groups were operating out of Iraq, and how many had harmed Americans outside it's borders? Ooops, again, none. In other words, we created a terrorist network were none had existed before. Ooo, those neo-cons are so smart!

Lets see- we traded one evil dicatator with a real hate-on for Iran (our enemy, IIRC ) with no proven concrete ties to "terrorists" outside payments for suicide bombers in Israel. Of course, Saudis give FAR FAR FAR more to those same groups- but hey, who cares, Saudis are our "allies"

And now we have an evil theocratic regime with super close ties with Iran- in fact, all the factions in Iraq, except for the Kurds, are former servants of Iran, including Maliki's goverment- who was a wholly owned subsiderary of the Qods force- a force we have determined are exporters of terrorism.

Oh yeah, the war in Iraq is essential to the war on terrorism- if our goal is to make more of it, and in droves.

Lets see- nearly a million dead Iraqis due to our invasion, and over 7 million refugees, that had to run to very nice places like Syria or Jordan- real vacation resorts I have to say - yeah, those folks LOVE US now. Would never get so desperate as to strap a bomb to thier body and blow a US servicemen up for his troubles of "liberating" them from thier families, businesses and homes.

Genius strategy, I am so upset at Bill Clinton for not adopting this brilliant plan earlier.

I am starting to suspect that when Ted says liberal- he really means "those darned people that are always right about everything and make neo-conservatives look stupid, though they don't seem to need much help most of the time"

Was the invasion of Iraq detrimental to the Global War on Terrorism?


Well, it hasn't been detrimental to Haliburton or Blackwater. But otherwise, it has been a textbook operation of how to take one evil dictator with a fairly stable check in power right in the middle OF the ME and make it horribly unstable population of newly radicalized potential terrorists, with lots of desperation and a very, very good reason to hate us and try to do us harm. Not to mention, to now shift what was a balance against Iran into a direct ally of Iran, if not a vassal state in the future.

It is beyond detrimental- it was the single most succesful item on the OBL "wish list" for a poster for creating new terrorists and destabilizing an already unstable area.

Good job Neo-Cons- you never know when a fella wants to get a Blackwater or Haliburton job- too bad it has killed and injured tens of thousands of American GIs for not a damn thing. Oh, and has made Al-Quaida worldwide Inc stronger than ever, with great news items for creating new recruits.

Also- I think America was tired of being seen as a moral force for good- it is much better now that we are seen more dangerous than Kim Il-Jong and just as evil as a force in the world as Saddam.

Nothing like destroying ones military and global reputation and killing one's own soldiers for no good reason to make one feel good about one's country these days- eh?

Ted, we've been going back and forth on this since I came to AD, and I suspect that you have been making the same argument since well before then. But since that time, people continue to pile up behind my claims, while people are abandoning your position. The smoke is finally starting to clear, Ted. Pull your head out of the sand, and you will find you are one of the last ostriches around still buying the Bush story.

From the AP (not the White House press secretary)

Senate Intel Committee. Bipartisan. And this time, some Republicans broke rank and came to terms with the obvious truth.

Germany's intel gave us Curveball - but they also warned us that he was crazy. Yet the Bush team chose to follow his baloney blindly, because it dovetailed nicely with their baloney. (Either that, or they were incredibly incompetent in vetting the guy - you choose.) If you want to keep pointing to all of these other intel agencies backing us up, explain why nobody but Britain joined us in this noble venture.

John, "Tell all" money makers aside the issue is not did Bush push his view but what independent support for that view existed at the time. And as I have shown there was overwhelming agreement even from Dems like Dodd, Hillary and Rockefeller.

If you want to re write history to your liking – feel free but don’t ask me to buy it. This in not the Network News here where you can just say something and we all nod.

If you want to back up your position – feel free and I will respond. If not then we have lilttle to “debate” do we.

Read this one:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2005/swirsky120305.htm

Was the invasion of Iraq essential, or even important, to the Global War on Terrorism?
No and no.

Was the invasion of Iraq detrimental to the Global War on Terrorism?
Yes.

We've wasted professional man hours on twisted tribunals JAGs don't want to take, captured, detained and probably tortured people who were guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. We forget AQ wasn't in Iraq before our invasion and take credit for running them out instead of crediting the people responsible for this "success": native Sunnis. Petraeus claims the biggest terrorist threat comes from South Asia and while it looks like we didn't have to whack-a-mole in Iraq last year it decided to pop up in Afghanistan.

On the bright side it is a campaign year and we'll be treated to another dog and pony show. To keep fighting them over there so we don't fight them over here the administration is blackmailing Maliki to agree with a new UN mandate extending our military precense past Bush's term by withholding billions of Iraq money in the Federal Reserve Bank:


Don't get me wrong. Iraq's government is totally sovereign and my highlighting sections of this article in no way suggests that Americans who support this imperial tour don't mind the fact that a Middle East government we're defending is playing footsie with Iranians.

Interesting spin in the article. In reality, one of the reasons Iraq won't sign the proposed SOFA is likely this reason. The Development Fund for Iraq (established by UNSCR 1483) holds billions of dollars of revenue from oil exports and assets seized from Saddam Hussein. Under the current arrangement, renewed yearly, the DFI is immune from claims made by creditors or others with legal claims against Saddam's regime. If the UNSCR goes away, so does the immunity and the money is at risk. We don't have claim to it, and we cannot protect it if the UNSCR isn't renewed. WE probably wouldn't touch it (just guessing...but I find it, in a word, unlikely that we would use Iraq's reconstruction funds to sue them and lay claim after the billions we've spent on Iraq reconstruction projects), but there are plenty of others who might. So the new agreement we're trying to get them to sign would open them up to potential litigation (outside the US anyway) rather than the contrary. Their best course, I think, would be to just re-up the UNSCR another year rather than signing anything new and try to sort out the DFI mess in the meantime.

Otherwise, I agree with most of what you said above:

Was the invasion of Iraq essential, or even important, to the Global War on Terrorism?
No and no. It has now become a part of the WOT obviously, but needlessly. A total waste of resources and catastrophically bad move.

Was the invasion of Iraq detrimental to the Global War on Terrorism?
Yes.

You could really take it a step further and call it a 'war FOR terrorism" since it certainly increased the risk from and recruitment for terrorist orgs worldwide.

It is almost like the USA WANTED more terrorism with this one!

I've been trying to prepare a response to some of the posts in the thread but I can't get past this article. I now have a cascade of links including a docudrama that describes Saddam Hussein as a Weapon of Mass Destruction Iraqi Truth Project. They claim that the Hussein regime was responsible for the death of 1,300,000 innocents. What this man did to the Kurds was unspeakable, I always knew he had committed atrocities but I had no idea just how many people he had butchered. Salman Pak was a terrorist camp sponsored by Saddam Hussein and the Baathist party. Clearly he sponsored suicide bombers in Palestine and a Federal Judge found a connection between Iraq and Osama Bin Laden, just enough of one to order a 104 million dollars in damages to the families of George Smith and Timothy Soulas in a civil suit.

I haven't made up my mind yet because it's no secret that state sponsored terrorism is a fact of life in the Middle East. The only thing that makes me hesitate to call Hussein a terrorist is simply how the term is generally used. They are generally recruited by political failures who use them to influence political decisions through bloodshed and destruction aimed primarily at commercial and military targets. This guy was worse then a terrorist and he reminds me a lot of Stalin, who by the way, was someone Saddam admired.

We are at war with terrorism and while considering the sacrifice of so many in the U.S. Military I have to wonder at times if they are fighting in vain. I remember the criticisms of George Bush seniors decision not to depose Saddam Hussein at the end of the Persian Gulf War. Clinton was criticized endlessly for ineffective strategy in Bosnia and the terrorist attacks on the USS Kole and the embassies in Africa and of course in dealing with Hussein and Bin Laden. Now the Bush administration is facing sever criticism and extraordinarily unpopular opinion polls for their handling of the Iraqi Enduring Freedom campaign.

I'm not prepared just yet to defend this policy decision but I can tell you this. I think Iraq is a crucial tactical objective in the Global War on Terrorism and I have seen very little reason to doubt that.

Was the invasion of Iraq essential, or even important, to the Global War on Terrorism?

What 'war'?

How can you fight a war that was never declared against a tactic? None of this makes any sense. Terrorism isn't a place or a person or even a group of people. Its a method of doing things, a tactic, a question of style. Asking this question is like asking whether or not the USA is waging a war on fashion, or weather forecasting, or dancing the Tango.


Was the invasion of Iraq detrimental to the Global War on Terrorism?

The invasion of Iraq was detrimental to many things, but I think if you look at it with an open mind, you'll find there have been plenty of advantages too. Its just a question of perspective and who you think you are.

The trouble with Iraq is, the post modern world does't like war, so we tend to take a very negative perspective of anything called war, even when the name is nothing but a symbolic exersize in futile manipulation. The fact is, there is no war, there is a lot of western soldiers being told to defeat an enemy whilst not murdering any one, but thats a long war from 'war', especially given the historical understanding of what war is, an understanding still adhered to by that part of Planet Earth which doesn't fall into the post modern catagory.

For most of human history, real war would have seen Iraq reduced to a burning wasteland, women and children would have been massacred or enslaved, any resistance would have been met with wide scale punitive measures. If this were real war, war as practiced by people unafraid of killing other people, then Iraq would merely be a foot note in a wider campaign which would have seen Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Pakistan all destroyed/colonised/ethnically cleansed.

Instead, what we have is a multi national force of professional soldiers, none of whom were raised by a society that didn't regard killing people as essentially immoral, parading around a part of the world where cutting off heads and suicide bombing is business as usual, exposing our deep seated horror of warfare for all our enemies to examine and take notice of.

Yes, we can be 'brutal'. We can bring overwhelming fire power to bear, drop 500 Ib JDAM's on people, spray enemy positions with machine gun fire, kill everyting that moves... and then afterwards cry about it, suffer mental breakdowns and resort to suicide to end the sense of guilt.

There are advantages to invading Iraq, a lot of them. We're just to soft to exploit them.


edited to add

Yes, thats entirely possible. Iraq might have been a ploy to flush out the Islamic terrorists, and in that case it has succeeded to some degree. Its kind of like luring an animal from its lair with the prospect of carrion.

You see. Its not hard to find advantages if you look hard enough and have the willingness to see and act upon them.

Was the invasion of Iraq essential, or even important, to the Global War on Terrorism?

No. Absolutely not. Iraq was a politically driven sideshow that drew our attention and our resources away from Afghanistan, and other fronts such as the Philippines. Citing the presence of AQI now, does not justify the occupation of a nation that did not have ties to AQ prior to our invasion. Iraq was always about hegemony and securing resources and strategic positioning far more than it was about fighting 'terror'. That theory is justified by McCain's remarks about 100 years of military presence in Iraq.

Was the invasion of Iraq detrimental to the Global War on Terrorism?

Yes. As stated above, it has re-directed [misdirected?] our military and intelligence resources away from the network that attacked us on 11 September. It has spent any and all goodwill that the rest of the civilized world bore towards us on that day.

I am now believing that the entire "war on terror" premise is faulty anyway, but we will witness the harangue of the apologists for many years to come.

Oh... I think reality is going to over take you a lot faster than that. Iraq will very quickly become untenable if the price of oil keeps climbing. 'Terrorism' is a tactic, you know it, I know it, we all know it. The War on Terror was bogus from day one. This was never about Osama Bin laden or the World Trade Centre.

You say it was about hegemony, I say it is a cold conflict between the USA, and the myriad nations, many of whom are unscrupulous, who do not wish to live as second class citizens in the post Soviet world.

What do Chavez and Ahmedinajad really have in common and what does that have to do with Iraq?

A Federal judge say a connection between Iraq and Al-Quaida, enough to award a 104 million dollar settlement. The Baathist party sponsored a terrorist training camp that taught terrorist trainees how to hijack planes. Iraq sponsored terrorist attacks in Israel and Americans were killed.




Where on earth could you have come up with that statistic? I've seen estimates that range from 30,000 to 250,000 but a million? I'd have to see the source of that and as far as the 7 million refugees this has to be a gross exaggeration at best:

The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated on June 21, 2007 that 2.2 million Iraqis had fled to neighboring countries and 2 million were displaced internally, with nearly 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Syria and Jordan each month. Iraq War, Wikipedia see Iraqi Refugees

I know you are given to hyperbole CR but come on, this is a little over the top even for you.

And there is certainly some merit to that cause. I have the utmost concern for the sovereignty of my nation, but I can also empathize with the desire of nations to be free from external influencer's. After all, that was a founding desire for our own quest for independence.

Attention must absolutely be paid to 'ungoverned spaces' and failed states, but it has to be multi-lateral in order to succeed. Terrorism is the conflictive response to globalization, and new strategies are needed; the US is a great first half team to secure a failed state, but others who have better skillsets must come in to manage the stability portion. That second half piece is utterly absent in Iraq. I, just a dumb grunt, can figure that out. If the Iraq invasion and occupation was about combating terrorism, surely the smart guys in the administration could figure it out also.

So this is really the central question. Unlike a lot of pundits on my side of the aisle, I don't think the war in Iraq was ever really about oil, not exactly. I see oil as the lubricant that let this bad idea pass the can-we-pay-for-it test. However many stated objectives we've been bombarded with, I think the overarching aim was always "Free and Stable."

So I respect that as a strategic aim.

But here's where I reject the notion that this is part of a broader strategy to make us safer. First off, quite frankly, Saddam's pan-Arab nationalism was always half-code for pan-Sunni nationalism, and as such, Saddam was a bigger clamp on Iranian power than Free and Stable ever will be. If our aim was to check the influence of a bombastic Iran--and for at least two decades that was exactly our goal-- then we'd be propping up Saddam--which is exactly what we did.

In other words, if you lump "Iran" alongside Al Qaeada as part of the war on terror--which I think is a tremendous mistake--then a Free and Stable Iraq makes no sense. If America's aim in Iran is regime change, then we goofed up six years ago.

If, on the other hand, we are thinking that a Free and Stable will turn Arab heads toward the light of democracy--which is exactly what I think the goal was from the outset-- then we've made a few too many thousand assumptions. First off, how long until the exiled extremists on the hills of Pakistan See the Light? Decades?

Here comes my ambling bull session thought process. Bare with me. Sometimes I wonder if political reform doesn't come out of material and cultural reform, rather than the opposite. Example 1: The purchasing power of the third estate actually went up before the French revolution. Example 2: Where would America's dreams of democracy have come from were it not for the rise of a locally-born aristocracy? With Free and Stable, I wonder if we're not trying to attach the head to the body here.

Example 3: If there's a state in the Middle East that is going to turn Arab heads towards a Better Way, then I'd just as soon chicken-peck guess that this state would be the United Arab Emirates. If you want to talk about a beacon in the center of the middle east go look up the numbers of tourists that come from other Arab countries to flock through Abu Dhabi, middle class folks like so many of the extremists we're up against. And that has nothing to do with democracy, and everything to do with culture/indoor snow slopes and moving sidewalks.

Pardon me if this sounds like a cynical interpretation of the human endeavor. I don't mean to fart all over this thread with bong poster truisms and act like I know the secret. But I have a Czech friend-- you'll remember the Republic is one of those states that "Saw the Light" and rejected the tyranny of the USSR for the hope of Democracy. He told me that before the velvet revolution, when people would see american movies, they wouldn't necessarily talk about how free our culture was, or how great it was that you could say whatever you wanted to about the president. He said that what really shocked moviegoers in Praugue was how much stuff Americans had in their cupboard. A character in a movie would open up a cupboard, and inside would be rows and layers and columns of cereals, treats, all kinds of stuff.

I don't mean to make more out of this anecdotal fluff piece than it's worth, and I definitely don't mean to hammer out a noxiously materialistic view of cultural history. But I guess what I do suggest is that, if your living in a country that can barely keep the lights on and the road to the airport safe, parliamentary elections might start to seem a little distant. Who in the middle east would want to emulate that? To use a really clumsy analogy, I'm saying that, to make Iraq a beacon, you might have to put some cereal in the cupboard. The elections and such might be secondary. Heck if I know though. There are unknowns we know, and then there are unknown unknowns. Something like that, right?

Anyway, by the time Iraq qualifies as Free and Stable to the point where other huddled masses in nearby countries want to emulate Iraq--estimate 10, 20 years?--then I wonder if the whole Middle East won't have moved on to new economies, and moved in new cultural directions in the interim time, rendering the whole process essentially redundant.

In other words: If the goal is to keep us safe by building an Iraq so successful that everyone around Iraq will want to come there, study the Iraqi way of life, read Thomas Friedman in the local cafe, then go back and scream for democracy at home...that sounds like a dream that takes 100s of years, not 6 years, let alone "six months." And that just might be too long of a time frame on which to base such a serious component of our foreign policy.


EDITED TO ADD:



ha ha ha ah aha ha.

You are entirely right, but unfortunately that second half is not just missing from Iraq, its missing from the whole planet. There is no one willing to go so far out on that limb.

The altrusim that was born of 1945 is dying even as we debate it. Its being out bred by these people. People who have already moved past the memory of colonialism, for whom the pre 1945 world is not even a memory.

The word has changed and most of us, still insulated by our post modern culture haven't discovered this. We still think in terms that cast Adolf Hitler as the gold standard of evil, even whilst those we tolerate, or empathise with, look upon Hitler as a role model.

We see Iraq as an abysmal failure, militarily, morally and politically, but any power in history would have counted itself blessed to have conquered and held such a country so easily.

The whole western world is failing, not just the USA.
Iraq is not the cause, it is but a symptom.



edited to add link

I think you missed the point- it is more of the tinfoil hat variety "Gw wanted more terrorists so he could justify giving more money to haliburton and Blackwater campaign donors" - in other words, a joke.

The problem is- we CREATED terrorists were there were none- THERE is no advantage to that- ever.

No. The original rationale that was presented by the government, to the American people for this war was that of self-defense. Iraq was, allegedly, a WMD-possessing, immediate threat to the security of the United States. The war was allegedly preemptive and in no way connected to terrorism. Iraq, the brutal, dictatorship hell-hole that it was, was not a major sponsor of terror. But the President, God bless him, didn't let the original reason for the war get in the way of...well, other, fabricated reasons for the war [shine the bright ray of democracy into the shadows of tyranny...Quench the thirst for freedom in the Middle East with the Gatorade of American style-democracy...Fill the stomach of Iraq with the pulled pork of western values and all of that nonsense]. Plainly stated, if you asked any American [gov't officials included] if the Iraq War was part of the GWOT at the beginning of the war, they'd say 'no'.


Of course. Prior to our invasion of Iraq, it was not a terrorist hotbed. Post-invasion Iraq is. Prior to our invasion, Al Qaeda had no significant presence in Iraq; now it does. We have created more of a problem in Iraq [looking at it strictly from an American security standpoint] than what had previously existed prior to invasion.

CP

First, there is no evidence to support your claim that GW Bush went to war in Iraq simply to give money to Haliburton and Blackwater and the premise is highly unllikely.

Second, no one creates a terrorist but the terrorist themselves. Terrorism is a tactic employed by people on the basis of deliberate decisions to employ fear as a means of influencing people. Terrorists are not bionic men manufactured for politic ends. The USA did not 'create' terrorists.

Furthermore, Muslim extremists have been using terrorism as a tactic for centuries, long before GW Bush came along. Your memory is short indeed if you have already forgotten that.

Finally, the only reason you cannot entertain the advantages is because your morality, a product of the post Nurenburg period won't allow you to. My point is, that most human beings in the history of the world, including many alive today in parts of the world uninfluenced by the guilt and horror of Auschwitz have no such problem. In essence, due to the values you have chosen to accept, you are incapable as a nation, as a people, of winning not just this war, but any war.

Your criteria for success is based on unrealistic expectations.



edited to add a missing word

Moif- the US is capable of winning ANY war as long as the cause is just and the plan is well spelled out. It is when we get mired in real politik and out right wrongdoing and lying that we have problems- this is the lesson we were supposed to have walked away with from Vietnam.

If this were truly a war of survival for the US- which it is not- there would be no chance whatsoever for the "other side" to win- America has no problem annihilating a true enemy- it is when we make up reasons, and then the enemy is MADE by us that we have problems. We had no enemy in Vietnam either- it was another war caused under false pretenses- and we eventually lost that war for the same reasons.

The two wars are very different- but in politics and policies, very much the same.

BTW- I did say it was a "joke" that GW wanted to go to war just to get Haliburton and Blackwater more money- though there is some truth to the US military industrial complex needing war to maintain thier global hegemony as well, but I am not a fan of big, complex conspiracy theories being succesfully carried out by incompetents in every other way.

Europe is fighting a cultural war with Islam- that is true- but the US is not- we are nearly completely insulated against that aspect- we do not have millions of Arabs living among us, threatening to out populate us and change our constitution- that is a uniquely European problem, in the western world. Arabs don't blend well in American society, and do not have the ability to cause the problems in our society as it does yours (at this time).

Pheadrus- you are correct- I was mistaken on the 7 million- it was a number that I misremembered- I will go with your link of 4 million- bad enough I suppose. - a population larger than the size of LA of potential terrorists that were living peacefully enough prior to our invasion- that is a great recruitment tool for AQ, an OBL dream.

As DTOM has pointed out- no American presence, no terrorism.

And the links to AQ, outside of the Kurdish territorey in the north, prior to our invasion, have never been proven in any meaningful way.

If we are worried about blood money to Hamas by Arab nations, shouldn't we go after those that contribute far more money to that cause- say, oh Saudi Arabia? They are, after all, the number one "exporter of terrorism"- by far, and oh yeah, all Saudis were in on 9/11, not a single Iraqi on the group.

If we are going to throw 9/11 in as a cause- better get the right country of origin for the terrorists, don't ya think?

And Phaedrus- that "settlement" has exactly the same merit as the woman who won a 100 million dollars for spilling hot coffee on her lap.

Terrorist attacks in Israel? I am sorry, not my nation, couldn't give a rip. If Israel can't stand without the US or western world, it should be allowed to collapse anyway. There is a Jewish homeland already- it is called the USA, a good, safe place for Jews to live- Israel is not that place- a huge mistake to start up a nation that has been dead for over 2000 years anyway.

Saudi provides more money on that issue as well anyway- why not kill the Saudi royal family instead- much more terrorism flows out of that family than comes from anywhere else anyway!

Iraq was NEVER A HOTBED OF TERRORISM BEFORE OUR INVASION- and won't be once we leave again.

We created the problem, and ARE the problem there. Always have been. heck, the reason the Iranians hate us is because of our interference in THIER country as well. We created that enemy ourselves well, when there was no need for there to be an enemy as well.

If we keep created our own "haters"- is it just that we want an endless war, all the time- do we even want peace?

Did the British Military in Northern Ireland create terrorists? It's like the old saying, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. If there is one thing that the Middle East manufactures, almost as much as crude oil, it mass produces militant Islamic mercenaries. Someone has to pay for the suicide bomber, someone has to train him, someone has to recruit him and most of all, he needs a hated enemy. Israel has been a favorite target for decades and Middle Eastern bigwigs delight in supporting suicide attacks and we support Israel to the hilt. We took unilateral action against Iraq to invade a sovereign nation, you really think this doesn't make us into some kind of a bogey man?

We did create terrorists, they asked one of the insurgents in the battle for Fallujah why he was fighting. He said it was because we blew up his house. I just hope we have less of them as a result of the Iraq invasion, not more.



On the contrary, it had everything to do with WMD or it was a breach of faith with the American people and most likely, a violation of international law. We are use to thinking of terrorism as international networks and cells rather then operating as state supported military operations. So what is a terrorist really? It's someone that uses destruction and mass murder to affect political goals, that sounds like Saddam Hussein to me, I like what Giuliani said, 'Saddam Hussein was a weapon of mass destruction'. The Bush administration was crystal clear, as was Tony Blair, the invasion was about preemptive action to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMDs. That's how they sold it and most people bought it but now, 5 years later I think we are looking at the beginning of the end of the occupation in Iraq, I just hope was will be leaving a free and stable Iraq.

By your definition- America is a state sponsor of terrorism Pheadrus- I cite central America- where we used terror and purposely destabilized countries using terrorist proxies in order to achieve political ends.

Is that the definition you want to stick with?

The ME is cause and effect- we are the cause, the Islamic militant is the effect. You are trying to put the horse before the cart- western meddling in thier soveriegnty created this problem. We would not hve the ME problem without the Balfour declaration and everything that came after that, along with the british partitioning of the ME after the fall of the Ottoman empire and thier inability to recognize traditional ethnic and geographical differences when they created those countries.

So that must mean that the 150,000 people serving in Iraq are terrorists right? Oh wait, that means that the Congress is part of this global terrorist conspiracy and according to modern common law a conspirator, anyone who aides and abeds or other wise takes a substantial step toward the commission of the crime is equally guilty. Do you pay taxes? Because if you contribute financially to a terrorist act you are as equally guilty as the terrorist.

You will find that that definition is consistent with legal definitions of terrorism at state, federal and international levels. Sure I stand by it and I would not characterize the invasion as an act of a terrorist state even though it was a questionable policy decision. I don't like the way that Nixon, Carter and Regan handled things in South America and Central America but that does not make the US a terrorist state because they were not trying to influence political decisions by acts of terror, they were making policy decisions and if they acted illegally that would come out.

As usual you are kind of flimsy on your facts and wildly making accusations you don't substantiate.

You cited a court ruling- so I thought you were aware of the ruling against the US for our terroristic activities there?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua_v._United_States

dude- we acted in no different manner than the Iran and Hezbollah, or Saudi and Hamas, instead, it was US and Contra- worse than any of them in fact. The contras were straight up terror squads, paid to kill innocent civilians- the end, period etc.

I thought you were aware that it DID come out Phaedrus?

Oh yeah- we even had a manual that told how to CORRECTLY terrorize :


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological...errilla_Warfare

The manual recommended "selective use of violence for propagandistic effects" and to "neutralize" (i.e., kill) government officials. Nicaraguan Contras were taught to lead:

demonstrators into clashes with the authorities, to provoke riots or shootings, which lead to the killing of one or more persons, who will be seen as the martyrs; this situation should be taken advantage of immediately against the Government to create even bigger conflicts.

The manual also recommended:

selective use of armed force for PSYOP [psychological operations] effect.... Carefully selected, planned targets — judges, police officials, tax collectors, etc. — may be removed for PSYOP effect in a UWOA [unconventional warfare operations area], but extensive precautions must insure that the people "concur" in such an act by thorough explanatory canvassing among the affected populace before and after conduct of the mission.^[5]

It isn't intellectually or even morally correct to give the US a pass for our wrong doing and then condemn others for doing the same thing.

You do know that Yassar Arafat simply followed Menachim Begin's playbook and capitalized upon it, right?

It is this "when we do it, it is okay, for everyone's common good, when they do it, it is evil, simply inhumane" way of thinking that keeps us doing the same stupid things over and over.

Yes, I am aware of my complicity as a US citizen in our foriegn policies, and was a soldier in "reagan's army", and am quite ashamed of our behavior in central America- we have visited evil upon innocents that is equal of anything Saddam is accused of. That is why I rail against this behavior. I would be further complicit if I were to accept our behavior.

Our actions in South and Central America are pretty much on a par with some of the things Saddam did that we point to as justification for the Iraq invasion. If you throw some money at a shady organization like the Contras, you are, to some degree, responsible for their actions - and by todays definition, you could certainly call the Contras a terrorist organization. If we weren't trying to influence political decisions with that sponsorship, what exactly were we doing? And if there was nothing wrong with funding the Contras, why did we try to mask the money we gave them?

I will grant you that the money was probably not intended to be used on "acts of terror" directly, but our government knew what was going on, and they continued to back the baddies.

Take a good, long hard look at human history and tell me what is a 'just war' CR for I see no conflict, not even the hallowed Second World War which I would term 'just'. Not even for the soldiers who liberated my country, and despite my eternal gratitude. There is no criteria that I can see which would term a war 'just'.

America has never fought a war with a pure conscience, even if the soldiers have. Even in the fight against Hitler the USA bears guilt. Hitler did not come to power unaided and plenty of American dollars helped bring about the Third Reich. Once the war had begun, America waited for years before it finally acted and even once America had joined the 'just fight' it deliberately hesitated again so that the Soviet Union paid the highest cost.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not ungrateful, nor pointing the finger even. The execution was ruthless and well carried out. My point is that perfidy is always present in war. All war is deceit.


That is the nature of war.

And you are wrong. This is a war of survival, the survival of your way of life, your human rights, your civilisation. None of those things will survive if your country loses the fight against Islam


The World Trade Centre was in New York I believe....?

Muslim expansion relies on western tolerance. The more tolerance you have the more Muslims you will attract.



Because you can't. Saudi Arabia has the USA by the testicles.... can't you feel them squeezing?




Of course, but responsibility for a mans actions ....or a womans, lies solely upon their own head. There are many ways to resist. No one forces any one to employ terrorism. It is a choice.


Its a sad logic that describes a man a terrorist for defending his home... consequently I do not see that Iraqi insurgents... those whom Cruising Ram might describe as terrorists so that it suits his argument, are actually terrorists.

Undoubtably there are terrorists in Iraq also, and the majority of these arrived in order to fight Americans and impose their will on the Iraqi's.

I do not consider drawing the battle away from one's own territory to that of a non allied state to be a failure. It may seem callous to use one's own troops as a lure, but in fact that is what soldiers are for. Fighting enemies and I'd rather have my troops fighting the enemy in a distant country than stand impotently by whilst the enemy had free reign of my country.

Moif- we started the conflict with Islam the minute we decided to jump into Iran and Isreal back in the 50s and 40s. This is a problem of our own making we had no business being there, and we are now dealing with blowback for those decisions.

We are not in a fight for our survival- they are reacting to the US, not the other way around. Cause and effect. Even your own problems in Europe are due to poor decisions by European leaders in the past. You have 40 some million ME immigrants in Europe right now IIRC? Why are they running there? Due to the poor foriegn policy decisions, mostly from England and the US.

Ya, you are right- we keep making stupid foriegn policy decisions that have no real bearing on our actual national security- but rather special interest groups whose best interests are not really in the US best interests- we WILL be in a war for survival in the US, and will probably lose.

You mentioned 9/11- again, having nothing whatsoever to do with Iraq. One has no bearing on the other. 9/11 was a completely Saudi venture- no Iraqis in sight.

And creating recruitement opportunities for terrorists WILL NOT win a war either. Especially in an asymetrical war- unless the US is okay with genocide as well.

Respectfully, I think that is a truly fallacious perspective. The situation in the 1950's was inherited from the world of the 1940's, which in turn was itself a product of the 1930's. Every age, without exception deals with the 'blow back' of the previous age.

You say you had no business being in Persia and Israel. By that argument, you have no right to be in the America's either. Your entire nation and everything you claim to believe in is based on the actions of people by your arguments had no right to 'be there'.

Are you willing to return to Europe so that the aboriginals of the America's might regain their stolen lands?



Europe offers peace, stability, wealth and education, all of which are equally products of British and American policies. Why wouldn't they want to come here?



I did not mention 9/11 in the context of Iraq. Please do me the courtesy of reading my words if you wish to respond to them. I was replying specifically to your dubious assertion that Europe is fighting a cultural war with Islam but the US is not.


Please feel free to explain how fighting terrorists in Iraq will lead to genocide. I see no evidence offered to support such a spurious contention.


edited for spelling

The only way to win a war against Islam is to participate in genocide- same with Iraq- there is no way to win in Iraq unless you are willing to annihilate anyone and everyone that comes in your cross hairs. You have to be willing to kill lots and lots of innocent civilians- which breeds more "terrorists"- believe me, if I were an Iraqi- I would be blowing up Americans as well, if they had killed my family and simply said "oh, didn't mean too- it was just collateral damage- you should blame your nieghbors and preachers for behaving badly"

We have already turned the nation from an enemy of my enemy to a direct ally with Iran, no matter who ends up running the place- agreed?

yes, history is founded on conquest and such,even fairly recently. But our actions in the ME have created these terrorists, and made the situation much worse, not better. There was and is no benefit to invading Iraq- except to terrorist recruitment efforts around the world.

Same with central America- sure, America has many of the things you mentioned that Europe has as an incentive to run to the US from Nicaragua or El Salvador- but we didn't get millions of refugees that eventually led to an explosion in gang activity in the US until we went mucking about thier busines.

People will stay where they are at, married to a land, even with bad living conditions, until it becomes to dangerous and unstable to remain. The US didn't really develope a raging central American refugee and gang problem until we started really destroying those countries.

Those folks living amongst you wouldn't have left thier land in droves until we started screwing up thier countries to the point they were completely unliveable. That is just plain human behavior- only a small group of folks will be mobile, but large populations only move under duress.

Of course I agree and don't equate the, 'Freedom Fighter's Manual' air dropped to in Nicaragua with Osama bin Laden's, 'Military studies in the Jihad against the Tyrants'. I do think that one of the problems with Vietnam was that everytime the B-52s bombed a village there survivors joined the VC. It's dangerous, not to know the difference between a terrorist act and another kind of an attack. Remember the attack on the Golden Mosque by Al Qaeda? Hundreds of Sunni mosques and something like 130 were killed in retaliation on the Sunnis. It was an attempt by the terrorists to incite a civil war and was pretty nearly successful, that's why you have to know the difference.



The 2005 Country Reports on Terrorism said there were 11,111 attacks that caused 14,602 deaths in 2005 alone. Those figures are in stark contrast to previous State Department reports, which cited 208 terrorist attacks that caused 625 deaths in 2003 Iraq invasion spurs terrorism Not all of these terrorist attacks are from outsiders, many of them are home grown, probably getting paid by fat cat Islamics who pay them to commit their acts of violence.



I would much prefer fighting terrorists in Iraq over dealing with them at home. The way you win this thing is tactical victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, Strategic and diplomatic victories in Saudi Arabia and Egypt is the prize. The key to the Middle East is Egypt and killing terrorists doesn't help if their culture is producing them faster then they can be killed or captured. When you think about it the Middle East meets the West in Cairo. They call Iraq the cradle of civilization but I have always thought it was Egypt.