News The war on terror, self defeating or a neccesity?

[Yonoz]

They mention events that Britain has no control over because they serve as a warning to other countries.

Perhaps, but it is just as likely they fail, or refuse, to distinguish between western entities. The question remains - should the people of Britain yield to any entity excercising violence?

That is their publicity. The fact is that they carried out those bombings as a direct result of Britains involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Again, I refer you to the tape of Sehzad Sanweer:

What you have witnessed now is only the beginning of a series of attacks which will intensify and continue to until you pull all your troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Until you stop all financial and military support to the US and Israel and until you release all Muslim prisoners from Belmarsh and your other concentration camps. And know that if you fail to comply with this then know that this war will never stop and that we are willing to give our lives 100 times over for the cause of Islam. You will never experience peace until our children in Palestine, our mothers and sisters in Kashmir, and our brothers in Afghanistan and Iraq feel peace.

What is this "cause of Islam" (in the bombers' view)? His accomplice, Muhammd Sidique Khan, said in his recording:

I and thousands like me are forsaking everything for what we believe. Our drive and motivation doesn't come from tangible commodities that this world has to offer. Our religion is Islam, obedience to the one true God Allah and following the footsteps of the final prophet messenger.

This is how our ethical stances are dictated.

Your democratically elected governments continuously perpetuate atrocities against my people all over the world. And your support of them makes you directly responsible, just as I am directly responsible for protecting and avenging my Muslim brothers and sisters.

Until we feel security you will be our targets and until you stop the bombing, gassing, imprisonment and torture of my people we will not stop this fight. We are at war and I am a soldier. Now you too will taste the reality of this situation.

I myself, I make duaa (pray) to Allah ... (garbled)... to raise me amongst those whom I love like the prophets, the messengers, the martyrs and today's heroes like our beloved Sheikh Osama bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and all the other brothers and sisters that are fighting in the ... (garbled) ... of this cause.

AFAIK, this cause has existed since long before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

 

[Astronuc]

our beloved Sheikh Osama bin Laden, Dr Ayman al-Zawahri and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

I find such belief very troubling. The three individuals are not heros, but simply murderers.

I voted other - the policy of the Bush administration was and is faulty. As far as the 'War on Terror' goes, the dike has been breached and the land is being flooded. Now one is left wondering if the breach in the dike was deliberate, or an accident due to incompetence, or just a natural development.

In some ways, the War on Terror is a natural progression of history - the continued clash of tribes or cultures - and it seems perpetuated as it has historically, by vain or egoistic individuals who somehow justify the death and destruction, and otherwise suffering, as necessity.

Why in this modern age, with such rapid and far reaching communication, does mankind still drift into conflict and violence?

Why is it so easy to reject peace and make war? And why do so many find it acceptable, or at least seem resigned to it as fait accompli, or perhaps worse, are indifferent to the suffering of others?

Where are the Gandhis or Schweitzers of the current day?

 

[BobG]

You can't what I mean is we didn't have to become bogged down in a war with Afghani rebels like we are now, the priority mission could have been to go after Osamah and everything else was a secondary consideration. Go in,hopefully kill Osama destroy Al-qaeda, and then leave. I think this conflict may well parallel the Russian conflict, it has all the hallmarks. I could even have been a small scale covert operation using special forces to target Al Qaeda, in kill out. No one questions the justification of Afghanistan only the results.

I'd say this most closely mirrors my thoughts on Afghanistan.

I don't think destroying the government in power in route to Al-Qaeda and leaving the mess behind after we were done would present the best image of the US. Image aside, leaving the Afghans to sort out the mess afterward would not have left Afghanistan in any worse political shape than they've been for the last 30 years or so.

The only drawback to leaving is that there would have been a pretty good chance we'd have to invade again sometime in the future. In Afghanistan's case, a future invasion would be more economical than becoming involved in trying to maintain a stable government. Our only goal should have been to make sure it was clear that any alliance with terrorist groups that might initially help one of the Afghan factions obtain power would actually be a guarantee that the faction's power would be decimated. Even if the US had to invade Afghanistan again, I think the message would have been effectively communicated after a second invasion.

The invasion of Iraq contributes nothing positive to the war on terror and isn't even directly related to it.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think destroying the government in power in route to Al-Qaeda and leaving the mess behind after we were done would present the best image of the US. Image aside, leaving the Afghans to sort out the mess afterward would not have left Afghanistan in any worse political shape than they've been for the last 30 years or so.

The only drawback to leaving is that there would have been a pretty good chance we'd have to invade again sometime in the future. In Afghanistan's case, a future invasion would be more economical than becoming involved in trying to maintain a stable government. Our only goal should have been to make sure it was clear that any alliance with terrorist groups that might initially help one of the Afghan factions obtain power would actually be a guarantee that the faction's power would be decimated. Even if the US had to invade Afghanistan again, I think the message would have been effectively communicated after a second invasion.

My mother always taught me to clean up after myself. As a matter of national policy, I don't think it is ethical to destroy a country (justified or not) and leave it as a smoking hole in the ground and I don't think economics should be the primary determining factor in the decision-making.

As for the image issue, regardless of whether it was 'fair' or 'right' to take-down the Taliban (we may as well assume it was, since the world community agrees), leaving it without helping reconstitute the government would look bad. Right or wrong, the Marshall Plan set the standard by which future conduct has been judged and as bad as world opinion is of us now, it would be worse if we didn't adhere to that.

 

[BobG]

My mother always taught me to clean up after myself. As a matter of national policy, I don't think it is ethical to destroy a country (justified or not) and leave it as a smoking hole in the ground and I don't think economics should be the primary determining factor in the decision-making.

As for the image issue, regardless of whether it was 'fair' or 'right' to take-down the Taliban (we may as well assume it was, since the world community agrees), leaving it without helping reconstitute the government would look bad. Right or wrong, the Marshall Plan set the standard by which future conduct has been judged and as bad as world opinion is of us now, it would be worse if we didn't adhere to that.

I realize that leaving Afghanistan wouldn't have been a very realistic option.

Still, the only difference between eliminating the Taliban government and the death penalty is that there would be the perception that the US was punishing innocent residents of Afghanistan along with the government. In reality, that wouldn't be the case since Afganistan has been a chronic conflict between rival warlords for decades. The residents would have been returning to the same situation they've endured for decades.

That's a little different than than post WWII where stability and the desire for a stable government was a little more imbedded among citizens that had a lot in common with each other. The idea that you can instill a common culture on disparate groups is more unrealistic than the idea of just leaving after we've done what we set out to do.

At a minimum, we should accept the idea that Afghanistan won't be the democracy people envisioned. If we could get two or three of the groups in Afghanistan to band together into a force stronger than the rest we'd have a chance to walk out of there without leaving total chaos behind.

Iraq is a little different (even if it has nothing to do with the war on terror). Leaving Afghanistan in chaos would just hurt our image. Leaving Iraq has a chance to have a much more dramatic impact on the US - namely a regional war that sends fuel prices skyrocketing and has a significant impact on the world's economy, not to mention no idea how the war will turn out.

 

[baywax]

I think we have to put ourselves in the shoes of our alleged aggressors or the shoes of the people supposedly harboring our aggressors in Iraq and Afganistan.

Lets say that a faction from our own country bombed the crap out of Bejing, for example. Then we get invaded by China on the premise that we are harboring the people who bombed them. Would you rather experience a different approach by China than a full scale invasion of our country?

 

[devil-fire]

Why is it so easy to reject peace and make war? And why do so many find it acceptable, or at least seem resigned to it as fait accompli, or perhaps worse, are indifferent to the suffering of others?

when was the last time there was a maimed soldier or mutilated bystander shown on the evening news? iv seen a lot of video of the aftermath of a car bomb where there was a pool of blood on the ground, and a lot of people with blood on them being carried away (although, no significant wounds. these people are always in one well connected piece). what iv seen a lot of is fireworks and soldiers standing and walking around with a determined look on their face.

war as portrayed in american media is about a light show and heroic duty, not about people being killed. statistics aside, one could almost think the wounded in war are still perfectly good looking, presentable people. one might also think the dead were mostly able to give a message to their relatives with their last breath.

it is the duty of good countrymen to be aware of the heroic aspects of war, but its uncouth to show children with crushed body parts. its taboo for media to show people why war is anything but acceptable

 

[denverdoc]

well put, but an earlier thread determined it was uncouth to show the real results of war/occupation. So you're on the beam IMO--the war is portrayed as a noble and determined cause, when hasn't it?, and people here in the states still believing that the trillion plus is well spent. There has been much discussion from the beginnng abut avoiding the Viet Nam effect--ie journalism is what changed americicans minds about the bellicose misadventure, and forced a premature surrender. In other words we lost the belly for a good fight. So from the beginning we have had embedded journalists, non-embedded journalists dieing like flies, and not a single view of the coffins coming home. Just numbers and rhetoric.

 

[BobG]

Do you think visits from Congressmen to countries like Syria undermine the US's 'war on terror'?

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Syria-House-Visit.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Republican Congressmen Frank Wolf (Virginia), Joe Pitts (Pennsylvania) and Robert Aderholt (Alabama) just visited Syrian President Bashir Assad.

In a statement issued by the U.S. Embassy in Damascus, the congressmen said they had talked about ''ending support for Hezbollah and Hamas, recognizing Israel's right to exist in peace and security, and ceasing interference in Lebanon.''

''We came because we believe there is an opportunity for dialogue,'' the statement said. ''We are following in the lead of Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the Soviets during the Cold War,'' it added.

The White House response? White House criticizes [Congressional] ... Visit

"We do not encourage and, in fact, we discourage members of Congress to make such visits to Syria," said White House deputy spokeswoman Dana Perino. "This is a country that is a state sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the (Prime Minister Fouad) Siniora government in Lebanon and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow through its borders to Iraq.

Okay, that's a lie . The White House had no response to the Congressmens' visit. Perino's comments were about Pelosi's planned visit to visit Assad.

That's life in the spin zone.

 

[Yonoz]

Do you think visits from Congressmen to countries like Syria undermine the US's 'war on terror'?

On the contrary, the "war" is on "terror", not Syria. The aim is to stop Syria's support of terror - this cannot be achieved by threats alone.

 

[russ_watters]

Do you think visits from Congressmen to countries like Syria undermine the US's 'war on terror'?

I'll broaden it: it undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy in general. It should be illegal.

 

[SticksandStones]

I'll broaden it: it undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy in general. It should be illegal.

Given the incompetence of the President in matters of foreign policy, I would say it is the only logical route to go.

 

[BobG]

I'll broaden it: it undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy in general. It should be illegal.

The main point was the decision to criticize Pelosi, but ignore the Republicans.

However, the intent could be to apply it to all members of the House of Representatives in a way less likely to offend the members the White House depend upon for legislative support. If interpreted that way, and limited to the House of Representatives, I'd find it understandable even if I don't completely agree with it. The House plays no part in treaties.

I wouldn't find that message acceptable towards Congress in general. Treaties can't be enacted without 2/3 approval by the Senate. Hopefully, Senators would rely on more than just the word of the President. It's entirely appropriate for Senators to make the kind of trips Pelosi, Wolf, Pitts, and Aderholt made.

While I think trips like this by members of the House have very limited value, I wouldn't find them completely unacceptable, either. They'll still have an impact on foreign policy just by virtue of controlling the government's money.

Interesting viewpoints on how US foreign policy and treaties should be conducted:

http://www.thisnation.com/library/books/federalist/75.html

http://www.thisnation.com/library/antifederalist/75.html

I don't agree with the particular argument by what is basically the 18th century equivalent of an anonymous blogger, but I do like his second to last paragraph.

 

[Yonoz]

I'll broaden it: it undermines the President's ability to conduct foreign policy in general. It should be illegal.

Isn't the congress meant to "check and balance" the President, including in matters of foreign policy?

 

[BobG]

Isn't the congress meant to "check and balance" the President, including in matters of foreign policy?

Yes.

But a man raised from the station of a private citizen to the rank of chief magistrate, possessed of a moderate or slender fortune, and looking forward to a period not very remote when he may probably be obliged to return to the station from which he was taken, might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth.

The motivations of one man (the President) concerned people from the very beginning. Judging from the number of posts about the links between Bush and oil, Cheney and Halliburton, and Halliburton and Iraq, people haven't become any more trusting.

I don't think a desire for wealth was the cause of the mistakes Bush and Cheney have made, but the Senate is an integral part of foreign policy whether they have courage to fulfill their role or not.

 

[devil-fire]

this might be off topic but i don't think the 'war on terror' has much to do with preventing terrorist attacks or undermining the benefits of using terrorism as a tactic.

there are lots of places where terrorist attacks are vary commonly used (south america, sub-sahara africa) and there is not so much as a peep about it. but when someone from the middle east has something to do with a terrorist attack, suddenly there is a fight to be fought here because terrorism has to be stamped out everywhere it shows itself. i don't think its coincidence at all that the war on terror is being fought in the region that is of primary interest to american foreign policy. I am seeing it like: attack (gulf war, support of israel, general involvement in regional politics), counter attack (sept 11th, 2001), continued attack (afghanistan, gulf war 2, occupation of iraq).

so back to the original question about the necessity of the war on terror, i think the real questions should be 'is the current foreign policy regarding the middle east a necessity? has it been effective? could it be better?

"Identifying terrorism itself as the enemy also blithely ignored the fact that terrorism is a lethal technique for intimidation employed by individuals, groups, and states. One does not wage a war against a technique or a tactic.No one, for instance would have declared at the outset of world war II that the war was being fought against 'blitzkrieg' " - Zbigniew Brzezinski

 

[denverdoc]

i think your last 3 paragraphs nailed something that is beyond the scope of TV news or your average newspaper. Terrorism comes in many guises, and used for various motives: but ultimately the worst use is the state vs the people.

 

[BillJx]

I didn't answer the poll because I frankly have no answers. However:

1) Political / social causes tend to get grouped into camps, not always for sound reasons. Differing with Bush politically shouldn't automatically lead to a demand to pull out of the mid-East and leave it in chaos. Bush may have promoted the war for the wrong reasons, but now it's a difficult situation that needs to be evaluated on its own terms. The moral imperitive now is to fix what you broke.

2) Terrorism needs to be fought. Always. Never back away from evil because of fear or moral laziness. Terrorism also needs to be defined. A third world power in a fight with the U.S. can't go head to head on the battlefield, it needs to use some kind of guerilla tactics. That's no excuse for bombing restaurants, murdering tourists, sacrificing kids etc. Evil isn't hard to spot, independantly of the proclaimed cause that's used as an excuse. Root such people out at any expense.

3) Maybe underground organizations have a tendency to be taken over by psychopaths. War in general is good for psychopaths, how much better is an underground war? Once you're giving people accolades for murdering children and non-combantants, you've lost control of your organization. The cause becomes just an excuse for killing. If independance organizations want world support, they need to find a way to eliminate the psychopaths from their leadership and close the door to them.

4) I'm sorry, but a war can't be fought without deaths. The world isn't civilized enough yet for war to be ended, sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a solution. So young people will die. Unfortunately, that can't be the reason for a country to end a war. Enemy deaths are reason enough to avert war where it's possible. If it can't be averted, it needs to be seen through. The alternative is capitulation to governments that don't care how many people are killed, theirs or ours.

 

[denverdoc]

above ground organizations (or at least that portion above the water) are also run by psychopaths. Name a company, usu a psychopath at the helm. I'm talking the clinical definition, not some guy who collects feet to satisty his shoe fetish.

Terrorism should be fought, but not on their own turf, ie remove the political issues and it hasn't a leg to stand upon.

Whether foot attached to leg, all depends on negotiation skills.

 

[Yonoz]

I don't think a desire for wealth was the cause of the mistakes Bush and Cheney have made, but the Senate is an integral part of foreign policy whether they have courage to fulfill their role or not.

IMO this needn't necessarily undermine the President, if he plays his cards right.
"good cop, bad cop"?

 

[denverdoc]

I didn't answer the poll because I frankly have no answers. However:

1) Political / social causes tend to get grouped into camps, not always for sound reasons. Differing with Bush politically shouldn't automatically lead to a demand to pull out of the mid-East and leave it in chaos. Bush may have promoted the war for the wrong reasons, but now it's a difficult situation that needs to be evaluated on its own terms. The moral imperitive now is to fix what you broke.

2) Terrorism needs to be fought. Always. Never back away from evil because of fear or moral laziness. Terrorism also needs to be defined. A third world power in a fight with the U.S. can't go head to head on the battlefield, it needs to use some kind of guerilla tactics. That's no excuse for bombing restaurants, murdering tourists, sacrificing kids etc. Evil isn't hard to spot, independantly of the proclaimed cause that's used as an excuse. Root such people out at any expense.

3) Maybe underground organizations have a tendency to be taken over by psychopaths. War in general is good for psychopaths, how much better is an underground war? Once you're giving people accolades for murdering children and non-combantants, you've lost control of your organization. The cause becomes just an excuse for killing. If independance organizations want world support, they need to find a way to eliminate the psychopaths from their leadership and close the door to them.

4) I'm sorry, but a war can't be fought without deaths. The world isn't civilized enough yet for war to be ended, sometimes there just doesn't seem to be a solution. So young people will die. Unfortunately, that can't be the reason for a country to end a war. Enemy deaths are reason enough to avert war where it's possible. If it can't be averted, it needs to be seen through. The alternative is capitulation to governments that don't care how many people are killed, theirs or ours.

John Wayne, just when I thought you were MIA, we have posts like the above, ignoring the fact that Sadaam as a badboy pretty much handled civil unrest, and the good guys have actually managed to escalate the death rate, incinerate the infrastructure, setback womens rights and stop the inflow of $$ via exportation of oil.

 

[Art]

John Wayne, just when I thought you were MIA, we have posts like the above, ignoring the fact that Sadaam as a badboy pretty much handled civil unrest, and the good guys have actually managed to escalate the death rate, incinerate the infrastructure, setback womens rights and stop the inflow of $$ via exportation of oil.

I still maintain the main problem the US has in Iraq is it is backing the wrong side.

The Sunnis are the West's natural allies whereas the Shi'ites fundamentally oppose western culture. Putting the Shi'ites in power has alienated the West's traditional ME allies who are themselves Sunni and I have no doubt the Shi'ites in Iraq will turn against the US forces as soon as US assistance is no longer needed to support their aim of suppressing Sunnis.

The only country happy with the new Shi'ite dominated power structure in Iraq is Iran which in itself should make US policy makers pause and take stock.

To illustrate here is an example from today of how the Shi'ites react when the MNF cracks down on them as the UK troops are currently doing in Basra.

Four UK soldiers killed in Iraq
The bomb targeted a UK patrol
Bomb aftermath
Four British soldiers have been killed by a roadside bomb near Basra, southern Iraq, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
A civilian translator was also killed in the bomb blast, which targeted a Warrior patrol.

A fifth soldier was also "very seriously injured" and is being treated in the military hospital in Basra.

This latest incident brings the total number of UK troops killed in operations in Iraq to 140.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6529081.stm

 

[BobG]

I still maintain the main problem the US has in Iraq is it is backing the wrong side.

The Sunnis are the West's natural allies whereas the Shi'ites fundamentally oppose western culture. Putting the Shi'ites in power has alienated the West's traditional ME allies who are themselves Sunni and I have no doubt the Shi'ites in Iraq will turn against the US forces as soon as US assistance is no longer needed to support their aim of suppressing Sunnis.

The only country happy with the new Shi'ite dominated power structure in Iraq is Iran which in itself should make US policy makers pause and take stock.

To illustrate here is an example from today of how the Shi'ites react when the MNF cracks down on them as the UK troops are currently doing in Basra.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6529081.stm

The only way to pick which side to support would have been for the US to forceably install a pro-Western Sunni leader. That might have some short term benefits and push problems a decade or two down the road, but it would have had a pretty high cost in relations with the rest of the world (yeah, the current situation hasn't done much for that either).

If the US is going to help establish a democratic government, lack of control is one of the inherent risks that has to be accepted. The US has no choice but to back the government the Iraqi people chose.

That's why the US should have relied on an accurate assessment of Iraqi politics and culture instead of fantasy when deciding whether or not interfering in Iraq was worth it. Once you've started things rolling, there's not many decisions left since you're not in control anymore - Iraqis are.

I'd also add that knowing Shi'ites would be the majority doesn't mean they would be pro-Iranian. The ethnic divides run on a couple different levels. Iranians are Persian, while most Iraqis are Arab. A Shi'ite government in Iraq would probably have better relations with Iran than Hussein did (that's not hard to do), but the only thing pushing Iraq towards a true alliance with Iran is the civil war. A more moderate Shi'ite government that didn't tread all over Sunnis would have had good relations with the rest of the Arab states. Forcing Sunni Arabs to decide between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ite Arabs leaves Shi'ites only one ally left. There were a couple chances to keep this from being a disaster and the US isn't the only one that blew those chances.

 

[Art]

The only way to pick which side to support would have been for the US to forceably install a pro-Western Sunni leader. That might have some short term benefits and push problems a decade or two down the road, but it would have had a pretty high cost in relations with the rest of the world (yeah, the current situation hasn't done much for that either).

If the US is going to help establish a democratic government, lack of control is one of the inherent risks that has to be accepted. The US has no choice but to back the government the Iraqi people chose.

That's why the US should have relied on an accurate assessment of Iraqi politics and culture instead of fantasy when deciding whether or not interfering in Iraq was worth it. Once you've started things rolling, there's not many decisions left since you're not in control anymore - Iraqis are.

I'd also add that knowing Shi'ites would be the majority doesn't mean they would be pro-Iranian. The ethnic divides run on a couple different levels. Iranians are Persian, while most Iraqis are Arab. A Shi'ite government in Iraq would probably have better relations with Iran than Hussein did (that's not hard to do), but the only thing pushing Iraq towards a true alliance with Iran is the civil war. A more moderate Shi'ite government that didn't tread all over Sunnis would have had good relations with the rest of the Arab states. Forcing Sunni Arabs to decide between Sunni Arabs and Shi'ite Arabs leaves Shi'ites only one ally left. There were a couple chances to keep this from being a disaster and the US isn't the only one that blew those chances.

But where does it all lead? Even if the MNF were to win a crushing victory over the Sunni insurgents all they would have achieved would be to consolidate the power of the Shi'ites who have shown no hesitation in attacking MNF forces themselves when allied forces interfere in their activities. As an example in the incident cited above Iraqi police officials said the patrol had earlier detained a lieutenant in the Interior Ministry's major crimes unit and was returning to its base when it was ambushed.

A quintessential example of Iraqi gov't factions using the MNF for their own purposes took place a few months back when a Shi'ite official military group claimed they were being attacked by terrorists and called in air support from the MNF which resulted in the deaths of over 300 people of what turned out to be apparently, simply a rival sect.

A long time ago I said I thought ultimately the only longterm solution would be partition and the more entrenched each side becomes the more likely this will be the eventual solution. At least with partition, assuming the occupation continues, the allied forces would be able to concentrate on fighting their enemies in each region rather than the current situation where in the myriad complexity of civil war it is very difficult to know who your enemies even are.

 

[Astronuc]

This is troubling -

Absences at Intel Center Raise Questions
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9434808

All Things Considered, April 6, 2007 · The command room of the National Counterterrorism Center is a dimly lit, two-story chamber. Typing away at several dozen work stations are officers from the FBI, the CIA and other agencies.

That is the whole point of the NCTC. Since its creation a little more than two years ago, the center has been working to foster cooperation among intelligence agencies.

Needless to say, having both the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) pull their representatives out of the operations center wasn't exactly part of the plan.

"U.S. NORTHCOM voluntarily withdrew its liaison at the same time DIA withdrew, due to a lack of information-sharing," said. Maj. April Cunningham, a spokesperson for NORTHCOM.

NORTHCOM is the military command responsible for homeland defense efforts. Cunningham and other officials confirm that three DIA officers and one NORTHCOM officer were withdrawn late last year.

"I think essentially, it boiled down to the amount of information-sharing that's needed to go forth in order to defend the homeland," Cunningham said. "So that was what was lacking."

 

[BobG]

I still maintain the main problem the US has in Iraq is it is backing the wrong side.

The Sunnis are the West's natural allies whereas the Shi'ites fundamentally oppose western culture. Putting the Shi'ites in power has alienated the West's traditional ME allies who are themselves Sunni and I have no doubt the Shi'ites in Iraq will turn against the US forces as soon as US assistance is no longer needed to support their aim of suppressing Sunnis.

The only country happy with the new Shi'ite dominated power structure in Iraq is Iran which in itself should make US policy makers pause and take stock.

To illustrate here is an example from today of how the Shi'ites react when the MNF cracks down on them as the UK troops are currently doing in Basra.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6529081.stm

Thinking about it some more, I think the old style solution definitely would have been a pro-Western Sunni government.

In a lot of ways, a purely pragmatic approach, worrying only about how Iraq would affect the US and Western allies, is the best approach. If the government is supposed to serve 300 million people, their security should trump concerns over the well-being of people living in foreign countries.

Still, a lot of the things the US did in the past were only justifiable in a cold war environment. I don't think a lot of those policies are appropriate when the US has no serious rival in the world.

The idea of giving democracy and human rights a higher priority in US foreign relations is a good idea. We just chose a very bad test case and, more importantly, we opted for it in a situation where regime change might not have even been necessary from a US security point of view.

There's so many wrong assumptions that have to be made, but, if Iraq really was the threat the administration said it was, then opting for the quickest means to short stability probably would have been the best option. I'm not sure where that leaves a pro-democracy policy, since most of the situations where the US might be justified in interfering aren't very conducive to democracy. I'd hate to think the only option would be for the US to pursue the same strategy it used during the cold war.

 

[Astronuc]

Triple Cross - by Peter Lance

This book is disturbing because it implies that members of the US government have operated independently outside any accountability, and may have compromised the security of the US, and perhaps neglected to do what could have been done to prevent the WTC attack(s).

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060886889/?tag=pfamazon01-20

Book Description cited on Amazon

"This is the most dangerous man I have ever met. We cannot let this man out on the street."

—Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, 1997

In the years leading to the 9/11 attacks, no single agent of al Qaeda was more successful in compromising the U.S. intelligence community than Ali Mohamed. A former Egyptian army captain, Mohamed succeeded in infiltrating the CIA in Europe, the Green Berets at Fort Bragg, and the FBI in California—even as he helped to orchestrate the al Qaeda campaign of terror that culminated in 9/11. As investigative reporter Peter Lance demonstrates in this gripping narrative, senior U.S. law enforcement officials—including the now-celebrated U.S. attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who personally interviewed Mohamed long before he was brought to ground—were powerless to stop him. In the annals of espionage, few men have moved between the hunters and the hunted with as much audacity as Ali Mohamed. For almost two decades, the former Egyptian army commando succeeded in living a double life. Brazenly slipping past watch lists, he moved in and out of the U.S. with impunity, marrying an American woman, becoming a naturalized citizen, and posing as an FBI informant—all while acting as chief of security for Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri. Known to his fellow terrorists as Ali Amiriki, or "Ali the American," Mohamed gained access to the most sensitive intelligence in the U.S. counterterrorism arsenal while brokering terror summits, planning bombing missions, and training jihadis in bomb building, assassination, the creation of sleeper cells, and other acts of espionage.Building on the investigation he first chronicled in his previous books, 1000 Years for Revenge and Cover Up, Lance uses Mohamed to trace the untold story of al Qaeda's rise in the 1980s and 1990s. Incredibly, Mohamed, who remains in custodial witness protection today, has never been sentenced for his crimes. He exists under a veil of secrecy—a living witness to how the U.S. intelligence community was outflanked for years by the terror network.

From his first appearance on the FBI's radar in 1989—training Islamic extremists on Long Island—to his presence in the database of Operation Able Danger eighteen months before 9/11, this devious triple agent was the one terrorist they had to sweep under the rug. Filled with news-making revelations, Triple Cross exposes the incompetence and duplicity of the FBI and Justice Department before 9/11 . . . and raises serious questions about how many more secrets the Feds may still be hiding.

If this is true, then what? Has US security been repeatedly compromised because of self-interested parties? Are we still vulnerable because of these compromises?

Or can this be written off as a just another conspiracy theory?

 

[Astronuc]

I believe at this point in time the battleground of the 'war of/on/against/including terror' has gotten out of control. Bush is kind of like the kid who likes to play with fire, and who thinks he can make a controlled fire, then not appreciating the conditions the fire is set and quickly spreads out of control.

In Jihadist Haven, a Goal: To Kill and Die in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/04/world/middleeast/04bombers.html

Mohammad Kamal, a young Sunni resident of Zarqa, traveled to Iraq in 2005 with Jihad Jaradad and became a "martyr" the same year.

ZARQA, Jordan — Abu Ibrahim considers his dead friends the lucky ones.

Four died in Iraq in 2005. Three more died this year, one with an explosives vest and another at the wheel of a bomb-laden truck, according to relatives and community leaders.

Abu Ibrahim, a lanky 24-year-old, was on the same mission when he left this bleak city north of Amman for Iraq last October. But he made it only as far as the border before he was arrested, and is now back home in a world he thought he had left for good — biding his time, he said, for another chance to hurl himself into martyrdom.

“I am happy for them but I cry for myself because I couldn’t do it yet,” said Abu Ibrahim, who uses this name as a nom de guerre. “I want to spread the roots of God on this Earth and free the land of occupiers. I don’t love anything in this world. What I care about is fighting.”

Zarqa has been known as a cradle of Islamic militancy since the beginning of the war in Iraq. It was the home of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, who was killed last summer. Today it is a breeding ground for would-be jihadists like Abu Ibrahim and five of his friends who left about the same time last fall, bound for Iraq.

Interviews with Abu Ibrahim and relatives of the other men show that rather than having been individually recruited by an organization like Mr. Zarqawi’s, they gradually radicalized one another, the more strident leading the way. Local imams led them further toward Iraq, citing verses from the Koran to justify killing civilians. The men watched videos depicting tortured and slain Muslims that are copied from Internet sites.

“The sheik, he was a hero,” Abu Ibrahim said of Mr. Zarqawi. But, he added, “I decided to go when my friends went.” For the final step, getting the phone number of a smuggler and address of a safe house in Iraq, the men used facilitators who act more like travel agents than militant leaders.

Not only is it Iraq (now) and Afghanistan, but militants are being recruited throughout the world. The challenge then is how to change that trend.

Local imams led them further toward Iraq, citing verses from the Koran to justify killing civilians. - That is very disturbing.

 

[BobG]

Yet another front in the War on Terror - this one initiated by the other side.

Now you'll have a website where you can "Ask a Terrorist".

Which of the four possibilities are more likely:

1) Al-Qaeda plants questions and only answers the planted questions.
2) Al-Qaeda answers all questions "whether it is coming from someone who agrees or disagrees."
3) Al-Qaeda tries to answer all questions, suddenly realizes they need a huge staff, and starts advertising job openings on Monster.com.
4) Their servers chronically crash, making it virtually impossible to ask a question.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What a rip. I asked about problem 15 from chapter 1 of 'Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity' by Baez and Muniain, and they were worse than no help at all. George Jones can beat these guys with one hand tied behind his back.