PDA

View Full Version : War in Iraq and Terror


krohde
Aug 22, 2003, 07:55 AM
I recently posted a number of entries to my blog about the war in iraq and the war on terror. They are quite critical but I would like to get some feedback so please visit my blog. http://www.rohdeonline.com

Thanks

KR

CmdrLaForge
Aug 22, 2003, 08:42 AM
Originally posted by krohde
I recently posted a number of entries to my blog about the war in iraq and the war on terror. They are quite critical but I would like to get some feedback so please visit my blog. http://www.rohdeonline.com

Thanks

KR

Well I can agress partly. But what has changed between the beginning of the war and now ? No one beliefed in WMD !

Desertrat
Aug 22, 2003, 01:57 PM
Every now and then somebody will post an article over at Time Bomb 2000 that is interestingly analytical. Saw one, recently, speaking to the problems we have in dealing with "Terrorism".

A major problem is the difference in the comparative psychology of us Westerners and Al Qaida.

While we may see it as a "War on Terror", they don't see themselves as terrorists against whom somebody is at war. If they were indeed terrorists, where are the followups? Where are the actual events which would spread terror, such as shooting up a shopping mall?

OBL himself said he did not expect the total collapse of the Towers. That they fell was Allah's will, which merely served to reinforce their sense they had done a righteous deed. Their reality seems to require an attack on the major symbols of the Great Satan, as opposed to the smaller attacks in the style of such as Hamas et al.

Insofar as a connection between Iraq and Al Qaida, I'd imagine it was indirect. That is, Saddam probably saw them as useful tools, rather than as any sort of partners. He could provide some money and training areas free of supervision, but no Iraqis would be identified with any acts. He probably would have been willing to provide some sort of WMD, but dependent on the proposed use or target. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." is a saying from antiquity in the Arab world.

It seems to me that the WOT is (as has been said) actually being fought in the shadows, in the back alleys by various countries' intelligence agencies, and police forces. I imagine that from time to time special squads from units such as the SAS or Delta Force would be used.

Our efforts in Iraq seem to me to be part of a larger geo-political chess game--but I'm not sure all the players understand the rules. Heck, maybe not even the goal! Afghanistan was definitely terrorism-associated, as the Taliban had sold (for money from ObL) a "free zone" to Al Qaida.

I said not long after 9/11 that trying to eliminate such as Al Qaida would be at least a five- to ten-year effort--and that was before we went into Afghanistan. I've seen nothing at all to make me shorten that guesstimate.

Interesting times.

'Rat

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by CmdrLaForge
Well I can agress partly. But what has changed between the beginning of the war and now ? No one beliefed in WMD !

Your right. The 15 memebers of the Security Council just kept sanctions on the country of Iraq for over a decade for the fun of it. :rolleyes:

3rdpath
Aug 22, 2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Your right. The 15 memebers of the Security Council just kept sanctions on the country of Iraq for over a decade for the fun of it. :rolleyes:

actually, the sanctions were more out of spite than fun but the end result was the same...the population suffered and the end result( saddam's departure) was NOT achieved.

and i find it shocking how little the western leaders understand the mentality of these regions. many many of these people know of nothing else but fighting. they will find an enemy, whether it's america, some religious faction, the kurds...whoever. as long as we are there, we will be a target.

seems pretty simple to me.

is russia's folly in afghanistan such a distant memory?

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath
actually, the sanctions were more out of spite than fun but the end result was the same...the population suffered and the end result( saddam's departure) was NOT achieved.

and i find it shocking how little the western leaders understand the mentality of these regions. many many of these people know of nothing else but fighting. they will find an enemy, whether it's america, some religious faction, the kurds...whoever. as long as we are there, we will be a target.

seems pretty simple to me.

is russia's folly in afghanistan such a distant memory?

No, you are right. They will keep getting radicals there. Our friends the Saudis were allowing sermons this past friday calling for radicals to go to Iraq and kill the evil satan.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 04:16 PM
Iraq is looking uglier and uglier the longer it goes on.

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Iraq is looking uglier and uglier the longer it goes on.

Yep, time for the UN to come in.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 04:21 PM
Yeah, but they're feeling a little irrelevant. I think we may have to kiss some ass a little now to get the kind of cooperation that will really save out butts.

Backtothemac
Aug 22, 2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah, but they're feeling a little irrelevant. I think we may have to kiss some ass a little now to get the kind of cooperation that will really save out butts.

Well, people are comparing this to Nam. We lost 58,000 troops there, and have not lost 500 in Iraq. Big difference. We have to get Saddam, and quick.

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Well, people are comparing this to Nam. We lost 58,000 troops there, and have not lost 500 in Iraq. Big difference. We have to get Saddam, and quick.

Bush really screwed us here I think. That was one of my big gripes pre-war, we were dissing our allies to the point where if things didn't go as planned we would be hard pressed to get them to help us. Germany and France espescially have reasons to wait and stall to make us pay for being so pushy. They know if we are coming to them for help we are really over a barrel, and that's not a position I like to be in.

Durandal7
Aug 22, 2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by CmdrLaForge
Well I can agress partly. But what has changed between the beginning of the war and now ? No one beliefed in WMD !

And what makes you think that Bush would release the evidence immediately? Wouldn't it be even more clever to hold onto it for months and then spring it on the world?

It is very likely that Bush is planning to make the Democrats look like jackasses not only to pad his chances of re-election but also to erode senate Democrat opposition to military action in Syria.

Bingo, Bush kills three birds with one massive stone.

Only time will tell....

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by Durandal7
And what makes you think that Bush would release the evidence immediately? Wouldn't it be even more clever to hold onto it for months and then spring it on the world?

It is very likely that Bush is planning to make the Democrats look like jackasses not only to pad his chances of re-election but also to erode senate Democrat opposition to military action in Syria.

Bingo, Bush kills three birds with one massive stone.

Only time will tell....

Yeah I'm a little worried about this too. The democrats will be highly vulnerable if they are attacking the president on Iraq when he comes up with some WMD's, or gets Saddam. I wouldn't even doubt UBL gets reeled in right around election time. I'm quite sure these thoughts and others go through the head of Karl Rove.

Desertrat
Aug 22, 2003, 05:15 PM
Here's the URL to which I referred in my earlier post:

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris_print.html

It might give a bit of a clearer picture as to what Bush--and we--are up against.

'Rat

Durandal7
Aug 22, 2003, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by mactastic
Yeah I'm a little worried about this too. The democrats will be highly vulnerable if they are attacking the president on Iraq when he comes up with some WMD's, or gets Saddam. I wouldn't even doubt UBL gets reeled in right around election time. I'm quite sure these thoughts and others go through the head of Karl Rove.

Indeed, I think this is rather imminent and I don't like the thought of our military getting that spread out and entrenched in the middle east. Due to a few recent comments by the Bush and Blair administration about having "concrete proof" of Iraqi WMDs that will come to light in September, I see the following taking place:

Bush reveals a large cache of Iraqi WMDs, oddly enough Syria happens to have a hand in the matter since they assisted in smuggling much of them out of the country.

Major Implication 1: The Republicans will cast the Democrats as liberal wackos (a view that they have greatly assisted with their actions the last few months) and will proceed to annihilate the credibility of all the Presidential contenders, especially Dean. The Republicans will "remind" the nation that Bush has been saying there is evidence of WMDs in Iraq the whole time and that the Democrats obviously have no faith in American righteousness or the executive office. The Democrats will respond with their failed technique of moving even further to the left, which tends to be the political equivalent of digging a hole and jumping in.
Bush wins second term, Democrats lose any sway over the Senate and the House slips further still of their grip.

Major Implication 2: Syria had a hand in smuggling WMDs out of Iraq, which conviniently explains why it was so hard to find them right away. Obviously, since Syria has obtained WMDs and already had stockpiles then an attack on Isreal must be imminent. Some of them might even make their way into terrorist hands. Bush will make this case for war and will have already eroded any shred of Democrat resistance as their credibility will be severely hurt and the party will be in chaos. The Call to Arms passes through the legislative branch with ease and America is in Syria the next day.

How's that for a right-wing conspiracy? ;)

It is very likely that this is how it will go down. I suspect the bulk of the arguments against this actually happening will be knee-jerk responses like "Bush is too stupid to think of that" or "Bush lies about everything so there are no WMDs."

mactastic
Aug 22, 2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by Desertrat
Here's the URL to which I referred in my earlier post:

http://www.policyreview.org/AUG02/harris_print.html

It might give a bit of a clearer picture as to what Bush--and we--are up against.

'Rat

Interesting article.

Hey 'Rat, have you ever read anything by Rene Girard? I just picked up a book called "Violence and the Sacred" my wife recommended. I'll let you know how it is since I have just barely started it. There are some interesting things about the role of violence in our society.

Desertrat
Aug 23, 2003, 09:54 AM
No, haven't run across his writings.

I've always had an emotional "thing" against gratuitous violence, whether induced by politics, religion or testosterone. The world is such a wondrous playground, and I've never understood why people want to mess over other people. I always figured the best thing to do with troublemakers was bury them.

'Rat

wwworry
Aug 23, 2003, 11:20 AM
never mind.

CmdrLaForge
Aug 24, 2003, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Durandal7
And what makes you think that Bush would release the evidence immediately? Wouldn't it be even more clever to hold onto it for months and then spring it on the world?

It is very likely that Bush is planning to make the Democrats look like jackasses not only to pad his chances of re-election but also to erode senate Democrat opposition to military action in Syria.

Bingo, Bush kills three birds with one massive stone.

Only time will tell....

You mean this war was about "How can Bush be re-elected instead WMD ?"

WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS ?

visor
Aug 24, 2003, 09:47 AM
Make sure you have the normal people on your side.

Try to seperate Terrorist thoughts from the normal people. In a way that normal people cannot identify with the terrorists.

Make pointed, successfull stikes that imprison the terrorists as final result.

Frequently made mistakes:
Start a full blown warin foreign countries without quickly archiving a goal.

Upset normal people with your actions.

appear to be arrogant, especially against the people you should have as allies.

Make solo moves without legitimate backing.

Fight terror with terror spinning up a violence spiral.

and, most fatal: break laws trying to fight terrorism - and be caught doing so.

mactastic
Aug 24, 2003, 10:17 AM
I'll add one more... using terrorism as an excuse to justify a war of aggression against a sovereign nation, then not being able to back up the reasons you gave.

mcrain
Aug 24, 2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Yep, time for the UN to come in.

Oh, NOW it's time for the UN to come in? We kick them out, make a mess, then expect them to come in and clean up for us?

Bush messed up when he kicked the UN out, and refused to work to get UN support for a war against Iraq.

If I were the UN General Secretary or any other country that Bush snubbed (Germany, France, Russia, even the UK), I'd tell Bush to go "Cowboy up" and take care of it himself.

Talk about a foreign policy nightmare brought about by the rash and hasty actions of arrogant men who thought they could do no wrong.

IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Talk about a foreign policy nightmare brought about by the rash and hasty actions of arrogant men who thought they could do no wrong.

Dissolving Iraqi Army Seen by Many as a Costly Move

U.S. officials say they had no choice but to disband the military. The coalition now faces attack and must rebuild the force

WASHINGTON — U.S. civil administrator L. Paul Bremer III had been on the job in Baghdad less than two weeks when he announced a decision that sent shockwaves through Iraqi society.

With a stroke of the pen, Bremer dissolved Iraq's vast armed services, sending pink slips to more than 400,000 armed officers and enlisted men whose light resistance had helped secure the U.S.-led military victory against their government.

It was a decision that went against the advice of U.S. experts and exiled Iraqi military officers. They had spent months preparing detailed plans for the Bush administration that called for giving the Iraqi army a key role in winning the peace.

Now, many Iraqis believe, the cost of that decision is becoming painfully clear. U.S. troops and occupation officials are struggling to go it alone in defending themselves and Iraq against daily attacks by armed opponents, who are blowing up water mains, oil pipelines, electric towers, military convoys and, this month, the Jordanian Embassy and the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad.

Some experts believe that Bremer's May 23 edict may even have provided recruits for the insurgency by alienating trained officers and enlisted men who were enraged by the decree. One administration official suggested last week that former senior officers may even be "directing" the attacks.

At the same time, Pentagon leaders are calling for Iraqis to take a greater role in defending their country against attacks. They are to build a new Iraqi army from scratch — while most of the old army sits at home collecting stipends of $50 to $150 a month.

"Instead of us using these personnel against terrorism, terrorists are using them against us," said former Iraqi special forces Maj. Mohammed Faour, who helped lead a group of exiles who were consulted in the administration's early postwar military planning.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraqarmy24aug24002421,1,6880219.story?

mactastic
Aug 24, 2003, 12:54 PM
...in addition his decision left 400,000 people unemployed. People who have access to weapons and explosives that can be sold or used. I can see not wanting to keep the upper ranks of the military, but the foot soldiers were not likely to be hard-core Saddam sympathizers.

Pinto
Aug 24, 2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by 3rdpath

is russia's folly in afghanistan such a distant memory?

That would be the war that the US helped start by arming religious fanatics to overthrow the Afghani Government.

How ironic that it was the US Govt's efforts to give the USSR it's own Vietnam, that indirectly led to the formation of the Taliban, who gave help and a safe base to Al Queda, who then bombed the Twin Towers.

Talk about the chickens coming home to roost.

Ugg
Aug 24, 2003, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by mcrain
Talk about a foreign policy nightmare brought about by the rash and hasty actions of arrogant men who thought they could do no wrong.


Don't you mean OILmen?