Without Bush's Iraq war, how did Dem.'s plan to fight terror?

[Iamme]

The Iraq war has turned into a political chess match between Democrats and Republicans. Our local papers editorial pages feature an article ONE day, from a conservative...and then the NEXT day, some liberal has editorial denouncing Bush, his motives, and what possible damage we have caused with our global relationships.

It's easy to just condemn Bush. Words are cheap. What I would like to know, is that if we didn't quickly go into Afghanistan to try and root out terror...if we didn't quickly go into Iraq to knock down a despot and his possible links to terror....what would we, er, what would the Democrats have proposed we do? SOMETHING had to be done after 9-11.

There were plenty of yard signs out that said, "War is not the answer". But the yard signs didn't say what IS the answer. Bush took a firm stand. He had resolve. Many people did not appreciate his quick resolve, while others did and do. And it's that way today.

So, say Gore was in there. What do you think HE would have done post 9-11, and do you believe invasions and wars would have occurred, or do you believe just diplomacy would have sufficed?

[evildave]

Translation: "Would Al Gore have behaved differently after 9/11?"

Probably not much differently. Same intel, different man.

Would Al Gore have attacked Iraq like such a total friggin' idiot?

Probably not.

[Gem]

The War in Afganistan would still have happened. Maybe a bit more negotiations, but still the same scenario.

As for Iraq, may I remind everyone that Iraq just wasn't on people's political radar until Bush put it in? If Gore was President, it's entirely possible Iraq would just have gone by with sanctions still in place: status quo.

Gem

[specious_reasons]

You know, I just read this in Al Franken's book, so take what it says with a grain of salt.

Bill Clinton put Richard Clarke in charge of coming up with a comprehensive plan to take out Al Qaeda. Edited to add: This was started in Oct, 2000.

The plan was an ambitious one: break up al Qaeda cells and arrest their personnel; sytematically attack financial support for its terrorist activities; freeze its assest;stop its funding through fake charities; give aid to government having trouble with al Qaeda (Uzbekistan, the Phillipines, and Yemen); and, most significantly, scale up covert action in Afghanistan to eliminate the training camps and reach bin Laden himself. Clarke proposed bulking up support for the Northern Alliance and putting Special Forces troops on the ground in Afghanistan. As a senior Bush administration official told Time, Clarke's plan amounted to "everything we've done since 9/11".


I do know that, before missle defense became a priority in the Bush white house, the administration was given this plan. Clarke even stayed on in his role as head of counterterrorism.

Edited to fix some obvious typos

[headscratcher4]

Loathsom as the Saddam regime was, the Bush Administration has never showed that there was a real connection between what is classified and understood as "terror" (a'la 9/11 and Al Qeda) and Iraq.

They trot it out, but they keep having to back down. Now, the real issue is whether as a result of these actions, America/Americans and the wrold are any safer? It seems to me that is still a wide-open question.

The world is better off without Saddam...but there are a myriad regimes in the world that is true for...some, like North Korea pose a much more immediate threat to US perceptions of its security needs, and is known to actively support terrorists with materials and money.

They simply haven't proved the linkage beteen the anti terrorist policy and the need to invade Iraq...and the case looks weaker all the time. That is the problem.

[TillEulenspiegel]

I have been active on a few political boards this past year or so and have expressed my opinion thus:

Afghanistan was necessary as that was the breeding ground for al quida and other terrorist organizations. It was a direct response to the people responsible for 9-11

That Saddam was a bad man is a given, that is no reason to war. What changed the dynamic so drastically that the United States had to initiate a war immiediatly without that consent ( or silence ) of it's major allies?

President Bush's answer was that Saddam possessed WMD which were able to be activated within 15 mins and we have definitive proof, not iffy, not uncertain but concrete. That was a falsehood the White house knew it was a falsehood, in fact Bush and his advisors had been planning to engage Iraq as far back as 2000.

The article quote: Bush Planned Iraq 'Regime Change' Before Becoming President

By Neil Mackay

A secret blueprint for US global domination reveals that President Bush and his cabinet were planning a premeditated attack on Iraq to secure 'regime change' even before he took power in January 2001.
The blueprint, uncovered by the Sunday Herald, for the creation of a 'global Pax Americana' was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice- president), Donald Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), George W Bush's younger brother Jeb and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences: Strategies, Forces And Resources For A New Century, was written in September 2000 by the neo-conservative think-tank Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It says: 'The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'

The document:<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf>

Wether or not this was the case (as it appears to be) Bush and his cabinet were warned 3 times not to use the so called "intelligence" background as it was at best completely suspect.
As it turns out it was exactly that. The declaration of WMD was and continues to be a fiction. Dual use items are now being acclaimed as the smoking gun (of which claim is also tenuous at best) which were not used in the supremely declarative State of the Union Address.
The alleged infiltration and cooperation between Iraq and Al Quida is now also an admitted exaggeration . ( I prefer the term falsehood altho some say lie)
So as we see the whole justification for the war was a non existent manufactured crisis. Attempts at post war justification are smarmy at best. I believe Pres.Bush expected to have a new improved version of daddy's war , where, after rolling through Bhagdad and killing Saddam, the Iraquis would love us and no one would notice the lack of WMD. Unfortunately it work out that way.
To answer Your question , yes to do nothing since nothing had changed in 10 yrs would have been a better stance. We could have had our allies join and would have placated the Arab population quite a bit more.

[fishbob]

There is no solid evidence that war with Iraq has anything to do with fighting terrorism. There are hints coming to light that war with Iraq was based on political motivations, catering to special interests, manipulation by Iraqi expatriots, and maybe a little revenge.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by fishbob
There is no solid evidence that war with Iraq has anything to do with fighting terrorism.

There is disagreement among people on this board about whether or not the Iraq war had anything to do with fighting terrorism, and we're not likely to get everyone to reach a concensus right now. But there's still something that has NOT been discussed much lately. So let me rephrase what I think the original poster was trying to get at:

For those who think invading Iraq was not the right decision, what do you think the US should be doing to combat terrorism? Do you have a concept for how the US could actually win the war on terrorism? Merely declaring that we shouldn't take a particular course of action doesn't get you very far. What do you propose we should do instead, and how would that lead to victory against the terrorists?

[a_unique_person]

The other question, of course, is how do you 'fight' terrorism. It has to be a more sophisticated plan than just going somewhere and killing someone. Diplomacy is an essential part of any plan, as well as trust, sensitivity and generosity.

Why should the US behave at higher levels or morality and be held to higher standards of accountability than other countries. Because it is a democracy, it is an open society, and it is richer. It is much better to lead and be followed than just coerce something out of someone.

I read somewhere that when something is taken by force, there will usually be an attempt to take it back by force.

[headscratcher4]

There are a great many things -- other than invade Iraq -- that the US could be doing to fight terrorism. I'll name a few...these are mostly overt policies, rather than covert policies.

1. Stop supporting dictatorships simply because they've got oil. E.g. the Saudis, and like-minded dictotorial regimes, are the regimes of choice for the US in the middle east. Were there real expression, functional, modern states in the middle east, large numbers of dissafected youth would not be embracing islamo-facism in order to believe that their voices will be heard.

2. Islamic fundumentalism spreads because Islamic fundumentalists build schools, hospitals, charities, food distribution networks, etc. They spice them all with anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric. People send their children to these schools in Pakistan and other places because (unlike govt. education) it is cheap or free, it is the only way they think their children will have a better life.

Think about it, if we as a nation have to spend 86$billion in foriegn aid (the cost of rebuilding Iraq) but were doing so in Pakistan and Jordan and Morrocco and Egypt, building free and cheap schools, building hospitals and helping the poor (rather than supporting their oppressive governments), I wonder if we couldn't better compete for the hearts and minds of the next Generation.

3. Become less dependent on fossil fuels. No, not just from the middle east (opening ANWAR will not solve our problem). SImply, invest in technologies and practices that make us less dependent on areas like the middle east where we've worn out our welcome.

4. Don't let despots shelter their money in Western banks and the US.

5. Reopen and fund US cultural institutions globally.

6. Be more multilateralist than uni-lateralist.

7. Figure out how to embrace Iran...a generation of democracy hungry Islamics who are tierd of the mullah's are striving to be heard, and yet we won't engage with the country. Think about an active, democratic Iran who have lived the harsh islamic experience being an anchor of stability in the middle east, rather than a terrorist state.

Now, there are seven things that the US can do. IT WON'T END TERRORISM. But, I would argue, that the steps that the US government today is taking won't end terrorism either. We need to be active, rather than reactive, and all the Bushies can be is re-active.

Just some thoughts....

[Ziggurat]

headscratcher4,

Some of your ideas are good. Your number 3 is something we're going to need to do regardless of terrorism. But some of them, like "Figure out how to embrace Iran", are goals and not plans. How would we embrace Iran, or more specifically and importantly, how do we encourage them to become more democratic and open?

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
There are a great many things -- other than invade Iraq -- that the US could be doing to fight terrorism. I'll name a few...these are mostly overt policies, rather than covert policies.

1. Stop supporting dictatorships simply because they've got oil. E.g. the Saudis, and like-minded dictotorial regimes, are the regimes of choice for the US in the middle east. Were there real expression, functional, modern states in the middle east, large numbers of dissafected youth would not be embracing islamo-facism in order to believe that their voices will be heard.

2. Islamic fundumentalism spreads because Islamic fundumentalists build schools, hospitals, charities, food distribution networks, etc. They spice them all with anti-American and anti-Western rhetoric. People send their children to these schools in Pakistan and other places because (unlike govt. education) it is cheap or free, it is the only way they think their children will have a better life.

Think about it, if we as a nation have to spend 86$billion in foriegn aid (the cost of rebuilding Iraq) but were doing so in Pakistan and Jordan and Morrocco and Egypt, building free and cheap schools, building hospitals and helping the poor (rather than supporting their oppressive governments), I wonder if we couldn't better compete for the hearts and minds of the next Generation.

3. Become less dependent on fossil fuels. No, not just from the middle east (opening ANWAR will not solve our problem). SImply, invest in technologies and practices that make us less dependent on areas like the middle east where we've worn out our welcome.

4. Don't let despots shelter their money in Western banks and the US.

5. Reopen and fund US cultural institutions globally.

6. Be more multilateralist than uni-lateralist.

7. Figure out how to embrace Iran...a generation of democracy hungry Islamics who are tierd of the mullah's are striving to be heard, and yet we won't engage with the country. Think about an active, democratic Iran who have lived the harsh islamic experience being an anchor of stability in the middle east, rather than a terrorist state.

Now, there are seven things that the US can do. IT WON'T END TERRORISM. But, I would argue, that the steps that the US government today is taking won't end terrorism either. We need to be active, rather than reactive, and all the Bushies can be is re-active.

Just some thoughts....

Hello Headscratcher,
Interesting post as usual.

I am curious about this one:

"1. Stop supporting dictatorships simply because they've got oil. E.g. the Saudis, and like-minded dictotorial regimes, are the regimes of choice for the US in the middle east. Were there real expression, functional, modern states in the middle east, large numbers of dissafected youth would not be embracing islamo-facism in order to believe that their voices will be heard."

I wonder if you could clarify this for me. What can one do about the dictatorial regimes in the Middle East per se? When you say don't support them, what do you mean? Trade? Recognizing them?

I know the US gives something like 2 billion a year to Mubarak's government in Egypt as de facto part of the Camp David Accord of 1979: (Giving money to Israel and Egypt in exchange for not attacking each other.)

As you are no doubt aware, France, Russia, and others had huge arms contracts with the Saddam regime over the years. Is this supporting a dictatorial regime? Did this encourage terrorism?

Doesn't every liberal Western democracy then de facto support dictatorial regimes?

Also,
The regimes like Assad and the Fahd family are all in place now. Some were former Soviet client states and some were backed by West. What do you do now? How does one not support them? Are anti-government groups like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or other places any better?

Not that I think you are wrong HS, I just want to know how practically it can be done?

Thanks.

:)

[Chaos]

Great post, headscratcher. The Bushies should have parts of this tatooed on the inside of their eyelids, so they are always aware of it.

Not supporting dictatorships can be done in different ways:

1. If you have the choice to buy something (e.g. oil) from a dictatorship (e.g. Saudi Arabia) or a democracy (e.g. Norway), buy from the democracy.

2. Don´t give aid to the dictatorships. Give it to aid organizations (e.g. Red Cross) that, in turn, use it to help the people directly.

3. Don´t sell the dictatorships weapons or military/dual-use technology.

4. Don´t cooperate with one dictatorship against another dictatorship.

5. Don´t support a coupe d´etat against an elected government.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Iamme
It's easy to just condemn Bush. Words are cheap. What I would like to know, is that if we didn't quickly go into Afghanistan to try and root out terror...if we didn't quickly go into Iraq to knock down a despot and his possible links to terror....what would we, er, what would the Democrats have proposed we do? SOMETHING had to be done after 9-11.


As has been said above, I dont think there are many rational people who would have objected to the removal of the Taliban either in terms of absolute morality or in terms of the FACT that they allowed and encouraged Afghanistan to become a terrorist haven.

But Iraq? wtf has Iraq to do with the war on terror? might as well have invaded Ethiopia....

I heard that 70% of of USians think that Saddam was responsible for 9-11..............are you one of them Iamme?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
[B]You know, I just read this in Al Franken's book, so take what it says with a grain of salt.

Bill Clinton put Richard Clarke in charge of coming up with a comprehensive plan to take out Al Qaeda. Edited to add: This was started in Oct, 2000.

You know, and leftists here think Al Franken is so much better than Anne Coulture. The Time magazine piece he gleaned this info from is considered mistaken by most.

The "comprehensive plan" was a powerpoint presentation that spoke in general terms.

[Michael Redman]

I think the war is going to make it considerably more likely that we'll be attacked again. To answer your question, the Dems would probably have tried to do something that didn't involve turning the world's sympathy from us to the terrorists. Next time, there will be far fewer condolences, and far more "we told you so"s from the rest of the world.

Originally posted by corplinx
The Time magazine piece he gleaned this info from is considered mistaken by most.Do you mean the same "most" that think Iraq was responsible for the Al Queida attack? (argument to popularity)

Or do you have any actual facts to support the claim that the Time article is inaccurate?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

Or do you have any actual facts to support the claim that the Time article is inaccurate?

The problem isn't me disproving their claim. The problem is them backing it up. They mention a "comprehensive" plan but I listed to Connie Rice describe it as a powerpoint presentation with some broad bullet points.

They made the claim, they have no evidence of the plan being anything other than a big duh.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by fishbob
...There are hints coming to light that war with Iraq was based on political motivations, catering to special interests, manipulation by Iraqi expatriots, and maybe a little revenge.

When did you believe otherwise? Er, ditto for every war ever fought, huh?

[American]

As stated by Hillary, their primary focus is to buy hospital beds and throw money at first responders (who will mainly spend it on needless overtime pay). Hospital beds... I think caskets are more appropriate under the democrat's plan.


Basically their plan is to sit here and die rather than go on the offensive and kill them first.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by corplinx


You know, and leftists here think Al Franken is so much better than Anne Coulture. The Time magazine piece he gleaned this info from is considered mistaken by most.

The "comprehensive plan" was a powerpoint presentation that spoke in general terms.

I personally think Al Franken is a hell of a lot funnier than Coulter, PJ O'Rourke is a closer match. That his politics match mine is icing on the cake.

I'm open to refutations to Franken's book. Like I said, take it with a grain of salt. I don't like this he said/she said, though. Let's agree on some facts:

1. Richard Clarke was hired by Clinton to come up with a plan for terrorists.
2. Rice met with Clarke as part of the transition.

There may or may not have been a fully documented plan... But, I think it's reasonable to assume:

1. Al Qaeda was identified to Rice as a serious threat to US security.
2. A list of objectives was presented to address this threat.

corplinx, have you ever given a presentation of a plan? Do you put in full details of schedules, timelines, people and places?

Do you remember how Bush presented his plan of action against terrorism to the public?

Franken may have put spin on this event, but I think "powerpoint presentation" is also spinning.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
I think the war is going to make it considerably more likely that we'll be attacked again. To answer your question, the Dems would probably have tried to do something that didn't involve turning the world's sympathy from us to the terrorists. Next time, there will be far fewer condolences, and far more "we told you so"s from the rest of the world.

Do you mean the same "most" that think Iraq was responsible for the Al Queida attack? (argument to popularity)

Or do you have any actual facts to support the claim that the Time article is inaccurate?

More likely??

The US suffered a major Al Qaida attack almost every year of Clinton's admin. Khobar Towers, Kenya/Tanzania, USS Cole... Clinton did what? Lobed a few cruise missiles and called it a day. What did he reap? MORE attacks.

Now Bush suffered 9/11, the grandaddy of all terrorist attacks,..but 9/11 was in the works for YEARS prior to Bush's term began. Bush's response to 9/11 was to bring WAR...real war to Al Qaida. What has Al Qaida done lately? No successful operations against US targets...NONE.

So, how are we, not just more likely,..but in your words:
considerably more likely that we'll be attacked again.

What criteria are you using? I'm looking at real world results of the WOT, and I see the figure that belies your assertion. That would be:
Major Al Qaida attacks against America since 9/11 = 0

A goose egg. Zip, zilch, nada. The only real fear I have anymore of terrorism, is that a do-nothing liberal democrat may someday get back in and try the kinder, gentler face of America. The Arabs see that face and they do not see friendship...they see weakness.

The weakness BC displayed in pulling our soldiers out of Somalia in disgrace after the loss of some 17 troops has, IMHO given OBL the idea that we were not to be feared. Weakness is the one most dangerous thing to show an enemy, especially a terrorist animal like OBL.

I'm a skeptic Micheal,...I like to look at reality instead of conjecture. The present reality is that OBL has been unable to hit us again. I doubt he's lost his motivation... he has, as you have said, all the more motivation now. The only fact I can derive from a real-world view is that he has lost his ability. Under another lilly-livered liberal I don't doubt he'd regain that ability PDQ.

-z

Edited to add: BTW, he hits us again, and at least the world will be right that we had it coming. So what? It's war, and at least we've woken up and we know we're at war. Unlike the unlucky souls in the WTC and those aircraft...they had no idea why they were dying. It was unexpected, and thus all the more tragic. I for one don't give a crap what "the world" thinks of us,..we're locked in a battle against terrorism that "the world" has forever sought to appease and avoid. If the WOT had begun when "the world" saw the murder of Israeli athletes on tv, we'd likely have never suffered 9/11. Terrorism appeased, is terrorism rewarded. Terrorism rewarded = terrorists subsidized.

[Michael Redman]

The attacks before 9/11 were on foreign assets, not on American soil. Are you claiming that there haven't been any attacks on foreign assets since 9/11? If so, you need to leave here quick, and go read a newspaper.

And Clinton's reaction would have been more vigorous if the Republicans didn't handcuff him. They ignored the danger, and publicly claimed that the missile attack against Al Queida was for nothing but domestic political purposes. He never would have gotten authorization to do anything further, and they pretty much guaranteed that Bin Laden would be able to continue working unmolested.

By giving the mass of humanity plenty of reason to hate the US, Bush is making it more likely that someone will attack us. Who cares who it is? Maybe Al Queida is out of action (pure conjecture) and the next attack comes from somewhere else. Do we care?

Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do, in my opinion. However, by attacking Iraq, Bush isn't fighting terrorism, he's fueling it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
The attacks before 9/11 were on foreign assets, not on American soil. Are you claiming that there haven't been any attacks on foreign assets since 9/11? If so, you need to leave here quick, and go read a newspaper.


I think the Bali nightclub bombing is really the only thing close to the sort of activity we were seeing before 9/11 against American-involved targets (although it was more Australians who got hit).


And Clinton's reaction would have been more vigorous if the Republicans didn't handcuff him.


I agree, but I think the point remains that the US did not act vigorously against them before 9/11, and that was a terrible mistake.


Going into Afghanistan was the right thing to do, in my opinion. However, by attacking Iraq, Bush isn't fighting terrorism, he's fueling it.

I think the "fueling" is only going to be short-term. Long term I think it's going to help. As long as the middle east is controlled solely by opressive and backwards governments of one stripe or another, things are not going to improve and terrorism is going to thrive. Democracy is the way to kill terrorism long-term.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
headscratcher4,

Some of your ideas are good. Your number 3 is something we're going to need to do regardless of terrorism. But some of them, like "Figure out how to embrace Iran", are goals and not plans. How would we embrace Iran, or more specifically and importantly, how do we encourage them to become more democratic and open?

Z:

You make a fair point. I am not sure that I have a pat answer for your question. My statement arises from a belief that the youthful masses in Iran today are struggling for the soul of their country against hardline fundamentalists and governmetnal krypto-Islamic Facists. For these young people a more open, "liberal", western society -- one consisting of greater individual freedom, rule of law and economic opportunity -- rather than the reign of the mullahs.

I also suspect that many of these young people, while embracing western Ideals and even American pop culture and its icons, would reject how the US behaves globally, its recent projections of power and its interpration of global events (most particularly the conflict in the Middle East).

We should want these young people to strive and re-capture their government, because they have a wish to rule themselves, speak their minds and act in a more integrated manner on the global stage. The problem I think US policy makers have is that they can not conceive that people could strive for greater Democracy and individula freedom and not embrace the US and it's global interest. In other words, a Democratic Iran, which we should want in the US, may not agree/approve of US actions. It may turn out to be something like a MiddleEastern France. More power to it.

My point is, I guess, that I think demographically this is coming. We must be very careful, regardless of the ultimate shape and attitude of an emerging Iranian democracy to encourage representative and economic liberal democracy in that country rather than doing things that radicalizes the population against the west in general and the US in particular.

What that is, or how we do that, I don't know. I just believe that we can find a means of establishing common ground and a relationship with people and a government striving to build democratic institutions and true republican government.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
I think the Bali nightclub bombing is really the only thing close to the sort of activity we were seeing before 9/11 against American-involved targets (although it was more Australians who got hit).There have been bombings in Afghanistan and Iraq that seem to have been motivated by other than nationalistic concerns.I agree, but I think the point remains that the US did not act vigorously against them before 9/11, and that was a terrible mistake.I agree. Both Clinton and Bush are to blame for this, I think.I think the "fueling" is only going to be short-term. Long term I think it's going to help. As long as the middle east is controlled solely by opressive and backwards governments of one stripe or another, things are not going to improve and terrorism is going to thrive. Democracy is the way to kill terrorism long-term. I hope you're right that the fueling is only temporary. To some extent, it seems likely.

Democracy, however, isn't enough to prevent terrorism. It takes good will, understanding, and cooperation. Look at Oklahoma City, the IRA, and ETA. We may very well help bring about democracies in which people nevertheless plot to attack us, if we're not careful about how the rest of the world views us.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

Democracy, however, isn't enough to prevent terrorism. It takes good will, understanding, and cooperation. Look at Oklahoma City, the IRA, and ETA. We may very well help bring about democracies in which people nevertheless plot to attack us, if we're not careful about how the rest of the world views us.

Not completely. But Oklahoma was a freak, isolated incident. Even many of the gung-ho, anti-government militias who sympathized with McVeigh's views backed off when they saw what happened. McVeigh was unable to inspire people to follow in his footsteps, and that's a good thing. And I believe the fact that we're a democracy, with freedom of expression, has a lot to do with that. The situation is also improving in northern ireland (btw, the UDA was just as much of a problem there, and killed more people than the IRA, but were on the opposite side and didn't carry out operations outside of northern ireland). Yes, democracy cannot completely eliminate terrorism, but it's the best way to fight its spread. People don't tolerate extremists in their midst if they have a stake in their own country, and they won't be as prone to delusional ideologies when free expression is the rule rather than the exception.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by rikzilla

(snip)

Now Bush suffered 9/11, the grandaddy of all terrorist attacks,..but 9/11 was in the works for YEARS prior to Bush's term began. Bush's response to 9/11 was to bring WAR...real war to Al Qaida. What has Al Qaida done lately? No successful operations against US targets...NONE.

(snip)

I'm a skeptic Micheal,...I like to look at reality instead of conjecture. The present reality is that OBL has been unable to hit us again. I doubt he's lost his motivation... he has, as you have said, all the more motivation now. The only fact I can derive from a real-world view is that he has lost his ability. Under another lilly-livered liberal I don't doubt he'd regain that ability PDQ.
(snip)


Paul Bremer has made the defacto admission that some of the people attacking our troops are Islamic extremists from non-Iraqi countries.

Saudi Arabia - the orginal target for al Qaeda - was attacked in May this year, targetting three housing compunds, killing at least 9 Americans.

Sure, al Qaeda isn't attacking Americans on American soil. But, then again, they've only done that a few times in recent history.

..and Rik, you're a skeptic, so you should realize that using derogatory language like "lilly livered" isn't a constructive argument, yet you continue to use baiting language when I know you can do better.

[specious_reasons]

Bump.

Rik, willing to counter my response to, "No successful operations against US targets...NONE." ?

[Michael Redman]

It looks like I'm not the only one who thinks that attacking Iraq might lead to more terrorism:

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/106622952879.htm

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Ziggurat
There is disagreement among people on this board about whether or not the Iraq war had anything to do with fighting terrorism, and we're not likely to get everyone to reach a concensus right now. But there's still something that has NOT been discussed much lately. So let me rephrase what I think the original poster was trying to get at:

For those who think invading Iraq was not the right decision, what do you think the US should be doing to combat terrorism? Do you have a concept for how the US could actually win the war on terrorism? Merely declaring that we shouldn't take a particular course of action doesn't get you very far. What do you propose we should do instead, and how would that lead to victory against the terrorists?

We agree to disagree about Iraq. Fair enough.

To answer your question on terrorism:

1. There is no such state as "we won the war on terror (i.e. so that terrorism is wiped out)". It is meaningless to discuss this as a goal, much as the Vietnam War was to eliminate communism. By implying that such a goal is possible, we set our selves up for a never-ending state of war; this will not make people safer or happier. There is always someone - even Americans (such as McVeigh) - who will choose to commit an act of evil.

2. We should go after terrorists who commit criminal acts of terrorism. We should eject suspected foreign terrorists from the US.

3. Where possible, we should seek out terrorist plots before they occur. If we find "concrete evidence", we should prosecute as a conspiracy. I do not think the FBI needs new powers to accomplish this, any more than they need new powers to go after mobsters.

4. Above all, we should recognize that having a free and open society - one with great wealth and power - implies a cost. That cost is that we will always be vulnerable to determined terrorists. There is always one more vulnerablility, and no amount of effort or expense can ever eliminate that completely. Accept the risk - it is no different than the risk of a tornado, earthquake or fire killing you. And overall, a lot less likely.

As an aside: I think it was reasonable for Bush to go after Osama in Afghanistan. After the fact, of course.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, but I think the point remains that the US did not act vigorously against them before 9/11, and that was a terrible mistake.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree. Both Clinton and Bush are to blame for this, I think.[B]I hope you're right that the fueling is only temporary. To some extent, it seems likely.


Both of you seem to believe that "coming down strongly" against terrorists somehow deters future terrorism. I would challenge you to back that idea up with some reasonable facts. Israel is the most active country against terrorism, and I see no connection between their actions and the amount of terrorism they suffer. It looks to me like other variables control this a lot more strongly.

I would agree that actually capturing or killing a terrorist does in fact remove one terrorist from the street who might commit another act of terrorism.

Care to discuss?

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


There is disagreement among people on this board about whether or not the Iraq war had anything to do with fighting terrorism, and we're not likely to get everyone to reach a concensus right now. But there's still something that has NOT been discussed much lately. So let me rephrase what I think the original poster was trying to get at:

For those who think invading Iraq was not the right decision, what do you think the US should be doing to combat terrorism? Do you have a concept for how the US could actually win the war on terrorism? Merely declaring that we shouldn't take a particular course of action doesn't get you very far. What do you propose we should do instead, and how would that lead to victory against the terrorists?

First of all, I would say that the Iraqi invasion had nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism proved to be a good pretext for starting the war, but aside from that, it was nothing.

However, I would say that the Iraq invasion has actually served to increase and create terrorism. Further, I expect that we will have to deal with this increased threat for many years into the future.

If the USA really wanted to deal with terrorism then the best thing it could do is actually do its share to solve the Palestine problem. What the Muslim terrorists hate more than anything else is Israel and any serious friends of Israel (read, the USA). But with the war and all of the new enemies that it has created, I now doubt that even a real solution will solve the terrorism problem.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Crossbow


First of all, I would say that the Iraqi invasion had nothing to do with terrorism. Terrorism proved to be a good pretext for starting the war, but aside from that, it was nothing.

However, I would say that the Iraq invasion has actually served to increase and create terrorism. Further, I expect that we will have to deal with this increased threat for many years into the future.
Yup, & when the terrorists are attacking military targets in Iraq, they aren't attacking US targets elsewhere are they?


If the USA really wanted to deal with terrorism then the best thing it could do is actually do its share to solve the Palestine problem. What the Muslim terrorists hate more than anything else is Israel and any serious friends of Israel (read, the USA). But with the war and all of the new enemies that it has created, I now doubt that even a real solution will solve the terrorism problem.
Dr. C noted the "real solution" -- a dead terrorist is a good one.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yup, & when the terrorists are attacking military targets in Iraq, they aren't attacking US targets elsewhere are they?


By definition, if they're attacking military targets, they're not terrorists. A terrorist targets civilians.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by hammegk

Yup, & when the terrorists are attacking military targets in Iraq, they aren't attacking US targets elsewhere are they?

Wow! Perhaps you have not heard, but they are attacking much more than military targets. They have bombed the UN compound, bombed a mosque, destroyed electrical grids, damaged water supplies, sabotaged oil facilities, and so on.

Originally posted by hammegk

Dr. C noted the "real solution" -- a dead terrorist is a good one.
Wow again! I suggest that you re-read what Dr Chinese had to say and you will see for yourself that he did not speak in favorable terms of a so called war on terrorism.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Both of you seem to believe that "coming down strongly" against terrorists somehow deters future terrorism.
What did I say that could possibly be interpreted that way? Going after bin Laden was necessary, not to make a show of "coming down strongly", but rather to stop bin Laden. It's a matter of law enforcement. You can't let individuals commit murder with impunity, or your society will collapse. I never said that this would somehow deter future terrorism.

[arcticpenguin]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20031015/wl_nm/security_iraq_balance_dc


LONDON (Reuters) - War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al Qaeda and galvanized the Islamic militant group's will, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said on Wednesday in its annual report.

The 2003-2004 edition of the British-based think-tank's annual bible for defense analysts, The Military Balance, said Washington's assertions after the Iraq conflict that it had turned the corner in the war on terror were "over-confident."

The report, widely considered an authoritative text on the military capabilities of states and militant groups worldwide, could prove fodder for critics of the U.S.-British invasion and of the reconstruction effort that has followed in Iraq.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Wow! Perhaps you have not heard, but they are attacking much more than military targets. They have bombed the UN compound, bombed a mosque, destroyed electrical grids, damaged water supplies, sabotaged oil facilities, and so on.
What do you think might be a "military" (i.e. strategic) target? The mosque may well qualify too, doncha'know? :mad:


Wow again! I suggest that you re-read what Dr Chinese had to say and you will see for yourself that he did not speak in favorable terms of a so called war on terrorism.
Yeah, I noticed what he meant. I just agreed with what he actually said. :D
Originally posted by Cleon

By definition, if they're attacking military targets, they're not terrorists. A terrorist targets civilians.
W H A T E V E R ! Do you suppose Al Queda puts on different headscarves depending on the target du jour? :rolleyes:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=721&e=1&u=/nm/20031015/wl_nm/security_iraq_balance_dc


---------

LONDON (Reuters) - War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al Qaeda and galvanized the Islamic militant group's will, the International Institute for Strategic Studies said on Wednesday in its annual report.

The 2003-2004 edition of the British-based think-tank's annual bible for defense analysts, The Military Balance, said Washington's assertions after the Iraq conflict that it had turned the corner in the war on terror were "over-confident."

The report, widely considered an authoritative text on the military capabilities of states and militant groups worldwide, could prove fodder for critics of the U.S.-British invasion and of the reconstruction effort that has followed in Iraq.

So if this report is to be believed (and I don't doubt that the invasion of Iraq has recruited for the terrorists), then doing absolutely nothing was a better plan. I guess there's one possible answer, lamme.

I guess now we have to see if we can kill 'em faster than we can create 'em.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by hammegk

W H A T E V E R ! Do you suppose Al Queda puts on different headscarves depending on the target du jour? :rolleyes:

Well, typically, if you're going to claim to be fighting terrorists, it's probably a good idea to make sure the people you're fighting are actually terrorists.

There is no evidence, outside of rumor and Bush's say-so, that indicates AlQaeda is behind the attacks in Iraq. None whatsoever. Nor is there any reason, outside of pure propaganda, to characterize the Iraqi resistance as terrorist. Some non-military targets have been hit, but then, some non-military targets were hit during the invasion. The target is obviously the occupation forces.

[Michael Redman]

Got me on Ignore, AP? I posted that same article to this thread 2 hours earlier. :p

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Tricky

So if this report is to be believed (and I don't doubt that the invasion of Iraq has recruited for the terrorists), then doing absolutely nothing was a better plan. I guess there's one possible answer, lamme.

I guess now we have to see if we can kill 'em faster than we can create 'em.

That's not a conclusion that leaps unambiguously from that story about the report (just to clarify, I haven't read the report itself, and since you didn't link to it I'm guessing you haven't either). What I conclude from that is that there are ongoing challenges, and we're not winning yet. But higher terrorist recruitment numbers right now don't necessarily mean much long-term. As the report stated, the fundamental causes of terrorism must be addressed. I saw recently that Saudi Arabia was planning on its first ever elections. That's a step in the right direction regarding root causes of terrorism. And I can't help but think that this move is connected to our invasion of Iraq. Iraq's neighbors are very much worried about the establishment of democracy in Iraq, and what that will do to spur demands for reform in their own countries. That's a big plus, and long term I think much more important than what may be merely a short-term spike in terrorist recruitment levels.

As for doing nothing, that actually would be a major mistake. I'm willing to entertain arguments that something other than invading Iraq were preferable, but the terrorists honestly believed that they learned something profound about us in Somalia, that we were cowards who could be chased away and defeated with a few casualties. And that idea has been exceptionally dangerous and costly to our security. Doing nothing reinforces that idea.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


...

As for doing nothing, that actually would be a major mistake. I'm willing to entertain arguments that something other than invading Iraq were preferable, but the terrorists honestly believed that they learned something profound about us in Somalia, that we were cowards who could be chased away and defeated with a few casualties. And that idea has been exceptionally dangerous and costly to our security. Doing nothing reinforces that idea.

I doubt that I will ever understand how some people continually equate not invading Iraq with doing nothing! Nobody ever suggested doing "nothing".

Just to reiterate a few points for those who may have been napping since 1992,

There was a Northern No-Fly Zone in Iraq,
There was a Southern No-Fly Zone in Iraq,
There were trade sanctions against Iraq,
There were international inspectors in Iraq,
There were USA troops, planes, tanks, and warships surrounding Iraq in case they tried any funny business,
There was an intense program of scrutiny in Iraq that was done by the USA just to make sure Iraq was not up any funny business, and
The government of Iraq was in virtual political and economic isolation.

This is hardly nothing!

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

This is hardly nothing!

It's doing nothing in the sense that it's not changing the situation, and it wasn't making any real progress. And those who worry that the invasion serves as a rallying call for terrorists, keep in mind that they were using the sanctions as a rallying call too.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


It's doing nothing in the sense that it's not changing the situation, and it wasn't making any real progress. And those who worry that the invasion serves as a rallying call for terrorists, keep in mind that they were using the sanctions as a rallying call too.

Excuse me, but the program was keeping the situation under control and it was keeping Iraq in line and that is something.

Unlike now where Saddam is still loose and there are almost daily attacks on US interests in Iraq (and now outside of Iraq).

Further, the Iraqi sanctions were not being used as rallying for the terrorists. What they were using was the USA support for Israel and the fact of the US troops in Saudia Arabia.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
What did I say that could possibly be interpreted that way? Going after bin Laden was necessary, not to make a show of "coming down strongly", but rather to stop bin Laden. It's a matter of law enforcement. You can't let individuals commit murder with impunity, or your society will collapse. I never said that this would somehow deter future terrorism.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, with all the quotes and quotes of quotes.

I got the impression that you ascribed blame to both Clinton and Bush for failure to act more tangibly against terrorism prior to 9/11. However, I wasn't aware that Osama's terrorists had committed a crime within the US prior to 9/11. Actions against targets outside the US don't really qualify as a US crime, although I assume international law applies. I agree that laws should be enforced.

Sorry if I misrepresented your stance.

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Iamme
There were plenty of yard signs out that said, "War is not the answer". But the yard signs didn't say what IS the answer. Bush took a firm stand. He had resolve. Many people did not appreciate his quick resolve, while others did and do.

Why didn't we declare war on Iceland? We could have defeated them and stood up and talked about links to terror just as well as we are doing with Iraq. The answer is that there needs to be some tangible connection between one thing and the other. Clearly, the rest of the world does not agree with Bush's position, and as such his actions make no bold statement at all. It is not "resolve" to act in such futility and then say "at least I did something". I have NO confidence that world terrorism has been reduced as a result of removing Saddam from power.

Did Bush initially believe Saddam had anything to do with 9/11? I don't think so. What Bush had was Wolfowitz, who was focused like a mad dog on Iraq. That accounts a lot more for the war in Iraq than 9/11. 9/11 provided an excuse for the administration to confuse the public about our foreign policy direction to achieve its aims, those aims not being related to terrorism.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by hammegk

What do you think might be a "military" (i.e. strategic) target? The mosque may well qualify too, doncha'know? :mad:


Yeah, I noticed what he meant. I just agreed with what he actually said. :D

W H A T E V E R ! Do you suppose Al Queda puts on different headscarves depending on the target du jour? :rolleyes:

Sorry for the lack of a reply, but I cannot figure out what you are talking about.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Cleon


Well, typically, if you're going to claim to be fighting terrorists, it's probably a good idea to make sure the people you're fighting are actually terrorists.

There is no evidence, outside of rumor and Bush's say-so, that indicates AlQaeda is behind the attacks in Iraq. None whatsoever.
(snip)


Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that the forces attacking our military in Iraq are extremist from various sources - including al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda does, from my understanding, consider itself a military organization, sort of a "Holy army". It seems reasonable that some members are taking advantage of the availability and relative insecurity of American troops to wage "war".

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Further, the Iraqi sanctions were not being used as rallying for the terrorists. What they were using was the USA support for Israel and the fact of the US troops in Saudia Arabia.

You are correct that US support for Israel and troops inside Saudi Arabia were a rallying point, but you are completely wrong that Iraq sanctions were not also being used to rally terrorists. Let's see what they actually say on the matter, shall we? Here's a statement from an Al-Qa'ida spokesman:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP38802

He specifically makes the claim that a million Iraqi children a year were being killed by sanctions. The terrorists WERE using the Iraqi sanctions as a rallying point. I'm not sure why you would ever think otherwise.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that the forces attacking our military in Iraq are extremist from various sources - including al Qaeda.



Why, because you think only an extremist wouldn't want their country to be occupied by a foreign army?



Al Qaeda does, from my understanding, consider itself a military organization, sort of a "Holy army". It seems reasonable that some members are taking advantage of the availability and relative insecurity of American troops to wage "war".

There might be some AlQaeda members/supporters in the Iraqi resistance. Hell, there probably are. But there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that they dominate it in any way. Especially when you consider that much of the anti-occupation demonstrations are organized by Shiites.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You are correct that US support for Israel and troops inside Saudi Arabia were a rallying point, but you are completely wrong that Iraq sanctions were not also being used to rally terrorists. Let's see what they actually say on the matter, shall we? Here's a statement from an Al-Qa'ida spokesman:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP38802

He specifically makes the claim that a million Iraqi children a year were being killed by sanctions. The terrorists WERE using the Iraqi sanctions as a rallying point. I'm not sure why you would ever think otherwise.

Er, that claim about the million children dying per year as a result of the sanctions was first started by Saddam.

And while it did have some sympathy outside of Iraq (at least for a while) after the 'Oil for Food' deal it really started to loose traction.

On the other hand, what did have considerable traction was the US support of Israel and the US troops in Saudia Arabia. Now the situation is a bit different, there is still US support for Israel and now they are really ticked about the US troops in Iraq since these troops were moved out of Saudia Arabia.

Go figure!

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Cleon
Why, because you think only an extremist wouldn't want their country to be occupied by a foreign army?

There might be some AlQaeda members/supporters in the Iraqi resistance. Hell, there probably are. But there's no reason whatsoever to suppose that they dominate it in any way. Especially when you consider that much of the anti-occupation demonstrations are organized by Shiites.

Attacking the occupying force is certainly more extreme than working with them to secure the peace and gain independence. It's more complicated than that, but let's just make what I said more accurate, and you probably won't disagree:

Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume that some number of the forces attacking our military in Iraq are extremist from various sources - including al Qaeda.

In the context of this thread, I was not concerned about the makeup of the people attacking our forces in Iraq. I was suggesting to Rik that al Qaeda is still actively attacking Americans. I figure that the most convincing evidence would be the Bush Administration's own claims.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


You are correct that US support for Israel and troops inside Saudi Arabia were a rallying point, but you are completely wrong that Iraq sanctions were not also being used to rally terrorists. Let's see what they actually say on the matter, shall we? Here's a statement from an Al-Qa'ida spokesman:
http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP38802

He specifically makes the claim that a million Iraqi children a year were being killed by sanctions. The terrorists WERE using the Iraqi sanctions as a rallying point. I'm not sure why you would ever think otherwise.

Er, that claim about the million children dying per year as a result of the sanctions was first started by Saddam.

And while it did have some sympathy outside of Iraq (at least for a while) after the 'Oil for Food' deal it really started to loose traction, which is why I think otherwise. Saddam did not have that much support in the Middle East anyway ever since the Iran-Iraq war and the invasion of Kuwait.

On the other hand, what did have considerable traction was the US support of Israel and the US troops in Saudia Arabia. Now the situation is a bit different, there is still US support for Israel and now they are really ticked about the US troops in Iraq since these troops were moved out of Saudia Arabia.

Go figure!

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Crossbow


Sorry for the lack of a reply, but I cannot figure out what you are talking about.
Sort of a hallmark of your posts. :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Er, that claim about the million children dying per year as a result of the sanctions was first started by Saddam.


Yes, but it was picked up and used as an excuse. I never said it was accurate, I just said they were using that argument. It's always difficult to determine just how much various people care about various arguments, and I don't disagree that Israel was a larger issue, but you were incorrect to state that Iraqi sanctions were a non-issue. Also, since you bring up US troops on Saudi soil, now that Saddam is gone we have been able to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia. My basic point being that one can't simply claim that the ONLY affect on terrorism from the invasion is to increase recruiting, because it's much more complicated than that.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by hammegk

Sort of a hallmark of your posts. :rolleyes:

Thank you so much for the clarification!

Or a a wise person once recently said:

Sort of a hallmark of your posts. :rolleyes:

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by Ziggurat


Yes, but it was picked up and used as an excuse. I never said it was accurate, I just said they were using that argument. It's always difficult to determine just how much various people care about various arguments, and I don't disagree that Israel was a larger issue, but you were incorrect to state that Iraqi sanctions were a non-issue. Also, since you bring up US troops on Saudi soil, now that Saddam is gone we have been able to withdraw our troops from Saudi Arabia. My basic point being that one can't simply claim that the ONLY affect on terrorism from the invasion is to increase recruiting, because it's much more complicated than that.

Er, thanks for the clarification but I do think that you are misunderstanding me. I have never said, nor implied, nor hinted at, nor shouted, ..., that the ONLY affect of the invasion was to increase terrorism.

Please pardon my confusion.

True, I do think that the invasion has served to increase terrorism but it has done many other things as well. To name a few: squandered the good will generated after 9/11, killed thousands, put a considerable load on the US economy, etc. Just read through some of my other anti-war posts if you do not believe me.

But I do see that I have misunderstood you as well, because I thought your basic point was that there was nothing being done about Iraq prior to the war. However, now I see that your basic point (that one cannot simply claim that the invasion has served to increase terrorism) is rather different from the one you started off with.

[Tricky]

And now for the first time, Americans have been targeted in Palestine (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/10/15/cnna.rubin/index.html) (or the Gaza Strip at least, depending on who you think owns it.) This may signify a growing trend towards attacks on any US influence (since this was a scholarship mission) or it may just be against anything associated with Israel. It certainly doesn't look like the US invasion has had any effect on curbing international terrorism, especially against the US.

There have been many ideas put on the table in this thread about what could be done about terrorism. Some are things we have already been doing. Some are things we should have done differently. One thing that appears clear that we should have done differently is not invade Iraq.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Crossbow

Or a a wise person once recently said:


Please decode. Thanks.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by DrChinese
Actions against targets outside the US don't really qualify as a US crime. . .Actually, they do. Besides, I was speaking in a little looser terms. If some organization is going to repeatedly bomb Americans (and to a greater extent, foreigners who happen to be around or in American buildings) the American government has to stop them, whether than can be done diplomatically, by international cooperation, by appealing to the nations that harbor these folks, or, failing all else, by going after them militarily, even if that means violating another state's sovereignty. Neither Clinton nor Bush seemed to have the will to go after bin Laden until Bush's hand was forced.

[Crossbow]

Originally posted by hammegk


Please decode. Thanks.

No decoding is necessary since there was nothing encoded in my postings.