Is some sort of pincer movement on Iran coming?

[Roland]

Without an obvious attack, the US doesn't have the stomach for a war against Iran.

It's also open what would happen in case of an occupation of Iraq. US troops there would be sitting on a silver plate served to islamist terrorists. How many do they have to kill for the US to withdraw ? 100 ? 1000 ?

[Eli]

Originally posted by Roland


You want the US to clean up your enemies.

Well, yeah.

[Roland]

Seems to work with Iraq, but I don't think it will work with Iran.

[Ned]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave


So would I, however does making a war on the country make terrorism go away, or does it make even more of them - terrorists. Esp such a large country as Iran, it is not Palestine that you can actually block, and I wander how long will that hold. Perhaps Iran in peace can sort itself out... they do have voting rights afterall, look at the alternatives of the effects American interventions had in the past for the change of governments in much moderate countries, Greece, Chile, Vietnam... and what not, the people did not respond nicely, and how could they. However those people do not see the solution in terrorism, many in Iran do. Perhaps killing all of them would remove the threat of terrorism, but is that possible? Of course not, you can't kill every one of them, but what you can do is remove some of the problems with which their support is fuelled in the minds of normal people, that later gets into the governments trough the votes. Why did the anti -american mullahs get so many votes in Pakistan as opposed to the last elections in 1997? Don't you think that there is something wrong with the way US is perceived, and if you don't like the school bully, him beating you will not make you like him more.

The reasons for war are something else, and the war will -i think- fuel terrorism further.

OneFoot, What you say here make some sense if the terrorists were like al Qaida. But in Iran, it is state sponsored. If the Iranian government continues to sponsor terrorism, then we would have no choice but to treat it like the Taliban.

I am sure there are forces inside Iran that would simply love to see the Mullahs dethroned. There are plenty of exiles who would also join the cause. But the best solution for all would simply be a coup by the elected government.

[DanS]

"So would I, however does making a war on the country make terrorism go away, or does it make even more of them - terrorists."

I no longer subscribe to this Western self-flagellation. Rather, these are internal problems of political disaffection run amock on the international stage. This seems to be the takeaway point from all of the discussions in Washington since 9/11.

So the answer has everything to do with how the proposed action impacts the internal political situation of the target country. In both Iraq (Baath) and Iran (extremists), the interests of about 20% of the population are followed to the exclusion of the interests of the remaining 80%.

Partially correcting that imbalance would go a long way toward eliminating terrorism and requires different responses from outsiders in each case. It's a matter of tactics. Iraq is a dictatorship. Iran is a theocracratic oligarchy.

[Roland]

"I no longer subscribe to this Western self-flagellation. Rather, these are internal problems of political disaffection..."

You can't separate the internal problems from the role the West plays, be it real or percieved.

[DanS]

"You can't separate the internal problems from the role the West plays, be it real or percieved."

No doubt. But the lense of a terrorist is local.

For instance, while OBL may say that he is angry about American troops on holy soil, this should be read by the West as anger at the fact that the Saudi royal family is not including his faction in the decision to allow American troops on holy soil and that the American presence is guaranteeing that his faction is cut out of the loop.

It's somewhat counterintuitive.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS
"So would I, however does making a war on the country make terrorism go away, or does it make even more of them - terrorists."

I no longer subscribe to this Western self-flagellation. Rather, these are internal problems of political disaffection run amock on the international stage. This seems to be the takeaway point from all of the discussions in Washington since 9/11.

So the answer has everything to do with how the proposed action impacts the internal political situation of the target country. In both Iraq (Baath) and Iran (extremists), the interests of about 20% of the population are followed to the exclusion of the interests of the remaining 80%.

Partially correcting that imbalance would go a long way toward eliminating terrorism and requires different responses from outsiders in each case. It's a matter of tactics. Iraq is a dictatorship. Iran is a theocracy.

While this sound good, it does not seem that US/UK will do anything remotely similar to the toppling of the taliban regime in Afghanistan, and even though it is only 20% supporting Saddam it is a lot of people, it would be the best to organise similar kind of owerthrowing of regime if this was feasible, but this seems to be an outright conflict US/UK vs Saddam, without third parties apart from Kurds that are a minority themselves. Actually I am pretty certain that most of the Iraquis whatever the nationality would be strongly opposed to an US invasion, and when they beloved die you have created a terrorist straight. In Iran most likely even worse, as they seem quite stable and probably going forward for the better on their own. Noone likes to be conquered, don't forget, and an outside enemy is something that unites the best - and fuelles fundamentalism best.

[Roland]

Originally posted by DanS
For instance, while OBL may say that he is angry about American troops on holy soil, this should be read by the West as anger at the fact that the Saudi royal family is not including his faction in the decision to allow American troops on holy soil and that the American presence is guaranteeing that his faction is cut out of the loop.

OBL is (or was) no US politician. Applying the Washingtonian chicken**** and horsetrading logic to islamists doesn't make any sense.

[DanS]

I don't buy your argument, OFITG. You don't create terrorists by killing their loved ones. There are way too many instances where that hasn't been the case. You create terrorists by making people feel as though there is no other way to express their political will.

If you look at the perpertrators of 9/11, you see political disaffection throughout. Yemeni Saudis have no avenue of expressing their political will. That's the problem.

Edit:

"Applying the Washingtonian chicken**** and horsetrading logic to islamists doesn't make any sense."

Well then I guess we're gonna have to kill them all.

What's your alternative? And why is this chicken**** logic?

[Roland]

It might be the nature of islamists to adhere primarily to an ideology. If you look at the fringes of US politics, do you think people like Falwell & co are eg anti-gay or anti-abortion out of anger that they don't yet control politics ?

When OBL says he is angry about American troops on holy soil, then he means he and his ilk should rule an islamist theocracy that has troops on the soil of the infidels. The ideology is no less megalomanical than Fascism or Stalinism.

"What's your alternative?"

For what ?

[DanS]

"If you look at the fringes of US politics, do you think people like Falwell & co are eg anti-gay or anti-abortion out of anger that they don't yet control politics ?"

Yeh, but Falwell & co don't go around murdering people. Where terrorism has flourished in the US, it has been primarily because of political disaffection. Even among the anti-abortionists.

Besides, I'm not saying it's necessary to give the Islamists control. Only that they are at the political table. Even died-in-the-wool Islamists such as the Saudis will make deals with the devil.

"When OBL says he is angry about American troops on holy soil, then he means he and his ilk should rule an islamist theocracy that has troops on the soil of the infidels. The ideology is no less megalomanical than Fascism or Stalinism."

I agree that's what he says and thinks he means. But he has to have at least a couple of followers who will give their lives to the cause. Do you believe that it's merely enthusiasm?

"For what ?"

A context in which to understand the Islamists' motives and a strategy to deal with the terrorist strain.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS

I don't buy your argument, OFITG. You don't create terrorists by killing their loved ones. There are way too many instances where that hasn't been the case. You create terrorists by making people feel as though there is no other way to express their political will.


[
"For what ?"

A context in which to understand the Islamists' motives and a strategy to deal with the terrorist strain.

I agree with your opinion here, however While you don't create them, you do fuel their ranks, as you say the lack of means to express the political will will create a terrorist organisation - which we already have plenty of. Killing of individuals in a fundamentalist environment will however fill the ranks with volunteers in/for the terrorist organisations. It will not give strategists, but there are enough of those anyway, but it will create recruits that might one day become their leaders too, while in the short term they will be the terror deliverers. (as a hopeless person will have revenge on its mind, whatever the cost, and terrorist networks will give them a way for it)

Implying that invading a country with a number of casualties will resolve the problem - where the problem is the opinion of the mass, is to me a way into a war that you cannot win, the only problem is that by invading you not only have your soldiers killed, but by killing the "enemy" or the civilians you create more of the same, and make the problem larger rather than the opposite. You are not fighting an evil regime, you are fighting the "bad reputation" and hopelesness of the ones you are killing in the name of regime change, in that manner you create more hopelesness and prove correct what the fundamentalists were telling about you for a long time. That to me is a time bomb. Where will it finish we will see. But it doesn't sound good to me.

Look at the effects the US led government changes had in the past and the view of the populations involved, and now tell me if you do not expect more of the same if you do it in with Iraq or Iran, with people willing to die for the cause and believing in terror as means to their cause - in this case. If you had credible opposition like in Afganistan that would be different, but it is not the case.


And last, will Iraq invasion give the "to be terrorists" the way to express their political will, which too often is no US involment in the middle east. Shouldn't that fuel the ranks/terror activities in the future? Bush is just playing on OBL cards.

[DanS]

"Look at the effects the US led government changes had in the past and the view of the populations involved, and now tell me if you do not expect more of the same if you do it in with Iraq or Iran"

It has been a mixed bag for sure. But don't forget the many spectacular successes as well as the failures. We have been most successful when we left with more democratic institutions than when we came in.

"Implying that invading a country with a number of casualties will resolve the problem - where the problem is the opinion of the mass, is to me a way into a war that you cannot win, the only problem is that by invading you not only have your soldiers killed, but by killing the "enemy" or the civilians you create more of the same, and make the problem larger rather than the opposite."

Are you part German, or what? This has to be one of the longest sentences I have ever seen. It's a little hard to follow...

The problem isn't the opinion of the masses. It's that the interests of the masses aren't being adequately taken into account. Do you think anybody will cry a tear when Saddam is gone?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DanS

Are you part German, or what? This has to be one of the longest sentences I have ever seen. It's a little hard to follow...

The problem isn't the opinion of the masses. It's that the interests of the masses aren't being adequately taken into account. Do you think anybody will cry a tear when Saddam is gone?

not really, but huh... not English either

Well that is a good question, while some will surely cry, OBL and the gang will use it as excellent anti-US propaganda. Still what will it take to take Saddam down, is one question. How many Iraqis will go down with him, and that is civilians more than the soldiers - future terror recruits. Who will come insted of him - will he be able to hold the army and the country? Will the one who comes next have the support of the whole nation - as the part of the nation might feel that terror is the only way to achieve their political will that was ignored (or stopped) by US and the democracy that was imposed by US? What if the country breaks apart? In such a complex nation as Iraq these are all open questions, look at Afghanistan that is minor in comparison and there is still pretty much chaos there, even though you had open opposition to support and clear way forward without making anyone upset. All this and a lot more is in the bag, possible resistance from the rest of the Muslim states, a WOMD attack on Israel by Saddam provoked by the war... all in the name of WOMD that might be sorted on its own as well without a big ole regime busting.

Add that on the already "we hate the US devil" attitude of the middle east, and that cannot be good.

War creates casualties, not just on one side, but on both, and I don't think that we will get out just with soldiers casualties, as just some people can do many horrible things just if they are organised. A Iraq attach will just fuel those and -timebomb- is the way I see that.

It is not that anyone invtes US this time around as when it was with Kuwait, Afghanistan, Kosovo etc. US invites itself, and that can only mean trouble for many reasons some of which are outlined above.

Overall I do think this will feed terror, as opposed to stop it. Actually this Iraq mission is about WOMD and not terror, so even worse. We will go after WOMD - and be successful there (unless Saddam unleashes some on Israel quickly) but will create a lot more terror for the future.