Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[Patroklos]

He made a comparison between people mobilized to act once directly confronted. He could have used the US when were attacked by Japan instead of Germany, which would have been a better example.

The point is you enemy will fully mobilize himself when directly confronted or backed into a corner, and further more that obviously you yourself will be increase yourself to more danger once you put yourself in a position to grapple. We can argue about whether we will win this conflict in the end or not, but in any conflict those two things are self evident.

In that light, WWII was as good a comparison as any other, or do you think there were less Viet Cong before or after the US got directly involved? Do you think more American lives were at risk before or after we entered WWI?

[Patroklos]

But is a willingness to kill any and all locals who got in the way a good way to stablize an area? That worked so well in Germany and Japan after WWII... oh wait.

We did. It was called 1939-1944, and that tiny in house fix the Battle of Berlin.

One of the problems with clean quick wars in regards to occupation is that they neither exhaust the populace nor kill enough of or scar enough of the fighting age populace to make for a docile group of people to occupy successfully.

Rome didn't execute all the men and sow salt into the feilds of Carthage for ****s and giggles.

[Straybow]

VJ, I didn't mean it that way. You took a simple example and extrapolated it into the absurd. Which is, basically, not addressing the point. You claim you want intelligent discussion and not "talking points" but then you descend into the same kind of irrelevancies of the anti-Bush critics.

So I'll answer clarify: My analogy didn't extend beyond what I said. An enemy will use our presence to recruit; Big Fat Hairy Deal.

I'll even answer your question: It means that just as we (the US) didn't cause German aggression in WW2 we (the US) didn't cause terrorism in Africa, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, New York, London, or Madrid. Our soldiers in Iraq don't cause terrorism in Iraq.

You say "there weren't any terrorists in Iraq in 2003" I say BS. The biggest terrorists sat in their palaces, ruling the Iraqi people, torturing and raping civilians on a whim. Their fedayeen patrolled the country and everyone lived in fear of them. Do you think the Iraqi people liked it that way? The difference between that and terrorism is very slight indeed.

Sure, they weren't attacking the US. Oh, wait a minute, they were routinely firing on our planes with small arms. So, basically, the only reason Iraq didn't have anti-US terrorists in 2003 (or 1993) was because they couldn't get to US forces in SA.

Why were we there to begin with? Because Saddam invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade SA. So either these goons have materialized out of thin air or they are individuals predisposed to such barbarism and our presence has only given them opportunity to act it out.

[Arrian]

The terrorists we are actually concerned about - those that actually threaten us - were NOT in Iraq pre-invasion. Was Saddam a terrorist? He certainly was a mass murdering dictator, but I think you know the difference between that and what people typically mean when they say "terrorist."

The "War on Terror" is really the War on Al-Qaida and like-minded organizations. The war on international terrorism, even. We are NOT fighting a global war on nasty dictators. Or if we are, we sure are slacking.

I shed no tears for Saddam. That's not the point. The point is that invading Iraq was a bad idea badly executed and has hampered our efforts to combat the enemy in the WoT (Al-Qaida and various copycats/affiliates).

either these goons have materialized out of thin air or they are individuals predisposed to such barbarism and our presence has only given them opportunity to act it out.

Foreign goons are jihadis who took advantage of the power vaccum to come in, set up shop, and kill Americans (and anyone else who gets in their way) whilst trying to foil attempts at setting up anything remotely resembling a plural democracy in Iraq. Local goons are more varied.

Please note that, while I think invading Iraq when and how we did was a colossal mistake, I think we're in it now and have to keep trying to salvage something from it.

-Arrian

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Well, if you don't do this, the resentment will build and the radicals will be unstoppable. If you claim we can't do the rebuilding because there's too much violence, you're basically throwing in the towel, and agreeing that we'd have been better off not being there in the first place.

No, saying "Pull out now before anybody else gets killed" is throwing in the towel. We're staying because we aren't throwing in the towel.

And, by the way, we are rebuilding. Iraq has more MW of electricity than before the war. We are rebuilding water and sewage infrastructure. But all the news says is how many soldiers and Iraqis are killed and wounded in attacks.

[Straybow]

Arrian, I'm saying that the terrorists today didn't convert from pacifism. What makes them terrorists isn't American boots on Iraqi soil. It isn't even American boots on Saudi soil (OBL's and AQ's primary complaint), that's just a rationale for the choice of targets.

The point is that invading Iraq was a bad idea badly executed and has hampered our efforts to combat the enemy in the WoT (Al-Qaida and various copycats/affiliates).

I disagree. It was certainly not badly executed. The invasion and defeat of Iraqi regular military was a textbook perfect exercise. The occupation and continuing efforts are not badly executed, they are simply insufficient. 100k more troops would be insufficient. It is a holding action that can only succeed when the Iraqi factions make peace.

Bad idea? There are many people, including me, who believed at the time we should not be sitting on our hands while Saddam played cat and mouse games with inspectors. When Saddam kicked the inspectors out it was tantamount to breaking the peace instrument he signed.

If the French and Germans and all the other pansies think they can do a better job stabilizing Iraq, man up. Put their money and troops where their mouths are. They realize (but would never admit openly) that they couldn't do any better. They need to shut their cakeholes.

[Arcite]

Originally posted by Straybow
[q] Originally posted by Victor Galis


And, by the way, we are rebuilding. Iraq has more MW of electricity than before the war. We are rebuilding water and sewage infrastructure. But all the news says is how many soldiers and Iraqis are killed and wounded in attacks.

Hi,


Uh if you are going to make such claims you should at least back them up with some evidence.

The facts are, people are less safe, have less power, and the 'mega projects' that are supposedly going on are either horribly over budget, way behind schedule, and/or under constant sabotage.

Oh and oil exports aren't up to pre-invasion levels either.

The fact is, there is an average of 100+ civilian deaths PER day in Iraq. Its MORE dangerous now than ever, and the danger is only increasing.

The situation is getting steadily WORSE not better.

The same goes for Afghanistan.

[Arcite]

Originally posted by Straybow

If the French and Germans and all the other pansies think they can do a better job stabilizing Iraq, man up. Put their money and troops where their mouths are. They realize (but would never admit openly) that they couldn't do any better. They need to shut their cakeholes.

Umm...Why would the French or the Germans send troops to Iraq? It was a war of choice started by the Americans. The Americans are the aggressors.

[Straybow]

There are areas that don't have power and other services because workers can't go there. Not exactly our fault. Over budget because of sabotage and related factors? Again, not exactly our fault.

Do you think, if the US and Brits pulled out today, that the sectarian and political divisions would miraculously vanish? That terrorists targetting police and government workers and civilian bystanders would turn in their bombs and guns?

No?

Then what is your point?

[KrazyHorse]

Wow. Straybow's going for almost as stupid as VJ here.

[Straybow]

The French and Germans were offended that we didn't offer reconstruction contracts to them. Everybody keeps whining, but nobody actually offers to do something constructive, much less take a risk.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Wow. Straybow's going for almost as stupid as VJ here.

Hardly. I'm addressing the points and not making stupid comparisons to the terrain in WW2.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
But it's worse than if some of them had just stayed home and shaken their fist impotently at a TV or something. Increasing kill counts aren't impressive if it's due to increased enemy recruitment. The absolute number of terrorists is up.

Funny, I didn't see that part anywhere in the NIE judgments. The report only refers to a general increase in jihadist recruitment, NOT where said recruits are going or how many are dying. Let's say hypothetically 30% more Muslims become jihadists annually now than they did in 2002, but at the same time 50% more jihadists are being killed or captured now than in 2002. This would mean a net decrease, no? The NIE doesn't actually make any quantitative cost/benefit analysis so AFAICS the "bugzapper on the porch beats a flyswatter in the kitchen" argument isn't less valid today than it was two weeks ago.

(I'm halfway playing devil's advocate here; just curious what the best counterpoint to this could be).

[Patroklos]

Oh and oil exports aren't up to pre-invasion levels either.

Having spent a month circling the two oil platorms all Iraqi oil goes through at about 2000 odd yards, I will tell you right now Iraqi oil exports are many times the pre-invasion level.

Another interesting fact is Iraq has a larger navy now than it did under Saddam, very professional and motivated. All about chasing down Iranian smugglers.

But remember, no progress, nothing to see here.

[Arrian]

The occupation and continuing efforts are not badly executed, they are simply insufficient.

Right, badly executed. I concur that the actual invasion worked fine. Better than fine, really. The occupation/reconstruction has been an utter cluster****.

-Arrian