Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I'm with MTG here. There's no evidence that this war has helped the WOT at all. If anything it has been a constant incitement, a rallying point which has drawn thousands of uncommitted middle eastern muslims, not just Iraqis into open conflict with western nations. There is no evidence that many of the "foreign elements" who have fought alongside of the insurgency in Iraq would ever have taken up arms against us had we not invaded Iraq. Furthermore it is unlikely that al-Qaeda is likely to prosper in Iraq should we leave. They have a lot of competition in Iraq, and I don't believe that they are really one of the stronger factions. I don't think they're even a dominant faction amongst Sunnis. If we leave it is possible that many of the factions fighting to drive us out will cease hostilities. Under such conditions al-Qaeda is unlikely to be able to maintain much of a presence in Iraq. If civil war breaks out al-Qaeda is still likely to lose, if only for the fact that they really don't have a common point with which to deal with the Shiite majority, and should they come out on top in a Sunnis dominated state in central Iraq I doubt that the neighboring Shiites would allow them to remain.

QFT

[Ned]

Originally posted by Frozzy


So maybe in that regard Vietnam is not a good example. In that case Vietnam was already split and the US was attempting to stop unification, while in Iraq we have a unified state the US essentially is trying to stop splitting.

Fozzy, in truth, Vietnam was more about the catholics wanting to live in a state which they controlled. If you go back in history, the Vietnamese emperors persecuted and tried to wipe the catholics out, real ethnic cleansing-style. The French intervened and eventually took over. The catholics feared that should the commies/buddists take over, they would again be persecuted.

Bosnia was about religion as well.

Ditto Kosovo.

Ditto Iraq.

[Wildbore]

Originally posted by VJ Actually, yes he did and the inspectors said that. It's sad that after 4 years, some people still haven't listened what Hans Blix actually said.

Do you get your news from FOX NEWS, by any chance? I'm interested in who originally started spreading this lie.

Wow, where do you get your news, from the socialist review?

This link clearly shows Blix, and other inspectors, were not satisfied with Iraq's level of cooperation. So you can stop lieing now.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe....uk/index.html

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Wildbore


Wow, where do you get your news, from the socialist review?

This link clearly shows Blix, and other inspectors, were not satisfied with Iraq's level of cooperation. So you can stop lieing now.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe....uk/index.html

From your own news link, all provided quotes from the chief of the Iraqi weapons inspector team:

"There are two clocks ... Washington time and this is U.N. time,"
"I, of course, am operating under a resolution from 1999 that tells me I have to give a quarterly report to the Security Council the first of March."
"It's certainly very important, desirable that the facts be on the table,"
"Of course, one would have to scrutinise this as well."
"That clock is still ticking, but it may be the other watch will take over,"
"Well, I don't know,"
"It could be if the clock is ticking on and if the Iraqis are not helpful in the matter of substance then I would be concerned it would be the last one."

All provided quotes of the IAEA's director general:

it was "important we have a good conversation before we go to Baghdad."
Asked whether he thought a US-led military attack on Saddam Hussein's regime was inevitable, ElBaradei said: "No, I don't think so."

Originally posted by Wildbore
Saddam Hussein was given the chance to comply with inspectors by the deadline, inspectors said he didn't.

I'm not the one who's "lieing" about what I've said. Keep living in your dream world if you want to, but the news article supports nothing of what you loudly proclaimed to be obvious.

[GePap]

The whole premise of the thread is flawed because the "War on Terror" is a rhetorical fiction, and a very bad one at that.

Islamist terrorists exist only in areas of chaos, of weak political regimes, which is why cells flourished in Afghanistan, in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in Somalia.

Iraq was turned into a battlefront with AQ because we destroyed the central authority. The US prescense in Iraq does prevent greater bloodletting from a secetrian war, but the harsh and ugly reality is, if the US pulled out and a full fledged civil or even regional war followed, at the end of the day AQ would not be a winner, since none of the main actors in the region, Iran, Turkey, or the Arab states have any interest in those nuts having any power. Whether Iraq ends up one, or a host of dictatorships after the mess is irrelevant. IN the end all those regimes would effectively put a muzzle on AQ in their lands if they found it convinient or necessary to do so.

Superior counterintelligence is how the West will protect itself from future plots, because in the end the ideology that leads to AQ is not something that can be defeated militarilly.

[DanielXY]

GePap speaks the truth

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap
Islamist terrorists exist only in areas of chaos, of weak political regimes, which is why cells flourished in Afghanistan, in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in Somalia.

I think you're overly harsh on the United Kingdom.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. Why have we seen no attacks on the US, and only a handful on Europe, and relatively few in the arab state adjacent to Iraq?

One'd like to think the increased security and paranoia post-WTC had something to do with that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
I think you're overly harsh on the United Kingdom.

There are terrorist cells in any country, and there will always be. Invading Iraq didn't stop the attacks in London, and as long as anyone, for any particular reason, was willing to carry out such an attack, they will happen unless the public authorities can stop them.

Superior intelligence would be necessay in terms of stoping cross border planning and financing. As for internal policies that allow for the types of ideas that would make people carry out terrorist attacks, that is a question of social policy, not military strategy.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by GePap


There are terrorist cells in any country, and there will always be.

So, you admit you were wrong. Thanks.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

So, you admit you were wrong. Thanks.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
The whole premise of the thread is flawed because the "War on Terror" is a rhetorical fiction, and a very bad one at that.

Islamist terrorists exist only in areas of chaos, of weak political regimes, which is why cells flourished in Afghanistan, in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in Somalia.

Iraq was turned into a battlefront with AQ because we destroyed the central authority. The US prescense in Iraq does prevent greater bloodletting from a secetrian war, but the harsh and ugly reality is, if the US pulled out and a full fledged civil or even regional war followed, at the end of the day AQ would not be a winner, since none of the main actors in the region, Iran, Turkey, or the Arab states have any interest in those nuts having any power. Whether Iraq ends up one, or a host of dictatorships after the mess is irrelevant. IN the end all those regimes would effectively put a muzzle on AQ in their lands if they found it convinient or necessary to do so.

Superior counterintelligence is how the West will protect itself from future plots, because in the end the ideology that leads to AQ is not something that can be defeated militarilly.

You also have the folks up in Chechnya who are allied with AQ, the crazies in Albania, the various Wahabbi's in Central Asia, including the Chinese province, the Phillipinios, cells in Spain and Morocco, and the British muslims.

As to the Arab states bordering Iraq, I will grant you that they would not support AQ in Iraq post-war. But that being said, what could they do to stop AQ from forming bases in these areas if they and the local Sunni's wanted to form them? Or better, how would he neighboring states get AQ out of Iraq when we, with a large army and Iraqi allies, find it impossible?

I think you have to conclude that if the local Sunni's want AQ there, they will stay regardless of the opinion of the neighboring states. In fact, if the neighboring states put up a fuss, they too may be targets.

Now, given all the support AQ has given the Sunni's, I think it more than likely they will be an integral part of the triangle for the indefinite future.

Assuming this is true, and it will be true unless you can tell why it will not be true, then what are we going to do about it?

[Ned]

Also, GePap, I see you do not plan to go after AQ at all, but simply live in a "BB is watching you" kind of state so that we detect future plots. I assume from this that you must think that even our venture in Afghanistan was wrong. Why, even the effort to arrest Osama and his colleagues was wrong because it was unnecessary to stop future plots.

We have arrested and/or killed 75% of top AQ leadership. I assume you think this was a wasted effort fueled by misguided thinking.

Next I want to hear why going after organized crime is wrong because we can "detect" future plots.

Do I understand you correctly? Detection is sufficient?

[GePap]

There goes the Ned we all know and "love"...

[Berzerker]

how does our pulling out of Iraq help the WOT?

Gives our military and collective mentality a breather and time to re-focus, stops the bleeding literally and metaphorically. Read on...

One of the central "lessons learned" in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 is that al Qa'ida was able to set up bases in civil war-torn Afghanistan because we abandoned that country to civil war after we had supported the various rebel factions against the Russians.

Nah, AQ didn't need any bases to pull off what they did, just money, patience and boxcutters. They could set up shop in a variety of places, but the chaos in Iraq does serve their purposes - no central gov't to rein them in. Works for us too, we wanted AQ to follow us into Iraq once Saddam was gone, thats what fight them over "there" instead of over here meant. So its dis-ingenuous for US politicians to complain about AQ in Iraq, thats where we put the drain and probably why we did just about everything we could to create chaos in Iraq.

But what happens if we leave? AQ will no longer have a reason, in the eyes of Muslims anyway, to stay in Iraq and continue attacking Muslims. They'd leave and follow us back to Afghanistan, or they'd stay and kill Muslims with us out of the picture. But AQ and Osama are only popular because we are the target. If AQ wants to hang around in Iraq they'll be fighting Muslims and that wont sit well even with their allies in Pakistan, much less Sunni and Shia Iraqis.
I'd say within weeks of our withdrawal we'd see AQ faced with a tough decision - stay and side with the Sunni against the Shia or get outta dodge. If they do stay they have a new and different enemy to deal with, Iran and the Shia. But they risk angering the Sunni as well and they might find themselves hunted down by Saddam's old forces.

Do the Dems think anything fundamentally different will happen this time in the case of Iraq? And if they do, what is the basis of their thinking?

There are definitely similarities, AQ was born from the aftermath of the effort to push the Russians out of Afghanistan and were allowed to exist because of the ties they had with the Afghan resistance. Now AQ is in Iraq apparently with some ties to the Sunni insurgents - the Iraqi resistance to push us out - and may be rewarded by the Sunnis with room to operate once we leave. But what are they going to do? Sit in a room and make plans to hijack some more planes? The fact is these guys can make plans anywhere...

Leaving Iraq makes AQ choose between fighting us and fighting the Shia... According to the strategy of AQ in Iraq, their goal was to open up fronts against us to relieve the pressure in Afghanistan.
Thats why an Iraqi franchise opened up after Saddam was out of power. It worked of course, we're tied down in Iraq and the pressure on AQ in Afghanistan was relieved. Now we can do the same thing to them, leaving Iraq while they're tied down in a Sunni/Shia war leaves them with the front they helped create for us. Or they'll just have to leave Iraq and head back to Afghanistan.
AQ's popularity requires us as occupiers...