Pulling out of Iraq and the WoT

[Berzerker]

The IAI took particular exception to Abu Omar al-Baghdadi's challenge to other insurgents to justify their existence by attacking American military bases: "Oh, forgive us Allah, does this era need further evidence? ...the Islamic Army has executed dozens of raids on bases and military barracks...[including] in the year 2003 before the Al-Qaida network in Iraq was even founded."

Somebody give this to Cheney

He keeps insisting AQ was in Iraq long before 9/11

[Ned]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Relations between Al Qaeda in Iraq and the native Sunni insurgency are already pretty bad...

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2007...g_for_alqa.php

This of course is good news and may actually make withdrawal viable.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Somebody give this to Cheney

He keeps insisting AQ was in Iraq long before 9/11

Why is that important to this conversation? AQ is in Iraq now. Does it really matter if they were there before 2003 or before 2001 or before any other date your may pull out of the air for it to affect our decision to stay or to withdraw?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


We are talking about democracy.

Forget about "Islam" - you are assuming that long-existing, conservative cultures with no positive historical ties to the west, let alone ideals of western secular liberalism, have any particular desire to have a western-style secular democratic government in the first place.

Or that your or my white infidel crusader imperialist asses have the slightest credibility in telling these people how they ought to live and handle their affairs?

Maybe if the west hadn't been so enthusiastic and efficient at ****ing over little brown people all over the world these last several hundred years, we might have the tiniest shred of credibility. Unfortunately, we don't.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Good post.

But I am not sure it works if AQ can get the Sunni's to become Wahabbi's or dominated by local Wahabbi's. They would receive a lot of support from Wahabbi Saudi Arabi, official or not, if they were to become "more devout."

Long before Islam and all it's many Sunni sects, there was the pride and bond of clan and tribal affiliation. The only thing that makes presumptuous outsiders welcome is fighthing a greater, more alien, common enemy.

As to the end game in Iraq, it might end in a truce provided the Sunni's share in the oil revenue and have autonomy.

That's the "political solution" which al-Bootlicki will ultimately be forced to accept, if he wants his government to survive. As long as we're there to provide him cover and support under the sham that every Sunni who opposes the government is an AQ terrorist, and every Shiite who opposes the government (not counting half the ones in it) are Iranian agents, then al-Bootlicki won't have to make that choice.

[Drake Tungsten]

Lots of little brown people in India who seem to enjoy their Western-style secular democratic government. Would've mentioned the Japanese too, but they're only little, not little and brown...

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Why is that important to this conversation? AQ is in Iraq now. Does it really matter if they were there before 2003 or before 2001 or before any other date your may pull out of the air for it to affect our decision to stay or to withdraw?

"AQ in Iraq" is not equal to AQ. One of our basic problems is that we identify as AQ any group who has had one member ever train in a camp which OBL or any of his associates ever passed through to take a leak.

There is a lot of decentralization now, a real lack of command and control, and the "real" AQ are little more than cheerleaders in Iraq, via the every two or three month videos that come out.

The on-the-ground capability of the locals does not translate very clearly to the potentially global capability that AQ has or had. We can't kill the local *******s (wherever they may be) faster than they can be recruited, so we need to look at other means of dealing with them, and focus the real killing efforts on those targets and assets with a more likely capability of reaching out to hit us.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Lots of little brown people in India who seem to enjoy their Western-style secular democratic government. Would've mentioned the Japanese too, but they're only little, not little and brown...

Tell that to Indira and Rajiv, escgargot boy. Besides, they've got their own little home-grown enemy to the north to fight, and we don't tell 'em how to run things.

The Japanese are also a rich, developed country with lots of targets in a tightly confined area. They had their militaristic attitudes bombed out of 'em, and replaced their resentment of us with a fear of the commie barbarian hordes to their west.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Forget about "Islam" - you are assuming that long-existing, conservative cultures with no positive historical ties to the west, let alone ideals of western secular liberalism, have any particular desire to have a western-style secular democratic government in the first place.

Or that your or my white infidel crusader imperialist asses have the slightest credibility in telling these people how they ought to live and handle their affairs?

Maybe if the west hadn't been so enthusiastic and efficient at ****ing over little brown people all over the world these last several hundred years, we might have the tiniest shred of credibility. Unfortunately, we don't.

Racist in the most subtle way.

[Kidlicious]

'Commie barbarian hordes' sounds so cool.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Lots of little brown people in India who seem to enjoy their Western-style secular democratic government. Would've mentioned the Japanese too, but they're only little, not little and brown...

10 times more that don't. Not that they are terrorists but that's not in their culture.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Ned


Racist in the most subtle way.

So subtle that it's not racist at all.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ned


Racist in the most subtle way.

Yes, your (and a lot of Americans) assumption that "they want to be just like us" is racist. Whereas, statements like Bush's "The Iraqi people owe the American people a debt of gratitude" is just imperialist and ignorant.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The Japanese are also a rich, developed country with lots of targets in a tightly confined area. They had their militaristic attitudes bombed out of 'em, and replaced their resentment of us with a fear of the commie barbarian hordes to their west.

Actually, it seems to me that the Japanese of that era were not so much militaristic as imperialistic. They were going for empire, the so-called East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, or some such, in which the Japanese would have primary commercial rights, just like the Brits in their empire.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Kidicious


So subtle that it's not racist at all.

There is an underlying assumption that is very racist. Do I really need to point it out?