War on Terror a rousing success: al-Qaida has rebuilt to level just before 9/11

[Darius871]

Re: War on Terror a rousing success: al-Qaida has rebuilt to level just before 9/11

I'm surprised nobody has pointed to the only important part of the article:

they know of no specific, credible threat of a new attack on U.S. soil.

Of course if the threat level was raised during an election season everyone here would be jumping on that quote as proof that certain people are just exaggerating the threat in order to instill a culture of fear, but since this report happens to be about the WoT's failure its apparent lack of substance is ignored. Typical.

[Robert]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20021007-8.html

Your linked speech doesn't try to connect Iraq to 9/11.
It connects Iraq to terroristic groups, which is a fact (SH supported the palastinian suicide bombers by donating $25000 to their families)
It connects some Al Qaida terrorists to Iraq, which can't be denied.
But it doesn't draw conclusions, it just expresses it's consern.

I didn't see any supposed link between 9/11 and Iraq, but I may have missed it.

And when we diverted attention and resources from Afghanistan, the Taliban and al-Qaida retook a large portion of that country, as well as infect northern Pakistan. We haven't exactly done a good job of "making sure" Afghanistan is under the complete control of friendly forces...

Nobody said that it was all perfect.
But the reason that it's still a mess may be because the terrorists still believe that they can win, because the western nations didn't give a common message to the terrorists. The terrorists know what to do to split the western nations up more: well registrated PR stunts and attacks on citizen.

You have a particular point for telling us what we already know and no one questions?

Apparantly there's a difference between what you 'know' and the arguments you base your opinion on.

BTW, you have no idea how few people know this.

Again, your point for stating the obvious?

It's not so obvious for about 99,9% of humanity that this is connected to 9/11

You're still wandering aimlessly and throwing out the "9/11 changed everything" bumbersticker meme...

It didn't change anything, it just made us aware that action was needed and the status quo in Iraq couldn't last forever.

We weren't going to be leaving anything so long as Saddam was in power. Given how crippled his regime was, had we stayed right where we were he would never managed to develop WMDs with us breathing down his neck.

But the presence of the USA/UK forces was enough for OBL to execute 9/11.
Not to mention that a status quo into eternity isn't the best. In North Korea we thought: one day Kim Il Sun will die and all will change, but oops, then suddenly Kim Jon Il got in charge. Saddam had sons as well.

Not to mention that the current mess was unavoidable. One day the dictator of Iraq would fall, and the 3 etnic groups in Iraq would start to kill each other. That's how civilization unfortunately is being born. People first need to slam each other long enough to realise that war is not a road to success.

The US invasion of Iraq has only brought that civil war to an earlier date. (which saves Iraq from more decades of SH in the end)

[Robert]

but since this is a report happens to be about the WoT's failure its lack of substance is ignored.

You don't know if the WoT is failing just because there's a treat. Who knows how many terrorist attacks have been avoided because of the WoT.

Is the police failing because there are still burglars?
Do you really think that any action can bring paradise to this world?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The real question is: what would Al Qaida have been if we hadn't battled them? Perhaps they would've been 10 times as worse.

Or perhaps Osama Bin Laden would have developed super powers.

Not to mention that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq finally have hopes for a better future.

O RLY?

Another valid question is of course: the levels of criminality in most western nations hardly ever drops but mostly stays the same. Shall we stop trying to jail the criminals?

And there you have it. If Al Qaeda had been treated as a criminal organization like the mafia, and the US had treated this as a police rather than military matter, you wouldn't be in the mess you are now in.

I'm still baffled at how invading an Arab secular socialist dictatorship and filling it with disaffected Islamist guerillas is supposed to solve the problem.

I predicted that this would happen five years ago. So did the other lefties. We were absolutely and unconditionally correct.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by CyberShy
Oh, obviously wrong things have been said. On all sides.

Yes, Iraq had everything to do with Afghanistan. Not because Al Qaida was linked to Iraq, but because of the reasons I gave above.

The Bush Adminstration and its enablers in the media and Congress helped push public sentiment in favor of attacking Iraq because of the incessant conflating of Iraq and 9/11. I'm sorry this fact completely eludes you, but it is fact nonetheless.

Terrorism had a home in Afghanistan. Al Qaida was started to fight corrupt islamitic leaders, and to fight the presence of 'heathens' in the holy land (Saudi Arabia). And the heathens were in the holy land to contain Saddam Hussein. It's as simple as that.

The presence of the USA/UK troops in Saudi Arabia provoced the muslims to the 9/11 attacks.

Again with stating the already known...

And since there was no sight of improvement in Iraq, action needed to be token, not in the last place because an untrustworthy regime as the SH regime could easily start to host or fund new terroristic activities now Afghanistan couldn't do that anymore.

Improvement of what in Iraq? No one believed SH had WMDs, not even our intelligence agencies, yet the Bush Administration kept pushing that non-truth with their non-evidence. And again, we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan because we diverted resources to attack Iraq, allowing a wounded Taliban and al-Qaida to reform quickly and retake territory in TWO countries, one having actual WMDs. As for terrorism, SH had little if anything in the way of active terrorism efforts with coalition forces still breathing down his neck from the first Gulf War. Containment looked to be working just fine: Denied him any chance for WMDs, completely demoralized his military, and opened up the possibility of collapse from within. Difference being the US has completely destroyed its reputation as well as the lives of millions of people.

Al Qaida and SH didn't share anything, except a common enemy. And everybody knows that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" is still one of the major rules in conflicts.

This notion that SH and al-Qaida we ever getting in bed together really needs to be given a rest.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


And this is even dumber than what Cyber posted. It has everything to do with Iraq. Part of the Bush Administration's public attempts to get the public behind war with Iraq was the incessant intermingling of Iraq and 9/11.

Maybe to those weak of mind who bought into that tripe. Personaly I never bought into the case for war in Iraq seeing the precedent of changing regime and interfering with sovereign states as something more inviolate that the case the admin made.

Be that as it may you completley overblow the case of tieing 9/11 to Iraq and it shows you were influenced too much.

al-Qaida attacked us, not Iraq. al-Qaida was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Resources being used to fight al-Qaida and the remnants of the new-deposed Taliban in Afghanistan were redirected to Iraq,

Funny the arguements made earlier these past few weeks was that AQ in Iraq was in no way associated with AQ proper. Now I guess you will tell me next that Taliban was in no way associated with AQ.

where neither entity existed.

What could have been accomplished in Afghanistan that was not by had the redirection of our forces in Afghanistan not taken place by the time the Iraq hositilities had broken out? The limitter in effectiveness at that point (and for that matter largely today) was the hard stop that NATO forces were disallowed to cross over to Pakistan (and Iran for that matter) for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Namely, were NATO forces allowed to pursue taliban/AQ elements in hunt and destroy fashion into Pakistan it likely would have toppled Musharraf. Regardless of what went on in Iraq our effectivness in this particular theatre was and is largely dictated by the politics not the forces at our disposal.

The Taliban and al-Qaida have retaken much of Afghanistan because our attention and resources were diverted elsewhere, Iraq, which allowed them to also slip into Pakistan to bolster anti-Musharraf, radical fundamentalists in that country. In taking those actions, we've greatly exacerbated the threat to the stability of Musharraf's government. We made it much more possible for the anti-Musharraf elements to move against him and take control of that country as well.

This is one of the most sophmoric arguement to date. By the time Iraq hostilites had broken out most of the AQ and Talibani elelments already were in full hiding and were already in safe haven across the borders. More forces would have meant squat diddly all to routing them out in places the US and allies were not prepared (politically) to go. This is a crying over spilt milk arguement as the damage was done well prior to actions in Iraq.

Additional forces in Afghanistan theatre would have done little to impact the reconstituion of these forces in safe haven Pakistan but would have given plenty of opportunities for them to be targets in Afhganistan for incurring raiders from Pakistan as well as friendly fire from our own.

[Patroklos]

The Taliban and al-Qaida have retaken much of Afghanistan

Please identify by name, DRoseDARs, the large portions of Afghanistan retaken by the Taliban.

Then tell me how a million US troops in Afghanistan would help us to keep the al-Qaida from doing whatever it wants in Pakistan. Do you want us to invade Pakistan?

And again, we didn't finish the job in Afghanistan because we diverted resources to attack Iraq, allowing a wounded Taliban and al-Qaida to reform quickly and retake territory in TWO countries

What job did not happen in Afghanistan, specifically, and again how were we going to stop anything from happening internal to Pakistan. Should I go searching for your ilk bashing the US for dealing with an Islamic dictatorship or telling us how the US military is incapable of subduing another islamic country (Iraq) to point out your hypocrisy

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Patroklos

Do you want us to invade Pakistan?

Apparently so. This is the question I posed earlier and seems to be the only logical reason to require so many troops.

[Patroklos]

The Bush Adminstration and its enablers in the media and Congress helped push public sentiment in favor of attacking Iraq because of the incessant conflating of Iraq and 9/11. I'm sorry this fact completely eludes you, but it is fact nonetheless.

So which was it, WMDs or this or spreading democracy? I can't tell because your lot changes their mind depending on what conditional bash (usually centered around extrapolating ridiculous conclusions from open ended reports) they feel like advocating on any given day.

I don't remember 911 being linked to Saddam pre-war, none of us in my office do and we would be the ones to really pay attention.

But feel free provide some evidence to support your claim.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Patroklos

I don't remember 911 being linked to Saddam pre-war, none of us in my office do and we would be the ones to really pay attention.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Maybe to those weak of mind who bought into that tripe.

[Patroklos]

As for terrorism, SH had little if anything in the way of active terrorism efforts with coalition forces still breathing down his neck from the first Gulf War. Containment looked to be working just fine: Denied him any chance for WMDs, completely demoralized his military, and opened up the possibility of collapse from within.

Is this not exactly the situation that created the entire Al-Qaida network and 9/11 in the first place? Are you trying to prove Cybershy's point?

So you were cool with the status-quo? Embassy bombings, skyscrapers crashing down in western cities, slave and drug trades running rampant in the ME? Not to mention the status quo doomed far more Iraqis to death that have died in our current endeavor. What did the status quo accomplish, or even attempt to accomplish?

But given the status quo, with us invading Afghanistan, and your OP saying Al-Qaida is able to rebuild not having Afghanistan, what does your status quo offer anyone??

[Patroklos]

Feel free to provide an article Aggie, I only remember a direct link even mentioned until after the initial conflict was over.

[PLATO]

Very Simple stuff actually. Everybody tries to make it so hard.

First...Iraq and Afghanistan are two different wars. Period. They were instituted for two tactically different reasons, but were part of the overall strategic picture. Al Qaida gets it...some people who would like to live in a nice tidy world don't.

Second...Let's deal with the big picture. It is two fold in nature, but singular in purpose. The nature of both fights were to remove governments that fostered instability. The terrorist in Afghanistan were getting to well equipped and too aggressive...they threatened stability in the middle east and more importantly, could threaten the stability of our friends in the middle east. With 9/11, the aggressive nature of the terrorist finally achieved a level that justified military involvement. This, remember, is a NATO operation. The nature of the problem in Iraq was more long term, but probably more dangerous in the long run. Iraq was slowly rearming, the embargo was slowly fading, the Iraqi government was destabilizing the Pal-Israel situation, and support for our continued presence in Saudi was beginning to fade. There would not be an easier time to attempt to solve the Iraqi issue...support for middle eastern military action had never been higher and with troops already engaged in combat oveseas the decision was an easy one.
The purpose of both wars is to bring a more stable long term presence to the region. AQ recognizes this and has diverted all or nearly all its resources to trying to thwart this effort and gain greater control over this region. Saying that AQ was not in Iraq before we invaded is a ludicrous statement (not for its untruth, for it is true...it is ludicrous for it irrelevance). The enemy is taking the war to where their enemy is. Much as the allies did in WWII...(for example...the US wasn't in North Africa until the Germans were).

Third...The complications. Western Society has matured to a level that generally abhors war. That is a product of some incredibly bloody lessons and is generally a good thing. Unfortunately, many other societies have not matured to the same level. While the world would be shocked beyond belief if Germany invaded France next week, no one would seem to notice if Ethiopia invaded Somalia. This is because we understand the difference in the maturity levels of the various societies. AQ and the middle east has not yet matured to a point where they have learned the harsh lessons that all out war teaches. In fact, western countries have become so abhorant of all out war that we are, in fact, conducting limited operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The people of the west would simple not accept hearing of whole cities being laid to waste and thousands dead. In fact, western society has a hard time accepting any bloodshed to obtain the goal.
That is where the problem and the conflict lay. No one that I know of would claim that The Taliban and Sadaam were good for their countries, good for the region, or good for the west. The problem is that the west does not like the dirty work. With the British saying decades in Afghanistan and The Americans starting to say decades in Iraq, the people of the west are starting to scream. The problem is, however, that the enemy has engaged us on both battlefields and we now have a choice...to win or to lose. The consequences of losing an attempt to stabilize the middle east are devastating and have been given little thought by the west. Having fundamentalist islamics in charge in an arc from iraq to Afghanistan is not a prospect that anyone in the west should relish. The instability would be devastating to energy markets, further destabilize friendly governments, put Israel at risk, and leave countries actually persuing weapons of mass destruction unchecked. Please remember, the stated goals of AQ and the stated goals of Iran. Both have stated that their ultimate goal is the destruction of the United States. Losing in the middle east now, will make that goal far more attainable in the future.

[Robert]

CyberShy: Not to mention that the people of Afghanistan and Iraq finally have hopes for a better future.

Agathon: O RLY?

Yes, they have.
Civil wars don't last forever.

And if the entire western world + Russia would line up behind each other and send one message to the terrorists: Get the hell out of there, that would only speed up the process.

Right now it seems like more people have problems with Bush then with the Terrorists.