Center of the war on terrorism

[Pollwatch99]

To me, terrorists are flowing into IRAQ from all over the Middle East.  They must be coming from somewhere nearby.  Where?  

I do not believe an aggressive pursuit of Bin Laden by invading Pakistan is good policy.  If IRAQ Prime Minister is overthrown by the ISLAMIC fundamentalists, they will have nukes.  So working slowly here in partnership makes sense.

I actually think IRAQ is as close to the center of terrorism as one could get.  If you believed in not waiting for another 9/11, where should we have gone ?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's ask the State Dept what they think.
Nov 2001 map.


Albania
Algeria
Afghanistan
Azerbaijan
Australia
Austria
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Belgium
Bosnia
Egypt
Eritrea
France
Germany
India
Iran
Iraq (haha, just kidding, it's not on the list)
Ireland
Italy
Jordan
Kenya
Kosovo
Lebanon
Libya
Malaysia
Mauritania
Netherlands
Pakistan
Philippines
Qatar
Russia
 Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
Sudan
Switzerland
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Tunisia
Turkey
Uganda
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States (seriously)
Uzbekistan
Yemen

[A18]

Nice map. Now if only it had to do with something.

[zachman]

Change 'is' in your poll to 'was.' His comment refered to it as a side front in the past.

[J. J.]

The Center of the War on Terrorism may be in Tora Bora, Fallujah (sp), Madrid, or Shanksville, PA, at any given moment.  This is an asymmetrical war.

[Pollwatch99]

The Center of the War on Terrorism may be in Tora Bora, Fallujah (sp), Madrid, or Shanksville, PA, at any given moment.  This is an asymmetrical war.

So how do you fight it?  Wait until they pop up?

[J. J.]

Hit them where they are; hit their support structure.  Hit their likely support structures, using the principles, "The friend of my enemy is my enemy," and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

[Pollwatch99]

Hit them where they are; hit their support structure.  Hit their likely support structures, using the principles, "The friend of my enemy is my enemy," and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

I agree.  John Kerry is right, IRAQ was not the center of the war on terrorism.  There was no center.  After we invaded IRAQ, it became a "center" of terrorism where miltary force could be used.  We eliminated a horrible dictator, freed millions of people and created a magnet to draw the terrorists to.  Bad thing?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Before our invasion, Iraq was a festering potential threat that needed to be closely watched, but was not an immenent threat to the United States.  Saddam was an evil dictator, but he wasn't an insane dicator.  His goal was to remain brutally in power.  If he had given WMD's to terrorists then even the French would have supported invading Iraq (but probably still wouldn't have sent troops unless France had been the terrorists target).  There was absolutely no support that we got for the war in Iraq that we could not have gotten a year later if need be.  (Rumsfeld's arrogant disdain for diplomacy ruffled too many feathers, so that only our core allies, such as Britain sent any useful assistance.)  We had an unfinished situation in Afghanistan that remains unfinished and undermanned.  We failed to send enough troops in Iraq to be able to keep the peace in the areas we occupied.

The most fault I find with Bush's efforts in the War on Terrorism and the War in Iraq is not the policies he has pursued, but that his administration continuously underestimates what is needed to carry out those policies.

[freedomburns]

No center, bring the troops home.  Leave other countries the f*** alone unless their governments attack us.  If people attack us, then our police/agencies work with their police/agencies to bring them to justice, just like we have done for centuries.  No new expansionist imperialistic premptive policies initiating first strike wars of conquest for profit.

The center of the war on terrorism should be the reformation of our intelligence agencies.

freedomburns

[Pollwatch99]

No center, bring the troops home.  Leave other countries the f*** alone unless their governments attack us.  If people attack us, then our police/agencies work with their police/agencies to bring them to justice, just like we have done for centuries.  No new expansionist imperialistic premptive policies initiating first strike wars of conquest for profit.

The center of the war on terrorism should be the reformation of our intelligence agencies.

freedomburns

The problem with the way it's worked for centuries is this is the first time we have WMD.  Terrorists getting them could not only cause 10's of thousands of deaths but set off in the right 1-2 cities could cause markets to crash and millions to lose jobs.  The truth is that you can stop a determined terrorist but you can eliiminate states that will support terrorism. The 21st centurt is much different.

[The Duke]

First of all, jfern, the people who executed the 1993 WTC attack were living in Baghdad in 2001 (in fact, up until the invasion), so I'm not so sure the State Dep't has a very thorough map.  State also listed Iraq as a state spnsor of terrorism, so be careful which sources you cite.

I voted Iran.  There is no more active sponsor of terrorism, no more obvious instance of freedom vs tyranny within the soul of the Islamic world itself, and no more dangerous middle eastern government when the weapons it pursues is considered alongside the goals it has.

[J. J.]

No center, bring the troops home.  Leave other countries the f*** alone unless their governments attack us.  If people attack us, then our police/agencies work with their police/agencies to bring them to justice, just like we have done for centuries.  No new expansionist imperialistic premptive policies initiating first strike wars of conquest for profit.

The center of the war on terrorism should be the reformation of our intelligence agencies.

freedomburns

What Freedomburn's misses is the grave potential threats.

Whe know that Iraq:

1.  Had and used WMD's in the past and had the intent to get more.

2.  Had sheltered terrorists, e.g. Abu Nidal (sp).

3.  Had plotted to assassinate a former President (GHW Bush).

We also know that Saddam's Iraq wanted to expand it's influence in the region and was opposed in that by the US.  One way, using the principle of "The enemy of my enemy is friend," is to wait for al Queda (sp) to knock the US off balance (perhaps using WMD's) and, regionally, take advantage of the situation.

[Citizen James]

Hit them where they are; hit their support structure.  Hit their likely support structures, using the principles, "The friend of my enemy is my enemy," and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The first half is good, undermining thier support structure and underlying public sentenment.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend, on the other hand I see as flawed reasoning.  In desperate circumstances we may have to make a deal with the devil and pick the lesser of two evils (such as our alliance with Stalin against Hitler).  Saddam and Usoma were bitter enemies (saddam being a brutal secular dictator, and Usoma being a psychotic theocratic idealoge).  If the two are enemies, which one is our friend?  Which one is (or was) at least the lesser  evil or less dangerous threat?

One of the main problem here seems to be that some people don't appear to understand the concept of asymetrical warfare.   Unlike standing armies, anyone can pick up a gun, or a knife, of some fertilizer and a few chemicals, and become an insurgent or terrorist.   Note that there is a subtle difference - the insurgents want us out, the terrorists want us to strike harder and (preferably) indescriminently.

Why, some of you may ask, would the terrorists want us to strike harder?  Consider how the US reacted on 9/11, and figure that Iraqis (and many in the middle east in general) react in a similar manner to seeing Iraqi's killed.   All across the middle east, television images carry pictures of dead and maimed civilians - the twisted bodies of women and children.   When we saw the dead and dying in New York, we certainly wanted to destroy those behind it, do you think they view their dead any differently?   Now I'm not going to spout some hippie crap about turning the other cheek, but shouldn't we consider our strategy to consider the many different facets of the war on terror, rather than thinking it to solely be a stand up fight?   It is a difficult ballance to strike, eliminating the terrorists while pacifying the civil population (that is minimizing the amount of recruiting help we give the terrorists).

The number of our enemies is not static, and is driven by how we are viewed in the world, especially in the region.   They know how to use our strength against us (the more firepower, the more 'colateral damage' - > the more colateral damage, the more they get tv footage of dead and maimed innocents, which in turn drives their recruiting, and their sympathy, and their funding.

Make no mistake, both candidates firmly want to dismantle the terrorist networks and kill the terrorists - the difference is whether we let them goad us into playing into their hands, or if we find ways of reballancing the playing field and discretely removing them while undermining thier public sympathies.  Bin laden most likely wants a war of peoples - the whole middle east vs. the whole west.  Currently, his support is minor but signifigant - why should we play into his hands and help him realize his dreams of total regional war?  Or would we rather skip WW3 and send him and his buddies straight to hell?

  (I know, I know, some of the wacky fundementalist 'christians' want a war of peoples too, they think massive death and destruction is a good thing because they believe it will bring about the armagedon and rapture they want and believe in - but this is only a few of the most extreme fundementalists, the ones who are emotionally akin to Usoma and co - most fundementalists I know are at least more rational than that.)

[J. J.]

Hit them where they are; hit their support structure.  Hit their likely support structures, using the principles, "The friend of my enemy is my enemy," and "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

The first half is good, undermining thier support structure and underlying public sentenment.  The enemy of my enemy is my friend, on the other hand I see as flawed reasoning.  In desperate circumstances we may have to make a deal with the devil and pick the lesser of two evils (such as our alliance with Stalin against Hitler).  Saddam and Usoma were bitter enemies (saddam being a brutal secular dictator, and Usoma being a psychotic theocratic idealoge).  If the two are enemies, which one is our friend?  Which one is (or was) at least the lesser  evil or less dangerous threat?

Respectfully, you've made a mistake here, when you assume that this principle does not drive both  Saddam and bin Laden.

The Iraq of Saddam Hussein had as a goal to dominate the surrounding area, i.e. Iran, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.  It could not do so unless US influence in the region was removed, in terms of military power.  

The al Qaeda goal is to remove Western, especially US, military and cultural influence in the Muslim world, larger than the Middle East.  This overlaps with pre-invasion Iraq goal.

There are other overlaps as well.  Saddam wanted a society with a single governing party, the Ba'ath Party.  Al Qaeda want a non party government, in the traditional sense, but a government limited solely to clerics, basically a "Cleric Party," though not organized as such.

The Stalin/Allies analogy is most apt.  Both groups had a common goal to stop Hitler from dominating Europe.  Both bin Laden and Saddam had the common goal of ending US influence (I would not call it domination) in the Middle East.  Both also opposed the concept of a multiparty democracy.  They had enough in common to be a mutual threat to the US.

[Donovan]

WOW! 13% think it is Iraq! Guess you made your point hey?

[A18]

Actually, it's 20%, dumbass. Nice try though.

[Smash255]

I voted Saudi Arabia, but you could throw Afghanistan Iran and others along with it.  Islamic Fundamentalism is what the major problem is.  The fundamentalists are the group that attacked us on 9/11, and are the biggest threat.  Interestingly the one country in the Middle East with the least involvment with the fundamentalists was Iraq.  Saddam was a brutal dictator no question about it.  However, as far as the center of the war on terror he wasn't part of it.  That part belongs to those that actually attacked us (Al Qaeda, Osama the Fundamentalists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan not Iraq)

[J. J.]

Don't confuse "fundamentalism" with "goals."

[shankbear]

Attack and slaughter them everywhere they are no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.  Freedom is not free.

[Nym90]

Attack and slaughter them everywhere they are no matter how long it takes or how much it costs.  Freedom is not free.

You are correct, freedom isn't free. You have to pay taxes in order to get it.

[stry_cat]

What Freedomburn's misses is the grave potential threats.

Whe know that Iraq:

1.  Had and used WMD's in the past and had the intent to get more.

Where are the WMD's?  I have yet to hear of a report where we found any.  Has anyone else??

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who's this guy?  Are we sure he wasn't just hiding in the sand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never really believed that.  It seemed too much like propaganda from the Bush war machine.  Even if he did the plot was never put into motion and no one was caught.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Every dictator want to do that.  We put him back in his place with Kwuait.  He didn't do anythiing to threaten us since then.  We shouldn't have invaded again.  

[J. J.]

What Freedomburn's misses is the grave potential threats.

Whe know that Iraq:

1.  Had and used WMD's in the past and had the intent to get more.

Where are the WMD's?  I have yet to hear of a report where we found any.  Has anyone else??

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who's this guy?  Are we sure he wasn't just hiding in the sand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never really believed that.  It seemed too much like propaganda from the Bush war machine.  Even if he did the plot was never put into motion and no one was caught.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

1.  Note the phrase I used was "had in the past."  Very clearly Iraq did have them, and use them, in the Iran/Iraq War, and against the Kurds (where "Chemical Ali" got his nickname).  I've seen film of the victims from that time.

Maybe it was only "right wing fanatics" that thought Iraq still had them.  If so, we'd have to add the name John Kerry to that list; in 1998, he signed a letter to Clinton stating the threat.

With 20/20 hindsight, we can say that in 2003, those weapons were probably gone, but Saddam refused to provide evidence of that and hindered the inspectors trying to verify that.

2.  Abu Nidal, was a terrorist who planned a the attack of the Rome Airport in 1985, attempted to assassinate the Israeli envoy to the UK, attacked a cruise ship in the Mediterranean.  I'd suggest you "Google" his name.  He was being sheltered for years by the Iraq of Saddam; there were others.  Now these were not associated with al Qaeda, but there was a history of support for terrorist.

3.  Do you really think that Bill Clinton is party of the "Bush Propaganda machine?"  Clinton announced it and used it, I believe prior to G. W. Bush even being elected governor of TX, as the grounds for launching are attacks.

Saddam didn't want to stay in the box we put him in in 1991, that's the point; his goal was to get out of that box.  Destabilizing the US, to the extent that US influence is weaked or removed in the Middle East, helps him acheive that goal.

[Pollwatch99]

What Freedomburn's misses is the grave potential threats.

Whe know that Iraq:

1.  Had and used WMD's in the past and had the intent to get more.

Where are the WMD's?  I have yet to hear of a report where we found any.  Has anyone else??

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who's this guy?  Are we sure he wasn't just hiding in the sand?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I never really believed that.  It seemed too much like propaganda from the Bush war machine.  Even if he did the plot was never put into motion and no one was caught.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

 

1.  Note the phrase I used was "had in the past."  Very clearly Iraq did have them, and use them, in the Iran/Iraq War, and against the Kurds (where "Chemical Ali" got his nickname).  I've seen film of the victims from that time.

Maybe it was only "right wing fanatics" that thought Iraq still had them.  If so, we'd have to add the name John Kerry to that list; in 1998, he signed a letter to Clinton stating the threat.

With 20/20 hindsight, we can say that in 2003, those weapons were probably gone, but Saddam refused to provide evidence of that and hindered the inspectors trying to verify that.

2.  Abu Nidal, was a terrorist who planned a the attack of the Rome Airport in 1985, attempted to assassinate the Israeli envoy to the UK, attacked a cruise ship in the Mediterranean.  I'd suggest you "Google" his name.  He was being sheltered for years by the Iraq of Saddam; there were others.  Now these were not associated with al Qaeda, but there was a history of support for terrorist.

3.  Do you really think that Bill Clinton is party of the "Bush Propaganda machine?"  Clinton announced it and used it, I believe prior to G. W. Bush even being elected governor of TX, as the grounds for launching are attacks.

Saddam didn't want to stay in the box we put him in in 1991, that's the point; his goal was to get out of that box.  Destabilizing the US, to the extent that US influence is weaked or removed in the Middle East, helps him acheive that goal.

Let me add to your points.

The entire world believed or feared that Saddam had or was building WMD.   Only somebody interested in ignoring facts wants to forget about 17 UN resolutions.  They want to forget that Tommy Franks was told by Jordan and Eqypt about chemical weapons.  They want to forget that Russia warned Bush about them.

So what kind of US President takes no decisive action in the face of this kind of threat?  Answer is a poor one.  Now, John Kerry says he would have asked the right questions and made sure the intelligence was correct.  What that means folks is he will never take action on intelligence.  Intelligence is never, ever definitive.  You will never be sure it is correct, so he will never take action.

Here is what the election is about in the post 9/11 war.  We can run the risk of err on the side of being too aggressive in pursuing the war on terror.  Yes, that is the risk with Bush.  We can run the risk of err on the side of not being aggressive enough in pursuing the war on terror.  Yes, that is the risk with Kerry.  Since we tried the not aggressive approach for decades before, I'm for trying it the other way.  Better to try and fail than not to try at all.

[J. J.]

I'll be the first one to say that we have to change our approaches to gathering intelligence, however.