Does the war in Iraq cause more terrorism?

[bob_kark]

Bob, I admit that I might well think exactly what they think.

But what to do if you DON'T think that way?

Eventually you gotta respond, especially when a non-response makes matters worse.

My opinion is that if you must respond, respond big.

Go big or stay home, as the red necks would say.

I agree, I'm still waiting for that response. Unfortunately, its been oddly quiet.

 

[Rob Lister]

I did not understand that post Capel. I read it five times. The last sentence confused me.

 

[Mycroft]

The premise seems to be that, with all the lies that have gone into the Iraq war, and with all the emphasis this took away from the actual war against terrorism in Afghanistan, and all the cronyism and filling-my-buddies´-pockets that went with the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq, coupled with the fact that some of the prime terrorism supporters in the Middle East, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, are still your best buddies, no moderate Muslim is ever going to believe that the US actually has their best interests at heart.

That would depend on how you define "best interests", wouldn't it? If you think it means the US is going to put your interests above its own out of pure altruism, then that's not going to happen. On the other hand, if it means the US will spend it's own lives and treasure to instal a democracy in Iraq in place of the brutal dictatorship that was in the hope it will bring stability to the region, then it doesn't really matter if there are WMD's or not, does it?

I don't know why you feel the need to create that straw man. Intelligence has nothing to do with this situation, this is simply ignorance. The unfortunate fact is that they're seeing muslims tortured. They're seeing civillians beaten and killed by soldiers. They know that we invaded a country with large oil reserves under pretenses that proved to be false. If you were to witness this, lived in a country where your access to media was limited, Al Jazeera was considered a balanced news source, and people from your local mosque continually reminded you every time you went to prayer that the US was an evil empire, what exactly would you think?

This is not an excuse as the jump from dissidence to violence is a clearly marked line. However, if you believed your country was under threat, you may find yourself doing the same.

If your premise is ignorance fed by Al Jazeera propaganda, then what we actually do or do not do doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[Mycroft]

The majority in the region see the Iraq War as imperialist.

Which means they're sadly misinformed of the definition of "imperialist".

Hmmm, I wonder how that could happen? Could it be all the knee-jerk rabid fundy leftist moonbats shouting "Imperialist!" every time West meets East?

That's what they're used to. They see the flimsy, laughable even, attempt to link it to their religion as just more spin. Which they're also used to.

So you're saying they're highly skeptical of Al Zakarwi and Bin Laden?

This is a very civilised part of the world.

I can think of many ways the Middle East is civilized, but I can think of no way that does not also apply to the rest of the world. What ways do you have in mind?

 

[Rob Lister]

I agree, I'm still waiting for that response. Unfortunately, its been oddly quiet.

Okay, well, what is your plan.

You're the pres.

Not a king, not a dictator.

You have vast, yet limited resorces (tank, armies, yada)

How would YOU approach it?

I must admit that the manner in which Bush approched is a bit aggressive, a bit risky, but the cost saving (in terms of total lives, not just U.S. Soldier lives), if successful, is grand.

Well it work? I donno. The plan seems clear to me though.

 

[CapelDodger]

Interesting perspective. Better to let them 'eat their young' than to act now while the acting is good.

What good resulted from the acting? If the opposition is "eating its young" it's getting weaker by the day. If you can wait the opposition out, why act?

P.S. How's the North Korean version of 'eat their young' going?

That situation I just can't get a handle on. 1984 made real. An experiment uniquely isolated and uninterrupted since Stalin and Hitler's days. It should be preserved as a Site of Special Sociological Significance.

China will have to sort that out. It was gross ineptitude on their part to let North Korea go nuclear.

 

[Rob Lister]

have you considered the young being eaten?

ETA: Your whole reponse seem to be based on 'damned if we do, damned if we don't'

So, we're damned. Which hell is best.

 

[CapelDodger]

Which means they're sadly misinformed of the definition of "imperialist".

The people of the region really don't need to have "imperialist" defined for them. The Ottoman Empire ruled from Iran westwards from Suleiman the Magnificent's days (mid-16thCE). Prior to that the imperialism was mostly split between the Mediterranean power and the Persians.

After the Ottomans British and French imperialism took on the role, just as the British had promised they wouldn't. Not that many people had believed it. Most of them preferred the devil they knew, the ineffectual Ottomans, to the far more efficient European imperial model.

 

[Mycroft]

The people of the region really don't need to have "imperialist" defined for them. The Ottoman Empire ruled from Iran westwards from Suleiman the Magnificent's days (mid-16thCE). Prior to that the imperialism was mostly split between the Mediterranean power and the Persians.

Then...we're back to stupid? As in they can't tell the difference between the US and the Ottoman Empire?

Would you say the Ottoman Empire is still within living memory?

 

[CapelDodger]

Then...we're back to stupid? As in they can't tell the difference between the US and the Ottoman Empire?

They can tell the difference. The Ottomans weren't so hypocritical.

Would you say the Ottoman Empire is still within living memory?

There are still men alive that fought in the Great War, so I'd say yes to that.

 

[Gravy]

I remember sitting around with friends when the first rumblings of the possibility of invading Iraq were heard, ans saying, "What would you do if you were running the U.S. and wanted to cause the most possible terrorism in the shortest time?" The answer was simple: start a war in a middle-eastern country that didn't attack us. Best target: Iraq, a country torn by internal strife that we have little understanding of, hammered by sanctions that we imposed, and armed to the teeth with weapons and explosives that we have no way of securing. Three years later, Baghdad is still the most dangerous place in the world. Chaos accomplished.

 

[Mycroft]

They can tell the difference. The Ottomans weren't so hypocritical.

Clever, but without meaning.

There are still men alive that fought in the Great War, so I'd say yes to that.

Do you think their memories shape the opinions of the masses?

 

[peptoabysmal]

The article is bogus. It never shows that the war in Iraq is a causal factor in anything and it includes data from war zones. You can't throw data from a war zone in the mix and claim it as evidence that domestic terrorism is on the rise due to the war.

 

[bob_kark]

Okay, well, what is your plan.

You're the pres.

Not a king, not a dictator.

You have vast, yet limited resorces (tank, armies, yada)

How would YOU approach it?

I must admit that the manner in which Bush approched is a bit aggressive, a bit risky, but the cost saving (in terms of total lives, not just U.S. Soldier lives), if successful, is grand.

Well it work? I donno. The plan seems clear to me though.

I'm assuming you're asking how I would approach it today, when we're already set in this quagmire. Personally, I'd ship or get off the port. I would do my best to see if my objectives in Iraq could be met. Could I leave Iraq as a stable or nearly stable democracy given the time and resouces I could deliver? If the answer is no, I'd say its nearly time to cut my losses and not make a bad situation even worse. If yes, I'd make it my #1 priority. Of course there is no easy answer to the question. I don't believe that I could pull the troops from the area unless I was certain our objective could not be met.

 

[bob_kark]

If your premise is ignorance fed by Al Jazeera propaganda, then what we actually do or do not do doesn't really matter, does it?

My point is that their impression of our country is based upon their limited access to balanced media and their existing social climate. The problem with your assertion is that our own actions are set to reinforce these beliefs, however misguided they may be. Al Jazeera can make all of the claims they want to. If they don't have any evidence to show, it becomes harder to make a strong case to the public. I'm certain there would still be tension in the ME, whether or not we were even there. Our support of Israel and the ravings of OBL ensure this. However, I don't believe the tension would be at its current level.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hmmm, I wonder how that could happen? Could it be all the knee-jerk rabid fundy leftist moonbats shouting "Imperialist!" every time West meets East?

I knew they'd been brainwashed by someone ...

You are a funny little man.

 

[Mike B.]

I can think of many ways the Middle East is civilized, but I can think of no way that does not also apply to the rest of the world. What ways do you have in mind?

Indeed.

 

[Giz]

The people of the region really don't need to have "imperialist" defined for them. The Ottoman Empire ruled from Iran westwards from Suleiman the Magnificent's days (mid-16thCE). Prior to that the imperialism was mostly split between the Mediterranean power and the Persians.

Oh please. Is this some kind of appeal to Volk Memory (copyright Adolf H)? This is like saying that Europeans are much better at diplomacy than yanks because they've been doing it for several centuries more... (if there were no such things as books, and diplomats were hundreds of years old, then I might be less sceptical).

And I doubt that the average 20 something in Tehran has their views materially shaped by the rambling of duffers from the great war. (Far more likely they have been shaped by the SAVAK regime and Khomeneis flag burning rhetoric).

 

[Dr Adequate]

On the contrary. The peoples of the Middle East can remember, and resent, an event in history for hundreds and hundreds of years.

In fact, my own solution to all the problems of the Middle East is to develop a powerful amnesigen and administer it to all parties.

Initial results are promising, but the drug has side effects. Lab trials show that when Histogon (TM) is administered to Jews, they forget Jerusalem as required, but this is accompanied by loss of cunning in the right hand and cleaving of the tongue to the palate.

Research continues. When the formula is perfected, we'll introduce it to the water supply. During the ensuing chaos, my shock troops of winged monkeys will infiltrate the libraries and destroy all the history books.

As George Santayana so very nearly said : Those who can remember history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[epepke]

I dunno. A lot of people tell me that the invasion of Iraq causes more terrorism, and that they knew it all along. Funny thing is that I remember many of the same people just after 9/11 when they said that it was the chickens coming home to roost, and why was Bush fixated on Afghanistan and not looking at Saddam Hussein? Of course, they don't remember this, but then again, they seldom remember yesterday.

On the other hand, a lot of other people tell me that the US has become perfectly secure after the Patriot Act, which fixes everything. Or at least they did up until a couple of months ago. They don't remember that, either.