Endless War Envisioned in Terror Fight

[Regnad Kcin]

Charles J. Hanley -- The Associated Press

New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London.

Where will it all lead?

The experts aren't encouraged. One prominent terrorism researcher sees the prospect of "endless" war. Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, "I don't think it's even started yet."

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

Now, he said, "we're at the point where jihad is self-sustaining," where Islamic "holy warriors" in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida's bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion...

As the world turns...

 

[Skeptic]

Now, he said, "we're at the point where jihad is self-sustaining," where Islamic "holy warriors" in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida's bin Laden.

As opposed to what? Jihadis not fighting the great Satan?

If the analysis here was strictly accurate, then the only real choice the US and the west have is to surrender: for fighting the Jihadis encourages them, and not fighting encourages them more.

The best would have been if there were no attacks on America at all. But since the attacks, there are two possibilities: 1). America will fight back and cause some people to join the jihadis out of rage at the "crusaders", or 2). (As OBL said) America will not fight back and cause some people to join the jihadis out of conviction of the coming success in the holy war againt the weak and cowardly infidel.

Not much of a choice, I agree, but surely (1) is preferable. (2) means certain defeat, caused by cowardice, to boot. As for (1), yes, the US and the west might lose, but on the other hand history is full of "unbeatable" forces on their way to "certain" victory that had collpased when met with resolute opposition.

 

[Giz]

"The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion..."

And the US-UK casualties in the 12 months following D-Day were higher than in the 12 months before. Damn! What a mistake that was... unless .... wait for it.... it acheived something....

Those statistics don't show anything - except bias.

 

[RandFan]

As opposed to what? Jihadis not fighting the great Satan?

Damned if you do damned if you don't. The terrorists flew two planes into the twin towers killing 3,000+ people. Why this isn't seen as significant is beyond me. It's as if we would have just treated the terrorists with kindness they would be nicer today. No, they would still be looking for ways to destroy us. Jeez people get that through your head. 9/11 wasn't the result of what we did after 9/11.

 

[varwoche]

Damned if you do damned if you don't. The terrorists flew two planes into the twin towers killing 3,000+ people. Why this isn't seen as significant is beyond me. It's as if we would have just treated the terrorists with kindness they would be nicer today. No, they would still be looking for ways to destroy us. Jeez people get that through your head. 9/11 wasn't the result of what we did after 9/11.

I'm unclear what it is I should get through my head, and why I should get it through my head.

Is there someone at hand who doesn't see 9/11 as significant?

Even if you think it wouldn't change the overall equation, and even if you think the Islamic world is wrong, do you acknowledge that US support for Israel and the situating of US bases in Saudi -- both pre-dating 911 -- are offensive to the Islamic world?

Similarly, do you acknowledge that US support for despotic regimes, such as Saudi, Egypt, and Saddam's Iraq -- all predating 911 -- sends a mixed signal about US values, and is offensive to the Islamic world?

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by varwoche
I'm unclear what it is I should get through my head, and why I should get it through my head.

Is there someone at hand who doesn't see 9/11 as significant?

I think there are those that forget that Islamic terrorism didn't begin with 9/11. We had been "dealing with it" for decades before then, and it's those policies that led to 9/11.

Originally posted by varwoche
Even if you think it wouldn't change the overall equation, and even if you think the Islamic world is wrong, do you acknowledge that US support for Israel and the situating of US bases in Saudi -- both pre-dating 911 -- are offensive to the Islamic world?

Both of these positions are founded in racism, and I don't believe we should legitimize racism.

Originally posted by varwoche
Similarly, do you acknowledge that US support for despotic regimes, such as Saudi, Egypt, and Saddam's Iraq -- all predating 911 -- sends a mixed signal about US values, and is offensive to the Islamic world?

Does anyone believe that if Saudi Arabia or Egypt were to reform that the US wouldn't support those reforms? Therefore, if the Arab world were upset that these regimes were despotic, wouldn't their anger better be directed at these regimes and not at the US?


Edited to add:

Suppose Reverend Fred Phelps of "God hates Faggots" fame and his followers were terrorists and had just set off bombs in the New York City subway system killing fifty people. Would it be rational to discuss his grievances? Would we seriously be talking about how if we just criminalized homosexuality addressing his "just cause" that we wouldn't be victims of his terror anymore?

The sad thing is I think some would. Mostly those that are already queasy about homosexuality wouldn't see a problem with sacrificing their civil rights in an act of appeasement toward the fundamentalist.

But it wouldn't be the right thing to do, and in the long run it would make the problem worse.

 

[Tony]

"The War on Terrorism" is bogus. It's just a phrased used by politicians to get votes, much like "tough on crime" and "returning to traditional values". The true war is one against fanaticism, religious fundamentalism and conservatism. Terrorism is a merely a tactic used in war. Having a war against terrorism is a silly as having a war against dropping bombs from airplanes. The tactic isn't what's relevant. What's relevant is the underlying ideology (what I mentioned above) and the goals it hopes to achieve. The reason that the "War on Terrorism" is so emphasized while the war against religious fundamentalism and conservatism isn't is because a lot of politicians and citizens agree with the goals and ideology of the islamists (but with a Christian flavor).

 

[RandFan]

"The War on Terrorism" is bogus. It's just a phrased used by politicians to get votes, much like "tough on crime" and "returning to traditional values". The true war is one against fanaticism, religious fundamentalism and conservatism. Terrorism is a merely a tactic used in war. Having a war against terrorism is a silly as having a war against dropping bombs from airplanes. The tactic isn't what's relevant. What's relevant is the underlying ideology (what I mentioned above) and the goals it hopes to achieve. The reason that the "War on Terrorism" is so emphasized while the war against religious fundamentalism and conservatism isn't is because a lot of politicians and citizens agree with the goals and ideology of the islamists (but with a Christian flavor).

I'm not convinced. You are making a semantical argument and you are technically correct. However "war on terror" does have a meaning that each of us understand. We are waging a war against those who would terrorize us. It is a mental image we can each understand and it is effective politically. As for war against religious fundamentalist and conservatism is concerned I'm not sure we are fighting that at all. We don't care if you are fundamentalist or conservative just leave us alone. If you won't then it doesn't matter if you are liberal (ELF ALF) Communist, Muslim, Christian etc., we are going to respond to those who kill Americans.

 

[Ed]

I'm unclear what it is I should get through my head, and why I should get it through my head.

Is there someone at hand who doesn't see 9/11 as significant?

Even if you think it wouldn't change the overall equation, and even if you think the Islamic world is wrong, do you acknowledge that US support for Israel and the situating of US bases in Saudi -- both pre-dating 911 -- are offensive to the Islamic world?

Similarly, do you acknowledge that US support for despotic regimes, such as Saudi, Egypt, and Saddam's Iraq -- all predating 911 -- sends a mixed signal about US values, and is offensive to the Islamic world?

In effect, you are saying that our foreign policy can be defined by stateless, leaderless forces that have an opinion and are ready to kill for it. How craven.

Saudi bases were there at the request of the Saudi government (which major power does not recognize said government, do you know?). Are you suggesting that we should have consulted an extra governmental authority before placing them there?

Which countries can you point to that refuse recognition of regimes (which are somehow "unacceptable") on principle?

Would you cede Spain and Portugal if they wanted it? Why not?

 

[Mephisto]

Great points, Skeptic . . .

If the analysis here was strictly accurate, then the only real choice the US and the west have is to surrender: for fighting the Jihadis encourages them, and not fighting encourages them more.

. . . but, there were other choices when this whole "war on terrorism" thing began. 1. We could have completely obliterated the Taliban and completely controlled Afghanistan while we searched for Bin Laden (remember him?), and 2. We could find an excuse to mire ourselves militarily in a country completely unrelated to 9/11 while giving all Muslim extremists justification in their assertions that the U.S. wants to invade a Muslim country.

The choice was obvious. How we ended up fighting on two fronts while controlling neither is beyond me. Apoligists frequently say that bringing Democracy to a Muslim country is invaluable, but couldn't that country just as easily have been Afghanistan? There was no need to invade Iraq, and our "war on terror" has served only to create an entire new generation of disabled American veterans and Islamic Jihadists.

 

[kedo1981]

9-11 was not an act of terrorism; it was an act of war

The war is not against terrorism or religious fanatics

This is a war that is being fought to determine what kind society fills the power vacuum that was the Soviet Union.

Simply put; the Muslim world was a superpower for hundreds of years; they want that status back; their main objective is to take over Saudi Arabia its oil wealth and religious status, there by have a huge amount of control over world wide foreign policy and “religious control” over the world wide Muslim populations.

 

[Mephisto]

It is a mental image we can each understand and it is effective politically.

You said it all right there. It's effective politically, which is WHY they were quick to attach the handle.

How many "wars" are we currently waging in America? Let's see, there is the "war on poverty" yet poor people still roam the streets, there is the "war on drugs" yet drugs are everywhere, there is the "war on breast cancer" yet women still die daily, the "war on AIDS" which hasn't done much to curtail the disease, the "war on Cancer" which won't even take into consideration making cigarettes as illegal as marijuana, the "war on obesity" which we're willing to fight . . . from our sofa . . . the "war on crime" yet criminals still operate with relative ease, the "war on illegal immigration" yet immigrants still cross the borders routinely . . . Get my drift?

Our latest war (on terror) is just another political ploy to cajole the masses into believing something is "being done."

 

[varwoche]

Both of these positions are founded in racism, and I don't believe we should legitimize racism.

I might be able to extrapolate your meaning based on other things you've posted (emphasize might). That said, I totally (and genuinely) don't get what your point is.

Does anyone believe that if Saudi Arabia or Egypt were to reform that the US wouldn't support those reforms?

I think we're starting to get the picture that reform might serve our interests. Historically though, no, I don't think we've acted very pro-reform.

Therefore, if the Arab world were upset that these regimes were despotic, wouldn't their anger better be directed at these regimes and not at the US?

Yes by and large.

Much jihadist anger is in fact directed at the despotic regimes. I do agree though that the US receives undue blame. Still, I understand the anti-US sentiment resulting from our support of despots.

Suppose Reverend Fred Phelps of "God hates Faggots" fame and his followers were terrorists and had just set off bombs in the New York City subway system killing fifty people. Would it be rational to discuss his grievances?

If he had grievences that were within shouting distance of a rational framework, then yes, in my view it would be rational to discuss them and freakishly irrational not to. I wouldn't discuss them with him though. If Phelps was within shouting distance of a rational framework, my reaction would be similar to my reaction to the jihadists. Something like this:

Hypothetical:
Nullify that dangerous nutcase immediately. Yikes, amidst his maniacal blathering, the nutcase makes a couple of valid points. Since they are valid, it would be foolish for us not to address them just because he's a nutcase.

 

[RandFan]

You said it all right there. It's effective politically, which is WHY they were quick to attach the handle.

How many "wars" are we currently waging in America? Let's see, there is the "war on poverty" yet poor people still roam the streets, there is the "war on drugs" yet drugs are everywhere, there is the "war on breast cancer" yet women still die daily, the "war on AIDS" which hasn't done much to curtail the disease, the "war on Cancer" which won't even take into consideration making cigarettes as illegal as marijuana, the "war on obesity" which we're willing to fight . . . from our sofa . . . the "war on crime" yet criminals still operate with relative ease, the "war on illegal immigration" yet immigrants still cross the borders routinely . . . Get my drift?

Our latest war (on terror) is just another political ploy to cajole the masses into believing something is "being done."

I agree that many of our "wars" are ineffectual. I would very much like to end the "war on drugs". And I think there is a limit to the effectiveness of the war on poverty.

Are you suggesting that we should end all efforts in the above actions or do you suggest the rhetoric is wrong and should not be used? Do you suggest that nothing is being done to combat terrorism? I agree that there are glaring problems in the so called war but I couldn't honestly say nothing is being done which would follow from your "to cajole the masses into believing something is 'being done'." contention.

IMO, the efforts to fight cancer, AIDS and other efforts are not misplaced and I don't mind the use of the rhetoric. I also don't mind the "war on terror" label. I think it effective and appropriate. I'm curious to hear your take.

And crime rates have been steadily dropping. Are you suggesting that absent 100% success the use of such rhetoric is wrong? I don't get that.

RandFan

 

[Rob Lister]

Re: Great points, Skeptic . . .

How we ended up fighting on two fronts while controlling neither is beyond me.

Define "front" in terms of war strategy? I see two major lines converging on a single front.

Define "controlling" in terms of war strategy? I see both occupations it as fairly successful.

In historical terms, this front is almost perfectly situated (future war historians will write text books describing it) and the resources necessary to maintain the occupations are minisucle and designed to become more minisucle still.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Great points, Skeptic . . .

. . . but, there were other choices when this whole "war on terrorism" thing began. 1. We could have completely obliterated the Taliban and completely controlled Afghanistan while we searched for Bin Laden (remember him?), and 2. We could find an excuse to mire ourselves militarily in a country completely unrelated to 9/11 while giving all Muslim extremists justification in their assertions that the U.S. wants to invade a Muslim country.

This is a naive interpretation. If Bin Laden fled to Pakistan, what, exactly, do you think we would have bought by dropping 100,000 troops into Afghanistan? You honestly think Bin Laden, the Taliban, or even Al Quaeda is the extent of the problem? Oh no. No, it is much bigger. That Iraq had no hand in planning 9/11 was never the point. The point is, our enemies are out there, and that INCLUDED Iraq. And we were no longer going to play a defensive war.

The choice was obvious. How we ended up fighting on two fronts while controlling neither is beyond me.

Yes, we are fighting a war on two fronts, and that is harder. Guess what? So are our enemies, and it is even harder for them.

Apoligists frequently say that bringing Democracy to a Muslim country is invaluable, but couldn't that country just as easily have been Afghanistan? There was no need to invade Iraq, and our "war on terror" has served only to create an entire new generation of disabled American veterans and Islamic Jihadists.

Could Afghanistan have served as the model we needed? No, for several reasons. First off, it's not geographically central to the problem and it's not arab, so it's easy for the arab world to choose to ignore it. Second, the reason establishing a model is so important is not only to demonstrate the success of democracy (our own existence does that), but JUST as importantly, we must show the failure of the status quo in the middle east. Afghanistan showed that stone-age theocracies were weak and ineffectual. But what about dictatorships with militaries built on petro-dollars which used pan-arabism as the unifying ideology? Those too were a source of terrorism - toppling the Taliban did nothing to dispell their appeal and the illusion of their power and inevitability. Toppling Saddam, the archetype arab despot, does exactly that. It's no coincidence that Syria withdrew it's troops from Lebannon after our invasion of Iraq, and it had nothing to do with Afghanistan being democratized.

And it's mere speculation that we've created more jihadis than we've killed. It's part of that weird "cycle-of-violence" myth that never made any sense to begin with.

 

[Mycroft]

Re: Re: Great points, Skeptic . . .

And it's mere speculation that we've created more jihadis than we've killed. It's part of that weird "cycle-of-violence" myth that never made any sense to begin with.

It's weird how the assumption is that our resources are finite and fast running out, yet we assume the resources of the jihadists are limitless. That doesn't make sense.

 

[varwoche]

In effect, you are saying that our foreign policy can be defined by stateless, leaderless forces that have an opinion and are ready to kill for it. How craven.

Your paraphrase doesn't resemble a position that I hold. I favor foriegn policy based on a balance of western ideals and pragmatism. The aspects of US foriegn policy that I'm most critical of are, in my view, neither idealistic nor pragmatic.

Saudi bases were there at the request of the Saudi government

True, the US did not vioate international law by situating bases in Saudi.

And this is just what I mean. A despotic government wanted to save their despotic asses, and we supported them with action that was blatantly offensive to the people of Saudi (and other muslims).

Are you suggesting that we should have consulted an extra governmental authority before placing them there?

Of course not.

Which countries can you point to that refuse recognition of regimes (which are somehow "unacceptable") on principle?

I hope that my prior answers have obviated this question.

Would you cede Spain and Portugal if they wanted it? Why not?

Overlooking the pesky detail that they aren't ours to cede, I'm disinclined to cede any country to anyone, and especially opposed to ceding good guys to bad guys.

 

[kimiko]

No, it is much bigger. That Iraq had no hand in planning 9/11 was never the point. The point is, our enemies are out there, and that INCLUDED Iraq. And we were no longer going to play a defensive war.

I don't understand how big you're implying our war is. Is North Korea included in this? If it was simply Iraq's geographical position coupled with its ethnic makeup that presented it as a suitable target to send a message to terrorists, then wouldn't that be like what Ed said above: "our foreign policy can be defined by stateless, leaderless forces that have an opinion and are ready to kill for it. How craven." in that it was done to communicate something to terrorists?

And it's mere speculation that we've created more jihadis than we've killed. It's part of that weird "cycle-of-violence" myth that never made any sense to begin with.

Not a myth- a hypothesis. It makes sense when the number of terrorist attacks and the number of victims has gone up. Do we have evidence it is simply a dramatic increase in the efficiency of a finite number of jihadis? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5889435/

 

[varwoche]

Re: Re: Re: Great points, Skeptic . . .

It's weird how the assumption is that our resources are finite and fast running out, yet we assume the resources of the jihadists are limitless. That doesn't make sense.

Welcome to the brave, new, asymetrical world.