Attn MSM: A GI killed in Iraq is not "killed in the War on Terror"

The BBQ Pit
61

I heard on NPR tonight, though it is far from being confirmed, that the Sunni insurgents may have offed one of the leaders of alQ in Iraq. So, which side of the War on Terror are they on?

Now, for the analogy.

Sam knows Rick has money, so Sam (who has 100 pounds on Rick) attacks him, claiming he is armed and dangerous. If there were any cops around, they’d take Sam off to the slammer, where he belongs. But since the cops are feeble, Sam is safe. But Rick does take a feeble poke at Sam, not hurting all that much. Sam now goes ballistic, saying Rick has proven he is the same kind of hoodlum as Joe, and beats the crap out of him.

Nice little moral there.

Oh, and Sam lives in a fenced mansion, with plentiful guards, which Rick could never get near. Doesn’t stop Sam from saying Rick was about to break in, because Joe actually was a criminal.

62

[QUOTE=tdn]
What you call fact is what we’re debating here. We’ve hardly established it as fact.

[/quote]

Can I do a quick poll? How many of you folks simply disagree with the term “War on Terror” in general? Or, are you OK with that phrase being used to describe the conflicts we have around the world with terrorists, but not the conflict in Iraq?

Irrelevent. I’d argue that it is helping stop terrorists from attacking the US, since it’s a magnet for them to go and fight our troops instead of buying a ticket to NYC. I’m sure many posters here would argue that our presense in Iraq is feeding terrorism. Either way, it doesn’t change anything about what we call the war.

If the US invaded Switzerland in 1941 that would have been a part of WWII. You could argue all day long that the invasion was wrong, and that the Swiss weren’t our enemy, and that it was a distraction from fighting Germany. But, it would still be part of WWII. That’s what people would use to describe it and that’s how the history books would refer to it. What else would you call it?

I’d ask the same question here. For those of you who object to the term “War on Terror” being used at all, what would you have the media call it?

63

I have a problem seeing it as a “War”, frankly, because it does not involve one or more nations, political entities, physical borders, or even an identifiable group of enemies. Add to that the absolute meaninglessness of “Terror” in this context and we have a nice-sounding term that means essentially nothing. But nobody wants to be against the War on Terror, because that would mean that you are Pro-Terror, and Terror is a pretty terrible-sounding thing.

At most it is a complex police action, like a CIA operation on a large scale. I grant you that Global Autonomous Policing of Radical Islamic Terrorism does not roll off the tongue.

It is proper to refer to the War in Iraq as the War in Iraq. Or whatever they’re calling that operation nowadays. We see “The First Iraq War” quite a bit, distinct from the “Iran-Iraq War” so I assume, should this ever end, it will be called “The Second Iraq War”.

Edited- on second thought- I might even refer to this one as the Iraqi Civil War. In which we are like Europe in our civil war, but on steroids.

I’d be interested to know what the Iraqis call it.

64

Can I pick some of each? I do think that the phrase “War on Terror”, like the phrase “War on Drugs”, is in some respects more propagandistic than descriptive, so I’m a little uncomfortable with it in any context. Nonetheless, I do think it has some descriptive value as a designation for (to quote my most recent post) “military conflicts that are directly and overwhelmingly focused on reducing terrorist attacks and eliminating terrorist organizations”.

So yeah, while I’m not totally comfortable with the implications of the phrase “war on terror”, I do sometimes use it (non-sarcastically) to refer to armed conflicts with terrorists. In fact, I tend to use it in an even broader sense to describe not only military anti-terrorist actions but the whole constellation of civil/law enforcement/international anti-terrorism efforts (a la “war on drugs”).

However, I never use it to refer to the Iraq war, except in the case of events in Iraq that are specifically and directly involving terrorist organizations. E.g., I might say “I don’t know whether the alleged killing of the al-Qaeda leader in Iraq will have a significant effect in the war on terror”, but I would never say “Fifteen US soldiers were killed today in the Iraqi front of the war on terror”.

65

:eek: :eek: :eek: But if we are deliberately conducting or prolonging the Iraq war for that reason, or even partly for that reason, isn’t that, like, a war crime? Wouldn’t that be essentially using Iraqi civilians as human shields for our own civilians? Do the rules of war really allow us to deliberately initiate or continue a foreign war for the purpose of deflecting terrorist violence away from our own civilian population and onto the population of a foreign country?

That’s just one more reason why I think it’s bad to view the Iraq war as part of the war on terror. If we really are deliberately and consciously hanging out the Iraqis (not to mention our own troops) like a helpless tethered goat to attract the terrorist tigers away from our sheltered little civilian selves, I have to say that’s one of the most inhumane and exploitative things I ever heard of. I would be deeply, deeply ashamed if I thought that that was really why (or even a significant part of why) we’re fighting in Iraq.

66

[QUOTE=Debaser]
If the US invaded Switzerland in 1941 that would have been a part of WWII. You could argue all day long that the invasion was wrong, and that the Swiss weren’t our enemy, and that it was a distraction from fighting Germany. But, it would still be part of WWII. That’s what people would use to describe it and that’s how the history books would refer to it. What else would you call it?

I’d ask the same question here. For those of you who object to the term “War on Terror” being used at all, what would you have the media call it?
[/QUOTE]
Given that we’ve diverted most of our resources from fighting Germans, doesn’t it make more sense to call it “the war on Switzerland” than to continue to pretend we’re actiually involved in fighting just that one to two percent of Swiss fighters who happen to be German?
Perhaps “War on Terror” is still appropriate when referring to our battle with the Taliban on the Pakistan frontier, but when was the last time we actually made a credible effort to capture bin Laden?

67

[QUOTE=Debaser]
Can I do a quick poll? How many of you folks simply disagree with the term “War on Terror” in general? Or, are you OK with that phrase being used to describe the conflicts we have around the world with terrorists, but not the conflict in Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
I’m not a huge fan of the phrase “War on Terror”. Casting a complex and difficult problem like terrorism in terms of well-defined military conflict between nation-states muddies the waters, in my opinion.

Regardless of what you call it, though, I do object to the inclusion of the war in Iraq as being part of the fight to reduce terrorism. Such language legitimizes the idea to invade in the first place, when in fact many, many argued that deposing a weak and vehemently secular dictator would distract from the more pressing problem of extremist Islamic terrorists. And it puts a positive spin on the resulting civil war that frankly I don’t think we deserve.

The fact that people fighting in the civil war are using terrorist tactics or that members of al Qaeda have found Iraq to be a favorable place to operate doesn’t in my mind make the war itself a part of the fight on terrorism. At least, no more than a government program to give free heroin to school children is part of the War on Drugs. The fact that you’ll be able to arrest them later in life for dealing and/or possessing drugs will look like progress at the time, but in fact it’s just cleaning up an old mess.

68

Its about terminology and the power of the Ministry of Truth to frame the debate. Remember how the White House tried to replace “suicide bombers” with “homicide bombers”? Its a lot like “freedom fries”.

In truth, the War on Terror might be the most accurate terminology, as it exposes the central and fundamental fault of Bushivik policy: they are trying to reduce the problem to something that we can deal with by military means, when you are a hammer, all problems are nails. We want problems we can bomb, problems we can invade, problems we can frighten with our unchallenged military might. But you cannot bayonet an idea, it is useless to launch an artillery barrage on an incoming fog.

Any remotely correct description of the war in Iraq wouldn’t pass muster anyway, there is no way the MSM will adopt “Clusterfuck in a Leper Colony” as the standard.

69

[QUOTE=Debaser]
Can I do a quick poll? How many of you folks simply disagree with the term “War on Terror” in general? Or, are you OK with that phrase being used to describe the conflicts we have around the world with terrorists, but not the conflict in Iraq?
[/QUOTE]

You know you can count me in. I’d be fine with the term “War in Iraq” or “Iraqi War.” The more cynical side of me wants to call it “The War to Increase Terrorism.”

As for “War on Terror”, I don’t think there really is one any more. We have the Afghanistan Occupation, and we’ve somewhat increased security measures at home. That’s about it.

70

[QUOTE=Debaser]
…

I’d ask the same question here. For those of you who object to the term “War on Terror” being used at all, what would you have the media call it?
[/QUOTE]
It’s about time the media was candid about which side you are on, though.

71

Of course “war on terror” is a meaningless term. The enemy isn’t ‘terror’. Calling this a war on terror makes as much sense as calling Vietnam a ‘war on jungle warfare’. Terror is the only tool the enemy has, and they’re using it.

If we all agree it’s a silly term, then perhaps we can discuss who we’re really at war with. Is Afghanistan part of the ‘War on Terror’? That’s where the terror attacks came from, so if any place qualifies for the term, Afghanistan does.

But yet, if you look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they bear much similarity. In both places, violent Islamic extremists are using terror tactics to attempt to defeat the United States and push its troops out of the country. al-Qaida is heavily involved in both conflicts. If we can’t agree that there’s a war on terror, can we at least agree that there’s a war on al-Qaida?

If so, then let’s be clear about what a withdrawal from Iraq means - it means unilaterally withdrawing from armed conflict with the actual organization responsible for the attacks on 9/11 - al-Qaida. It means unilaterally disengaging from a second front with the enemy.

What exactly do you think is going to happen if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq? Do you think those al-Qaida boys are going to say, “Good job, chaps. Time to hang up the IEDs and go raise puppies?” No. They are going to be emboldened by their ‘victory’. Recruitment into al-Qaida is going to soar. They will have more resources they can now turn on Afghanistan, and make that war much harder - and that’s exactly what they are going to do.

Forget why everyone is in Iraq. The fact is, the war in Iraq is a second front for al-Qaida. It’s pulling funding and manpower from other things al-Qaida would like to do. And make no mistake - they are suffering big losses in Iraq. There’s news out in just the past couple of days that a major figure in al-Qaida may have been killed in Iraq. The U.S. is actually having some major successes in al-Anbar province, having turned the sheikhs to their side. Now the former insurgents in al-Anbar are actually turning on al-Qaida. The battle that allegedly took out the al-Qaida leader was a battle between al-Qaida and a local insurgent group. It might even have been that the battle was a fight between two factions within al-Qaida. If so, that’s got to be good news. It’s potentially a sign that the organization is being stressed.

Those of you demanding an instant withdrawal need to at least consider whether this is going to be seen as a defeat for America in the Middle East. If so, are you willing to accept that? Do you understand what that will mean? It’s going to mean increased pressure on the U.S. from all quarters. A withdrawal from Iraq is going to be seen around the world as a sign of major weakness, and every extremist on the planet is going to do a little happy dance. al-Qaida is going to flood back into Afghanistan. Syria and Iran will have a free hand to meddle in Iraq. The Kurds may wind up at war with someone.

BTW, what happens if the Kurds are attacked by al-Qaida, Shiite Iraq, or Iran? Would you advocate sending soldiers in to help defend them? If not, why not? The Kurds are without a doubt the best allies the U.S. has in the Middle East other than the Israelis. The approval rating of the invasion there is running 90+%. They’re free, peaceful, and building a robust economy as we speak. There is no violence in the major Kurdish cities. Do they not deserve defending? Would you be willing to withdraw even if it means the Kurds will be overrun and slaughtered? Shouldn’t you at least be worried about the possibility and preparing plans to help them if the need arises?

72

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
…Forget why everyone is in Iraq…
[/quote]

I know why the Iraqis are in Iraq. Nobody else has much of an excuse.

So, killing Americans is distracting them from…killing Americans. Yes. Quite.

Not gonna make a mistake, not gonna believe that till you show me something a bit more substantial. With all due awe, Sam, you are hardly a cite.

You might want to double-check that one, Sam. Looking a little flimsy. No body. No ID. No gloating. No sale.

Could be! Could also be that they’re fighting over the spoils of their victory.

Its already a defeat. Rather than wise and trustworthy world leaders, the kind of people who can be trusted to be the superpower, we are seen as ignorant galoots.

So long as I know different, Sam, why in the hell should I care what they think.

Not Belgium! Lord, no, not that!

Decent chance they will have their asses handed to them. The Kurds are tough, united, well armed and esconced in mountainous terrain. Their terrain. Attacking them would be the strategery that made Custer famous.

Lets get Perle, Wolfie, and “The Stupidest SOB on the Planet” right on it!

73

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
If so, then let’s be clear about what a withdrawal from Iraq means - it means unilaterally withdrawing from armed conflict with the actual organization responsible for the attacks on 9/11 - al-Qaida. It means unilaterally disengaging from a second front with the enemy.
[/QUOTE]
I actually agree with you, for the most part. Withdrawing from Iraq is not going to lead to anything good, just bloody civil war and a fertile breeding ground for the next generation of Islamic extremists and terrorists. As long as we can help mitigate the cost of our rash invasion on the Iraqi people, I think we have an obligation to stay.

Unfortunately, I don’t see how indefinite occupation can stop the coming civil war. I don’t see how our being viewed as aggressive invaders will do anything but strengthen and validate the al Qaeda recruiting platform. At some point, we’re going to have to face our failure and pull out, and my gut tells me that time is coming soon.

I would love to be wrong on this. I would love it if we could somehow turn things around in Iraq, even if it costs us hundreds of billions of dollars more and the lives of more soldiers. I don’t think there’s any way to turn this into a success by any stretch of the imagination, but if we could make it less of a colossal failure I would feel less like an accessory to evil.

74

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Terror is the only tool the enemy has, and they’re using it.
[/quote]
They have plenty of other weapons besides terrorism, and there is more than one enemy.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
If we all agree it’s a silly term, then perhaps we can discuss who we’re really at war with.
[/quote]
The people of Iraq, mostly. They want us gone, and our Maximum Leader won’t leave.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Is Afghanistan part of the ‘War on Terror’?
[/quote]
A neglected sideshow; the only reason we attacked was because Bush needed to get the Al Qaeda-in-Afghanistan issue out of the way before attacking Iraq.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
That’s where the terror attacks came from, so if any place qualifies for the term, Afghanistan does.
[/quote]
Or Saudi Arabia, like most of the terrorists - but they are Bush’s buddies.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
But yet, if you look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they bear much similarity. In both places, violent Islamic extremists are using terror tactics to attempt to defeat the United States and push its troops out of the country. al-Qaida is heavily involved in both conflicts.
[/quote]
Wrong. We have the Islamic fanatic Taliban in Afghanistan, and we have a multitude of factions in Iraq, which may or may not be Islamic fanatics, or care about Islam at all. In both cases they may or may not use terror tactics, just as we may or may not use terror tactics. And Al Qaeda is a subnational, decentralized organization that lacks the numbers and resources to be a “major factor” in anything other than our paranoid fantasies.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
If we can’t agree that there’s a war on terror, can we at least agree that there’s a war on al-Qaida?
[/quote]
No, we aren’t; we are indifferent to them except as an excuse.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
If so, then let’s be clear about what a withdrawal from Iraq means - it means unilaterally withdrawing from armed conflict with the actual organization responsible for the attacks on 9/11 - al-Qaida. It means unilaterally disengaging from a second front with the enemy.
[/quote]
Al Qaeda and other foreigners are a trivial part of the Iraqi fighting; most of the people there are the enemy because we attacked them.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
What exactly do you think is going to happen if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq?
[/quote]
Iraq will have a chance to stabilize, Al Qaeda and hardline Islam will be weakened.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Do you think those al-Qaida boys are going to say, “Good job, chaps. Time to hang up the IEDs and go raise puppies?” No.
[/quote]
Correct; they’ll collectively scream “NOOOOO !” at losing such a huge recruiting and propaganda tool.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
They are going to be emboldened by their ‘victory’. Recruitment into al-Qaida is going to soar. They will have more resources they can now turn on Afghanistan, and make that war much harder - and that’s exactly what they are going to do.
[/quote]
:rolleyes: Utter garbage. They won the moment we crossed into Iraq. Iraq was the enemy of Al Qaeda; we’ve turned it into the greatest victory they’ve ever had. A propaganda bonaza, an incredible recruiting tool, and a training ground all in one. A symbol for how evil and easily manipulated America is.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Forget why everyone is in Iraq.
[/quote]
You’d like that, wouldn’t you ?

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
The fact is, the war in Iraq is a second front for al-Qaida. It’s pulling funding and manpower from other things al-Qaida would like to do.
[/quote]
Hardly; it’s a bonanza for them.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
And make no mistake - they are suffering big losses in Iraq. There’s news out in just the past couple of days that a major figure in al-Qaida may have been killed in Iraq. The U.S. is actually having some major successes in al-Anbar province, having turned the sheikhs to their side. Now the former insurgents in al-Anbar are actually turning on al-Qaida. The battle that allegedly took out the al-Qaida leader was a battle between al-Qaida and a local insurgent group. It might even have been that the battle was a fight between two factions within al-Qaida. If so, that’s got to be good news. It’s potentially a sign that the organization is being stressed.
[/quote]
First, I see no reason to believe any claims of success coming from a war supporter; all war supporters should have MORON AND LIAR tattooed on their foreheads. Second, it doesn’t matter how many we kill if more step forward.

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
Those of you demanding an instant withdrawal need to at least consider whether this is going to be seen as a defeat for America in the Middle East.
[/quote]
It IS a defeat, and perceived so by everyone but moronic American war monkeys. America has crippled and disgraced itself, and everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows it.

75

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]

But yet, if you look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, they bear much similarity. In both places, violent Islamic extremists are using terror tactics to attempt to defeat the United States and push its troops out of the country. al-Qaida is heavily involved in both conflicts. If we can’t agree that there’s a war on terror, can we at least agree that there’s a war on al-Qaida?
[/quote]

Too much lumping here, IMO. It’s true, violent Islamic extremists are using terror tactics to attempt to defeat the United States in Iraq.. There’s also a hell of a lot of violent Iraqis who happen to be Muslim who are trying to defeat the U.S. There’s also a hell of a lot of Iraqis who aren’t even very violent who support the former in important ways (you can’t have this level of insurgency without serious indigenous support).

Now, what do you mean by “al-Qaida is heavily involved in both conflicts”? Focusing just on Iraq, does that mean it’s using a substantial amount of its resources to foment violence or that the results of its actions are considerable? I might be able to agree with the first statement if we could somehow gauge the totality of al-Qaida’s resources. But we don’t, which is kinda scary. For all we know they’ve been pouring huge amounts of their resources into an attack on the U.S. tomorrow.

The second statement I couldn’t agree with. If all the al-Qaida members in Iraq poofed away we’d still be in the middle of a castrophuck (is that how it’s spelled?).

Sounds good. This is a very important point I’m about to make: whatever positive effects can be gleamed from the fight with al-Qaida in Iraq is massively shadowed by the disproportionate cruelty leveled on the Iraqi people. It’s simply not in the security interests of the United States to make several million people violently angry with us.

I think al-Qaida prefers the flashy suicide attacks that get all the press instead of the IED. Just a minor point, though.

But that, again, sounds like a great idea. I think we both agree Afghanistan could use more focus. Let’s switch our concentration and power to where we all agree we should be AND where the local population wishes us to protect them.

There are certainly options other than instant withdrawal that could alleviate the problems with the Kurds which you describe here and later.

Of course it will be seen as a defeat – it will be. Everyone knows this. We are yet another imperial power who got our ass handed to us in a guerilla campaign…again! But this doesn’t really matter for ‘terrorism.’ We’re going get hit again someday but Iraq won’t have much to do with it unless it’s an Iraqi man who lost his entire family and wanted revenge or some such

Staying in Iraq simply isn’t in our interests in my calculation.

76

There is not and can not be a war on terror. Bush repeated the term over and over because he desired the powers that are given to the president during a time of war. He hoodwinked the people into acceptance. There can be no end ,no victory, no surrender and no treaty. There is no uniformed army and no single country we can blame. It sis a police action. ,just like the “war on drugs”. It is now a battle against the Iraqis who want to expel the occupiers We can not stay there forever. Therefore we have to leave ,eventually. If you define that as a loss,then we will lose. It is a sham battle to secure oil.

77

[QUOTE=Giraffe]
I actually agree with you, for the most part. Withdrawing from Iraq is not going to lead to anything good, just bloody civil war and a fertile breeding ground for the next generation of Islamic extremists and terrorists. As long as we can help mitigate the cost of our rash invasion on the Iraqi people, I think we have an obligation to stay.
[/quote]
Possibly. But not in a military capacity. And I can’t see a diplomatic role to be played until after the civil war has played out. So, no, not even possibly.

My gut tells me that the time for it has come and gone, and every additional day that elapses until we do is another day of bad karma piled up on the wrong side of our ledger.

Sorry, you’re not wrong on this. Sorry, we can’t, not militarily. Sorry, you’re right, we can’t turn it around, and the only way to make it less of a colossal failure is to get our military the fuck out of the way, let them get on with it, and when the dust settles, spend the next couple of generations paying reparations.

78

[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
What exactly do you think is going to happen if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq?
[/QUOTE]

Sam, may I ask a question?

How long should we stay there? Until we achieve victory, perhaps?

79

Note to Sam: On How there is not Really any al-Qaeda in Iraq

Like with the WMD story, repeatedly exaggerating the size of al Qaeda forces in Iraq does not in fact increase the number of international bad guys that are actually in Iraq.

80

Apparently, this needs saying again: you want AlQ in Iraq crushed, get out of the way of the Shia militias. You want to kill a cobra, release the mongoose.