Coalition troops in Iraq 'lightning rod for terror'?

[Ale]

“I wouldn´t like to get cought in a cross fire, as already has happened.”

Hmmm, reading this it sounds as if I, personally, had been on a crossfire, what I meant is that such incidents were Iraqis have been caught between a corss fire had happened.

[Spiny_Norman]

JonBodner, your hypothesis seems based on the idea that the people now attacking US troops in Iraq would attack mainland US targets in the absence of an invasion. Seeing how little Iraqi involvement there was in anti-US terrorism before the war, it seems a bit of a stretch.

*Originally posted by JonBodner *The problem is trying to prove a negative.

That is certainly problematic, but noone has asked you to do so. You’re the one arguing that there is a link between Al Queda (or whoever) and Iraqi guerilla activity - that places the burden of proof on you. If you find it hard to provide evidence for that link, well, then you’re arguing a weak case.

But it is interesting that the US didn’t raise the threat level during July 4th, like it did last year.

It would be interesting if the threat levels weren’t controlled by the same administration that has a vested interest in presenting the War on Terror as a success.

And it’s interesting that there haven’t yet been any organized terror attacks on the US mainland in retaliation for Iraq. Why not?

We could apply good old Occam and theorize that it’s because Iraq didn’t have any network in place to strike at the US. And seriously, if “no retribution for the invasion” constitutes a success, then it would have been much, much easier to not invade.

Meanwhile, there are 10-25 attacks a day on US troops in Iraq.

The presence of occupation troops is sure to piss some people of. Some of these people are armed. That does not mean that they would have been ready, far less able, to mount attacks on the US before the invasion.

If you had asked me on 9/12/01 to predict what it would be like in the US in 2003, I would have expected 10-25 attacks/day from Muslim terrorists inside the US. Instead there are zero, despite the fact that the US has stirred up multiple hornet’s nests since 9/11. Why is that?

Because your threat estimate would have been way off. And because police forces worldwide have been acting on their leads, arrests have been made, people have been locked up, banks have frozen assets etc. etc. Not sexy TV, but it works.

Do you think that there’s just the slightest possibility that the presence of US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq might be diverting attention away from the US mainland?

Attacking your opponent where he’s strongest - his alert troops in a combat zone - is a seriously stupid and self-defeating tactic if you’re a terrorist with the ability to strike at his homeland instead.