I get so tired of the right raising the bogeyman spectre of terrorists running amok in America. First and foremost they’re probably already here and may well be American citizens. Secondly, if they want to get in from overseas they can. We’re still wide open to any determined individual.
All the work, money and lives expended in Afghanistan have not resulted in an effective government and terrorism is on the rise there. The Taliban is coming back and is probably going to be an active participant in the government there.
Pakistan, a country described in the CIA World Fact Book as a federal republic is the headquarters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
Were we able to get Iraq to an equal level of stability as Pakistan it would be considered a stunning success.
It seems to me that the idea that we’re generating terrorism by our continued occupation of Iraq is accurate one.
That’s what I’ve been asking, myself. I don’t think anyone expects Muslim extremist terrorism to go away, even if Iraq becomes stable (no matter how loudly they might imply otherwise).
Maybe the main idea is to get a stable majority Muslim country solidly on “our side” for once. It sort of makes sense that America wants a muslim ally they can point to as an example as they go crushing Muslim governments. See! It worked for them! (smash smash smash)
In my opinion, Gen Petreaus has been suborned by either ambition or loyalty, much like the (recently repentant) Colin Powell. We are offered Gen Petreaus’ character and candor as guarantors: here is a man who will tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may, his character and candor are offered in evidence. As you note, this is not evidence of sound judgement, even less so when that loyalty if offered to the patently unworthy.
Whatever Petraeus’ character may be, anyone associated with the Bush administration has to be wondered about. It’s not as if he’s ever surrounded himself with anything but loyalists first and foremost.
A man of good character would not allow himself to be a shill for crooks and liars and neither would he show loyalty to them. He would not expound blatant falsehoods.
However - if I was allowed to write my own evaluation of the job I was doing I’d sound pretty much like Petreus.
I’d still like some to explain to me how stabilizing Iraq, there is no more talk of creating a democracy will inhibit jihadism/terrorism in other countries.
Yes…You see, there are a fixed number of terrorists in the world and if we get then all to go over to Iraq, there are none left to bother us anywhere else…particularly here at home.
And, if you believe that, you deserve the President we’ve got!
Well, your biggest challenge will be finding someone to join this thread that actually believes this!
[To be fair, I do think that a failed state is probably a better breeding ground for terrorists than a more stable, healthy one. But, since we seem to be having enough trouble producing such a eutopia in Afghanistan, I don’t see why we are likely to do much better in Iraq…And, as you noted, even Pakistan, which most people would not characterize as a failed state, seems to be a pretty good breeding ground for terrorists.
The one thing we do know is that Iraq seems to be a much better breeding ground and recruitment vehicle for terrorists today than it was before we invaded.]
The idea is, ideally, that by stabilizing Iraq, you’ll have a strong state that will be able to fight terrorist groups within its borders, and prevent terrorists from using the area as a base of support, training, funding, and recruitment. If the state is weak, like Iraq now, or Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Pakistan in the North West Frontier, it will be unable to stop terrorist groups from setting up bases there and having free reign.
It seems as if our current administration is obsessed with state-sponsored or abetted terrorism; whereas it looks to me like the vast majority of radical fundamentalist terrorism is the work of amatuers. Bush & co. are trying to solve the wrong problem.
Personally, any state without a stable and reliable government based on firm democratic principles is a failed state. Pakistan is far too dependent on its military authorities to qualify, Afghanistan has not fully “jelled” to qualify, we have a splendid fellow as Lord Mayor of Kabul, but his power stops at the city limits.
It is entirely possible that a functional state may arise in Iraq that would be adamantly hostile to the US. We ignore this at some peril.
Well, but they’re not, at least not over the entire state. There’s still an active anti-government resistance in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan, not only is there growing problems between the military government and active Islamist groups, there’s the NorthWest Frontier province, which the Pakistani government has next to no control over.
Of course, before the invasion, Hussein’s strong state did not allow terrorist groups to use Iraq as a base (except in the Kurdish region Hussein did not control, thanks to the U.S.). We kinda fucked that up. Whereas the Taliban’s Afghanistan, a weak state, did not merely allow al-Qaeda to use its territory as a base, but actively supported it – partly from ideological sympathy, partly because the Taliban needed bin Laden’s financial support. And it’s not hard to envision a similar situation in Iraq’s future.
General Jay Garner’s view was that a stable postwar Iraq would become a “coaling station,” a permanent base for projection of U.S. power throughout the MENA as needed. (See Armed Madhouse, by Greg Palast, Chapter 2: “The Flow”). That at least would have some relevance to suppressing terrorism, but at this point I don’t think it’s a possibility we can include in our long-range plans.
