How is “winning” the war in Iraq going to defeat Muslim extremist terrorism?

Great Debates
41

If you believe that “Muslim extremist terrorism” is going to be a significant threat for the foreseeable future and you wish to do something about it, you have two choices: find a way to defeat them, preferably by co-opting them and assimilating them into your culture, or surrendering unconditionally to them and allowing yourself to be co-opted.

Warfare cannot defeat ideas, and this war of ideologies has cost everybody dearly except perhaps the people who started it. There’s no shortage of disenchanted people willing to fight for one person’s perception of Utopia, and there is no more noble cause than to die in the name of God. The only way to “win” is to alter thinking. Unfortunately, it’s much easier to break things than it is to persuade.

42

Another alternative is that we can do what we did with the Communists who threatened us. We can defend ourselves from attacks and then wait for their idealogy to collapse under its own internal flaws. If we weren’t in Iraq giving Muslim terrorists a focus and a target, they would be killing each other instead.

43

[QUOTE=Burton]
Shouldn’t he be bombing Iran, Syria and the Palestinians then?
[/QUOTE]
We WOULD be, if the original fantasy of Iraq subdued in three months had come to pass. Unfortunately terrorism is probably about as easy to eliminate as narcotics trafficing.

44

[QUOTE=marshmallow]

Argued on this board? Or in general? I can’t speak to the former, but I can to the latter, although the author would argue there’s no need for the qualifier of “currently.”
[/QUOTE]
Argued by the guy who wrote post #24 in this thread.

Y’know if a drive-by has to be explained. . . well, let’s just say I’m keepin’ muh day job, for now.

45

Hell, at this point, might have been better off if we had lost.

46

I am still waiting for a cogent and understandable definition of victory.

Or did someone find the weapons of mass destruction, and forget to send me the memo?

Thousands will die when we leave Iraq. That cannot be changed by any action taken by our military, unless we decide to kill them before we leave. If we stay there another decade, still, thousands will die when we leave.

Terrorism is not in any way connected to Iraq, other than giving the Saudi Arabian financed Madrases lots of things to trumpet up to the next generation of suicide warriors. If we killed every single person in Iraq, that would still be true. As long as our government spends all its energy making sure the American people remain suitably frightened, the power of our own government continues to grow, and those freedoms that our enemies hate so much dwindle.

Perhaps that really is the plan.

Tris

47

Let’s all agree our goal was Saddam out of power and Iraq clear of any WMD’s. We won! Let’s bring everybody home and throw a parade.

48

[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]

Terrorism is not in any way connected to Iraq, other than giving the Saudi Arabian financed Madrases lots of things to trumpet up to the next generation of suicide warriors.

Tris
[/QUOTE]

Hogwash

Iraq has become a most excellent training area for terrorists and their ilk

49

It’s not about winning any more.
It’s about damage control.

50

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
It’s not about winning any more.
It’s about damage control.
[/QUOTE]

No, it´s about saving face.

51

[QUOTE=Ale]
No, it´s about saving face.
[/QUOTE]

cite please

52

[QUOTE=RickJay]
David Petraeus hasn’t done anything like that and doesn’t deserve to be compared to Colin Powell, who in my opinion is a complete slimeball.
[/QUOTE]
I donno. From the Washington Post

Sort of like the first Blue-Grey football match back in 1861.

That’s some real straight shooting, them there General.

53

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
It’s not about winning any more.
It’s about damage control.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. Or perhaps Bush and friends already have won, and are trying to push the price of that victory onto the next President. Higher prices for oil, dead Muslims, a bigger debt they can use to curtail social programs, lots of money funneled to Haliburton and Blackwater, the Constitution weakened; they’ve won a lot.

54

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
cite please
[/QUOTE]

I don´t have the time to dig up cites now, but Bush has stated that he won´t stop the occupation, someone else is going to take the responsibility for that.
I´ve stated several times that it´s not still late to fix things in Iraq, but that would involve as a first step to fess up with the Iraqis and the World, own up to it´s mistakes and make an honest attempt at rebuilding the country.
Also some measures are not even considered, like social(ism!!! :eek: ) programs to give jobs and support for the Iraqis, that´s unacceptable speaking to the neo-cons, it´s free market or death… not for them “luckly”, but for some anonymous Iraqi.
Bush and IMHO most americans won´t accept a solution that starts with “I´m sorry, I was wrong” followed with actual corrections and retributions, etc; in short being honest and exposing all the shit that´s been going on there since day one.

The lack of transparency since the begining is one of the things that´s been preventing any progress, the Iraqis and the world at large just won´t believe anything the US says, at all. It´s been lies, obfuscation and spinning from the get go, how can you build trust on top of that? without trust the iraqis won´t accept a goverment propped up by the US, they´ll only see a facade for all the lies and corruption. Many won´t settle for that and take arms against it.

To be blunt, on one side Bush and the US won´t do what´s right because it´ll expose them as war mongering liars, on the other “cutting and running” is for cowards; they won´t have any of that so they keep the conflict to save theyr faces, hoping that some miracle will sort things out or that it´ll turn into someone else´s problem and responsibility.
Sorry if it´s too much of a ramble but I´m supposed to be working right now…

55

[QUOTE=jshore]
To be fair, I do think that a failed state is probably a better breeding ground for terrorists than a more stable, healthy one.
[/QUOTE]

Let’s see. The London bombers came from the UK. Enough said. The 9/11 perps came from Saudi Arabia. It’s not failed, it is stable, I don’t know if I’d say it’s healthy. I think the background of the Madrid bombers is in dispute but Syria, Algeria and Morocco get a mention. I think they would all be described as stable but maybe somewhat troubled. The IRA bombers came from Ireland. Stable, democratic etc. ETA come from Spain. Well, from Basque country anyway. Ditto. The Bali bombers were from Indonesia. Ditto.

I have to ask: just what is the basis for your view? The greatest collection of failed states would have to be in central Africa, right? Do we see any great amount of relevant terrorism emanating from there?

I appreciate that since 9/11 the tactic has been to describe anyone not openly acting on behalf of a State who uses violence to attempt to achieve goals as a terrorist (the indefensible bogeyman de jour). However, I think we need to keep sight of the fact that this is an Orwellian tactic, not a useful use of language. Otherwise, we correspondingly lose sight of what a terrorist actually is and where they actually come from.

[QUOTE=PatriotX]
Iraq has become a most excellent training area for terrorists and their ilk
[/QUOTE]

In what way? I appreciate that bombs in Iraq have become commonplace. However, the bombs seem to be directed entirely internally and towards (1) insurgents (2) troops, and (3) opposing cultural groups ie internal sectarian violence.

I don’t believe that this sort of activity is the type of activity that Bush is talking about when he emphasises the need to fight terrorism to keep the West safe. He’s talking about attacks on the civilian West, 9/11 style is he not? Are there any instances of this emanating from Iraq?

[QUOTE=Captain Amazing]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Given my above list of where terrorists really come from, and given that most of the attacks have just involved placing explosives, or learning to fly airliners armed with box cutters (how many flight schools are there in Afghanistan anyway?) this whole “terrorist training base” thing is bullshit, is it not? Every time they “find” one we seem to see footage of guys in kaftans charging dummies with bayonets, or learning to use an AK47 or rocket launcher. WTF does that have to do with the type of terrorism Bush gets credit for keeping us safe from?

The whole “terrorist bases” thing is just a device to justify grabs of territorial control. It ain’t going to do jack shit to stop Paddy and Mick from planning down the pub and putting together a device in their shed, or Achmed from talking to Haneef down the Mosque and going back to Aziz’s place to put the nails into the backpack, or whatever the heck else.

The answer to the OP’s question is a resounding “it’s not” and only a sucker would believe otherwise.

56

I don’t see what’s wrong with what he said. I have plenty of problems with other things he’s said, but in that instance he was being quite truthful. Do you doubt the role which oil plays in Iraqi politics? Ever heard of the golden rule? I’d love to see the Green Zone residents sign that oil law, we’d get some “fun” and “interesting” headlines coming down the wire a couple days after that. Maybe the entire Iraqi parliament would reconvene in Switzerland.

Mix in some religious insanity, blood feuds, tribal warfare, and just plain criminal anarchy and oh man, there are so many us’s and them’s it’s hard to keep track. Great drama.

I’m sure someone has pointed it out here before, but the parallels between the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism are pretty frightening, just the pure naked grab for domestic power and influence that goes on.

I’m sure his public cheerleading for the Iraq invasion and occupation weighs heavily on his soul as he collects his $100,000 check for each speaking arrangement. But of course, if everything went right, if we had pacified the country and made it our own little client state, well, we wouldn’t have to be sorry at all, would we?

[QUOTE=Princhester]

I don’t believe that this sort of activity is the type of activity that Bush is talking about when he emphasises the need to fight terrorism to keep the West safe. He’s talking about attacks on the civilian West, 9/11 style is he not? Are there any instances of this emanating from Iraq?
[/quote]

Well, no, not yet. But give it time. I’m sure various groups are recruiting in the tent cities. They will probably be much more of a problem in the Middle East, but I wouldn’t at all be surprised to see a terrorist act committed against the U.S. by Iraqis. I’m interested (as Sam Harris is as well, I imagine) in seeing if they’ll be rich and educated, engineers, lawyers, and doctors and the like, or blue collar workers who just had their entire lives destroyed.

Have you ever been at the mall, maybe enjoying an ice cream cone in the food court with your family, when all the sudden an insane Muslim jihadist charges and gores you with a bayonet? Huh? Have you? No? Of course, not under the visionary leadership of George W. Bush. As long as he’s in office, you won’t have to worry about being gutted in front of your family while eating ice cream.

57

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Another alternative is that we can do what we did with the Communists who threatened us. We can defend ourselves from attacks and then wait for their idealogy to collapse under its own internal flaws.
[/quote]

This is unlikely to happen. They have the ability to prop themselves up for quite some time with their oil reserves.

They came to us, remember?

58

[QUOTE=Airman Doors, USAF]
They came to us, remember?
[/QUOTE]

Who are they? Are you saying that because some Muslims attacked the US, then attacks against any Muslim nation is fully justified in perpetuity?

59

No. Show me where I said that. Show me where I even implied that.

What it was was a refutation of the quoted statement (imagine that), that they’d be home killing each other rather than trying to kill us. I do not agree with that assessment.

Frankly, I’d prefer that they come to the United States. I cannot find the justification for the assertion that we’re fighting over in Iraq so that we don’t have to fight them here. I’d rather take chances with my own life than have to live with the burden of the thousands of innocent people that have died ostensibly for my protection.

Edited to add: “They” are Muslim terrorists. You know, the subject of the quoted sentence? God, but you people jerk your knees at the slightest provocation.

60

They can’t come to the United States, not your average teenage jihadist at least. They couldn’t operate the way they do there here either. They’re effective there because they’re either supported or able to intimadate those around them.