If we take on the terrorists in Iraq, they won't be wreaking havoc elsewhere??

To put this in context, the argument went like this, between midsummer and now:

Lefty: the Iraq war was supposed to be a blow in the War on Terrorism, right? But all it’s really done is create more opportunities for the terrorists. When Saddam ruled Iraq, he was a nasty bastard, but he was nasty to anyone who might contest his power, including terrorists. Before the war this spring, terrorists didn’t operate in Iraq; now they’re free to do so.

Righty: The Bush Administration is smarter than you think. By opening up Iraq to the terrorists, they’ll be too busy there to wreak much havoc elsewhere. And by luring them into Iraq, we’ve gotten them where we can find them, hunt them down, and kill them. So we win.

I assume this argument is now defunct. First the synagogue bombings, and now today’s bombings. Looks like their presence in Iraq hasn’t exactly put them out of action elsewhere.

The “lightning rod” theory…

Actually it is working… Iraq is sure attracting “terrorist activity”… except that its all EXTRA terrorism… not the same guys trying to hit US targets elsewhere. If I have a plan to kill americans anywhere else but Iraq… why would I simply stop and go to Iraq ?

Like a cartoon portrayed very well... Iraq is becoming a terrorists vacation of choice. US targets all over the place... easy weasy.

Moderates You are both nuts. :slight_smile: Just kidding by the way.

I think that the ‘lightning rod’ theory was wishful thinking at best. Oh, I have no doubt that terrorist are flocking to Iraq to kill their very own, real live American. However, how this was supposed to stop them from ALSO wreaking havoc in other parts of the world is beyond me. I never did understand that part. I guess they are making the assumption that there are a very limited pool of Terrorists, and they would ALL flock to Iraq…both arguements, to my mind, are without and corroborating data.

It ALSO makes the assumption, which I feel is erronious, that all terrorist are solely after Americans. A bunch of these folks ALSO have other axes to grind. Look at ObL for instance. My understanding is that he certainly hates Americans and America. However, he ALSO wants to become a power in the ME. So, even AQ, who America considers our number one enemy (when we can pry our attention from Michael Jackson I suppose), has multiple agendas there…kill Americans, sure sure, but ALSO displace and/or destroy the current regimes that they don’t favor in the ME.

If I’m totally off here, hopefully Tam or some of our other ME experts will chime in with more info.

-XT

The “lightning rod” theory is not only tenuous logic, it’s also morally questionable, at best. How could you justify attracting terrorists to Iraq where they presumably weren’t operating before the war, on moral grounds?

XT: Al Qaeda’s stated goals are primarily to get rid of the Saudi Royal Family and return that “Muslim Holy Land” to the true faithful. Same with the Israeli/Palesinian issue. Their attacks on the US are secondary-- ie, the US is the strong, powerful (and extremely visible) ally of the Saudis and the Israelis.

One can only speculate, but it is possible that if the US were completely neurtral in the Middle East, Al Qaeda would not target us. One might also argue that it is operationally impossible for the world’s only superpower to be neutral anywhere of significance in the world.

This reminds me of the shock after those poor Italians were killed last week. There were a few articles in the line of, “We weren’t like the Americans! We handed out candy and didn’t have barbed wire and didn’t go around in armored vehicles and can’t they tell that we’re different??”

Well, no. No they can’t. All they see is that you’re different and from the West.

And as we’ve seen here and in Saudi, being Muslim won’t save you either unless you’re the RIGHT kind of Muslim.

I never really believed in the lightning rod theory either, although it doesn’t really take a large NUMBER of terrorists to do what’s happening in Iraq. The alternative, though–create a total police state like Saddam did? Is that what’s needed? Yikes.

From John Mace

John: Well, that was kind of what I was getting at, in my convoluted and tortured prose. Basically I was trying to say that they have MULTIPLE goals, some that touch on the US, some that don’t, and so the ‘lightning rod’ theory is deeply flawed at best…if its goal was to bring in ALL terrorists to Iraq so we could kill them.

From John Mace

I think the last part of your statement here is the telling part…its not possible either at this time or in the recent past (say, last 30 years) for the US to have been neutral in that area. As that area is vital to our national security by way of our dependence on oil, how could we be totally neutral there?

This next part will surely prove the ‘lightning rod’ theory, as I’m going to get flamed for it. I think that, even if we WERE totally neutral from a policy perspective, we’d STILL be a target (though possibly down on their list) just for being who and what we are. Basically, at this time and for the recent past, America culture (such as it is) has infiltrated itself throughout the world. American movies, fast food, etc. I remember seeing pictures of kids in Afghanistan BEFORE the invasion (i.e. when the Taliban was still in power) wearing raggedly Levis and a Bon Jovi tee shirt.

Our system clashes directly with what it is ObL wants to build. Before all this mess, if you actually WENT to Iran, for instance (my uncle has a consulting firm in the ME, so this is going to be anecdotal…no cites, so if you think I’m wrong, I probably am), you would find that American culture and such had subtly infiltrated even there. My uncle told me that, in his opinion and after talking to many people there, if we basically left them alone long enough, they would eventually open up…that in fact it was actually happening, if very slowly and cautiously. Would they become a baby America, just like us? Not at all. However, they WOULD take some of what they see, and integrate it into THEIR culture, making something unique to themselves.

And let me ALSO say that its not just America at this point…but Europe as well. They ALSO have a huge impact on such thing, and I’m not taking away from them at all.

On review, I’m not saying this very well…but I think that ObL sees the subtle way WESTERN culture, ideas, etc, infiltrate into a culture, and I think he sees the danger. The “they hate us because of our freedom” was retorical bullshit, no doubt, but it had a kernal of truth…they hate us because our culture and ideas are a threat to what they are trying to build…they totally clash with a their older cultures and traditions, with the totalitarian theocracy ObL and the boys want to build, where thinking is discouraged, where women are left brood mares and servants, given no rights, etc etc.

Thats why I think that, even if we were neutral, we’d (i.e. all Western countries) STILL be a target, sooner or later. Just my opinion, and I could be totally wrong about all this I admit.

-XT

From John Mace

John: Well, that was kind of what I was getting at, in my convoluted and tortured prose. Basically I was trying to say that they have MULTIPLE goals, some that touch on the US, some that don’t, and so the ‘lightning rod’ theory is deeply flawed at best…if its goal was to bring in ALL terrorists to Iraq so we could kill them.

From John Mace

I think the last part of your statement here is the telling part…its not possible either at this time or in the recent past (say, last 30 years) for the US to have been neutral in that area. As that area is vital to our national security by way of our dependence on oil, how could we be totally neutral there?

This next part will surely prove the ‘lightning rod’ theory, as I’m going to get flamed for it. I think that, even if we WERE totally neutral from a policy perspective, we’d STILL be a target (though possibly down on their list) just for being who and what we are. Basically, at this time and for the recent past, America culture (such as it is) has infiltrated itself throughout the world. American movies, fast food, etc. I remember seeing pictures of kids in Afghanistan BEFORE the invasion (i.e. when the Taliban was still in power) wearing raggedly Levis and a Bon Jovi tee shirt.

Our system clashes directly with what it is ObL wants to build. Before all this mess, if you actually WENT to Iran, for instance (my uncle has a consulting firm in the ME, so this is going to be anecdotal…no cites, so if you think I’m wrong, I probably am), you would find that American culture and such had subtly infiltrated even there. My uncle told me that, in his opinion and after talking to many people there, if we basically left them alone long enough, they would eventually open up…that in fact it was actually happening, if very slowly and cautiously. Would they become a baby America, just like us? Not at all. However, they WOULD take some of what they see, and integrate it into THEIR culture, making something unique to themselves.

And let me ALSO say that its not just America at this point…but Europe as well. They ALSO have a huge impact on such thing, and I’m not taking away from them at all.

On review, I’m not saying this very well…but I think that ObL sees the subtle way WESTERN culture, ideas, etc, infiltrate into a culture, and I think he sees the danger. The “they hate us because of our freedom” was retorical bullshit, no doubt, but it had a kernal of truth…they hate us because our culture and ideas are a threat to what they are trying to build…they totally clash with a their older cultures and traditions, with the totalitarian theocracy ObL and the boys want to build, where thinking is discouraged, where women are left brood mares and servants, given no rights, etc etc.

Thats why I think that, even if we were neutral, we’d (i.e. all Western countries) STILL be a target, sooner or later. Just my opinion, and I could be totally wrong about all this I admit.

-XT

[hijack/nitpick]

I am sick and tired of hearing and seeing the phrase “lightning rod” used as a metaphor for something that draws trouble to itself. A lightning rod does not attract lightning. To the contrary, it prevents lightning from striking anywhere near it, by dispersing the electric charge that otherwise might build up in the ground. If you want to attract lightning, you should put up a pole and top it with a metal globe like the one on a van der Graaf generator – since a globe can hold a charge all around its surface. The standard configuration for a lightning rod is a pole with a point on top – which disperses electric charges into the air.

[/hijack/nitpick]

Our problem, at core, is very similar to…another quamire. We don’t know these people!

We don’t speak the language, have no concept of the subtleties of thier interactions. We have to rely on “collaborators”. What other option have we?

We will recreate the Iraqi Army, there is noone else. No foreign troops are going to come flooding in, at least none from any countries who both a)speak the language and b) we trust.

Clearly, it is much simpler to simply re-hire Iraqi soldiers. We get them off the street and under a semblence of control. They don’t need so much training, and very likely are already armed.

The catch? The officers corps. Drawn from the same ethnic and relational pool as Saddam himself. OK, we lop off the top ranks in “de-Baathification”, all the majors move up to colonel, etc. But the essential core of Iraqi officers remains the same: Saddamism without Saddam. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

You can fully expect this army to act directly and forcefully against our enemies. After all, their enemies are much the same as ours: they are secularists, enemies of religious radicals. They will be more than happy to root out foreign terrorists and Al Queda.

Trouble is, we’ll have to take their word for it. They pull a head out of a bag, say “Achmed. Al Queda terrorist.” and we write them a check. Very quickly we can announce universal support amongst the Iraqi people for their armed services. Without fear of contradiction.

Voila! Iraq is “stabilized”. We can then throw together whatever rag tag bunch is handly, and declare them the Provisional Government, and hand said government over to the nurturing and protective care of the Army. We can depend that they will pay close attention to the wisdom and guidance of the Army, as unarmed men tend to do when offered the opinions of men with automatic weapons.

Stability and democracy is achieved! Of course, we will leave them to sort out the details of a Constitution and such, but that will be way past next November, long after the troops return for the Support Our President and Re-elect Our Troops Rally.

The Iraqi people? Will probably breathe a sigh of relief. They have no clue as to “democracy”. Can’t miss what you never had. And they will be tickled pink to have all the bloodshed stop, as would any relatively sane group of people. The Kurds and Shia will most likely grumble a bit, and take the half-a-loaf, thus the “federal” Iraq is preserved as one nation, territorial integrity intact.

And, of course, in matters of foreign policy, the Iraqi regime will pay close attention to the guidance offered by their benefactors and liberators.

What, you say? Would the Bushiviks throw over thier policy of liberation and freedom for Iraq to salvage the coming election?

Bet me.

Presumably it’s OK if you can say Iraq is better off, on balance, as Our President claimed yesterday:

That isn’t to say he’s wrong in his claim; I think that, for now at least, Iraq is better off. But I digress.

I don’t think anyone really planned to use Iraq as a lightning rod for terrorists; the Bush Admin’s postwar planning seemed to mostly consist of hazy dreams of rose petals scattered before our advancing troops, and peace quickly coming to Iraq, shortly followed by the inauguration of President Chalabi by acclamation. (But I digress again. :)) I think the argument was that, since Iraq had seemingly turned into such a lightning rod, that should have been viewed as a Good Thing rather than an own goal.

PS: Somewhere in Baghdad there is an intelligent, hard-eyed and ruthless colonel who can see the same facts as I, only better. Likely he has a picture frame stuck away in his desk, waiting for the day he can put in the picture of him shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld.

Would “cheese in a rattrap theory” be preferable? Because that’s what the Bushistas are suggesting, that US soldiers in Iraq are essentially bait for the pro-Saddam rats.

Though the whole argument puts me in the image of George W. Bush, unarmed, bloodied, back to the wall, surrounded on all sides by various enemies, and defiantly proclaiming, “Now I’ve got them where I want them!” :rolleyes:

And by the way, “Bring 'em on!”

Well the one obvious fallacy with the “lightning rod” theory is that there is no gurantee that sophisticated, organized terrorists (ie not the uneducated Muslim equivalent of a turbin wearing redneck with an AK and a ratty beard) will simply bide their time, ignore what’s going on in Iraq and then strike at other targets of opportunity.

For example, if the Canadians invaded New Hampshire, I would not be with the yahoos charging in with hunting rifles ablazin screaming “LIVE FREE OR DIE!!!” as they are gunned down in a hail of automatic weapons fire.

It is not inconceivable, however, that stirring up a hornet’s nest in Iraq would incite terrorists organizations to step up their timetables or otherwise change their plans, causing them to make mistakes. I think that suicide bombing other Muslim nations is a mistake as it will alienate more moderate Muslims. Regardless of religeon or nationality, one universal truth is that people don’t like explosions in their neighborhoods.

<waves hand> These Turkish explosions are not the terrorists you’re looking for. You can go about your business. Move along.

It really depends on whether the lightning rod is going light-years faster to make a quantum leap for a meteoric rise.

Not a chance, Buster.

You want to retire on your gambling winnings? Buy a freakin’ lottery ticket like the rest of us.

It just occured to me. We are playing right into Osama’s hands.

Although Afghanistan was a temporary setback, Pakistan still has some friendly territories. Iran is having their share of problems controlling its restless students. And the US got rid of a government in Iraq.

These are almost the similar circumstances surrounding the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

Um, not really. First off, now Al Qaeda has no sanctuary and no state sponsor. Of course, they can get around this if they use some creative thinking, but I don’t think Osama wanted that. If he did want to provoke an invasion, it could only be because he thought it would cause the fall of pro-Western Arab governments, thus giving him an even better sanctuary, or even several, to operate from.

Perhaps bin Laden wanted Hussein gone. But not by US force, where democracy, or a pro-West strongman would replace him. Bin Laden wants a Sunni Islamist government, something that cannot happen with US occupation, and even without US occupation, he would need the Iranians to keep their noses out of the Iraqi situation to have a chance of succeeding. I don’t think Iran would stand by and allow a Sunni Islamist to take over next door and oppress the Shia majority again.

As for Afghanistan and the Soviets, bin Laden certainly didn’t want that.

No one wants to fight a defensive war. Prior to 9/11, Al Qaeda fought purely offensively, choosing the time and place of every strike. Now they are fighting to recover what is lost and trying to avoid losing more ground. If that was bin Laden’s strategy, we need to play into his hands more often.

The whole “lightning rod” theory supposes that there are a finite number of terrorists and its just a matter of getting them all in one place, far from America, where we can then wipe them out. The reality is that we have created far more new terrorists by our actions in Iraq than we will ever hope of eliminating. Bulldoze a man’s house and search his wife and daughter, and you have created a terrorist where none existed before.