# Iraq invasion harming the War on Terror: the smoking gun? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 27, 2004, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754 "2004-03-27T16:59:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/21 "2004-03-29T18:18:34Z")
Well, I was certainly all for the WoT (such as it is) when it was about knocking over Afghanistan for harboring ObL and other AQ personnel. But I never have seen a valid connection linking Iraq to AQ. The problem being that the President needs to be seen as **doing** something about it. And spending hundreds of billions of dollars does have that going for it. Whether it’s effective or not is a whole other matter. I’d certainly say that the people of Madrid have doubts about whether GWII have managed to contain Al Qaeda. The easiest fact to see is that conventional military action is not effective against an enemy who is decentralized and not geographically controlled like a nation-state. The WoT is one that is properly fought with intelligence and assassination. 1. Discover the location of your target 2. Kill him 3. Profit! (sorry, couldn’t resist) It would astonish me greatly if Al Qaeda didn’t have other plans in action against US targets in plan now. I certainly would if I were them. Heck, I’ll give you an outline right now. I outlined this a while back to a pal who’s in military intelligence and he didn’t think little of it. 1. Skip blowing up buildings. That’s flashing but short term. 2. Instead go after targets in the ME, Africa, and South America…oil infrastructure. 3. Destroy refineries, transhipment platforms, tankers, well heads, and pipelines. Disrupt the international flow of oil. 4. Wait for gas prices in the US to shoot up to $5 per gallon. 5. Sit back and watch as the recession intensifies and the United States no longer has the economic power or political will to continue the war. Oh, and lest you all think I’m off in my Condi Rice predictions here’s some quotes from Howard Kurtz’s _Media Notes_ today: > [@](#): > > No one seems to be talking about Condoleezza Rice for vice president these days. > > With seemingly everyone in the administration drafted in the war on Richard Clarke, Rice is the general, the leader, the attacker who has been most personal in trying to discredit her former colleague. > > Now she’s on the cover of Time, with a headline: “Is Condi the Problem?” She was on “60 Minutes” last night, saying she’d love to testify before the 9/11 commission but it would be a bad precedent. and > [@](#): > > Time says of Rice: "Her showdown with Clarke got bitterly personal. On ABC News, Clarke lumped Rice together with Cheney as ‘mean and nasty people.’ But Rice gave as good as she got. Clarke’s claim that he once divined from her body language that she had never heard of al-Qaeda, she told the network correspondents, was ‘arrogant in the extreme. I find it peculiar that Dick Clarke was sitting there reading my body language. I didn’t know he was good at that too.’ > > "But all the sarcasm and backbiting in Washington could not obscure a central truth: by casting doubt on the performance of the Bush team in the months before Sept. 11, Clarke had taken aim at the competence of Rice, who was not only his boss but is also the person charged with making sure that the President’s foreign policy priorities are straight and that the best intelligence is landing on his desk. For the first time in more than three years, during which she has usually been the subject of coverage so flattering that it would make Donald Trump blush, the first woman ever to be National Security Adviser was on the spot. > > “It was inevitable that, sooner or later, Rice’s performance would come under scrutiny. That would have happened with or without Clarke’s book. Any fair-minded observer would admit that the Bush Administration has had its successes in foreign policy, but with continued instability in Iraq, Osama bin Laden still at large, a steady drumbeat of terrorist atrocities around the world and an extraordinary degree of popular opposition abroad to its policies, the Administration’s performance is, at the very least, wobbly. If Bush is to be criticized for his Administration’s foreign policy performance, then Rice will be too.” [You heard it hear first, people!](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/nation/columns/kurtzhoward/) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/22 "2004-03-29T18:33:54Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > I dunno, RT. It’s pretty clear that the way Rice has been left out there as point on this issue means that it’s her job to win or lose. If this keeps growing into a real election issue then she’s over the side for (publicly) not ‘keeping the president properly appraised’ or somesuch and (privately) for not defusing the situation. While Condi’s been more visible than any other individual Administration figure, she’s hardly been out there alone. There’s quite a flock of 'em quoted in DeLong’s [Circular Firing Squad of Flying Monkeys](http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000525.html) piece. Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfie, they’ve all been out there. Colin Powell was on TV about this in just the past day or so. > [@](#): > > I agree with you that GWB subscribes to a very strong code of loyalty. But Rove doesn’t…and this is an election year. Yeah, but Rove can’t fire her; only Bush can do that. And I’m betting he won’t do so soon enough to contain the damage: he won’t be able to bring himself to do so until the necessity is politically obvious to even his small brain, and by then the fire will be out of control. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/23 "2004-03-29T19:18:36Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Again, no evidence, just dismissal. **You** made the assumption. **I** asked to provide the supporting evidence. **You** dismissed my plea. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > I think I’ve run out of reasons to continue any sort of discussion with you. But thanks for playing; enjoy your copy of the home game. You start the thread and then decide not to answer to my arguments? You know how I feel now? _ **Excluded** _. Next time you start a thread, provide a list of people you do not want to participate in advance, please. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/24 "2004-03-29T19:59:08Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Well, I was certainly all for the WoT (such as it is) when it was about knocking over Afghanistan for harboring ObL and other AQ personnel. But I never have seen a valid connection linking Iraq to AQ. This is like saying, “I support our fight only as long as I agree with your commander strategy.” > [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > The problem being that the President needs to be seen as **doing** something about it. And spending hundreds of billions of dollars does have that going for it. I am confused: are we spending too much or too little? Because I keep hearing both accusations. Also, is alQ moving into Iraq or elsewhere? > [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > The easiest fact to see is that conventional military action is not effective against an enemy who is decentralized and not geographically controlled like a nation-state. The WoT is one that is properly fought with intelligence and assassination… I don’t wish to denigrate your insight and experience in the matters of National Security, but if you indeed have good knowledge of these matters, you must know that there are also such realities as “chain of command”, “need to know”, etc. > [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Oh, and lest you all think I’m off in my Condi Rice predictions here’s some quotes from Howard Kurtz’s _Media Notes_ today: > > > [@](#): > > > > No one seems to be talking about Condoleezza Rice for vice president these days. Leaving aside the issue that media once again is covering the inquiry of a national tragedy as some sort of sporting event, why is it so hastily assumed that C. Rice is going to come out as nothing but loser? What if she will come out a clear winner? Is it not possible? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/25 "2004-03-29T21:48:55Z")
Oh, she might. But it’s really a matter of positioning between Clarke and the Administration with Rice as point right now. And so far she’s coming off worse in the press…and that can be fatal. Public perception **is** reality as far as political viability goes. > [@](#): > > This is like saying, “I support our fight only as long as I agree with your commander strategy.” Well, we have this thing called ‘democracy’. I, and all of us, have the right to support and not support the administration and their actions as we see fit. Suggesting that it’s better to blindly support the administration as the ‘commander strategy’ is not only foolish but an abrogation of my responsibilities as a citizen of the United States. > [@](#): > > I am confused: are we spending too much or too little? Because I keep hearing both accusations. Also, is alQ moving into Iraq or elsewhere? Be confused. I don’t think I’ve ever said we were spending too much on national security. What I said was that the hundreds of billions of dollars will, _prima facie_, not be cost effective as a means of reducing the threat of terrorism. Call me a businessman but I always look at bang-for-buck. And a much cheaper operation following the overthrow on Afghanistan targeted on intel and destruction of AQ cells would have gotten the job done cheaper. Instead we have bells and whistles (apparently) signifying little in Iraq. > [@](#): > > I don’t wish to denigrate your insight and experience in the matters of National Security, but if you indeed have good knowledge of these matters, you must know that there are also such realities as “chain of command”, “need to know”, etc. I expect you and I both have the same access to information that classified at this point. The real difference is that I’m not willing to assume that ‘older and wiser’ (such as it is) heads know more so I should just carry on. I believe that elected leaders are accountable to the electorate and should continually prove that they’re leading in a good direction. That’s why we have opinion polls and suchlike. It indicates whether the overall electorate (or populate…it’s not the same thing) believes the administration is doing a good job of reflecting their beliefs and interests. And, FWIW, I’m a member of the media and spent some time covering politics in Washington, DC. I don’t claim this gives me superior knowledge of policy issues. But I do believe I’m better informed that the average bear on how the news cycle works and how the spin in the press can build up or break down public figures. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/26 "2004-03-29T22:20:38Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > This is so inane it defies description. This is kindergarten mentality. The only thing comes to mind: > > “It gives me sharp and shooting pains to listen to such drool…” > > from Morris Bishop, “How to treat elves” What evidence did you use to derive your conclusion that this is “inane”? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/27 "2004-03-29T22:26:06Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > Leaving aside the issue that media once again is covering the inquiry of a national tragedy as some sort of sporting event, why is it so hastily assumed that C. Rice is going to come out as nothing but loser? What if she will come out a clear winner? Is it not possible? Not if stuff like this gets wider attention in the public eye: [**Rice’s Credibility Gap**](http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=40520) ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/28 "2004-03-29T22:43:09Z")
**JC** - the [Daily Howler](http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh032904.shtml) has also been talking about Condi’s kid-glove treatment in the press. What’s the deal here? (It shouldn’t take a relative of a 9/11 victim to be the one to point out that, no matter what Condi says, there _was_ intelligence suggesting AQ might use planes as missiles.) But maybe that’s finally changing. BTW, here’s the Center for American Progress’ [take on Condi](http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=40520): > [@](#): > > CLAIM: In May 2002, Rice held a press conference to defend the Administration from new revelations that the President had been explicitly warned about an al Qaeda threat to airlines in August 2001. She “suggested that Bush had requested the briefing because of his keen concern about elevated terrorist threat levels that summer.” [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04] > > FACT: According to the CIA, the briefing “was not requested by President Bush.” As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, “the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA.” [Source: Washington Post, 3/25/04] > > CLAIM: “In June and July when the threat spikes were so high…we were at battle stations.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 > > FACT: “Documents indicate that before Sept. 11, Ashcroft did not give terrorism top billing in his strategic plans for the Justice Department, which includes the FBI. A draft of Ashcroft’s ‘Strategic Plan’ from Aug. 9, 2001, does not put fighting terrorism as one of the department’s seven goals, ranking it as a sub-goal beneath gun violence and drugs. By contrast, in April 2000, Ashcroft’s predecessor, Janet Reno, called terrorism ‘the most challenging threat in the criminal justice area.’” Meanwhile, the Bush Administration decided to terminate “a highly classified program to monitor Al Qaeda suspects in the United States.” [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04; Newsweek, 3/21/04] > > CLAIM: “The fact of the matter is [that] the administration focused on this before 9/11.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 > > FACT: President Bush and Vice President Cheney’s counterterrorism task force, which was created in May, never convened one single meeting. The President himself admitted that “I didn’t feel the sense of urgency” about terrorism before 9/11. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02; Bob Woodward’s “Bush at War”] > > CLAIM: “Our [pre-9/11 NSPD] plan called for military options to attack al Qaeda and Taliban leadership, ground forces and other targets – taking the fight to the enemy where he lived.” – National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04 > > FACT: 9/11 Commissioner Gorelick: “There is nothing in the NSPD that came out that we could find that had an invasion plan, a military plan.” Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage: “Right.” Gorelick: “Is it true, as Dr. Rice said, ‘Our plan called for military options to attack Al Qaida and Taliban leadership’?” Armitage: “No, I think that was amended after the horror of 9/11.” [Source: 9/11 Commission testimony, 3/24/04] > [@New Iskander](#): > > You know how I feel now? _ **Excluded** _. Thanks for saying that - you made my day. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/29 "2004-03-29T22:55:45Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Thanks for saying that - you made my day. 🙂 And you thought you “ran out of reasons to continue any sort of discussion with” **Me**! Stick with **Me** , Kid, you ain’t seen nothing yet! ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/30 "2004-03-29T23:06:06Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > What evidence did you use to derive your conclusion that this is “inane”? This is torture! Cruel and most unusual!! Oh, well: > [@](#): > > MR. CLARKE: …after September 11, people in the Islamic world said, “Wait a minute. Maybe we’ve gone too far here. Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed”… “…people in the Islamic world said…” **Cite**? “Wait a minute.” That’s all? Only a minute? “Maybe we’ve gone too far here.” May be? “Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed” May be? “_It gives me sharp and shooting pains to listen to such drool…_” ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2004, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/31 "2004-03-29T23:20:56Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > This is torture! Cruel and most unusual!! > > Oh, well: “…people in the Islamic world said…” **Cite**? > > “Wait a minute.” That’s all? Only a minute? > > “Maybe we’ve gone too far here.” May be? > > “Maybe this Islamic movement, this radical movement, has to be suppressed” May be? > “_It gives me sharp and shooting pains to listen to such drool…_” That’s the entirety of what you based your conclusion on? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/32 "2004-03-30T00:05:50Z")
> [@SimonX](#): > > That’s the entirety of what you based your conclusion on? You are leading me on! Already I suffer “_sharp and shooting pains_”, now you are killing me with suspence! But I’ll follow you… I based my comment on the “entirety” of the quote that was given, nothing else. Of course there was a bit more to it: > [@](#): > > we had a moment, we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the Islamic world. So, now that they killed the whole bunch of us, is exactly the time to get on their good side? > [@](#): > > Instead, we’ve inflamed the ideology. The ideology that convinced 19 young men that the best thing they can do with their lives is to slit throats of inncents, use airplanes full of innocents as missiles, direct them into buildings full of innocents? The ideology that brought many people to celebrate in the streets when it happenend? How the hell can you inflame that any further? Actually, it was all downhill from there. > [@](#): > > We’ve played right into the hands of al-Qaeda and others. We’ve done what Osama bin Laden said we would do… He said many things, including that we are cowards and will run away from the “real” fight. Just realize, this is our erstwhile “terror czar” speaking. The wizard. The guru. The guy who presided over fighting terror through administrations. Is it any wonder that 9-11 took place? This man had to be out of the job a decade ago. When you unload, it better be good. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/33 "2004-03-30T01:24:22Z")
Don’t get distracted by him. Answer me… Do your responsibilities as a citizen extend to simply accepting the word of the administration without proof? ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/34 "2004-03-30T02:44:34Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Don’t get distracted by him. Answer me… > > Do your responsibilities as a citizen extend to simply accepting the word of the administration without proof? I assume that was adressed to me. If so, apparently it was in reference to my statement, > [@](#): > > This is like saying, “I support our fight only as long as I agree with your commander strategy.” , which was made in response to your statement, > [@](#): > > Well, I was certainly all for the WoT (such as it is) when it was about knocking over Afghanistan for harboring ObL and other AQ personnel. But I never have seen a valid connection linking Iraq to AQ. If so, I criticized you for trying to have it both ways: support the WoT, but object to the strategy. I believe sincerely that this is the greatest country precisely because one can, and should, say anything one wants (I said that many times on this board, do I need to make it a permanent disclaimer?). However, once you join the fight on a certain side in any other capacity than “the commander”, you have to be prepared to follow orders. If you are not ready to do so, better not to join the fight: there is plenty of opportunity to comment on the events from the sidelines. Indeed, being a “conscientious objector” might be useful and noble stance; joining the ranks and sniping at superiors is worse than useless. I think my “responsibilities as a citizen” are to think, constantly educate myself, make up my own mind and follow through on what I believe is right. Sorry for all the pathos. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/35 "2004-03-30T03:13:45Z")
I think you missed my post up there that answered your previous one. I might note that, even having thought the invasion of Afghanistan was a good idea, anything beyond that invasion that I feel is a bad idea I have the responsibility to say so. Frankly, I’m confused. Do you say that just because I think well of one policy choice by an administration I am, from that point forward, no longer capable (ethically or somesuch) of criticizing a further policy choice by that same administration? Wouldn’t that be dangerous? Suppose the next step in the war on terror concerned arresting Americans of the street and locking them up without access to legal representation simply by claiming the person under arrest is a ‘material witness’ or ‘actively involved’ with terror groups? Should I also then support that simply because I believed that knocking over the Taliban was a damn fine idea? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/36 "2004-03-30T04:47:04Z")
> [@New Iskander](#): > > You are leading me on! Already I suffer “_sharp and shooting pains_”, now you are killing me with suspence! But I’ll follow you… > When you unload, it better be good. I hate to disappoint, but there’s no call for suspense. I was just curious. Good thing I asked you too, 'cause I’da guessed all wrong. I really misunderstood what you’d written. > [@New Iskander](#): > > \*\* we had a moment, we had a window of opportunity, where we could change the ideology in the Islamic world \*\* > > So, now that they killed the whole bunch of us, is exactly the time to get on their good side? See, here I suspected that you had the type of objections that could be backed up with some cited facts presented to make a case that either we didn’t have “a window of opportunity” or that we still had “a window of opportunity”. Instead, part of the test you used to see if the qoute posessed the quality of inanity was a temporal one. You’re saying that now, after “they killed the whole bunch of us,” is, in fact, _not_ an appropriate “time to get on their good side.” But, to be fair, this _was_ a kinda tricky thing for me to try and guess. I mean, the quote uses the phrase “Islamic world,” and you equate “Islamic World” with “al Qaeda (et al)” or “terrorists” or whatever other phrase that could reasonably be referred to by the pronoun “they” in your clause, “_they_ killed the whole bunch of us.” How was I to know that you’d equate a population of more than a **b** illion people with the actions of less than one hundredth of one percent of that population? Even though al Qaeda et al may desire the eminence of being emissaries of the “Islamic World” so much that they’ve convinced themselves that they have it, it’s eminently reasonable to doubt that al Qaeda’s as representative of the Islamic world as aQ likes to let on. So the only rebuttal to this part I have to uphold my end of the debate is a very dull and undoubtedly disappointing one. Here it goes: “al Qaeda et al” does not equal the “Islamic world” “terrorists” does not equal the “Islamic world” the “Islamic world” does not equal “al Qaeda et al” the “Islamic world” does not equal “terrorists” > [@New Iskander](#): > > \*\* Instead, we’ve inflamed the ideology. \*\* > The ideology that convinced 19 young men that the best thing they can do with their lives is to slit throats of inncents, use airplanes full of innocents as missiles, direct them into buildings full of innocents? … How the hell can you inflame that any further? I’d’ve expected a straightforward counter-assertion about: 1. how the number of young Muslims who morph into “radical Islamic terrorists” isn’t _actually_ increasing; or 2. if it _is_ increasing, it’s not increasing as a result of US actions; and/or 3. if it is increasing, then there would’ve been a signifigantly larger _percentage_ “rate of increase in the rate” of young Muslims morphing into “radical Islamic terrorists” if not for US actions. The reason I say that I expected _only_ a straightforward counter-assertion’s because, as per SECDEF’s memo, authoritative metrics on these sorts of clandestine events are hard to come by, and even then they’re dodgy. However, I was wrong, again. Here you made a great point in that suicidal terrorists are likely to be as inflamed as _they_’re ever going to get. (Candidly, I’m afraid the power of ideology includes the capacity to incite humans to acts even more thoroughly suicidal than’s yet been seen. Is this fear a generational thing?) However, given the rest of the quote, and Mr. Clarke’s specific reference to the “Islamic world” instead of the “19 young men” I don’t think it’s fair to expect me to geuss you’d say what you did. So, if it’s all the same to you, I’d like a do-over on that geuss. I know that as far as the debating goes, I’m slogging. I don’t even have new rebuttal. Instead, I’ve only a rerun of the previously recorded rebuttal contrasting the Islamic world with al Qaeda et al and terrorists. See, no suspense. > [@New Iskander](#): > > The ideology that brought many people to celebrate in the streets when it happenend? How the hell can you inflame that any further? As much as I’d like to cede this point to you along with the previous one, I just can’t. An ideology _can_ become inflamed beyond inciting whooping schadenfreude. > [@New Iskander](#): > > Actually, it was all downhill from there. Personally, I think that I deserve at least partial credit here. This could reasonably be construed as a terse expression of what I’d geussed and alluded to earlier- a case that we didn’t have “a window of opportunity,” _as such_ after September 11. I say only partial credit because, honestly, if I were making a test for paranormal psychic abilities, I would want to structure the criteria for a “hit,” or correct “geuss” to exclude the geuss I made about your objections. > [@New Iskander](#): > > \*\* We’ve played right into the hands of al-Qaeda and others. We’ve done what Osama bin Laden said we would do…\*\* > He said many things, including that we are cowards and will run away from the “real” fight. I’d’ve gotten this one more or less spot on. Full credit. Even though we must do somethings that UbL has predicted we would do, not everything that we have had to do has “played right into the hands of al-Qaeda.” Mr. Clarke is expressing the idea that some of the things we did that UbL predicted we would do, we did not have to do. And _some_ of these things that UbL predicted we would do _and_ which we did not have to do “played right into the hands of al-Qaeda.” While UbL’s prediction that “we are cowards and will run away from the “real” fight,” may be similar to, it is not necessarily the same thing as, what Mr. Clarke referred to as playing “right into the hands of al-Qaeda.” I hope that the murkiness of the link between UbL’s reported “coward” comment and Mr. Clarke’s comment is clear. See, no suspense. Sorry if I’ve disappointed you ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/37 "2004-03-30T04:58:13Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Wouldn’t that be dangerous? Suppose the next step in the war on terror concerned arresting Americans off the street and locking them up without access to legal representation simply by claiming the person under arrest is a ‘material witness’ or ‘actively involved’ with terror groups? Such familiar sounding language. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/38 "2004-03-30T07:06:29Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > I might note that, even having thought the invasion of Afghanistan was a good idea, anything beyond that invasion that I feel is a bad idea I have the responsibility to say so. I agree. > [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Frankly, I’m confused. Do you say that just because I think well of one policy choice by an administration I am, from that point forward, no longer capable (ethically or somesuch) of criticizing a further policy choice by that same administration? Not at all. I just perceived your change of opinion as too facile. I’d like to see the doubt, the insecurity, the anxiety, the mental anguish. _I can’t feel your pain!_ Why am I the only one suffering here? > [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Suppose the next step in the war on terror concerned arresting Americans of the street and locking them up without access to legal representation simply by claiming the person under arrest is a ‘material witness’ or ‘actively involved’ with terror groups? Should I also then support that simply because I believed that knocking over the Taliban was a damn fine idea? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![New\_Iskander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/db5fbb/32.png) [@New\_Iskander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/New_Iskander)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 8:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/39 "2004-03-30T08:01:26Z")
**SimonX** , Not too bad, all the assurances to the contrary notwithstanding. All them words you know! But I always knew you are the smart one and I’m just good looking… Still, I am not quite convinced yet. It seems your whole post is based on accepting at face value this one asinine statement, > [@](#): > > …after September 11, people in the Islamic world said… given to us by fired burocrat as an acknowledged fact. I asked for a cite on this two times already, but three times is a charm, so, **Ci-i-i-i-i-te!** (I’m sorry, but the pains are getting intolerable.) Why is it that nobody is giving me one single cite, yet I am expected to provide cites for all sorts of arcane connections that didn’'t even occur to me in the first place? While we are on Mr. Clarke, I’d like to revise my diagnosis of his mental state. I was wrong. It isn’t childishness he is afflicted with. It is senility. Because you painted me as some sort of anti-Islamic bigot, I’d like to say that I admire Islamic culture. You know how Gospels are called “The greatest story ever told”? I like the lives of Mohammed and first Caliphs much better. I don’t relish the deaths of great many innocent Muslims. The point is that the State must respond decisively to terrorism. That’s what Saladin has done against the Crusaders. Saladin was running the most prosperous and progressive polity of those times (the Caliphate) and most Crusaders were the terrorists: plundering, murdering, fanatically sanctimonious brutes. So he chased them out of Palestine and beheaded the worst of them with his own hands. Many innocents died, too; but there was no other way. Thousand years passed and tables have turned, but principles of good governance remain unchanged. Arabs understand those things very well, btw. Much better than many Western intellectuals. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 30, 2004, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754/40 "2004-03-30T12:19:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Why am I the only one suffering here? Guilt? - As to your original “request” for a citation: Clarke was clearly paraphrasing an opinion, not quoting anyone. However, following the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, nearly every political leader in the Islamic world expressed shock at the attack, support for the people killed and injured, and condemnation of the perpetrators. In fact, there were only one or two leaders who did not publicly condemn the attacks. Based on that situation, Clarke has made a logical inference. (Certainly a better inference than Bush’s idea that if we go storming into a sovereign nation (one that is already divided among multiple ethnic groups) without either a clear plan or the support of the rest of the world, we will magically transform the region into a hotbed of democracy.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iraq-invasion-harming-the-war-on-terror-the-smoking-gun/236754.md?page=3)