And Reshak. You haven’t got a clue how the United States Military works, do you? When we win a war, we generally throw in a few of our own military bases on their territory as an effort to ensure that they become and stay uncrazy. Look at Germany, and Japan.
From Julien
No, I didn’t Julien. Couple of things. First, this has nothing to do with the OP at all. Second, when you invade another country, destroy their army and take control…its occupation. We ALWAYS meant to occupy the country. Even if the wild ass speculation of the administration were correct, and the Iraqi people were throwing down flowers at the feet of our victorious army (something that was a vanishingly small possibility and more on the order of a fantasy), the US would STILL have occupied Iraq…as there would be no government in place. People being people, even IF there was no resistance (another of those vanishingly small possibilities), there would be looting, rape, murder, etc…and no functioning government to control such things.
Anyway, I’m done with this hijack…do you have anything to bring to the table in reguards to the actual OP? We’ve beaten the whole Iraqi mess to death in countless threads on this board, and I’m weary of the subject to be honest. Its only tangential to the OP, but if you want to bring up the aspects about Iraq that DO touch on the OP, be my guest.
-XT
I was responding to a user post within the OP that stated, and I quote
“One thing I do know: George W. Bush has definitely bitten more than he can chew. And I do not even need to assume he is the President of the US to know that.”
I apologize if I was disrupting your AQ conversation, I just wanted to express my opinion upon that thread.
Whether it was an intentional occupation or not has no bearing on the intention of my post. You read one faux pas and dismissed the entire article on that simple misdetail.
It looks to me as if AQ is now relying heavily upon its client organizations for operations and taking some of the credit for their actions. One wonders if the clients are even centrally directed anymore.
The terrorist organizations which do AQ’s work are likely to be distinctly regional in nature. And the client organizations are probably in regions with a large enough Muslim population to anonymously support an extremist underground, or sparsely populated areas in which they can hide. In other words, AQ’s best options are to attack close to the areas which probably already support them the most, either morally or geographically.
At least some of the organizations are based in areas which are poorly policed and controlled, such as the Philippines and central Africa. That’s definitely a knife which cuts both ways for AQ, because where there is no oversight there is no such thing as media coverage, or trials, or Amnesty International people around should we happen to catch up with them.
It seems to me that every operation AQ performs now makes them less safe, and it allows us to get closer to them as well. For example, American facilities locked down and issued warnings just prior to the latest attack in Saudi Arabia. At the risk of sounding callous about it, the United States strategy against AQ now appears to be drawing more Muslim blood than non-Muslim.
Hi Extisme
I was basically responding to this :
My point being that "AQ"s existence and aims are not framed in terms of the US. The majority of their actions do not involve the US. Their primary audience is not the US.
Although “AQ” came into the limelight on 9/11, they (in as much as there is a cohesive “they”) had engaged with a number of other groups and countries before then, What they are about is their own special brand of muslim fundamentalism, and conflict with the US is only a part of this.
If you are in the US, I can see how you might see this in terms of US vs AQ, but I believe this would make it hard to understand what these guys are about. And I certainly believe it’s hard enough to understand.
Alternatively, if you think I’m wrong about this, I’d be interested to know what goals AQ would serve by focussing their attention on the US - maybe I’m missing something here.
You do realize the “Saddam planned to assassinate Bush” story has been debunked as bogus, don’t you? There was a December 5, 1993 article in The New Yorker titled “A Case Not Closed” that revealed how the Kuwaitis lied to Clinton about the assassination attempt so the US wouldn’t ease up on sanctions.
And while we’re at it, Saddam never gassed the Kurds (the Iranians did), and he never fed enemies into any industrial-strength plastic shredders, either. You can read more here, in case you want to fight some ignorance.
Yes, well, given how you’ve shown how loose your command of the facts are, that’s hardly a surprise. 
Hmm… you want to collaborate with the Iraqis ? Come on Julien. Well xtisme said it already… plus adding bases is occupation. Want to call it a friendly visit ? Your choice.
BTW Julien, Japan was already westernized before WWII… they had since 1870’s changing their country in order to get a western economy at least … if not many of the social institutions. Comparing to Iraq is correct ? Nope.
Ok… so the troops won’t leave… true… if true political power will be in Iraqi hands is something else.
As for being open minded… how about you not tagging along blindly the Republican “they will love” us propaganda ? It’s one thing to be over-optimistic or over-pessimistic… what is possible and plausible is another thing.
Sorry Xtisme… can’t resist asnwering these “Bush is love and peace” posts… sorry for the hijack. Back to the regular programming.
As for the Turkey attacks... I don't think they are Al Qaeda... and if they are... then AQ might have overdone it this time. Still the muslims might blame the USA anyway for stirring up trouble... even if AQ is guilty. Somehow muslims accept muslim vs muslim killings more easily than West vs Muslim killings.
Do remember that Turkey's secular government is a pretty valid target for muslim extremists. Even if its not AQ... they might claim to be so just to demoralize the government. AQ might becoming some kind of Terrorist Franchising... use their name and get more bang for your terror.rjung… you sure about Saddam not gassing the Kurds ? I have talked to diplomats that went throught that northern part of Iraq and they reported abandoned villages and obvious signs of “population cleansing”.
Not that gas was necessary… makes more sense just using tanks…
Well he’s probably sure, but I found the “debunkings” to be utter bunkum. Why, I wonder, is there this effort to whitewash Saddam.
SofaKing touched on a lot of the suspicions I have about al-Qaida’s current strategic projection threat.
I am not a terrorism expert, but if I were to guess, I would think the war had the effect of heavily damaging their top strategic leadership, and scattering militants across the region. The decentralization is a double-edged sword; it’s good because ability to coordinate is severely hampered, it’s bad because they’re harder to track. Obviously, some are making trouble in Iraq.
As al-Qaida has devolved into a looser collection of cells and splinter groups (each of which might have a slightly different agenda than OBL), it’s ability to project operations abroad are curtailed. I have a hard time believing these people who do the truck bombings are strategists, they seem more like nihilists.
Nevertheless, from its point of view, after the US invaded Iraq, al-Qaida had to respond strategically to this gross provocation. It HAD to show it could conduct strategic operations (which can be defined as raising the ante from Sept. 11) in order to keep its credibility with the Muslim masses, but all it can manage was tactical operations such as the Riyadh bombings, and now the ones in Turkey.
Al-Qaida has been reduced to making scary threats to achieve its goal of hindering the American economy in lieu of actual attacks.
I still find it suspicious that Osama bin Laden hasn’t had a recent “proof of life” video (as in, a video that when publically released proved he must have been alive 3-4 days before it was released) in quite some time (I think December 2001 was his last one). Personally, I still think he’s dead, but who knows.
Anyway, that’s my take.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Julien *
**It may be an ‘occupation’ by Websters Standards, **
Then, by which standards isn’t it an occupation?
Well…what it is supposed to be doesn’t really matter. What matters is what it actually is. But anyway…What is it supposed to be, according to you?
So, if, say, Chinese administrators willlling to “work with you” and help you “easternize a bit” were ruling your country, controled by chinese soldiers, it would only be an occupation in your crazy militant mind?
I’m just going to refer you to your last sentence :
:rolleyes:
Very interesting point of view GoHeels (thanks for posting ABOUT the OP :)). Why do you think AQ’s activities in Iraq aren’t percieved as enough to their target audiance? Certainly it APPEARS they are hurting us pretty badly in Iraq, from a public relations angle anyway. Or, maybe WE (i.e. the US) aren’t even their objective or their target? I find this PoV hard to believe, but it was Asteroide’s contention that the US is only tangentially involved as far as AQ is concerned (if I’m not representing your point correctly, Asteroide I appologize…feel free to correct what I’m saying).
Do you think its because most of their strategic leadership is scattered, dead, or out of communications with the majority of their cells? And that those cells are pretty much opperating autonomously? Or more like what Tam and the others are saying…that they are just a loose collection of fighters without an over all stategic plan or leadership?
From Asteroide
Thank you, too, Asteroide, for posting ABOUT the OP. 
Well, I think AQ IS focused on combating the US from a stategic perspective. I can’t really see the time and effort to kick us in the nuts on 9/11 otherwise. They HAD to know that SOMETHING bad would happen to them. I think that they underestimated the response, and what we did in Afghanistan I believe came as a very nasty surprise to them, IMO. I think they WANTED us to attack them there though…to get into a serious ground battle with them there. Another poster in another thread brought up this possibility (I think it was Sailor, but I don’t remember the thread now…sorry if it wasn’t you Sailor), that they WANT us in the ME, so that we are an easier target for them…sort of ready made insta targets, just add water. Americans they can kill by the dozens, brought right to their door step.
I think that was their stategic goal, to drag us into a quagmire in Afghanistan, just like the USSR, and bleed us white as they did with the Russians, sending us ultimately home with our tails between our legs…and zero desire to fuck with the area in the future. All they had to do to win was drag it out long enough (a la Vietnam) and the American people would get sick of the casualties and pull out…and probably do exactly like in Vietnam…i.e. basically ignore it from then on hoping it would just go away. Such a victory for ObL would have given him all the prestige he needed to set up his supernational muslim state (califate? Something like that).
I think that AQ sees the US as its primary enemy. They see other enemies too, other muslim states, rulers, the ruling elite, etc, but I think that they know that the US is their primary enemy, and the primary force that would block them from achieving their goal of a pan-arab nation. We wouldn’t do it for alturistic purposes, but we WOULD most likely block ObL from bringing such a nation into being…IMO. I could be totally wrong about all of this, granted…I’m learning stuff I never knew just in this thread. Thats my take on it, as of this minute.
-XT
Very interesting point of view GoHeels (thanks for posting ABOUT the OP :)). Why do you think AQ’s activities in Iraq aren’t percieved as enough to their target audiance? Certainly it APPEARS they are hurting us pretty badly in Iraq, from a public relations angle anyway. Or, maybe WE (i.e. the US) aren’t even their objective or their target? I find this PoV hard to believe, but it was Asteroide’s contention that the US is only tangentially involved as far as AQ is concerned (if I’m not representing your point correctly, Asteroide I appologize…feel free to correct what I’m saying).
Do you think its because most of their strategic leadership is scattered, dead, or out of communications with the majority of their cells? And that those cells are pretty much opperating autonomously? Or more like what Tam and the others are saying…that they are just a loose collection of fighters without an over all stategic plan or leadership?
From Asteroide
Thank you, too, Asteroide, for posting ABOUT the OP.
Well, I think AQ IS focused on combating the US from a stategic perspective. I can’t really see the time and effort to kick us in the nuts on 9/11 otherwise. They HAD to know that SOMETHING bad would happen to them. I think that they underestimated the response, and what we did in Afghanistan I believe came as a very nasty surprise to them, IMO. I think they WANTED us to attack them there though…to get into a serious ground battle with them there. Another poster in another thread brought up this possibility (I think it was Sailor, but I don’t remember the thread now…sorry if it wasn’t you Sailor), that they WANT us in the ME, so that we are an easier target for them…sort of ready made insta targets, just add water. Americans they can kill by the dozens, brought right to their door step.
I think that was their stategic goal, to drag us into a quagmire in Afghanistan, just like the USSR, and bleed us white as they did with the Russians, sending us ultimately home with our tails between our legs…and zero desire to fuck with the area in the future. All they had to do to win was drag it out long enough (a la Vietnam) and the American people would get sick of the casualties and pull out…and probably do exactly like in Vietnam…i.e. basically ignore it from then on hoping it would just go away. Such a victory for ObL would have given him all the prestige he needed to set up his supernational muslim state (califate? Something like that).
I think that AQ sees the US as its primary enemy. They see other enemies too, other muslim states, rulers, the ruling elite, etc, but I think that they know that the US is their primary enemy, and the primary force that would block them from achieving their goal of a pan-arab nation. We wouldn’t do it for alturistic purposes, but we WOULD most likely block ObL from bringing such a nation into being…IMO. I could be totally wrong about all of this, granted…I’m learning stuff I never knew just in this thread. Thats my take on it, as of this minute.
-XT
xtisme, I think your assessment that AQ’s intention of drawing the US into Afghanistan to shackle them Soviet-style is probably correct. The weird thing–to me, at least–is that America seems to have taken a page out of the old British SAS-style book and not played that game. I think the strategy of providing unlimited expertise and resources to your enemy’s enemy while minimizing presence has worked decidedly well, considering the utter mess Afghanistan is.
Frankly, I thought that Afghanistan would be just that–a quagmire. Instead, we went and found an entirely new quagmire to roll in with Iraq. My only guess is that Iraq looked like the only possible target in which conventional American forces could be deployed while the no-doubt overtaxed Special Forces do their good work everywhere else. It’s not a stupid idea, entirely, for Iraq now garners world attention while operations in Afghanistan and no doubt elsewhere goes relatively unnoticed.
My beef is that the same thing could have been pulled off without wrecking Iraq. Obviously, we want to park four or five divisions on the ground around the nexus of the Muslim world–Saudi Arabia–in case we need to pull the whole damned facade down, but we didn’t need the real estate, the occupation duties, and the heartache. Seventy-billion-something would have placed an entire armored corps in Jordan, I’ll bet, and the Saudis have to meet their masters on the battlefield wherever we attack them. I have no doubt that is the ultimate goal–should it be necessary.
Maybe this is something that the fools-in-charge felt had to happen. I’ll bet it costs easily ten times to make an elite SF soldier than what it costs to field the already highly trained infantryman, and they have to start somewhere. And they’re dangerous, too. Teach 'em to overthrow governments and the first thing you have to start with is is what they know from civics class…
It will take years to deploy the new American armed force, one which is primarily fast and covert, and one which relies upon the time-honored theories of turning enemy against enemy in order to march in with (a much smaller) overwhelming force and force them all to submit to our political will. Right now, al Qaeda is actually helping us by continuing their strikes, because it solidifies opinion against them while America is unable to directly confront them. It provides justification for occupying a place we obviously should not be and cannot hold for long.
Especially, as I intimated before, if they continue to kill more Muslims than they kill non-Muslims.
That’s what I think the theory is. Just because I understand it doesn’t mean I think it’s a piece of shit theory. But it’s the most cogent one I can conjure from the limited information I have. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
…Wrong again, that is. I’ve been wrong about virtually every decision we’ve made since 9/11.
This is a bizarre statement. Iraq was already wrecked by Saddam, and was being further wrecked by the day. The amount of ‘reconstruction’ required to repair actual damage caused in the war is trivial compared to the cost of rebuilding the decrepit, neglected infrastructure.
The invasion of Iraq was virtually the only way those people were ever going to be rescued from a tyrant who was slowly choking them. There was no chance of a coup, there were heirs in line to continue the madness. Did you really want to condemn several million of the world’s population to life under the knuckle of that bastard?
Say what you want about the motivation for this war, but the fact is that a blemish has been surgically removed from this planet. Iraq was a stain on the soul of humanity. Now it has a long, hard road ahead of it, but at least has a chance to climb out of the darkness and regain its position as a great civilization.
I completely disagree, Sam Stone. With the Shiites in the south and the Kurds in the west, a strategy similar to Afghanistan could likely have been employed–after Afghanistan was stabilized and only if world consensus was reached. At the very least, with covert American and British help a secular nation in southern Iraq could have been carved out which would have controlled almost the entirety of Iraq’s oil reserves, leaving the primarily Baathist/Sunni supporters of Hussein to their own landlocked and isolated devices.
The options were myriad. I think that the United States, politically inclined to think it had nothing but a hammer for a foreign policy tool, saw Iraq as the tallest nail in the Middle East.
As for the decrepit, neglected infrastructure, I would point out that it got that way thanks to a decade of unsuccessful embargo.
Obviously, something had to change, but it didn’t have to be this incompetent, deceitful, credibility-draining way. We’ll be dragging our whipped ass out of there just in time for next year’s elections, spinning like a Norden bombsight gyroscope about the “great victory for democracy” we won, and with the Iraqi people no better off than before we invaded them on false pretenses.
From Sofa King
You know, thats the best way of putting what I’ve been thinking I’ve seen yet. I might just have to steal this part: “I think that the United States, politically inclined to think it had nothing but a hammer for a foreign policy tool, saw Iraq as the tallest nail in the Middle East.”
I also agree that there was no urgent reason to head into Iraq when and how we did. To my mind we had ALREADY demonstrated in no uncertain terms our power in Afghanistan (which I think was a great plan…I give full credit to Bush on doing this as well as the execution of the plan, though I wish the aftermath would have been better)…there simply was nothing urgent that made us go into Iraq when and how we did, IMO. It was a political blunder on Bush and his administration, one that is costing us literally billions of dollars…and for little return so far. Oh, I think in the end it WILL work out (after a fashion), but that is not justification, nor is it a certainty by any means…its mearly a possibility. And it was so unnecessary to do it in the maner we did it in.
-XT
You’re welcome to that line, xtisme. I just wish I didn’t have to write it.
Al Qaeda certainly suffered with the loss of Afghanistan… but overall they have been playing a different game than the US… in a way to continue existing is a victory of sorts to them already. Just defying the US and making the occasional terrorist attack seems enough to establish bona fide “heroism” or resistance.
As for the Bush politically… its the biggest help AQ has received. Heavy handed approach has done more than 3 or 4 Osamas might have accomplished.