# One crucial link between Iraq and 9/11 **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 20, 2006, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491 "2006-09-20T23:39:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 12\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/41 "2006-09-25T15:24:30Z")
[QUOTE=Malodorous] But after _that_ there hasn’t been an attack on US soil. [/QUOTE] Oh, I don’t know. Personally I’m expecting shocking revelations about who was responsible for putting _Deal or No Deal_ on the air. Subtle and crafty, our enemies are. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/42 "2006-09-25T15:38:31Z")
> [@Age Quod Agis](#): > > [Quote=David Simmons] > Come to think of it, it’s all Clinton’s fault. He didn’t completely solve the problem of international terrorism but left some of it for the incompetent Bush. This is an inconsistent position. On the one hand, Clinton shouldn’t be blamed for failing to completely fix the problem of international terrorism. But Bush should. Why the difference? [/quote] This was intended as a satirical comment on the propensity of some apologists to respond to criticism of GW by replying that Clinton didn’t do any better. It apparently missed its mark. One thing I learned from the military, Don’t blame your predecessor.Whatever the situtation, it is your job now, work on it. [QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] I doubt the problem of international terrorism will be fixed in the next administration. Or the next 2 administrations. [/quote] I don’t think it, like crime in general, will ever be solved. If it is kept to a tolerable level that’s all we can expect. > [@](#): > > As for the OP:I think there are a couple of main factors. > > First, not everyone agrees that the situation in Iraq is so terribly screwed up. I think every reasonable person agrees there have been mistakes, and most people seem to think that Iraq is no picnic, but a) some people seem to expect that mistakes will be made in war; b) not everyone blames the difficulties in Iraq on the Bush admin’s policies; and c) many people seem to think that we’re at least making positive progress. > > > [@you in a following post](#): > > > > While my own assessment of the situation in Iraq would be far from glowing, you’d have to ignore quite a few facts to arrive at the conclusion that we’re not making any positive progress. It seems that[I’m not alone in that assessement.](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,194731,00.html) General McCaffrey’s interview was in May. I don’t know if he was shown a bunch of Potemkin Villages in the form of some select units who were doing well in _training_ or what, but I’ve got some later information from a report in the _Los Angeles Times_ from 23 September on the operational effectiveness of some Iraqi army units. It’s now available only to\* Times’\* registered users but here are some exerpts. > [@](#): > > The U.S. asked for an extra 4,000 soldiers to shore up security. Only 1,000 reported, and the violence continues in and around the capital. > By Solomon Moore and Julian E. Barnes, Times Staff Writers > September 23, 2006 > BAGHDAD — Only a quarter of the Iraqi army forces that had been designated more than a month ago to work on security improvements in the capital have arrived, a sign of continuing problems with the Iraqi government’s ability to command and move its troops. > > U.S. Army Maj. Gen. James Thurman, who is in charge of military forces in Baghdad, said Friday that he had requested 4,000 additional Iraqi troops to help secure Baghdad and had received only 1,000 of them > … > “Some of these battalions, when they were formed, were formed regionally,” Thurman said in a video news conference with reporters at the Pentagon. “And some of the soldiers, due to the distance, did not want to travel into Baghdad.” > … > Iraqi army units have refused deployment orders before, sometimes complaining of the travel involved and sometimes expressing concern that they would be thrust into uncomfortable sectarian confrontations. > > In August, 100 soldiers in southern Maysan province refused to go to Baghdad. U.S. officials explained at the time that the unit’s Shiite leaders said the troops were needed in Maysan. They also objected to being sent to the capital, where they believed they would have to fight Shiite militias. > > U.S. officials also said Kurdish units had refused to be deployed from northern Iraq to Ramadi, in violent Al Anbar province. > … > > Thurman said he was confident the Defense Ministry would obtain the additional soldiers in the next few weeks. He suggested that the lack of Iraqi troops was complicating operations in two Baghdad neighborhoods, Baya and Dura. Thurman said he wanted to put more Iraqi soldiers in those areas to work with the American battalion there. This deals with the much publicized plan to beef up military presence in Baghdad. It would seem that one trouble with giving people freedom is that the use it to pursue their own interests instead of yours. The units McCaffrey saw might have looked good in training but a month after a Baghdad a beefed up security force there was announced the US command can only be “confident” that the requested Iraqi forces needed will show up sooner or later. > [@](#): > > Second, as **John Mace** said, we haven’t had any major attacks on US soil since 9/11. I agree that this is hardly definitive proof that we’ve got the right policies in place. Especially since we’ve probably had some minor terrorist attacks in this country This has been addressed numerous times by me and others.. > [@](#): > > Third, there have been numerous busts of terrorist plans for attacks in the US. One example is the plot to [blow up the tallest building in LA](http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0210/p02s01-uspo.html?s=widep) in 2002. This at least creates the appearance that one of the reasons we haven’t had any terrorist attacks since 9/11 is because we’ve ethem from occurring, presumably in part because of the current policies. _See also_ [Brian Ross’s interview in which he said that Bush’s policies on coercive interrogations led to information that helped foil the LA bomb plot](http://hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/). Agreed, there have been a few successes. > [@](#): > > Fourth, I think most people see the rebuilding in Iraq as something largely separate from the war on terror at home. Bush can screw up royally in Iraq, but that doesn’t mean the guy is going to screw up everything. Even if people agree that he should have sent more troops into Iraq, kept the Iraqi army intact, etc., that doesn’t mean the Patriot Act is a bad idea. Even though they both ostensibly fall under the rubric of “helpful in the war on terror,” one can be a complete failure and the other still be successful. The failures in Iraq and with the relief efforts in Katrina coupled with GW’s business failures appear to me to form a pattern of incopetence in planning and execution of projects. It is permissible to disagree with my presumption. And, last but not least, another example of administration ideology trumping what the actual situation seems to call for. Rumsfeld appears to have decided that he can get is “lean and mean machine” if he sets an[arbitrary budget number for the army](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-headlines) and forces them to live within it. > [@](#): > > Obviously, none of these are definitive proof that Bush’s policies are effective. But I think the effectiveness of those policies is beyond definitive proof. How can we prove that the policies are effective, except by looking at whether there have been terrorist busts and/or attacks? So it does seem to be evidence in support of that position. I guess it’s always possible to hope. But returning a Republican dominated congress this fall will ensure that GW will continue to run things without oversight and no check on his assumption of power. In fact, it that happens I expect to see an increased grandiousity from the administration. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/43 "2006-09-25T16:52:41Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] This was intended as a satirical comment on the propensity of some apologists to respond to criticism of GW by replying that Clinton didn’t do any better. It apparently missed its mark. [/quote] I got the satire. I just didn’t get that it was wholly facetious. Thanks for the clarification. And I mischaracterized your remarks, as suggested by **John Mace** , then I apologize. > [@](#): > > One thing I learned from the military, Don’t blame your predecessor.Whatever the situtation, it is your job now, work on it. No argument there. But Bush _is_ working on it. He may not be doing exactly what you (or I) would do, but he’s doing what he thinks is right. And when did Bush blame Clinton? Sure, some people have tried to say Clinton didn’t do enough to fight terrorism and ObL during his term, but I don’t think Bush is one of them. (For the record – I’m not one of them, either.) This is an honest question because I think Bush has been pretty good about not blaming his predecessor. > [@](#): > > I don’t think it, like crime in general, will ever be solved. If it is kept to a tolerable level that’s all we can expect. My expectations for the foreseeable future are much like yours. The only reason I have to differ is that “ever” is a long, long time. > [@](#): > > It would seem that one trouble with giving people freedom is that the use it to pursue their own interests instead of yours. You can say that again. > [@](#): > > The units McCaffrey saw might have looked good in training but a month after a Baghdad a beefed up security force there was announced the US command can only be “confident” that the requested Iraqi forces needed will show up sooner or later. Or maybe the situation is improved, but there are still problems. Regardless, thanks for the link. > [@](#): > > And, last but not least, another example of administration ideology trumping what the actual situation seems to call for. Rumsfeld appears to have decided that he can get is “lean and mean machine” if he sets an[arbitrary budget number for the army](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-military25sep25,0,5555967.story?coll=la-home-headlines) and forces them to live within it. I honestly don’t know enough about this to comment intelligently (like that’s ever stopped me before 🙂 ). So I’ll have to pass on this issue for now. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 5:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/44 "2006-09-25T17:32:12Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] And when did Bush blame Clinton? [/QUOTE] What do you think the attack dogs are for? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/45 "2006-09-25T17:45:26Z")
[QUOTE=John Mace] **BG** : It’s obvious that you’re nothing but a Bush apologist. 🙂 [/QUOTE] With the caveat that we would be even safer if our response had not included foreign wars. Terrorism is a law-enforcement problem, not a military problem. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/46 "2006-09-25T18:03:16Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] I doubt the problem of international terrorism will be fixed in the next administration. Or the next 2 administrations. I mean, look at social security and medicare. How long have those systems needed fixing? [/QUOTE] What makes you think they need “fixing.”? You mean this? [Lack of health insurance kills six times as many Americans each year as 9/11 did.](http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15073.htm) ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/47 "2006-09-25T20:04:40Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] And when did Bush blame Clinton? Sure, some people have tried to say Clinton didn’t do enough to fight terrorism and ObL during his term, but I don’t think Bush is one of them. [/quote] Bush didn’t but a number of his apologists did and do, some of them on this board. > [@](#): > > The only reason I have to differ is that “ever” is a long, long time. Hey, that’s my line. I only say “ever” with an analogy to crime. I think our earliest records probably refer to some crime or other, and it appears to be with us for the future. Terrorism is criminal. > [@](#): > > Or maybe the situation [with the Iraqi army] is improved, but there are still problems. The link was from my thread called "When they stand up, we will stand down. If there is improvement is doesn’t seem to be visible in operations. I still say this “get your army in shape whenever you can find the time” isn’t going to cut it. A deadline for readiness is needed. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/48 "2006-09-25T20:10:45Z")
[QUOTE=Cervaise] What do you think the attack dogs are for? [/QUOTE] What attack dogs? Is Bush responsible for every Republican who gets out of line or draws a conclusion at odds with his own? If so, who’s responsible for those Democrats who blame only Bush for a problem that’s been brewing for decades? Because I’d like to write a sternly worded letter about correcting that. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/49 "2006-09-25T20:20:08Z")
[QUOTE=David Simmons] Bush didn’t but a number of his apologists did and do, some of them on this board. [/quote] Fair enough. I appreciate the clarification. And by the way, I meant to say thank you for your service. > [@](#): > > Hey, that’s my line. I only say “ever” with an analogy to crime. I think our earliest records probably refer to some crime or other, and it appears to be with us for the future. Terrorism is criminal. The hope is that one day, we’ll actually know what the root causes of criminal behavior are, and find some way to stamp that out. Or if that doesn’t work, that we’ll follow Brave New World and just get high all the time. > [@](#): > > The link was from my thread called "When they stand up, we will stand down. If there is improvement is doesn’t seem to be visible in operations. I still say this “get your army in shape whenever you can find the time” isn’t going to cut it. A deadline for readiness is needed. I have a couple of concerns about this tactic, but the main one is what happens if we set a deadline and they don’t meet it. Do we leave anyway? [Sorry, that’s a hijack. I’ll try to take it over to your thread.] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/50 "2006-09-25T21:33:36Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] Or if that doesn’t work, that we’ll follow Brave New World and just get high all the time. [/QUOTE] Yehyehyehyehyeh! 🙂 Nobody commits crimes if they have soma! ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/51 "2006-09-25T21:36:10Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] I have a couple of concerns about this tactic, but the main one is what happens if we set a deadline and they don’t meet it. Do we leave anyway? [/QUOTE] Of course, because there is **no way** we can avert a civil war in Iraq – it’s already started – and Vietnam should have taught us that the stupidest thing you can do is get caught up in another country’s civil war; also because unconditional withdrawal by a stated deadline is the only way we can prove to the world that we have no long-term imperial designs on Iraq or its oil. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2006, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491/52 "2006-09-25T23:42:01Z")
[QUOTE=Age Quod Agis] I have a couple of concerns about this tactic, but the main one is what happens if we set a deadline and they don’t meet it. Do we leave anyway? [Sorry, that’s a hijack. I’ll try to take it over to your thread.] [/QUOTE] Yes, we leave. And don’t worry about a small hijack. I sometimes wander off the subject myself. My main concern here is that I see no reason to trust Bush, with his demonstrated record of the inability to organize a successful endeavor, to be good at being an agent for reducing terrorism in the world. In order to do that we need the cooperation of other nations. Despite their opposition to the Iraq war we get cooperation in antiterrorism from European countries because of self interest. However I don’t believe Muslim terrorists can be fought effectively, or successfuly, from outside Islam. We desparately need the good will of Arab, Muslim leaders and they have been largely alienated, starting with the Bush statement shortly after 9/11 that we must launch a “crusade” followed up by the invasion of Iraq. Muslim leaders know as well as anyone else that Iraq had no part in the 9/11 terrorist attack and that leads straight to a hard question about our motive in the invasion. The invasion was a boneheaded move being made worse by a boneheaded instance on “staying the course.” We are stuck with Bush for two more years. As I see it the only thing to do is elect a congress with at least one Democratic house. That will at least act as a brake on his unprecedented grab of power based on “national security” although it isn’t going to advance antiterrorism. That means I need to be concerned about the proposition that Bush will be effective in antiterrorism and the seeming acceptance of his claim even though he has never demonstrated much effictiveness in anything else. Except conning people into bailing him out when he messes up. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/one-crucial-link-between-iraq-and-9-11/373491.md?page=2)