So, are we going to be attacked again?

Great Debates
1

All the neocon rhetoric indicates that al Qaeda/Iran/some bizarre combination of the two are going to re-organize and conduct 9/11 a hundred times over all over America, as soon as we leave Iraq.

The antiwar rhetoric (and pure logic and reason) indicate that it’s not worth staying in Iraq due to the human, financial, and political costs.

But what happens when we do leave? Say tomorrow, we leave Iraq, we leave Afghanistan, we never declare war on Iran. Whence comes the argument that we won’t be obliterated?

Certainly there have been shockingly few terrorism attempts on American soil. Why is this? There are supposedly hundreds of al Qaeda operatives illegally hidden in our country; what are they waiting for? Yeah, Homeland Security has stepped the game up, but all it takes is one lucky chemical or explosive attack. I can’t imagine how we’re going to stop every single person that wants to destroy us. But so far we have been.

In short: Why isn’t there more terrorism, and how are we preventing it post-Iraq?

2

[QUOTE=everysam]
All the neocon rhetoric indicates that al Qaeda/Iran/some bizarre combination of the two are going to re-organize and conduct 9/11 a hundred times over all over America, as soon as we leave Iraq.
[/quote]

The thing is, there’s really nothing stopping a terrorist action in the U.S., or the UK, or France, or wherever, right now, even though we’re in neck deep in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. To suggest otherwise only works if you follow magical thinking.

I’d tend to agree.

Well, most anti-Iraqi occupation proponents I’ve read (and this is also my feeling) is that we shouldn’t leave Afghanistan at all. I’d advocate redeploying (some of) our assets from Iraq to Afghanistan.

BTW, if we wanted to take an action guaranteed to make the terrorist networks light up like a Christmas tree making war with Iran would be a very good suggestion. The only better course I could think up would be bombing the Islamic holy sites in Saudia Arabia.

What should be done is what the experts advocate – stepped up intelligence, appropriate security measures, and working with allies and countries who may not be our allies but don’t like terrorists either, etc. We should be working closely with Russia and Pakistan to prevent nuclear material from getting into the wrong hands.

What will be done is a different kettle of fish. I’m guessing something stupid and ineffective.

3

I second everything mstay said.

[QUOTE=everysam]
All the neocon rhetoric indicates that al Qaeda/Iran/some bizarre combination of the two are going to re-organize and conduct 9/11 a hundred times over all over America, as soon as we leave Iraq.
[/quote]
Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if Al Qaeda does try something if it looks like we will withdraw or do so; our invasion and occupation of Iraq have been such a huge benefit for them that they’d hate for us to stop. They’d want to try to goad us into staying, or attacking somewhere else like Iran.

[QUOTE=everysam]
But what happens when we do leave? Say tomorrow, we leave Iraq, we leave Afghanistan, we never declare war on Iran. Whence comes the argument that we won’t be obliterated?
[/quote]
Simple; they don’t have the power. Not even close. What they CAN do is goad us into hurting ourselves; something they’ve done quite well at.

[QUOTE=everysam]
Certainly there have been shockingly few terrorism attempts on American soil. Why is this?
[/quote]
Because we are doing what they want, and don’t want to knock us off course.

[QUOTE=everysam]
There are supposedly hundreds of al Qaeda operatives illegally hidden in our country; what are they waiting for?
[/quote]
To attain reality, I suspect. There are probably some, but hundreds ?

[QUOTE=everysam]
In short: Why isn’t there more terrorism, and how are we preventing it post-Iraq?
[/QUOTE]
They aren’t trying, here; IIRC terrorism is up world wide, so we aren’t preventing it. Not is the DOHS seriously trying to stop it; they are more concerned with spying on and harassing ACLU members, environmentalists, Democrats and Quakers.

4

Another attack will come regardless of what the US does in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. It will come when they decide to do it. These are a patient lot, five years is nothing to them. They’re used to sectarian conflicts that have gone on for centuries, and they’ll bide their time until the time is right for them. If I had to guess, I’d say it won’t even be in this decade.

5

I regret to say that it’s inevitable that the US/UK/Allies will be attacked again and as BobLibDem says they are prepared to wait until they figure the time is right.

I hope I’m wrong

6

[QUOTE=everysam]
All the neocon rhetoric indicates that al Qaeda/Iran/some bizarre combination of the two are going to re-organize and conduct 9/11 a hundred times over all over America, as soon as we leave Iraq.
[/quote]

And, sadly, nobody replies to them that if they spent a fraction of the cash they have wasted on this war on intelligence, they could stop any and all attempts at attacks.

The neocons discovered that lies and fear convince Americans to cower, whimpering, and do whatever the neocons want. So they continue to lie and use fear.

It worked back in the days of the Red Threat (the Soviet Union could never have managed a successful invasion of the US, much less ‘take over the world’) and it works to this day.

7

Didn’t you read the OP? The plan is to put out warnings that terrorists will kill us if we withdraw from Iraq.

Because the terrorists have been saying all along that their goal is to make us withdraw from the Middle East and they’ll stop attacking if we do that. The terrorists never attacked us before we had troops in the Middle East and they have stopped attacking other countries that withdrew their troops.

8

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
Simple; they don’t have the power. Not even close. What they CAN do is goad us into hurting ourselves; something they’ve done quite well at.
[/QUOTE]

I agreed with most of what you said, but not this. It’s quite easy to hurt us. One person acting alone could blow up irrigation dams, bridges etc… In most cities that have a river running through them it would only take two bombs on two bridges to cut a city in half and jam up traffic for miles at the outer crossings.

To be honest I find it shocking that we don’t see more terrorist activity. I can think of a number of ways that I could terrorize America by myself, and possibly even evade capture to do it a few more times, I don’t really mention them online because I am kind of uneasy about being a potential terrorist’s muse.

We have a lot of systems that if targetted properly can throw a monkey wrench into the daily lives of thousands of people with very little effort.

I’ve always found the idea of attacking Iran to be a sort of endearing neocon fantasy. The irony of creating a no man’s land devoid of government from the Arabian Peninsula to China and India in the name of keeping us safe from terrorism is too much to handle without cracking a smile.

9

[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
Because the terrorists have been saying all along that their goal is to make us withdraw from the Middle East and they’ll stop attacking if we do that. The terrorists never attacked us before we had troops in the Middle East and they have stopped attacking other countries that withdrew their troops.
[/QUOTE]

No, only Al Qaeda has really been saying that. There is no unifying terrorist theme. Part of Islamism is that Dar al Islam must be returned to its historical borders. That means Spain needs to be taken. The funny thing about its historical borders is that if anything ever comes under the purvue of Islam it is irrevocably part of Dar al Islam, so that includes Somalia now too, and will include France at the turn of the century when Muslims become the majority unless France starts to expell its Muslims.

Our foreign policy is centered around oil. The Middle-East is where the oil is. No matter what, as long as we are dependent upon oil, we will be dependent on the Middle-East. I doubt we could withdraw in a way that would satisfy them.

10

That’s true to some extent, but what other foreign terrorists have ever planned or made attacks in the United States? Even the neocons aren’t worrying about the IRA or the ETA or the Tamil Tigers blowing up the Statue of Liberty.

11

[QUOTE=everysam]
All the neocon rhetoric indicates that al Qaeda/Iran/some bizarre combination of the two are going to re-organize and conduct 9/11 a hundred times over all over America, as soon as we leave Iraq.
[/QUOTE]

Well…I’m not completely buying that America will be instantly attacked the second we leave Iraq, but there IS some logic to the statement. IMHO anyway. If you are an angry young muslim yearning to wack American’s and fight for lies, ignorance and a totalitarian way, where would YOU go today? Hop a bus, grab a goat and a few mules, jump in a jeep and cross over into whats basically your back yard (Iraq and Afghanistan)? Where the weapons are plentiful and where there are thousands of like minded folk with the same goals? Or would you try and scrounge up the cash and documentation to fly to a country that is basically alien, where you may or may not speak the language or know all the rules? Where finding a weapon might not be so easy for a foreigner?

As in all things there is a middle ground here. Will our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan make us immune to attack? Not a hope in hell…IMHO. Will it prevent SOME attacks by offering a distraction well away from our shores? Certainly…I think it already has. AQ has committed to the fight in Iraq. Its not like they have unlimited resources, and another 9/11 takes a lot of resources. Its logistically and logically easier for the AQ’s of the world to fight America and American’s in Iraq and Afghanistan than it is to come over to America and try and do the same thing here. As they are ALREADY getting quite a bit of propaganda milage out of our involvement in Iraq (and to a lesser degree Afghanistan), I’m unsure why they would WANT to come over here by and large…unless of course we weren’t there anymore.

[QUOTE=everysam]
The antiwar rhetoric (and pure logic and reason) indicate that it’s not worth staying in Iraq due to the human, financial, and political costs.
[/QUOTE]

Logic and reason are based on one’s fundamental, base assumptions. What is ‘logical’ and ‘reasonable’ to YOU might not be to someone else. Just keep that in mind when you throw out generalities like that.

Personally I DON’T think its logical or reasonable for the US, at this stage in the game, to tuck tail and bolt from Iraq. It has little to do with the fear of Iraqi insurgents coming over here if they have no more American’s to hunt in the local neighborhood (though I’m guessing that eventually AQ, undistracted by Iraq, would hit us again here in the US). It has more to do with the chaos, death, bloodshed, etc that would follow a US/UK pullout and the resultant full blow civil war it would spark…in a place that has something like 1/3 of the worlds oil reserves.

[QUOTE=everysam]
But what happens when we do leave? Say tomorrow, we leave Iraq, we leave Afghanistan, we never declare war on Iran. Whence comes the argument that we won’t be obliterated?
[/QUOTE]

Why would we be ‘obliterated’ in either case? I’m not following this. If we pulled out tomorrow Iraq would probably disintigrate into a full blown civil war before the month was out. Eventually the Shi’ites would (probably) get the upper hand on the Sunni and there would be a bloodbath. The Kurds would (probably) break away and form their own, independant nation. The Turks would go nuts but may or may not take military action. Eventually the Shi’ites (probably) WOULD take military action against the Kurds (or at least attempt to regain the northern oil fields).

Folks would howl about the bloodbath that followed and all blame would fall on the US (most of it rightfully).

Afghanistan would probably also degenerate into a civil war with the Taliban fighting a fragemented Afghan government and the various other tribal factions in the country (assuming the Euro’s pulled out of Afghanistan too of course). Again, it would most likely degenerate into a complete bloodbath as it did after the Soviets pulled out…but The World™ wouldn’t care as much because there is no oil in Afghanistan.

But the US wouldn’t be obliterated regardless. We (probably) would have more terrorist type attacks once things settled out in Iraq and Afghanistan (say, a few years to a decade or so from now)…but my guess is its Europe that would be first in line to start taking it in the ass from angry Arab type (not fair, I know, but I think thats what would happen).

[QUOTE=everysam]
In short: Why isn’t there more terrorism, and how are we preventing it post-Iraq?
[/QUOTE]

More terrorism in the US? The answer IMHO is because the folks who would be doing that terrorism are distracted atm…and also things like 9/11 take years of planning, lots of money and resources, and more than a bit of luck to pull off. We don’t have the car bombings and such because America is more alien and difficult to travel too than Iraq or Afghanistan (or Europe) for most of the folks willing to put on explosive vests and become not so smart bombs. How do we prevent it in post-Iraq (I assume you mean in a potential US bug out scenerio)? We don’t. Same answer as if Iraq works out all flowers and puppies ( :dubious: )…we don’t. We CAN’T ‘prevent’ terrorism…simply minimize it to some degree.

-XT

12

[QUOTE=mswas]
I agreed with most of what you said, but not this. It’s quite easy to hurt us.
[/QUOTE]
I meant that they don’t have the power to destroy us. You used the word “obliterated”.