Heh. So that was the real plan all along? To get us to flail around?
“Uhhh… we MEANT to do that. Yeah… we didn’t want to actually kill anyone. We just like poking the anthill with a stick, and watch you guys scurry around! Yeah… that’s the ticket!”
They’re craftier than we thought!
But are we even killing many enemy? I never hear any totals like we ought to of how many enemy dies today. Even worse, where are all the prisoners of war, all we hear about is Gitmo that is many years old, where are all the prisoners we have, and how many of ours do they have? I only hear of that one Army guy who walked off in the night. If there are no prisoners being taken we are sure not winning a war, so look at that.
That’s a fair question, but you make it sound like Al Qaeda in Iraq sprang forth from Zeus’ head the moment we invaded. In fact, the leadership of Al Qaeda in Iraq WENT to Iraq from other places. Zarqawi, for example, is not Iraqi; and the whole reason Sunni militias turned on AQI is because they were foreigners who were killing more Iraqis than Americans.
They did extraordinary a lot of killing, true; but I believe you have said yourself that these terrorists aren’t just out to kill people because they’re psychopaths (correct me if I’m wrong), but they have a specific agenda. The agenda of throwing Iraq into civil war has failed, they haven’t driven the US out of Iraq (or any other part of the Middle East), and for all the bloodshed they are responsible for, they’re no closer to their ultimate goal.
I would not describe Osama bin Laden as the Nelson Muntz of Arabia, who really just seeks to go “haw-haw!” whenever we scurry around to reassess security measures. He surely believes that killing people is the way to achieve his objectives. And, for the hundredth time, there is nothing about the crotch bomber that has gotten AQ one millimeter closer to its goal of a Caliphate.
A quibble. Minor point, perhaps, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
“Rebuild Afghanistan”? Rebuild what?! What has there ever been to “rebuild”? We could devote twenty percent of our GDP into “rebuilding” Afghanistan and in ten years time it will still suck. We will build schools! Well, sure, just as soon as we build the roads so we can buy the trucks to take the books to the schoolhouse.
God should make a burrito He cannot eat. And then He can rebuild Afghanistan. We won’t, its that damn simple.
We can rebuild the stuff we’ve bombed.
Or just send each Afghan kid a dollar from one of our kids, like GWB asked once.
Maybe we can give them some arms and get them to mess with China.
So you were assigning hypothetical arguments to your ideological opponents, and arguing against those? A novel tactic…
It’s sort of like asking the question “Who’s winning the war on crime in America?” then poinitng out when each cities police force was created and then saying “It’s been over a century and Baltimore still has police on the streets and crime certainly hasn’t ended. What a failure.”
A war on terror can never be “won” just like a war on crime can never be “won”.
The old saying “Cut the head off the snake and the body dies” just doesn’t hold water. We caught Sadam in 2003 and executed him in 2006 and we’re still in Iraq to this day. Getting rid of Bin Laden would be just as effective.
The best you can do is attempt to control or contain it. And that will take a never ending commitment to do so. The whole concept of “win” needs to be taken out of the equation.
Craftier than who? Quite a few people have been pointing out for years that we have been doing far more damage to ourselves than they ever could, and saying that was likely the point. And people right after the “crotch bomber” hit the news and all those new security restrictions were noised about, pointed out that that was exactly the sort of thing Al Qaeda was likely hoping for.
No; that would be us. We’ve killed far more than them, generally in ways that helped Al Qaeda.
Of course they are closer; America is badly damaged, Saddam is gone; secularism in Iraq broken; democracy in the Middle East discredited. All victories for them.
It caused us to hurt ourselves just that little bit more.
The generals and the military contractors have won. Blackwater and the other providers of military functions have done quite well.
Terrorism is meant to cause terror, no? It seems that they’ve succeeded wildly at making the USA waste resources, time, and money while also terrorizing people into irrational fears. The 2000s weren’t even significantly different from other decades in terms of deaths per billion enplanements and it would be nearly impossible to successfully repeat September 11 using aircraft. Yet every unsuccessful attempt provokes significant overreaction and dedication of resources from the USA (and other countries).
TSA: “Misapplying tomorrow’s technologies to counter yesterday’s threats.”
Ok, so you disagree and think that Bin Laden is the Nelson Muntz of Arabia. I happen to take the position that just because an enemy taunts you, doesn’t mean he’s succeeding. Like how Saddam Hussein claimed that he won Gulf War I. In reality, the crotch bomber failed, and Iraq lost the war.
Victories in the sense that a football team loses 42-0, but has some really good punts in there! Iraq (whether the people or the government) is no closer today than it has been at any time to supporting AQ or pan-Islamic salafism in any way, shape or form. It was Iraqi militias (paid by the US) that have dealt a severe blow to AQ. The idea that AQ is now in a good position in Iraq is either laboring under three-year old news or suffering from the syndrome I described earlier in which everything AQ does is a victory for itself:
Blow up an airplane? Victory. Fail to blow up an airplane? Victory. Leaders don’t get blown up by drone missiles? Victory. Leaders do get blown up by missiles? Victory. Al Qaeda in Iraq gaining in strength? Victory. Al Qaeda in Iraq decimated by Iraqi militias? Victory.
Heads they win, tails we lose…
-XT
When his “taunts” make you do what he wants, then he’s winning.
More like a guy on the college football team gets stabbed, the stabber gets beaten up, and then the football team burns down their own campus in a tantrum.
Saddam, an enemy of Al Qaeda is dead; secularism is largely destroyed, democracy discredited across the whole region. Those are huge victories for Al Qaeda whether you like it or not.
The fact that they are in any position of significance at all is farther along than they were before we invaded.
What you are ignoring is that blowing up the airplane isn’t the point. Hurting America is the point.
They are expendable. And that assumes that we actually are killing “leaders”, or even Al Qaeda.
Again; being “decimated” still leaves them far ahead of where they were. Unless they are gone, then they are still ahead of where they were.
I had the same feeling when I was 6. If my older sibling told me to do something, and I did it, then she was winning. At some point I grew up and realized that you don’t win by mindlessly doing the opposite of what someone tells you to.
Is anyone in the Iraqi government a friend of Al Qaeda? No. Did Al Qaeda destroy secularism? No. Arguably the US did, but that is another matter, and in any case, for the third time, it was SUNNIS who beat the crap out of AQI, so again, AQI failed to exploit religious divisions.
I have no clue why you say democracy is discredited: the elections in Iraq have gone fairly well, Iranians are out in the streets risking jail and torture to protest a bogus election, and the prospects of elections in Saudi Arabia and Syria remain at the exact same state as pre-2001. So, I think you’re just making this up.
Serious question: do you believe AQ has a political agenda? What do you believe that agenda is, and do you think they can achieve it?
Theres no winning. Casting this as a war was a mistake. It should be considered as basically a criminal problem. Sure, well armed and nasty criminals, but nonetheless criminals. This is just the kind of thing that we should expect to happen for as long as there are dynamic disparaties in wealth and power between the first world and the third world.
Well, we need to grow up then; something I see no sign of.
No, it’s not. What matters is that it was done; we did for them, what they couldn’t.
Nonsense. The “elections” in Iraq consisted of us threatening people into voting for canidates we considered acceptable; and the democracy movement took a major hit.
I think they have poorly defined ultimate goals, because they are a poorly defined group. I doubt they can achieve most of their various ultimate goals; but they’ve made great progress on interim ones.
But who cares? Does a non-secular Iraq help Al Qaeda? No, it doesn’t, because there’s no signs that Iraq is adopting a salafist kind of government. It’s funny how you are so willing to paint Iraq as a hotbed of religious zealotry, but totally deny there’s any kind of democratic trend there. Truth is that Iraq is neither secular nor extremist; neither Jeffersonian democracy nor dictatorship. The black and white view you insist on seems conveniently tilted to meet your expectations.
As soon as I posted that last message, I knew you were going to post a three year old article. You did not disappoint, in fact, you exceeded expectations by posting one nearly 4 years old. How do you think John Kerry is going to do in the upcoming elections?
This has been covered time and again, but Al Qaeda has a manifesto for a caliphate. It cannot be achieved.
The interim goals of expelling the US from the Middle East and destroying Israel also have no chance of succeeding. The short term goals of civil war in Iraq or getting the US out of Afghanistan are not working.
What you are referring to as “goals” are really nothing more than events. They try to blow up an airplane, we kill or capture the #3 guy in the organization. These are NOT goals! They are engagements dictated by tactics, developed from strategy, defined by the goals.
And you can’t even apply the same standards of analysis to whether engagements are successful. There’s ample evidence out there that AQ leaders are scared poopless of drones and technology. But no, you refuse to admit that – instead you ignore that evidence and weakly contend that drones aren’t actually killing the targets. On the other side of the double standard, a failed AQ bombing attempt is a huge victory in an “interim goal.”
But even still, you doubt they can achieve their ultimate goals. How can they be winning if they can’t win?
Yes, it does, because religious fanatics pretty much universally despise secularism. I’m sure they’d prefer to see Iraq a Christian or any other variety of religious theocracy, rather than a secular anything.
They are a conquered and occupied country.
I note that you carefully avoid trying to show I’m wrong.
They DID get us out of Saudi Arabia. As for Israel; whatever Al Qaeda does I expect Israel to be destroyed, sooner or later.
We won’t be in Afghanistan forever; and regardless of what they say I expect they are happy we are there and in Iraq. And the civil war to a large degree in Iraq came and went; although I expect it to flare up again when we leave and the collaborators are slaughtered.
I have no reason to assume anything of the sort. And no, the statements of the US government or military don’t count; they are known liars.
I didn’t say “huge”. And again; the point is terror, and making us hurt ourselves. It doesn’t matter if the bomb goes off, or even if it actually existed. What matters is our reaction.
Because they are hurting their enemies more than their enemies are hurting them.
“Uninformed”?? Ha - ha.
Hey, now that the “War Party”* has directed its attention to the “good war”, know what’s going to happen?
It’s an invitation for the Russians to provide weaponry to the opposition (Hmmm… who will it be? The Taliban? The Mujahideen? Al Qaeda?) that will enable them to adequately defend themselves and attack our personel and facilities. You know, just like we did when it was the Soviets fighting in Afghanistan.
And guess what the War Party and their “sheeple” will do? They’ll be incensed and indignant, just like they did when they were ginning up outrage against Iran by selling the story that the Iranians were providing the Iraqis with weaponry to attack our troops.
How dare another country do what we do.
“isolationist tripe”?? You know, sometimes it is best to mind one’s own business. Funny how those who want to go crusading use “isolationist” as a swear-word.
*As is now evident, the “War Party” and their Neo-conservative foot soldiers are not just limited to one particular political party.