It’s hard for me to see aQ’s sense of belonging to the Muslim world, desire to protect the Arab world, as the equivalent of some sort of alliance between Arab and Muslim countries and aQ as it requires absolutely no participation on the part of the countries involved. It doesn’t seem reasoponable to use the decisions of aQ et al to determine the attitudes of a third party.
Why is there an indication of something other than aQ et al seeing themselves as protectors of the Muslim World? What element is not covered by this? Or what element contraindicates this?
Perhaps they don’t want the soldiers in Iraq. Having the soldiers there is seen as indicative of cotrol of an Arab nation by Western forces. They don’t want a Western nation to have control of an Arab nation.
It just doesn’t seem to make sense to wonder about the motivations of somone else in terms of your view of the world when it’s obvious that there’re at least several major discrepancies between the two points of view.
And what bothers me is the meme that anyone questioning the occupation of Iraq must be doing so because of some emotional hatred of George Bush. As if there’s no rational reasons to question this administration’s policies in Iraq.
If people are motivated solely by Bushophobia, why hasn’t there been widespread opposition to the military intervention in Afghanistan? The answer is because people recognize that war was a necessity. If the Iraq occupation is not getting that level of popular support it’s because people have legitimate doubts about that specific act not because of some vague anti-Bush sentiment.
Let me clarify the OP a bit. It was not intended to say that S.H. and O.B.L got together and planned the 9-11 events, but more like part of A-Q operatives were (and probably still are to some extent) inside Iraq. We (US+) have caused A-Q so much disruption since the ‘overthrow’ of Iraq (and Afganistan), that A-Q is fighting back to retake Iraq (by use of terror attacks and our media).
Well we should be able to come up with some term to describe the relationship between A-Q and the ME countries. I would assume A-Q will ‘allign’ themselves w/ a country if they see a stragic advantage in doing so, even if it’s a unspoken one that you let us(A-Q) opperate here and we won’t blow up anything of yours. To bring a conventional example we can look at the non-agression pact between Nazi Germany and the USSR (before Hitler broke it). Germany (A-Q) had no intention of eternal peace with the USSR (ME Counrties), but had to 1st take care of the Allied forces (Coalition forces) before it could move on to conqure the USSR.
Perhaps ME countries don’t see A-Q as a threat as they are too small, perhaps if they go after A-Q more people in their country will enlist w/ A-Q and be counterproductive? Either way A-Q is a parasite to the host country. A-Q is going to need at least this level of a relationship between the host ME countries and itself to grow and prosper. With the loss of Iraq, this relationship is much more harmful to the parasitic country (A-Q), and much more dangerous for them (A-Q) to operate in Iraq as equipment and personnel captured inside Iraq can compromise A-Q in other countries. I don’t know if this is their reasoning, nor do I claim it is, but it may be a possibility.
I assume you are using the word “responsible” not “reasonable” or “reprehensible” here, but I am not sure who is the 3rd party, Iraq? US?
I agree that they don’t want us there, and they don’t want a foothold in the ME by the US+. And yes this is their reason for being. But the Q still remains why??? Why did they form this A-Q? What is their ultimate goal? Is it out of the question to assume the conquest of the ME or world?
Define ‘Muslin World’ Do you mean current Muslim countries or do you mean the planet conquered in the future and converted to Islam. If it’s the former then they have lost territory, which indicated some A-Q operations inside Iraq, or at least some perceived value to A-Q. As pointed out many times in this board Iraq was not overally religious compared to other ME nations.
The faster the violence in Iraq stops, the sooner the foreign devils will go home.
You’re casting the insurgency in the best possible light - like Michael Moore’s ‘Minutemen’ analogy. Nationalists fighting for their country, huh?
In reality, it’s not just that the insurgents want the U.S. out - it’s that they want their dictatorship back. They don’t want to live in a democracy. They want power and control over others. There are two major factions in the insurgency - Iraqis, who are mostly Sunni Ba’athists who had power and privilege under Saddam (and made up in large part of ex-Fedayeen and other murderous bastards who will have a hard time assimilating back into Iraqi society), and foriegn Islamic fighters who share the same goals as the Ba’athists - at least until it comes time to divide up the spoils if they ‘win’. Then they’ll turn on each other like rabid dogs.
The insurgency is not a nationalist movement with widespread popular support. It’s essentially the dregs of a huge crime family that used to control the neighborhood and wants its power back. There are certainly some other Sunnis in the bunch who simply are afraid that majority Shi’ite control of the government will lead to the kind of oppression they laid on the Shi’ites when they had power, and these are the people the Iraqi government and the U.S. military is reaching out to, trying to get them to get on board with the political process.
**Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists.**
These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.
• Anti-globalization and **opposition to
US policies could cement a greater
body of terrorist sympathizers,
financiers, and collaborators.
societies.**
• **Iraq and other possible conflicts in
the future could provide recruitment,
training grounds, technical skills and
language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are “professionalized”
and for whom political
violence becomes an end in itself**.
**The insurgency in Iraq is creating a new type of Islamic militant who could go on to destabilise other countries**, a leaked CIA report says.
The classified document says Iraqi and foreign fighters are developing a broad range of skills, from car bombings and assassinations to co-ordinated attacks.
It says these skills **may make them more dangerous than fighters from Afghanistan in the 1980s and 1990s**.
And **the threat may grow when the Iraq insurgency ends** and fighters disperse.
The broad conclusions of the report have been confirmed by an unnamed CIA official and are said to have been widely circulated in the intelligence community.
A new classified assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency says **Iraq may prove to be an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days**, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat.
They said the assessment had argued that Iraq, since the American invasion of 2003, had in many ways assumed the role played by Afghanistan during the rise of Al Qaeda during the 1980's and 1990's, as a magnet and a proving ground for Islamic extremists from Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.
The CIA believes the Iraq insurgency poses an international threat and **may produce better-trained Islamic terrorists than the 1980s Afghanistan war that gave rise to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda**, officials said yesterday.
Once the insurgency ends, Islamic militants are likely to disperse as highly organized battle-hardened combatants capable of operating throughout the Arab-speaking world and in other regions including Europe.
The May report, which has been widely circulated in the intelligence community, also cites a potential threat to the United States.
Although the Afghan war against the Soviets was largely fought on a rural battlefield, the CIA report said, Iraq is providing extremists with more comprehensive skills including training in operations devised for populated urban areas.
***Worldwide* anger** and discontent are directed at **America’s tarnished credibility**[!] and ***ways* the U.S. pursues its goals**[!].
**American direct intervention in the Muslim World has paradoxically *elevated the stature of and support for radical Islamists*** ...
• **Furthermore, in the eyes of Muslims, American occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq has not led to democracy there, but only more chaos and suffering.**
• Therefore, **the dramatic narrative since 9/11 has essentially borne out the entire radical Islamist bill of particulars**. **American actions and the flow of events have elevated the authority of the Jihadi insurgents and tended to ratify their legitimacy among Muslims**. Fighting groups portray themselves as the true defenders of an Ummah ... **to broad public support**.
• **What was a marginal network is now an Ummah-wide movement of fighting groups.** Not only has there been a proliferation of “terrorist” groups: the unifying context of a shared cause creates a sense of affiliation across the many cultural and sectarian boundaries that divide Islam.
**
Maybe aQ et al are there because it’s good for them?**
In what meaningful sense did aQ ever ‘have’ Iraq?
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, perhaps pigs will fly.
Contrary to your asumptions, the CIA apparently thinks aQ now ‘has’ Iraq in a way that they did not before.
This assumption of yours is wrong. I intended reasonable. The thrid party is the Arab World, Muslim World, or some country in either one of these things.
Perhaps you should reference some of their newsletters.
Are you saying that there was more aQ activity inside Iraq before the invasion than currently?
Do you have a citation for this? The last I heard the best guess was that they would “leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism [and] …represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.” And that “…the threat may grow when the Iraq insurgency ends.”
Slow your roll there a minute. I was talking about how aQ et al see themselves. Which, contrary to what you seem to think, is not the same as how I see them.
Most all of my previous comments have referred to aQ and other transnational Islamist terror organizations generally rather than the conglomerate of forces that fall under the appellation ‘Iraqi insurgency’ specifically.
This deserves a special place in the SDMB Greatest Hits, alongside such unforgettable chestnuts as B’rer Scylla’s “When, oh, when will you cease to misrepresent and mischaracterize my posts!” and Decembers (“The AntiChrist of Scansion”) tortured malformations of the limerick form.
I propose “The Stone Gambit”. To qualify, it must follow a precise formula, to wit:
“My rhetorical opponents are too blinded by their irrational hatred of Millard Fillmore to see the crystal clarity of my reasoning. Hence, it is useless for me to cast pearls before swine, and I shall stalk away in regal dignity, never to return unless I feel like it!”
I further propose that it be reserved exclusively for his use. It is too rare and special to be bandied about by lesser Dopers.
What if there is no “Al Queda”? I’m only about half-kidding here. After all, its been a couple years since the Admin declared, without so much as a hint of substantiation, that they had eliminated 75% of AlQ’s leadership, and every other week another very important, tippy tip top leader is captured or killed. (This morning on Russert’s Hour of Blather I heard 85%…but that may not be officially confirmed bullshit) Its a wonder they can get enough guys together to split a goat turd pizza!
But to conjecture: if such is true, then persons who style themselves “AlQ in Europe” or “AlQ in Iraq” are entirely self-declared, they have no official franchise. Hence, they have no leadership, no hierarchy to dismantle. Any band of deranged Islamists with any agenda can attach the “AlQ” logo to their efforts, what’s ObL gonna do? Sue them?
In that light, pussy-footing with Pakistan makes more sense: if we run roughshod over them and bring back ObL’s head for GeeDubya to mount on the White House gates, we will have accomplished D for diddly squat.
I suspect, based on no hard evidence whatsoever, that such is the case. ObL may very well already be dead, it hardly matters. Figurehead or martyr, their recruiting stations overfloweth.
An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London’s bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.
In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.
In ‘The Art of War’ it goes to state something like the ulitmate force approaches the formless. A decentralized A-Q fits this very well.
Just that they are crying for us to get out. Again this could be a deception.
Yes I agree, but everything is perhaps, and perhaps something stated by either you or I or someone else is correct, perhaps not, perhaps O.B.L. will eat pigs when they fly. I’m sure he has at least tryed bacon at some point.
This is a simple case of opportunism. OBL and Al-Quaida started out with the express aim of driving Americans and the Saudis from the holy land. They did not scruple to attack Americans and American interests outside of Saudi Arabia, and were not hesitant to co-opt any other cause which served their purpose. They had no problem using the Israeli-Palestine tensions under their wing even though this was never an express interest of OBL. Iraq is not difference.
Nice try, but smarmy innuendo still doesn’t tie Iraq to 9/11
On Friday, July 8th, Christopher Hitchens appeared on MSNBC (the show with Ron Reagan Jr. an Monica Crowley). Hitchens and Reagan got into it pretty good on this very subject. For those truly interested in the facts, I suggest trying to get a hold of it. I have a clip but can’t include attachments.
So if we think of AQ as anything but raving lunatics… we are excusing them ? If we beleive that its impossible to root them out 100% we are tolerating them ? That seems to be your line of thought. I doubt anyone likes AQ here… but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take a good look at them. They are people… they have motivations and aims. They aren’t mindless destruction machines… even if some of their leadership is crazy or not.
Clearly we think Bush is increasing terrorism rather than solving it. So we won’t fall in line to the great leader if he is mucking things up. Even if he is supposedly on our side.
I see you and kanicbird clearly notice that AQ is not a military problem… yet you always harp back to territorial control of Iraq. Or about “fighting” AQ… when in fact in a way you both notice that AQ is formless and “political” more than substantive and physical. Iraq is a good excuse for agitation on both sides. Its not a bastion where democracy will infect the Middle East. The big drawing power for foreigners is the big American presence in Iraq. While Sunnis are trying to wreck a Shia government.
AQ seems to be getting a boost out of Iraq. Afghanistan was their great loss. To say that AQ wants the US out… meaning the US should stay to defy the fanatics is a bit oversimplification. AQ needs rallying points… suicide bombers need something to beleive in. The “western” invasion of Iraq is a very formidable rallying issue. An Iraqi fighting the americans is the very definition of a nationalist even if he is a misguided one. Iraq was a mistake… and AQ is taking advantage.
Discount? Yes, anything the enemy says should be ‘discounted’ to some extent, if you are talking about A-Q’s statements, and for that matter our own intel on them, since it has been proven faulty in the past. But all in all I find the ‘apparent’ explanation plausible.
Maybe it’s time for the Bush administration to stop thinking of terrorists as soldiers and start thinking of them as criminals and start thinking of opposing them as a law enforcement problem instead of a military problem? Maybe they could find some Democrats to give them some advice; I hear they were saying this back after 9/11.