This isn’t an idea I’d defend, rather one I’d like to debate. I’ve seen it proposed that by bringing the fight to Iraq the terrorists are now fighting an armed force instead of the US civilian population, hence we are safer now.
I’d like to see some evidence to support this idea.
Certainly, there seems to be a significant and not unexpected presence of Al Quaeda in Iraq. The breakdown in police supervision, economic upheaval and disarray has created an ideal breeding ground for terrorism. So I’m not surprised they are there. Why wouldn’t they be?
But I fail to see any evidence that we are safer because of the opening up of a new recruiting ground and raison d’etre for Al Quaeda.
I understand there may be some slight variations on this theory, so the adherents are welcome to clarify if they want to restate.
Someone started a thread exactly like this a month or two ago. I don’t remember the thread title, but a little searching will probably bring it up easily.
This assumes there is a fixed number of terrorists.
However experience shows that certain conditions can easily create loads of terrorists.
Sadly the US (and the UK) being seen as occupying Iraq illegally fits in that category…
It also assumes that ‘the terrorists’ are a clearly defined and homogenous group who carry membership cards and attend regular conventions together to decide strategy and debate tactics. Sadly there are people in high up positions who seem to believe that this is so…
If understand the OP well, this is supposed to be a debate on the Great Idea that by
invading a sovereign nation,
killing thousands of its citizens,
destroying its infrastructure, social structure and whatever that gets destroyed by bombs dropping for days and nights at cities and villages and at random,
leaving thousands of toy-looking splinterbombs for children to pick up and get killed or wounded,
creating such leak borders that the situation holds an open invitation for every single idiot with some terrorist mind to enter and create even more sorrow and destruction for the citizens,
The US and its citizens can lead a happy safe lucky life.
OK.
It was a good idea for those who by some miracle manage to sleep the sleep of the innocent with all that blood and sorrow - caused to people who have nothing to do with the US and its citizens - on their mind. Thinking that by some miracle nothing can ever harm the USA and its citizens again.
It was not such a good idea for those who are realistic enough to know that there shall be no “safety” from “terrorists” as long as bombs and other innocent tools - like sanctions that only killed a few million of innocents - are used to invade sovereign nations or to bring them otherwise under the -hypocritical- US dominance.
To give only one reason why there is no end to the recruiting in sight. There are of course several other factors playing their role in this deadly game.
I happend to defend the second view.
I can also guess that the families of the US soldiers who are or will be getting killed and wounded overthere, have also some particular ideas about it.
Salaam. A
**The Iraq war is distracting terrorists and making the US safer **
I don’t know about distracting terrorists but lately it is certainly making Baghdad safer. The murder rate in Baghdad has been dropping for several months as the coalition re-establishes the social order.
And so today we find that the murder rate in Baghdad, a city of five million, is lower than the month rate of murders in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, respectively.
And still some paternalistic liberals believe that the Iraqis are not ready for self government.
Gee whiz! These people are better behaved than we are. :smack:
Due to the lack of central organisation of ‘terrorists’ I doubt they can be effectively distracted. It would seem to me like “The Iraq war is distracting Americans and making it easier for terrorists” would be more appropriate unfortunately.
Fundamentalist muslims should have an easier time recruiting people to the ‘cause’ now. Anti-American sentiments are on the rise world wide (I don’t think people realise how much). This as a result of removing a regime that had no capability to mount a threat to the US, so in my opinion, it would be crazy to claim that the war has made the US safer. It seems to have been able to ‘distract’ a chunk of the US citisens from the financial deficit and some new laws and policies though.
I gotta agree that distracting terrorists isn’t really a good reason to overthrow a nation and kill the inevitable civilians (or their soilders, for that matter), even if it did work
And some paternalistic conservatives too. On the other hand, some liberals have been advocating a quicker transition. After all the Bush Administration (which I personally don’t consider liberal) was atacked by Gingrich for not turning over control to the Iraqis more quickly. (See also this archive article summary in the LA Times.) Senator Hillary Clinton (who is certainly considered to be a liberal by many people, although she was actually pretty hawkish among the Dems on the issue of Iraq) stated that she agreed with Gingrich (although this article does not make completely clear if her general agreement includes the specific issue of turning over control to the Iraqis more rapidly).
I also agree with far_born that you better be prepared to back up your claims about how safe Baghdad is, particularly in light of his cite.
I’m not sure we can trust statistics about things like murder rates in a place like Baghdad at this point. How would you get an accurate read in a place so disordered, where the police aren’t a solidified or accepted force with solid statistical techniques in place?
In regards to Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq at this point, which I agree would not be unexpected, what exactly is the evidence on this? I ask out of ignorance because I am really wondering whether or not there is much evidence that Al Qaeda itself is playing any sort of major role. (I have no doubt that some involved probably are sympathetic to Al Qaeda but I guess I am curious the extent to which the organization itself is likely to be directly involved and coordinating attacks there.) I did a quick search and found this recent story, which suggests some connection, but some al quaeda literature and videos alone hardly makes a very strong connection.
I don’t think Al Quaeda orchestrating everything, but the style of some of the suicide attacks and recent finding of some Al Quaeda literature seems to indicate a definite presence to me. Probably providing, intelligence, training, and international connections.
I’m betting my assessment isn’t too different from your own.
Interesting, although unsuprisingly sheds little light on the truth. Reassuring for the families of anyone shot by US troops though that they can be sure that their loved ones weren’t murdered!
If this report is correct, then Saddam gave information about an official cache of weapons - which also happened to have a whole bunch of al-Qaeda training material in it. Very strange indeed. Does this mean Saddam was working with al-Qaeda before the war? Or did they link up afterwards? Or is there some other explanation?
I draw no conclusions, but stuff like this bears close watching.
I am not familiar with ‘Al Qaeda literature’ and the report (not suprisingly) doesn’t detail the ammount and nature of what was found.
However, if one was an arabic speaking insurgent wanting information on the manufacture of explosive devices/tactics for mounting attackes, etc, it does not seem to me to be very odd that one would have acquired material eminanting from the most prominent, well-organised and expert arabic speaking terrorist organisation of modern times at some point along the way.
Sure. That’s a plausible explanation, which is why I said that it was unclear if these videos indicated that Iraq had been cooperating with al-Qaeda before the war, or whether they had just linked up now. Either way, it does indicate an al-Qaeda presence of some sort in Iraq, which was the question I was answering.
jayjay said:
I’m sorry… is that a debate? A question? Or just an annoying distraction from the discussion?
It’s just a spontaneous expression of intense suspicion. If this administration made an official pronouncement that the sky was blue I’d be trying to figure out their angle.
And hey, if it’s annoying you, Sam, I’ll just consider that gravy.