What is the next move for the terrorists?


Could you please respond to my other point, about your OP being a cart-before-the-horse kind of thing? Specifically, if the goal of the terrorists is to see the war on terror disrupted, why did they attack in the first place?

Clearly, your formulation is designed to be able to impugn the motives and behavior of opponents of the War in Iraq and the Bush administration. It is set up to allow you to claim that the goals of the terrorists and of opponents of the administration have the same ends. Hopefully, if you reflect on it for a moment, you can see how illogical and ill-founded your OP is.

If I was a terrorist I would… interesting question. For the moment I would not focus on the United States, rather I would continue operations in Iraq. Since the loss of Afghanistan, I would seek to create a lawless country where I could conduct my activities openly. The Iraq war opened up this opportunity with Saddam Hussein no longer there to control the borders. I would be targeting American troops, other foreign troops, and other foreign nationals. I would pay special attention to US women troops since casualties among them are perceived as more distressing. I would make the American losses high enough over a long enough period so that the Americans lose their will to remain, and low enough so that a withdrawal would not seem as a defeat. Once the outside forces are out, I would overthrow the Iraqi government and set up a Taliban style regime. Then I would slowly prepare for a massive attack on the United States, knowing that once it occured, retaliation and a re-invasion of Iraq would follow. The whole cycle of attack, invasion, guerrilla warfare, and attack could last for generations.

I don’t believe that the goal of the terrorists is to see the war on terror disrupted. As I have stated before, they may not have expected our post 9/11 response based on our past behavior.

Like the immediate removal of troops from Iraq?

A disease suffered from by many these days.

Then perhaps it would be best to finish the job in Iraq without an orgy of sniping and second-guessing back home.

But the job is essentially impossible. Finding your enemies from your friends over there is like finding black cats in a coal mine with the lights out. There is no completing this job because there is an endless supply of people willing to join in with the terrorists. All the Iraq war has done is save the terrorists the trouble of coming to the US. They have the US both ways- if the Americans stay they have an endless supply of targets. If the Americans leave, they get control of territory. The only way that the US could have won in this game would have been not to join in.

Ah good, the first instance of ‘We lost the war in Iraq because we got stabbed in the back by those hipp…liberals back home.’

And they said Iraq wasn’t going to be like Vietnam…

Are you making this point specifically about Iraq or about Afghanistan as well?

As opponents of the war like to point out, Latro, actions have consequences. It’s too bad that the those who are calling for the immediate withdrawal of US troops don’t possess the geopolitical sophistication to realize that this action would benefit the terrorists. I have to assume that this is the case, because to do otherwise would be accusing war opponents of having goals that are in concert with them.

Terrorists? :confused:

::looks around::

We’ve got terrorists again? Where? When?

Specifically about Iraq. In Afghanistan the benefit/cost ratio was much higher. The Taliban government was a rogue nation with known terrorist targets and anything else, even anarchy, would have been preferable to the Taliban. The Afghan invasion undoubtedly crippled alQaeda to some degree, so there was a tangible payoff. In Iraq, the old regime was despotic but not threatening to the US. The old Iraqi regime was better equipped to control terrorists than the new Iraqi government, so the result was a net disbenefit.

They are both ultimately unwinnable. The Soviets eventually gave up in Afghanistan, as will the US eventually. The terrorists in both nations will continue to stage their operations and take enough casualties that eventually the will to remain for the US will fall below a critical mass and the occupations will be abandoned.

Uhm… but it is you being there that actually benefits the terrorists. They don’t need to mount another big attack on US soil, yet. They are still reaping the benefits of the last one.

Rather poorly thought-out thread premise, I’ve got to say.

This assumes that there is some sort of “Terrorism, Inc.” directing a co-ordinated campaign of some sort. I see no evidence of this other than some sharing of information, and to a lesser extent, monetary or other assets amongst various small, semi-automomous cells that vary widely in ideology and objective. To answer your question, we need to know: which terrorists are you talking about and what do you think their primary objective is?

I would also ask the OP, how well do you understand the root causes of terrorism and the potential reaction to events precipitated by the United States? Judging from the opening paragraph of your post, I’d say not very well.

Well, given the presumption that a lack of terrorist attacks against American civilians on US soil is a Good Thing, that would be a useful outcome, right?

I disagree completely with your assessment, and even if I didn’t, one of the most precious things about this country is that we are not obligated to go along with every single boneheaded move by one government official or another. If your real argument here is “anyone who protest US involvement in Iraq is unpatriotic”, you should have said that to begin with, rather than trying to cover it up with a red herring about what “the terrorists’” next move is.

If you respond to nothing else, I respectfully request that the OP respond with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to this question: do you recognize that some of the people killed by US troops in Iraq, and imprisoned there and at Guantanamo Bay, are in fact innocent of any association with or responsibility for terroristic acts against the United States?

If your answer is yes, and if you care to handle a follow-up, how does the behavior of the US toward these people reduce the chance of future such acts against the US?

There have been many threads and arguments about whether Saddam was a threat to the US, Bob. Just off the top of my head, his monetary support of suicide bombers and his proximity to the Straits of Hormuz are two ways that he was a potential threat.

As far as his regime "controlling terrorists…he accomplished this by harboring them.

I realize that many people find the following ideas tiresome, but our continued presence in Afghanistan and Iraq is intended to accomplish two things.

First of all, jihadists are coming to us instead of us having to find them. Some refer to this as the “flypaper theory”. I read on CNN.com yesterday that foreign fighters from Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Libya and other countries had been captured or killed in Iraq. As long as they feel compelled to enter the kill zone, they are welcome.

Second, two democratic and functioning countries can provide an example to others in the area that there might be something better than autocratic theocracies. Despite the recent elections in Iran, most of their population is under 40 and not as enamored of fundamentalism as their government would like. The example of a prosperous and functioning Iraq could provide a tipping point.

Of course, the Iraqies are going to have to stand up as a people and decide to take control of their own lives. There is evidence that this is happening. Despite attacks on police training facilities and stations, the police force continues to grow. Weapons caches are being reported to authorities. This must continue or the effort will, in fact, fail.

Well, they’d been naking a lot of noise about invading Iran and/or Syria on all sorts of Bushit charges but they appear to have their hands full in Iraq. So, short of going nukular, they are contained for the moment.

Not so sure. Yes, he did provide money to families of minor-league suicide bombers. But he was not in cahoots with binLaden. With a no-fly zone over everything of strategic importance, he was a toothless tiger.

I used "terrorists" as shorthand for AQ and those of like minded jihadism Wahabbism.   Beyond "death to America", I'm not sure they have a battle plan.

The root causes of terrorism are varied and include US support for Israel and the need for an outside agent for dictators to rally a relatively uneducated populace against.

Your premise is too complicated for a simple yes or no answer. Are some of the dead potentially innocent? Sure. Despite the best efforts to eliminate civilian casualities and damage, it does happen. Are the vast majority of the dead deserving of their fate? Also, yes. As far as the imprisoned, that’s harder to answer. Each person needs to be assessed and investigated. And all of them will claim innocence. “Jihad? Heavens no! I am but a simple merchant!”

I am not naive enough to think that our forces are perfect, but I will state that I’m sure there is good reason for keeping the vast majority of those we are holding against their will.

Would being incorrectly accused and imprisoned piss you off? Of course it would. Any people in this category would probably have some strong anti-american feeling and may even act on it. Again, no situation is perfect.

Unfortunately, there are enough people poisioning the minds of the young and naive toward the cause of terrorism to create more fodder. Hopefully, the efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan will be successful and those whom the mullahs would seduce would be able to see an alternative and break the cycle.

Not tiresome, delusional.

Aside from the fact that you have created and are creating a shitload of jihadists that would not have made that step if not for the US actually acting as the Great Satan, they are also getting better at playing guerilla.
You are creating veteran jihadists.

Bolding mine
So far the example of the baahtist/fascist form of government is doing better.

Fat chance…
‘stand up as a people’… really
That’s just a hollow phrase.

And fail it will…

You can do better than this.

Find that an unfamiliar concept, do you?

Lots of people thought the Marshall Plan was a mistake. And confronting the Soviet Union was simply madness. The long term effects of the events of today will not be able to be judged for years, if not decades. One of us will be wrong.