First place it is not a war. It is a police action. No uniforms, no standard armies. Terrorism is not a army therefore can not be defeated. We leave Iraq when the politicians are done with it. When the oil is secured and we have bases secured, we will withdraw into our embassy and green zone.
Our people are being blown up because they are there. The war among the Iraqis is our fault but we can not fix it.
I’ve never understood this concept of a “haven for terrorists.”
If by “haven” you mean a safe harbor, the terrorists already have that, in effect, in northern/western Pakistan. That will be true regardless of what occurs in Iraq.
But even if that were not the case, I’m not sure how much terrorism relies on having a “haven.” It seems to me terrorist attacks can be planned and executed anywhere. Look at the Oklahoma City bombing. Or the London subway bombing, planned and carried out by home-grown UK terrorists.
Before the 9/11 attack, its perpetrators had a “haven” in Florida.
Even if Iraq becomes a free and stable country, how will that prevent a group of disaffected young men from meeting there in secret to plan attacks?
It doesn’t have a draft, it has an all volunteer military. One things for sure, a draft is an easy way to lose a war, eg ARVN conscripts. In the midst of an insurgency, you want an army motivated and hungry to fight. Draftees will just dodge the fire and are usually much harder to motivate.
It’s not my choice of words, but I do believe that is what the people who use that phrase mean. But the distinction is whether or not the government is complicit in granting that “haven”. The Taliban were. Pakistan’s government appears to want them out, but can’t quite seem to get them out.
Home grown, but trained in Pakistan. No, terrorists don’t need a safe haven to operate, but they can operate more effectively if they have one. So, to the extent that we can prevent a haven from developing, it would behoove us to do so. That won’t make us free from worry about terrorists attacks, but it’s a step in that process.
No. See above.
It won’t. But as I said, if we can prevent there being a safe haven, we should do so. Of course Iraq was not a haven in the first place, so we needn’t have gone to war to prevent that from happening, regardless of what Bush and Cheney might say.
In some cases there seems to have been, but not in all cases. There are so many different factions in Iraq that it’s almost impossible to keep them all straight. Iraqis owe their first allegiance to their tribe, and some tribes are “at war” with al Qaeda* and some are not.
*Although they like to call themselves “al Qaeda in Iraq”, it’s not at all clear to me that they are anything more than loosely affiliated with ObL’s group. If an Islamist militant group wants to sound big and important, they call themselves “as Qaeda”, but that doesn’t mean they actually are.
Are we talking about the al-Qaeda People’s Front, or the People’s Front of al-Qaeda?
Exactly!
Thanks for the info. I agree with your analysis, btw.
I rise to quibble. A minor point, to be sure, but that’s the trouble with quibbles…
I very much doubt that just any Islamist militant group is likely to style themselves as AlQ, for the simple reason that AlQ is born of a violently anti-Shia theology, the Wahhabist sect. To draw a rather inept parallel, it would be like Protestant Irish loonies calling themselves the “St. Patrick’s Martyr Brigade” and adopting green as their “color”. Hence, you can just about be sure that if a group seeks to adorn itself with AlQ’s glamour, they are most assuredly Sunni Muslims.
Not that this means shit to a tree, but still…
Nothing at all. And if they play their cards right we’ll probably help.
“Here - have some bombs and missiles. No, no - don’t point them at me, point them at those there evil Persians.”
“Sure. Right. Anything you say, Bwana.”
Yeah, because the Bush administration doesn’t have the option of ‘containment’ of Iran, which would work much better in highlighting the flaws of the current Iranian Government. I’m willing to bet good money on the US not attacking Iran.
Would a partitioning of Iraq into three autonomous states, supposing it was done peacefully (as possible) and with the majority consent of the Shia/Sunni/Kurds, constitute victory in your opinion?
If that were the case and the Shi’ites decided to join with Iran (very easy- just a matter of changing borders , should the U.S./U.N. allow it? It gives Iran/Shi’ites major oil fields but leaves ample for others (though I can’t tell if the others are mostly Sunni, Kurd, or-worst of all so I’m sure it’s the case- on the border).
Well let’s ask those Arab Shias whether they want to join Iran just like the Arabs in Khuhestan. (Might of spelt it wrong)
Unfortunately, I belive what will end up constituting “winning” in Iraq is the US finally withdrawing its troops and saying “We Won!” The public, being sick and tired of the whole mess, won’t give a shit as long as we’re out.
A safe haven denied. Do you count the entire middle east.? Do you count Indonesia and the Philippines?. Do you count the North Africa countries? We will have terror proof the world if you are denying havens. Or we could quit acting like a spoiled bully and become a good world citizens.