In case you haven’t noticed, our current foreign policies have deeply alienated what support we had in the Muslim world. Citation available upon request.
Bush has increased the numbers of those who’re are potential terrorists. He has increased the pool from which UbL et al may draw upon for recruits.
That’s a good thing if you are UbL et al.
That’s why UbL may want Bush to be re-elected.
I’d have to disagree with you. The last thing that Al Queda would want is to have Kerry as president. Bush has done so much to alienate the rest of the world. With Kerry as president, the hunt for Al Queda by the US would continue just as it is currently. No change there. One problem for Al Queda would be that other countries may actually start working with the US. Additionally, the Iraq war is Bush’s war, not Kerry’s. So in terms of recruitment, AQ needs to keep Bush in power in order to provide incentive for new recruits to join them. If Kerry is president, new recruits will see that the US citizens voted out the guy who started the Iraq war thereby showing disapproval of the war.
You know perfectly well what I’m talking about.
I’m reading Imperial Hubris: How the West is Losing the War on Terror, by a senior CIA analyst who was at one time in charge of the hunt for bin Laden.
The author points out that there never were that many terrorist trained by AQ. The bulk of the people trained (as many as 100,000) were trained in insurgency tactics, basic combat and squad tactics. The intention of AQ is to create many Islamist insurgencies around the world, depose corrupt leaders of Muslim states, push the US of the Arabian pennisula and end US support of Israel.
Remember, AQ had a two month head start after 9/11. During that time most of the trained fighters were told to go back to their home countries and start training more insurgents. There is evidence that they are starting to return to Afghanistan to fight and they are clearly here in Iraq.
I don’t agree that they have been inactive, an insurgency has begun in Saudia Arabia which seems to have support among a large segment of society, attacks in Madrid were able to change the outcome of the election and force the further split of a European ally with the US, they have had great success in destabilizing Iraq, and are formenting a civil war in the northern territories of Pakistan. In short, I think they are succeeding in creating an Islamist insurgency intent on bringing very conservative bin Ladenism to large sections of the world.
Also, bin Laden seems to understand that his silence is terrifying for the US. He doesn’t need to attack again when Tom Ridge is inadvertently doing a fine job of keeping us terrified. He has promised that his next attack will be bigger than 9/11 and he has done everything else he said he was going to do, so he certainly will try.
A final note, bin Laden never was dismissive of the 19 hijackers. He said that some of them didn’t know the exact mission but that all of them knew they were on “martyr” missions. Arab scholars have concluded that bin Laden is speaking very respectfully of the highjackers on the tape in question.
I don’t think we’ve even begun to understand what this conflict is about, let alone begun to fight it. I believe the administration has misunderstood bin Laden as either a madman or a criminal kingpin, when in fact, I believe he is a charasmatic leader of a cultural and religous movement that has broad support among a large segment across the muslim world.
What the hell does “cozying up to France” have to do with anything? I’m very puzzled by the whole Anti-French attitude that seems to be prevalent in America these days.
Pointing out that the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law != supporting terrorism, “with us or against us” boloney notwithstanding.
First, thanks Jackknifed and Blowero for clarifying the “UbL fears Kerry” viewpoint. I respectfully disagree, but at least you make a cogent argument, which I had not heard previously.
Here’s my take on the “anti-French attitude.”
First, I know the current Kerry stance is that somehow he would’ve enlisted the French before going into Iraq. Or at the very least he claims Bush did too little to bring them aboard. This is, in my opinion, naive and revisionist. I do not believe the French opposed action against Iraq on moral grounds. I do believe that Chirac was very comfortable with Saddam in power, and that French companies stood to benefit considerably from the status quo. Russian and German financial interests were also at stake, and I believe these 3 countries would NEVER have joined the coalition, even with Kerry in the office.
Furthermore, I do not believe France does anything for anybody but France. I believe French opposition to the Iraq invasion had less to do with anti-war sentiment than with anti-U.S. sentiment. I believe France’s overarching goal is to subvert U.S. influence abroad and to increase its own status within the EU, and hence around the globe, by consistently undercutting and opposing any effective American action. Kerry in office might engender better relations with the French, but only insofar as the French would be given more input into the formulation and execution of U.S. policy abroad.
Let’s keep in mind that the French are not so pristine themselves. They oppose unilateral action but do not refrain from it when they see some potential gain. I am not talking Algeria and Indochina after WWII here. Look instead at sinking that Greenpeace ship (Rainbow Warrior, I think?), or the intervention they did in Africa (was it Ghana or Chad) right around the time of the Gulf war.
If you really want, we can go back. A conspiracy theorist could easily blame France for the rise of Nazism (see versailles Treaty), the Vietnam War (we tried to clean up their mess), and a host of other world problems. One could argue that a lot of France’s policy toward the Mideast - particularly in the case of Israel - is based on latent anti-Semitism and a cowardly desire to appease their own growing Muslim population.
I guess the point is that people in glass maisons should not throw stones, and it seems like the French have been chunking plenty of rocks lately.
Finally let me say that this is not intended as a tirade against the French people, rude though many of them might be. Theirs is a beautiful country and I have met many French persons who I genuinely liked. But their current leadership, and their conduct of foreign affairs in this century, do not impress me in the least.
Thus speaketh the devil’s advocate. As ever, this is a rather extreme view but I am trying to represent the “anti-French” attitude to its fullest. Enjoy!
Ok, I admit it…I know perfectly well what you are talking about. What I couldn’t figure out is, how does it relate to the OP? How does whatever America did in Iraq relate to “whats stopping all the terrorists?”, since I know that you don’t think anything America did in Iraq had anything to do with it (its one of the few things we agree on in fact)?
-XT
Welcome to the Straight Dope. You will see that even though “liberals” are a majority that we take it very seriously to back up statements here. I am glad to see more reasonable right wingers always. So do tread carefully with your statements, you might have to back them up.
“hate us for no good reason”… if you do not understand the nature of the beast… how do you intend to slay it ? Bush and most americans really beleive that there were no good reasons and happily go on feeding the “roots” of terrorism. This lack of understanding means the whole Bush vs Terrorism has major defects. 9/11 was better planned and executed than the recontruction of Iraq. People don’t go through all that effort just for blood sport. I suggest you take a look around the board to the various reasons given for AQ attacking the USA.
“As for why we have had no major attacks in the U.S. since 9/11”
After the 1993 attack on the WTC there were no AQ attacks for many years… yet Bush still claims sucess against terrorists ? The fact is that AQ isn’t that big to start with… and they take their time planning attacks. Heightened Security more than any measures Bush has implemented are a major factor is stopping new terrorists from entering mainland USA.
Plus US soldiers in Iraq are way to easy a target. Why go to the effort of killing civilians very far away and with difficulty… if you have GIs readily availabe close by ? So there are insurgents as well as foreign fighters in Iraq.
Finally your comment on “root and branch”… Muslim terrorists have existed for several decades. A military solution will not solve it if the root causes aren’t solved. So why hasn’t Bush started constructive international solutions ? Iraq especially had little to do with terrorists… very little especially with AQ. So why push for a war that wouldn’t help stop terrorists ? Diplomatic, political and economic means of controlling terrorism have been all but neglected… and AQ got a major propaganda boost from Iraq. I think Bush is fighting terrorists and not terrorism itself.
The Right you do know that international support means more than just bringing in France… France was just the most vocal opposition.
Saying France was cozy with Saddam... besides simplstic, is neglecting that the US was once very cozy with Saddam... and are even more "cozy" with the current Iraqi chief. Weren't US oil interests benefitted by the war ? Its kind of hypocritical of accusing France of opposing the war on those grounds when the war itself benefitted likewise american interests.
I know conservatives love bashing France... but the majority of the world were against the Iraq War not only France. The coalition of the willing being minute in comparison.Sorry, but why?
9/11 involved a lot of planning, a lot of money, and a lot of guts.
If they (and you know who I mean by “they”) could easily slip into the country and do these things, we’d have dozens of semi-coordinated (or uncoordinated) DC-Sniper-Style attacks across the country.
A car, a gun, and some bullets. How much economic damage did those two nutjobs do with a couple thousand dollars’ investment?
-Joe
France’s opposition to the war couched in financial terms is dangerous water to tread. One may look only as far as Halliburton to see the other edge of that sword. It’s a nice bumper sticker mentality to easily explain away a much more complicated situation.
Nice talking point, but no real substance once you get past the surface.
Actually I’m not quite sure who you mean. AQ has the guts to hit the US here, but they’re (historically) more interested in large-scale showy ops like those I named. Yes, a lone sniper with a rifle could induce a lot of terror; thankfully, they have’t chosen that route yet.
As for how “easy” is to get something together, consider this info regarding one of the terrorist incidents we have had since 9/11, the Madrid bombing:
Thanks for the welcome, and good points. I will tread as cautiously as I am able.
I guess “for no good reason” is the wrong phrase here. What I should say (to be honest) is “for no reason that most Americans would consider valid.” Which is, of course, not the same thing at all. But I don’t think it alters my fundamental point, which is that 9/11 clearly demonstrated that the world is a significantly nastier and more complicated place than many Americans had previously allowed themselves to believe. Guess I should have stated it that way in the first place…
My take on the possible upside of the Iraq war, and imho the underlying reason we are there, is to help address the root causes of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism. Bear with me here…
Basically, I agree with Rashak Mani that we need to address the underlying causes of terrorism. I believe the solution lies in economic enfranchisement, political liberalization, and more moderate education for folks on the “Arab street”. Right now the Arab world is rich with potential terrorist recruits largely because so few have anything to lose. They are poor, disenfranchised, and (at least by secular Western standards) poorly educated. Why should they have any interest in maintaining or promoting the status quo? Only when people feel that they have a stake in the political and economic system will the voices of moderation will begin to outnumber and supplant the voices of extremism. A Middle East with a higher standard of living and greater economic opportunity would, in my opinion, be a more stable and moderate region.
But how do we get there? There are no stable democracies (outside Israel) in the region. Economic disparities are stark, and political enfranchisement is quite limited in most Arab countries. The U.S. has had to rely on Saudi Arabia as our main ally in the region, as well as a major supplier of our oil, but has therefore had very little leverage in dealing with the Saudis. The governments in Iran and Syria hate us, but pre-Iraq have had little reason to fear us. So our ability to push for any sort of political, educational, or economic reform has been negligible.
However, if we were to succeed in helping Iraq establish a prosperous economy and a stable representative government, much could change. First, our diplomatic leverage would be greatly enhanced. Iraq is strategically placed, having long borders with Syrai, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. The potential military implications are not, I am sure, lost on these nations. More importantly, proximity means it would be hard for prosperity and freedom in Iraq to go unnoticed by the people of the surrounding countries. This would only help the cause of moderate economic and political reformers in the aforementioned nations. A peaceful, prosperous Iraq could be the cornerstone of a new order in the Arab world. And a prosperous, politically stable Arab world would be much less likely to support the radical anit-American jihadism that flourishes there at present.
Of course this is a very rosy view of the situation, and is based on the assumption (so far CLEARLY counterfactual, albeit it is still a work in progress) that the current exercise in nation-building will succeeed. Nonetheless, I believe that there is a huge potential upside to the Iraq experiment, not only for Iraq but for the whole region. I think these potential benefits are often overlooked, and need to be considered when we are assessing the Iraq war vis a vis the War on Terror.
Again, my purpose here is not to try to justify the Iraq war, I just want to point out some (possibly tenuous) benefits that could accrue if the nation-building exercise is successful. Whether these benefits would justify the costs, in blood and money, that we have paid and are paying is a debatable point.
Ya got me again, xtisme - I guess you’re right; The Iraq war had nothing to do with stopping terrorism. Thanks for pointing that out. 
It seems to me that Al Qaeda and its allies in terror are having a considerable degree of success without having to carry out any actual further operations inside the boundaries of the Unted States. Consider:
The spending of billions of dollars at all levels of government on security measures, both day-to-day and in response to perceived heightened threats – money that isn’t going into schools, roads, etc., etc., and thus weakening our society as a whole.
The disruption to everyday life from those security measures – whether it’s added hours at the airport, the de facto evacuation of Boston during the DNC, and so forth – that reduces productivity and business patronage, thus damaging our economy.
The “alert fatigue” that inevitably will set in, diminishing the effectiveness of the public safety personnel engaged in responses to unfulfilled threats, and eventually lowering their level of alertness and responsiveness. I have to wonder whether there is a Muslim/Arab world equivalent of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf” fable.
Indeed, I have to wonder whether the periodic “chatter” increases cited as one reason for yet another terror alert might be deliberate obfuscation designed to get us going yet again. I have this vision of the Al Qaeda leadership, sending out the word to “get yapping!” and then sitting back laughing as the Westerners react to yet another fake-out, blowing more big bucks on blocking a threat that isn’t there, revealing more of the West’s defenses.
And yes, I’m sure the security organizations have that in mind. But what can they do? They can’t ignore the signals of an impending attack, lest this one prove to be true. Yet this ongoing Yo-Yoing of America is doing considerable damage to us. The death of a thousand cuts is just as lethal as dropping a piano on us.
'Zactly…it has not a bloody thing to do with it. 
-XT
I don’t think I buy the “recruitment” argument. (wonder if there’s a thread on that.) Kerry being elected and/or the U.S. pulling troops out of Iraq would almost certainly improve the mood of the average Iraqi, but Al Qaida and other terror groups are not recruiting average Iraqis. They are recruiting from the fringe. The muslims on the fringe already hate the U.S. They hated us before Iraq, and they’ll hate us after. AQ only needs fairly small numbers to be effective. In the foreseeable future, there will always be enough angry fundie muslims that AQ can recruit, indoctrinate, and brainwash enough people to maintain its organization. Do you really think that if Kerry won and pulled the US out, the arab world would be so overcome with rapture that Al Qaida couldn’t find 20 qualified men for the next 9/11?
The substance is that governments often act in the commercial interests of their nation, and the status quo was in France’s broad business interests (i.e., many companies.) If a factor in going to war in Iraq was to reward Halliburton, that is instead an example of cronyism and corruption. I’ll stop now since I’m not really sure what I’m arguing about.
This is somewhat (if not totally) beside the point. To begin with, Kerry has never said anything specific about France to my knowledge, and more importantly, he has made it clear that he feels Bush ‘went to war because he wanted to, not because he had to’ (light paraphrase). Which is to say he wouldn’t have done it in the first place and as such wouldn’t have alienated our allies by giving them the brush-off.
None of this is about France specifically and I don’t know why you felt it necessary to write about it at such length. Yes, France is primarily in it for France. Ditto Britain, Germany, Russia, Spain, America, and everybody else. And yes, they all have various sorts of blood on their hands, America included. Whenever you try and take the high ground in that manner, you remind everybody else of all your own failings.
And I’m not a podiatrist, but I do cut corns off people’s feet for a living, if you catch my drift (with apologies to whoever said that here a few weeks ago).
The point is that this war has made the fringe larger and the average Iraqi madder. Larger frige = more people willing to carry out terrorist attacks, possibly = more attacks. See the problem?
True. So why not keep those numbers as small as possible?
This isn’t about changing the minds of angry radicals (it’s too late for them, and that’s why you strengthen your security) and the foreseeable future, in which there will be terrorists. It’s also about what comes after that and doing whatever possible to manage it.
How defeatist.
We can’t just give up.
Yeah, it’s gonna be a long, hard slog, but we have to do it. We don’t have a choice. Consider the dire consequences of inaction.
We have to do everything we can to make the aQ recruiters jobs as hard as possible.
We’re America, damnit! We can do it if we put our minds to it.
In addition to making things harder for aQ recruiters, we should also take measures to keep from aiding the recruitment efforts of aQ et al, don’t you think?