PDA

View Full Version : Fallout from Iraq: Al Qaeda is Losing War of Minds


patteeu
03-10-2008, 08:13 AM
There are signs that the same anti-al Qaeda sentiment that spread throughout the Sunni community in Iraq as the so-called Anbar Awakening is beginning to impact the broader muslim world. Let's hope it continues and that we don't reverse the progress that we've made by prematurely pulling out of Iraq.

Al-Qaeda is losing the war of minds (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/47bd1adc-e9f5-11dc-b3c9-0000779fd2ac.html)

By Peter Wehner

The US “surge” in Iraq has been so manifestly successful that no serious person can deny that gains have been made. Even Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have (grudgingly) conceded progress. Yet both Mrs Clinton and Mr Obama are quick to add that progress has been purely on the military side and that those gains are ephemeral. This fits with their broader narrative – that the war has been a disaster on every front.

During a recent Democratic debate, for example, Mr Obama declared: “We are seeing al-Qaeda stronger now than at any time since 2001.” Mrs Clinton says President George W. Bush’s policies in Iraq have “emboldened our enemies”. We should leave Iraq, she says, so we can better focus on the threat of al-Qaeda.

In fact, in large measure because of what is unfolding in Iraq, the tide within the Islamic world is beginning to run strongly against al-Qaeda – and this, in turn, may be the single most important ideological development in recent years.

In November 2007 Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (“Dr Fadl”) published his book, Rationalizations on Jihad in Egypt and the World, in serialised form. Mr Sharif, who is Egyptian, argues that the use of violence to overthrow Islamic governments is religiously unlawful and practically harmful. He also recommends the formation of a special Islamic court to try Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s number two and its ideological leader, and calls the attacks on September 11 2001 a “catastrophe for all Muslims”.

Mr Sharif’s words are significant because he was once a mentor to Mr Zawahiri. Mr Sharif, who wrote the book in a Cairo prison, is “a living legend within the global jihadist movement”, according to Jarret Brachman, a terrorism expert.

Another important event occurred in October 2007, when Sheikh Abd Al-‘Aziz bin Abdallah Aal Al-Sheikh, the highest religious authority in Saudi Arabia, issued a fatwa prohibiting Saudi youth from engaging in jihad abroad. It states: “I urge my brothers the ulama [the top class of Muslim clergy] to clarify the truth to the public . . . to warn [youth] of the consequences of being drawn to arbitrary opinions and [religious] zeal that is not based on religious knowledge.” The target of the fatwa is obvious: Mr bin Laden.

A month earlier Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, an influential Saudi cleric whom Mr bin Laden once lionised, wrote an “open letter” condemning Mr bin Laden. “Brother Osama, how much blood has been spilt? How many innocents among children, elderly, the weak, and women have been killed and made homeless in the name of al-Qaeda?” Sheikh Awdah wrote. “The ruin of an entire people, as is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq . . . cannot make Muslims happy.”

These criticisms by prominent voices within the jihadist movement should be seen in the context of an even more significant development: the “Anbar Awakening” now spreading throughout Iraq. Just 18 months ago Anbar province was the stronghold of al-Qaeda in Iraq; today it is known as the birthplace of an Iraqi and Islamic grass-roots uprising against al-Qaeda as an organisation and bin Ladenism as an ideology. It is an extraordinary transformation: Iraqis en masse siding with America, the “infidel” and a western “occupying power”, to defeat Islamic militants.

Not surprisingly, al-Qaeda’s stock is falling in much of the Arab and Islamic world. A recent survey found that in January less than a quarter of Pakistanis approved of Mr bin Laden, compared with 46 per cent last August, while backing for al-Qaeda fell from 33 per cent to 18 per cent.

According to a July 2007 report from the Pew Global Attitudes Project, “large and growing numbers of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere [are] rejecting Islamic extremism”. The percentage of Muslims saying suicide bombing is justified in the defence of Islam has declined in seven of the eight Arab countries where trend data are available. In Lebanon, for example, 34 per cent of Muslims say such suicide bombings are often or sometimes justified; in 2002, 74 per cent expressed this view. We are also seeing large drops in support for Mr bin Laden. These have occurred since the Iraq war began.

Since General David Petraeus put in place his counter-insurgency strategy early last year, al-Qaeda has been dealt punishing military blows. Iraqis continue to turn against al-Qaeda and so does more of the Arab and Muslim world. In the past half-year an important new front, led by prominent Islamic clerics, has been opened. Militarily, ideologically and in terms of popular support, these are bad days for Mr bin Laden and his jihadist jackals.

If we continue to build on these developments, the Iraq war, once thought to be a colossal failure, could turn out be a positive and even a pivotal event in our struggle against militant Islam. Having paid a high cost in blood and treasure and having embraced the wrong strategy for far too long, we stayed in the fight, proving that America was not the “weak horse” Mr bin Laden believed it to be. Having stayed in the fight, we may prevail in it. The best way to subvert the appeal of bin Ladenism is to defeat those who take up the sword in its name.

We are a long way from winning in Iraq. It remains a traumatised nation and the progress made can be lost. But the trajectory of events is at last in our favour and a good outcome is within our grasp. If we succeed it will have enormously positive effects beyond Iraq.

Cochise
03-10-2008, 09:14 AM
impossible... harry reid told me more than a year ago that we already lost

HonestChieffan
03-10-2008, 09:44 AM
we can only hope we have enough people who actually think who will keep cut and run Obama out of office. He and Hillary are the greatest threat to the US, our security, and our Economy than at any time.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 10:39 AM
I havne't read it yet, but hope that it is true. The source, however, isn't what I would call "objective".

You left this part of the article out of your quote:
The writer, formerly deputy assistant to President George W. Bush, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center


I also found this:

<TABLE width="100%" border=0 valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD class=TWELVEpixelBold>Peter Wehner -- White House</TD></TR><TR><TD class=BDYpixel>Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives</TD></TR><TR><TD class=BDYpixel>
Before joining the Bush Administration, Mr. Wehner was Executive Director for Policy for Empower America, a conservative public policy organization. Mr. Wehner specialized in, and has written on, political, cultural and religious issues. He is a former assistant to the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and was a speechwriter at the Department of Education. In the 1980s, Mr. Wehner wrote on international affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and later, at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A native of Dallas, Texas, Mr. Wehner grew up in Richland, Washington. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Washington.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/leadership/bio_505.html

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 10:40 AM
we can only hope we have enough people who actually think who will keep cut and run Obama out of office. He and Hillary are the greatest threat to the US, our security, and our Economy than at any time.

ROFL

Could they honestly do much worse than BozoCo, errr....BushCo?

pikesome
03-10-2008, 10:47 AM
ROFL

Could they honestly do much worse than BozoCo, errr....BushCo?

Hillary? I think she could.
McCain? If doing worse got him on CNN more... he could do it.

Obama I'm not sure about. I don't think he could do worse by accident, he'd have to try hard.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 11:00 AM
My random thoughts on Iraq, about which I haven't posted anything in a while.

1. I'd agree that if either (1) there seems a reasoanble probability of success there, or (2) the momentum or trajectory of events has shifted to our side, such thing while the probability is currently low, the trend seems to be in the right direction towards achieving important national aims, then we should stay the course there.

2. I heard recently that Iraq (and Afghanistan?) is costing us $12 billion per MONTH. Ouch, ouch, ouch. That's $150 billion per year. On the flip side, however, it's 1/2 of 1% of our federal budget that Bush is expected to hand in soon ($3 trillion :eek: ).

Hog Farmer
03-10-2008, 11:49 AM
Now if we can keep Obama out of office that just may be their final blow!

StcChief
03-10-2008, 11:54 AM
Now if we can keep Obama out of office that just may be their final blow! they'll be dancin in the street if he get's in....

I still think they are laying low untill after the US election. No reason to tip the balance to the Republicans

chagrin
03-10-2008, 11:55 AM
ROFL

Could they honestly do much worse than BozoCo, errr....BushCo?

Dude, you're not naive, I can't accept this as serious

chagrin
03-10-2008, 11:56 AM
My random thoughts on Iraq, about which I haven't posted anything in a while.

1. I'd agree that if either (1) there seems a reasoanble probability of success there, or (2) the momentum or trajectory of events has shifted to our side, such thing while the probability is currently low, the trend seems to be in the right direction towards achieving important national aims, then we should stay the course there.

2. I heard recently that Iraq (and Afghanistan?) is costing us $12 billion per MONTH. Ouch, ouch, ouch. That's $150 billion per year. On the flip side, however, it's 1/2 of 1% of our federal budget that Bush is expected to hand in soon ($3 trillion :eek: ).

"Where are you going to get the money?"

Stop feeding the machine -AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Cochise
03-10-2008, 12:06 PM
1. I'd agree that if either (1) there seems a reasoanble probability of success there, or (2) the momentum or trajectory of events has shifted to our side, such thing while the probability is currently low, the trend seems to be in the right direction towards achieving important national aims, then we should stay the course there.


Yes... like it or not, whatever side you were on to start, we're there now. Nothing is going to change that. As long as we have a reasonable chance to achieve our objectives there, we should see it through.

If it ever became totally impossible to build a stable Iraq then we should leave at that point. But by that standard, a lot of people here would have had us turning tail a couple years ago when they were trumpeting the "civil war" angle, which turned out to be pretty sensational. If we had listened to the radical anti-war left back then, there'd be a slaughter over there right now whereas today, things have improved markedly when the wingnuts said it was impossible.

No question, the reasons we went look different in hindsight, it's been longer and more costly to set up the government than we expected. but wars don't usually go as planned, I think it's fair to say, and once you commit you need to commit totally and see it through.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 12:58 PM
Dude, you're not naive, I can't accept this as serious

IMHO Bush is a very mediocre President. His epitaph will be solely based on Iraq, which may yet (crossing fingers) turn out ok, but his economic management of this country has been abysmal, and I don't favor practically anything else he has done.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 01:01 PM
Yes... like it or not, whatever side you were on to start, we're there now. Nothing is going to change that. As long as we have a reasonable chance to achieve our objectives there, we should see it through. I think that's right. Furthermore, I think any President whom we elect in November should take a fresh look and make a decision primarily on that basis, regardless of the politics of the situation (i.e. Democrat pulls out immediately and/or Republican stays forever regardless of whether it's wise/sensible or not).

If it ever became totally impossible to build a stable Iraq then we should leave at that point. [/quote]

Totally impossible is far too high a standard. FAR too high.

But by that standard, a lot of people here would have had us turning tail a couple years ago when they were trumpeting the "civil war" angle, which turned out to be pretty sensational. If we had listened to the radical anti-war left back then, there'd be a slaughter over there right now whereas today, things have improved markedly when the wingnuts said it was impossible.

No question, the reasons we went look different in hindsight, it's been longer and more costly to set up the government than we expected. but wars don't usually go as planned, I think it's fair to say, and once you commit you need to commit totally and see it through.

Vietnam was a lost cause from the get-go, but some still argue we should've stayed at fought. we lost that "hearts and minds" battle long before the last chopper lifted off from the embassy.

Just because a commitment is made, doesn't mean you keep it at all costs. See British Empire / American Revolution for a bad idea...

alanm
03-10-2008, 01:26 PM
impossible... harry reid told me more than a year ago that we already lost
Not to mention being backed up by 99% of democrats. ROFL

jspchief
03-10-2008, 01:30 PM
Blowing up crowds of innocent civilians isn't exactly the way to win the hearts and minds of the people.

The US military may have it's dark moments over there, but compared to Al Qaeda we have to be looking a little less like the bad guys.

Chief Faithful
03-10-2008, 01:32 PM
ROFL

Could they honestly do much worse than BozoCo, errr....BushCo?

The scary answer is yes, they have the potential.

patteeu
03-10-2008, 01:42 PM
I havne't read it yet, but hope that it is true. The source, however, isn't what I would call "objective".

You left this part of the article out of your quote:

I also found this:

<TABLE width="100%" border=0 valign="top"><TBODY><TR><TD class=TWELVEpixelBold>Peter Wehner -- White House</TD></TR><TR><TD class=BDYpixel>Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives</TD></TR><TR><TD class=BDYpixel>
Before joining the Bush Administration, Mr. Wehner was Executive Director for Policy for Empower America, a conservative public policy organization. Mr. Wehner specialized in, and has written on, political, cultural and religious issues. He is a former assistant to the director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and was a speechwriter at the Department of Education. In the 1980s, Mr. Wehner wrote on international affairs at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and later, at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. A native of Dallas, Texas, Mr. Wehner grew up in Richland, Washington. He received his Bachelor of Arts degree in political science from the University of Washington.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/results/leadership/bio_505.html

Yeah, I left this part out too:

Published: March 4 2008 18:39 | Last updated: March 4 2008 18:39

I guess it would be even more impressive if this analysis had been written by staunch anti-war saints like Cindy Sheehan, Ron Paul or Justin Raimondo, but as it is, it still refers to specific facts that can be checked out and which are true or false independent of the author of the article.

patteeu
03-10-2008, 01:46 PM
Vietnam was a lost cause from the get-go, but some still argue we should've stayed at fought. we lost that "hearts and minds" battle long before the last chopper lifted off from the embassy.

Just because a commitment is made, doesn't mean you keep it at all costs. See British Empire / American Revolution for a bad idea...

Hearts and minds can change. We've won the hearts and minds of Iraqis, lost them, and won them back again over the course of the past 5 years.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 02:42 PM
Yeah, I left this part out too:



I guess it would be even more impressive if this analysis had been written by staunch anti-war saints like Cindy Sheehan, Ron Paul or Justin Raimondo, but as it is, it still refers to specific facts that can be checked out and which are true or false independent of the author of the article.


Yes, I'm not saying the article is wrong, but it's good to know what stance teh author has. As a former solid Bush insider, that gives perspective on what he's saying.

I checked a couple facts, including the reduction in Al Qaida's popularity in Pakistan, and they were independently confirmed, which is good.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 02:43 PM
Hearts and minds can change. We've won the hearts and minds of Iraqis, lost them, and won them back again over the course of the past 5 years.


Vietnam was a steady slide down. IMHO it wasn't retrievable because South Vietnam's leadership was pathetic, through several leadership changes.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 02:55 PM
The first guy we supported in Vietnam, Diem, after we told S. Vietnam's military leaders we wouldn't resist a coup d'etat.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Diem_dead.jpg/200px-Diem_dead.jpg

After Diem, and despite his repeated and many failures (mostly associated with graft and corruption), there was never a truly strong leader of South Vietnam. Just a procession of puppets.

With the My Lai massacre, the Pentagon Papers revealing the many deceptions of the US government, and numerous other incidents great and small undermined perception in Vietnam, in America, and internationally, making the cause an uphill battle.

At its height, if memory serves, we had over 500,000 troops there. During one span of slightly over a year, we dropped more bombs (tonnage) than the entire Allies had during the entire period of World War II. A staggering concept.

And yet, we lost. Why? Vietnam was sick of foreigners interfering in its affairs. For centuries untold the Chinese, then the French.

And, frankly, our efforts there were all for nothing. The concept of the domino theory was a tad overstated, and the fall of Vietnam did nothing to the world balance of power.

We lost there for the EXACT SAME reasons that the Russians lost in Afghanistan, the British lost in America during our revolution, and a thousand other instances in which a mighty power is defeated by some insignificant backwater -- because the price far outweighs the potential benefits.

Chief Faithful
03-10-2008, 02:57 PM
The cultures between the Middle East and SE Asia are sooo different it is hard for me to make any arguement that the Vietnam war and the Iraq struggle are similar.

The result in Iraq is not a surprise. In the Middle East the victor is respected. It does not matter the battlefield be it Afghanistan, Iraq, Somolia, Pakistan or Gaza. If the US wants to be successful against Al-Queda they need to win the battle no matter the location. Now that the US is being successful in Afghanistan and Iraq the battlefield is moving because hearts and minds are accepting the US as the victor.

The surge was successful not solely because of the increased number of troops, but also due to the tactics developed by Petraeus. It will be interesting to see how the battle develops in Pakistan, Somilia and Gaza.

patteeu
03-10-2008, 03:17 PM
Yes, I'm not saying the article is wrong, but it's good to know what stance teh author has. As a former solid Bush insider, that gives perspective on what he's saying.

I checked a couple facts, including the reduction in Al Qaida's popularity in Pakistan, and they were independently confirmed, which is good.

I agree, perspective is good.

mikey23545
03-10-2008, 03:47 PM
This war is going to be won because of one reason and one man....The will to keep pushing even when things looked bleak and George Bush's retarded enemies were in full throat.

<i>That</i> will be the bitterest pill the libs have ever gagged on.

mlyonsd
03-10-2008, 03:54 PM
This war is going to be won because of one reason and one man....

Your broader picture might be true but Bush doesn't get a pass in my book for keeping Rummy around too long.

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 04:10 PM
This war is going to be won because of one reason and one man....The will to keep pushing even when things looked bleak and George Bush's retarded enemies were in full throat.

That will be the bitterest pill the libs have ever gagged on.


Pure stubborness is not how wars are won, nor is it necessarily a good REASON to keep fighting in the first place.

Stubborness CAN help you win, of course, but it takes alot more than that.

Radar Chief
03-10-2008, 04:20 PM
Stubbornness? Or determination? :hmmm:

Amnorix
03-10-2008, 04:33 PM
Stubbornness? Or determination? :hmmm:


Patriot, or traitor?


Same answer: depends on whether you win or lose.

irishjayhawk
03-10-2008, 04:52 PM
Has anyone seen the BBC documentary about how Al Queda (and any spellings thereof) is a complete fabrication? Apparently, they cite senior former CIA officials.

I can't comment on the validity of it since I haven't seen it. Anyone else?

tiptap
03-10-2008, 04:56 PM
DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN. We could have had the same results for 1 hundreth the price in deaths and costs. I can't replay the situations but you don't get passing grade for dragging the US army and economy down in securing these still unresolved conflicts. We had Al Queda on the run in Afghanistan as much or more than we do now yet we failed to follow through and instead looked to broadened the conflict well beyond Al Queda to Sadam. Because . . . .the people in charge did not know how to manage a war and didn't perfect that practice in Afghanistan at a reduced price before taking up a larger conflict.

It was costing us 1 billion a year, diligence in keeping countries in line with the boycott and recently found favor from the 9/11 attack, diligence in disarming Sadam and maybe a pilot a year lost by anti air missiles. You don't get passing grade putting the country in this situation unless Iraq gives us its oil at the subsidized cost of a quarter a gallon. And I am not sure how you measure the deaths.

Halfcan
03-10-2008, 05:05 PM
gotta love those Prison house novels-worked out well for Hitler.

patteeu
03-10-2008, 09:58 PM
Has anyone seen the BBC documentary about how Al Queda (and any spellings thereof) is a complete fabrication? Apparently, they cite senior former CIA officials.

I can't comment on the validity of it since I haven't seen it. Anyone else?

Haven't seen it. Can you elaborate a little bit? If by "fabrication" you mean that there isn't a large, well-organized group of card carrying members and an org chart, I think that's true. If you mean there isn't an Obama bin Laden and there never was a cadre of jihadists who pledged allegiance to him and ran terror training camps out of Afghanistan and who planned, organized, and executed a few high profile attacks, not so much.

If they're just saying that a lot of what gets attributed to al Qaeda is really the work of people only loosely associated with the bin Laden group (e.g. the first WTC bombing, the London subway bombing, etc.), that's not too controversial, IMO.

jiveturkey
03-10-2008, 10:11 PM
Your broader picture might be true but Bush doesn't get a pass in my book for keeping Rummy around too long.
That's what I've taken from this.

Logical
03-10-2008, 10:25 PM
Hearts and minds can change. We've won the hearts and minds of Iraqis, lost them, and won them back again over the course of the past 5 years.

Don't you mean bought them back, paying each Iraqi to support us while not sane, was a truly outside the box solution.

Logical
03-10-2008, 10:32 PM
DEAR PRICE FOR SO LITTLE GAIN. We could have had the same results for 1 hundreth the price in deaths and costs. I can't replay the situations but you don't get passing grade for dragging the US army and economy down in securing these still unresolved conflicts. We had Al Queda on the run in Afghanistan as much or more than we do now yet we failed to follow through and instead looked to broadened the conflict well beyond Al Queda to Sadam. Because . . . .the people in charge did not know how to manage a war and didn't perfect that practice in Afghanistan at a reduced price before taking up a larger conflict.

It was costing us 1 billion a year, diligence in keeping countries in line with the boycott and recently found favor from the 9/11 attack, diligence in disarming Sadam and maybe a pilot a year lost by anti air missiles. You don't get passing grade putting the country in this situation unless Iraq gives us its oil at the subsidized cost of a quarter a gallon. And I am not sure how you measure the deaths.

Best post of this thread.

irishjayhawk
03-11-2008, 12:44 AM
Haven't seen it. Can you elaborate a little bit? If by "fabrication" you mean that there isn't a large, well-organized group of card carrying members and an org chart, I think that's true.

I think (again, I haven't seen it.) this is what it's talking about but also that it's essentially a boogey man. This next part is my conjecture but going on that premise I would think they created this because they cannot go back to "Bin Laden" given that Iraq had nothing to do with them and we STILL haven't caught him.


If you mean there isn't an Obama bin Laden and there never was a cadre of jihadists who pledged allegiance to him and ran terror training camps out of Afghanistan and who planned, organized, and executed a few high profile attacks, not so much.

No, I don't think anyone is saying this. However, I don't know how much stock there really is in that. Sure there are people that can plan attacks but we plan attacks too (see Iraq, as much as you disagree with that). Regardless, calling something that doesn't exist "Al Queda" is a lie. Then again, I think they redefined it anyway to islamo fascists which we've discussed ad nausem.


If they're just saying that a lot of what gets attributed to al Qaeda is really the work of people only loosely associated with the bin Laden group (e.g. the first WTC bombing, the London subway bombing, etc.), that's not too controversial, IMO.

But see, I think that the line has been moved and that ANY terrorist action is basically linked to al Qaeda. (Israel defined groups, aside.) To say "al Queda" is planning this, or released that, or is up to this, is a lie. To say that there are people (in the broad sense) doing that stuff is much more accurate. The point of them saying "al Queda" is to link 9/11 without actually saying 9/11 and indirectly plays the fear card. There were plenty of people who planned attacks before "al Queda" and there will be plenty afterwards. I hope I'm making sense to you.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 07:29 AM
I think (again, I haven't seen it.) this is what it's talking about but also that it's essentially a boogey man. This next part is my conjecture but going on that premise I would think they created this because they cannot go back to "Bin Laden" given that Iraq had nothing to do with them and we STILL haven't caught him.




No, I don't think anyone is saying this. However, I don't know how much stock there really is in that. Sure there are people that can plan attacks but we plan attacks too (see Iraq, as much as you disagree with that). Regardless, calling something that doesn't exist "Al Queda" is a lie. Then again, I think they redefined it anyway to islamo fascists which we've discussed ad nausem.



But see, I think that the line has been moved and that ANY terrorist action is basically linked to al Qaeda. (Israel defined groups, aside.) To say "al Queda" is planning this, or released that, or is up to this, is a lie. To say that there are people (in the broad sense) doing that stuff is much more accurate. The point of them saying "al Queda" is to link 9/11 without actually saying 9/11 and indirectly plays the fear card. There were plenty of people who planned attacks before "al Queda" and there will be plenty afterwards. I hope I'm making sense to you.

I've been arguing from a very early point that our war is not narrowly focused on Osama bin Laden and the people who do appear on his org chart, but instead on a broader group that includes the entire violent islamist movement. What good does it do to take out Osama bin Laden if Mohammed abu TheNextGuy takes up the same banner? While I think the administration could have been more clear by consistently describing our enemy instead of using the Global War on Terror shorthand, when he has expanded on the theme, GWB has been pretty clear that bin Laden isn't the end-all-be-all.

But it's not just the US who is applying the al Qaeda label to all of what I will call the loose affiliates. It's the loose affiliates themselves who were inspired by bin Laden and who have taken up the name themselves, who have been through bin Laden's training camps, or who are in one way or another associated with bin Laden's people.

In short, al Qaeda isn't a myth and your stretching to find a way to call it such is ridiculous, IMO.

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 07:44 AM
Patriot, or traitor?


Same answer: depends on whether you win or lose.

Egg-zactly my point. ;)

jettio
03-11-2008, 09:13 AM
patteeu's stay the course B*sh is awesome version 934872.0

Ever since the Iraq war began the sun has risen in the East every day, and patteeu has been saying that things are going great as long as we keep throwing money and American lives down that sh*thole.

Things are going fabulous, but not quite fabulous enough for graduation to the promised second stage of Iraqi political reconciliation, rebuild funded by their oil revenues, and the withdrawal of our troops.

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008

When do we finally see the progress that patteeu and B*sh have been claiming for the better part of this decade?

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 09:16 AM
I've been arguing from a very early point that our war is not narrowly focused on Osama bin Laden and the people who do appear on his org chart, but instead on a broader group that includes the entire violent islamist movement.
Well it should just be narrowly focused on AQ! Otherwise, you're just being a social engineering Wilsonian liberal relying on a living Constitution to justify it.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:49 AM
Well it should just be narrowly focused on AQ! Otherwise, you're just being a social engineering Wilsonian liberal relying on a living Constitution to justify it.

That's crazy talk.

Hey, I've got a crazy idea that may appeal to you. Why not narrowly focus our war on the actual hijackers so we can just call it a day before we even get started?

patteeu
03-11-2008, 09:50 AM
patteeu's stay the course B*sh is awesome version 934872.0

Ever since the Iraq war began the sun has risen in the East every day, and patteeu has been saying that things are going great as long as we keep throwing money and American lives down that sh*thole.

Things are going fabulous, but not quite fabulous enough for graduation to the promised second stage of Iraqi political reconciliation, rebuild funded by their oil revenues, and the withdrawal of our troops.

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008

When do we finally see the progress that patteeu and B*sh have been claiming for the better part of this decade?

Political reconciliation is taking place. Don't you read the papers?

Amnorix
03-11-2008, 09:59 AM
That's crazy talk.

Hey, I've got a crazy idea that may appeal to you. Why not narrowly focus our war on the actual hijackers so we can just call it a day before we even get started?


Don't you understand --- the Constitution isn't a framework, or a system of governance, it's a straitjacket made out of titanium reinforced tempered steel.

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 10:16 AM
That's crazy talk.

Hey, I've got a crazy idea that may appeal to you. Why not narrowly focus our war on the actual hijackers so we can just call it a day before we even get started?

What you're advocating is crazy talk: requires an endless war, endless funds which will militarize and overly regulate American society. A belated 1984 style of life. That's the logical extension of this kind of thinking. Big govt at it's worst.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 10:29 AM
What you're advocating is crazy talk: requires an endless war, endless funds which will militarize and overly regulate American society. A belated 1984 style of life. That's the logical extension of this kind of thinking. Big govt at it's worst.

No it's not. You're making the straight line extrapolation error. That type of simplistic analysis is almost always wrong. It's the same kind of analysis that led to fearmongering about The Population Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb) such as predictions about massive, unavoidable starvation die-offs in the 1980s.

tiptap
03-11-2008, 10:35 AM
That fear mongering, concern lead to research that produced higher production of grains in order to meet the population increase. The question is that increase sustainable forever. Are you saying that there are no physical barriers to the carrying capacity as far as population? Why don't you state what you might entertain as the population limit. Is it 100 billion? And in the same kind of analysis how much war and military funding in years, percentage or numbers does mean that we are entering 1984 style of life. Is it never possible. It never was seen in Germany or USSR?

BucEyedPea
03-11-2008, 10:39 AM
No it's not. You're making the straight line extrapolation error. That type of simplistic analysis is almost always wrong. It's the same kind of analysis that led to fearmongering about The Population Bomb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb) such as predictions about massive, unavoidable starvation die-offs in the 1980s.
It is simple. Being complicated can mean another agenda.
KISS ( not literally btw)

irishjayhawk
03-11-2008, 11:03 AM
I've been arguing from a very early point that our war is not narrowly focused on Osama bin Laden and the people who do appear on his org chart, but instead on a broader group that includes the entire violent islamist movement. What good does it do to take out Osama bin Laden if Mohammed abu TheNextGuy takes up the same banner? While I think the administration could have been more clear by consistently describing our enemy instead of using the Global War on Terror shorthand, when he has expanded on the theme, GWB has been pretty clear that bin Laden isn't the end-all-be-all.

But it's not just the US who is applying the al Qaeda label to all of what I will call the loose affiliates. It's the loose affiliates themselves who were inspired by bin Laden and who have taken up the name themselves, who have been through bin Laden's training camps, or who are in one way or another associated with bin Laden's people.

In short, al Qaeda isn't a myth and your stretching to find a way to call it such is ridiculous, IMO.

I'm not making any claims. I'm relaying what I've heard about the documentary with very little added conjecture.

beer bacon
03-11-2008, 11:07 AM
The best way to stop terrorism is to increase the environment of instability and impotence that breeds terrorism in the first place. If we can do that by invading a country had nothing to do with 9/11 and very little in general to do with terrorism targeting the United States, all the better.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 11:28 AM
The best way to stop terrorism is to increase the environment of instability and impotence that breeds terrorism in the first place. If we can do that by invading a country had nothing to do with 9/11 and very little in general to do with terrorism targeting the United States, all the better.

You should read the article in the OP.

jettio
03-11-2008, 03:04 PM
Political reconciliation is taking place. Don't you read the papers?

Political reconciliation is what? Remedying the de-Baathifcation and discharging of the Iraqi military right after the invasion?

You have been posting nonsense for the last 6 years that invading Iraq for no f*cking reason was a great idea. And every day of those 5-6 years you have been posting whatever article you can find trumpetting B*sh and the idea that progress is being made.

Since you and B*sh started out saying that Iraq was going to instantly become a utopian arab democracy that was going to inspire universal democracy in the muslim world, and, you have not stopped saying that progress is being made every single day.

Iraq must really be the greatest place in world by far by now.

It really is not that hard to take the most trained military in the world and a trillion dollars and invade a country and keep the peace.

If you want to have an immoral nation that just starts sh*t for no good reason that is one thing. But you want to have one that does that and does not even do it right.

You ought to sit out the next 10 years on commenting on foreign policy, your track record in supporting immoral imbeciles has earned you a vacation.

patteeu
03-11-2008, 03:42 PM
Political reconciliation is what? Remedying the de-Baathifcation and discharging of the Iraqi military right after the invasion?

You have been posting nonsense for the last 6 years that invading Iraq for no f*cking reason was a great idea. And every day of those 5-6 years you have been posting whatever article you can find trumpetting B*sh and the idea that progress is being made.

Since you and B*sh started out saying that Iraq was going to instantly become a utopian arab democracy that was going to inspire universal democracy in the muslim world, and, you have not stopped saying that progress is being made every single day.

Iraq must really be the greatest place in world by far by now.

It really is not that hard to take the most trained military in the world and a trillion dollars and invade a country and keep the peace.

If you want to have an immoral nation that just starts sh*t for no good reason that is one thing. But you want to have one that does that and does not even do it right.

You ought to sit out the next 10 years on commenting on foreign policy, your track record in supporting immoral imbeciles has earned you a vacation.

Did you read the OP article? Whatcha think?

Radar Chief
03-11-2008, 03:55 PM
Did you read the OP article? Whatcha think?


:LOL: ROFL Good luck with that. :thumb: