Iraqi-Al Queda connections

Remove all ads!

Yep. I very much agree. Still people attempt to stress alleged 'links' in order to justify the invasion of Iraq, because the need it felt to somehow link it with 911 to give it a deeper legitimacy.

That is utterly preposterous. Bion, you're quite right, 'links' do not equal cooperation.

The bottomline of the Saddam + Bin Laden hypothesis is still: Both are evil, they are both our enemies - so considering how great we are, they must neccessarily cooperate, after all they are evil.

I have laughed about this as simplicistic as circular argument three years ago already.

And then, neo-con pet Laurie Mylroie characterised the importance of the argument she propagandised in two books and countless articles nicely: "I take satisfaction that we went to war with Iraq and got rid of Saddam Hussein. The rest is details."

Hear, hear.

 

Another constant since the war started are those that oppose the war continuing to try to discredit it by attempting to discredit individual factors rather than looking at the preponderance of the facts.

Was Saddam in compliance with he many UN resolutions?

No

Did the UN destroy its credibility and break faith by siding with those who apposed the removal of Saddam for financial gain.

Yes

Did Saddam's regime directly commit and sponsor terrorism?

Yes

Was the situation in Iraq already being used as a tool to recruit zealots for the cause of attacking the west?

Yes

Were things improving in the Middle East or Iraq after a decade of embargoes?

No

You can argue all you like that this is the wrong action and that the situation has been made worse, but you have no solutions, and no your British/IRA example wouldn't work and everyone but you knows it Ragusa.

 

Was the Bush administration justified in declaring war on Iraq?

Maybe

Did they make a mess out of it?

Absolutely

Really, I would have supported removing Sadam Hussein on purely humanitarian grounds. However, you have to do a good job of it. It is my opinion that if Bush would have gone in Iraq with UN aproval (and it would have been possible, especially after 9/11 - if this administration would not have been so inept at diplomacy and done its utmost to piss of most other people), things would be much better by now.

 

The only way the UN was going to bless the forced removal of Saddam's regime was if the US would have compensated France, China, and Russia for the monies owed to them by Saddam's regime.

Many have said the war was about oil, what they don't say is that the opposition by the 3 veto holders on the Security Council was all about money.

 

The other problem was that the U.S. never really bothered to think about what would follow. It was simply believed that everything would work just fine. After Iraq there were to be Syria and Lebanon, Saudia Arabia and Iran, had the überhawks got their way -- and hooray! -- peace in the Greater Middle East.

Shock and awe, the hyped concept for winning Iraq isn't heared of anymore. If you ask me I don't really think it ever was a suitable tool or tactic for an operation aimed on 'liberating' the Iraqis. First we kill them and scare the survivors ****less, but then they'll love us because we bring not only doom, but freedom and liberty too.

Just a few weeks ago Rumsfeld told TV audiences that "coalition forces are not going to repress the insurgency," which might "go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years."

That's certainly not what Americans promised a three-week war wanted to hear. Even inattentive Americans can discern that if the Bush administration could be so far wrong on the duration of the war, it could also be very wrong on the reasons for the war.

That's not a stretch.

In all the grandiose plans there was little thought about the 'cui bono' part of the war. Not to mention how over-optimistic the plans the politicos wanted were.

The greatest visible benefit of crushing Iraq and throwing it into chaos was to deprive Iran of it's worst security risk. Iran's influence on the old enemy is stronger than ever. The U.S. war on Saddam helped to improve Iran's national security significantly.

To a degree it improved Israel's situation too -- if we buy in on that Saddam wanted to harm Israel and risk nuclear annihilation for such a folly. I don't believe that.

Most certainly invading Iraq didn't help improve the U.S. security situation in any way. If I overlook something in this respect, please enlight me.

That's the intensely ironic part about the whole exercise. Maybe, after all, history has a sense of humour, that is preserved for those who think they can dictate it.

Just a little reminder for the spirit at work ... We had the questionable luck to see America shoot itself in the knee - while the enemy was elsewhere, and it was no state sponsored terrorist.

The whole premise for the people who wanted to attack Iraq in this 'war on terror', was that Saddam was a state sponsor of terrorism, and more, *the* state sponsor behind 911.

They completely misunderstand the simple truth that Al Queada transcends borders and doesn't need state sponsors, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia being the sole because ambiguous exceptions.

But hey, if you were a trend-conscious neo-con chickenhawk after 911, and needed to cook up a quick response to 911, just grab something off the shelves. Dust it off and write a shiny new powerpoint presentation ... In a sense, the U.S. grand strategy targeting Iraq was from 1996, and formulated against a totaly different enemy.

America's great strength is a strong temptation. As I see it, the neo-cons are very much Albrightian in their approach to foreign policy: "What is the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Albright once said that to Colin Powell. With the neo-cons in the driver seat, that approach became the norm.

For a while regime change became the neo-con fit all solution for the war on terror. We do regime change because we can do, thanks to our excellent military. We *are* going to use it. The limitations of this approach were ignored, if ever understood. The roll-backer wing had the president's ear as long as butt-kicking sold well, and basically they just did what they had propagated since the 1970s. Just as if Bin Laden, or evil, were just another Soviet empire. Well, almost but to a hammer every problem looks like a nail.

Even though Al Queda was clearly a non-state actor, the U.S. adressed the problem as if it were one. 'A Clean Break' was all about state sponsors.

When reality did not fit their scheme, they created their own reality where it fit.

Enter the spin

As a result of such free-floating genius at work, the CIA had to report that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has turned that country into a training ground for terrorists and al-Qaeda supporters. The last thing the U.S. needs to be doing is subsidizing Osama bin Laden, and that is exactly what the Bush administration is doing in Iraq.

The only, if questionable, comfort I have is that the U.S. can survice blunders and disasters that would ruin and cripple smaller countries. But even America cannot swallow that up indefinitely. Time to wake up.

And you are right Darkwolf, the U.S. cannot win using the British template in Iraq -- they have lost this war already.

What you don't see is that the U.S. are well advised to use it against Al Quaeda globally. It gives them a vastly better chance of success than the current path.

The war on terror has an overall important moral level - that is where the U.S. have lost and lost and lost again, even when they physically won every single fight.

You overread that I in fact do have a solution -- the U.S. can adress one root cause of the actual terror problem and reduce their profile in the Middle East. That will not only stop the meat-grinder that Iraq has become from mincing more U.S. troops and consuming more U.S. treasure, but deny Al Quaeda splendid recruiting arguments like: Fallujah I, Fallujah II, Najaf, funny-pix from Abu Ghraib, Gitmo and the like ...

That is not appeasement, but as a sensible reduction of vulnerability in America's own best interest - and no hindrance in continuing to vigorously hunt down Al Quaeda using police, intel and SpOps - in that order.

IMO the reason why some Americans have problems leaving Iraq is quite simple and understandable: It's about national pride and the stubborn unwillingness to admit that that war was a stupid idea from begin with, and to draw the consequences.

It was counterproductive, so what? We got rid of Saddam! And now we have to stay the course! We have to support the troops! These common slogans are as superheated as hollow.

If the U.S. cannot win in Iraq, as Rummy admits, why stay?

My advice for the U.S. is: Get the hell out of there, asap. I'm not alone here, the whole Foreign Affairs issue Jan/ Feb 2005 is about that. And if you need to lynch someone to keep face, how about impeaching Bush?

[ July 18, 2005, 15:42: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Please provide credible evidence to back up this claim.

Shock and awe had nothing to do with civilians. It was supposed to be the reaction of the Iraqi military, and everyone knows it didn't work out that way, so what is your real propose in dredging up this old topic other than to corrupt it to fit your argument.

The implication of the administration in that regard was that Saddam's control of Iraq and removal of his regime would take 3 weeks. The administration never promised that the troops would leave Iraq in 3 weeks as you imply here. Bush warned us that the fight against terrorism would be a long and difficult one from the beginning, and that it would likely span generations. Did you forget this or is this another case of you twisting the situation to fit your position?

Really? Saddam didn't support terrorist attacks on Israel? $25k to the families of homicide bombers?

If there was ever a more paranoid politically partisan filled op-ed than that I haven't seen it.

Sorry, but I am not going to read the rest of your links, as you provide far too many that are far too long and for to politically driven. Maybe you should try providing a link and then a quote with the supporting statement from the article.

So in your opinion the job should have been left to the UN with their solution of a never-ending embargo?

You are addressing symptoms, not the disease, so no, you do not provide a solution. Sure we could go away and treat the area like we did for 8 years under Clinton, and wait for the next 9/11...

Tried police, didn't work. Liberals won't let us maintain our intelligence agencies as they need the money to fuel their social programs, so as soon as the Democrats return to power intel will be gone, and Special Operations can't hit the broad side of a barn if they aren't told where the barn is.

Saving the best for last;

I wasn't aware that your uber-intelligence allowed you to also foresee the future!

Until this statement is proven true I will put it in the same bin with the estimations of 200k US casualties to take Iraq.

 

Yes the best way to prevent another 11th September abuse the men , rape their women , kill their children (rape them too for good measure)rip up their holy books,steal their possessions and finally destroy their historical places of interest . Its worked in the past - hasn't it?

**I would advise against clicking on the 'rape their women' link, though the photos are blurred, its still rather disturbing and sickening.**

 

I would advise against the belief that the rape pictures are genuine, as the disclaimer at the top of the page discredits it validity, as well as the fact that it has been well established that most (if not all) the "rape" pictures are fakes.

**** happens it war, the abuses are not as widespread as certain individuals would have you believe. The are wrong, and I don't excuse them, but the average Iraqi citizen is not being raped, beaten and tortured in the streets or behind closed doors, and we have not been a "wave of Huns" raping, pillaging, and burning every town as we move through.

 

Why did the US go to war with Iraq? Probably to punish those responsible for 11/09 - actually not 'someone', but 'anyone' it seems. It looks great to say "we killed 10000 bad guys today" rather than say "Dispite years of trying, we have failed to captured bin Laden".

Back to my original post.

Of course a lot are fake, but a lot are real also. Rummy himself has admitted to it, but saying **** happens is not valid. Besides of its 'wrong' and everyone is against it, then why are the sentences so light? Its not only an insult to the victim, but also their family, and of course the country. How would you like to be occupied by a foreign country, only to have this sort of behaviour happen? When 11th September happened, no-one said **** happens, but instead offered their support and kindness.

Anway its definately true about the archaelogical sites being desecrated - what a place to build a base and have the cheek to claim that 'one was only trying to protect it'!

 

Darkwolf,
It was a long post of mine, and that gave you plenty of opportunity to pounce on the less important parts and avoid my question. So let's re-focus.

In the end I'm just listening carefully to your politicians.

• When Rumsfeld sais the war will not be won by U.S. troops, how can you possibly spin that to say the U.S. can in fact still win?
  .
• If the U.S. cannot win, haven't they lost already? Much more in face of such a weak opponent.
  .
• When the U.S. cannot win in Iraq, as Rummy admits, why stay?

Are you looking for a glorious defeat, french style?

 

You are either deliberately or accidentally twisting the intent of Rumsfeld’s words, he has never stated that the war in Iraq is un-winnable.

The goal of the war is not to defeat Iraq (we already did that), but to win a stable democracy in Iraq and in that regard Rumsfeld is right. It is up to the Iraqi's to win the war by governing themselves, and defeating the insurgents themselves. If we pull out now, all we do let people like you, who only care to see the US defeated no matter what the cost, win. If we stay until a democratic Iraq can stand on its own, then we have a chance to make the change in paradigm that I have promoted since the beginning of the war.

You are still thinking of this as a regional political conflict. Unfortunately, our enemies (and unless you are Islamic you are an enemy in their eyes) see this as a global conflict. If you try to isolate them they will simply escalate the level of attacks up until you can no longer ignore them (e.g. 9/11).

The difference between you and I is that for some reason you think that taking an action that has already been attempted will have a different result if attempted again, and refuse to accept that there is any possibility of Iraq becoming the catalyst for change in the Middle East.

I am willing to admit that it might not work, but as there have been no legitimate alternatives proposed, I am willing to give this one the benefit of the doubt, and support the gov't in this endeavor until it actually fails. I will not fall prey to the typical Gen X "it all has to be fixed in 30 minutes just like on TV mentality". Bush absolutely right in one regard, taking a nation a deeply entrenched in oppression as Iraq and turning it into the model of freedom for the rest of the ME to see will be difficult, will take time, and will be costly, but the upside potential is worth the time, sweat, and blood.

 

In short, whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a crime, it's now clear that - at least in the form in which the invasion and occupation was executed by the Bush administration - it was a massive blunder. The manner in which we went to war in the first place, and the mismanagement of the aftermath have fuelled the conditions in which terrorism breeds.

"Collateral damage" always has a human face: its relatives grieve; its communities have memory and demand action. A small minority of young Muslims will look at this act and the values displayed in Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay - and make a choice. The war helped transform Iraq from a vicious, secular dictatorship into a magnet and training ground for those determined to commit terrorist atrocities. Meanwhile, it diverted our attention and resources from the very people we should have been fighting - al-Qaida.

 

The events of June 6th, 1944 were judged a blunder at the time by many as well...

 

Darkwolf,

There are many admirable things the American can-do spirit can achieve, sometimes it's a little wonder how that renowned Yankee know-how produces that stunning engineering fix for a seemingly insurmountable problem.

But sometimes Americans, just like everyone else, have to rediscover that the impossible is indeed impossible.

In that case, all time, sweat and blood will have been wasted in vain.

EDIT: As for impossible ... for a long time one pillar of neo-con worldview was the insight that life and politics are infinitely complex -- so beware of utopian schemes and large-scale ventures in social engineering.

Why neoconservatives, who argued for several decades against grandiose experiments in social engineering believed it would be a feasible project for the United States to democratize Iraq when efforts to raise test scores in Anacostia have failed remains a mystery.

What quantum leap made possible or realistic what was utopian to them before?

[ July 18, 2005, 20:16: Message edited by: Ragusa ]