Why Are Americans Backing Off With The War on Terror? (1 Viewer)

[St. Widge]

We went into Iraq to get rid of an evil empire (as a convenience), and we knew we would DRAW the enemy (Al Qaeda) in to us...and it worked.

I don't believe that one little bit. What I think really happened is that we got bad intelligence indicating that they had WMD's and that A.Q. was operating in Iraq. Then, once we got there and realized that our intelligence was wrong, we created the above excuse. Because if it was the real reason they lied to us for a long time when they said they were trying to lock down the borders to stop insurgents from entering the country. In addition, if that was really the plan, it was quite possible the dumbest plan ever devised.

 

[LSSpam]

What you're not comprehending here, is that actually RETREATING from Iraq might make more sense from a tactical standpoint to fight AQ. Don't buy into the testosterone-laced propaganda that comes from those who want to sit in Iraq, and justify it as fighting terrorism.

What you don't understand as well as that "retreating" from Iraq isn't "weak," and even if AQ interprets it as such. Who cares?

I don't understand how people can continue to defend a continued occupation.
Saddam is gone, a government is in place, they have an army. They are a SOVEREIGN nation.

Free up money and manpower to fight AQ elsewhere and build levees here at home.

Well we've painted ourselves into a bit of a corner here. Leaving will, without doubt, result in a civil war between Iranian backed Shia elements and Saudi/Al Qaeda backed Sunni elements.

In fact, leaving may be counterproductive in that, while the invasion of Iraq has allowed us to put pressure on the Saudis to crackdown on Al Qaeda, leaving may result in the Saudis turning to Al Qaeda to help them maintan balancing with the Shia in Iraq. We'll reverse what minor good we got out of the invasion in the first place.

Not to mention losing what little bit of leverage we still have on Iran.

It's not all bad. there are non-Iranian aligned Shia elements, and there are non-Al Qaeda aligned Sunni's (ironically, mostly former Baathist who we kicked out of power in the first place. They're pan-Arab, not pan-Muslim). I'm afraid I do feel we need to stay in Iraq.

 

[RebSaint]

In addition, if that was really the plan, it was quite possible the dumbest plan ever devised.

From a military standpoint, absolutely. Fight a conventional war, and attempt to prop up a democracy just to draw Al-Queda in allowing them to fight a guerilla war against our conventional military--only to subject our troops to a litany of car bombs, IEDs, RPGs, snipers, etc.

Brilliant.

 

[alon504]

I don't think that is accurate. There was no need to "draw" Al Qaeda. Bin Laden didn't travel to Iraq. Al Qaeda has plenty of foot soliders, and can get plenty more. Setting up a beacon to attract suicide bombers makes as much sense as setting up a bug zapper to kill all mosquito's (did someone else use this analogy?).

If you want to "kill" Al Qaeda you have to disrupt their command, control, and communication structure as well as their finance structure. Afghanistan was about their C3 structure. Iraq seems to me to be more about their financial structure, more specifically leverage on the Saud's who weren't cracking down prior to Iraq.

Accurate...there was no "need," to draw Al Qaeda into Iraq, but, we did and it worked. And, now, the enemy, with it's suicidal "troops," is hard at work, in Iraq, with our troops. Whether we "needed," to draw them in is irrelevant. They are there..and they are the very individuals of the ideology that prompted 9/11, which occurred on American soil and killed American civilians (thousands). And I believe, they recently stated that they needed to kill "several million," more Americans. Uh, to me, this sounds like a definite enemy in front of our troops. The enemy is in our face. Whatever the thought, this is the fact. Now, do we fight the enemy or do we retreat from the enemy (which is now in Iraq)?

 

[LSSpam]

Accurate...there was no "need," to draw Al Qaeda into Iraq, but, we did and it worked. And, now, the enemy, with it's suicidal "troops," is hard at work, in Iraq, with our troops. Whether we "needed," to draw them in is irrelevant. They are there..and they are the very individuals of the ideology that prompted 9/11, which occurred on American soil and killed American civilians (thousands). The enemy is in our face. Whatever the thought, this is the fact. Now, do we fight the enemy or do we retreat from the enemy (which is now in Iraq)?

You missed my point. My point was, you don't defeat terrorist by killing their suicide bombers. Suicide bombers rarely buy plane tickets to New York city. You defeat the structure which goes through the expensive and elaborate process of transporting people determined to die all the way to America so they can die there. Not to mention providing training, handlers to keep their "will" up, recruiters, etc.

It's the structure we want to destroy, not every terrorist on the face of the planet.

Directly speaking, nothing the military is doing in Iraq has any affected on the C3 or financial structure of Al Qaeda. Ergo, it accomplishes nothing.

Now if you want to speak of the effect of Iraq in terms of politics (ie, as I mentioned, leverage on Saudi Arabia or Iran), that's one thing. But to think that our actual military on the ground in Iraq is expected to have significant impact on Al Qaeda's ability to attack us seems silly to me. I do not believe our leadership is that stupid.

 

[RebSaint]

Accurate...there was no "need," to draw Al Qaeda into Iraq, but, we did and it worked. And, now, the enemy, with it's suicidal "troops," is hard at work, in Iraq, with our troops. Whether we "needed," to draw them in is irrelevant. They are there..and they are the very individuals of the ideology that prompted 9/11, which occurred on American soil and killed American civilians (thousands). The enemy is in our face. Whatever the thought, this is the fact. Now, do we fight the enemy or do we retreat from the enemy (which is now in Iraq)?

But we're not really "fighting" them. Al-Queda gets a couple of home-made bombs together, or a few RPGs, and hit our troops while they are manning checkpoints, or patrolling the street, etc.

Then the U.S. military finds cells and eliminates them. The U.S. military is constantly on the defensive. They are fighting an asymetrical war, while we have troops on the ground who are trained in fighting a conventional war--and who are acting as policemen.

It makes ZERO military sense.

Here's the option: Leave Iraq, and put more resources GLOBALLY to inserting spies and use intel. to find out where Al-Queda activities are, and then hit them with special forces--go on the OFFENSIVE.

AQ is not just in Iraq--they're worldwide. And to think that the U.S. military can draw every AQ terrorist in Iraq to kill them is rather illogical.

 

[alon504]

You missed my point. My point was, you don't defeat terrorist by killing their suicide bombers. Suicide bombers rarely buy plane tickets to New York city. You defeat the structure which goes through the expensive and elaborate process of transporting people determined to die all the way to America so they can die there. Not to mention providing training, handlers to keep their "will" up, recruiters, etc.

It's the structure we want to destroy, not every terrorist on the face of the planet.

Directly speaking, nothing the military is doing in Iraq has any affected on the C3 or financial structure of Al Qaeda. Ergo, it accomplishes nothing.

Now if you want to speak of the effect of Iraq in terms of politics (ie, as I mentioned, leverage on Saudi Arabia or Iran), that's one thing. But to think that our actual military on the ground in Iraq is expected to have significant impact on Al Qaeda's ability to attack us seems silly to me. I do not believe our leadership is that stupid.

Partially...we are discussing the dynamics of this war that we see on the news...and that is the part of killing the terrorists. The part you are talking about is already taking place and we will never hear about that on the news...or maybe we'll read a blurb once or twice a year about this part. It is the secretive part that we really couldn't talk about, because we aren't privy to the facts. Only the CIA and the Navy Seals are involved with that part.

 

[LSSpam]

Partially...we are discussing the dynamics of this war that we see on the news...and that is the part of killing the terrorists.

That part won't ever be productive and doesn't make sense. Killing a suicide bomber who otherwise would have never left his village except that Americans occupied the police station within it serves absoloutly no purpose. If that were the only reason or even the most significant reason the US was in Iraq, it would be beyond stupid. It would be criminally stupid.

Believe it or not, I don't think Bush is that dumb.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If fighting them in Iraq is not effective, then we should not fight them in Iraq. That is all that anyone should care about.

To be honest, I haven't heard of a coherent strategy from the Democrats to defeat AQ, or what they plan to do with Iraq, so I'm not optimistic there. But I think that Bush and company had a flawed strategy that made things far harder than they had to be, and so I'm not really sad to see them weakened either.

 

[LSSpam]

If fighting them in Iraq is not effective, then we should not fight them in Iraq. That is all that anyone should care about.

Again, if Iraq was about engaging Al Qaeda directly, I would agree. However, I do not think that's what Iraq is about or why we are staying. I believe it has more to do with geopolitics and attacking Al Qaeda indirectly.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Again, if Iraq was about engaging Al Qaeda directly, I would agree. However, I do not think that's what Iraq is about or why we are staying. I believe it has more to do with geopolitics and attacking Al Qaeda indirectly.

I didn't say it was... I was merely addressing the OP.

 

[System Shock]

The day the U.S. decides to liberate Palestine, that's the day the terrorism threat will end.

 

[LSSpam]

The day the U.S. decides to liberate Palestine, that's the day the terrorism threat will end.

Not all terrorism has the same point. Al Qaeda as a movement goes way beyond Palestine.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The day the U.S. decides to liberate Palestine, that's the day the terrorism threat will end.

No it won't. For one thing there is nothing to liberate -- the dream of Palestine is dead. They got screwed, but that's history.

Second, Palestine is only the main issue for Hamas, and to some extent Hezbollah. AQ, is more interested in restoring the caliphate, so as long as we prevent that, we have a problem with them.

And that's just a small part of the Islamic terrorist threat.

Finding some sort of solution for the Palestinian problem will help ease tensions, and should be done, but it won't end it.

 

[Random Fan]

Why is Al Qaeda happy the Democrats won the last election?

Because they are stupid? Or at the very least naive if they think the United States is going to roll over and die just because of what party has been put in power in Congress?

Then why do Democrats propose retreating from the 12,000 Al Qaeda fighting our troops in Iraq?

Why fight a pointless fight? Waging war on those 12,000 Al Qaeda irregulars isn't going to do a thing to prevent any future terrorist attack on this nation. The World Trade Center attack (and I'm just counting the two planes that brought the towers down not the ones in Washington and Pennsylvania) were pulled off by about five guys with exacto knives you can buy at the local Right Aid for about three bucks.

Who really cares if 1.5 Billion people claim a worldwide victory on the US and 9/11?

Who really does care? Because everyone knows they'd be wrong.