Senate report concludes: no proof of contact between

[Thecla]

Spoken like part of middle management. Your mother must be so proud. :P

Occhi

Well, she is. But truth be told, I'm sort of lower-middle lower management at the moment, though I do aspire to at least middle-lower management.

[eppie]

He'll weep more before this is done, unless he has the good sense to avoid this part of the thread.

Occhi

My knowledge of the english language is insufficient to understand this.....lucky me.

[kandrathe]

Justifications for war don't get much more hypothetical than that. (But it does seem you agree that the Bush Administration's prior and subsequent justification of the invasion of Iraq in terms of WMDs and terrorism was bogus.)

Well, I'm not justifying the war. I'm understanding why it happened, and I'm remembering 10 years of UN hand wringing and a failed sanctions effort by the UN. I'm remembering the UN action of GWI. And if you read what I actually said, I told you what I thought should have happened, rather than what did happen.

Who knows what the middle east would be like today if the US had not invaded Iraq? Who knows if Saddam would even still be in power? (Oops, you know --- sorry, I forgot your gift.;)) I will stick with the history we have, and that is a disaster.

The "gift" is the same one I use playing chess, when I'm analyzing my opponent 10-15 moves ahead. The gift is in thinking of the world of possibilities, and probabilities.

But it is entirely relevant to the incompetence and dishonesty of the current US administration, who should have been tossed out of office long ago. (Do you say to a murderer that, well the victim's dead, so who did it is irrelevant to the current situation?) Not that the damage the Bush administration has already done can be easily fixed at this point, even after they're gone. I don't have any solutions for that. Sorry.

You seem to be seeking to put the Bush administration on trial. In that case, your point of "going after the murderer" would be the very political grand-standing I'm railing against. So, try to impeach Bush if thats what you are on about. While we argue about who knew what, who said what, and who did what, the terrorists are planning and executing their next caper. In my view, the terrorists are the murderers, and Iraq is a time consuming distraction. Also, for the record, I don't like either that Bush is the over zealous cop who doesn't get a warrant (form a real coalition at the UN) and then kicks down the wrong door (goes into Iraq with dubious pretexts). The reality now though (whether we like it or not), is that Iraq has become the terror crack house we accused it of being in 2001 and we still need to do some urban renewal here.

[kandrathe]

Oh? Who are you, the Thought Police? Allow them, and expose them for the tripe they are. He'll weep more before this is done, unless he has the good sense to avoid this part of the thread. Occhi

Well, yes I am. :) I just don't have any army at my disposal.

But seriously. We do need to discredit the destructive philosophies. But, I guess my point is that at some point just showing people that something is destructive is not going to get them up off the couch. You have to be willing to fight against those that seek to destroy you as a means of self preservation.

[Occhidiangela]

Who knows what the middle east would be like today if the US had not invaded Iraq? Who knows if Saddam would even still be in power? (Oops, you know --- sorry, I forgot your gift.;)) I will stick with the history we have, and that is a disaster.

Given his style, methods, and craftsmanship with power, the betting money is on Saddam, with no 2003 invasion, still in power. What that would look like for the region is an unknown. We will never know if more pressure short of war would have gotten UN sanction lifted, and Iraq re established in more normal commerce under the usual despotic leadership.

Speculative fiction in that regard is fascinating conjecture, and remains in that realm for the reason you cite: the history is it has been written so far.

My knowledge of the english language is insufficient to understand this.....lucky me.

Count your blessings, you didn't miss anything of substance.:D

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

A small point:

While we argue about who knew what, who said what, and who did what, the terrorists are planning and executing their next caper.

The implication being that we can figure out either what happened and what we should do about it or what is going to happen and what we should do about that. I contend that that is false logic and that we can and should actually do both.

--Pete

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,

A small point:
The implication being that we can figure out either what happened and what we should do about it or what is going to happen and what we should do about that. I contend that that is false logic and that we can and should actually do both.

--Pete

You are correct, however, the trend line on doing both hasn't moved in a direction that makes me comfortable since about 1993. The turn at about December 2002 isn't one that gets most CEOs the kind of stock options one hears about, but more like what Ken Lay got as his "bonus."

Occhi

[kandrathe]

Hi,

A small point:
The implication being that we can figure out either what happened and what we should do about it or what is going to happen and what we should do about that. I contend that that is false logic and that we can and should actually do both.

--Pete

Yes, you are correct, that would be nice. I guess I'm just used to the national debate being laser beamed on one issue. I can't remember when the press last was able to focus on more than thing at a time. As in my prior example, the IA department should investigate, but we still need to fight crime. It's not the SWAT teams fault, but rather the investigators and the leadership. It's time to get us a new mayor.

[Thecla]

Well, I feel like we are increasingly talking past one another, as is the almost inevitable fate of these discussions, so I will just add a few final comments from my perspective.

You seem to be seeking to put the Bush administration on trial.

Taking a country to war is an ultimate act on the part of its government, and it's something that should be done only in absolute necessity. With regard to Iraq, the Bush administration failed this criterion utterly (and they didn't fail it honestly, they failed it dishonestly). They -- in the conventional anti-war phrase -- have blood on their hands, and they should be held to account for their actions. They haven't been, and they won't be, of course.

In my view, the terrorists are the murderers.

Of course the terrorists are murderers --- and murderers of completely innocent people.

The reality now though (whether we like it or not), is that Iraq has become the terror crack house we accused it of being in 2001 and we still need to do some urban renewal here.

Iraq as it now stands is a terrible situation --- a lose/lose/lose situation, in fact. Probably the only real question at this point is how the US can get out of Iraq without leaving a terrorist breeding ground behind it and destablilizing the entire middle east. And it's not clear that even that limited objective is achievable. (Nor is it clear that the Bush administration, or future US administrations, actually want to leave Iraq.)

But don't you find it in the least bit Orwellian that an administration whose invasion and mismanagment created this "crack house" is touting the same "crack house" as their "centerpiece in the war on terror"? Do you really believe that they are the ones who can carry out any kind of "urban renewal"? If so, I have a few slum-landlords who would be happy to contact you with properties for your consideration.

[kandrathe]

Well, I feel like we are increasingly talking past one another, as is the almost inevitable fate of these discussions, so I will just add a few final comments from my perspective.
Taking a country to war is an ultimate act on the part of its government, and it's something that should be done only in absolute necessity. With regard to Iraq, the Bush administration failed this criterion utterly (and they didn't fail it honestly, they failed it dishonestly). They -- in the conventional anti-war phrase -- have blood on their hands, and they should be held to account for their actions. They haven't been, and they won't be, of course.

I'm sorry, we are probably talking past one another. Partially, because I blame Washington, not just Bush. For example, the 180 degree about face of a majority of Congress on the Iraq war, for mostly political reasons. I don't buy the congress are idiots argument of "You said he had WMD, and was housing Al Queda" line of BS. They have total access to not only the reports, but closed door sessions with every level of the Intelligence community. I believe congress knew pretty clearly what was, or was not in Iraq -- and had the same suspicions as we all did about what Saddam was hiding. Why did the 374 members of congress authorize the war in Iraq? Because right after 9/11 the passion for payback was high, and marching around the mountains in Afghanistan would not be enough. And remember, they were getting corroboration of our own poor intelligence by many other countries intelligence agencies. So all in all, a total lack of intelligence. So rather than admit to their own lack of research, or passionate exuberance, they play the blame game. So if I give you an intelligence estimate and it's wrong, was I lying? What does estimate mean?

Of course the terrorists are murderers --- and murderers of completely innocent people.

This was in reference to your question "Do you say to a murderer that, well the victim's dead, so who did it is irrelevant to the current situation?" I was instead, building the analogy of the raid on the crack house. Making the point that the criminals were in the crack house, not the ones breaking down the door. The SWAT team was doing their job. The detectives that brought the "it's a crack house, and maybe there is a meth lab in the basement" evidence have been investigated, and the 397 judges that agreed with the evidence and issued the warrant are arguing over who's culpable. This is not a dictatorship, so they all are (except the 156 who voted against it) responsible.

Iraq as it now stands is a terrible situation --- a lose/lose/lose situation, in fact. Probably the only real question at this point is how the US can get out of Iraq without leaving a terrorist breeding ground behind it and destablilizing the entire middle east. And it's not clear that even that limited objective is achievable. (Nor is it clear that the Bush administration, or future US administrations, actually want to leave Iraq.)

You have only ever heard one side of that story. Five years later and I'm still hearing the daily bodycount statistics. It's down to a handfuls and dozens, but gosh its still news. How many people died in Sudan today, or how about Somalia? You don't seem to buy into the idea that you are being fed a one sided stream of propaganda that helps to fuel the terror machine in Iraq. The asymetrical goal is to demoralize the US resolve so they will pull out, and allow the insurgency to claim victory in driving the infidel from Arab land. In defense of the press (grudgingly here) they in general sell more newspapers by sensationalizing violence. So, Baghdad is also the crack pipe for newsies.

But don't you find it in the least bit Orwellian that an administration whose invasion and mismanagment created this "crack house" is touting the same "crack house" as their "centerpiece in the war on terror"? Do you really believe that they are the ones who can carry out any kind of "urban renewal"? If so, I have a few slum-landlords who would be happy to contact you with properties for your consideration.

No, it was a crack house before we invaded. This is why the community hand wringing committee at the UN, was sending in the building inspectors, citing them, and refusing to deliver mail, or pickup their garbage. They might not have had the Meth lab in the basement which was why many signed the warrant. Complicated by the fact that all the drug dealers are organized by crime lords who are sending all the criminals from the whole city to that one spot, coupled with ease at which the crime lords are recruiting new criminals. The question to me is, can we fix the problem by tromping around in it, and arresting or killing the dope heads? I would think we need a multi-faceted approach renouncing crime, improving the neighborhood, and arresting the criminals. If the world agrees we need to make the neighborhood safer, then everyone needs to work together to help. Rather now, everytime another crime happens, or cop gets killed, many are demoralizing the effort saying "See, it's not working, you cops are dying for a lost cause." and are also not doing anything to help either. Should we do the urban renewal? I don't care if WE do or not. It needs to happen. It would seem to be a little bit of a cop out for the US to not try to fix the situation we created by backing Saddam against Iran But, maybe one of our benevolent and wealthy world citizens will undertake the effort so we don't have to. Boy, that would be nice.

[eppie]

The question to me is, can we fix the problem by tromping around in it, and arresting or killing the dope heads? I would think we need a multi-faceted approach renouncing crime, improving the neighborhood, and arresting the criminals.

I think this sentence shows you are thinking to easy about this (and such a) subject.
The criminal and 'dopeheads' are not born like that, they don't have a gene which says they will be dopeheads.
That is why the action taken to arrest these people, also influence the behavior of people.The war in Iraq had as a direct consequence that there was a huge increase in terrorism. Not because the people living there are inherently bad, but because the behavior of the west creates terrorism. Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Balkenende know this, they are not stupid (well Bush and Berlusconi maybe yes) they did what they did for a reason. Terrorism is good for their reelections, the chance that these person themselves (or their family) will become victim is incredibly small, so what do they care. They just know that fear is good to get reelected.
(of course the Blair situation is very strange....his behavior was very Tory....so what will happen there I'm not sure)

[kandrathe]

I think this sentence shows you are thinking to easy about this (and such a) subject.
The criminal and 'dopeheads' are not born like that, they don't have a gene which says they will be dopeheads.
That is why the action taken to arrest these people, also influence the behavior of people.The war in Iraq had as a direct consequence that there was a huge increase in terrorism. Not because the people living there are inherently bad, but because the behavior of the west creates terrorism. Bush, Blair, Berlusconi and Balkenende know this, they are not stupid (well Bush and Berlusconi maybe yes) they did what they did for a reason. Terrorism is good for their reelections, the chance that these person themselves (or their family) will become victim is incredibly small, so what do they care. They just know that fear is good to get reelected.
(of course the Blair situation is very strange....his behavior was very Tory....so what will happen there I'm not sure)

Ah, but your attitude is also telling of where you see the problem. Apologists for dope heads point to their poor environment, and the duty of the society to offer them a better opportunity, education, etc. That is correct to some extent in that there needs to be an upward path from their bad life, but also the dope head chooses to be one. There are plenty of examples of poor people, even former dope heads that have turned their lives around and made better choices. The dope heads are guilty of a bad choice, and we need to hold them accountable for their bad choices to not enable and encourage the dope head lifestyle.

The behavior of the west does not create terrorism, that is the line of BS you are fed and choose to swallow. Just as prosperity of hard working people, does not cause poverty. People choose to express their discontent, mostly with their own governments repression, by blaming the West. We can discuss if buying oil from rich oil sheiks is wrong, or selling them F16 fighters, or having diplomatic relationships with these same corrupt regimes is grounds for terrorism. There was this time called the Cold War, where the US and the USSR used their intelligence agencies and puppet regimes to fight a bunch of little proxy wars all over the globe. The middle east was a major part of that struggle, and now in the aftermath, we all need to help form sensible, people affirming, peaceful governments in that region. Is that a bad idea?

[--Pete]

Hi,

No, it was a crack house before we invaded.

I think you've pushed that analogy too far and it has lost much of its usefulness. First, Iraq is not in the jurisdiction of the USA, it falls under the UN. That is the way, for better or worse, that Bush the First set things up. The agreements ending GW I were with the UN, the sanctions were imposed by that same body. So, unilateral action by us was simply a form of vigilantism. Extra-legal but possibly necessary. Necessary for our defense or (possibly) that of our allies.

Second, before Shrub's Oil War (AKA GW II) the UN was able to get inspectors back into the country and the inspectors were reporting that they were finding no indications of WMD nor of delivery systems. They were not 100% positive, but had a high expectation of being right and asked for additional time to verify. Shrub and the Texas Oil Gang refused them that time. One can speculate from the events that followed that that was to avoid having the one remaining excuse for the invasion neutralized. Had the invasion been called off, it would have eliminated the billions of profits for Shrub's cronies that they made at the expense of the pain, suffering, and deaths of American service men and women. The evidence against was so strong that the Shrub administration ruined the credibility of the one person (Powell) who had not already been exposed as a lying scumbag by sending him to the UN with a pack of lies. Many (and I was one) went from a strong anti-invasion stance to a reluctant 'we've forced to do this' position on the basis of what Powell said and on the impression that he had some integrity. Both his words and his character have been shown to be lies.

As to the possibility of a link between Iraq and the 9/11 terrorists, anyone who bothered to get the information would have known that no such link existed, nor was there any rational way that such a link would be formed. The secular government of Iraq and the Islamic fundamentalists are about as far apart in their outlook and about as likely to cooperate as the NAACP and the Aryan Nation.

Why did congress fall into line with the Shrub Gang? Because then (as now) anyone who didn't bow to Bush the Second was loudly proclaimed anti-American and a traitor. Now that Shrub has lost most of the clout 9/11 gave him, those proclamations have lost much of their power, but back when GW II was being proposed, the accusations of being a witch were still sufficient to get you hung. Or, at least, enough to damage your political career.

And, no, congress critters do not get briefed on intelligence issues at the same level as does the president. There are issues of need to know and of the unreliability of congress to keep secrets. So, to say that they were equally informed and thus equally culpable is nonsense. Most of the (mis)information they had to base their decisions on came from the White House.

From the standpoint of why are we where we are, the answer is dishonesty and greed on the part of the Texas Oil Gang and their figurehead, Shrub the Younger. And the first part of the answer of what should we do now is to investigate, probably impeach, possibly convict, and maybe jail for life most of those scumbags. If we divide the number of deaths they've caused by the number of members in the Texas Oil Gang, and try them in Texas, we can even up the number of executions there in a few years. After all, mass murderers should be hung, right?

In Iraq itself, the course to take is not so clear. When the war was about WMD and terrorism, the actions we needed to take were pretty plain. Basically a replay of Afghanistan (which is going so well, don't you think?). But when UN information about the WMD (basically, no such existed) was found to be true, and the terrorist tie in was shown to be the farce that intelligent people had known it to be all along, then our mission became unclear. "Iraqi Freedom"? Effing joke. Like Iraq is the only nation (or even the worse) that doesn't have the benefits of democracy. Do Shrub and the TOG plan to 'liberate' all the non-democratic nations? or just the ones that have resources that we want? Is that the purpose of the USA?

OK, the problem, once again, in both Iraq and Afghanistan is that a bunch of idiots committed our troops without planning a viable exit strategy. So, the solution is to plan such a strategy. Since turning any backward country with an ignorant population accustomed to strong man rule into a democracy is a multi-generation process, and since the American character is such that 'long term' means 'until next month', we need to admit that we'll have no lasting effect. We've already destabilized the region, and our efforts are not making the situation better, so this is another thing we need to admit. Basically, we screwed the pooch, and our additional efforts are making it worse. So, in my opinion, it is time to admit our mistakes, our inabilities. Our only rational course of action is to get out, now, while we can still do so with dignity, or get out in a few years, with helicopters evacuating people from the embassy rooftop, when the American public has lost all patience with a pointless and useless war.

To stabilize the Middle East is possible, but only if we are willing to give up most of our principles (or, at least, the few we still have) and be the ruthless tyrants we would have replaced. We could justify it as 'being for their own good' and 'we'll educate them so they'll be ready for democracy.' But only fear of power and retaliation will control a population that has been controlled that way for centuries (at least since the Ottoman Empire was founded, although the previous rulers weren't much better).

Once again, Santayana is being shown to be right, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." We are in the wrong place, for the wrong reason. And every time we've done that, we've paid in increased national debt, military lives, and national pride. That's too expensive a price just to make Haliburton and the TOG rich.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

...

I agree the UN should have been the correct course, and waiting an additional year would have been desirable. One detractor of that line was the clamour to end sanctions, and with the corruption in the UN program it was failing anyway. There was already a lack of will in the UN to do anything more with Iraq. But, in hindsight, calling for better containment might have been a better, although less effective alternative. It is hard to predict what Iraq would be like today with him still in power. Look how bad things get though before the UN is willing to act... Rwanda... Darfur... Haiti... Abysmal. I'd say a very poor record. I personally, don't have much faith in the UN's ability to resolve issues. But, they were the correct vehicle to try to solve the problem.

I agree there is no evidence of a connection between the 9/11 Al Queda, and Iraq. But, there is evidence of Saddam embracing MEK (anti-Iranian), Zarqawi, other more secular anti-western terrorist groups (Syrian, Palestinian) , and recruiting and training non-Iraqi fighters in asymmetrical techniques within the Fedayeen Saddam brigade. There is circumstantial evidence of Iraqi connections outside of Iraq, but not so much external Al Queda presence inside of Iraq prior to the US invasion.

On the WMD front, it appeared then to be a toss up as to whether there was anything left and just another reason to topple the madman to be sure. For me it was not A, B, or C that were individually reasons, it was more A+B+C which was of concern. It was very unfortunate to see Powell at the UN try to paint the worst case scenario as fact. I also think Hans Blix adopted an attitude in UNMOVIC which caused distrust with the US, along with the fact that Saddam knew their moves before they left the hotel.

I'm not so convinced on the personal OIL and Greed motivation stuff. It seems to me that peace is more lucrative, but there might also be some strategic moves that are based on economic security. Had we allowed the French, and Russians to make their agreements with Saddam, and pumped the heck out of the region it would have only served to accelerate economic growth around the globe (as it was in the 1990's) . Cheap energy is the lubrication of a vibrant economy. And, I agree that Iraqi freedom must be self determined. We should get the wheel greased, provide the map and get the heck out with whatever dignity we have left. This doesn't mean we would never return if needed, but the more hands off we are the better.

[eppie]

Ah, but your attitude is also telling of where you see the problem. Apologists for dope heads point to their poor environment, and the duty of the society to offer them a better opportunity, education, etc. That is correct to some extent in that there needs to be an upward path from their bad life, but also the dope head chooses to be one. There are plenty of examples of poor people, even former dope heads that have turned their lives around and made better choices. The dope heads are guilty of a bad choice, and we need to hold them accountable for their bad choices to not enable and encourage the dope head lifestyle.

The behavior of the west does not create terrorism, that is the line of BS you are fed and choose to swallow. Just as prosperity of hard working people, does not cause poverty. People choose to express their discontent, mostly with their own governments repression, by blaming the West. We can discuss if buying oil from rich oil sheiks is wrong, or selling them F16 fighters, or having diplomatic relationships with these same corrupt regimes is grounds for terrorism. There was this time called the Cold War, where the US and the USSR used their intelligence agencies and puppet regimes to fight a bunch of little proxy wars all over the globe. The middle east was a major part of that struggle, and now in the aftermath, we all need to help form sensible, people affirming, peaceful governments in that region. Is that a bad idea?

I'm not saying that I agree with what the terrorist thinks, are what the 'regular dopehead' thinks, and I hold both completely responsible for their actions. But that is not the point. What do we want? A world without terrorism, we know that our actions cause terrorism.....so what do we do? We change our actions.

So this has nothing to with who is to blame, it is about what actions have what outcome.
If I'm blown up by a terrorist I (well my family) don't care if I can blame him or let's say Bush the fact is that I'm dead. The wests actions cause more terrorism...we are not the responsible...but who cares.

[Assur]

I agree there is no evidence of a connection between the 9/11 Al Queda, and Iraq. But, there is evidence of Saddam embracing MEK (anti-Iranian), Zarqawi, other more secular anti-western terrorist groups (Syrian, Palestinian) , and recruiting and training non-Iraqi fighters in asymmetrical techniques within the Fedayeen Saddam brigade. There is circumstantial evidence of Iraqi connections outside of Iraq, but not so much external Al Queda presence inside of Iraq prior to the US invasion.

To clear up a few things.

1. Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion but not as a guest. Saddam tried to have him arrested but didn't catch him. Zarqawi was in a part of Iraqi-Kurdistan controlled by Ansar ul Islam.

2. The Fedayeen Saddam were a militia recruited from comitted members of the Baath party who were to serve as the first line of defence against a Shia uprising, they were a purely internal Iraqi force.

3. Saddam gave money and vocal support to several Palestinian factions. Just like the Saudis and a lot of other Arabs who have good relations with the US.

As regards the strategic situation in Iraq: The US has lost! Iraq will never become a pro-western, peaceful, united country.(The NeoCons must have been smoking some really heavy stuff when one considers their expectations for the future development in Iraq) Basically the US has two options:

1. Complete withdrawal with the locals settling their differences without American casualties. The result would either be acomplete chaos or an Iraq split between the Shi'ites, Sunnis and the Kurds.

or

2. Assist the Shi'ites in an allout assault on the Sunnis and crush them as a relevant force. The result would be a Shia dominated Iraq but sooner or later the differences beteween Arabs and Persians would emerge and Teheran would have no leverage in Iraq.

But with everybody looking at Iraq it seems to have escaped most people that the situation in Afghanistan is going to hell in a handcart. If Afghanistan is lost the whole region will be infected again. Pakistan would be especially vulnerable to an islamic takeover and Pakistan has nukes.

[kandrathe]

I'm not saying that I agree with what the terrorist thinks, are what the 'regular dopehead' thinks, and I hold both completely responsible for their actions. But that is not the point. What do we want? A world without terrorism, we know that our actions cause terrorism.....so what do we do? We change our actions.

So this has nothing to with who is to blame, it is about what actions have what outcome.
If I'm blown up by a terrorist I (well my family) don't care if I can blame him or let's say Bush the fact is that I'm dead. The wests actions cause more terrorism...we are not the responsible...but who cares.

I see it as a combination of this though;

1) The society/community molds the individual by offering them opportunities for work, education
2) The family molds the individual by offering them home life, stability, morality, education
3) The individual molds themselves by working, getting educated, making moral choices

There are rare cases (with like mental illness) when a person has all the above, but still chooses crime. But, the terrorist frequently can have all the above and choose terrorism since it is not taught to be an amoral act. This is one problem that Occhi and I agree on, the interpretation of 6th Century texts as models of behavior in a modern world. We in the west have moved on from those dark days of stonings, being drawn and quartered, hoisted, and even public executions or whippings. That is the rational greco-roman philosophical base that seems to be missing from the jihadists debate.

So, the west causes more terrorism by doing what exactly? Having troops on Arab soil? By failing to make the Isrealis and the Palestinians get along? By being rich, and powerful? Being in Iraq is a new cause, but it is not the cause. Why did they target the WTC in 1993? Why did 9/11 happen? Why did our African embassies get bombed? How about the USS Cole attack?

My conclusion is that they believe WE are their enemy, back from the writings of Sayyid Qutb. The roots of this expression of radical Islam go back to the 1950's (or back to the 7th Century Salafi-ists as well), and the rejection of western values in favor of Islamic fundamentalism.

Edit: A more modern Jihadist strategy is laid down by The Management of Savagery by Abu Bakr Naji which is then analyzed as a source amoung others for a counter-terrorism strategy Stealing Al Qai'da's Playbook from the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

The solution, Naji says, is to provoke a superpower into invading the Middle East directly. This will result in a great propaganda victory for the jihadis because the people will 1) be impressed that the jihadis are directly fighting a superpower, 2) be outraged over the invasion of a foreign power, 3) be disabused of the notion that the superpower is invincible the longer the war goes on, and, 4) be angry at the proxy governments allied with the invading superpower. Moreover, he argues, it will bleed the superpower’s economy and military. This will lead to social unrest at home and the ultimate defeat of the superpower.

The recommendations are;

• The United States should avoid direct, large‐scale military action in the Middle East. If such fighting is necessary, it must be done through proxies whenever possible.<>
  
• The United States must be aware of the consequences of creating new theaters for jihad, particularly in the Arab world. The U.S. must also find ways to redirect the alienation among Muslim youth that is fueling recruitment<>
  
• Use local surrogates to thwart the establishment of enclaves of barbarism, denying jihadis the tactical and propaganda victories that would accrue. <>
  
• Fund media campaigns that focus on turning Muslim public opinion against the jihadis, but in a very low key and indirect manner.<>
  
• Carefully and unobtrusively support Muslim religious leaders and movements that can effectively compete with the jihadi movement in terms of mass appeal and popularity among the youth.<>
  [st]I had to add this response to Swiss Mercenary's post. I wanted to see what eppie thought it was first, because I'm pretty sure we could hole up over in North America and the jihadists attempts to establish the global Islamic caliphate would continue with even greater fervor having even defeated the Great Satan. Thus proving that the hand of God is with them. This is a Holy War, and withdrawal (e.g. hiding in America) is not an option as I see it. I may be wrong, but I don't believe I am on this one. We are free, however, to commit sins of commission and omission. That is, what we do, or do not do can have huge implications.
  
  To answer the litany of questions I asked, you need to look at the strategy #1 above. Provoke the US into war. They did that. Now how we respond or not respond may mean the difference between jihadist dogs biting at our heels, or a Global Islamic Jihad. I feel we need to be more patient, methodical, and precise in what we do, or what we choose not to do.

[kandrathe]

To clear up a few things.

1. Zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion but not as a guest. Saddam tried to have him arrested but didn't catch him. Zarqawi was in a part of Iraqi-Kurdistan controlled by Ansar ul Islam.

2. The Fedayeen Saddam were a militia recruited from comitted members of the Baath party who were to serve as the first line of defence against a Shia uprising, they were a purely internal Iraqi force.

3. Saddam gave money and vocal support to several Palestinian factions. Just like the Saudis and a lot of other Arabs who have good relations with the US.

As regards the strategic situation in Iraq: The US has lost! Iraq will never become a pro-western, peaceful, united country.(The NeoCons must have been smoking some really heavy stuff when one considers their expectations for the future development in Iraq) Basically the US has two options:

1. Complete withdrawal with the locals settling their differences without American casualties. The result would either be acomplete chaos or an Iraq split between the Shi'ites, Sunnis and the Kurds.

or

2. Assist the Shi'ites in an allout assault on the Sunnis and crush them as a relevant force. The result would be a Shia dominated Iraq but sooner or later the differences beteween Arabs and Persians would emerge and Teheran would have no leverage in Iraq.

But with everybody looking at Iraq it seems to have escaped most people that the situation in Afghanistan is going to hell in a handcart. If Afghanistan is lost the whole region will be infected again. Pakistan would be especially vulnerable to an islamic takeover and Pakistan has nukes.

These are your views. It would be as hard for you to prove Zarqawi had no Saddam blessing, as it would be for me to prove he did have it. I documented the trail here in the lounge once, but since it was complicated, no one followed it, or maybe no one believed it.

edit: Found it. link The whole "Wow Kerry..." thread is worth a re-read. Since we are rehashing old ground 2 1/2 years later and not much has really changed other than the fog of time it seems.

I have seen evidence to the contrary for your points 1, 2 and 3. As, for the Fedayeen Saddam. My understanding is that they were yes, fanatical, and yes, and internal security force, but also paramilitary trained as guerilla fighters to use asymetrical tactics. I've seen evidence that links the bus loads of fighters from Lebanon and Syria to Fedayeen commanders. As for 3, he did much more than just send money to the families of dead terrorists.

[SwissMercenary]

So, the west causes more terrorism by doing what exactly? Having troops on Arab soil? By failing to make the Isrealis and the Palestinians get along? By being rich, and powerful? Being in Iraq is a new cause, but it is not the cause. Why did they target the WTC in 1993? Why did 9/11 happen? Why did our African embassies get bombed? How about the USS Cole attack?

Osama's beef, if I'm not mistaken, was the presence of heathens in the Holy Places, if you are inclined to believe him on that.

So, I suppose it could be summed up in 'Existance of Israel', support of local heathens in the various ME state governments, and, again, heathens/foreigners on their lands.

Not to say that those are reasonable greviances. Just compiling a list, seeing as how I don't imagine terrorism is the cause of some guy waking up on the wrong foot that morning.

[kandrathe]

Osama's beef, if I'm not mistaken, was the presence of heathens in the Holy Places, if you are inclined to believe him on that.

So, I suppose it could be summed up in 'Existance of Israel', support of local heathens in the various ME state governments, and, again, heathens/foreigners on their lands.

Not to say that those are reasonable greviances. Just compiling a list, seeing as how I don't imagine terrorism is the cause of some guy waking up on the wrong foot that morning.

I responded as an edit to my original post...