03-17-2004, 07:19 PM
Hi,
Matthew A. Levitt gives an interesting presentation. Although what he has to say is said in milder terms, it seems that he is in agreement with my position. He damns with faint praise the actions taken and points out the necessity for other, more appropriate actions. Some of which actions have been taken, but in too limited a scope.
One point that he makes that I disagree with is his lumping of all terrorists into one group. Taken to its logical conclusion, the IRA, the Basque, the various Militia and KKK in the USA would all be working with Al-Queda. That there are multiple terrorists groups with common goals is not in question. That they interact, even sometimes work together again is not a question. But that an Islamic secular state, which the fundamentalist Muslims abhor would work together with a terrorist group of those same fundament defies logic.
As far as to the presence of terrorists in Iraq prior to the war, it is not surprising that they were there. There are terrorists residing in Ireland, in Spain, in France, even (gasp!) in the USA (or have we all forgotten Oklahoma City?) To use terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq, one must show that those terrorists were working in that country with the knowledge and approval of the government. And not just *some* members of the government. There are IRA supporters in Parliament, Basque supporters in the Spanish government, and, for all I know, militia supporters in the USA. There sure were KKK supporters in Congress within the last seventy years. All of which doesn't make Ireland/England, Spain or the USA terrorist supporting countries. Of course, *after* the US invasion of Iraq, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists will use the fact that Iraq is at least nominally Muslim to spin more anti-USA sentiment.
Since it is shown that Iraq was an accomplice to terrorism under Saddam . . .
Where? That there were some terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion is established. That some members of the Iraq power structure supported terrorism is somewhat established. As I've said above, the same can be said of England. That the Iraqi government under Saddam supported terrorism is not established. That it supported fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is unlikely.
. . . is it possible that if stabilization of a new government and security can be made in Iraq that the new government might be better than the old one.
Big "if". It is also possible that the new government will be worse than the old one. Perhaps its leader will not be as unsavory, but its effectiveness as an enemy of the USA could be better served by someone the rest of the world could more easily stomach. Will either scenario happen? As I've said, I'm willing to wait since all that we have to go on for now is opinion (and history, which does support my side, but which I'll admit is not an infallible guide).
This was the site of a week long struggle . . . and related links.
Again, so what? There are Militia training camps, by all reports, in the USA. From the first of the two links you supplied: "Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention. " However, the existence of such factions willing to resort to violence as their first recourse (and similar considerations in Afghanistan) is a large part of the reason why I find the concept of *any* Middle Eastern democracy far fetched. Even Israel seems to be descending into the barbarism of the Middle East rather than bringing the region up to the civilization of the Western democracies. For stability, the ratio of fundamentalist lunatics to rational citizens must be large. That does not seem to be the case there.
As to the last link: "Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations." Sounds a lot like SAS, Seal, or other *military* training camp. "Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995." And what did those defectors get in return? Has the possibility that defectors from a regime where one was shot (or worse) for not telling the boss what he wanted to hear would do the same for their new bosses? Sorry, the story may be true, but better sources need to tell it.
--Pete
Matthew A. Levitt gives an interesting presentation. Although what he has to say is said in milder terms, it seems that he is in agreement with my position. He damns with faint praise the actions taken and points out the necessity for other, more appropriate actions. Some of which actions have been taken, but in too limited a scope.
One point that he makes that I disagree with is his lumping of all terrorists into one group. Taken to its logical conclusion, the IRA, the Basque, the various Militia and KKK in the USA would all be working with Al-Queda. That there are multiple terrorists groups with common goals is not in question. That they interact, even sometimes work together again is not a question. But that an Islamic secular state, which the fundamentalist Muslims abhor would work together with a terrorist group of those same fundament defies logic.
As far as to the presence of terrorists in Iraq prior to the war, it is not surprising that they were there. There are terrorists residing in Ireland, in Spain, in France, even (gasp!) in the USA (or have we all forgotten Oklahoma City?) To use terrorism to justify the invasion of Iraq, one must show that those terrorists were working in that country with the knowledge and approval of the government. And not just *some* members of the government. There are IRA supporters in Parliament, Basque supporters in the Spanish government, and, for all I know, militia supporters in the USA. There sure were KKK supporters in Congress within the last seventy years. All of which doesn't make Ireland/England, Spain or the USA terrorist supporting countries. Of course, *after* the US invasion of Iraq, fundamentalist Islamic terrorists will use the fact that Iraq is at least nominally Muslim to spin more anti-USA sentiment.
Since it is shown that Iraq was an accomplice to terrorism under Saddam . . .
Where? That there were some terrorists in Iraq prior to the invasion is established. That some members of the Iraq power structure supported terrorism is somewhat established. As I've said above, the same can be said of England. That the Iraqi government under Saddam supported terrorism is not established. That it supported fundamentalist Islamic terrorism is unlikely.
. . . is it possible that if stabilization of a new government and security can be made in Iraq that the new government might be better than the old one.
Big "if". It is also possible that the new government will be worse than the old one. Perhaps its leader will not be as unsavory, but its effectiveness as an enemy of the USA could be better served by someone the rest of the world could more easily stomach. Will either scenario happen? As I've said, I'm willing to wait since all that we have to go on for now is opinion (and history, which does support my side, but which I'll admit is not an infallible guide).
This was the site of a week long struggle . . . and related links.
Again, so what? There are Militia training camps, by all reports, in the USA. From the first of the two links you supplied: "Human Rights Watch has not investigated the alleged links between the Iraqi government and Ansar al-Islam, and is not aware of any convincing evidence supporting this contention. " However, the existence of such factions willing to resort to violence as their first recourse (and similar considerations in Afghanistan) is a large part of the reason why I find the concept of *any* Middle Eastern democracy far fetched. Even Israel seems to be descending into the barbarism of the Middle East rather than bringing the region up to the civilization of the Western democracies. For stability, the ratio of fundamentalist lunatics to rational citizens must be large. That does not seem to be the case there.
As to the last link: "Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations." Sounds a lot like SAS, Seal, or other *military* training camp. "Iraq told UN inspectors that Salman Pak was an anti-terror training camp for Iraqi special forces. However, two defectors from Iraqi intelligence stated that they had worked for several years at the secret Iraqi government camp, which had trained Islamic terrorists in rotations of five or six months since 1995." And what did those defectors get in return? Has the possibility that defectors from a regime where one was shot (or worse) for not telling the boss what he wanted to hear would do the same for their new bosses? Sorry, the story may be true, but better sources need to tell it.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?