1. George Bush's misbegotten adventure in Iraq did nothing but unleash a civil war. He misled this nation into war because Saddam had no WMDs and no ties to al Qaeda.
2a. Meanwhile, the real terrorists are in Afghanistan, not in Iraq, so we should withdraw our troops from Iraq and focus on that conflict.
--or--
2b. Al Qaeda terrorists are in Iraq, but only because of the U.S. military presence there. We are just handing them a great propaganda victory. Therefore, when we leave, they will just dry up and blow away.
Democrats have trouble deciding if al Qaeda in Iraq is a big ol' neocon myth or if it is real but is solely caused by our continuing military presence there. That's why I have two options (2a and 2b) to represent the left's second big point about Iraq.
About that first point, it's true that Saddam didn't have the WMD arsenal we thought he had, and we don't really know how extensive his interactions with al Qaeda were. Zarqawi, the evil genius who later spearheaded al Qaeda's incredibly successful campaign to incite sectarian violence, was in Iraq before the invasion. That's slightly suspicious. One interpretation holds that he was only there getting ready for the expected US invasion (not because of any ties to Saddam). Another interpretation is that he was there after having been evicted from Afghanistan and was being aided by Saddam. I don't know which of these interpretations is fantasy and which is reality, and neither do you, but it doesn't much matter now. The point is that al Qaeda really did make Iraq the central focus in its war against America, and bin Laden sent his suicide bombers there instead of to Afghanistan.
It was obvious from the outset that our invasion would attract al Qaeda jihadists like flies (and Bush extended them a formal invitation with his "bring it on" comment). However, the thought was that when they came, they'd be facing the U.S. Army, Air Force and Marines. That was good from our point of view. Unfortunately, nobody on the left or the right anticipated what would actually happen. That is, nobody anticipated Zarqawi's wickedly ingenious plan to demoralize America, bring down the Iraqi government, and seize the failed state of Iraq for al Qaeda's nefarious purposes. Unless you are a Democratic politician, I am sure you know that the plan was send suicide bombers, not against American forces, but against innocent men, women and children of the Shiite sect. And they did that relentlessly, killing thousands in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Zarwawi's clearly stated objective was to goad the Shiite militias into striking back at the Sunnis in a furious killing rage. In March of 2006, after al Qaeda followed up its relentless suicide bombing campaign by destroying the Golden Mosque in Samarra, the Shiite militias did exactly what Zarqawi was trying to get them to do. It was a brilliant plan that completely demoralized weak-willed Americans just as it was supposed to do, and had Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid managed to have our troops withdrawn before the troop surge (i.e., during the very height of sectarian violence in Iraq), al Qaeda's genocidal vision for Iraq would have been fully realized. None of this debatable, and the fact that more Americans don't realize it is a testimony to the media we have (which is not the media I wish we had).
While all of this was happening in plain view, the Democrats kept pretending that the sectarian violence in Iraq was just a spontaneous civil war based on ancient sectarian hated. They have trouble seeing past this theory because it is what they predicted would happen if George Bush launched his misbegotten adventure in Iraq. When sectarian violence exploded out of control in 2006, they took that as confirmation of their theory. With their theory apparently confirmed, they repeatedly insisted that our troops be withdrawn because no one wants them to be trapped in the crossfire of a civil war.
Over time, it became increasingly clear to anyone with an ounce of curiosity that what happened in Iraq was not the spontaneous eruption of a civil war. In fact, the lack of a spontaneous civil war is precisely what prompted Zarqawi to send his suicide bombers against the innocent Shiites of Iraq. He knew that if he bombed their innocent men, women and children and destroyed their holy mosques, the response of the Shiite militias against the Sunni population would be ferocious. And it was. As such, pulling our troops out of the sectarian chaos engineered by al Qaeda was, beyond any doubt, surrendering to the very terrorist organization that attacked us on 9/11. Incredibly, no Democrat understands this. Either that, or they do understand it but also know that speaking the truth would make them look foolish for advocating a quick withdrawal. After all, why would anyone advocate a quick withdrawal knowing perfectly well that it is a big part of al Qaeda's plan for Iraq?
You might know that al Qaeda's current deputy chief is Ayman al-Zawahiri. He happens to be in the news today responding to some of our anti-al Qaeda actions in Pakistan:
Zawahiri vows to avenge death of top Al Qaeda operative
Posted Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:26am AEDT
Al Qaeda number two Ayman Al-Zawahiri has vowed to avenge the recent death of one of his group's top operatives, in a videotape message broadcast on an Islamist website.
Zawahiri made the threat in a eulogy to Abu Laith al-Libi, who was killed in a missile strike on January 28 in the Pakistani tribal area of north Waziristan.
"No chief of ours has died a natural death. Nor has our blood been spilled without a response," he said in the 10-minute recording which had English subtitles and was posted on the Al-Ekhlaas website.
A while back, before Iraq erupted into sectarian chaos, Zawahiri wrote a letter to Zarqawi expressing some mild reservations about Zarqawi's plan to slaughter Shiite Muslims in Iraq but also endorsing the overall objective:
So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
Clear enough? Yet some on the left (in particular, the subset of liberals who do not preposterously deny that al Qaeda is in Iraq) believe that the way to thwart al Qaeda is to cooperate with Zawairi's first stage -- as if Zawahiri is just too stupid to realize that forcibly evicting America from Iraq will actually hurt the global jihadist cause. Well, someone is being stupid, but I don't think it is Zawahiri.
In any case, in light of all of this, I was delighted to see John McCain bring this issue to the forefront by pouncing on a ridiculous comment made by Barack Obama during the debate:
"I always reserve the right for the president ... to make sure that we are looking out for American interests," Obama said. "And if al Qaeda is forming a base in Iraq, then we will have to act in a way that secures the American homeland and our interests abroad."
If al Qaeda is forming a base, then he'll act? Then he'll act? McCain responded by teaching Obama an elementary fact about Iraq:
"I understand that Sen. Obama said that if al Qaeda established a base in Iraq that he would send troops back in militarily. Al Qaeda already has a base in Iraq. It's called al Qaeda in Iraq," McCain said.
....
In a statement sent out by McCain's press office Wednesday said, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"
Wouldn't you love to hear Obama address that last question ("Is Sen. Obama unaware...that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?")? Being the master of deception, Obama ducked this key question and responded instead with the same irrelevant point that Democrats always make when cornered on this issue:
"I said, 'Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."
STOP THE PRESSES! A Democratic acknowledging that al Qaeda is in Iraq! This is downright historic. He quickly blames it on Bush, as if that has any bearing on how to deal with al Qaeda right now. But the question he did not answer is this: "Is Sen. Obama unaware...that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?" Well, he appears to be unaware of the fact that his plan for Iraq is also Zawahiri's plan for Iraq.
Obama has to be really careful here. Advocating a rapid redeployment of our forces on the one hand and acknowledging al Qaeda in Iraq on the other brings up two points that are very hard to reconcile. In fact, the irreconcilability of these two points is the whole reason why most Democrats have adopted an eerie code of silence on the issue of al Qaeda in Iraq. To gain partisan political advantage, they usually just pretend that Iraq has spontaneously fallen into a civil war. Withdrawing our forces from the middle of a civil war makes sense to most Americans. Surrendering to al Qaeda makes a lot less sense to them, and that's why Obama has made a dangerous move by actually acknowledging the transparently obvious fact that we are fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. And McCain his holding his feet to the fire:
McCain Hits Obama Again
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., continued to attack Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., today for suggesting during a Democratic debate that after withdrawing combat troops from Iraq, Obama, as commander in chief, would be willing to send U.S. troops back into Iraq "if al Qaeda is forming a base" there.
"The fact is, al Qaeda is in Iraq," McCain said. "Al Qaeda is in Iraq today. If we left Iraq there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control in Iraq and pose a threat to the United States of America. Ask anyone who knows about the situation on the ground in Iraq. I look forward to continuing this debate."
"Ask anyone who knows...," such as General Petraeus, the man who, because of his understanding of al Qaeda in Iraq, has managed to dramatically reduce sectarian violence (in sharp contrast to what every Democrat predicted). You'd think that this momentous turn of events would give Petraeus some credibility on the left, but no. Democrats predicted that his surge would fail to reduce violence because an extra 30,000 troops can't stop a civil war. They were wrong, but they'll continue to regard General Petraeus as a liar anyway. From the left, everyone looks like a liar.
Obama eventually responded to McCain by falling back into one of the strangest ideas promulgated on the left, which is that real terrorists are in Afghanistan (where the suicide bombers are doing next to nothing in comparison to what they are doing in Iraq):
Obama Hits Back
"I've been paying attention, John McCain," he said. "That's the news. So John McCain may like to say he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell, but so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
"I intend to bring [it] to an end so that we can actually start going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place.That's the news, John McCain," Obama said.
Isn't that amazing? Does Obama know how many people were killed by al Qaeda's suicide bombers in Iraq in 2007? I doubt it, but the number comes to nearly 4000 (whereas it is less than 200 in Afghanistan, which is where he wants to go fight al Qaeda -- bizarrely). These innocent civilians were killed by foreign suicide bombers, not by homegrown Iraqi suicide bombers (except for the mentally ill Iraqis who are occasionally duped into carrying out such attacks). Does Obama think that these foreign suicide bombers are part of a civil war? Probably, but everyone else knows that al Qaeda is funneling those killers into Iraq and that they have a clear purpose in mind. They know that the suicide bombers are still targeting Shiites in an attempt to reignite sectarian violence. In fact, there was a suicide bombing the other day, and an occasional story in the mainstream media offered useful clues for those who are uneducated on the subject of al Qaeda in Iraq (like Barack Obama):
4 Shiite pilgrims slain in latest attack on pilgrims
Toll in Sunday bombing climbs to 56
BAGHDAD - A roadside bomb killed four Shiite pilgrims and wounded 15 south of Baghdad today in at least the third fatal attack on people traveling to one of their sect’s most sacred gatherings, officials said.
The death toll rose from 40 to 56 from a suicide bombing Sunday — one of Iraq’s deadliest attacks this year.
...
The suicide bomber went after travelers enjoying tea and refreshments Sunday in a tent near Iskandariyah, 30 miles south of Baghdad.
...
Major Shiite events have frequently been targeted in the past by suspected Sunni insurgents led by al-Qaida in Iraq in their drive to stoke sectarian violence.
...
Sunni leaders denounced the bombing, with hard-line politician Adnan al-Dulaimi’s bloc blaming it on foreigners "aiming to create sectarian strife and to destabilize the country."
The Sunnis, the Shiites, and the Kurds, together with 160,000 American soldiers are all united in an effort to quell al Qaeda's suicide bombers, who remain very deadly. According to what fantasy can we simply withdraw American troops from Iraq and not have al Qaeda once again succeed in deliberately fanning the flames of sectarian violence? John McCain knows that Barack Obama does not have a sensible explanation. That's why Obama has to change the subject. After foolishly admitting that he appreciates the glaringly obvious fact that al Qaeda is in Iraq, Obama quickly reverted to liberal form and started talking about fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan (and quickly stopped talking about al Qaeda in Iraq).
Consider again these words from McCain:
If we left Iraq there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control in Iraq and pose a threat to the United States of America. Ask anyone who knows about the situation on the ground in Iraq.
He's got Obama right where he wants him. Obama either has to call General Petraeus a liar when he testifies again in April (as Hillary Clinton did back in September), or he has to acknowledge that his troop withdrawal plan is tantamount to surrendering to al Qaeda.
Of course, Obama's next response is pretty easy to predict, and it will come in the form of his endorsement of the bill just introduced by Russ Feingold and Harry Reid. The big idea is that we'll withdraw our forces from Iraq but leave a few soldiers behind to "target al Qaeda" (as if our 160,000 troops are doing something other than targeting al Qaeda right now with the help of the Sunnis, Shiits and Kurds). The editors of National Review addressed this silly little bill rather convincingly:
‘Stuck on Lost’
By the Editors
Friedrich Nietzsche would understand. The Democrats are caught in what the philosopher called “eternal recurrence.” They continually seek to cut off funds for the Iraq war, no matter the political futility of the effort or the changing conditions on the ground in Iraq.
The latest cutoff legislation is sponsored by Russ Feingold and Harry Reid. After 120 days, it would deny funding for anything other than a few approved purposes, including targeted operations against al-Qaeda, force protection, limited training of Iraqi forces, and withdrawal. It would eviscerate our successful counterinsurgency campaign and squander all the progress we’ve made over the last year.
Targeted raids against al-Qaeda are no substitute for counterinsurgency operations; pretending they are is an enduring fantasy of antiwar Democrats. It is impossible to get intelligence about al-Qaeda without intensive patrolling of Iraqi neighborhoods to establish relationships with the people and to make them secure enough to give us tips. Our experience is that once we clear neighborhoods, we have to hold them, or al-Qaeda will return. Pretty much any American officer on the ground in Iraq will tell you this method is the way to defeat al-Qaeda, and it is the reason we’ve been able to put the terror group on the defensive. Feingold and Reid want to substitute a theoretical counterterrorism program for an actual counterterrorism program — one that has denied al-Qaeda vast swathes of Iraq.
...
John Podesta, Ray Takeyh, and Lawrence Korb took to the pages of the Washington Post yesterday to make the case for this kind of retreat. They demonstrate the bankruptcy of the antiwar case. They don’t mention al-Qaeda in their piece, as if it is of no consequence that al-Qaeda once controlled big chunks of Iraq and is now fighting to maintain its last stronghold in the country, in Mosul. They don’t mention any of the marked security improvements, as if the civil war were still burning as hot as it was in 2006 instead of being largely over. Gen. Russel Honoré once said of reporters in New Orleans that they were “stuck on stupid”; critics of the war are “stuck on lost,” unable to adjust their rhetoric or thinking to the drastically changed circumstances of 2008.
...
No one should underestimate the difficulties we still face in Iraq, a complex and dangerous country where our servicemen make incredible sacrifices every day. But we are clearly closer to success than we were a year ago. We would be in an even stronger position if half the American political spectrum weren’t bent on denying reality. Alas, the same people who were wrong about the surge a year ago are determined to remain wrong about it now.
Obama will soon jump on this bandwagon in an effort to prove that he that he will be tough on al Qaeda in Iraq. Well, either Feingold, Reid, and Obama know the right way to handle al Qaeada in Iraq, or General Petraeus does. America will eventually have to decide who has a better understanding of the military situation in Iraq. Is it Barack Obama and Harry Reid, or is it General Petraeus? Let me see, I'm thinking, I'm thinking. This is so tough. It may take me a while to figure it out, so stop rushing me...
18 comments:
"However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media."
Beau,
Those words, spoken by Zawahiri, help to reveal just how savvy al Qaeda is. They know that when they kill, the media will savage George Bush. They further know that the media will refer to their sadistic mass murderers as "militants" or "extremists" (never "terrorists," because that would be judgmental).
Al Qaeda's media battle has been largely won in the Western media (with help from Democrats like Harry Reid), but it has somehow been lost in the Muslim media. Unlike Americans, Muslims around the world know who is behind the carnage in Iraq, and they have turned against al Qaeda because of it. Zawahiri worried about this, and he was right to be concerned.
You, of course, will be concerned that the Muslim world also has a low opinion of America. But we, unlike al Qaeda, do not depend on the support of the Muslim world for our well being. We need the Muslim world to turn against terrorism, not to love us. And they are doing just that.
engram,
The context of this statement wasn't about the western media. All I can do is repeat myself. It's not the low opinion of America that matters here. Your analogy with the French was spot on. The problem is that even our Muslim allies see us as a threat. al Qaeda will be tolerated as the lesser of two evils until that changes.
Tolerated like this?
Beau,
You said: "The problem is that even our Muslim allies see us as a threat. al Qaeda will be tolerated as the lesser of two evils until that changes." But the objective evidence seems to suggest otherwise. The entire Muslim world is turning not only against al Qaeda but also against terrorism as a method. What evidence can you cite to support your idea that al Qaeda will be even less tolerated if America's image increases in Muslim popularity polls? Is it that is just seems reasonable to suppose that it would be that way? That's not much to go on. To many on the left, it seemed reasonable to suppose that our invasion of Iraq would enhanced al Qaeda's standing (and increase support for terrorsim) throughout the Muslim world. The opposite has happened.
Engram, would you mind sharing your source for the following statement: " I doubt it, but the number comes to nearly 4000 (whereas it is less than 200 in Afghanistan, which is where he wants to go fight al Qaeda -- bizarrely)."
Not that I think your lying or anything. I would just like to have it for my own commentary purposes. (Particularly the number of AQ fighters who were killed in Afghanistan.)
Thanks,
~T. Greer
Sometimes, engram, I wonder if I should adopt your rhetorical approach. Perhaps then you might listen to me? Maybe if I throw a few references to how stupid you are, or how you want more American troops to die, then might my words sink in? (To be clear, I believe neither, but to phrase my argument thus would seem to be more your style.) No doubt you similarly wonder why I don't listen, I suppose. At least I don't (to my knowledge) consistently mischaracterize your arguments.
How many times can I say it? Popularity is nothing. Perhaps I can make some analogies. Garth was all over my case on my first comment here for pointing out other places where "evil" reigns and millions of people are dying. Yet there is little appetite in the US for sending troops there (even if they weren't all in Iraq), and it's a difficult sell to make politically. Why? Because those conflicts do not represent a threat to the US or US interests. Think back, if you will, to the case the Bush administration made in the buildup to war. Regardless of specifics, the argument centered on the fact that Iraq was a threat to US security. That was the justification.
My argument is based on two surveys, the Pew survey and the PIPA survey used in Dr. Kull's testimony before congress. Both show that large majorities in Muslim countries see the United States as a threat. Think back to the previous paragraph, where we saw the difference here in the US as to what actions we find justified when something is merely horrific versus when we think that we are threatened. Better yet, read Dr. Kull's presentation. Here's about half of it, since apparently you can't be bothered:
"But now there is also a new feeling about the US that has emerged in the wake of 9-11. This is not so much an intensification of negative feelings toward the US as much as a new perception of American intentions. There now seems to be a perception that the US has entered into a war against Islam itself.
I think perhaps the most significant finding of our study is that across the four countries, 8 in 10 believe that the US seeks to “weaken and divide the Islamic world.”
We do not have trend-line data to demonstrate that this is something new. But in the focus groups this was described as something that has arisen recently from American anger about 9-11. America is perceived as believing that it was attacked by Islam itself and as having declared war on Islam. People repeatedly brought up the fact that President Bush’s used the term “crusade” and cited this as evidence of these underlying intentions.
In this context it is not surprising that three out of four respondents favor the goal of getting the US to withdraw its military forces troops from all Islamic countries.
Most disturbing there is widespread support for attacks on US troops. Overall about half of all the Muslims polled approve of attacks on US troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. Support reaches as high as nine in 10 in Egypt. It appears that American troops stationed throughout the region are widely perceived as occupiers.
In the focus groups, some respondents said that this sense of Islam as being under siege has enhanced people’s identification with Islam. Polling done by the Anwar Sadat Chair at the University of Maryland in Arab countries over the last few years has found a dramatic increase in the number citing their Muslim identity as primary. In our poll seven in 10 approved of the goal of requiring “a strict application of sharia law in every Islamic country.”
So does this mean that all these negative feelings toward America have driven Muslims into the arms of al Qaeda? It does appear that Muslims are embracing the type of religiously-based interpretation of the conflict with the US that is consonant with vies that al Qaeda has also long promoted.
But in fact al Qaeda is not popular. Across the four countries only about 3 in 10 express positive feelings toward Osama bin Laden and only 1 in 7 say they both share al Qaeda’s views of the US and approve of its methods.
Perhaps most significant, very large majorities reject attacks on civilians. Overwhelming majorities in all countries also specifically reject attacks on civilians including attacks on US civilians in the United States and US civilians working in Islamic countries. Most agree that such attacks are contrary to Islam.
So does that mean then that the Muslim public is basically with America against al Qaeda? The answer is no. While al Qaeda may not be popular, large majorities said that they perceive al Qaeda as seeking to “stand up to America and affirm the dignity of the Islamic people” and equally large majorities agreed with this goal.
Though al Qaeda and America are both seen as largely illegitimate, America is seen as the greater threat. It is as if Muslims are living in a neighborhood where there are two warlords operating. They do not like either one, but one is much more powerful. As long as the weaker one is standing up to the stronger one, it makes sense that they are inclined to play down their dislike for the weaker one.
And in the focus groups people clearly resisted criticizing al Qaeda. Having rejected attacks on civilians as wrong they became uncomfortable and somewhat defensive when asked about 9-11. They strongly insisted that there was no proof that al Qaeda was behind the 9-11 attacks.
This pattern was present in the survey as well. When we asked respondents who they thought was behind 9-11, in no country did more than one in three identify al Qaeda as the culprit and in Pakistan the number was a mere 2 percent. Some respondents blamed the US itself, some blamed Israel, and many refused to even make a guess.
In the focus groups when I brought up the fact that there are videos in which al Qaeda leaders brag about the 9-11 attacks a common answer was: “Hollywood can create anything.”
While this may sound very strange, we should remember that it is not unusual for people to ignore evidence that is, shall we say, ‘inconvenient.’ During World War II when the Soviet Union was America’s ally against Hitler, Americans probably stopped paying attention to Stalin’s gulags. In the 1980s when the mujahideen were fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan with CIA aid, we probably did not pay too much attention to their ideology.
Enemies of one’s enemies are not necessarily one’s friends. But it is pretty normal to not spend a lot of time scrutinizing their faults.
This brings us back to the question we started with: What are the consequences of anti-American feelings in the Muslim world?
Our study has found that anti-American feeling is by itself not enough to lead one to actively support al Qaeda. To approve of attacks on civilians one must have views that—I am pleased to report—are quite unusual in the Muslim world.
However, anti-American feeling can lead Muslims to suppress their moral doubts about al Qaeda. This makes it politically more difficult for governments to take strong action against al Qaeda, it makes general publics more likely to passively accept al Qaeda and it creates an environment where it is more likely that individuals will cross the threshold into actively supporting al Qaeda. In other words it gives al Qaeda more room to maneuver.
Citing the Pew Global Attitudes study, your one data point for al Qaeda's falling popularity, you confidently claim our invasion of Iraq has eroded al Qaeda's standing. Since 2003, yes, it's fallen. Do you have any evidence that their comparatively high standing in 2003 wasn't a result of our invasion of Iraq? I couldn't find any polls comparing, say, 2001 and 2003. Can you show that the war didn't cause a spike, or, more importantly, that their standing isn't still higher now than it was pre-invasion? I couldn't find evidence one way or the other. This would seem like an important point, but you're using two data points, both post-invasion, to illustrate the effects of our invasion on opinion. I think that it's far less of a leap for me to claim that, were the Muslim world to see the US as less of a threat than al Qaeda, (and let me emphasize this here: NOT POPULARITY. NOT POPULARITY. NOT POPULARITY.) again, as less of a threat than al Qaeda, that al Qaeda would be less tolerated. Though I'll grant you that I'm basing it only on one man's testimony from his focus groups and surveys of Muslims in only four countries.
Changing gears, William and engram both, it's stories like the one William links to that make me skeptical of the claims that AQ would have any chance of setting up the the caliphate they desire in Iraq. The Shia don't want them there. The Sunnis seem to have come around, for the most part. The Kurds certainly don't need them. Most of the Muslim world think the US should withdraw from Iraq. Does it follow that most of the Muslim world likes al Qaeda, since al Qaeda, too, wants the US to withdraw from Iraq? Of course not.
Here's some more, in the Washington Post today:
Politicians who talk about the terrorism threat -- and it's already clear that this will be a polarizing issue in the 2008 campaign -- should be required to read a new book by a former CIA officer named Marc Sageman. It stands what you think you know about terrorism on its head and helps you see the topic in a different light.
Sageman has a résumé that would suit a postmodern John le Carré. He was a case officer running spies in Pakistan and then became a forensic psychiatrist. What distinguishes his new book, "Leaderless Jihad," is that it peels away the emotional, reflexive responses to terrorism that have grown up since Sept. 11, 2001, and looks instead at scientific data Sageman has collected on more than 500 Islamic terrorists -- to understand who they are, why they attack and how to stop them.
The heart of Sageman's message is that we have been scaring ourselves into exaggerating the terrorism threat -- and then by our unwise actions in Iraq making the problem worse.
[...]
Sageman's harshest judgment is that the United States is making the terrorism problem worse by its actions in Iraq. "Since 2003, the war in Iraq has without question fueled the process of radicalization worldwide, including the U.S. The data are crystal clear," he writes. We have taken a fire that would otherwise burn itself out and poured gasoline on it.
[...]
Sageman's policy advice is to "take the glory and thrill out of terrorism." Jettison the rhetoric about Muslim extremism -- these leaderless jihadists are barely Muslims. Stop holding news conferences to announce the latest triumphs in the "global war on terror," which only glamorize the struggle. And reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq, which fuels the Muslim world's sense of moral outrage.
B.O. says we should withdraw and then if al Qaeda establishes a base in Iraq we should go back in.
These words are too stupid to debate.
It is only necessary to say: "What the fuck do you mean by IF they establish a base".
They don't work from bases, idiot. They work from neighborhoods and if we leave, when we have them on the mat, only an ignorant fool would not know they will re-infiltrate the neighborhoods we have taken such pains to drive them out of. And the carnage will begin anew. And, guess who will get blamed for the ensuing chaos and loss of life? Not to mention handing a victory to al Qaeda when they now face certain loss.
B.O. is either the most disingenous panderer who has ever sought this office or a damned fool, or both.
Sageman's opinion is not rational.
Driving al Qaeda out of their Islamist sanctuary in Afghanistan didn't fan the flames of Islamism.
Oh no, it was invading secular Iraq that did that.
This is the stupid talking point spouted by Democrats for the past 5 years. It's a stupid talking point no matter who spouts it.
I don't care what his background is. His opinions are illogical.
"The data are crystal clear," he writes. We have taken a fire that would otherwise burn itself out and poured gasoline on it."
Bull. Sageman is a disingenous fool preaching to the ignorant and naive.
The al Qaeda fire in Iraq didn't burn itself out. It was in fact burning out of control before it was brought under control at great sacrifice.
One begins to understand how al Qaeda was able to attack America by comprehending that that Sageman is representative of the quality of "intelligence officer" employed by the CIA.
So the "scientific data" are "clear." That settles it.
al Qaeda had cells in 100 countries around the world after 9/11. Everywhere except, of course, Iraq. Rest assured there were no al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there. Um, I mean, besides al-Zarqawi and his, um, Wahhabist terrorist fighters. Besides that there were definitely no al Qaeda in Iraq before we got there. That's the one place they were certain not to be. Yes, yes, yes ... I mean besides Zarqawi.
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Those who know history but ignore it are liberals.
The brilliant Sageman strategy of not responding to al Qaeda's attacks was zealously and faithfully pursued by W.J. Clinton.
With. Spectacular. Results.
Insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results. Except when it's a leftist moron who is doing the proposing. In that case the strategy is brilliant.
Here's a more recent Pew Study:
""Public perceptions of the situation in Iraq have become significantly more positive over the past several months..."
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/750/obama-lead-problems
"Sageman's harshest judgment is that the United States is making the terrorism problem worse by its actions in Iraq. "Since 2003, the war in Iraq has without question fueled the process of radicalization worldwide, including the U.S. The data are crystal clear," he writes. We have taken a fire that would otherwise burn itself out and poured gasoline on it." Beau
"A radical turnabout in Pakistan
In just five months, public approval of Osama bin Laden has dropped by half.By Kenneth Ballen and Reza Aslan
from the February 21, 2008 edition
Washington and Los Angeles - This week's election results in Pakistan give Islamabad's next government the mandate to finally put the terrorists out of business. Violence in Pakistan – mostly driven by Taliban and pro-Al Qaeda forces – has not abated since the December assassination of leading opposition candidate and former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. But in a potential hinge moment for what Newsweek recently called "the most dangerous nation in the world," Pakistani public opinion has turned dramatically and decisively against the radicals.
Last August, Terror Free Tomorrow (TFT) conducted a survey across Pakistan showing that from one-third to one-half of Pakistanis had a favorable opinion of Al Qaeda and related radical Islamist groups. Nearly half of respondents had a positive view of Osama bin Laden.
But now, the momentous events of the past several months – President Musharraf's crackdown against the press and opposition figures, mounting terrorist attacks by Al Qaeda and the Taliban, the assassination of Bhutto, and the campaign leading up to Monday's unprecedented election – have resulted in a sea change in Pakistani public opinion.
In a new nationwide survey conducted last month, Pakistani public support for Al Qaeda, the Taliban, bin Laden and other radical Islamist groups has plummeted by half – all the way down to the teens and single digits. The bottom has fallen out for support of the radicals.
If Al Qaeda had appeared on the ballot as a political party in the election, only 1 percent of Pakistanis would have voted for them. The Taliban would have drawn just 3 percent of the vote.
Even in areas near or in their home base, Al Qaeda and the Taliban are losing public support. Favorable opinions of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the North-West Frontier Province have sunk to single digits. In August, 70 percent of the population of this region expressed a favorable opinion of bin Laden. Today just 4 percent do.
Indeed, these survey results mirror the stinging defeat of the Islamist parties at the hands of the voters in the North-West Frontier Province. The religious parties were big losers there, winning just nine seats in the provincial assembly, as opposed to 67 in the 2002 elections.
Given the public's dramatic turnaround against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, particularly in their home base, there is a singular opportunity for a Pakistani government with the support of the people to have the legitimacy to mount an effective campaign against the terrorists. "
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0221/p09s02-coop.html
Thank you Mr. Forward for your work.
It's a well known fact, except to the Sageman's of this world, that Arabs respect strength and are emboldened by weakness. I will be accused of racism (or at least bigotry) by people who see nothing bigoted in their assumption that Al Qaeda's popularity increased in the Muslim world as a result of their incontinent killing of innocents.
Beau,
You wrote that the link posted by William just convinced you that much more that we could pull out of Iraq with no ill consequences.
I understand your point of view. If al Qaeda has gone and made themselves so unpopular, how could they come back in and reestablish themselves?
In fact, I concede the possibility that you might be right. But I think it's a big gamble right now, and with a little more time, Iraq will be more stabile and ready for us to leave. Nobody, neocons included, wants us to keep 100,000 troops in Iraq for the long haul. It ties our hands at a time that more troops are needed in Afganistan, and who knows where else next. But given Gen. Petreus' record of judging the situation correctly, I would not want to second-guess him and pull down troop levels so fast that it might fan troubles down the road.
It does not require a majority of Iraqis welcoming al Qaeda back for them to reestablish themselves. It does not even require a majority within the Sunni community. It only take an active minority, with intimidation taking care of the rest. I'm not sure how widely you've read, or how well you can imagine what it is like to live in a totalitarian society, especially when those in power are absolutely ruthless. Even if you might be courageous enough to risk your own life and limb, is it courage or callousness to risk your mother, your father, your siblings, your spouse and/or your children? If you think that I am exaggerating about how ruthless al Qaeda can be, please spend a little time reading Michael Yon's web site.
http://michaelyon-online.com/
"If al Qaeda has gone and made themselves so unpopular, how could they come back in and reestablish themselves?"
Al Qaeda didn't just go and they are not yet completely gone. They were driven out by the sacrifices of American soldiers and Iraqis. They are on their last legs, but they could easily come back and wreak havoc.
For the sake of politics this laughable would be President will withdraw troops prematurely and risk re-establishing AQI.
He claims he represents change but there is nothing new in his approach. This kind of cynicism has always been with us and has been especially prominent in the last 5 years.
Dressing it up in a pretty face makes it more dangerous, not less.
You know ,I have some wonderland Gold,and my friend
also has some wonderland online Gold,do you kouw they
have the same meaning,Both of them can be called
wonderland money，I just want to
buy wonderland Gold,because there are many
cheap wonderland online Gold
Post a Comment