Finn d'Abuzz wrote:You have yet to offer a link that established the Flypaper Theory was Administration policy, but, in any case, you've also not explained why you contend it is a nonsensical strategy.
As I mentioned, to the extent that the administration has ever had
any theory, it endorsed the "Flypaper Theory." To be sure, it is difficult to determine exactly what the administration's policy might be, but then the Bush administration has never adequately defined its theory for getting
into Iraq, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to find that it has not clearly articulated a theory for its continued presence in Iraq. In this respect, we are much like Cold War "Kremlinologists," who minutely examined the facial ticks of the Politburo's membership to determine the true direction of Soviet policy. Yet others who claim a more nuanced insight into presidential entrail-gazing claim that the administration endorsed the "Flypaper Theory." As
one explains:
This is the meaning of Mr. Bush's "bring 'em on" taunt from the Roosevelt Room on Wednesday, when he was quizzed about the "growing threat to U.S. forces" on the ground in Iraq. It should have been obvious that no U.S. President actually relishes having his soldiers take casualties. What the media, and U.S. Democrats affect not to grasp, is that the soldiers are now replacing targets that otherwise would be provided by defenceless civilians, both in Iraq and at large. The sore thumb of the U.S. occupation -- and it is a sore thumb equally to Baathists and Islamists, compelling their response -- is not a mistake. It is carefully hung flypaper.
Andrew Sullivan, speaking to "someone close to the inner circles of the Bush administration,"
further stated:
And what he said surprised me. If the terrorists leave us alone in Iraq, fine, he said. But if they come and get us, even better. Far more advantageous to fight terror using trained soldiers in Iraq than trying to defend civilians in New York or London. "Think of it as a flytrap," he ventured. Iraq would not simply be a test-case for Muslim democracy; it would be the first stage in a real and aggressive war against the terrorists and their sponsors in Ryadh and Damascus and Tehran. Operation Flytrap had been born.
Now, does this necessarily mean that the "Flypaper Theory" was endorsed by the Bush administration? Based on the circumstantial evidence, I would venture to guess that it was, or, at least, it was adopted along with any number of other theories, just as the war itself has been justified
seriatim by a bewildering variety of rationales.
As for why it is nonsensical, there is every reason to believe that it simply isn't true. As
Bruce Hoffman writes in the latest issue of "Atlantic Monthly:"
Despite repeated claims from official Washington that a large number of foreign volunteers are converging on Iraq, American military commanders report no indications that this is the case; the most frequently cited figure is around 500, although some estimates put it at 1,000 to 3,000.
The flypaper has been laid out, but, up to the moment, there has been a disconcerting lack of cooperative flies.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Well, we can start with Cyclops' comment on this very thread:
Perhaps I should have made myself clearer: I was not asking for links to statements made by people on this board. I can find them quite easily myself, thank you.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:I know you requested only 3, but my cup runneth over, and I'm sure I would have relatively little trouble coming up with another 6.
A brief perusal of your links shows that none of them advocates the kind of definition of "Hydra Theory" that you seem to be attacking. None of them hold strictly to the notion that, for every terrorist killed, a certain number will "spring up." As such, I consider your attack on the "Hydra Theory" to be nothing more than an attack on a theory of your own making (or, perhaps more accurately, a theory devised by you in conjunction with some of the posters on this board). You will excuse me, therefore, if I choose not to join in your assault on a defenseless strawman.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:You are comparing apples and oranges. The Viet Cong were not fighting America alone, and the number of Islamic terrorists in the world today is almost certainly a fraction of the total of the NVA during the Vietnam War.
That's the best you can do? Really, if you're not going to try to engage my argument head-on, let me know and I won't expend any more effort.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:In any case, it is not a matter of taking comfort, but in recognizing that killing terrorists is not counter-productive as the Hydra Theory would hold.
We can take as little comfort in the notion that, by killing lots of terrorists, we can quickly bring terrorism to an end.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:I don't see the kinship at all. The Hydra Theory holds that it is counter-productive to kill terrorists because with each killing two or more new terrorists will take the place of the one killed. This, for all intents and purposes, creates an infinite pool of terrorists.
I will not comment on your characterization of the "Hydra Theory," except to say that it is, at best, a cartoonish distortion.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:This is quite different from the Flypaper Theory which may recognize that, for now, terrorists can recruit new members to replace some of their fallen, but holds that killing so many in one place will not only directly diminish their ranks but eventually retard recruitment.
And, as events have so far shown, this theory does not stand scrutiny.
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:The Hydra Theory is certain that there is an inexhaustible number of angry Jihadists who are willing to sacrifice their lives. This is its largest flaw, and it is based on prejudice. The Muslims of the world are not a seething mass of religious fanatics, willing to climb over one another to give up their lives to destroy the infidels. It's the same prejudice that supports tireless, but inevitably incorrect, predictions that the Arab Street is going to explode with each new American provocation.
No comment (see above).
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:If life was so meaningless to them when compared with their political and/or religious zeal why is Iran the only Middle Eastern country (and not Arab by the way) to have a popular uprising within the last 50 years?
Depends on your definition of "popular uprising."
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:Of course it doesn't. Who has suggested that it does? Eliminating the existing number of terrorists through killing is not the only required approach in the war against terrorism, but it is a major one.
No doubt.
