0
   

US AND THEM: US, UN & Iraq, version 8.0

 
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 05:25 am
Apocrypha:

...Into Euros thou shalt not convert thy oil, for I, the Lord Thy God, am a jealous God who deals only in Dollars US.
Go thou therefore into the Land of the Petrolites, yea even unto Baghdad and make thyself free of the bounty of the land, and sort it.
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 06:00 am
If it wasnt the most serious thing on the planet it would be very funny.

We might think they are just using religion to create a simple idea of an Evil Enemy - the struggle against which justifies American foreign policy. But does George W Bush know that?

You know I think Bush really does believe he's doing God's will. That's where it becomes scary. Whats God going to tell him to do next? I feel one of those Armageddon-Out-Of-Here-If-I-Could moments coming on.

Still looking on the bright side, if George W Bush believes he is doing Gods will, then he has something in common with Osama bin Laden, so there is hope eh? Smile
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 02:13 pm
What were the consequences of not invading Iraq?

Three basic reasons we invaded Iraq are the same three basic reasons we invaded Afghanistan:

1. Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 civilians in the USA on September 11, 2001;

2. Afghanistan’s government tolerated Al Qaeda training camps established in their midst May 1996, and ignored repeated USA requests made in September and October 2001 to stop doing that; and Iraq’s government tolerated Al Qaeda training camps established in their midst in December 2001, and ignored repeated USA requests made in 2002 and in February 2003 to stop doing that;

3. Removal of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and in Iraq required removal of the governments of these countries because these governments would otherwise continue to tolerate Al Qaeda training camps in their midst.

What will be the consequences of not winning the war in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 02:29 pm
Perhaps you are willing to suffer the consequences of USA failure to win in Iraq. I am not. I am focused on determining how the USA will win in Iraq.

Distributed by American Committees on Foreign Relations, ACFR NewsGroup (description at: www.acfr.org ) No. 614, Wednesday, October 5, 2005; the author wrote:

Al-Qaeda's Next Generation: Less Visible and More Lethal
Jamestown Foundation
By Michael Scheuer

Experts speculate widely about the composition and tactics of the next generation of mujahideen. This speculation stems from the fact that transnational groups are harder collection targets than nation-states. Such ambiguity and imprecision is likely to endure indefinitely, and is particularly worrisome concerning "next-generation" terrorism studies.

Osama bin Laden has been planning for the next generation of mujahideen since he began speaking publicly in the mid-1990s. Bin Laden has always described the "defensive jihad" against the United States as potentially a multi-generational struggle. After the 9/11 attacks, bin Laden explained that, even as the anti-U.S. war intensified, the torch was being passed from his generation to the next. "We have been struggling right from our youth," bin Laden wrote in late 2001:
> "We sacrificed our homes, families, and all the luxuries of this worldly life
> in the path of Allah (was ask Allah to accept our efforts). In our youth, we
> fought with and defeated the (former) Soviet Union (with the help of Allah), a
> world super power, and now we are fighting the USA. We have never let the
> Muslim Ummah down.
>
> "Muslims are being humiliated, tortured and ruthlessly killed all over the
> world, and its time to fight these satanic forces with the utmost strength and
> power. Today the whole of the Muslim Ummah is depending (after Allah) upon
> the Muslim youth, hoping that they would never let them down." [1]

The question arising is, of course, what threat will the next generation of al-Qaeda-inspired mujahideen pose? Based on the admittedly imprecise information available, the answer seems to lie in three discernible trends: a) the next generation will be at least as devout but more professional and less operationally visible; b) it will be larger, with more adherents and potential recruits; and c) it will be better educated and more adept at using the tools of modernity, particularly communications and weapons.

Religiosity and Quiet Professionalism

The next mujahideen generation's piety will equal or exceed that of bin Laden's generation. The new mujahideen, having grown up in an internet and satellite television-dominated world, will be more aware of Muslim struggles around the world, more comfortable with a common Muslim identity, more certain that the U.S.-led West is "oppressing" Muslims, and more inspired by the example bin Laden has set˜bin Laden's generation had no bin Laden.

While leaders more pious than bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are hard to imagine, Western analysts tend to forget that many of bin Laden's first-generation lieutenants did not mirror his intense religiosity. Wali Khan, Abu Zubaidah, Abu Hajir al-Iraqi, Khalid Sheikh Muhammed, Ibn Shaykh al-Libi, and Ramzi Yousef were first generation fighters who were both swashbuckling and Islamist. Unlike bin Laden and Zawahiri, they were flamboyant, multilingual, well-traveled, and eager for personal notoriety. Their operating styles were tinged with arrogance˜as if no bullet or jail cell had been made for them˜and each was captured, at least in part, because they paid insufficient attention to personal security. Now al-Qaeda is teaching young mujahideen to learn from the security failures that led to the capture of first-generation fighters.
> "The security issue was and still is one of the aspects that most influence
> the practical course of the conflict [with the West] and one of the fronts
> that most affect the war's outcome. As long as the Islamic movement does not
> take this aspect seriously, the promised victory will continue to lack the
> most important means for its realization.
>
> "What is required is that the security consciousness be present with a
> strength that causes it to mix with the natural course of daily action.∑
> However, a consideration of history and a study of events lead us to conclude
> that the enemy's gain in the security conflict [with al-Qaeda] basically
> cannot be due to the extraordinary strength of those organizations or to the
> superior skill of those in charge of them. They are derived from the state of
> defenselessness caused by the sickness of [security] laxity in Islamic
> circles!" [2]

The rising mujahideen are less likely to follow the example of some notorious first-generation fighters, and more likely to model themselves on the smiling, pious, and proficient Mohammed Atef, al-Qaeda's military commander, killed in late 2001 and, to this day, al-Qaeda's most severe individual loss. A former Egyptian security officer, Atef was efficient, intelligent, patient, ruthless˜and nearly invisible. He was a combination of warrior, thinker, and bureaucrat, pursuing his leaders' plans with no hint of ego. Atef's successor as military commander, the Egyptian Sayf al-Adl, is cut from the same cloth. Four years after succeeding Atef, for example, Western analysts cannot determine his identity˜whether he is in fact a former Egyptian Special Forces colonel named Makkawi˜or his location˜whether he in South Asia, Iraq, or under arrest in Iran. Similarly, the Saudis' frequent publication of lengthening lists of "most wanted" al-Qaeda fighters˜many unknown in the West˜suggests the semi-invisible Atef-model is also used by Gulf state Islamists. Finally, the U.K.-born and -raised suicide bombers of July 7, 2005 foreshadow the next mujahideen generation who will operate below the radar of local security services.

Numbers

At the basic level, the steady pace of Islamist insurgencies around the world˜Iraq, Chechnya and the northern Caucasus, southern Thailand, Mindanao, Kashmir and Afghanistan˜and the incremental "Talibanization" of places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, and northern Nigeria, ensure a bountiful new mujahideen generation. Less-tangible factors will also contribute to this bounty.
> -Osama bin Laden remains the unrivaled hero and leader of Muslim youths
> aspiring to join the mujahideen. His efforts to inspire young Muslims to
> jihad against the U.S.-led West seem to be proving fruitful.
>
> -Easily accessible satellite television and Internet streaming video will
> broaden Muslim youths' perception that the West is anti-Islamic. U.S. public
> diplomacy cannot negate the impressions formed by real-time video from
> Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan that shows Muslims battling "aggressive"
> Western forces and validating bin LadenŒs claim that the West intends to
> destroy Islam.
>
> -The adoption of harsher anti-terror laws in America and Europe, along with
> lurid stories about Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison, and the handling of the
> Qur'an will give credence to bin Laden's claim that the West is persecuting
> Muslims.
>
> -The ongoing "fundamentalization" of the two great, evangelizing monotheist
> religions will enhance an environment already conducive to Islamism. The
> growth of Protestant evangelicalism in Latin America, and the aggressive,
> "church militant" form of Roman Catholicism in Africa, has and will revitalize
> the millennium-old Islam-vs.-Christianity confrontation, creating a sense of
> threat and defensiveness on each side.

Compounding the threat posed by the next, larger generation is the possibility that analysts underestimated the first generation's size. Western leaders have consistently claimed large al-Qaeda-related casualties; currently, totals range from 5,000-7,000 fighters and two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership. If the claims are accurate, we should ponder whether the West has ever fought a "terrorist group" that can lose 5,000-7,000 fighters, dozens of leaders, and still be assessed militarily potent and perhaps WMD-capable? The multiple captures of al-Qaeda's "third-in-command"˜most recently Abu Ashraf al-Libi˜and the remarkable totals of "second- and third-in-commands" from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's organization suggests the West's accounting of Islamist manpower˜at the foot soldier and leadership levels˜is, at best, tenuous.

Modernity

Recent scholarship suggests al-Qaeda and its allies draw support primarily from Muslim middle- and upper-middle classes [3]. This helps explain why bin Laden places supreme importance on exploiting the internet for security, intelligence, paramilitary training, communications, propaganda, religious instruction, and news programs. It also points to the West's frequent failure to distinguish between the Islamists' hatred for Westernization˜women's rights and secularism, for example˜and their openness to modernity's tools, especially communications and weaponry.

Several features of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's forces demonstrate that the mujahideen embrace modern tools. Two-plus years after the U.S. invasion, for example, Zarqawi's technicians continue building Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and car bombs that defeat the detection/jamming technology fielded by U.S. forces. Indeed, each new iteration of defensive technology has been trumped by improved insurgent weaponry.

Zarqawi's media apparatus is likewise the most sophisticated, flexible, and omnipresent U.S.-led forces have encountered since 9/11. Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq's media produce daily combat reports, near real-time video of attacks on coalition targets, interviews with Zarqawi and other leaders, and a steady flow of "news bulletins" to feed 24/7 satellite television networks. In doing so, Zarqawi's media are telling the Muslim world al-Qaeda's version of the war professionally, reliably, and in real-time. So good has Zarqawi's media become since joining al-Qaeda that it is fair to assume the most important help he has received is from bin Laden's world-class media organization.

Conclusion

Despite satellites, electronic intercept equipment, and expanding human intelligence, the West does not understand al-Qaeda the way it knew the Soviet Union. Transnational targets are substantially more difficult collection targets than nation-states. We are, for example, unlikely to build an accurate al-Qaeda order-of-battle or recruit assets to penetrate the al-Qaeda equivalent of Moscow's politburo. As a result, Western analysts must closely track broad trends within al-Qaeda and its allies, and the trends toward greater piety, professionalism, numbers and modernity merit particular attention.

Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years before resigning in 2004. He served as the Chief of the bin Laden Unit at the Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He is the once anonymous author of Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and Through Our Enemies' Eyes: Osama bin Laden, Radical Islam, and the Future of America.

Notes
1. Osama bin Laden, "Message to Muslim Youth," Markaz al-Dawa (Internet), December 13, 2001.
2. Sayf-al-Din al-Ansari, "But Take Your Precautions," Al-Ansar (Internet), March 15, 2002.
3. See especially, Marc Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks, (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004), and Robert Pape, Dying to Win. The Logic of Suicide Terrorism, (Random House, 2005).
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 02:35 pm
now this is a propostion worthy of ican

"What were the consequences of not invading Iraq?"
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 02:42 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
now this is a propostion worthy of ican
"What were the consequences of not invading Iraq?"


How about matching it with a proposition worthy of Steve?
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 02:53 pm
"What are the benefits and drawbacks of invading Iraq?"

Unless you are into metaphysical excercises, discussion of a negative proposal is pointless.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 03:09 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
"What are the benefits and drawbacks of invading Iraq?"

Unless you are into metaphysical excercises, discussion of a negative proposal is pointless.


Really? So you think that all your discussion about why we should not have invaded Iraq is pointless! Shocked
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 03:24 pm
its bloody obvious that if we were going to go in, we should have won.

Counterfactual arguments about what the consequences would be of not doing something we are in the middle of doing is a waste of time when we should be concentrating on what the hell we do NEXT.

I was against going to war when there were perfectly reasonable alternatives. But having gone to war I expected us to win. These reasonable expectations have been thwarted primarily by American incompetence. You dont knwo what you are doing in Iraq. America blunders around like a blind man trying to bag a black cat in a dark room, smashing up the furniture and sh1tting on the carpet.

I dont know what's best to do in Iraq. You Ican were gung ho for it. You got us into this mess, you Bush and Blair can damn well get us out. And when you come to me for help and advice, I will say sorry pal, your problem. Send your children and grandchildren to the meat grinder, not me or mine.
0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 03:50 pm
Ican wrote:
erhaps you are willing to suffer the consequences of USA failure to win in Iraq. I am not. I am focused on determining how the USA will win in Iraq.


After you have determined that, there are some people in the White House, Washington, who would like you to get in touch.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 04:09 pm
And the rest of the world.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 04:10 pm
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
its bloody obvious that if we were going to go in, we should have won.

Not "should have won," must win.

Counterfactual arguments about what the consequences would be of not doing something we are in the middle of doing is a waste of time when we should be concentrating on what the hell we do NEXT.

OK! What do you mean by WE and what the hell are YOU going to do NEXT?

I was against going to war when there were perfectly reasonable alternatives.

Please share what you think were the "perfectly reasonable alternatives."

But having gone to war I expected us to win. These reasonable expectations have been thwarted primarily by American incompetence. You dont knwo what you are doing in Iraq. America blunders around like a blind man trying to bag a black cat in a dark room, smashing up the furniture and sh1tting on the carpet.

TOMNOM is persistent in making it look that way and you are persistent in your gullible acceptance of that bunk!

Yes, it is poorer than I wish. But the problem to be solved isn't as easy as too many gullible fools thought or think!


I dont know what's best to do in Iraq. You Ican were gung ho for it. You got us into this mess, you Bush and Blair can damn well get us out. And when you come to me for help and advice, I will say sorry pal, your problem. Send your children and grandchildren to the meat grinder, not me or mine.

So your doctrine is akin to: If the holes in the boat were not put there by you and/or yours, then let the damn boat sink and all the passengers aboard drown, including you and yours.

Gad that's stupid!
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 04:13 pm
Some analogies are just plain dumb. If we have Americans and treasure in that boat, it's smart to help the Amercans save their lives first. We don't even own the boat.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 04:33 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Some analogies are just plain dumb. If we have Americans and treasure in that boat, it's smart to help the Amercans save their lives first. We don't even own the boat.


America first!

Everyone for himself!

Run for your lives!

Hell, it ain't my boat, let it sink!



But we're all in the same boat!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 04:40 pm
Quiet, lest we awaken those sleeping.

Three basic reasons we invaded Iraq are the same three basic reasons we invaded Afghanistan:

1. Al Qaeda murdered almost 3,000 civilians in the USA on September 11, 2001;

2. Afghanistan’s government tolerated Al Qaeda training camps established in their midst May 1996, and ignored repeated USA requests made in September and October 2001 to stop doing that; and Iraq’s government tolerated Al Qaeda training camps established in their midst in December 2001, and ignored repeated USA requests made in 2002 and in February 2003 to stop doing that;

3. Removal of Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and in Iraq required removal of the governments of these countries because these governments would otherwise continue to tolerate Al Qaeda training camps in their midst.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 05:20 pm
"Hell, it ain't my boat, let it sink!"

By trying to save somebody else's boat, adding more of our men and women in the sinking boat is not only dumb but foolish. There's nothing to be gained by sacrificing more of our people and treasure - just more of a loss.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 06:49 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
"Hell, it ain't my boat, let it sink!"

By trying to save somebody else's boat, adding more of our men and women in the sinking boat is not only dumb but foolish. There's nothing to be gained by sacrificing more of our people and treasure - just more of a loss.


Regardless of who owns the boat, we are all in it! If it sinks, it will sink with us all in it! Maybe the owner doesn't give a damn one way or the other. But we all better damn well give a damn!

Do you really think that if your end of the boat sinks last, you and/or yours will not sink with it?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 07:04 pm
Besides, the boats is thousands of years old, and we had no way to save the boat even if anybody wanted to. It already had many holes in it that no amount of force-patching would have plugged. Some of their own people are adding holes as fast as everybody else is trying to fill it. We are already stretched to the max. The people that owns that boat have an endless supply of people willing to sink that boat with them in it. It's a hopeless case, and sacrificing our own people and treasure is dumb, because as more people are beginning to understand, it's hopeless. You are welcome to sacrifice yourself, your family and friends, and your own treasure for this sinking boat.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Oct, 2005 07:38 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
... You are welcome to sacrifice yourself, your family and friends, and your own treasure for this sinking boat.


Trying to sacrifice little will lead you to sacrifice more! Check history. Like it or not, you are in the same boat as those of us trying to plug the holes. The least you can do is get the hell out of the way.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Oct, 2005 06:20 am
AQ was not there in significant numbers until we went there. We caused the holes in that boat.

There were other places where AQ members went to after Afghanistan in larger numbers than Iraq.

Saddam killed and tortured and suppressed Iraqis but at the time that we went in he was contained and Iraqis were not killing each other, now Iraqis are killing each other.

Iraq is now the perfect training ground for AQ whereas before it wasn't.

So we not doing any good for anybody to get out of the way of and I don't see what doing more of the same is going to accomplish.

On the other hand I don't think we can just up and leave after creating this huge mess by our incompetence in the aftermath of capturing Saddam Hussien.

You would think since they planned for so long to go to Iraq they would had some plans in place for these situations among the sectors of Iraq instead of relying on rosy pictures of being lauded as liberators and everything going hunky dory once Saddam was captured. You would have also thought since there was some AQ members going to Iraq before the invasion (or so Ican says) they would have had a plan for that too. But it's like everything has taken them by total surprise and they didn't have a clue. I don't know what to do but then I am just a housewife, not leaders of the US planning for wars and occupation. They should have done better than this.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2025 at 07:31:43