the hits just keep coming: Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat

[boutons_]

"if iraq would not be a rallying cry for these terrorist then afghanastan would"

Exactly. Instead having the US military drawn into one killing ground, they are wastefully in 2.

Aghanistan was already a handful for the limited US military.
Iraq has proven to be impossible with 140K troops.

Now it looks like the West/US will lose both countries to Muslim radicals.

And guess which oil-rich country borders both and has intentions of imperial regional hegemony?

You're doing a heckuva job, dubya.

[RandomGuy]

I know you are joking with this one, but seriously, I wonder who did leak the information.

Again, I'm neither left or right, I think both sides are equally as moronic. Having said that, who's to say that someone on the "left" didn't just make up all this and give it to a NY Times reporter? Not that we didn't pretty much know this information already and didn't really need to be an "expert" to figure it out but come on. I mean, I know that if it's in a newspaper it must be true............also, I just killed the biggest mosquito ever known to man.

The assessment is actually based in no small part on open source information.

The actual assessment is classified.

My understanding of this may be wrong, if so, someone can correct this.

[RandomGuy]

Also, in case I have not said "I told you so":

"I told you so"

This assessment says essessentially what I have been saying for years. Abu Gharaib and Gitmo were the seeds from which this has sprung. I think that message has finally reached Bush through his battallions of "yes men", and the push by the administration for trials at Gitmo is the outgrowth of this realization.

[Ya Vez]

so tell me what was the rally cry for the terrorist when they attacked us on 911 .. did they see us as weak.. as not having the balls to really confront them and go after them... did 8 years of a few missle strikes at some empty tents or asprin factories.. really embolden them to attack us like they did... tell me if were are going to have this discussion as to what really fuels the hate... tell me what it was pre-911 and pre-iraq....

[RandomGuy]

if iraq would not be a rallying cry for these terrorist then afghanastan would.. it's just ridiculous to think .. that all of sudden after 911 the terrorist were going to give up and go away.... just remember were not even in iraq when 911 occured....

No it wouldn't. Afghanistan was MUCH more justifiable, and even other islamic radicals regarded the taliban as a bunch of asshats.

If we had concentrated our efforts on Afghanistan instead of splitting them up between the two, we could have had a much better outcome, and probably would have actually gotten Bin Laden.

[RandomGuy]

It's amazing. The same intelligence community that was a bunch of liars with respect to WMD in Iraq is suddenly preaching the gospel truth about terrorism.

Which is it?

And what spurred all the terrorism in the 80s and 90s when we hadn't invaded anything? First WTC bombing, 9/11, the Cole, AFrican embassy bombings, Saudi barrack bombings, I guess those were all spurned because radical Islamists knew this invasion of Iraq was coming.

The intelligence community said "we think he has WMD's, but can't verify that".

The intelligence community was 100% right about that. The administration cherry-picked intel to support its thesis and presented that.

You are using a straw man argument.

[RandomGuy]

so tell me what was the rally cry for the terrorist when they attacked us on 911 .. did they see us as weak.. as not having the balls to really confront them and go after them... did 8 years of a few missle strikes at some empty tents or asprin factories.. really embolden them to attack us like they did... tell me if were are going to have this discussion as to what really fuels the hate... tell me what it was pre-911 and pre-iraq....

What fueled the terrorists has changed little.

Frustrated nationalism. The US was/is seen as complicit with ineffective and corrupt Middle Eastern governments.

The US did what it could feasibly do. Invading Afghanistan and getting rid of the training camps was not politically or logistically feasible until after 9-11. Sad but true.

[boutons_]

"What fueled the terrorists has changed little. Frustrated nationalism"

hmm, hardly.

US/UK "colonization" of Iran (for oil)
Israel vs Palestinians,
US support of Israel,
US military boots on sacred Saudi Arabia sand (OBL's favorite),
and then,
US/UK invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims.

Frustrated nationalism is not what drives terrorists. Their countries and societies have been corrupt and mostly despotic nations for a long time, 100s+ years. Terrorism arose only in the last few decades.

Oil is at the bottom of all US motivations.

[RandomGuy]

"What fueled the terrorists has changed little. Frustrated nationalism"

hmm, hardly.

US/UK "colonization" of Iran (for oil)
Israel vs Palestinians,
US support of Israel,
US military boots on sacred Saudi Arabia sand (OBL's favorite),
and then,
US/UK invasions of Aghanistan and Iraq to kill Muslims.

Frustrated nationalism is not what drives terrorists. Their countries and societies have been corrupt and mostly despotic nations for a long time, 100s+ years. Terrorism arose only in the last few decades.

Oil is at the bottom of all US motivations.

I beg to differ. The "colonization" of Iran was done in the cold war as we did world wide. We propped up lots of corrupt governments world wide that didn't have oil.

"Oil is at the bottom of all US motivations" is by far too simplistic.

Did "oil" fuel the cold war?

[boutons_]

The "colonization" of Iran was done in the cold war.

that doesn't mean Iran was part of the cold war.

US/UK primary interest in IRan was oil, not as a counter to neighboring Russia.

We would not be in Iraq if it weren't for US oil dependency on M/E sources. Oil is why we aren't in Darfur or Zimbabwe.

One totally ed up dream of the neo-cons was that the dubya/ head invasion would be "free", paid for by Iraqi oil revenues.

[MannyIsGod]

Seriously, some of you are trying to get out from underneath this and act as though what the administration has done hasn't made things worse? I'm flat out amazed.

[Yonivore]

Seriously, some of you are trying to get out from underneath this and act as though what the administration has done hasn't made things worse? I'm flat out amazed.

Are you trying to say that the terrorists would have stopped their attempts to kill infidels if only we hadn't invaded Iraq?

[Yonivore]

This whole argument makes the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, and the basic premise can easily be dismissed with a reminder of some basic facts.

First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers. Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

So should we have allowed Saddam to invest Kuwait rather than risk amplifying the Islamist impulse? Some might argue for that in hindsight, but it would have put all of our allies and trading partners at risk in the region, as Saddam would not likely have stopped with his "19th Province". It does mean that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad then and there, removing Saddam and doing what we're doing now twelve years earlier. We could have worked with a less-radicalized Shi'ite majority and an Iraqi population more inclined to trust American resolve -- and we would have left Saudi Arabia years before 2003.

Unfortunately, we decided to allow Saddam to survive, and then got caught up in a 12-year war that only occasionally looked like peace. We had to keep tens of thousands of forces staged in Saudi Arabia, the action that prompted al-Qaeda's formation and mission in the first place, for a dozen years while we allowed Saddam to continually defy both the cease-fire agreement and sixteen UN Security Council resolutions. Either we had to acknowledge defeat in that war and retreat from the region after 9/11, or we had to end that twelve-year war in order to prosecute the war on terror in the region where terrorists lived.

Did that make Islamists more angry? Yes, I'm sure it did, and it probably did give them a great propaganda tool for recruitment. However, here's the crux of the problem: no matter what we do to fight the Islamists and to establish liberal thinking in opposition to them, they're going to get motivated because of it. Even an abject surrender and a return to isolationism will not work, because their victory over us will be an even greater motivational force for Islamist expansion.

We had to conclude the Iraq war in order to fight radical Islamist terrorists. We could not afford to allow Saddam to escape the noose -- which our erstwhile allies on the Security Council tried through the corruption of the Oil-For-Food program -- and to have his miltary on our flank in the region. When the planes flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, that truth finally dawned on Washington DC -- that the long quagmire in Iraq had seriously endangered the US in the region and beyond, and that we had to end the one war as a part of the new war that terrorist had thrust upon us.

To put it bluntly, fighting terrorists and upsetting their plans for regional domination will make them mad. Creating opportunities for liberalizing democratic structures to thrive in their back yard will give them enough resentment among Islamists to recruit more terrorists. If we don't already know that much, then we haven't paid much attention. When George Bush warned us that this would be a long war, this is exactly what he meant. The only way to win this war is to give the people in the region better options than Islamic totalitarianism, and a success in Iraq will go a long way towards that goal.

[xrayzebra]

Also, in case I have not said "I told you so":

"I told you so"

This assessment says essessentially what I have been saying for years. Abu Gharaib and Gitmo were the seeds from which this has sprung. I think that message has finally reached Bush through his battallions of "yes men", and the push by the administration for trials at Gitmo is the outgrowth of this realization.

Really, you told us so? What, there were no
terrorist before we went into Iraq. Question.
How come if they are getting so may recruits
are they having to kidnap people, hide bombs
in their car, turn them loose and then sit them
off to kill the innocents. Oh, I forgot, only
Bush kills the innocent, not the terrorist. You
are a simple minded idiot.

You have no common sense whatsoever.

[xrayzebra]

This whole argument makes the classic logical fallacy of confusing correlation with causation, and the basic premise can easily be dismissed with a reminder of some basic facts.

First and foremost, Islamist radicalism didn't just start expanding in 2003. The most massive expansion of Islamist radicalism came after the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, when the Islamists defeated one of the world's superpowers. Shortly afterwards, the staging of American forces in Saudi Arabia to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait created the most significant impulse for the expansion of organized Islamist radicalism and led directly to the formation of al-Qaeda. It put the US in Wahhabi jihadist crosshairs for the first time.

So should we have allowed Saddam to invest Kuwait rather than risk amplifying the Islamist impulse? Some might argue for that in hindsight, but it would have put all of our allies and trading partners at risk in the region, as Saddam would not likely have stopped with his "19th Province". It does mean that we should have gone all the way to Baghdad then and there, removing Saddam and doing what we're doing now twelve years earlier. We could have worked with a less-radicalized Shi'ite majority and an Iraqi population more inclined to trust American resolve -- and we would have left Saudi Arabia years before 2003.

Unfortunately, we decided to allow Saddam to survive, and then got caught up in a 12-year war that only occasionally looked like peace. We had to keep tens of thousands of forces staged in Saudi Arabia, the action that prompted al-Qaeda's formation and mission in the first place, for a dozen years while we allowed Saddam to continually defy both the cease-fire agreement and sixteen UN Security Council resolutions. Either we had to acknowledge defeat in that war and retreat from the region after 9/11, or we had to end that twelve-year war in order to prosecute the war on terror in the region where terrorists lived.

Did that make Islamists more angry? Yes, I'm sure it did, and it probably did give them a great propaganda tool for recruitment. However, here's the crux of the problem: no matter what we do to fight the Islamists and to establish liberal thinking in opposition to them, they're going to get motivated because of it. Even an abject surrender and a return to isolationism will not work, because their victory over us will be an even greater motivational force for Islamist expansion.

We had to conclude the Iraq war in order to fight radical Islamist terrorists. We could not afford to allow Saddam to escape the noose -- which our erstwhile allies on the Security Council tried through the corruption of the Oil-For-Food program -- and to have his miltary on our flank in the region. When the planes flew into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 9/11, that truth finally dawned on Washington DC -- that the long quagmire in Iraq had seriously endangered the US in the region and beyond, and that we had to end the one war as a part of the new war that terrorist had thrust upon us.

To put it bluntly, fighting terrorists and upsetting their plans for regional domination will make them mad. Creating opportunities for liberalizing democratic structures to thrive in their back yard will give them enough resentment among Islamists to recruit more terrorists. If we don't already know that much, then we haven't paid much attention. When George Bush warned us that this would be a long war, this is exactly what he meant. The only way to win this war is to give the people in the region better options than Islamic totalitarianism, and a success in Iraq will go a long way towards that goal.

Yoni, why do you even bother to argue with these
village fools. They wouldn't accept anything you
or I say even if we told them what was going
happen and they were at the event when it occurred. Call them what they are, leave it at
that and forget it. They know they are wrong
as two left feet, ooops, maybe wrong term for
the PC crowd. Always have been and always will
be wrong. But listening to them, they are open
minded. Yeah and I am a teenager.

[PixelPusher]

To put it bluntly, fighting terrorists and upsetting their plans for regional domination will make them mad. Creating opportunities for liberalizing democratic structures to thrive in their back yard will give them enough resentment among Islamists to recruit more terrorists. If we don't already know that much, then we haven't paid much attention. When George Bush warned us that this would be a long war, this is exactly what he meant. The only way to win this war is to give the people in the region better options than Islamic totalitarianism, and a success in Iraq will go a long way towards that goal.

This isn't about how the Iraq war is making the terrorists "even madder than before!", it's about how the Iraq war is radicallizing the Muslim world against us. It's not just active recruitment to various terrorist organizations, it's about the average muslim who goes to his or her mosque, and finds themselves nodding in agreement that the west really is engaged in a war against Islam. President Bush, you, me and everyone else can jump up and down as say "Not true! Not true! That's Jihadist propaganda!", but our outside-looking-in analysis doesn't match up with their everyday reality.

Palestinians voted Hamas in primarily because the more pro-western (to a degree) secular Fatah government was corrupt. The Afgani people have let Taliban militia stage a comeback without much protest because at least the Taliban don't shake down the local population for money like the newly formed Afgani military under Karzai. Educated middle class Iraqi's continue to flee their own country, and those left behind take the time and effort to learn how not to appear or sound like a Sunni/Shia when a Sunni or Shia death squad comes knocking on their door.

When Islamic leaders (religious or otherwise) preach against the evils of secular Westernism, it's hard for many of them to disagree.

We do need to offer them a better alternative to Islamic totalitarianism, and we're doing a piss poor job of doing it.

[Yonivore]

This isn't about how the Iraq war is making the terrorists "even madder than before!", it's about how the Iraq war is radicallizing the Muslim world against us. It's not just active recruitment to various terrorist organizations, it's about the average muslim who goes to his or her mosque, and finds themselves nodding in agreement that the west really is engaged in a war against Islam. President Bush, you, me and everyone else can jump up and down as say "Not true! Not true! That's Jihadist propaganda!", but our outside-looking-in analysis doesn't match up with their everyday reality.

I disagree. I think you'll find the majority of Iraqi citizens are not "radicalized by our presence there.

The terrorists hated us before March 2003 and nothing we've done since has deepened that hatred, it was already at its pinnacle.

Palestinians voted Hamas in primarily because the more pro-western (to a degree) secular Fatah government was corrupt. The Afgani people have let Taliban militia stage a comeback without much protest because at least the Taliban don't shake down the local population for money like the newly formed Afgani military under Karzai.

The places where the Taliban are making a "comeback" are places where they've propped up the poppy farmers by protecting them in exchange for extorting their profits from opium sales. They're making a resurgence by acting like the Godfather, running a protection racket in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.

Educated middle class Iraqi's continue to flee their own country, and those left behind take the time and effort to learn how not to appear or sound like a Sunni/Shia when a Sunni or Shia death squad comes knocking on their door.

When Islamic leaders (religious or otherwise) preach against the evils of secular Westernism, it's hard for many of them to disagree.

We do need to offer them a better alternative to Islamic totalitarianism, and we're doing a piss poor job of doing it.

Again, I disagree with the characterization. Your position is based on anectdote. No one claims the transition in Iraq is going swimmingly. But, progress is being made and will continue to be made so long as we provide the necessary security until that government is able to deal with these issues on its own.

[clambake]

We have to put all our resources in trying to protect Baghdad and the green zone. If it's true what our people on the ground are saying about the Anbar province, then what's the point to this useless effort?

[boutons_]

"nothing we've done since has deepened that hatred"

just ing amazing, and enertaining. The US invading a Muslim country won't inflame Muslim hatred, among more Muslims than before?

"it was already at its pinnacle".

perfectly unprovable, and silly. Is there some kind of Muslim glass that can't be filled past overflowing with hatred? An idiotic concept.

Any reasonable observer will admit, as the NIE leaks does, that Muslim moderates or fence-sitters have very probably been radicalized by the US invading Muslim Iraq for WMD that were never found, meaning WMD were simply a pretext for US crusade against Muslims.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

This thread is hilarious, but not funny at all. You neocons are so blinded by your ideological loyalty that you won't even accept the findings of your own people. If the Democrats predicted the sun would rise tomorrow, you'd try to deny that too. OPEN YOUR FREAKIN EYES! You are so stuck inside your own frame you can't see what's right in front of you.

so, Aggie is obsessed with how Clinton failed to stop terrorism in 8 years, while he doesn't give a what dubya didn't do in the 8 months before 9/11."

so you're telling me that you're not obsessed over what bush did not do in eight months? like posting all these articles over how much bush didn't do means you're not obsessed with that? , that's what this whole thread is about. , I blame Bush and Clinton for not doing . truth: clinton had Osama in his reach! Truth: Bush had a clue that 9/11 might happen. It is highly unlikely that they actually knew it would happen ahead of time. I doubt it.

Richard Clarke knew it was going to happen. On Bush's first day in office he urgently requested a meeting with the President about Al Qaida. When did he get that meeting? September 12. That sounds a little negligent to me.

[Ozzman]

"nothing we've done since has deepened that hatred"

just ing amazing, and enertaining. The US invading a Muslim country won't inflame Muslim hatred, among more Muslims than before?

"it was already at its pinnacle".

perfectly unprovable, and silly. Is there some kind of Muslim glass that can't be filled past overflowing with hatred? An idiotic concept.

Any reasonable observer will admit, as the NIE leaks does, that Muslim moderates or fence-sitters have very probably been radicalized by the US invading Muslim Iraq for WMD that were never found, meaning WMD were simply a pretext for US crusade against Muslims.

I have to say that you happen to be right on this matter.

[boutons_]

ozzman, even a blind squirrel like you finds a nut once in a while.

[MannyIsGod]

This thread is hilarious, but not funny at all. You neocons are so blinded by your ideological loyalty that you won't even accept the findings of your own people. If the Democrats predicted the sun would rise tomorrow, you'd try to deny that too. OPEN YOUR FREAKIN EYES! You are so stuck inside your own frame you can't see what's right in front of you.

Richard Clarke knew it was going to happen. On Bush's first day in office he urgently requested a meeting with the President about Al Qaida. When did he get that meeting? September 12. That sounds a little negligent to me.

[velik_m]

I disagree. I think you'll find the majority of Iraqi citizens are not "radicalized by our presence there.

The terrorists hated us before March 2003 and nothing we've done since has deepened that hatred, it was already at its pinnacle.


The places where the Taliban are making a "comeback" are places where they've propped up the poppy farmers by protecting them in exchange for extorting their profits from opium sales. They're making a resurgence by acting like the Godfather, running a protection racket in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.


Again, I disagree with the characterization. Your position is based on anectdote. No one claims the transition in Iraq is going swimmingly. But, progress is being made and will continue to be made so long as we provide the necessary security until that government is able to deal with these issues on its own.

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5371394.stm:

The US Department of Defense has now provided another measure of the problem it faces. Its latest opinion poll carried out in Iraq indicates that, among the five million Sunni Muslims there, about 75% now support the armed insurgency against the coalition.

This compares with 14% in the first opinion poll the Defense Department carried out back in 2003. It is a catastrophic loss of support, and there is no sign whatever that it can be effectively reversed.

i guess The US Department of Defense is unpatriotic/pro-terrorist too.

[PixelPusher]

from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5371394.stm:

The US Department of Defense has now provided another measure of the problem it faces. Its latest opinion poll carried out in Iraq indicates that, among the five million Sunni Muslims there, about 75% now support the armed insurgency against the coalition.

This compares with 14% in the first opinion poll the Defense Department carried out back in 2003. It is a catastrophic loss of support, and there is no sign whatever that it can be effectively reversed.

i guess The US Department of Defense is unpatriotic/pro-terrorist too.

hm...must be one of those "anecdotal" pieces of evidence Yoni is talking about.