Bring It On, and On, and On
by Doug Bandow
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Ins ute and a member of the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy.
President George W. Bush has launched a campaign to shore up flagging support for the occupation of Iraq. "Our troops," he intoned in his weekly radio address Saturday, are fighting "to protect their fellow Americans from a savage enemy." Indeed, he added, "if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets." This continues a theme he laid out in Fort Bragg recently: "We fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens, and Iraq is where they are making their stand."
Unfortunately, the dual attacks in London last month clearly showed that the Iraq war has not reduced the terrorist threat.
Too many Americans and Iraqis already have died based on false claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of WMDs and connection to 9/11. No one should die now under the illusion that we are fighting terrorists in Baghdad and Fallujah instead of New York and London.
Terrorists who kill and maim should themselves be killed or captured—whether they are operating in London, Baghdad, or New York. Which is why the administration's initial response to 9/11—targeting al-Qaeda and overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan—was entirely appropriate.
But battling terrorism should not mean fighting blind or basing policy on delusions. In general, terrorism is a violent tool in a political struggle, where one side is overmatched in conventional terms. Robert Pape, author of the new book, Dying to Win, reviewed 315 suicide bombing attacks between 1983 and 2003 and found that virtually all of them had "a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from the terrorists' national homeland."
There are undoubtedly jihadists who simply hate America and its freedoms. A few others might have wild ideas about reestablishing Islamic glory over Western lands. But the evidence suggests that most of the antagonism springs from hatred of U.S. (and allied) government policies.
For instance, before the London bombings a British intelligence assessment leaked to the press found that "events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity." In a new report Britain's Chatham House observes that Iraq has given "a boost to the al-Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising."
The Israeli Global Research in International Affairs Center reported earlier this year that Iraq "has turned into a magnet for jihadi volunteers." But not established terrorists. Rather, explained report author Reuven Paz, "the vast majority of Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."
Larry Johnson, who served with both the CIA and the State Department's counterterrorism office, observes, "You now in Iraq have a recruiting ground in which jihadists, people who previously were not willing to go out and embrace the vision of bin Laden" are "now aligning themselves with elements that have declared allegiance to him."
The British government recently compiled an extensive report en led "Young Muslims and Extremism," warning that British-U.S. policies are alienating many Muslims who see them "as having been acts against Islam." Analysts informed the prime minister that the Iraq war is acting as a "recruiting sergeant" for extremism.
"The battle experience that jihadists gain in Iraq," Paz adds, "supplies the Islamist adherents of the Global Jihad culture with a wealth of first-hand field experience." Larry Johnson worries that Iraqi insurgents are learning how to build bombs and run military operations.
Even more menacingly, after being trained in the ways of urban warfare, these terrorists are "bleeding out" around the world. Germany's Der Spiegel magazine reports that scores of Muslim extremists have returned to Europe from Iraq, and all "are equipped with fresh combat experience and filled with ideological indoctrination. It is these men who are considered particularly dangerous."
The ideology these men absorb is heavily colored by U.S. and British policies. Al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman Zawahiri, recently denounced "aggression against Muslims," ranging from war to support for corrupt regimes. Osama bin Laden's earlier phrasing was: "If you bomb our cities, we will bomb yours." Although condemning the London attacks, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar contended that Muslims have suffered "too much from the American aggression."
The point is not that their assessments are accurate or U.S. policies are unjustified. Nor should London and Washington precipitously retreat from Iraq and allow terrorist acts to determine national policy. But policymakers must recognize that intervention—particularly the prolonged intervention being planned for Iraq—vastly expands the pool of people willing to listen to, and follow, terrorist demagogues.
Observes Robert Pape: "Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us... Suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon."
The Iraq conflict has become a killing field. But not as war supporters expected. It is providing an opportunity for extremists to kill U.S. troops while learning skills that may eventually be employed in Western lands. Whatever the Iraq conflict is accomplishing, it is not making us safer from terrorism. Either President Bush should stop claiming this or we should stop listening to him.
http://cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4312
------------------------------------
I just finished reading this article - and if I may borrow NBA's method of self praise for a moment- was pretty amazed that it was echoing what I've been saying. It links everything from the Chattam House and Israeli think tank reports to the damn book I just got a couple of days ago to make the point of how misguided our foreign policy is and how we should adjust it.
I knew I liked those Cato boys for a reason!
"Pape: "Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us... Suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon."
"
WTF was 9/11 Chump?
Haven't you heard? We're fighting them in Iraq so we can fight them again in Afghanistan.
"suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon."
WTF does this mean in straight English instead of think-tank-ease? supply? demand? the mealy-mouthed er could have left this jagon-sotted sentence off and the article would not have missed it.
bull article. and i could care less if it is from the cato ins ute.
Why is it bull ? That article has a lot of factual information behind it, would you care to tear it apart using your factual analysis?
It's a quote from Pape's book. I don't see how it isn't in straight English although it does require an understanding of supply and demand which is high school economics.
Basically, the amount of suicide bombers in the world is not a fixed amount but one that changes based on demand; the demand for them being increased because of their interpretation of American and Allied foreign policy.
Unfortunately, the dual attacks in London last month clearly showed that the Iraq war has not reduced the terrorist threat. BULL
Too many Americans and Iraqis already have died based on false claims about Saddam Hussein's supposed possession of WMDs and connection to 9/11. No one should die now under the illusion that we are fighting terrorists in Baghdad and Fallujah instead of New York and London. ((those weren't the only reasons for the war. try 10+ years of un violations and attacking u.s. and british planes, not to mention all the rest of the ))
Terrorists who kill and maim should themselves be killed or captured—whether they are operating in London, Baghdad, or New York. Which is why the administration's initial response to 9/11—targeting al-Qaeda and overthrowing the Taliban in Afghanistan—was entirely appropriate.
But battling terrorism should not mean fighting blind or basing policy on delusions. In general, terrorism is a violent tool in a political struggle, where one side is overmatched in conventional terms. Robert Pape, author of the new book, Dying to Win, reviewed 315 suicide bombing attacks between 1983 and 2003 and found that virtually all of them had "a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from the terrorists' national homeland."
There are undoubtedly jihadists who simply hate America and its freedoms. A few others might have wild ideas about reestablishing Islamic glory over Western lands. But the evidence suggests that most of the antagonism springs from hatred of U.S. (and allied) government policies. ((we can't fix this. we are fighting for muslims in kosovo and 9/11 still happened))
For instance, before the London bombings a British intelligence assessment leaked to the press found that "events in Iraq are continuing to act as motivation and a focus of a range of terrorist-related activity." In a new report Britain's Chatham House observes that Iraq has given "a boost to the al-Qaeda network's propaganda, recruitment and fundraising."
The Israeli Global Research in International Affairs Center reported earlier this year that Iraq "has turned into a magnet for jihadi volunteers." But not established terrorists. Rather, explained report author Reuven Paz, "the vast majority of Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq." ((where is the proof? plus, many are baathists with no hope since saddam is gone.. and the rest are poor and have nothing. suicide bombings give them a purpose))
Larry Johnson, who served with both the CIA and the State Department's counterterrorism office, observes, "You now in Iraq have a recruiting ground in which jihadists, people who previously were not willing to go out and embrace the vision of bin Laden" are "now aligning themselves with elements that have declared allegiance to him."
The British government recently compiled an extensive report en led "Young Muslims and Extremism," warning that British-U.S. policies are alienating many Muslims who see them "as having been acts against Islam." Analysts informed the prime minister that the Iraq war is acting as a "recruiting sergeant" for extremism.
"The battle experience that jihadists gain in Iraq," Paz adds, "supplies the Islamist adherents of the Global Jihad culture with a wealth of first-hand field experience." Larry Johnson worries that Iraqi insurgents are learning how to build bombs and run military operations.
Even more menacingly, after being trained in the ways of urban warfare, these terrorists are "bleeding out" around the world. Germany's Der Spiegel magazine reports that scores of Muslim extremists have returned to Europe from Iraq, and all "are equipped with fresh combat experience and filled with ideological indoctrination. It is these men who are considered particularly dangerous."
The ideology these men absorb is heavily colored by U.S. and British policies. Al-Qaeda's number two, Ayman Zawahiri, recently denounced "aggression against Muslims," ranging from war to support for corrupt regimes. Osama bin Laden's earlier phrasing was: "If you bomb our cities, we will bomb yours." Although condemning the London attacks, Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Zahar contended that Muslims have suffered "too much from the American aggression."
The point is not that their assessments are accurate or U.S. policies are unjustified. Nor should London and Washington precipitously retreat from Iraq and allow terrorist acts to determine national policy. But policymakers must recognize that intervention—particularly the prolonged intervention being planned for Iraq—vastly expands the pool of people willing to listen to, and follow, terrorist demagogues.
Observes Robert Pape: "Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us... Suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon."
The Iraq conflict has become a killing field. But not as war supporters expected. It is providing an opportunity for extremists to kill U.S. troops while learning skills that may eventually be employed in Western lands. Whatever the Iraq conflict is accomplishing, it is not making us safer from terrorism. Either President Bush should stop claiming this or we should stop listening to him. ((better for them fight trained soldiers than kill innocent civilians who are un-armed.))
So, you saying so makes it bull ?
The proof? Well, if you would have read that study I posted before which is referenced in that point, you would see it. They don't just say on a whim and call it a study. The study was based upon interviews of a number of insurgents.
WMD were the reasons for the war. That was the ultimate jusitifcation they used. Colin Powel didn't go to the UN to talk about no fly zone violations, he went to talk about WMD.
Your last statement makes it very obvious that you miss most of the points of the article. These aren't people that before the war would have taken up arms, they are people that have taken up arms because of the war. You can't go find an ant hill in the middle of a field, stomp on it, and then declare that at least they are biting you in the field and not in your home when there was never any proof those ants would have bitten you at home to begin with.
You don't have to agree with it, but I find it really funny that you ask for proof of one of the points in the article when you provide nothing but anecdotal evidence.
You wouldn't know fact from fiction. Just tell us your plan for 9/11.
If you take Bin Laden for his word, his beef is westerners in the Islamic holy land. While it is not an occupation, it is a military presence in Saudi Arabia.
"Just tell us your plan for 9/11."
... happened on shrub/ head's watch. 9/11 is THEIR responsibility.
"Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, "
I don't think this is true at all.
When Bin Laden and his crew started threatening America in the 90s, his reason was specific...he wanted Americans to stop 'occupying' Saudi soil. Well, we got off Saudi soil and yet he still attacked us on 9/11. Occupation is just the convenient excuse du jour. Yes, our presence in Iraq is helping them recruit more terrorists, but the terrorist leaders are motivated purely by Islamic fundamentalism.
logging in under my name
Did you read the article?
Hey, I'm all for people coming into this with different viewpoints. But take an objective view at the situation and back what you are saying up with SOMETHING.There are undoubtedly jihadists who simply hate America and its freedoms. A few others might have wild ideas about reestablishing Islamic glory over Western lands. But the evidence suggests that most of the antagonism springs from hatred of U.S. (and allied) government policies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
