The Iraq War: Pretty much the opposite of a war on terror

Tony --
Before the war, al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq, except for a small one in that part of the country then and now controlled by the Kurds. The US knew they were there and chose not to do anything about Zarqawi because, if we had, then the administration could not have maintained the argument that al Qaeda was "in Iraq."
Now, Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists of all sort.
What has happened in the interim?
Work on that question, please, and get back to us.

 

O_T and L_B might try actually reading the NYT piece before they invoke the usual right-wing jiu-jitsu.

The report “says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse,” said one American intelligence official.

The point of the report is that we've created a new generation of terrorists globally, not just in Sadr City.

 

When we entered Iraq there were two undeniable truths -- first, al Qaeda wasn't present there (might have been one or two guys, but as a group, they weren't present), and second, al Qaeda was a dying group.

We had destroyed al Qaeda in Afghanistan, which really screwed shit up for them. Bin Laden and his boys believed that they could fight off US forces if the battle took place in Afghanistan. Thought they could get us bogged down, drag out the fighting and use the conflict as a recruiting tool to unite other Muslims against us. That didn't happen for several reasons. The biggest reason is that we went in with a clear plan, with plenty of troops and weapons and we hit them hard. Another reason is that the Muslim world, outside of the al Qaeda wackjobs, were pretty well sickened by 9-11, if for no other reason than it made life hard on them in a guilt-by-religious-association sort of way.

Around 80 percent of al Qaeda's members were either dead or in a prison somewhere, the top guys were on the run and they had no place to recruit and train. There are emails from bin Laden to his son in which he pretty much admits defeat, laments the future of the group and refers to 9-11 as a mistake. That's how bad shit was. But then we stopped. We jerked troops out of Afghanistan, stopped looking for bin Laden and his pals and moved on to Iraq. That is where we gave them exactly what they wanted.

al Qaeda has never been present in Iraq for one main reason -- the people in Iraq don't share the same religious beliefs as al Qaeda. The guys in al Qaeda are hardnosed. They believe their brand of religion is right and that any other, even other variations of their own, is dead wrong. So, you've got to ask how it is that this group now basically controls a large portion of Iraq and claims thousands of Iraqis as members now.

The answer is simple: Like our military, they've reduced entrance requirements. Iraq has been used in exactly the same way they planned to use Afghanistan, by convincing the Muslim world, which wasn't too sure about us to begin with, that we've got an anti-Muslim agenda. They don't give a shit what the people in Iraq believe anymore, so long as they hate us and are willing to kill. And that's where the majority of the terrorists in that region have come from -- Iraqis, who were posing no threat to anyone prior to the invasion. They've also come from a variety of local militant groups that have been organized under the al Qaeda network. These people would have never become associated with al Qaeda or Zarqawi or bin Laden without our presence in Iraq. For the most part, they would have posed us no threat at any time. They were far more concerned with what was happening in their country than they were with what was happening elsewhere.

So, simply claiming that we're "fighting terrorists" in Iraq is a dishonest, idiotic way to view it, but then, we've come to expect nothing less from tony and lyman. Their understanding of the world ends with "America good, everyone else bad." God forbid anyone should take a look at what's really going on, why these people are fighting so hard against us and use that information to better approach things.

We will not win this war in Iraq. It's impossible at this point. For God's sakes, the latest plan is to build a trench around Baghdad to protect that one city. That's how bad it is. We're being out-recruited five to one and the other side cares far more about this conflict than our soldiers do. No one can send in more troops because to do so would be political suicide, yet that's the only way we'd have even a glimmer of hope. So, we're stuck. As soon as we leave, a violent civil war, which has already started, will determine the fate of the country. Al Qaeda will have an additional place to call home and after five years (hopefully) of this bullshit, we'll be worse off than when we started.

Oh, and let's not forget than in the meantime, the Taliban is slowly regaining control in Afghanistan. So, basically, everything will be exactly as it was prior to 9-11, except that we will have created an additional terrorist haven to worry about.

 

dog --
You're a dogged one, I'll give you that.

 

Newsweek's covers this week:



Your liberal media.

 

And we'll have lost thousands of good American men and women for no good reason. Thanks W.

 

Joe --
Very nice grab.
Thanks, Reverend Meacham. You pious tool.

 

Boy, the discussion dropped off here.

Wonder why?

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060926/ap_on_go_co/terrorism_intelligence

 

The report, Negroponte said, broadly addressed the global terrorist threat, not just the impact of Iraq. Yet Negroponte acknowledged that U.S. analysts believe "the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives."

 

Maybe because there's nothing new to discuss. The DNC mouthpiece (that would be the Times for you slower folks) finds a couple of former Clintonite guys in the government with an ax to grind and makes a story about it. I don't bother posting articles from GOP.com and I don't bother reacting to articles from DNC.com.

Whoops, tough break, F_B. As I pointed out, there are terrorists in Iraq. A lot of them. That would mean that fighting in Iraq is fighting terrorists. Yet the whole point of this thread is dog's foolish contention that fighting in Iraq is not part of the war on terror.

I really didn't think it was that hard to understand. There are terrorists in Iraq. We're fighting them in Iraq. It's part of the war on terrorism.

Work on that for a while and get back to me. It once again appears that you've stepped in a big pile of dog shit (pun not intended ... or maybe it is) and are trying to say that the stench is coming from my unblemished shoes.

 

I believe, tony, the words you are looking for are "I was wrong."

But that's OK, we knew what you meant.