Iraq Discussion.....for the rationally minded

[sirs]

Lots of things would be nice.  Like not being derided as irrational, or lacking some sort of common sense, or letting some supposed hatred of George Bush override my logic when it comes to my opinions of his actions....So why should I offer reasons to back my conclusions just to get more of the same? Screw it.

Hey, I'm not putting you into the irrational/delusional category like Tee, if your comments & commentaries aren't.  If that's what you want to believe though, go for it.   However if you're going to conclude that somehow Bush knew Saddam didn't have WMD from the get go, but took us to war anyways, then I was wrong about your sense of rationality, and you chose correctly not to participate in this thread

[sirs]

From a military standpoint  taking out Saddam was a success.

Mission accomplished, agreed.

As they switched gears from conquest to occupation, mistakes were made. Widespread looting and lawlessness should not have been toleated, the lack of law and order and the slow rebuilding effort all had negative impact. We should have surged two years ago.

Ok, 2 for 2, though with the caveat, that I was supportive of General Casey's conclusions more troops were unnecessary

 

I understand why we didn't and those decisions were made from a political rather than a military or operational viewpoint.   Some successes have occured. Free elections, Saddams capture and trial, Zarqawi's death.   But the average citizen of Iraq is not unlike the average citizen of the US. They want reasonable safety when they are out and about, they want clean water and heating, cooling and cooking power. They want to be able to go to work. They want to raise their families, they want a normal life and we haven't done the best job at facilitating that.

Yes...but...I think we're getting a little sidetracked here.  With all that we've done, the new elections, government, constitution, etc., and with all what the Iraqis would want, in the way or reasonable safety and security, have we inadvertantly sped up the recruiting process for Alqeda and other Islamofascist organizations?  Have we made them more accessible to become members of?  Or have we hurt them?  And if so, from a speculation stand point, to what degree, would you think?

And that is not necessarily a military function. More a job for Peace Corps, Job Corps. Vista and all those other non military service type organizations. Let the military provide the security and put the kids to work.

Again, a point of mutual agreement

[Henny]

I realize this addresses Britain, but as they are the closest of our allies, I thought it applicable. I'll reserve comment until I figure out whether I have a rational mind or not.
Terror threat to Britain worst since 9/11
The threat of a terrorist attack in Britain by home-grown Islamists is at its highest since the September 11, 2001 attacks, a newspaper said, citing a secret government report.

British-based operatives loyal to Osama bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terror network numbering potentially more than 2,000 are planning suicide attacks against "soft" targets, the document said, according to the Sunday Telegraph.

The number is far greater than was previously thought by the security services.

"The scale of Al-Qaeda's ambitions towards attacking the UK and the number of UK extremists prepared to participate in attacks are even greater than we had previously judged," the document said, according to the newspaper.

"We still believe that AQ (Al-Qaeda) will continue to seek opportunities for mass casualty attacks against soft targets and key infrastructure. These attacks are likely to involve the use of suicide operatives."

The document said that "attack planning" against Britain was to increase this year, The Sunday Telegraph reported.

The country was rocked in July 2005 when four British Islamists carried out suicide attacks on London's transport system, killing themselves and 52 others, the first such attacks in the kingdom.

The secret report said Al-Qaeda, which was behind the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, had a foothold in almost every majority-Muslim country.

Entitled "Extremist Threat Assessment", it said that Afghanistan was expected to overtake Iraq as the hotbed for terrorists plotting attacks against Western forces.

The US-led 37-nation coalition in Afghanistan is expecting to face a renewed assault on its forces by the Taliban, which was ousted from power following the 2001 attacks on the United States.

"With violence in Afghanistan intensifying, and therefore receiving greater media attention, the country may well become more attractive as a venue for foreigners wishing to fulfil their jihad ambitions," the document said.

A senior political source told the newspaper that the outlook was "particularly bleak and unlikely to improve for several years.

The security services have constantly warned that the task of countering Islamist terrorism is a daunting one. There will be more attacks in Britain."

Eliza Manningham-Buller, head of the MI5 domestic intelligence agency, disclosed in November last year that her agents were tracking over 1,600 suspects from 200 groups, most with Al-Qaeda ties.

The spy chief warned of nearly 30 terror plots under investigation.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070225/wl_uk_afp/britainattacksqaeda;_ylt=Av8TtUjTpUO2NSadrRF.mZd0bBAF

[BT]

have we inadvertantly sped up the recruiting process for Alqeda and other Islamofascist organizations?  Have we made them more accessible to become members of?  Or have we hurt them?  And if so, from a speculation stand point, to what degree, would you think?

Hard to say. I really don't know.

"jamil" has been laying low trying to keep out of harms way and finds out his little brother and sister have been blown up in a bus bomb.

He wants revenge.

Does he join a militia?  Does he enlist in the Iraqi Army? Does he join the Police?  Does he join the "resistance" ? Does he join Al Queda?

Which of the above are Islamofascist?

[Michael Tee]

<<"jamil" has been laying low trying to keep out of harms way and finds out his little brother and sister have been blown up in a bus bomb.>>

Get into the spirit.  Don't be so evasive.  The question was related to Iraqi-American violence, not Iraqi-Iraqi violence.  What does Jamil do when his bro and little sis are blown up by a JDAM, Willy Petered at Falluja, lit up by a U.S. Marine at a checkpoint, tortured at Abu Ghraib, raped and butchered by G.I.s?

[Michael Tee]

<<Hey, I'm not putting you into the irrational/delusional category like Tee . . . >>

NO!!!  not the dreaded "irrational/delusional" category!!  sirs, don't do it!  I'll be good!  I'll say that Bush is spending half a trillion bucks of good American money to fulfill his Constitutional mandate to bring democracy to the Iraqi people while 45 million Americans go without health insurance.  I'll believe that American soldiers are knights in shinng armour.  Honest!   I'll say that America will be forced to attack Iran because of the huge threat that Iran poses to America, at least as big as the one that tiny Iraq - - oops, I mean bad, mighty Iraq - - posed to America before the invasion.  I'm rational.  I'm free of delusion.  Cross my heart I am.

I just wanna be rational like you, sirs.  Free of delusion like you.

[sirs]

I realize this addresses Britain, but as they are the closest of our allies, I thought it applicable. I'll reserve comment until I figure out whether I have a rational mind or not.

LOL

Interesting article, BTW.  Thanks for sharing

[sirs]

have we inadvertantly sped up the recruiting process for Alqeda and other Islamofascist organizations?  Have we made them more accessible to become members of?  Or have we hurt them?  And if so, from a speculation stand point, to what degree, would you think?

Hard to say. I really don't know.   "jamil" has been laying low trying to keep out of harms way and finds out his little brother and sister have been blown up in a bus bomb.  He wants revenge.

Sounds logical.  At who of course is the dilemma, especially when it's kinda muddled as to if it's simply sectarian violence, or Terrorist facilitated violence to spur the sectarian violence and instability?  The former provides for an easy target, be it a Shiite or a Suuni.  The later requires more introspection and committment.  A greater understanding of what's going around them

Does he join a militia?  Does he enlist in the Iraqi Army? Does he join the Police?  Does he join the "resistance" ? Does he join Al Queda?
Which of the above are Islamofascist?

The last one really, outside of splinter cells within the others perhaps

[BT]

Get into the spirit.  Don't be so evasive.

Mikey,

You worry about posting your own nonsense.

I"ll handle posting my ............. er ............................brilliant analysis.

[Plane]

<<"jamil" has been laying low trying to keep out of harms way and finds out his little brother and sister have been blown up in a bus bomb.>>

Get into the spirit.  Don't be so evasive.  The question was related to Iraqi-American violence, not Iraqi-Iraqi violence.  What does Jamil do when his bro and little sis are blown up by a JDAM, Willy Petered at Falluja, lit up by a U.S. Marine at a checkpoint, tortured at Abu Ghraib, raped and butchered by G.I.s?

    You don't mean that Iriqui vs Iriqui violence does not matter?
     And doesn't amount to the greatest present problem?
      And would cease entirely if there were no Americans there?

[Michael Tee]

<<Mikey,

<<You worry about posting your own nonsense.

<<I"ll handle posting my ............. er ............................brilliant analysis.>>

LOL.  Sorry, BT.  Inquiring minds wanted to know.

[Michael Tee]

<<You don't mean that Iriqui vs Iriqui violence does not matter?
    << And doesn't amount to the greatest present problem?
     << And would cease entirely if there were no Americans there?>>

You're missing the point here, plane.  And frankly, if you can't keep up with even as  irrational a mind as mine, I am starting to worry about you.

The point of the thread was whether the American invasion would affect "terrorist" recruitment, not whether sectarian violence would affect it.  OF COURSE, Iraqi-Iraqi violence matters, perhaps it might be the greatest present problem (although that's highly questionable) and probably it WOULD cease after awhile if the Americans just left - - but the sectarian violence would not affect recruitment in anti-American "terrorist" groups except incidentally.   

]The American invasion, with the huge toll of dead Iraqis, maimed Iraqis, destroyed homes, raped, imprisoned and tortured Iraqis,  obviously had to create huge anti-American feelings and it's inevitable that some of this will translate into increased "terrorist" recruitment figures.

[Henny]

How about looking at the psychology of terrorism as a part of the analysis? I found a particularly good document:
http://www.safe-democracy.org/docs/CdM-Series-on-Terrorism-Vol-1.pdf

This is an excerpt of the findings by the International Summit on Democracy, Terrorism and Security, held in Madrid a year after the Madrid bombings. Their stated intention in making this analysis:

The Causes and Underlying Factors of Terrorism
To be effective in overcoming terrorism, we need to understand why it occurs. This is not because we empathise with the terrorists or because we want to give in to their demands, but simply because any effective strategy against terrorism requires knowing what motivates this form of violence against innocent civilians.
How important are poverty and inequalities as causes of terrorism?
Poverty per se is not a direct cause of terrorism. Macro-studies show that terrorism can occur anywhere, but is more common in developing societies, rather than in poor or rich countries, and is most likely to emerge in societies characterized by rapid modernization (Alberto Abadie, Tore Bjorgo). Economic change creates conditions that are conducive for instability, the emergence of militant movements and extremist ideologies. In the Islamic world, for example, the more traditional segments of the population
are disoriented by sweeping socio-economic change, and are therefore especially susceptible to movements that strengthen threatened identities, provide explanations, and give believers a sense of empowerment (Yigal Carmon).

A pervasive risk factor in developing societies is the so-called youth age bulge, that is, a substantial increase in the proportional size of the young male population facing insecure employment prospects. Within countries, the groups that support and give rise to terrorist movements usually are relatively disadvantaged because of class, ethnic, or religious cleavages. At the individual level, the leaders of militant movements are better educated and of higher status than most of the population from which they come. This, however, is true of leaders of almost all political organizations (Ekkart Zimmermann, Jeroen Gunning, Jitka Maleckova). A significant number of activists are similarly well educated, even though many face uncertain employment opportunities (resulting in what many experts call ‘status 20 dissonance’). Recruits are also drawn from among poorer and less-educated youth – those with a lack of opportunities to complete secondary or higher education, or unable to find good jobs. Militant movements frequently draw in what Bjorgo calls fellow-travellers and criminals – people motivated by social needs and pressures and chances for personal gain rather than ideology.

How do political conflicts shift to and from terrorism?
Ethno-nationalist and revolutionary terrorist movements – such as the Kosovar militants, Chechen
rebels and Italy’s Red Brigades – usually emerge in the context of larger political conflicts that are
centred on the grievances of groups that see themselves as economically or politically marginalized.
For these movements, terrorism is a tactic in a larger campaign which is used and then discarded
depending on opportunities and costs.

In what circumstances do militant movements shift to terrorist strategies? A general principle is that semi-repressive regimes contribute to the escalation of political conflicts to terrorism. Their repression is not consistent enough to destroy terrorist organizations, while their reforms are insufficient to persuade militants to give up strategies of violence (Zimmermann). Also common is a division of labour between more conventional political participation by parties and social movements, and the employment of violent means by other groups in the same domain. Schmid cites a recent study, which show that 124 out of 399 terrorist groups are affiliates of, or splits from, political parties.

Another general principle is that some militant groups choose terror tactics in the expectation that governments will increase repression, leading to a shift in public support from the government to the terrorists’ cause (Joshua Sinai, Schmid). Radicalization and a wave of terrorist attacks also may result from a specific hostile event that calls for revenge – for example the ‘Bloody Sunday’ shootings by British soldiers in Derry-City in 1972, Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount/Al-Aqsa Mosque in the year 2000, and the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In other cases, radicalization is the result of ‘spillover’ from conflicts involving kindred in neighbouring states. Lyubov Mincheva notes that the nationalist rebellion of Kosovo Albanians in 1998-99 provided encouragement, arms, and agents for subsequent terrorist campaigns by Albanians in the Presevo region of Serbia and in Macedonia. Diasporas may also promote terrorist tactics. Gabriel Sheffer observes that 27 of the 50 most active terrorist organizations today are either segments of ethno-national or religious diasporas, or are supported by them. Kurds, Palestinians, Sikhs, Tamils, and many other migrant peoples are motivated by discrimination and repression against kindred in their homelands – and elsewhere – to organize and support violent resistance, especially when they see that non-violent political action is ineffective. They do not expect to ‘win’ by supporting violence but rather to dramatize injustices and create imperatives for reform.

[Plane]

In what circumstances do militant movements shift to terrorist strategies? A general principle is that semi-repressive regimes contribute to the escalation of political conflicts to terrorism. Their repression is not consistent enough to destroy terrorist organizations, while their reforms are insufficient to persuade militants to give up strategies of violence (Zimmermann).

     This sounds reasonable , and would fit the situation in Iraq because it is in a transitional state , all the worse because the transition is very painfull and rapid.

[sirs]

...snip....

I've only time for a quick glance, but I'll endeavor to read this more thoroughly and respond to it later this PM or tomorrow.  Thanks for the postings Miss Rational mind