I am a centrist. I claim no affiliation to a political party, but this “report” is a piss poor effort by the left leaners to fire the current regime. I think having an actual plan might have been a better tactic. Right now the plan I see is cut and run, bring our troups home, apologize to the terrorists and make as many people dependant on the govenment as possible. It looks like an act of desparation to get elected.
I am not a fan of the Iraq war but now that we are there we have to finish, we cannot compound mistakes by making more mistakes. Cutting and running will only make things worse.
Tactics of war make people mad on both sides if we are making more terrorists, then they are making more anti-terrorists too. People who want to strike them down like the vermin they are with out remorse. We have to keep fighting till they run out of terrorists or there own people figure out that thier “leaders” are full of shit.
Judith Apter Klinghoffer, History New Network, George Mason University.
POLL: AL QAEDA LOST HEARTS AND MINDS IN IRAQ
Al Qaeda has desicively lost the Iraqi battlefield.
Overall 94 percent have an unfavorable view of al Qaeda, with 82 percent expressing a very unfavorable view. Of all organizations and individuals assessed in this poll, it received the most negative ratings. The Shias and Kurds show similarly intense levels of opposition, with 95 percent and 93 percent respectively saying they have very unfavorable views. The Sunnis are also quite negative, but with less intensity. Seventy-seven percent express an unfavorable view, but only 38 percent are very unfavorable. Twenty-three percent express a favorable view (5% very).
Views of Osama bin Laden are only slightly less negative. Overall 93 percent have an unfavorable view, with 77 percent very unfavorable. Very unfavorable views are expressed by 87 percent of Kurds and 94 percent of Shias. Here again, the Sunnis are negative, but less unequivocally?71 percent have an unfavorable view (23% very), and 29 percent a favorable view (3% very).
Iraqi confidence in Iraqi forces (as opposed to militias) is increasing while its confidence in US forces is decreasing. Given US policies there can be little doubt but that US forces have lost significant Shia support and gained some Sunni support. I suspect increasing number of Shia no longer believe that American forces are capable of protecting them and with increased confidence in their government’s capabilities no longer fear the consequences of an American withdrawal.
It should be noted that Ayatolla Sistani retains his overwhelming popularity amongst the Shia. 95% approve of him. PM Maliki is running a strong second with 86% but al Sadr is trailing far behind with 51%. Nor are Iraqis interested in following Iran’s lead.
Asked whether Iran is having a mostly positive or negative influence on the situation in Iraq, just 45 percent of Shias say it is having a positive influence (negative 28%, neutral 27%), while Iran?s influence is viewed a mostly negative by the Kurds (79%) and the Sunnis (94%).
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does a bit better among Shias, with 64 percent having a very (28%) or somewhat (36%) favorable view. But Kurds have a largely unfavorable view (very 43%, somewhat 34%) and the Sunnis an exceedingly unfavorable view (very 80%, somewhat 17%).
Syria is fairing even worse:
Most Shias (68%) think Syria is having a negative influence on Iraq?s situation, as do most Kurds (63%). Sunnis are only mildly positive, with 41 percent having a favorable view (17% negative, 43% neutral).
The most worrisome is the popularity of Hezbollah though luckily it is confined to the Shia.
Hezbollah elicits highly polarized views. An overwhelming 91 percent of Shias have a very (50%) or somewhat favorable (41%) view of Hezbollah, while an equally large 93 percent of Kurds have a very (64%) or somewhat (29%) unfavorable view. Sunnis are also fairly negative, with 59 percent having a very (10%) or somewhat (49%) unfavorable view.
To sum up - Iraq is coming along better than the news project. Indeed, more and more Iraqis believe that they will be soon ready to stand on their own two feet. This optimistic assessment may to a large degree reflect their disappointment in the efficacy of the American forces but, all in all it is a positive development.
Do remember this when you read headlines accurately reporting that “most Iraqis Want US Troops Out Within a Year and Say US Presence Provoking More Conflict Than it is Preventing.”
I’m sure all you conservative right-wing hardcore christians out there will laugh at my silly notions of peace and goodwill, but perhaps you should look to the book you so often thump with such enthusiasm and see what 'ol JC said about how to treat your enemies.[/quote]
Isn’t it a favorite tactic of the terrorists to do an IED when coalition soldiers are passing out candy to kids? What would ‘ol JC’ say about that?
I still think the only resolution to all this is to lobotomize the whole region into docility.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I wasn’t implying that there weren’t possible solutions. I like some of your ideas, but application is another aspect.
At this point a lot of things are worth a try. The obvious one being the transfer of power and the security back to the Iraqi people and begin some type of pullout.
Doing subtle things to encourage moderatism and democracy could help, yet they could also backfire and be seen as us meddling, if they’re not subtle enough.
Bombarding them with our own brand of propaganda obviously isn’t going to work either.
…what I believe WILL WORK is to kill them with kindness. Build schools, repair their utilities, bring them jobs, stability, and wealth. Do as much outreach as possible. Eventually we’ll win them over.
…but it’ll take patience.[/quote]
knewsom,
I would add to your list that there needs to be a dedicated effort to highlight the things that are going right in Iraq.
The schools and other infrastructure that are being built need to be as regular a part of the news cycle as the violence.
I have to make a sincere statement: patience is not a strength of the current democratic party.
You’ve seen the abortive votes in the House. You’ve seen the lionization of murtha.
I must tell you, in all frankness, that George Bush’s greatest fault has always been communication. He doesn’t need to repeat himself ad nauseam for most of us political junkies.
However, for people who think about politics once every four years, he needs to be in their face. All the time and with a concerted effort to win the hearts of minds of the Americans.
[quote]knewsom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I wasn’t implying that there weren’t possible solutions. I like some of your ideas, but application is another aspect.
At this point a lot of things are worth a try. The obvious one being the transfer of power and the security back to the Iraqi people and begin some type of pullout.
Doing subtle things to encourage moderatism and democracy could help, yet they could also backfire and be seen as us meddling, if they’re not subtle enough.
Bombarding them with our own brand of propaganda obviously isn’t going to work either.
…what I believe WILL WORK is to kill them with kindness. Build schools, repair their utilities, bring them jobs, stability, and wealth. Do as much outreach as possible. Eventually we’ll win them over.
…but it’ll take patience.[/quote]
And this theory worked where? If and it’s a big if, we did take your above suggestions and that did manage to convince people brought up from birth to hate all things jewish and western, to stop killing us and wanting to kill us we would still have a problem. It’s called a welfare state. Actually worse than a welfare state because if we were to stop the aid, which we do give anyways, they would turn on us.
Nobody is going to “change their hearts and minds”. Thats a pipe dream. We are talking about hundreds of years of hatred built up, resulting now extremly perverted religious reteric. Nobody is going to change that with bombs or kindness. That kind of change has to happen from with in. “Killing with kindness” can work on an individual basis, but not on a socioligical one. Group think is far more archaic and neanderthal than individual thoughts and fellings.
My solution is this. Destroy the infastructure as much as possible which does include killing many terrorists, become energy independant, pull our people, time and money out of the ME and suspend travel to and from the region. Then they will be pissed that we are not there, but at least they aren’t here.
Well I guess thats a pipe dream too. Please pass the peace pipe.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Since 9-11, we have gotten a steady stream of criticism stating that the West’s actions 'create more terrorists.
We have:
Relations with unsavory ME regimes creates terrorists
The war in Afghanistan creates terrorists
The war in Iraq creates terrorists
Abu Ghraib creates terrorists
Guantanamo Bay creates terrorists
Cartoons depicting Muhammed created terrorists
Racial profiling creates terrorists
Support for Israel creates terrorists
The Pope referencing Islam’s historical tactics in a scholarly venue creates terrorists
Naming Iraq and Iran part of an ‘Axis of Evil’ created terrorists
I am sure I am missing plenty.
That said we also know that - according to the jihadists themselves - that showing weakness and refusing to fight them emboldens their cause and has helped them recruit more terrorists. This they freely admit - witness OBL’s “weak horse” commentary, etc.
Islamist terrorists are our enemy. But when we act aggressively - we create more terrorists. But when we act non-aggressively - we create more terrorists.
So I ask - is there any action that doesn’t create more terrorists?[/quote]
You’re consistently one of the smartest posters on here, but the question you pose is simplistic and even stupid.
Of course a lot of our actions are going to create more terrorists, and most of those actions are not only legitimate, but necessary. Invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq (debatable, but I’d lean yes), Guantanamo Bay, free speech in cartoons or by the Pope…All of these will to some extent inflame opinion among radical and fundamentalist Muslims.
But, as I’d hope everyone knows by now, this isn’t a war that can be won by military power. Look at Iraq: we’re spending nearly a hundred billion dollars a year to fight a (primarily) local insurgency that barely needs financing, and we’re losing. If you think we can do the same in the rest of the Middle East, you’re crazy. General John Abizaid, head of CENTCOM (i.e. the Middle East and Africa), said recently that “Military power can buy us time. That’s about it.”
So if this is predominantly a political and media war, then winning in the court of international public opinion, and especially Muslim public opinion, is vital. And doing things that needlessly drive moderate Muslims toward the radicals and create new terrorists is self-defeating. Examples include big things, like torturing terror suspects and supporting Israel’s idiocy in Lebanon, and little things, like initially naming the invasion of Iraq “Operation Crusader.” Military tactics on the ground are also a huge part of this, I have posted this link many times around here: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/six_easy_paragraphs.htm
[quote]JeffR wrote:
knewsom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I wasn’t implying that there weren’t possible solutions. I like some of your ideas, but application is another aspect.
At this point a lot of things are worth a try. The obvious one being the transfer of power and the security back to the Iraqi people and begin some type of pullout.
Doing subtle things to encourage moderatism and democracy could help, yet they could also backfire and be seen as us meddling, if they’re not subtle enough.
Bombarding them with our own brand of propaganda obviously isn’t going to work either.
…what I believe WILL WORK is to kill them with kindness. Build schools, repair their utilities, bring them jobs, stability, and wealth. Do as much outreach as possible. Eventually we’ll win them over.
…but it’ll take patience.
knewsom,
I would add to your list that there needs to be a dedicated effort to highlight the things that are going right in Iraq.
The schools and other infrastructure that are being built need to be as regular a part of the news cycle as the violence.
I have to make a sincere statement: patience is not a strength of the current democratic party.
You’ve seen the abortive votes in the House. You’ve seen the lionization of murtha.
I must tell you, in all frankness, that George Bush’s greatest fault has always been communication. He doesn’t need to repeat himself ad nauseam for most of us political junkies.
However, for people who think about politics once every four years, he needs to be in their face. All the time and with a concerted effort to win the hearts of minds of the Americans.
JeffR
[/quote]
Some truth to what you’re saying, but don’t kid yourself, the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are both fucking disasters. Why? Not nearly enough money, and no security.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
knewsom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I wasn’t implying that there weren’t possible solutions. I like some of your ideas, but application is another aspect.
At this point a lot of things are worth a try. The obvious one being the transfer of power and the security back to the Iraqi people and begin some type of pullout.
Doing subtle things to encourage moderatism and democracy could help, yet they could also backfire and be seen as us meddling, if they’re not subtle enough.
Bombarding them with our own brand of propaganda obviously isn’t going to work either.
…what I believe WILL WORK is to kill them with kindness. Build schools, repair their utilities, bring them jobs, stability, and wealth. Do as much outreach as possible. Eventually we’ll win them over.
…but it’ll take patience.
knewsom,
I would add to your list that there needs to be a dedicated effort to highlight the things that are going right in Iraq.
The schools and other infrastructure that are being built need to be as regular a part of the news cycle as the violence.
I have to make a sincere statement: patience is not a strength of the current democratic party.
You’ve seen the abortive votes in the House. You’ve seen the lionization of murtha.
I must tell you, in all frankness, that George Bush’s greatest fault has always been communication. He doesn’t need to repeat himself ad nauseam for most of us political junkies.
However, for people who think about politics once every four years, he needs to be in their face. All the time and with a concerted effort to win the hearts of minds of the Americans.
JeffR
Some truth to what you’re saying, but don’t kid yourself, the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are both fucking disasters. Why? Not nearly enough money, and no security.[/quote]
Afghanistan is getting worse by the day. Remember the Taliban? They are back in force. Read an article in the latest Newsweek about it. Or did the group that actively supported OBL fall off our radar?
You’re consistently one of the smartest posters on here, but the question you pose is simplistic and even stupid.
Of course a lot of our actions are going to create more terrorists, and most of those actions are not only legitimate, but necessary.[/quote]
Well, that is actually the point of raising the question - at some point our actions may or may not create more terrorists, but we can’t measure the legitimacy of them based solely on that worry.
My other point - which you seemed to miss - was that I think the concept that all of these actions ‘create terrorists’ is actually erroneous, and my point was to say that terrorists largely create themselves irrelevant of what we do.
But you are leaping to wild conclusions. Where did I say that the only solution was military power and that we should stomp anywhere, any way we want? My point was that whatever options we have - military, law enforcement, covert stuff, cultural and social change - we can’t hamstring every single option on the concern that everything that we do ‘creates more terrorists’.
Yes, but how can you win in the court of public opinion - particularly Muslim public opinion - if the mere mention of Islam is likely to ‘create more terrorists’? My point is that changing perceptions is great - but doing so will inflame Muslims all the same, even if a bomb is never dropped. See Pope Benedict’s attempt to bring the history of Islam in a rational discussion in the name of achieving peace.
All this talk about winning hearts and minds ignores the exact thing my original post was getting at - changing hearts and minds will mean challenging the status quo even more so than a bombing run, and we need to be prepared that such an approach will be met with the same hostility. Winning hearts and minds is not panacea, and in fact, I would argue that it can be just as ‘inflaming’ as military action.
And I acknowledged that a smart war would not aggravate those things in my original post. What you fail to understand is that all of your ‘soft’ tactics in this global war run the same risk of ‘creating more terrorists’ under the popular rubric of the day.
My point - again - is that whatever we decide to do, we must banish the thought that outside of the margins, we create terrorists. Our policies should not be built around that myth, be they ‘hard’ or ‘soft’.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
knewsom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I wasn’t implying that there weren’t possible solutions. I like some of your ideas, but application is another aspect.
At this point a lot of things are worth a try. The obvious one being the transfer of power and the security back to the Iraqi people and begin some type of pullout.
Doing subtle things to encourage moderatism and democracy could help, yet they could also backfire and be seen as us meddling, if they’re not subtle enough.
Bombarding them with our own brand of propaganda obviously isn’t going to work either.
…what I believe WILL WORK is to kill them with kindness. Build schools, repair their utilities, bring them jobs, stability, and wealth. Do as much outreach as possible. Eventually we’ll win them over.
…but it’ll take patience.
knewsom,
I would add to your list that there needs to be a dedicated effort to highlight the things that are going right in Iraq.
The schools and other infrastructure that are being built need to be as regular a part of the news cycle as the violence.
I have to make a sincere statement: patience is not a strength of the current democratic party.
You’ve seen the abortive votes in the House. You’ve seen the lionization of murtha.
I must tell you, in all frankness, that George Bush’s greatest fault has always been communication. He doesn’t need to repeat himself ad nauseam for most of us political junkies.
However, for people who think about politics once every four years, he needs to be in their face. All the time and with a concerted effort to win the hearts of minds of the Americans.
JeffR
Some truth to what you’re saying, but don’t kid yourself, the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are both fucking disasters. Why? Not nearly enough money, and no security.[/quote]
I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it.
Unfortunately our choice in leadership has been a choice between bad and worse.
Thankfully we have been choosing bad over worse the last few elections.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
JeffR wrote:
knewsom wrote:
sasquatch wrote:
I wasn’t implying that there weren’t possible solutions. I like some of your ideas, but application is another aspect.
At this point a lot of things are worth a try. The obvious one being the transfer of power and the security back to the Iraqi people and begin some type of pullout.
Doing subtle things to encourage moderatism and democracy could help, yet they could also backfire and be seen as us meddling, if they’re not subtle enough.
Bombarding them with our own brand of propaganda obviously isn’t going to work either.
…what I believe WILL WORK is to kill them with kindness. Build schools, repair their utilities, bring them jobs, stability, and wealth. Do as much outreach as possible. Eventually we’ll win them over.
…but it’ll take patience.
knewsom,
I would add to your list that there needs to be a dedicated effort to highlight the things that are going right in Iraq.
The schools and other infrastructure that are being built need to be as regular a part of the news cycle as the violence.
I have to make a sincere statement: patience is not a strength of the current democratic party.
You’ve seen the abortive votes in the House. You’ve seen the lionization of murtha.
I must tell you, in all frankness, that George Bush’s greatest fault has always been communication. He doesn’t need to repeat himself ad nauseam for most of us political junkies.
However, for people who think about politics once every four years, he needs to be in their face. All the time and with a concerted effort to win the hearts of minds of the Americans.
JeffR
Some truth to what you’re saying, but don’t kid yourself, the reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan are both fucking disasters. Why? Not nearly enough money, and no security.
I voted for the 87 billion before I voted against it.
Unfortunately our choice in leadership has been a choice between bad and worse.
Thankfully we have been choosing bad over worse the last few elections.[/quote]
We have? Not a lot of point engaging in counterfactuals, but I think it’d be hard to conceive of a more inept administration than the one we’re saddled with. If the real lunatic left wing of the Democratic Party had come to power, fine, but I think there was never any real chance of a President Dean, for example.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
We have? Not a lot of point engaging in counterfactuals, but I think it’d be hard to conceive of a more inept administration than the one we’re saddled with. If the real lunatic left wing of the Democratic Party had come to power, fine, but I think there was never any real chance of a President Dean, for example.[/quote]
And they made Dean the head of the party. There is growing less and less room for moderates on the left.
You’re consistently one of the smartest posters on here, but the question you pose is simplistic and even stupid.
Of course a lot of our actions are going to create more terrorists, and most of those actions are not only legitimate, but necessary.
Well, that is actually the point of raising the question - at some point our actions may or may not create more terrorists, but we can’t measure the legitimacy of them based solely on that worry.
[/quote]
Sure, but we’d be complete fools to ignore it.
I don’t think that’s true. If you don’t think Abu Ghraib meant more in the war for Iraq than killing 5,000 terrorists, or that blindly supporting Israel this summer didn’t destroy what little image we had left as an honest broker for peace, you’re kidding yourself.
I am making an assumption, but if you’re saying that Muslim public opinion is essentially irrelevant, which I took to be your point, then military and law enforcement action seems to be the only course forward. If I’m mistaken, please enlighten me.
Absolutely, and again, I’m not suggesting that we should be sacrificing our freedom of speech to appease fundamentalists, or anything like that. I am saying that we should not be so culturally obtuse as to needlessly create enemies, which is something we currently do all the time.
Are you a neo-conservative? This isn’t meant as a slur, just a legitimate question. I can see why their ideas had a lot of traction five years ago, though I’d think virtually all sensible people have abandoned the bulk of them. What you say here sounds like neo-conservative thought.
[quote]
And doing things that needlessly drive moderate Muslims toward the radicals and create new terrorists is self-defeating. Examples include big things, like torturing terror suspects and supporting Israel’s idiocy in Lebanon, and little things, like initially naming the invasion of Iraq “Operation Crusader.”
And I acknowledged that a smart war would not aggravate those things in my original post. What you fail to understand is that all of your ‘soft’ tactics in this global war run the same risk of ‘creating more terrorists’ under the popular rubric of the day.
My point - again - is that whatever we decide to do, we must banish the thought that outside of the margins, we create terrorists. Our policies should not be built around that myth, be they ‘hard’ or ‘soft’.[/quote]
Do you think there aren’t reactions to our actions, legitimate or not? Because that is what this sounds like to me, and that’s the height of foolishness. You don’t think if we break down a door and humiliate an Arab teenager in front of his mother and sisters, he’s pretty likely to end up shooting at our soldiers, or aiding those who do? Again, this isn’t to say we can’t use military force, but that we need to be far more careful and intelligent about how we do so.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
We have? Not a lot of point engaging in counterfactuals, but I think it’d be hard to conceive of a more inept administration than the one we’re saddled with. If the real lunatic left wing of the Democratic Party had come to power, fine, but I think there was never any real chance of a President Dean, for example.
And they made Dean the head of the party. There is growing less and less room for moderates on the left. [/quote]
And I am pretty sure Kerry would have cut and run by now in both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as dismantled all new the programs we have been using to try to catch the terrorists.
He has said he wanted to treat it as a law enforcement issue and I believe him.
To pretend the moderate Democratic party would have done better is silly.
You’re consistently one of the smartest posters on here, but the question you pose is simplistic and even stupid.
Of course a lot of our actions are going to create more terrorists, and most of those actions are not only legitimate, but necessary. Invading Afghanistan, invading Iraq (debatable, but I’d lean yes), Guantanamo Bay, free speech in cartoons or by the Pope…All of these will to some extent inflame opinion among radical and fundamentalist Muslims.
But, as I’d hope everyone knows by now, this isn’t a war that can be won by military power. Look at Iraq: we’re spending nearly a hundred billion dollars a year to fight a (primarily) local insurgency that barely needs financing, and we’re losing. If you think we can do the same in the rest of the Middle East, you’re crazy. General John Abizaid, head of CENTCOM (i.e. the Middle East and Africa), said recently that “Military power can buy us time. That’s about it.”
So if this is predominantly a political and media war, then winning in the court of international public opinion, and especially Muslim public opinion, is vital. And doing things that needlessly drive moderate Muslims toward the radicals and create new terrorists is self-defeating. Examples include big things, like torturing terror suspects and supporting Israel’s idiocy in Lebanon, and little things, like initially naming the invasion of Iraq “Operation Crusader.” Military tactics on the ground are also a huge part of this, I have posted this link many times around here: http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/six_easy_paragraphs.htm
Before blaming Iraq for increasing the jihadist threat, a few questions:
* Specifically, how do jihadists join the jihad?
* Do they simply purchase high explosives at the bazaar or do they get supplied? If so, by whom? Who funds them? How does the money get there?
(Interviewing Iraqis earlier this month, they noted two patterns: An increase in shipments through diplomatic pouches to the Iranian consulates in Karbala and Basra, as well as shipments of appliances like television sets to import-export companies in al-Anbar, which then sell them, using the cash to purchase supplies).
* Among European terrorists, how many received training in Afghan or Pakistani terror training camps? If they received such training, is their terror really homegrown? (In this regard, the Bush administration?s willingness to ignore terror training camps in southwestern Somalia may one day be seen in retrospect as just as negligent as Clinton?s willingness to ignore camps in Afghanistan.
* How much money have Iranian, Persian Gulf Arab, or Saudi donors contributed to jihadist organizations? Have we charted an increase in donations? (Do we even have the information?) Can these negotiations be correlated to Iraq or to the rise in oil prices?
* No doubt, jihadists have become more lethal. Indeed, lethality has steadily increased since the 1970s. But how have jihadists become more lethal? Does practice make perfect? (It?s difficult for suicide bombers to learn from their mistakes). Clearly, jihadists receive training. What is important is not only from whom, but rather who introduces them to those trainers.
(When journalists describe Palestinian suicide bombers as being teenagers from a Palestinian refugee camp, they seldom explored further to find out that UN-salaried teachers at UN-funded high schools had observed certain characteristics in one of their charges and facilitated the introduction to the terror masters. This is why many families did not know what their children were about to do; Alex Alexiev highlighted a recruitment system especially popular among followers of some South Asian strains of Islam, here: http://www.meforum.org/article/686 ).
* How influential are mosque sermons? If Iraqis are joining jihad, to which sermons do they listen and where? If Iraqi mosques are contributing to incitement, did the resident imam serve the same mosque under Saddam? If so, did he receive his training in Iraq? If not, where did he come from and how did he happen to take over that mosque?
(In October 2003, Sunni Arab Iraqis spoke of mullahs being forced out at gunpoint with new imams installed; the same thing later occurred in Shi?ite mosques; in a more fashion, Uriya Shavit did a good piece on the intellectual history of al-Qaeda, here: http://www.meforum.org/article/999 ).
* To what extent do jihadists use snippets of Congressional debate?whether in context or outside?in their recruitment propaganda? While Iraq impacts media coverage, to what extent does media coverage impact Iraq?
* It may be tempting for political reasons to blame Iraq or, for that matter, Israel?s existence and occupation for jihadism and terrorism. If so, what did Iraq or Israeli have to do with Muslim Brotherhood terrorism pre-1948 (again, see this declassified document http://www.meforum.org/article/997 ). What did Iraq or Israel have to do with Islamist slogans shouted in the French riots? What did Iraq or Israel have to do with the Danish cartoon controversy?
* Does engaging terror-sponsoring regimes work (note this declassified document ( http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB97/tal24.pdf ), about US engagement toward the Taliban)?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So I ask - is there any action that doesn’t create more terrorists?[/quote]
We cannot control how people feel about us for things that we do not do; for example, not being aggressive enough; however, the actions in your list we can control.
In a war of ideas we cannot expect to be successful with aggression. I think we need to persue terrorists as we do criminals. I don’t think sending an entire nation?s military force was a good idea. It is best done with small elite forces and intelligence operations.
In a war of ideas success lies in changing ideas–I think we can all agree changing a person’s ideas and opinions is not something we can do with military force–it requires diplomacy and lots of time. I am talking generations not months or years. The problem we are facing in the “war on terror” is not with what we are doing but rather with what we are not.
It would also help if we had the help and cooperation of all the Islamic member nations. We are too out in the forefront in this fight. We need to approach this as a world issue and not a singularly American issue. This requires us to defer to those nations involved.
Allow me to make an analogy: If a terrorist group in our country–let?s call them some neo-fascist group–decided to commit acts of terror against another country would we allow that country’s military to cross our sovereign borders? No, we would take it as our own responsibility.
It seems simple in my mind. I am sure there are a few holes that need to be patched though.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
And I am pretty sure Kerry would have cut and run by now in both Afghanistan and Iraq as well as dismantled all new the programs we have been using to try to catch the terrorists.
[/quote]
"Would have"s are irrelevant unless you are just stating it as your opinion which further brings nothing of value to the discussion.
I call it irrelevant because you have no way of knowing what would have happened.