A good thread and many thoughtful posters. I adamantly agree that we must hit back in force (which is a complex strategy) or risk emboldening the terrorists. However, before we pile on Kuri, his last sentence was astute. The centrality of Al Queda is probably in Saudi, Yemen and Pakistan, as he said. Plus, I have reason to believe that Saddam’s WMDs are in Syria. If so, does Bush widen the war, risk bringing in the ultimate AQ enemy, Israel and spiraling this damn thing? The problem is, AQ believes any human is a target, they’re ‘invisible’, so ultimately, yeah, we’ve got to bring out the big stick. We’ll see what Italy and Britain do (next up) and God help us here too. But I’d say if they use a WMD here, we at least neutron or nuke Mecca and Medina, their religious centers. But lets not go there there yet - hell, I’d like to see us still live a decent life here.
Considering that OBL is in Pakistan and has known to have been there for a long time Pakistan is definitely a problem spot. One problem, they’re sort of our allies, and the have nukes aimed at India.
When GW said, “You’re either with us or against us” he wasn’t talking about Pakistan. Like a lot of countries the people there aren’t all pro USA and neither is the government. We brokered a peace deal between them and India when things were hot and they had fingers on the buttons but it’s still a dicey relationship.
It’s taken a good year of what was probably a lot of backdoor dealing to get them to participate in these ops that are going on right now in the tribal areas. If we’d gone in like gangbusters back when we were on a hot trail it would have blown up in our face.
There have been a few “secret” but not so secret deals so far. When Mozar-i Sharif fell a buttload of Paki Taliban got on planes and flew home. We owned the airspace then. We also denied it happened. The locals had no motivation to lie about it, it was no skin off of thier nose one way or the other. The story got squelched somehow.
Deals like that look bad but they’re necessary sometimes to further the goal. I’m also wondering if some of the Arabic countries like Yemen aren’t letting us snoop around without making a huge deal out of it. That predator drone that blew the shit out of six AQ boys in Yemen wasn’t a fluke I don’t think. They save face and we get the bad guys that way.
Some insightful thoughts:
http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/03/14/144425.php
Blood On Whose Hands?
Posted by Eric Olsen on March 14, 2004 02:44 PM (See all posts by Eric Olsen)
Filed under: Et Cetera, Et Cetera: Media, Et Cetera: Politics
Only the terrorists’.
As Spain agonizes over the Madrid terrorist train bombings of last week that left 200 dead and over 1,500 wounded, today’s election there is directly tied into public conception of who is responsible for the attacks. Is it the indiginous Basque-seaparatist ETA or is it an affiliate of al Qaeda?
The evidence is thus far inconclusive, but here’s the thing: from a political and moral standpoint, it shouldn’t make any difference. It is abject fear alone that is causing many to blame the government for the attacks if it turns out to be al Qaeda (a statement purported to be from al Qaeda claims that the attacks were in response to Spain’s participation in the war in Iraq). The only people to blame are the terrorists, not any government that has aggressively gone after terrorists.
Terror is terror and there is no excuse, no moral mitigation regardless of claimed impetus behind it. The victims are just as dead, the killers are just as wrong regardless of their rationale. I am astonished that people buy into any of this terrorist propagandizing: are the vitims of Oklahoma City any less dead than those of the World Trade Center? Is the destruction any less real, the threat any less serious? Of course not, the only possible reaction is to increase enforcement, cooperation among intelligence and law enforcement agencies, and the agressive, dogged pursuit of those connected to ALL organizations that count terror as among their behaviors.
I only care what justifications the twisted mass murderers of innocents and civilians make in terms of how they facilitate intelligence gathering and predicting their behavior - all with an eye toward finding and liquidating them and preventing further attacks. The point isn’t to respond to the accusations and justifications of the terrorists, the point is to find and eliminate them as quickly and permanently as possible.
And regarding the Iraq accusations, does anyone notice the screaming, grand irony of al Qaeda claiming that their justification for mass murder in Spain is the Spanish government’s support for the war in Iraq? I thought al Qaeda and Iraq had nothing to do with each other. I thought Iraq had nothing to do with the War on Terror.
I thought al Qaeda’s excuse for blowing the shit out of thousands of innocent people around the world was to further the cause of extreme Islamic fundamentalism: the war in Iraq, from their perspective, only aided the cause of Islamic fundamentalism since Islamic fundmentalism, and any other kind of religious political expression, was ruthlessly supressed by Saddam. Al Qaeda should be damned cheerful about the removal of Saddam and should be thanking any country that helped make it so, not blowing up its trains.
The point of all this is that those who would resort to the mass murder of random civilian men, women and children forfeit any claims to a moral platform by the encompassing evil - yes, I said EVIL - of their actions. “Why” doesn’t matter, only “what” and “who.” The “why” could be literally anything, and to give it any creedence or attention whatsoever is to mitigate the abject evil of the terrorist act, an act that can never be mitigated, excused or explained away.
Terrorists cannot be appeased, negotiated with, reasoned with, or have their attention deflected elsewhere as a matter of any governmental policy: the only appropriate governmental policy is direct confrontation, unambiguous condemnation and aggressive pursuit and elimination of terrorists and their accomplices and enablers. Anything else is giving in to fear and wishful thinking.
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/04_03_14_corner-archive.asp#027303
SPANISH ELECTIONS [John Derbyshire]
Without intending any disrespect to the dead of Bali, Israel, or of course Madrid, I think the Spanish election result is the worst thing to happen yet in the War on Terror. It is a huge victory for Al Qaeda, their greatest to date. Not even 9/11 changed any consequential government. (Unless you count New York City’s, which I don’t.)
You can argue that last week’s terror bombings were not the main factor in this change of government, and you may be correct. What matters, however, is whether Al Qaeda, and their potential recruits, BELIEVE it was the main factor. I have no doubt they do so believe. Greatly heartened, they are back on their feet and swinging, asking themselves which Western election result they would like to change next.
The blame must, of course, fall squarely on the Spanish electorate. It would be wrong to think, however, that there is anything peculiarly Spanish about their abject surrender. There has only been one instance in recent years of a War on Terror being fought to any kind of conclusion, and that was the war between Britain and the Irish terrorists. That war ended, or at any rate quiesced, with a near-total surrender on the part of the British. Irish terrorist capos are now ensconced in ministerial positions in London and Ireland, on salaries paid for by British taxpayers. Their foot soldiers, those serving jail time, have been pardoned and let free. Their arms caches are all intact. They control large areas of Northern Ireland (and some in the Irish Republic, too) where police simply will not go.
This will be the pattern, I fear. Confronted with terrorism like Al Qaeda’s, the pampered, fat, comfortable electorates of the West will not fight. They will jump to do the terrorists’ bidding. Change our government? yes, Sir! Stop giving support to President Bush? Yes, yes, Sir! Jump, you flabby swine! How high, Sir?
The West will pay the Danegeld. Does this apply to the USA, too? I wish I could say I felt sure it didn’t. In despair, I reach for my Kipling.
Posted at 03:06 PM
Another insight:
http://volokh.com/2004_03_14_volokh_archive.html#107931629418440822
[Eugene Volokh, 3/14/2004 06:04:54 PM] (See posts that link to this one)
One lesson of Spain? Say that Aznar’s party lost in the Spanish election partly because some Spanish voters (it need not have been a majority, or even close to it) thought the Madrid bombings were al Qaeda’s retaliation for the Spanish involvement in Iraq, and wanted to punish Aznar for it. Of course, this might not be the correct interpretation of the election results, in which case the rest of this post is beside the point; but at least right now it seems to be a popular interpretation, and a plausible one.
Those voters' position would be understandable -- perhaps not terribly sound in the long term, but understandable: The deaths were caused by Aznar's policies, since if he had not supported the Americans (over the opposition of most Spaniards, as I understand), the bombings probably wouldn't have happened; therefore, let's punish Aznar, and send politicians a message to prevent this from happening again.
But if that's so, then doesn't it show that we can't allow our foreign policy to be vetoed by other nations? After all, if we agree that we may not do what we think is right and necessary for our national security if any one of England, France, Russia, or China says "veto," then our enemies can paralyze us simply by influencing one foreign country. The influence might be exerted by bribes (more here), or by threat of terrorist violence. But one way or another, an enemy that couldn't break down our resolve could still stop us from doing what needs to be done by breaking down the resolve of one of the veto-owning countries. (The same applies if we just generally agree not to go ahead without the agreement of "our European allies" generally -- if the threat of terrorist retaliation cows several of those allies, that could be enough to stymie our plans.)
As I mentioned before, there are three possible reasons for a position that we shouldn't do certain things without multilateral support. One is purely pragmatic: if we don't have much foreign support, the theory goes, our task will be too hard, either because we won't have enough material help, or because the lack of foreign support will undermine our credibility with (say) the Iraqis. A second relates to legitimacy: certain kinds of actions, the theory goes, are only morally or legally legitimate if we have support from certain foreign bodies, or perhaps from a certain range of foreign countries. A third relates to foreign support being probative of the need for action: if we don't fully trust our government's judgment, then we might consider other countries' judgment as evidence of whether the action is practically and morally justified.
But the second and third reasons, it seems to me, are pretty weak if we think foreign countries are likely to be influenced by the risk of terrorist retaliation. The foreign countries' decisions may simply be probative of their own desire not to be attacked, not of what's the morally right thing to do in the abstract, or what's the practically right thing to do for us (or even what's in the aggregate interests of humanity generally). And I don't see why we should ascribe to a view of legitimacy that makes our actions illegitimate whenever the terrorists are able to force other countries to oppose us.
Perhaps my post wasn’t clear - the largest threat is nuclear weapons ending up in terrorists hands, right?
Pakistan supplied them to Libya, Iran, NK and who else… They are our allies? In what exactly? There are still madrasas churning out wannabe Al-Quaida. the ISI still supports the Taliban, maybe Al-Quaida.
Pakistan sure as hell hasn’t gone after Bin Laden - they can’t because many in the gvmt tacitly support him it seems.
The White House didn’t even slap Pakistan on the wrist for the largest black market sale of nuclear weapons in history - read Sy Hersh’s article in last week’s New Yorker.
So Spain eventually pulling out of Iraq does not equal appeasing terrorists. The new PM has said he vows to continue fighting terrorism, but they see no point in continuing the disaster in Iraq, which is NOT quelching terrorist attacks, but perhaps increasing the chances of it.
Excellent post, Kuri. I don’t think even Brian or Wet-Wipe can turn that one around on you.
You are right on the money about Pakistan. They’ve never been much of an ally but we count them as such. I’m not sure the government there has much of a handle on the country for starters. How many other countries do you know of that have areas their own Army isn’t safe and national laws don’t apply because the local warlord runs the place?
It is a haven for terrorists and fanatics. The last guy I met that worked there, and this was since our operation in Afghanistan, went to work, came home, and never left his living quarters without his armed escort. Not a nice place.
kuri –
You are right about Pakistan. We need to wield a big stick in their direction – however, we also need to support Musharef (sp?) vis a vis the Islamists out there. Very tricky situation.
However, w/r/t Spain, I would say that when the terrorists plan an attack with the idea of getting rid of a government fighting against them and replacing that government with one that would be less staunch about fighting the terrorists – by the terrorists own calculations – that can be viewed as a win for the terrorists.
As the John Derbyshire quote I posted above points out, if the terrorists themselves view it as a victory and their cause and resolve are thus strengthened, that is the problem.
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/15/spain.invest/index.html
MADRID, Spain (CNN) – A document published months before national elections reveals al Qaeda planned to separate Spain from its allies by carrying out terror attacks.
A December posting on an Internet message board used by al Qaeda and its sympathizers and obtained by CNN, spells out a plan to topple the pro-U.S. government.
“We think the Spanish government will not stand more than two blows, or three at the most, before it will be forced to withdraw because of the public pressure on it,” the al Qaeda document says.
“If its forces remain after these blows, the victory of the Socialist Party will be almost guaranteed – and the withdrawal of Spanish forces will be on its campaign manifesto.”
That prediction came to fruition in elections Sunday, with the Socialists unseating the Popular Party three days after near-simultaneous bombings of four trains killed 200 and shocked the nation.
Ninety percent of Spaniards had opposed Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar’s staunch support for the U.S.-led war against Iraq, and some have blamed his government’s policies for the train bombings.
Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Monday he wanted the 1,300 Spanish troops in Iraq to return home by June 30 if the United Nations “doesn’t take control of Iraq.”
“I think Spain’s participation in the war has been a total error,” he said. (Full story)
Meanwhile, one of the five men arrested in connection with the bombings has links to the plotters of an al Qaeda-linked bombing in Casablanca last year, CNN has learned.
The May 2003 suicide attacks in Casablanca killed nearly three dozen people.
Spanish authorities have arrested three Moroccans and two Indians in connection with the Madrid bombings.
One of the men, Jamal Zougam, 30, has ties to two brothers who have been charged in connection with the Casablanca bomb plot, according to a Moroccan government official.
Zougam is also believed to be a follower of Imad Eddin Barakat Yarkas, the alleged ringleader of al Qaeda in Spain, according to a Spanish court document.
All five are being held incommunicado under Spain’s anti-terrorism law, which requires they be charged within five days of their detention.
Authorities said investigators tracked the men through a cellular telephone and a pre-paid telephone card discovered in a backpack containing explosives found shortly after Thursday’s attacks.
Helping the investigation is a videotape in which a man claiming to be a military spokesman for al Qaeda in Europe says the terrorist network was behind the bombings.
In the United States, Asa Hutchinson, the undersecretary for the Department of Homeland Security, said they thought the Madrid bombings had the fingerprints of al Qaeda.
“We do know that there is a connection to al Qaeda. We have verified that,” he told CNN.
“At this point, there clearly is some link and we’re going to continue to see the depth of that.”
However, another administration official would only say Islamic fundamentalists remain high on the list of suspects.
“Things are slightly leaning towards Islamic fundamentalist responsibility, as opposed to pure ETA or al Qaeda,” one senior administration official said.
ETA is a Basque separatist group that has been fighting for more than three decades for an independent state. The group is designated a terrorist organization by the United States and the European Union.
The U.S. intelligence community is considering the possibility the bombings may have been carried out by a number of people with various ties to terrorist groups, the senior administration official said, adding theories include the following possibilities:
Islamic fundamentalists with support from ETA;
Islamic fundamentalists with close ties to al Qaeda, although not necessarily “card-carrying members of al Qaeda”; or,
Members of ETA or al Qaeda.
In the wake of the bombings, Spanish Interior Minister Angel Acebes announced Monday that a European Union anti-terrorist conference will be held Friday in Madrid. (Full story)
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was confident Spain would continue to play a significant role in the war on terrorism.
“Terrorism has to be defeated,” he said.
“I don’t think the Spanish people are any more inclined to give any encouragement to terrorists or to give terrorists the slightest impression that they are not going to be engaged fully by the Spanish government – no matter who is prime minister.”
Powell added that he was not sure if the Madrid bombings affected the outcome of Sunday’s elections: “But the one thing I’m quite sure of is that Spanish people remain committed in the war against terrorists.”
– CNN Investigative Producer Henry Schuster and Pentagon Correspondent Barbara Starr contributed to this report.
BTW, w/r/t Iraq and Al queda, here is an excellent explanation by Andrew Sullivan on the connection:
Now why would al Qaeda want the disintegration of the transition in Iraq? Because they understand how that transition is the most formidable blow to their hopes of transforming the entire Middle East. When clever anti-war types insist there is not and never has been any connection between the fight for democracy in Iraq and the war against terror, they are thinking in terms of legalities and technicalities - not strategy. The only way to meaningfully defang Islamist terror is to transform the region. If we don’t, we will simply be putting out small fires for ever, instead of dealing with root causes. The root cause is the lack of democracy in the region, which gives these religious fanatics the oxygen they need. Al Qaeda understand the stakes. So must we. Iraq is the battlefield. We cannot, must not, falter. In fact, we must ramp up the pressure. Alone, if needs be.
…
Some readers have written me to criticize my argument that al Qaeda is striking back at our allies in Iraq because they see how dangerous to them the transition to democracy in Iraq could be. Some argue that the war against Saddam has nothing to do with the war on terror and that al Qaeda is using it as a new way to win recruits and divide the West. But this misunderstands al Qaeda’s basic philosophy. What they object to is any Western or infidel influence in traditionally Muslim lands. They want those lands not just Judenrein but purged of any non-Muslims and even those Muslims who dissent from Wahhabist orthodoxy. They do not and have never needed the war in Iraq to justify their terror in pursuit of these aims. They killed long before the Iraq war. Their objection is to our intervention at all. And part of that agenda is our intervention in Afghanistan. After all, that was their safe harbor. Those who blame the war in Iraq for this counter-attack must also logically blame the war in Afghanistan. Should we not have waged that, since it would only embolden the enemy? In other words, all of Europe was at risk long before the Iraq war. And the Germans and Brits and Italians and many others now in Afghanistan are reason enough for more attacks in Europe. Al Qaeda not only resents any impurity in their homelands, they also long for more Lebensraum. They long to regain Andalusia, something bin Laden himself referred to not long after 9/11. What the Europeans refuse to understand is that there is no proximate cause for this violence. It is structural; it is aimed at the very existence of other faiths; it wishes to purge the entire Muslim world of infidels (which means the annihilation of the Jews), and eventually to reconquer Europe. You can no more negotiate with these people than you could negotiate with Hitler. And by negotiation, I don’t just mean direct talks. I mean attempts to placate by occasional withdrawal of troops from, say, Iraq or Afghanistan, or withdrawal of troops from Saudi Arabia or abandonment of Israel. All such tactical shifts are regarded purely as weakness. They are invitations for more massacres. How many more will die in London and Rome and Berlin and Paris before the old continent fights to defend itself?
Who the fuck is this twat anyway? Stop including Britain in with the rest of the ‘Europeans’ we still have 10,000 troops out in Basra lest you forget!
Andrew Sullivan is a British expat living in the U.S. He’s a writes for British and U.S. publications, including The New Republic and the Times.
His weblog site is:
And trust me Creed, we in the U.S. are grateful for British friendship and support. The British and the former British colonies are the best allies – the “Anglosphere” as coined in certain circles.
No, Kuri, you were very clear. A lame slight-of-hand about Pakistan and then a lame attempt to distort the fact that the Spanish election results changed because 200 innocent civilians died at the hands of Islamists (who incidentally have actually declared their intention to re-conquer Spain for Islam–, and Bin Laden has listed this in his agenda VERY early on )
BTW, what the heck does Pakistan have to do with the Spanish people’s vote? Are the Spaniards raising hell about Pakistan’s alliance with terrorism? That would be interesting, please fill us in.
…
(You are almost correct about Pakistan though. Except for the fact that SOME members of the military and government support Al-Quaeda covertly, but most do not. Also, the reason why we gave them a slap on the wrist of AQ Khan is because they are increasing our ability to go after Bin Laden.)
Thank God, at least for this bit of sanity (let’s hope he sticks to this position):
Mr. Kerry, speaking for the first time about the Spanish election, told the ABC network affiliate in Phoenix on Tuesday:: “In my judgment, the new prime minister should not have decided that he was going to pull out of Iraq. He should have said this, This increases our determination to get the job done.”
Spanish journalists I’ve heard (Charlie Rose show) have said that what swayed the vote was NOT the bombings themselves, but the fact that the government continued to blame ETA for political gain even after arresting those with Al-Quaeda connections. In fact the Aznar admin did not release that info until the Socialist party contacted them and said they knew about the arrests, and that they should release it to the press.
Manipulating information is what pissed off the population and got them booted.
Read much US press on this situation and YOUR the victim of manipulation for political gain.
I saw the same Charlie Rose show, and I think you’re distorting what was said.
There was some agitation about the government not be willing to passionately speak about whether it was al-quaeda, even though they would only have 3 days to investigate before the election.
The protest signs and exit-polling said what they said, as did the man from the EU, parroting their appeasement.
Kuri -
While you have good intentions, you seem to be looking to find negatives in our current course of action. I’m not sure if it’s a political bias or what but we need to understand that our government is doing the best job they can to defeat our enemy i.e. terrorists.
For example, earlier you stated that pakistan was basically sitting on their ass not doing anything and giving nukes to anybody that wanted them. Last I heard they staged a raid pushing up into their tribal wastelands and have engaged and killed many terrorists and may have osamas #2 man captured.
Since the #2 guy was basically the brains behind the whole orginazation and osama is merely the face with all the money i’d say that for practical purposes that is a larger victory than actually getting osama himself. That would be a very symbolic victory.
The bottom line is that even with all the resources we people have available to us we are still not going to know what our governments are doing untill after it happens for the most part. This is also necessary due to the fact that the enemy is secretive and remains hidden.
My .02
Well why wasn’t Musharraf sending troops up north a couple years ago?
Why wait until now?
Who knows what negotiations are going on behind the scenes but as Sy Hersh’s article in the New Yorker pointed out it may have a great deal to do with the White House completely letting Pakistan off the hook regarding the black market Nuclear sales.
Pak. helps out or allows US troops in = off the hook for selling nuke technology.
B. Smith - lest you forget that %90 of Spaniards were against the war in Iraq before it began. There were no WMD or terrorists there (now there are). Seems many in Europe knew it had nothing to do with a war on terror.
What if the hundreds of billions and man power were put into fighting terrorism in Afghan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi etc… instead of diverting it to Iraq?
Kuri:
Large point of contention. There were many terrorists in Iraq before the latest incursion. Saddam was a major terrorist sponsor. Not all the world’s terrorists are Al queda.
As for Mr. Hersh’s article, I will have to read it to know what you’re talking about. However, I think it would be rather naive to assume there was not involvement in the upper echelons of the Pakastani government on the arms sales. Not necessarily those allied with Mushareff. Pakistan is hardly stable. As I said before, it is very tricky with Pakistan – aside from its internal instability, you have the whole Indian problem. As far as I can tell, it is most assuredly in our, and the West’s, best interest to fully back Musaref, who is doing a commendable job keeping the fanatics in his own country at bay – at least for the time being.
Too bad no one thought to do a pre-emptive strike in that direction back when they were developing nuclear capability. But of course, if they hadn’t yet done a successful nuclear test, it would have been too soon to go in for a lot of people bemoaning the current situation. Should we do a pre-emptive strike in Iran?
By the way, what would your position be on the U.S. using its military power to combat terrorism in Pakistan and Malaysia as you suggested? Would you really be for it? I don’t recall your position on Afghanistan, but I do know that many of those protesting our actions in Iraq also protested action in Afghanistan, and predicted a quagmire like the Russians faced.
As to Spain, you’re right in that it was an unpopular decision within Spain to go into Iraq. You’re also right in that the incumbent government was winning before the bombing. It was leading comfortably. Then, after the bombing, there was a massive shift.
Now, as to how the Spanish journalists you quote can possibly attribute the total amount of the turnaround to the misidentification of the bombers, I’ll leave that to you to explain. Given the outstanding (sarcasm) job journalists generally do of explaining the cause and effect of elections in this country, even after months of reflection, I might not put too much stock in it though. I would say that one could definitely say that the misidentification of the bombers had some effect. I would also say that the bombing itself had some effect. I don’t see how you could possibly deny that some of the change in support between the Socialists and the incumbent government was due to the bombing itself. You may argue the relative strength of the two effects, but it seems beyond the pale to suggest the bombing had no effect at all. If you were to buy into that, you yourself would be a victim of the spin machine.
This, however, skirts the issue I pointed out above. This is all cause. What about effect? If Al Queda thinks it influenced the election, and it bombed with the intent of influencing the election (see above), and the result it desired was attained, the terrorists themselves will perceive that as a victory. And their perception is what will drive their future actions.
Kuri writes:
“B. Smith - lest you forget that %90 of Spaniards were against the war in Iraq before it began.”
I think 80%.
“There were no WMD or terrorists there (now there are).”
Good. Then they’ll die fighting an Arab attempt at democracy and will show themselves to be the disgusting filth they are.
“Seems many in Europe knew it had nothing to do with a war on terror.”
Yes, it does seem like many in Europe want to play your Ostrich game. Al-Qaeda and other Islamofascist groups have told us who it’s enemies are. It is a waste of time to argue about it.
“What if the hundreds of billions and man power were put into fighting terrorism in Afghan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi etc… instead of diverting it to Iraq?”
Then we would be fighting WARS with Idonesia and Saudi Arabia and this country called “etc.” (Gee, wouldn’t the Indonesias be disappointed?) At least 4000 Iraqi children under age 5 would be dying needlessly every month thanks to our sanctions. Saddam would still be a hero to EVERY bad element in the Arab world for his defiance of the U.S. At the cost of FAR greater number of casualties, we wouldn’t have a military victory that lifted the veil off a murderous and totally repressive Arab regime. Then we would not have created a free Iraqi press that for all the conspiracy theories it is trying to shake is fast becoming the envy of the Arab world, sparking the call for democracy in Syria and Iraq and Iran. Our military base would still be in Saudi Arabia, and we would be facing great numbers of Al-Queda attacks there as the Saudi government fell apart around us.
When we decided to pull out of Saudi Arabia, we obviated the MAIN greivance of Osama Bin Laden, it’s main call to arms, but we did not do it in response to an attack by Al-Quaeda. We did not appease, we did not cut and run in the face of pressure, as we did in Beirut, Somalia, etc., each time becoming another success story in Al-Quaeda’s propoganda, telling them the West was a sleeping giant that would be killed in its sleep.
Using resources does not mean waging war. There are more effective ways. Fostering conflict in the middle east is what got us here in the 1st place.
Speaking of diverting resources & attention: "WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President Bush to consider bombing Iraq after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, says a former senior administration counterterrorism aide.
Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement.
“Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq,” Clarke said. “We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan.”
Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that “there aren’t any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.” "
Yahoo News - Latest News & Headlines