Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

If we pull out of Iraq we will prove to every terrorist organization and every nation that wishes us ill that we are weak willed just as they suspected.

And those who read the above and shrug their shoulders and say "so what?" are idiots.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 25, 2007 06:51 PM

Unfortunately, a growing number of Americans must then be idiots:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18312789/

If you feel strongly about this, do something about it fast or else we'll be out of Iraq much sooner than you think we should.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 25, 2007 06:57 PM

Not idiots, just sheepeople who've been deceived by the left wing media.

Come on, given the daily diet of deception coming from ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT etc. etc. what else could they believe?

You liberals complain about right wing talk radio and FOX, good lord they're small time am-ah-tours* compared to the left wing propaganda machine.

*blog filter doesn't like the actual spelling

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 25, 2007 07:30 PM

"The war between America and the terrorists will move from Iraq and Afghanistan to America itself."

Just like the war between America and the communists moved from Vietnam to America itself. Boy, that really was a disaster when the VC and Khmer Rouge followed us here, destroying our cities and playing out the Killing Fields in suburbia.

Or perhaps we should be slightly skeptical of such advice from a man whose job, not to mention immediate survival, depend on our continued presence in Iraq.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 26, 2007 06:06 AM

Brian, your analogy might make some sense if we'd had the experience of having had communist infiltrators knock over several of our buildings, killing thousands.

For someone to act all skeptical of the notion of Islamist attacks on American soil in a post-911 world is astonishing.

Posted by Mike Combs at April 26, 2007 06:40 AM

Mike C.: "Brian, your analogy might make some sense if we'd had the experience of having had communist infiltrators knock over several of our buildings, killing thousands."

And your counter-example would make more sense if the vast majority of anyone remotely involved in 9/11 or the real al Qaeda weren't dead or in gulag. The association with terrorists now in Iraq doesn't go beyond a name and a tactic, and the idea they would "follow us home" is laughable--if they could get to us at all, they would already be trying to do so, and would have far more support to try while we stay in Iraq.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 26, 2007 07:24 AM

if they could get to us at all, they would already be trying to do so, and would have far more support to try while we stay in Iraq.

Ignoring the fact that there's no way to prove they're not "trying to do so", part of the reason they can't get to us easily is that their previously undisturbed training bases in Afghanistan are gone and their financial backers are more concerned about what's happening in Iraq, and are thus funneling the money towards that arena, instead of financing an attack on US soil.

The terrorists and their supporters have limited assets, just like we do, and they certainly have to prioritize them.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at April 26, 2007 07:35 AM

Stephen: "Ignoring the fact that there's no way to prove they're not "trying to do so""

Yes, but sane people don't operate on the inability to prove negatives.

Stephen: "part of the reason they can't get to us easily is that their previously undisturbed training bases in Afghanistan are gone"

The only reason they got to us in the first place was lax immigration enforcement and false assumptions about hijackings.

Stephen: "and their financial backers are more concerned about what's happening in Iraq"

Most of their money results from the Iraq war, and would largely dry up when it ends. Standard rules of fundraising apply even to terrorists--heartstrings open purse strings, and a non-Muslim empire conquering a country in the Islamic heartland sells to the devout.

"and are thus funneling the money towards that arena, instead of financing an attack on US soil."

This is idiotic. Financing and support for plots against US soil is *increased* by the war, for obvious reasons, and it's beyond ridiculous to claim they would rather blow up Iraqi police stations and US tanks than get worldwide coverage for attacking on our own soil. The war *created* the funding for terrorism in Iraq, it didn't divert it from anything.

"The terrorists and their supporters have limited assets"

And, thanks to the Iraq war, that limit is much higher than it ever was or ever would have been.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 26, 2007 08:33 AM

Stephen: "Ignoring the fact that there's no way to prove they're not "trying to do so""

Yes, but sane people don't operate on the inability to prove negatives.

That's why I said "Ignoring..." geez.

Stephen: "part of the reason they can't get to us easily is that their previously undisturbed training bases in Afghanistan are gone"

The only reason they got to us in the first place was lax immigration enforcement and false assumptions about hijackings.

Brian, was training involved in the 9/11 attacks? Were the hijackers based anywhere outside the US where they could meet, train, and plan without interference? Do you really think that an non-threatened base of operations isn't important to a terrorist organization like Al Quaeda?

Stephen: "and their financial backers are more concerned about what's happening in Iraq"

Where did they get the money for 9/11 and the numerous other terrorist attacks that happened before 2003? Don't you think they have less money (and people) now for foreign attacks since they're using so many of their resources in Iraq? I think that's a reasonable supposition.

I can see your point that the Iraqi situation may increase the total amount of money (and people) available to the terrorists. Given the numerous non-Iraqi terrorist attacks prior to the war, and the limited number since then, it appears however that the terrorist resources are less elastic than you think.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at April 26, 2007 09:25 AM

Just like the war between America and the communists moved from Vietnam to America itself.

The comparison is a bit inapt. In the first place, communism's first goal was ruling a country, in this case Vietnam. Exporting the Revolution was a secondary goal. Terrorism doesn't work that way. By definition, it has no interest in setting up its own government and governing a state. It only seeks to tear down others. That's what makes it particularly dangerous, right? It has no home base, no vulnerable civilian infrastructure. That was certainly never true of the communists.

Secondly, everyone distinguishes people in Iraq who are comparable to the Vietnamese communiests: the nationalist and/or Baathists who want to expel the Americans to get back to their ruling position, or who are even genuinely convinced that they're being occupied and just want their sovereignty back.

Those are not the same people as the terrorists, who are not interested in ruling Iraq, but in merely reducing the power and influence of the US (assuming they have any coherent goal at all other than strutting on the world stage). The terrorists, for one thing, make no great distinction between who they kill -- Shia, Sunni, whatever. The nationalist and Baathists and Mahdi Army Iranian proxies certainly do.

What perhaps you want to do is argue that most of the violence in Iraq is internecine strife and not terrorism per se. Therefore it bears some resemblance to the Vietnam war and will not follow us home. This is plausible. But the other side is arguing that a fair amount of the violence in Iraq is terrorism against the US, and this is plausible, too. In the absence of better evidence, I sure can't say who's right.

But I'm sure you can!

Posted by Carl Pham at April 26, 2007 12:07 PM

Stephen: "Brian, was training involved in the 9/11 attack"

Aside from flight training, not really. Any sufficiently motivated group, even domestic, would have been capable of 9/11 if it had occurred to them. We destroyed the camps to kill the people who attacked us, deny them materiel, and disrupt their planning and organization, not because the training they provided was unique or especially valuable to them. If I read it correctly, the main purpose of the camps was indoctrination, to craft mediocre bigotry and fanaticism into the mentality of a suicide bomber.

"Where did they get the money for 9/11 and the numerous other terrorist attacks that happened before 2003?"

If you're referring to the Cole, Embassy bombings, and Khobar Towers, which is pretty much the extent of al Qaeda's resume, it was financed by a handful of wealthy Saudis. Beyond that, all you can say is that some Pakistani charities were accomplice to 9/11 for supporting the taliban. But now that al Qaeda is fighting in Iraq they can tap into the river of money flowing into the insurgency from all corners of the Muslim world, and it's not like they have to account for how they spend it.

Stephen: "Don't you think they have less money (and people) now for foreign attacks since they're using so many of their resources in Iraq?"

No, that's ridiculous. The invasion of Iraq raised their funding and recruitment by an order of magnitude over night, if not more, and the only reason they'd be blowing up marketplaces in Baghdad instead of in the US is (a)most of them aren't interested in the US, and (b)they can't.

"Given the numerous non-Iraqi terrorist attacks prior to the war, and the limited number since then, it appears however that the terrorist resources are less elastic than you think."

What numerous non-Iraqi terrorist attacks? Between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq, there wasn't a single significant, successful attack on a Western country, but after the invasion there were two--Madrid and the London Underground, both apparently motivated largely by the Iraq war, and committed by people who may not even have become terrorists if not for it. That's two devastating terrorist attacks with direct roots in George W. Bush's deliberately plotted little optional war.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 26, 2007 12:35 PM

"The terrorists and their supporters have limited assets"

And, thanks to the Iraq war, that limit is much higher than it ever was or ever would have been.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 26, 2007 08:33 AM

Taking Britain as an example, this is certainly a true statement. The Iraq war has been a major motivator for British Muslim youth to turn militant. That's certainly not what Bush was aiming for, but that has been the unwanted effect.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at April 26, 2007 01:17 PM

Carl: "Exporting the Revolution was a secondary goal."

Both then and now, foreign policy decisions were guided by half-assed geopolitical theories rather than reality.

Carl: "It has no home base, no vulnerable civilian infrastructure. That was certainly never true of the communists."

All you're describing is the definition of guerrilla warfare, and it was as true of Communism as Islamic radicalism.

Carl: "But the other side is arguing that a fair amount of the violence in Iraq is terrorism against the US, and this is plausible, too."

Yes, but it's terrorism that's only possible in Iraq. If they could do it here, they would already be doing it here instead of there. When we leave, they run out of targets, the gravy train stops, and any who actually did try to "follow us home" would be caught before they could even leave the first bordering country. No, only the idiots would try to do what's being suggested, while the truly dangerous ones would probably head for Afghanistan--a fight the American people and the world are behind. Once the terrorists go back there, and the fight returns to what it should have been all along, then we can begin to set things right.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 27, 2007 05:53 AM

Squiddie said: When we leave, they run out of targets

Uh huh, then they come over here and kill more of us. Yeah, I know you said they'd be caught, but that's highly unlikely.

Posted by Mac at April 27, 2007 10:12 AM

Mac: "Uh huh, then they come over here and kill more of us."

If they could do that, they would already be here. Why are you and the necrocons so insanely devoted to this irrational, factless, utterly paranoid fantasy that terrorists are pervasive and superhuman? When you're not driving home how much they want to kill us, you're claiming they're deliberately choosing not to come here so they can stay in Iraq and kill Baghdad police.

Mac: "Yeah, I know you said they'd be caught, but that's highly unlikely."

No, it's utterly obvious, especially to the terrorists themselves. They set foot in a Western country, if they even get that far, their asses are owned from day one. Authorities sit around, wait to see who they talk to, where the money goes, and then sweep up the garbage. And even this routine doesn't even reach into the US, but takes place in Europe, Turkey, and Arab countries. They know it's a waste of time trying to get to us again, so they thank Allah that George W. Bush is such a retard.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 27, 2007 04:24 PM

Post a comment