Terrorism Discussion V2

No, Icehawk, there's no implication there. The point was, and I'm glad you insist on missing this because it makes me feel truly better for not being on the same side as you, is that the insurgency in Iraq is a haphazard entity that doesn't conform to traditional insurgency patterns.

And it won't help in Iraq, Icehawk. They're there because people like you screwed up in the first place and made the mistakes that have been, the Iraq War. If we hadn't listened to neocon hawks who saw teh military!!1! as the only viable solution to the problem of terrorism (curiously, most of the people in the White House most hell bent on war never served).

As DarthBoba said, most of th einsurgents are there for money. You don't care about the whys, but let's give youa chance to make things up after endorsing a policy that has made Iraq a quagmire and worsened the terrorist situation - if they're doing it for money, and we'd been pushing the Saudis et al to reform and invest in the local market, would as many guys be ready to go and fight the "arrogant and stupid"* American presense?

(* - Though of course, there was neither present there, I retract )

It is cute that you can see birch, and oak, and pine, but not a forest. And that thing you keep ducking? That's the point. Let it in, Icehawk, and admit - your ideals failed! Categorically! Final grade - F! 0%! Your ideals failed the American, Iraq, and Arab people in the Iraq war and it's time to move on before more Americans die as a result of your hubris!

 

You cannot address the core-fighters that are ideologically resentful of economic and political aide with your philosophy.

Indeed you are so fearful that addressing the core-fighters might damage your idealistic philosophy you refuse to even entertain dealing with the situation.

You redirect the argument saying I don?t understand that military intervention is not the only way to get things done?

Despite the fact that I already conceded that the part-time insurgents in Iraq could be influenced politically and economically and that military action needs to be in concert with social benevolence programs.

You are not debating, you are opining.
You want to grandstand and point to America, the War in Iraq, President Bush, and Foreign Political Realists and scream, ?See!!! They failed! I knew I was right!!! If only those arrogant fools had listened??

I have conceded on multiple points that economic aide and political futures is a key in preventing the rise of more terrorists.

This you completely ignore.

I then continuously ask how we are supposed to deal with the core-fighters.
The organizers of the Iraqi Insurgents, the members of Ansar al-Islam, the al-Zarqawi faction of Al Qaeda, those 40,000 prime fighters to whom the insurgency and terrorism is a way of life and ideological goal.

I ask how your philosophy will deal with these 40,000 core fighters that already exist.

You try to change the subject and ignore it.

I am forced to conclude that, despite your promising ideas on improving economic outlook for the part-time and potential fighters, an ideal I have agreed with from the beginning, you have no answers for dealing with the core-terrorists.

You have had numerous pages of debate to come up with a plan to deal with the core-fighters if they refuse suasion.

I can think of a few that do not require fighting in a few moments time, such as providing for independent states to form in Iraq that will satisfy the core-fighters or allowing sit-downs between Insurgents, Terrorist leaders, Malaki, and Casey to see if they cannot work out a compromise.

There are dozens of possibilities available.

You have presented none and have none.

You argument has no response to dedicated core-fighters.

Address the question or conceede the point Ender.

 

If we hadn't listened to neocon hawks who saw teh military!!1! as the only viable solution to the problem of terrorism

But to be fair, no one in the administration has ever claimed this. The military was used in Iraq and Afghanistan, but for differing reasons. Clearly, continuing to bomb Iraq because of sanctions, no-fly zones, and penalties does not help fight terrorism either, and specifically with Iraq, such actions continued to be used as terrorist justification. Does the phrase "damned with you do, damned if you don't" come to mind?

What about the US's cooperation with the Pilippines, Indonesia, and taking the lead with Lebanon? How about realigning with Poland, Hungary, and Okinawa to organize terrotist response units? What about the distancing of the US away from Saudi Arabia? Perhaps the military should have been used in Pakistan, but that's a much, much more complicated matter, and diplomacy was focused on instead. All were undertaken during Iraq.

Simply put, both sides have compelling points, but it's not fair to give the impression that Iraq equals the entire US terrorism policy, nor has the US ever relied completely on the military. Despite its high profile, Iraq is not the end all, be all in itself.

 

Icehawk, you've failed equally to provide anything resembling an explanation for several key points, which is fair enough I suppose because they don't really help your argument.

How do we deal with the 40,000? Who honestly knows? Your solution of protracted CounterStrike game is great and all, but given that these numbers swell with percieved heavy-handedness, I reckon your plan would make matters worse.

Firstly, we have to ask ourselves - is killing them a) viable and b) going to actually solve anything. I mean, if you kill them all, does that mean more won't come in their place? You're assuming, with no clear evidence, that they will but what provisions do you make for your plan failing?

How is that a long term solution?

See, my reticence is based upon the notion that the Iraqi insurgency is a terrorist thing - it is, in the sense it's the biproduct of stupid foreign policy - and given that the terrorists in Iraq came after the US invaded, it's hard to assess.

So, as I said, I don't have a plan to solve them and if it were up to anyone with half a brain, there wouldn't be a repeat of Iraq.

BUt let's say we do kill them all. Does that actually guarantee a solution?

Before I go on, I want to know what you propose and how it would work...

E_S

 

Present the key points you think I?ve failed to address, and if you can do so without resorting to barbs I will do my best to address them.

Is the Iraqi Insurgency a Terrorist Insurgency?

al-Zarqawi?s al-Qaeda affiliate is definitely a Terrorist group

Ansar al-Islam is definitely a Terrorist group

The Army of Mohammed acts like a Terrorist group, not sure if they technically are.

Ba`athist and Former Regime Elements are technically guerilla fighters utilizing terrorism.

The insurgency is a mix of Terrorist organizations in part engaging in insurgent activities and militant insurgents using terrorism.

Also, Ansar al-Islam has been in Iraq since 2001 and multiple Terrorists have been harbored in the State for decades.


You have conceded you lack a response to the core-fighters and want to hear if I have one.

I have characterized this before and will do so again.

Recognizing that the insurgency draws the vast majority of its support from part-time fighters we need to develop a strategy to siphon those fighters away from the insurgency.

I see a few steps?

Establish a self-determined government to provide a political say for the average Iraqi

Appropriate funds to improve the overall economic status of the Iraqi economy

Establish job programs to put as many Iraqis to work as possible

Repair schools and begin the school year immediately after the War ended

Improve electrical infrastructure

Form Military and Police forces ran by the appointed government

Use insurgency pacification techniques to slowly clear each Iraqi province of major insurgent presence

Use the Iraqi Security Forces to police the cities and the Iraqi military to maintain provincial-garrisons

Establish border forts manned by American soldiers, w/Air Support to close the Iranian and Syrian borders

Have ISF units disarm militias as a means to demonstrate independent authority

Actively engage and capture or kill mainline core-fighters whenever possible

Hopefully an improving economy, availability of jobs, and the want to return to normalcy will convince the part-time fighters that opposing the American military and the Iraqi ISF is far to likely to cost them their lives.

If social status improves hopefully the part-time fighters will abandon the core-fighters, who cannot drawn foreign reinforcements through the closed borders, and the core-fighters will become more insiginifcant making it easier to capture or kill them.

Roughly the way Arthur and Bell approached the Filipino-Insurgency.

 

Icehawk;

I ask if it's a terrorist insurgency, or an insurgency that uses terrorist tactics, because I think it's fairly clear that the Iraqi insurgents are a motly collection of beings fighting for whatever reason and using a variety of underhand tactics to achieve that ends.

They're mounting something like an insurrection against the current establishment, but it's not really remotely like the insurgency model we know.

They're using the same approach terrorists do - using terror, in essence - to achieve their goals but they're like a watered down Mujahideen, no?

They defy definition, and we - you, me, the US Govt et al - have no clear idea how to deal with them.

Part of the problem is that, at least IMO, this was an avoidable situation. The diplomat who described it as "arrogant and stupid" was, IMO, correct.

But it's a distraction in the overall war on terror, and it's one that was created by the arrogance and stupidity of the neocon (chicken)hawks who thankfully, don't control policy now.

You accuse me of failing to deal with the Iraqi situation, and yet you've failed to see beyond Iraq. I don't see Iraq as a terrorist situation - mainly because claiming Iraq was a terrorist centre and then making reality is really just disingenuous.

E_S

 

But again, I think this is where you are loosing sight of the issue, which can't easily be boiled down to your characterization.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq was simply the continuation of an overall Western attitude toward Iraq. If "arrogance and stupidity" have been displayed, it's been demonstrated by the UN by allowing decades of sanctions to remain in place with no goal tied to them. The same goes for the breaking down of Iraq into zones of control with no alternative in place. You, who normally understand and examine the overall situation seem to distilling your entire argument down to name calling.

What is the phrase you continue to use- "Things can't be broken down into black and white?" This sentiment is certainly accurate.

What if this was the Palestinian thread, and someone continually repeated that Arafat was nothing but a terrorist, ignoring all other issues? Would you accept that single-minded view, or would you basically tear that person a new debate orafice?

As an example, Wolfowitz, the very same person you rally against, was one of the primary architects of Operation Desert Storm. As Under-SecDef for Policy, Wolfowitz was probably third in the chain for the operation. 2003 can be traced back to 1991, and back then, Wolfowitz held the coalition forces in check. He was one who prevented them from continuing into Iraq, based on the goals of that operation. It is funny how no one mentions this.

This doesn't make Wolfowitz some untouchable figure, but it certainly illustrates that things are never so simple. Regardless if the WTC attacks happened in 2001, the US was involved in Iraq, and such involvement would have influenced policy. The other labels are simply distractors.

 

Well, by the same token you're essentially forgetting the entirety of my position.

For starters, a US diplomat called the policy "arrogant and stupid" and prompty retracted it. You may recall I was actualy in favour of removing Saddam, and objected the constant "ties" between AQ and Iraq, the "go it alone" attitude (you may recall I said, and I still say, nobody has made the UN work better than the US).

So really, I can't be said to favour the UN's regime in contrast to what's happening now.

You know for a fact I'm solution, rather than problem oriented but in this case, I can't help but find more problems than solutions. And this will probably need to go to the Iraq thread if we continue on this tangent, but what I said would happen vis-a-vis terrorism and the Iraq war happened.

Do I think, therefore, it's unfair to point to Wolfy and say, "Mostly his fault?" No. I don't. He was borderline negligent in his duties as DepSecDef, and that's cost America prestige, security, safety, lives, and valuable ground in putting Islamist terrorism down.

E_S

 

The Iraqi Insurgency consists of both militant guerillas and formal Terrorist organizations such as Ansar al-Islam.

Which may well be the problem with pursuing either a solely anti-insurgency or counter-terrorism approach in Iraq. Specialization for either inevitability will fail to address half of the problem.

Implicated ties between Saddam and Bin Laden were unfortunate, especially when generic arguments about Iraqi-Terrorist ties could have easily pointed to a number of damning facts.

Cheney considered these implications useful and they were successful.
He?s a Realist and he pulled a Machiavellian move.

I find it interesting when people use the words, ?going it alone? or ?unilaterally? when they speak of Operation Iraqi Liberation. (I love that operation name )

I find it interesting because as of October 2003 there were 32 separate countries in Iraq providing forces roughly 24,000 in strength. The primary nations supporting the Invasion being the United Kingdom (9,223), Poland (2,487), Italy (2,423), Spain (1,141), and the Netherlands (1,071).

Australia contributed roughly 2,000 soldiers to the 2003 Invasion itself as the 24th Coalition member.

With a large number of Western and Eastern European and Asian nations contributing soldiers to the theatre I never understood the ?unilateral? war criticism.

I can only theorize they mean America went to war without the United Nations, France, Germany, and Russia.

Our traditional post-WWII allies were essentially all there.

 

Uh, dude, you may have noticed I put it in inverted commas and labelled it an attitude rather than a reality?

E_S

 

Nope.

Just an observation of multiple criticisms anyway.