U.S. losing terror war because of Iraq, poll says http://www.columbusdispatch.com/national-story.php?story=dispatch/2006/06/29/20060629-A3-00.html By Bob Deans 06/29/06 "Cox News" -- -- WASHINGTON — The United States is losing its fight against terrorism and the Iraq war is the biggest reason why, more than eight of ten American terrorism and national security experts concluded in a poll released yesterday. One participant in the survey, a former CIA official who described himself as a conservative Republican, said the war in Iraq has provided global terrorist groups with a recruiting bonanza, a valuable training ground and a strategic beachhead at the crossroads of the oil-rich Persian Gulf and Turkey, the traditional land bridge linking the Middle East to Europe. "The war in Iraq broke our back in the war on terror," said the former official, Michael Scheuer, the author of Imperial Hubris, a popular book highly critical of the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism efforts. "It has made everything more difficult and the threat more existential." Scheuer, a former counterterrorism expert with the CIA, is one of more than 100 national security and terrorism analysts who were surveyed this spring for the nonscientific poll by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning research group headed by John Podesta, who served as White House chief of staff in the Clinton administration. Of the experts queried, 45 identified themselves as liberals, 40 said they were moderates and 31 called themselves conservatives. The pollsters then weighted the responses so that the percentage results reflected one-third participation by each group. Asked whether the United States is "winning the war on terror," 84 percent said no and 13 percent answered yes. Asked whether the war in Iraq is helping or hurting the global antiterrorism campaign, 87 percent answered that it was undermining those efforts. The public gives Bush higher marks in the anti-terrorism effort than the policy experts. In an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken this past Thursday through Sunday, 57 percent of respondents said America’s efforts to fight terrorism are going well; 41 percent said it is not going well. In the same poll, 59 percent said the country is safer from terrorism today than it was before the Sept. 11 attack, while just 33 percent said the country is less safe. The poll was taken in March and April, before two significant milestones in Iraq: the formation of a new government and the killing by U.S. bombs of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was the top al-Qaida agent in Iraq. It surveyed 1,000 adults nationwide and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points. The Iraq war was last year’s deadliest, according to Yearbook 2006, the annual evaluation of the world’s conflicts by Sweden’s Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. The peace researchers said the number of wars has hit a new low, but that conflict is changing and free-for-all violence in places such as the Congo defies their definitions. "To say conflict as a whole is in decline, I could not draw that conclusion," said Caroline Holmqvist of the institute. The newly released Yearbook 2006 draws from data maintained by Sweden’s Uppsala University. It reports the number of active major armed conflicts worldwide stood at 17 in 2005, the lowest point in a steep slide from a high of 31 in 1991. Information from the Associated Press was included in this story. ©2006, The Columbus Dispatch
This shouldn't come off as a surprise. It has long been warned by terrorist experts such as Richard Clarke that the ill-advised Iraq War hurts US' fight against terrorism.
In every thread you see where the usual suspects post their usual responses about how to win the war on terror and how Iraq is a critical piece, yadda yadda yadda... just post the link to this thread.
Let's see a nation that no longer uses hideous WMD to the tune of killing 5000+ on the people within the nation...a nation that places greater virtues on democratic situations in politics and routine life...a nation that places greater regard for the environment for human rights...a nation that no longer encourages terroristic endeavors by others...among many others... A nation smackdown in the middle-eastern area which is haven of previous terroristic endeavors no doubt...what an impact, geographically...yadda, yadda... For all the reasoning, I disagree and pledge that Iraq has MUCH to do with the War on Terror...
HUH? What are you talking about? Please refresh my memory of the previous ‘terroristic’ endeavors Iraq was involved with?
Next strike on Terror: Find all the dictionaries in the world, use force if necessary, and use some scissors to cut out the word 'terror'. We will win this war, and we will not cut and run. Except for the scissors part, because we have a lot of dictionaries to get to so, you know, no time to stand around chatting.
http://www.khrw.com/crimes.html On March 16th 1988, Iraqi jets bombed the town of Halabja with chemical weapons. At least 5,000 people were killed and 7,000 severely injured. Fourteen years on, thousands are still suffering the affects of the chemical weapons. The gases used included mustard gas, nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX. This was the largest chemical attack on a civilian population ever.
That’s terrorism? You may want to check out Africa, you’ll find a lot of terrorists over there if you follow your definition of 'terroristic endeavors'. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Bush administration built its case for invading Iraq on a series of deceptions. The rhetoric about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the imminent threat Saddam Hussein posed was meant to justify the nullification of Iraq's sovereignty and to explain why the United States did not need further United Nations authorization to invade Iraq and topple its government. The war in Iraq was sold on the idea that the United States was preempting a terrorist attack by Iraq. But Iraq posed no threat. The country was disarmed and had overwhelmingly complied with the extremely invasive weapons inspections, even after it was proved that the United States was illegally using the inspections to gather intelligence it would use in its military campaign against Iraq. "I would say that we felt that in all areas we have eliminated Iraq's capabilities fundamentally," said Rolf Ekeus, the UN executive director of weapons inspection from 1991 to 1997. In a rare moment of honesty, Vice President Dick Cheney told CNN in March 2001, "I don't believe [Saddam Hussein] is a significant military threat today." As the case for war has crumbled, so has the case for occupation, which also rests on the idea that the United States can violate the sovereignty of the Iraqi people and all the laws of occupation, such as the Hague and Geneva Conventions, which clearly restrict the right of occupying powers to interfere in the internal affairs of an occupied people. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- http://electroniciraq.net/news/2401.shtml
1988 attack on civilians? is this the first time something like there where a leader has killed his own people? who provided these chemical weapons to saddam? what did the US admin at that time do? is the current iraq war a direct response to that?
Killing 5,000 people who reside in your country is an example of terrorism...You seem a bit ignorant or not aware,...but that is an example of a terroristic endeavor from Iraq which answered your question as it was...
Not to be dense like Chris, but I don't understand your first question... Who provided? I think we did for a pre 9/11 reasoning... what did US admin do? It raised eyebrows certainly, but if we were in the business of taking on all regimes because of a crazy lunatic doing terroristic endeavors to his own people pre 9/11, the left wing pussyfooters for crying out loud against America club would have something to chew on unless we can wait 11 years with 17 resolutions post 9/11...but then you know there will be crying even after all that, don't you...
1) pre 911 reasoning? I know the first gulf war was because of iraq attacking kuwait. 2) is this the first time something like there where a leader has killed his own people? 3) who provided these chemical weapons to saddam? wasn't it the US? 4) was iraq involved in 911? 5) are we fighting the war on terror in behalf of iraqi people who died in 1988?
Actually you didn't get called "dense",...I referred to you as being dense for not comprehending my simple answer to your question. I don't want to split hairs, but sometimes you have to when a clear, simple answer does not get digested...but please expand on your point...
It does since we have invaded. When Saddam was in charge, the Islamists had no influence there because Saddam ruled with the proverbial rod of iron. Now Iraq could end up being the biggest terror haven of all if their sorry government doesn't get itself together. Saddam was bad. Hitleresque. But the Islamists are much worse and if they get a toehold in Iraq we can all thank George W Bush. What a legacy! Of course, up until a couple of years ago, Iraq was going to become the democratic beacon of the Middle East. Haven't heard much about that in a while. Now, it's all about an exit strategy that allows the U.S. to save face and the Republicans to win re-election.
