It wasn't shocking that you disagreed. It was my opinion that your previously displayed worldview and specific ideas about our situation in Iraq and with Al Queda would naturally lead you to disagree. That doesn't mean that you are wrong naturally wrong IMO. 'Knee jerk' necessarily implies without thought and I wasn't implying that. I'll put all this in the same space because its you saying the same basic thing, that its not optimal for the US military. I grant that it is not what the military would choose, given a choice. But I have never claimed that. They would rather have AQ march in neat rows down a road so they could just mow them down. However, that doesn't mean there is not opportunity there for engaging AQ, especially considering the alternatives, which I will get into in a minute. The optimal environment for AQ is not the open plain, but it is not the urban centers either. AQ is not a standing army with tens of thousands of members. The optimal environment for AQ is exemplified in their most effective action, 9/11. Or in the USS Cole attack, or in the Embassies blown up. Their most optimal environment goes no where near our military. So, while i agree the US is not it's optimal environment, neither is AQ. Its not even the best they could do. You are confusing AQ with the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. There AQ was able to use the standing forces of the people of Afghanistan in the fight against the USSR, and later against the coalition. That would be the option you have backed which is to engage in the mountains in Afghanistan. Now THAT does sound familiar, doesn't it? Going into the mountains where the USSR failed, and similar to how we failed in Vietnam, is not that good of an option. Comparatively, we might be better off engaging them in Iraq, a concentrated area, than in Afghanistan. While we don't have the sympathy of many Iraqis, we do have some. That is better than in Afghanistan. And there is more possibility of the overall population turning against AQ in Iraq than in Afghanistan. Yes, Iraq is big but its BETTER than the alternative. Although you contend AQ have somehow become super urban warriors, I haven't seen you explain how they got that way or where they've engaged in urban warfare before. Again it would seem losses hurt them more than us. No. If two groups are simultaneous working against the US, there is still the opportunity to engage Al Queda. You claim local militancy is increasing but that doesn't really matter to my claims about AQ. I'm talking about killing AQ members and you are talking about strategic goals down the line for thier organization. Its also possible that Iraqis insist both AQ and the US get out, which is not a victory for AQ especially if its an Islamic government denouncing them. Right, but the regime they want is the one that will harbor them Taliban style. That, I don't think, is on the way. Which again is irrelevant to what I'm talking about. RE: Vietnam and Afghanistan- We could continue to argue this but its not relevant so i'll not waste the time. Clearly you were wrong about Afghanistan and whether or not the differences are enough to render them dissimilar or not is a matter of opinion. Your arguing that we're failing in Iraq which is fundamentally different than my question which is whether or not this is an opportunity to for our military to engage AQ. We are in Iraq. You arguing that its going to be Afghanistan ala the USSR or Vietnam ala the US begs the question of whether or not this has provided an opportunity to engage AQ. The flip side of the predictions that AQ would become involved in Iraq if we intervened.
Not to interrupt a good pissing match, but it looks like your entire premise here is based on a fact pattern that doesn't really exist, at least according to the US:
Not to interrupt a good pissing match, but it looks like your entire premise here is based on a fact pattern that doesn't really exist, at least according to the US Good to point that out. Hayes fell very hard for the whole wmd and imminent threat to the US ruse. I suspect that might be why he disappeared for a few months. Now he tries to sneak back into the argument for the Iraq War with the old Al Qaeda and Iraq myth, current version. Hayes, just be happy. The world really changed when the Berlin Wall fell and it is foolish to try to replace Iraq or the Arab Nations as a threat on the order of the Soviet Union.
really? were there massive attacks on US soil by the sovs or other east block nations during the cold war? oh, i understand now, the fact that the 9/11 hijackers were arabs is merely coincidence and going after arab nations in response is merely racist. i hate to indulge my inner TJ but HOW NAIVE
Because hijackers are of one nationality, going after a different country because people look the same, and it's in the same area is indeed racist. I'm not saying that is what happened, but just answering your question.
really? were there massive attacks on US soil by the sovs or other east block nations during the cold war Yep, really, there wasn't a really major threat. A couple of guys with box cutters hijacked a couple of panes and flew them into a couple of builidings. Horrible, but not World War III. I know Bush told you "everything changed" so therefore we should waste a quarter of a billion dollars and thousands of lives in taking over Iraq and you bleieved him, but be realistic this is not a threat on the order of the old Soviet Union. I know Bush and the Halliburton military industrial complex guys want it wants it to be, but really, be realistic.
thanks for clarifying that for me. living in new york, i'd been under the impression 9/11 was a big deal. now that i know it was all halliburton propaganda, i'll sleep much easier. WAA...
basso, try to think unemotionally. So you really think Al Qeda is as powerful as the Soviet Union was? On what facts do you base this? Try comparing men under arms, weapons systems, resource base etc?
It is sad that Dubya, exagerated the Al Qaeda threat and pretended it involved Sadam for exactly what reasons we don't really know. I sincerely believe that the WW II genration would recognize the difference in magnitude. This might be difficult for some, but the Al Qaeda threat should be recognized as important, but it does no one any good to exaggerate the magnitude. That is when you get into the silliness that "everything changed" and out of fear you goose step behind Dubya and the neocons.
first of all, "everything changed" is not a mindset that only applies to W or the neocons (although i gladly accept the label in regards to foreign policy). many people feel that way, and it's not propaganda. to borrow a phrase from macbeth, people who think it's still september 10th are the real members of the ostrich brigade. and if you take that mind set and apply it to foreign policy, just be aware what you're showing to the world while you've got your head in the ground... no one is suggesting that al queda represents the same scale of threat as the sovs did. however, to suggest that therefore it poses no threat is just silly. there's a big hole in downtown new york w/ 3,000 souls hovering above it that eloquently testifies to the magnitude of that threat. sorry if that's too emotional for you...
Who said that Al Qaeda posed no threat? A couple of thousand terrorists who are well organized are a threat. It is important to keep it in perspective. It is sad that Dubya used the suffering of 9/11 to increase the fear in an already stunned population and manipulate for his own agenda. BTW, good to see that you do accept that it isn't on par with WW II or the Soviet threat.
Sigh. Dude, I 'disappeared' because I have a real job and don't have an academics cush schedule to doodle around on an irrelevant bbs. If you'll recall, I've said all along that removing a genocidal dictator was enough justification to remove Saddam. Don't believe me? Look up any post I ever made on Iraq and prove me wrong. Definitely I'll admit I thought we'd find WMD's in Iraq, but that's not really relevant to this discussion, is it? I NEVER insinuated Saddam was the threat the USSR was, but you continuously espouse that rhetoric response for some reason. Try again.
Have some green eggs and ham. You couldn't be MORE wrong, but I appreciate the effort. In fact, you actually did me a favor by posting this article. It falls completely within the argument I am making, which is that Iraq is completely dissimilar to an Afghanistan or Vietnam. The Iraqis, as you've pointed out, do not have either the same strategies nor the same goals, as AQ. This is no way disproves my theory that Iraq offers an opportunity to engage AQ off their home turf. A situation that pits our professional soldiers against their gang style outfit. I'll take that equation anyday. Of course it means there is a disadvantage, as any army moving into an urban area will face (as MacBeth, to his credit, points out). But in the endgame it is far more desirable to have them off their home turf, trying to act like an army, than acting like the terrorists they are. The fact that Iraqis do NOT want anything to do with AQ only works in our favor, not against us.
I hate doing this sort of thing, but it got buried with a couple of you going at it hammer and tongs. (which is cool... I do it myself, sometimes) I was just hoping for some reaction, and I haven't really seen it yet. So, here I am again, from the middle of page 1: .................... From what I have read, the majority of the insurgents we're fighting are local Iraqis, not Al Queda. That there are members of Al Queda who have come to fight us is, in my opinion, without question. But I think that the idea we will defeat them there, or give them a serious blow, is mistaken. We are killing Iraqis. They are the vast majority. And the methods they are using, the roadside bomb set off by cell phones or a simple doorbell, are almost impossible to irradicate. Not unless we're willing to take these casualties for several years and maintain this kind of force structure. I beginning to seriously doubt that the American people will put up with this situation indefintely. At some point, they are going to want someone to "declare victory", as Nixon did in Veitnam, and bring our troops home. I'm very concerned about it. We would lose a immense amount of credibility around the world. Which is yet another reason why we shouldn't have done it in the first place. What a mess. Perhaps the military will develop new stategies to deal with this situation, but it looks grim. Very grim, long term.
Hi Deckard, Sorry for missing it but my time on the bbs is sparse these days. At best I would say your point begs the question I am posing. Whether or not we are killing Iraqis, or whether we'll eventually have to withdraw from Iraq is not really relevant to the question of 'is this a place our military can square off with AQ.' Although reports are that Iraqi resistance is increasing, there are also increasing signs (like the recent declaration from the Ayatollah to accept delayed elections) that there can be a real settlement in Iraq, and that US can withdraw with it basic goals met. I know it gets confusing when we are talking about objectives in Iraq and possible desirable outcomes, but think of my question ONLY in terms of AQ, not in terms of the overall Iraqi situation. In the best scenario for them, we don't ever see them or know whether they are in Indonesia or Iraq. In this scenario we know they are in Iraq in numbers, without popular support (as SamF's article indicated), and that could turn out to be a good thing for us.
I hope so. I just have a hard time seeing a long-term (unless it's several years) happy outcome in Iraq and I don't think the American people are willing to exercise that kind of patience. And if we just pull out, then that's a bad outcome as well. I know you see Iraq as a magnet, pulling AQ in to fight them there, but I'm not as optimistic. If domestic (not AQ) resistance continues as it has, then AQ may start to cast it's eyes elsewhere, seeing that a minority of Iraqi's are doing their work for them.
