Time Magazine: Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 11:09am

The most complex issue of our time. I hate to boil this article down to its essence but read this, then read the whole thing. It's important to understand.

==

The conflict between radical Islam and the West, like all ideological struggles, is about competing stories. The audience is the global community of Muslims. America portrays itself as a benign and tolerant force that, with its Western partners, holds the keys to progress and prosperity. Radical Islamists declare that the universe is governed by a war between believers and World Infidelity, which comes as an intruder into the realm of Islam wearing various masks: secularism, Zionism, capitalism, globalization. World Infidelity, they argue, is determined to occupy Muslim lands, usurp Muslims' wealth and destroy Islam.

Invading Iraq, however noble the U.S. believed its intentions, provided the best possible confirmation of the jihadist claims and spurred many of Europe's alienated Muslims to adopt the Islamist cause as their own. The evidence is available in the elaborate underground railroad that has brought hundreds of European Muslims to the fight in Iraq. And the notion that the West would enhance its security by occupying Iraq has proved utterly illusory. Coalition forces in Iraq face daily attacks from jihadists not because Saddam Hussein had trained a cadre of terrorists--we know there was no pre-existing relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaeda--but because the U.S. invasion brought the targets into the proximity of the killers.


Time Magazine: Why Iraq Has Made Us Less Safe

Updated On: 7/11/05 at 11:09 AM

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 12:25pm

"...The anxiety is justified; the fighters in Iraq are, as the CIA has observed, getting better on-the-job training than was available in al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan..."

To the so-called war on terror pragmatists out there who, in supporting this preciptious pre-emptive war, claim to be making us safer ... how can you deny this potency and accuracy of this statement? Supported by impartial experts everywhere (Peter Bergen, for example). Yes, anxiety is justified, and so is our anger at a megalomaniac administration who so foolishly rushed in when caution and measured response are the pragmatic watchwords of the day. And to those who argue the idealogical high road .... what good is such a mindset when the real world results are so devestatingly negative?

How can a war on terror be so consistently naive about HOW terrorists are created, one man or woman at a time? And cavalier about actions that make the free world unsafe in both the short and long runs?

As Normon Solomon cites in his piece:

"... Voices of reason, even when they’ve come from within the country’s military establishment, have been shunted aside. In late November 2002, a retired US Army general, William Odom, told C-SPAN viewers: "Terrorism is not an enemy. It cannot be defeated. It’s a tactic. It’s about as sensible to say we declare war on night attacks and expect we’re going to win that war. We’re not going to win the war on terrorism. And it does whip up fear. Acts of terror have never brought down liberal democracies. Acts of parliament have closed a few."

Updated On: 7/11/05 at 12:25 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 12:49pm

auggie, devastatingly negative? is all lost? should we just batten down the hatches on the ol' us of a and run from some butchering mass murderers? when even kofi anna is touting the progress that's been made in iraq, that ought to tell you that it's not a lost cause. yeah, there was an attack in london. well, gee, did we think that there'd never be another terrorist attack anywhere in the world?? "caution and measured response"? that gave us a nuclear armed north korea. that allowed a taliban regime to flourish in afghanistan. that, despite it's best efforts and wringing a near capitulation by the israelis, failed to solve the palestinian problem. it just wasn't working, auggie. it was time to try something new and that something encompassed iraq. of course, foreign fighters are pouring in. better they die there than on planes or buses or subway cars. sure they're getting training, but their tactics are alienating the iraqis they are killing. they have no idealogy they are promoting, they have no realistic goals they are fighting for, they are merely trying to keep millions of people in the dark ages and expand a war pof global conquest in the name of allah (who, like jesus, is puking about what's being done in his name). of course they're geting good training, and then they are dying. in between they are killing innocent people with wild abandon in hopes of terrifying the populace into submitting to their will and creating a theocracy.

this war that we fight now is and has been inevitable. the idealogy of fanaticism was noty going away, nor was it gpoing to be satisfied with one or two victories. the choice was whether to keep trying tactics of failure, or to engage and actively try to help the iraqi people to build something new which could show the way to the middle east out of the darkness of fanatacism. the other choice was to sit and try to accomodate those who would only be satisfied with total domination. we saw how well accomodation worked with lunatics in ww2.

so yeah, in the short term, recruits flow into iraq trying not to help the iraqis forward but to doom them to darkness and to carve out the spoils among themselves. they are not freedom fighters or even insurgents, they are nihilists whose only mission is to kill and sow fear. the iraqi people see this and that's why tips are more and more frequent, but remember, when one side offers a few bucks and the other side offers certain death and torture, it's a tough choice.

there's no easy answer and no snap judgements, but history will find us safer for having done this.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:08pm

[restoring subject line]

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:10pm

[changing subject line]

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:11pm

[restoring subject line]

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:16pm

[changing the subject line, gleefully]

[PalJoey]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:19pm

[restoring the subject line]

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:31pm

[changing subject line and giggling]

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:32pm

Let's step outside the disagreement about the current success/failure matrix in Iraq.

I'm listening to you, Papa. And still frustrated. If "it was time to try something new, and that something encompassed Iraq, of course..." why wasn't that very philosophy presented to us, American citzens, in a way that was unblinking, clear, honest, and as you assert, in looking at history/policy's failure, pragmatic? Why didn't Bush appear before the country and speak to us as thoughtful adults, who needed to understand his philosophical approach rather than merely frightened children, who would only get behind him if scared senseless?

Why didn't our leader speak to our higher selves, honoring our intellect, our very American character, and spell out the lofty goals you assert? Rather than use PR to create dubious connections to 9/11? Why didn't they say, all along, the underlying idea was this noble experiment in planting freedom? Which might flower only in the LONG run? And require patience?

Why was it sold to us as the opposite: as a slam-dunk, bloodless video game that would make us instantly safer, and award us with loyal Iraqi citzenry who'd adore us, and demonstrate that adoration, en masse? Papa, I could almost get behind a "pre-emptive" war -- almost -- if the architects and implementers had the guts and integrity to portray its possibilites, risks, and near utopian goals, with total honesty. To ask for our investment in such a plan, we should've been treated with a measure of respect. All of us. A lot of bitterness that you deride on our side of the aisle comes from feeling so left out and marginalized in a discussion that involves every aspect of our free society (from civil liberties to the looming fear of conscription).

As Joan Dideon asserted, all we asked for was honest discussion about possibilty, risk, and realities. Rather than create a unifying dialogue that calls on our better selves, our uniquely American character that is beyhond red/blue state, we were I believe purposefully, indeed strategically divided from day one, into the patriotic and the treasonous.

Updated On: 7/11/05 at 01:32 PM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:47pm

dunno, auggie. for one, i do believe that everyone thought that there were wmds. i don't think that they ever contemplated that there were not. in the wake of 9/11, the us needed a bigger bang than afghanistan and iraq was seen as a threat. they had violated un sanctions and we were justified in taking action.

all that said, i've been making the same argument about the war, since not too awful long after 9/11. i agree that it could have been presented differently, but to do so would have been possibly too much of a change for american foreign policy, in essence embracing the role as supercop of the world. i don't think it could have been justified as a mission of hope legally in the parlance of international language. now you know me, i'd walk into the un and say, hey boys, this is what we're doing, deal with it. but i'm guessing that the justification that i offer in terms of humanitarian issues would not haave been enough to keep the war from being seen as illegitimate. not that anything would have given it any in some folks eyes.

i understand that you appreciate mny context more so than the one that was presented at the time, but i'm guessing that the only way to get there was the way we took. it was getting in that was important but now the real work has started.

oh, and there won't be a draft. the military doesn't want one, the people don't want one and congress doesn't want one. the only people who want one are the folks on your side of the aisle who think it's worth it to force people to die if that means that the administration will look bad.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:52pm

Augie - that is a question I've struggled with myself, and papa, as usual I appreciate your thoughtful response. It's scary to me to think that that kind of justification and decision-making is taking place by a handful out of the billions of souls worldwide. But the situation is beyond complicated, and I honestly can't see an alternative.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 1:54pm

"... the only people who want one are the folks on your side of the aisle who think it's worth it to force people to die if that means that the administration will look bad..."

And I'm thinking we're having a real dialogue until I read something like this. So we're pro death troop now, only to make a point?

Sorry, for my admittedly thin-skin, this sentiment is too cynical and ugly by half. I'm taking a breather.

[Unknown User]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 2:03pm

Auggie - I really think papa was just referring to the fanatical left, not the entire liberal cause.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 2:15pm

read the quote, "the folks on your side of the aisle". i didn't say, the democratic party. i didn't say, all liberals. i didn't say, you and your band of paramilitary leather boys (ok, so i don't even know if you have a band of paramilitary leather boys). i was targetting those in congress who continue to try to introcude a draft. they happen to be democrats and they happen to be doing it for selfish reasons, and trying to hide it behind national security. if you're that far gone that you think i include you in that bunch of raving madmen, maybe you indeed do need a little breather.

[South Fl Marc]

Posted: 7/11/05 at 2:16pm

The administration already looks bad. They knowingly lied and made up evidence to the American public and congress to get us into the Iraq war - for reasons other than the ones you listed Papa. The admistration is ruthlessly vindictive against anyone who doesn't do things their way, just look at what they did to Valerie Plame to get back at her husband. Instead of concentrating on the nations problems like unemployment, our economic problems, or trying to unite this country they have concentrated on issues to divide: anti gay marriage amendments, Terry Schiavo, flag burning amendments. From the start of his first term with the secret energy task force to the Downing Street memo this administration has raised corruption in the white house to an all time high.

They don't need the liberals to make them look bad - the question is: Do they ever look good anymore?