does al qaeda have a presence in iraq?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:37am

not did they when we went in.

do they currently have a presence in iraq?

should we be fighting al qaeda?

if al qaeda is in iraq and we should be fighting them, shouldn't we also be in iraq?

if we were to leave iraq would al qaeda leave too?

if we were to leave iraq completely and asap as suggested by some democratic presidential candidates would that be giving al qaeda a victory?

now i know the first thing many of you are already typing is, "they weren't there until we went there!" i don't give a flying f*ck when they got there, that's not the point. i'm sure many of you won't be able to resist lengthy diatribes on how they were personally flown in by george bush (he was a pilot y'know) and given weapons by doug feith.

but the question i'm asking is, many people here say we should be fighting al qaeda so if they are in iraq, shouldn't we be fighting them there? or wherever they happen to be?

[vmlinnie]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:39am

Oh dear me...


Wasn't the reason for going in that Saddam had WMDs? Not that Al Qaeda were there...

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:42am

and reading comprehension takes another hit.

i wonder if anyone will respond to what i actually asked?

[chicolini]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:43am

I'll be obnoxious and answer your questions with questions: is a full-scale military presence the best way to fight al-Qaeda (in Iraq or anywhere?) Wouldn't small teams of special forces performing targeted attacks be better suited to an enemy like this?

Since the troops are already in Iraq, they're not going to ignore al-Qaeda attacks that happen there, but I'm not sure that keeping them there is the best way to fight terrorism.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:48am

"Wasn't the reason for going in that Saddam had WMDs?"

That is the sound byte that the media latched onto. If you read the "Iraq War Resolution" there were other reasons.

One of the other reasons was:

Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations

Updated On: 5/7/07 at 11:48 AM

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:50am

you mean mini-invasions? or would we be clearing things with the host countries before we went in giving them time to warn the terrorists who'd disappear to be replaced by civilians and camera crews which would capture the utter folly of the american military (unless of course they could coax the military into firing on civilians by launching a rocket from a building full of children which would make great tv) and mitigate against any further such excursions?

so you think we should be inserting assassination teams into sovereign countries or would you prefer that these covert action teams (who are trained to kill the enemy) become police and capture the terrorists so they could be put on trial?

Updated On: 5/7/07 at 11:50 AM

[chicolini]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:07pm

Hey, I'm all for covert assassination teams, but that's probably the result of reading too much Tom Clancy.

Seriously though, I just don't think the "old" ways of battle are suited for the "new" war on terrorism. It does require real cooperation with other countries, but once we get that cooperation al-Qaeda can move on to another shell state and start up there.

We (the global "we") have to disrupt them economically as well, which is another difficult task. Terrorism is a huge business and it can take advantage of all sorts of international banking procedures and loopholes. Hell, the hawala system goes back to the days of the Silk Road.

I understand that you're highlighting the contradiction in the statement "we need to get out of Iraq so that we can focus on fighting al-Qaeda", but I don't think the corollary "we have to fight al-Qaeda so we need to stay in Iraq" follows.

Personally, I see Iraq as sort of a lab for al-Qaeda. They take the lecture courses elsewhere and have a chance to practice in a country that has more than its fair share of chaos.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:14pm

Al Qaeda has a presence in Indonesia, possibly a stronger presence than in Iraq. Shall we invade there too?

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:24pm

but it's a lab in which the test tubes regularly explode and kill the students. which is a good thing.

there are several problem with covert actions.

they require intelligence which requires people in place to gather that intelligence which often must be acted on in minutes or hours not days days or weeks.

that kind of rapid response mitigates against the so-called "over the horizon" type presence envisioned by some.

covert requires secrecy, not something that's real popular nowadays.

also, how quickly would the word assassination be spread across every newspaper and television and computer screen in the land? hearings, investigations and subpoenas.

disruption of international banking? kinda like we were doing before those efforts were exposed by the ny times' sensation article alleging crimes? a program that was later proven completely legal? of course they couldn't just go back to doing it after the times explained in great detail how they were doing it.

al qaeda considers iraq the mother of all battles. if we walk away from it, does that mean they have won it? while our reputation may be in tatters, we walk away and no one ever trusts us to follow through on anything ever again. we will have no traction whatsoever anywhere. sure, our influence is diminished, but this is not like fighting communism where we faced a rational enemy.

we are fighting barbarians who will kill anyone who disagrees with them and keep killing until those who disagree with them are all dead. then they will start killing their friends who don't agree with them strongly enough. when those are all gone, they'll kill each other.

covert actions may be in the long run effective, but until we are at a place as a nation where such policies can be conducted in the dark necessary to their success, i don't see it as a viable option.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:36pm

The war in Iraq is unwinnable for the United States the same way it was unwinnable for the British and the Soviets. There is an infallible Near Eastern defense that goes back to the beginning of recorded time: You lie in wait until the invader thinks he has won, and then you take him by surprise and slice open his neck and leave him to bleed into the sand.

What made Bush and Cheney think we would be the first to defeat that age-old strategy?

What makes you think we can beat it now?

How many more Americans have to die until you agree that Bush and Cheney blew it? We should have stayed in Afghanistan and found Bin Ladin and Omar.

[chicolini]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:41pm

Is Iraq really the mother of all battles for al-Qaeda? Terrorists thrive on causing fear and disruption in our daily lives and, outside of those directly involved in Iraq, how much are we affected? Bin Ladin's '98 fatwa called for the murder of any American, anywhere on earth because we declared war against God and his messenger- wouldn't they rather focus on that than a battle in Iraq?

If it's true, then staying in Iraq is the right choice to protect Americans at home, but it's a choice made at the expense of Iraq and its people and I'm not sure we have the right to do that. That didn't seem to be your initial argument, but it's what I see as a potential offshoot.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 12:52pm

>>not did they when we went in.
>>do they currently have a presence in iraq?

Al Qaeda presence in Iraq is minimal at best. I can't find the figure now, but it's well below 500 actual human beings. If we can't track them down maybe we should leave.

More people live in my apartment building. It's fishy man, pretty fishy. Like the Iran rhetoric.


>>>should we be fighting al qaeda?

Depends on what people in Al Qaeda. There have been a lot of band-wagon jumpers and the US gov likes to call everyone Al Qaeda. Why we haven't gone after the people that initially attacked is my question. Shouldn't we be fighting them?


>>>>if al qaeda is in iraq and we should be fighting them, >>shouldn't we also be in iraq?

We shouldn't be in Iraq. That simple. Sadaam kept Al Qaeda out, we should have never left them in.


>>>if we were to leave iraq would al qaeda leave too?

And what follow us home? No, there will be a long war there. Fought by many, caused by us.


>>>if we were to leave iraq completely and asap as suggested by >>some democratic presidential candidates would that be giving al qaeda a victory?

Al Qaeda has already declared victory, and should have. We dropped the ball in Afgahnistan and Pakistan. The fact that we ALLOWED them to invade another country is winning... They have won, and we lost.



>>>>but the question i'm asking is, many people here say we should be fighting al qaeda so if they are in iraq, shouldn't we >>>be fighting them there? or wherever they happen to be?


Sure if you want to destabilize the region and control it's national resources.... a group like this could keep us in business forever.

We should fight Al Qaeda, but I hardly think a WAR is the answer here. Those groups need to be taken out logistically and what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan is the wrong approach.

See the difference here is that we have had time to see how our policy works (or doesn't in this case). We need someone to guide us out.


**** Bush does run covert operations. Updated On: 5/7/07 at 12:52 PM

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 6:48pm

Is the Pope Catholic?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 9:43am

I'm interested in the current context for this question, the talking point du jour of this regime. Only last week Bush lowered his high standard for "victory" to a reduction in violence. Huh? So much for all our lives wasted. We'll be victorious when fewer Iraqis and only, say, 1-2 of our own are killed every day, instead of 5-9. The movable goal post in this war as a final strategy for the Bush 2nd term is shameful.

But context, context ... if we must beat 'em there so they don't follow us here ... a talking point that does not ever go away ... then how can a reduction in violence in Iraq ever be success? If you follow that logic, only absolutely elimination of all acts of terror -- and destruction of all those who commit them -- in Iraq will keep us "safe." What's really odious about this "over there/not here" propaganda as a strategy to maintaining our "safety" is the built-in lie about al qaeda, that they are suckers with our fly paper approach to licking 'em -- pour in Americans in Iraq to fight, and we'll never see a terrorist come for us here again. It's all spin, and this question cannot be posed in a vaccum.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:37am

but the question i'm asking is, many people here say we should be fighting al qaeda so if they are in iraq, shouldn't we be fighting them there? or wherever they happen to be?

Do you, then, propose a full-scale invasion of every country where Al Quaeda has a presence? This logic doesn't remotely make sense. So the reason that we must persevere in the war isn't the stabilization of a country that we destroyed, it's now looking for the proverbial needle-in-a-haystack of Al Quaeda members in the country? Our soldiers are not primarily fighting Al Quaeda in Iraq -- they're fighting for their lives against a burgeoning civil war. That doesn't leave a lot of opportunity to track down terrorist plots.

I don't really support pulling out troops until things are more stable, but at least have viable logic about the reasons we need to be there -- don't just spit out administration talking points.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:45am

When it comes to "administration talking points," Papa doesn't spit out--he swallows.

Right, Papa? Like oysters, no?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:49am

Only 1% of the actual insurgents are or call themselves al qaeda. That is a FACT.

It is also important to point that the al qeada population in the US pre-Iraq War was higher than that of Iraq.

These arguments for war just do not add up. It is ALL about oil. Oil, oil, oil.

You wait, Papa will be on here blaming Iran for supplying arms to the insurgents. Though it's all based on circumstantial and anecdotal evidence. Not to mention that there are 70 million people in Iran. Many of whom who do not represent the government.

There is more al qaeda operatives in the Sudan, Bosnia or Pakistan.

WE ARE IN THE WRONG COUNTRY!


There was a Time report a few years back that linked Iran with al qaeda!!!!!!!! The 9/11 Commission reported that blatant lie. It is so far from the truth. The fact of the matter is you have to be on the ground and know who these people are and what their motivations and circumstances are. It is not as simple as occupying a country and trying weed them out.

Updated On: 5/8/07 at 11:49 AM

[chicolini]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 11:56am

Mejust,

You've mentioned your thoughts on the inadequacy of the 9/11 Commission report a couple of times on various threads now. Out of curiousity, how would you have done things differently?

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 12:27pm

9/11 Commission?

For starters I would have created a diverse group of people from all backgrounds and sciences in lieu of the so-called "bipartisan" group. There was only a single white woman on that commission and the rest were old white men. Only Republicans and Democrats were used. No scientists or foreign nationals.

2. Then, I would have answered every single question the victims and families asked. AND PRINTED THEM! Just for kicks, you know...

For instance: "Who paid for these attacks?" - Still unanswered.


3. And then, I would have launched an investigation around the lies of Condi Rice.


The media and the congress failed us BIG TIME on this one. Hillary did, and all the majors networks. No one questioned the reports. Except the GOP which was just trying to pretend there was some actual legitimacy to the report.

This might be a BIGGER scandal than the war in Iraq. It is disgusting we have to have an investigation of a committee supposedly investigating something. Truth is they manufactured Bush lies and helped the cause for war.


Updated On: 5/8/07 at 12:27 PM

[chicolini]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 12:46pm

But the report came right out and stated there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda - how does that help the cause for war there?

I agree with your first point (diversity), but that's sadly true in many areas of our country and not specific to the commission. Not that it excuses it, but in my cynical mind it was more or less a given that was how it would be.

The report wasn't perfect by any means, but I don't think it was the outright disaster you see. I don't think we'll ever know the direct source of funding for the attacks - terrorism is big business and they've had good practice covering their tracks. I'd rather focus on disrupting their economic channels to work to prevent future attacks.

I guess the bottom line in our differences is you seem to be looking for specific people to blame the attacks on, where I see it as more of an institutional failure, which is similar to the conclusions in the report. The systems were so far broken that Bush & Co. would be unlikely to recognize and fix what was wrong before it was too late. That doesn't mean they (the Bushies) shouldn't have been more aware of the world situation and oh, I don't know, actually LISTENED when someone voiced a minority opinion and I certainly do not absolve them of the sins they committed in the lust for power in the aftermath.

Sorry to threadjack, papa, but you left us unsupervised.

[mejusthavingfun]

Posted: 5/8/07 at 1:11pm

Unfortunately the Iraq war started BEFORE the report was released. Part of what seems like a larger cover-up. We could have had all that information before we went in.
That seems deliberate to me.

I'm not talking necessarily about the race of the commission. I am more concerned with the people specifically chosen. I'm not asking for a mixed race group of random people. I'm talking about getting real research people from all sciences on this.

Most of these people had financial ties to Saudi investors, all major airlines, and war contractors. At the very least people that understand the fundamentals of using a scientific approach to research methods.


>>"I don't think we'll ever know the direct source of funding for the attacks - terrorism is big business and they've had good practice covering their tracks."

It may be complex, but there are answers. To not even ask the question in the report is something I would think should be questioned. At the very least unscientific.




"The systems were so far broken that Bush & Co. would be unlikely to recognize and fix what was wrong before it was too late."

Using a blanket statement like that distracts from the reality that there are answers and people should be responsible. Why did Condi have to lie? Read my signature, she actually said that to the commission. The woman knew full well of plane and hijackers. At the very least she could have warned the FAA.


It is really hard for me to swallow one lie and than assume the rest is the truth. I do in fact take it very personally because I was closely involved with 9/11. This commission deliberately failed the American people.


***And about my earlier Iran comment. The 9/11 commission indicated ties with “Iran” and al Qaeda. The Iranian government does not do business with al Qaeda. They kill them. This is simply more Neo-con propaganda.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/13/07 at 7:58pm

nope, no al qaeda here.
pay no attention to those guys called aq, baby