Asymmetrical Information

I have previously stated that no secular military despot would aid a radical Islamic terrorist because they are mortal enemies. I do believe Saddam would have given Bin Laden sanctuary, but he would have never allowed any group of Islamic terrorists a base of operations in Iraq, or provide wmd for fear they would be turned on him. The question is, with the depth of Saddams hatred for the US, and his possession of wmd, why did ne never use terrorist surrogates to attack the US in the ten years following Desert Storm? And why did it become a concern after 911, considering 911 didnt involve state sponsered terrorism.

A couple of other intresting conclusions in the source article. Atta never met with any Iraqi in Prauge, and there was no state sponser involved in 911.

" The question is, with the depth of Saddams hatred for the US, and his possession of wmd, why did ne never use terrorist surrogates to attack the US in the ten years following Desert Storm?"

Hmmm, assassination attempt on Bush I. Hmmm, possible involvement in first WTC attack and definite harbouring of a first WTC terrorist.

Also, I think the post has been truncated by an errant link.

Mindles:

1. What means "Of course KSM's"? Dropped sentence or paragraph?

2. I feel like you are attempting to subtly demonstrate an unstated point. No one thinks that people with different, even contrary, agendas don't work together occasionally. No one thinks that agendas don't change over time, resulting in shifting alliances. Heck, we worked with Saddam in the past. I know we've supported some really awful rogues in Central and South America (Samoza, Batista, the El Salvadoran death squads all come to mind). I'm not sure how strongly you want to tie support for specific goals to a sort of general conspiracy claim where each member of the conspiracy is equally responsible for all its acts, but then I'm pretty anti-nun-killing. I could be reading more into this than is there; I await your elaboration, oh Mindles one.

In as much as this is interesting at all, it is only interesting because it might be thought to have given support to a claim that Saddam was behind 9/11, before we knew that he wasn't. Since we now know that he wasn't, I don't see why it's particularly interesting.

No, it's interesting for two reasons:

1. The claim that ideologically-opposed parties would never cooperate is brought to bear on more than just (secular) Iraq & (fundamentalist) al-Qaeda. The same claim has been made for (Shi'a) Iran and (Sunni) al-Qaeda. The point is that the argument is not the QED that people often take it to be.
2. It gives insight into the way al-Qaeda operates – as (sometimes loose) networks of affiliates that fund and support each other, without ties of allegiance. This is crucial to understand when we debate whether someone (say al-Zarqawi and his al-Tawhid group) are "in al-Qaeda" or not. Did it matter on September 11 whether Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was "in al-Qaeda" or not during the planning? Or when he "joined"?

So bin Laden conspired to commit 9/11 with a sworn member of a group with which his hosts and allies were presently at war.

One of bin Laden's original demands was to depose the Iraqi regime. This and the 'secular/fundamentalist' nonsense some spout constitute the primary pillars of the former conventional wisdom. Yet there is certainly evidence that dialogue and approaches between Al Qaeda and Iraq occurred.

Thus I conclude that bin Laden and Hussein's henchmen might happily have conspired to commit a terrorist act against the U.S. as easily as KSM and bin Laden. Of course Iraq, as a state sponsor, would have to be quite careful to conceal their fingerprints to avoid reprisal.

This plus Iraq's history of ill-advised adventures, attempts, use of WMDs and sworn emnity of the U.S. would lead a reasonable observer to believe that they might well be a danger in this post 9/11 world and that cooperation with bin Laden to conceal their tracks was entirely possible.

Unless, like Mr. Davies, you think that 9/11 is the entire universe of possible terrorist acts past and future.

dsquared, I'd love to see who ever said Saddam was behind 9/11 - not the Bush or Blair governments, anyway. And I'm sure it wasn't anyone on Crooked Timber. As has been said above already, the interest in the piece is the light it sheds on the way groups like Al Q operate, and perhaps in the difficulties that caused Western intelligence agencies. If those things don't interest you, well, good for you.

Mindless D I dont think theres anyway Saddam would collaborate with any fundamentalist Islamic terrorist group. The example you use is of two factions of radical muslims that have a few points of disagreement collaborating against a common enemy. Maybe they said different prayers, but both groups were down for allah. Further, I dont think these two groups can accurately be described as at war with each other. Bin Laden had agreed to finance KSMs operation, and while KSM hadn't sworn loyality to UBL, it doesnt mean he opposed UBL. Another point to consider is that this information was given in what was likely an extremely, extremely uncomfortable interrogation. Under these circumstances KSM had plenty of reason to try to distance himself from UBL. Imo Saddams Iraq was the least likely of all arab states to collaborate with Islamic terrorists. Beyond the fact he couldnt be sure that any wmd he could give the terrorists to use on the US wouldnt instead be used against him, he also knew he was under an international microscope. Consider by Sept 12 2001 we knew exactly who was responsible for 911, if some Saddam sponsered terrorist group used a wmd against the US, how long would it take to trace back to Saddam? Also consider, if Saddam still had the wmd that we claimed he did, even when we were marching into Bahgdad Saddam considered exporting or hiding the wmd the prudent course of action, rather than using them on the US. Imo there were many arab states much more deserving of our wrath than Iraq, namely Saudi Arabia or Iran.

Mindles:

Here are the several factor test I'm seeing in your comment re Hussein:

(a) conspired with terrorists
(b) committed terrorism
(c) ill-advised adventures
(d) use of WMD.

If you change "terrorists/ism" to something like "really bad guy" or "really bad act" (mostly b/c I don't really want to get into the arcane discussion about what the difference is between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"), all of these things could be said about the US. Does that mean the US is evil, or that Hussein's Iraq was equivalent to the US? Of course not; that's a laughable claim. But I don't think that the difference is encoded in the factors above. And I don't think the "possibility" that you've adverted to is sufficient to justify our invasion of another country.

mostly b/c I don't really want to get into the arcane discussion about what the difference is between a "terrorist" and a "freedom fighter"

Meaning...

No really, does that have one?

Supposing he didn't use surrogates, why didn't he? If he did it and we could trace it, then we would go to war with him. But if he could do it without us tracing it, he would do it. The way he would do it would involve multiple middlemen to essentially launder the money or other aid used for support. That fact the we can't find it does not preclude its existance.

As for the idea Saddam didn't collaborate with Islamic Terrorist groups or condone their tacticves, how would you explain his providing financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, most of whom were Hamas or IJ members? Saddam will try to get away with anything he can get away with, without directly incurring the U.S. wrath. Israel, on the otherhand, is not capable of projecting sustained military force.

I find KSM focus on U.S. policy on Israel interesting. I don't think bin Laden was particularly interested in Israel, because he never tried to stage attacks against Israel until after 9/11. KSM of course seemed to be the most secular of the terrorists involved in the 9/11 plot. It seems to me that most of the parties involved in the attacks had different reasons for wanting to attack the U.S. Bin laden's personal reasons were more bigotted/xenophobic and fascist in nature.

> it is only interesting because it might be thought to have given support to a claim that Saddam was behind 9/11, before we knew that he wasn't.

In other words, we should have left the Germans alone because they didn't help the Japanese with Pearl Harbor.

MIndles,

I agree that Saddam and AQ COULD HAVE conspired in attacks agains the US. Iraq COULD HAVE provided support and/or manpower to AQ.

But they didn't.

So I don't understand your point. If it's just to say that people will ally themselves with all kinds I agree.

GT,

You wrote:
"But they didn't."

How do you know? It is one thing to argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove cooperation between the two. It is an entirely different thing to state definitively that there was no cooperation. Feel free to try and back-up this foolish assertion knowing that you cannot provide sufficient proof to warrant your level of certainty. Only a fool or a true believer (is there a difference) would make such an unsupportable assertion.

Jim English
Chicago

The biggest problem about the occupation of Iraq is it prevents us from dealing with the much larger threat of Iran, and the much more 911 culpable Saudi Arabia. Considering Irans soon to be realized nuclear potential and their consistant support of terrorism it was either completely stupid, or motivated by something beyond US safety to go after Iraq rather than Iran. We are going to have most of our armed forces in Iraq for years, and we now dont have the means of invading Iran and preventing their developement of nukes. With the 911 commissions finding that Iran aided the 911 terrorists with falsified passports and safe passage, the clearly stated goal of this Iranian regieme to go nuclear is currently the biggest threat to US safety.

All this theorizing of what Saddam COULD HAVE DONE is ridiculous when you look at what SA and Iran HAVE DONE. The SA madrassas are the birthplace of Wauhabism, Al Qaeda, and Bin Laden. They were 90%+ responsible for 911. Iran has flat out stated their nuclear intentions, and their hatred of the US is obvious because of their support of terrorism. So we go into Iraq?

"I do believe Saddam would have given Bin Laden sanctuary, but he would have never allowed any group of Islamic terrorists a base of operations in Iraq"

"he never would" Ah, but he did... Saddam's Intelligence operatives were the ones *running* Ansar Al-Islam, the Al Qaeda affiliated group in northern Iraq.
Morever, supporting Hamas suicide bombers.

"As for the idea Saddam didn't collaborate with Islamic Terrorist groups or condone their tacticves, how would you explain his providing financial support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, most of whom were Hamas or IJ members? Saddam will try to get away with anything he can get away with, without directly incurring the U.S. wrath. Israel, on the otherhand, is not capable of projecting sustained military force."

Right ... Saddam used terrorists, including
And Al Qaeda used rogue nations. That is why AQ and Saddam were talking, why Saddam's IIS trained AQ in Sudan, ... and why, if we didnt remove Saddam from power, the thousands of terrorists in Iraq today, might be there anyway, but at terror training camps like Salman Pak.

The first Axis power whose capital we Allies took in WWII was Italy - Rome. If the anti-Iraq-war folks were around then, they'd be arguing about USA ignoring the 'real' threat (not seeing the big picture). What the heck did Italy ever do to us?

Okay, how about this for a definition: a terrorist is one who intentionally targets innocent civilians. This definition gets around the bs of equating one man's freedom fighter with another man's terrorist.

The quibble-room in this definition is the definition of "innocent." How you define "innocent" says a lot about where you fall on the moral spectrum.

The biggest problem about the occupation of Iraq is it prevents us from dealing with the much larger threat of Iran, and the much more 911 culpable Saudi Arabia.

Ah, the curse of short-term thinking. As has been stated before, here and elsewhere, a direct confrontation with the Saudis is effectively impossible. The global economic shock would be too strong a medicine to swallow. But if Iraq is online as a stable oil producer then the Saudis have a ton of pressure to tread lightly because the entire shell of their political-economy is gilded in oil money and little else. Unlike Iraq, they don't have water and agricultural land on which to spill it.

Meanwhile, if it becomes necessary to do so the US can now confront Iran from both Iraq on the west and Afghanistan on the east, with nominally-friendly Turkey on the north and water access on the south.

Funny how that works...

The biggest problem about the occupation of Iraq is it prevents us from dealing with the much larger threat of Iran, and the much more 911 culpable Saudi Arabia.

Don't misunderestimate the Libya effect. Sometimes it is most effective to whip the whipping boy as an example to others that you're not totally against the concept of whipping someone. As mouse sad, Iran now has Iraq to the left of it and Afghanistan to the right. Forget the military strategy or even the Libya effect. The biggest danger to trhe current government of Iran might very well be that Overstock.com becomes the largest employer in the country.

The problem with going after SA or Iran is that their governments and politics are more factional. I'm sure there are elements of the ruling classes that gave assistance to al Qaeda. But it wasn't on orders from the top. Iraq under Saddam was pretty much ruled from the top by a small circle of people loyal to Saddam. Any contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda were authorized by the big man himself.

As for dealing with Iran, going into Iraq actually can help us deal with Iran by theologically undermining Iran's government. Most of the clerics in Najaf and probably all of those who left Qom for Najaf aren't exactly happy with the state of affairs in Iran. But it's going to take some time. It also gives us options in dealing with SA, since the oil rich provinces are Shi'ite areas.

One thing to consider is that the primary concern with a power that has nuclear weapons has been that they will use it has a shield to invade their neighbors, either by threatening us with a offensive missilie based delivery system capable of hitting us or our allies or by providing the weapons to terrorist groups who will infiltrate our borders. I'm not sure Iran could sustain an invasion of a neighboring country without having to deal with signficant amounts of unrest at home, so the nukes may serve as no more than a deterrent to invasion. Also, I think Iran would be the least hospitable country to invade terrain- wise, so that option was off the books for us anyway.

“I have previously stated that no secular military despot would aid a radical Islamic terrorist because they are mortal enemies.“

I want to have a little fun. Let me see how the above sentence sounds when slightly revised:

“I have previously stated that no democratic nation like the United States would aid a communist country like the Sviet Union during WWII because they are mortal enemies.”

I like kicking people below the belt. It’s just so much fun.

Iraq did not collaborate or cooperate with Al Qaeda. If there is any evidence of that, now that we have all or nearly all of Iraq's remaining officials in custody, now that we have full occupation and control over "sovereign" Iraq, now that we've had the 9/11 commission study the issue and even had Cheney et al. pressuring the CIA to link 9/11 to Iraq, please produce it.

* silence *

That's right. The burden of proof is yours.

Providing ex post facto money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers is not support for terrorists, unless you assume that the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, and children of terrorists are guilty by association (or religion, which I suspect is the case). That is the best charge I've heard supporting the claim that Saddam funded "terrorists" and it's a crock.

As for providing safe harbor, Ansar Al Islam was not an Al Qaeda entity (unless, again, you assume that all anti-American groups are part of the Al Qaeda network) and even if it was, it did not operate in the area of Iraq that Saddam Hussein controlled, but rather in the US patrolled and controlled no-fly zone in Kurdish territory.

As for these tired WW II analogies... please identify a single country that Iraq invaded post Gulf War I.

* dead silence *

Please identify a single American that Iraq killed in post-Gulf War I...

* silence *

Oh and those mass graves? 5,000 bodies. We've killed more with our "collateral damage" precision bombing campaigns.

And democracy? Allawi is a strongman who has declared martial law and has executed political opponents.

And Libya? Quiet diplomacy over the Lockerbie bombing resulting in Qaddafi's cooperation in turning over the suspects, not the "whipping boy" effect. Please read your history.

Frankly, Iran and North Korea have been emboldened by our misadventure in Iraq. We are definitely not safer.

Thumper has saved me a good deal of typing.

A few points about Iran and Saudi Arabia. The whole SA is to big of a player in the global oil game to be held responsible for 911 argument makes me sick. We could have seized the Saudi oil as restitution for 911 while leaving Saddam to sell the Iraqi oil as he saw fit, without rocketing the price of oil. Being in a position to confront Iran is to little to late especially considering our armed forces are bust occupying Iraq. This isnt about having a war with Iran, its about going in asap and destroying their nuke program. Iran having a nuclear capability is a lot more frightening than Saddam having wmd. The idea that the terrain takes Iran 'off the table' for military action is ridiculous, Afganistan was a much harsher enviroment.

D Thomson there are several problems with your attempted spinning of my quote. First, the US is what we call a democracy, and the USSR was what we call a communist state. How is that comparable to a theocracy and a military despotism? And you threw the WW2 line in there, while my phrase didnt comment on time.

Thumper,

A link that backs up the 5000 dead in mass graves......

silence.

http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

Who will speak for you, you fucking tool.

Jim English
Chicago

Begbee - It seems to me that you are moving the goal posts (again). Earlier you complained that one of the worst things about going into Iraq was that it distracted us from dealing with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Now, after someone showed you a map and pointed out that we have effectively surrounded Iran, you say it's-too-little-too-late. According to you, we should have dealt with Iran's nuclear ambitions ASAP and have captured Saudi Arabia's oil fields as compensation for 9/11. Would you really have supported Bush if he had done the things you now suggest he (obviously) should have done? You'll pardon me if I don't believe that you would have.

Perhaps the invasion of Iraq was designed, in part, to better allow us to deal with these other countries. Iran has been our sworn enemy since the fall of the Shaw. Iraq has been an enemy for nearly as long. Surely you don't suggest that we should have invaded them both at the same time. Why quibble with which country we choose to fight first? Somehow, our "incompetent" president has positioned us such that we can pressure both Saudi Arabia and Iran into behaving better than they have in the past. Our position in this regard is MUCH stronger than it was before the invasion of Iraq. Given the unrest in Iran, we may obtain "regime change" there without our having to fire a shot. Isn't that preferable to an invasion? If neither country yields to pressure, well, we can deal with them more effectively with land bases in Iraq than we could have done with Saddam still in power.

What you see as evidence of ignoring Saudi Arabia and Iran may actually be evidence of addressing the threats those countries pose. If you compare the map from two years ago to today's, you'll see we have much more freedom of action than we did before. The Saudi's refused to allow us to use their air bases to launch attacks on Iraq. The most likely would not have granted permission to bomb Iran, either. Now, we don't need to ask anyone. Iran knows that. So do the Saudi's. Things could not have worked better if it had been part of a larger plan.

Does our position of strength result from incompetence, luck, or design? I don't care. I'll take more of the same, thank you very much.

Im sorry when did it become a FACT that Saddam was NOT involved in 9/11? You arent trying to say that the Report by the 9/11 commission is the last word on this are you? They forgot a few things, some very important things when considering Saddams ties to terrorism. Just the highlights for the memory impaired.
1. Saddam builds a Nuke Reactor bought from the French to build Nuclear weapons.
2. Saddam threatens the US with Individual Arabs coming to our country to attack us if we should attempt to stop his annexation of Kuwait.
2. Saddam attempts to assasinate President Bush using classic terrorist methods. Bomb in car big enough that an estimated 250 would have been killed. Including coincidently the Future First Lady.
3. Saddam hosts a big ass terrorist meeting in Baghdad.
4. Saddam gives refuge to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the prime movers in the WTC 93 bombing.
5. Saddam builds WMD factory in Sudan in alliance with Al Queda.
6. Senior Al Queda Operative captured in Afghanistan details long time relations with Iraq.
7. Atta meets Al Ani in Praque, culmination of total of 3 trips to Praque.
8. Iraq Ambassador to Czech Republic Al Ani expelled from Praque for plotting to blow up Radio Free Europe.
9. Iraq Ambassador prior to Al Ani defects to England carrying with him the plans and money given to him by Saddam to bomb Radio Free Europe.

Nah nothing going on here...move along.

Pierre Legrand

Dave Walser we are hardly in a position of strength in either Iraq or Afganistan. We have about 11,000 troops in Afganistan, the narco warlords are expanding their influence, much of the Talaban has returned, and groups of voters are being massacred. In Iraq US soldiers are being killed at a higher rate than prior to the installation of the supposed Iraqi government, and the resistance in Falojah is training and exporting terrorism. Beyond that we replaced Saddam with Alloli(sp), another Baathist that is as ruthless as Saddam. So much for Iraqi freedom. We have accomplished nothing in Iraq except for making things worse. This isnt a cowboy movie, 'surrounding' Iran means absolutely nothing unless its for some sort of economic sanctions. If we move a significant number of troops out of Iraq the bubblegum hits the fan. We'll have uprisings throughout the country, thats why we still have 150,000 troops when the war plan figured the number to be about 50,000 troops at this point.

Why quibble with who we fight first? Because Iran is close to going nuclear, and unlike Iraq played a role in 911. Iraq was no threat to us under Saddam. Dont put words in my mouth as to defending the country. I supported the war in Afganistan, and was disgusted that we let UBL get away so we could start the total mistake in Iraq. If it were up to me after killing UBL I wouldnt have asked SA for anything. I would have seized the Saudi oil and taken control of that country, and done it easily without a huge occupying force. The SA military is barely strong enough to maintain power over the radical muslims, and completely untrustworthy. Saudi Royality actually hires Packies for personal security. Then you give Iran the ultimatum of open the doors completely for nuke inspections and turnover your nuke developmental hardware or get bombed. We could be much safer with alot fewer American lives lost. But with nearly all our military bogged down in Iraq we can do next to nothing.

Pierre every single reputable source has said Iraq had no involvement in 911. Your list of could bes and maybes is full of errors. The wmd factory in Sudan magically turns into an asprin factory when you reps are going after Clinton. The assassinate Bush plan is an accusation, not an attempt. Every reputable source says Atta never met with Iraqi intell in Prauge. The intell on Saddam bombing radio free Europe are based on a defector playing lets make a deal.

But we know Iran aided the 911 terrorists. And we know 911 was committed primarily by Saudis, planned by Saudis, and financed by Saudis. So Iraq is the bigger threat?

Before Im taken out of context, I'll clarify my assassination of Bush comments. I realize the explosives in the car bomb were traced back to Iraq, and several Iraqis confessed to the attempt in Kuwait. But the attempt was preempted, and there was no finger pointed at Saddam by the conspirators.

Goalposts? What goalposts?

Begbee, SomeCallHimLefty and Thumper et. al. will continue to defend the indefensible, until death. Don't feed the trolls; it is the very definition of "waste of time."

Unless of course you want to keep reading phrases like: Can't you sheeple see that Bush is eeeevil, worse than Hitler/Saddam? Can't you see his tail, his horns, his cloven hooves? Can't you....?!?!

Jim English,

This is a debate site for adults. I believe Jane and Mindles do not appreciate when posters use the F word.

Try and keep it civil, OK?

"The biggest problem about the occupation of Iraq is it prevents us from dealing with the much larger threat of Iran..."

A strange notion indeed. Do the mullahs feel more safe than they did 2 years ago with an additional 140,000 American troops on their border, and every part of Iran within range of American land-based fighter-bombers? I don't think so.

Occupying and neutralizing Iraq before dealing with any other regime in the region was good strategy. These incessant discussions about who Saddam knew and when he knew them are inconsequential.

Rex:

"Okay, how about this for a definition: a terrorist is one who intentionally targets innocent civilians. This definition gets around the bs of equating one man's freedom fighter with another man's terrorist."

I don't think that definition works. As you acknowledge, all the work is being done by "innocent." I have two objections:

1. I can't help but think that no one would object to the targeting of the guilty, unless the punishment of the targeting was disproportionate to the guilt. I mean, I don't want someone shot because they stole a candybar.

2. Your comment seems to imply that "innocent" is some found, physical characteristic, like "black hair." But calling someone "innocent" is precisely the same process of judging by which we'd find someone to be a terrorist. It seems to me that your rule is no better than saying "I know a terrorist when I see him." Except that it's the process by which you know him that I want to know.

Rmc Im not defending the indefensible, Im attacking the corrupt and stupid.

Warthog you can only judge Iran by their actions. Since we invaded Iraq, Iran has accelerated their nuke program and have barred all international nuke inspectors. They have also provided training and financial support to the Iraqi insurgency, and about 2 months ago the administration stated Iran was allowing about 3000 foreign fighters a day to cross their border into Iraq. Factor in the aid to the 911 terrorists and its clear Iran doesnt fear us at all.

The word terrorist is now used to describe nearly anyone that opposes US policy. For example, the administration used the word terrorist to describe the Iraqi resistance because 'outside of a few hundred Saddam loyalists in Tikrit and the Sunni triangle' it was only foreign fighters that opposed our occupation of Iraq. Then people found out about Falajah(sp) and Najef. So then a few weeks later, according to the administration it became a few foreign fighters, but mostly ex Iraqi military that was attacking the coallition, and somehow Iraqis defending their homes also became terrorists as well. Ive always considered terrorism to be a politically motivated attack on a civilian target. But 911 changed everything...

"No one thinks that people with different, even contrary, agendas don't work together occasionally. No one thinks that agendas don't change over time, resulting in shifting alliances."

That certainly surprises the hell out of me, as I have witnessed a substantially larger number of people than "no one" make just such a claim that Saddam and Al'Qaeda would not and could not, ever, under any reasonable circumstances work together. Indeed, I have even witnessed the claim that the ideological and religious differences between the two is proof positive that any link between them must be false.

"Factor in the aid to the 911 terrorists and its clear Iran doesnt fear us at all."

You are mixing metaphors. Your original assertion was that the invasion of Iraq prevented us from dealing with Iran. My position is that having 140,000 troops on the ground in Iraq, land-based aircraft within range of every part of Iran, and the logistics infrastructure in place in Iraq to rapidly increase those numbers means exactly the opposite.

A nuclear-armed Iran is the worst case scenario on the planet. I believe that the elimination of that threat is the ultimate goal of this Administration. I'm somewhat at a loss to understand why this has not been better explained, and totally apoplectic understanding why the EU would find this goal objectionable.

Iran is a formidable adversary. The mullahs will not go easily.

Tim,

Don't take "innocent" out of context--it's "innocent civilian." Two militaries can shoot the heck out of each other, and although regrettable, it's not terrorism. Collateral damage isn't terrorism, either. But placing a bomb in a shopping mall is clearly terrorism.

One could argue that if two nations are at war, then there are no innocent civilians in either country. In that context, Dresden, Frankfurt, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are not acts of terrorism. But if the "war" is not between two sovereign nations, the definition becomes fuzzy. Let's hypothesize that the planes into the WTC were acts of terrorism and that the plane into the pentagon was not (no "innocent civilians" there.) Does that help you clarify your thinking?

R Goodfellow Ive stated that Iraq and Al Qaeda could almost never work together. Al Qaeda and their ilk hates the Saddams and Mushariffs more than they hate us. They have tried to assassinate Mushariff twice, and hes far more powerful and far more palatable to radical Islam than Saddam. So much of our thinking is based on the misrepresentation that radical Islam hates us because of our freedom. The fact is radical Islam hates us for our energy policy and our support of secular despots like Mushariff, and previously Saddam. Every reputable terrorist expert states that is the reason radical Islam has attacked the US, and Bin Laden outlined his reasoning in his fatwa against the US.

Warthog I understand your mixed metaphors complaint, I nearly removed the Iran 911 cooperation from my post. I dont think there is any need to threaten Iran with invasion, imo taking out their nuke program is the only goal worth pursuing. I'll concede its certainly possible to do that while occupying Iraq, but if we move on another Islamic nation without cause we may well give Bin Laden exactly what he wants with the West vs all Islam in a war, and at the very least increase our risk of being hit with terrorism in the US. We agree that Iran is our biggest threat, I just think killing Bin Laden, then removing Irans nuclear capability, and then installing a puppet government in Saudi Arabia was the way to approach the post 911 world.

Warthog wrote:

A strange notion indeed. Do the mullahs feel more safe than they did 2 years ago with an additional 140,000 American troops on their border, and every part of Iran within range of American land-based fighter-bombers? I don't think so.

Even if that doesn’t turn out to be the case, we’ve got Iran in a wedge between Iraq and Afghanistan and I like our changes of either taking out a nuclear facility or an invasion (if we ultimately opt for either of these courses) with these sorts of logistics a lot better.

Another problem with attacking SA directly is the religious implications; even a lot of moderate Muslims might have a very vocal problem with that. The alleged "Arab street" that never materialized during Gulf II might suddenly discover its protest abilities.

Begbee, I'm also curious how you propose to single out any future nuclear targets in the western half of Iran without an airbase in Iraq (assuming, per previous experience, that the Saudis wouldn't consent to the use of a base in their domain for such a project). Unless of course you expect the Israelis to do it, as they have a track record in that sort of thing...

So much of our thinking is based on the misrepresentation that radical Islam hates us because of our freedom. The fact is radical Islam hates us for our energy policy and our support of secular despots like Mushariff, and previously Saddam. Every reputable terrorist expert states that is the reason radical Islam has attacked the US, and Bin Laden outlined his reasoning in his fatwa against the US.

Is any part of this line of discussion really important? So long as we acknowledge that Islamism, a political ideology, exists and has attained a stage of organization which presents a danger to American interests does the pop psychology aspect really matter? I've read much WWII history and never once considered "hate" an important element.

WWII analogies are useful. The Allied war objective was not just the destruction of the German and Japanese capacity to wage war but the eradication of the Nazi ideology in Europe and militarism in Japan. Our current goals should be as broad - the destruction of the Islamist's capacity to wage war, including Iran's nascent nuclear capability, and the eradication of Wahabbism.

Rex:

1. I agree that collateral damage isn't terrorism (unless said collateral damage is actually the point of the exercise). I'm less sure about the mall/terrorism thing, b/c of the Dresden thing.

2. I dropped "civilian" b/c of Dresden, etc. So then the declaration of war makes all citizens of the foreign country reasonable targets? I don't like it, but it seems credible at some level.

3. I'm less sure about "sovereign nations" and "war." I don't know about "sovereign nations," mostly b/c I don't know how you validate "sovereign nation." You wouldn't necessarily want to leave it to an outside organization like the UN to recognize. There are lots of failed countries in the world where the control of the ruling government is significantly less than complete.

Also, on "war" - you used quote marks to indicate that the meaning was ambiguous in some way. I think that's right, b/c I think there are lots of undeclared wars going on. However, does this rule mean that any citizen of India, for example, is fair game for Pakistan? The two countries have had a sort of low level war for years regarding Kashmir. Also, what are we to make of the Cold War? Was everything acceptable? Or do you need a declaration of war, which we haven't had since, I think, WWII?

Also, the inclusion of "sovereign nation" doesn't really help us as regards US help to the Contras (who, IIRC, killed civillians purposely), for example. Were we, then, a country that supported terrorism? Less directly, did we condone terrorism by allowing the IRA to raise significant funds in the US?

4. I also think that it's unrealistic to believe that people will fight according to rules that assure them a loss. No country seriously fighting the US will ever fight us straight up - we'd crush them. Notions of terrorism, or appropriate military conflict between nations or groups, have to take that into account to be credible.

Again, I don't think that the US is a rogue nation or anything like that. I think we are as moral (whatever that means) a world leader as is likely to be found. But in the end, we have to come up with a set of rules that the majority of the rest of the world will buy. If we do that, policing it becomes much easier.

Here is the link to the (in Jim Henley's words) somewhat-less-mass-than-advertised graves in Iraq.

It asserts that there were 5,000 bodies found, not the 400,000 that Tony Blair had asserted.

T Winston I dont think theres any chance of democracy working in Iraq. Alloli supposedly executed six Iraqi insurgents, one after another, without any sort of trial, just prior to being installed as Iraqi PM. When/If elections are held in Iraq a Shi'aa theocracy is going to win easily. Imo that will promote cooperation between Iraq and Iran.

Anony mouse attacking SA would increase hostility from the other Islamic nations. But I doubt it would attract many more Islamic extremists than our presence in Iraq. The same Islamic radicals in Iraq now are what we would face in SA. I think we could remove the SA royality, secure the oil fields, and install a puppet government in SA that left Mecca and other Islamic Holy sites under arab control. I havent looked at all the logistics involved in going after Iran, as you say we could use Israel to do the dirty work much like they previously did in Iraq, but politically it might be best for the US to do the bombing. Im not sure of the details around the Iranian nuke facilities, but I think we likely have bombers that have the range to do the deed now.

Warthog the reasons Islam hates us isnt 'pop psychology.' When you understand the reasons 911 happened, you also understand the stupidity or corruption in our attack on Iraq. Beyond this, Islam is not waging war against us, multinational Islamic terrorists are attacking us. The only war against a nation state to remedy this situation is to attack the nation states that export terrorism, like SA, Iran, or Pakistan.

A lot of people here seem to want to come up with all sorts of odd conspiracy theories about Iraq attacking America. Why not come up with the same theories about other countries?

For the life of me I can't see what Saddam had to gain from 9/11. He has something to gain from supporting palestinian terrs (arab supporters). He had something to gain from supressing kurds, shi'ites and radical islamic terrorists (maintain power). But picking a fight he was guaranteed to lose for no reason doesn't seem to be consistent with the previous actions of this power-hungry dictator. If somebody dares to mention Kuwait I will assume they are voluntary sacrificing their credibility (he was not guaranteed to lose because he thought the US wouldn't support Kuwait).

If we're going to keep making up conspiracy theories, can we go back to the pope and the queen mother peddling drugs and planning the jewish and mason takover of the moon?

The 9/11 Report identifies "Islamist terrorism" as a "catastrphic threat" to the United States. I would have liked to have seen the Commission go one step further and define Islamism, the ideology, as the threat. But for reasons I do not know and probably could not comprehend, something sniffing of political correctness continues to prevent the government from speaking plainly of the nature of the threat or even properly defining the enemy. GWB was on the right track shortly after 9/11 but was never able to put Islamist in front of terrorism.

If I may, the enemy is: (1) all Islamist organizations and their members and support groups, wherever situated, and (2) the government or ruling autocracy of any state which has or is likely to provide refuge or support of any kind to Islamist terrorist organizations, or which succors the Islamist ideology. That does that mean that the USA must confront each enemy militarily but let's put the cards face-up on the tableso we can see where we stand.

Discussion about whether or not Saddam was a secularist or whether or not Saddam knew about the 9/11 plot are akin to discussing whether or not the chief mucky-muck of Guadalcanal knew about the Pearl Harbor plot.

But I doubt it would attract many more Islamic extremists than our presence in Iraq. The same Islamic radicals in Iraq now are what we would face in SA. I think we could remove the SA royality, secure the oil fields, and install a puppet government in SA that left Mecca and other Islamic Holy sites under arab control.

Strictly on the basis that "you think" all of this would happen/could be done?

That's nice for a theoretical exercise, but talk is selling for twenty cents a ton on the commodities market. The supporting evidences are not entirely reassuring.

Warthog you are after the same thing as UBL, the West vs Islam in a final, complete confrontation. That amount of killing is not something this country could begin to stomach.

Anony mouse I gave some reasons why taking SA would be fairly easy. For a guy that supports the administration that said we would be greeted by parades in Iraq you really have no room to criticize my 'planning'. Im not sure what the market for horse manure is, but I think you have it cornered.

I suspect your reference to a West vs. Islam confrontation is based on a misunderstanding of the words "Islamist" or "Islamism." I am glad to see that the word has finally been outed by the 9/11 Commission. The distinction is important if for no other reason than to knock down the silly secularist and fundamentalist argument.

Warthog an Islamist is anyone that believes in Islam. Im really not sure of what sort of semantic game your trying to play, three posts prior to this you defined every single Islamic state as Islamist. Your going to have to give some examples of Islamic states or organizations that are not 'Islamist' in order to make any sort of meaningful substanitive argument. Btw, every single expert on the mideast differentiates between secular and radical Islam.

I think your defining Islamist as those muslims who believe Islam must be the only global religion, and seeks confrontation or war with the west to create a Islamic world. If this is the case, its even more important to distinguish between secular Islam, like Iraq previously, and radical Islam, like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Warthog an Islamist is anyone that believes in Islam

Islamist is a term of art that any person who wants to be taken seriously should know and understand. You ain't there.

Warthog provide a definition of Islamist. You have managed to write multiple posts on the importance of a word you have never defined, and for some reason you still refuse to.

Begbee,
Go to www.islamistwatch.org for a definition of Islamist vs. Islam.

No, I haven't read the site; I just know how to Google.

Rex I know what an Islamist is. I know how to google. What I wanted to know was what Warthog was calling an 'art'...

Begbee,

Are you serious?!?!??

Rex Warthog claimed the word Islamist 'puts an end to the silly secular muslim vs fundamentalist muslim argument.' That suggests he believes the word makes all Muslims interpret their religion in the same way. All I was asking for was his definition of the word, and I get some art commentary.

I take it you've never heard the phrase, "a term of art" before. One of the arts is painting, another is war, another is designing software, another is practicing law, another is teaching kids, another is banking, etc. etc. etc. Every business or endeavor has its terms of art. Warthog is saying that in the art of understanding international terrorism, the word "Islamist" has a specific technical meaning which should not be confused with "Islamic" or "Islam" and so forth.

One of the major problems in having any meaningful conversation with anyone, whether it be spouse, friend, relative, or stranger, is not knowing whether the person you are communicating with understands the words you are using in the same way that you mean them. Ordinary, common-usage words are the slipperiest. For every technical field, terms of art have developed so that everyone in that field can communicate meaningfully with one another: no slipperiness allowed. Outsiders have to learn the terms of art to understand exactly what is being said. Thus we advance meaningful dialogue.

Rex all this 'art' stuff is irritating, and looks to sidestep the question. Islamist is a straight forward concept. It describes a muslims that thinks Islam should seek world domination. Your post was one the most intellectually arrogant lies I have ever read. Thus we know your full of it.

Anony mouse I gave some reasons why taking SA would be fairly easy.

Yes, you gave your perspective that a lot of links would fall in place simultaneously. I don't doubt that the military aspect would be like cutting through butter with a blowtorch, but you seem very confident in the ability to control the multiplicity of side effects and I still say you are either working from a lot of assumptions, or have information you haven't yet shared.

For a guy that supports the administration that said we would be greeted by parades in Iraq you really have no room to criticize my 'planning'.

There you go with the unmerited assumptions again. Allegation of flaws in your reasoning does not construe a full approval of the opposed point of view. Now that you've got all that hay out of the way, consult the wizard for a mixture of pins and needles, or else stick to the issues at hand.

Im not sure what the market for horse manure is, but I think you have it cornered.

Are you saying I've got you cornered, then?

Btw, your blustering indignation notwithstanding, Warthog is quite correct in his "term of art" discussion, you apparently haven't been in the debate very long if you only understand "Islamist" in its traditional definition. It is usually understood in these debates as a person who is a promoter of Islamism, not merely a follower of Islam.

Anony mouse I threw a quick overview of why taking SA would be easily accomplished. You dont offer a single specific flaw in anything I wrote, yet you criticize me as vague and dependant on luck. I think the only really debatable aspect of seizing SA is how severly radical Islam responds to our presence in SA. There is no unmerited assumptions here, the fact is we went into Iraq without a clue of what we faced in the occupation, and I still havent heard a single criticism of the 'plan' in Iraq from the right. But you criticize me for a theory because it might have flaws?

I try to avoid profanity unless its absolutely called for. Your 'nontraditional' definition of Islamist is bullshit. It has nothing to do with 'promoting' the Islamist beliefs. Its the belief that Islam must rule the world. That has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq. Saddams armed services had been deteriorating since Desert Storm, he had no wmd, and was not a threat to anyone. Thats the context this art bullshit came up in. Agreeing on a lie doesnt make it true.

Comments are Closed.