Why the USA is losing the War on Terror

Some suggestions

The domestic debate over the setting of a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq has been most instructive. On the one hand it dlearly demonstrated to the whole world that there is dwindling support for the war in Iraq and the Republicans barely managed to stave off defeat in the Senate because Democrats like Hilary Clinton went along with the majority. However we have not seen the end of the debate. The Democrats made acrucial tactical blunder by emphasing the timetable for troop withdawal instad of highlighting the conduct and strategy of war. Had they concentrated their attack on the muddled and incompetent manner in which the war is being conducted along with loud and imaginatively constructed wails of protest against the brutal nature of the American occupation in Iraq, the Democrats would have made a better show. The Republicans did a superb job of defelecting any criticism by trumpetting the canard that even suggesting a timetable for troop withdrawal is unpatriotic and anti American. Thus the Democrats gave a crucial tactical victory to the Democrats.

Yet disturbing questions remain. Three years after the War Iraq is nowhere near stability and reconstruction. The fatigue induced by this senseless war would mean that the US will abandon Iraq sooner than later. A wounded, bleeding Iraq will become a bigger recruiting soil for the Al Qaeda. Infact, before the invasion of Iraq there was not a single Al Qaeda cell in Iraq except perhaps in the Kurdish noth which was insulated by a no fly zone enforced by US airforce. Now Iraq is chalk-a-block with terrorists of very colour, ideological hue, and training. The USA remains clueless about the next step.

The much vaunted elections in Iraq have not helped to bring stability to the country. A devastated civil society can hardly throw up national leaders with strong plitical base. The quislings who call themselves Iraq's political leadership will not survive single day after the exit of the US troops. In fact those quislings have realised that by hitching their political wagons to the American band wagon they political future will lie burried in the sands of Nineveh like the palaces of Nebuchenazzer. So they hit upon a most cynical ploy. Amnesty to all those who have not shed Iraqi blood. Think of the implications of this move. It is a massive vote of no confidence in the American Occupation and the fact that amnesty covers the killing of American soldiers meabns that the present Iraqi regime asees the US occupation as a period of hostile action and hence kid glove treatment to those responsible for killing US troops. 2,569 soldiers of the US 1562 American civillians have been killed since Bush accomlished his great mission. Of the Iraqi dead and wounded there is no count. The shallow rooted political system of al-Maliki and his goons will not outlive the exit of the Americans and everyone knows now that the US exit is only a matter of time.

The entire fabric of Iraqi society has been torn by the fissures created by American style Identity politics. In Iraq Shiaa, Sunni and Kurd were by and large coexiasting, I am not saying peacefully, but they were not slaughtering each other like the way things are happening now. In fact even the few Green Zone supporters of the Occupation admit in private that US has made conditions far far worse in Iraq than they ever were. The proliferation of private militias has made the so called central government extremely fragile and the INsurgency is becoming more sophisticated after the killing of Zarqawi. Now the Iraqi nationalists and the Baathists have joined hands with the Shiaa resistance groups and are to a large exten appropriating the political space vacated by the retreat of the Malaki regime. Indeed the average Iraqi has unmitigated contempt foral Maliki and his supporters who are seen as traitors.

Will the USA be able to set the Agenda in Iraq. Froam all accounts the USA has realised that it cannot hang on to Iraq in this manner and the strategy of fashioning an Iraqi political government has come unstuck.
10,315 views 29 replies
Reply #1 Top
Yeah? Really?

Well down the hatch.

*Cloaks oneself in the American Flag*

Democracy for all, just look out for what you say on the phone and if you don't have anything to hide, you'll be fine.

Don't forget to support that all-important flag burning amendment y'all.

...suckers...
Reply #2 Top
You are way off base about much of this.

Zarqawi was in Iraq when we invaded Afghanistan. Iraq has turned the corner and militant Sunni interests are getting less approval all the time. They killed far too many Shia and Sunni thinking they'd be too stupid to realize that they were trying to get a civil war started. The last interview I saw with journalists who travel with insurgents stated plainly that they were not in favor with the Iraqi people.

The amnesty is a reasonable move, and I doubt you'd expect everyone on the losing side of a war to be considered a murderer. You misrepresent what they said when you imply that terrorists will receive amnesty, because they have stated plainly that they had no intention of granted them such.

As far as infrastructure you are going on the assumption that the Iraqis had good services to begin with. In reality they didn't have much better in most of the country. I'll ask you the same question I asked before. When your predictions don't pan out, will you retract this article, or offer an apology for the mistargeted claims?

I'll happily come back and admit you were right, will you come back and admit you were wrong?
Reply #3 Top
"Don't forget to support that all-important flag burning amendment y'all."


Yeah that Clinton woman sure will do anything to play to the polls, won't she?
Reply #4 Top
Zarqawi was in Iraq when we invaded Afghanistan. Iraq has turned the corner and militant Sunni interests are getting less approval all the time


I have sasid that in my blog, but I also mentioned that the Baghdad Government has not enjoyed much authjority there.
Reply #5 Top
No, you said that there were Al Qaeda in the kurdis areas, refering to Ansar al Islam. Zarqawi is said to have been positioning himself in the Sunni triangle right under the nose of Hussein's authority.
Reply #6 Top
Yeah that Clinton woman sure will do anything to play to the polls, won't she?
- Bakerstreet

I'd say I whole-heartedly agree but I think there's much more to her condemnation then simple poll-watching...
Reply #7 Top
Zarqawi is said to have been positioning himself in the Sunni triangle right under the nose of Hussein's authority.


Infact there is a grweaT DEAL OF AMBIGUITY OVER THIS QUESTION.Powell in his address to the UN justifying the US attack on Iraq in 2003 stated that the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq is proof of Saddam Hussein's patronage of Al Qaeda. Since then it has come to loght that Zarqawi may have been in the Kurdish areas out of the reach of Saddam Hussein and therefore when the Jordanians asked for Zarqawi, Saddam prevaricated saying that he will not surrender the terrorist, when in reality he just was helpless in this matter.
Reply #8 Top
Bahu, you're an outsanding analyst. You watch the news, you're informed, you draw deductions and you seem to think for yourself on many matters.
That said, if you weren't so damned anti-American (and anti-Bush) in your stance and so gleeful in reporting your predicted doom and gloom, I may take much of what you say on a more serious level. As it stands, you're just a saner shade of Col Gene.

I'd say I whole-heartedly agree but I think there's much more to her condemnation then simple poll-watching...
--deference

No there's not; everyone knows that poll-watching is what the Clintons do best. It's why Bill never got himself a legacy; kind of hard to take a firm stand on any issue when you jump around according to the polls.
Reply #9 Top
I disagree, Rightwinger, there's more substance to this then some old bag floating with the polls (which I'm certain she does to some degree as do all major industries, other politicians, consumer advocacy groups, major industry leaders such as Ford, Sony, etcetera, etcetera) .

If she truly were going strictly by the polls (and which ones do you believe she favors most?), don't you think she'd be calling for troop withdrawal immediately - in accordance with the latest from Zogby and other major polling groups?

Hillary has already been labeled a turncoat by most Democrats I know, so don't think she's got her finger on the pulse of anyone via polls - she's certainly not acted on the figures by any means which is par for the course in regards to most politicians considering this subject and the popular whims of the public at large.
Reply #10 Top
That said, if you weren't so damned anti-American (and anti-Bush) in your stance and so gleeful in reporting your predicted doom and gloom


I am not anti American atr all, though I must say I think George Bush has been a disaster to the US and the world. Believe me when I say that I do want the WAr against Terror to succeed in Afghanistan and am distressed by the repeated failure of the coalition to nail the Taliban criminals.

However, on Iraq it is a whole different game. Iraq did not possess WMD, did not give aid and comfort to the Al qaeda, did not encourage Terrorism but Bush and the Bushmen destroyed the coutry on a whim and I think that is bad.

The rampant killings in Iraq will shame any decent human being and the US Administration does not have a clue about what to do. Like a wounded elephant flaying in pain and terror, the USa is just bogged down in Iraq.
Reply #11 Top
It's why Bill never got himself a legacy; kind of hard to take a firm stand on any issue when you jump around according to the polls. - Rightwinger

I must call you on this. Blowjobs aside, many argue President Clinton was one of the most successful Republican presidents we've ever had.

* He put tens of thousands of cops on the beat nationwide in signing the 1994 Crime and enacted a new initiative to fund 100,000 community police officers. To date more than 11,000 law enforcement agencies have received COPS funding.

* He signed the Welfare Reform Act

* His administration promoted and he signed the NAFTA free trade agreement Reagan and Bush Sr. would have given their right arm for....

* He allowed Janet 'Butcher of Waco' Reno to strong-arm the cult group Branch Davidians utilizing the ATF and FBI in an echo of Ruby Ridge which also occurred under his watch displaying a favour for federalistic displays of power

* Trampled states rights Bush Jr. - style in his administration's attempts to quash Arizona and California propositions 200 and 215 regarding the regulation of state drug laws...

The list goes on and on, there are more similarities and complicities between the Clinton and Bush Jr. Whitehouses than any administrative pair before them within this last century. Read up on it then smack yourself - hard.

I know I did.
Reply #13 Top
Wow. It's amazing how people turn facts to their own whim.
Three years after the War Iraq is nowhere near stability and reconstruction.

Three years is quite a short time to rebuild a country that has been devestated for much, much longer. You think we can just rebuild an entire country overnight? Iraq has long suffered, not just from this war, but from the first Gulf war and the penalties placed on them since then. Even before that time, they did not have a good infrastructure.

Infact, before the invasion of Iraq there was not a single Al Qaeda cell in Iraq except perhaps in the Kurdish noth which was insulated by a no fly zone enforced by US airforce.

Really? I'd like to know where you get your facts from. I work in military intelligence and I hate to tell you, you are very misinformed.

Amnesty to all those who have not shed Iraqi blood. Think of the implications of this move. It is a massive vote of no confidence in the American Occupation and the fact that amnesty covers the killing of American soldiers meabns that the present Iraqi regime asees the US occupation as a period of hostile action and hence kid glove treatment to those responsible for killing US troops.

Wow, have you even heard the actual speech? The Iraqi government reiterated *several times* that there will be no pardons for those who have participated in the violence. This is an "olive branch" for those who might have been disillusioned with the government, or hated the US... but have not actually committed attacks. At no time has there ever been an offer of amnesty for the actual insurgents.

Please get your facts straight.
Reply #14 Top
I would have to agre with Rightwinger.  You are a blind man trying to discern an elephant by touch alone, and drawing the wrong conclusions.  And your facts are distorted as well.  Iraq may not be eden, but it is not hell in a hand basket either.
Reply #15 Top
However, on Iraq it is a whole different game. Iraq did not possess WMD, did not give aid and comfort to the Al qaeda, did not encourage Terrorism but Bush and the Bushmen destroyed the coutry on a whim and I think that is bad.


Actually Saddam did all three of those things. We have proven all of them.

I love how the two most anti-Bush people here keep saying amnesty is being granted for people who kill U.S. soldiers. That has not been proven but it doesn't stop them saying it as fact.
Reply #16 Top

87 against the cut and run bill to 13 for is Hardly"Republicans barely managed to stave off defeat in the Senate because Democrats like Hilary Clinton went along with the majority."

 

try again and this time use your fingers and toes to count.

Reply #17 Top
#2 by BakerStreet
Mon, June 26, 2006 02:59 AM


8 by Rightwinger
Mon, June 26, 2006 05:41 AM


#13 by kainelderan
Mon, June 26, 2006 07:55 AM



#14 by Dr. Guy
Mon, June 26, 2006 08:05 AM


#15 by Island Dog
Mon, June 26, 2006 08:19 AM


Nuff said. This article is beaten.
Reply #18 Top
Why is Deference trying to hijack this thread by turning it in to a discussion of Clinton politics? - LW

Nice to see you again too!

As you are aware, however, I was only responding to Bakerstreet and Rightwinger's posts.
Reply #19 Top
I must agree that Bahu's behavior in gleefully posting when he thinks things are going badly for the US (all the time, basically) betrays his bias. I consider his characterization of the situation in Iraq and the overall struggle against terrorism to be way off base, as well. He is intelligent, in that he can construct a nice melodramatic narrative out of selective bits that jive with his preconceived notions. He's invested heavily in his position. But that doesn't make him right and he has nothing to offer in the way of a plan for dealing with terrorism except to suggest we bend over and pretend we're not getting plugged.
Reply #20 Top
I am not anti American atr all, though I must say I think George Bush has been a disaster to the US and the world.
---Bahu

Maybe or not anti-American, but here's how I see it:

I may not like or agree with everything President Bush has done, but I don't hate him like you do.
I do admire his boldness on the international level, and his willingness to take a firm stand and kick some asses that long had it coming.
I like the way he's taken the US back to its Leadership of the Free World position, as we were under Reagan and Bush 41, rather than simply being button men, Capos and enforcers for the UN Mafia, as we were under Clinton.

I thought in 2003, and still think today, that it's high time we started acting like the King Shit we really are, and stop bending over for the petty Turd Burglars of the pissant, tinpot tyrannies and the effete, Socialist Eurotrash.
We needed to take the point again in world affairs and do what was right for a change, despite the backroom wrongs being committed, by the UN and Europe, in the name of peace and justice.
By so doing, we shook things up a little and caused some embarassment for the wrongdoers, and now the Dems and the Liberal Left, always so quick to embrace Internationalism, fear they don't like us anymore. Boo Hoo.
Don't worry, Bahu, if our "friends" need us for anything, they'll come knocking, just like always. And we'll answer, just like always.
Then, after they've benefitted from our assistance, just like always, they'll continue to diss us and attempt to undermine us. Just like always.


Believe me when I say that I do want the WAr against Terror to succeed in Afghanistan and am distressed by the repeated failure of the coalition to nail the Taliban criminals.
---Bahu

I have to wonder about this, really. When I read your posts, I keep getting the impression that you kind of enjoy it and play it up whenever we have a minor setback, but you almost completely ignore or downplay any positives or advances.
I noticed that the Zarqawi documents and their bleak outlook were not mentioned. You probably think they were forgeries. Fine.
But I guarantee that, if they were full of hope and projected confidence in an ultimate insurgent victory, you'd have been yelling it to the birds of the air and the beasts of the field. You'd have raided Heaven itself and stolen Archangel Gabriel's Horn to trumpet these Glad Tidings to all the world. You know you would have. I know you would have.


However, on Iraq it is a whole different game. Iraq did not possess WMD, did not give aid and comfort to the Al qaeda, did not encourage Terrorism but Bush and the Bushmen destroyed the coutry on a whim and I think that is bad.
---Bahu

Island Dog pointed out that this whole paragraph has pretty much been disproven, though you ignore that factual evidence in favor of what fits your own mindset.


The rampant killings in Iraq will shame any decent human being and the US Administration does not have a clue about what to do. Like a wounded elephant flaying in pain and terror, the USa is just bogged down in Iraq.
---Bahu

You seem to think we've done nothing of use in Iraq. At the risk of blatant self-promotion, I'd like you to read an article I posted over a year ago:

https://forums.joeuser.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=3&AID=75958&cmd=myposts#583961

The rampant killings (assuming you're referring to those committed by the insurgents) will not shame the indecent human beings who are committing them. They live to kill those who disagree with them. The only thing that will shame them is crushing defeat and death, and we're working on both.
If the candy-ass, weepy-eyed people and the America-hating traitors, including those in Congress, would just shut up and let the military do its job, this war could probably have been over a year or more ago.
Reply #21 Top
Three years is quite a short time to rebuild a country that has been devestated for much, much longer. You think we can just rebuild an entire country overnight? Iraq has long suffered, not just from this war, but from the first Gulf war and the penalties placed on them since then


I'd like to know where you get your facts from. I work in military intelligence and I hate to tell you, you are very misinformed.


This is an "olive branch" for those who might have been disillusioned with the government, or hated the US... but have not actually committed attacks


Iraq as any one can see paid heavily for the folly of the Kuwait invasion. The brutal regime of sanctions resulted in a near collapse of the economy and the scandal of the oil for food program is there for all to see. This scenario was further compounded by the invasion, the identity politics encouraged by the US, the sectarian divide and the consequent violence.

As for as the military intel is concerned, the US was totally wrong over the WMD in Iraq used to justify the US aggression. I am not saying that the Intel was sexed up as was the Brit intel on Iraq, but I am saying that when poltcal agend mediates between the Intel community and gropund realities, the results can be fatally wrong.

As for as the "Amnesty" plan is concerned even the US lawmakers in Congress are outraged at this. It is not an olive branch as you call it but a tactical alliance with the militant groups in order to shore up support for this regime after the US pull out.
Reply #22 Top
The Iraqi government isn't making a tactical alliance with its own people. They REPRESENT those people. Of course Iraqis should have more say in their govenrnment than we do. What you propose is putting tens of thousands of Iraqis on trial for taking part in a war that their leader called for them to fight.

Does that sound even remotely sane to you? Granted, there's no excuse if a leader asks you to commit crimes against humanity or terrorist acts, but most Iraqis fighting US troops haven't done so. I'd be willing to bet that most Iraqis in militias haven't even fired at US troops.

So, how would you propose weeding out the ones that have? No, your argument here is rhetorical. Curse Abraham Lincoln if you must, but reconciliation is necessary in a war that has divided a nation. Not for terrorists, not for people who purpetrate beheadings and the murder of innocents or prisoners, but for people who legitimately fought, believing they were right to defend against a US occupation of Iraq.
Reply #23 Top
The rampant killings (assuming you're referring to those committed by the insurgents) will not shame the indecent human beings who are committing them. They live to kill those who disagree with them. The only thing that will shame them is crushing defeat and death, and we're working on both.


Yes I am referrring to killings on both sides of the divide. While I do understand your feeling of outrage , and I did read your blogs posted as links,my apprehension is that things have gotten so bad that like a mirror shattered into a thousand pieces, Iraq may well be beyond repair.
Reply #24 Top
They REPRESENT those people. Of course Iraqis should have more say in their govenrnment than we do. What you propose is putting tens of thousands of Iraqis on trial for taking


A vast vast majority of Iraqis will contest this statement. Representative Government may be fine in Washington DC but Iraq is for a greater part strongly tribal with deep rooted ethnic and sectarian loyalties. Yes there is a government sitting in the Green Zone with the backing of American occupying troops, but this government does nenvoy to Baghdad ot enjoy any legitimacy in the eyes of the Iraqi people.

Now listen to whatr the USambassador to Baghdad has said in a secret cable published in the NYT recently. He has said that most Irais do not even carry their cell phones to their homes because they could easily be identified as working for the Amerricans,in fact they do not even admit that theyn are working in the Green Zone. Such is the representative nature of the regime in the Green Zone.
Reply #25 Top
Iraq as any one can see paid heavily for the folly of the Kuwait invasion. The brutal regime of sanctions resulted in a near collapse of the economy and the scandal of the oil for food program is there for all to see. This scenario was further compounded by the invasion, the identity politics encouraged by the US, the sectarian divide and the consequent violence.

So it was the US's fault that Saddam used the Oil for food program for his own purposes instead of supporting his country? Not to mention the fact that it has been proven that the main countries originally against the war (Russia, France & Germany) were the main ones getting kickbacks from this program. So this "scandal" you refer to was no fault of the US, but the UN and it's BS politics. As to the sectarian divide, I would like you to propose a good solution. How would you fix a problem of infighting among the Iraqi's due to over 40 years of oppression by the Sunni's? The Shi'ite have good reason to not like them. And yet they offered them the chance to be involved in the new Iraq.

As for as the military intel is concerned, the US was totally wrong over the WMD in Iraq used to justify the US aggression. I am not saying that the Intel was sexed up as was the Brit intel on Iraq, but I am saying that when poltcal agend mediates between the Intel community and gropund realities, the results can be fatally wrong.

I like how you try to change the subject from your original direction in this part. Your original argument was there was no AQ in Iraq at all. When you're told that you're wrong, you change your argument to the WMD's. Even taking this change though, I'll help you out. Not once did the US government ever claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons. This is the mistake that so many liberals make. Nor did we claim that he had huge warehouses of WMD's. What we did say is that he was hiding some of the stuff.

Have you seen season 5 of the TV show, 24? Where the terrorists release nerve gas in a public mall? This is the type of scenario that Saddam's WMD's made possible. His artillery shells filled with nerve gas were not secure against theft. Or for that matter, there was nothing in place to prevent him from selling them to AQ or any other terrorist. Do you know how easy it would have been to smuggle 20 of those shells into the US, and detonate them inside a public building? That is the type of thing we wanted to prevent.

All that aside, all the WMD arguments and oil arguments or whatever else you can bring... what we have done in Iraq is truly a good thing. We took an oppresor out of power, and gave his power to the people. They have held actual elections, written an actual constitution, and made lots of progress in rebuilding. Is our mission complete? Of course not. But rebuilding a country is never easy. It took more then 7 years after the end of WWII to rebuild Germany to the point where their GDP was back to pre-war figures. And they did not have any "insurgents" or AQ to slow down the process. Nor had pre-war Germany faced the economic hardships that Iraq has. It will take time to get Iraq on it's feet to stand by itself as a free country. But that is our goal, and we will meet it, no matter how hard the liberals keep downtalking what we do.

As for as the "Amnesty" plan is concerned even the US lawmakers in Congress are outraged at this. It is not an olive branch as you call it but a tactical alliance with the militant groups in order to shore up support for this regime after the US pull out.

Again, you obviously need to read the actual speech given by the Iraqi Prime Minister. My quotes around the word, olive branch, were there for a reason. He used that exact term. Amnesty is not being offered across the board for everyone in Iraq. It is being offered to those who have not commited violence. As someone else said, it would be impossible for the overburdenedd Iraqi justice system to investigate every single person. They are offering this only to those who have not committed violence, to bring an end to the fighting. Here, I'll even help you out.

Link

Here's a good quote for you.

"It says that the government will issue an amnesty for all those who have not committed crimes against the people of Iraq and the friends of Iraq," said Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh, an ethnic Kurd. "Those who attack U.S. forces are not immune from legal consequences. An attack on Iraqi forces or multinational forces are seen legally ... as the same thing from the perspective of the government."