Some war on terrorism, eh?
 

I'm not one to say I told you so...so I won't.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6823913/

So instead of successfully controling the one terrorist organization that was directly responsible for attacking us, we've managed to let that one continue, and create an environement for countless others to spring up around it. Mission accomplished indeed.

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

I'd like to quote the first paragraph of the story -

"Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training ground for the next generation of "professionalized" terrorists, according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director's think tank."

The key word to me is "replaced".

When Afghanistan was dealt with and the Taliban overthrown, the terrorists were not loyal to the Taliban. The terrorists fled. We can theorize about this all we want, but where would they have fled to? The key to that question isn't really the answer, because it doesnt matter. The point is they would have fled somewhere.

Secondly, the article points out that there are more terrorists being recruited in Iraq. Well, weren't terrorists being recruited before the invasion of Iraq? How many terrorist attacks took place prior to the invasion of Iraq? A whole bunch. It was clear that terrorists roles were increasing and that terrorists were becoming more emboldened prior to any action in the middle east.

It is logical to conclude that terrorist numbers would continue to grow. They were before. I believe it is also logical to conclude they are making a stand in Iraq and recruiting there now because they cannot afford democratic government to spread in the region. Afghanistan will not offer them safe haven anymore. If Iraq goes democratic, the very instable regime in Iran could fall (which is why the Iranians are assisting the "insurgency" in Iraq). Should the pattern continue, there will be fewer and fewer countries friendly to them, and eventually there could be none.

As had been pointed out, Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists as well. Always has been even with our friendly relations with the royalty. The terrorists hate the Saudi royal family because of this. I'm not a fan of the Saudis either, mind you, and the royals are certainly no real friend of the US, but they do oppose militant Islam because militant Islam wants them dead.

So I do not buy into the theory that our actions in Iraq have made things worse. Things were bad before and were being largely ignored (this is not a blame game - we don't need to rehash 9/11 on Bush's watch nor Clinton refusing the offer to take Osama from the Sudanese). To the contrary, an enemy who wants you dead must be dealt with. While there are many theories on the best way to do it, there is no evidence that it has gotten worse as a result of Iraq. It was getting worse before, and it only makes sense to assume it would be getting worse regardless.

I completely respect those who say that they disagree with the strategy being employed. I happen to think it is the best of what is most likely a long list of not very good possibilities.

The point is, though, that when we went into Iraq, it was supposed to be a war on terrorism. The result? Zero progress on the war on terrorism. None. We've done nothing but take out the one leader in the area that WASN'T a friend to terrorists. Sure, he helped every once in a while, but it was only because he had a common enemy. In reality, the fundamentalists hated him, and he hated the fundamentalists. He was a secularist, and incredibly divisive becasue he made a habit of killing Arabs. Iraq was probably the LEAST threatening country, from a terrorism point of view, in the area.

Okay, Saudi Arabia is a breeding ground for terrorists. Why didn't we go after them there? You say there are other places that they could have gone to, why didn't we chase them there. Why did we instead create a brand new Terrorist Disneyland?

What it all comes down to is that everything that the pre-war detractors said could go wrong, did. That's pretty telling. You're right, war is a complicated thing. It's rare that someone has it completely right and can predict the future. So when that many people DO manage to predict the future this accurately, then those that ignored it missed some pretty obvious stuff.

I disagree again.

First and most obviously, when Qadaffi in Libya saw we were serious about removing world leaders who pursued WMD and could perhaps give those to terrorist organizations, he abandoned his programs allowing inspectors in and giving over all of his nuclear program materials.

I agree that Hussein and bin Laden were not the best of friends, but it is fact that Saddam offered him a psuedo asylum, which was rejected. There is a "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" type mentality between them.

Other countries have expelled terrorists. Qatar, Yemen, The UAE, and Pakistan, to name a few, are no longer friendly to terrorists.

Also, remember the deck of cards? I think 48 of those individuals are dead or in captivity. 80% of the leadership (as of 9/11) of Al Qaida is dead or in captivity.

And lastly, the invasion of Iraq was not in and of itself the "war on terror". It was merely a part.

No progress? Hardly.

[quote=Ghoulish Delight]What it all comes down to is that everything that the pre-war detractors said could go wrong, did. /QUOTE]

Actually, if I recall correctly the biggest thing many of the detractors were worried about was a massive chemical attack on our troops(funny how that went from "don't attack, our troops will be gassed" to "we told you there were no chems :rolleyes: ) . So not everything they predicted came to pass.............

This is from Sunday's Washington Post:

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."

I still hate this arrogant little sh*t.

From this mornings news - Bush says the American people support him in his role in Iraq because he was reelected.

My thought - um - HALF the county reelected him (or slightly more then half) therefore slightly more then half support the war. The other half do not. I realize that's not entirely true - but it's based on the same unreasonable logic that the president used.

Also heard that we have been on secret missions to Iran to map, plot and eventually destroy any sort of nuclear stuff. While I'm all against "nuclear stuff" (my words, not theirs) - just what are we trying to do? Take over that area of the world?

Everybody has heard about these "secret" missions....seems to me that somebody does not want them to be secret....could it be that we are trying to pressure Iran into giving up its Nukes without firing a shot?...after all, we have proved that we are willing to go to war with Iraq over what turned out to be just rumors of wmds; imagine what the Iranian leaders must be thinking knowing that they really do have wmds(or at least the stuff)....if I were them I would be a bit nervous right now.

If you do not or are unwilling to show that your words mean business, as we have in Iraq, then you lose credibility. Iran must take us seriously. I agree with Sleepyjeff - we have shown we are willing to pay the price necessary to back up our words and Iran must take us seriously. These "secret plans" are most likely deliberately leaked to let the Iranians know we mean business.