The random political thoughts thread (Part Deux)

[scaeagles]

I love how big fuzzy mustaches tickle.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

From today's Washington Post:

The war in Iraq has become a primary recruitment vehicle for violent Islamic extremists, motivating a new generation of potential terrorists around the world whose numbers may be increasing faster than the United States and its allies can reduce the threat, U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded.

A 30-page National Intelligence Estimate completed in April cites the "centrality" of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the insurgency that has followed, as the leading inspiration for new Islamic extremist networks and cells that are united by little more than an anti-Western agenda. It concludes that, rather than contributing to eventual victory in the global counterterrorism struggle, the situation in Iraq has worsened the U.S. position, according to officials familiar with the classified document.

"It's a very candid assessment," one intelligence official said yesterday of the estimate, the first formal examination of global terrorist trends written by the National Intelligence Council since the March 2003 invasion. "It's stating the obvious."

The NIE, whose contents were first reported by the New York Times, coincides with public statements by senior intelligence officials describing a different kind of conflict than the one outlined by President Bush in a series of recent speeches marking the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Together with our coalition partners," Bush said in an address earlier this month to the Military Officers Association of America, "we've removed terrorist sanctuaries, disrupted their finances, killed and captured key operatives, broken up terrorist cells in America and other nations, and stopped new attacks before they're carried out. We're on the offense against the terrorists on every battlefront, and we'll accept nothing less than complete victory."

But the battlefronts intelligence analysts depict are far more impenetrable and difficult, if not impossible, to combat with the standard tools of warfare.

Thanks for making the world safer, George.

[scaeagles]

Well, MBC, as usual, the leaks left out what I consider to be pretty pertinent information.

For example, here is one part that was leaked -
"The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of U.S. involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."

Sounds bad, and I'll admit it isn't a good thing. However....Here is the next sentence, which was not originally leaked -
"Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight."

This means only one thing, which is that every person who calls for a date for troop pull out or leaving immediately should never, ever hold office where they could influence such a decision.

This is in spite of whether we should have gone in the first place, which is a different discussion all together, and I would not dare to discount those who thought we should not have gone in nor say they should not hold office. Different thing to me. But if that intelligence analysis is to be believed (and why take part of it and not all of it, unless one only wants to accept what they already thought to be true), then that part is probably the most important part of the report.

We can debate strategy and intent and success and methodolgy and whatever, but the point is that winning is a must and withdrawal is not an option. I, for one, think at some point in time a war between radical Islamic terrorists (and their organizations) and the west would have happened. It looks like that time is now, and the battlefront IS Iraq.

[SacTown Chronic]

So being in Iraq makes matters worse but we have to stay in Iraq and beat the insurgents/terrorists/jihadists because leaving is even worse than making things worse, is that it? Perpetual war is FANtastic!


We're going to need a king who can stomach untold losses of our military men and women and remain resolute. If only such a man existed.

[innerSpaceman]

And "winning" against a guerilla insurgency is accomplished just how exactly? Can you point to any example in the last, oh, 500 years?

How do you destroy an enemy you can't find?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And "winning" against a guerilla insurgency is accomplished just how exactly? Can you point to any example in the last, oh, 500 years?

How do you destroy an enemy you can't find?

You either:

A) Kill everyone indiscrimately

or

B) Get the locals to actively oppose the insurgency.


You don't disrepect the locals, tie the hands of your troops and generaly wallow around like a pig stuck in the mud.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

And "winning" against a guerilla insurgency is accomplished just how exactly? Can you point to any example in the last, oh, 500 years?

Both Boer Wars were essentially guerilla wars that were successfully suppressed.

The Greek Civil War (1946-1949) saw the government successfully put down a Communist insurgency.

The Tupamaros in Uruguay were successfully suppressed in '70s by the government (which then fell to the military in a coup).

Though the Phillipines presented a long series of different insurgencies a Muslim insurgency in 1911 was successfully stopped.

The original Irish Republican Army was successfully defeated in the 1930s. (this was a political organization essentially separate from the modern IRA which falsely claims continuity with the anti-Treaty branch of the original IRA.)

[innerSpaceman]

Ah, yes, getting the locals to assist will work out just swell in Muslim territory. Uh-huh.



Let's face it, it comes down to killing EVERYONE indiscriminently. And not just tons of people, as just happened in Lebanon - with Hezbollah pretty much unaffected. No, you have to kill EVERYONE.


Who's game?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Ah, yes, getting the locals to assist will work out just swell in Muslim territory. Uh-huh.



Let's face it, it comes down to killing EVERYONE indiscriminently. And not just tons of people, as just happened in Lebanon - with Hezbollah pretty much unaffected. No, you have to kill EVERYONE.


Who's game?

Rather makes you wonder why we are in Iraq in the first place don't it?

[scaeagles]

I'm mad. Like majorly pissed off mad.

The republicans have a pedofile predator in their leadership in Congress.

Granted no one is responsible for their behavior except themselves. But it looks like it was known for a year. And no one did a damn thing about it. He had a reputation among the pages as someone to stay away from.

Every person in the republican leadership who knew about this prior to it breaking should be kicked out of office. Hastert, whomever. And now Foley has the audacity to blame it on alcoholism? Hastert, who apparently knew about it, now has the chutzpah to say that there should be a criminal investigation.

I can't say I think Hastert is guilty of a crime. But he is guilty of the worst kind of politics, as it looks as if he was simply interested in protecting the seat. I am amazed that some people are crying politics at the timing of the release of this. What? That makes me sick. The politics were being played by republican house leaderhship.

Scum.