We are not at war with Iraq.
We are engaged in a global war on terror, largely focused on militant Islamist groups such as al Qaeda and its affiliates. The GWoT is “an ongoing campaign with the stated goal of “ending international terrorism,” launched in direct response to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S., for which al-Qaeda claimed responsibility.”
We’re fighting them predominatley in Iraq for a lot of reasons, having mostly to do with Saddam Hussein and his attempts to continue to obtain more WoMD to use against his neighbors, his own people, and his enemies (that would be US).
But the other reason that we’re fighting in Iraq is because We gotta fight them somewhere, and
- There’s a bunch of them there, and
- The longer we stay there, the more of them show up and the more of them we kill, and
- It’s prevented us from having to fight them here, on our soil.
We’re also taking the fight to Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan after toppling the Taliban, who is providing shelter for the leader of al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden.
Yesteray we were reminded that we’ll fight terrorists wherever they may run and wherever they try to hide. Including Africa:
The attack by the Air Force AC-130 gunship, capable of firing thousands of rounds per second, left casualties on the ground, but it is not clear if any of the dead were targeted terrorists, the official said.
The U.S. could have been targeting two terrorists — Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh Nabhan — who are connected to the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in Africa that left more than 200 dead. Officials have long suspected those involved in the bombings have taken refuge in Somalia.
There may have been a scent of terrorist movement when Al Qaeda operatives taking cover in the Somalian capital of Mogadishu were likely chased out of their hideouts as Ethiopian forces cleared out Islamists who had taken power there.
This is great news, and a reminder to our enemies that, eventually, we will find you. And when we do, we will fuck you up.
The main target of Monday’s strike was Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the mastermind of the 1998 attacks on the U.S. embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, that killed 225 people.
Email This Post
⋅
Print This Post
Get some! COUNTERCOLUMN: All y …: I SAAAAAAAIIIIID, We Got C-130 Freakin’ Helicopter … Other blogs: Armchair Generalist | ITLnet Blog | A Blog For All | Queerty – The blog for gays and lesbians | UrbanGrounds | The Dallas Morning News | DallasMorningViews Blog | liberal catnip | In the Bullpen | The Daily Nightly – MSNBC.com | UNCoRRELATED | NoisyRoom.net | Northwest Progressive Institute Home | AfterDowningStreet.org | CensureBush.org
As long as it takes. And it’s not just one person. We’re talking about those who fed them, those who house them, those who harbor terrorists will be held accountable for this action. —George Bush, President of the United States of America
“No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice.”—George Bush, President of the United States of America
People on the other side of the aisle do not seem to notice, the president is simply keeping his promise.
Great site you have here.
I feel that you are very wrong about this statement:
“It’s prevented us from having to fight them here, on our soil. ”
We are very much fighting them here, on our soil. I could name you at least three cases in which jihadis that have been arrested here in the US of A for plotting to blow something or someone up…and that’s since 9/11.
I personally feel the Patriot Act and Bush’s wiretapping program have done more to stop major terrorist attacks such as the one that occurred on 9/11/01 than the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember, these jihadis are homegrown, and they are the real danger. A bunch of poorly armed, poorly disciplined thugs in Iraq or in Africa can do us a limited number of damage.
You are right about one thing, however. Iraq is at the center of the war on terror, for better or for worse. It would be a major victory for global jihad if we failed in Iraq. That doesn’t change the fact, however, that even if we failed in Iraq, it would not make us any less safer. If we were to adopt sensible immigration policies, and continue our active pursuit of jihadis and jihadi funding, we will not suffer any more 9/11, regardless of what happens to Iraq.
Wow- your three points do a great job of justifying an endless war. If only the Iraq war resolution had suggested that was the gameplan there might have be, oh, 2 or 3 votes in favor of it.
Robbie, I’m sure you’re a nice guy and all, but all I can say is thank God that General Petraeus has a different understanding of the war in Iraq than you do. It’s just unfortunate that he is being saddled with a politically-motivated escalation strategy that runs counter to the strategies he suggested to the Iraq Study Group. Oh well, as long as Bush looks like he’s doing something he can let the hard decisions be made by his successor.
Out of curiosity, Preston — which of those three points do you refute or disagree with? Which one is not a true statment? Which one of them is an invalid reason to not continue to fight and destroy our enemies in Iraq?
I think the greater part of your problem (in my opinion) is the lack of distinction between insurgents and terrorists and between those attacks directed at the US and those attacks that are part of a civil war. While it may help you politically to conflate all of these catagories, militarily they demand different reponses. General Patraeus was successfully conducting a counter-insurgency in Mosul. That is a different combat mission from ‘wiping out terrorists’.
As for your points they simply lead to a confusion of the true issues and best courses of action:
1. Remembering again when you say ‘them’ you are conflating terrorists and insurgents is useful to note there weren’t a bunch of them (terrorists) there before the invasion. Perhaps that suggests a response different from coming in like an exterminator- the appropriate initial response in Afghanistan.
2. The second point is similar to the first. You propose as a solution what may very well be the problem because you believe that ‘terrorist’ is the same as an ‘insurgent’ and that a civil war is indistiguishible from a war against the US. Let’s remember that we want to destroy al Qaeda which is a militantly Sunni organization. Let’s also remember that Iraq is a predominantly Shia nation. The idea of Iraq becoming an al Qaeda puppet state like Afghanistan is absurd. This is not to say that we don’t have an interest in doing what we can there- but it is a civil war.
3. Like Nazar I feel that homeland security actions have done more to protect the US than any actions in Iraq. Can you give me a plausible explanation of how 150,000 troops in Iraq makes any difference whatsoever whether or not 19 terrorists living in Boston and Florida carry out a devastating attack on our country?
Robbie:
Read this post which sums up why I believe that President Bush is not serious on what he claims is ‘the central front in the war on terror’:
Preston — I understand the difference between insurgents and terrorists. I just don’t distinguish between the two in who we are fighting in Iraq.
From Wikipedia:
The insurgents are killing and attacking our soldiers — we are at war with them too. Their actions are those of terrorists. They are the bad guys, too. And I’m all for killing as many of them as we can too.
Whatever Bush comes up with tonight, he better be in it to win despite civilian casualities and all the other trappings of war. There has never been a war that hasn’t caused civilian casualties and there never will be.
I am tired of supporting people who don’t seem to care whether we help them or not. The media, right or wrong, has convinced me that these people don’t understand democracy and don’t want it. To them, their crazed religion is everything and we cannot win a religious battle they fight between themselves.
Even if Iran is a deadly threat, I say, end this situation in Iraq and if Iran causes severe problems later, then deal with it later and deal with it severely. None of this knocking on the door to see if the enemy is hiding behind it…those days should be over forever.
So, bomb them to the stone age? I don’t think that’s going to work. The point is in Iraq isn’t to destroy a government but to build a government.
I am tired of supporting people who don’t seem to care whether we help them or not.
Dianne, there are different parties in the middle of a civil war. By ‘helping’ one side we are seen as hurting the other so they resist- it’s not irrational. We might not like it but it’s not irrational.
lol Preston I think you could debate just about anything.
Of course the point isn’t to destroy a government. But, show me the government of Iraq!! It isn’t working. Ya know, this isn’t an Iraq situation at all. It’s a mideast situation. The other countries there have way more to lose than we do and they must step up to the plate. We can pull out. They can’t. The civil war is not just in Iraq. It is regional.
We got ourselves into a real mess here and now we have two choices…fight to win or pull out. If we fight to win, then we may have to bomb some countries into the stone age. We can’t do what we have been doing.
General Dianne lol
Roger, General.