Fortunately they haven't won, but we have GOT to get a change in leadership asap. Their strategy is a simple one. Engage the worlds largest military in a way that costs them little, but saps our economic resources. There are two stories on the front pages right now that demonstrate how their strategy is working. First: WASHINGTON - The struggle to entice Army soldiers and Marines to stay in the military, after four years of war in Iraq, has ballooned into a $1 billion campaign, with bonuses soaring nearly sixfold since 2003. The size and number of bonuses have grown as officials scrambled to meet the steady demand for troops on the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan and reverse sporadic shortfalls in the number of National Guard and Reserve soldiers willing to sign on for multiple tours. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18053235/ On top of the $2 billion per week we are spending above and beyond our normal deficit spending, there are signs that we will have to pay through the nose to simply field a volunteer military. We are told that this engagement of the enemy is the right strategy. The fly paper strategy where we suck them into Iraq and then fight them on our terms. This is an incredibly stupid strategy. Al Quaeda is not in the business of protecting territory. They are in the business of quick hits in places that are not expecting it to: a) cause terror and panic; and b) entice us to spend billions upon billions in response to attacks that cost thousands. Here is the second story: ALGIERS, Algeria - Bombs heavily damaged the prime minister’s office and a police station Wednesday, killing at least 17 people and wounding dozens, the country’s official news agency said. Prime Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem, who was unhurt, said that militants — believed to be linked to al-Qaida — were responsible for the “cowardly, criminal terrorist act” as he spoke to reporters outside his wrecked offices. The attacks were a devastating setback for the North African nation’s efforts to close the chapter on its Islamic insurgency that has killed 200,000 people. After years of relative calm, an al-Qaida affiliate recently has recently waged several smaller attacks. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18052918/ A classic terrorist attack. Things have been quite there for years, and then bang. Same thing here. The lack of an attack in the US is not the result of the great job we have done repelling attacks (although I am sure we have had plenty of success in the intelligence area), its a result of AQ not needing to wage another attack yet because we are still running around with our hair on fire spending billions in response to 9/11. The AQ story in Iraq is simple (but apparently not simple enough for our leaders). They are fighting us there because it is to their advantage to do so. When it no longer is to their advantage, they will just slip back into annonimty. They aren't trying to establish a country. Liberals -- and of course Clinton -- were belittled after 9/11 for treating terrorism like a police matter. We were told "this is a war, and we have the best military on earth. It's time to take the fight to the terrorists." osama must have been creaming his tunic when he heard this stuff. The truth is, we can fight terrorism effectively in two ways. One is through ramped up diplomacy around the world. Address those things that create the sources of terrorism. Second is . . . wait for it . . . POLICE ACTION! Opposite of what the current leaders have told us, the way to get at the terrorists that are alreay out there is not with multiple battalions lobbing bombs into mountainous areas of countries a world away. You need good intelligence, spies, arrests etc. Can you imagine if we invested the $400 billion (give or take a few billion) on ramping up our covert operations. Recruiting people to get on the inside. Training more people in arabic. Sorry about the long rant, but this stuff seems so friggin obvoius, but all we get from our government is a surge in the wrong policy and a debate about whether or not a washed up American politician can buy a friggin rug in a Baghdad market without air support. Getting bush and company to recognize the need for an entirely new direction on Iraq is just scratching the surface, and so far we have had little luck with that. We need an altogether new direction in our overall foreign policy. This is the first time that I wished we had a parlimentary system where a quick no confidence vote would throw us into an early election.
Well, I don't think they will, so I'll go for option #2--new administration. Fortunately, within 2 years we will have one. The onus is on us to make sure that we don't get more of same. Fortunately again, I think no one running is of the same mold. The first time? Really? I've been wishing for it for years.
I agree with you on some parts, but Algeria has seen an Islamist insurgency for something like 15 years now (one that occasionally spills over into France and Spain). It died down for a while, but this is nothing new.
Sure, but my point is that AQ is not all tied up in Iraq so that it is unable to function elsewhere. We have seen several examples all over the world since 9/11, and yet we get the "we fight them there so that we don't have to fight them here" bullshit. Unfortunately, the real answer is that we fight them where they want to fight us. They chose to go to Iraq and fight us because it serves their purposes. They blow up night clubs in Bali because it serves their purposes. They blow up the prime minister's office in Algeria because it serves their purposes. I'm just sick of the rah, rah cowboyism of this administration. The truth is that as soon as AQ isn't reaping a benefit from striking us in Iraq, they will just disappear, leaving us with the secterian mess that we have unleashed (I almost said "created" but that would be wildly off. We just facilitated their civil war).
But the group in Algeria though calling itself "Al Qeada in the Magreb" (or someting like that) is a long existing group that simply "rebranded" itself. They will get greater coordination perhaps, but there had been that coordination before in any event. In Somalia, the new AQ group that is causing trouble (there was a big battle in Mogadishu a few days ago) is really just the old Islamist group rebranded. (As an aside, for such an awful city, Mogadishu seems to have been fought over a lot recently) As for Iraq, my anger is twofold -- (i) we promised these people something better 15 years ago, and really botched up the plot and (ii) it will now mean that the West will support very nasty regimes in the name of stability (we did that for a long time and all we got was 9/11). If anything good comes out of Iraq is that we finally undid one really horrible historical wrong, namely the Kurds in fact if not law and name, finally have their own state.
Nothing who said? I agree with Chris. Islamist terrorism is winning, and frankly, I expect them to "win" -- though what that means I do not know (and I think it goes far beyond Iraq or Afghanistan). I just think that the fact a long standing Islamist group in Algeria has rebranded itself "Al Qeada" does not mean Al Qeada itself has choosen a new battlefield.
It does however suggest that another battlefield has chosen Al Quaeda to some extent. Terrorism is so miscible and mutable that opposing it with armies simply moves it around and changes its clothing. Unless there is a logistical base which an organization depends on for survival, there's nothing for an army to destroy; while by travelling, the army exposes its own supply line to attack in turn.
I think your use of the word "them" (as if there's a unified group) and "Win" (as if killing a few hundred people here and there worldwide somehow means westeern civiliazation is on the run) are off track. But if your point is that the Iraq war isn't working, I would agree.
While the goal and tactics of sunni fundamentalism are those Chris mentioned (the ultimate goal being creating a serie of islamic states) it has to be said that Iraq was never about "war on terror" and still is not because of fighting terrorism. If the US hates the idea of leaving Iraq it's because of the geopolitical implications of losing control of Iraqi oil reserves. That's why even when talks about withdrawal are being made, US bases with thousands of troops are projected to stay there. The reason why the tactics in Iraq look dumb at the excess is because there is the tendency to really believe the plan was shaped in order to fight terrorism and to base the discussion on that false premise. From that POV it all doesn't really make sense. Naturally so, because the goals were and still are others than that. If "war on terror" here plays a part it is that of the smokescreen. As Chomsky put it "the discussion is on Mars", there's no real discussion in the MSM and in the political sphere on the real goals and motives. That's something the public opinion won't and cannot understand (at least that's what the elite thinks). Neocons are masters in telling tales, especially fearmongering horror tales. They have like a cult of deceiving as anyone can realize by looking at the current admin record. We have not only the sunni terror offensive at play, we have a parallel neocon global offensive to create their "new american century" and make their dreams of unrivalled global dominion come true. The 2 offensives fuel themselves, and both the parts use the other offensive as a smokescreen and propaganda tool. Someway they need each other.
The War on Terror is unwinnable. The definition of terror is a state of mind fearful of danger. So if you think about it, terror is something that has been part of this planet since the very beginning, and it's not going anywhere anytime soon. This administration coined that expansive phrase on purpose. A more accurate phrase would of been "War on terrorists", but even that is too vague because a terrorist could be anyone, even a common criminal. An even more accurate phrase would of been "War on Al Qaeda". But this administration never intended to focus on Al Qaeda. If they did we wouldn't be in Iraq today. They invented the "War on Terror" because they realize this is something that they can use for a very long time as a tool to incite paranoia. It's a very simple Freudian method that has been used in the past during the cold war. The easiest way to mislead the masses is by appealing to their subconscious irrational animal instincts of fear.
Spot on. And as the comedian David Cross said, "having a war on terror is like having a war on jealousy". But America loves its wars, I mean we're always fighting something. Such a combative country with our war on terror, war on poverty,our war on drugs, our war on illiteracy, and a war on organized crime, ect.
I'll bet we could win it if we re-directed the money we're spending on TWoT to the psychopharmalogical divisions of GSK, etc.
