| Submit your comments on this article |
| Terror Networks & Islam |
| War in Iraq may have hurt al-Qaeda |
| 2004-10-27 |
| Has Iraq made America's fight against Islamic extremism more difficult? Has the war further radicalized the Muslim world, making it easier for Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda to find and train suicidal holy warriors? Al Qaeda may remain today, as the always-thoughtful Clinton administration counterterrorist officials Daniel Benjamin and Steve Simon have written, "a dynamic ideological movement, part of a growing global insurgency [of Islamic extremism]." But does that mean that the war in Iraq, whether or not it was begun for sound and compelling reasons, has accelerated the creation of jihadists who live to kill us? The constant anonymous background discussions and leaks from active-duty and former soldiers, intelligence officers, and diplomats, which has produced a wide variety of newspaper and magazine articles casting the war as counterproductive, certainly suggest that many experts see the war as jet-fuel for bin Ladenism. Senator John Kerry certainly believes that the war in Iraq has made us less safe by augmenting the numbers of Islam's killer-extremists. Echoing the sentiments, and often the language, of the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, the senator sees us waging a war in Iraq that is "a profound diversion" from the war on terror and "the battle against our greatest enemy: Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network." According to the senator, "the president's failures in Iraq have made us weaker, not stronger, in the war on terrorism. That is the hard truth. The president refuses to acknowledge it. But terrorism experts around the world do." In Kerry's eyes, President Bush's ineptitude in Afghanistan and Iraq has allowed al Qaeda to spread, "with thousands of militants plotting and planning in 60 countries, forging new relationships with at least 20 extremist groups in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia." Now, leaving aside whether the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror, are Kerry, Clarke, and it appears many, if not most, of the journalists on the terrorism beat and their official sources correct in their now-reflexive assumption that the war in Iraq has spurred a new generation of Islamic extremists to attack the United States? Probably not. One has to say "probably" since the answer is empirical: Not enough time has passed since March 2003 for scholars, journalists, and writers to travel among Islamic militants to get an accurate idea of what is actually happening in mosques and religious schools in the greater Middle East and Europe -- the two primary breeding grounds for the jihadism of 9/11. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #8 --To be fair, one reason is because it never occured to me that SU fell do to defeat in Afghanistan.-- Shoulder, meet missile. Fire at helicopter. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2004-10-27 6:04:49 PM |
| #7 "I think a major catalyst for Al Qaeda was the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The AQ boyz attributed the victory over a superpower to Allah, and got the idea they could defeat the other superpower too." I always thought it had more to do with Oslo accords demonstrating that terrorism works. To be fair, one reason is because it never occured to me that SU fell do to defeat in Afghanistan |
| Posted by: Anonymous6236 2004-10-27 4:05:29 PM |
| #6 All I know is, dead men have no ideology. And we've produced a f*ckload of dead men. |
| Posted by: BH 2004-10-27 10:12:34 AM |
| #5 I think V was referring to the Soviet withdrawl from Afghanistan, which was no victory for the commies, and the way it was meaningful to radical islamoids. And no doubt the islamoids gave credit to Allan, but of course they had some help from the outside. Very similar to the tough time we had in VietNam. Success in this in endeavor is no doubt related to who else is involved and how committed they are and how effectively we can deal with interlopers. |
| Posted by: Rawsnacks 2004-10-27 10:08:50 AM |
| #4 The Soviets were bloodied in Afghanistan, but not defeated. What forced them out was economics and President Reagan. When the war started (Dec 79) President Carter's response was to withdraw from the Olympics and the Soviets were on a roll. Once Carter was defeated, the US joined with Pakistan to train the mujihadeen and the roll went in the other direction. The Soviets didn't have the Rubles to maintain five divisions in Afghanistan, staunch the hemorrhage of radical Islam in the âstansâ and counter the threat of Star Wars at the same time. And while the US and our coalition allies have the economic ability, it's a matter of do our citizens have the stomach to follow through. I sincerely hope so. |
| Posted by: RN 2004-10-27 9:19:20 AM |
| #3 I think a major catalyst for Al Qaeda was the defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The AQ boyz attributed the victory over a superpower to Allah, and got the idea they could defeat the other superpower too. |
| Posted by: V is for Victory 2004-10-27 9:03:29 AM |
| #2 Required reading. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2004-10-27 8:07:14 AM |
| #1 Clarke best put the 10th Crusade on hold. |
| Posted by: RN 2004-10-27 8:01:55 AM |