| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Iraq Isn't Vietnam, But It Would Be If We Left |
| 2005-09-29 |
BY JAMES LILEKSAnother year, another anti-everything rally on the Mall. The protesters insisted that 3.2 billion people showed up for the latest example of radical onanism; D.C. authorities put the number somewhat lower, but they're an arm of The Man, so what do you expect? |
| Posted by:Steve |
| #14 Crawford, I see your position, but don't think you are being realistic about Iraq producing new terrorists. Of course it is, they may be dying in Iraq in large numbers, but of course it creates new terrorists. The real question is, will they live through Iraq to tell the tale? That's my whole question here, and no, we aren't going to see the results until the conflict is settled down enough for them to need to find another fight elsewhere. So, if that is the only indicator of whether or not the Iraqi conflict is creating terrorists or not, which it may well be the indicator, we won't know for 5 or 10 years will we? Any war waged by the west in any Muslim country now will create new terrorists. What are you joking me to submit any theory otherwise. Any excuse for a young jobless muslim kid schooled in a typical madrassa to become a jihadi is a valid one in their world. That's rather obvious, especially when the Great Satan is involved. I can hear the radical imams now- "You ate pork while looking at a picture of Mecca. Jihad is justified!" -any excuse for them will do. Most, however, probably wouldn't go beyond talking smack about America and our policies until a convenient target is in their backyards. $3 and a cantene of goat's milk won't get you that far so if they can't hitch a ride, walk or ride a mule there it is probably too far. It is very likely they never would have done anything but herd goats were we not conveniently next door in Iraq. I personally don't really care if we are causing more short term terrorism because of this war or not. I can see the long term strategic benefit of a victory in Iraq, and a little short term terrorism is a small price to pay. I hope more jihadis are coming in and dying personally, because that would make our job easier. Now we don't have to kill them later! I just am not sure that is how it will happen. As for Binny, I don't even know what you are arguing. He received his jihadi training and experience in Afghanistan fighting the Soviets as did countless other Muja, you can't argue against that. As I said, I don't know what you are arguing. I am very aware of Binnie's history. Whether he went to the Sudan and back to Afghanistan later is moot. Whether he hated America before or after that is moot, the point is, he got his solid experience in warfare in Afghanistan. Just as many other new jihadis will from Iraq. and on this point- The flypaper theory would be a valid theory were those coming to fight in Iraq all old Al Q members who were guaranteed to die when they came into the country. So killing any newly-trained jihadis invalidates the flypaper theory? Sorry, but that makes no sense. I don't even know what you're talking about here? How the hell did you glean that from my comment. My argument was that if we find that the jihadis we are killing in Iraq were not mostly already established Al Q terorists before the conflict, it invalidates a theory that says the conflict is good because all these known terrorists will be drawn to Iraq where we can kill them and be better off for it. Numbers coming out of Iraq seem to indicate that the jihadis in Iraq are largely recruits radicalized or shall I say, activated(they were likely already radical but with no targets) by the Iraq conflict. The question that matters for me is "are we killing these idiots in Iraq or are they going to be going home with newfound skill after the conflict has settled." That's it, if we are killing them at a high rate, then cool, if we aren't then we need to kill more that's all. By the by, Crawford is my family name, you wouldn't happen to know of any George Washington Crawford's in your family history would you? Israel's Gap, NC ring any bells for you? Any known Scotsmen hanging around the family tree? EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-09-29 17:10 |
| #13 Elvis puleeese. THe war against the Soviets didn't train Arab Jihadis: the only thing Arabs did was hand cash and torture prisoners. It was Afghans who did the fighting and between them the really effective ones were Massood and Ismael Khan who, by Afghan standards were religious moderates while Hykmatiar (the proto Taliban) spend more time fighting Massod than the Soviets and Mullah Omar was a Mr Nothing. Before telling that Irak trains terrorists who will be able to put in practice these skills in their respctive countries ask yourself if a country what skills learned there will be useful in their respective countries or if it would not be better to learn the manufacturing of bombs in say, Syria or even in England than in a country where at every moment death can rain from the skies. |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-09-29 16:45 |
| #12 Moose, I defer to your expertise, but still have to wonder how many will not be killed and will return home with their newfound skill after the conflict has settled somewhat. I don't argue that we should pull out to avoid training splodeydopes and guerillas or for any other reason, but I am trying to get a handle on the fallout from Iraq in 5, 10, 15, or 20 years. Will things unfold as we plan in the region, or will something markedly different happen, and if so what will that different thing be? EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-09-29 15:37 |
| #11 I hope you are right RM, but I don't think we'll know for another 5-10 yrs after Iraq. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-09-29 15:30 |
| #10 Iraq will never be like Vietnam in our lifetimes. Jungle will not grow in dry desert sands and moving all the ants, snakes, tiger, waterbuffallos, and tropical storms would be beyond even Uncle Sams airlift ability. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-09-29 15:02 |
| #9 Elvis, the difference between the Soviet Afghanistan war and the Iraq war is that a lot of the mujahadeen survived that war due to Soviet ineffectiveness and US support. From what I'm reading, we are killing the jihadis in Iraq at a far greater pace, a pace that is difficult to compare to the Soviet experience. While there may be a few that get out with new-found training, I'm guessing it is only that...a few. Your comment about the Iraq war radicalizing muslim youth is another thing all together. It is quite possible that more muzzie youngsters are inclined to jihad now than before, but if they act on the urge and make their way to Iraq, they are likely to die. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-09-29 14:24 |
| #8 Iraq Isn't Vietnam, But It Would Be If We Left There is at least one circumstance where Iraq is like Vietnam, and that is tolerating the use of countries next door as staging areas for infiltration of personnel and weaponry into Iraq. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-09-29 14:23 |
| #7 Where would Binny be today without Afghanistan? Odd. Binny spent quite a lot of time in the Sudan *after* the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. If your theory -- that the Afghan war produced terrorists -- were true, then why did he leave Afghanistan after the Soviet pull-out, then return again later? Just like Afghanistan in the 80's and Chechnya in the 90's, the Iraqi conflict is becoming the Jihadi boot camp of choice. If, in fact, the Iraq war is producing terrorists, where are they? I've yet to hear of someone going to Iraq, leaving Iraq, and planning or carrying out a terrorist attack. Wouldn't that be the only clear indication that Iraq has become a training ground for terrorists? The flypaper theory would be a valid theory were those coming to fightin Iraq all old Al Q members who were guaranteed to die when they came into the country. So killing any newly-trained jihadis invalidates the flypaper theory? Sorry, but that makes no sense. I assume that the DC protests are representative of the flypaper effect domestically. The various protest groups might not have agreed before, but now they all do because it's convenient and because they've been in bond building situations. The psuedo normals are being introduced to radical thinking while in DC, and many will likely take it home and radicalize others with them. *sigh* How many years have you paid attention to the left? One? Two? All those groups have *always* marched together. They may carry banners for different "causes", but the root cause they all march for is the same -- hatred of the West, of freedom, and of the US in particular. It's all about different means to the same end. As for the "pseudo normals" somehow being radicalized, again, you need to pay closer attention. The left hasn't been "moderate" in any sense since the early 1970s; there truly are "no enemies on the left" to them, and they'll gleefully march alongside ANSWER regardless of its alliance with tyrannies. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-09-29 14:12 |
| #6 Elvis: I think the whole "training area for jihadis" concept is overrated. First of all, back in the days of Russia in Afghanistan, there were probably more Americans in country than any other foreign nationality. It was an Afghan on Russian war. Some of the later bad boyz were assisted by the US, but never given any real training. Later, the Taliban permitted free entrance to al-Q. The foreigners who got any real training got it before the US invaded. Most of those who came to the region either crossed the border and died, horribly, or stayed in Pakistan, drank coffee in coffee shops, then returned home with tales of their exploits. Which is not the same thing as combat training. The few real pros seen in Iraq today were trained for the most part by conventional armies, mostly Iran and Syria. And far more of them see dirt than ever see home again. Some Saudis cross the border via Syria, you'll note, since the bedouins in Arabia carefully watch the border. But no doubt, many more enjoy life in coffee shops in Damascus, returning to Saudi with tales of their exploits. This leaves Europe, which is probably the most fertile recruiting ground left to the troublemakers. And yes, they do get a goodly number of idiots there, to this day. But they either stay in Europe, or their ticket, too, is one way. Very few ever really leave either Iraq or Afghanistan. Their own comrades want them to stay, and the US wants them dead. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-09-29 14:01 |
| #5 Moose, I agreed with the Flypaper theory until recently when I began to think of the Afghanistan/Soviet War as the training grounds it was. All the tried and true jihadists who run the show today were at one time drawn to the flypaper effect of that conflict as it acted to disperse the radicalism far and wide. Sure, plenty died, but more jihadists were created as a result of the conflict, not the opposite. Where would Binny be today without Afghanistan? Probably getting blown by one of his 87 wives in the French riviera, same place all the other rich ass Saudi oil brats are when not lording over the peasantry of the Majik Kingdom. The flypaper theory would be a valid theory were those coming to fightin Iraq all old Al Q members who were guaranteed to die when they came into the country. They aren't though, they are 20 somethings newly radicalized by the conflict, and they are likley surviving their little Iraqi vacations in large numbers and going home jihadi heroes. I am willing to bet the suicide bombers are just a fraction of the foreigners coming in to play, likely they use up the Euro Islam fodder for splodeydopes first, and there are still plenty foreigners playing the game afterwards. I wonder how many of those jihadi bastards are taking these skills and newfound radicalism with them back to whatever goatshit hole in the wall they are from. Just like Afghanistan in the 80's and Chechnya in the 90's, the Iraqi conflict is becoming the Jihadi boot camp of choice. Iraq and Chechnya are producing a well trained well indoctrinated cadre of jihadists who won't soon forget what they've learned. If 20% of the foreign insurgents are from Algeria,as I recently read, it doesn't bode well for Algeria, or France. Just Yesterday a new Algerian jihadists group announced its formation and intent to target France primarily. Not that I care that much about France, but as the pattern expands, we see the kinds of problems this training ground will create. Does that support the position of the radical left? I don't know and don't care. They are mostly idiots and are likely on break from a WTO demonstration somewhere else, and this war protest was a convenient training ground for them. I assume that the DC protests are representative of the flypaper effect domestically. The various protest groups might not have agreed before, but now they all do because it's convenient and because they've been in bond building situations. The psuedo normals are being introduced to radical thinking while in DC, and many will likely take it home and radicalize others with them. I don't offer any answers though, just trying to evaluate what the effects of this conflict will be once we do leave. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-09-29 12:55 |
| #4 In any event, even if we left Iraq it wouldn't be "like" vietnam. The jihadi urge that accounts for alot of what goes on is a very different animal altogether and it would not simply end with the withdrawal of troops. |
| Posted by: MunkarKat 2005-09-29 12:44 |
| #3 US out of the District of Columbia |
| Posted by: wxjames 2005-09-29 12:06 |
| #2 Has anyone seen my hat? |
| Posted by: Ray Bolger 2005-09-29 10:56 |
| #1 Despite this being popular anti-anti-war rhetoric, I disagree. Iraq is well beyond collapsing if the US were to pull up stakes and leave. This is what I call "negative appeal", "We cannot leave or else..." But Iraq is way beyond any destabilization short of a major invasion by a foreign power. It has been a "mopping-up" operation for over a year and a half now. The game is over and the Iraqis won. So instead, let's consider "positive appeal". That is, Iraq as a victory. By itself, it is a victory. But the reality on the ground is far more than that. Iraq is becoming a major victory far beyond its own borders. Traditionally, such a victory would mean that Iraq was now part of our "sphere of influence", from which we could stage offensive operations outside its borders, while denying it to the enemy. And this is also true of Iraq today. But that is a singular victory, a short-sighted understanding of all that has been achieved. Iraq also serves as a focal point to concentrate an enemy dispersed to the four corners of the planet--an otherwise impossible to fight enemy. It draws them in to the "honey trap", wiping out an entire generation of militants from a dozen nations in the world. So in this way, Iraq is becoming a victory in a dozen nations, simultaneously! People who will no longer be tormented and intimidated by the violent and vicious amongst them. But even that amazing strategy is not enough. And that is because Iraq is strategically the most important nation in the middle east. This, too, is far more than the traditional "sphere of influence" concept, and this is why the US has created a Middle East Command. From Iraq, this Command holds a decisive view over western central Asia, the entire middle east, and eastern Africa. What an extraordinary accomplishment. A gain that must be held at all costs. An achievement that forestalls terrible wars, undermines dictators and supports democratization, reforms economies, crushes nuclear proliferation, protects the stability of the world oil markets, and promotes cultural and religious freedom. To leave Iraq would be insanity, damning half the world not to chaos, but to its terrible and primitive status quo. A status quo of war, famine, genocide, fanaticism, racism, sexism, ignorance, dictatorship and endless other villanies. All told, if Iraq is pursued to its conclusion, George Bush the younger will have only one peer as president. Ronald Reagan freed half the world from communism. Bush may be able to claim freeing half the world from primitivism and barbarity. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-09-29 10:51 |