• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Dr. Michael Scheuer on Iraq

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0


O?DONNELL: And, finally, the president has made the case that winning the war in Iraq is central to winning the war on terror and making sure that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda cannot take?harm the United States. Is that true, if we win there, will that help?

SCHEUER: No, ma?am. The war in Iraq has broken the back of our counterterrorism effort. I?m not an expert on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but the invasion of Iraq has made sure this war will last decades ahead and it has transferred bin Laden and al Qaeda from being man and an organization into being a philosophy and a movement. We?ve really made sure that the war against us is going to be a long and very bloody one. Iraq was an absolutely disastrous decision.

If this is correct.... what words can even describe the heinousness of it. My hope had been that an Iraq that managed to become a reasonably stable, moderate (for the region) democracy might help counteract the radicalism/fundamentalism with another movement/offering for the people in that region. I think that was part of Bush's aim as well. Too bad it's probably ******** failed.


Full transcript here: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:TLm7...scheuer+video&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8


(scroll down)







 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Frackal


O?DONNELL: And, finally, the president has made the case that winning the war in Iraq is central to winning the war on terror and making sure that Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda cannot take?harm the United States. Is that true, if we win there, will that help?

SCHEUER: No, ma?am. The war in Iraq has broken the back of our counterterrorism effort. I?m not an expert on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, but the invasion of Iraq has made sure this war will last decades ahead and it has transferred bin Laden and al Qaeda from being man and an organization into being a philosophy and a movement. We?ve really made sure that the war against us is going to be a long and very bloody one. Iraq was an absolutely disastrous decision.

If this is correct.... what words can even describe the heinousness of it. My hope had been that an Iraq that managed to become a reasonably stable, moderate (for the region) democracy might help counteract the radicalism/fundamentalism with another movement/offering for the people in that region. I think that was part of Bush's aim as well. Too bad it's probably ******** failed.


Full transcript here: http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:TLm7...scheuer+video&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8

I think that was/is everyones hope.
But ultimately its something Iraqi's themselves are going to have to want bad enough to stop killing each other.
Or else it can never succeed.
(scroll down)
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0
That's missing the point and passing the blame for this onto the Iraqis. Yes, they will have to stop killing each other, but it was our attempt to insert/impose/allow them the chance to become a self-governing people that began this. The fact that it has done so much to justify to muslims Bin Laden's complaints about the west is so incredibly unhelpful in my view, particularly if Iraq becomes a failed/fragmented state nothing like the original goal of a moderate democracy. You seem pretty flip about it in your post there, but -

I tend to be concerned that this thing has a real chance of moving more and more towards a struggle flatly between Islam and the West, and I don't think it has to be this way, and if it becomes so, it will have been at least in part because of a misunderstanding by both cultures of both cultures and a resulting degenerating situation of hit and get-hit and then hit back harder violence. Particularly if this is elevated to the nuclear level, which would be horrendous.




Bin Laden was criticized after 9/11 by Islamic clerics and scholars for not meeting several religious conditions before the attacks, and for the ferocity of them and the casualties that resulted... but after the invasion of Iraq (FWIU) clerics/scholars from radical to moderate to liberal were united in their call for jihad against the invaders.

Oh and since then, Bin Laden has spent time preparing the muslim world for a nuclear/wmd attack against the United States.

Note, what is taking place here is the defensive jihad, in which it is every muslim's duty to, once they believe their religion, lands are under attack, to do whatever is necessary to resist. This is (IMO) rather fundamental to begin to understand how to approach and fight this war. This isn't WWI or WWII where we are fighting expansionist aggressors, this is a worldwide Islamic insurgency (not "terrorism") but thanks to moderninity, it's on a global scale.
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,451
0
0
Another problem with Iraq - this concerns the whole, "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" mentality. Bush failed to calculate that the Iraqi people might not be so open to the idea of turning their country into Stalingrad so we don't get anymore of our buildings blown up.
 

Polish3d

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2005
5,503
0
0
I think the idea that Iraq has probably attracted some of the jihadist resources to it is true, but does anyone reasonably believe that that is a net positive if:


- As Scheuer says, Iraq has changed Al-Qaeda and Bin Ladenism from a group to a movement and philosophy?

- Iraq helps us kill xx100 insurgents but creates so much enmnity that multitudes more are created?

- Iraq becomes a failed state gains Iran greater influence?

etcetera... that phrase is IMO just political bs.

IMO it's rather critical that we stop playing with each other with this left/right garbage and understand this situation for what it is, which is impossible if one tries to interpret everything into a US Left/Right sense. Our political landscape is utterly irrelevant as a paradigm to use to understand these Islamist movements and why all of this is taking place.
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator and Elite Member
Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
22,384
3,344
136
A perpetual state of war....where have I read of that tactic being used? Hmmm...... ;)
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Frackal
That's missing the point and passing the blame for this onto the Iraqis. Yes, they will have to stop killing each other, but it was our attempt to insert/impose/allow them the chance to become a self-governing people that began this. The fact that it has done so much to justify to muslims Bin Laden's complaints about the west is so incredibly unhelpful in my view, particularly if Iraq becomes a failed/fragmented state nothing like the original goal of a moderate democracy. You seem pretty flip about it in your post there, but -

I tend to be concerned that this thing has a real chance of moving more and more towards a struggle flatly between Islam and the West, and I don't think it has to be this way, and if it becomes so, it will have been at least in part because of a misunderstanding by both cultures of both cultures and a resulting degenerating situation of hit and get-hit and then hit back harder violence. Particularly if this is elevated to the nuclear level, which would be horrendous.




You know Bin Laden was criticized after 9/11 by Islamic clerics and scholars for not meeting several religious conditions before the attacks, and for the ferocity of them and the casualties that resulted... but after the invasion of Iraq (FWIU) clerics/scholars from radical to moderate to liberal were united in their call for jihad against the west.

Oh and since then, Bin Laden has spent time preparing the muslim world for a nuclear/wmd attack against the United States.

Note, what is taking place here is the defensive jihad, in which it is every muslim's duty to, once they believe their religion, lands are under attack, to do whatever is necessary to resist. This is (IMO) rather fundamental to begin to understand how to approach and fight this war. This isn't WWI or WWII where we are fighting expansionist aggressors, this is a worldwide Islamic insurgency (not "terrorism") but thanks to moderninity, it's on a global scale.
Your trying far to hard to read in between the invisible lines.
More or less I was trying to agree with you
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,020
3,081
126
The fact that Al Queda has become a movement can be seen in all the recently thwarted Terrorist plots. Most have no direct links with Al Queda, but were all inspired by Al Queda. The Good News is that these Al Queda Inspired groups lack the expertise and strategies that Al Queda uses. The Bad News is that these groups keep popping up and eventually one of them will succeed in carrying out a significant attack.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,574
5
81
Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
A perpetual state of war....where have I read of that tactic being used? Hmmm...... ;)
To risk stating the obvious:

In a perpetual state of war, a President who claims unlimited war powers has perpetual unlimited power.

 

ASK THE COMMUNITY