On Mar 21, 2006, at 8:04 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
...and most of those groups aren't capable of operating beyond
borders. They're bandits.
That is...surmise.
Possibly, but informed surmise...
Certainly some of the current groups can't, but
that doesn't mean that if they were willing that certain other
factions wouldn't be willing to pay for them to go to the "great
satan" and do attacks
Most, from what I understand from British soldiers I know (in real
life), seem to just be trying to get rid of the yanks from Iraq. The
wider global terrorist groups may be recruiting there, but
And some of the groups can, but they chose not to simply because
their leadership is quite happy to bleed expendable fighters for the
cause relatively locally. Remove that, and they will have to look
further afield, because the one they cannnot do is stop acting or
they will be deposed by people who WILL act.
*They* again. Who is *they*? It's bloody nebulous. There are
terrorist groups, loose affiliations that the West calls Al-Qaeda/
Jamar Islamir or whatever. These work globally. There are Iraqi
insurgent groups also whose ONLY goal is getting the occupation
forces (as they see it) out of Iraq. This bundling of all potential
enemies and combatants is both lazy and unhelpful. The insurgency may
be being latched onto by extremist groups and some of our familiar
terrorist groups, but it's far more complicated than that.
Lesson learned: invading or militarily suppressing a territory
without any real strategy for rebuilding, or understanding of how the
various factions will act when let off the leash, PROMOTES terrorist
recruitment.
That is your interpretation of the facts. Mine is that true
ideologically-based terror does not care about national borders, that
they will attack anyway - and if they can attack a source closer to
their bases, then they will.
Northern Ireland. Viet-Nam. Central America. East Africa. It's not
just Iraq, Iraq is just the most recent. We need to separate the
global ideologues (I am NOT denying they exist, I just think we
should deal with them differently) from the "freedom fighters". Iraq
is several problems.
Continuing that action may make things worse, but it definitely won't
make it better. As Doug says, if the only result of staying is the
loss of more American lives, what's the point? Put those resources
into intelligence and military precision strike teams, and contain
the problem.
Because in a democracy, that is a losing proposition. You cannot lock
down terror at home without imposing the sort of measures which will
alienate the voters so much that they will vote someone who ISN'T
cracking down on them personally so much.
No. The point that I've made over and over in the last few years is
that you can't lock down terrorist attacks AT ALL. If someone really
wants to kill innocents, they will. There is, ultimately, not a damn
thing you can do about it at the front line. What you do is put out
the message that it will not make you change a damn thing, you will
keep living your lives. This is where Spain, Britain and Israel get
it so right, and America has got it so wrong. You try to negate the
environments that foster terrorism (something Britain may be dropping
the ball on through some odd non-inclusive policies), you do the best
police work you can, you keep blowing up the training camps out in
the deserts, and then you just get on with your lives.
Compare with Iran: the same cycle has started. Staring down, gradual
ramping up of pressure. When historically, the only way that has kept
the region free of nukes (ignoring Israel's for the purposes of this
discussion as they're tactical weapons, not potential terror weapons)
has been standoff and tactical bombing or limited strike at specific
sites.
Nation-states usually act more logically than Terrorists (excluding
insane dictatorships), simply because they are an easily located
physical entity. Even Iran's recent statements are really not so
illogical if you consider the domestic situation.
Sure. But they're not far off an insane dictatorship. Wouldn't take
much to push out the hard-liners in charge and replace them with even-
harder-liners.
(Heck, look at America's Prohibition era for the sort of mess even a
reprisentative Democracy can get into when it tries to impress allied
countries with its morality)
Sure thing. Agree there! (Might say the "War On Drugs" since the
prohibition laws of the 1920's is the same deal, tbh).
And well, this time the Iranians have deacent air defences. But
nothing which could stop an Isralie long range missile with a
conventional warhead. Wonder when.... (and as far as I and quite a
few others are concerned, it pretty much IS when...)
Or a couple of well-placed smart bombs from F-117s or B-2s, or covert
special forces, if the US do the right thing and Iran don't. That's
my point. THAT'S how to deal with the countries (insane dictatorships
or otherwise) that present clear dangers. Pick the threat targets,
and destroy them (hopefully without spreading too much uranium and
plutonium across the landscape...). And, frankly. it's what should've
been done to North Korea 5 years ago before they had both nukes and
the delivery system...
I don't think we actually disagree that much on the threat, Andrew.
Just on the purpose of America (UK, Aus etc) staying in an Iraq that
is in civil war (a civil war that was inevitable upon the death/
displacement of Saddam whenever and however, in my view, much like
the Balkans after Tito). Don't forget, I've lived 90 miles from
Israel, 45 from Lebanon and only 300 or so from Iraq for 9 years, and
so it really was a local problem for me.
Charlie.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
