• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Defining the Enemy

What pool is that?  Have we really "created" more al-Queda recruits or simply "outed" many of those that were "lying in the grass already" {am I using way too many "quotation marks," or what}

Are you saying that the Iraqis now battling the US occupation were previously "lying in the grass" just itching for a chance to fly planes into buildings? I've got it on pretty good authority that most of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting because they country has been invaded and subjugated, not because they hate your freedom.

YES: we (not me personally, but I'm working on it) are killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq!  I see this as a good thing, on the whole.

OK, I disagree with this view on combatting an insurgency. The only way you're going to win by "killing them" is if you kill ALL of "them"(don't hear those Crimean Tartars whining much about being opressed these days, do we?).


Do you really think that if we (the West) had not attacked Iraq that al-Queada would simply decide, "oh okay, no problemo: they didn't attack (our supposed enemy) Saddam Hussein, so we'll just leave them alone"?  Taking the fight TO the enemy is a good thing,

No, I don't think that, but I think the Iraqis who were just minding their own business might take exception to you "taking the fight" to their doorstep, seeing as how they're doing most of the dying. 

OTOH Do you think that the fight in Afghanistan is over?


and if they were so pissed-off about the Iraq invasion that they went there to die trying to resist it, so much the better.

Indeed, it seems that on 9/11 a whole bunch of them decided that they were sick of having the fight "taken to them." Seems more and more Iraqis and Muslims around the world are feeling that way after we advertised  our intentions of engaging in a crusade (Jihad, if you will) against Islam.

If that makes you feel safer, then I think we can only agree to disagree.


Not that I know what "truth" is.

OOOOOH now you want to get EXISTENTIAL?

That's it, the gloves are coming off........ :)


 
Even after telling myself I wasn't going to be drawn into an argument about this...

The question has to be asked what if we (the West) hadn't invaded Iraq? Where wold we be now WRT the war? Didn't he pose a threat as a state sponsor of terror? Didn't the ambiguity of his weapons programs+his history (terrorism, aggression, brutality, etc) require the West to be sure and remove him? Isn't it worth a try at reforming the middle east before "they" do something REALLY bad to us and we are forced to respond in kind?
 
Isn't it worth a try at reforming the middle east before "they" do something REALLY bad to us and we are forced to respond in kind?


Isn't that the essence of the argument here? and it goes to the heart of any strategic analysis in the GWOT.

Of course Britney may be right. The US could be expending valuable economic, military and political capital through the occupation thereby risking another quagmire that has only one end - ignominious withdrawal.

Or the Bush administrations' strategic imperative is correct, and Iraq should be the focal point of reconstructing the entire Middle East - or, if you will, recasting its social, political and economic foundations so that it attains some semblance of civil society and prosperity.

It strikes me as the only way to combat Islamic terrorism over the long term.   In a sense, I agree with the left about the root causes of terror - it's just that I disagree with their solution - which is to do nothing about it and concentrate on maximizing our cultural self-loathing and taking a long cold bath in nihilistic relativism.

The alternative strategic approach, which I think you (Britney) are arguing for, is a kind of extended police operation, suppressing a Taliban outbreak here and intercepting a bomb attack there - launching a retaliatory strike way over there. This has the advantage of maintaining a high degree of strategic (and tactical) flexibility.

But will that have the desired effect in eliminating (or at least containing) radical Islam? Or to be more precise, eliminating the roots of extremism and its origins? I happen to agree with Thomas P.M. Barnett when he says that he is an economic determinist in analysing the emerging threat of radical Islam and its relationship to failed or failing states.

Arab states have been an abyss of economic mismanagement, repression, ignorance and social violence. And as Barnett notes there are two main components of this: sexual liberation and economic freedom.  

Radical Islam, needless to say, is implacably opposed to both. In fact, the Islamofascists are terrified at the prospect of women's liberation and economic freedom precisely because they are so powerful.

By focusing the war on a distinct strategic target, Iraq, we therefore create a bridgehead to remake the Middle East. Saddam had to go because he had, in Barnett's words "disconnected" Iraq from the rest of the world. And the only way we can defeat the insurgency is to reconnect the Islamic world with the progressive world and offer them the hope of a future - not the recreation of a mythical (and mystical) past.

Cheers, mdh
 
Well, these last 5-10 posts have probably been the most productive debate on the WOT/Iraq that I've seen to date.
 
At the risk of being really, really chauvinistic, let me posit that the only way to get rid of extremist, radical Islam is to allow (encourage, maybe) a reformation in Islam and an enlightenment in the Arab world.  Neither will happen quickly or easily â “ the former, in particular, is likely to be bloody, in the extreme, if the Christian model is anything to go by.

The advantage of the light handed approach mdh ascribes to Brittney Spears is that it helps to buy the time the Arabs (mostly, I think) need.

The beau risqué, which I think George W Bush has taken, is that democracy is contagious and it the 'habit' of democracy is more important than reformation/enlightenment and that the 'habit' will stick.  If he is right he will go down in history as a great statesman - if he is right.

My, personal, sense is that all people are much alike and we all want a high degree of political liberty, we all want to have some 'say' in how we are governed.  I am also of the opinion that democracy is more than just government with the consent of the governed: a functioning democracy requires certain other 'habits' including respect for the rule of law and a personal belief in equality, and so on.  It seems to me that our modern 'habit' of democracy is rooted in certain long standing cultural values and was fed and strengthened by our own, Western (Christian) reformation and counter-reformation and subsequent enlightenment.  Thus I worry that, as hopeful as Bush's beau risqué might be, it is, probably, doomed to fail.  I think the Arabs (mostly Arabs) will have to work their own way through a long â “ generations long â “ and bloody process before they wring radicalism and extremism out of their religion and society.

 
Infanteer said:
Although I've generally been supportive of the War in Iraq, I'm not firmly ensconced in the "everything was done right" camp.

I've put these up a few times, but I'll throw him here regarding "the pool":

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=206

Personally, I'm a tad concerned about the issues Britney has brought up.  Fighting against a few fringe groups is okay but having hundreds of millions of Muslims (if we assume that these stats mean that anywhere from 25-50% of the Muslim World is on the "nay" side) taking an anti-Western stance due to things like staying in Iraq and shooting up Fallujah and an Najaf can lead to some uncharted waters.
Britney Spears said:
Are you saying that the Iraqis now battling the US occupation were previously "lying in the grass" just itching for a chance to fly planes into buildings?
I'm not suggesting the invasion strategy is perfect: what I AM suggesting is that it was probably the best choice, given the circumstances.  I can't see how allowing Saddam, and his increasingly fundamentalist rhetoric, to continue to defy the UN (and thereby making the US look impotent) would attract less extremists to the radical Islamic cause, particularly post-9/11.  I think 9/11 fundamentally changed US foreign policy (it certainly changed the rhetoric): it underscored that Realpolitik was not a viable long-term strategy for peace.  The politics of hate had to be defeated (Hamas just repeated that they are committed to the annihilation of Israel), and Iraq was a natural place to start (for both political and strategic reasons).

I've got it on pretty good authority that most of the Iraqi insurgents are fighting because they country has been invaded and subjugated, not because they hate your freedom.
Yeah, but the question is how many of those insurgents are Iraqi and how many came from Saudi and elsewhere?  What I've read (YMMV) suggests there are a lot of the latter, and absent invasion, how many of those that are Iraqi would be distributing aid for the Red Cross (the evidence suggests Saddam had them otherwise-occupied)?

OK, I disagree with this view on combatting an insurgency. The only way you're going to win by "killing them" is if you kill ALL of "them"(don't hear those Crimean Tartars whining much about being opressed these days, do we?).
No, you win by breaking their spirit and undermining their support: killing some (many?) of them is part of that.  Headline after headline in the NYT (et.al.) underscoring (e.g.) the supposedly brutal treatment at Gitmo, and the supposedly illegal and immoral nature of the war undermines the effort to defeat them and bring peace, order and good government to the region.

No, I don't think that, but I think the Iraqis who were just minding their own business might take exception to you "taking the fight" to their doorstep, seeing as how they're doing most of the dying. 

OTOH Do you think that the fight in Afghanistan is over? ...

Indeed, it seems that on 9/11 a whole bunch of them decided that they were sick of having the fight "taken to them." Seems more and more Iraqis and Muslims around the world are feeling that way after we advertised  our intentions of engaging in a crusade (Jihad, if you will) against Islam.

If that makes you feel safer, then I think we can only agree to disagree.

Wait a second, the GWOT was a response to 9/11: I didn't think anyone disputed that!  Afghanistan is far from over, but that doesn't make Iraq wrong ... I can't do anything more about the Crusades (or any alternative historical interpretations thereof) any more than I can change who my parents were!  If they declare a Holy War on my culture, I don't see how pretending they haven't is going to make me any safer: the hate will grow hotter as my culture continues to grow stronger and wealthier (because of it's inherent bias for social, political and economic freedoms).  I'd rather dump the pot now than wait for it to boil over.  Are you suggesting we should all just stay at home, to heck with everyone else (Rwanda, Darfur, Israel, non-extremist Islamics, etc.), and hope that they decide not to try to impose Sharia law in Canada (oops, that's already underway in Ontario)?
 
Yeah, but the question is how many of those insurgents are Iraqi and how many came from Saudi and elsewhere?  What I've read (YMMV) suggests there are a lot of the latter, and absent invasion, how many of those that are Iraqi would be distributing aid for the Red Cross (the evidence suggests Saddam had them otherwise-occupied)?

OK, let me see if I'm following you here. Because the US invaded Iraq, Muslims all over the world are flocking to the banner of Islamic extremist and joining in the fight against the Infidel, who have proven themselves heck bent on the destruction of the Islamic world. BUT this is a good thing, because we have now cleverly lured the jihadists, who deep down wanted to destroy us no matter what happens in Iraq, into one convienient place where we can wipe them all out in a great battle, all without risking any collateral damage to ourselves ("taking the fight to them") because hey those dirty Iraqis deserved it for putting up with Saddam all them years, hell most of them are probably Jihadis anyway. Is this the gist of your argument?



 
Britney Spears said:
OK, let me see if I'm following you here. Because the US invaded Iraq, Muslims all over the world are flocking to the banner of Islamic extremist and joining in the fight against the Infidel, who have proven themselves heck bent on the destruction of the Islamic world. BUT this is a good thing, because we have now cleverly lured the jihadists, who deep down wanted to destroy us no matter what happens in Iraq, into one convienient place where we can wipe them all out in a great battle, all without risking any collateral damage to ourselves ("taking the fight to them") because hey those dirty Iraqis deserved it for putting up with Saddam all them years, heck most of them are probably Jihadis anyway. Is this the gist of your argument?

Please; now you are being absurd.

I am not claiming that "Muslims all over the world re flocking to the banner of Islamic extremist ... because the US invaded Iraq": you are.  I am claiming that if war with the extremists was inevitable (which they claim it was), then I'd rather pick the time and field of battle (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq), than let them do it for me (London Underground), as far as I am able.  Obviously, I'd rather not have to go to war at all, but given that they're hell-bent on destroying my culture (or themselves in the process), I'd rather fight them on my terms.  The fact that that al-Queada cells (and other groups sympathetic to al-Queada) are already existing and in some cases active in Western cities (of which 9/11, 3/11 & 7/7 are only the most recent examples) suggests that their numerous declarations of war on us was more than just good TV.

I really hoping you aren't implying what I think you are in your second-to-last sentence, but the point is that the Iraqis that had no choice but to "put up with Saddam" aren't a part of the insurgency: the Iraqi insurgents are the ones that are actively attempting (however hopelessly) to reinstate the Ba'athist Regime as well as the religious extremists (Islamofascists).  Please provide me with some evidence that anti-Saddam, anti-extremist moderates are actively resisting (i.e., by shooting/bombing US/UK/coalition troops) the occupation, if that is what you are contending: all of the evidence I have seen points to the opposite.
 
I am not claiming that "Muslims all over the world re flocking to the banner of Islamic extremist ... because the US invaded Iraq": you are.

You're damn right I am, and which part  are you disputing exactly? Are you claiming that Muslims the world over are dancing in the streets now that Saddam is gone and Iraq is safely under US occupation?

I am claiming that if war with the extremists was inevitable (which they claim it was), then I'd rather pick the time and field of battle (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq), than let them do it for me (London Underground), as far as I am able.
 

In light of recent events, your plan is obviously working like a charm.

Obviously, I'd rather not have to go to war at all, but given that they're heck-bent on destroying my culture (or themselves in the process), I'd rather fight them on my terms. 


Your terms meaning in Iraq right? But of course those poor Iraqis would never blame YOU for bringing to them a war with which 99% of them had nothing to do with. SO damn it why do they keep resisting? 



please provide me with some evidence that anti-Saddam, anti-extremist moderates are actively resisting (i.e., by shooting/bombing US/UK/coalition troops) the occupation,

And why the hell should they? Saddam is gone! Don't you think this is a little silly?



 
Britney Spears said:
You're darn right I am, and which part  are you disputing exactly? Are you claiming that Muslims the world over are dancing in the streets now that Saddam is gone and Iraq is safely under US occupation?
Not at all: I just think that you're only fooling yourself if you think Jihadists were okay with Afghanistan but suddenly incensed with Iraq.

In light of recent events, your plan is obviously working like a charm.
The Americans didn't invade Iraq before 9/11, so that means the WTC is still standing, right?  They are ATTACKING us on their terms when they can.

Your terms meaning in Iraq right?
I mean on a semi-conventional battlefield with armed troops (our terms), as opposed to office buildings and subways filled with unarmed civillians (their terms).

But of course those poor Iraqis would never blame YOU for bringing to them a war with which 99% of them had nothing to do with.  SO darn it why do they keep resisting? ... And why the heck should they? Saddam is gone! Don't you think this is a little silly?

Yeah, they all loved Saddam, didn't they?  I mean they had his picture everywhere 'n' stuff!  The people aren't stupid: they know that it's Saudi and Syrian and Jordanian fanatics blowing-up their convenience stores, not Americans. The question is WHO is 'resisting': I say it is foreign extremists and Saddam loyalists, of which there is ample evidence of both.  You keep claiming that the average moderate Iraqi is violently opposed to US occupation: show me.
 
I_am_John_Galt said:
I am claiming that if war with the extremists was inevitable (which they claim it was), then I'd rather pick the time and field of battle (i.e., Afghanistan, Iraq), than let them do it for me (London Underground), as far as I am able.  Obviously, I'd rather not have to go to war at all, but given that they're hell-bent on destroying my culture (or themselves in the process), I'd rather fight them on my terms.

Ok, wait a minute - this makes no sense.  Now you seem to be implying that the Insurgent Forces fighting the Coalition in Iraq are fundmentalist terrorists that would have fought us regardless of the path we took?  Is it not possible that any/some/much of the resistance is due not to Pepsi Cola and Walkmans but due to the fact that there is an M1A1 Abrams sitting infront of/in/on buddies Mosque/Market/Home?  I don't think Moqtada al-Sadr and the Sadr Militia (to name a few) was intent on destroying our culture.

You haven't really addressed Britney's point about the aggregate good of the invasion and/or occupation (which there is) being outweighed by the aggregate bad of spawning a greater and more intense resistance to the West in general.  If you don't believe this to be a factor at all, than I think you are just wishing away the polling data I presented earlier.

the Iraqi insurgents are the ones that are actively attempting (however hopelessly) to reinstate the Ba'athist Regime as well as the religious extremists (Islamofascists).   Please provide me with some evidence that anti-Saddam, anti-extremist moderates are actively resisting (i.e., by shooting/bombing US/UK/coalition troops) the occupation, if that is what you are contending: all of the evidence I have seen points to the opposite.

That's not what he said - he said that the continued occupation is driving moderates into at least supporting/sympathizing the insurgents (if not actively joining them).

Infanteer

PS: Islamofascist is a pretty silly word, wouldn't you agree?
 
PS: Islamofascist is a pretty silly word, wouldn't you agree?

Just who are the Iraqi insurgents? That's a good question.

From all the reports I've read they are pretty diverse bunch - they seem to be a mixture of foreign volunteers, former Saddam Ba'athists, radical Shiites, Sunni fanatics, self-appointed Holy Fighters, Zarqawi zealots, etc. (varying according to geography and ethnic origin)

But I do think Islamofascist is an excellent way to describe the one thing that unites them: a hatred of liberal democracy (and its attendent individualism), sectarian intolerance, worshippers of a death cult, hatred of women, radical nationalism (as defined by Ba'athism), anti-semitism, and reactionary violence.

Cheers, mdh
 
I_am_John_Galt said:
Not at all: I just think that you're only fooling yourself if you think Jihadists were okay with Afghanistan but suddenly incensed with Iraq.

Consider the fact that Iran nearly went to war with the Taliban over both specific incidents (Taliban shooting of Iranian dipomats) and general tensions (Taliban hardline stance against Shias) and that the US had world approval to go in after the Taliban due to their protection of Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.   The Taliban weren't the most popular folks on the block.

Now, take the fact that we have now invaded and occupied what is considered by some to be the second most holiest land of Islam (and what is probably the Holiest site of the Shia branch).   We've trounced a Muslim people into submission (on national TV), given them the gift of free elections for the first time in 6,000 years of civilization, set up a secular government that divides power between ethno-religious groups equally (I've seen how well this works first hand in FYR), and we even bequeathed upon them a dandy flag that, of all the countries in the mid-East, resembles only that of one (take a big guess; the picture is at the bottom).

Now, if you think that Iraq wasn't enough to push a few/some/many people over the edge, than I think you've skipped over some regional/cultural/religious nuances of the area.

The Americans didn't invade Iraq before 9/11, so that means the WTC is still standing, right?   They are ATTACKING us on their terms when they can.

???

What are you saying here?

Yeah, they all loved Saddam, didn't they?   I mean they had his picture everywhere 'n' stuff!   The people aren't stupid: they know that it's Saudi and Syrian and Jordanian fanatics blowing-up their convenience stores, not Americans. The question is WHO is 'resisting': I say it is foreign extremists and Saddam loyalists, of which there is ample evidence of both.   You keep claiming that the average moderate Iraqi is violently opposed to US occupation: show me.

Where is it implied that anyone fighting against the Coalition is a Saddam supporter?   You mean to tell me that every single insurgent in all those pictures and news clips is either a card-carrying member of the Ba'ath party or a foreigner who cruised in on a Toyota, and that all Iraqis are sitting around waiting for us to teach them how to be free?

Let's step out of our cozy western Nikes for a second.   Imagine that the Mongolian Army invades Canada, sets our Army running to the hills and destroys the Liberal Party of Canada (and we dance in the streets).   Now, they decide to stay and give us the government they think will work (at the end of the bayonet), because we're obviously idiots who couldn't get it right.   Now, I've never been invaded or occupied before, but imagine there would be a point where I'd get fed up with it and say "leave".

Do I have any proof that this is the case for a few/some/many of the insurgents?   No.   But it is kind of intuitive, is it not?   After all, the Americans had their own take on this idea 229 years ago (to quote Patrick Henry "Give me Liberty or Give me Death!").

Just who are the Iraqi insurgents? That's a good question.

From all the reports I've read they are pretty diverse bunch - they seem to be a mixture of foreign volunteers, former Saddam Ba'athists, radical Shiites, Sunni fanatics, self-appointed Holy Fighters, Zarqawi zealots, etc. (varying according to geography and ethnic origin)

But I do think Islamofascist is an excellent way to describe the one thing that unites them: a hatred of liberal democracy (and its attendent individualism), sectarian intolerance, worshippers of a death cult, hatred of women, radical nationalism (as defined by Ba'athism), anti-semitism, and reactionary violence.

Well, I don't like the term "Islamofascist" - seems like a stupid PC term invented so that pundits could accuse Muslims without sounding like they are accusing Islam.   Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that we are at War with Muslims.   Sure, there are Muslims that don't wish to fight, there are Muslims that want to kill us for who we are, and there are Muslims who want to kill us for what we do; but the aims and actions of any one of these groups does not make these men any less Muslim because their ire is directed towards us.

From what I've gathered, many of these men (including OBL) are pious, well-studied, devout and place Islam at the core of their being.   Irregardless of their attitudes toward us, they are Muslims through and through, regardless of whether they are fighting us or not.   Calling them fascists for doing so seems to denigrate this dedication.   Jihadists, Islamists,  - these terms seem to fit; "Islamofascist" seems to be a lazy neo-Con slogan.
 
The Americans didn't invade Iraq before 9/11, so that means the WTC is still standing, right?  They are ATTACKING us on their terms when they can.

Suppose they did invade Iraq on, say Aug. 11 2001. Would the attacks have been prevented? Seeing as how Iraq was such a huge supporter of AQ....

I mean on a semi-conventional battlefield with armed troops (our terms), as opposed to office buildings and subways filled with unarmed civillians (their terms).

I ask you once again: Do Iraqi civillians and Office buildings not count? Do the lives of the Iraqis mean anything to you?

Oops, I forgot, John Galt, unbridled self interest is moral superiority, altruism is evil, right? Here, let me put it in these terms: Suppose you insist on "bringing the war" to me, and since my life means nothing to you, how can I MAKE you care?  OH I know, watch me fly this plane into a building. How does that feel? Still want to bring the fight to me?


I say it is foreign extremists and Saddam loyalists, of which there is ample evidence of both.  You keep claiming that the average moderate Iraqi is violently opposed to US occupation: show me.

This is silly.  How can you be an average "moderate" Iraqi while at the same time engaging in active armed resistance? How can you tell the difference? Even if we ignore the obvious question of how the insurgents can be successful without at least tacit support from of the general population.

You see, moderates anywhere generally don't have a virulent hatred of anyone, that's what makes them moderate. But when people "bring the fight to them", moderate people BECOME extremists(which, BTW, is the opposite of what we want, in case you forgot). Look at the Balkans for an example of what happens to the average joe when things heat up.

Regardless of who the Insurgents are, they were not there before the invasion and now they are. I suppose we should consel ourselves to the fact that the threat of Iraqi T-72s rolling into Washington has now been safely eliminated.  Are you still seriously claiming that the invasion of Iraq has REDUCED the strength and potential manpower of AQ?

As for the demographics of the insurgency, I'll do some more crossposting from lightfighter:

<a href=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050630/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_suicide_missions_1>Source</a> READ THE WHOLE THING BEFORE COMMENTING

AP: Most Iraq Suicide Bombs by Foreigners By PATRICK QUINN and KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writers

The vast majority of suicide attackers in Iraq are thought to be foreigners â ” mostly Saudis and other Gulf Arabs â ” and the trend has become more pronounced this year with North Africans also streaming in to carry out deadly missions, U.S. and Iraqi officials say.

The bombers are recruited from Sunni communities, smuggled into Iraq from Syria after receiving religious indoctrination, and then quickly bundled into cars or strapped with explosive vests and sent to their deaths, the officials told The Associated Press. The young men are not so much fighters as human bombs â ” a relatively small but deadly component of the Iraqi insurgency.

"The foreign fighters are the ones that most often are behind the wheel of suicide car bombs, or most often behind any suicide situation," said U.S. Air Force Brig. Gen. Don Alston, spokesman for the Multinational Force in Iraq.

Officials have long believed that non-Iraqis infiltrating the country through its porous borders with Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia were behind most suicide missions, and the wave of bloody strikes in recent months has confirmed that thinking.

Authorities have found little evidence that Iraqis have been behind the near-daily stream of suicide attacks over the past six months, U.S. and Iraqi intelligence officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity.

There have been a few exceptions.

On election day Jan. 30, a mentally handicapped Iraqi boy, wearing a suicide vest, attacked a polling station. An attack on a U.S. military mess hall in the northern city of Mosul in December that killed 22 also was believed to have been carried out by an Iraqi, as was a deadly June 11 attack on the heavily guarded Baghdad headquarters of the Interior Ministry's feared Wolf Brigade.

Since 2003, less than 10 percent of more than 500 suicide attacks have been carried out by Iraqis, according to one defense official. So far this year, there have been at least 213 suicide attacks â ” 172 by vehicle and 41 by bombers on foot â ” according to an AP count.

Another U.S. official said American authorities believe Iraqis are beginning to look at suicide bombers as a liability. "Just as there is no shortage of people willing to do this, nor is there any shortage of targets, and they tend to be police," the official said.

The trend doesn't mean Iraqis aren't part of the bloody insurgency: On the contrary, Iraqi insurgents are thought to be responsible for much of the violence and fighting in the country, although most of those are non-suicide attacks.

"I still think 80 percent of the insurgency, the day to day activity, is Iraqi â ” the roadside bombings, mortars, direct weapons fire, rifle fire, automatic weapons fire," said Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East expert with the Congressional Research Service, which advises U.S. lawmakers.


But he added: "The foreign fighters attract the headlines with the suicide bombings, no question."

The key role of foreign fighters in suicide attacks is one reason many senior military officials, including the top U.S. general in the Middle East, tend to view the war in Iraq as slowly developing into an international struggle against militant Islam.

The military brass say Islamic extremists like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his al-Qaida in Iraq organization are determined to start a civil war in Iraq by attacking Iraqi security forces and members of the country's Shiite majority.

"It's not about one man. It's about his network," the top general in the region, U.S. Gen. John Abizaid, said recently. "His network exists inside Iraq. It's connected to al-Qaida. It's got facilitation nodes in Syria. It brings foreign fighters in from Saudi Arabia and from North Africa."

One Iraqi official, Sabah Kadhim, an Interior Ministry spokesman, said the suicide attackers' main aim "is to keep the country in chaos."

They have managed to do just that.

In all, there have been more than 484 car bombings since the U.S. handed sovereignty to the United States one year ago, and the pace of attacks has escalated since Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari's government was named two months ago. Those attacks alone, mostly car bombs and suicide attacks, have killed about 1,350, according to an AP count.

A suicide bomber was responsible for the single deadliest act since the fall of Saddam Hussein two years ago â ” a Feb. 28 attack against a medical clinic in Hillah, south of Baghdad, that killed 125 people. Al-Qaida claimed responsibility for the attack by a man driving a pickup truck.

Another Interior Ministry official, Lt. Col. Ahmed al-Azawi, said some suicide bombers are as young as 15 â ” and he insisted that none were Iraqis.

The foreign militants are believed to come into the country for only a short time before they are sent on a suicide operation, said one senior U.S. military intelligence official in Iraq, who asked not to be named for security reasons.

"They are brought in, there is a lot of indoctrination that is forced on them here and they are moved very rapidly into a mission to deliver the bomb to commit suicide," the official said.

A U.S. official in Washington shared that assessment.

Overall, the number of foreign fighters coming into the country seems to be on the rise, compared to six months ago, Abizaid said. "There's probably about 1,000 foreign fighters and about somewhere less than 10,000 committed insurgents in the field," he said.

Of the 10,000 people being detained in Iraq, about 400 are foreigners, the U.S. military says.

The majority of foreign bombers in Iraq are believed to come from countries in the Persian Gulf, mainly Saudi Arabia and Yemen as well as Jordan, U.S. officials say. They say many are transported to Syria and then smuggled into Iraq, mostly overland through Qaim â ” a frontier city in Iraq's western desert.

U.S. Marines taking part in a major operation around Qaim on June 20 found foreign passports and one roundtrip air ticket from Tripoli, Libya, to Damascus, Syria. They also found two passports from Sudan, two from Saudi Arabia, two from Libya, two from Algeria and one from Tunisia.

Up to 20 percent of the bombers might be from Algeria, according to forensic investigations after attacks, senior U.S. military officials have said on condition they not be named for security reasons. Another 5 percent each might be from Morocco and Tunisia, the officials said.

"We've also seen an influx of suicide bombers from North Africa, specifically Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco," Abizaid said.

Robert Baer, a CIA officer from 1976 to 1997 who spent the much of his career in the Middle East, recently returned to the region for a month to study suicide bombers as part of an investigation for Britain's Channel 4. His trip included a 10-day visit to predominantly Shiite Iran.

Baer said Sunni Arabs who take carry out suicide attacks feel Shiites are attacking Sunnis in Iraq. "They look at the war in Iraq as an attack on Sunni Islam, not Iraq, not Saddam," he said.

In interviews while visiting prisons, terror groups and government officials, he was told that there are so many suicide bombers coming out of the Persian Gulf states that the loose networks that deploy jihadist martyrs â ” many run through mosques â ” are turning away potential attackers.

He said the mentality is: "They have taken what is ours and they will take more if we don't stop them."

___

Associated Press writers Patrick Quinn reported from Baghdad and Katherine Shrader reported from Washington.


I couldn't find a direct link to this, but <a href=http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/5131022531/m/7071027841>here's</a> the original thread from Lightfighter

An Analysis of Foreign "Martyrs" in Iraq

On May 15, 2005, the Washington Post published an article that analyzed the breakup of Jihadist groups in Iraq by nationality. The source of the information was a list of "martyrs" published on the Internet that contained about 150 names of dead Arab Jihadists. That same day, Terror Web Watch obtained a list of 400 dead Jihadists that included, in most cases, details on how they died and other facts about their lives and fighting careers. The list was compiled by the administrators of Jihadist Web sites.

An analysis of the list showed that 53% of the dead fighters were from Saudi Arabia (Country Profile). However, what the Post article does not point out is that this does not indicate that the insurgency is made up of that percentage of Saudis. The profiles of the Saudi "martyrs" demonstrated that they tended to be young, religious zealots with no military experience. Unlike many other Arab countries, Saudi Arabia does not have compulsory military conscription for males, so the Saudis coming into Iraq are likely far less useful to their group commanders than Syrians, Algerians, Egyptians, or others who have had some sort of formal military training. They are, therefore, more likely to be used by group commanders for suicide missions â “ to wear explosive vests or drive vehicle-borne IEDs. Of insurgents who died in these types of suicide operations, 50% were Saudis â “ a considerable plurality out of a total of 16 nationalities listed. In contrast, of the group commanders on the list, 50% came from Syria (Country Profile) â “ a country that has a 2.5-year mandatory military service; therefore, statistically, Syrian Jihadists enter Iraq with a good deal of training already (for more on this subject, see this week's WAR Report). Other Arab countries where males serve in the military include Algeria (Country Profile), Egypt (Country Profile), Jordan (Country Profile), Kuwait (Country Profile), Morocco (Country Profile), Sudan (Country Profile), Syria, and Yemen (Country Profile). As the number of Jihadists trained in Afghanistan (Country Profile) is whittled away, it would make sense that recruiters would go to these countries to refill the ranks of fighters. "Warrior societies," where many young men grow up with weapons' familiarity are also attractive places to recruit. These include Arab countries -- like Yemen, the Sudan and, to a lesser extent, the Palestinian territories -- and non-Arab Muslim societies -- like those of the Kurds and the Chechens.

The document also contained details of not only the countries where most of the dead Jihadists came from, but also in some cases the particular regions from which they came. The list demonstrates that certain regions in Saudi Arabia are producing most of the Jihadists from that country. These include the Bureida, al-Qusaym, al-Jawf, and al-Ha'il regions â “ all known to be among the most religiously conservative areas. This is probably indicative of particularly strong recruiting efforts there. The majority of Saudi Jihadists also came from just four tribes in the country: Qahtani, Ghamadi, Shamri, and Mutairi. For instance, it was a Saudi from the Ghamadi tribe who carried out the devastating Mosul mess tent bombing in December (Terrorist Incident). Saudi "martyrs" tend to be very young â “ late teens and early- to mid- twenties, such as the 18-year old from Jeddah, who was killed in Fallujah. Another Saudi 18-year old's biography noted that he had obtained his mother's permission before coming to Iraq.

Some of the stories about the dead Jihadists also provide insight into how they get into Iraq. A number of young Saudis were brought over in small groups by a trafficker identified only as "Abu Wadha." In other cases, a national was sent into Iraq to set up the pipeline and establish contact with a Jihadist group and then sent back to his home country to bring others to Iraq. This was how a group of nine Libyans made their way to Iraq. A number of Palestinians were brought over by a Palestinian group leader who entered Iraq immediately after the end of combat operations, established contact with Zarqawi, and returned to the Palestinian territories to bring over more of his countrymen.

As for routes to Iraq, only in a few cases were any details provided, but Syria was the emphasis as the main route. For instance, the Saudi Jihadists went through Syria although their own country shares an extensive border with Iraq, as do Jordan and Kuwait, both of which are also closer options than Syria. In one case, an individual from Saudi Arabia was arrested in Syria twice while trying to move through that country into Iraq. Instead of trying an alternate route, he returned to Syria a third time. It, thus, seems to be a prevailing belief in these communities that the only way into Iraq is the Syrian pipeline.

Also on the list were four European Jihadists: three Arabs with French nationality and one Palestinian who had been living in Denmark (Country Profile). There were also only three veterans of the Afghan Jihad or Afghan training camps. Although this is probably because these experienced fighters are not killed at the same rate as their greener counterparts, it is such a low number for a 400-person sample that it also may suggest that there are not many of these veterans in Iraq.

The list comes from the ranks of radical Islamic groups made up mostly of foreign Arabs. However, it also demonstrates that there are a considerable number of Iraqis fighting with these groups. This was not believed to be the case a year or so ago when resistance groups were divided between those made up of foreign fighters and those made up of Iraqi nationalists and Baathists. The latter have diminished, and now it seems that more of the fighting is done by combined groups of foreigners and Iraqis.

In some cases, especially when the "martyrs" were Saudi, phone numbers of family members were provided so that people could call and congratulate them on having a martyr in the family â “ a great honor among radical Muslims. In one case, directions to a family's home in the Suweida district of Riyadh were provided so that people could visit the family and pay their respects.

(Source, Terrorism Research Center: Terror Web Watch, May 20, 2005)



So yes, there are foreigners, and yes, there are Saddam loyalists, but Saddam was apparently more popular than you think. Otherwise we'd have wrapped this whole thing up by now, right?
 
"Islamofascist" isn't just a lazy neo-con slogan; it fits.

Merriam-Webster's entry for "fascism" includes this: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

The extremists definitely exalt the religion above the faithful ("Islam" having at least in part the meaning "submission"), would have a centralized autocratic government ruled by dictates, would severely regiment every aspect of life, and would suppress opposition forcibly, to say the least.
 
Brad Sallows said:
Merriam-Webster's entry for "fascism" includes this: "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Pretty wet and loose defintion, considering that I could stick "communism" into that by-line as well.

Making the label of "Fascist" without any reference to Faith and how it fits into the context falls short of the mark - look at how the Nazis, the Italian Fascisti, the Japanese of WWII, and today's Islamist foe and how they all viewed spirituality, religion and its relation to temporal society and tell me that they are all cut from the same cloth.   If they are, then I guess we have to change the defintion of the term "Fascist" to that of "anyone opposed to the Liberal Democratic order".
 
Jihadists, Islamists, insurgents, terrorists - these terms seem to fit; "Islamofascist" seems to be a lazy neo-Con slogan.

I don't quite see it that way.   I would argue that Islamofascist is far more precise term in defining what OBL really represents. Far more so than "jihadist" or even "terrorist". As I think you do, I take OBL's ideas and pronouncements seriously. In fact I take him and his acolyte Zarqawi at their word.  

But what is the sum total of those ideas? What do they represent in political, social and economic terms? What would an OBL state look like?

In my view they are profoundly reactionary (and yes fascist) regardless of whether this brand of jihadism is directing its ire at the West or the Soviets or Dutch film makers.

Moreover it seems to me that it does a disservice to mainstream muslims (who are the primary victims of OBL and his supporters) many of whom are certainly patriotic and uncomfortable with the US occupation, but are unlikely to welcome a return of the Taliban or some sort of heretical revanchist theocracy triumphing in Iraq.

And if Britney's source material is correct, and most of the suicide bombers are indeed foreigners, then I would argue they are doubly fascist in intent since patriotism not their animating principle at all, but the mass slaughter of innocents (again mostly muslim) for a narrow sectarian cause.

Cheers, mdh
 
See my above post - I have no doubt that a Caliphate under the Banner of someone of the mind of bin Laden would be:

1) Opposed to the Liberal Democratic Order

2) Bad for business

However, as I said above, to say that they are cut from the same cloth as the Italians or the Germans misses what Fascists and what Islamists are all about.
 
First a correctly political side note: Fascism and Communism both fit into that dictionary definition because they are subsets of Socialism.

One thing which seems to be overlooked in the various argument is the fact that Osama bin Laden published his "Declaration of War" against the West in 1996. We all remember that period; dangerous Neo-Cons led by Bill Clinton ran the administration, and had been buying Arab oil; garrisoning Saudi Arabia, dropping the occasional bomb on Iraq, pretending the Taliban didn't exist (or were some sort of Medieval Times exhibition), and we were all happily living in the "End of History".

The Jihadis had been organizing and carrying out terror attacks for years, and each time the provocations were ignored they planned a bigger and better follow-up. They were (and are) convinced that "we" are weak and decadent, and will have no stomach for the stand up fight, much less protesting when they impose Islamic Law on our societies and resurrecting the old revolutionary technique of establishing a "parallel authority" within the target society.

The idea (if you do not think this is a fact) that Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist regime would find such a group as Al Qadea useful for carrying out operations doesn't seem far fetched; the Ba'athists gained the ability to conduct strikes against the United States, and the Al Qadea gained a useful source of support to carry out the aims they had already professed. The Ba'athists were pretty enthusiastic in their support of Palestinian Homicide Bombers as the only means they had to attack Israel, so we are only talking a matter of degree, not kind.

Perhaps Iraq wasn't the best place to or means to defeat the Jihadis. The fact still remains the main cause of Terrorism is the unbridled "Will to Power"; and the best source of recruits is people left hopeless and powerless in dysfunctional societies. Restructure of the societies by discrediting the ruling "elites" and ideologies (Sherman ruining the slave owning class in the CSA, for example) is a technique known to work, and that seems to be the path the current Administration is following. Few other historical examples exist of successful reformation short of total defeat, or sewing the ground with salt, if you know a better way, I think we all would like to know.
 
One thing which seems to be overlooked in the various argument is the fact that Osama bin Laden published his "Declaration of War" against the West in 1996. We all remember that period; dangerous Neo-Cons led by Bill Clinton ran the administration, and had been buying Arab oil; garrisoning Saudi Arabia, dropping the occasional bomb on Iraq, pretending the Taliban didn't exist (or were some sort of Medieval Times exhibition), and we were all happily living in the "End of History".

I strongly urge all those interested to read Against All Odds by Richard Clark, for a first hand blow by blow account of Clinton and Bush's anti terrorism efforts.  I especially enjoyed the parts where in 1998(IIRC) the SF colonel in Washington offered to fly to Khartoum and grab bin Laden himself. (" Let's do it Dick, We know he doesn't have a bodyguard, he probably isn't even armed, all I need is a non descript car at the airport and 2 men, I'll do it myself..") and in 2000(Again IIRC) when they came within a hair's breadth of launching a Delta raid at the Tarnak Farm (yes, that one) where bin Laden had made his HQ.


SPOILER: You might be a little miffed if you hate Clinton and love Bush.
 
Back
Top