the great myth of terrorism in post-occupation Iraq

[welshTerrier2]

this is one of the pillars argued by most Senate Democrats to justify why the US "cannot afford to fail in Iraq" ... the reasoning says that a "rogue terrorist state" in the Middle East would destabilize the world and threaten the US for decades to come ... the argument, as an element of the "Pottery Barn" justification, is that we have to clean out all the bad guys and strengthen the hand of the good guys before we can withdraw ...

all of this hinges on the idea that if we fail in Iraq, terrorists will embed themselves there and we will suffer the consequences for generations ...

THE ARGUMENT BEING SUPPORTED BY DEMOCRATS IS TOTAL BULLSHIT !!!!!

first, let's be a little more precise with our definitions here ... are those fighting against the US imposed regime in Iraq and American occupation actually terrorists? well, i'm willing to concede that the fact that they not only target the illegal American occupation forces but civilian targets as well means they are ...

HOWEVER, their struggle is motivated solely by the US occupation and any elements of the puppet government, such as Chalabi, that the US has put in place ... so, by this definition then, absent US interference in Iraq, there is NO EVIDENCE that these "insurgents" are terrorists and there is certainly NO EVIDENCE to suggest that they have any interest whatsoever in exporting terrorism internationally ... almost all of the "insurgents" who have been killed or captured have been native Iraqi citizens !!!!!

what evidence has been provided to show that native Iraqi citizens have ever been interested in exporting terrorism or attacking the US?

now, is it true that foreign terrorists have infiltrated into Iraq since the US occupation began? again, even in this example, it is the magnet of US occupation that is attracting foreign terrorists to Iraq ... indeed, there is now strong evidence that there have been battles between native Sunni "insurgents" and outside infiltrators ... the presence of US occupation troops is making this situation worse, not better !!!

i recently heard someone (sorry, no source - was it part of Biden's speech last week?) testify that NATO could easily control (and would be willing to control) Iraq's borders to stop the movement of "uninvited personnel" moving in either direction ... it was suggested this would require a mere 5,000 to 6,000 troops NATO troops ...

the US policy in Iraq will NOT result in a rogue state controlled by international terrorists ... the Iraqi borders can be easily shut down to block foreign infiltration ... the US occupation forces are attracting more and more terrorists into Iraq although their numbers are still a very small percentage of those doing the fighting ... and the native born Iraqi "insurgents" are not terrorists and are not a threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors ...

the "rogue terrorist state point of view" that most Senate Democrats use to condone bush's never-ending occupation of Iraq is totally misguided ... once again, Democrats are ignoring the loud and clear message from the American people: get the fuck out of there NOW !!!

[TheFarseer]

1. Good points

I absolutely refuse to call the people fighting us in Iraq "terrorists" The pottery barn discussion is an interesting one. "you break it, you bought it" seems to be the conventional wisdom. Why is it, that repubs and bush don't get blamed for breaking it? They get their way because of this argument but seem to avoid the blame.

[welshTerrier2]

2. well, i thought these points were important ...

the arguments made in this thread go to the heart why some Democratic Senators are wrong when they say we "are stuck in Iraq" ...

and Dr. Dean is wrong too ...

agree or disagree ???

[magellan]

3. I agree

What's been unleashed in Iraq is going to happen whether we're there or not. My understanding is that the principals in these attacks are religious extremists within Iraq (Sunni vs. Shi'a, and in-fighting between sects thereof), militias, and rogue groups related to various of the corrupt officials in government (including Chalabi and the INC). Some of these are being aided by local interlopers. For example, the Iraqi Da'awa Party -- a sect of Shi'a which Prime Minister Jaffari represents -- has strong ties with the same party in Iran. (After Da'awa was outlawed in Iraq, its adherents went to Iran and even fought alongside Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. Their return is not popular in Iraq. And Jaffari isn't even considered an Iraqi; he lived in London for 23 years and calls England home.)

However, the Shi'a people in general are not extremists, except perhaps in comparison to secular modernist Sunnis. Most simply do not have the will to fight a fundamentalist takeover by the more extreme among them. And it seems the fundamentalists have the upper hand.

Women in Baghdad can no longer go out alone, no matter their religion; they must be accompanied by two men in public, more for their protection than anything else. They're being forced through intimidation and physical attacks to conform to the dress code of "good" Muslim women, and have lost the jobs they had before the invasion. Rapes, abductions and murders of women for failing to observe so-called 'traditional' Islamic law are common.

I won't even venture to comment on the likes of Zarqawi, except to say that if he exists he's just one more cow patty in this pasture of political excrement.

So we have a landscape where the majority of Iraqis, no matter their political or religious background:

• feel insecure 24/7, even in their own homes -- if they still have one
  
• do not have reliable electric and water service two years after the invasion
  
• have lost their jobs or, in the case of the men, are having to take work at far less than what they earned before (when they CAN find a job)
  
• are caught between a foreign occupying force, sectarian skirmishes and extremist oppression
  
• and see little in the way of representation or action on their behalf from the 'elected' government.
  

Talk about the devil and the deep blue sea.

This is the mess Bush** has left Iraq in. And no matter how long we stay there it isn't going to be resolved by our presence. It's only exacerbated by what most Iraqis of any persuasion regard as a US occupation, and a fractured US puppet government that's pocketing reconstruction funds while doing virtually nothing to assist the suffering Iraqi people.

We need to get out of there...mainly because we are NOT trusted. If this is TRULY about democracy then let the Iraqis determine their future by whatever means they choose -- for themselves. It's going to be painful no matter what, now.

[Karenina]

5. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM

[magellan]

6. Indeed

Maslow's hierarchy of needs was an alternative to the depressing determinism of Freud and Skinner. He felt that people are basically trustworthy, self-protecting, and self-governing. Humans tend toward growth and love. Although there is a continuous cycle of human wars, murder, deceit, etc., he believed that violence is not what human nature is meant to be like. Violence and other evils occur when human needs are thwarted. In other words, people who are deprived of lower needs such as safety may defend themselves by violent means.

It really is important to remember this as it applies to any society. People will only take so much and will try only so many times to be heard before they take matters into their own hands.

Democracy can't be bestowed. It must be wrought by the people themselves or it isn't democracy.

[Pepperbelly]

4. There is a more perfect metaphor however. Easily understood.

The gops claim Iraq as flypaper.

The better metaphor is Iraq as insufficient anti-biotic therapy (I read this somewhere the other day and it struck me as highly succinct and cogent.) Just like when not enough anti-biotics or weak anti-biotics are used against an infection. Rather than healing, it serves as a culling process to destroy the weaker, leaving just the strongest.

We can see the conequences for the rest of the metaphor.