h1

Milestones In The Long Journey Back To The Line Of Scrimmage

May 24, 2008

Great news!  That rag-tag band of terrorists that didn’t exist until we invaded Iraq may have finally been defeated.  Of course, we’ve seen these “al Qaeda in Iraq is on the run” flashes before, but I’m still gonna give the h/t to Hot Air ’cause, well, maybe because I don’t remember ever posting about it. 

Anyway…

The battle against the people a little closer to those who actually attacked us is ongoing:  Taliban Attacks Spike in Afghanistan 

 

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

15 comments

  1. Ah, much better General. Start with the typical libbie meme that the evil George Bush turned choir boys into ruthless savages. Now that is the Chen I have missed.

    Tell me, you also think Congresswoman Maximae Maxine Waters (D-CA) (gag uckk) had a good idea socializing, no compartmentaliz…no departmentaliz.. no tribalizing…etc… the oil industry as per her vast intellectual statement from on high at the kangaroo court of oil execs yesterday ?

    Obama should appoint her Energy Secretary if he wins. She’s right up his alley.


  2. I don’t know how AQ is rag tag in the typical sense but it is good all parties are finally exerting efforts to spank them.
    AQ is a lot more complicated in it’s makeup & ops than most pundits & people realize.The very nature of how they were able to activate in Iraq is something the world best wake up to given the potential of Taliban resurgence and more than a couple of African nations being in play.
    In the spirit of the post I’d like to point to Afghanistan setbacks as having the credible linkage to NATO impotence.
    Enjoy your weekend CZ and fight the urge to actually steal a car in the real world.


  3. Tex-

    Ah, much better General. Start with the typical libbie meme that the evil George Bush turned choir boys into ruthless savages. Now that is the Chen I have missed.

    Is it? I don’t remember referring to Bush with the ‘e’ word. Cheney either. I’m secular, ya know, so I usually don’t think in those terms anyway.

    Look, I’ve never been too certain about a motivation for this whole thing. At one point I thought I knew, but then the more I read into it and engaged in discussions with fine people such as yourself, the more my position shifted. But I’ve thought all along that I wasn’t going to truly “in the know”, because let’s face it; I’m sitting here in Minnesota. and I wasn’t one of the millions of protesters that came out, only to be ridiculed as anti-American outcasts. ‘Cause, hey, I was just one those guys that shook my head when I watched Powell’s big speech to the UN. I was like Scocroft; I just thought it was a bad idea from a tactical perspective if nothing else.

    Anyway, my theory at this point was that the al Qaeda knew exactly what it would get from GW Bush and the political climate here at home: A reaction. The wake caused by 9/11 made a reckless and illogical attack on Iraq seem rational and, worse, dutiful. In other words, the way I see it is we essentially got played hard by 19 ‘jihadis’ armed with nothing more than some knives and flying lessons, and Bush seized on the opportunity to look ‘tough on terror’ and make an example out of Saddam. Now, if you want to go into some long discussion that Bush (or, more likely, Cheney) being bent on a war for immediate political leverage constitutes ‘evil’, well, I suppose there might even be a debate there. (But again, I generally don’t think in those terms.)


  4. General,

    Anyway, my theory at this point was that the al Qaeda knew exactly what it would get from GW Bush and the political climate here at home: A reaction. The wake caused by 9/11 made a reckless and illogical attack on Iraq seem rational and, worse, dutiful.

    That’s where we tend to disagree. Al-Qaeda thought we would look weak and take it in the shorts with some half hearted effort like launching a few harpoon cruise missles like we had under Clinton. I think our reaction sparked the inevitable war and on their soil and they have been surprised by its ferocity. Since UBL all but declared Iraq “the ultimate battlefield”, how is it that his regime has benefitted by recruiting those who are continually turned into worm dirt? You’re not going to convince me that these weren’t already radical Muslims calling themselves by a multitude of names but with a common purpose – institute dominate sharia law across first the middle east, then elsewhere. Their cause has been set back as now many Muslims (the good ones and one reason for the success of the surge) are turning against UBL.

    We are killing them by the bushel and we haven’t been attacked once domestically since we entered the fray. I believe that is worth remembering and often discounted by the left. Do I think this the final battle? No. Do I think it necessary? Absolutely and overdue. The only thing I might agree with you about is that Iraq itself is puzzling. However, strategically it is perfect as now the ultimate evil, Iran, is surrounded. Hence, the continual bluster.


  5. […] there will always be those who don’t believe that Iraq was a proper battleground in the war on terror, there are others […]


  6. “We are killing them by the bushel and we haven’t been attacked once domestically since we entered the fray. I believe that is worth remembering and often discounted by the left.”

    It’s important to keep in mind, though, that the last domestic Islamic terrorist attack occurred in 1993. That’s 8 years previous to 9/11, and now it’s been 7 years. So far, we’re neither up nor down, but just about at the same level (unless you want to count all the “foiled” attempts that we’ve heard about in the media. In that case, we’re up.) Also, if you look at world-wide terror attacks, the numbers are up post-invasion (at least through 2005.)


  7. Actually Bluto,

    You’re completely wrong on one count; partially wrong on the second: (1) Global terrorist attacks are down almost 40% since the inception of the Iraqi war; and (2) Although technically not domestic I suppose, I consider that an act of terrorism again the U.S. Cole and the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania acts of terrorism against the U.S.


  8. If you’re going to start expanding the word ‘domestic’ to include military assets in foreign countries, then you’re going to have to include Iraq and Afghanistan, in which case the numbers have shot up. How about our allies? Do you want to add them too? I don’t see why not, if we’re going to throw a strict conception of domestic out of the window.

    Second, I’m not sure where you’re getting your world terrorism stats from. Mine are coming from the National Counter-Terrorism Center. The pre-2004 stats indicate an increase (although with shoddy methodology, so that’s arguable whether we can even know. However, the information we DO have indicates an increase.)

    Then, they changed the methodology so no comparisons can be reasonably made between pre- and post-2005. After 2005, there has been a decrease, mostly due to a decrease in violence in Iraq. It went from crazy-ass fever pitch to a low boil, so if that’s progress then whoop-ee.

    But where are you getting your information from?


  9. Actually, one last thing. Maybe this is a dumb argument that I’ve gotten myself into. The NCTC makes the point that comparing gross world-wide terrorism statistics year to year is pointless, since you’re dealing with vast numbers of people with huge disparities in motivation, etc.

    I think to keep this meaningful, we ought to stick to domestic terrorism, where domestic is on US soil. Otherwise, you need to add terrorism attacks against US military interests, and then you get Iraq and Afghanistan which is silly.


  10. Yes, it is a dumb argument you’ve gotten yourself into because the premise you used behind your reasoning is dumb. You state that it was eight years from one incident to another and we’ve now gone seven. So whoopee…But that assumes all things being equal. We have attacked not one, but two nations on account of global terrorism and I believe that it would follow that if the enemy was already motivated to strike, it now would be.

    I guess assuming that if something were to happen next year, in your opinion there would be no progress? Is that your logic?

    As far as your first question were I got my information, several sources. But since you’re a lefty masquerading as a moderate, let me use one of your “reliable” sources…how about Obama’s idea of reliable information called Reuter’s?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2139567720080521?feedType=nl&feedName=ustopnewsevening

    I would say our war on terror has, contrary to your statement above, been more than effective…


  11. “But even experts from MIPT and other institutes acknowledge that Iraq, where violence against civilians by militants is a daily occurrence five years after the invasion, is a special case not necessarily linked to any global trend.

    “If you pulled (Iraq) out, terrorism was steady or maybe slightly lower,” James Ellis, research and program director at MIPT, told Reuters. “It has had a distortion effect.”‘
    That’s from your article. Either steady or slightly down, if you don’t include Iraq. So where’s the 40% number coming from? Terrorism declined 40% between July/September 2007 but not since the beginning of the war.

    Anyway, global terrorism trends aren’t important since not all global terrorism is addressed by US foreign policy.

    Finally, your orignial claim was that domestic US terrorism was down. However, there has only been one pre-9/11 terrorist event, and several foiled post-9/11 terrorism events. And you want to claim this indicates that domestic terrorism is down? It doesn’t indicate anything. There simply isn’t enough data to draw your conclusion.


  12. bluto,

    Anyway, global terrorism trends aren’t important since not all global terrorism is addressed by US foreign policy.

    Here, I used the U.N. report purposely as a test because I truly don’t know you and wanted to see what your reaction would be when two sides were presented. Now I know. Try this one:

    http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5iJciaxCBODpiOZKXuLS73Q0gpaBA

    I honestly believe guys like you live in a state of denial, self-appeasement and have a warped critical thought process. You’ll be the last one saying the surge hasn’t worked, we’ve failed in Afghanistan and global terrorism frequency of occurrence isn’t important because it doesn’t affect me.

    You’re thought process is superficial because you have a false sense of expectations and can only measure short-term absolutes. You expect perfectly executed wars that last three weeks with no casualties. Fortunately, our Forefathers were a little wiser or we would have never made it.

    But don’t be concerned…there’s an entire political party that believes the same way you do.


  13. Actually, that’s the first time I’ve heard of the Simon Fraser study. But both your previous linked Reuter’s article and the NCTC went against your claim that terrorism had dropped 40%. That’s why I asked for your source, in case my sources were wrong. That’s how conversations tend to work, they don’t tend to work with one person trying to trick the other person. In this case, I had incomplete knowledge, which has now been fixed.

    So it appears that discounting Civil Wars leads to a 40% decrease in terrorism. I honestly didn’t know that. Good news, though.

    And to answer your other questions: the Surge and the other strategies that went a long with it have decreased violence in Iraq. Afghanistan is so-so, mostly due to 40 nations fighting one war, with no overarching command structure, and NATO being a bunch of pussies. And no, international terrorism statistics aren’t a good metric. And as I pointed out before, I’m probably not voting Obama. Leaving Iraq no matter what in 16 months is ape-shit crazy.

    But the question of domestic terrorism still stands. You want to add the Cole and the embassies? Okay, let’s also add the shoe-bomber, the dude with the car full of explosives on the Canadian border, the guys at Ft. Dix, and so on. Still down? Doesn’t seem like it to me.


  14. You probably meant fatalities from domestic terrorism are down post-invasion, in which case that’s obviously true.


  15. Excuse, that I interrupt you.

    By the way, what do you think about this icons site?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: