Iraq & the War on Terror

[livendive 8]

A thought has occurred to me, and I figured I'd bounce it off you people. The myriad reasons given as justification for the war in Iraq fall far short of sufficient by my standards, but this one seems to be valid in at least a qualitative manner (though not quantitative).

What if the real reason we're in Iraq is similar to the reason we sometimes buy extra bait to throw overboard while fishing. i.e. Does our invasion and occupation of Iraq smell like chum to the terrorists? The positives of this being a reason are several:

1 - The folks we're losing to terrorists are minimized by virtue of their training, armaments, and state of readiness (as opposed to Joe-civilian over here).

2 - The folks we're losing to terrorists agreed in principle to give their lives to protect our country.

3 - Our presence in Iraq is like a magnet to terrorists, pulling them in together and concentrating them such that we get better bang for our buck when we go on offence

4 - Collateral damage, though regrettable, is at least inflicted on non-American civilians and properties.

5 - The use of massive force (overkill in some instances) is much more palatable on foreign soil than it would be here.

6 - While the terrorists are busy trying to get our forces in Iraq and destabilize the interim government, they're not attacking us here.

Thoughts? Just a hare-brained conspiracy theory or possible justification? Is the real reason we're there as simple as chumming up fish?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[beowulf 1]

I have had the same thoughts myself and have no problem fighting a war over seas rather then fighting directly here.

[Rebecca 0]

Ow! Quit bouncing shit off me!

kidding. But I am going to duck for cover, 'cause I think it's about to start flying in here...

[runs away, hands over head]

you've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel loquacious?' -- well do you, punk?

[PhillyKev 0]

That's the justification that many on here have espoused.

1&2 - I don't like the idea of sacrificing anyone no matter who they are.

4 & 5- That's nationalistic and poor justification

3 & 6 - While true our actions are also more likely to increase recruiting of new terrorists.

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

3 - Our presence in Iraq is like a magnet to terrorists, pulling them in together and concentrating them such that we get better bang for our buck when we go on offence

I overheard somebody discussing this theory at lunch today. Sort of makes Iraq seem like a giant piece of flypaper, or maybe more appropriate, a big rat trap. Lure all the rats into Fallujah (keeping them out of the US) and drop the hammer. He went so far as to suggest that to keep the trap active, that the US had no current interest in really stabilizing the region. It's not a theory I'd heard before, but one that I do find interesting.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[Zenister 0]

actually that is a fairly accurate assessment of one element of our overall strategy.. has been from the start, it is always better to force your enemy to fight to your strengths...

we've also used it on a smaller tactical scale.. one of the reasons for creating the 'no-go' zones was to draw the enemy into an area where they 'felt safe' and could be attacked in mass vs scattered invisibly throughout the population...

the downside is we are creating more enemies everyday using this tactic, as more of the population becomes angered by our continued offensive, the proverbial two-edged sword..... the question is can we win by attrition faster than we recruit for the real insurgents?

____________________________________
Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

3 - Our presence in Iraq is like a magnet to terrorists, pulling them in together and concentrating them such that we get better bang for our buck when we go on offence

I overheard somebody discussing this theory at lunch today. Sort of makes Iraq seem like a giant piece of flypaper, or maybe more appropriate, a big rat trap. Lure all the rats into Fallujah (keeping them out of the US) and drop the hammer. He went so far as to suggest that to keep the trap active, that the US had no current interest in really stabilizing the region. It's not a theory I'd heard before, but one that I do find interesting.

-
Jim

Problem is that's a misperception. By all military accounts the insurgents in Iraq's are primarily Iraqi's, not terrorists from around the world travelling there. We may be concentrating a bunch of them together, but they wouldn't have been terrorists in the first place if we weren't there. So, it's a wash, except for all the US soldiers and civilians that die in the process.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

I have had the same thoughts myself and have no problem fighting a war over seas rather then fighting directly here.

Not all the people killed are terrorists - some are innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place.

Do you have any feelings about the ethics of sacrificing them?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,070]

>1 - The folks we're losing to terrorists are minimized by virtue of their
> training, armaments, and state of readiness (as opposed to Joe-civilian
> over here).

It it's one or the other, I would agree. However, as we are seeing daily killings in Iraq, as opposed to a major attack in the US every 50 years or so (and minor ones on the scale of every 10 years or so) we'll lose more people in the end to daily attacks.

>2 - The folks we're losing to terrorists agreed in principle to give their
>lives to protect our country.

I agree; however, I do not value a US soldier's life any less than a laywer working in Baltimore. Saying "Well, we're losing soldiers instead of lawyers, that's good" doesn't hold much water with me. Our troops are not expendable bait.

>3 - Our presence in Iraq is like a magnet to terrorists, pulling them in
> together and concentrating them such that we get better bang for our
> buck when we go on offence

Do you think that the "magnet" of constant Israeli terrorism (on both sides) has increased or decreased the amount of terrorism overall? I don't believe that there are a fixed number of terrorists. Make it more profitable to be a terrorist, give them the materials, motives and havens to become one, and there will be more terrorists. We should not be in the business of creating more terrorists, even if we think we can kill more of them in the future.

>4 - Collateral damage, though regrettable, is at least inflicted on
>non-American civilians and properties.

That is an eerie thing to say.

>6 - While the terrorists are busy trying to get our forces in Iraq and
>destabilize the interim government, they're not attacking us here.

To me, more terrorists = more chances one will get through to the US. That's like sending your brother to start fights at bars so there will be no fights in your house. Having a brother everyone hates will, in the end, increase the chances that the fight comes to you.

[likearock 2]

Quote

the question is can we win by attrition faster than we recruit for the real insurgents?

Rumsfeld had the same question. Still unanswered.

Quote

To me, more terrorists = more chances one will get through to the US. That's like sending your brother to start fights at bars so there will be no fights in your house. Having a brother everyone hates will, in the end, increase the chances that the fight comes to you.

I think you're right on the money with that, Bill. If we had limited the WOT to Afghanistan, where the rest of the world (including many Moslem states) saw us as justified in fighting, it would've been very different. To use your analogy, that'd be like the brother going to one bar to kick someone's ass who did something bad to our family. Iraq's a totally different matter. Even when you're a superpower, you've got to pick your fights carefully.

Wayne

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

I have had the same thoughts myself and have no problem fighting a war over seas rather then fighting directly here.

Not all the people killed are terrorists - some are innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place.

Do you have any feelings about the ethics of sacrificing them?

And Americans. We have now lost over 1/3 of the total amount lost in the WTC. I guess it makes more sense to lost an American or two a day over a few years then just a bunch all at once. Good strategy.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I have had the same thoughts myself and have no problem fighting a war over seas rather then fighting directly here.

Not all the people killed are terrorists - some are innocent civilians who happen to be in the wrong place.

Do you have any feelings about the ethics of sacrificing them?

And Americans. We have now lost over 1/3 of the total amount lost in the WTC. I guess it makes more sense to lost an American or two a day over a few years then just a bunch all at once. Good strategy.

Don´t forget about the 14000+ innocent civillians labeled as collateral damage. To all the world and some Americans those lives are as important as anyother live.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Don´t forget about the 14000+ innocent civillians labeled as collateral damage. To all the world and some Americans those lives are as important as anyother live.

Can you provide a source for this statement?

[crozby 0]

Quote

Can you provide a source for this statement?

Whilst we know accurately how many coalition troops have died, for some reason there doesn't seem to be that much interest on the part of the US government to find out how many iraqi civilians have died and been injured.

Considering that we are there to liberate these people I find that a bit strange. Don't you?

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=1319137;search_string=100%2C000;#1319137

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Botellines 0]

Quote

Quote

Don´t forget about the 14000+ innocent civillians labeled as collateral damage. To all the world and some Americans those lives are as important as anyother live.

Can you provide a source for this statement?

Do you want a link about 14000+ collateral damage or a link that proves that their lives are important?

[Gawain 0]

Quote

>1 - The folks we're losing to terrorists are minimized by virtue of their
> training, armaments, and state of readiness (as opposed to Joe-civilian
> over here).

It it's one or the other, I would agree. However, as we are seeing daily killings in Iraq, as opposed to a major attack in the US every 50 years or so (and minor ones on the scale of every 10 years or so) we'll lose more people in the end to daily attacks.

A major attack every 50 years? There's no pattern of that on the US by terrorists. In fact, notable attacks against the US are averaging every 5 years or less.

1/24/1975 - Bombing in NYC (Fraunces Tavern) kills 4, injures more than 50 by Puerto Rican nationalist group.

11/4/1979 - Iranian hostage crisis begins.

1982-1991 - Labanon: Thirty US and other western hostages by Hezbollah.

4/18/1983 - Beirut: US embassy destroyed killing 63. Islamic Jihad claims responsibility.

10/23/1983 - 241 US Marines killed, 53 French Paratroopers killed.

12/12/1983 - Kuwait City: US embassy attacked, killing 5, injuring 50.

9/20/1984 - Beirut: US embassy attacked, killing 24

12/3/1984 - Kuwait Airways flight 221 hijacked, 2 Americans killed.

4/12/1985 - Madrid: Restaurant frequented by US soldiers bombed, killing 18, injuring 82.

6/14/1985 - TWA flight 847 hijacked, US Navy diver executed.

10/7/1985 - Achille Lauro hijacked, one US tourist killed.

12/18/1985 - Airports in Rome and Vienna bombed, killing 20.

4/2/1986 - TWA flight 840 bombed, killing 4, injuring 9

4/5/1986 - West Berlin: Disco frequented by US servicemen bombed, killing 2, injuring hundreds.

12/21/1988 - PanAm 747 bombed over Scotland, killing 270 people.

2/26/1993 - WTC attack (part 1), killing 6, injuring over 1,000.

11/13/1995 - Riyadh Saudi Arabia: Bombing kills five US servicemen.

This list goes on....need I go on??

If we weren't in Afghanistan and Iraq, they would be here.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,070]

>In fact, notable attacks against the US are averaging every 5 years
> or less.

>1/24/1975 - Bombing in NYC (Fraunces Tavern) kills 4, injures
> more than 50 by Puerto Rican nationalist group.

>11/4/1979 - Iranian hostage crisis begins.

>1982-1991 - Labanon: Thirty US and other western hostages by
> Hezbollah.


Ah, we were originally talking about attacks against the US by Islamic extremist groups, not about attacks against US interests and personnel overseas. But if you do want to talk about overseas attacks as well, we are seeing an average of 3 attacks against US troops a day by terrorists in Iraq. So that's around 1800 terorist attacks since the war started. You're going to claim that's an improvement? The 'war on terror' has created more terrorism than Al Qaeda ever managed.

>If we weren't in Afghanistan and Iraq, they would be here.

We are creating them in record numbers. They will come here. We're throwing stones at every hornet's nest we can see, and telling people that none will ever follow us home. A bad idea if your objective is to not get your family stung.

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

Can you provide a source for this statement?

I can
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
and
http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/28/news/toll.html

so estimates actually range from 14000 all the way up to 100,000.

Please note that 14,000 is the accepted bare MINIMUM of civilians killed

is this justification for 9/11 somehow?

TK

[tkhayes 348]

Quote

A major attack every 50 years? There's no pattern of that on the US by terrorists. In fact, notable attacks against the US are averaging every 5 years or less.

1/24/1975 - Bombing in NYC (Fraunces Tavern) kills 4, injures more than 50 by Puerto Rican nationalist group.

11/4/1979 - Iranian .....

I think the total body count here is 580 or so. Let's add 3000 for 9/11 and make it an even 4000 American casualties over the past 30 years, merely an average of 130/year.

Over the same 30 years:
-about 800.000-1 million women died from breast cancer
-about 12-14 million people died from all forms of cancer
- about 500,000 people died from AIDS

I could go on.

My point is - what is the REAL threat to American lives? Are we fighting terrorists to PRESERVE American lives?

We will spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a war, to prevent what is STATISTICALLY 4000 lives over 30 years.

But we will not fund 'embryonic stem-cell research', (and many other medical things)

Yet it would save 10's and 100's, perhaps 1000's times more lives than ANY war we could ever fight.

the priorities are screwed up.
TK

[rhys 0]

if the seppo war monging idiots would get out of iraq(who didn't even attack you in the first place) bugger all people would die and your soldier mates could go skydiving or have a bbq on a sunday afternoon with thier family. concentrate on protecting america not making extremists even more angry with the country.

is this not a world wide website? i am not an american but when i read through this thread you guys are talking as if everyone who reads it is.

iraqis don't deserve to die. they have it hard enough anyway. they can't help where they're from.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[GravityGirl 0]

Well said TK.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Peace and Blue Skies!
Bonnie ==>Gravity Gear!

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Ah, we were originally talking about attacks against the US by Islamic extremist groups, not about attacks against US interests and personnel overseas. ... ... ... You're going to claim that's an improvement?

Attacks agains US embassies are attacks on US soil. Ask any diplomat of any country, a country's embassy is that country's sovereign soil. An attack on a US citizen (in my view) in another country is an attack on the US.

I made so such claim to improvement. I did want to cite, contrary to your statement, that the US has been enduring attacks for over 25 years by extremists, nearly all of them Islamic in nature.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Jimbo 0]

Quote

I did want to cite, contrary to your statement, that the US has been enduring attacks for over 25 years by extremists, nearly all of them Islamic in nature.

Of course. The terrorists knew that George Walker Bush would be President one day. Why don't people know these things?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[billvon 3,070]

>Attacks agains US embassies are attacks on US soil. Ask any diplomat
>of any country, a country's embassy is that country's sovereign soil. An
> attack on a US citizen (in my view) in another country is an attack on the
> US.

Using that definition, since 'the war on terror' was started, terrorism has increased by several orders of magnitude.