Major Policy Shift in TWAT

[ItalianStereotype]

Major Policy Shift Possible in US Global War on Terror


By VOA News
29 May 2005

A published report says the Bush administration has
initiated a top-level internal review of its
anti-terrorism policy, with the aim of moving away
from hunting al-Qaida leadership and towards a broader
strategy of dealing with violent extremism.

The Washington Post in its Sunday edition says the
new strategy has evolved as al-Qaida has become
increasingly decentralized since the attacks of
September 11, 2001. White House officials tell the
newspaper a new anti-terrorism model must emerge to
cope with the rapid global spread of pro-al-Qaida
Islamic jihadists.

Officials say hitting al-Qaida in Afghanistan after
the 2001 attacks was a logical tactical maneuver. But
they say the new leadership among terror groups is
difficult to target as they adapt and blend into
multiple societies.

The reported policy shift is the first major change in
anti-terrorism strategy for the Bush administration
since the attacks.

Some information for this report provided by AP and
Reuters.


justification for an attack on Iran? I'm all for it. let's make the entire Caliphate a pretty string of red, white, and blue colonies.

[mburbank]

Absolutely.

I mean, we've done so well with the first one, getting it all under control and everything. I think we're ready to take it to the next level. The question is, Syria or Iran? Oh, what the fuck, toss a coin.

[sspadowsky]

I think this is at least peripherally related:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
With the war in Iraq, Bush said, "I think the Iraqi government will be up to the task of defeating the insurgents."

Anyone else hear the sound of another buck being passed?

[ItalianStereotype]

I really would support an attack on Iran though :<

and shit, while we're at it, let's make Kuwait a protectorate.

[ziggytrix]

Support as in enlist?

[ItalianStereotype]

that was originally my plan, but I can't. I have bad heart valves. if I ever do get a clean bill of health though, I probably will enlist again.

anyway, that's kind of a dodgy tactic. you don't have to be personally involved in order to support something.

besides, I'd rather be personally involved in killin me some chinese.

[FS]

And hives, Italian? And hives?

(I kid, I kid cause I love, and I don't doubt your resolve)

[GAsux]

No offense Ital but it sometimes seems the people most willing to fight are the ones who can't. If you ask anyone who's been there or around it, and I can assure you I have, no one in a uniform is thrilled with the idea of fighting in Iran.

Everyone who spent time in the desert during Gulf War I knew that round two would suck. The weather, the living conditions, etc. Marines are currently pulling 12 month rotations to shit holes all over Iraq. None of them want to pack up just so we can turn around and do it all again in the Iranian desert, with a gauranteed significantly higher mortality rate.

I understand the nature of the business involves potentially sacrificing your life. The deal is, everyone who does it assumes that if they do give their life, it will be for a greater good or have some meaningful impact. Its one thing to die or lose a limb to save Europe from the Nazis. Its another to die in the sands of Iran to prevent a hypothetical.

[ziggytrix]

IS, you're so full of shit. :rolleyes

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Well actually, I know he isn't, b/c I remember when he tried to enlist, and I also believe he sincerely wants to kill Chinese people. :lol

Anyway, as for the policy shift, is this really new? I mean, wasn't this pretty much the deal with the last SOTU address? Ya know, terrorism and tyranny can't exist where democracy and open markets take their place, etc. etc....?

I read a piece in Current History magazine last year which pretty much made the same point. Attacking Afghanistan seemed like a good idea, but it basically scattered Al Qaeda across the globe, and thus allowed every crazy jihadist movement to fall under the "Al Qaeda" umbrella. The comparison this historian made was that of a bulky and beaurecratic corporation essentially turning into a franchised brand name of sorts.

[ziggytrix]

i'm not referring to the enlisting remark, but the rest of it. the whole "i support the US taking over the world" routine. i don't buy it.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You should talk to him more often, then see what you think.

[ziggytrix]

*shrug* maybe. but short of talking to him person to person - not online on AIM or here - I think he'd keep talking the neofascist bluster.

[GAsux]

Kev,
That's an interesting theory. I actually see it the other way. Well, maybe a bit farther back even. I think Afghanistan was the right place, we just missed our chance. By not taking a proactive role in nation building after the Soviet pull out, for a decade actually, we sort of fostered an environment for the Taliban to happen in.

But I see the Afghan war as more vital to the global war on terror then the Iraq war. The Afghan situation didn't seem to have the same high profile rallying potential for Arabs that Iraq did. We were able to go into Afghanistan and be only marginally affected by Arab jihadists.

Iraq on the other hand instantly became a rallying cry, a 2005 version of 1980s Afghanistan if you will. It's become the front lines for jihadists all over the world to come and make a name for themselves. I think to some degree Afghanistan actually dissipated the threat, even if only in the short term, whereas Iraq magnified it by giving it a focal point.

As for the "shift" it makes sense in theory although I don't suspect it will be any more successful. Regardless, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Iran is the place to go. The jihadists are coming from Syria, Africa, Indo, etc.

Just my feeble thoughts anyway.

[executioneer]

hahahaha "TWAT" :lol

[ItalianStereotype]

I'm not so much a fascist as an imperialist. empires do it right :o


hooray willie! :D

[sspadowsky]

I don't agree with Eye Tai on a lot of things (especially the imperialism angle), but he's the goods. For reals.

[Immortal Goat]

empires do it right

http://mellody.co.za/michaela/palpatine/gallery/emperor11.jpg
"I said that in a bar once and got slapped for it!"

[Dole]

Why on earth would anyone with a few brain cells support another unprovoked attack on a middle-eastern country?? Fucking ludicrous.

[Ant10708]

Its one thing to die or lose a limb to save Europe from the Nazis. Its another to die in the sands of Iran to prevent a hypothetical. We had no idea that the Nazis were committing the type of crimes that we now think of when we hear Nazis. We declared war on Germany because one of their allies attacked us directly it didn't have much to do with saving Europe at the time. And didn't we get all pissed at Germany for attacking a passenger cruise ship carrying American civilians and the Germans claimed it was carrying weapons to the Allies and we denied it but it turns out we did have weapons for the Allies on it. So Germany had a more legit reason to declare war on us than we did on them. And saving Europe from the Nazis really fucked over eastern europe for the next half century since we just handed their countries over to another terrible dictator.

But after the whole Iraq blunder, it would be really fucking dumb to start another unprovoked war especially on an Islamic country. But if we ever find out that Bin Laden is in Iran with their knowledge instead of hiding in Pakistan then we are going to attack them for sure :(
I just hope he is still hiding in Pakistan or better yet dead.

Isn't a signicifant portion of Iran like in their teenage years? Ripe for terrorism if we start an invasion on their country.

[GAsux]

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that no one knew prior to the end of the war, or even prior to the start of U.S. involvement in it, that the Germans were rounding up Jews and murdering them? That was some kind of secret unrevealed until after that war and had no impact on U.S public opinion prior to the war?

And further you're saying we DIDN'T get involved in the European theater to "save" Europe? The only reason we got involved was becuase they attacked one of our allies? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you've said.

Im pretty confident that as the Germans marched across Europe, both their attrocities AND the fear of the economic impact on the U.S. if the Nazi march was allowed to coninue all the way to Britan probably played a bit of a factor.

[Ant10708]

Are you kidding me? Are you saying that no one knew prior to the end of the war, or even prior to the start of U.S. involvement in it, that the Germans were rounding up Jews and murdering them? That was some kind of secret unrevealed until after that war and had no impact on U.S public opinion prior to the war?

And further you're saying we DIDN'T get involved in the European theater to "save" Europe? The only reason we got involved was becuase they attacked one of our allies? Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what you've said.

Im pretty confident that as the Germans marched across Europe, both their attrocities AND the fear of the economic impact on the U.S. if the Nazi march was allowed to coninue all the way to Britan probably played a bit of a factor.

Yes to your first paragragh. No one knew about the concetration camps as far as I know until we got into Germany which was very near the end of the war in Europe. Isn't it weird that still now people like you think it was only Jews,or atleast thats what you mention when you discuss nazi camps, that he was rounding up. 11 million people died in camps and 5 million were non Jews. Gypsies had more long term damage done to them than Jews. Because of WW2, Jews got their our country and now they are close allies with the only super power. I bet Hitler's punching his balls because of that. Why does everyone cry for them but not one tear is shed for the poor gypsies :(

I didn't say we got involved to save an ally or to save Europe. We declared war on Germany and Italy because they were allies with Japan and Japan attacked us directly. And the Japanese did some pretty horrible things during that war also before Pearl Harbor to other asians and that didn't rally the American civilians and I bet the average American today probaly doesn't even know Japan committed some terrible atrocities during WW2. The Japanese barely admit what they did.

The Nazis may not of marched to England(since its an island) but they bombed the friggin jebus out of it. It may be hard to believe now but the U.S. wasn't always eager to get into wars even when our good allies are involved.

Also do you know how many war crimes the Allies must of committed during WW2 before the media was following our soldiers with cameras and reporting the slightest incident of abuse?
American planes and British planes bombed German civilian targets on purpose to lower the moral of the German enemy. The average prisoner of war was treated decently since we hoped they would treat our POWs the same but half the time we just shot them when they surrendered instead of taking prisoners.

I can't belive you actually think that it was the atrocities of the Nazis that convinced us to fight in a war. That still doesn't make us(or any country in position too) to go to war now. Rwanda, Bosnia, ongoing in the Congo and now Sudan. And this is during the age of information where no one has an excuse to be ignorant to the atrocities. Which is why I find the U.N. to be tremedously ineffective when it comes to solving disputes.

I don't know much about the attitudes towards the economy at that time but the war started as our Great Depression was beginning to end, our entering the war def helped us completely pull out of the GD. After that horrible economic time I doubt people were overly concerned that Hitler would make the American economy worse. But I honestly could be wrong on this because I plead ignorant on how Americans thought the German war with other countries, would effect our economy.

[ziggytrix]

Also do you know how many war crimes the Allies must of committed during WW2 before the media was following our soldiers with cameras and reporting the slightest incident of abuse?
American planes and British planes bombed German civilian targets on purpose to lower the moral of the German enemy. The average prisoner of war was treated decently since we hoped they would treat our POWs the same but half the time we just shot them when they surrendered instead of taking prisoners.

The rest of the Allies have NOTHING on what the Russian Army did when they came into Germany. They weren't there for the Jews - they were there for REVENGE. It was so bad that some German civillians, particularly rape-fearing women, would kill themselves when the Russians overtook their towns. I'm not trying to sound particularly sympathetic to Nazi Germany or anything, but let's be realistic. Sometimes it's not good guys versus bad guys, but bad guys versus worse guys.

My granddad was telling me you stayed away from the Russian troops. I got the impression they fought like wounded animals. He didn't like the sight of their Thompson guns either.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Why on earth would anyone with a few brain cells support another unprovoked attack on a middle-eastern country?? Fucking ludicrous.

I think the dispute might be over want constitutes a "unprovoked" attack. Does a nuclear Iran need to bomb Israel and/or somebody else before you take them seriously....?

DON'T LET THE WARNING BE THE MUSHROOM CLOUD, MAN!!

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I think Afghanistan was the right place, we just missed our chance. By not taking a proactive role in nation building after the Soviet pull out, for a decade actually, we sort of fostered an environment for the Taliban to happen in.

I agree, and I think we're repeating perhaps the same mistakes in Afghanistan. Karzai, while there are things I admire about him, is in a sticky spot me thinks. The heroine biz is booming there, and we failed initially to give Afghanistan the proper post-invasion that it needed to fight off the regional warlords and get rid of the nasty crops.

Now the Afghan people are claiming that "somebody" is crop dusting their poppy (poppie?) fields, and they think it's us.

But I see the Afghan war as more vital to the global war on terror then the Iraq war. The Afghan situation didn't seem to have the same high profile rallying potential for Arabs that Iraq did. We were able to go into Afghanistan and be only marginally affected by Arab jihadists.

Iraq on the other hand instantly became a rallying cry, a 2005 version of 1980s Afghanistan if you will. It's become the front lines for jihadists all over the world to come and make a name for themselves. I think to some degree Afghanistan actually dissipated the threat, even if only in the short term, whereas Iraq magnified it by giving it a focal point.

I think I agree with you partially. In retrospect, I think Afghanistan was the right war, despite the negative consequences. I also think you're right about Iraq as a destabilizing factor, however I question the sincerity of those declaring "jihad" all of a sudden. Many of them are simply Saudis, Syrians, and Iranians coming over the border to take advantage of Iraq's weakened state. Is that our fault? It certainly is, but I think there is some validity to Bush's point that we'd rather be fighting these people en masse over there, rather than in the shadows over here.

As for the "shift" it makes sense in theory although I don't suspect it will be any more successful. Regardless, I think you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Iran is the place to go. The jihadists are coming from Syria, Africa, Indo, etc.

I think you're right, except for the fact that Iran has been linked to sketchy funding throughout the last decade or so. They had a very conscious role in what went down in Sudan with Bin Laden and company. They also have a population waiting for free markets and liberty and all that stuff. I don't recall who wrote the article, but one guy refered to them as a "red state." Their democratic process is unfortunately obstructed by courts that are ful of islamic extremists. In terms of whether or not they fit the definition of a "terrorist comforting" state is up for argument I guess, but they come pretty damn close.

It makes sense to go after the nation states supporting this stuff, cuz although you're right about where these jihadists are coming from, it may be pretty tough to go after them wherever they are.

[Dole]

I think the dispute might be over want constitutes a "unprovoked" attack. Does a nuclear Iran need to bomb Israel and/or somebody else before you take them seriously....?

Thats a fascile argument. Are you going to attack every country that might do something bad, just to be on the safe side? China? North Korea? Russia? Israel?

[GAsux]

Kev,
Thanks for your input. I don't disagree with a lot of it. As for Iran, I'm on the fence as to whether it's worth it or not. I don't at all underestimate the potential and for a variety of reasons I personally see the risk posed by Iran being far greater than that of say North Korea, but that's for another thread entirely.

My only input here is that whether it is right or wrong, a conflict with Iran will be vastly more economically, strategically, and humanitarianly ( ok so thats not really a word) more costly than anything we've dealt with in the last three decades. And that cost, in my mind, must be weighed with the benefit or the effect on the stated goal, in this case being the reduction of terrorism. In my opinion such a conflict would only be marginally beneficial and not worth the cost.

As far as the discussion with Ant, I realized that the point I was making was probably taken a bit out of context so I'll refrain from debating WWII history as it's the topic we started with. My only point there was that as a soldier, the moral justification for war in Europe was much more compelling then it is in Iraq or would be in say, Iran.

When a soldier goes to war facing the risk of giving his life, he is much more apt to go honorably when he feels that it is for the greater good. Such was the case in the European campaign of WWII (whether real or imagined, I'll leave you to debate). Its much more difficult to convince yourself that the sacrifices are worth it when you're potential giving up your life for a "potential threat" no matter how ominious that threat appears to be.

[Archduke Tips]

Twat is sometimes used as a euphemism for vagina.

:)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Thats a fascile argument. Are you going to attack every country that might do something bad, just to be on the safe side? China? North Korea? Russia? Israel?

Iran has had their fingers in the proverbial cookie jar for years now. They, along with Syria, have been supportive of Hezbollah's efforts in Palestine. Iran was supportive of Osama Bin Laden's efforts to militarize and develope in Sudan.

Im not saying we should simpli invade Iran, but I am however acknowledging the fact that this regime is not very good, and would've probably made a better case for war than Iraq, IMO.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

My only input here is that whether it is right or wrong, a conflict with Iran will be vastly more economically, strategically, and humanitarianly ( ok so thats not really a word) more costly than anything we've dealt with in the last three decades. And that cost, in my mind, must be weighed with the benefit or the effect on the stated goal, in this case being the reduction of terrorism. In my opinion such a conflict would only be marginally beneficial and not worth the cost.

I think we're in agreement. From what I've read (and I may be incorrect), we simply don't have the numbers for a land confrontation with Iran. You're right, the +/- analysis of it doesn't look to good. But this doesn't mean we shouldn't talk softly and carry a big stick, so to speak. We need to be firm with Iran, and we need the global community (particularly Russia) to be firm with Iran. Like I said, I personally think that were the process put in place, Iran could be a diplomatic success story. A bloodless transition from islamic extremism to real democracy. I think the people thee want it, and I think they'd be willing to push harder for it if they knew they had the world community behind them.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.policyreview.org/jun05/sokolski.html

Didn't wanna post the whole thing, but an interesting policy analysis on Iran. Pretty good, a lot of the same old stuff, but raises some other interesting points.

[Ant10708]

As far as the discussion with Ant, I realized that the point I was making was probably taken a bit out of context so I'll refrain from debating WWII history as it's the topic we started with. My only point there was that as a soldier, the moral justification for war in Europe was much more compelling then it is in Iraq or would be in say, Iran.

When a soldier goes to war facing the risk of giving his life, he is much more apt to go honorably when he feels that it is for the greater good. Such was the case in the European campaign of WWII (whether real or imagined, I'll leave you to debate). Its much more difficult to convince yourself that the sacrifices are worth it when you're potential giving up your life for a "potential threat" no matter how ominious that threat appears to be.

Agreed. :)

[Anonymouse]

Twat is sometimes used as a euphemism for vagina.

:)

that was a very important point and added immensely to the discussion thank you for clarifying that.