Iraq Invasion Is the Reason al-Qaeda Is Growing

LazerLordz SG

I would support our troops being sent into Iraq to rebuild it under a UN mandate.The tough questions will arrive when our troops are injured or worse sill , killed in operations where they are engaged in self-defence.Do we as a nation , have the collective guts to think of that scenario.I think such a force should only be volunteers and regulars only.It would be morally wrong to place NSFs in a position where they have no say, whatever the guiding principle.

Jazzswing SG

Since when soldiers have a say in where they go?

Langley SG

In war movies when they ask for volunteers for dangerous missions. Band of Brothers got 1 scene liddat towards the end when they supposed to capture a prisoner. Kamikaze pilots were also volunteers. But of course, if there ain’t any volunteers…

Viper52 SG

I have no doubt of this fact, nor do I wish for the US to pullout or to lose in Iraq. The consequences of that would be terrible for the world. Neither am I interested in "I told you so" to the pro-war gallery.

But that is the exact reason why I'm pissed to death of the actions of the Americans. Yes, Saddam had to go, but surely that could be waited till Al-Qaeda was weakened even further. At the very least, with Saddam in charge, no way in hell Al-Qaeda would run wild in Iraq.

But take a look at current US actions in Iraq. Is it working towards that end which it claims to be working towards? It is playing favourites and sidelining groups who MUST have a say in the process of nation-building in Iraq. They must work with people like Ayatollah al-Sistani (to sideline Sadr) in Southern Iraq and even the Sunni groups who fervently resist them in places like Falluja and Ramadi. And no most of them are not Al-Qaeda, they just do not want to be marginalized in the new Iraq and American actions are doing precisely that.

Winning the peace in Iraq will not be accomplished by M1A2s, JDAMs and bullets. It will be won by Bush first admitting he was wrong to invade, to put a truly representative Iraqi government in place and cedeing control of Iraq to the UN with American troops serving under a UN banner. The UN has many faults, but at the very least, it is a lot more of an honest broker than the Americans.

And one last thing, get the "contractors" out of Iraq. If one looks deeper into these, they would realise these people are operating out of American civil and military law, as well as local Iraqi law. Legalized banditry in other words.

Viper52 SG

Bush has not one scrap of credibility. And neither does his Administration. They have shown no compunction to lie, deceive, manipulate and cheat the war for their own arrogant, narrow minded points of view. They have allowed themselves to be sidetracked from fighting the real terrorists for their own selfish interested (packaged as "American" interests) and made no small contributions to the dangerous state of the world today.

Oil, American hegemony, money, a need to show their power, misplaced pride, misplaced sense of morals, all of the above.

Langley SG

To win a moral victory in Iraq, I agree with everything you say. Sadly however, realism dictates otherwise. Right now, the people in Iraq with the clearest political agenda are Al-Qaeda terrorists. Shiities, Sunnis, Kurds, overseas exiles etc. etc. now all jostling for power. Coupled with the insurgency, Iraq will really fall into pieces without the US. All those new Iraqi policemen and soldiers surrendered to al-Sadr's militia in Najaf and many even joined him.

A UN command may bring more legitimacy but it sux big-time in military operations. Somalia was under UN control and look how it turned out. Since then, the US has, quite rightly, insisted on the right of command.

Viper52 SG

The problem in this case is, you cannot achieve a military victory over Al-Qaeda in Iraq without first winning the moral victory. There are 100,000 Yanks in Iraq, with a couple of thousand Al Qaeda (Again, the Sunni insurgents in Iraq are NOT Al Qaeda). The Iraqis see the Yanks and the occupiers and the biggest problem, simply because they are more high profile. That does not mean they support Al Qaeda. Only by winning a moral victory and convincing the Iraqi people that they are working for Iraq, can the Iraqis see that the biggest threat to their country is from Al Qaeda.

Somalia was under UN Command, but the Americans in the Battle of Bakara Market were under US Command not the UN. Why pick Somalia as an example of UN inadequacy where there are success stories like Cambodia? And lots of US military interventions caused more problems than they solved.

ferret69 SG

Agreed. US intervention brings with it the taint of political manipulation and commercial exploitation for their own interests, rightly or wrongly. The current guerilla warfare situation is an indication that the Americans are not winning "hearts and minds". Seems like the Americans are naive of local concerns as evident by the ground troops who keep saying, "We liberated them. Why the hell are they shooting at us?" Why indeed. Dude, you just invaded them, even if you thought it was right, it doesnt make it right in the eyes of the locals.

Apparently, the Brits are doing a much better job in their sector(s) pacifying the local population since they understand better how to win "hearts and minds".

Assuredly the Al-Qaedists are a small lot in this dispute and no Al-Qaeda guy will work with a Shiite. To most Americans this differentiation between Sunni and Shiite is lost and all get lumped together as fanatic Muslim terrorists working together.

I don't see how US can get out of this mess. They have interests in the region and oil is a strategic interest. The other is military bases to put their forces in (hence the continuing 100,000+ troops "invited" to stay in Iraq) and to preempt the possibility of losing their bases in Saudi Arabia. I'm willing to bet the 5 dollars in my wallet that within the next few decades, the House of Saud will go the way of the former Shah of Iran.

As it stands now, installing democracy in an unstable region is a boneheaded idea. Even me being a bleeding heart liberal would like to see a strong-arm local leader (LKY-style) take control of the situation and gradually (I'd say 30 to 50 years) move a self-sufficient and sustaining Iraq to a group of federated states consisting of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis.

Langley SG

All you say is true. But I dun think a moral victory is that easy to achieve. I use an analogy from inter-personal relationships. You may do everything to make people around you like you. But still, it may not work. There are always gonna be people who dun like you despite all that you do because they are prejudiced against you. From what I understand of Arab psychology, they are a people who nurse very deeply-held grievances and do not easily forget and forgive. From the Al-Qaeda terrorist to the ordinary Arabs with their tribal blood vendettas, I sometimes think it is useless to argue or talk reason with them because they let emotions get to their head.

Of course, even if not everybody around you will be satisfied, this doesn't mean you should go all-out to offend everyone. The US should try to win a moral victory. But how exactly this would succeed is not easy. Everyone thought that the Oslo peace accords would solve the problem but now? You may try very hard to win a moral victory but people will still try to sabotage you. Sometimes these people are defined so much by their struggle that without war, they feel very lost. So much of their identity is about hatred that sadly, they find it difficult to embrace love and understanding. To prevent themselves from 'going out of business', the radicals perpetuate violence and sideline the moderates. Then a vicious action-reaction cycle ensues and everyone gets stuck in the shithole. Frankly speaking, its much easier for the Israelis and the Palestinians to exterminate each other than to find a negotiated settlement.

As for UN command, the UN is really not suited for mounting major military operations. Slack slack peacekeeping missions like East Timor still can. But major operations, no. Previous UN interventions in Korea (1950) and Kuwait (1991) were under US command. The UN itself knows this. How could it ever presume to know more about fighting than professional armies? The thing in Iraq is that if everything swee swee, the UN still ok. But if you have another massive urban uprising like Fallujah or Najaf again, I dunno how the UN is going to fare. A lot of politics and bureaucracy in the UN that will interfere with military operations. If I'm a politician, I would want a UN command. But if I'm a soldier on the ground, I wouldn't trust a UN command with my life. For Somalia, the UN took almost 12 hours to organize the final evacuation. Understandable since they have people from all over and different ways of doing things plus all the bureaucraacy that the UN is famous for.

Viper52 SG

You're absolutely right, a moral victory against will not be easy to achieve, but there is absolutely no other way.

To use a phrase from Vietnam, the US can defeat all comers militarily in Iraq, and still lose the war. It has realised the, albeit belatedly, which was why they have halted their offensives in Falluja and against Moqtada Sadr, and started trying to work towards a political settlement WITH the UN's and the Iraqis involvement. That is a start, whether this Administration has the smarts or understanding to follow through is another matter. But I'll say this again, there is NO military solution to Iraq's problems, and there is also NO unilateral US solution to the same problems.

For the Palestinian problem, the issues are tough, but not insurmountable. However, the Americans MUST realise that this can only happen if they start being honest brokers. Otherwise, there can never be a true negotiated settlement. The previous accords were good starts, but both sides allowed extremists to hijack the agenda due to mutual mistrust. If anything, I would say it was the assasination of Rabin and the rise of Netanyahu and Sharon that was the main cause of the failure of the peace process.

Only by solving these issues, can there be a military and political solution to the War on Terror.

Langley SG

Yeap.. Only a complete military and political victory can get the world out of its present shithole. But both wouldn’t be easy.

« Previous Page