rmgill Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 So I've been of the opinion for a while that operations in both countries are fronts in the same war. Based on how support networks have fed both from both sides. Though, when you consider they're separated by 1 country which is meddling in both areas, you have to consider it possibly even two separate operations areas of the same front. Anyone have any thoughts?
Guest aevans Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 In the strict strategic sense they may be part of the same war or even the same front. Politically, they exist on different planets. Afghanistan was where the snake reared its head, so it's (relatively) politically okay to continue hunting hem there. Iraq was the result of going snake hunting on spec, and no matter what arguments you marshal to try to connect the two as aspects of the same snake, it still looks to most people more like snipe hunt than a snake hunt.
hammerlock Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 NO matter what Bush might say they are the same and not related. Afghanistan was where the terrorist were and was the right choice after 9/11. Iraq was the wrong choice but the war Mr Bush and his friends wanted most of all. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq and and Saddam had no deals with them, but with the resoucres taken away from afghanistan and the poor running of the war in Iraq, has led the Al-Qaeda to move in.
LeoTanker Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 So I've been of the opinion for a while that operations in both countries are fronts in the same war. Hmmm.. you might be on to something here. I heard its called "The War on Terror" or something like that.
Guest pfcem Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 NO matter what Bush might say they are the same and not related.The Iraq WAR to remove Saddam Hussein (which was over long ago) was in some ways separate from the overall "War on Terror" & in some ways VERY much a part of it. The current "war" (insurgency) in Iraq is a different front on the same war that is occuring in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was where the terrorist were and was the right choice after 9/11. Iraq was the wrong choice but the war Mr Bush and his friends wanted most of all. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq and and Saddam had no deals with them, but with the resoucres taken away from afghanistan and the poor running of the war in Iraq, has led the Al-Qaeda to move in.WRONG! Al-Qaeda was in Iraq & had been for some time. But more importantly you are forgetting that the "War on Terror" is not just a war against Al-Qaeda but a war against terrorism as a whole. Terrorist (even if not Al-Qaeda itself) had been in Iraq for decades.
Guest aevans Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Al-Qaeda was in Iraq & had been for some time. Yeah -- as just another faction that Saddam Hussein sometimes helped and sometimes hindered. Al Qaeda as an initial justification for being in Iraq relies on some pretty tortured logic about the possibility of Saddam's regime collapsing form internal pressures and who was likely to come out on top. But more importantly you are forgetting that the "War on Terror" is not just a war against Al-Qaeda but a war against terrorism as a whole. Terrorist (even if not Al-Qaeda itself) had been in Iraq for decades. If it was that, all we'd have to do is declare a moratorium on terrorist tactics, ex officio ourselves as the remaining superpower, and bugsquash anybody that even remotely appeared in a poorly lit room to be supporting terrorists. (And probably have just about as much non-success at it as we are having today.) The reality is that you can't make war on a tactic, you can only make war on people. The tactic of terrorism can be used as an identifier of people we don't like and should make war on, but we can't fight the tactic itself. As for where terrorism has been, if we want to make war on people because terrorism has been amongst them for some ammount of time, we might as well declare war against the world, because terrorists have hung out everywhere on the planet except for maybe the Antarctic. We would even have to make war on ourselves, thanks to Timmy McVeigh. Edited August 20, 2007 by aevans
Detonable Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 NO matter what Bush might say they are the same and not related. Afghanistan was where the terrorist were and was the right choice after 9/11. Iraq was the wrong choice but the war Mr Bush and his friends wanted most of all. Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq and and Saddam had no deals with them, but with the resoucres taken away from afghanistan and the poor running of the war in Iraq, has led the Al-Qaeda to move in. Actually, Al Zarkawi was already in Iraq after murdering at least one American in Jordan, and other political murders. Also, Sadddam's government did meet with Al-Queda. Of course, that doesn't mean they were allied. We don't yet know what was discussed at the meeting.
Guest pfcem Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Yeah -- as just another faction that Saddam Hussein sometimes helped and sometimes hindered. Al Qaeda as an initial justification for being in Iraq relies on some pretty tortured logic about the possibility of Saddam's regime collapsing form internal pressures and who was likely to come out on top.Al-Qaeda in Iraq was not part of the justification for war in Iraq. That is simply a falsehood opponents of the war use to claim that it was unjustified (since they falsely believe Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq). If it was that, all we'd have to do is declare a moratorium on terrorist tactics, ex officio ourselves as the remaining superpower, and bugsquash anybody that even remotely appeared in a poorly lit room to be supporting terrorists. (And probably have just about as much non-success at it as we are having today.) The reality is that you can't make war on a tactic, you can only make war on people. The tactic of terrorism can be used as an identifier of people we don't like and should make war on, but we can't fight the tactic itself.Terrorism is the tactic of the ideology we hope to defeat. As for where terrorism has been, if we want to make war on people because terrorism has been amongst them for some ammount of time, we might as well declare war against the world, because terrorists have hung out everywhere on the planet except for maybe the Antarctic. We would even have to make war on ourselves, thanks to Timmy McVeigh.But we do not want to go to war on people just the terrorists ideology, which forces us to go to war against people with that ideology. Note that we have not decalred war on all Muslims or all of Islam, just those of an extreme ideology who use terrorism to expand that ideology.
Smitty Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Hmmm.. you might be on to something here. I heard its called "The War on Terror" or something like that. If so, then we should've invaded Iran, Syria, Cuba, Lebanon, Pakistan and the Sudan before invading Iraq. Edited August 20, 2007 by Smitty
Hans Engstrom Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Saudi Arabia before Pakistan and just after Afghanistan . In the real world, Pakistan should have been much more of a target than anything other than Afghanistan.
Guest aevans Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Al-Qaeda in Iraq was not part of the justification for war in Iraq. That is simply a falsehood opponents of the war use to claim that it was unjustified (since they falsely believe Al-Qaeda was not in Iraq). Working backwards, al qaeda, as a matter of demonstrable fact, was not in Iraq as a part of Saddam's power base or even as a regime client. (Some individuals al qaeda members may have gotten some concessions form the regime, but apparently not as a matter of national policy to support al qaeda.) Since the context of the discussion is whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are two faces of the same war, and since the only connection between the two that seems to be even possible to make, in the context of the supposed war on terror, is al Qaeda involvement, al Qaeda's actual involvement in Iraq, in both degree and kind, seems to be the central issue. If you want to say we're in Iraq because it's part of the same war as Afghanistan, then you have to show that it was in 2003. IOW, Iraq may have become part of the same war through a series of events and decisions, but it wasn't originally, no matter what anybody says, has said, or will say. Terrorism is the tactic of the ideology we hope to defeat.Terrorism is a tactic that has been used by any number of ideologies. It's not unique to the islamists. But we do not want to go to war on people just the terrorists ideology, which forces us to go to war against people with that ideology. There is no "terrorist ideology". There are just groups that employ terrorism from time to time. That they often seek to justify such tactics as part of an ideology does not make terrorism an ideology in itself. Note that we have not decalred war on all Muslims or all of Islam, just those of an extreme ideology who use terrorism to expand that ideology. Ideologies are abstractions. People are real. You have to fight what is real. Either people will be convinced by the fighting to abandon an ideology that makes them an enemy, or they will be destroyed. But it is the people subscribing to an ideology that are the target, not the ideology itself. Edited August 20, 2007 by aevans
FirstOfFoot Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 Terrorism is the tactic of the ideology we hope to defeat. What - Irish Republicanism? Basque separatism? Tinfoil hat wearers that believe that the Federal Government is in league with the black helicopters and New World Order? What about the French Resistance? Perhaps the Partisans fighting the Germans?
Brian Kennedy Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I'm firmly in the Afghanistan = necessary/Iraq = mistake camp, but I've always thought that the "you can't make war on a tactic" line is a little too glib. You certainly can't eliminate it completely, but you can establish "you don't do X to non-rogue nations, or we'll all gang up on your ass." I think a good analogy is the anti-piracy campaigns in the late 18th/early 19th C -- get nations to stop funding privateers, hunt down and kill the pirates, and in general establish that this type of behavior just isn't kosher anymore, no matter who it's directed at. Piracy's never going to go away, but this worked out pretty great, especially where major powers are concerned. (Not that we're trying to carry out such a campaign now, of course, so this whole thing is sort of moot).
Guest aevans Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 I'm firmly in the Afghanistan = necessary/Iraq = mistake camp, but I've always thought that the "you can't make war on a tactic" line is a little too glib. You certainly can't eliminate it completely, but you can establish "you don't do X to non-rogue nations, or we'll all gang up on your ass." I think a good analogy is the anti-piracy campaigns in the late 18th/early 19th C -- get nations to stop funding privateers, hunt down and kill the pirates, and in general establish that this type of behavior just isn't kosher anymore, no matter who it's directed at. Piracy's never going to go away, but this worked out pretty great, especially where major powers are concerned. (Not that we're trying to carry out such a campaign now, of course, so this whole thing is sort of moot). But it all fundamentally relies on having the power to make "Because I said so" stick. If that kind of consensus was never reached, piracy would still be an issue. If somebody today resorted to piracy and nobody responded forcefully, guess what? As I've been saying for almost six years now, ever since that day, if everybody agreed that terrorism was a Bad Thing, and that it had to be stopped, we'd just declare it so and thump anybody that supported it or even just didn't stop it when they could. But that kind of consensus we don't have, so the piracy solution won't work. Even if we could, it still wouldn't be making war on the tactic of terrorism, it would just be announcing and enforcing a war convention, much like the anathematization of piracy was just another war convention.
Wobbly Head Posted August 20, 2007 Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) I'm with Brian on the Afghanistan = necessary/Iraq = mistake camp. But they war in Iraq/Afganistian has had some side benifits for the stability of the neigbouring countries. I do not belive that the Saudi, Pakistian, Iranian and other neighbouring goverments activeley support Al Quaeda a lot of individuals in those countries might, but they may indirectly support them by having a looser border restrictions with Afganistian or Iraq, letting radical issurgents move to your neighbour means they are not a problem at home making it less prone to the radical elements and if they get killed it's a bonus saves you using one of your own bullets. editited due to lack of speel checker. Edited August 21, 2007 by Wobbly Head
Guest pfcem Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 Working backwards, al qaeda, as a matter of demonstrable fact, was not in Iraq as a part of Saddam's power base or even as a regime client. (Some individuals al qaeda members may have gotten some concessions form the regime, but apparently not as a matter of national policy to support al qaeda.)High ranking Al-Qaeda members were in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is/was not the only terrorist organization in the world - there were A LOT of terroists in Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was NOT one of the justifications for going into Iraq. The current "war" in Iraq is a different war than the real war to remove Saddam Hussein from power (which was won long ago). Personnaly, I think we should have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. Iraq was not abiding by the conditions of the cease fire & that alone was enough justification for me. Going into Iraq was about Saddam Hussein, staying in Iraq is about Al-Qaeda & other terrorists. Since the context of the discussion is whether or not Iraq and Afghanistan are two faces of the same war, and since the only connection between the two that seems to be even possible to make, in the context of the supposed war on terror, is al Qaeda involvement, al Qaeda's actual involvement in Iraq, in both degree and kind, seems to be the central issue. If you want to say we're in Iraq because it's part of the same war as Afghanistan, then you have to show that it was in 2003. IOW, Iraq may have become part of the same war through a series of events and decisions, but it wasn't originally, no matter what anybody says, has said, or will say.Al-Qaeda is/was not the only terrorist organization in the world - there were A LOT of terroists in Iraq. The current "war" in Iraq is a different war than the real war to remove Saddam Hussein from power (which was won long ago). ONE (there were several) of the reasons for going into Iraq was to prevent Iraq (a known terrorist supporter) from passing on WMD (which EVERYONE knew it had & was continuing to develope) to terrorist. Terrorism is a tactic that has been used by any number of ideologies. It's not unique to the islamists.I never said otherwise. There is no "terrorist ideology". There are just groups that employ terrorism from time to time. That they often seek to justify such tactics as part of an ideology does not make terrorism an ideology in itself.I never said terrorism was an ideology. Ideologies are abstractions. People are real. You have to fight what is real. Either people will be convinced by the fighting to abandon an ideology that makes them an enemy, or they will be destroyed. But it is the people subscribing to an ideology that are the target, not the ideology itself.No the ideology is the target. The goal is not simply to kill people that subscribe to the ideology but to "kill" the ideology so that (hopefully) those who do subcribe to it will renounce it no one will subscribe to it again.
Guest aevans Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 High ranking Al-Qaeda members were in Iraq. Al-Qaeda is/was not the only terrorist organization in the world - there were A LOT of terroists in Iraq. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was NOT one of the justifications for going into Iraq. The current "war" in Iraq is a different war than the real war to remove Saddam Hussein from power (which was won long ago). Personnaly, I think we should have gone into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein long before 9/11. Iraq was not abiding by the conditions of the cease fire & that alone was enough justification for me. Going into Iraq was about Saddam Hussein, staying in Iraq is about Al-Qaeda & other terrorists.Al-Qaeda is/was not the only terrorist organization in the world - there were A LOT of terroists in Iraq. The current "war" in Iraq is a different war than the real war to remove Saddam Hussein from power (which was won long ago). ONE (there were several) of the reasons for going into Iraq was to prevent Iraq (a known terrorist supporter) from passing on WMD (which EVERYONE knew it had & was continuing to develope) to terrorist. Just gotta love that broken record rhetoric. I will make this one observation -- I hope you someday get an opportunity to meet face to face with a veteran of Fallujah, and tell him that he wasn't fighting in a "real war". I never said otherwise.I never said terrorism was an ideology.You know, I guess you didn't. But it would be a bit easier to pick out if you'd learn to use simple little gramatical tools like the apostrophe in the possessive form. No the ideology is the target. The goal is not simply to kill people that subscribe to the ideology but to "kill" the ideology so that (hopefully) those who do subcribe to it will renounce it no one will subscribe to it again. You can't kill an ideology. You can't even "kill" one. You can just make it too unhealthy to act on in a forceful manner. And making something unhealthy requires fighting people. Trying to escape from that reality is what gets us in trouble, more often than not.
Brian Kennedy Posted August 21, 2007 Posted August 21, 2007 But it all fundamentally relies on having the power to make "Because I said so" stick. If that kind of consensus was never reached, piracy would still be an issue. If somebody today resorted to piracy and nobody responded forcefully, guess what? As I've been saying for almost six years now, ever since that day, if everybody agreed that terrorism was a Bad Thing, and that it had to be stopped, we'd just declare it so and thump anybody that supported it or even just didn't stop it when they could. But that kind of consensus we don't have, so the piracy solution won't work. Even if we could, it still wouldn't be making war on the tactic of terrorism, it would just be announcing and enforcing a war convention, much like the anathematization of piracy was just another war convention. I don't think it's a consensus thing -- I think the world's Major Powers are pretty much all as opposed to terrorism as they were to piracy back in the day. It's probably more of an issue that stopping or seriously reducing terrorism is a hell of a lot more difficult than stopping almost any other tactic, due to its global reach, how little it costs and the fanaticism of its practitioners and supporters. Just being Mr. Picky and saying you _can_ wage war against a tactic. I do think that 9/11 put a serious dent in the activity of "sane" terrorist groups, due to the international reaction to the WTC attacks; I bet that in the US at least, quite a few of the "IRA are freedom fighters!" ilk did some serious rethinking of their beliefs, and look how much bad PR the ETA got for the airport attack in Madrid.
Akhe100 Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 1. First off they are fundamentally different wars as we went to war for fundamentally different reasons. Afghanistan was a war to strike back at the people who orchestrated 9/11 and was totally justified. The reason to the iraq war has changed to many times so I'm not even sure why we went there.2. I am having a hard time believing that these two wars are actually just battles in a "war on terror", first off terror is a concept, you can't declare war on an abstract concept with any degree of success, look at Regan's war on drugs. Or maybe this is a war on "Terrorism" which is the accomplishment of political goals by violence or threat thereof, and well, besides being a method, not an actual thing, this encompasses the majority of the worlds countries in some way on another, possibly ourselves.
Guest pfcem Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 1. First off they are fundamentally different wars as we went to war for fundamentally different reasons. Afghanistan was a war to strike back at the people who orchestrated 9/11 and was totally justified.You are obviously incapable of seeing the big picture. The reason to the iraq war has changed to many times so I'm not even sure why we went there.The reason to the Iraq war changed only once. That was when the war to remove Saddam Hussein (& the threat he posed) was won & the war to keep the terrorist from taking over the region began. Since the terrorists see/saw the war in Iraq as a significant front in their war (hint hint), they have continued the fight there (expending untold amounts of resources which could have been used elsewhere) to try & turn a defeat into victory. Something that they COULD succeed in doing if we pull out before the new democratically elected government is able to independently provide for its own security with its own security forces. 2. I am having a hard time believing that these two wars are actually just battles in a "war on terror", first off terror is a concept, you can't declare war on an abstract concept with any degree of success, look at Regan's war on drugs. Or maybe this is a war on "Terrorism" which is the accomplishment of political goals by violence or threat thereof, and well, besides being a method, not an actual thing, this encompasses the majority of the worlds countries in some way on another, possibly ourselves.So we should just give in to the terrorists?
Ariete! Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 1. V. good points so far. I'm just a little bit worried that I'm finding myself in total agreement with a series of posts from A Evans... 2. One thing that emerges, regardless of whether you are a Bush hater/lover or an OIF supporter/detractor, is that the GWOT moniker is misleading to the point of stupidity. As many point out, the idea that a 'technique' like terrorism (no matter how repellent) is the threat, as opposed to the specific goals of each terrorist organization, is delusional. I'm much more worried about Iran's and Pakistan’s non-terrorist ownership of nukes than, say, Indonesian asshats bombing a disco in Bali (as awful as that was/would be). 3. As to the original question: I think it’s crystal-clear that Afghanistan and Iraq are separate conflicts in origin, specifics and conduct. Insofar as Islamic radicalism is the major ideological threat to the US/West, that cause has now deployed (heterogeneously) forces in both theatres against the US/allies. I think the best analogy between current developments is the “Global War Against Bolshevism”. There, too, there was a very real, very ideological, translational, grass-root but at times state-sponsored threat but, there too, the assumption of monolithicism and the Manichean approach led to many mistakes/misunderstandings. To paraphrase Dostoyevsky: “Every civilized country is civilized (roughly|) in the same way, but every failed state/nutty insurgency is failed/nutty in its own way”.
Guest aevans Posted August 22, 2007 Posted August 22, 2007 I don't think it's a consensus thing -- I think the world's Major Powers are pretty much all as opposed to terrorism as they were to piracy back in the day. It's probably more of an issue that stopping or seriously reducing terrorism is a hell of a lot more difficult than stopping almost any other tactic, due to its global reach, how little it costs and the fanaticism of its practitioners and supporters. Just being Mr. Picky and saying you _can_ wage war against a tactic. I do think that 9/11 put a serious dent in the activity of "sane" terrorist groups, due to the international reaction to the WTC attacks; I bet that in the US at least, quite a few of the "IRA are freedom fighters!" ilk did some serious rethinking of their beliefs, and look how much bad PR the ETA got for the airport attack in Madrid. The anathematization of piracy was fundamentally the institution of a war convention. The anathematization of terrorism, were it ever to take place, would be the same. But war conventions are meaningless until somebody puts in the effort to enforce them. That required a consensus for piracy (1). It would require more of a consensus than we see today WRT terrorism (2). And, in the end, you don't wind up fighting a tactic per se, you wind up fighting the people who use it. 1. Because any one large power that protected its pirates/privateers would make it a matter of going to war to enforce the convention.2. As long as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and a number of other places have their apologists in the Western world, there may be a lip service consensus about terrorism -- at least islamic terrorism -- but there isn't a real one.
Kenneth P. Katz Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 If you believe that Greece, Berlin, Korea, Malaya, Vietnam, Cuba (Bay of Pigs and the Missile Crisis), Angola, Yom Kippur War, etc. were all part of a larger war (albeit all with local factors also), then it would be consistent to regard Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Philipppines, southern Thailand, Israel/Lebanon/Syria/Palestine, terror campaign in Europe, 9/11 attacks as all part of a larger war (albeit all with local factors also).
WRW Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 One War multiple locations and multiple enemies multiple solutions required
Exel Posted August 23, 2007 Posted August 23, 2007 ONE (there were several) of the reasons for going into Iraq was to prevent Iraq (a known terrorist supporter) from passing on WMD (which EVERYONE knew it had & was continuing to develope) to terrorist. What have you been smoking? Or did you just take a time trip back to 2003? The war on Iraq was justified mainly by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the claimed threat of his (non-existent) WMDs and links to al-Qaeda. The WMDs were nowhere to be found, and the links to al-Qaeda were never proven. So I guess "EVERYONE" knew wrong. Of course they were still used to justify the war, but you don't need to act as if the justifications were and remain valid. It could have been validly justified with humanitarian reasons (preventing genocide), removing an evil dictator or with Saddam violating cease fire terms, but that's not relevant because it wasn't. Of course, EVERYONE knows that Sweden has developed WMDs and has the technology to continue doing so readily available, and that it is also known to have harbored al-Qaeda terrorists. So let's all attack Sweden!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now