White House admits Iraq fuels extremism

uscitizen

uscitizen

Villified User
White House admits Iraq fuels extremism

Mon Sep 25, 4:30 PM ET

GREENWICH, Connecticut (AFP) - The White House acknowledged Monday that
Iraq was among several factors that "fuel the spread of jihadism," but said that winning the war would dishearten potential terrorists.

for complete story goto:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060925/pl_afp/usattacksiraq

So some of you just put that in your pipe and smoke it :)
 
Once again it ignores the part that says that winning in Iraq would create a safer environment. It promotes staying in a place you don't want to stay.

You know, this part:

"And it also notes that should jihadists be perceived to have failed in Iraq, fewer will be inspired to carry on the fight," the spokesman said as US President George W. Bush traveled here for a political fundraiser.
Click to expand...
 
But it does not say that never having invaded Iraq and just going after the AQ terrorists would have made the world safer still.

But it does imply that. In political speeches you have to read as much what they do not say as what they do.
 
uscitizen said:
But it does not say that never having invaded Iraq and just going after the AQ terrorists would have made the world safer still.

But it does imply that. In political speeches you have to read as much what they do not say as what they do.
Click to expand...
You do however reside, along with the rest of us, in reality. Whether it would have made us safer still to not invade is moot. We are there, the report makes it clear it will make us less safe to leave early and invigorate them with the appearance of victory.
 
Damocles said:
You do however reside, along with the rest of us, in reality. Whether it would have made us safer still to not invade is moot. We are there, the report makes it clear it will make us less safe to leave early and invigorate them with the appearance of victory.
Click to expand...

I don't see where it says that anywhere.

It doesn't make any judgment at all about whether US troops have to stay, or redeploy. It doesn't even use the word "winning".

There is no defintion given, for what constitutes "failure" on the jihaddists part.

Would the jihaddists consider it a victory if they keep US troops bogged down in a quagmire in iraq? Or, would it be a failure if iraqis themselves took control of their own country, and US troops redeployed thereby reducing the antagonism created by our occupation.

It simply doesnt make any conclusions on what constitutes success or failure, from a policy perspective. That I can see.
 
Cypress said:
I don't see where it says that anywhere.

It doesn't make any judgment at all about whether US troops have to stay, or redeploy. It doesn't even use the word "winning".

There is no defintion given, for what constitutes "failure" on the jihaddists part.

Would the jihaddists consider it a victory if they keep US troops bogged down in a quagmire in iraq? Or, would it be a failure if iraqis themselves took control of their own country, and US troops redeployed thereby reducing the antagonism created by our occupation.

It simply doesnt make any conclusions on what constitutes success or failure, from a policy perspective. That I can see.
Click to expand...

And the reason it doesn't make any conclusions or recomendations, for what acutally constitutes "failure", is the CIA does analysis. Not policy-making.

Policy making is for policy makers.
 
Cypress said:
And the reason it doesn't make any conclusions or recomendations, for what acutally constitutes "failure", is the CIA does analysis. Not policy-making.

Policy making is for policy makers.
Click to expand...
It does, however, imply, as I suggested, what I suggested. We need to time the exit so there is an appearance of defeat for the jihadists... Basically, as I have stated I would do, is select a time where we are "winning" and get out right then declaring a powerful victory and have a huge ceremony turning it over...
 
Damocles said:
It does, however, imply, as I suggested, what I suggested. We need to time the exit so there is an appearance of defeat for the jihadists... Basically, as I have stated I would do, is select a time where we are "winning" and get out right then declaring a powerful victory and have a huge ceremony turning it over...
Click to expand...

It implies nothing.

Analysts don't make policy. They state facts.

Its probably a fact that if Iraq becomes a democratic, pluralist society, the jihaddists will be percieved as failures.

It doesn't suggest what policy we need, to get us to that point. You simply imagined that it concluded that we need to leave american troops there for years.

There are many ideas about how to make iraq have a chance to succeed. Not all of them are the stay the course bush policy of a long term occupation.
 
Fine, facts do imply suggested remedies. One suggests that if we give them a victory in Iraq it brings us more danger, it states that if we are perceived to have won, or they are perceived to have lost (same thing really) then we will be safer. This suggests that we should time our exit carefully. It does not suggest leaving in a manner that will appear to give them victory.


Directly from the same story linked at the beginning of the thread:
"And it also notes that should jihadists be perceived to have failed in Iraq, fewer will be inspired to carry on the fight..."

Ignoring one piece for a perceived political victory will simply endanger us more. I prefer not to play that kind of politics. I never wanted us to go there, I am against any undeclared war (I believe strongly that such a Declaration protects us from such "wars") but we must be careful in our timing when leaving so that we do not endanger ourselves more.
 
ALl of this is true, but the point is that the White House has FUCKED UP and continues to fuck up by leaving the same people in charge. They cant seem to get a comprenhensive stragety together. Yes, I was against going in in the first place... Now I am against pulling out ASAP... but with these incompetants in charge,I am aginst staying in.

WE need to get some people in power who are not blinded by arrogance who can change the stragety, not stay married to it due to ego and move on!
 
Damo, PLEASE tell me how the report IMPLIED that WE would be in more danger if we left Iraq....

it said that if it were PERCEIVED that we have lost then they might recruit more people to their cause OVER THERE..... now tell me again HOW that would make us less safe in AMERICA, how does them recruiting more make us less safe???

and isn't that kind of contradictory.... on the one hand it says that being over in Iraq has increased their recruiting, but then it also says that leaving would increase their recruiting too?

so what is it and if one makes it less secure for us then why didn't the other make it less secure for us?
 
Last edited:
The rumor in Iraq is that the usa is causing the CIVIL WAR there...I just heard this on c-span and it comes from an article in the paper this morning where they polled Iraqis, who, btw, say THEY DO NOT WANT US THERE......

They think that WE ARE CAUSING the Civil War SO THAT WE CAN STAY THERE.....

Before the repugs flip out over this...

the Iraqi's reasoning for this is because they CAN NOT UNDERSTAND how the GREATEST and most POWERFUL nation in the world could not put enough forces in there to give them SECURITY AND PEACE.....and water and electricity in 4 years....?

Thus the rumor amongst Iraqis about us Americans....we want the civil war because it keeps us there, and we don't put in enough forces to combat the mess because WE WANT THE KILLING AND THE MESS.... :(
 
Care4all said:
Damo, PLEASE tell me how the report IMPLIED that WE would be in more danger if we left Iraq....

it said that if it were PERCEIVED that we have lost then they might recruit more people to their cause OVER THERE..... now tell me again HOW that would make us less safe in AMERICA, how does them recruiting more make us less safe???

and isn't that kind of contradictory.... on the one hand it says that being over in Iraq has increased their recruiting, but then it also says that leaving would increase their recruiting too?

so what is it and if one makes it less secure for us then why didn't the other make it less secure for us?
Click to expand...
Read it, Care. It states that if they are perceived to have a defeat there will be less willing to continue the fight. Leaving early gives them a perceived victory and causes the opposite reaction.
 
Care4all said:
The rumor in Iraq is that the usa is causing the CIVIL WAR there...I just heard this on c-span and it comes from an article in the paper this morning where they polled Iraqis, who, btw, say THEY DO NOT WANT US THERE......

They think that WE ARE CAUSING the Civil War SO THAT WE CAN STAY THERE.....

Before the repugs flip out over this...

the Iraqi's reasoning for this is because they CAN NOT UNDERSTAND how the GREATEST and most POWERFUL nation in the world could not put enough forces in there to give them SECURITY AND PEACE.....and water and electricity in 4 years....?

Thus the rumor amongst Iraqis about us Americans....we want the civil war because it keeps us there, and we don't put in enough forces to combat the mess because WE WANT THE KILLING AND THE MESS.... :(
Click to expand...
You and I agree on the whole give them security thing. I have stated it repeatedly. It is the first step to getting us out quickly and giving the US a perceived victory. If we get enough in there to ensure security, then turn the reigns over while in that victory we are ahead. If we just leave we simply make things worse for us.
 
Damocles said:
Read it, Care. It states that if they are perceived to have a defeat there will be less willing to continue the fight. Leaving early gives them a perceived victory and causes the opposite reaction.
Click to expand...

But Damo....What FIGHT is there in Iraq for the "terrorists" if we are NOT there? Seiously, who will alqaeda be fighting in Iraq if we leave?

The Shiites that side with Iran?

wouldn't Iran then come to Iraq's defense and KILL ALQAEDA members to help the shiites in Iraq???

In the long term, how would this play out in your opinion, knowing all of the FACTIONS involved?

----------------------------------------

And one more thing, Do you think the administration should "stay the course", yes or no?
 
It states that if they are perceived to have a defeat
//

Yep it is all about perception with Bush not about reality ;)
 
Care4all said:
But Damo....What FIGHT is there in Iraq for the "terrorists" if we are NOT there? Seiously, who will alqaeda be fighting in Iraq if we leave?

The Shiites that side with Iran?

wouldn't Iran then come to Iraq's defense and KILL ALQAEDA members to help the shiites in Iraq???

In the long term, how would this play out in your opinion, knowing all of the FACTIONS involved?

----------------------------------------

And one more thing, Do you think the administration should "stay the course", yes or no?
Click to expand...
They will move out and come after their target, the US. The analysts mentioned that if there were a perceived victory for the terrorists in Iraq they would carry the fight outside of Iraq and we would be in more danger. The idea that they would just go away is a bit ridiculous especially with a perceived victory under their belt.

We agree to get them out of there quickly, we agree that Iraq needs security, I believe we have far more agreement than disagreement.

As for the last question. I have repeatedly given you my strategy, send in more troops, provide real security, get many Iraqi troops trained, get out quickly... Does that sound like, "Stay the course!"?
 
Damocles said:
Read it, Care. It states that if they are perceived to have a defeat there will be less willing to continue the fight. Leaving early gives them a perceived victory and causes the opposite reaction.
Click to expand...

The NIE simply makes no judgement on american troops levels, or when and how they should redeploy or withdraw. Its not a policy paper. Its an analysis paper.

There are those of us who feel that the presence of 140,000 troops is making things worse, and that iraqi democracy is in the hands of iraqis. It won't be enforced at the point of a gun barrel. I don't think the amount of troops we have in iraq has anything to do effecting pluralism and democracy in Iraq, which is what the NIE said was the long-term cure for making the jihaddists "fail"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top