Thread: Fighting Terrorism

So could we have fought terrorism after 9/11 without invading another nation? If we were to pull out of Iraq later this year and not invade Iran or any other nation, can we still effectively fight terrorism?

What if we had put all of the money that we've spent on the Iraq Occupation into an worldwide international-cooperative intelligence operation to search for the al queda organization and other terrorist organizations? Might that have worked better?

Originally Posted by Shadowman

So could we have fought terrorism after 9/11 without invading another nation? If we were to pull out of Iraq later this year and not invade Iran or any other nation, can we still effectively fight terrorism?

Not until Iraq is stabilised, or else it may become another Afghanistan.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Not until Iraq is stabilised, or else it may become another Afghanistan.

What does that have to do with either question?

The answer is that if we pull out of Iraq before it is stabilised, we will be less effective at fighting terrorism.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

The answer is that if we pull out of Iraq before it is stabilised, we will be less effective at fighting terrorism.

Why is that? What does occupying Iraq have to do with fighting terrorism?

Originally Posted by Shadowman

Why is that? What does occupying Iraq have to do with fighting terrorism?

We have to gain another ally in the middle east which is the main area of operations for terrorists. Iraq is a strategic place to combat terrorism and the previous regime wouldnt have supported the fight against terrorism.

Originally Posted by Shadowman

What if we had put all of the money that we've spent on the Iraq Occupation into an worldwide international-cooperative intelligence operation to search for the al queda organization and other terrorist organizations? Might that have worked better?

Not for Cheney and Haliburton... or the Big Oil Regime in office......

A Plan For Iraq’s Future By, Of All People, Iraqis
It’s 250 pages in length and was drafted by a cooperation of 108 Iraqis over the last two years. The participants included ‘Sunni and Shi’a Muslims, Assyrian Christians, Arabs, Kurds, Turkmen, and other minorities, the majority of which are sill in Iraq.’ Thus far, having been sent both to the British Parliament and the United States Congress, only 24 members of the British Parliament have responded to it. Not surprisingly, no one in Congress has.
And yet, compared to Iraqi proposals that have been made by individuals with ties to the current government, or any others that have been conjured up by foreigners, it makes the most sense.
Why? Because it takes into consideration both the realities of what is currently occurring in Iraq and is a plan for the country’s future that focuses on, of all things, Iraqis.
You remember them, they’re that troublesome bunch that actually inhabit the country and that have stood in the way of all this coming off like a Jerry Bruckheimer film. And they’re the ones, when all is said and done, that will remain there.
The plans proposals are concise and straight forward. The only trouble with them is that they, as mentioned, actually focus on the needs of Iraqis and the future of the country rather than the needs or requirements of foreign powers.
Here are a few of the plans objectives…
1) All foreign troop withdrawal, including military bases and security forces; 2) That fulfilled, Iraqi National Resistance declares ceasefire; - Annulment of the current political process;
3) Installation of 2-year interim Prime Minister, nominated by consensus, under UN auspices;
4) Installation of temporary peace-keeping forces from Arab nations that did not cooperate with invasion, with UN consultation;
5) Elections held within two years;
6) Army and security forces not allowed in political process;
7) Interim government members not allowed in elections;
8) Reformation of Iraqi Army

Here are a few select quotes that answer some questions about the plan’s expectations…

“Unlike some other plans, like that put forward in January by Ali Allawi, former Iraqi Defense Minister and current advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, none of the Iraqis who worked on this plan have ties to the current government.
That’s important, maintain authors of the initiative, because its backing by occupations forces means it will never hold legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. Thus, it will always be a resistance target, says Dr. Khair El-Din Haseeb, Director General of Beirut’s Center for Arab Unity Studies, the Arab world’s most prominent think-tank, and sponsor of the project.
“This plan proposes a direction for the future of Iraq,” explained co-author Dr. Abdul Karim Hani in Damascus. “We’ve been asked many times what is the political program of the resistance. Well, this is it.”
Signatories on the plan represent thousands of Iraqis, the authors say, because many of them speak for larger groups. Hani, for example, is with the Iraqi National Foundation Congress, a broad coalition of political, intellectual, religious, and ethnic forces.
“This occupation came out of 13 years of the worst sanctions the world has seen. Now, we have had four years of even worse suffering. These are the conditions under which this document was written,” explains Hani, who himself finally fled Iraq for Cairo a year and a half ago.
The imperative for Iraqis to re-gain control of their country is what fueled the broad-based plan.”

Further…

“Numerous other plans for Iraq have also been written by groups opposed to the occupation. Some, like that written by the Association of Muslim Scholars, the powerful Sunni clerics’ organization, have been submitted to the United Nations. Planning is underway for a high-level meeting next month which will coalesce the numerous Iraqi projects.
“We are forming a very broad unified resistance front that represents the will of the Iraqi people,” says Hana Ibrahim, co-author and director of the Baghdad-based NGO Women’s Will. “We are growing very large, so maybe we won’t agree on every detail, but we don’t need to. We can put smaller differences aside to agree on the most important point, ending the occupation of our country. What’s important is a unified resistance front.” “
Among the groups there are contacts with [armed] resistance groups, so we have their agreement as well,” explains Haseeb. At that point the group plans to dedicate a website where international support can be registered.
The distinction between Iraq’s resistance and other armed groups is critical, contends Haseeb, yet a serious lack of analysis most Western media wrongly lump all armed groups together under the “insurgent” umbrella.
“The [armed] resistance does not attack innocent people and condemns all violence directed at civilians. The Iraqi resistance, whether armed or political, is legally-sanctioned under international law.” This point, Haseeb argues, is missing in most media and completely ignored by the Bush Administration. He acknowledges, “there’s been a vacuum of political resistance. This [plan] will fill that vacuum.”

And lastly…

“Importantly, the initiative also proposes a draft constitution, which maintains national unity, addresses oil rights, and guarantees civil and social rights.
“The plan is not perfect when it comes to women’s rights, but it gives us back what we had before,” says Ibrahim. “We must first end the occupation to end the violence. It doesn’t matter how many rights women do or don’t have if we can’t even walk down the streets in safety.”
A blueprint is desperately needed, Haseeb points out. “The political process is crumbling; we have coalitions of [local] governments rather than a central one. The ministers are all living in the Green Zone, meaning they have no access to the ministries they’re supposed to run. We know the Ministry of Interior has been penetrated by militias—at least 80 percent, the Army by at least 50 percent. That means the Americans cannot hand over security to the Iraqi forces as planned.
“They [the Americans] argue without the US Army the civil war will grow. This is nonsense! Even the Pentagon says resistance attacks have increased by 68 percent. This is against the US military. If the US withdraws, violence would obviously decrease. It’s simple math.”

The exposure of proposals such as this are vitally important in that they show that foreign objectives in Iraq are, in no small way, what prevents them from being realistically considered. There is no arguing that the current Iraqi government is largely viewed as illegitimate by most Iraqis, something that has to be addressed when examining the refusal of the United States to commit to a dedicated withdrawal timetable. We have, in no small way, been sold on the notion that were US and British troops to leave Iraq that it would descend into complete chaos, a chaos that was, of course, created by the occupation itself. That said, at what point do we stop treating the people of Iraq as little more than confused children that require the assistance of the West to succeed as an independent nation?
As has been said in the past, and I’m sure I’ll say it again in the future, this entire affair has far more to do with domestic US politics than it does anything else. And the price of that arrogance is being paid for by those that would see their country free, peaceful, and working towards a better future. There will, as in all cases, be bumps in the road along the way, but that is to be expected in the formation of any new federal infrastructure. Ultimately, it comes down to a simple question – why do foreign powers believe that they have more of a right in determining the future of Iraq than Iraqis? And what do they stand to lose by allowing Iraqis autonomous self-determination?

Originally Posted by Ptolemy I

We have to gain another ally in the middle east which is the main area of operations for terrorists. Iraq is a strategic place to combat terrorism and the previous regime wouldnt have supported the fight against terrorism.

So that was the reason for the invasion...creating a terrorist-fighting stronghold? I don't recall that in any of the press releases of the time.

And is further eroding our relationships with every other nation in the Middle East also a part of that grand strategy? And how about eroding our relationship with dozens and dozens of other nations around the world? Also a part of that grand terrorist-fighting strategy?