4 ms·

I donn't think the US is exactly the same as ISIS, but the fact remains that our invasion of Iraq was a war of choice. When you're under attack from a vastly s

I donn't think the US is exactly the same as ISIS, but the fact remains that our invasion of Iraq was a war of choice. When you're under attack from a vastly superior military, your options for response are very limited. It's hard for us in the US to even conceive what it would be like to be in that situation. The only analog is a War of the Worlds style invasion by aliens.

tome 11y ago
This is certainly a fair point as far as it goes[1], but let's not forgot that Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! [1] and I still hold the idea that I held in 2003, that the Iraq war was a completely idiotic veture
- drumdance 11y ago
  > Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the Persian Gulf War. (Aside: Bin Laden offered his irregular forces to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom from Saddam. He was rejected. That pissed him off some, but the presence of infidels in the land of Mecca pissed him off even more.) Not saying terrorism is a legitimate response, but it's much more explainable than "they hates us for our freedoms."
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the first Gulf War. That was a position used to justify action, rally supporters, and which was quite overtly an instrumental (rather than terminal) goal in their grand strategy --- which was -- like that of Daesh -- to achieve a pan-Islamic caliphate. (It's worth noting that al-Qaeda was formed several years before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that prompted the creation of those bases, and adopted the position of opposing the bases after the Saudi government turned down bin Laden's offer for al-Qaeda fighters to defend the Kingdom against Iraq in favor of accepting aid from the United States. And both al-Qaeda's long-term goals and their anti-Western rhetoric existed before those bases.) > Not saying terrorism is a legitimate response, but it's much more explainable than "they hates us for our freedoms." Sure, but not for the reasons you propose: al-Qaeda's opposition to the West is because their strategy for achieving dominion in the Islamic world is the time-tested strategy of totalitarians everywhere -- sell the target population on the threat of an external enemy, and use that to sell the idea that the totalitarian leaders and their proposed system of rulership are necessary to combat that external threat. Its not a response to anything the West does, although anything that the West does that creates (or can be fuel for propaganda to create) widespread grievances (legitimate or not) in the populations in which al-Qaeda seeks to establish its caliphate will be leveraged. Daesh is much the same in this respect.
    - drumdance 11y ago
      Yes of course they're long term goal is a caliphate. But they attacked the US because our presence was a direct obstacle. They didn't put suicide bombers in China or Copenhagen or Paris for that matter. Back in 1991 after Saddam invaded Kuwait, I remember thinking "why the hell do we have to solve the problem? Why not force Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States to take responsibility for their security?" Practically all the Islamist terrorism that the US has experienced since then has flowed from that decision. The likelihood of terrorism should be part of any decision making process when it comes to the Mideast, no different than estimating potential body counts from land invasion. At least Eric Shinseki wasn't afraid to estimate the real costs of the Iraq war.
      - dragonwriter 11y ago
        > But they attacked the US because our presence was a direct obstacle. They didn't put suicide bombers in China or Copenhagen or Paris for that matter. al-Qaeda has for more than a decade overtly targeted China over its policies in Xinjiang, and the Chinese government claimed that the East Turkistan Islamic Movement behind many attacks there was tied to al-Qaeda (and, indeed, some senior leaders of that organization were killed in fighting against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.)
        drumdance 11y ago
        Fair point, but again, there is a specific grievance involving the Uighurs, who have been persecuted by the Chinese for decades. BTW if you ever go to a Uighur restaurant try the horse. Tastes like chipped beef.

tome 11y ago

This is certainly a fair point as far as it goes[1], but let's not forgot that Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! [1] and I still hold the idea that I held in 2003, that the Iraq war was a completely idiotic veture

drumdance 11y ago
> Islamic terror was directed at the US for many years before Iraq! Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the Persian Gulf War. (Aside: Bin Laden offered his irregular forces to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom from Saddam. He was rejected. That pissed him off some, but the presence of infidels in the land of Mecca pissed him off even more.) Not saying terrorism is a legitimate response, but it's much more explainable than "they hates us for our freedoms."
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Al Qaeda had very specific grievances. They wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, where they first put bases before the first Gulf War. That was a position used to justify action, rally supporters, and which was quite overtly an instrumental (rather than terminal) goal in their grand strategy --- which was -- like that of Daesh -- to achieve a pan-Islamic caliphate. (It's worth noting that al-Qaeda was formed several years before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that prompted the creation of those bases, and adopted the position of opposing the bases after the Saudi government turned down bin Laden's offer for al-Qaeda fighters to defend the Kingdom against Iraq in favor of accepting aid from the United States. And both al-Qaeda's long-term goals and their anti-Western rhetoric existed before those bases.) > Not saying terrorism is a legitimate response, but it's much more explainable than "they hates us for our freedoms." Sure, but not for the reasons you propose: al-Qaeda's opposition to the West is because their strategy for achieving dominion in the Islamic world is the time-tested strategy of totalitarians everywhere -- sell the target population on the threat of an external enemy, and use that to sell the idea that the totalitarian leaders and their proposed system of rulership are necessary to combat that external threat. Its not a response to anything the West does, although anything that the West does that creates (or can be fuel for propaganda to create) widespread grievances (legitimate or not) in the populations in which al-Qaeda seeks to establish its caliphate will be leveraged. Daesh is much the same in this respect.
  - drumdance 11y ago
    Yes of course they're long term goal is a caliphate. But they attacked the US because our presence was a direct obstacle. They didn't put suicide bombers in China or Copenhagen or Paris for that matter. Back in 1991 after Saddam invaded Kuwait, I remember thinking "why the hell do we have to solve the problem? Why not force Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States to take responsibility for their security?" Practically all the Islamist terrorism that the US has experienced since then has flowed from that decision. The likelihood of terrorism should be part of any decision making process when it comes to the Mideast, no different than estimating potential body counts from land invasion. At least Eric Shinseki wasn't afraid to estimate the real costs of the Iraq war.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > But they attacked the US because our presence was a direct obstacle. They didn't put suicide bombers in China or Copenhagen or Paris for that matter. al-Qaeda has for more than a decade overtly targeted China over its policies in Xinjiang, and the Chinese government claimed that the East Turkistan Islamic Movement behind many attacks there was tied to al-Qaeda (and, indeed, some senior leaders of that organization were killed in fighting against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.)
      - drumdance 11y ago
        Fair point, but again, there is a specific grievance involving the Uighurs, who have been persecuted by the Chinese for decades. BTW if you ever go to a Uighur restaurant try the horse. Tastes like chipped beef.