Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
ace...if you have read anything I posted about the subject in the last year, you know that I said repeatedly that there was no connection between our invasion of Iraq (at least you properly called it an "invasion" ) and al Queda. It was a bullshit question you posed simply to avoid the more important issue of overall policy in the region
|
I was writing about why I felt we used our military against Saddam and his government. You said I was ignoring post 9-11 information. My support to use military force to remove Saddam and his government from power predated 9-11. You brought up 9-11, let's at least agree on that.
Quote:
And yet, as late as today, Bush still makes a connection between our invasion/occupation of Iraq and 9/11 attack by al Queda:
DoD officials have said on numerous occasions that the so-called al Queda in Iraq possess little capacity to act outside the region and pose little real danger to the US homeland.
|
I believe there is a broad war on terror. A war being fought on multiple fronts. The primary location is currently Iraq.
I agree Al Qaeda is not a major threat. I think we disagree on the reasons why. I understand the circular nature of the argument, but I think our military efforts in Iraq have helped to control Al Qaeda. I know some would argue that our presence in Iraq hurt our efforts elsewhere and that our presence in Iraq has encourage more Al Qaeda like groups, but I think this is a real war, the war of our generation. I think our enemy clearly understands that, and I think they have clearly defined goals and objectives that include control of the ME to start. I don't think we should allow that to happen, and I don't think we can negotiate a peaceful resolution.
I think history will record this war in decades (perhaps starting in the 80's), not years. If true the minor ebbs and flows over the course of months won't matter much in the big picture.
Quote:
As to your IBD article, if you follow the actions of tribal leaders in Iraq, they have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they will make short term deals with anyone to save their positions...and then run to the other side when conditions change.
And the article propagates the fallacy that al Queda is the greatest threat to the stability of Iraq and the region when, again, numerous DoD and intel officials have said repeatedly that while al Queda in Iraq may still cause harm to US forces..the real danger is the sectarian divide and de facto civil war that unleashed religious extremists like al Sadr on the Shiia side and insurgent leaders on the Sunni side...as a result of our invasion.
|
IBD quoted the opinion of a general and a reporter. If those individuals have no credibility to you, then I understand your point.
Quote:
"Anbar was the worst place in Iraq through most of 2006," Jack Keane, a retired four-star general, told IBD recently. Al-Qaida terrorists under the leadership of Abu Ayyub al-Masri ruled with an iron fist. Now violence is down in Ramadi and the rest of the province, and al-Qaida is not welcome.
As recently as Jan. 30, CNN's Michael Ware, in an interview with Anderson Cooper, proclaimed that Ramadi, Anbar's capital, was "the true al-Qaida national headquarters." That was then, and this is now. Marine Maj. Jeff Pool reports that enemy incidents in Ramadi have declined from about 22 per week in April to about two per week now.
|