RuntheDamnBall Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 "Fight the war abroad so we don't have to fight them at home" was a pretty common refrain in the run-up to this war. A common point cited against it was that it would create a breeding ground for terrorists. Well, in our desire to find a center upon which to affix our troubles, we successfully found one in Zarqawi -- a brutally murderous, terrible human being, a terrorist who deserved the death he received after killing many innocents. And we finally got him. Great news. But... sometimes it sucks to be right. And I mean REALLY sucks. We can argue if Zarqawi might or might not have been much of anything if he didn't have a cause to build upon and a place to do it in Iraq. But he almost certainly wouldn't have had the opportunity to train a cabal of international terrorists in Iraq, had we not invaded. What the hell have we done, but to kill one head of the hydra only to have many heads spring up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 We can argue if Zarqawi might or might not have been much of anything if he didn't have a cause to build upon and a place to do it in Iraq. But he almost certainly wouldn't have had the opportunity to train a cabal of international terrorists in Iraq, had we not invaded. What the hell have we done, but to kill one head of the hydra only to have many heads spring up? 706928[/snapback] Yup, had we not invaded, Zarqawi would have been perfectly content selling honey in a market in Amman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 12, 2006 Author Share Posted June 12, 2006 Yup, had we not invaded, Zarqawi would have been perfectly content selling honey in a market in Amman. 706943[/snapback] Not my point, though I love the use of hyperbole to try and disarm it. My question: had we not invaded, would he have had access to such a grand forum and training ground? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 Not my point, though I love the use of hyperbole to try and disarm it. My question: had we not invaded, would he have had access to such a grand forum and training ground? 706955[/snapback] I can make a case that his playground would have been more deadly to US in other parts of the world, as Saddam didn't mind him camping out in the northwest before the invasion. It's not like he just appeared in Iraq the moment US invaded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 I can make a case that his playground would have been more deadly to US in other parts of the world, as Saddam didn't mind him camping out in the northwest before the invasion. It's not like he just appeared in Iraq the moment US invaded. 706964[/snapback] But RTDB's point, I think, is that the US invasion gave him the notoriety he needed to become a "name" terrorist, which made him more dangerous than he otherwise would have been. Which is a perfectly valid point...one which I'd dispute by pointing out that, if not Zarqawi, then some other gomer would have gained similar notoriety somewhere else. The problem - militant Salafist ass holes, namely - wasn't caused by OIF, and isn't going to go away because the Zarq-meister is now in Tookieland... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 It's not like he just appeared in Iraq the moment US invaded. 706964[/snapback] He had been setting up cells in Iraq for a couple of years before we invaded (2001-ish). He also set up organizations and cells in other parts of the Middle East since the early 1990's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 12, 2006 Share Posted June 12, 2006 He had been setting up cells in Iraq for a couple of years before we invaded (2001-ish). He also set up organizations and cells in other parts of the Middle East since the early 1990's. 706970[/snapback] He wasn't AQ, and they didn't seem to care for him. His groups were his own, and didn't seem to have all that much impact. His priorities were toppling the Jordanian Monarchy first, and Israel second. Striking at the west was a tool to those ends, not an end in itself. (At first, anyway...) His career highlights: - Afganistan, mixed with time in Europe where he formed a militant cell which - according to the Germans - was Jordanian and a rival to AQ. - Convicted of conspiracy to overthrow Jordan's Monarchy in '92, spent 7 years in jail. - After a bombing following his release in '99, sentenced to death in absentia by Jordan. - Fled to Afganistan, set up his own training camp. (That does not neccessarily mean he was AQ; the Taliban took in a variety of militant groups as long as they payed their own way.) - Took refuge with the Kurdish rebels in Iraq after the US bombed his camp in 2001. His notoriety really only kicked in in '03-'04. Fighting the US in Iraq is what made him an international figure, and allowed him to hijack the AQ mantle. With reference to GG's comment about his Saddam ties and the implausibility of his suddenly appearing in Iraq when the US invaded, well, that's not far from the truth. He fled Afganistan in 2001, spent time in Iran where he was rumored to be recovering from a injury suffered during the bombing, and arrived in Iraq in 2002. And the Kurdish group he took refuge with, Ansar Al-Islam, was friendly with neither Saddam nor the other Kurdish groups. Tucked away in the mountainous Afgan/Iran border within the no-fly zone, were under nobody's control. They were militant seccessionists. Interestingly, one of the arguments for a Saddam-Zaqawi relationship were claims that he traveled to Bagdad to have his leg amputated (the '01 injury). I have not heard a resolution to this issue now that we have the body. Here are some references rotten.com washingtonpost.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Interestingly, one of the arguments for a Saddam-Zaqawi relationship were claims that he traveled to Bagdad to have his leg amputated (the '01 injury). I have not heard a resolution to this issue now that we have the body. Here are some references rotten.com washingtonpost.com 707486[/snapback] That was actually demonstrated false a while ago. There was lots of information about Zarqawi presented to the public that was flat-out wrong...so the media covered it extensively. They pretty much ignored the corrections... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 That was actually demonstrated false a while ago. There was lots of information about Zarqawi presented to the public that was flat-out wrong...so the media covered it extensively. They pretty much ignored the corrections... 707515[/snapback] hmmm I thought the amputated limb was buried somewhere not far from bin Laden's dialysis machine? Was I MISLED?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 hmmm I thought the amputated limb was buried somewhere not far from bin Laden's dialysis machine? Was I MISLED?! 707530[/snapback] No more so than King George II. Why is it so hard for people to accept that sometimes, despite the best of effort and intents, sh-- is just wrong? The alternative to "good info" isn't exclusively "fabrication". That's also why you don't go to war based strictly on intelligence...but that's another topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 No more so than King George II. Why is it so hard for people to accept that sometimes, despite the best of effort and intents, sh-- is just wrong? The alternative to "good info" isn't exclusively "fabrication". That's also why you don't go to war based strictly on intelligence...but that's another topic... 707532[/snapback] I have a question, has the u.s. proven solid links between AQ and saddam? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I have a question, has the u.s. proven solid links between AQ and saddam? 707539[/snapback] None that I know of. I doubt they exist...Saddam was pretty clear about not getting involved with fundamentalists, even to defend Iraq...and the fundamentalists themselves had little use for Saddam. But then, the invasion of Iraq was never about al Qaeda, nor was it ever really sold as such. It was sold as part of the war on terror, for which a pretty good case could be made even now. But - and here's the real key everyone seems to miss - the Global War on Terrorism is not just against al Qaeda. It was never envisioned as such - were it envisioned as such, it would not be even remotely effective. It just happens that the defining moment of the GWOT - 9/11 - was uniquely identified with al Qaeda, hence the GWOT is identified with them in the public mind. But that's not policy. Not by a long shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 13, 2006 Author Share Posted June 13, 2006 That was actually demonstrated false a while ago. There was lots of information about Zarqawi presented to the public that was flat-out wrong...so the media covered it extensively. They pretty much ignored the corrections... 707515[/snapback] Newsweek was pretty close to the facts in their recent story on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 None that I know of. I doubt they exist...Saddam was pretty clear about not getting involved with fundamentalists, even to defend Iraq...and the fundamentalists themselves had little use for Saddam. But then, the invasion of Iraq was never about al Qaeda, nor was it ever really sold as such. It was sold as part of the war on terror, for which a pretty good case could be made even now. But - and here's the real key everyone seems to miss - the Global War on Terrorism is not just against al Qaeda. It was never envisioned as such - were it envisioned as such, it would not be even remotely effective. It just happens that the defining moment of the GWOT - 9/11 - was uniquely identified with al Qaeda, hence the GWOT is identified with them in the public mind. But that's not policy. Not by a long shot. 707555[/snapback] Question. Why are we still arguing about this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted June 13, 2006 Author Share Posted June 13, 2006 Question. Why are we still arguing about this? 707582[/snapback] We're out of wine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 He wasn't AQ, and they didn't seem to care for him. 707486[/snapback] I didn't know that AQ was the only terrorist organization in the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I didn't know that AQ was the only terrorist organization in the world. 707621[/snapback] My reply was intended to give people general background about Zaq. I would not presume to state the obvious to an expert like you, except when it comes to correcting your misconceptions about time and being in two places at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 I would not presume to state the obvious to an expert like you, except when it comes to correcting your misconceptions about time and being in two places at once. 707633[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromagnum Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Here's a document about saddam, suggesting ties to AQ and the taliban, any thoughts ? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 13, 2006 Share Posted June 13, 2006 Here's a document about saddam, suggesting ties to AQ and the taliban, any thoughts ?http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html 707751[/snapback] Yeah, I think Fox has a nasty history of throwing sh-- against the wall and seeing what sticks. Who did that translation? Who did the analysis? Are they actually qualified to do either? They let you assume it's a military translation and analysis...but it clearly isn't so (and even if it were...why would it be coming from TRADOC? Nothing against them...I appreciate what they do, and they're very good at it. This isn't it.) Given that, and given that Fox (the media in general, actually, but Fox in particular) likes things to be straightforward and linear...what reason is there to believe that said document has been interpreted in any manner remotely corresponding to the complex reality of the situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts