US training armies in Africa

[Andy D]

Furious George, I used the Fox News link to illustrate that if you want to know civilian casualty numbers, they are really easy to find. No one, even a “blatant spin doctor” can cover any story on the war without listing the civilian casualties.

Framed, in most situations I agree would say that much of what you said in your last post has merit. War is all hell and we should do everything we can to avoid it. The first step in any nations relations with another foreign group or nation should not be to shoot first and ask questions later. However, that is not where we are at with these terrorist groups.

Al-Queda and Iran and their subsidiaries have been at war with us since the 1970’s. The rulers of Iran and the terrorist that run many of the Al-Queda and sister organizations belong to a sect of Islam that believes in total global domination of Islam. There can be no negotiation except to build strength until the next attempt to kill the infidels. How do we know we can’t negotiate with them? Easy, we read Osama’s Jihads from the 1990’s and take him at his word. We listen to what the leaders of Iran and their terrorist groups tell their followers and we take them at their word. You operate from the assumption that if we could find Osama and send people to talk to him, he would listen. He doesn’t want to listen. He hates the west. He hates America (Democrats and Republicans and those who couldn’t care less). He hates Muslims that don’t hate America. You can not win the hearts and minds of the terrorist.

You argue that our actions in the Middle East and in Iraq have caused more terrorist to be created. That is probably true. But the terrorist have been gunning for us since the 1970’s. That was long before there was a foreign policy dominated by Bush or his Father. At what point do we say that the terrorist have gone to far and we must fight back? The terrorist have repeatedly tried to attack us in a fashion similar to Pearl Harbor. How many people do they have to kill before it is acceptable for us to go after them? At what point do we recognize that we are at war with people who want to kill us even if we stay in our border.

The terrorist are only willing to accept three outcomes, their death, our death, or our subjugation. I didn’t decide that, they did. I didn’t read that into them, they have told us that.

 

[framed]

Andy:

You said "The terrorist are only willing to accept three outcomes, their death, our death, or our subjugation. I didn’t decide that, they did. I didn’t read that into them, they have told us that."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. I don't have any evidence that these people can't be negotiated with. We've had a policy that specifically prevents us from trying to, so as far as I can tell we are the people who can't be reasoned with, not them.

I'd like to get your take on what the end-game of your approach to this is. How do you envision a future when this war has ended? If in the process of killing off the terrorists we create more terrorists than we kill, and there are new crazies being born every day all over the world, how does the cycle end? How do we not end up like Israel, with daily bombings? If anyone has proved that you can't just beat a population into submission its Israel, and they've paid for it.

 

[Andy D]

Framed, if you are really interested in the evidence, I can send you a post with some specific areas to look at and make your own decisions about. I base my belief with regards to Al-Queda on the words of Osama bin Laden. During the 1990’s he released two Jihads. I think the first was in 1996. Read those over (they are really short) and tell me what you think.

How will this end? What will it look like? I don’t know. My hope is that if we make the right choices in the war on terror, ten years from now Iraq would be a stable nation in the Middle East. We might have a permanent base there with troops (much like we have had in Germany or Japan), but the vast majority of our troops that are there in 2007, aren’t there in 2017. I see us fighting limited engagements with terrorist in Africia and maybe Indonesia for some time to come. How long is largely determined by the Muslim community and how long it is willing to accept a branch of Islam that calls for constant war.

 

[dong]

Passing broadside: I'm willing to wager from revealed insider information that contrary to popular belief, the Al-Q picture is much much larger than Osama bin Laden. In fact, he's not even necessary for the most part. But he sure did put the fear in the US public.

 

[Andy D]

Response to passing broadside: My understanding is that the “membership” of Al-Queda itself is quite small. However, it ends up encompassing many individuals who are active in other terrorist organizations depending on what Al-Q is up too. So, in keeping with dong’s post, it does look like the membership of Al-Q specifically is quite small or large depending on exactly what they are up too.

In many of my post, when I am talking about fighting terrorist in Iraq and elsewhere, I am including Al-Q, Hezbollah, Hamas, IJ, and anyone else actively involved in Iraq.

 

[framed]

Why is involvement in Iraq a valid test for being a terrorist? I would think you could be involved in Iraq and not be a terrorist, and you could be a terrorist and not be invovled in Iraq. Or are you saying that anyone who fights against United States interests is a terrorist?

 

[Andy D]

Hmm, framed not sure if you are talking to me, but in case you are:

In my opinion, those groups who fight civillians with the intent of causing terror are terrorist. At this point in the game, there are no organized militaries fighting in Iraq except the Iraqi army and the US / Allies forces. I think your tactics and your movites are what label you as a terrorist. Right now I would have to say any group fighting against the US forces in Iraq are terrorist. I am not aware of any foreign nations with active militaries in Iraq against ours. Iran and Syria are both involved, but the people that they have in Iraq are using terrorist tactis. How would you define a terrorist?

 

[framed]

Personally I hate the word.. I think it pushes the debate to "all our enemies are evil because they operate based on fear", which when you think about it is factually true of any opposition force, unorganized, organized, or nationalized. Its even true of the US forces.

Some popular components of the definition of a terrorist:

operating based on fear - standard tactic of all armed forces and thus not a defining characteristic of the word "terrorist" (think shock and awe)

non nationalized fighting force - some legitimate fighting forces are not from recognized governments. Think of our revolutionary war. Nationalized is not a defining characteristic of the word "terrorist"

gorilla warfare - sane people do not attack an unstoppable force directly. examples: gorilla warfare in Vietnam, learning that standing in front of a musket line was stupid during the revolutionary war. Not attacking an enemy's fighting force directly cant be a uniquely defined characteristic of a "terrorist".

attacking civilians - necessary at times to break morale and destroy industrial complex. A valid war tactic that the US has used in the past. Not a characteristic that would be unique to "terrorists" .

I'm out of things people have thrown out to define terrorist, so I'm left with the conclusion that the word is effectively a ploy that makes it easy for people to muster up hate for our "evil" enemy, and thus perpetuate the escalation of the war.

I accept that these people are our enemies. I do not accept that they are evil, cannot be reasoned with, or are otherwise clinically insane. Because of that I reject using the word "terrorist" to describe the people we're fighting in the middle east.

This whole conflict ends in one of two ways: Genocide or Peace. I'd prefer peace, and I think its important that we start plotting our way in that direction. Defining our enemy as evil and otherwise subhuman and without rights pushes us away from peace.

 

[Andy D]

Instead of fighting back and forth on what the definition of “terrorist” is, I am going to try to answer the heart of your response. If you believe the definition is more important than the last portion of your post, I will come back and try to redefine terrorist.

You state,”I do not accept that they are evil, cannot be reasoned with, or are otherwise clinically insane. Because of that I reject using the word ‘terrorist’ to describe the people we are fighting in the middle east.”

I don’t apply the word terrorist to everyone we fight in the Middle East. Some of those we are fighting are organized military from Iran that are employing and supporting terrorist activities. However, this isn’t the most important point. The first part of your quote is the most important.

I don’t believe our enemies in Iraq and the “War on Terror” are clinically insane. I believe they are in full possession of their mental facilities and in some cases quite smart. I do not believe they can be reasoned with based on their own words. Osama bin Laden has issued jihads against the US and the West. In these jihads, his first demand is that America and the West convert to Islam. As I don’t believe our country can survive with a recognized, state religion (no matter what that religion is), this issue can not be negotiated. There are other demands that Osama makes on our culture before he ever begins to list his issues with our involvement with the Middle East. If we accept Osama’s statements at their face value, if we were to pull 100% of our forces from all nations in the Middle East and Asia, we would still not come close to meeting his demands. Because of his demands, I don’t believe he can be negotiated with.

Osama bin Laden, and others who are fighting us in Iraq, South Africa, Afghanistan, and elsewhere have a fanatical belief in one very narrow minded interpretation of Islam. We are not in a religious war against the “Evil Muslims”. We are in a religious war with an evil group of individuals. It is their version of Islam against everyone else (Christians, Jews, other Muslims, Hindu’s, Atheist, and anyone else). I don’t believe they will ever want to negotiate with us even if we want to. Until more people realize this, we are going to be a long way from winning this war.

 

[framed]

Andy,

You got at my concern. I agree with you that people like Osama have to go... I just feel like those people are a small percentage of the people that we're fighting. On the low end we've killed 53,000 people in Iraq. I have a hard time believing all (or even the majority) of those people were actively persuing a military style attempt at coverting the United States to Islam before we appeared inside their borders.

I agree that there are a very small percentage of people out there whom we are better off killing than trying to negotiate with. I just think we're killing far in excess of that and its creating a breeding ground for more people we aren't going to be able to negotiate with. We need to get more surgical about our fighting, and start putting out vibes that we are reasonable people that Muslims can co-exist with.

 

[Andy D]

Many, many Muslims know we are reasonable people that they can co-exist with, they live here.

I am not trying to argue that we should be targeting civillians in Iraq. Any civillian loss is a travesty, but at the same time, we have to kill these "terrorist" before they kill us. I think we have beat this horse pretty good, but I wanted to give you two more points for thought:

1) Your casulty numbers may be a bit high. I heard the UN has decided somewhere around 35,000 Iraqi's have died in our three year war. Those are probably a little high becuase the UN doesn't really want us there. Some people have argued the actual number may be closer to 10% of that number. Just food for thought, I have no hard facts on that.

2) The "we are creating more terrorist" arguements has some merit. I will be the first to agree that if you live in Iraq and an American bomb destroy's your house, you are probably going to want revenge. However, that arguement only works in a vacuum. In real life, we can't count the number of terrorist that would have been grown in Iraq without any US involvement, and how many might have been recruited if we continued to threaten millitary action without actually using our military. Just as you can't tell me the number of terrorist created by our fighting in Iraq, I can't tell you the number that would have been created anyway, or if we stayed out. Just food for thought.

 

[framed]

It does say something about the level of respect you have for civilians when you cant bother to figure out how many of them you killed within 2 orders of magnitude. You're suggesting 3500, which is about 10% of what even the military acknowledges, which is less than 10% of what some very notable demographics researchers suggest. I just don't see the argument for a moral superiority vs "terrorists" when you treat civilian deaths in such a caviler way. How can a 100x difference in the death count not make a difference in your decision making?

I don't follow the vacuum comment. Its pretty clear that when we're out in the international community making enemies, we'll have more enemies than when we're out making friends. What about that argument requires a vacuum? Why do you think it doesn't apply in this case?

Kill them before they kill us has NEVER been the end-game for a war. That policy leads to genocide or defeat. Aside from being immoral, genocide just doesn't work. The policy will have us living like Israel within a generation, under constant threat of bombings with a lousy quality of life. ...and we'll waste 100 billion a year to get us there.

For reference, the 53,000 number I gave you is media confirmed deaths. Its been attacked by lots of researchers for being too low, which is why I use it as a conservative number. If you go to the site I linked in my previous post you can check it out and see the methods they used, and the alternatives the other major death count studies use. If you have *any* credible source suggesting the actual count is 3,500, I encourage you to post it.