04/16/2007 06:35:03 PM EST

No, They're Not Going to Follow Us to Cleveland, but...

posted by jarett

I feel this should be said because it's an important detail that Cenk and Ben appear to have intentionally glossed over.  The argument isn't that Iraqis are going to jump in boats and assault the American coast.  The argument is that outside terrorist elements that are currently engaged in fighting us in Iraq, when we withdraw, will then be able to redirect their attention to attacking targets in the US.

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
There is something to this, but like most Republican talking points, it is short-sighted.  Yes, there is a possibility of this happening.  The problem is, there is a GUARANTEE of it happening if we remain in Iraq as well.  Our presence there is a giant beacon attracting radically-minded Islamists to terrorist groups.  The Iraq war is a super-self-perpetuating nightmare: the forces of organized terror will grow faster than we can kill them off, you can be sure of that.  And eventually, they will have the people and the resources to harry our troops in Iraq at the same time as they make attacks on American soil.

This is why we need a radical change in direction for American foreign policy.  Unfortunately, we're not going to see one of these for another year and a half at least.

< Young Turks Back Tomorrow -- The Return of the Pike | The Uninformed American public... >
 Display:
No, They're Not Going to Follow Us to Cleveland, but... | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
Thank you, Jarett. (none / 0)
“Our presence there is a giant beacon attracting radically-minded Islamists to terrorist groups. The Iraq war is a super-self-perpetuating nightmare: the forces of organized terror will grow faster than we can kill them off, you can be sure of that.”

You just admitted that Iraq has become a giant roach motel for all Islamic Jihadists. But rather than use the world’s most advanced and powerful military to kill the terrorists, you want to bring our troops home, so we can spend a trillion dollars every year for a standing army that doesn’t do anything but training exercises.

by KenTX on 04/18/2007 01:38:05 AM EST

Ken, Ken, Ken. Come on. (none / 0)
The difference between the roach motel and the reality of Iraq is that Iraq is a roach FACTORY.  They are being created faster than we can kill them -- not only in Iraq but all over the world.  You seem to underestimate the power of the anti-American propaganda machine.  There is not a finite number of terrorists in the world; far from it.  The number grows every single day.

by jarett on 04/18/2007 02:54:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're caught in a trap. (none / 0)
"There is not a finite number of terrorists in the world; far from it.  The number grows every single day."
 
You might be correct, but I seriously doubt it. The al Qaeda guys we are currently fighting in Iraq are coming from Jordan and Saudi Arabia and Syria and the entire region.

If deployment of American military assets "creates terrorists" as the left would argue, then you must advocate the removal of our military forces from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kurdistan, Kuwait, Qtar, etc, etc. If you are correct, the only rational course of action would be to bring all forces back to America, and hide under our beds.

There are a finite number of Islamic Jihadists who want to die for Allah. We need to stay there, and kill every damn one of them, even if it takes another twenty years.

Democrats are caught in a trap. If they force surrender and withdrawal, then the failure is their responsibility, forever! When we get hit by al Qaeda again, and it will happen, the blame will come down squarely on the heads of Democrats.

by KenTX on 04/18/2007 03:23:20 AM EST

[ Parent ]
No trap here. (none / 0)
a) There will ALWAYS be more.  And more, and more, and more, so long as American foreign policy is designed to oppress people that the Islamic Jihadists sympathize with.
b) I didn't say deployment of American military assets ("period") creates terrorists.  I DO believe deployment of then in Iraq creates terrorists, because we have turned Iraq into a complete clusterf*ck and never had any legitimate reason to invade.  The same does not go for Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Kurdistan, or Kuwait, or Qatar.

The rational course of action is multilateral action.  Withdraw OTH and support Iraq's government with monetary aid.  Support the creation of a Palestinian state to take the wind out of the jihadis' sails.  Get smart about intelligence and military activity in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries around the world where Islamists have strongholds.

Violence begets violence.  This has been proven over and over and over again in history.  Let's learn from it, shall we?

by jarett on 04/18/2007 06:43:49 AM EST

[ Parent ]
COME ON JARETT? (none / 0)
"a) There will ALWAYS be more.  And more, and more, and more, so long as American foreign policy is designed to oppress people that the Islamic Jihadists sympathize with."

Remember all of the al Qaeda attacks during the Clinton Administration? Remember that 9/11/2001 occurred after Bush had been in office for just a few months? Was the Clinton Administration foreign policy designed to oppress people? Did America deserve to be attacked because Bill Clinton was such a terrible president? Because that's sure what it sounds like you are saying.

"b) I didn't say deployment of American military assets ("period") creates terrorists.  I DO believe deployment of then in Iraq creates terrorists, because we have turned Iraq into a complete clusterf*ck and never had any legitimate reason to invade.  The same does not go for Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Kurdistan, or Kuwait, or Qatar."

So terrorists distinguish between Afghanistan deployment and Iraq deployment? Al Qaeda thinks that America has a legitimate right to have a military presence in all Middle Eastern countries except Iraq?

Today at 6:45 am South Bend, Indiana time, Cenk officially declared that American forces cannot leave Iraq, because the ensuing bloodbath would be a disaster. I marked the time and the date, because I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I want to print a transcript of the segment.

Even liberals know that we can't just abandon Iraq. But we all agree that we can certainly improve our tactics and strategy.

In the meantime, with your permission, we will continue to use the military to kill Islamic Jihadists who are coming from just about everywhere but Iraq.

by KenTX on 04/18/2007 08:34:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Rough Transcript (none / 0)
Here is a synopsis of Cenk's comments this morning.

"Even is you’re not a Republican, you can make a reasonable argument that we should stay in Iraq. It’s the Colin Powell, Pottery Barn Rule. You broke it, you own it. Part of me says that withdrawal is such an ugly option, because if we leave Iraq in this state, it just seems so wrong. If we withdraw there will be a total mess, and the Shiites will massacre the Sunnis."

Not to mention the fact that al Qaeda will pour in and support the Baathists in the Civil War.

Actually, when you put it like that, perhaps we should pull back and let Sadr fight al Qaeda?

by KenTX on 04/18/2007 10:09:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Heeeeere we go! (none / 0)
So terrorists distinguish between Afghanistan deployment and Iraq deployment?  Yes!  Al Qaeda thinks that America has a legitimate right to have a military presence in all Middle Eastern countries except Iraq?  No!

Your second assertion does not follow from your first.  In Latin, my friend, they call this a "non sequitur."

Terrorists distinguish between Afghanistan deployment and Iraq deployment only because it is useful to them to do so, not because of any ideological factor.  We invaded Afghanistan for a specific, legitimate purpose: to retaliate against those responsible for harboring the people who committed the 9/11 attacks.  We were successful in this.  We unseated the Taliban and crushed them.  The legitimate government of Afghanistan now works with us to help root out the warlords that really run the country.  Iraq and Afghanistan are completely different from a PR perspective and in the realities on the ground.

by jarett on 04/18/2007 11:59:00 AM EST

[ Parent ]
chew on this sequitur (none / 0)
"The legitimate government of Afghanistan now works with us to help root out the warlords that really run the country."
 
The legitimate government of Iraq now works with us to help root out al Qaeda. We have a new strategic ally in the Middle East. 

by KenTX on 04/18/2007 12:15:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
::splutter:: (none / 0)
Iraq's government isn't even TRYING.

by jarett on 04/18/2007 02:22:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
liberal rules of engagement (none / 0)
"Iraq's government isn't even TRYING."
 
Someone has finally offered a measurable contrast between our national interest in Iraq, and our national interest in Afghanistan, and our national interest in Pakistan. So let me see if I have this straight?

1. The democratically elected government of Afghanistan is an ally of America, and they are working closely with us to battle Islamic Jihadists.

2. The democratically elected government of Iraq is an ally of America, and they are working closely with us to battle Islamic Jihadists.

3. The democratically elected government of Pakistan is an ally of America, and they are working closely with us to battle Islamic Jihadists. 
 
4. Afghansitan is trying harder to kill terrorists than Iraq and Pakistan.

5. Therefore, we should continue to help Afghanistan, while abandoning Iraq and Pakistan.

I appreciate your help in understanding how liberals measure our interests in the Middle East.

by KenTX on 04/18/2007 03:53:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Jarett, (none / 0)
have you withdrawn from the field of debate?

I've noticed you aren't getting much help from other liberals in this thread?

by KenTX on 04/19/2007 08:52:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
no defeat, no surrender (none / 0)
It appears that Jarett has declared defeat and surrender in this thread, like Sen Harry Reid has done with Iraq.

It's OK, as long as it was a learning experience for him.

by KenTX on 04/20/2007 11:23:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wrong (none / 0)
I lost track of it because it left the front page, that's all :p

by jarett on 04/22/2007 02:21:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Calling All Liberals! (none / 0)
Jarett has run up against a brick wall, trying to respond to this comment in a thread that he started.

I'm interested to see if any of you guys can help him out. I'm even going to send a note to our buddy Tim and ask for his assistance.

We might have discovered another question that liberals can't answer, like why America has not been attacked since 9/11.

by KenTX on 04/21/2007 02:00:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wax in your ears (none / 0)
I seem to remember answering that perfectly legitimate question multiple times, and my perfectly legitimate answer being ignored every time.  Shame.

by OneHitKill on 04/21/2007 11:30:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ah, now I see (none / 0)
Iraq is a failed, artificial state.  Pakistan and Afghanistan at least have some measure of legitimacy.

Moreover, the ONLY REASON there are terrorists in Iraq is US.

by jarett on 04/22/2007 02:23:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Furthermore (none / 0)
It is a matter of pragmatism.  Our presence in Iraq creates more insurgency allied with terror organizations.  The same is not the case for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

by jarett on 04/22/2007 02:28:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Education of Jarett (none / 0)
“Our presence in Iraq creates more insurgency allied with terror organizations.  The same is not the case for Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

You are absolutely, positively wrong with this assertion.

You are wrong about Pakistan.
You are wrong about Afghanistan.

In all three countries, the terror organizations are indeed allying themselves with indigenous insurgents. Furthermore, they use the presence of American military forces as justification for jihad.

There is no way to logically advocate deployment of American forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while advocating the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq. We are fighting a global war against al Qaeda.

Jarett, I appreciate your participation and your effort, but you are quite simply losing the debate. Old pros like Tim and Russ (Fred) recognize a weak argument when they see one, and that’s why they’re remained relatively mute on this issue.

I’m going to start offering more challenging questions like this to my liberal friends. I enjoy watching them squirm.

by KenTX on 04/22/2007 03:54:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Oh? (none / 0)
I ain't squirmin', pal.  Instead, I return your volley thus:

If it is the case that American military activity in the Middle East is producing an environment that makes it easy to train terrorists and raise more and more capital for Islamists, if our expenditure of capital and lives just produces more and more targets to spend more and more capital and lives on, why do we continue to have a military presence there?

There is EVERY evidence that as we continue to kill people (terrorists or otherwise) in the Middle East, their numbers stay the same or grow and ours slowly dwindle, as does the worldwide regard of the United States, bringing more and more public opinion against the US.  Do you know what public opinion does?  It makes it possible for tinpot dictators like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe to blame all their problems on the US.  It makes it possible for Islamic countries to use the US as a convenient scapegoat for everything.  This makes the world a more dangerous place for Americans and makes it harder and harder for the US to carry on diplomacy.

The path you favor is a positive feedback cycle, Ken.  I don't understand how you can't see that.

by jarett on 04/22/2007 09:26:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
you have no defense (none / 0)
If your defense can't stop an off-tackle running play, I will continue running the ball off-tackle.

Here it comes again.

There is no way to logically advocate deployment of American forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while advocating the withdrawal of American forces in Iraq. We are fighting a global war against al Qaeda.

by KenTX on 04/22/2007 09:34:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You mighta missed it (none / 0)
but following your linking of those two articles I started exploring the question of whether or not we should be deployed militarily in either of those countries in addition to Iraq.

We had some trouble in the corners, but this defense adapts to win.

I don't believe it is possible to "win" a "global war" against a diffuse, non-state entity with no borders and no clearly definable population using military resources.  You cannot "win" that "war" simply by killing anyone you think you might have identified as a member of that entity.  The radicalization factor is simply too high.  Right now, the American military is a placeholder, and not a very good one - the longer we stick around, the worse the situation gets for us AND the Iraqis/Pakistanis/Afghans)

Al Qaeda needs to be deconstructed from within.  The justification for its existence needs to be removed.  Do that, and you will watch it fall apart as leaders of it struggle with each other to assert power over a crumbling group of people no longer inspired by the conviction they had before.  

The fight against Islamism has nothing to do with classical definitions of "surrender" or "victory."  It is about proving to the world that our way of life is better than theirs.

(Turnover to Blue on the Red 40, ball's on the 22, 1st down Blue.  I'd kick a field goal, but there's still plenty of time on the clock.)

by jarett on 04/23/2007 04:01:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was in Neyland Stadium, (none / 0)
the day Reggie White single handedly destroyed the Fighting Irish.

“The fight against Islamism has nothing to do with classical definitions of "surrender" or "victory."  It is about proving to the world that our way of life is better than theirs.”

This is a great concept, and the approach would probably work with about 90% of the world. The problem is that America has been trying to negotiate and reason with Islam since the founding of the country.

Here is a Christopher Hitchens article that was published today on the subject of America’s first neocons, Jefferson, Madison, and Jay. They wanted to kick Muslim ass, thereby sending a clear message to the world that America demanded respect and sovereignty.

Meanwhile, America’s first Democrat, John Adams, wanted to bribe them and pay them tribute to be nice to us.

“<John Adams> made the case that it was better policy to pay the tribute. It was cheaper than the loss of trade, for one thing, and a battle against the pirates would be “too rugged for our people to bear.” Putting the matter starkly, Adams said: “We ought not to fight them at all unless we determine to fight them forever.”

by KenTX on 04/23/2007 04:44:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Roach lemonade stand (none / 0)
"Roach motel?"  "Roach factory?"  Both analogies seem unfittingly lucrative.  If anything roach-related, Iraq is an underfunded roach zoo whose caretakers are overworked, and whose patrons toss garbage in the roach ostrich paddock and annoy the polar bear roaches with flash photography and tease the chimpanzee roaches and then complain when they end up with excrement on their faces.

by OneHitKill on 04/18/2007 05:26:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
One problem is (none / 0)

the title...Follow Us to Cleveland. No thanks....

And we should not fear the debate in Washington. It's one of the great strengths of our democracy that we can discuss our differences openly and honestly -- even at times of war. Your service makes that freedom possible. And today, because of the men and women in our military, people are expressing their opinions freely in the streets of Baghdad, as well. G.W Bush

Thanks George,

Lets stop playing the political gotcha game here.There is no victory to be had in Iraq. The President knows it, I know it and I think most of you guys know it. Politics is driving the strategy here, Iraqi and US politics...not an overwhelming national interest.

"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat; Remarks by the President on Iraq, White House (10/7/2002)

I would submit to you gentlemen that if  Iraq was a threat gathering against us and that if Iraq was the central front in a battle for the US's survival in the fight on global terrorism , as Bush has often said, then indeed we had an overwhelming national interest in Iraq then we should have committed overwhelming resources in the beginning. We sent 500,000 troops to liberate Kuwait. We only send 130,000 for the survival of the Republic?

I know it would have been near imposible to send 500,000 at the time so if all the above was true would you not think the Army and Marines forces would need to be increased?

I would expect that the Commander in Chief would grasp those concepts .Instead we got the Rumsfeld method.

No...all this tells me that after the WMD justification fizzled out the critical importance of Iraq is simply a political convention and nothing more. Heres the bottom line as I see it. 

Lets stop pretending our " mission" in Iraq  is to kill droves of terrorists. Sure we probably kill some Al Qaida   but  by and large we are in the untenable position of being caught in a civil war, being the protector of and targeted by the very "terrorists" we are killing.  These are the same groups that must forge a political solution to keep Iraq together. Until the parties move that way...this will continue.  If there is no movement, there will be no Iraq in 5 years, probably less . A Suni-Shia blood bath is inevitable.

General Petraeus said by the end of the summer we're going to see whether the surge is working or not. Theres your deadline. A date certain.

Either way all we can do is somehow attempt  to protect American interests in the region and witdraw in a way that  won't destabilize the remainder of Gulf.

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 04/21/2007 11:27:47 PM EST

Or (none / 0)
Overthrowing Saddam was meant to destabilize the Middle East. Do we really want a stable Saudi Arabia exporting its Wahhabi bullshit forever?

by Twba on 04/22/2007 10:45:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I thats a done deal... (none / 0)
Between Bush I..no...thats not fair...most if not all of the administtions since Nixon(?) and the Sauds...you can export your Wahhibism as long as you export your oil. We just look the other way....as usual

"Freedom is important to Republicans as long as someone else pays for it on the battlefield and on April 15th."

by MRFred on 04/22/2007 06:00:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, They're Not Going to Follow Us to Cleveland, but... | 26 comments (26 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: