Terrorists’ Excuse du Jour: ... no Iraq war, extremists would just find another rallying cry

Of course the war in Iraq has made us less safe, and I didn’t need the National Intelligence Estimate to tell me so. Who could possibly deny that Iraq has become, in the words of the NIE, a “cause célèbre” for jihadists? One need only read the newspaper to conclude that Iraq is spawning more terrorists. (Indeed, one fears that all the authors of the NIE did was clip from the newspapers.)

If you’ve ever stood up to a bully, you know how this works. Confrontation tends to increase the chances of violence in the short term but decreases its likelihood in the long term. Any hunter will tell you that the most dangerous moment is when you’ve cornered an animal, and any cop will tell you that standing up to muggers puts you in danger. American colonists were less safe for standing up to King George III, and the United States was certainly safer in the short term when we stood on the sidelines while Germany was conquering Europe. Heck, we would have been safer in the short run if we’d responded to Pearl Harbor by telling the Japanese they could have the Pacific to themselves.

After 9/11, there were voices on the left warning that an attack on Afghanistan would only perpetuate the dreaded “cycle of violence.” Today, Democrats tout their support of that “good” war as proof they aren’t soft on terrorism. Fair enough, I suppose. But guess what? That war made us less safe too — if the measure of such things is “creating more terrorists.” A Gallup poll taken in nine Muslim nations in February 2002 found that more than three-fourths of respondents considered the liberation of Afghanistan unjustifiable. A mere 9% supported U.S. actions. That goes for famously moderate Turkey, where opposition to the U.S. ran three to one, and in Pakistan, where a mere one in 20 respondents took the American side.

In other words, before Iraq became the cause célèbre of jihadists, Afghanistan was. Does that mean we shouldn’t have toppled the Taliban?

Going back further, it’s conventional wisdom that we helped “create” Osama bin Laden, or his Taliban and mujahadin comrades, when we supported the Afghan resistance to the Soviet Union. So we shouldn’t have done that either?

Every serious analysis of the Islamic world today describes a genuine tectonic shift in a vast civilization, an upheaval that cuts across social, religious and demographic lines. This phenomenon dwarfs transient issues such as the Iraq war. Are we to believe that once-moderate and relatively secular Morocco is slipping toward extremism because we toppled Baathist Saddam Hussein? Do we believe that those mobs who burned Danish embassies in response to a cartoon wouldn’t have done so if only President Bush had gone for the 18th, 19th or 20th U.N. resolution on Iraq? Millions of young men yearning for meaning and craving outlets for their rage would have become computer programmers and dental hygienists if only Hussein’s statue still towered over central Baghdad? Would the Pope’s comments spark nothing but thoughtful and high-minded debate from the Arab street if only Al Gore or John Kerry were in office?

Iraq is the excuse du jour for jihadists. But the important factor is that these are young men looking for an excuse. If you live your life calculating that it’s a mistake to do anything that might prompt murderers and savages to act like murderers and savages, you’ve basically decided to live under their thumb and surrender your civilization in the process.

For me, the truly dismaying news this week didn’t come from the NIE but from the German media. A German opera house announced that it would cancel its staging of Mozart’s “Idomeneo” because Berlin police concluded that staging the opera — which includes a scene in which Jesus, Buddha, Poseidon and Muhammad are beheaded — would pose an “incalculable security risk” from jihadists. Germany, recall, proudly opposed the Iraq war — but still narrowly missed a Spain-style terrorist attack on its rail system this summer.

A leading Muslim spokesman in Germany explained that he was all for free speech, as long as it didn’t offend Muslims. The Germans’ all-too-typical appeasement of terrorism no doubt makes them “safer” and “creates” fewer terrorists.

In other words, before Iraq became the cause célèbre of jihadists, Afghanistan was. Does that mean we shouldn’t have toppled the Taliban?

Our invasion of Afghanistan was seen as a retaliation to an attack. While jihadists may have found it a good rallying cry, the vast overwhelming majority of the Arab world didn't react.

Religious fanatics can't be reasoned with, but most Muslims realized what was going on, and stayed home.

Iraq changed that. Jihadists found their ranks swelled by new recruits. It wasn't that suddenly the 8th century worshipping Wahabbi fringe had become popular. It's not a well liked philosophy among most Muslims at all. The reason that more jihadists are 'created' (an inaccurate term), is that al-Qa'ida and company are the only game in town fighting back against the West.

Arab governments are helpless to stop us, and in most cases unwilling to try. Arab militaries are weak, and easily swept aside. Arab humiliation simmers helplessly, priming people who want to fight, but can't.

The harsh philosophy of AQ is no more popular now than it was in 2003, but Muslims would rather stick to them as the Devil they know.

I'm by no means saying we shouldn't be in Iraq, but we need to be congnizant of what an increasingly difficult our mismanagment of the war has put us in, as far as a global jihadist propaganda tool. These issues don't exist in a vacuum. People don't just wake up one day, decide to go insane, and join al-Qa'ida or other jihadist groups. If the issue was merely 'religious extremism', there'd be no statistical increase pre or post the Iraq invasion.

If America had been invaded, and the only organized resistance left was a David Khoresh type religious nut, everyone here would say "Praise Jesus and pass the ammo." until the threat was defeated.

"I'm by no means saying we shouldn't be in Iraq, but we need to be congnizant of what an increasingly difficult our mismanagment of the war has put us in, as far as a global jihadist propaganda tool."

What? Mismanagement? You must be quite an expert on management, yes? Might you find the time to enlighten all of us the proper management of the war?

"These issues don't exist in a vacuum."

No, they exist in the violent, murderous, collection of preposterous, risible, laughable rantings compiled in the Koran, the Hadiths and the four "schools" of Islamic jurisprudence called Sharia.

"People don't just wake up one day, decide to go insane, and join al-Qa'ida or other jihadist groups."

No, they don't. But unlike the results of Jewish or Christian outreach and evangelism, a "moderate" or non-orthodox mohammedan is just one neighborhood mosque sales pitch away from becoming a violent hate-filled killing machine.

"If the issue was merely 'religious extremism', there'd be no statistical increase pre or post the Iraq invasion."

I am sorry but that is the most inane piece of non-reasoning I have ever seen. DNC talking points are better structured.

"If America had been invaded, and the only organized resistance left was a David Khoresh type religious nut, everyone here would say "Praise Jesus and pass the ammo." until the threat was defeated."

BS on every level. Americans unify in the face of any threat until the political Left succeeds in destroying the morale and courage of the American people to resist; they (the Left) are the authors of appeasement and they are well funded and implacably set in their mission, which is quite simple in scope, un-nuanced whatsoever: They hate America, they want the UN and the so-called international community to call all the shots and for us to pay for it. They are social utopians and they are the enemies of all freedom loving people.

The Left is getting too far out in front however and I believe they have miscalculated their agenda and their timeline.

I'm by no means saying we shouldn't be in Iraq, but we need to be congnizant of what an increasingly difficult our mismanagment of the war has put us in, as far as a global jihadist propaganda tool."

What? Mismanagement? You must be quite an expert on management, yes? Might you find the time to enlighten all of us the proper management of the war?

Sure. What do you want to know?

"People don't just wake up one day, decide to go insane, and join al-Qa'ida or other jihadist groups."

No, they don't. But unlike the results of Jewish or Christian outreach and evangelism, a "moderate" or non-orthodox mohammedan is just one neighborhood mosque sales pitch away from becoming a violent hate-filled killing machine.

So, they don't wake up one day and go insane, but simply listen to a sales pitch, and then transform into Terminators? Have you checked the hyperbole settings on your PC lately?

"If the issue was merely 'religious extremism', there'd be no statistical increase pre or post the Iraq invasion."

I am sorry but that is the most inane piece of non-reasoning I have ever seen. DNC talking points are better structured.

Sure, let me break it down for you. I'll use small words.

Before Iraq, terrorist attacks on Americans were rare. Very rare. Now that we're in Iraq, they happen every day.

American interests, embassies, tourists, military, and other targets are all over the world. America, both officially and unofficially, is accessible everywhere in the Middle East. They're certainly no harder targets than a Marine Humvee patrol in Fallujah. Yet suicide bombings and terrorist attacks were quite rare up until the occupation of Iraq.

If terrorism was merely due to the fact that terrorists hate us, hate our freedoms, etc, due to religious intolerance, then why the huge increase in terrorist attacks, and only in Iraq?

(Just to be fair, I should point out that I realize you don't have an answer for this, and will be responding with some kind of personal attack. Don't feel bad. Not a single FReeper yet has had a decent comeback to it.)

"If America had been invaded, and the only organized resistance left was a David Khoresh type religious nut, everyone here would say "Praise Jesus and pass the ammo." until the threat was defeated."

Your first response to this line was incomprehensible, and unrelated to the point. Let me ask more directly. If America had been invaded, and the only organized resistance left was a David Khoresh type religious nut, would you say "Praise Jesus and pass the ammo." until the threat was defeated and worry about what to do with the lunatic later, or would you just stay at home and enjoy the occupation.

You reason that we are to blame for terror because we failed to continue to issue toothless UNSC resolutions to Iraq?

It's our fault? Jordan and Egypt are attacked by terrorists in their own hotels and resorts because we deposed Saddam?

I see you have a tag-line referencing Ibn Warraq so I assume you have gleaned something about Islamic terror.

Unlike Mohammedans, Jews and Christians typically practice their renewed faith through increased charity and acts of kindness as a result of an effective sales pitch.

Mohammedans who have been brought back into the true faith go from moderate, tolerant lifestyles they formerly practiced while only "nominally" identified with Islam (by birth and culture) to actively supporting terror or participating in terror.

The Mullahs and the Imams and the Nationalists (Arafat) rarely (I believe never) sacrifice their children to become Shahids, too many dupes and willing tools are available to ever cross that level of commitment.

We are engaged in a war with a murderous violent movement that is religiously driven, there are no martyrs looking for Jesus in the great beyond are there?

Can you not see the rage and hatred that Islam relies on to control the minds of those who were born into Islam?

Do you fail to see Islam and its violent message has been and continues to be force fed into Mohammedans from birth?

Do you discount all the attacks absorbed before 2003?

Finally, eliminating Saddam is a historical fact that cannot be undone, why precisely do you cite "post war mismanagement" as responsible for the level of terror being experienced in Iraq and around the world?

What would you have done differently? If your answer is you would have followed through on the Bush Doctrine and effectively punished every Islamic nation that applauded 9-11, I would agree. If your answer is that we should have killed all the Sunni and Shia mullahs and imams and split Iraq into independent Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish states, and impose religious freedom and plurality under martial law I would agree.

Kemal Ataturk, according to a Pakistani friend of mine, told the Turkish mullahs and Islamic scholars that he was going to send them all to the Haj and loaded them onto a big cruise ship and then torpedoed the boat at sea killing them all. That was how he secularized Turkey for at least two generations.

Now Turkey is radicalizing as well. Is that our fault or is it just the nature of the Salafist/Wahhabist/Khomeinist core that is determined to ride the beast of Islam into a world conquest?

The fools all agree on one core tenet even while they are bombing and beheading and stoning one another: they all believe Islam conquering the world is inevitable, Allah guarantees it.

They have believed this for centuries, however with the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, militant Islam was reborn and by the 1960's was entrenched into virtually every Muslim nation.

Assad destroyed an entire village to eradicate the MB in Syria.

Saddam destroyed hundreds of villages to eradicate Kurdish aspirations.

Algeria and Indonesia killed millions of muslims to eradicate opposition.

Our mismanagement of Iraq occurred decades after these atrocities.

Brussels--the capital of the pacifist, appeasing, EU is enduring violent Muslim riots, our fault?

France? Pacifist? Under siege?

I think in hindsight we could have done better. Like a chess match, one can usually identify and remember that one poorly thought out move that lost the queen. Okay, hope to not repeat the mistake, don't quit playing chess over it.

I am leaving in eight days for my fourth tour in Afghanistan. If it was not worth the effort I would not go (I do have a choice, I am not going because I am being forced to).

We need to stand together against this Islamic terror because there is no other path open. Mismanaged or not, we are in a war for survival.

"Sure, let me break it down for you. I'll use small words."

Your arrogant condescending tone is mighty unattractive and unnecessary.

"Before Iraq, terrorist attacks on Americans were rare. Very rare. Now that we're in Iraq, they happen every day."

Terrorist attacks against America were not rare. Terrorist attacks were the reasons why US Embassies around the world were significantly reinforced during the 70's and 80's, about 20+ years BEFORE 9/11.

"American interests, embassies, tourists, military, and other targets are all over the world. America, both officially and unofficially, is accessible everywhere in the Middle East. They're certainly no harder targets than a Marine Humvee patrol in Fallujah. Yet suicide bombings and terrorist attacks were quite rare up until the occupation of Iraq."

I suppose the 5,000 injured and 200+ dead due to TERRORIST attacks on American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania don't count. If you want a detailed list of terrorist attacks against America before 9/11 I will provide it for you. Right now I'm too tired to bother. But you know darn well your above statement is pure BS and I am calling you on it.

"If terrorism was merely due to the fact that terrorists hate us, hate our freedoms, etc, due to religious intolerance, then why the huge increase in terrorist attacks, and only in Iraq?"

We civilians put your butt on the line in Iraq because we don't want to be a target here in the US. And we here in Chicago know that Sears Tower is a target after 9/11. And we American civilians know that a good defense is a good offense and if not Iraq, where, Michigan Avenue? That is why we want, need and depend on a VOLUNTEER Military. If you don't want to fight anymore then don't reenlist, MR. SF. (Sincerely, thank you for your service, I really mean it but I am a bit annoyed with your post.) Presently Islam is going through another one of its expansionary rabid fits as witnessed in Thailand, non-Muslim islands in Indonesia, Kashmir, Europe, Australia, Malaysia, Philippines, and countries in Africa. Wherever Islam borders a non-Muslim country/community or immigrates to another country in large numbers there is violence and intimidation. I am talking about Nigeria, Ivory Coast, the Yala province in Thailand, Denmark and the streets of Amsterdam just to name few locations where rabid Islam has left a mark.

FYI, Thailand has suffered 2,400 ISLAMIC Terrorist deaths/murders in the past few years along the Malay/Thai border. And the Thai’s presence in Iraq is minute.

"Sure, let me break it down for you. I'll use small words."

Your arrogant condescending tone is mighty unattractive and unnecessary.

You're right. It was unnecessary, and it's not my style. I withdraw my comments. Frankly, I get a little irritated when people can't refute my points, so they call me a DNC moutpiece instead. I shouldn't let it get to me, but every now and then it does.

"Before Iraq, terrorist attacks on Americans were rare. Very rare. Now that we're in Iraq, they happen every day."

Terrorist attacks against America were not rare. Terrorist attacks were the reasons why US Embassies around the world were significantly reinforced during the 70's and 80's, about 20+ years BEFORE 9/11.

Security levels were increased to deter terrorism, sure, but those acts were rare when compared to the rate of incidence in Iraq. I'm not saying they didn't happen at all, just that it wasn't daily.

"American interests, embassies, tourists, military, and other targets are all over the world. America, both officially and unofficially, is accessible everywhere in the Middle East. They're certainly no harder targets than a Marine Humvee patrol in Fallujah. Yet suicide bombings and terrorist attacks were quite rare up until the occupation of Iraq."

I suppose the 5,000 injured and 200+ dead due to TERRORIST attacks on American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania don't count.

It would count if that stuff was happening on a weekly basis in places other than Iraq.

If Iraq hasn't fueled terrorism, and that the violence stems only from religious fanaticism, then we should be seeing those kinds of daily attacks on Americans all over the world, not just Iraq. American targets are never far, and bombmaking instructions are on the internet. Why travel to Iraq, when you can jihad at home?

If you want a detailed list of terrorist attacks against America before 9/11 I will provide it for you.

Sure, but when you do, post it next to the list of terrorist attacks that have taken place in Iraq. I've seen both lists. It's like stacking a Chinese food delivery menu next to a phone book.

Again, I'm not trying to say that there was no terrorism prior to Iraq, only far less. Proving that terrorism existed prior to 2003 isn't advancing the debate, because it's a point we agree on.

"If terrorism was merely due to the fact that terrorists hate us, hate our freedoms, etc, due to religious intolerance, then why the huge increase in terrorist attacks, and only in Iraq?"

Again, this is the question that no one can answer. While there have always been terrorist attacks against American interests, there has been a huge increase recently, and only in Iraq. My sole point here is that our presence, configured in the manner it is, fuels that terror. We're too light to provide enough security, but so heavy as to provide a great target.

(Sincerely, thank you for your service, I really mean it but I am a bit annoyed with your post.)

Thank you, that's nice of you to say. I did have a great time in the Army, but I'm out now, and on to bigger and better. I'm not as down on this whole war as I guess I'm coming across, so bear with me for a bit. Reasonable people do disagree. I throw out my criticism because I want to win, not be marched off the cliff by people more concerned about politics than victory.

Wherever Islam borders a non-Muslim country/community or immigrates to another country in large numbers there is violence and intimidation.

If you're trying to convince me that Muslim culture is generally violent, then you can stop there. It's another point we already agree on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.