General: ‘War On Terror’ Is ‘Inaccurate’ Label For War On Insurgency

[TransvestFO]

FMR, you are also confusing IRAQI insurgents with Islamic extremists. I realize that that is an easy mistake to make and many do it. Iraq is full of criminal elements of all flavors. The Muslim extremist portion under the guise of Al Queda in Iraq is but a portion. Of course that portion has to be dealt with but as a part of a larger issue. Don't get bogged down in the Iraq effort. It is a big stretch to say that Iraq is soley a war on Muslim extremists and terrorist actions. It clearly is not.

Further, if war is an extension of diplomacy, where is the diplomacy that this war on terror is extended from?

The world-wide "war" to surpress Muslim Extremists is a complicated issue. The various groups which currently exist around the world have their own regional and local agenda's which UBL and AQ leadership are able to spin into their overarching Muslim message. The vast majority of Muslims are moderate and are not supportive of extremist actions, but all you need is a few hot cells, a few creative thinkers, some money and some poor, uneducated, unemployed farm boys to carry out the various plans.

It is utterly ridiculous, I mean you are a big fat idiot, if you believe that raging around the globe killing people is going to solve this complex, world-wide issue. Buiding a Super-Walmart in Kuwait and then making Iraq the parking lot might solve some problems in the middle east, but it certainly will not solve our Muslim extremist problems. The annoying part is, these types of actions just provide fodder for extremist leadership to maintain or even increase recruiting.

You want to bomb them? Bomb them with TV's, microwaves, cell phones, MTV and Coke. Nothing sways a society faster than having choices, or at least the perception of choices as promoted by a thorough, well-thought marketing and trade plan, AKA foreign policy. Nothing will squelch this world-wide movement faster than the availability of product. The perception of a better life. Peace and calm. With these, countries' populations, local groups, down to the neighborhood, will do the work for you. No one living what they believe to be a good life, or striving for a better life they perceive to be available to them, will support violence.

 

[Flash]

Just because no one on this board, to my knowledge, is or has been a flag officer in the US military does not mean we should dismiss them out of hand. In my time here the nuthouse on the Potomac, I have been fortunate or unfortunate enough to see and work for flag officers. Some have been less than impressive but there are many that are professional, smart and original thinkers. Just because you wear stars on your shoulder doesn't mean you are emasculated or an idiot. That is like disparaging E-9's for making it to the top of the enlisted ranks.

Call me a 'yes' man or a suck up, but like I said before I don't see any flag officers on this forum to impress or show off to.

 

[TransvestFO]

Concur with Flash. I am on a 3-star staff and the place is very top heavy. I also have seen and heard many in the upper echelons of the officer corps and they are, bye and large, intelligent and well spoken. They are also in an inenviable position of having to blend their roles as military leaders with their roles as political liaison officers. They have a long row to hoe I am sure. The ones I have seen do a fine job.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

Just because no one on this board, to my knowledge, is or has been a flag officer in the US military...

You'd be surprised.

 

[A4sForever]

I don't know anyone who would "dismiss" Flag/General officers --- do so only at your own peril. I know several professionally, some personally, and count a couple of them among my small circle of friends. I also know a politician when I hear one ... and I know when they are "mouthing" the company line. It never changes. It also doesn't matter whether the politician wears a uniform or a gray suit. You know it when you hear it ......

 

[skidkid]

[b
"If you grab them by the balls --- their hearts and minds will follow ... "

Time to go squeeze some limes .....

I dont think it gets much simpler. Let us take the gloves off, kill the enemy ruthlessly and efficiently then celebrate by allowing alcohol in Iraq, to go with the limes. (no smiles-dont believe but the sentiment is there)

 

[Fmr1833]

FMR, you are also confusing IRAQI insurgents with Islamic extremists. I realize that that is an easy mistake to make and many do it. Iraq is full of criminal elements of all flavors. The Muslim extremist portion under the guise of Al Queda in Iraq is but a portion. Of course that portion has to be dealt with but as a part of a larger issue. Don't get bogged down in the Iraq effort. It is a big stretch to say that Iraq is soley a war on Muslim extremists and terrorist actions. It clearly is not.

Further, if war is an extension of diplomacy, where is the diplomacy that this war on terror is extended from?

I will discuss the two wars with which I am most familiar. The Iraq War is clearly an extension of over 12 years of failed diplomacy. I'm pretty sure that you aren't debating that point so I'll move on. The War on Terror is definitely a complicated beast. Multiple terrorist organizations around the world are largely the target and obviously that makes life difficult for those who want to prosecute a traditional war. But the days of the Great Wars are done and our semantics have to change as well. More on that in a sec.

It is beyond me how anyone could think that the insurgency in Iraq and the many terrorist groups around the globe are not financed by someone with an agenda. Don't try to sell me on the crazy rich NGA (non-governmental @$$hole) concept. I'm not buying it. Neither, by the way, is our President. No, someone is outsourcing their fighting to merc groups like al Queda. Guesses? Iran, Syria, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, you know...the usual suspects. That list right there answers your question about diplomacy. These are nations that we have tried to maintain relationships with that have continually rebuked us because they fear what our influence could do to their theocratic countries/kingdoms. By the way, don't anyone go crazy and tell me that the Saudis are diplomatically friendly with us...get a grip, that relationship is egg-shell thin and covered in $h!t-eating grins all around. (Sorry to burst your bubble Michael Moore). So back to the semantics changes that are needed. The term "War" needs to be understood to encompass not just countries, but NGO's as well. During my studies (I'm a History major, specialized in the rise of Islam and minored in International Studies - so I'm not just making this up) we talked about how Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) were becoming the bigger players on the world scene vice "states". In the economic sense this basically plays out with a Microsoft-sized corporation negotiating it's own trade rules with a state (i.e., China, for example). But in a post-9/11 world it should be fairly obvious that the role of NGO's can be inclusive of terrorist organizations who are contracted by states.

In other words, the world is a marketplace and if you want to keep the baker from making the doughnuts, you cut off his flour and sugar shipment - hence the rising potential for further action in some of the aforementioned nations/kingdoms.

Where does Iraq fit? Easy, it falls in with the Clausewitzian theory of the diplomatic aim of war, and it has successfully drawn most of the big terrorist NGO's into a single, identifiable theatre. Why does the concept of a War on Terror elicit fear from some upper officials...because noone wants to fight an enemy they can't see. It's unfortunate that the same leaders who bemoan this fact don't put the full force of our military into a place where the NGO's are clearly holding a freakin' stockholders meeting -IRAQ.

Sorry this was so long, but I wanted to show you guys that even someone as light on rank as I am can say something that counts. No disrespect was meant earlier to the folkes with stars on their collars, I certainly don't think of them as weak or emmasculated but sometimes they sound like they're gunning for a soundbyte when they should be gunning for an insurgent.

 

[TransvestFO]

"It is beyond me how anyone could think that the insurgency in Iraq and the many terrorist groups around the globe are not financed by someone with an agenda."

As I mentioned earlier, the insurgency in Iraq is not the same as, should not be mentioned in the same sentence as, and is not motivated by, financed by or led by the same people as Muslim extremist groups. The majority of criminal behavior in Iraq is, like the majority of criminal behavior in US or any other country, motivated by financial gain/political power. Why it is so hard to understand that, I do not know.

 

[Herc_Dude]

The majority of criminal behavior in Iraq is, like the majority of criminal behavior in US or any other country, motivated by financial gain/political power. Why it is so hard to understand that, I do not know.

You don't think that maybe some of the insurgency in Iraq has to do with advancing the political agenda of spreading Islamic extreamism around the world? You might know more than me on the topic - I will never claim to be an expert by any means - but from what I see, Islamic extreamism plays a large role. When you see videos of beheadings or video taped attacks on our brothers over there, they are usually chanting "allah akbar" (however you spell it) which means "allah is great". I have to think that they believe they are fighting for a cause, being their religion. I understand the long term political goals of countries like Iran and Syria, who are rumored to be pushing many of these insurgents into the region. They want a large region where Islamic law rules. But Im suprised that you think Islamic extreamism has nothing to do with the insurgency. I continue to learn ...

I have to go with A4sForever on his approach ...
"Personally, I don't care what we call them --- Islamic radicals --- I just want to kill them -- all of them. Let someone else figure out where the Islamic "hearts and minds" resides ---"

Eager student ... s/f

 

[Fmr1833]

Treating these guys as mere thugs is how we screwed the intel that could have pointed to the group that carried out 9/11. Wake up, the insurgency is NOT street gangs, it is international extremists flooding the borders and waging a war.

 

[Herc_Dude]

it is international extremists flooding the borders and waging a war.

I have to say I agree 100%. Taking the same approach as you might a street gang will end in nothing changing. Look at the gang issue in the US. The soft approach taking by police has resulted in nothing. Granted, police have their hands tied by the courts, so its not entirely their fault, but it is an example of a police approach opposed to a tough military approach. Lets turn up the heat!

 

[Fly Navy]

Notice how a lot of talking heads don't call them the enemy?

 

[TransvestFO]

I, no kidding, weap for the future. It is disturbing when even the well educated fall in line with the party line, apparently without much independent thought. This is flat scary to me and kind of like watching a bad horror flick. I am not very eloquent and, clearly, not very convincing. That said, I strongly recommend doing your own research and reading on this, the most important and defining topic of our generation. A good, solid place to start is with Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He is a respected author and researcher. He just published for review a document called "Iraq's Evolving Insurgency". I believe it may be available from the CSIS web site and is of course, unclassified. Try www.csis.org for a start, if you can't find it send me an IM and I'll forward an electronic copy. I strongly encourage everyone to read this and anything else you can get your hands on, and I stand by my earlier comments. The swirl of activities in the middle east in general, and Iraq specifically, are much, much, much.... more complicated than the communist hord, oops, I mean the extremist hord coming over the horizon (ring any bells). I just ask that you, the educated future leaders of America, get in the habit of taking time to read and research, just like when you were in school, before getting on a blog and continuing the spread of what is really just generalized, unthoughtful propoganda.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

This is the link I found for Anthony H. Cordesman's "Iraq's Evolving Insurgency". http://www.reliefweb.int/library/documents/2005/csis-irq-23jun.pdf

Note that it's a working draft for a future publication (read: to be revised/updated as necessary. This is the latest draft I found; there was another one dated in May. If anyone has a link to a more recent edition, post the link and I'll take mine down.

 

[Fmr1833]

I, no kidding, weap for the future. It is disturbing when even the well educated fall in line with the party line, apparently without much independent thought.

Why is it that when someone agrees with the current administration they are "fall[ing] in-line with the party line"? Does it even occur to you that I might have weighed the evidence and come up with a concurrent conclusion? Probably, it didn't. As you alluded to, I am educated in this region, so I stand by my earlier assessment. I have read the Cordesman piece and found it to be insightful, well thought-out, and somewhat arrogant and misleading. He seems to have difficulty defining the Insurgency in one fell swoop. However, I will cite some sections of the piece to refute your assumptions.

You categorized the Insurgency as criminals. Yet, the source you provided states:

"The vast majority of Iraqi criminals have limited or no ties to the insurgents..." - Pg58

Speaking about the Insurgents, the author says:

"These groups pose a special threat because they have no clear boundaries that limit them to Iraq, and so few restraints and limits on the kinds of violence they use. In their eyes, Iraq is a theater of operation for far broader causes. Their core beliefs are based on a vision of Sunni Islam that rejects Shi’ites and even rejects Sunnis that dissent from the extremists.
So far, such groups have generally been careful to avoid any open claims to a split with Iraqis Shi’ites, and some cooperated with Sadr and his militia. They have, however, carried out mass attacks and bombings on Shi’ites, and they have repeatedly shown that they place few -- if any -- limits on the means of violence against those they regard as enemies of Islam. If anything, they ultimately gain the most if the Sunni and Shi’ite worlds divide, if Iraq becomes the continuing scene of violence between the US and Arabs, if US forces remain tied down, and if their actions create as much regional stability as possible." Pgs. 51-52.


You claim that the Insurgents are strictly looking for political power/gain and I said that they are, like extremist groups, looking to insert a particular religious belief system. I wonder what the author of your document said...

"This helps explain why Sunni insurgent movements, and particularly Islamist extremists, made Iraq's political process a primary target before and after the January 30, 2005 elections. Insurgents feared that a relatively secure and successful election would cement Shi’ite dominance in Iraq and would signal the demise of both the Islamist and Ba’athist visions for the future of Iraq." - Pg 52.

In other words, the INSURGENTS were/are fighting to establish a particular form of Islam as dominant...hmm, sound like anyone else...oh, wait, that sounds like foreign extremist groups!

To further prove that your point about the Insurgency and the Extremists being completely separate is wrong:

"US analysts -- like those in the CIA -- acknowledge that Ba’athist and ex-regime loyalists represent only a part of the insurgency – although they have played a key role in leadership, organization, and financing. The largest elements of the insurgency appear to be newly radicalized Iraqi Sunnis.
According to the CIA reports, the Sunni loss of power, prestige, and economic influence is a key factor, as is unemployment and a loss of personal status -- direct and disguised unemployment among young Sunni men has been 40-60% in many areas ever since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Many insurgents are motivated by tribal or family grievances, nationalism and religious duty."

Now, we can go 'round and 'round if you'd like. Certainly, in a destabilized environment there will be an increase in crime (see New Orleans right now), however, the Insurgents and the Extremists DO NOT fit into the category of criminal element. You will probably use the following statistic to claim that the criminal element makes up more of the violence than does the Insurgency or Extremists:

"The [Baghdad Central] Morgue reported that 60% of those killed were killed by gunshot wounds and were unrelated to the insurgency, and were largely a combination of crime, tribal vendettas, vengeance killings, and mercenary kidnappings."

Wow! 60% of non-natural deaths in Baghdad were NOT related to the Insurgency!!! But wait! Before the Insurgency started I would hazard a guess and say that 100% of non-natural deaths in Baghdad were NOT related to the Insurgency. So, the only way to read this sentence is to see that the Insurgency has begun to kill nearly as many Iraqis as does the normal criminal element. If you say that the Insurgency IS the criminal element, why does the Iraqi government itself differentiate between the two? Weird.

Finally, you glossed over my point about foreign governments having a hand in both the recruitment of Extremists and the funding of the Insurgents. Back to the article you provided:

"Foreign countries also play a role. Both senior US and Iraqi officials feel that Syria may overtly agree to try to halt any support of the insurgency through Syria, but allows Islamic extremist groups to recruit young men, have them come to Syria, and then cross the border into Iraq – where substantial numbers have become suicide bombers. They also feel Syria has allowed senior ex-Ba’athist cadres to operate from Syria, helping to direct the Sunni insurgency. As has been touched upon earlier, these seem to include top
level officials under Saddam Hussein such as Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri, one of Saddam's Vice Presidents.
General George Casey, the commander of the MNF, is a US officer who has been careful not to exaggerate the threat of foreign interference. Nevertheless, Casey has warned that Syria has allowed Iraqi supporters of Saddam Hussein to provide money, supplies, and direction to Sunni insurgents, and continues to be a serious source of infiltration by
foreign volunteers. General Casey highlighted Syria’s complicity in this regard when testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 8, 2005." - Pg. 59.

- and this -

"In late February 2005, the Baghdad television station al-Iraqiya aired taped confessions of several alleged insurgents who were captured in Iraq. Many of the men, from Sudan, Egypt and Iraq, claimed that they were trained in Syria – at least three believed that they were trained, controlled and paid by Syrian intelligence officials." - Pg 60.

As I mentioned earlier, the insurgency in Iraq is not the same as, should not be mentioned in the same sentence as, and is not motivated by, financed by or led by the same people as Muslim extremist groups.

Hmmm, then why is the following stated in the piece you referenced?

"Other key insurgent elements include Arab and Islamist groups with significant numbers of foreign volunteers, as well as Iraqi Islamist extremists. These include groups like the one led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi... Some non-Islamist extremist groups will remain alienated almost regardless of
what the government and other Sunnis do, and will move on to join the most extreme Islamist movements." Pg 48.

Did you even read this thing?

I also find it amusing that you attempted humor by comparing my (and other's) apparent mindless adherence to the current administration's policy with the frenzy affected on the people of this country by the government during the Cold War. Why did I find it amusing, you ask? Because the Center for Strategic and International Studies, according to SourceWatch.org was responsible for creating those frenzy's by stirring up so-called "Communist Plots" during the Cold War...i.e., your source fostered what you "weap" for.

By the way...it's "weep".