Invasion of Iraq good or bad for War on Terror?

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-03-27 12:41am

OK, I've seen this bubbling around with the bombings of Madrid and the Clarke testimony. The question is whether Bush's decision to invade Iraq and the subsequent events afterwards have proven positive or negative for the War on terror?

NO BUSH BASHING

NO CLARKE BASHING

Just please give your justifications why you believe one way or the other. I am reading Clarke's book and reserve judgment until I finish reading it on what my personal answer is though I know which way I'm already leaning.

Hamel · Post by **Hamel** » 2004-03-27 12:51am

Bad, because

1) Shifted focus away from the people behind 9/11
2) Dropped our armed forces into a quagmire with no end in sight

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-03-27 12:52am

I believe it has been negative. The war in Iraq did bring Libya back into the world community, but it took too many resources and too much focus away from Afghanistan.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-27 12:54am

It had nothing to do with the War on Terror, therefore I vote bad.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-27 12:55am

Howedar wrote:I believe it has been negative. The war in Iraq did bring Libya back into the world community, but it took too many resources and too much focus away from Afghanistan.

Not really, Libya was already on the way back in (see the thread I posted a few weeks ago).

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-03-27 01:58am

The invasion of Iraq was bad for the war on terrorism. It fueled anti-americanism around the world.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-03-27 02:32am

This is like asking if jerking off before an exam will improve your score. The two may be completely unrelated, but at least you won't be so pent up about the exam.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2004-03-27 02:51am

Bad. Lowered international support. Siphoned troops away from more important places. Gave islamofundies more feul for teh fires.

The Albino Raven · Post by **The Albino Raven** » 2004-03-27 02:58am

Bad. Thumbed the nose at the international community, which was and is vital to the ability of America to prevent terror. Also gave terrorists more reasons to attack.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-27 04:00am

Durandal wrote:This is like asking if jerking off before an exam will improve your score. The two may be completely unrelated, but at least you won't be so pent up about the exam.

Never done that. Really, I'd probably think it was draining too much mental energy.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-27 05:08am

Bad. We used up international goodwill after 9/11 and gave the public the impression that we can fight a war on terrorism against nations rather then actual terror groups.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2004-03-27 05:13am

Bad. I was expecting the war on terror to be confined to Afghanistan, to be honest. Some people think that we didn't do a good job in there, and pulled out before finishing the job.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-27 08:54am

Good. It advances the strategy of challenging nation-states rather than only organizations for terrorism far better than the invasion of Afghanistan alone. Iraq lends the Bush doctrine a proactive character.

In terms of Libya, al-Qadhafi would never have moved so quickly if not for the specter of being caught up in the whole wave of consequences that our invasion of Iraq implied we had reserved for states like that.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-27 08:58am

Axis Kast wrote:Good. It advances the strategy of challenging nation-states rather than only organizations for terrorism far better than the invasion of Afghanistan alone. Iraq lends the Bush doctrine a proactive character.

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism? Jack shit.

In terms of Libya, al-Qadhafi would never have moved so quickly if not for the specter of being caught up in the whole wave of consequences that our invasion of Iraq implied we had reserved for states like that.

Puts it quite well.

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2004-03-27 09:08am

I have to waffle on this one.

It's bad, because it's helped to destroy a lot of Bush's credibility with his allies. It will be harder to get cooperation next time (if there is a next time for Bush), and as a result there may be a less than united front. It seems as though anti-US sentiment on the part of Arab world got, on average, worse as a result of the Iraq invasion, though I have to say that I don't know that for sure.

It's good, because it sends a clear message to these pain-in-the-ass regimes that the US won't play footsy, they'll kill your government. In light of the recent allegations regarding the Iraq-related tunnel vision, that benefit might evaporate.

In the end, though, the fact that Hussein is now gone has to be the most beneficial aspect of this whole scenario. Leaving a guy like him in charge and turning a blind eye to his antics is indefensible, if you subscribe to the theory that the US is the world's policemen. Of course, if I were an American I'd have a hard time justifying exposing the armed forces to such a risk. And there are lots of other assholes out there whose regimes need to be toppled too.

lance · Post by **lance** » 2004-03-27 10:28am

I am undecided. If we manage to get everything up and running and elections by July(I think tht was what was scheduled) then it and getting rid of Saddam would probly have been a positive effect on the war on terrorism.Though this is only if Stalin Wanabe MKll doesen't get elected.

The bad part of it is that it most definately created more terrorists out of former Ba'athist party members and the like.

My final decision will be come later, but I am leaning towards it having a negative effect on the war on terrorism, but being better overall.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-27 11:10am

What did Iraq have to do with terrorism? Jack shit.

And what did Iraq have to do with dictatorial regimes diametrically opposed to the United States of America? Everything.

Going after Iraq - regardless of what we will or will not find - sends a clear message to countries such as Iran and Syria: we will come after you if we feel that you infringe upon our security interests.

The War in Iraq helped underline that threat on top of Afghanistan (lest the latter be construed as an automatic response to September 11th only, rather than the inaguration of a global campaign).

Puts it quite well.

And yet a Lockerbie settlement was on the table significantly before al-Gadhaffi caved on WMD. The process was certainly expedited by fears that Libya would still incur U.S. ire as part of the strategy in Iraq.

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-03-27 12:20pm

Axis Kast wrote:And what did Iraq have to do with dictatorial regimes diametrically opposed to the United States of America? Everything.

Who gives a fuck? That's not the question this thread is asking, is it?

Going after Iraq - regardless of what we will or will not find - sends a clear message to countries such as Iran and Syria: we will come after you if we feel that you infringe upon our security interests.

The War in Iraq helped underline that threat on top of Afghanistan (lest the latter be construed as an automatic response to September 11th only, rather than the inaguration of a global campaign).

A global campaign against what? The question is quite fucking simple: War. On. Terror. Not "global campaign in general against countries that paranoid delusionals think 'infringe' upon US security interests"

And yet a Lockerbie settlement was on the table significantly before al-Gadhaffi caved on WMD. The process was certainly expedited by fears that Libya would still incur U.S. ire as part of the strategy in Iraq.

Pure false cause fallacy: "after this therefore because of this."

In short, prove it.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2004-03-27 01:03pm

The only way I can see it being good is if we get all of our troops out of there within the next year and the new Saddam-less Iraq becomes a stable not too fundamentalist country. If the new Iraq melts down or goes totally wack-fundie in the 10-20 years after the US pulls out I won't see getting rid of Saddam as a good trade off.

Currently I think we should have finished our business in Afghanistan before tearing down another country and trying to rebuild it.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-03-27 01:19pm

Could someone summarize "the Bush Doctrine" for me? It's a term I've been hearing a lot, but it seems to me that Bush has no unified foreign policy other than "Operation Iraq".

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2004-03-27 01:26pm

Good for the world
Good for us if we expolite it(Which we won't openly)
Bad for Saddam
Good for Terrirosts(Larger recuiting base in the short term)
Good for us in the Long term(Thirty, fourty years down the road, the next five to ten will be alot rougher than they would have been)

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-03-27 01:34pm

HemlockGrey wrote:Could someone summarize "the Bush Doctrine" for me? It's a term I've been hearing a lot, but it seems to me that Bush has no unified foreign policy other than "Operation Iraq".

It's a little bit like McCarthism: if you happen to be on the list, you're fucked. You get on the list by pissing of our government, either as an individual or a nation. Once on the list, you are called a "terrorist" which lets the government get around all sorts of sticky issues like due process of law.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-27 01:48pm

Who gives a fuck? That's not the question this thread is asking, is it?

Jesus Christ. Take your head out of your ass for just a second and look the hell around. Don’t tell me you can’t put two and two together.

What’s the greatest source of tension between the United States and the rest of the international community today? The War on Terror. Why? Well, it’s certainly not that there’s any dispute over whether it must be fought (at least from the major players). It’s that our strategy is inherently different than everybody else’s.

Most of the rest of the world prefers to approach terrorism as a problem of domestic security. They counter the threat of bombings and assassination by deploying more police, bolstering first-responders, and coordinating action against individuals or organizations using their intelligence agencies. From time to time, they’ll come down on a state like Iran by using the United Nations, but the game is decidedly defensive. It’s a responsive strategy.

The United States, on the other hand, prefers proactive efforts. Bush and his advisers have declared terrorism a problem of international security. It’s a plague for the system. They use the military to force states – which they see as the most important benefactors, sources, and instigators of terrorism – rather than only individuals or organizations into submission. The question of whether this is cost-effective and who should be involved has spun out into this whole controversy over whether war was the best choice in Iraq.

Bush sees Iraq as no different from the terrorist sponsors of Afghanistan or Iran. It just so happens that all of the state sponsors of terrorism are so-called “rogue” states – that is, they are dictatorships diametrically opposed to American interests. Iraq fits that shoe, too. By knocking down their door, we give a strong warning to everyone else. Whether or not Iraq was really behind terrorism, and whether or not they have WMD becomes irrelevant to the message we send by going there in the first place.

A global campaign against what? The question is quite fucking simple: War. On. Terror. Not "global campaign in general against countries that paranoid delusionals think 'infringe' upon US security interests"

Well, let’s see. Syria. State sponsor of terrorism. Iran. State sponsor of terrorism. Iraq. State sponsor of terrorism. North Korea. Sells weapons to the highest bidder. Iraq is among the nations that need to be sent a message. Saddam’s downfall can be linked to their own. If we go after Iraq, it’s clear that we’ll go after them, too.

Pure false cause fallacy: "after this therefore because of this."

In short, prove it.

If, as the article claims, it was merely Lockerbie that stalled Libya from handing over its WMD, why the huge quantity of time between the close of their negotiations with the United Kingdom and the start of their “coming clean” before the United States?

Your article is the one with the false cause fallacy. It's attempting to argue: "WMD after Lockerbie, and therefore because of that." But if so, why the huge amount of time that elapsed?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-03-27 01:50pm

Axis Kast wrote:Whether or not Iraq was really behind terrorism, and whether or not they have WMD becomes irrelevant to the message we send by going there in the first place.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2004-03-27 03:54pm

Do you deny that?

We stated that we went into Iraq because it had connections to terrorism. Regardless of what kind of internal housecleaning we might need to do because of it, other "rogue" states were still presented with a clear message: shape up, or we'll come to your place, too.