The class discussion yesterday about terrorism was an interesting one for me mostly because I disagreed with a lot of what was said. To me it seemed that there was a lot of contradiction and idealist talk that I felt was unrealistic and wrong. The idea that terrorist like those in Al Qaeda are motivated to kill Americans is because we are a consumer culture and can buy more than them does not hold much weight with me, mostly because it is wrong. Al Qaeda attacks the US with the express purpose of ejecting our influence from the region so that they can overthrow the “un-Muslim” governments of many states in the Middle East and establish a new Caliphate from which they can expand their brand of extremist Islam to the rest of the world. Salafists believe that Islam should be the world’s religion but before it can be they must take back historically Muslim lands from oppressive un-Muslim rulers. With this in mind I do not feel that Afghanistan or Iraq now are overreactions to this type of terrorism. Afghanistan because it was the place from which 9/11 was planned and Al Qaeda members were trained. How could the US allow Afghanistan to continue to function in this way after 9/11? Invasion was necessary to change this state of affairs because the terrorists there were not going to stop using Afghanistan as a base just because we would have liked them to stop. Iraq is more complicated because of the controversy of the initial invasion and the reasoning behind it, but that is a debate that I believe is unimportant to the future of Iraq since Al Qaeda has made it a point to fight the US in Iraq and regardless of how we got there Al Qaeda has decided to stand and fight us there now. In this regard I would like to point out that the so-called Surge strategy in Iraq is working to perfection. American forces there recently recovered a map drawn by now dead Al Qaeda leader ABU Musab Al-Zarqawi which outlines how Al Qaeda moved men, weapons, explosives, and money around Baghdad. US forces used this map to cut off these routes one by one forcing the insurgents into the desert surrounding the city where the 30,000 surge forces were waiting to pick them off. Now days pass without bombings in the city which has not happened yet in Iraq until this point. Think for a second, how long has it been since you have turned on the news and heard about a massive car bombing in Iraq? This by the way is all reported by Fox News at the following link http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312343,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq. This peace will create an opportunity for the Iraqi government to take control and move forward instilling confidence in the Iraqi people in their government. The US strategy to pacify Iraq is working and if allowed to succeed, it will provide in the end a safe and stable democracy in the Middle East that will go a long way towards hurting the terrorist cause and presenting a favorable view of the US in the Middle East. What my point is is that I believe that physically defeating Al Qaeda and other terrorists in the Middle East will do more to damage their cause and ability to attack the US then making concessions will because that will only embolden terrorists towards their ultimate goal of ejecting the US from the Middle East and expanding radical Islam to the entire world.
2 comments:
You are right about the Surge working. Some IDPs and refugees are beginning to return to Baghdad, which is a sign of increased security.
While I do agree that some of the discussion in class the other day was incorrect in the assumptions made about the motivations of terrorists, I disagree that the reasons we are in Iraq don't matter and that physically defeating Al Qaeda will defeat terrorism. The first point that the explanation for why we are in Iraq does not matter makes me a bit sick to my stomach. I know that there have been great success stories in Iraq and I truly believe that the people of Iraq will be better off in the end (I took Political Economy of Iraq with Gunter last semester- great class!). However, the mere fact that the U.S. is in Iraq (for no concrete reason) has created outrage throughout the region and the world that continues to fuel groups that could potentially engage in terrorist activity. Defeating Al Qaeda will certainly help, but it is much harder to kill beliefs. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone else will rally people around the cause of ejecting the U.S. from the Middle East, and the longer the U.S. is there, the more likely that group is to emerge. My hope is that the U.S. can finish its business and get out as soon as possible. (There is hope too! Mid-East Peace talks and the Surge working are very positive signs)
I agree with your analysis of why Al Qaeda targets the United States, and I can accept the idea that Al Qaeda wants to be influential in Iraq, but I also disagree about the unimportance of our reasoning for entering the country.
What I am interesting in discussing, however, is the likelihood of setting up a democracy in Iraq. The northern provinces are all but autonomous, with the exception of a few cities that are being disputed because of oil. The rest of the country has become increasingly divided. Iraqi's don't see themselves as such anymore, but rather relate to their ethnic groups. Iraqi's have to want their country to stay together, but it seems that this may not be the case. For those that do want the country to remain together, they certainly don't want a government that in anyway represents the United States. I'm not convinced that a forced democracy can remain in the country, if it can even be successfully started. There are too many people that would find it illegitimate, and democracy cannot survive without the support of the people.
Post a Comment