Author: duane

Despite failing benchmarks, and continued violence escalation in Iraq, our president has said that “a precipitous withdrawal would embolden al-Qaeda” (source), yet, it appears that our occupation of Iraq is THE CAUSE of their escalation and emboldening strategy. According to what is being reported, al-Qaeda wasn’t in Iraq before we went to Iraq.

Since our presence, they have done nothing but grow in number, and in power.

Wouldn’t that make you think that the connection between their growth and power may be at least somehow intrinsically linked to our attempted occupation of Iraq? Even the overarching al Qaeda terrorist network that exists outside of Iraq (which operates practically autonomously from Iraq’s al Qaeda network), is focused on combating American occupation of Iraq, and are threatening escalation as a result of our presence in Iraq (as well as telling other Muslims to go to Iraq and kill us there).

Additionally, intelligence is saying that just because we stop the small arm of al Qaeda in Iraq (which was not connected to Sept. 11, but IS connected to our 2003 invasion of Iraq), which, keep in mind, is what our troops are there and are supposed to be doing, we will still be posed with the threat of the Qaeda terrorist network, which exists (and is growing) outside of Iraq altogether.

So, the president is saying that if we pull out, things will get worse. What is happening, is that by us being there, they are upping their forces to combat us.

The president is telling us that the overall al Qaeda network (which did attack us on Sept. 11) is connected to the Iraq arm of al Qaeda (albeit only in shared belief and value, the Iraq al Qaeda operates autonomously, and are a response to our presence). He is saying, that al Qaeda (the big one, not the on in Iraq) poses a current threat of attack to us in the US; yet, since we are only focusing on Iraq, it is clear that we are not focusing our forces on stopping them. Again, it is being said that even if we get the bad guys in Iraq, we still have the big dogs to worry about, and our presence is pissing both of them off, more and more each day.

With the al Qaeda network growth being a direct response to our forces being in Iraq, it sounds like our exit isn’t what they want either; because our presence is bringing more people over to support them, which is strengthening their network overall. We are making the small network of forces that are dangerous in Iraq stronger because of our presence. That sounds like a BAD thing to me, but what about to you?

Like I said, even if we get the guys in Iraq, we still haven’t begun to focus on the actual terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11; even though Bush is saying that they are one in the same, yet they are not. If we get the al Qaeda in Iraq, we still have not stopped al Qaeda, who he is telling us is our direct threat. Sounds contradictory to me; to want to take out al Qaeda, yet we focus on cutting off its hand, rather than going for the throat.

To be completely honest, the whole thing frustrates me. It just sounds like people are using what facts they want to justify the actions that they want to take, all the while, mixing in some scare tactics by making claims that can’t be backed up with intelligence (and in many instances, are being proven inconsistent with the intelligence that is being collected).

I say go after the guys that attacked us 9/11 if they are the threat, as Mr. Bush said they were again this week (and has been increasingly stressing over the past several weeks). If they are a threat, then what are we doing in Iraq fighting with their little cousin (who is growing every day into a bigger and bigger bully)? Additionally, if our presence is what is motivating them to fight us, wouldn’t it make sense to stop giving them a reason to mobilize more forces? If we did that, we could go after the terrorist network that existed before our occupation (not the one we are fighting, which was, again, created because of our occupation), and seriously focus on the actual threats that Mr. Bush continues to refer to. It sounds like the president lacks focus on the real issue, and instead, is manipulating facts like he did at the beginning of the war (Saddam connection with Iraq = not true, unlike he said it was).

Well, if you ask me, it sounds more likely that there is something in Iraq that we need to have in our hands, rather than in the hands of the Iraqis(specifically the al Qaeda Iraqis), and we don’t really care about the outside (more dangerous) al Qaeda network, other than to use the outside to get an opportunity to stay in Iraq. I wonder why we can’t go after the entire network, rather than staying in Iraq until we secure that thing? Perhaps “that thing” is the real reason we are in Iraq anyway, and the al Qaeda forces in Iraq are trying to stop us from having it… Hmm…. I wonder what “that thing” is… maybe it is oil?

Regardless of our real reason for occupying Iraq, and the real effect it is having there, it just sounds like there is a serious gap between what is actually happening, and what we are being told is happening from the mouth of Bush.

While I don’t agree with a direct pull out with no plan, it seems pretty clear that our occupation is making it worse, and the longer we are there, the worse it is going to get; at least there in Iraq. Hopefully, the outside al Qaeda network won’t continue to grow and get pissed off (like our intelligence says they are), because we are currently caught up in Iraq. What is needed, is a serious look into a different plan or strategy, which at least sounds like a better place to start (rather than the ultra liberal take of “LEAVE TODAY!”), if we are truly serious about protecting ourselves; more serious, that is, than securing the oilregion of Iraq. If we can’t get out of there, we have to do something different; because what we are doing is NOT working in our benefit. And Condi, 4 more months isn’t going to change that; this has been 6 years strong, babe.
(another source)